|
Read one of the many other threads in rules/advice forums. The problem interaction with mount is Heighten Spell.And you know what, Heighten Spell should just be put in a shallow grave. I have never ever seen it used for anything but the most...inventive...kinds of shenanigans.
Please no. Us players appreciate there being a way to raise spell DC since there is no persistent spell. Also, everyone enjoys heightened continual flame. ;)
|
As is disallowing Heightened Spell to do anything.I believe that if you disallow Heighten spell to raise the level of a summon spell, then for consistency you have to disallow Heighten Spell form raising the level of a continual light spell. I don't understand how you can make the argument that it raises the spell level of one, but not the other.I'm saying that Heighten Spell doesn't turn a summon on spell into a higher level summon spell. In other words, while summon monster I might be higher level for some purposes (most are simply not applicable to a summon spell) but you are still summoning a level 1 monster.
That doesn't change just because you use alter summoned monster . The level of summon is 1. Heightened won't change that.
Heighten Spell is not constrained.
I will say again for emphasis, even if the spell gained no noticeable mechanical benefit from Heighten Spell, it is a higher level spell for all purposes, for that casting.From the feat:
"A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level)."
You are correct that normally Summon Monster I is normally a spell level 1 spell. But having been heightened it now has a spell level of whatever level slot is used to cast it. This does not give the spell itself additional summoning options. But it does allow any effect that checks spell level to use the now higher spell level.
Alter Summoned Monster checks the spell level of the summoning spell.
From Alter Summoned Monster:
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target."
Example:
I'm a wizard. I prepare a heightened Summon Monster I using a 5th level slot. Sometime during the day I cast this 5th level conjuration (summoning) spell. Now, my options for summoning are among the Summon Monster I list only, due to the limitation of the spell.
(Which begs the question, why not use Summon Monster V, but I digress)
I choose a celestial eagle. I proceed to cast Alter Summoned Monster on the eagle.
Now, Alter Summoned Monster checks the level of the spell used to summon the targeted creature. The eagle was summoned by a 5h level conjuration (summoning) spell. Thus, I get to choose an option from any Summon Monster or Nature's Ally from any spell level equal to or lower than 5th level.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Even without the whole mount/highten spell issue, the spell is already bad enough if you just use it with summon monster.
Being able to "upgrade" your creatures to get up too 5 creatures, where the spell usually only allows one.. is enough.
Master summoner is banned, however a regular summoner with this spell can come close:
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLA (lets say summon monster VI) summon 1d4+1 creatures from a lower level list and then upgrade them all to proper level VI creatures.
For the cost of a couple of level 2 spells, a level 11 Summoner could have an enrinyes, a succubus, a dire tiger, and elemental and a shadow demon at the same time... and for several minutes.
|
|
I disagree.
And there is enough ambiguity that you can't shout RAW to make me comply with your interpretation.
If your way is true, then Heighten Spell does nothing. It either increases the spell level of a spell and gives all that comes with that or it does nothing but waste higher level slots. There is no text that says summoning spells are excluded from this benefit.
Alter Summoned Monster checks the spell level of the spell that summoned the targeted creature. If heighten spell increases spell level, then a Summon Monster I spell could be a 5th level spell.
Either you are saying Heighten spell does not function, or Alter Summoned Monster on a 5th level Summon Monster I summon could summon a Babau. Or making a house rule that Heighten Spell does not affect Conjuration(summoning) spells.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by I'm 'shouting RAW' though. It seems you mean that as a pejorative, though any time you; used a boon to play a non-legal race, rolled a perception check, told a player they used an illegal option or used a stat block, you were doing no different.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Being able to "upgrade" your creatures to get up too 5 creatures, where the spell usually only allows one.. is enoughHow? The ASM has a target of one creature. Unless you mean casting it multiple times over subsequent rounds to change all the original summoned creatures into something else.
Thats pretty much how I expect this to happen, the 1 minute per level duration makes this possible. You could argue that the summoners is the problem here, but other classes and archetypes can access this feature as well.
Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Lorewalker on the interpretation of how the spell currently reads with regards to Heighten Spell. I also agree that this spell has opened up some very peculiar loopholes—both in terms of the affected spell's level and its duration—that are not good for the organized play campaign. Looking over recent comments, it seems like we would need to:
That's a lot of changes to consider and implement, and that's a lot of real estate that we'd need on the Additional Resources page. The more I try to consider a solution for this problem, the more I convince myself that this spell is not a good fit for this campaign.
|
|
...
