Alter Summon monster and Mount into wishes


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Ozy - I'd guess that using the spell to multiply the number of higher level summons you could get by bringing in lower level monsters and promoting them might have been an unexpected function. Sometimes it is fun to see developer comments on stuff like this though I'm aware that they don't change the RAW for organized gaming unless there's a FAQ/errata.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.

This comment made me post - are you suggesting that what kind of monster you get from summon monster is random?

I read the spell (and run it) as you get to pick from any valid option.

If that is the case (which I'm pretty dang sure it is) then alter summon monster only exists really to use the 'summon 1d4 lesser' and then promote one of them to the higher level getting more 'bang for the buck' out of a summon monster spell at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and action economy. Heighten spell works exactly as suggested - it makes a spell a 9th level spell - you are giving up summon monster IX for mount - the mount is 9th level. I think the 'switch for glabrezu' is valid - I think the wish restriction is a joke and finding a loophole doesn't trump the fact that you aren't allowed to use summons for expensive spells.

The duration - well that's unintended I think - but mount isn't the only oddball duck here either - summon phantom steed is also a super long duration.

Honestly I'd take it further and heighten communal mount for your own all day long army.

As the GM that's when the spell no longer existed in my games.... but hey why not break something while you can right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
James Risner wrote:

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.

alter summon monster only exists really to use the 'summon 1d4 lesser' and then promote one of them to the higher level getting more 'bang for the buck' out of a summon monster spell at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and action economy.

Actually, I think the intended use case is to allow you to change your summoned monster when the tactical situation changes. For example, if you summoned an ankylosaur, only to see your opponents suddenly fly away out of its reach, you could alter it into a monster with flight (like a bralani azata).

But that's not really relevant to the actual RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Risner wrote:

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.

alter summon monster only exists really to use the 'summon 1d4 lesser' and then promote one of them to the higher level getting more 'bang for the buck' out of a summon monster spell at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and action economy.

Actually, I think the intended use case is to allow you to change your summoned monster when the tactical situation changes. For example, if you summoned an ankylosaur, only to see your opponents suddenly fly away out of its reach, you could alter it into a monster with flight (like a bralani azata).

But that's not really relevant to the actual RAW.

Huh.... never even considered that - I've never once had a moment at the table (as a player or GM) where I wished I could change my summon after they are out due to the situation changing - I can appreciate that idea - but it would be so extremely specific that it seems like a waste of a spell slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Risner wrote:

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.

alter summon monster only exists really to use the 'summon 1d4 lesser' and then promote one of them to the higher level getting more 'bang for the buck' out of a summon monster spell at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and action economy.

Actually, I think the intended use case is to allow you to change your summoned monster when the tactical situation changes. For example, if you summoned an ankylosaur, only to see your opponents suddenly fly away out of its reach, you could alter it into a monster with flight (like a bralani azata).

But that's not really relevant to the actual RAW.

Huh.... never even considered that - I've never once had a moment at the table (as a player or GM) where I wished I could change my summon after they are out due to the situation changing - I can appreciate that idea - but it would be so extremely specific that it seems like a waste of a spell slot.

Nor, me, honestly. It may simply be that we are good at picking the right tool for the job, but there are a lot of players who lack our Mad Summoning Skillz. In my experience, though, it's not so much that I picked the right or the wrong summon, it's that the summon lasts about as long as an ice cube in a hot cup of coffee, and so there's no point in treating it as anything other than disposable.

That's part of the reason that I don't think this is as big a deal as so many people make it out to be. With a normal summon monster spell, you get a monster that lasts one round per level or until it gets noticed by a hostile, whichever comes first. With mount, you get a monster that lasts all day or until it gets noticed by a hostile, whichever comes first. Heck, I could create a spell that summons something for forever or until it gets noticed by a hostile..... and all three creatures would last exactly the same length of time.


Why are we getting into such nastiness about what is just another thought experiment on how I can twist the rules and break the game? Any decent GM knows the value of the word "no" to free wishes, peasant railguns and the like. While this kind of silliness can be fun if that is your intent, it gets old nearly as fast as that peasant passed spear. None of it is worth the rancor being generated here.


Don't forget you can use the spell "offensively."

If your enemy summons a bearded devil, you can exchange it for a fiendish dire rat (but with a save allowed).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ckorik wrote:
are you suggesting that what kind of monster you get from summon monster is random?

No.

