2 hour / level summoned monsters


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Dallium wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


The crux of this matter is whether or not Heighten Spell actually changes the spell's level.

Which I say the answer to is no, based on the wording of the Feat itself. It changes the EFFECTIVE spell level for "all effects dependent on spell level".

But it does not make the spell actually a higher level spell. Just EFFECTIVELY a higher level.

Called it.

That's not what the feat says. It says:

Heighten Spell wrote:

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies.

The key phrases here are "unlike other metamagic feats," and "actually increases the effective level of the spell." Other metamagic feats require you to prepare spells in higher slots without increasing the spell level. An empowered maximized fireball is still a level 3 spell. A Heightened Fireball in a 9th level slot is actually a 9th level spell. Hence "actually increases the effective level of the spell." It doesn't just say "raises the level of the spell" because then people would be going, "I use Heighten one time and now this spell is a higher level forever because that's what the feat says!"

The ONLY reason this argument is coming up is to have some threadbare RAW reason to counter this horribly broken exploit. But you don't NEED a RAW reason to disallow this, common sense and game balance are enough. You shouldn't allow it at your table. If you have a player whining at you that its RAW, tell them to pound sand. If they can't see that they shouldn't be allowed to extend a round/level spell to 2 hours/level, how can playing with them be any fun?

You literally quoted what the Feat said, quoted what I said, and then still failed to read the former.

You are correct what the key phrase is. You wrote it right there.

Quote:
The key phrases here are "unlike other metamagic feats," and "actually increases the effective level of the spell."

Wait, what's that?

Quote:
"unlike other metamagic feats," and "actually increases the effective level of the spell."

Sorry, can't quite see it yet.

Quote:
increases the effective level of the spell."

Almost got it I think.

Quote:
effective level

Check that s@&~ out.

It's almost exactly what I said it said. Sorry, not almost. It's exactly what I said it said.


My big problem with this interpretation of Heighten is it precludes the possibility of the Sorc options listed above, ie, Sorc takes Heighten, Sorc learns ASM and SMI, then uses two spell slots to avoid having to know further levels of SM. I don't see a problem with this. The PC is spending one resource to avoid using another resource. That seems, if not intended, an acceptable side effect.

Otherwise, the only reason to have the spell ASM is to change out summons on the fly, and I can't see dedicating a spell slot to that. There are so many better options before that.

Not that all options HAVE to be useful, but still.


As a player I avoid doing stuff like this because the game is not about exploiting the rules. At least for me is isn't.

As a DM I would not allow this.


Rynjin wrote:


stuff
Dallium wrote:

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level)

I don't know why you're being so rude. Yes, effective. As in, the spell is EFFECTIVELY 9th level. As in it's a 9th level spell.


Heighten simplifies this (& makes it workable for sorcerers) but banning the use of heighten will not make the trick go away. For all those willing to die in a ditch over that sub-issue, a reminder:

Mount (1; arguably may not fight)
Communal Mount (2; ditto)
Summon Totem Creature (3; 1 hour duration)
Summon Accuser (4; 10 min/level)
Eagle Aerie (6; hour/level but after entering combat lasts only rounds/level)


Dallium wrote:
Dallium wrote:

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level)

I don't know why you're being so rude. Yes, effective. As in, the spell is EFFECTIVELY 9th level. As in it's a 9th level spell.

Did you just quote yourself and call yourself rude?

Ouch...


Rynjin wrote:

Almost got it I think.

It's almost exactly what I said it said. Sorry, not almost. It's exactly what I said it said.

Just what do the words A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level).

mean to you?

If I heighten a Mount spell, so according to the feat it has a higher spell level than normal then what level spell is it?

Guys, nobody is saying that anyone in their right mind would allow this to work, RAW or not. But I can't see how you guys are saying that heighten spell doesn't actually raise the level of the spell, when that's exactly what that feat is designed to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To me, the relevant text in Heighten is "All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level."

The example of globe of invulnerability says the "effective level" is relevant for how it interacts with other spells, like this one. All effects dependent on level is pretty strong language.


If a 18th level cleric Heightens a 3rd level spell to 9th, and then wants to use it for spontaneous healing, how many die of healing do they roll?