That's a lot of changes to consider and implement, and that's a lot of real estate that we'd need on the Additional Resources page. The more I try to consider a solution for this problem, the more I convince myself that this spell is not a good fit for this campaign.
As much as I am normally against the ban hammer over fixes, I can't help but agree with you on this one.
The least broken version I can think of binds the spell to only work with Summon Monster/Nature's Ally.
Or possibly instead to have a clause that some summon spells already use, that if it is used for combat it switches time units to rounds.
As well, for it to work as Andrew Christian described, that you use the true spell level of the spell not the level as it is cast.
|
|
Is Mount the only spell that creates this issue? Maybe it could be as simply as saying ASM doesn't work with it. That would allow conjurers and summoners to make use of it without the all-day break that seems to be the real problem.
There are a whole collection of increased time summons. Including Phantom Steed, Ghost Worlf, Summon Accuser, any creature with the Summon ability, and a couple SLAs that replicate the summon monster spell.
Honestly, it really is a cornucopia of issues.
Fleshworm infestation is a conjuration (summoning), think about that for a second.
|
Even without the whole mount/highten spell issue, the spell is already bad enough if you just use it with summon monster.
Being able to "upgrade" your creatures to get up too 5 creatures, where the spell usually only allows one.. is enough.
Master summoner is banned, however a regular summoner with this spell can come close:
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLA (lets say summon monster VI) summon 1d4+1 creatures from a lower level list and then upgrade them all to proper level VI creatures.
For the cost of a couple of level 2 spells, a level 11 Summoner could have an enrinyes, a succubus, a dire tiger, and elemental and a shadow demon at the same time... and for several minutes.
It doesn't give you more than one creature. The spell says it swaps one for another and specifically says you can't swap more than one.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
It doesn't give you more than one creature. The spell says it swaps one for another and specifically says you can't swap more than one.Even without the whole mount/highten spell issue, the spell is already bad enough if you just use it with summon monster.
Being able to "upgrade" your creatures to get up too 5 creatures, where the spell usually only allows one.. is enough.
Master summoner is banned, however a regular summoner with this spell can come close:
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLA (lets say summon monster VI) summon 1d4+1 creatures from a lower level list and then upgrade them all to proper level VI creatures.
For the cost of a couple of level 2 spells, a level 11 Summoner could have an enrinyes, a succubus, a dire tiger, and elemental and a shadow demon at the same time... and for several minutes.
I am assuming 5 castings of the spell in question, since it targets a single summoned creature and is an instantaneous effect. The spell mentions, that it doesn't affect the other creatures (reasonable considering the target line) but I can't find any language that prevents repeated castings (even on the "same" creature).
|
|
I am assuming 5 castings of the spell in question, since it targets a single summoned creature and is an instantaneous effect. The spell mentions, that it doesn't affect the other creatures (reasonable considering the target line) but I can't find any language that prevents repeated castings (even on the "same" creature).It doesn't give you more than one creature. The spell says it swaps one for another and specifically says you can't swap more than one.Even without the whole mount/highten spell issue, the spell is already bad enough if you just use it with summon monster.
Being able to "upgrade" your creatures to get up too 5 creatures, where the spell usually only allows one.. is enough.
Master summoner is banned, however a regular summoner with this spell can come close:
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLA (lets say summon monster VI) summon 1d4+1 creatures from a lower level list and then upgrade them all to proper level VI creatures.
For the cost of a couple of level 2 spells, a level 11 Summoner could have an enrinyes, a succubus, a dire tiger, and elemental and a shadow demon at the same time... and for several minutes.
Casting on a summoned creature with Alter Summoned Monster(It is a Conjuration(Summoning) spell), A-Okay. Although, unless heightened, creatures summoned with Alter Summoned Monster will be summoned through a second level spell and would limit your options.
|
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLA
Certainly a GM could disallow that since the ASM spell specifies, "You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell." An SLA is not the same as a spell. Course that doesn't stop the other abuses.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
A summoner could actually use his summon monster SLACertainly a GM could disallow that since the ASM spell specifies, "You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell." An SLA is not the same as a spell. Course that doesn't stop the other abuses.
Let's not go there please, SLAs have a couple of different rules (recently searched for rules regarding SLAs under water..didn't find much), but they are very much spells. Otherwise every buff or effect created by an SLA suddenly becomes immune to dispel magic, since dispel magic only deals with spells.
I always try to be as consistent as possible when I have to make a ruling as GM, and that one would have some nasty consequences.
