Alter Summon monster and Mount into wishes

[Jader7777]

Okay but we're talking about how we interpret 'overcasting' a spell. For example if I cast Alter Self heightened to level 9 does it automatically function like Shape change- or maybe even better than Shape Change because hey, we're getting multi-wish special discounts now, why stop?

[Orfamay Quest]

Jader7777 wrote:

Okay but we're talking about how we interpret 'overcasting' a spell.

No, we aren't. "Overcasting" a spell using heighten doesn't change much. It literally only changes the spell level, not the effects.

[James Risner]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Jader7777 wrote:

Okay but we're talking about how we interpret 'overcasting' a spell.

No, we aren't. "Overcasting" a spell using heighten doesn't change much. It literally only changes the spell level, not the effects.

But those believing this works say a heightened mount works for SMIX Simmons.

[Tarik Blackhands]

James Risner wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Jader7777 wrote:

Okay but we're talking about how we interpret 'overcasting' a spell.

No, we aren't. "Overcasting" a spell using heighten doesn't change much. It literally only changes the spell level, not the effects.

But those believing this works say a heightened mount works for SMIX Simmons.

That's due to the interaction between Heighten and Alter Summoned Monster, not Heighten on its own. Alter lets you swap summons based on the level of the spell therefore Mount heightened to L9 would make it acceptable to use the Summon Monster IX list. Neither on their own are capable of pulling it off.

[Orfamay Quest]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Jader7777 wrote:

Okay but we're talking about how we interpret 'overcasting' a spell.

No, we aren't. "Overcasting" a spell using heighten doesn't change much. It literally only changes the spell level, not the effects.

But those believing this works say a heightened mount works for SMIX Simmons.

That's due to the interaction between Heighten and Alter Summoned Monster, not Heighten on its own. Alter lets you swap summons based on the level of the spell therefore Mount heightened to L9 would make it acceptable to use the Summon Monster IX list. Neither on their own are capable of pulling it off.

Yeah, this. A Heightened fireball still does the damage of a fireball. If, however, there were an ability that let you swap one evocation spell for another of the same level, you could turn a 9th level fireball into a meteor swarm.

Basically, ASM works off spell level, which is the one thing that Heighten does change.

[James Risner]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Basically, ASM works off spell level, which is the one thing that Heighten does change.

Does it seem like I'm having trouble understanding that logical rules interpretation path?

I'm not. I just don't agree that's what the rules do in this case.

I'm saying that Alter Summoned Monster wasn't written to assume summon spells that have been heightened.

It was designed such that you cast a SMV and you can change it to SMV or SNAV.

Going beyond that is beyond the rules as designed.

When you go beyond the designed rules you are often met with table variance on the meaning of the rules and the result of that is different RAW interpretations. Those different interpretations can't be fixed by insisting your interpretation is "RAW".

[Tarik Blackhands]

Yeah, 99% odds says this whole thing is a bug of the feat and not a feature but fact of the matter is even if it does go beyond the scope the devs intended, the interaction is 100% RAW legal. These are the sort of things that optimizers live for along with other such legal "glitches" such as the Charisma (arbitrary high number) nature oracle, old paragon surge for any spell (Although these days people have moved onto abundent tactics bar room brawler for basically the same trick), etc etc.

[James Risner]

The rules are fluid and involve interpretation.

My point is your "100% RAW legal" becomes "not RAW" at any table that doesn't interpret this interaction your way and there isn't any pointing at the rules and saying RAW that can fix as they read the same rules and come to a different interpretation.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Well yeah, any GM can just say "I don't like this, it doesn't work" and boom, whole thing is dead in the water.

Issue is beyond things like balance or GM taste, there really isn't another interpretation you can use in good faith.

Is Mount able to be heightened? Sure is, nothing in the metamagic feat, spell, or spell school prevent this. Is Mount an eligible spell for ASM? Yep: Conjuration (Summoning). Do heightened spells raise the summon monster cap? Sure looks like it since ASM works off spell level and heighten actively adjusts spell level.

All the pieces check out and work as far as the print is concerned (The grey area is the initial point of discussion of whether ASM monsters made from non-SM# spells have the same limitations as SM# ones).

What other interpretation of the interaction can you make to go against this beyond shutting it down due to balance reasons or claims it goes beyond RAI?

[James Risner]

I'm not talking about rule 0 or "I don't like that as GM". I'm talking about a GM saying "I don't come to the same conclusion as you". There is a difference.