Dallium wrote:
My big problem with this interpretation of Heighten is it precludes the possibility of the Sorc options listed above, ie, Sorc takes Heighten, Sorc learns ASM and SMI, then uses two spell slots to avoid having to know further levels of SM. I don't see a problem with this.

I do.

It's not intended. I'm quite convinced it's barely RAW and can realistically argue that it isn't even that.

But that's not why I see a problem with this.

Sorcerer spell slots are LIMITED for a reason. They cast more spells per day AND they can pick and choose from everything they know, unlike a wizard who casts fewer spells per day and must guess each morning what he might need, or must leave slots open and spend 15+ minutes reading his book in the middle of the day to use each open slot (not practical in combat, of course). Those are HUGE advantages.

To balance those huge advantages, sorcerers don't get a very large selection of spells known. That seems more than fair to me.

Using barely plausible exploits to add a half dozen extra spells known to a sorcerer is endangering that balance.

Dallium wrote:
Otherwise, the only reason to have the spell ASM is to change out summons on the fly, and I can't see dedicating a spell slot to that. There are so many better options before that.

Wait. So you're suggesting that it's OK for a sorcerer to use a 1st and 2nd level slot to have a Nalfeshnee for 36 hours. And then you say you can't see dedicating a spell slot to that?

You can't have it both ways.


DM_Blake wrote:
Dallium wrote:
Dallium wrote:

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level)

I don't know why you're being so rude. Yes, effective. As in, the spell is EFFECTIVELY 9th level. As in it's a 9th level spell.

Did you just quote yourself and call yourself rude?

Ouch...

yeah not my finest hour. I'm tired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What i'm not getting is, how is the effect of ASM not an effect dependent on spell level? Isn't that exactly what it is? It creates an effect.... which is dependent on the spell level.

I mean, I appreciate reading rules so that they don't result in ridiculous exploits.... but that's some serious selective reading.


Yeah, not to mention a complete re-interpretation of the Heighten Spell feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:

What i'm not getting is, how is the effect of ASM not an effect dependent on spell level? Isn't that exactly what it is? It creates an effect.... which is dependent on the spell level.

I mean, I appreciate reading rules so that they don't result in ridiculous exploits.... but that's some serious selective reading.

You appreciate reading rules, but you're not reading posts.

Nobody is saying that ASM is not based on spell level. Obviously that's based on spell level. It says so in the spell.

But the Heighten Spell feat doesn't really raise the spell level. It raises the "effective spell level" for level-related stuff.

Sure, maybe that literally means "raises the spell level" or maybe that literally means "raises the effective spell level". Oh, wait, I almost forgot what "literally" means: "literally" literally means "exactly". So, I guess the feat literally means "raises the effective spell level".

Why did they write it that way? If they wanted it to "raise the spell level" they could have left the word "effective" out entirely. If hey had done so, then there would be LESS AMBIGUITY. I'm 100% certain the devs wanted less ambiguity and also 100% certain they wanted to keep word count as low as possible, but putting "effective" into that sentence defeats BOTH of these goals.

So, really, why did they write it that way?

There can be only one reason: As far as the devs are concerned, there MUST be a difference between "spell level" and "effective spell level".

ASM is based on "spell level" and Heighten Spell increases "effective spell level".

Not the same thing.


DM_Blake wrote:
Dallium wrote:
My big problem with this interpretation of Heighten is it precludes the possibility of the Sorc options listed above, ie, Sorc takes Heighten, Sorc learns ASM and SMI, then uses two spell slots to avoid having to know further levels of SM. I don't see a problem with this.

I do.

It's not intended. I'm quite convinced it's barely RAW and can realistically argue that it isn't even that.

But that's not why I see a problem with this.

Sorcerer spell slots are LIMITED for a reason. They cast more spells per day AND they can pick and choose from everything they know, unlike a wizard who casts fewer spells per day and must guess each morning what he might need, or must leave slots open and spend 15+ minutes reading his book in the middle of the day to use each open slot (not practical in combat, of course). Those are HUGE advantages.

To balance those huge advantages, sorcerers don't get a very large selection of spells known. That seems more than fair to me.