EDIT: The CRB mentions that they are indeed subject to dispel magic, but those are general rules (and the fact that kinetic blast are SP shows that those don't always apply)
Still I would keep that Pandora's box shut.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are non-magical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
|
|
Let's not go there please, SLAs have a couple of different rules (recently searched for rules regarding SLAs under water..didn't find much), but they are very much spells. Otherwise every buff or effect created by an SLA suddenly becomes immune to dispel magic, since dispel magic only deals with spells.
I always try to be as consistent as possible when I have to make a ruling as GM, and that one would have some nasty consequences.
EDIT: The CRB mentions that they are indeed subject to dispel magic, but those are general rules (and the fact that kinetic blast are SP shows that those don't always apply)
Still I would keep that Pandora's box shut.
...
An SLA is not a spell and unless otherwise noted can not be targeted by things that target spells. I think it is a distinction that causes more issues, but those are the rules as is.
Oddly enough though, they count as spells for prereqs.|
|
Let's not go there please, SLAs have a couple of different rules (recently searched for rules regarding SLAs under water..didn't find much), but they are very much spells. Otherwise every buff or effect created by an SLA suddenly becomes immune to dispel magic, since dispel magic only deals with spells.
There are certainly cases where SLA's are treated like spells and some where they aren't (meta-magic). My point is that a GM would not be "wrong" by saying ASM would not work with an SLA summoning.
EDIT--
Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?
No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.
Admittedly, taking it out of context, but could be used to support a denial of ASM to affect SLA summoning.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Let's not go there please, SLAs have a couple of different rules (recently searched for rules regarding SLAs under water..didn't find much), but they are very much spells. Otherwise every buff or effect created by an SLA suddenly becomes immune to dispel magic, since dispel magic only deals with spells.There are certainly cases where SLA's are treated like spells and some where they aren't (meta-magic). My point is that a GM would not be "wrong" by saying ASM would not work with an SLA summoning.
EDIT--
Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?
No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.Admittedly, taking it out of context, but could be used to support a denial of ASM to affect SLA summoning.
Thanks Bob, I was not aware of this particular issue, and after some digging, this is the best (recent) post about the issue I could find. It is not a ruling, but certainly reinforces the notion that the GM could argue that it doesn't work. (Incidentally the Summon universal monster ability, possessed by quite a number of demons, also works like summon monster and is a spell like ability. It it works for spell like abilities, a demon could literally summon a demon and then use alter summoned monster... to turn that demon into an angel... that now serves him for an hour.)
...
On the subject of the question, of course, as I just said above, our posts aren't official, and honestly the whole "spell-like ability" thing is just a messy and difficult subject, so there's some middle ground that seems too murky to me to state with any certainty. I can try to draw the boundaries around that middle ground as best I see, though:Officially on the side of working: Augment Summoning works with summon monster SLAs by FAQ, and Dimensional Agility feats work with dimension door SLA by FAQ, both officially. There isn't a general rule FAQ here, but it seems that abilities that call out a spell (or group of spells) by the spell's name are pretty likely to work with a SLA of those exact spell names.
Strongly on the side of working: Spell Penetration's rules text doesn't mention spells at all, just caster level checks to defeat SR, so it should work on SLAs with some confidence.
Strongly on the side of not working: Abilities like sorcerer arcana (and some wizard school powers like admixture) work when you "cast a spell," so those should not work on SLAs with some confidence.
Officially on the side of not working: Metamagic feats officially don't work, as per the FAQ linked by Dekalinder.
Again, just personal opinion here, not a ruling since it's a forum post, and I've avoided the cases where it's even murkier.
|
|
Thanks Bob, I was not aware of this particular issue, and after some digging, this is the best (recent) post about the issue I could find. It is not a ruling, but certainly reinforces the notion that the GM could argue that it doesn't work. (Incidentally the Summon universal monster ability, possessed by quite a number of demons, also works like summon monster and is a spell like ability. It it works for spell like abilities, a demon could literally summon a demon and then use alter summoned monster... to turn that demon into an angel... that now serves him for an hour.)
I do want to point out, though...
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target. The new creature cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support it. The target can attempt a Will saving throw to negate this effect, but if the target is under your control, it receives no saving throw. Alter summoned monster does not alter the duration of the spell that summoned the target, nor does it affect any additional creatures summoned by the same spell as the target. The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over. Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target. An eidolon can't be targeted by this spell."
