1) are the horses summoned extra planar?
2)If not are they real horses from somewhere else in the plane?
3) what happens if I push the horse so hard it does? If they're real horses does a dead horse appear somewhere after the spell expires?
Mount is a Conjuration(Summoning) spell
Description of 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.
Description of the Summoning subschool:
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.
So to answer your questions:
1) Nope, that would be Conjuration(Calling).
2) Yes, real. Technically that means same plane so yes, somewhere else on this plane.
3) Do you mean "push it so hard it dies"? If so, then it disappears and reforms 24 hours later wherever it came from.
This raises a few interesting questions:
a) Summon Monster is also Conjuration(Summoning) but it specifically says it summons extraplanar creatures. So the CRB is contradicting itself. When this happens (unless there's errata somewhere?) each DM needs to resolve the contradiction. In this case, I assume there was a typo in the spell type and Summon Monster should be Conjuration(calling), an easy mistake, whereas adding extra words to the spell text "an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane)" is much less likely to be an oversight.
Fortunately, Mount has no such conflict so there is nothing to resolve.
b) Since mounts are summoned from somewhere on this plane, and they are trained to carry riders (try hopping onto an "unbroke" or even "greenbroke" horse and riding it), that means they almost invariably belong to someone else who might miss it for the hours or day that it's gone. Could it be summoned while he's riding it, precipitating a sudden fall to the ground? Could it be the King's favorite stallion and he'll immediately set his royal mages to divining the impudent (and treasonous) horse thief? Could a PC's horse suddenly disappear because someone on this plane cast a Mount spell and this was the horse that got summoned (and what if the PC had rare and precious loot in his pack-saddle)? Some interesting plot hooks or side events could happen.
This raises a few interesting questions:
a) Summon Monster is also Conjuration(Summoning) but it specifically says it summons extraplanar creatures. So the CRB is contradicting itself. When this happens (unless there's errata somewhere?) each DM needs to resolve the contradiction. In this case, I assume there was a typo in the spell type and Summon Monster should be Conjuration(calling), an easy mistake, whereas adding extra words to the spell text "an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane)" is much less likely to be an oversight.
There is no contradiction. The difference is calling brings the actual creature from another plane. If it was from the same plane it would teleportation.
Summoning brings a manifestation of the creature regardless of plane of existence. Summon Monster makes an infernal or celestial horse appear therefore it is extraplanar. Mount makes a normal horse appear hence from the prime material plane.
Summoned creatures return home when they are killed. Called creatures die when they are killed.
To answer the original questions.
1. The horses are not extraplanar.
2. The horse that appears is a manifestation of a real horse.
3. If the manifestation dies the horse reforms 24 hours later unharmed.
Can the horse be used as a beast or burden with Handle Animal, or is it a horse which will only let you ride it? I'd imagine that it won't fight, but would you need a DC20 Ride check to control it in combat? I guess maybe you could cast the Wartrain Mount spell on the horse from Mount to get a combat capable mount - would that work?
Can the horse be used as a beast or burden with Handle Animal, or is it a horse which will only let you ride it? I'd imagine that it won't fight, but would you need a DC20 Ride check to control it in combat? I guess maybe you could cast the Wartrain Mount spell on the horse from Mount to get a combat capable mount - would that work?
Why wouldn't it fight? It's a horse--it does anything a horse can do, except you command it because it's summoned. If you ordered it to fight, it will fight.
Why yes, this is a significantly better summon spell than Summon Monster I (and maybe even II).
I don't see how mount is better than Summon Monster I. Because it lasts longer? It can't smite like a summoned monster can. It doesn't gain resistances, darkvision, DR, or SR like summoned monsters either.
I think he is going by this:
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.
The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
Since Mount is technically a conjuration(summoning) spell, it probably wouldn't need to be combat trained at all as you control it. It's not a wild animal, it's a manifestation of a creature that you have complete control over.
Since Mount is technically a conjuration(summoning) spell, it probably wouldn't need to be combat trained at all as you control it. It's not a wild animal, it's a manifestation of a creature that you have complete control over.
I'm not sure that's entirely true.
Even Summon Monster, a spell clearly designed for combat (Yes, I know there are a few non-combat uses too) says "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."
