|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I have a question that's been haunting me for a while, and I was reminded of it a few minutes ago by the thread asking about Augment Summoning and Summon Eidolon.
I have two different arguments for the application of the feat Augment Summoning.
Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.
the problem in the text lies with the clause "with a summon spell."
The argument that I hear often is that Augment Summoning only applies to spells with the word "Summon" in their name, like Summon Monster and Summon Natures Ally.
However, my argument is that I think the feat should apply to any Spell of the Summoning subtype, such as Conjure Black Pudding.
The thing is, I can't seem to find anything definitive about which interpretation is correct.
There's nothing particular about the text "with a summon spell" that suggests that it means only spells with summon in the name rather than spells of the summoning subtype.
eh... i can really see the logic in both sides, but i would default to your reading: Conjure Black Pudding is a Summon spell because that is it's school sub-type. Although if that's the case, I really have ask: why not just call it 'Summon Black Pudding'? Jeez. The other side, that says 'if it doesn't have Summon in it's name, it's not a Summon spell' is backed up by how Cleric Spontaneous Casting works, if it doesn't have Cure/Inflict in the name, it isn't a Cure/Inflict spell... although since that isn't spelled out explicitly in this case, you can claim it doesn't apply here. definitely worth hitting FAQ on, just because both sides do have their justifications.
|
|
eh... i can really see the logic in both sides, but i would default to your reading: Conjure Black Pudding is a Summon spell because that is it's school sub-type. Although if that's the case, I really have ask: why not just call it 'Summon Black Pudding'? Jeez. The other side, that says 'if it doesn't have Summon in it's name, it's not a Summon spell' is backed up by how Cleric Spontaneous Casting works, if it doesn't have Cure/Inflict in the name, it isn't a Cure/Inflict spell... although since that isn't spelled out explicitly in this case, you can claim it doesn't apply here. definitely worth hitting FAQ on, just because both sides do have their justifications.
To your Cleric analogy: I don't think it's quite the same deal.
Imagine instead of being called CURE light wounds, the spell was called HEAL light wounds.
Now imagine that instead of saying that the cleric can cast CURE spells spontaneously, the rule said that the cleric can cast HEAL spells spontaneously.
Now we have the same problem that I described:
Does the text refer to spells that say Heal in the name, or does the text refer to any spell with the (healing) subtype, like Breath of Life.
thanks for the FAQ
Unfortunately, the answer is in the italics. In Augment Summoning summon is italicized. There are other italicized 'summon' words in the book and they all reference the spells, not the subschool.
If it were not for that I would say it applies to all conjuration summoning spells.
- Gauss
I agree. As a GM I would apply it to all conjuration summoning spells. Good thing Im not a PFS GM. :)
- Gauss
|
|
I agree. As a GM I would apply it to all conjuration summoning spells. Good thing Im not a PFS GM. :)
- Gauss
Well, part of my problem actually is that I've recently been GMing far more PFS games, and while I like to think that I have a decent understanding of the rules, I'm no guru and there are a lot of nuanced areas I'd like to get better at.
yeah, i'm not sure, but using an italicized 'summon' as abbreviation for spell names with 'summons' in it is just not adequate RAW. yes, an italicized word can be understood as a spell name, but one italicized word meant to refer to any spell with that word in it's name? not so much. spontaneous cure/inflict made it clear, this should as well if that's how it works.
Quandry, I agree it is tenuous...but a quick PDF search of all incidences of the word 'summon' shows that any italicized incidences of them (aside from that in Augment Summoning) are part of the name of a summon spell. Either Summon Nature's Ally or Summon Monster.
Spells and powers are often italicized. The subschool is not ever italicized.
Is this absolutely conclusive? Not really. Is it the only direction we have to point to an answer short of a Dev coming in? Yes.
Barring a Dev coming in and stating to the contrary it is all we have to go on.
- Gauss
sure, i was just posting in the vein that this type of wording isn't really sufficient for any reasonable editing standard of readability for the average player... which i think is just as important as any other consideration when dealing with "RAW".
the italicized summon MAY VERY WELL reference all the spells that include that in their name, but that's several logical leaps from one italicized word... there is no 'summon' spell itself, so applying the standard interepretation of italicization can't be applied by rote. if it means any spell with that in it's name, it should say that, if it means any spell that starts with summon, it should say that. the wording is demanding too much from the reader in a rather non-obvious way (as seen by this and other threads). if this wording was such a great idea, i would expect spontaneous cure spells wording' to be similar, yet it isn't, it explains it means 'any spell with cure in the name'... although in that case, cure ISN'T italicized... even though equivalent phrases are being used for the same meaning (if we go with your interpretation), meaning that if augment summons is considered a proper and legitimate usage, then the spontaneous cure wording is bad and is improperly NOT italicizing the cure of cure spells. (it goes on to EXPLAIN that phrase's meaning in parentheses)