If the creature could not cast Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally, they may well not be able to use Alter Summoned Monster. But that also means if you have a feat or ability that opens up additional summon options, you still get those.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Thanks Bob, I was not aware of this particular issue, and after some digging, this is the best (recent) post about the issue I could find. It is not a ruling, but certainly reinforces the notion that the GM could argue that it doesn't work. (Incidentally the Summon universal monster ability, possessed by quite a number of demons, also works like summon monster and is a spell like ability. It it works for spell like abilities, a demon could literally summon a demon and then use alter summoned monster... to turn that demon into an angel... that now serves him for an hour.)I do want to point out, though...
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target. The new creature cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support it. The target can attempt a Will saving throw to negate this effect, but if the target is under your control, it receives no saving throw. Alter summoned monster does not alter the duration of the spell that summoned the target, nor does it affect any additional creatures summoned by the same spell as the target. The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over. Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target. An eidolon can't be targeted by this spell."If the creature could not cast Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally, they may well not be able to use Alter Summoned Monster. But that also means if you have a feat or ability that opens up additional summon options, you still get those.
Not sure what the "you" really refers to, maybe they just wanted to avoid the wording "a use could summon", or the assumption was, that all classes who could cast the spell, have the spell on their spell list.
Wonderful, seems like you found the next theoretical loophole of the rogue with two scrolls (summon monster and alter summoned monster).
I still hope that this is just a style issue, and not intentional wording (and that while it might allow access to an expanded summon list, everyone can access the vanilla summoning choices).
|
|
Not sure what the "you"...Thanks Bob, I was not aware of this particular issue, and after some digging, this is the best (recent) post about the issue I could find. It is not a ruling, but certainly reinforces the notion that the GM could argue that it doesn't work. (Incidentally the Summon universal monster ability, possessed by quite a number of demons, also works like summon monster and is a spell like ability. It it works for spell like abilities, a demon could literally summon a demon and then use alter summoned monster... to turn that demon into an angel... that now serves him for an hour.)I do want to point out, though...
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target. The new creature cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support it. The target can attempt a Will saving throw to negate this effect, but if the target is under your control, it receives no saving throw. Alter summoned monster does not alter the duration of the spell that summoned the target, nor does it affect any additional creatures summoned by the same spell as the target. The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over. Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target. An eidolon can't be targeted by this spell."If the creature could not cast Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally, they may well not be able to use Alter Summoned Monster. But that also means if you have a feat or ability that opens up additional summon options, you still get those.
If 'you' does not refer to spells that your classes can cast then it would allow Druids to use their Summon Nature's Ally summons and convert them to the usually superior Summon Monster summons. Or, for Wizards to pick up some of the fun options off Nature's Ally, like the Cyclops with its Flash of Insight ability or the Bulette.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
...Thanks Bob, I was not aware of this particular issue, and after some digging, this is the best (recent) post about the issue I could find. It is not a ruling, but certainly reinforces the notion that the GM could argue that it doesn't work. (Incidentally the Summon universal monster ability, possessed by quite a number of demons, also works like summon monster and is a spell like ability. It it works for spell like abilities, a demon could literally summon a demon and then use alter summoned monster... to turn that demon into an angel... that now serves him for an hour.)I do want to point out, though...
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target. The new creature cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support it. The target can attempt a Will saving throw to negate this effect, but if the target is under your control, it receives no saving throw. Alter summoned monster does not alter the duration of the spell that summoned the target, nor does it affect any additional creatures summoned by the same spell as the target. The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over. Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target. An eidolon can't be targeted by this spell."If the creature could not cast Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally, they may well not be able to use Alter Summoned Monster. But that also means if you have a feat or ability that opens up additional summon options, you still get
I was operating under that assumption, just to avoid a situation where the party wizard and the party druid using ASM on a spell, get different options.
Oh well I guess after Johns post we should not have to deal with this mess for much longer.
|
|
Could you explain your interpretation to me, Andrew? I don't understand how you can say there is ambiguity, which means I don't understand your response here.I disagree.
And there is enough ambiguity that you can't shout RAW to make me comply with your interpretation.
Seems I am in the minority. And with John posting what he did, this may become a moot point very quickly.
But essentially, I believe the "level of spell" isn't referring to the virtual spell level (that Heightened) gives it, but rather the actual level of creature gained.
If it was just a Heightened SMI to SMV or whatever, this really isn't broken. But when you allow it to work on spells with duration in the hours, it becomes questionable on whether its OP or not. Although a level 1 creature for a few hours usually won't overpower a scenario. But changing mount to heightened mount, and swapping it for a level 5 creature for 18 hours is ridiculous and egregious abuse of the option.