ASM's whole language is based around making a different choice.

"The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target".

If someone read that as anything other than "You can alter your SM or SNA to be another choice of the same tier or below" then they are doing the same thing so many others did with the hundreds of FAQ answers that didn't involve errata. Specifically reading the rules differently that designed to be read.

[Halek]

James Risner wrote:

I'm not talking about rule 0 or "I don't like that as GM". I'm talking about a GM saying "I don't come to the same conclusion as you". There is a difference.

ASM's whole language is based around making a different choice.

"The new creature must be an option from a spell of the same level or lower as the spell that summoned the target".

If someone read that as anything other than "You can alter your SM or SNA to be another choice of the same tier or below" then they are doing the same thing so many others did with the hundreds of FAQ answers that didn't involve errata. Specifically reading the rules differently that designed to be read.

If the designers wanted this to be limited to summon monster or summon natures ally then it would have been limited to those two spells. As written is is limited to conjuration(summoning) spells. It took them effort to word it to include more spells.

Lets go through and order of operations.

Cast mount heightened to 9th level from a 9th level slot.

Cast alter summon monster on the summoned mount.

Alter summon monster checks if it is legal target.
It is a conjuration(summoning) spell.
Yes to legal target.

Alter Summon Monster checks its level.
It was cast from a 9th level slot and is treated as 9th level for all effects per heightened metamagic.
9th

Alter summon monster gives summon monster 9 and summon natures ally 9 lists as the highest option. You could even choose lower level if you wanted.

You choose what it is altered into from your lists.

What step do you disagree with? Which step from above is not RAW?

Put aside expensive SLA stuff for now.

[Orfamay Quest]

James Risner wrote:

If someone read that as anything other than "You can alter your SM or SNA to be another choice of the same tier or below" then they are doing the same thing so many others did with the hundreds of FAQ answers that didn't involve errata. Specifically reading the rules differently that designed to be read.

Except that any time you use phrases like "designed to be read," you're talking about RAI, not RAW. Designer intent is irrelevant to rules-as-written, by definition. If you think that limitation is written, you need to show text to that effect from the rules. That's what rules-as-written means.

[Orfamay Quest]

Halek wrote:

If the designers wanted this to be limited to summon monster or summon natures ally then it would have been limited to those two spells.

That, unfortunately, is not true -- designers make mistakes in wording on a fairly regular basis. It would not surprise me if the designer of that particular spell either didn't know that there were summoning spells outside the SM/SNA family, or simply had forgotten it.

However,....

Quote:

As written is is limited to conjuration(summoning) spells.

... is absolutely true. Because Rules-As-Written looks only at the words "as written."

[Wultram]

Yeah it works just fine. Granted it is nothing more than a nice thought experiment, since outside of very cornercase games it wouldn't fly at the table. That however was not what the OP was about. So yes it does work technically. Most likely whoever wrote it just messed up royally(or the editor), hardly surprising given paizos track-record.

Even without shenanigans involving heighten, you could use mount as is, for a lot longer lasting summon.

[Melkiador]

Rysky wrote:

Halek wrote:

If summon monster doesn't summon a Glabrezu but some similar but differently statted creature then why does it just reference the Glabrezu stats?

It includes the language on expensive material component spells. Mount doesn't.

... none of the summon spells reference the creatures stats. It says you can summon a Glabrezu, but you can't use wishes or other costly SLAs.

Mount isn't the spell you need to look at. Alter Summoned Monster is. And Alter Summoned Monster uses Summon Monster rules.

Where would that end though? Does the altered mount spell take on the duration of summon monster? If it takes on one restriction of the summon monster spell, why doesn't it take on the other restrictions?

[James Risner]

Duration is exempted

[The Raven Black]

It seems to be RAW, as much as this here text : "A wish granted by a glabrezu always fulfills the wisher’s need in the most destructive way possible"

[Halek]

Melkiador wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Halek wrote:

If summon monster doesn't summon a Glabrezu but some similar but differently statted creature then why does it just reference the Glabrezu stats?

It includes the language on expensive material component spells. Mount doesn't.

... none of the summon spells reference the creatures stats. It says you can summon a Glabrezu, but you can't use wishes or other costly SLAs.

Mount isn't the spell you need to look at. Alter Summoned Monster is. And Alter Summoned Monster uses Summon Monster rules.