So Summon Monster brings a critter that immediately attacks your enemies. Period. If you want it to do anything else, you need a way to communicate with it. You don't have "complete control over" a summoned monster. I assume it won't ignore you if you can communicate and give it an order, but even that is not explicit - if you summon a dog and tell it (perhaps using Speak With Animal) not to chase a cat, it just might chase the cat anyway, the spell doesn't specify either way.
I don't think Mount gives you any more control than this, except unlike Summon Monster, it's not a combat spell, it doesn't explicitly state that the mount appears and attacks your opponents. Instead, it allows you to ride it to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it to attack if you want, but I'm not sure the spell gives you enough control to force it to attack - it might just ignore that order.
Even Summon Monster, [...] says "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. [...]"
So, if you actually don't control your summoned creature, it brings two questions:
1. How does the summoned creature knows who "your opponents" are?2. Who defines what "the best of its ability" is?
For me, the mount spell and the general rule about Conjuration [summoning] spells say that, as long as you use the manifestion of the horse as a mount, you completely control it (i.e. don't need a DC 20 Ride Check to control it in combat, even if it isn't "war-trained" by RAW).
If you want to use it another way (attack, provide flanking, run through a dungeon to trigger traps...), you need the relevant action to do so (a skill check, a spell...).
"You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle."
To serve as a mount. Not to serve as a combat option. I would require handle animal/ride checks to direct it for anything other than use as a mount (attacking, flanking, etc.)
Even Summon Monster, [...] says "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. [...]"So, if you actually don't control your summoned creature, it brings two questions:
1. How does the summoned creature knows who "your opponents" are?
2. Who defines what "the best of its ability" is?For me, the mount spell and the general rule about Conjuration [summoning] spells say that, as long as you use the manifestion of the horse as a mount, you completely control it (i.e. don't need a DC 20 Ride Check to control it in combat, even if it isn't "war-trained" by RAW).
If you want to use it another way (attack, provide flanking, run through a dungeon to trigger traps...), you need the relevant action to do so (a skill check, a spell...).
1. The same way a Magic Missile never misses. The same way you can cast Bless or Haste, etc., and those spells always help your allies and never help your enemies. You know who is an ally and who is an enemy, and the magical energy of the spell includes that in the targeting. With Summon Monster, the magical energy of the spell imparts the knowledge of friend and enemy to the summoned critter and then it does the rest, attacking to the best of its ability.
2. The summoner usually, though as a DM I sometimes override what the player wants when his expectations don't seem to match the summoned creature's capabilities. Otherwise, I let the player handle it, with my guidance, since it's his.
Gray area? Maybe. As long as the player doesn't want his unintelligent summoned animal to run past a bunch of enemies and then ready an action against the one and only enemy wizard in the back (or some other example of what an animal intelligence would never think of doing) - note, I have no problem with a summoned intelligent outsider doing these kinds of things), then I let the player deal with it.
"You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle."
To serve as a mount. Not to serve as a combat option. I would require handle animal/ride checks to direct it for anything other than use as a mount (attacking, flanking, etc.)
I would require more than that, otherwise, it is about 600x better than Summon Monster I (because it lasts 600 rounds per caster level and a horse is about as capable a combatant as many of the actual choices available for Summon Monster I).
For me, if you want an aggressive, fighting summons, use Summon Monster. It's what it's for. If you want a docile riding beast that will run away from danger or, at the very most, stand its ground and not run away IF you're mounted on it, then Mount is your spell. But if you want to summon a combat critter that lasts 1 hour per level and fights your enemies to the best of its ability, well, I suggest you play a Summoner and use your eidolon because that's the only way it works, at least until much higher level when you cant get stuff like Planar Ally or whatever else.
Contrast mount with phantom steed, which is a very cool travel spell but explicitly will not attack.
Oddly, a Cold Rider gets phantom steed as a spell-like ability and the Trample feat, allowing its mount to attack. Yet the phantom steed does not attack, meaning you must either build encounters with a suitable mount, switch out a feat, or play the creature out of the book with a poorly allocated feat choice.
I would require more than that, otherwise, it is about 600x better than Summon Monster I (because it lasts 600 rounds per caster level and a horse is about as capable a combatant as many of the actual choices available for Summon Monster I).
For me, if you want an aggressive, fighting summons, use Summon Monster. It's what it's for. If you want a docile riding beast that will run away from danger or, at the very most, stand its ground and not run away IF you're mounted on it, then Mount is your spell. But if you want to summon a combat critter that lasts 1 hour per level and fights your enemies to the best of its ability, well, I suggest you play a Summoner and use your eidolon because that's the only way it works, at least until much higher level when you cant get stuff like Planar Ally or whatever else.
If you want a combat horse, you need summon monster 2.
If you want to see what it takes to command your Mount spell horse to fight, lets look.
First, assuming you are riding it, you have to control the non-trained mount.
"Control mount in battle 20
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
So, first round, you can move action make a DC 20 ride check, to control the mount.
Second, assuming you want it to attack something.
Handle Animal:
"“Push” an animal 25
“Push” an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn't know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march or forcing it to hustle for more than 1 hour between sleep cycles. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action."
So, DC 25 Handle Animal check as a full-round action to order it to attack one particular creature if able. Each creature you want to command it to attack is another full-round action and DC 25 handle animal check.
What wizards/sorcerers do you know that can routinely make a DC 20 ride and DC 25 handle animal check at level 1 when this is supposedly "strong"? Honestly, you'll waste more actions trying to push the mount, when instead you could be color-spraying. Not overly strong at all.
The benefit of summon monster, is that it will attack your opponents on its own to the best of its abilities. No handling it and wasting your actions.
If you want to see what it takes to command your Mount spell horse to fight, lets look.
Yeah, I didn't get the impression that previous posts were implying to go through all that. I was under the assumption they were treating their mount as "Horse, Kill!" and it does, on its own, just like a summoned monster, with no rolls or checks necessary.
If that wasn't their intent, then my bad for not understanding.
I suppose if someone wants to go through all the hassle of pushing a summoned mount to attack, assuming they can make all the rolls, then they're more than welcome to. I suspect that a Ray of Frost cantrip or a crossbow would be a more effective use of those melee rounds.
You are welcome to interpret it how you wish for your home games, but would you honestly require handle animal checks for a pony or horse summoned through Summon Monster? Why or why not? Are you also aware that monsters summoned through Summon Monster gain Darkvision, DR, SR, and Energy Resistance and Smite Evil/Good? I see no issue with using the Mount spell in combat. Both spells use the same school and subschool, so they should be treated the same when cast.
You are welcome to interpret it how you wish for your home games, but would you honestly require handle animal checks for a pony or horse summoned through Summon Monster? Why or why not? Are you also aware that monsters summoned through Summon Monster gain Darkvision, DR, SR, and Energy Resistance and Smite Evil/Good? I see no issue with using the Mount spell in combat. Both spells use the same school and subschool, so they should be treated the same when cast.
This is not my interpretation for a home game. This is the rules as they are written. Feel free to houserule that the mount spell functions as a hours/level summon monster 2(horse only) spell in your home games.
Summon Monster:
"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. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."
Mount:
"You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle."
Summon monster states explicitly that the summoned creature attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you have a method to communicate with it, you can give it specific direction.
Mount says that it will serve you as a mount specifically. That is all that summoned horse is able to do. In order to have it attack, you must use Handle Animal to push an animal not trained for attack to attack.
So, Mount: You have to handle animal for the mount to attack.
Summon Monster 2: Horse, it will attack enemies willingly as best it can. If you have a method to communicate with it, you can give it specific orders.
I am reffering to the rules for the conjuration school. First, a creature summoned through the summoning sub school does not just teleport the creature to you. That is what the calling sub school does. It is a manifestation of the creature that you create. "creatures you conjure usually but not always obey your commands". Can a mount not attack in combat? Would you rule that the mount spell horse is frightened by combat yet the horse summoned by summon monster is not They are functionally the same creature. Both are summoned by a conjuration(summoning) spell. Both spells are of the same school/sub school so why would one function different than the other? The horse summoned by summon monster has darkvision, SR, and smite evil/good whereas the one summoned by mount does not. This is rules as written.
I am reffering to the rules for the conjuration school. First, a creature summoned through the summoning sub school does not just teleport the creature to you. That is what the calling sub school does. It is a manifestation of the creature that you create. "creatures you conjure usually but not always obey your commands". Can a mount not attack in combat? Would you rule that the mount spell horse is frightened by combat yet the horse summoned by summon monster is not They are functionally the same creature. Both are summoned by a conjuration(summoning) spell. Both spells are of the same school/sub school so why would one function different than the other? The horse summoned by summon monster has darkvision, SR, and smite evil/good whereas the one summoned by mount does not. This is rules as written.
Rules of the conjuration school: "Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands."
Ok, so most conjuration spells have creatures that will obey your commands.
Second, yes, they are both summoning spells. Great. Both mount and Summon Monster 2 can summon manifestations of a horse.
Can a mount not attack in combat?
Mount as in the Mount spell summoned horse manifestation? Or mount as in any creature a PC is riding?
Would you rule that the mount spell horse is frightened by combat yet the horse summoned by summon monster is not They are functionally the same creature.
Functionally they have the same stats, yes. If the PC is riding the Mount spell summoned horse, there are ride checks required for controlling a non-war trained light horse in battle.
"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
If the PC is not riding the mount, this skill check is not needed.
Both spells are of the same school/sub school so why would one function different than the other?
This is the big question. Why would 2 spells work differently? Maybe because the spell text is different. Summon Monster 2 explicitly states that the creature summoned will attack your enemies as best it can.
Mount explicitly states it will serve you as a mount.
In order to make the horse mount summons attack a creature, you must utilize the rules in place for doing so. In this case, a full-round handle animal skill check to push the mount to make an attack action.
It's just a horse trained for riding. Noncore. No less. Use handle animal as appropriate.
You have to consider the mount as a normal horse, no more, no less.
You want it to do something ? Handle animal. You want to ride it ? Ride. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that it serves you is no different than a horse you bought in the last village.
|
I think what we have going on is a difference between control=do whatever you want vs. control=do whatever you want within the scope of the spell.
Creatures summoned via the summon nature/summon ally family automatically attack opponents, but require other tools to get it to do something different.
A swarm summoned with summon swarm will attack nearest creatures, including you.
A summoned mount serves the summoner willingly and well as a mount (transport).
The text of the sub-school says one thing, but the spells that fall within that sub-school make little sense if viewing the control as absolute.
I wasn't trying to claim or imply that the horse from Mount could used for or even in combat without making DC20 Ride checks. Actually, I was wondering if it was impossible to use the horse for other purposes even with Handle Animal checks. Honestly I'd mostly just like to use Mount to pull a wagon, but I wasn't clear on whether it could do that based on the text of the spell and how closely folks sometimes analyze such text.
As for combat, a horse which isn't trained for combat is pretty bad at it, but I'm still not sure if you couldn't cast Wartrain Mount on it to produce a passable combatant. Working this way a Sorcerer and Inquisitor (or Sorcerer/Inquisitor) could make a few combat capable horses per day.
A hourse is a hourse, and a spooked 1/4 tun anamal in a corridor is nothing you want to be in front of.
Devilkiller,
The horse will serve willingly as a mount, but you could certainly use handle animal to push it to perform the Work trick (push/pull medium or heavy load).
I would even go so far as to say you could hook it up to a wagon, and as long as the caster was riding the mount, you wouldn't even need to push the animal.
I think what we have going on is a difference between control=do whatever you want vs. control=do whatever you want within the scope of the spell.
My point exactly.
If I have to make (and fail) a Ride Check to control the conjured mount in battle, it means that :
1. the mount is doing whatever it wants and stop serving me willingly.
2. the creature I conjure doesn't obey my command.
3. the conjured mount stops serving me well as a mount.
So does the mount spell (conjuration [summoning]) cease functionning if you run into a combat?
I do not think so, neither RAW, nor RAI.
I think what we have going on is a difference between control=do whatever you want vs. control=do whatever you want within the scope of the spell.My point exactly.
If I have to make (and fail) a Ride Check to control the conjured mount in battle, it means that :
1. the mount is doing whatever it wants and stop serving me willingly.
2. the creature I conjure doesn't obey my command.
3. the conjured mount stops serving me well as a mount.So does the mount spell (conjuration [summoning]) cease functionning if you run into a combat?
Going back to the conjuration school description:
Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
1. Yes, there are rules for riding a mount which is not war-trained.
2. Right, the rules don't say it always obeys. Just usually.3. It is serving you as well as any other light horse would serve as a mount in that circumstance. If you want a better mount, buy a war-trained light horse.
1. Yes, there are rules for riding a mount which is not war-trained.
Firstly, the "war-trained" SQ implies more than just "not requiring a DC20 ride check to control it in battle".
Then, I see no rule for riding a magically-conjured mount, only for normal mounts.The mount spell doesn't have an instantaneous duration. The magic is there for the duration of the spell. The mount is not a normal horse. It's a magical manifestation of a horse which can be dispelled, dismissed, banished and so on.
I see nothing in the text of the mount spell saying that it stops (even partially) functionning in battle.
=> Even in battle, the mount serves you willingly and well as a mount (i.e not requiring being pushed or direct in any way).
2. Right, the rules don't say it always obeys. Just usually.
So YOUR interpretation is that the mount stops obeying your command if you run into a battle.
MY interpretation is that the mount stops obeying your command if you stops using it as a mount (whether you're in a battle or not).3. It is serving you as well as any other light horse would serve as a mount in that circumstance. If you want a better mount, buy a war-trained light horse.
No. Any other light horse does not serve you willingly. It has been trained this way.
|
|
I think what we have going on is a difference between control=do whatever you want vs. control=do whatever you want within the scope of the spell.My point exactly.
If I have to make (and fail) a Ride Check to control the conjured mount in battle, it means that :
1. the mount is doing whatever it wants and stop serving me willingly.
2. the creature I conjure doesn't obey my command.
3. the conjured mount stops serving me well as a mount.So does the mount spell (conjuration [summoning]) cease functionning if you run into a combat?
I do not think so, neither RAW, nor RAI.
I don't think anyone has said it ceases to function if you run into combat.
As for Ride checks, I would completely expect a character on a summoned mount to make necessary Ride checks. Ride checks are much more about the rider's skill in saddle than they are about getting the mount to do something in particular. It's a Dex skill, not a Cha skill. Everyday moving around doesn't take Ride checks at all.
1. Yes, there are rules for riding a mount which is not war-trained.Firstly, the "war-trained" SQ implies more than just "not requiring a DC20 ride check to control it in battle".
Then, I see no rule for riding a magically-conjured mount, only for normal mounts.
"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Is your magically-conjured mount trained for combat riding? No. Then this applies.
The mount spell doesn't have an instantaneous duration. The magic is there for the duration of the spell. The mount is not a normal horse. It's a magical manifestation of a horse which can be dispelled, dismissed, banished and so on.
I see nothing in the text of the mount spell saying that it stops (even partially) functionning in battle.
=> Even in battle, the mount serves you willingly and well as a mount (i.e not requiring being pushed or direct in any way).
Nothing in the rules overrides the already present rules for riding mounts not trained for combat in combat. Therefore those rules also apply.
2. Right, the rules don't say it always obeys. Just usually.So YOUR interpretation is that the mount stops obeying your command if you run into a battle.
MY interpretation is that the mount stops obeying your command if you stops using it as a mount (whether you're in a battle or not).
You are willfully ignoring the rules about mounts that are not trained for combat riding. I am applying those rules equally to all mounts not trained for combat riding.
3. It is serving you as well as any other light horse would serve as a mount in that circumstance. If you want a better mount, buy a war-trained light horse.No. Any other light horse does not serve you willingly. It has been trained this way.
Any other light horse does serve you as well as the mount spell horse does with NO training. Only a war-trained light horse would avoid the check for riding in combat.
Mount does not serve you better than the light horse you could have bought in the last village.
It has no special ability better than that horse either. the spell doesn't provide special ability to you in order to ride the horse or command it.
Therefore, you have to deal with it as you would deal with a normal light horse. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
No one expects the summoned mount to climb trees, walk on ceilings, or fly across a 300 foot canyon, serve dinner in a tuxedo, or tell a raunchy joke, nor have they been proposed. We don't expect the mount to be able to do this, even if it serves willingly and well, because it is a light horse or pony. Such mounts don't do these things. It isn't a light warhorse or war pony; these are different creatures, both in training and breeding.
The point is that there is a boundary, and I'm pretty sure everyone would agree on that. The question is, "Where is the boundary?"
The game makes a distinction between a light horse and a light war horse. The spell summons a light horse. It behaves as a light horse, not a light war horse.
The converse is to say that it summons a light horse (when it could have said light war horse), but that the light horse behaves as a light war horse.
Which is most likely? That the rule was made intentionally obtuse and difficult to understand through the omission of three letters, or that this simple errata has been overlooked through multiple printings of two editions from two different publishers for 10 years, or that it does what it says?
Just to be clear:
I am not talking about riding a standard mount, but the effect of a spell.
I am not talking about doing anything else with the mount spell but riding its effect.
@ Tarantula:
You are using the ride skill rules to define what a spell allows you to do or not.
I use the magic rules to define what a spell allows me to do or not.
I consider that the effect of a spell doesn't stop being under the caster's total control once she runs into a battle. Feel free to think otherwise.
I see no happy ending in arguing further.
This almost makes me feel bad about the way my Wizard uses Mount for battlefield control. Absorbing attacks, blocking pathways of attack, facing things like tripping wolves, which inevitably get the panicking horse involved in the combat, even conjuring a horse in a hallway to cover the party's retreat once.
Just to be clear:
I am not talking about riding a standard mount, but the effect of a spell.
I am not talking about doing anything else with the mount spell but riding its effect.@ Tarantula:
You are using the ride skill rules to define what a spell allows you to do or not.
I use the magic rules to define what a spell allows me to do or not.I consider that the effect of a spell doesn't stop being under the caster's total control once she runs into a battle. Feel free to think otherwise.
I see no happy ending in arguing further.
The effect of the spell is: "You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle."
Riding on a mount has a sub-set of rules that apply to it.
The spell does not state the mount summoned does not need a ride check to be ridden in combat. Because the spell does not override the rules for riding a mount, you must make a check if you are in combat and want to direct the mount.
If you buy a "light horse" for 75gp from a shop vendor, you can ride it equally as well as the horse summoned by the Mount spell. Feel free to run your game however you want. By RAW, you will need to make a ride check for a Mount spell summoned light horse/pony being ridden in combat.
I consider that the effect of a spell doesn't stop being under the caster's total control once she runs into a battle.
Except the mount conjured by the spell IS NOT under your total control, not even when you use it as a mount.
It willingly serves, yes, but that doesn't make it as a slave or a puppet. It's just a normal horse, and normal horses follow riding and handle animal rules.
@Mark : I agree.
Let's all just agree that it is up to GM interpretation. It doesn't specifically make it clear one way or the other. Expect table variation if you plan to use this spell. That's about all we can do.
This almost makes me feel bad about the way my Wizard uses Mount for battlefield control. Absorbing attacks, blocking pathways of attack, facing things like tripping wolves, which inevitably get the panicking horse involved in the combat, even conjuring a horse in a hallway to cover the party's retreat once.
Yes, there already are more than enough borderline uses of the mount spell that a DM should care about.
I don't get the point in nerfing the standard use of the spell by requiring stupidly-high DC checks in a cross-class skill for most of spellcasters.Let's all just agree that it is up to GM interpretation.
Agreed.
|
|
I don't get the point in nerfing the standard use of the spell by requiring stupidly-high DC checks in a cross-class skill for most of spellcasters.
The standard use of the spell is to summon a mount to travel from point A to point B. This standard use requires no Ride checks, nor skill checks of any other type. Get on and ride.
How is anything in this thread nerfing that standard use?
I don't get the point in nerfing the standard use of the spell by requiring stupidly-high DC checks in a cross-class skill for most of spellcasters.
The spell you are looking for to summon a horse to fight in combat for you is Summon Monster 2. It is a level higher and has a much shorter duration than the Mount spell. There is a reason for this. With summon monster 2, you don't need to make any skill checks to have the horse fight.
The standard use of the spell is to summon a mount to travel from point A to point B.
In this thread, I use the mount to move from point A to point B on a battlemap (i.e. in combat). I do not try to make it fighting anything or performing some tricks such as attack, come, defend, down, guard, or heel.
