| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
First, I know that if you’re poisoned by a summoned creature, the poison goes off as soon as the summoned creature returns to its home plane, but the damage caused by the poison remains. Because of this, I’m wondering if the same rule applies for spells.
What happens with spells (with a duration that is not instantaneous) who were casted by a summoned creature? Do they remain active or do they dissipate when the summoned creature is send back to its home plane?
I’m asking because I’m wondering if casting Summon Monster III to summon a Lantern Archon, so that it cast Aid on all the party members, would be a viable tactic.
If you look up the summoning subsection of the conjuration rules, you'll find this line: "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
I've never heard of poison ending once the summoned deliverer returns home.
If your wizard has cast black tentacles and then dies, the tentacles remain until the spell duration expires. Should be the same for summoned creature spell casting.
No because dying and being unsummoned are not the same thing.
The poison thing date from 3.X and I doubt that Pathfinder changed it. The same rule applies for ''summoned'' diseases, like those contracted from a summoned dire rat.
If you look up the summoning subsection of the conjuration rules, you'll find this line: "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
Thank you for your answer, that makes sense. I'll keep summoning Lantern Archon, but just because of their Aura of Menace. :)
Huh. New to me. Good to know though.Same here.
Though, what about spells that don't expire? I don't know if there are instantaneous or permanent spells that a summoned creature can cast, but what happens? I imagine that the healing from a Cure Light Wounds spell would not be lost, so I'm guessing someone petrified by Flesh to Stone would remain petrified. Or do both go away when the summoned creature leaves?
It would only apply to spells that have a duration. My reasoning is that it had to have a duration in order for the duration to expire. Technically instantaneous and permanent spells don't have a time limit.
If you are poisoned by an attack, NOT a spell, then the poison does not end without the appropriate saves, right? After all, it is not a spell.
-- david
Papa.DRB
That is how I took the original posters question.
If you look up the summoning subsection of the conjuration rules, you'll find this line: "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you are poisoned by an attack, NOT a spell, then the poison does not end without the appropriate saves, right? After all, it is not a spell.
-- david
Papa.DRBThat is how I took the original posters question.
If you look up the summoning subsection of the conjuration rules, you'll find this line: "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Conjuration
Both poison and disease go off too when the creature is unsummoned (but the damage done by those conditions remains).
My question was about spells and spell-like abilities.
Yea, me too!
-- david
Papa.DRB
Both poison and disease go off too when the creature is unsummoned (but the damage done by those conditions remains).Can you provide a rules citation on that, pls? thx.
Seconded, please provide rules citation thanks
Both poison and disease go off too when the creature is unsummoned (but the damage done by those conditions remains)?.
Sure, I'll do this as soon as I get home tonight (I don't have access to my CRB right now).
If I don't find it, I'll at least provide you with the citation from the D&D PHB.
Both poison and disease go off too when the creature is unsummoned (but the damage done by those conditions remains).Can you provide a rules citation on that, pls? thx.
Got it !
It took me some time to find it, because it was neither in the Core Rule Book (Pathfinder) or the Player's Handbook (D&D). At first I thought that I was crazy, because I couldn't remember from where this rule came from, but I was sure that I did saw it somewhere.
Here it is, from the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ :
My wizard used summon monster VI to summon a red
slaad for a battle. One of a slaad’s attacks is implanting
eggs in its victims, which is apparently how slaadi
reproduce. Will the eggs disappear when the spell expires
and the slaad departs, or do they remain?
Any magical effect a summoned creature creates ends when
the summoning ends (even if it is normally permanent). Many
such effects, however, actually have instantaneous durations,
but lasting consequences. Energy drain, for example, is
instantaneous, though the victim may feel the loss for a long
time.
Anything separated from a summoned creature’s body also
vanishes when the summoning ends. This includes parts
severed from the body and anything produced from the
creature’s body, such as poison or eggs. In the case of poison,
any effects the venom already has caused remain. For example,
a summoned fiendish viper bites and poisons a character, who
takes 3 points of temporary Constitution damage. If the
summoning ends before the poison’s onset time expires, the
poisoned character takes no additional effects from the poison,
but the 3 points of temporary Constitution damage remain.
So since this rule is a relic from the past edition, I don't know if we should assume that it also applies for Pathfinder RPG. By RAW, poisons and diseases should not dissipate after the summoning spell expires, and I stand corrected on this point. However, poisons and diseases are parts of the summoned creature, and if something as remotly related to the summoned creature as a spell dissipates with the creature when the summoning spell expires, then it would be OK to assume that the same rule applies to poisons and diseases. As far as I'm concerned, it's a DM call and I don't feel strongly one way or another on this issue.