More like "gosh that thing is vulnerable to cold and this Glabrezu is useless against it, I'll turn it into an Ice devil".

Daw wrote:
Why are we getting into such nastiness about what is just another thought experiment on how I can twist the rules and break the game?

Mostly because the conviction of "this is RAW" and we know from lots of past experience and hundreds of FAQ that some "RAW interpretations" deserve some of the following:

  • "Don't be a jerk with that"
  • "You know that isn't what that means"
  • "Use some common sense"

It's a GM's job to reign in bad interpretations of the rules that clearly go outside the common sense interpretation of the rules. This is a game. It's not meant to annoy your GM and other players with Theoretical Optimization that are outside the intended interpretation of the rule.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
are you suggesting that what kind of monster you get from summon monster is random?

No.

More like "gosh that thing is vulnerable to cold and this Glabrezu is useless against it, I'll turn it into an Ice devil".

Daw wrote:
Why are we getting into such nastiness about what is just another thought experiment on how I can twist the rules and break the game?

Mostly because the conviction of "this is RAW" and we know from lots of past experience and hundreds of FAQ that some "RAW interpretations" deserve some of the following:

  • "Don't be a jerk with that"
  • "You know that isn't what that means"
  • "Use some common sense"

It's a GM's job to reign in bad interpretations of the rules that clearly go outside the common sense interpretation of the rules. This is a game. It's not meant to annoy your GM and other players with Theoretical Optimization that are outside the intended interpretation of the rule.

You have stated previously you believe this doesn't work. What step in the process do you have issue with?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Halek wrote:
What step in the process do you have issue with?

More than one thing about this violates the rules, as they all go against common sense and it has been explicitly the rules are written as conversational and requiring common sense.

Specifically:

  • Mount being Heightened to a higher level, and swapping the "horse" for a Glabrezu".
  • Using this on a spell that was used to get multiple creatures of lower level and then raising them all to higher level.

So pretty much the entire concept.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Halek wrote:
What step in the process do you have issue with?

More than one thing about this violates the rules, as they all go against common sense and it has been explicitly the rules are written as conversational and requiring common sense.

Specifically:

  • Mount being Heightened to a higher level, and swapping the "horse" for a Glabrezu".
  • Using this on a spell that was used to get multiple creatures of lower level and then raising them all to higher level.

So pretty much the entire concept.

So what rule does it violate? Just point it out from the text or qoute it with a source. What rule do eithier of those actions violate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Risner wrote:

+1 Devilkiller

Using this any way other than "Got a Glabrezu but wanted an Ice devil" is unexpected function.

Kinda similar to Weird Words's unexpected function of all the same words on the same target. It wasn't written to allow that but it wasn't clear enough in the words to know you can't drop 10 words on one monster.

alter summon monster only exists really to use the 'summon 1d4 lesser' and then promote one of them to the higher level getting more 'bang for the buck' out of a summon monster spell at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot and action economy.

Actually, I think the intended use case is to allow you to change your summoned monster when the tactical situation changes. For example, if you summoned an ankylosaur, only to see your opponents suddenly fly away out of its reach, you could alter it into a monster with flight (like a bralani azata).

But that's not really relevant to the actual RAW.

Given how short the duration is for the SM spells, the extra action economy to swap out monsters, and how they could have written the feat to say 'replace with a monster from the same list', I can't imagine that this would be the intended use.

Furthermore, given how they go out of the way to talk about changing only 1 out of the number, it seems blindingly obvious that you would use this to replace a 1d4 SMVII with a singular SMIX, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Halek wrote:
What step in the process do you have issue with?

More than one thing about this violates the rules, as they all go against common sense and it has been explicitly the rules are written as conversational and requiring common sense.

Specifically:

  • Mount being Heightened to a higher level, and swapping the "horse" for a Glabrezu".
  • Using this on a spell that was used to get multiple creatures of lower level and then raising them all to higher level.

So pretty much the entire concept.

So what rule does it violate? Just point it out from the text or qoute it with a source. What rule do eithier of those actions violate?

It breaks Rule #-1

James doesn't like it.

'Common sense' is supposed to be used when the rules are ambiguous. None of the rules in this case are ambiguous.


James,
Leave it alone, let him have his I am so clever moment.


Halek wrote:
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Nice pop culture reference, you are Vizzini and I'm Inigo Montoya.
Heigthen makes a spell couns as a higher level. A heigthened mount would count as a 9th level spell. What issues do you have with that?

