Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

Nothing To See Here wrote:

On the subject of work together, one thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that even this new version won't let both the summoner and the eidolon each take a two action activity. For instance, if I want to cast a spell and have my dragon eidolon breath fire, I can't. I don't know if this would work out balance wise, but it may be a good idea to word it so that the summoner and eidolon between them get as many actions as were spent on work together plus one, with the restriction that they each must take at least one of the actions.

That was discussed during the playtest, and is intentional. Two-action activities are balanced around always only being 1/round, no matter what extra actions you get. If both your eidolon and Summoner could cast in a round, that's free Quicken Spell multiple times per day.

You can do that with a summoned creature already so what's the issue?

Summoned: "If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end." so if it's 1 level lower that you, it has no issue casting in a round you sustained it and cast a spell yourself. A Dryad can cast an entangle every round you sustain it while you cast...

Salamileg wrote:

On the contrary, I think of Flaming Sphere instead summoned a special type of fire elemental, was conjuration instead of evocation, but otherwise functioned identically, that would be a super flavorful summoning spell.

It's not a creature, though. If it was, I could Demoralize it, and it would have its own save DCs and such reduced. But I can't, because it's not a creature.

I could also Banish it, because it was called from the Plane of Fire. But because it's not a creature, it's not an eligible target, ergo that can't be right.

I'd rather not use the "Climb as Flight" fallacy as a means to justify whether something is or isn't a summoned creature, especially when all intents and purposes point otherwise.

The only thing that matters in a roleplaying game for determining if something 'is a summon' or not is how you describe it at your table.

You could change exactly zero rules - as in, no homebrew at all, run everything RAW - and describe every single spell you cast as some sort of summoning (in the same vein as these incarnate spells) and that's completely legitimate. Whats more, you can absolutely make it fit in a normal campaign.

And that would be, for all purposes that matter (IE, player perceptions), summoning.

The idea that summoning has to be tied to a ball with hitpoints and actions is overly limited in a game that is a mental and narrative construct.

Krispy that only works in homebrew.

Paizo deliberately tied PF2 to the in cannon setting of Golarion. As such all spells, classes, items, and rules need and will be made with Golarion in mind first and foremost.

Sure you can change things in your game. But anyone playing an official game (Ex: PFS) has to use the in cannon stuff.

QuidEst wrote:

Nothing To See Here wrote:

On the subject of work together, one thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that even this new version won't let both the summoner and the eidolon each take a two action activity. For instance, if I want to cast a spell and have my dragon eidolon breath fire, I can't. I don't know if this would work out balance wise, but it may be a good idea to word it so that the summoner and eidolon between them get as many actions as were spent on work together plus one, with the restriction that they each must take at least one of the actions.

That was discussed during the playtest, and is intentional. Two-action activities are balanced around always only being 1/round, no matter what extra actions you get. If both your eidolon and Summoner could cast in a round, that's free Quicken Spell multiple times per day.

You can do that with a summoned creature already so what's the issue?

Summoned: "If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end." so if it's 1 level lower that you, it has no issue casting in a round you sustained it and cast a spell yourself. A Dryad can cast an entangle every round you sustain it while you cast...

Costing three actions and a higher-level slot seems like a reasonable difference to me. But I guess "free quickening" is just my interpretation of what was said, not actually part of what was said.

Two-action activities are balanced against only doing one per turn. If eidolons were an exception to the rule (like summons), they'd need rebalancing accordingly.

You can flavor my spells however you want actually, as long as it doesn’t drastically break any thing it’s fully within the purview of the game to have fiery elemental circles pop up in front of my hands and the fireball come forth from it.

Heck, make it call an exploding sheep of burning explosion.

I’d like to see any PFS GM stop a player with “No no, you have to flavor it how I want it”.

There's something that isn't sitting well with me about the new incarnate spell example, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on it.

Rysky there is a limit to how much you can flavor. Specially in PFS where things are very by the book.

Do you have some free play? Yes.
Is it enough to make all your spells what ever you want? No.

Costing three actions and a higher-level slot seems like a reasonable difference to me. But I guess "free quickening" is just my interpretation of what was said, not actually part of what was said.