Using barely plausible exploits to add a half dozen extra spells known to a sorcerer is endangering that balance.

Dallium wrote:
Otherwise, the only reason to have the spell ASM is to change out summons on the fly, and I can't see dedicating a spell slot to that. There are so many better options before that.

Wait. So you're suggesting that it's OK for a sorcerer to use a 1st and 2nd level slot to have a Nalfeshnee for 36 hours. And then you say you can't see dedicating a spell slot to that?

You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of what the rules are, using ASM to change Mount into a SMIX or Gate shouldn't be allowed, period. It doesn't need to be justified beyond, "That's broken, and I'm not letting you do it."

What I meant was I don't see a problem with a Sorc preparing a SMI in a 9th level slot (using heighten spell), and then using a 2nd level spell to turn that 9th level SMI into a 9th level SMIX. The durations are the same, right? SMIX is a spell a sorc could learn normally. The extra spells known might or might not be balanced by the action tax on setting the combo up (Full round to cast a Heightened SMI, a second standard action to cast ASM). I'm not an expert on caster balance, so I don't really have any idea how that affects game balance.

And no. I don't think "but then this combo won't work" is a compelling argument.


Quote:

ASM is based on "spell level" and Heighten Spell increases "effective spell level".

Not the same thing.

Dude, read the first part of the description.

It literally says: a higher spell level than normal.

There is no word 'effective' in that sentence at all.

How do you explain that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where in the rules is "effective spell level" defined in a way that doesn't make it a synonym of "actual spell level"?

This combo appears to work. It seems not to be intended, and certainly should be restricted from PFS.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It seems to me the thing it really is intended to allow that I'm not crazy about is using a few 2nd level spells to make a whole bunch of high level summon monsters from a single high level spell. Cast summon monster 6 for d4+1 from the 4 list and then convert them back to 6's. I suspect this issue will keep it out of PFS and avoid concerns about mount shenanigans in a strongly RAW environment.

If you're a sorcerer, SMIII is the spell you want to heighten with this trick. That said, spontaneously casting a metamagic'd summon is very painful, even without the cost of the extra spell to swap what you summoned.


Berinor wrote:

It seems to me the thing it really is intended to allow that I'm not crazy about is using a few 2nd level spells to make a whole bunch of summon monsters. Cast summon monster 6 for d4+1 from the 4 list and then convert them back to 6's.

If you're a sorcerer, SMIII is the spell you want to heighten with this trick. That said, spontaneously casting a metamagic'd summon is very painful, even without the cost of the extra spell to swap what you summoned.

ASM only effects one creature per casting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right, but one 6th level spell plus (under optimum rolls without feats involved) 5 2nd level spells is still pretty big savings on getting 5 SMVI monsters on your team. Toss in an extend rod to help with durations a little and you're looking pretty good.


Unless you plan on exploiting the 2 hour/level described above, I can't imagine that spending 6-7 rounds of prep time, even with an extended duration of 2 rounds/level, is an effective use of action economy during or even right before a combat.

And that's assuming you actually roll well for your number of summons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

What i'm not getting is, how is the effect of ASM not an effect dependent on spell level? Isn't that exactly what it is? It creates an effect.... which is dependent on the spell level.

I mean, I appreciate reading rules so that they don't result in ridiculous exploits.... but that's some serious selective reading.

You appreciate reading rules, but you're not reading posts.

Nobody is saying that ASM is not based on spell level. Obviously that's based on spell level. It says so in the spell.

But the Heighten Spell feat doesn't really raise the spell level. It raises the "effective spell level" for level-related stuff.

Sure, maybe that literally means "raises the spell level" or maybe that literally means "raises the effective spell level". Oh, wait, I almost forgot what "literally" means: "literally" literally means "exactly". So, I guess the feat literally means "raises the effective spell level".

Why did they write it that way? If they wanted it to "raise the spell level" they could have left the word "effective" out entirely. If hey had done so, then there would be LESS AMBIGUITY. I'm 100% certain the devs wanted less ambiguity and also 100% certain they wanted to keep word count as low as possible, but putting "effective" into that sentence defeats BOTH of these goals.