At some point, PFS GMs need to be able to make rulings for their table that allow most options, OP or not, but that they can disallow obvious loopholes like this.
|
|
I do want to point out, though...
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell. The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target. The new creature cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support it. The target can attempt a Will saving throw to negate this effect, but if the target is under your control, it receives no saving throw. Alter summoned monster does not alter the duration of the spell that summoned the target, nor does it affect any additional creatures summoned by the same spell as the target. The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over. Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target. An eidolon can't be targeted by this spell."If the creature could not cast Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally, they may well not be able to use Alter Summoned Monster. But that also means if you have a feat or ability that opens up additional summon options, you still get those.
IMO, the original sentence has two parts, sort of a cause and effect:
"You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell..."
This is the "cause" of the spell. Before you use ASM, you must first have a creature that is summoned. The requirement is that it is summoned using a spell. This part of the sentence seems to be fairly clear and supports a claim that an SLA summons would not qualify.
"...for a creature you could summon with a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell."
This indicates you can replace the existing summoned creature with any other creature you, yourself is capable of summoning using SM or SNA. If you were a character that had access to summoning effects, whatever they are, that are not specifically SM or SNA, then ASM would have no impact on the originally summoned creature.
Be be fair to the author, this could also just be a case where selective text is creating an unintended restriction on use. We have always been told that sometimes text is selected to make the material a more interesting read vs. dry, technical text. Sometimes, RAW is what it is even if we don't like it. I think this is a case of interpretive reading to find some applications that just aren't there short of a RAI FAQ or errata from the design team.
|
|
At some point, PFS GMs need to be able to make rulings for their table that allow most options, OP or not, but that they can disallow obvious loopholes like this.
To be fair this issue has existed for six months and the designers have not commented. Neither has PFS leadership taken action (yet). So, perhaps it is not as obvious a loophole as we want it to be. I just have to wonder, if this is such the egregious and obvious problem that we all seem to agree it is, why has nothing been done to correct it either with an FAQ entry or at least a forum comment that it was not intended to work like that. As a "splat" book, it is unlikely to get an errata. Those only seem to occur when a 2nd printing is being ordered and I don't expect that to happen here. Unfortunately, it looks like the only responsible action for PFS to take is ban the spell.
|
|
I hate banning things already made legal, but int he hands of that wanted to abuse this will completely wreck a scenario.
I think Mr.Christian's rules lawyering to prevent it wrecks other aspects of the game. Also contradicts the Core rule book FAQ. I appreciate the effort to balance the spell, but that type of rule abuse makes the game worse overall.
Changing a ton of other aspects of the game to allow one thing that i think has little use out side of abuse is not worth having.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
If it was just a Heightened SMI to SMV or whatever, this really isn't broken.
You are assuming that all the levels get paid for fairly.
By 8th level I can have a staff of the master, Conjuration school. Augmented summoned monsters, and the heightened spell feat.
Cast summon monster 4, burn 5 charges off staff of the master to boost it to 9, cast alter summon monster and drop anything I want off the level 9 summons list into play. I can do it twice per game, and with a little extra effort I can extend it as well (Wayang spell hunter) and have it out for 24 rounds. I can do this twice per adventure.
With tattoo attunement, those rounds need not be used immediately.
So, before we go into the dungeon, I summon a whatever, turn it into an astral deva, store it in my tattoo. Next combat, I spend a standard to call it out, it's staggered for one round, but it got here two rounds earlier than it would have.
End of combat, I put it back in the tattoo and pause the clock on it's duration.
|
|
At some point, PFS GMs need to be able to make rulings for their table that allow most options, OP or not, but that they can disallow obvious loopholes like this.
The problem with that is inevitable arguments over what is an obvious loophole and what is just something that causes a GM to bend over backwards to disallow it. I've heard arguments at Cons for things like the GM claiming that Dazing Spell only effects one creature, Pageant of the Peacock is merely to impart extremely believable false information, you can never reload that much in a round because it doesn't make sense. And not from an ideological standpoint, but as real rulings in games. People disagree on what are and are not obvious loopholes all the time as shown by this thread and the accompanying rules thread.
Allowing GMs more permission to say no will lead to more arguments in and out of game, which lessens enjoyment. In a home game this can be resolved in many ways, but in PFS where you dont always get to build rapport with your GMs and grow attached to your characters at perhaps an even greater rate than normal, from personal experience, I dont know if giving the GM more power is where I'd like to see the campaign go personally.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Is Scouting Metamagic banned? Because if not I'm rolling as a large earth elemental wizard from now on.