Yeah, but you only spend that higher level slot once and the you get the free quickening for as many rounds as the summoned has spells. For instance, that Dryad can cast an entangle at will so can toss it around like candy. And it doesn't have to be high level summons to get spells: level 1+ summon fey can cast spells.

Rysky there is a limit to how much you can flavor.

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as it doesn't change mechanics, and your table is okay with it, then there are no limitations on how you can reflavor something.

Temperans wrote:

Rysky there is a limit to how much you can flavor.

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as it doesn't change mechanics, and your table is okay with it, then there are no limitations on how you can reflavor something.

This. Describing your 'fireball' as conjuring, for example, a Final Fantasy Bomb enemy that immediately self destructs changes zero rules, works thematically and mechanically just fine at almost any reasonable table. I can't imagine a reasonable objection to this sort of description for spells.

Also explodey burny sheep are awesome.

Baa-baa-baBOOM

Temperans wrote:

Rysky there is a limit to how much you can flavor.

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as it doesn't change mechanics, and your table is okay with it, then there are no limitations on how you can reflavor something.

I am not saying its not fine to reflavor as long as the mechanics dont change.

But what I read from Kryspy was "the mechanics dont matter, just describe it however you want". Which I do find a problem with.

Flavoring a Fireball as looking like sheep shaped bead is fine. Flavoring a Fireball as been an actual creature, not so much.

1 objection being that an actual creature would occupy space. Another being that Fireball is an Evocation spell, hence not creating a creature.

But what I read from Kryspy was "the mechanics dont matter, just describe it however you want". Which I do find a problem with.

Yeah, that's clearly not what I said. The mechanics are extremely important, as is designing an appropriate description for them. No one is suggesting describing a fireball as a normal bear that explodes for no reason.

But creating an extremely/instantly temporary fire elemental that explodes into a cloud of fire? Why not? It makes sense, and violates none of the mechanics required by the spell.

Y'all are aware that this entire digression happened because Darksol misread Salamileg's post, right? Samilieg wasn't saying they'd describe their flaming sphere as a creature, they were saying that a spell that summoned an incarnate/creature but otherwise functioned as flaming sphere would be interesting.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

On the contrary, I think of Flaming Sphere instead summoned a special type of fire elemental, was conjuration instead of evocation, but otherwise functioned identically, that would be a super flavorful summoning spell.

It's not a creature, though. If it was, I could Demoralize it, and it would have its own save DCs and such reduced. But I can't, because it's not a creature.

I could also Banish it, because it was called from the Plane of Fire. But because it's not a creature, it's not an eligible target, ergo that can't be right.

I'd rather not use the "Climb as Flight" fallacy as a means to justify whether something is or isn't a summoned creature, especially when all intents and purposes point otherwise.

The only thing that matters in a roleplaying game for determining if something 'is a summon' or not is how you describe it at your table.

You could change exactly zero rules - as in, no homebrew at all, run everything RAW - and describe every single spell you cast as some sort of summoning (in the same vein as these incarnate spells) and that's completely legitimate. Whats more, you can absolutely make it fit in a normal campaign.

And that would be, for all purposes that matter (IE, player perceptions), summoning.

The idea that summoning has to be tied to a ball with hitpoints and actions is overly limited in a game that is a mental and narrative construct.

Also, given that he was specifically talking about the rule conflicts in the context of Samileg's proposed spell, I'm not sure what descriptions had to do with his point in the first place.

Also, given that he was specifically talking about the rule conflicts in the context of Samileg's proposed spell, I'm not sure what descriptions had to do with his point in the first place.

Rules 'conflicts' aren't relevant, is the point. The only thing that makes any spell more than a bundle of rules and mechanics the description you put on top of those rules and mechanics.

Describing a Flaming Sphere as having a face and looking like a fire elemental changes zero rules, and creates zero conflicts. You don't need to be able to demoralize it for it to be a summon...

Just put me down as against defaulting to making evocation and summoning spells functionally indistinguishable. I expect more from this system than handwavy gobbledygook when there's already a framework for what summoning involves, including minion rules, targetability, etc.

I see it no differently from telling a player who wants to be an ice sorcerer that their only option for blasting foes with Elsa shenanigans is to summon an ice elemental minion that they command to attack with ice.

Like, I wouldn't be satisfied with that coat of paint either, and I don't know how you guys would be.