The conclusion that you're making that simply heightening Mount as a 9th level spell would allow you to get anything other than a horse.

It is clearly not the RAI of the spell, the feat, nor the combination.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No, don't leave it alone. I want to see what basis there is to deny the interaction beyond "common sense".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Halek wrote:
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Nice pop culture reference, you are Vizzini and I'm Inigo Montoya.
Heigthen makes a spell couns as a higher level. A heigthened mount would count as a 9th level spell. What issues do you have with that?

The conclusion that you're making that simply heightening Mount as a 9th level spell would allow you to get anything other than a horse.

It is clearly not the RAI of the spell, the feat, nor the combination.

We're talking about RAW here, RAI is even more tenuous. What do you mean you can't get anything other than a horse?

a) heighten mount to 9th level -> 9th level conjuration (summoning) spell
b) alter summon of 9th level conjuration (summoning) allows replacement with SMIX creature

Both a & b are unambiguously true by RAW.

But, if that really, really bugs you, replace a heightened Mount with Elemental Swarm, and now you have 4-13 SMIX creatures at your beck and call.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Halek wrote:
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Nice pop culture reference, you are Vizzini and I'm Inigo Montoya.
Heigthen makes a spell couns as a higher level. A heigthened mount would count as a 9th level spell. What issues do you have with that?

The conclusion that you're making that simply heightening Mount as a 9th level spell would allow you to get anything other than a horse.

It is clearly not the RAI of the spell, the feat, nor the combination.

We're talking about RAW here, RAI is even more tenuous. What do you mean you can't get anything other than a horse?

a) heighten mount to 9th level -> 9th level conjuration (summoning) spell
b) alter summon of 9th level conjuration (summoning) allows replacement with SMIX creature

Both a & b are unambiguously true by RAW.

But, if that really, really bugs you, replace a heightened Mount with Elemental Swarm, and now you have 4-13 SMIX creatures at your beck and call.

This.

The ambiguous part is whether the spellcasting restrictions from summon monster apply to spells altered in this way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
The ambiguous part is whether the spellcasting restrictions from summon monster apply to spells altered in this way.

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about it. Spells do what they say they do, and nothing suggests that those restrictions apply. The same pseudoambiguity would apply to the question of whether or not the altered monsters are automatically reduced to Tiny size, or whether they receive a -30 penalty to all attacks, or whether they are automatically altered by an illusion that makes them appear to be made of green Jell-O.

I'm fairly sure that the designers did not intend to allow alter summoned monsters to be used to bypass restrictions on expensive SLAs. But that's unambiguously not written down anywhere.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

How about I tell two stories.

Multiclass Magus using Spell Combat:
An enterprising magus said one day "Why don't I get some levels in Sorcerer so I can double my spell slots to be used with Spell Combat?"

But a developer came along to say the rules don't allow that.

That got a number of people up in arms. That's not RAW.
They said:
'The problem is that "prepared with his magus spell slots" is entirely different from "on the magus spell list".'

Many posts later and you get a lot of explaination!

Some might say it needs errata, but no errata came. Instead a FAQ that just simply explained what the rules say with less detail.

The moral of the story is hyper literal interpretations are not intended and if you find yourself in one, you generally find yourself outside the scope of the intended interpretation of the rules.

The case of the maximized fireball stored in a ring of spell storing 0-3:
Ring of spell storing allows levels 0-3.
A fireball is a 3rd level spell.
If I use Maximize to store it in a 6th level slot, it's still a 3rd level spell.
Therefore I should be able to store it in the ring.

This has spawned many questions over the years, but here is one from 2010 with an answer of no, it can't go in the ring

This subject spawned a larger issue with a FAQ, but the FAQ didn't change any rules. Only the interpretation of them.

In general, when you go outside the expected interpretation your are going outside the rules. They won't often change the rules text to correct you, most of the time they just say "read it this way".

Once you've read my stories, we can get back to the issue in this thread.

The intent of these spells is to swap out one creature you gained from a summon nature's ally or summon monster (or similar spell) for another choice from SNA/SM had you cast that spell instead. It's assumed you are not using heighten because unless heighten is mentioned it isn't an assumed thing. Kinda like it's assumed all rules are written from a biped humanoid with some number of levels of one class.

So when you look at technology like using heighten to make it match a criteria, you are outside the intent of the rules.

