Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
|
Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
In this case it is not a duck.... as Andrew has stated many times in this thread, summoned creatures are spell effects and the player controls it. Why is this even still being discussed??
|
Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
No. I'm not saying that they work exactly like an animal companion.
Animal companions aren't automatically compelled to attack your enemies (unless you can speak to them and command them otherwise).
They are a spell effect. They are not NPCs.
They may work similarly to non-sentient animal companions insofar as how the GM/Player interaction works with control of the summoned creature.
1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
Technically, unless the player tells them not to, a summon will run right in to the middle of those monsters, not knowing that the party mage is about to fireball them. Have you *ever* seen a player run his summon into the path of a party fireball because the summon didn't know it was coming?
Huh? In all the groups I have been playing with, a summon that couldn't be communicated with tends to attack the nearest enemy, rather than running into their midst...
|
|
1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
No matter how you word it, you are wrong. I hate being so unequivocal in arguments such as this, but now you seem to be arguing semantics just for the sake of arguing.
Your original point was whether you had to have the Bestiary.
That question was answered. By rule you do.
So what is the point of the current argument?
Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
No. I'm not saying that they work exactly like an animal companion.
Animal companions aren't automatically compelled to attack your enemies (unless you can speak to them and command them otherwise).
They are a spell effect. They are not NPCs.
They may work similarly to non-sentient animal companions insofar as how the GM/Player interaction works with control of the summoned creature.
So what about dominate person? Can I dominate creatures that I do not have the stats for? What if they use a feat I do not own? They are part of the spell effect now, just like a summon. Wouldn't I need to own the rules that the GM's NPCs come from to use dominate person on them?
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
Did you bring that NPC into existence, or was it already present before, the GM having information about all his stats and equipment?
1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
No matter how you word it, you are wrong. I hate being so unequivocal in arguments such as this, but now you seem to be arguing semantics just for the sake of arguing.
Your original point was whether you had to have the Bestiary.
That question was answered. By rule you do.
So what is the point of the current argument?
You only need to own the bestiary if summons are not NPCs.
|
|
So what about dominate person? Can I dominate creatures that I do not have the stats for? What if they use a feat I do not own? They are part of the spell effect now, just like a summon. Wouldn't I need to own the rules that the GM's NPCs come from to use dominate person on them?
Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
No. I'm not saying that they work exactly like an animal companion.
Animal companions aren't automatically compelled to attack your enemies (unless you can speak to them and command them otherwise).
They are a spell effect. They are not NPCs.
They may work similarly to non-sentient animal companions insofar as how the GM/Player interaction works with control of the summoned creature.
Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Dominate person is a completely different spell with spell effects and in no way, shape, or form has anything to do with the summon monster spell.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
|
|
So what about dominate person? Can I dominate creatures that I do not have the stats for? What if they use a feat I do not own? They are part of the spell effect now, just like a summon. Wouldn't I need to own the rules that the GM's NPCs come from to use dominate person on them?
Summoned creatures are a spell effect, and should be treated as such. Players are in control of their own spell effects unless the spell specifically stipulates otherwise.In the case of summoned creatures, a GM would be well within their rights to adjudicate where the player may move the creature, or what creatures the summoned creature may attack or whatever, based on whether the character that summoned the creature can speak to it or not.
But this does not put the summoned creatures under GM control. This just means that the GM has the right to adjudicate the spell effects most appropriate to the circumstances.
So you are saying that summons work exactly like animal companions, but are not NPCs...
If it walks like a duck...
No. I'm not saying that they work exactly like an animal companion.
Animal companions aren't automatically compelled to attack your enemies (unless you can speak to them and command them otherwise).
They are a spell effect. They are not NPCs.
They may work similarly to non-sentient animal companions insofar as how the GM/Player interaction works with control of the summoned creature.
This is an argument that doesn't apply to your original question. And its silly. Please stop using silly arguments to try and make a point, in which you are completely wrong.
If its an NPC that is completely stated out in the scenario, the GM has that information. Dominate person or dominate monster do not grant you puppet-like control. You tell them what to do telepathically, and they try to do, to the best of their ability and understanding, what you tell them to do.
So in this case, you tell the GM what you want that NPC to do, and the GM then adjudicates that NPCs actions just like he would normally do so, except now, those actions are limited by what the spell and your instructions allows that NPC to do.
And please do not manipulate what I've said above to suddenly mean that GM should be doing the same for your summoned creatures and therefore you don't have to bring the Bestiary. You'd be wrong to make that argument.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
I am figuring out how the rules work. If I need to own extra material to use summon monster, do I need to own extra material for other spells to work?
|
|
You only need to own the bestiary if summons are not NPCs.1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
No matter how you word it, you are wrong. I hate being so unequivocal in arguments such as this, but now you seem to be arguing semantics just for the sake of arguing.
Your original point was whether you had to have the Bestiary.
That question was answered. By rule you do.
So what is the point of the current argument?
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?
This is an argument that doesn't apply to your original question. And its silly. Please stop using silly arguments to try and make a point, in which you are completely wrong.
If its an NPC that is completely stated out in the scenario, the GM has that information. Dominate person or dominate monster do not grant you puppet-like control. You tell them what to do telepathically, and they try to do, to the best of their ability and understanding, what you tell them to do.
So in this case, you tell the GM what you want that NPC to do, and the GM then adjudicates that NPCs actions just like he would normally do so, except now, those actions are limited by what the spell and your instructions allows that NPC to do.
And please do not manipulate what I've said above to suddenly mean that GM should be doing the same for your summoned creatures and therefore you don't have to bring the Bestiary. You'd be wrong to make that argument.
Let's assume I make that argument. Why would it be wrong?
|
|
I am figuring out how the rules work. If I need to own extra material to use summon monster, do I need to own extra material for other spells to work?So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
It is entirely possible if the spell effects are not included in the CRB... Lab_Rat listed a couple earlier in the thread...
|
|
I am figuring out how the rules work. If I need to own extra material to use summon monster, do I need to own extra material for other spells to work?So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
If the spell is not self-contained, yes.
But you are using arguments that don't make sense. You can't summon an NPC, and the dominate, suggestion and command spells don't suddenly grant you a new character sheet for an NPC. The GM still takes the actions for the NPC, they are just now limited by what the spell and your commands allow.
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?You only need to own the bestiary if summons are not NPCs.1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
No matter how you word it, you are wrong. I hate being so unequivocal in arguments such as this, but now you seem to be arguing semantics just for the sake of arguing.
Your original point was whether you had to have the Bestiary.
That question was answered. By rule you do.
So what is the point of the current argument?
Well you most certainly can call NPCs with planar binding. So I wouldn't need the bestiary to use that spell? But I would need the bestiary to summon a monster?
I am figuring out how the rules work. If I need to own extra material to use summon monster, do I need to own extra material for other spells to work?So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
If the spell is not self-contained, yes.
But you are using arguments that don't make sense. You can't summon an NPC, and the dominate, suggestion and command spells don't suddenly grant you a new character sheet for an NPC. The GM still takes the actions for the NPC, they are just now limited by what the spell and your commands allow.
Like summons...
|
|
Like summons...I am figuring out how the rules work. If I need to own extra material to use summon monster, do I need to own extra material for other spells to work?So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?Up-thread, I asked if you were trying to figure out how the rules worked, or if you were just looking for an argument. I think we've answered that question.
If the spell is not self-contained, yes.
But you are using arguments that don't make sense. You can't summon an NPC, and the dominate, suggestion and command spells don't suddenly grant you a new character sheet for an NPC. The GM still takes the actions for the NPC, they are just now limited by what the spell and your commands allow.
no
|
|
Beast Shape I through IV
Form of the Dragon I through whatever
Giant Form I through III
Elemental Form
Polymorph
Summon Monster
Summon Nature's Ally
et. al.
Any spell that grants you specific abilities, shapes, forms, feats, etc. that are not otherwise printed in the Core Rule Book, you need the book those things are in to be able to use that spell.
In other words, if you want to use Giant Form I to turn into a Giant from Bestiary III, then you need Bestiary III so you know what abilities from that particular Giant type you get that Giant Form I allows.
If you use Form of the Dragon to turn into a Red Dragon, you need the Bestiary to be able to know what abilities from the Red Dragon you get, based on what Form of the Dragon spell allows.
Druids need one or all of the Bestiaries to adjudicate their Wild Shape class ability, so they know what new abilities the Beast Shape spell gives them based on whether it is Beast Shape I, II, III or IV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?
Frankly, unless you're prepared to be told "I don't have authoritative info on that type of daemon / qlippoth / herald of Groetus you're trying to call via planar binding or planar ally", I'd recommend you bring the stats for any creatures you call as well.
Same goes for your character polymorphing himself, an NPC, or another PC.
You add a resource to the game, or change an existing one, you are the one who is forced to be able to state its abilities, from a legal source.
Can't be that hard... or can it?
|
|
Well you most certainly can call NPCs with planar binding. So I wouldn't need the bestiary to use that spell? But I would need the bestiary to summon a monster?Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?You only need to own the bestiary if summons are not NPCs.1) The Bestiary I is no longer a part of the Core assumption.
2) Summon spells utilize content from the Bestiary I.
3) The player must provide a legal source to the GM for any non-core assumption material.You must own and bring a copy of the bestiary I when using summon spells.
So if I dominate person an NPC, does he disappear because I do not own the material that the NPC used to build his character?
So summons are spell effects, regardless of being fully stated out characters like any other NPC? Furthermore they handle in exactly the same manner as an animal companion, who is an NPC.
No matter how you word it, you are wrong. I hate being so unequivocal in arguments such as this, but now you seem to be arguing semantics just for the sake of arguing.
Your original point was whether you had to have the Bestiary.
That question was answered. By rule you do.
So what is the point of the current argument?
No, you don’t summon NPCs with Planar Binding. You call Outsiders. The outsider you call is in the Bestiary. And the GM would be well within their rights to not allow you to do a Planar Binding spell if you didn’t have a Bestiary with that particular outsider in it.
|
|
Markthus.
I've said my piece. There isn't a single other poster here that is agreeing with you.
You've had 5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars, 2 stars, 1 stars, no stars, venture-officers and a Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome telling you how the game works. That's a pretty good cross section of our community that is all agreeing against your argument.
That being said, there isn't anything more I can add to the conversation. You have your answer.
Move on. That's what I'm going to do.
|
|
If your character is utilizing a spell/class feature/anything that references or utilizes content from other books, you must own those books.
In general (list not complete) this will include ALL of the polymorph spells, summon spells, and calling spells. In addition it will cover class features/abilities that reference these spells (druids wild shape, etc).
Playing Devil's Advocate...
Does the spell require rules use by the casting player from another book? If you can find anything else other than the Summon Monster/Nature spells that do so, come back and ask that question again.
Summon / Vomit Swarm. Planar Ally. Planar Binding. Gate. ($Monster) Shape. Polymorph. Polymorph Any Object.
|
I think the OP has received his answer from multiple multiple-star GMs as well as Venture Officers. If that is STILL not acceptable to him, I think he is welcome to wait for a MMJ answer, but I don't think this conversation is going anywhere anymore.
Your original question was can you use summon monster without owning a copy of the bestiary. Andrew summed it up very well just upthread. Rule is you need to have the Bestiary to use summon monster. Expect table variation for anything else.
Like Andrew, I also suggest moving on.
|
|
Playing Devil's Advocate...
Does the spell require rules use by the casting player from another book? If you can find anything else other than the Summon Monster/Nature spells that do so, come back and ask that question again.Summon / Vomit Swarm. Planar Ally. Planar Binging. Gate.
($Monster) Shape. Polymorph. Polymorph Any Object.
Yup, all those spells require a different source if you want to turn into something, look like something, use an ability from something that otherwise is not defined by the spell or somewhere else in the book the spell comes from.
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?Frankly, unless you're prepared to be told "I don't have authoritative info on that type of daemon / qlippoth / herald of Groetus you're trying to call via planar binding or planar ally", I'd recommend you bring the stats for any creatures you call as well.
Same goes for your character polymorphing himself, an NPC, or another PC.
You add a resource to the game, or change an existing one, you are the one who is forced to be able to state its abilities, from a legal source.
Can't be that hard... or can it?
Now phrase that way, it doesn't matter the NPC or not NPC state of the summon.
Thank you for phrasing the rule in a way that unifies concerns. That was infinitely more helpful than, "YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!" responses that I was getting.
|
That is true but i doesnt say for how long :D
It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.
No where in the description does it say it will for the duration of the spell ^^
You mean besides the duration of the summon monster spell?
If a GM tried to do that at a table, I wouldn't blame any player for walking. That is clearly a dick move.
Not if the player had publicly and explicitly handed over control of the creature to the GM, to be run as an NPC.
"Since this is now an NPC, to be run as I see fit...Dogs don't like loud noises, or the taste of decaying zombie flesh. There's a quiet spot in the next room, where it can lick its balls."
Since this has come up multiple times while I was asleep -
Yes. The player handing over control of the summoned monsters to the GM because he doesn't have the sources is a dick. The answer to that is not for the GM to be a dick as well. That's not fair to the other players at the table. As a GM, you owe it to the other players to be the better person when handling the situation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is true but i doesnt say for how long :D
It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.
No where in the description does it say it will for the duration of the spell ^^
You mean besides the duration of the summon monster spell?
If a GM tried to do that at a table, I wouldn't blame any player for walking. That is clearly a dick move.
Not if the player had publicly and explicitly handed over control of the creature to the GM, to be run as an NPC.
"Since this is now an NPC, to be run as I see fit...Dogs don't like loud noises, or the taste of decaying zombie flesh. There's a quiet spot in the next room, where it can lick its balls."
Since this has come up multiple times while I was asleep -
Yes. The player handing over control of the summoned monsters to the GM because he doesn't have the sources is a dick. The answer to that is not for the GM to be a dick as well. That's not fair to the other players at the table. As a GM, you owe it to the other players to be the better person when handling the situation.
And the best way to handle it is to ask the player to cast a different spell.
I will not add more work to my work load because a player ambushes me with a spell he cannot legally cast.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my challenge to you all is to pick a creature that can be summoned by summon monster or summon nature's ally and write up a short description of them as if they were an NPC.
"Drusilla is a lillend who lives in the upper planes. She likes chocolate and any song with upbeat lyrics. And she'll attack anybody you point her at."
(All of the descriptions need to end that way.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for you Chris:
"Colonel Barker is an energetic riding dog (think Boxer) who lives in Absalom with his halfling master Toby. Colonel Barker loves barking at people and things both familiar and unfamiliar, peeing on objects that both belong to him and he thinks should belong to him, and sleeping. He will attack, and/or bark at, and/or pee on anyone or anything you point him too."
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I will not add more work to my work load because a player ambushes me with a spell he cannot legally cast.
Sorry. I have zero sympathy for the argument "The player is adding to my work load." Your are a 4 star GM. If you can't handle the addition of a summon by now, I have no respect for your abilities. About the only situation in which I would accept that argument from you is if this was a pickup game where you just got the scenario an hour before and are struggling to absorb it all in time for game (in which case, it would be entirely reasonable to say before game "Hey guys, I'm not prepared for tonight, can we please stick to relatively simple characters to GM?")
I've GMed for 30 years across a huge range of systems. I have GMed 12 player combats with as many as 30 different NPCs. I've had players drop summons in my laps, I've had players manage to pull in fully stated NPCs as allies. I've had PCs say "hey, remember that guy we met 5 years ago? I bet he could really help us with this, why don't we go find him and ask for help?"
If you can't handle an additional summon, from the limited list in the CRB, involving an animal out of the basic bestiary, in a scenario as prepared for you, as circumscribed, as controlled, and as *short* as a PFS game, I just don't feel you can call yourself a GM. That is the level of competence I would expect out of one of my apprentice staffers.
If you want to argue that PFS controls access to power by requiring people to buy books as a marketing tactic, I'll accept that argument. If you want to argue that experienced players should do everything they can to make the game faster for everyone, I'll accept that argument. If you want to say please don't summon creature X unless you know how it works because they have some really complicated powers, I'm fine with that. (Air elementals and their whirlwind, which we just spent a couple pages arguing about in another thread, for example)
If you are going to say "I can't handle a first level PC summoning a dog, so I'm going to say the dog runs off and plays with itself even though that breaks the rules, because I'm not a good enough GM to handle it." Well, it's your table, so I'll accept it. But frankly, the only part of that arguement I will have any sympathy with is "I don't think I'm a good GM."
Frankly, in my opinion, the objective of drawing more players into the hobby would override those other objections. So if someone showed up to game and said "Hi, I'm new, all I've been able to buy so far is the CRB, but this summon monster thing looks really neat, can I cast that spell?" I would say "Sure!"
Actually, if anyone wants to really contribute to making the situation better, rather than just complain about how much work it makes them do, why don't we get together a "GM accessory kit" that has common things GMs need, that are OGL, like the CRB Summon monster stat blocks on index cards that GMs can print out, have on hand, or have on device?
In otherwords, lets stop telling players "You can't do that fun thing because it is too much work for the GM" and start saying "Hey, here is a neat way we can let people have more fun by making GMing easier!"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry. I have zero sympathy for the argument "The player is adding to my work load." Your are a 4 star GM. If you can't handle the addition of a summon by now, I have no respect for your abilities. About the only situation in which I would accept that argument from you is if this was a pickup game where you just got the scenario an hour before and are struggling to absorb it all in time for game (in which case, it would be entirely reasonable to say before game "Hey guys, I'm not prepared for tonight, can we please stick to relatively simple characters to GM?")
I've GMed for 30 years across a huge range of systems. I have GMed 12 player combats with as many as 30 different NPCs. I've had players drop summons in my laps, I've had players manage to pull in fully stated NPCs as allies. I've had PCs say "hey, remember that guy we met 5 years ago? I bet he could really help us with this, why don't we go find him and ask for help?"
If you can't handle an additional summon, from the limited list in the CRB, involving an animal out of the basic bestiary, in a scenario as prepared for you, as circumscribed, as controlled, and as *short* as a PFS game, I just don't feel you can call yourself a GM. That is the level of competence I would expect out of one of my apprentice staffers.
I guess I fail to understand why you think it is the GM's responsibility to prepare for your character's spells and summons. That's on you. If you can't provide the stats and source, sorry, this is PFS. The GM prepares the scenario, not every little detail about any possible thing a character might want to do.
It is the player's responsibility to provide anything outside of the core assumption. This is very clearly stated. The onus is not on the GM to provide the tools you need to play your character.
If someone who plays a summoning based character shows up expecting me to have the stats for his summons, he better be ready to play a pre-gen or a different character. Because he failed to prepare.
|
|
Sorry. I have zero sympathy for the argument "The player is adding to my work load." Your are a 4 star GM. If you can't handle the addition of a summon by now, I have no respect for your abilities. About the only situation in which I would accept that argument from you is if this was a pickup game where you just got the scenario an hour before and are struggling to absorb it all in time for game (in which case, it would be entirely reasonable to say before game "Hey guys, I'm not prepared for tonight, can we please stick to relatively simple characters to GM?")
I've GMed for 30 years across a huge range of systems. I have GMed 12 player combats with as many as 30 different NPCs. I've had players drop summons in my laps, I've had players manage to pull in fully stated NPCs as allies. I've had PCs say "hey, remember that guy we met 5 years ago? I bet he could really help us with this, why don't we go find him and ask for help?"
If you can't handle an additional summon, from the limited list in the CRB, involving an animal out of the basic bestiary, in a scenario as prepared for you, as circumscribed, as controlled, and as *short* as a PFS game, I just don't feel you can call yourself a GM. That is the level of competence I would expect out of one of my apprentice staffers.
I guess I fail to understand why you think it is the GM's responsibility to prepare for your character's spells and summons. That's on you. If you can't provide the stats and source, sorry, this is PFS. The GM prepares the scenario, not every little detail about any possible thing a character might want to do.
It is the player's responsibility to provide anything outside of the core assumption. This is very clearly stated. The onus is not on the GM to provide the tools you need to play your character.
If someone who plays a summoning based character shows up expecting me to have the stats for his summons, he better be ready to play a pre-gen or a different character. Because he failed to prepare.
Exactly, This isn't necessarily about the GM not wanting to run the summoned creature or saying it's too much (though really on a new GM it could be). It's about the player being prepared to run his own character and being prepped to run it effectively for anything it might do.
The rules are clear in that the player needs to provide any additional resources for their character, if that includes monster stat blocks for a spell then the player needs to have that information available. The player cannot expect the GM to prep for running a PC along with running the game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The GM prepares the scenario, not every little detail about any possible thing a character might want to do.
Because in my experience, that is what makes a person a GM, rather than just a staffer operating under the guidance of a GM.
A GM should:
Know all the core rules and how they are applied
Should have resources on hand to handle most of the common applications of all core rules and should be able to access them without slowing down game.
Should be able to quickly adapt to players doing things not covered by the rules, either through temporary rulings or through applying similar rules.
I make a lot allowance for new GMs, especially 1-2 star GMs. By the time you get to 3 & 4 stars, I expect people to meet my minimum standards.
So far what I hear on these boards is:
"I can't stand people sundering, because then I have to go look up the rules, so if they sunder NPCs, I'm going to have NPCs sunder on them!"