Where would that end though? Does the altered mount spell take on the duration of summon monster? If it takes on one restriction of the summon monster spell, why doesn't it take on the other restrictions?

Duration is called out as exempted in the spell.

I think both interpretations would be fine. Both are able to be argued as RAW. So reading it as snagging some free everburning torches from a lantern archon is RAW. So is saying it cant cast that.

RAW is ambiguous and either interpretation comes down to what you summon with summon monster.

[Cantriped]

RAW, the combination appears legal. However as a GM I wouldn't allow it (or any other Wish factories) at my table, regardless of their legality.

IF a PFS or other GM desires to prevent you from circumventing the rule, while remaining within the bounds of RAW, they can easily declare that the particular creature you summoned has already used their wish. Likewise they can declare that the same particular creature of that type answers your summon each time you summon a creature of that type.
The rules for Conjuration (Summoning) spells clearly indicate you are summoning an actual, particular creature (and not a facsimile). Otherwise the CRB would not need a clause regarding the fact that a summoned being which is slain takes 24 hours to reform and cannot be summoned again during that time.

"I am Scot, your randomly appointed Glabrezu... What, no I can't do that... Because I already used my Wish this morning for a Sorcerer in Ustlav who couldn't find his keys.".

[Halek]

Cantriped wrote:

RAW, the combination appears legal. However as a GM I wouldn't allow it (or any other Wish factories) at my table, regardless of their legality.

IF a PFS or other GM desires to prevent you from circumventing the rule, while remaining within the bounds of RAW, they can easily declare that the particular creature you summoned has already used their wish. Likewise they can declare that the same particular creature of that type answers your summon each time you summon a creature of that type.
The rules for Conjuration (Summoning) spells clearly indicate you are summoning an actual, particular creature (and not a facsimile). Otherwise the CRB would not need a clause regarding the fact that a summoned being which is slain takes 24 hours to reform and cannot be summoned again during that time.

"I am Scot, your randomly appointed Glabrezu... What, no I can't do that... Because I already used my Wish this morning for a Sorcerer in Ustlav who couldn't find his keys.".

A PFS GM never has to deal with 9th level spells. Also the only thing I am seeing you could keep from session to session is lots of nonsellable ever burning torches from lantern archons.

[TheGnome]

Sooo... You summon a Glabrezu instead of a horse when casting Mount... and that´s all, right? So the new hypothetical text should read something like this: You summon a Glabrezu to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.
I have no problem with this. No telepathic commands, no default combat disposition, just a full harnessed demon you can jump onto and ride around.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Halek wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

RAW, the combination appears legal. However as a GM I wouldn't allow it (or any other Wish factories) at my table, regardless of their legality.

IF a PFS or other GM desires to prevent you from circumventing the rule, while remaining within the bounds of RAW, they can easily declare that the particular creature you summoned has already used their wish. Likewise they can declare that the same particular creature of that type answers your summon each time you summon a creature of that type.
The rules for Conjuration (Summoning) spells clearly indicate you are summoning an actual, particular creature (and not a facsimile). Otherwise the CRB would not need a clause regarding the fact that a summoned being which is slain takes 24 hours to reform and cannot be summoned again during that time.

"I am Scot, your randomly appointed Glabrezu... What, no I can't do that... Because I already used my Wish this morning for a Sorcerer in Ustlav who couldn't find his keys.".

A PFS GM never has to deal with 9th level spells. Also the only thing I am seeing you could keep from session to session is lots of nonsellable ever burning torches from lantern archons.

You can't keep those either. All ongoing spell effects end at the end of the session. What you can keep is specifically spelled out in the Campaign guidelines.

[Orfamay Quest]

TheGnome wrote:

Sooo... You summon a Glabrezu instead of a horse when casting Mount... and that´s all, right? So the new hypothetical text should read something like this: You summon a Glabrezu to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

I have no problem with this. No telepathic commands, no default combat disposition, just a full harnessed demon you can jump onto and ride around.

Nothing about the mount spell (or the alter summoned monster spell) actually strips the Glabrezu of its own attributes. The glabrezu is still telepathic, and still a fairly ferocious combat beast (although at CR 13, it's little more than a speed bump among the APL 17 party that cast summon monster IX).

I think that's part of the point that's getting missed in this discussion. Absent the wish SLA, which the monster description explicitly points out is a BAD IDEA for any mortal actually to ask for, there's nothing in this particular combination that is even faintly cheesy.