Intense scouting mount ~> alter summon monster into large earth elemental and than roll out.
I think you mean Heightened scouting mount. Also the level increase from scouting explicitly will not count toward the level of the summon monster spell.
By the way, I would not want to be in something that large, with that low an AC and DR and try to make concentration checks against damage to stay in it.
I would go invisible stalker. Higher AC, and invisible even when attacking and flying.
|
|
That is clearly in violation of the PFS Guidelines.Have people actually seen this abused in play?
If I were GMing and I had a player attempt to use a Heightened Mount followed by Alter Summoned Monster, I would say no. Even though nominally I'd be in violation of the PFS rules for doing this (strict RAW, etc.), it's so clear that the spell is not supposed to be able to do the Mount cheese that disallowing it is just an anticipation of an inevitable ruling. However, I'd certainly allow the spell for turning one Summon Monster III monster into another.
I know, and I would still do it.
Hopefully, it will never come up. I have yet to see this abuse in actual play, and I haven't heard of anybody who has. That in theory it can be done is a good enough reason to ban it, because sooner or later somebody is going to try it. But, if somebody tried it at my table, I wouldn't allow it, even though I know I'd be violating the nominal PFS rules by so doing. This is a case that's so obviously broken that even though it hasn't been formally disallowed yet, disallowing it is the proper thing to do.
|
|
That is clearly in violation of the PFS Guidelines.Have people actually seen this abused in play?
If I were GMing and I had a player attempt to use a Heightened Mount followed by Alter Summoned Monster, I would say no. Even though nominally I'd be in violation of the PFS rules for doing this (strict RAW, etc.), it's so clear that the spell is not supposed to be able to do the Mount cheese that disallowing it is just an anticipation of an inevitable ruling. However, I'd certainly allow the spell for turning one Summon Monster III monster into another.
I know, and I would still do it.
Hopefully, it will never come up. I have yet to see this abuse in actual play, and I haven't heard of anybody who has. That in theory it can be done is a good enough reason to ban it, because sooner or later somebody is going to try it. But, if somebody tried it at my table, I wouldn't allow it, even though I know I'd be violating the nominal PFS rules by so doing. This is a case that's so obviously broken that even though it hasn't been formally disallowed yet, disallowing it is the proper thing to do.
I really dislike this kind of talk. I would suggest doing other options first, pull the player aside, see how the others at the table feel to back your play, and just ruling very hard on the summons making them less worthwhile.
Blatantly saying, hey I am gonna break the rules this one time does not sit well.
Talking with the player first may have them use it in a non-broken way(IE they want their mount to be a different animal and just be silly with it). You may teach them it is a team game and their broken actions could wreck others fun.
If someone is using an obviously broken thing in a way that does not break the game but is entertaining to the others at the table why stop it?
Talk with them first.
i wish they would just remove those spells
|
|
This is not the removal of an option. This is a sensible interpretation of the printed rules. It is unthinkable to interpret that this second-level spell was intended to be able to turn a long-duration out-of-combat summoning spell (like Mount) into a creature that's balanced for in-combat short-duration fighting. If such a thing was intended, it would have been printed in there - it is so out-of-line from established expectations that its omission should speak volumes.As I see it, Alter Summoned Monster was designed to allow a conjurer to switch between different summonable monsters, or even to upgrade numerous smaller monsters.
Not to turn Heightened Mounts into 9-hour-long Large Earth Elementals.
I generally don't believe that the removal of options should be based on theorycraft. After all, an injection of common sense into the game goes a long way - from both sides of the screen.
The poster I responded to was certainly removing an option. The spell is clear in writing. Whatever you view as 'over powered' or 'not intended' is immaterial as you are bound by the PFS guide, as a GM, to run the game by the rules with no changes.
There is plenty in the game that is not clear, or left vague and I am not saying the game does not have those and that a GM has no room to adjudicate. The game only functions when there is a GM to make judgments about issues of clarity, snap judgements about rules not written and ask players to avoid using disruptive abilities. Among the many many other tasks they have at the table.I merely said that you can not change the text on an option in the game. Nor can you, for instance, say something like 'Power Attack' is not legal at your table. I quoted where the guide says that clearly. There is a line in the sand between 'adjudicate' and 'rewrite the rules'.
That is all I was saying. Whether a player 'should' use this option... well, I'll say I wouldn't.
