There's nothing to say so in the spell description, but presumably a caster should only be able to summon creatures that the character knows about.
Which is, I guess, quite obvious ... but in general do people play it that way? Or does learning the spell imply learning about all the different creatures it gives access to?
(Also, the same question for Wild Shape ... should be limited to animals the Character is aware of, right?)
The summon spells put in no such provision. It makes sense, too, given the pretty severely limited roster you get to choose from. For explanations, at some point the caster learns the spell, either with some sort of divine guidance, or in the books where he learned the spell. That said, it could certainly be made into a houserule. Say, at some point you must have succeeded on a normal Knowledge check of the appropriate type for that creature, with the normal DC for a creature of that HD. Roll once per level unless you learn more about such creatures.
Wild shape is a VERY different deal, since it lets you take far more different shapes.
"There's nothing to say so in the spell description, but presumably a caster should only be able to summon creatures that the character knows about."
There is nothing in the spell description because what can be summoned is listed in the spell...the PC knows what can be summoned because he knows the spell. Knowledge skills or even asking other casters will give this information. Anything else is a house rule and a silly one and smacks of "I don't like this so I'll find a way to screw with the caster and invent something"
"Also, the same question for Wild Shape ... should be limited to animals the Character is aware of, right?"
Where does it say that in the description? Again Knowledge skills, asking other casters etc makes this restriction silly and pointless. And again smacks of "I don't like this so I'll stick a silly restriction on it".
I tend to agree. It is not the powerhouse it was in 3.5.
|
C'mon people - it's not an unreasonable question. You know the spell so you have a list of monsters you can summon. Dial H for Hound Archon.
But does the character know what a Hound Archon can do? Does the spell provide you with insight into the monster's stats? It doesn't say it does - we have Knowledge skills for that.
It could get a bit silly though. Since the list will stay the same with different characters, you'd have a standard list of "to-do" monster lore. "I'm level 3 with Mr #5 now, so I need to learn what Small Elementals can do. AGAIN." Arguably, whatever wizard's college or clerical seminary trained your PC included classes on Summoned Monsters 101.
But that causes new problems: what about self-taught characters; how/when did they learn all this? As well as characters that learn a lot in the field; if you gained 10 levels while adventuring (not unreasonable), did you really learn about all those monsters in school, even the high-level ones?
And you could even argue "I can summon that monster we're fighting now", or "in a few levels I can summon that", and argue that you therefore know its stats even without the Knowledge.
Someone who goes to magic academy should certainly know the basics of even the heavy hitters. The increasing DC due to high hit dice for Knowledge checks is moronic. Everyone knows stuff about the most rare subtype of grig, but nobody has any idea what the big, gray thingy with the four trunklike legs and the flexible nose is. Not to mention things like gigantic fish with blowholes on top. I mean, if someone knows anything about animals in our world, they do know the specifics on every single kind of tiny thrush and insect before starting on odd things like gorillas, tigers, whales and giraffes, right?
IMO, the caster should summon each creature on the list at least once to know exactly what they can do.
How does a sorcerer suddenly know she is now able to cast fireball or stinking cloud? Do they have to guess what new spells they are now able to use, testing each until they find the ones they got, all the while limited to what they know by Spellcraft? For the new spells they gain, do they need to test them out to see at what range fireball and stinking cloud can be cast? Note that a sorcerer is not required to have either Knowledge (arcana) or Spellcraft - yet it seems they can cast spells just fine. Don't make it more complicated than it has to be.
It could get a bit silly though. Since the list will stay the same with different characters, you'd have a standard list of "to-do" monster lore. "I'm level 3 with Mr #5 now, so I need to learn what Small Elementals can do. AGAIN." Arguably, whatever wizard's college or clerical seminary trained your PC included classes on Summoned Monsters 101.
Well that makes sense, a trained character would have had their master(s) demonstrate these ... and a student conjurer would have summoned under supervision all the creatures on the list before qualifying and becoming a lvl1 adventurer.
But that causes new problems: what about self-taught characters; how/when did they learn all this?
Now that's a good question ... i guess to keep with the RAW, a sorcerer using Summon Monster must just intuitively understand the magic and the nature of the creature that channeling magic just so will bring. In effect, the magic flowing through him must give him the understanding.
Summon Natures Ally gives me more of a conceptual issue. Can a forest-trained druid turn up at the sea, having never seen it before, and summon a dolphin to assist him? RAW, definitely, but ... how? I guess in-character he would just summon suitable assistance (which happened to be a dolphin), not knowing what would turn up, even if the player specified a dolphin.
(I'm not looking to nerf the summon spells, just trying to reconcile conceptually player knowledge vs character knowledge).