Similarly when you use spells like Mount and Elemental Swarm (because it gives you more than 1d4+1 monsters), you are outside the scope of the rules.

In both of these instances, should a FAQ happen, those that believe heightened mount to Glabrezu or elemental swarm for 14 elementals to 14 Glabrezu is a thing are far more likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the FAQ. Solely based on hundreds of "But that is RAW" assertions in the hundreds if not thousands of threads that made up all out current FAQ.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Another example of "many don't read it this way" is that the spell once was allowed in PFS. It was discussed and vetted (presumably because they say there is a thread where people chime in with potential issues with rules before they are approved) then removed from the campaign.

It was removed because of multiple rules interpretation issues that were not discovered until players attempted them:

  • Heightened mount
  • Exploits like Summoner getting minute per level summons for 1d4+1 lower and burning some 2nd level slots to get up to 5 high level summons for the minute per level of the 1d4+1 lower effect.

It was too complicated to explain how not to read the spell in various ways, much easier just to say "the spell is banned ... [because it's interpreted incorrectly too much]".

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So what I'm reading is that you agree that the spells can be read as they say, but that it should not be read that way.

Sounds as RAW as anything else, until one of those FAQs enshrines that clarification of intent.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I'm saying, it is clear that isn't the intended interpretation of the RAW.

We often have FAQ to foreclose on incorrect interpretations of the RAW and most of the time they don't change the RAW to "fix" the incorrect interpretation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
I'm saying, it is clear that isn't the intended interpretation of the RAW.

But you haven't provided an alternative interpretation of RAW for me to bring to the table should someone try these shenanigans. All you've brought is "that obviously isn't RAI".

I'm never going to allow this combo in any but the wildest game. That doesn't mean it isn't what the rules say can happen.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

There are 64 conjuration summoning spells and 40 of them are Summon * or Conjure Black Pudding, which is 62.5% of all conjuration summoning spells.

10 or 16.6% of the remaining are swarm summons in various forms.

9 or 14% of the remaining are oddballs like transmutations, object summons, etc.

The remaining 5 are:

  • Elemental Bombardment (Lvl 7) - A druid version of Meteor Swarm with added benefits. I'd reject because it isn't a summon spell, it's more of combat spell with secondary summoning effect.
  • Elemental Swarm (Lvl 9) - It is a direct summon spell - but it works over time. If just used to upgrade 1 to 5, I don't see much issue with this spell.
  • Mount (Lvl 1) - clearly not intended to be heightened and turned into a Glabrezu.
  • Mount, Communal (Lvl 2) - See my comment on Mount
  • Eagle Aerie (Lvl 6) - More like mount, so see mount

So you can look at the "conjuration (summoning)" spell that summoned a creature as short hand for all "Summon *" spells and maybe intended to include Conjure Black Pudding (which should have been called Summon Black Pudding).

Heighten wasn't considered as a way to tinker with this spell, if it was intended it would have a passage regarding Heighten Spell saying it is allow like the Arcane bloodline:

Quote:
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1. This bonus does not stack with itself and does not apply to spells modified by the Heighten Spell feat.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's still arguing intentions. I've already agreed that it was not intended and should not be allowed.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's still arguing intentions.

100% of previous FAQ that didn't change the rules text was arguing intentions.

Would you have made the claim "that is intent not RAW" in the mentioned Ring of Spell Storing of a dazing fireball? Or the Magus using Sorcerer spell slots because the spell is on the magus list yet being cast from sorcerer spell slots?

Both had people saying "that isn't RAW"? In fact there are lots of people saying "that isn't RAW" in various past threads like Spiked Bashing shields, Flanking Ranged Sneak Attacking from flanking position, Double Dex to Trip checks, and more.


OK, it looks like you all agree that you won't let it play in your own tables, it is obviously a mistake, at best, and even PFS won't let it play. Yet we argue on?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's the forums!

James Risner wrote:
Would you have made the claim "that is intent not RAW" in the mentioned Ring of Spell Storing of a dazing fireball? Or the Magus using Sorcerer spell slots because the spell is on the magus list yet being cast from sorcerer spell slots?

Yes.

Edit: Oh, and it was SKR that said it. DOUBLE YES.


Avoron wrote:
Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:
Well, Wish has an instantaneous duration....
But the best spells it could duplicate don't. I'm not exactly concerned about a 17th level party getting access to injury removal or planar travel.

+5 Inherent bonus to all stats, for free.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Daw wrote:
Yet we argue on?