So, really, why did they write it that way?

There can be only one reason: As far as the devs are concerned, there MUST be a difference between "spell level" and "effective spell level".

ASM is based on "spell level" and Heighten Spell increases "effective spell level".

Not the same thing.

There could be another reason they wrote it that way:

FAQ wrote:

"Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version. Unlike Still Spell, which always adds +1 to the level of the spell slot used for a spell,Heighten Spell lets you decide increase a spell's level anywhere from +1 to +9, using a spell slot that is that many spell levels higher than the normal spell."

[...]
"the rules text was inherited from 3.5"
[...]
"If you are a spontaneous caster, heightening a spell when using a higher-level spell slot still increases the casting time, just like any other use of metamagic, so you have to weigh the benefits of either
• casting it normally using the higher-level slot
vs.
• increasing the casting time to cast it as a heightened spell and treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using."

(Emphasis mine).

There a lot more at the FAQ link, but your argument that the devs deliberately chose the word "effective" to distinguish from "actual" does not hold up: they said it was poorly worded when they inherited it.

More importantly, consider what the effect of your argument has on generally accepted uses of the Heighten feat:

The most common use of Heighten that I see is to cast Light or Continual Flame at a level higher than 3rd to counter Deeper Darkness. With your argument that Heighten does not "actually" increase the spell level (just the "effective" spell level), this use does not work, because a heightened light spell is not actually a higher level spell.

I think you'll get a lot of pushback on that ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Unless you plan on exploiting the 2 hour/level described above, I can't imagine that spending 6-7 rounds of prep time, even with an extended duration of 2 rounds/level, is an effective use of action economy during or even right before a combat.

And that's assuming you actually roll well for your number of summons.

I think you're probably right in general, but it's still an opening that I wish it didn't have and clearly within the spell's power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to vent for a minute after reading this thread:

[vent]

This is the rules question forum. We answer questions about how the rules work here. Not whether or not we like the rules, or what we think about the how the rules *should* work, or if the rules are exploitative. Just. The. Rules.

If you don't like this combination that's fine. If you think this shouldn't work that's fine. If you think that it is exploitative that's fine. But none of that should be discussed here. There are other sections of the forum for that. Please talk only about the actual rules so that the people asking the question can get their rule question answered. Even and especially if you don't like the rules.

[/vent]

Done Venting.

Yes, this combination works. Plainly, clearly and indisputably under the rules as written. And since this is the rules forum that is all that needs to be said.


Anzyr wrote:

Going to vent for minute after reading this thread:

[vent]

This is the rules forum. We talk about how the rules work here. Not whether or not we like the rules, or what we think about the how the rules *should* work, or if the rules are exploitative. Just. The. Rules.

If you don't like this combination that's fine. If you think this shouldn't work that's fine. If you think that it is exploitative that's fine. But none of that should be talked here. There are other sections of the forum for that. Please talk only about the actual rules so that the people asking the question can get their rule question answered. Even and especially if you don't like the rules.

[/vent]

Done Venting.

Yes, this combination works. Plainly, clearly and indisputably under the rules as written. And since this is the rules forum that is all that needs to be said.

Is this a forum rule enforced by paizo?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Going to vent for minute after reading this thread:

[vent]

This is the rules forum. We talk about how the rules work here. Not whether or not we like the rules, or what we think about the how the rules *should* work, or if the rules are exploitative. Just. The. Rules.

If you don't like this combination that's fine. If you think this shouldn't work that's fine. If you think that it is exploitative that's fine. But none of that should be talked here. There are other sections of the forum for that. Please talk only about the actual rules so that the people asking the question can get their rule question answered. Even and especially if you don't like the rules.

[/vent]

Done Venting.

Yes, this combination works. Plainly, clearly and indisputably under the rules as written. And since this is the rules forum that is all that needs to be said.

Is this a forum rule enforced by paizo?

Not as far as I know. It's just a matter of manners. If someone asks a question about how a rule works, they want the answer, not someone's opinion on whether or not that rule *should* work or is exploitative.


