:) I have been posting several rules questions lately as I am working on a "How To" guide, and want that guide to stand the test of time. In order for that guide to be sound, the abilities need to work as I claim they do :P And so here is a question fundamental to all of us:
Do rules (such as Feats) modify an ability or action Exclusive of what any other modifying rules might do to that same ability? Or do they work Synergistically, taking each other into account?
Here are two examples:
On the Matter of Superior Summoning+Added Summonings(From a Previous Thread):
Arguing For Synergistic Modifiers:
"When ever you cast a summon spell, that conjures more than one creature, add one to the summons." I see this to mean Ends Up Conjuring more than one creature.
The Logic:
1. I cast a summon spell.
2. Because I am a 15th level Abyssal Sorc, I add one to the number of Demons or Fiendish Template creature's summoned.
3. My summon spell conjures 2 Demons or Fiendish Template creatures.
4. That's more than 1.
5. Superior Summoning adds one more Demon.
While the counter position to this logic is Exclusivity:
I don't think there is any reason to say the feat cares if there is other modifiers. It only look at the spell.
My position would be true if modifying rules took each other into consideration. The counter position would be true if they ignored each other. If my position in this example is true, then it MUST be true in ALL cases.
Please don't take this as pushing the rules in a particular direction. I'm trying to understand something fundamental to the way these game mechanics are meant (by the Devs) to be utilized. By getting this down, almost all of my questions about how the various rules work will be self-explanatory. And if my position is wrong, or if there cannot/is not meant to be a fundamental logic to multiple modifiers, that's ok too. Please share your thoughts, and please definitely show some examples ;)
--PC
I went looking for another example to support my premise--
Manyshot+Rapid Shot
Logic:
1. I am making a full-round attack action.
2. Manyshot grants me two arrow attacks with my first attack roll.
3. Rapid Shot grants me an extra attack, but now all attacks this round suffer a -2 attack penalty.
4. Therefore I make at least 2 attack rolls at a -2 penalty, launching 3 arrow attacks.
The analogues here are Manyshot = Added Summonings, Rapid Shot = Superior Summoning.
If Modifiers were Exclusive, then Manyshot and Rapid shot would not affect each other. Which doesn't make sense. They absolutely take each other into consideration, or do they :P?
I would say Superior Summoning takes into the effect of "casting" the spell as it says "when ever you CAST...." and then the Abyssal Sorc comes in since it says "whenever you summon..." since there is no errata i cannot say for sure but i would see it that way...but thats if you read it as a difference in "cast" and "summon" in those different sentences.
From what I have seen, anything that functions separately should also function in a synergistic manner or the system would make little sense as a system at all. It would be like taking multiple functioning mechanics and having them work independently without ever interacting, its just not a system.
I'm not as good at following developer logic at times though, so I may be way off.
My position would be true if modifying rules took each other into consideration. The counter position would be true if they ignored each other. If my position in this example is true, then it MUST be true in ALL cases.
I am not sure if the allcaps parts where serious...
There is no reason to assume that it is either or. The rules might take eachother into account at some times, while not doing it at others.This might be annoying from a rules lawyer perspective, wanting clarity in all rules. But in reality the aim of developers is to make a fun, playable rpg system, rather than writing rule books that are painstakingly precise, in a manner one could only expect in legislative texts (which often isn't that clear).
I would put it like this if I were the GM...superior summoning says if the spell summons more than one creature...Summon Monster for what you are trying to summon only summons one monster (i read the other thread) which means Superior Summoning does not work...THEN your abyssal effect kicks in and the other guy hitches a ride with the first monster
However if you used it to summon lesser monsters where Summon Monster actually does summon more than one then I would let them both work since requirements are met
Again this is how I (me, Drakkiel) read it...my GM ruled with me on this when I played my Bones Oracle and was a master of summoning (and controlling tons of undead...we were doing kingmaker and anyone that joined the guard could "donate" their body to our army to be raised if needed for the defense of the kingdom by me)
My position would be true if modifying rules took each other into consideration. The counter position would be true if they ignored each other. If my position in this example is true, then it MUST be true in ALL cases.I am not sure if the allcaps parts where serious...
There is no reason to assume that it is either or. The rules might take eachother into account at some times, while not doing it at others.This might be annoying from a rules lawyer perspective, wanting clarity in all rules. But in reality the aim of developers is to make a fun, playable rpg system, rather than writing rule books that are painstakingly precise, in a manner one could only expect in legislative texts (which often isn't that clear).
Wouldn't you agree that they developed the game around fundamental assumptions? The Math part of this game is not just random Fiat, and in this particular case of how abilities affect each other, it must be consistent, or as Trogdar pointed out:
anything that functions separately should also function in a synergistic manner or the system would make little sense as a system at all.
:)
this again...would be up to the GM...if he runs with it thats him letting you have fun...if not then maybe he has a good reason and maybe he just doesnt "want" that to happen in his world...just like alot of "issues" on here over rules until there's errata there is no definitive answer to it
Wouldn't you agree that they developed the game around fundamental assumptions? The Math part of this game is not just random Fiat, and in this particular case of how abilities affect each other, it must be consistent, or as Trogdar pointed out:
anything that functions separately should also function in a synergistic manner or the system would make little sense as a system at all.:)
Yes, I'll agree to that :-) Furthermore I would claim that the system in generel is based around some fundamental assumption.
However I am not sure that all parts of the of the rules need to be reducible to a basic assumption.DnD is a layered rules system, where additional rules (such as feats and abilities) change the core rules. In most cases, these rules specify how those rules work in synergy with other abilities. Often we can see how rules interact by how they affect the general rules (such as action types used/affected).