But in this thread, just because I am on a battlemap, I would have to make a DC20 Ride check (a stupidly-high DC for a low-level caster) to control the spell effect. If I don't, it means that the spell effect is no longer serving me willingly and well (spell text) and no longer obeying my command (sub-school text). But I still only want to move from point A to point B, which exactly is in the scope of the spell.
So yes, I definitely see some nerfs in this thread.
|
|
The standard use of the spell is to summon a mount to travel from point A to point B.In this thread, I use the mount to move from point A to point B on a battlemap (i.e. in combat). I do not try to make it fighting anything or performing some tricks such as attack, come, defend, down, guard, or heel.
But in this thread, just because I am on a battlemap, I would have to make a DC20 Ride check (a stupidly-high DC for a low-level caster) to control the spell effect. If I don't, it means that the spell effect is no longer serving me willingly and well (spell text) and no longer obeying my command (sub-school text). But I still only want to move from point A to point B, which exactly is in the scope of the spell.
So yes, I definitely see some nerfs in this thread.
I can't understand this post.
Djelai thinks that the wording "willingly and well" should negate the need for a ride check in battle, because conjuration(summoning) states that creatures usually follow your orders.
Instead of a ride check, he is wanting to instruct the summoned creature to move where he wants it to go. However, unlike summon monster, mount makes no provision for providing instruction to the summoned creature.
But in this thread, just because I am on a battlemap, I would have to make a DC20 Ride check (a stupidly-high DC for a low-level caster) to control the spell effect. If I don't, it means that the spell effect is no longer serving me willingly and well (spell text) and no longer obeying my command (sub-school text). But I still only want to move from point A to point B, which exactly is in the scope of the spell.
It's not because you are on a battlemap, rather you are in a battle.
If we follow your train of thought then summoned creatures could not be the subject of fear because they would no longer obey your command.
Reductio ad absurdum.
If we follow your train of thought then summoned creatures could not be the subject of fear because they would no longer obey your command.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Thank you for the fallacy. I am out of this thread by now.
I decided to look at the Handle Animal rules a bit, and I'm guessing that maybe the horse summoned by Mount should be considered to have the "Riding" general purpose. Per the rules, "An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay." I guess pushing the horse with continuous DC25 checks would be the only way to make it pull a wagon.
That probably puts this use out of reach until mid levels. Then again, that's about when the horse you buy from the store will probably start to get killed constantly. I suppose that in a home game it wouldn't be unreasonable to research an additional spell like "Summon Draft Animal"
Nothing in the rules overrides the already present rules for riding mounts not trained for combat in combat. Therefore those rules also apply.
By the way, I am glad to know that none of the druid's animal companion can be ridden in combat before the 4th level (for horse and pony) or can't be used at all as a mount (for other companions) unless you spend 6 weeks to train it this way.
Glad to know that the ranger will have to wait until the 7th level to ride her companion in combat (if it's a horse or a pony).Glad to know that the paladin can get the service of a steed which can't actually be ridden in combat (boar, camel, or dog).
Glad to know that the leadership feat allows you to get the service of a worg, which is specially called to be ridden but not in combat because it is not war-trained.
Or does the fact that those mounts can be intelligent (3+) and able to understand or even speak a language override the fact that they are not war-trained per RAW?
And, if positive, does it mean that it may be a possibility that the magic of the spell let you override this aspect too?
Or, if negative, does it mean that anybody who is trying to ride anything but a standard purchased war-trained mount is screwed at the first ambush?
As a courier-magus, I have a horse in this race. < disclosure
I see (well, I try to see) many sides to the question. I find that leads to understanding more often than staking out a position and lobbing arguments at the other positions.
Let me speak first in the voice of the lowbie caster with the spell, who only wants it to let him ride from town A to city B. He's got no skills, he dumped DEX, and a wandering Varisi put a curse on him so all horsefolk hate him. But he can cast Mount, and get there.
Beside him rides the Magus, who actually has Ride skill, and who thinks he might ride a conjured horse harder than a normal horse, since he doesn't care about the 1,2,4... HP the conjured beast takes while he does so.
