| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@moon glum: mount doesn't have that restriction though, and it summons a large creature. horse bombs for all!
|
FYI stuff...
Falling Objects
Table: Damage from Falling Objects
Object Size
Small - 2d6
Medium - 3d6
Large - 4d6
Huge - 6d6
Gargantuan - 8d6
Colossal - 10d6
Just as characters take damage when they fall more than 10 feet, so too do they take damage when they are hit by falling objects.
Objects that fall upon characters deal damage based on their size and the distance they have fallen. Table: Damage from Falling Objects determines the amount of damage dealt by an object based on its size. Note that this assumes that the object is made of dense, heavy material, such as stone. Objects made of lighter materials might deal as little as half the listed damage, subject to GM discretion. For example, a Huge boulder that hits a character deals 6d6 points of damage, whereas a Huge wooden wagon might deal only 3d6 damage. In addition, if an object falls less than 30 feet, it deals half the listed damage. If an object falls more than 150 feet, it deals double the listed damage. Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals.
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines.
My mistake aside, how should I treat the druid's act of deliberately summoning a creature with the intent of killing it? He did it in defense of his animal companion, but the donkey was essentially intended to be used as a bludgeon. Does that count as failure to revere nature?
A summoned creature doesn't actually die or rather stay dead, but it would still imo be failing to revere nature. Typically a single instance with good cause is not treated as enough to require atonement but this is quite a good time for a hefty warning.
Although if you wanted him to seek out an atonement spell you could.
I think I might consider using animals as bludgeoning objects to be less than reverent about nature myself.
But that's just me.
You can't summon whales and other animals to use them as falling anvils. Basically the intent was to make sure they were summoned into a place where would naturally be, and whales and donkeys don't fly.
Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Both the mount spell and the summoning spells are in the conjuration school.
just had a bad thought: reach communal mount. at 5th level (when you can first cast it) that equates to 5 10 foot radius (horses are large) attacks that will generally deal aboout 3d6 (4d6 large, -1d6 for not so dense)damage each, along with creating difficult terrain where they land (a dead horse is difficult terrain, right?). not bad for a third level spell, all things considered.
My mistake aside, how should I treat the druid's act of deliberately summoning a creature with the intent of killing it?
What do you think it is when you summon the same donkey to fight against a horde of orcs?
Also,
Summoning: a summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
It's not even really dead. Whereas if the animal companion had died, it would have been. I don't think there's anything wrong with that happened.
My mistake aside, how should I treat the druid's act of deliberately summoning a creature with the intent of killing it?What do you think it is when you summon the same donkey to fight against a horde of orcs?
Also,
Summoning: a summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.It's not even really dead. Whereas if the animal companion had died, it would have been. I don't think there's anything wrong with that happened.
Yeah, inflicting terror and mortal pain on an innocent animal is about as reverent as you can get. Just fine really. </sarcasm>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said the guy did have a very good reason; however, on the other hand he did just traumatize one very sad donkey.
Apple the happy donkey lives a life of simple work. The day is hard, but she always gets her treat. Then one fell evening she blinked and her familiar stall was gone. She felt bound to obey this little man twenty feet below. She was falling. She screamed. A flash of bitter intense pain and the next night she reformed in her stall.
Apple is no longer a happy donkey.
Absolutely.
I've always wondered about the fantastic amounts of wild life the average summoner psuedo-kills over the course of their career and how it lives on coping with the trauma. One can only hope they don't get summoned repeatedly.
My initial thoughts were along the same lines. I mean, he's sending a bear out to fight zombies. There's a very real possibility that it will be killed and/or eaten.
I think the difference here is that he specifically wanted to summon the donkey as a disposable weapon.
On the other hand, he was doing it to save his bear.
The bear is a companion. It knows the score. It's a sort of super-animal anyway, and it has chosen a path of combat to help the druid defend nature.
The donkey is an innocent animal. It's like you had the power to summon an innocent child to take a bullet for a Marine, but the child would only suffer and die temporarily. Then the next day he/she would be back in his/her warm bed. But he/she would still remember the bullet he/she took.
From a "mother nature" perspective, the bear is no more valuable than the donkey.