I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm usually the guy who says "F~!% your painstaking discussion of the interpretation of the words, reading takes context, interpret for consistency". But the wording of this spell is completely crystal clear, and absolutely, no doubt about it, allows you to Heighten Mount and trade the horse for a Bearded Devil.

The Bearded Devil might not automatically attack your opponent, though; it might stand around waiting to be saddled. That's less clear. But I notice that the Mount spell doesn't say anything about not going into combat, just "...to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well." It doesn't have the passus from Summon Monster about "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability", but if you can communicate with it, I see no reason it wouldn't do what you tell it. As a conjuration(summoning) effect, it obeys orders unless otherwise specified.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.

But the "jerks" in this thread are DM_Blake and (especially) LazarX. The latter is even resorting to lying (and doing a poor job of it) to make "how I want things to be" into "how things are".

EDIT: Unjustly accusing DM_Blake of LazarX's actions.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yep. Works according to the rules. Certainly wasn't intended. GM should veto the combo as soon as it is suggested.

Liberty's Edge

To the ones defending the exploit. Well done, congratulations.
Too bad no DM, ever, is going to accept it in his game. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corsario wrote:

To the ones defending the exploit. Well done, congratulations.

Too bad no DM, ever, is going to accept it in his game. :P

You meant defending the rules I'm sure.

And I totally would allow it. Seems fine. It's not like the summons can't be killed or anything. They are more versatile then Bloody Skeletons but require more daily costs to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.

But the "jerk" in this thread is DM_Blake. He is even resorting to lying (and doing a poor job of it) to make "how I want things to be" into "how things are".

I wouldn't throw the L-word around so casually. He might honestly believe that Heighten spell doesn't increase the spell level despite the overwhelming evidence that it does.

Being stubborn about a particular interpretation is not equivalent to being deliberately deceptive. It's also good forum manners to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than implying malfeasance.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.

But the "jerk" in this thread is DM_Blake. He is even resorting to lying (and doing a poor job of it) to make "how I want things to be" into "how things are".

I wouldn't throw the L-word around so casually. He might honestly believe that Heighten spell doesn't increase the spell level despite the overwhelming evidence that it does.

Being stubborn about a particular interpretation is not equivalent to being deliberately deceptive. It's also good forum manners to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than implying malfeasance.

Sorry, I meant to say LazarX, not DM_Blake. LazarX is the one who is pulling words out of his ass and misrepresenting them as quoting rules text. Post has been edited.

The Exchange

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wrath wrote:
Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

It serves you as a mount. Mounts can attack.

The Exchange

Mounts with tricks can attack. If you use handle animal. And they have special training in particular tricks. Like attack.

If it's not of animal intelligence, it just becomes a creature that is amenable to carrying you around.

No one will say a dragon is a mount. It's a monster that has deemed you suitable to be carried.

If you jump on my back because your legs broke, I am not your mount, I am carrying you.

Now, since the spell specifically says it can summon a mount. Then what you get is something that is a mount.

Another way to read this is, since the spell allows you to transform the creature, but cannot change any other aspect of the spell, you can only transform it into another mount.

The Exchange

Further checking of the pfsrd shows all the mounts available. In order to make them attack, they must have (combat trained) beside them.

So, as stupid as this sounds, by raw, when transform the mount, the new creature serves as a mount. Unless it specifically has (combat trained) next to it, a mount will not fight for you.

Now me, this all sounds stupid personally. But when folks say "talk Raw!!!", well that's raw.

Grand Lodge

Wrath wrote:

Further checking of the pfsrd shows all the mounts available. In order to make them attack, they must have (combat trained) beside them.

So, as stupid as this sounds, by raw, when transform the mount, the new creature serves as a mount. Unless it specifically has (combat trained) next to it, a mount will not fight for you.

Now me, this all sounds stupid personally. But when folks say "talk Raw!!!", well that's raw.

Yep! You can have a creature off of the Summon Monster IX list server you as a mount for 2 hours.

It does not "attack to the best of it's ability" instead it "...serve you as a mount..." "..comes with bit and bridle..."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

I believe you could do this. However, it isn't really very useful. The mount spell makes the creature you summon serve as a mount. That is all that is does. It doesn't attack your foes or do anything but server willingly and well as a mount. Altering the creature summoned doesn't change the base spell.