* I burned a feat (or money) to get Heighten Spell. Fine, sure, I could have taken a useful metamagic feat instead, but whatever.

* I burned a 9th level slot to cast a Heightened first level spell,.... which I then burn a 2nd level slot to turn into... the rough equivalent of what I could simply have used the 9th level slot to get in the first place. So I'm down one spell and one feat for....

* .... a monster six levels below me, a monster so weak I wouldn't get meaningful experience for killing if I ran into it in a dungeon. Sure, I might get it all day, but at this level it's probably not going to survive a single encounter -- it might even end up being a resource drain as I try to keep it alive for ten minutes.

So we're back to the SLA. As a GM, I welcome the opportunity to Monkey's Paw the hell out of the party.

[Cantriped]

Reading through the Additional Resources, I just noticed that Alter Summon Monster isn't legal in PFS. So these shenanigans are only a concern for home GMs (who have the right to ban-hammer any spell interactions they disagree with).

[TheGnome]

The point I was trying to make is that nothing in the alter summoned monster spell modifies the degree of control you exert on the summoned creature.
The glabrezu keeps all his attributes but the only obligation it has to you is to carry you as a mount.

Caster: "Destroy my enemies, I command you"
Glabrezu: "Nope"
Caster: "Well... dispel their buffs, then"
Glabrezu: "uh-uh"
Caster: "Better not to talk about wishes, I guess"
Glabrezu: "Mmmmm... Maybe we can make a deal"

The summon monster line of spells give you a more extensive degree of control of the summoned creature even considering the limitations that specifies.

Given that alter summon monster is apparently not legal for PFS, I guess I´ll treat (in my home games) the interpersonal relationship between caster and monster closer to that of a planar bindingspell.

[Jader7777]

The Raven Black wrote:

It seems to be RAW, as much as this here text : "A wish granted by a glabrezu always fulfills the wisher’s need in the most destructive way possible"

Now you're just being silly, clearly the wishes would always be horse related and travel orientated. Also the horse is chaotic evil.

Too bad it wasn't manifested with Summon Instrument which is also 100% legal.

[Cantriped]

Oblivious the Sorcerer says "Scot the Glabrezu, As my mount I order you to use your wish to provide me swift transport to Daggermark"
Scot the Glagrezu uses its Wish to mimic the effects of Mount.
Scot the Glabrezu say "There you go, you've got a horse, knock yourself out. I'll just be going now..."

[James Risner]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

there's nothing in this particular combination that is even faintly cheesy.

Then we have wildly different views of cheesy.

I'll grant you there is no power to be had. This "combo" won't break the game. Plus it's banned in PFS.

It however is twisting rules in a deliberate way well beyond their meaning and purpose. That behavior is cheesy.

Granted there are things that actually break the game (blood money, simulacrum conversations, and other bad stuff where the rules are broken inherently.)

[Halek]

Jader7777 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

It seems to be RAW, as much as this here text : "A wish granted by a glabrezu always fulfills the wisher’s need in the most destructive way possible"

Now you're just being silly, clearly the wishes would always be horse related and travel orientated. Also the horse is chaotic evil.

Too bad it wasn't manifested with Summon Instrument which is also 100% legal.

Then the new text would read the summoned Glabrezu is typical for its type.

That is a death sentence.

Also you would need to get it onto a wizard spell list.

[Halek]

Cantriped wrote:

Oblivious the Sorcerer says "Scot the Glabrezu, As my mount I order you to use your wish to provide me swift transport to Daggermark"

Scot the Glagrezu uses its Wish to mimic the effects of Mount.
Scot the Glabrezu say "There you go, you've got a horse, knock yourself out. I'll just be going now..."

No thats not destructive enough.

Scot the Glabrezu would summon a nightmare from duplicating Planar Ally
More fun that way.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Basically, ASM works off spell level, which is the one thing that Heighten does change.

Does it seem like I'm having trouble understanding that logical rules interpretation path?

I'm not. I just don't agree that's what the rules do in this case.

I'm saying that Alter Summoned Monster wasn't written to assume summon spells that have been heightened.

It was designed such that you cast a SMV and you can change it to SMV or SNAV.

Going beyond that is beyond the rules as designed.

Baloney.

There is ample evidence of restricted language being used when desired. I showed it to you in the Augmented Summoning feat. The fact that general language was used in Alter Summons was a deliberate choice.

You are frankly just making up 'developer intention' here, because you don't like RAW.

[James Risner]

@_Ozy_

I'd bet just about anything they never considered someone trying to heighten a low level spell with this.

The reason they didn't say SM or SNA is that newer specific spells are being created as the new way to expand the SM list of monsters.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

@_Ozy_

I'd bet just about anything they never considered someone trying to heighten a low level spell with this.

The reason they didn't say SM or SNA is that newer specific spells are being created as the new way to expand the SM list of monsters.

Then they could have used the same restrictive language as they did with Augment Summoning to restrict the spell to summon spells.

And yet, they deliberately went even more general than that.

I grant you, it is entirely possible that nobody considered the Mount spell, or considered heightening it, when Alter Summons was created, but they certainly and deliberately expanded the effect beyond just the SM and SNA line.

In other words, this would require an errata to 'fix', not a FAQ, if they so desired.

[Devilkiller]

If a PC using a Wish this way were "technically legal" then the DM twisting the Wish around and giving it back a way the PC doesn't much like would be too. Anyhow, what I'm really interested to know is whether replacing a Heightened Mount with a Summon Monster creature of the same spell level for an hour per level is legal and whether folks think that's intentional or just a loophole.

[Orfamay Quest]

Devilkiller wrote:

If a PC using a Wish this way were "technically legal" then the DM twisting the Wish around and giving it back a way the PC doesn't much like would be too. Anyhow, what I'm really interested to know is whether replacing a Heightened Mount with a Summon Monster creature of the same spell level for an hour per level is legal and whether folks think that's intentional or just a loophole.

According to the rules text, it's legal.

I'm fairly confident it's unintended, but it also (as even Risner agrees) not actually a substantial powerup.

[_Ozy_]

There is no question that it is RAW legal.

Nobody knows for sure if the developers considered this case or not, so you're just going to get various people's guesses on that.

I should note, there are other conjuration (summoning) spells of high level and extended duration beyond just a heightened mount, so I think that's a little bit of a red herring in this instance.

Elemental Swarm is 10min/level at 9th level. With a greater rod of extend, you're looking at a 6 hour duration, and you have a bunch of creatures you can choose to 'alter' into SMIX beasties (4-13). Each with maximum HP if you believe that wording in the original spell 'carries over' to the altered summons.

[James Risner]

Devilkiller wrote:

I'm really interested to know is whether replacing a Heightened Mount with a Summon Monster creature of the same spell level for an hour per level is legal and whether folks think that's intentional or just a loophole.

My vote "not legal" and not "not intentional".

@_Ozy_, to conclude it's intentional, I'd be interested in your reasoning for them to include the following spells:

• Cape Of Wasps, Creeping Doom, Elemental Bombardment, Elemental Swarm, Insect Plague, Mad Monkeys, Vomit Swarm, or Whip Of {Ants, Centipedes, or Spiders} -> Heightened to 9th and swap out one of the swarm creatures for a Glabrezu?
  
• Mount - They forgot about it?
  
• Summon * - very likely the primary desired targets.
  
• Conjure Black Pudding - Isn't named Summon * and wanted to be included?
  
• All the other spells don't summon 1 or more creatures.

Do you notice a pattern?

Either the spell doesn't summon a creature (and isn't valid) for Alter Summoned Monster, is a summon swarm spell, is a Conjure Black Pudding spell (only one Conjure spell exists right now), or was Mount.

Do you really believe they said:
Yea we want to include the swarm spells, the Conjure * spells, and the Mount spell?

I say no. I say they forgot about Mount and didn't consider the swarm spells when they wanted to include the Conjure Black Pudding spell.

[Devilkiller]

I can see where somebody interested in having the Conjure Black Pudding spell might enjoy having some options to transform the BP into something else. Depending on how much "re-skinning" your group tolerates it could even be sort of cool thematically to reshape the BP into the new monster (but maybe still all black)

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

Devilkiller wrote:

I'm really interested to know is whether replacing a Heightened Mount with a Summon Monster creature of the same spell level for an hour per level is legal and whether folks think that's intentional or just a loophole.

My vote "not legal" and not "not intentional".

@_Ozy_, to conclude it's intentional, I'd be interested in your reasoning for them to include the following spells:

• Cape Of Wasps, Creeping Doom, Elemental Bombardment, Elemental Swarm, Insect Plague, Mad Monkeys, Vomit Swarm, or Whip Of {Ants, Centipedes, or Spiders} -> Heightened to 9th and swap out one of the swarm creatures for a Glabrezu?
  