Of course, this brings up the question of whether druids should summon animals to fight for him/her. Some of the same issues apply. But at the very least when an animal is summoned and thrown into combat, it has the ability to make an attack and use its natural weapons and defenses to fight. Summoning one to be nothing but a falling sack of meat is downright contemptuous of the animal.
Personally, as a GM, I would probably remove the druid's druid abilities for a day at least for such a thing.
Edit: But then again, if I were the GM, it wouldn't have worked in the first place.
Yeah, inflicting terror and mortal pain on an innocent animal is about as reverent as you can get. Just fine really. </sarcasm>
I admit it's not treating them really kindly like when you send them into battle against a fire elemental to be burned to death.
Come on, if this is disrespectful to nature, so is everything a Druid does with any summon or animal companion in his entire career.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sending someone into battle is not as cruel as dropping them though. As an example soldiers are often sent into battle. They expect it, but if they start getting dropped from high places I am sure morale won't be too good.
Yeah, inflicting terror and mortal pain on an innocent animal is about as reverent as you can get. Just fine really. </sarcasm>
I admit it's not treating them really kindly like when you send them into battle against a fire elemental to be burned to death.
Come on, if this is disrespectful to nature, so is everything a Druid does with any summon or animal companion in his entire career.
No, there is a difference between summoning a creature to fight for nature, and summoning a creature to be a falling sack of meat. At least in my mind there is.
Of course this is a theoretical argument since the rules would not allow summoning donkeys to drop on the heads of enemies, but other situations could be drawn up with similar levels of contempt for the summoned animal.
But the fundamental question of whether a druid is respecting nature by summoning innocent animals to fight and surely die against a fire elemental is worthy of discussion too.
I would say treating a summoned animal like a bludgeoning sack of meat is clearly not reverent of nature. I could make an argument that neither is your example.
This is, in fact, one reason my druid rarely summons animals to fight unless she feels they can actually have a good chance of surviving and helping win the fight. Druids who summon "meat shields" with the full intent of having them survive just long enough to get splattered into a red mist are certainly raising the question of how reverent of nature they are.
I don't know if it really makes any more sense, but I feel less bad conceptually using elementals for things like this - even though they're still - according to the rules - susceptible to pain and fear, and actually more intelligent than an animal. In the even that you have a DM that lets you conjure creatures into the air but sees doing it to animals as cruelty, you might get away with using earth elementals. Heck, conjure 1d4+1 earth elementals in a stack over someone's head.
Sending someone into battle is not as cruel as dropping them though. As an example soldiers are often sent into battle. They expect it, but if they start getting dropped from high places I am sure morale won't be too good.
they do that with troops in modern armies. they're called paratroopers
Yeah, but paratroopers get parachutes. Parachutes are good for morale. You take those away and you're going to have some very sad soldiers.
Landing with a parachute is not the same as landing without one. If they have parachutes they get to be called paratroopers. If not they normally get to be called dead.
To be fair, summoned creatures aren't actually hurt and killed. Casting mount and sending it through a trap-filled corridor knowing good and well it's at no risk of actually falling to real harm is actually encouraged by most people. Doing that with your animal companion, who is real and can be hurt and killed, would probably qualify you for the shadow-druid award (that is, NE druid).
On a related note, there was a hidden spell in Baldur's Gate I that allowed you to summon a cow from the sky to drop down on an enemy of your choosing, and deal a few d6s worth of bludgeoning damage. It was just a joke, I believe, but it's a similar thought process.
This isn't anything new though. "The Fat Orc" has been around for years. It was one of the first builds taking advantage of falling damage. It basically involved playing a half-orc (because they have the largest size/weight in the core rules), donning full plate, shield, and anything that just makes you really heavy, and then successfully falling on your enemies. Usually via a very nice Jump check or something (boots of striding & springing helped), but most any way to get above your foe and then jump on them.
Since there wasn't really an effective way to prevent the damage, it was very humorous. Falling objects also hurt more depending on the weight and distance traveled, in 3.x.
|
Absolutely.
I've always wondered about the fantastic amounts of wild life the average summoner psuedo-kills over the course of their career and how it lives on coping with the trauma. One can only hope they don't get summoned repeatedly.
That's where all those fiendish animals come from...what better reason for an otherwise innocent animal to sell its soul to an infernal power, than revenge?