You speak of an 'omission', but the spell clearly handles spell duration, what kind of spells and summons are viable as well as current status and spell effects on the creature. What you speak about as left out, is clearly included. It just doesn't say "hey, use this with a longer summons to get longer summons!". Which would be ridiculous... when it already says that, basically, by saying the duration is the same(Just as it doesn't say it doesn't extend a summons in plain language. It's already covered.). Honestly, it is one of the clearest spell interactions I've come across in the game.
Whether what is achievable by the text is intended or not, I do not know.
It is not an 'interpretation' when you rewrite the rules. That is a house rule. Plain and simple.
An interpretation is where you read a text and within the bounds of the text come to a conclusion.
Such as reading that allies who are invisible, who did not cast the spell on themselves, are not visible to themselves.
What is not an interpretation is saying that weapon focus is too powerful and that it adds +1 to damage and not to hit.
Know that I say all this not in defense of the spell, which I have already said is too strong of an option. What I say here is only in the defense of the guidelines to PFS and for the sake of calling a thing what it is.
|
|
As a person who has played in a home game with a Master Summoner in the party, and how reminiscent this is of that (duration of summons is the biggest factor here), I hope this spell gets removed. (There were times where the party was not needed, as the summons could take care of multiple battles themselves since they lasted minutes/level)
If the spell were written more reasonably where it didn't allow hour/level duration summoning or allow heightened spell in conjuction with magical lineage & wayang spellhunter to get summons that are higher level than you can cast, I would have no problem with it. However, as is, it can be incredibly disruptive.
|
from the Opinion of somsone who has used this in a PFS Game on a grandfathered Mystic theruge (SLA Early access)
one thing that has to be considered is the amount of Resources that goes into this "Trick"
1- Feat - which for a caster are at a premium
2- 2nd Level Spell Slot
3- 1st + level Spell slot
so at Minimum your a 3rd level character before you start playing with this
A- anything less than a full caster is really limiting themselves in order to pull this off
B- the popular concept on this is Lantern Archons (5th level caster) so to be Truthful other than an aid battery what else is a Long Duration Lantern Archon Worth? it has 13 HP ... and they have to be within 30 feet to do anything
Granted at 7th level you can add Hound Archons in and that changes things a good deal because they are useful even past 7th
but I will add in the grand scope of things , it isn't Horridly game breaking or overpowered and the "Abuse" isnt as bad as you may think ... Look at the CR of the Creatures on the summon monster lists
Ive included the minimum level to cast the appropriate summon monster spell and the summoned creatures CR
Summon Monster 3 - Lantern Archon CR 2 lvl 5 (or CR4)
Summon Monster 4 - Hound Archon CR 4 lvl 7 (or CR6)
Summon Monster 5 - Bearded Devil CR 5 lvl 9 (or CR8)
Summon Monster 6 - Huge Elemental CR 7 lvl 11 (or CR 10)
every one of these Options is Well below the CR of the Character doing the Summons
I will admit this is an amazing tool and as a user of it I agree it Probably should be banned (Im actually surprised it hasn't been yet)
but as for Disruptive,,, no ... this is no worse than the 11th level zen archer with 6 Bow shots / Round .... or the Dazing Negative energy channeling clerics
|
|
but as for Disruptive,,, no ... this is no worse than the 11th level zen archer with 6 Bow shots / Round .... or the Dazing Negative energy channeling clerics
Disagreed. Let's take a level 5 wizard (conjurer) who uses this, taking Heighten spell as his bonus feat so it really isn't much of a feat tax. Let's also say they took Magical Lineage (Mount).
Alright, so he prepared 3 Alter Summoned Monster and 3 Heightened Mounts. Because of Magical Lineage, these are now level 4 spells, which means he can use the Summon Monster 4 list. He summons 3 Mounts, and then turns all of them into Hound Archons. He now has 3 CR 4 monsters for 10 hours. Let's say they are augmented too.
This level 5 wizard now has basically created 3 level 5 barbarians (with power attack, greatsword +8/+3 (2d6+12/19-20), not to mention the DR 10/evil, and 51 hit points) and that will last for 10 hours, which in some scenarios is the entire scenario. He also still has some level 1 spells left and some scrolls and wands. He can now be the entire party. He can even heal them with a wand of infernal healing (even if the hound archons don't particularly like it, it's an option).
That is pretty disruptive in my opinion.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Wraith, you aren't doing this efficiently, and a Mystic Theurge isn't the best character to do this with.
Wizards get the metamagic feat as a bonus feat, staff of the master means you can get summon monstrer 7 off communal mount as a 2nd level spell.