• Mount - They forgot about it?
  
• Summon * - very likely the primary desired targets.
  
• Conjure Black Pudding - Isn't named Summon * and wanted to be included?
  
• All the other spells don't summon 1 or more creatures.

Do you notice a pattern?

Either the spell doesn't summon a creature (and isn't valid) for Alter Summoned Monster, is a summon swarm spell, is a Conjure Black Pudding spell (only one Conjure spell exists right now), or was Mount.

Do you really believe they said:
Yea we want to include the swarm spells, the Conjure * spells, and the Mount spell?

I say no. I say they forgot about Mount and didn't consider the swarm spells when they wanted to include the Conjure Black Pudding spell.

Didn't consider the swarm spells?!? What, they forgot they existed? Not sure whether the dev team should be insulted by that or not...

More likely, they realized that swarms are 'the creature' that would get swapped out by the alter spell, so realized it would work as intended.

However, you realize Elemental Swarm isn't actually a 'swarm', right, it's just the name of the spell? That is, it summons multiple elemental creatures, is a 9th level spell, and lets you get 4-13 SMIX creatures using a 9th level spell and 4-13 charges from an 'Alter Summons' wand, right?

I mean why all the focus on heightened Mount? There's your broken combo. Again, 100% RAW legal just like the heightened Mount.

Finally, if you want to support your claim that this isn't RAW legal, then do it using the rules, not some invocation of developer intent.

[James Risner]

I figured you'd assert swapping one of the swarms out because if you don't it doesn't make sense to swap out any of the elementals in Elemental Swarm.

As for rejecting it as RAW, I have. Your Heightened Mount isn't a Summon/Conjure spell, so it doesn't get another choice.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

I figured you'd assert swapping one of the swarms out because if you don't it doesn't make sense to swap out any of the elementals in Elemental Swarm.

As for rejecting it as RAW, I have. Your Heightened Mount isn't a Summon/Conjure spell, so it doesn't get another choice.

Huh, what?

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

Do you think because of the name 'Elemental Swarm' that the summoned elementals have any relationship to a swarm?

When you attack a swarm, you target the swarm as a creature, therefore that is the creature subject to the Altered Summons spell. You're the one who apparently thinks the dev team is so incompetent that they didn't realize half their conjuration (summon) spells 'wouldn't work' (according to you).

In any case, Elemental Swarm summons multiple creatures, Alter summons will change one of them at a time, it says so specifically in the spell.

As far as Heightened Mount not being a Summon/Conjure spell, WTF are you talking about?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

MOUNT

School conjuration (summoning); Level sorcerer/wizard 1

Seriously, WTF?

[James Risner]

You are focusing on taking a selection criteria out of context of what the spell does and the intended type of spells this spell is designed to modify.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

You are focusing on taking a selection criteria out of context of what the spell does and the intended type of spells this spell is designed to modify.

Sorry, no. You ignoring what the rules say to enforce your belief about what the devs intended, with the side effect of essentially accusing them of gross negligence.

Seriously, this is the Rules forum, and the rules in this case are actually quite clear. I bolded the relevant parts for you so you can make an easy comparison from the wording in both spells that demonstrates that it works. To say otherwise, and offer nothing to support your assertion, frankly doesn't belong here. If you think I'm pulling words out of context, then post the rules context that you think changes the meaning.

Now, if you want to actually start using rules in your argument, then please, continue. I'm not sure that ignoring what the rules say does a whole lot to convince others though.

[James Risner]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Seriously, this is the Rules forum, and the rules in this case are actually quite clear.

Actually, hardly any FAQ answer had no people in the rules forum asserting it was "quite clear".

[Baval]

I dont see any reason why it wouldnt work. people are trying to apply summon monsters restrictions to the combination, but the alter summon monster does not say to do that, only to exchange the summon with one that *could* be summoned with summon monster of the same level.

That said, obviously no DM will let you do this.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Seriously, this is the Rules forum, and the rules in this case are actually quite clear.

Actually, hardly any FAQ answer had no people in the rules forum asserting it was "quite clear".

Naturally. I'm also pretty sure you can find a person who thinks it's not clear that Fighters get 1d10 HP each level after the first. Just because someone disagrees with a clear rule, doesn't mean it's not clear. The existence of rules that aren't clear also doesn't mean this rule isn't clear.

