| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Some debate has arisen among my group relating to the following line from Summon Monster I "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."
Some have interpreted this as prohibiting summoned creatures from being teleported or transported extradimensionally by a caster (that is to say, I try to dimensional step my summoned creature with me), while others have insisted that it applies only to a summoned creature's own teleportation abilities. Anyone have a clarifying ruling on the matter?
Some debate has arisen among my group relating to the following line from Summon Monster I "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."
Some have interpreted this as prohibiting summoned creatures from being teleported or transported extradimensionally by a caster (that is to say, I try to dimensional step my summoned creature with me), while others have insisted that it applies only to a summoned creature's own teleportation abilities. Anyone have a clarifying ruling on the matter?
I bet you play with Kain :)
My understanding it is no teleporting..PERIOD. no Dim door..no nuttin. The act of summoning itself is the only dimensional movement allowed.
Greg
Some debate has arisen among my group relating to the following line from Summon Monster I "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."
Some have interpreted this as prohibiting summoned creatures from being teleported or transported extradimensionally by a caster (that is to say, I try to dimensional step my summoned creature with me), while others have insisted that it applies only to a summoned creature's own teleportation abilities. Anyone have a clarifying ruling on the matter?
The spell says the monster can not use teleportation(in so many words). If you dimensional step the monster, the monster is not using teleportation abilities you are. Saying the monster is using teleportation abilities in this case is like saying a fighter being healed by a cleric's channel is the one using the channel. He is just the recipient of the benefit.
"A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."What you quoted says that the summoned monster cannot use certain abilities. I can't imagine how that could be interpreted to mean that others cannot use certain abilities on the summoned creature.
I also would not allow a summoned critter to use a staff with dim door or plane shift. But I would allow the sorcerer bloodline ability to baneful teleport the critter to deepspace work, as long as the summoned critter did not try to intentionally fail the save :P
Greg
Saying the monster is using teleportation abilities in this case is like saying a fighter being healed by a cleric's channel is the one using the channel. He is just the recipient of the benefit.
I understand what you are saying, I see your side. But I disagree. Also, nowhere in the fighter description does it say he may not use healing abilities.
Greg
Edit: I allow fighters to use cure potions...and summoned critters can too. :P
Saying the monster is using teleportation abilities in this case is like saying a fighter being healed by a cleric's channel is the one using the channel. He is just the recipient of the benefit.I understand what you are saying, I see your side. But I disagree. Also, nowhere in the fighter description does it say he may not use healing abilities.
Greg
Edit: I allow fighters to use cure potions...and summoned critters can too. :P
Even if it did the fighter would not be using anything if he was healed by a cleric. Now if the fighter in question multiclassed into a cleric he would just be restricted from using healing abilities.
Not being able to use something is not the same as "can not be affected by". The only intent of the quote was to stop summoned creatures from bouncing around the battlefield under their own power, and to stop infinite summoning.
One is restricting what you can do. The other restricts what can be done to you. They are not synonymous.
Once again, I understand your assertion. I do not say they cannot be affected by an effect. I just say they do not willingly do so. So for dim door.. resistance..negates. teleport...resistance..negates.
I do not let those that have spell casting levels use scrolls or items that plane shift, teleport, dim door, summon...whatever. Why not? It is part of the magical contract that summoned them here. They will not use those abilities. Whether provided by their own powers or anothers. Can a baneful effect work? yep.. if they fail a saving throw. But they are never willing. So if they are denied a choice of WILL negates somehow, certainly... you can carry them along.
IF it had read "any of their own abilities" I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you.
I have been wrong before... so I could very well be wrong now. But, this is how I read it. Otherwise, hand em that wand or staff and let em 'ave at it. Which, you prolly are okay with too :P
Greg
Greetings, fellow travellers.
The part mentioned from the summoning spells line talks about the summoned monster's abilities - it's these that are negated by being summoned to the material plane.
So by RAW they can be affected by another player's/caster's ability to teleport/dim door/what-not.
Also, the spell states
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
So, if you want the creature to perform a "space hop" together with you, it would follow your command.
Ruyan.
Once again, I understand your assertion. I do not say they cannot be affected by an effect. I just say they do not willingly do so. So for dim door.. resistance..negates. teleport...resistance..negates.
I do not let those that have spell casting levels use scrolls or items that plane shift, teleport, dim door, summon...whatever. Why not? It is part of the magical contract that summoned them here. They will not use those abilities. Whether provided by their own powers or anothers. Can a baneful effect work? yep.. if they fail a saving throw. But they are never willing. So if they are denied a choice of WILL negates somehow, certainly... you can carry them along.
IF it had read "any of their own abilities" I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you.
I have been wrong before... so I could very well be wrong now. But, this is how I read it. Otherwise, hand em that wand or staff and let em 'ave at it. Which, you prolly are okay with too :P
Greg
There is no contract. If there were then just summon demons who don't care about contracts anyway. Your above description is showing an emphasis on "won't", which is not the same as "can't", which is what the first post I responded to was saying.
The "can't" was explained away in my previous post.
The "won't" is not supported by any mentioning of a contract of cosmic agreement of any sort.
"Any of their own abilities" should not be needed.