Why do people want to put nonsense restrictions on basic abilities and spells?
Do GMs insist on a -4 to hit penalty on a weapon which the fighter has never picked up in their life? I bet no.
So why this nonsense about SM and SNA? For "realism" in a fantasy game? Just to be awkward to casters?
How does a sorcerer suddenly know she is now able to cast fireball or stinking cloud? Do they have to guess what new spells they are now able to use, testing each until they find the ones they got, all the while limited to what they know by Spellcraft? For the new spells they gain, do they need to test them out to see at what range fireball and stinking cloud can be cast? Note that a sorcerer is not required to have either Knowledge (arcana) or Spellcraft - yet it seems they can cast spells just fine. Don't make it more complicated than it has to be.
Much as it would be fun to have sorcerers with 'wild magic', unable yet to properly control effects of the newest spells they have access to leading to unpredictable results, I think it's best kept to the backstory and not enter into the gameplay.
The point is that the CHARACTER has no reason to know what spell the PLAYER picked each new level, nor what the spells do, nor when they have a new level. So, if you are ready to accept keeping THAT in the backstory, do yourself a favour and don't demand it be played out regarding summons. If you're unlucky, the player might just decide to let you do the paperwork on the various critters he summons, with the bonuses, templates, and such. It is a fair bit of work, and it isn't a get powerful quick scheme.
|
|
Why do people want to put nonsense restrictions on basic abilities and spells?
Do GMs insist on a -4 to hit penalty on a weapon which the fighter has never picked up in their life? I bet no.
So why this nonsense about SM and SNA? For "realism" in a fantasy game? Just to be awkward to casters?
That's NOT what I'm saying.
I'm not saying casters shouldn't know these things, but I'm asking HOW they know these things. For playability reasons, they know these things, but for RP reasons, I want to know how they got that knowledge.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
"Also, the same question for Wild Shape ... should be limited to animals the Character is aware of, right?"
Where does it say that in the description? Again Knowledge skills, asking other casters etc makes this restriction silly and pointless. And again smacks of "I don't like this so I'll stick a silly restriction on it".
It says it right here:
The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.
Last line of the first paragraph.
I could see some verisimilitude advantages in at least telling a player that he or she couldn't look up the stats of monsters on the summon list - one could argue that just because you know what you can get you may still not know what those things are or can do. But that seems like to much GM work for minimal benefit.
I'd file it under the same knowledge that lets you know how to target a fireball with perfect accuracy.
Why do people want to put nonsense restrictions on basic abilities and spells?
Do GMs insist on a -4 to hit penalty on a weapon which the fighter has never picked up in their life? I bet no.
So why this nonsense about SM and SNA? For "realism" in a fantasy game? Just to be awkward to casters?
That's NOT what I'm saying.
I'm not saying casters shouldn't know these things, but I'm asking HOW they know these things. For playability reasons, they know these things, but for RP reasons, I want to know how they got that knowledge.
Why?
Why isn't "I've been doing this quietly while sitting around campfires" enough?
I'm sure RP a four hour session for the sorcerer traipsing around town visiting druids, wizards, bards etc learning about the critters that might be summoned or wildshaped into would be huge fun for the rest of the table.
And again, what about the fighter who has never picked up a heavy flail in his life or never fired a bow. You going to ask them how they got the experience in that weapon to get their full BAB or would you insist they use the basic BAB 0/+1?
Its exactly the same scenario...A player uses their PCs basic abilities, one martial another arcane, so why insist on a nonsense restriction?
When a spellcaster learn new spells, it is asumed they somehow trained those spells, they dont simply pop on their mind. Its the same reason why the game doesnt let you level up in the middle of combat.
A sorcerer has a mystical source of magical power, not a mystical source of knowledge. And no, although you do need spellcraft to identify spells, you dont need the skill to cast, that means that you will know your own powers very well, but will know little to nothing about magic as an art.
A sorcerer has trained his fireball before he casts it, even if he casted it only once or twice before being confident on his abilities.
It doesnt mean he trained it AFTER he leveled up, he might be trying to cast fireballs since level 1, but never managed to figure out how to properly handle it until he gained more experience.
A house rule i apply on my tables is that a character will use his resting time to study his spells somehow, a cleric may contact his god, a wizard will review his spell formulas, a sorcerer will put fire on his hands and wave it around (prestigitation is a cantrip) trying to figure out how to effectivelly use it, etc.
There is an excellent optional rule in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana for individualized summon lists - essentially each level the character picks an additional creature 'known' for each summoning spell that they know.
|
|
Why do people want to put nonsense restrictions on basic abilities and spells?
Do GMs insist on a -4 to hit penalty on a weapon which the fighter has never picked up in their life? I bet no.
