Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Anyone animal would probably defend itself when it's being attacked while the Master is busy. It would at least try to run away or something. AC here will literally sit on hazardous acid pools unless you spend an action to tell it to move away.

Nope. Per page 416, "If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or escape obvious harm."

I dunno about you, but I imagine sitting in an acid pool would constitute obvious. And the animal companion explicitly defends itself if attacked when the master is busy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
defends itself

That's pretty open to interpretation. Is that just defensive actions? Self defense attacks? Can it move into a flank or into cover? Can it move to attack someone shooting it at ranged?

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
defends itself
That's pretty open to interpretation. Is that just defensive actions? Self defense attacks? Can it move into a flank or into cover? Can it move to attack someone shooting it at ranged?

GM's call. Which I suspect is the point, really. It's not that they don't act when not commanded, it's that you have no control over what they do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if an uncommanded minion has something attack it from melee range, unless the master says something the GM will simply decide whether it fights back or withdraws, depending on context.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
GM's call. Which I suspect is the point, really.

Sigh... I really loathe GM's call 'rules'. It's fine I guess if you always have the same DM, but when you have different ones, it's just another thing you have to ask 'so how do you rule on THIS...'. :P

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
GM's call. Which I suspect is the point, really.
Sigh... I really loathe GM's call 'rules'. It's fine I guess if you always have the same DM, but when you have different ones, it's just another thing you have to ask 'so how do you rule on THIS...'. :P

Table variation is totally a thing, certainly, and potentially a very unpleasant one.

And some clearer guidelines on what a minion does when uncontrolled would be great, and something I hope for (and we're pretty likely to get them in PFS at least), but I think the core idea of 'You can spend an action and they do what you say, or not and they do what they feel like' is fine in and of itself.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "how does the creature behave based on its interests and context" is the sort of call GMs make constantly anyway, so of all the things which are the GM's call this might be one of the ones we can trust them most to make correctly.

It's less "I have a basic rule for this" and more a context sensitive thing. A cat animal companion menaced by something larger, or on fire, will withdraw generally because that is how cats behave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's less "I have a basic rule for this" and more a context sensitive thing. A cat animal companion menaced by something larger, or on fire, will withdraw generally because that is how cats behave.

I disagree: I understand there might be exceptions, like a flaming creature, but I 100% expect a 'basic rule' for what happens if it relates to generic orc #116 or goblin #964 or bandit # 459...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P

Except that that's clearly not how it works at all. You don't spend your action commanding summons. You so your action Concentrating on the spell to maintain it so the monster doesn't fade into the ether, and that just happens to be when the monster takes it's actions. And the rules even basically say it can act of it's own volition (but towards your ends) with those actions IIRC.

The monster doesn't stand there doing nothing if you don't spend an action commanding it. The spell ends and the monster goes away if you don't spend an action (or free action with Effortless Concentration) to keep it going.

So the "my summons won't do anything if I don't actively command them" argument really isn't even a thing. Between that and the rules text DMW outlined about conpanions responding to danger the complaints about Minion rules are pretty well handled. As for the complaint about there being some GM adjucation, I kinda get that but there has to be SOME GM adjucation of things, otherwise the game just won't function well. Sorry, it just kinda runs me the wrong way when people sometimes seem so set on making sure the rules absolutely guarantee them this, that, or the other no matter what the GM says. Because the only time that should matter is if you're playing with a bad GM or one you have personal conflict with, in which case the rules aren't gonna help anyway because a bad or adversarial GM can ignore them.

I think we should expect the rules to assume a good or at least decent GM, the alternative causes far more problems than it solves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
Except that that's clearly not how it works at all. You don't spend your action commanding summons. You so your action Concentrating on the spell to maintain it so the monster doesn't fade into the ether, and that just happens to be when the monster takes it's actions.

Summoned spell trait: "If you don’t Concentrate on the Spell during your turn, the creature takes no actions, assuming it isn’t dismissed due to the spell having a duration of concentration."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:

As for the complaint about there being some GM adjucation, I kinda get that but there has to be SOME GM adjucation of things, otherwise the game just won't function well. Sorry, it just kinda runs me the wrong way when people sometimes seem so set on making sure the rules absolutely guarantee them this, that, or the other no matter what the GM says. Because the only time that should matter is if you're playing with a bad GM or one you have personal conflict with, in which case the rules aren't gonna help anyway because a bad or adversarial GM can ignore them.

I think we should expect the rules to assume a good or at least decent GM, the alternative causes far more problems than it solves.

I actually agree somewhat with Graystone [who am I and what have I done with Malk?!] but coming from the opposite fear. After seeing the power of sub characters in other games I feel those "guidelines" aren't enough to stop a well meaning but inexperienced GM from accidentally massively buffing pet classes by being too kind with their interpretation. I mean by those guidelines a GM could easily make Animal Companions better to actually leave uncommanded.

E.G there is a massive power difference between a Animal Companion ruled to attack the most dangerous enemy who last hit it and one who says they back off out of the fight if uncontrolled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
Except that that's clearly not how it works at all. You don't spend your action commanding summons. You so your action Concentrating on the spell to maintain it so the monster doesn't fade into the ether, and that just happens to be when the monster takes it's actions.
Summoned spell trait: "If you don’t Concentrate on the Spell during your turn, the creature takes no actions, assuming it isn’t dismissed due to the spell having a duration of concentration."

That is a fair point, though I feel like thats just future-proofing. There is currently no known case where a summon would NOT be dismissed if you don't Concentrate on the spell, this phrasing is probably for if a way to do so develops, to avoid it being exploited. I think that's a fair choice for future-proofing, and it's not fully relevant to current discussion because there is no situation where it comes up. With the Summoning we currently have, it's either you concentrate and they act then or you don't and they poof.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision: they somehow can't understand 'attack that creature/object until I say not to...'. Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P

To be fair, that Elder Elemental is probably getting on in years and might need the regular reminder :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
Except that that's clearly not how it works at all. You don't spend your action commanding summons. You so your action Concentrating on the spell to maintain it so the monster doesn't fade into the ether, and that just happens to be when the monster takes it's actions.
Summoned spell trait: "If you don’t Concentrate on the Spell during your turn, the creature takes no actions, assuming it isn’t dismissed due to the spell having a duration of concentration."
That is a fair point, though I feel like thats just future-proofing. There is currently no known case where a summon would NOT be dismissed if you don't Concentrate on the spell, this phrasing is probably for if a way to do so develops, to avoid it being exploited. I think that's a fair choice for future-proofing, and it's not fully relevant to current discussion because there is no situation where it comes up. With the Summoning we currently have, it's either you concentrate and they act then or you don't and they poof.

Yep, I know there wasn't any way in the playtest, but I expect something that lets you avoid concentration for x rounds or lasts form x rounds after concentration ends or even a summons that just lasts for x rounds.

So my comments were under the assumption of that possibility: if we get those kind of abilities and the other rules stay largely the same then intelligent creatures can't follow simple commands that last longer than a round. That, IMO, is something to bring up now and not after they make them.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision: they somehow can't understand 'attack that creature/object until I say not to...'. Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
To be fair, that Elder Elemental is probably getting on in years and might need the regular reminder :p

LOL does it also come with a walker? :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision: they somehow can't understand 'attack that creature/object until I say not to...'. Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
To be fair, that Elder Elemental is probably getting on in years and might need the regular reminder :p

"Destroy that wall" might be a weird concept for an elemental anyway, since I could see "I hit it once, and now it will fall down on its own" being a thing they would actually believe; the wall will absolutely fall down in 100 years, but elementals have no real concept of time, or possibly "wall" or "destroy" since elementals are pretty alien things.

Like "is a pile of rubble still a wall"? Might be a thing an elemental would want to ponder for a decade or so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision

To be fair, that's somewhat alleviated if they change the flavor of summoning spells to actually be summoning.

A summoned elemental or demon not wanting to deal with your s#@% if you aren't specifically commanding them to kind of makes sense. That doesn't really jive with the janky "you're not really summoning a creature just creating a representation of it" explanation I've seen in PF1 but that doesn't necessarily have to be the deal in PF2.