If you really want to abstract everything why have different schools or magic in the first place? Let everyone copy each other's homework and waste less book space with so many different spells.

If Flaming Sphere were to be a summoning spell, it should have commensurate pros and cons like taking up space and soaking damage at the expense of being killable. At minimum it should be commanded as a minion and get two actions to do something besides just move.

Honestly, however bad previous versions were at assigning spells to schools, this version is being worse. Everything is Evocation these days. For some reason.

And few other things are also really odd. But, whatever. The spells are quite irrelevant anyway, aside from damage-dealing, so it's all good.

We already have an example of a conjuration spell that creates creatures with no rules on how to attack them, that being Mad Monkeys. But, if people feel that stuff like being able to be attacked and take up space are important to people, I would probably model it after Phantom Steed but add a load of damage immunities. Low AC, low HP, but can only be damaged by one particular thing. In the case of the original example, it would probably be positive energy. In the case of the flaming sphere example, probably cold damage and any spell with the water trait.

We already have an example of a conjuration spell that creates creatures with no rules on how to attack them, that being Mad Monkeys. But, if people feel that stuff like being able to be attacked and take up space are important to people, I would probably model it after Phantom Steed but add a load of damage immunities. Low AC, low HP, but can only be damaged by one particular thing. In the case of the original example, it would probably be positive energy. In the case of the flaming sphere example, probably cold damage and any spell with the water trait.

Mad Monkeys works for me because it spells out susceptibility to Calm Emotions, as well as giving you the option of directing them to do different things in keeping with their summoned creature behaviors, mostly involving being a nuisance.

It really doesn't take much to turn a spell into something that feels like a summon. Your suggestions are perfectly reasonable additions.

Honestly, however bad previous versions were at assigning spells to schools, this version is being worse. Everything is Evocation these days. For some reason.

And few other things are also really odd. But, whatever. The spells are quite irrelevant anyway, aside from damage-dealing, so it's all good.

I think it mainly stems from the schools of magic being poorly defined (something that isn't unique to PF2 in the slightest). Like, look at the descriptions for Conjuration and Evocation, and then look at Wall of Force. It could be argued to fall under conjuration's "create an object" as well as evocation's "capture magical energy and then shape it to... protect your allies". And one could even argue it falls under Abjuration's "They create barriers that keep out attacks, effects, or even certain types of creatures". So that's three different schools one could argue for but only one can be picked.

NemoNoName wrote:

Honestly, however bad previous versions were at assigning spells to schools, this version is being worse. Everything is Evocation these days. For some reason.

And few other things are also really odd. But, whatever. The spells are quite irrelevant anyway, aside from damage-dealing, so it's all good.

I think it mainly stems from the schools of magic being poorly defined (something that isn't unique to PF2 in the slightest). Like, look at the descriptions for Conjuration and Evocation, and then look at Wall of Force. It could be argued to fall under conjuration's "create an object" as well as evocation's "capture magical energy and then shape it to... protect your allies". And one could even argue it falls under Abjuration's "They create barriers that keep out attacks, effects, or even certain types of creatures". So that's three different schools one could argue for but only one can be picked.

It'd be interesting if we could have spells belong to multiple schools, like Wall of Force could be part of those three. I wonder if it would have any real negatives to the game?

^I have been toying with the idea myself, but preferably with some noticeable differences depending upon which school of magic you used (not sure whether it would be better to describe as separate spells or list the variants in one spell entry).

Sean K. Reynolds even did this for Fly in a blog post back in 1st Edition days (or maybe even slightly pre-1st Edition days).

I think having no difference would be the easiest way to change it, and be the least disruptive.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Also, given that he was specifically talking about the rule conflicts in the context of Samileg's proposed spell, I'm not sure what descriptions had to do with his point in the first place.

Rules 'conflicts' aren't relevant, is the point. The only thing that makes any spell more than a bundle of rules and mechanics the description you put on top of those rules and mechanics.

Describing a Flaming Sphere as having a face and looking like a fire elemental changes zero rules, and creates zero conflicts. You don't need to be able to demoralize it for it to be a summon...

He disagrees. He's allowed.

Frankly, I disagree as well. Making it have a face is just a neat description. Describing it as summoning a creature that creates the spell effect makes me want to be able to target that creature as a counter, and hopefully these incarante spells will have something along those lines. Being able to banish the effect would be a great start and make them feel more like summons instead of just complicated evocations.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

On the contrary, I think of Flaming Sphere instead summoned a special type of fire elemental, was conjuration instead of evocation, but otherwise functioned identically, that would be a super flavorful summoning spell.

It's not a creature, though. If it was, I could Demoralize it, and it would have its own save DCs and such reduced. But I can't, because it's not a creature.

I could also Banish it, because it was called from the Plane of Fire. But because it's not a creature, it's not an eligible target, ergo that can't be right.

I'd rather not use the "Climb as Flight" fallacy as a means to justify whether something is or isn't a summoned creature, especially when all intents and purposes point otherwise.

The only thing that matters in a roleplaying game for determining if something 'is a summon' or not is how you describe it at your table.

You could change exactly zero rules - as in, no homebrew at all, run everything RAW - and describe every single spell you cast as some sort of summoning (in the same vein as these incarnate spells) and that's completely legitimate. Whats more, you can absolutely make it fit in a normal campaign.

And that would be, for all purposes that matter (IE, player perceptions), summoning.

The idea that summoning has to be tied to a ball with hitpoints and actions is overly limited in a game that is a mental and narrative construct.

It's not overly limited at all, when it's a balancing point for spells of that type. In fact, it can make players do things that aren't rules legal, or at the very least attempt and ultimately fail. They can't strike the "Flaming Elemental" because it doesn't have an AC, compared to other ones summoned by the Summon Elemental spell. They can't demoralize or Dominate it to attack the "master" because it doesn't have a Will Save. They can't use a Cone of Cold on it and expect it to go poof or die because it doesn't have HP or serve as an appropriate counteract effect (without feats at least) to the summoned creature. And again, if it's summoned from another plane, I can cast Banishment on it, right? No. Because Banishment only works on creatures, which the Flaming Sphere is not; it's a spell effect that is not a creature.

There is much more than "ball of HP" to summons. I'm not denying this. But the absence of everything else that makes a creature a creature compared to fighting one out in the wilderness, for example is precisely why your argument of "flavorful summoning" falls apart.

I think it mainly stems from the schools of magic being poorly defined (something that isn't unique to PF2 in the slightest). Like, look at the descriptions for Conjuration and Evocation, and then look at Wall of Force. It could be argued to fall under conjuration's "create an object" as well as evocation's "capture magical energy and then shape it to... protect your allies". And one could even argue it falls under Abjuration's "They create barriers that keep out attacks, effects, or even certain types of creatures". So that's three different schools one could argue for but only one can be picked.

And that's why schools of magic, as implemented ever since AD&D 2nd edition (and possibly Dragonlance Adventure before that) are bad and should feel bad.

Temperans wrote:

But what I read from Kryspy was "the mechanics dont matter, just describe it however you want". Which I do find a problem with.

Yeah, that's clearly not what I said. The mechanics are extremely important, as is designing an appropriate description for them. No one is suggesting describing a fireball as a normal bear that explodes for no reason.

But creating an extremely/instantly temporary fire elemental that explodes into a cloud of fire? Why not? It makes sense, and violates none of the mechanics required by the spell.

The rules already quantify the appearance of the mechanics, unless you're now throwing Illusion magic of changing spell effects into the mix just because it's fun and enjoyable. (Which it can be.)

No one is arguing that X outcome is unfun or that Y effect is lame, and therefore we disagree. We are arguing that the spell does not actually state X outcome or produce Y effect, because it produces Z outcome or Q effect in the description, meaning suggesting that X = Z or Y = Q is the equivalent of houseruling what the spell actually is or does. Something that PFS and other similarly ran tables won't allow.

As another example, let's say I pick up a highly valued Emerald. A spell calls for Diamond Dust worth X gold. The Emerald, if ground to dust, equals the value of X in gold. Does that mean I can now use the Emerald Dust as a component for fulfilling this spell in place of the Diamond Dust?

Some (as I imagine you and others with your mindset will agree with) will say yes, because it's cool and flavorful and that you're essentially still burning X gold anyway, so the component description doesn't matter too much. Others (such as what I and others may agree with) will say it's not a suitable component, which is Diamond Dust, causing the spell to not be castable, and is especially important in settlements where Diamond Dust worth X amount of gold is not available.

If we can just change descriptions of effects whenever we want, then why do we have descriptions? With that in mind, Paizo can just get rid of the fluff, stick to the crunch, and move on. Less words spent on fluff = more content to be put into the book. Big brain thinking here. /sarcasm

I'll be honest, the fact it is being described as a quasi creature you can't attack makes me feel like we summon some "almost deities" tbh. And that makes it even more badass in my book.

I'm good with summoning stuff that isn't quite a creature. And by that, I'm including "has no combat statistics at all and doesn't block space". The spell above is a vortex of souls; it's reasonably clear you can't stab it and why you'd be able to walk through it. If they want to add in uniform banishment rules to the incarnate trait, cool.

Personally, I like the untouchable feel presented. I'll probably still enjoy it if they bog it down with hitpoints and AC and then it needs a reflex save, and so on, but I'd prefer it this way. It's simple and feels cool. Summoning creatures has been unsatisfying for me personally in PF2, and I'm looking forward to an alternative.

Why does this incarna creature's special nature annoy people but haunts do not?

A haunt works like any other hazard though; you use skills to disable them.

I admit, I liked them better in PF1 when you could also turn them and even strike them, and they had certain qualities that made them more creaturish, but I'm not upset that a hazard works more or less like a hazard across the board.

I thought the point of haunts was that they did way more than just annoy people.

Summoning creatures has been unsatisfying for me personally in PF2, and I'm looking forward to an alternative.

That's part of why I want to make sure Incarnate spells are done right. Current summoning spells are quite underwhelming for a lot of people. A "big summon" might fill in the gap for summoning focused characters. If it doesn't feel like a summon, then it's going to be unsatisfying for a bunch of people for a different reason.

For this one in particular, to keep it as streamlined as possible, I think the minimal change required would be to give it an action during its turn you can use Command to perform in addition to movement.

There's lots and lots of ways to flesh out summon spells and keep them feeling summony.

QuidEst wrote:

Summoning creatures has been unsatisfying for me personally in PF2, and I'm looking forward to an alternative.

That's part of why I want to make sure Incarnate spells are done right. Current summoning spells are quite underwhelming for a lot of people. A "big summon" might fill in the gap for summoning focused characters. If it doesn't feel like a summon, then it's going to be unsatisfying for a bunch of people for a different reason.

For this one in particular, to keep it as streamlined as possible, I think the minimal change required would be to give it an action during its turn you can use Command to perform in addition to movement.

There's lots and lots of ways to flesh out summon spells and keep them feeling summony.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like a big deal one way or the other for me. If I've summoned a thing for a specific purpose, I'm fine with it behaving in that way without needing to be commanded to do so.

- It bumps the cost from three actions to four. Presumably, it gets a little power bump from the 33% increase in action cost.
- For any character that knows how the spell works, it encourages incapacitating the summoner quickly so that they can't spend the action telling the summons to do the thing it was summoned for.
- If they are incapacitated, the spell is a little anticlimactic. No "Hahaha, it's already too late!" (no satisfaction of hitting people after you've been downed), but it does get the interrupted summons feel (a little more satisfying for PCs against an enemy using it).

But yeah, if changing it to command-based is a way to satisfy both sides, cool.

I'm fairly sure you need to command it to move anyway, otherwise nothing in the spell tells you how it takes it's turn. Having options with the command is key though.

I'm fairly sure you need to command it to move anyway, otherwise nothing in the spell tells you how it takes it's turn. Having options with the command is key though.

The Incarnate trait does.

[...] At the end of your next turn, the summoned creature can either Step, Stride, or take the action for another movement type it has (such as Climb or Burrow), and then takes its Depart action. Then the spell ends.

An incarnate spell directs its effects away from you and your allies as much as possible. [...]

So for its move, it will go away from the party.

WatersLethe wrote:

I'm fairly sure you need to command it to move anyway, otherwise nothing in the spell tells you how it takes it's turn. Having options with the command is key though.

The Incarnate trait does.

Incarnate trait wrote:

[...] At the end of your next turn, the summoned creature can either Step, Stride, or take the action for another movement type it has (such as Climb or Burrow), and then takes its Depart action. Then the spell ends.