So why this nonsense about SM and SNA? For "realism" in a fantasy game? Just to be awkward to casters?
That's NOT what I'm saying.
I'm not saying casters shouldn't know these things, but I'm asking HOW they know these things. For playability reasons, they know these things, but for RP reasons, I want to know how they got that knowledge.
Why?
Why isn't "I've been doing this quietly while sitting around campfires" enough?
I'm sure RP a four hour session for the sorcerer traipsing around town visiting druids, wizards, bards etc learning about the critters that might be summoned or wildshaped into would be huge fun for the rest of the table.
And again, what about the fighter who has never picked up a heavy flail in his life or never fired a bow. You going to ask them how they got the experience in that weapon to get their full BAB or would you insist they use the basic BAB 0/+1?
Its exactly the same scenario...A player uses their PCs basic abilities, one martial another arcane, so why insist on a nonsense restriction?
I am NOT advocating a restriction!
I'm asking about the in-game explanation of where this knowledge comes from.
"Because you've been summoning things in the background while gathering XP to level up." - fine, that's an explanation that actually works. Better than "I learned this at wizard school", because that one doesn't work if you multiclass into wizard later on, or if you concept is about being self-taught.
---
The tricky bit is how summoned monster knowledge translates to not-summoned monster knowledge.
If I can summon a Lemure, okay, maybe I know about that. What if an NPC sends a lemure after me? Do I know stuff about that one too, regardless of my Knowledge (Planes)? Do I know stuff about Devils in general now?
If I can summon a Lemure, okay, maybe I know about that. What if an NPC sends a lemure after me? Do I know stuff about that one too, regardless of my Knowledge (Planes)? Do I know stuff about Devils in general now?
That is a really good question.
As a GM, if the character did spend his time learning about the different monsters he can summon, i would say he knows the powers of every creature he can summon. He wouldnt know all of their vulnerabilities unless he actually ordered them to fight him or one of his allies.
---The tricky bit is how summoned monster knowledge translates to not-summoned monster knowledge.
If I can summon a Lemure, okay, maybe I know about that. What if an NPC sends a lemure after me? Do I know stuff about that one too, regardless of my Knowledge...
Summoning something doesn't give you knowledge about it.
Nothing in the spell description says otherwise.That is what Knowledge Nature/Planes/Religion/Arcana is for.
A smart player may summon various critters and get his fellow adventuring buddies to burn it with fire/acid, try hitting it with magical weapons, slashing/blunt/piercing weapons, etc to get the same information. However that is something which should be RP'd.
Don't just give stuff away but at the same time don't restrict it unreasonably either. Placing restrictions on what can be summoned when the list is given in the spell description or restricting Wildshape to stuff your PC has "seen" is an unreasonable restriction.
PS: No snark intended but trying to condense a prolly 5 minute conversation into a short message is tricky :)
restricting Wildshape to stuff your PC has "seen" is an unreasonable restriction.
As pointed out to me above, I missed it when i skimmed the wildshape rule before posting; it *IS* restricted to stuff your PC has seen:
The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.
(Of course, it doesn't have to have been seen during play, any local animal would reasonably have been seen - especially by a druid - during his/her formative years. But wildshaping an animal the druid never could have encountered is out, RAW)
Like Ascalaphus, I wasn't suggesting limiting the summoning, just trying to clarify how people use it, and understand the in-game/RP logic behind it.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
restricting Wildshape to stuff your PC has "seen" is an unreasonable restriction.As pointed out to me above, I missed it when i skimmed the wildshape rule before posting; it *IS* restricted to stuff your PC has seen:
The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.
I generally handwave this - as long as the druid has enough Knowledge(nature) to identify the animal taking 10 then I say she's familiar with the animal. Also anything native to her home area, and anything she has seen as part of the campaign.
restricting Wildshape to stuff your PC has "seen" is an unreasonable restriction.As pointed out to me above, I missed it when i skimmed the wildshape rule before posting; it *IS* restricted to stuff your PC has seen:
The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid is familiar.(Of course, it doesn't have to have been seen during play, any local animal would reasonably have been seen - especially by a druid - during his/her formative years. But wildshaping an animal the druid never would have encountered is out, RAW)
And that is what SNA and Knowledge Nature is for...
EDIT: To identify a common animal is DC10. To identify its Abilities and Weaknesses is DC10+ Creature's CR. It is unreasonable to say an average druid isn't familiar with all common/uncommon animals.
Deinonychus DC13
Dire Tiger DC18
Dire Bear DC17
Not beyond the difficulty for a very average Druid, summoning them up before hand to be familiar with them aside...
So you need all sorts of Knowledges as a cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer then? Seriously, don't add it in if it isn't there.