I think the trouble is that your definition of use includes "benefit from or affected by."
Example:Cleric's can't use spells that are the opposite of their alignment, but does that mean if another party member cast such a spell on them that it automatically fails even if it would benefit them?
"A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities."What you quoted says that the summoned monster cannot use certain abilities. I can't imagine how that could be interpreted to mean that others cannot use certain abilities on the summoned creature.
This -- after all if no other means of extraplanar travel was possible at all then you couldn't banish summoned monsters -- which would be stupid.
Example:Cleric's can't use spells that are the opposite of their alignment, but does that mean if another party member cast such a spell on them that it automatically fails even if it would benefit them?
This is a good arguement. This gives me pause for thought. The "won't" "can't" arguement does not sway me. USA English speakers switch it back an forth way too much in common usage. Banishment and dismissal only send it back to the original plane...nowhere else. And specifically say to be used on summons. When something specifically says something.. it is an exception to a rule. Just like Impmroved Trip changes the base disadvantages of Trip
Greg
Example:Cleric's can't use spells that are the opposite of their alignment, but does that mean if another party member cast such a spell on them that it automatically fails even if it would benefit them?This is a good arguement. This gives me pause for thought. The "won't" "can't" arguement does not sway me. USA English speakers switch it back an forth way too much in common usage. Banishment and dismissal only send it back to the original plane...nowhere else. And specifically say to be used on summons. When something specifically says something.. it is an exception to a rule. Just like Impmroved Trip changes the base disadvantages of Trip
Greg
In regular conversation we mix the two(won't and can't), but not so in professional writing. The writer in question understands he is not there to clarify things or tone of voice so writing has to be more precise.
In regular conversation we mix the two(won't and can't), but not so in professional writing. The writer in question understands he is not there to clarify things or tone of voice so writing has to be more precise.
For changing my view, the cleric arguement is much stronger. Maybe with the original two that were arguing your can not/will not arguement is better. I am talking it over with my group on phone calls today. There is mixed interpretations, but the prevailing is no on item usage {scroll, staff, wand} but yes on someone else casting. If my group commits to this, I will change. But once again, it was your cleric example that even gave me pause to reconsider:P
Greg
In regular conversation we mix the two(won't and can't), but not so in professional writing. The writer in question understands he is not there to clarify things or tone of voice so writing has to be more precise.For changing my view, the cleric arguement is much stronger. Maybe with the original two that were arguing your can not/will not arguement is better. I am talking it over with my group on phone calls today. There is mixed interpretations, but the prevailing is no on item usage {scroll, staff, wand} but yes on someone else casting. If my group commits to this, I will change. But once again, it was your cleric example that even gave me pause to reconsider:P
Greg
I guess I have done as much as I can do. I am too lazy to argue the non-difference between the magic coming from a spell as opposed to an item. :)
PS:I guess I can give it one try. What if the opposite aligned cleric received the benefit from an item? :)
This -- after all if no other means of extraplanar travel was possible at all then you couldn't banish summoned monsters -- which would be stupid.
Banishment actually does not have the teleportation descriptor.
This -- after all if no other means of extraplanar travel was possible at all then you couldn't banish summoned monsters -- which would be stupid.Banishment actually does not have the teleportation descriptor.
It doesn't need it -- teleport is a subschool of conjuration, and as such isn't available for abjuration.
The problem is people are trying to say if summoned you can't be the target of extraplanar traveling -- you can't tell me that if you are banished that you aren't traveling in an extraplanar fashion, hence it is extraplanar travel.
Please note that spell-like abilities aren't actually of the subschool of teleportation either since they aren't spells -- however they are teleporting effects.
I believe the intent behind this rule is to prevent Summon Monster from being too much of an anyspell.
Summons can't summon for the obvious reason of not allowing infinite doublings of summoned demons, mephits, and the like.
Summons can't use planar travel so that you can't get free Teleports or Plane Shifts out of relatively low-level spells.
I believe the intent behind this rule is to prevent Summon Monster from being too much of an anyspell.
Summons can't summon for the obvious reason of not allowing infinite doublings of summoned demons, mephits, and the like.
Summons can't use planar travel so that you can't get free Teleports or Plane Shifts out of relatively low-level spells.
To be clear though, this doesn't mean that you can't cast teleport yourself (as a wizard) to teleport your summoned monsters with the group correct?
To be clear though, this doesn't mean that you can't cast teleport yourself (as a wizard) to teleport your summoned monsters with the group correct?I believe the intent behind this rule is to prevent Summon Monster from being too much of an anyspell.
Summons can't summon for the obvious reason of not allowing infinite doublings of summoned demons, mephits, and the like.
Summons can't use planar travel so that you can't get free Teleports or Plane Shifts out of relatively low-level spells.
Lacking time to double-check wording in the book, I'd allow a wizard to cast teleport or plane shift affecting his summoned minions. Obviously, Banishment or Dismissal will work, damn whatever the rules say,
Lacking time to double-check wording in the book, I'd allow a wizard to cast teleport or plane shift affecting his summoned minions. Obviously, Banishment or Dismissal will work, damn whatever the rules say,
Best quote of the day.
Thanks for the clarifications.