I'm happy with "Not intent, not RAW because a lot of logic leaps and questions of how the rule works are answered by the player/GM using this trick, and a caution that you should talk to your GM before trying this in a game."

I don't think everyone is fine leaving it with those kind of qualifiers, so it will continue until a FAQ lands in our laps, I wish that wasn't so.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
it was SKR that said it. DOUBLE YES.

Not a fan of SKR posts I take it?

Well, in both cases and in many other FAQ cases, I argued "not RAW', the rules text wasn't change, and a FAQ says essentially "not RAW". I've been wrong on the rules a few times, but not often. I believe that is because I consider intent when I consider a rules interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

I'm saying, it is clear that isn't the intended interpretation of the RAW.

We often have FAQ to foreclose on incorrect interpretations of the RAW and most of the time they don't change the RAW to "fix" the incorrect interpretation.

Perhaps - my biggest disagreement with you is actually the use of (for example) summon monster IX to summon 1d4 (etc.) from a lesser list. I do think it was intended for the 'alter' to allow an 'upgrade' to one of those - first it's a summons spell - and using the summon monster IX for a lesser version of the monster doesn't make it a lower level spell. Secondly it requires two actions vs. the one - mount silliness aside I do think the use of 'alter' to change one monster to a higher version is a legit use of the ability.

All that being said I'm unsure why they made the distinction of using conjuration(summoning) instead of just sticking with summon monster - there had to be a reason they did and why is fascinating.

*edit*
lower version to lower level spell

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ckorik wrote:

biggest disagreement with you is actually the use of (for example) summon monster IX to summon 1d4 (etc.) from a lesser list.

there had to be a reason they did and why is fascinating.

Would it surprise you that I think they intended you to be able to upgrade your SM7 creatures from a SM9 where you got 1d4+1 lower level guys to have 1d4+1 higher level guys?

All those spells are short duration. The ones that give you more than 1d4+1 creatures and last longer than round per level were not intended to be upgraded.

I just don't think they were intended to work with things like Elemental Swarm or Swarm of Rats or Eagle Aerie.

I've given a plausible reason for the widened language, Conjure Black Pudding. Beyond that (if CBP wasn't the reason) I don't have a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

biggest disagreement with you is actually the use of (for example) summon monster IX to summon 1d4 (etc.) from a lesser list.

there had to be a reason they did and why is fascinating.

Would it surprise you that I think they intended you to be able to upgrade your SM7 creatures from a SM9 where you got 1d4+1 lower level guys to have 1d4+1 higher level guys?

.

It would - I may have been reading your responses wrong but it seemed you were against that idea.

My best guess on the language would be the attempt to 'future proof' the spell as much as possible - based on dev quotes on other abilities the idea that a feat/spell/etc. languishes due to the language not allowing future development changes to work is a real concern.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

That also doesn't speak to the "Mount doesn't have a restriction on material components".

I'd assert that "for a creature you could summon" would apply the material component restriction even if mount didn't. Because you could only obtain a creature that is restricted with SNA/SM. You can't get an unrestricted one, so alter summoned monster can't give you an unrestricted one.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ckorik wrote:
It would - I may have been reading your responses wrong but it seemed you were against that idea.

I'll try to clearly state what I think this is intended to handle:

If you want to one by one a standard at a time increase the 2 levels lower summon from a 1d4+1 effect while still limited to 1 round / level. Yes.

If you find out it's vulnerable to cold, yes get an ice devil.

If you are putting on a play and need a bunch of summons, sure.

What I don't think it was intended to do is combo off language to get something clearly not intended:
Mount to 9th for free wishes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

biggest disagreement with you is actually the use of (for example) summon monster IX to summon 1d4 (etc.) from a lesser list.

there had to be a reason they did and why is fascinating.

Would it surprise you that I think they intended you to be able to upgrade your SM7 creatures from a SM9 where you got 1d4+1 lower level guys to have 1d4+1 higher level guys?

All those spells are short duration. The ones that give you more than 1d4+1 creatures and last longer than round per level were not intended to be upgraded.

I just don't think they were intended to work with things like Elemental Swarm or Swarm of Rats or Eagle Aerie.

I've given a plausible reason for the widened language, Conjure Black Pudding. Beyond that (if CBP wasn't the reason) I don't have a reason.