So for one bunus feat, plus 2 second level spell slots (out of 8), plus a 15000 gp staff that I can use for a bunch of other things, starting at level 8, I get
Communal Mount + 7 charges = Summon Monster 9. CR 14
If I am doing this, I am probably spending 2 more feats to get Augment summon, which means CR 15
(By the way, PCs are CR Level, not CR level -1)
If I really want to put resources into this, I take two traits (spell hunter and lineage) and an extra metamagic feat Scouting Summons.
(This probably takes me till level 9)
Now I am a 9th level wizard with 202 hitpoints, truespeach, uncanny dodge; DR 10/evil; Immune acid, cold, petrification; Resist electricity 10, fire 10; SR 25, Protective Aura (Magic circle against evil 20 feet and everyone inside it gets +4 AC against evil creatures.) STR 30, Dex 19, CON 25, and a +2 disrupting warhammer.
Still think this 9th level character is no worse than an 11th level zen archer?
|
The poster I responded to was certainly removing an option. The spell is clear in writing. Whatever you view as 'over powered' or 'not intended' is immaterial as you are bound by the PFS guide, as a GM, to run the game by the rules with no changes.
There is plenty in the game that is not clear, or left vague and I am not saying the game does not have those and that a GM has no room to adjudicate. The game only functions when there is a GM to make judgments about issues of clarity, snap judgements about rules not written and ask players to avoid using disruptive abilities. Among the many many other tasks they have at the table.
As a GM volunteer, I may not have the right to make things up, but I absolutely have the right to call out a player for being a butthead who is ruining the fun for me as the GM as well as the other players at the table. I also have the right to tell him to cut that crap out.
We had a player a couple of weeks ago try to say that he can Kraken Throttle anyone to death in 2 rounds because there was never an "Official PFS Ruling" made on it, only people talking about it on the forums who may or may not have been the guy who wrote the rule. This same player tried that gold weapon trick to get money at level 1 some time back.
We told him not to do it, and he said we couldn't stop him. We then said he could just not come if he's going to act like a jerk.
I understand that you as a player wouldn't use it, and that's awesome, but I'm right there with rknop.
Ultimately, it looks like this spell needs some work in how it interacts with other abilities and spells in the game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
but as for Disruptive,,, no ... this is no worse than the 11th level zen archer with 6 Bow shots / Round .... or the Dazing Negative energy channeling clericsDisagreed. Let's take a level 5 wizard (conjurer) who uses this, taking Heighten spell as his bonus feat so it really isn't much of a feat tax. Let's also say they took Magical Lineage (Mount).
Alright, so he prepared 3 Alter Summoned Monster and 3 Heightened Mounts. Because of Magical Lineage, these are now level 4 spells, which means he can use the Summon Monster 4 list. He summons 3 Mounts, and then turns all of them into Hound Archons. He now has 3 CR 4 monsters for 10 hours. Let's say they are augmented too.
This level 5 wizard now has basically created 3 level 5 barbarians (with power attack, greatsword +8/+3 (2d6+12/19-20), not to mention the DR 10/evil, and 51 hit points) and that will last for 10 hours, which in some scenarios is the entire scenario. He also still has some level 1 spells left and some scrolls and wands. He can now be the entire party. He can even heal them with a wand of infernal healing (even if the hound archons don't particularly like it, it's an option).
That is pretty disruptive in my opinion.
If he gets a summon who heals, and a summon who stealths, he can literally be an entire party all on his own...
He should also have a feat left to take extra trait, Wayang Spell hunter, so bump those CRs up at least one more.
|
|
If he gets a summon who heals, and a summon who stealths, he can literally be an entire party all on his own...
He should also have a feat left to take extra trait, Wayang Spell hunter, so bump those CRs up at least one more.
Right, it could be optimized even more than I said, which makes it even worse. If he has level 5 summons, he can summon an approriate CR encounter for the entire party with every casting.
|
|
(By the way, PCs are CR Level, not CR level -1)
Can you source this? AFAIK, PC do have a CR of HD-1. I don't see anything to indicate otherwise. And, I know its not an official source, but HeroLab also supports the -1.
CR doesn't really matter for PCs so this is really a non-issue, I was just wondering.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Characters with PC classes but NPC wealth have a CR equal to their level minus one.
PC wealth adds another level.
For example, at 10th level, PC wealth is 62,000 gp, while NPC wealth is 10k. The extra 50,000 beans could easily buy magical toys to give +2 across the board, which is the Advanced Simple Template.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.
*snip*
NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR.