| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure. Firstly I don't actually see anywhere that it says you have to summon a creature where it can survive. This is the closest I found:
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.
While you could read "supporting it" as "the animal has to be able to live there" I think it's clear from context that they mean supporting it physically. Meaning; you can not summon a rhinoceros in the air and have it fall on somebody.
Some may disagree, but I don't see any reason you couldn't summon any aquatic creature, anywhere you wanted. It wouldn't be able to move if it didn't have a land speed, but still.
where does it say that? Because I think you're making that up. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad ruling. It's fair and it makes sense. But I don't think it's RAW.
Some species of octopus pull themselves across dry land to traverse tide pools to find food, hence the land speed. I'd go as far to say you can summon a shark or other fish on land, but it flops around and dies (or duration runs out) without being able to take an action.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typically when "support" is used in reference to a "surface", it's talking about the surface's ability to physically support it, not the environment's ability to sustain life. You can summon a shark on land if the land won't give way under its weight. It'll flop about a while until the spell ends or it suffocates, but you can do it. But no aerial shark summons. Summon Bigger Fish is right out.
bizbag, I already talked about that in the first post I made. blahpers kindly reiterated for me.
I'm not saying fish can breathe on land. I'm saying, 'even though fish cant breathe on land, that doesnt mean you cant summon them there'. A porpise can't breathe underwater. Couldn't you summon a porpise underwater?
If you summon a creature where it can't breathe, well then it is holding it's breath, now isn't it? It can hold its breath a number of rounds equal to twice it's CON score before it has to start making CON checks. That should be more than enough time for all but the longest of summons.
Your shark with no land movement speed can't move, but it could attack anything within it's reach.
Here is another animal to consider. Not sure if there is any summoning spell for it, but it is still roughly relevant: Crabs.
They do not have the amphibious trait, but they have an ability called "water dependency" which causes Constitution damage based upon "hours". While this does not particularly apply to the octopus, since does not have water dependency, it still shows that the "suffocation" for aquatic on land creatures might not be as quick and dramatic than the other way around (kind of makes sense...I mean, most of the rules are written from the perspective of small or medium humanoids...everything else is kind of skewed)
It might last long enough to at least survive your typical summoning for combat at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules doesn't require an "environment" that supports it. They require a "surface" that supports it. That's an entirely different definition of "support" involved.
|
bizbag, I already talked about that in the first post I made. blahpers kindly reiterated for me.
I'm not saying fish can breathe on land. I'm saying, 'even though fish cant breathe on land, that doesnt mean you cant summon them there'. A porpise can't breathe underwater. Couldn't you summon a porpise underwater?
If you summon a creature where it can't breathe, well then it is holding it's breath, now isn't it? It can hold its breath a number of rounds equal to twice it's CON score before it has to start making CON checks. That should be more than enough time for all but the longest of summons.
Your shark with no land movement speed can't move, but it could attack anything within it's reach.
While I fully support the idea of being allowed to summon an acquatic creature on a dry surface, I also wouldn't rule it as able to normally attack, even without movement.
The shark taken as an example would trash wildly around, with zero reach, lacking both the appropriate limbs and a medium (such as a body of water) to properly propel itself against enemies using its fins.
The automatic suffocation and lethally inhospitable environment are enough to make an animal panic (the celestial/fiendish templates don't improve Int).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zero reach would be interesting. The only way to get bitten by the shark then would be to literally walk up to it and put your face in its mouth.
People that do that deserve to get eaten.
Unless it is some kind of mind control thing. I admit, summoning a shark and magically telling a guy to stick his head in its mouth seems like the best use of two spells ever. Could you coup de grace the guy and save yourself a spell? Yes. Would it be far more subtle? Yes....but in the end, at what cost?
lol. I'd say that's an accurate interpretation of the RAW.
It seems to imply that you can't summon any aquatic creature into water or above water. You would have to summon it outside of the water on a strong surface, then push it into the water :\
I would be inclined to say that the water is a "surface" that can "support" creatures. Not just aquatic creatures. But part of that is because of a great moment when a fellow player summoned a wolf underwater so that it's thrashing would distract some sharks and we could escape.
That is indeed unfortunate wording. You could still summon really, really fine creatures on the surface of the water. Like insects!
Is there precedent for summoning Swarms as your Monster/Nature's Ally?
CELESTIAL BEES - FEEL THE STINGS OF JUSTICE
There is summon swarm and vomit swarm.
The latter has wasps as an option after 7th level. Yes, you can vomit wasps. The earlier option allows spiders.
Thinking about it: would it be necessary to have a surface if you summon something that flies? I mean, it can support itself in air. So if a surface can be skipped in that instance, you could apply the same principle to aquatic creatures.
I mean, I agree with you lemeres. That's how I'll run it at my tables. However, that's not what the rules say.
The air does not have a surface. The water *does* have a surface, but it's not going to support the weight of a shark, because that's not how buoyancy works.
interesting development.
Yes, I was looking under the Conjuration school of magic which spells out what you can and can't do with summoning. That text is not present.
So it seems like that is a specific stipulation of the Summon Monster line of spells, though I just checked and Summon Nature's Ally does have that line as well. However, in principle, it is not a general tennet of summoning.
Well sure,
Summon Swarm would be an example. I could summon a bunch of rats underwater. -although I guess you couldn't because of not being able to summon ANYTHING underwater (not a surface that supports them). However, just because it's a surface that would support their weight doesn't mean its not incapable of sustaining their life. You could summon a bunch of rats, say, in a place that had no air.
The aformementioned Vomit Swarm would qualify as well.
There's Man Monkeys, Rain of Frogs Fleshworm Infestation, and Summon Accuser.
In addition, though they're not summoning, pe-se, there's the Planar Ally line of spells, which are Calling, and lack that text. Which is actually sillier because creatures you call can actually die as opposed to just being unsummoned.
oh yeah, missed that. Again, no idea why you'd want to. Maybe you're fighting in a vaccum for some reason and you REALLY need some mad monkeys!
You know... maybe I'll ask my GM if I can do spell research to create a new summoning spell. I'll call it "Bizbag's Flopping Shark" think it will fly?
|
All I can see is Aqueous Orb with an octopus waiting inside of it. Or maybe a shark, or poisonous nettle fish...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh yeah, missed that. Again, no idea why you'd want to. Maybe you're fighting in a vaccum for some reason and you REALLY need some mad monkeys!
You know... maybe I'll ask my GM if I can do spell research to create a new summoning spell. I'll call it "Bizbag's Flopping Shark" think it will fly?
No, fly it will definitely not. Flop and gasp for air is a definite possibility.
Flying Sharks will have to be the more advanced version =p.
Yeah, that looks right. Surface is universal unless specifically contradicted, environment is limited to effects that work like summon monster i, which is damn near every summoning spell.
They really should tweak the Conjuration section accordingly so that a sufficient body of water counts as a support surface. Otherwise, RAW you can never summon an aquatic creature in the water.
Am I the only one that thinks there should be a 'summon pirhana swarm' spell?
So... in a low level game, the Paladin fell 80 ft. from a bridge into seawater that was about 50 ft. deep. He promptly sank to the bottom.
Then the wizard then tied rope around himself and had the ranger lower him to halfway down the cliff. The wizard cast Summon Monster II to summon 3 dolphins who he instructed to bring the paladin to the show. His spell range was only 35 ft.
So, does this mean that summoning the dolphins 5 ft. above the water was in fact against the rules?
magpied: If your GM allowed it, your GM allowed it. However, technically speaking, yes it was.
In the most literal definition of the RAW I don't see how you can summon aquatic creatures at all -ever (with summon monster/summon nature's ally), seeing how you will always either be: 1. not summoning them on a surface that can support them or 2. not summoning them in an environment that can support them.
If your GM wishes to allow this. he must allow at least one of these rules to be broken. However, in the particular case you mentioned, it seems the GM allowed *both* of the rules to be broken at the same time. This is not the call I would have made.
The argument at the time was more philosophical. I made the point that dolphins often jump higher than that in the wild. The summoning of the dolphin brought it into existence in a state (falling into water from 5 feet) which it can exist in naturally.
Like, summoning a horse 5 feet in the air to land on someone is not a "natural" existence.
can't horses jump higher than 5 feet too?
Sorry to be a nerd, but 'octopi' is not the plural of 'octopus'. It comes from the Greek rather than Latin, and the plural is technically 'octopodes', although 'octopuses' is also usually considered acceptable.
Had to get that off my chest.
Sorry.
I'm not sure. Firstly I don't actually see anywhere that it says you have to summon a creature where it can survive. This is the closest I found:
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.While you could read "supporting it" as "the animal has to be able to live there" I think it's clear from context that they mean supporting it physically. Meaning; you can not summon a rhinoceros in the air and have it fall on somebody.
Some may disagree, but I don't see any reason you couldn't summon any aquatic creature, anywhere you wanted. It wouldn't be able to move if it didn't have a land speed, but still.
The clear intent behind this language (which does not strike me as at all ambiguous) is to stress that this spell is only useful for summoning creatures because you want that creature around to help you out, as opposed to summoning massive objects into the air to fall and crush things, or summon a creature inside the stomach of another creature causing it to explode.
If the intent was that creatures could only be summoned into environments they could comfortably live in for an indefinite period, they would have worded it as such.
Sorry to be a nerd, but 'octopi' is not the plural of 'octopus'. It comes from the Greek rather than Latin, and the plural is technically 'octopodes', although 'octopuses' is also usually considered acceptable.
Octopi is a word, the plural of octopus. Both Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com list Octopi as an acceptable plural of octopus. I also looked it up on the Cambridge Free English Dictionary site, and it appears as a word under "american English" but not under "British English". Oxford dictionary does not list it. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Still, in America, it doesn't matter that the reason the word exists in the first place is based off of an incorrect translation, the word remains.
tldr: Octopi is a word in America.
googleshrug: I wasn't arguing intent. I was just talking about what the wording says.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I knew that, as sure as Carter has Little Pills, the subject would turn to this soomer or later Ask the Editor, by Merriam-Webster.
|
|
Some sort of air elemental template octopus (instead of celestial or fiendish template), able to breath in air and with a fly speed, would be way awesome. Extra cool points if you can summon a venomous blue-ringed octopus on someone's face!
Air elemental template aquatic creatures in general were awesome in 3.X (using the template in, IIRC, Manual of the Planes?). Flying sharks? Yes!