So, why not just restrict the Alter Summons to SM and SNA spells? You really think that they 'unknowingly' broadened the spell so much, included specific language keeping the duration (which only makes sense for longer duration spells), just so that they could include Conjure Pudding?

Why do they have the line about duration in there at all then? The SM, SNA, and conjure pudding spells all have 1 rd/level durations. So, if you think Alter Summons was intended to only work on those spells, then their calling out the duration specifically makes no sense at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

That also doesn't speak to the "Mount doesn't have a restriction on material components".

I'd assert that "for a creature you could summon" would apply the material component restriction even if mount didn't. Because you could only obtain a creature that is restricted with SNA/SM. You can't get an unrestricted one, so alter summoned monster can't give you an unrestricted one.

This I agree with. At least the wording here is ambiguous enough that it warrants a common sense intervention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

How about I tell two stories.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Once you've read my stories, we can...

This is a bit disingenuous. In both of these cases, general game mechanics were clarified. For example, the FAQ didn't say: rings of spell storing use the slot at which the spells are cast to determine level, it said, for metamagic spells in general use the original level or the higher slot level to determine spell level, whichever is more disadvantageous.

Now, there are exactly two general game mechanics rules in play here:

1) heightened spells count as the level of their slot

2) conjuration (summoning) spells are in fact conjuration (summoning) spells

Now, which of these 2 general mechanics do you think is likely to be reversed by a FAQ? My guess is neither.

Now, that doesn't mean they won't change how Alter Summons works, but if they do, it won't be via a general game mechanics FAQ, it will be a modification to Alter Summons in specific. Maybe they will reduce the scope of the spell to SM/SNA spells. Maybe they will reduce the duration to 1 rd/level max. But since they haven't actually done either of these yet, imagining the the FAQ process will look anything like the two you listed is probably wrong.

Now, maybe I'm missing some other general game mechanics principle that you think is operative here, but so far you've haven't really mentioned any.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
You really think that they 'unknowingly' broadened the spell so much, included specific language keeping the duration (which only makes sense for longer duration spells), just so that they could include Conjure Pudding?

As I've said in the past posts, some of the Summon Monster spells last 1 min/level. Likewise summoners get 1 min/level.

_Ozy_ wrote:
FAQ, it will be a modification to Alter Summons in specific. Maybe they will reduce the scope of the spell to SM/SNA spells.

Id wager a beer/soda at GenCon/DragonCon that they'd limit it to various Summon/Conjure spells, leave the duration alone, and restrict using Heighten. I also think they might do it without changing the spell.

If they do change the spell, I think it will be limited to a more narrow scope than conjuration summoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You really think that they 'unknowingly' broadened the spell so much, included specific language keeping the duration (which only makes sense for longer duration spells), just so that they could include Conjure Pudding?
As I've said in the past posts, some of the Summon Monster spells last 1 min/level. Likewise summoners get 1 min/level.

Not as spells they don't, but as SLAs. Pretty sure SLAs won't work because they don't have a 'level' for Alter Summons to key off of. None of the Summon Monster spells last 1 min/level, though there are some Summon spells that last anywhere from rounds to minutes to hours. Is there some general rule somewhere that would limit it to some of the Summons and not the others?

Quote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
FAQ, it will be a modification to Alter Summons in specific. Maybe they will reduce the scope of the spell to SM/SNA spells.

Id wager a beer/soda at GenCon/DragonCon that they'd limit it to various Summon/Conjure spells, leave the duration alone, and restrict using Heighten. I also think they might do it without changing the spell.

If they do change the spell, I think it will be limited to a more narrow scope than conjuration summoning.

How can they restrict using heighten without changing how heighten actually works? How can they limit the spells it uses without changing the actual spell? There's no general rule that limits what conjuration (summoning) refers to, is there? What would a rule like that even look like?

All of these changes sound like specific changes to Alter Summons rather than general rules mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
they'd limit it to various Summon/Conjure spells, leave the duration alone, and restrict using Heighten. I also think they might do it without changing the spell.

I don't see how they go from "conjuration (summoning)" to "only these summon/conjure spells" without changing the spell; but we already have FAQ's that would certainly indicate that Heighten does work in this combination.

FAQ wrote:
It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version.
FAQ wrote:
cast it as a heightened spell and treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using.
FAQ wrote:
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage

In case you feel I may be using any of these quotes out of context, link and link

Personally, I would wager that this will turn out like Glorious Heat. They may admit it was a combination they hadn't thought of, PFS issues a campaign specific ruling (already happened, it's banned), and then it never changes. Heck, they even reprinted that one, and still left the wording the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How's this for another potential 'loophole'

A Summoner uses Alter Summoned Monster to change a regular wizard's SMVI (level 6 spell) into a summoner's SMIX (level 6 spell).