Then, there's the gnome... he wants it to pull a cart, turn a grindstone wheel, walk a corridor to check for traps. He has an elaborate oiled-cotton barding made for when he wants a really BIG distraction; he keeps it with a Fire Sneeze sugarcube.
The goblin casts the spell to practice horsechopping.
If we start postulating where the horse came from and bringing in royal assassin-stabler hit-squads, or even just requiring skill checks to use your own spell, the lowbie's value in the spell is lost. Please in your deliberations, consider the guy who's just using the spell as it was intended. Should his value get shaved down to nothing so you can restrain the Gnome or the Magus?
I say no.
Too often (because even once is too often) reasonable use is forbidden because of fear of unreasonable use. Please, give your speeders speeding tickets. Don't put a governor on every car. Or Mount.
|
|
Nothing in the rules overrides the already present rules for riding mounts not trained for combat in combat. Therefore those rules also apply.By the way, I am glad to know that none of the druid's animal companion can be ridden in combat before the 4th level (for horse and pony) or can't be used at all as a mount (for other companions) unless you spend 6 weeks to train it this way.
Glad to know that the ranger will have to wait until the 7th level to ride her companion in combat (if it's a horse or a pony).
Animal companions follow the same rules for training as any other animal, with the exception of the bonus tricks. Animal companions used as mounts follow the same rules for mounted combat as any other mount.
Glad to know that the paladin can get the service of a steed which can't actually be ridden in combat (boar, camel, or dog).
Glad to know that the leadership feat allows you to get the service of a worg, which is specially called to be ridden but not in combat because it is not war-trained.
Or does the fact that those mounts can be intelligent (3+) and able to understand or even speak a language override the fact that they are not war-trained per RAW?
No, it doesn't. You might find the Intelligent Animal blog helpful.
Note: in D&D 3.5, there were different rules for how to handle mounts with an Intelligence of 5+ via Diplomacy. These rules were in the 3.5 DMG and were not part of the SRD. As a result, they didn't make it into PF. It leaves a gap in the PF rules, which is partially plugged by the blog.
And, if positive, does it mean that it may be a possibility that the magic of the spell let you override this aspect too?
This is moot.
Or, if negative, does it mean that anybody who is trying to ride anything but a standard purchased war-trained mount is screwed at the first ambush?
Animals that are not war-trained make poor mounts in combat. If you want to characterize this as being screwed, that's up to you.
*****************************
There is a tendency for many players to have a very different idea of how animals, particularly animal mounts, behave within the scope of the rules until they start to investigate how the rules really address animals. In some playing groups, no one EVER starts that investigation and preconceptions tend to remain pretty ingrained.
[quot€]By the way, I am glad to know that none of the druid's animal companion can be ridden in combat before the 4th level (for horse and pony) or can't be used at all as a mount (for other companions) unless you spend 6 weeks to train it this way.
Or one of the tricks your companion earns for free into Combat mount.
Yeah, that sucks, right ? You have to train an animal to do things, or spend a free trick into that...
Glad to know that the ranger will have to wait until the 7th level to ride her companion in combat (if it's a horse or a pony).
He can spend the same point into the trick than the druid. Animal companions are not smarter than other companions, except for the "free tricks" part, and potential points into INT.
Glad to know that the paladin can get the service of a steed which can't actually be ridden in combat (boar, camel, or dog).
Idem
Glad to know that the leadership feat allows you to get the service of a worg, which is specially called to be ridden but not in combat because it is not war-trained.
Idem
Or does the fact that those mounts can be intelligent (3+) and able to understand or even speak a language override the fact that they are not war-trained per RAW?
Being intelligent override the need for Handle animal (actually, prevent it, as it's only usable on 1-2 magical creatures, and most animals become magical creatures when they got 3 INT or more, with the exception of Animal Companion if I remember well), but not the need for Ride.
And, if positive, does it mean that it may be a possibility that the magic of the spell let you override this aspect too?
The spell summons a light horse. It does not make it more intelligent, or know special tricks. It is specifically a mount, not a war trained mount, and you can't train it (not enough time).
Or, if negative, does it mean that anybody who is trying to ride anything but a standard purchased war-trained mount is screwed at the first ambush?
That's right. That's why Mount is not a Combat spell, but a Utility spell : a spell that is used to travel, not to fight. Period.