An incarnate spell directs its effects away from you and your allies as much as possible. [...]

So for its move, it will go away from the party.

Okay forgot about that!

As another example, let's say I pick up a highly valued Emerald. A spell calls for Diamond Dust worth X gold. The Emerald, if ground to dust, equals the value of X in gold. Does that mean I can now use the Emerald Dust as a component for fulfilling this spell in place of the Diamond Dust?

Some (as I imagine you and others with your mindset will agree with) will say yes, because it's cool and flavorful and that you're essentially still burning X gold anyway, so the component description doesn't matter too much.

Nope, this example is a material change to the rules. Its not just description - there's an opportunity cost involved in needing a specific thing to power a spell that goes just beyond the gold cost.

I have at no point suggested changing rules - the only one doing that is you, by implying that players 'might try to attack it' or something - which only makes sense if you're not informing your players of what's going on, and they have a poor understanding of what's happening.

Players should never be under the impression they can make an attack action against something like an Incarnate - in fact, my understanding is by RAW its not even a legal option.

Changing descriptions to alternate appropriate descriptions is not changing rules, and there's an element of responsibility to ensuring that everyone is on board with the description, and the understanding that mechanically nothing has changed.

for example is precisely why your argument of "flavorful summoning" falls apart.

Nothing "falls apart" though.

You don't like the spells, which is totally fine, but to say they fall apart or anything like that is another matter entirely.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

for example is precisely why your argument of "flavorful summoning" falls apart.

Nothing "falls apart" though.

You don't like the spells, which is totally fine, but to say they fall apart or anything like that is another matter entirely.

To be fair, Squiggit, I think Darksol is only saying that the argument, not the spells fall flat. So, for Darksol, something has fallen apart - the argument. Clearly for Darksol. You can disagree, but to say it isn’t so definitively does not match Darksol’s reality.

It’s a hair being split for some, and a matter of great technical importance by extension for others.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

As another example, let's say I pick up a highly valued Emerald. A spell calls for Diamond Dust worth X gold. The Emerald, if ground to dust, equals the value of X in gold. Does that mean I can now use the Emerald Dust as a component for fulfilling this spell in place of the Diamond Dust?

Some (as I imagine you and others with your mindset will agree with) will say yes, because it's cool and flavorful and that you're essentially still burning X gold anyway, so the component description doesn't matter too much.

Nope, this example is a material change to the rules. Its not just description - there's an opportunity cost involved in needing a specific thing to power a spell that goes just beyond the gold cost.

I have at no point suggested changing rules - the only one doing that is you, by implying that players 'might try to attack it' or something - which only makes sense if you're not informing your players of what's going on, and they have a poor understanding of what's happening.

Players should never be under the impression they can make an attack action against something like an Incarnate - in fact, my understanding is by RAW its not even a legal option.

Changing descriptions to alternate appropriate descriptions is not changing rules, and there's an element of responsibility to ensuring that everyone is on board with the description, and the understanding that mechanically nothing has changed.

But that shouldn't matter when you're getting an equally valuable and crucial component to power the spell. The point there was that an Emerald, a valuable gemstone, ground up to dust and being of equivalent value and nature to another ground up valuable gemstone, Diamond, shouldn't prove to be a mechanical issue or advantage/disadvantage if the idea of flavor text (such as by requiring a certain gemstone) is mutable and exchangeable, as you're making it out to be. At least, if we want to posit the theory that Emeralds are just as valuable as Diamonds in this universe. (They probably aren't, but nothing in the rules state otherwise, so as far as that front is concerned, it's not "houseruling" either.)