Compared to simpler rpg systems, being able to relate rules to core assumptions is difficult, and as far as I see it, less desirable. Adding rules by exceptions doesn't mean that all rules are independent of each other, however it does mean that interpreting them by basic assumptions is difficult, since they doesn't necessarily derive from those.
Unlike a board game, a roleplaying game depend on the GM as well as GM fiat to run smoothly (and hopefully be more fun for everyone at the table).
The question on Superior Summoning + Added Summonings is IMO not as much a question on rules working synergistically, as it is a matter of order of application.
It can be ruled either way, whether you add one or the other first. In either way, they have synergy, as they both affect the same summoning, but how powerful it should be, is probably better determined by considering balance in the game.
I would put it like this if I were the GM...superior summoning says if the spell summons more than one creature...Summon Monster for what you are trying to summon only summons one monster (i read the other thread) which means Superior Summoning does not work...THEN your abyssal effect kicks in and the other guy hitches a ride with the first monster
I respect this position, and would concede and embrace what ever culture existed at a table before my arrival, i.e. I'd play your way and have fun :) However, I can't stand on my own Fiat in a how-to guide :P I would need to justify my positions using any of: Consensus, RAW, and Fundamental Game Logic. Consensus must stand on RAW (including errata), and RAW is based on Fundamental Game Logic. RPGs not releasing their FGL in an explicit, single source document is the cause of too many irresolvable arguments which devolve into “not at my table” v “I'm ok with it” positions. People claim that they understand RAI, but there's no way they can unless they're tapping into the FGL. Lul :P Got a headache yet?
This thread is an attempt to figure out the FGL of applying multiple rules which modify an ability. In the absence of explicit clauses such as “Does not stack with” or “Triggers abilities that” we have no way of knowing developer intent unless we understand the FGL on which they build these rules.
This specific issue has been on the table for a couple of years now, with an FAQ going unanswered. Consensus seems to be if an FAQ goes unaddressed, the position is correct. Read those threads here and here.
There is no clear consensus, and some very keen individuals have argued both sides of this issue. I am not comfortable with assuming that an unanswered FAQ request means that a position is correct. We are not likely to hear from a Game dev on this issue at this point.
Getting back to the Issue at Hand:
There are two proposed FGLs 1) Modifying rules work synergistically, or 2) Modifying rules work Exclusively. They must be assumed to always work one way or the other, with specific clauses calling out exceptions. This must be true, or the Game is a Lie and the Devs have no logic by which to base their game design and mechanics. Without logic, they have no game.
We can only figure out the FGL by example. I have a solid example to support the Synergistic position:
Manyshot+Rapid Shot
Logic:
1. I am making a full-round attack action.
2. Manyshot grants me two arrow attacks with my first attack roll.
3. Rapid Shot grants me an extra attack, but now all attacks this round suffer a -2 attack penalty.
4. Therefore I make at least 2 attack rolls at a -2 penalty, launching 3 arrow attacks.The analogues here are Manyshot = Added Summonings, Rapid Shot = Superior Summoning.
The reason that this supports my position is that under Exclusion, Rapid Shot would not apply its attack penalty to Manyshot. It is entirely obvious that it should. The FGL is therefore Synergistic.
Since the FGL assumes that modifying rules affect each other, they must then qualify each other. There is no "Order" in which they apply, if one makes the other true, then both are true, hence both apply. Again, without specific clauses calling out exceptions "Does not" "Will not", we must assume that they modify the target action synergistically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bonuses have a tendency to not apply to each other. They can sit side by side, even both contribute, but they don't make each other bigger.
Take damage multipliers for example. If your axe has something that is making you do double damage, and you score a crit, the total multiplier is x4, not x6.
The rules are often exclusionary, for example there are feats that give you an ability not otherwise possible, such as Step Up. Many abilities are essentially exceptions to other rules.
The summoning question specifically isn't about whether the rules are synergistic or exclusive, but whether two bonuses work together.
The limiting viewpoint: both work off the original spell, but don't take each other into account.
The allowing viewpoint: it sort of makes you a one-trick pony both as an NPC or PC. Such hyper specialization often seems potent but ends up having some drawbacks. Especially at high levels, the CR of summoned monsters starts to limit their usefulness in challenging fights, their ability DC's are too low, AC too low and attack bonus too low. They can still be useful, but they're less of a game changer IMO.
agreed...as i said the only reason i saw it different is the wording of each effect...the feat says "cast"...the abyssal bloodline power says "summon" so if they are one in the same then yea...you get 3 big nasties for the price of one...if not then you get one big nasty...i can see and even argue BOTH sides which makes it all the more infuriating lol...i hope that we get a definitive answer soon (especially in your case since you are doing a guide lol)
Also the whole Rapid Shot and Manyshot thing I dont think is a good arguement, try to find a feat that goes with a class feature...I would say they are meant to be used together seeing as Manyshot requires you to have Rapid Shot (not necessarily use it) as a prerequisite.
Like lets take the Magus...surprise round I cast Shocking Grasp and hold the charge...first round...move to enemy (drawing weapon as he goes) then attacks with spellstrike. Can he also use Vital Strike at this point since spellstrike isnt a special action it just allows him to deliver the spell through his weapon when he attacks...and Vital Strike says it can be used with an "attack action"?? If this does then I would rule that your abyssal feature works with superior summoning...class feature with feat...SpellStrike = Added Summoning, Vital Strike = Superior Summoning
BTW how far are you into the guide...is it just about spells or are you trying to add EVERYTHING, are you going to post it online?
I would agree to this in principal. Whether the FGL was well defined at the get go is the issue though. Its basically something that I would advocate for having balanced mechanics. Obviously, you'd have to look for anomalous outliers and decide where to push them to fit within the "standard model".
Awesome, these are all helpful responses :) For the sake of discussion:
The rules are often exclusionary, for example there are feats that give you an ability not otherwise possible, such as Step Up. Many abilities are essentially exceptions to other rules.
I think that new rules aren't themselves exceptions to the FGL, what I'm arguing is that they all follow the same FGL, and then within their description are clauses which call out exceptions.
The summoning question specifically isn't about whether the rules are synergistic or exclusive, but whether two bonuses work together.
We're saying the exact same thing :P Yours is the TL:DR version.
Also the whole Rapid Shot and Manyshot thing I dont think is a good arguement, try to find a feat that goes with a class feature...I would say they are meant to be used together seeing as Manyshot requires you to have Rapid Shot (not necessarily use it) as a prerequisite.
Ah, the reason that its a strong example of synergistic FGL, is because we strongly assume they affect each other. Its a "duh!" sort of statement to say that they do. There's nothing to suggest that we start from Exclusion. Without the presence of explicit Clauses, what do we assume about two mechanics which modify the same action? If there are absolutely no clarifying rules (which are clauses), then we apply the FGL.
Like lets take the Magus...surprise round I cast Shocking Grasp and hold the charge...first round...move to enemy (drawing weapon as he goes) then attacks with spellstrike. Can he also use Vital Strike at this point since spellstrike isnt a special action it just allows him to deliver the spell through his weapon when he attacks...and Vital Strike says it can be used with an "attack action"?? If this does then I would rule that your abyssal feature works with superior summoning...class feature with feat...SpellStrike = Added Summoning, Vital Strike = Superior Summoning
Awesome :)! Examples are the best way to hash this out. Lets see, is a Spell considered an "attack action?" Is a "Touch Attack" a form of "attack action?" What the heck is an "Attack Action?"
I'm going to follow the logic here, so forgive me if this is redundant.
Vital Strike reads: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
Going to the page that defines action types:
Action: An action is a discrete measurement of time during a round of combat. Using abilities, casting spells, and making attacks all require actions to perform.
So we know that casting a spell is a type of action, but we'd need to look on This Chart to know if it is a type of "Attack" action.
That chart specifically identifies "Attack" and "Cast a Spell" as different action types, and casting a spell is not a sub-type of "Attack." There are three specific types of Attacks: Melee, Ranged, Unarmed. There are Attack sub-types, such as Full-attack, Charge, Touch. Anything that requires an Attack Roll is an Attack Action. We know this because:
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
And therefore we know Touch Attacks are attack actions because:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity... Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.
Therefore: Yes! You can apply Vital Strike. However, bad news :(
Vital Strike also says:
Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming)
Your hand is the Weapon through which you deliver the spell effect. Your hand is the weapon. Your hand's damage dice is N/A. The Shocking grasp is a weapon-ability (such as flaming). Vital strike is adding another set of 0 dice.
BTW how far are you into the guide...is it just about spells or are you trying to add EVERYTHING, are you going to post it online?
Its a guide that I hope will shatter the misperception that the Bard is a 2nd rate class, how to be highest DPR, strongest Controller, Skill Monkey, Best Buffer, and the Most Amazing Group Face, that the Bard is actually a Must Have in every group ;) But the more I research, the more often I have to rewrite the damned thing, lul. So I'm thinking it should be finished, and posted by this weekend.
I'll be looking into more examples that support both FGLs, though I have an obvious bias :) Thank you all for helping out as much as you have.
|
Wouldn't you agree that they developed the game around fundamental assumptions? The Math part of this game is not just random Fiat, and in this particular case of how abilities affect each other, it must be consistent, or as Trogdar pointed out:
anything that functions separately should also function in a synergistic manner or the system would make little sense as a system at all.The problem of your assumption is that you are treating the game as a monolithic structure, build in one go. Instead it is a organic structure, where new parts are added often independently from each other.
No single person has the capability to see how rule A in supplement 1 that is in in the final stages of development this month will interact with rule B that is in supplement 2 that is in the middle of the development process and with rule C of supplement 3 that is in the initial stages of development, especially as no one is seeing those rules at the same time.- * -
Another point you should consider is if changing the order of the factors the result will change.
Applying Superior Summoning followed by Added Summonings you get 2 demons.
Applying Added Summoning followed by Superior Summonings you get 3 demons.Generally feats and powers within the same book have been analyzed to see how they interact and compared to the CRB to see how they interact with the basic rules, but they haven0't been checked against all the other books and especially against the softbounds.
No...using a spellstrike is not a touch attack...its a free melee attack used in place of the free touch attack given...so its a melee attack right? yes...is it an attack action? yes....does it do weapon damage? yes...so would you roll double for vital striking with a spellstrike OUT of spell combat as I said?
The magus is not casting the spell during his real first round...hes already cast it and it and is holding the charge...hes not using a touch attack so that doesnt count either...hes running up and hitting the guy with his sword...its a melee attack using the attack action...so it qualifies for both spellstrike and Vital Strike...if these go together then it confirms your argument...this is the only quick look I could take at a class feature that might clash or work with a feat that modifies the same action.
Hey all :) Thank you for joining the conversation. This is a new question for me, and perhaps it was not worded as succinctly as I had intended. Let me try saying it this way:
This is not to say that "If the rules don't say I can't, then I can." One cannot give himself the Celestial Template simply because he can't find a prohibitive rule. One must be granted modifying rules from some other source, and they must themselves be granted by some other source, all of the way down to the fundamental rules granted by Class and Race. That is one piece of the Fundamental Game Logic which is very clear. However, that's not at all what this question is about. The question is: When you have two or more rules which modify one action, how do they interact? The two extreme possibilities are 1) Synergistically, or 2) Exclusively. Are there other possibile base assumptions? Perhaps, but all that means is that there IS a base logic. I think Trogdar really nailed the point of this thread:
I would agree to this in principal. Whether the FGL was well defined at the get go is the issue though. Its basically something that I would advocate for having balanced mechanics. Obviously, you'd have to look for anomalous outliers and decide where to push them to fit within the "standard model".
I am not emotionally invested in the rules being fundamentally Synergistic :P I am however, convinced by every example so far that they are definitely Synergistic, based mainly on the fact that Clauses written into each ability call out when to exclude. It would make no sense for the FGL to be Exclusive, and then for them to go out of their way to call out specific exclusions. They must call out exclusions, because it is assumed to be synergistic otherwise. :) Is this wrong? Examples to discuss please :)
No...using a spellstrike is not a touch attack...its a free melee attack used in place of the free touch attack given...
You're entirely right ;) I misunderstood how Spellstrike works, and so indeed, you would apply the Shocking Grasp damage, and Vital Strike would add one more set of the weapon's base damage dice, but it would not double the Spell Damage because it very specifically defines where the extra damage comes from. But its interesting to note that you could do it with the free Touch Attack as well :P It just doesn't deal any extra damage.
This example also reveals some of the FGL. What is your conclusion? Mine is that the clauses explicitly limit how Vital Strike interacts with other abilities by specifying "Weapon Damage." This shows that the developers assume that it will Synergize with All types of damage otherwise. Without specifying Weapon damage, it would add one more set of dice from all types of damage delivered. Its also interesting to toss Enlarge Person into this pile. Your weapon deals a higher damage die type as a result of growing larger, and so Vital Strike automatically synergizes (there is no clause saying it doesn't) with Enlarge Person. The Weapon in question is being modified by two rules, which we assume work together.
No single person has the capability to see how rule A in supplement 1 that is in in the final stages of development this month will interact with rule B that is in supplement 2 that is in the middle of the development process and with rule C of supplement 3 that is in the initial stages of development, especially as no one is seeing those rules at the same time.
Doesn't it make sense then, that each developer begins with the same base-set of assumptions on how the game works, in order to mitigate logical conflicts? Truly, without all of the Devs working under the same basic game logic, the Math part of this game would have caused the game to fail out of the gate. But the game is logically sound. I am arguing that we, as players, aren't sure of the FGL, and so we argue semantics and opinion, citing "RAI" which we can't know unless we understand the Base Assumptions of how the game should work :P
I'm repeating this statement on purpose. I'm not talking about balance, which does need to be tweaked but is entirely subjective, and has nothing to do with the FGL.
Another point you should consider is if changing the order of the factors the result will change.
Synergistic rules do not apply in any order, they apply Equilaterally. That's what synergy is. The Manyshot+Rapid Shot proves this point. If the rules were Fundamentally exclusive, and in that case applied in some sort of order, then Rapid Shot's penalty would not apply to Manyshot's extra arrow strike. But they do, and we assume that it does because we assume they affect and qualify each other without having to be told that they do. If they aren't meant to apply to each other, then the game Dev's would write in a clause explicitly saying that they don't.
However, contining without pastable reference, reference Metamagic feats. They are specifically independent (an empowered maximized CL10 fireball does 60+(10d6)/2 damage, not 90 damage). All metamagic effects are applied to the base spell, not to the already-modified spell. This stops oddities like Diego Rossi pointed out above.
Ah every good set of examples :) I'll comb over their FGL, but my instinct based on using them an s-ton is that they are written with so much specific Exclusion because we'd assume Synergy otherwise. But I want to look at them in detail to get a better grasp on it ;)
Thanks again all, very helpful.
Getting back to the Issue at Hand:
There are two proposed FGLs 1) Modifying rules work synergistically, or 2) Modifying rules work Exclusively. They must be assumed to always work one way or the other, with specific clauses calling out exceptions. This must be true, or the Game is a Lie and the Devs have no logic by which to base their game design and mechanics. Without logic, they have no game.
The game logic is first and foremost defined within the rules system of the game, not in an underlying logic. Rules being additive, thus depend on the existing rules system to be defined.
In the Rapid Shot+Many shot example, I claim that it can just as like be interpreted as Exclusively, using your terms.
- Baseline is a full attack action (which they both refer to).
- Rapid shot grant an additional attack, and adds a -2 penalty to all attacks in the full attack.
- Many Shot adds an extra "attack" on the first attack roll.
As such, they seperately affect the rules for a full attack action, and while their effects stack, they are simply applied to the baseline seperately as defined within the system.
I don't claim that the rules are inherently exclusive, however I am not sure it makes sense to try to define an underlying game logic by using examples.
No matter what, it makes little sense to use examples to conclude that every part of game function in entirely the same way.
I am not sure it makes sense to try to define an underlying game logic by using examples.
Cool, is there another way you see that is more effective? Reverse engineering can only be achieved by example, and that is the only way we can figure out the FGL. If we had an official document on the FGL, then we'd be citing it already :P
In the absence of specific clauses, the game does operate in the same fundamental way regardless of new material.
I'm not sure that I can be any more clear on what I mean by Fundamental Game Logic. It is there, always. It has to be, or there is no game system, because nothing would ever work properly. All gamesystems have fundamental game logic. All of them. They may also have rules which deviate from the FGL, but those rules are explicit in how they do so.
Lets look at another part of the FGL: Gaining new abilities. You may only gain a new ability when an ability that you already posses 'gives you permission' to take do so. And you only got these permissive abilities because some other permissive ability allowed you to... and on down to the fundamental permissive rules of your Class and Race. This Never changes simply because new material is printed, Unless the clauses in that new material call out specific exceptions to the FGL.
In the case of this thread, I'm am not talking about power creep, I'm not talking about differing play styles created by a new set of rules, etc. I'm talking about the fundamental way that All modifying rules interact. Regardless of whether its Exclusive, Synergistic, or Other, its there, and its always the same across all rules regardless of when those rules were printed.
I'm of the mind that the FGL on rule interactions is that they are Synergistic (meaning that they don't apply in any order, but they all apply and qualify each other, as well as modify each other).
The reason that I am interested in the FGL is that it holds so much more weight in an argument than conjecture. People already cite FGL when they bring examples to an argument. All I'm trying to do is figure out this one little piece of the FGL in the OP, which is clear as Day to me, but the Opposite is Clear as day to those making the counter argument. I'm asking for examples, those will absolutely show us the FGL.
So far, all examples point to the FGL being synergistic.
My understanding is that unless stated otherwise, abilities that modify other abilities always modify the baseline ability.
Maximize+Empower follows this principle. If you cast a 10dice fireball you get 5d6+60damage.
Increased damage multipliers follow this principle as well. If you charge with a lance you get x2 damage. If you critical with a lance you get x3 damage. Combine them and you get x4 (not x5 or x6). This works out to: Base+1x and Base+2x. Since you only get base once you get Base+3x = 4x damage.
Thus:
If you cast a summon spell that gives you 1 summon you get 1.
Superior Summoning gives you +1 summon if you get multiples. Since it doesnt, you dont.
Being a level 15 Abyssal Sorcerer gives you +1 of certain summons. Bringing your total up to 2.
Reverse it and you should still get the same thing since Superior Summoning should be based off the baseline ability/spell.
Note: this is not clear and would be a GM call.
- Gauss
Im not aruging that MOST of the things you can get/do are not synergistic...my argument was on your original question dealing with "Added Summoning" and "Superior Summoning" that's it
Summon Monster is a full round spell...nothing is "summoned" until the beginning of your next turn so its read like this (my opinion until we get some errata)
Your turn...you CAST summon monster...at this point "Superior Summoning" makes a check...are you CASTING a spell that summons more than one monster...if your casting summon monster III and summoning a monster from the lvl 3 list then the answer is NO YOU ARE NOT...so "Superior Summoning" does not come into play
Now its the beginning of your next turn...turn starts...your monster is summoned with the fiendish subtype...at THIS point "Added Summoning" makes a check...was a monster with the fiendish subtype summoned? YES IT WAS...POOF another one is summoned with it
That is as simple as I can make my argument...and just so we get some more input I will post this as my own thread too :) I think we might get more if its in its own thread
Im not aruging that MOST of the things you can get/do are not synergistic...my argument was on your original question dealing with "Added Summoning" and "Superior Summoning" that's it
Summon Monster is a full round spell...nothing is "summoned" until the beginning of your next turn so its read like this (my opinion until we get some errata)
Your turn...you CAST summon monster...at this point "Superior Summoning" makes a check...are you CASTING a spell that summons more than one monster...if your casting summon monster III and summoning a monster from the lvl 3 list then the answer is NO YOU ARE NOT...so "Superior Summoning" does not come into play
Now its the beginning of your next turn...turn starts...your monster is summoned with the fiendish subtype...at THIS point "Added Summoning" makes a check...was a monster with the fiendish subtype summoned? YES IT WAS...POOF another one is summoned with it
That is as simple as I can make my argument...and just so we get some more input I will post this as my own thread too :) I think we might get more if its in its own thread
I'm not sure if 3.P is different from 3.5, but the rules are you're presenting them aren't correct. Here is the relevant text:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.
Bolded for relevance. And both modifiers happen at the time of casting, as the act of casting is how they are summoned. Once the casting ends, the act of summoning ends.
Gauss, I appreciate these example :) However, the crit multiplier is not a special rule, it is how combining two multiples work and is basic algebra. As to the Empower+Maximize feats, they actually lend their weight to Synergistic FGL. Notice that the following clause specifically calls out an Exclusion:
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.
This is telling us that without that clause, they would synergize and the damage would be higher. I'm not saying that the damage should be higher, or that the clause is wrong in some way. I'm saying that because the FGL is synergistic, the Devs assume that they'll pump eachother up, the devs didn't want this to happen, and so added an Exclusion clause. Hence: Synergistic FGL with clauses that call out explicit exceptions.
Thus: There are no explicit clauses, and no other rules printed which call out exclusion in the case of Added Summonings+Superior Summoning, and so they're synergistic. You would get 3 Demons, where other summoners casting the same spell would get only 1.
Reverse it and you should still get the same thing since Superior Summoning should be based off the baseline ability/spell.
There is no basis for this assumption, or if there is please cite the rule or give an example (other than the two you've already presented) :)
BTW: I am trying to falsify my claim, because that is good research. I would be just as happy if this were not true as if it were. I just want my guide to be solid, based on how the Dev's mean for things to work, not on how I'd prefer them to work.
And Everything, absolutely Everything is subject to GM fiat, but that doesn't change the FGL. I can't write a guide based on 'his' house rules v my own :P I guess that is why I'm so interested in this question.
ok i dont know how to do the "quote" stuff on here (be awsm if someone clued me in lol) but here is the line from the rules of casting a spell that has a casting time of "1 round"
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
So they appear where you designate and act on your NEXT turn based on the rules of casting spells that take 1 round
To embed text into a quote (remove the "*"): [*quote]Text[*/quote], or to have the quote identify a source [*quote=Name]Text[*/quote] :) Hope that helps.
ok i dont know how to do the "quote" stuff on here (be awsm if someone clued me in lol) but here is the line from the rules of casting a spell that has a casting time of "1 round"
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
So they appear where you designate and act on your NEXT turn based on the rules of casting spells that take 1 round
Ah, you are entirely correct on that :) Heh, thankfully it doesn't affect my guide at all.
But lets look at what you're proposing: Casting a spell is different than Summoning a Monster.
Lets requote the rules here for ease of discussion :)
Added Summonings (Su): At 15th level, whenever you summon a creature with the demon subtype or the fiendish template using a summon monster spell, you summon one additional creature of the same kind.
It modifies what the spell does by modifying its result.
Superior Summoning
You can summon more creatures.
Prerequisites: Augment Summoning, caster level 3rd.
Benefit: Each time you cast a summoning spell that conjures more than one creature, add one to the total number of creatures summoned.
This also modifies what the spell does by modifying its result.
They do exactly the same thing, as there is no distinction between Casting a summoning spell versus Casting Summon Monster. Casting Summon Monster is exactly the same as Casting a summoning spell.
I think this brings us back to the topic at hand, and because the FGL (appears) to be synergistic, the Summon Monster spell would summon 3 demons.
ok lets go with your way of thinking...if it works that way then it should work either order you put them in
cast summon monster, lets do "added summoning" first...at the beginning of your next turn a monster appears with the fiendish template, so now you get another, and since 2 were summoned then you get another on top of that for a total of 3 yes?
ok lets do the other way...
cast summon monster, "superior summoning" first...at the beginning of your next turn a monster appears with the fiendish template...does superior summoning give you another one? No...so one monster is summoned at that point...then you get a 2nd one because of "added summoning" right? Yes. So one way you end up with 2 the other way 3...if they worked together then they should be the same either way
lets use the Rapid Shot/Manyshot feats like you did
Fighter with +6/+1 BAB
If you use RS first..."im full attacking, RS adds an additional attack and gives all attacks a -2 to attack" then "im full attacking with RS, MS says i get to use 2 arrows on the first attack" So I end up with 3 attacks total, the first attack firing 2 arrows. 3 attacks/4 arrows
now the other way, "im full attacking, MS says i get 2 arrows on my first attack" then "im full attacking with MS, RS says I get an additionally attack but i take a -2 to them all"...So I end up with 3 attacks total, first attack firing 2 arrows. 3 attacks/4 arrows
and once again...until there is something definitive from a dev or some errata this is simply a argument over wording or opinions on how it should work...YOU cannot produce rules that say exactly what you want to prove and NEITHER CAN I...at this point it just speculation man...maybe if we make a big enough fuss a dev will step in with a nice piece of errata
ok i dont know how to do the "quote" stuff on here (be awsm if someone clued me in lol) but here is the line from the rules of casting a spell that has a casting time of "1 round"
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
So they appear where you designate and act on your NEXT turn based on the rules of casting spells that take 1 round
This can be mitigated by yet another feat:
Acadamae Graduate (Local)
You have passed the grueling Test of Summoning and graduated from the Acadamae.
Prerequisites: Specialist wizard level 1st, cannot have conjuration as a forbidden school, Korvosa affinity.
Benefit: Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell from the conjuration (summoning) school that takes longer than a standard action to cast, reduce the casting time by one round (to a minimum casting time of one standard action). Casting a spell in this way is taxing and requires a Fortitude save (DC 15 + spell level) to resist becoming fatigued.
This Thread is focused on Game Logic, and the Summoning issue isn't that important, except as an example, and its a poor example because it doesn't within itself contain any clues. The Manyshot+Rapid Shot, and the Empower+Maximize Spell example are very good examples because they have clear examples of Developer assumptions. Also, I would love an FAQ on the Summoning issue, as it would clarify their assumptions :P Which only serves to enhance what this thread is trying to achieve.
This can be mitigated by yet another feat:
You can also just quicken it, changing its cast time to Swift, thus eliminating the part about them showing up at the start of your turn next round--because the spell is no longer a Full-round action. They'll appear immediately in the same round and Attack on the turn they're summoned.
Also:
I'm actively looking at the feats, as has been suggested. I have come to the following conclusion on the matter of Modifying rules affecting each other:
A couple of definitions for Clarity:
Modifying Rule: A Feat, Ability, or some other rule which has no purpose other than to modify an action.
Fundamental Game Logic: The base assumptions made by the entire set of Game Developers on how rules apply and operate.
Exclusive Rule: The view that the FGL assumes that modifying rules do not interact with each other if applied at the same time to the same action. From this assumption, the rules must then specifically call out exceptions. These exceptions must then be instances where the rules allow Modifiers to interact with each other in some way. Exclusive Rules assume an Order of Operations, in that Rule X applies, and then Rule Y applies afterward.
Synergistic Rule: The view that the FGL assumes that modifying rules modify each other in some way if applied at the same time to the same action. From this assumption, the rules must then specifically call out exceptions. These exceptions must then be instances where the rules disallow Modifiers from interacting with each other in some way. Synergistic Rules assume no Order of Operations, that if one rule modifies an action, it also modifies or qualifies other Modifying rules.
Other Rule: Otherwise known as not entirely, or not at all one of the rules defined above.
It is Clear so far That:
1. There is a Fundamental Game Logic.
2. That FGL is Synergistic, the extent to which has not yet been determined.
3. The FGL is Always Synergistic when a Modifying rule modifies the other Modifying rules.
However, all that being clear, I am not sure if the FGL allows these sorts of rules to Qualify each other. I realize that there's a difference. Now, I need to look into this specifically. This is also where we are stuck in this conversation. However, it is possible to answer this question from what is already printed. Its a lot of reading :) that's for sure.
Here is a thread dealing with the exact same Fundamental issue:
And I see a few more examples popping up, where Synergies Qualifying each other is causing people to Fiat.
JJ1: "Shield spikes are baseline weapons, so lead blades works fine on them. The bashing quality is NOT a baseline weapon, which is why that's a concern. What prevents the bashing ability from applying to a shield spike is that bashing is something you put on a shield, NOT a shield spike. (more in link)"
JJ2: "Because a shield spike and a shield bash are DIFFERENT weapons (they've got different entries on the weapon table on page 142 to prove it). The bashing quality says noting about improving a shield spike attack. It's ONLY about improving a shield bash attack."
JJ3: "The bashing enhancement would be a sort of silly one to give to a spiked shield, in my opinion. You'd end up with a spiked shield that you could attack with as a weapon in spiked shield mode or bashing mode... they wouldn't stack together. You'd have to decide which one you were using when you attacked."
JJ4: (Spiked heavy bashing shield does 2d6) "Which is more damage than any other 1-handed weapon, which is not really the intent of the ability. Especially since shield spikes are weapons. And the bashing quality is an armor quality; it's meant to be put on a shield, not a weapon. It's certainly an issue that needs to be cleared up in the FAQ (which we made strides toward getting done last week). In any case, if a GM is fine with someone basically getting 2H weapon damage with one hand for a mere 9,000 gp, I guess that's fine."
From what I'm reading JJ is basically saying that Yes, they do qualify each other, but that personally he'd rather they did not. lul, so there's the answer:
Yes, but its not what they'd like to happen and so they'll likely change Synergies so that they don't qualify each other in future errata. But this isn't a definite change.
Here is another example of two modifiers which qualify each other:
Eldritch Claws (Feat)+Wildshape. One of the requirements of Eldritch Claws is Natural Weapons. A druid can take this feat even if/though they don't have a full-time, always on Natural Weapon. Their Wildshape Class ability grants them access to Natural Weapons, which then qualifies them to take Eldritch Claws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One piece of Fundamental Game Logic that seems to be missing from this discussion (though I might just have missed it) is essentially this: Feats and Class Abilities should "do something" in situations where the player can use them.
I've seen a few examples on these boards where Paizo staff have pointed this out (no specific links, sorry). Basically, though, it says that if you have gone out of your way to optimise for a certain effect (by selecting class abilities and feats that (should) work together), then unless the rules actually deny that combination (see: Vital Strike and Spring Attack) the character gets the advantages they have selected.
Order of operations doesn't matter. Unless explicitly denied by the terms of the rules, feats and abilities synergise to that specific character's advantage.
I'm afraid that I am unable to provide lots of examples of this in action, but it seems to borne out in the rules as a whole, which basically say "things stack unless you're told they don't".
A lot of the synergy has to do with the exact wording of the abilities. In the case of the summoning, there is a difference between the ability that triggers on casting and one that triggers on summoning. The casting triggers when you begin to cast the spell, this can be interrupted by damage or counter-spells, thus negating the actual summoning. The summoning triggers when the creature actually appears on your next turn (or on the current turn if things such as quicken spell are used).
Lemme give you a wildly different example. Imagine that you have four abilities (I'm just making them up, I'm sure there's abilities a little like this somewhere):
1. Make Spells Firey. This allows you to convert any spell which does elemental damage to fire damage.
2. Bonus Cold Damage. This allows you to add 1d8 damage to any spell which does cold damage.
3. Bonus Fire Damage. This allows you to add 1d6 damage to any spell which does fire damage.
4. Generic Cold Spell. This does 1d3 cold damage.You cast the spell, and convert it to fire damage. Do you get:
1. 1d3 fire damage from the spell, +1d6 fire because it is fire damage.
2. 1d3 damage from the spell, +1d8 cold damage because it is cold damage, then the 1d3+1d8 are converted to fire.
3. 1d3 damage from the spell, +1d8 cold damage, then the 1d3+1d8 are converted to fire, then you add 1d6 because it's fire damage.
In this case it makes a difference when the elemental damage is changed. If it's changed at the point when you cast the spell, it's a fire spell and not a cold spell from the start so #1 would apply.
A lot of the synergy has to do with the exact wording of the abilities. In the case of the summoning, there is a difference between the ability that triggers on casting and one that triggers on summoning. The casting triggers when you begin to cast the spell, this can be interrupted by damage or counter-spells, thus negating the actual summoning. The summoning triggers when the creature actually appears on your next turn (or on the current turn if things such as quicken spell are used).
The distinction is worth looking at :) Is there such thing as an order to the Attack Action? Is there a distinctive beginning of, and then end of, an attack action, or does it all happen During?