"I won't allow people to summon basic animals out of the bestiary like dogs, because looking up a dog's stat block is too much work"
I don't hear anyone on these boards offering to make it easier, and in fact, in past threads, when I offered to put together tools to make it easier for GMs, I got told "you can't do that, the players need to memorize all the rules, and need to not use rules I don't know (like sunder.)"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far what I hear on these boards is:
"I won't allow people to summon basic animals out of the bestiary like dogs, because looking up a dog's stat block is too much work"
This is NOT what has been said here.
What has been repeatedly said here is if you DON'T have the stat block from the required source, the GM is not going to make a stat block up on the fly so you can cast a spell. If YOU wish to cast a spell referencing an additional resource, HAVE the additional resource. It's required by the rules, and really should be common sense to begin with.
|
|
The GM prepares the scenario, not every little detail about any possible thing a character might want to do.Because in my experience, that is what makes a person a GM, rather than just a staffer operating under the guidance of a GM.
A GM should:
Know all the core rules and how they are applied
Should have resources on hand to handle most of the common applications of all core rules and should be able to access them without slowing down game.
Should be able to quickly adapt to players doing things not covered by the rules, either through temporary rulings or through applying similar rules.I make a lot allowance for new GMs, especially 1-2 star GMs. By the time you get to 3 & 4 stars, I expect people to meet my minimum standards.
So far what I hear on these boards is:
"I can't stand people sundering, because then I have to go look up the rules, so if they sunder NPCs, I'm going to have NPCs sunder on them!"
"I won't allow people to summon basic animals out of the bestiary like dogs, because looking up a dog's stat block is too much work"I don't hear anyone on these boards offering to make it easier, and in fact, in past threads, when I offered to put together tools to make it easier for GMs, I got told "you can't do that, the players need to memorize all the rules, and need to not use rules I don't know (like sunder.)"
I guess since I don't live up to your standards, because I refuse to let players do things they don't have the resources for, you won't ever be at my table. So no need to worry about it.
I'll go over to my corner of awesome, but just not awesome enough and watch from the sidelines.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM prepares the scenario, not every little detail about any possible thing a character might want to do.Because in my experience, that is what makes a person a GM, rather than just a staffer operating under the guidance of a GM.
A GM should:
Know all the core rules and how they are applied
Should have resources on hand to handle most of the common applications of all core rules and should be able to access them without slowing down game.
Should be able to quickly adapt to players doing things not covered by the rules, either through temporary rulings or through applying similar rules.I make a lot allowance for new GMs, especially 1-2 star GMs. By the time you get to 3 & 4 stars, I expect people to meet my minimum standards.
So far what I hear on these boards is:
"I can't stand people sundering, because then I have to go look up the rules, so if they sunder NPCs, I'm going to have NPCs sunder on them!"
"I won't allow people to summon basic animals out of the bestiary like dogs, because looking up a dog's stat block is too much work"I don't hear anyone on these boards offering to make it easier, and in fact, in past threads, when I offered to put together tools to make it easier for GMs, I got told "you can't do that, the players need to memorize all the rules, and need to not use rules I don't know (like sunder.)"
I guess since I don't live up to your standards, because I refuse to let players do things they don't have the resources for, you won't ever be at my table. So no need to worry about it.
I'll go over to my corner of awesome, but just not awesome enough and watch from the sidelines.
Yeah, I guess I suck as a GM too because I don't do all the player's prep for them.
<High Five's Thea!> Yeah! I don't have to GM anymore, cause I suck!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far what I hear on these boards is:"I can't stand people sundering, because then I have to go look up the rules, so if they sunder NPCs, I'm going to have NPCs sunder on them!"
"I won't allow people to summon basic animals out of the bestiary like dogs, because looking up a dog's stat block is too much work"I don't hear anyone on these boards offering to make it easier, and in fact, in past threads, when I offered to put together tools to make it easier for GMs, I got told "you can't do that, the players need to memorize all the rules, and need to not use rules I don't know (like sunder.)"
It isn't too much work, it just isn't the GM's job. Nor is it their job to make playing your character easier. If you want to play something that isn't in the core rulebook, be ready to support it. You sit there an expect a GM to memorize everything and in your next statement you claim it's wrong for a GM to ask the same of you. It sounds like you have a bad case of entitlement.
I don't prep my adventures by memorizing stat blocks of animals. Where would it end? "Well GM, you should know what a giant celestial eagle's stat block is, you are the GM after all!"
That isn't the way PFS works. Bring your material, or play something that doesn't take extra sourcebooks. It's pretty simple.