So if you want to spend two spells to ride an earth elemental, it will do that. But it won't give you an earth elemental that can fight your enemies, use special abilities or obey other commands other than 'be a good mount'.

Where are you getting that? The full text of the Mount spell is:

Mount wrote:


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.
Regular mounts can attack. Regular mounts can use all special abilities the creature/AC has. There is nothing in the language of the spell to suggest the Mount created by the spell behaves any differently.

Compare:

Mount wrote:
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.

with

Summon spells wrote:
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. The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st Level list on Table 10–1. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can choose a different one each time you cast the spell.

If you exchange a Trumpet archon for the pony, you get:

You summon a Trumpet archon to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

You summon him to act as a mount. Summons do what the spell say they do. They aren't free to chose what they do and you can't give them orders that go outside the parameters of the spell that summoned them.
So, like a ordinary mount, your archon will defend himself if attacked, but he will not attack someone by his choice, nor you can order him to attack.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:

If Heightened Mount smells too cheesy there's at least one other spell you could use for this - Eagle Aerie (or Summon Accuser, mentioned in the thread someone linked here.) The eagles will vanish after one fight, the accuser after 10 min/level, but being able to precast your summons is still valuable.

I didn't invent this combo, no.

Same problem:

You summon a flight of giant eagles (one per three caster levels, maximum of six; Bestiary 118) to ferry you and your allies across the skies. The eagles avoid combat if possible but defend themselves if attacked; if the eagles attack, the remaining duration of the spell changes from 1 hour per level to 1 round per level (so if the spell had 5 full hours left, the eagles remain in combat for 5 rounds before the spell ends).

turn into:

You summon a flight of Trumpet archon (one per three caster levels, maximum of six; Bestiary 118) to ferry you and your allies across the skies. The Trumpet archon avoid combat if possible but defend themselves if attacked; if the Trumpet archon attack, the remaining duration of the spell changes from 1 hour per level to 1 round per level (so if the spell had 5 full hours left, the eagles remain in combat for 5 rounds before the spell ends).

Grand Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Dallium wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

I believe you could do this. However, it isn't really very useful. The mount spell makes the creature you summon serve as a mount. That is all that is does. It doesn't attack your foes or do anything but server willingly and well as a mount. Altering the creature summoned doesn't change the base spell.

So if you want to spend two spells to ride an earth elemental, it will do that. But it won't give you an earth elemental that can fight your enemies, use special abilities or obey other commands other than 'be a good mount'.

Where are you getting that? The full text of the Mount spell is:

Mount wrote:


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.
Regular mounts can attack. Regular mounts can use all special abilities the creature/AC has. There is nothing in the language of the spell to suggest the Mount created by the spell behaves any differently.

Compare:

Mount wrote:
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.

with

Summon spells wrote:
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. The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st Level list on Table 10–1. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can choose a different one each time you cast the spell.

If you exchange a Trumpet archon for the pony, you get:

You summon a Trumpet archon to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The...

As Wrath pointed out, mounts DO NOT ATTACK unless trained. Regular mounts do not attack, only trained mounts attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Mounts with tricks can attack.

Tricks let you have your mount/animal companion/beast do something without having to use a handle animal to push it to do so. Without the trick you spend move action to push the animal.

PRD (On Pushing under Handle Animal Skill) wrote:


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.

Mount does not put any limitation on whether your magically summoned mount can attack or not. Given no restrictions then we use the default for what mounts can do. The default is they can attack (if pushed).

While this particular combo is an exploit of the RAW - it is allowed by RAW. A GM could (weakly) argue that a summoned mount changed into a very intelligent demon or devil would still need to be pushed, I suppose - but it is a very very weak argument.

@LazarX, the words "such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability" are a clear indication that this is not an exhaustive list of things the increased spell level counts for. With no text giving us any further guidelines we have to assume it counts for ALL things dependent on the spells level (which ASM falls into), until we are told otherwise. Again, this isn't happening at my table. But understand the RAW first, then fix it where it is broken as RAI/house rule/whatever.

DM_Blake wrote:


Nobody is saying that ASM is not based on spell level. Obviously that's based on spell level. It says so in the spell.