For example, I fully accept that it 'isn't clear' that creatures altered by this spell are fully restricted by the caveats contained in the SM spells, such as no teleport, expensive SLAs, etc... even though I think they are.

But when the spell says it works on conjuration (summoning), and you have a creature summoned by conjuration (summoning), that's as clear as A = A. Literally.

However, you said I took those rules out of context, so feel free to provide the context that you think supports your claim that A != A in this instance.

Except that you can't, because so far your 'context' is merely an unsubstantiated belief as to what the apparently bumbling dev team really meant when they wrote conjuration (summoning) in the Alter Summoned Monster text.

You seem to think that they wrote 'conjuration (summoning) so that one particular spell (conjure black pudding) would be included, meanwhile apparently ignoring the dozen or so spells that you think shouldn't qualify...and yet do by RAW. I welcome the additional rules context that supports this claim.

[Firebug]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Seriously, this is the Rules forum, and the rules in this case are actually quite clear.

...
Now, if you want to actually start using rules in your argument, then please, continue. I'm not sure that ignoring what the rules say does a whole lot to convince others though.

James Risner wrote:

Actually, hardly any FAQ answer had no people in the rules forum asserting it was "quite clear".

So no, no actual rules in the argument then.

[_Ozy_]

Come to think of it, summoned swarms probably can't be affected due to their trait:

Quote:

A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures

So, Vomit Swarm, Summon Swarm, Mad Monkeys, etc... wouldn't work with Alter Summoned Monster.

[Samasboy1]

Yes, Mount qualifies to be affected by Alter Summoned Monster.
ASM affects a conjuration (summoning) spell, and Mount is a conjuration (summoning spell). ASM has a target of "one summoned creature" and the mount from Mount is a summoned creature.

Yes, Heightened Mount would let you access higher level SM/SNA spells.
With a Heightened spell is "all effects dependent on spell level are calculated according to the heightened level," and per the FAQ, "treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using."
So a Mount Heightened to 9th level is actually a 9th level spell, and could be swapped out for SM/SNA IX.

It does seem that a monster summoned by Mount/ASM would have all non-summoning abilities. While not being able to use summon abilities is in the general conjuration (summoning) rules, the ban on other abilities are in the Summon Monster spell itself, which is never cast.
While ASM does reference SM/SNA, it is only in the context of what list you choose your new creature from.

It only works/was intended to work on SM/SNA wrote:

No, it works on any conjuration (summoning) spell, as shown in the effects section, as long as you have a valid target. The inclusion of the last line about eidolons is pretty strong evidence they at least considered it would be used with other summoning spells/abilities.

But you will have the same restrictions as SM/SNA wrote:

While reasonable, nothing in ASM references SM/SNA except for what monster you can choose

SM/SNA summons a variant monster without those abilities wrote:

No, "can't use" does not mean "doesn't have." Creatures summoned with SM/SNA have their normal abilities but are barred from using them. Creatures summoned with Mount/ASM would also have the abilities, without the same restrictions

The new creature can only act as a mount wrote:

Great, nothing about it being a "mount" restricts if from fighting, or even requires you ride it. Sure, getting a horse to attack may require a Handle Animal check, but that's because the horse is an animal, not anything in the Mount spell. The new creature is (probably) not an animal, so you can just tell it to smash face, and it is probably happy to do so

What about these other spells? wrote:

Is it conjuration summoning? Can you target a single summoned creature? Then it does/doesn't work depending. But Mount works.

[_Ozy_]

Samasboy1 wrote:

SM/SNA summons a variant monster without those abilities wrote:

No, "can't use" does not mean "doesn't have." Creatures summoned with SM/SNA have their normal abilities but are barred from using them. Creatures summoned with Mount/ASM would also have the abilities, without the same restrictions

There are no rules that explain exactly how someone with an Su ability can be prevented from using that Su ability, therefore it's just as correct to say that they do not have that ability as it is to say that they have that ability but they (somehow) can't use it.

It is in fact quite possible that SM does summon a variant monster, because it's a creature that can't be killed, unlike the base monster. It's a creature that can't use certain abilities, unlike the base monster.

Since you can't point to a rule that specifically says how a creature is denied certain abilities, ruling that it is because it is a variant monster that doesn't have those abilities works just as well as any other decision.