@ashiel: to say that summoned animals "aren't actually hurt or killed" is not accurate. Summoned animals are not placed under some full-body anasthetic. They feel the pain of battle and the pain if dying, even if they are not killed permanently. To suggest that it isn't really "hurting" someone if the pain isn't permanent is an excellent argument to allow all sorts of interesting torture techniques. After all, they aren't hurt or maimed permanently.
To say that gazelles "aren't actually hurt or killed" when attacked by a lion is not accurate. Gazelles are not placed under some full-body anasthetic. They feel the pain of battle and the pain if dying. To suggest that it isn't really "hurting" someone in an actual natural, everyday setting is inaccurate. After all, animals are hurt or maimed permanently daily.
Do Druids who cast Plant Blight become non-Druids till they atone? Or do Druids use natural and elemental forces to accomplish their aims, which could very much include protecting a natural setting?
To say that gazelles "aren't actually hurt or killed" when attacked by a lion is not accurate. Gazelles are not placed under some full-body anasthetic. They feel the pain of battle and the pain if dying. To suggest that it isn't really "hurting" someone in an actual natural, everyday setting is inaccurate. After all, animals are hurt or maimed permanently daily.
Do Druids who cast Plant Blight become non-Druids till they atone? Or do Druids use natural and elemental forces to accomplish their aims, which could very much include protecting a natural setting?
I suppose as in all things, it mostly depends on their motivations for doing what they do.
|
|
You know, a druid *isn't* a cleric. A druid doesn't have to revere nature, or be particularly kind to it. In fact, a druid can easily rationalize that the falling donkey fell prey to the law of the jungle. It wasn't strong enough to avoid being eaten *or summoned* and thus suffers the consequences.
Druids are about balance. Sometimes that means preserving the order, and sometimes it means destroying it.
Adding any in-game penalty for this is just insulting. Just tell your player out of game that you're going to hold the summon limitations to mount, and require the animal to appear on a solid surface capable of sustaining its weight. And be done with it.
You know, a druid *isn't* a cleric. A druid doesn't have to revere nature, or be particularly kind to it. In fact, a druid can easily rationalize that the falling donkey fell prey to the law of the jungle. It wasn't strong enough to avoid being eaten *or summoned* and thus suffers the consequences.
Druids are about balance. Sometimes that means preserving the order, and sometimes it means destroying it.
Adding any in-game penalty for this is just insulting. Just tell your player out of game that you're going to hold the summon limitations to mount, and require the animal to appear on a solid surface capable of sustaining its weight. And be done with it.
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
You know, a druid *isn't* a cleric. A druid doesn't have to revere nature, or be particularly kind to it. In fact, a druid can easily rationalize that the falling donkey fell prey to the law of the jungle. It wasn't strong enough to avoid being eaten *or summoned* and thus suffers the consequences.
Druids are about balance. Sometimes that means preserving the order, and sometimes it means destroying it.
Adding any in-game penalty for this is just insulting. Just tell your player out of game that you're going to hold the summon limitations to mount, and require the animal to appear on a solid surface capable of sustaining its weight. And be done with it.
Perhaps you could read the book? "Any druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description)." Yes, they do have to revere nature.
|
So what is the difference between summoning donkey to hold of lets say a raging orc party. Even if he summons donkey on ground to protect him, or above to fall on someone ending result is same.
Summoning spells aren't made to do things nonviolently. Every druid should receive a penalty because how many times they summoned creatures only to die and die and die.
The animals summoned are under complete control of caster with no real mind of their own and their existence stops after spell expires. It's pointless to even have this spell then if you have to worry about every possible act which might endanger your summoned ally.
Ah not really if you think about it.
If the animals have a fighting chance and aren't being used quite literally as meat shields, or rather falling blocks of meat, then he isn't violating his reverence of nature. The animals don't have to remain in perfect health. Nature doesn't necessitate that course. Life does get injured over the course of conflict. The druid's end goal should always be along the idea of preserving or aiding natural growth as he sees it which can be done with a few confused bears, he's not going to be summoning donkeys forever, who wake up after dying the next day after helping to slay the theoretical ghouls. On that same note druid's cannot insist that animals kamikaze themselves without a very good reason for this pursuit because to do so would be to use the animals solely as tools. As soon as the animals become nothing but tools then he has lost his reverence of nature and then his overall goal becomes in question.