Take Attacking and Cleaving, this is the closest analogous non-spell example that I could find to support what you're saying. Do we Attack, and then Cleave? Or is Cleaving the act of Attacking? The number of targets hit by cleave happens As you cleave, not after. Everything appears to happen During the Cleave. And once you end cleaving, you have completed the act of attacking (which is the same as completing the act of cleaving).
Based on this, if I apply the same logic to Casting a Summon spell, the act of Summoning by Casting is the same as the act of Casting. In the Case of Summoning spells, the number that will show up is determined As one Casts. But once casting has been completed, so has the act of summoning. And so no further variables found within the spell can be generated. Even if a spell has a duration, once you have finished casting the spell, you can only play with what you had created while casting it.
I think the way Touch Spells function is a clear example of the FGL, it specifically tells you that you can continue to "hold" the spell effect After the spell has been cast. We haven't delivered the effect yet, and once we do, then the duration kicks in. Because it calls this out explicitly, we would assume that spell effects are generated during casting.
The Fundamental Game Logic here is that the specific act of doing something is not different from its general term, and that all effect variables are generated during the action, any modifying abilities must then also take place during the action.
I'm leaning towards the "synergistic" direction.
"Added Summonings (Su): At 15th level, whenever you summon a creature with the demon subtype or the fiendish template using a summon monster spell, you summon one additional creature of the same kind."
This is non-optional. It is not possible for you to avoid it, the minimum number of fiends or demons you can summon is two!
"Superior Summoning
...
Benefit: Each time you cast a summoning spell that conjures more than one creature, add one to the total number of creatures summoned."
Well, provided you are summoning fiends of demons, you must summon more than one. No alternative is physically possible!
It's not possible for you to summon fewer than 2 demon/fiends, so how can you possibly say you aren't summoning more than one demon/fiend every time you summon them?
Also, I think you are forced to wait to see how many creatures were summoned before you count them. Note that for Summon Monster (level 2 or more) you can choose to summon d3 weaker monsters (or d4+1 even weaker monsters). The base spell summons an unknown number of creatures based on both a player choice and a die roll, from 1 to 5. Superior Summoning already has to wait to see how many the spells summons at completion.
This is non-optional. It is not possible for you to avoid it, the minimum number of fiends or demons you can summon is two!
Hey, thanks for joining the discussion :) I think at this point everyone sees that the FGL is synergistic. The areas of debate have become finer points of order of operations. I for one do not believe that there is a set order in which modifiers are applied, as in one doesn't happen before the other, but rather each checks the other modifiers to see if it qualifies, hence synergy.
The last postulation was that there is a difference between Casting a Spell, and Summoning a Monster, which I tried to address in my last post :)
Because the summoning issue is a matter of casting, and that is where the doubt now lays, we have to look at the Fundamental Game Logic of all Actions in general, as all actions must follow the same logic. I feel that my example is pretty solid, though I'd be happy to discuss others which may counter this logic.
Hmm, just noticed a mechanically similar issue regarding the order conditions should be checked.
Imagine a Sorcerer with the following two features:
The Magical Lineage Trait on Grease.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage
The Arcane Bloodline, specifically the Arcana:
"Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1..."
Suppose they cast Stilled Grease. The metamagic feat does normally increase the slot by one level, but due to magical lineage this increase is ignored.
Does the save DC get increased by the Arcana?
To me, this seems similar to the summoning question before.
To be consistent I think we either we check variables at the last moment, (so 3 fiends, but no bonus to grease DC), or check at the start (2 fiends, +1 bonus to DC).
The "synergistic" approach is actually to not increase the grease DC, since the abilities should take each other into account.
Hmm, just noticed a mechanically similar issue regarding the order conditions should be checked.
Imagine a Sorcerer with the following two features:
The Magical Lineage Trait on Grease.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage
The Arcane Bloodline, specifically the Arcana:
"Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1..."Suppose they cast Stilled Grease. The metamagic feat does normally increase the slot by one level, but due to magical lineage this increase is ignored.
Does the save DC get increased by the Arcana?To me, this seems similar to the summoning question before.
To be consistent I think we either we check variables at the last moment, (so 3 fiends, but no bonus to grease DC), or check at the start (2 fiends, +1 bonus to DC).
The "synergistic" approach is actually to not increase the grease DC, since the abilities should take each other into account.
Ah, very nice example. I'll have to look at it tomorrow afternoon :) See if we can't reconcile it with the currently assumed FGL.
Hmm, just noticed a mechanically similar issue regarding the order conditions should be checked.
Imagine a Sorcerer with the following two features:
The Magical Lineage Trait on Grease.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage
The Arcane Bloodline, specifically the Arcana:
"Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1..."Suppose they cast Stilled Grease. The metamagic feat does normally increase the slot by one level, but due to magical lineage this increase is ignored.
Does the save DC get increased by the Arcana?To me, this seems similar to the summoning question before.
To be consistent I think we either we check variables at the last moment, (so 3 fiends, but no bonus to grease DC), or check at the start (2 fiends, +1 bonus to DC).
The "synergistic" approach is actually to not increase the grease DC, since the abilities should take each other into account.
A year and a half later, sorry guys for the absence, had a serious health issue.
This is a very good example, thank you for bringing it to this conversation :)
But the wording in the above bolded line tells us that in order to gain the +1 Spell DC from the Bloodline, there must be present a Metamagic feat which, within itself has the qualifier of "increases one level." It does not require anything of the spell itself. And so, yes, it would gain the +1 Spell DC in spite of the increase to the spell's level being ignored.
So this is definitely more support for a Synergistic FGL.