I think the bigger problem is that having your class feature's power tied to how nice the GM is can get kind of uncomfortable. I used to always see people get frustrated over the way illusion swings from OP to useless entirely based on how the GM decides to rule things and extending that wild variation to summoning rules doesn't sound great.


If it's in the rules it's open to discussion, the concept that "its future proofing" is no excuse to just leave it be.

Well it's a bit better they will defend themselves. It still has the effect of AC is a statue unless acted by an outside force; the AC himself still doesn't act like a living thing.

*************
GM adjudication is something that is always active at nearly every point of gameplay and an important part of character planning. And taking control away from a PC is giving the PC less work, while making the GM work more. It also has the problem of meta gaming, where the GM (with all his power) is still human and biased and will most likely move the animal as one of his characters (playing a 2 person game with 1 person) or not at all.

Also letting a player control his AC doesn't breakdown play more than a GM controlling it. If anything it should speed it up as the GM has 1 less screen to look at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.

The minion spends one of it's actions listening to you and making sure it does what you tell them to do correctly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
That doesn't really jive with the janky "you're not really summoning a creature just creating a representation of it" explanation I've seen in PF1 but that doesn't necessarily have to be the deal in PF2.

I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

Squiggit wrote:
I think the bigger problem is that having your class feature's power tied to how nice the GM is can get kind of uncomfortable. I used to always see people get frustrated over the way illusion swings from OP to useless entirely based on how the GM decides to rule things and extending that wild variation to summoning rules doesn't sound great.

It would be nice if everything your pc can do you can predict with absolute certainty barring the influx of dice, but that is very difficult with complex systems like illusions and summons - different individuals will react differently to images and figments, and summons being quasi-npcs puts them in the hands of the gm at least partially.

(Not that you can't have a game with pre-codified reactions, it's just that PF normally doesn't work like that. D&D 4e did have summons & ACs that behaved very mechanically and you knew what they were gonna do each round).

Still, if the summon or AC obeys your commands, that's good imo, as is good if it also acts according to its instincts or priorities as interpreted by the gm when left alone (see above - defending from attacks and avoiding obvious danger).

I think we must avoid summons/ACs who give you a whole extra turn each, but also that suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and I hope the devs have managed to strike a solid middle ground between these 2 extremes. Other than that... if we're very dissatisfied with how the issue has been handled we can demand an optional fix to be published in the GMG, at least, so let's not lose hope.

Liberty's Edge

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

Oh man, thinking about this brought me back to the worst rules discussions about World of Darkness MET things. Very "But it doesn't say it doesn't" or "well, what did this "or" mean really?"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
That doesn't really jive with the janky "you're not really summoning a creature just creating a representation of it" explanation I've seen in PF1 but that doesn't necessarily have to be the deal in PF2.
I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

I would have described it a little differently, but in 3.x/Pathfinder I believe that there is such a difference between Summoned creatures and Called creatures. As I understood it, casting Summon X brought the creature over from some other plane, but if you brought it down to 0 hp, it just returned to the plane it came from; it didn't actually die. Whereas a Called creature (Planar Binding, Planar Ally) was actually there, and could very much be killed. Perhaps that's what Squiggit is referring to, and we just have different understandings / ways of rationalizing the same underlying rules concept?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

Well, per PF1, when you're using a Calling spell (like Planar Binding) you get real creatures. Specific individuals with their own name, history, and desires.

When you're using a spell like Summon Monster, though, you're basically creating a temporary magical construct, the platonic ideal of the creature in question, rather than a specific individual. This is actually almost a necessary explanation given how those spells work (their small duration, the fact that the monster always has precisely generic stats, the fact that it vanishes at 0 HP), with the 'summon specific individuals' thing making much less sense for the Summon Monster spell line than this explanation does.

I've personally always liked this explanation and I suspect they're keeping it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

Well, per PF1, when you're using a Calling spell (like Planar Binding) you get real creatures. Specific individuals with their own name, history, and desires.

When you're using a spell like Summon Monster, though, you're basically creating a temporary magical construct, the platonic ideal of the creature in question, rather than a specific individual. This is actually almost a necessary explanation given how those spells work (their small duration, the fact that the monster always has precisely generic stats, the fact that it vanishes at 0 HP), with the 'summon specific individuals' thing making much less sense for the Summon Monster spell line than this explanation does.