You can use your summons as troops in your cause. You cannot use them as a suicide squad without a very good reason because to do so would be to lack respect for their perspective.
Anyway, exerting your mental control over a free willed animal I'm sure wouldn't be considered a case where a druid has "revered nature". Since that is what is done every time he summons a creature whether he uses them for combat or not then they are constantly in opposition to druidic beliefs and rules. Druids are all evil, they should be killed on sight for their well intentioned crimes against nature!
Protect nature; destroy all druids!
Protect nature; destroy all druids!
that is going to be the bumper sticker on my character's next cart/chariot/carrage.
as to the original question... i don't know. i know that even the best of my characters have never had qualms about using summoned monsters as expedable fodder, or trap-mules, or anything like that, but they're summoned monsters. ie: they are summoned by arcanists, and my arcanists see them as means to an end rather than actual creatures. druids... to be honest i've never been all that good with the whole 'code of conduct' classes, as there's always the ambiguity around the edges of the code like this.
i can see it going either way, and have no firm opinion one way or the other.
PS: that's a longwinded way of saying i don't know, isn't it? i need to learn to condense.
|
|
@Jak the Looney Alchemist
"If the animals have a fighting chance and aren't being used quite literally as meat shields, or rather falling blocks of meat,"
Donkey is meat shield in either case, if you summon him to fall on some1 to save your party, or to summon him infront of raid of 50 orcs to hold them back to save your party.
@Jak the Looney Alchemist
"If the animals have a fighting chance and aren't being used quite literally as meat shields, or rather falling blocks of meat,"
Donkey is meat shield in either case, if you summon him to fall on some1 to save your party, or to summon him infront of raid of 50 orcs to hold them back to save your party.
I'm sure it's just me, but my druid wouldn't summon a donkey to be slaughtered by 50 orcs even to save my party. There are much better ways to deal with 50 orcs than a single donkey anyway. Like maybe "entangle" for example.
My druid tends to summon animals when they have a fighting chance. Not as "meat shields" and she finds the term "meat shield" when applied to a summoned animal distasteful.
So what is the difference between summoning donkey to hold of lets say a raging orc party. Even if he summons donkey on ground to protect him, or above to fall on someone ending result is same.
Summoning spells aren't made to do things nonviolently. Every druid should receive a penalty because how many times they summoned creatures only to die and die and die.
The animals summoned are under complete control of caster with no real mind of their own and their existence stops after spell expires. It's pointless to even have this spell then if you have to worry about every possible act which might endanger your summoned ally.
Okay.... I'll break it down.
You are using this rather faulty premise to deduce that druids take a penalty, namely losing their druidic abilities, if a summoned creature dies. Thereafter you conclude that the ability is then useless. An analogous comparision of your argument would be that if you get dropped off a mountain you die so every time you get a paper cut you die.
First of all why would you summon a donkey to hold off a raging orc party? It cannot do this. You would be much more likely to summon maybe a dire bear and try to fight or possibly ride the pony away. I.E. The situation you have described lacks the details necessary to make any kind of realistic judgement call.
Furthermore the loss of druidic abilities is only if the druid loses reverence of nature. It was stated above that using an animal as a meat shield if you have a very good cause is worthy of a warning as in don't do it again or risk losing reverence and having to go track down an atonement spell. How many times is this druid being chased by orcish hordes? Saving your party is a fine and noble reason allowing you to do this action, but you'd still get a warning and then possibly in the future if you repeat this act you'd lose reverence. There is a massive difference between using a summoned animal in combat and using it as a weapon.
Edit: I'm not sure you understand a typical druid's perspective.
You and your party have the unfortunate necessity of stumbling across a raging fifty man orc party. You are all going to die unless your best friend, Timmy the kid from your home town, that you love and idolize feels all the pain and suffering and torment of being hacked apart without choice or knowledge of why or how or even that he will reconstitute tomorrow only that he must fight while you run away.
How many times are you going to do this to Timmy without losing the ability to claim him as your best friend? My vote is once and there better be a very good reason for it. Because leaving Timmy to die as a distraction, even if he isn't going to stay dead, when he has no chance of survival and no way of knowing what is going on is cold.