But the Heighten Spell feat doesn't really raise the spell level. It raises the "effective spell level" for level-related stuff.

So, I'm not sure where the confusion is on this?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Dallium wrote:


b) a 9th level Mount is a 9th level spell,
This is where you (and others) make your mistake. Mount is not a 9th level spell, it is a First Level spell heightened to be 9th level for purposes of spell save DC's and interactions with other spells that would block spells based on spell level. In all other aspects it is still that same First level spell.
FAQ wrote:

Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version.[/quote+

Sorry, but it seem it is a higher level spell for all purposes. The text of the spell will still limit what it do, but for all uses it is a spell of the new level.

CLW heightened to 9th level is CLW 9th level. It still cure the same of the 1st elvel spell, but it is a 9th elvel spell.


And thus, this argument boils down to how the word effective is read.

FAQing for you, although I'd laugh if a GM actually allowed this to fly in a game.

Grand Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Dallium wrote:


b) a 9th level Mount is a 9th level spell,
This is where you (and others) make your mistake. Mount is not a 9th level spell, it is a First Level spell heightened to be 9th level for purposes of spell save DC's and interactions with other spells that would block spells based on spell level. In all other aspects it is still that same First level spell.
FAQ wrote:

Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version.[/quote+

Sorry, but it seem it is a higher level spell for all purposes. The text of the spell will still limit what it do, but for all uses it is a spell of the new level.

CLW heightened to 9th level is CLW 9th level. It still cure the same of the 1st elvel spell, but it is a 9th elvel spell.

In other words, a monster summoned through a Summon Monster spell will attack to the best of its abilities, while one summoned through a mount spell, heightened to any level, will attack as best as can be pushed through skill checks?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:

I'm usually the guy who says "F@!% your painstaking discussion of the interpretation of the words, reading takes context, interpret for consistency". But the wording of this spell is completely crystal clear, and absolutely, no doubt about it, allows you to Heighten Mount and trade the horse for a Bearded Devil.

The Bearded Devil might not automatically attack your opponent, though; it might stand around waiting to be saddled. That's less clear. But I notice that the Mount spell doesn't say anything about not going into combat, just "...to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well." It doesn't have the passus from Summon Monster about "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability", but if you can communicate with it, I see no reason it wouldn't do what you tell it. As a conjuration(summoning) effect, it obeys orders unless otherwise specified.

If you have the ride skill, you are riding the creatrue and you can make the appropriate skill check he will do what a mount of his type do.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

I am willing to admit that any monster of the different summon lists is war trained, but riding them is difficult and most of them aren't trained to be ridden.

The effect is the same of a halfling stain on the shoulders of his barbarian friend as pretending to guide him with his knees.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.

Stating their view on how the rules should be is totally fine by my book [as DmBlake later acknowledged, though he started out the other way I'm about to grumble about.] What is not cool is deliberately trying to twist the rules in such a manner as to make something that does work, not work.

In order for LazarX's claims to be true, Heighten Spell would not penetrate Globes of Invulnerability, nor would Heightened Light Spells overcome Darkness, or any of the other actual functional uses of Heighten aside from its simple use as a DC booster [which the feat explicitly calls out as being only a part of its purpose.]

I can totally respect the distaste for this rules-interaction, I can even see people lobbying to hit it with the Errata-bat [and likely the FAQ bat, even though that's not actually how FAQs are supposed to work] but to outright twist the rules for the sake of your own argument... that's exactly what many posters accuse the optimizers of :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once you summon something that is above animal intelligence though, all this talk of tricks and pushing goes out the window. Claiming that my Bearded Devil, who "serves willingly and well", who is a Conjuration effect as described in the Magic (not Spells) chapter, and understands every word I say, is *only* willing to give me piggyback rides and nothing else....is not specifically *against* the rules, but it is a *biased interpretation* for the purpose of nerfing Alter Summoned Monster.

I totally agree that this spell is crazyballs overpowered, btw. But what it needs is errata (changing the post-change duration to a maximum of 1 round/level would be decent), not tortured interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
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.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

51 to 100 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 2 hour / level summoned monsters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.