It's no more of a material change to the rules than the proposition of Flaming Sphere being a Fire Elemental; it's actually far less, because there are much less rules involved by comparison, which is taking something that isn't a creature and making it a "creature." I mean, is the Fire Elemental making attack rolls, or using special abilities for its type, as a creature of that origin would? No, according to the Flaming Sphere rules. Does its movement provoke reactions, and does it have reactions of its own? It would if it was a creature, as every creature does this without a statement otherwise, but it's not, so it doesn't. It's an outsider called from a separate plane, I can use Banishment on it, right? Again, if it was a creature, it would be a valid target. But since it's a spell effect, it's not, so it's clearly 100% debunked: It's merely a spell effect that requires concentration, no different than a Spiritual Weapon. It's different from a Summon spell because the concentration for that spell functions in the form of an actual creature with activities dependent upon the creature type you've summoned. Whereas Flaming Sphere is a one trick pony that doesn't change. So by all means, if Fire Elementals are one trick ponies that don't change, can't be struck, can be dispelled/counteracted, and so on, it's a fair comparison. But a quick look at the Beastiary would suggest that they can (eventually) fly and move super fast and not be limited to a 30 foot range from the caster, a restriction that actual Summon spells do not possess, among other interesting abilities they eventually grow to possess if they were actual creatures.

A player can ask "Can I strike X?" A GM can say "Yes, make an attack roll," or "No, it's not a legal action, do something else." They could also say "Yes, but it will do nothing because it cannot be struck, so you wasted your action figuring that out" (a dick move, but beside the point when we're exploring rules interactions for the first time as both a player and a character), or "No, it's not a creature you can strike," or even "No, it can only be dispelled or counteracted, not struck." The problem is I can't just outright tell them to just use counteract effects, especially when it may not be clear that it's a spell, or even that it's not just some hazard that can be stopped with Disable Device. That tornado could have been a nasty trap some Evil Bard or Cleric put on the door. When it's literally and clearly just a spell effect, like a Wall of Force/Fire, or a Cone of Cold, or even Magic Missiles, it's pretty damn obvious what it is, and players can act appropriately against it. This? Not so much. I understand it's a "beta" thing, and that everything is subject to change (such as making it available for Arcane spellcasters; come on, a Necromancer creating a tornado of dead souls is absolutely iconic and cool and expected of them to do), but as someone looking at it, it needs to have a much clearer identity to avoid situations like the above.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

for example is precisely why your argument of "flavorful summoning" falls apart.

Nothing "falls apart" though.

You don't like the spells, which is totally fine, but to say they fall apart or anything like that is another matter entirely.

As OCW said, it's the argument that I'm getting at, not necessarily the spell itself.

To be clear, there are multiple aspects I don't like about the example spell showcased in the blog post that don't pertain to the argument we're discussing as to its effects. For starters, it's an extremely powerful debuffing and control (even for a 7th level spell), to the point that if used on PCs, it can devastate an entire party and TPK them within 2 rounds, as the first one reduced Fortitude saves and HP by quite a bit, and the second one can make half the party run away and be gone for 2 rounds, leaving 2 other PCs there to effectively die.

Furthermore, it's limited to Clerics and Bards and certain Sorcerers and Witches. No Arcane spellcasters can get access to it, and it's absolutely an awesome cool spell for Necromancer types to use. As Necromancers are primarily Arcane spellcasters (not always, but majority of Necromancy characters depict them as Arcane spellcasters), the fact they can't do something this cool (or powerful), but someone of a lesser known or appreciated vein can, doesn't sit right with me lore-wise.

Lastly, and this is the part that is creating the argument contention, the spell isn't quite clear as to what it is or isn't in accordance to the PCs, or targets of the spell. Visually, it's a tornado of angry souls that then disperses, creating a howling doom onto the targets, meaning PCs may not be able to strike it, or may be able to disable it like a Complex Hazard, or be able to dispel it, or even not be able to do anything against it! Mechanically, it's unclear, because as the blog post states, it's somewhat like a creature in that it has directions and activities of its own, but it's not like a creature in that it can't be damaged or hurt or demoralized or whatever, but then says it can be dispelled or counteracted like any other spell effect. Even the rules can't make up its mind as to what it actually just is, even if it's meant to be some whole new thing entirely flavor-wise.

Of course, all of this is just conjecture, since everything about the spell is subject to change according to the blog post, but as it's written, this is what stands out to me as major problems with it.

When it's literally and clearly just a spell effect, like a Wall of Force/Fire, or a Cone of Cold, or even Magic Missiles, it's pretty damn obvious what it is, and players can act appropriately against it. This? Not so much. I understand it's a "beta" thing, and that everything is subject to change (such as making it available for Arcane spellcasters; come on, a Necromancer creating a tornado of dead souls is absolutely iconic and cool and expected of them to do), but as someone looking at it, it needs to have a much clearer identity to avoid situations like the above.