;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

Pretty sure SLAs won't work because they don't have a 'level' for Alter Summons to key off of.

All of these changes sound like specific changes to Alter Summons rather than general rules mechanics.

There is a FAQ for the level

I guess the easiest would be to change the spell, but they have done FAQ where nothing changed. They just limited the scope of the meaning.

Samasboy1 wrote:

I would wager that this will turn out like Glorious Heat. They may admit it was a combination they hadn't thought of, PFS issues a campaign specific ruling (already happened, it's banned), and then it never changes. Heck, they even reprinted that one, and still left the wording the same.

You are probably right. Funny story on the Glorious Heat, it was scheduled to be updated in Errata in the next printing of Faiths of Purity. They just apparently snarfed it and didn't get the note to errata it in Inner Sea Gods.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

How's this for another potential 'loophole'

A Summoner uses Alter Summoned Monster to change a regular wizard's SMVI (level 6 spell) into a summoner's SMIX (level 6 spell).

;)

Another "clearly not intended" rules interpretation.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

How's this for another potential 'loophole'

A Summoner uses Alter Summoned Monster to change a regular wizard's SMVI (level 6 spell) into a summoner's SMIX (level 6 spell).

;)

Another "clearly not intended" rules interpretation.

Yup, but how do you fix it?

Either a Summoner can't use it for their own Summons 'correctly', or they get to cheese someone else's.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Well, similar to how magic item creation "fixes" some of this by using the sorcerer/wizard, cleric, or druid list for spell formula costs. You just consider the spell (Summon Monster IX) to be a 9th level spell even if it only used a 6th level slot for you.

PFS has a house rule of a specific order, which was in 3.5 but removed (space?) in PF.


My guess on the purpose of the spell would be that it “should” do a few things:
#1 - As Orfamay Quest already said, this spell would let you change monsters if the tactical situation changed (maybe you suddenly need something which can fly or swim)
#2 - Allow the caster to switch between the SM list and the SNA list. This seems like a benefit primarily to Druids though there are some unique and interesting things on the SNA list as well.
#3 - Allow a caster with spells like Summon Accuser Devil to dual purpose them into Summon Monster (and I guess SNA due to #2)

I'm not sure if #2 is an "intended" or "unexpected" function, but it seems sort of nifty and probably not unbalancing at least to me.

@Orfamay Quest - I think that being able to “pre-summon” creatures would be as good as Quicken Spell in many ways, possibly better in some. I guess it would be worse in others since your creature could before getting to act, but even then it drew off some attacks and fulfilled the meatshield function. You could also have large groups of monsters with you though that likely falls into the realm of "please don't have multiple summon spells active since it makes the table sad"

@James Risner - Ah, James, it is good to see that you remember our ancient Weird Words struggle though it reached its conclusion too late to help my PC actually use Weird Words in a satisfactory manner during the campaign he was played in. I still think the original wording of Weird Words was unclear at best, but there’s probably little need to rehash those old arguments. I think what’s important here is that you and some others don’t like how Alter Summoned Monster is being used or at least might be used. You’d probably like Paizo to clarify or outright change it. To that end, arguments about how the spell “should” be (while clearly a matter of opinion) might be more useful than arguments about how it “is”. Honestly I can’t read anything into the RAW which would prevent the exploits you’re concerned about. It seems like many of the people posting here think the spell has some problems though (or at least some oddities)

I'm not sure why it is important to some of us (me included) that Paizo should "officially" correct stuff, especially stuff which isn't used in PFS. Maybe we like having our opinions validated by somebody who has authority, or maybe we prefer to use the, "Sorry, Bob, Paizo said you can't do that anymore." angle rather than, "Listen up, Bob, as DM my word is Law!" - something political I guess...maybe being "involved in the process"

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I agree, function #1, #2, and #3 are likely the design.

Devilkiller wrote:
I'm not sure why it is important to some of us (me included) that Paizo should "officially" correct stuff

For me, it is because I don't want a new player coming to the board and seeing a thread saying something works to make 999d10 damage and show up at my table with "the Internet said it worked".

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alter Summon monster and Mount into wishes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.