So since this rule is a relic from the past edition, I don't know if we should assume that it also applies for Pathfinder RPG. By RAW, poisons and diseases should not dissipate after the summoning spell expires, and I stand corrected on this point. However, poisons and diseases are parts of the summoned...
I don't really think you can take it as RAW, at least not in my opinion. If we start taking every 3.5 ruling as RAW, things would quickly become a convoluted pile.
While the forebearer, I think one must really say "3.5 is 3.5, Pathfinder is Pathfinder." And the primary reason for the ruling above? To prevent abuses from people harvesting things from summoned creatures.
So since this rule is a relic from the past edition, I don't know if we should assume that it also applies for Pathfinder RPG. By RAW, poisons and diseases should not dissipate after the summoning spell expires, and I stand corrected on this point. However, poisons and diseases are parts of the summoned...I don't really think you can take it as RAW, at least not in my opinion. If we start taking every 3.5 ruling as RAW, things would quickly become a convoluted pile.
While the forebearer, I think one must really say "3.5 is 3.5, Pathfinder is Pathfinder." And the primary reason for the ruling above? To prevent abuses from people harvesting things from summoned creatures.
Like I said, by RAW in Pathfinder, I was wrong: poisons and diseases would remain effective after the expiration of the summoning spell.
I don't think that it would be unbalanced to apply the rule as written. Poisons and diseases don't have as much impact on the game as spells do, so it's not a big deal.
|
Here it is, from the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ :
My wizard used summon monster VI to summon a red
slaad for a battle.....
Correcting the above, this does not appear in the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ. Rather, it appears in the D&D 3e Main FAQ from 2003. The D&D FAQs can be found here.
I don't really think you can take it as RAW, at least not in my opinion. If we start taking every 3.5 ruling as RAW, things would quickly become a convoluted pile.
While the forebearer, I think one must really say "3.5 is 3.5, Pathfinder is Pathfinder." And the primary reason for the ruling above? To prevent abuses from people harvesting things from summoned creatures.
There are a couple of different schools of thought on this, and quite a few people continue to make use of the authoritative 3.5 rulings. What different people consider authoritative is another story. I personally still use the 3.5 FAQ in those cases where the language from the SRD 3.5 and PFRPG are the same. For those of us in that camp, citing the 3.5 FAQ has some merit.
The 3.0 FAQ, which this citation comes from, holds no weight for me, however, either in 3.5 or in PF. While I've played various editions for over three decades, I didn't play 3.0. I know that there are changes in various areas that are fairly significant from 3.0 to 3.5. There was also a change in terms of who the custodian of the FAQ was, which is significant for me.
While I don't feel bound by the 3.0 FAQ, I understand the basis for the ruling, namely that the mechanism that caused the poison, disease, etc. was summoned, and would reasonably leave when the spell was over. No poison, no poison to further damage the afflicted. It seems like a reasonable way to approach it to me.
Here it is, from the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ :
My wizard used summon monster VI to summon a red
slaad for a battle.....Correcting the above, this does not appear in the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ. Rather, it appears in the D&D 3e Main FAQ from 2003. The D&D FAQs can be found here.
I don't really think you can take it as RAW, at least not in my opinion. If we start taking every 3.5 ruling as RAW, things would quickly become a convoluted pile.
While the forebearer, I think one must really say "3.5 is 3.5, Pathfinder is Pathfinder." And the primary reason for the ruling above? To prevent abuses from people harvesting things from summoned creatures.
There are a couple of different schools of thought on this, and quite a few people continue to make use of the authoritative 3.5 rulings. What different people consider authoritative is another story. I personally still use the 3.5 FAQ in those cases where the language from the SRD 3.5 and PFRPG are the same. For those of us in that camp, citing the 3.5 FAQ has some merit.
The 3.0 FAQ, which this citation comes from, holds no weight for me, however, either in 3.5 or in PF. While I've played various editions for over three decades, I didn't play 3.0. I know that there are changes in various areas that are fairly significant from 3.0 to 3.5. There was also a change in terms of who the custodian of the FAQ was, which is significant for me.
While I don't feel bound by the 3.0 FAQ, I understand the basis for the ruling, namely that the mechanism that caused the poison, disease, etc. was summoned, and would reasonably leave when the spell was over. No poison, no poison to further damage the afflicted. It seems like a reasonable way to approach it to me.
Thank you for the correction. It's strange that this question didn't make it to the 3.5 FAQ. As for what it's worth, I think that, as long as this question is not re-answered by the actual "edition", refering to previous FAQs is the only thing we can do. On the other hand, the CR of a monster (and so its rank in the Summon Monster table) is increased because of its ability to poison its opponents. Following the 3.0 FAQ may then transform the action of summoning a monster with a poisoned attack into a below-average option for spellcasters.