You seem to be implying you wouldn't tell your players the villain cast Fireball, or Wall of Fire, or in the case of the Incarnate Example, Summon Vengeful Dead.

That's an absolutely alien thought to me - rules are how players understand the 'physics' of the game world, so withholding essential basic details from them is hampering their ability to make informed decisions.

That's why I don't see any problem with re-describing a Fireball, or Flaming Sphere.

Because any use of them begins with, "The enemy spellcaster conjures a ball of flame, that takes on the visage with a manic grin before gleefully exploding - they cast fireball, make a reflex save."

There's no possibility of confusion, because the Players know how fireballs work and its not metagaming to roll with cool descriptions of things, and understand the underlying assumption about how 'physics' work in the game world.

Of course, Identify/Recognize Magic is a tool for characters to show their understanding of magic - but I don't have a lot of problems locally with players overly conflating player and character knowledge.

wait wait, I've never once told the players what the enemy is casting unless they ID the spell. Sorey I'm drunk but are you saying you always tell them what spell they're getting hit with???

She might have to, or they may wonder why "the smell of burnt apples fills the air" and they're suddenly taking 10d6 sonic damage.

(possibly a couple beers in myself).

I sometimes tell my players what the spell is as well. Has never had a negative impact on my games. If anything, I like hearing the occasional fear when they hear the name of a particularly threatening spell. And my players are pretty good about separating player knowledge from character knowledge.

It also depends on the spell, though. I might say an enemy casts fireball to just keep the description shorter (they all know what a Fireball looks like) or for spells that have incredibly obvious visual cues (who could have known that the spell that conjured a wall of thorns was Wall of Thorns!) but I'm less likely to when not knowing the spell is actually important, such as Drop Dead or in a case where the players can't tell the difference between Dimension Door and other teleportation spells (which could indicate how near or far the target is).

She might have to, or they may wonder why "the smell of burnt apples fills the air" and they're suddenly taking 10d6 sonic damage.

(possibly a couple beers in myself).

What part of 'appropriate description' is unclear? When have I ever suggested that a player or GM might describe something that is not a reasonable substitution for the core effect?

An instantly exploding fire elemental is a reasonable 'special effect' for a fireball. Conjuring an apple pie is not.

On Waters comment, I count on my players to understand the line between player and character knowledge. If its relevant for something to remain a mystery, maybe I'll hold something back - but for the most part, there's no difference between telling a player the creature uses a Strike action, attempts to Grapple, or casts Fireball. This allows the players to meaningfully interact with the game, and react accordingly with an understanding of how they may interact with the game.

Identify/Recognize magic interacts with character knowledge, which is distinct from player knowledge.

What part of 'appropriate description' is unclear? When have I ever suggested that a player or GM might describe something that is not a reasonable substitution for the core effect?

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I do not consider a psuedo creature to be a reasonable flavoring, though of course I understand you do (and wouldn't say anything if I found myself at your table, as that would be rude).

I actually would consider burnt apples to be appropriate. One of my 3.5 wizards was an enchanter spec that had (what would be described in PF terms) olfactory manifestations. As long as I was consistent and told the DM what was actually going on, he let it fly.

Though if I remember correctly apple pie was my sleep spell, not fireball.

There is a very big difference between "tries to Strike", "tries to grapple", and "casts Fireball".

Even "tries to strike" can have a multitude of possibilities depending on the weapon, feats, or ability used. Changing the description to something else "cause flavor" makes knowing what is what difficult. Specially when talking about spells.

You describe a fireball as a fire elemental. But its an evocation spell, not a conjuration spell. How did the elemental appear then disappeared? Oh its a goblin, but wait evocation doesnt teleport things much less to their death? "Ah but its just flavor" you say, but then whats the point of having traits if you are just going to ignore them to do whatever you want?

The traits are a mechanical representation of the in game effect. You cannot just ignore them because its not convenient. Which is why I was one of the people that talked a lot about Eidolons not actually being Summoned creatures. "Incarnate" spells clear are not summons either, so its better that they dont use the word "summon" and instead find some other word to describe it.

As the saying goes, "You cant have cake and eat it too."