I've personally always liked this explanation and I suspect they're keeping it.

This would make sense why it’s in Conjuration then. I always wondered, since i never think of teleportation as a form of Conjuration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This would make sense why it’s in Conjuration then. I always wondered, since i never think of teleportation as a form of Conjuration.

From the PRD:

Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.

To comment on Deadmanwalking's explanation: I mostly agree, though I believe you are pulling that platonic realization from some other plane and bringing it to you, rather than crafting it on the spot. So maybe SNA animals come from the First World, SM Angels come from Heaven, etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
To comment on Deadmanwalking's explanation: I mostly agree, though I believe you are pulling that platonic realization from some other plane and bringing it to you, rather than crafting it on the spot. So maybe SNA animals come from the First World, SM Angels come from Heaven, etc.

Well, they summon the energy from the plane at the very least. But really, it's a bit of a semantic argument in terms of function beyond the fact that they aren't real creatures with hopes and dreams and a history and a name. They're merely energy constructs bound to the spellcaster's will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue with having a summoned creature actually be a real creature is it gets ethically dicey really fast. It becomes hard to justify a good character using them as disposable meat shields, especially when you move beyond creatures with animal intelligence. The construct explanation is less interesting but also less likely to cause alignment arguments at the table.

Either way though, that summon is only doing what you want it to because the spell compels it. There's nothing especially weird about it needing an iota of your concentration to keep acting. Either it is a mental control you need to maintain or it is a Green Lantern style construct that only works as long as you pour your will into it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision: they somehow can't understand 'attack that creature/object until I say not to...'. Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P
To be fair, that Elder Elemental is probably getting on in years and might need the regular reminder :p

Also the Elemental Liberation Front (ELF) has been teaching passive resistance to elementals so as to reduce their value to the slavers who keep grabbing them out of the elemental planes and forcing them to fight in battles they have no interest in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

Well, per PF1, when you're using a Calling spell (like Planar Binding) you get real creatures. Specific individuals with their own name, history, and desires.

When you're using a spell like Summon Monster, though, you're basically creating a temporary magical construct, the platonic ideal of the creature in question, rather than a specific individual. This is actually almost a necessary explanation given how those spells work (their small duration, the fact that the monster always has precisely generic stats, the fact that it vanishes at 0 HP), with the 'summon specific individuals' thing making much less sense for the Summon Monster spell line than this explanation does.

I've personally always liked this explanation and I suspect they're keeping it.

I always thought the real explanation was: if an evil PC summons an angel, he/she can make it kill orphans, because it isn't a real angel. Of course, the second time one my player's PC's does that, a bunch of real angels will show up (Marketing is Very Important to the cosmic powers in my games....).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:
I always thought the real explanation was: if an evil PC summons an angel, he/she can make it kill orphans, because it isn't a real angel. Of course, the second time one my player's PC's does that, a bunch of real angels will show up (Marketing is Very Important to the cosmic powers in my games....).

I was talking in-universe explanations. This is more of a 'real world' explanation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
I sure hope not - this is one of the stupidest contrivances I've ever heard of in an rpg... and I had no idea this was the case in 1e. Please devs don't keep this explanation!

Well, per PF1, when you're using a Calling spell (like Planar Binding) you get real creatures. Specific individuals with their own name, history, and desires.

When you're using a spell like Summon Monster, though, you're basically creating a temporary magical construct, the platonic ideal of the creature in question, rather than a specific individual. This is actually almost a necessary explanation given how those spells work (their small duration, the fact that the monster always has precisely generic stats, the fact that it vanishes at 0 HP), with the 'summon specific individuals' thing making much less sense for the Summon Monster spell line than this explanation does.

I've personally always liked this explanation and I suspect they're keeping it.

"Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again."

Summoning tells you "brings a creature or object to a place you designate", not creating a new one. Also, "a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from" and "It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again" don't make much sense with a temp construct.

"Calling: A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on." So difference is "from another plane" and "they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell"...

To do as suggested you'd need "Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

All that may not be valid anymore in PF2.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Summoning tells you "brings a creature or object to a place you designate", not creating a new one. Also, "a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from" and "It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again" don't make much sense with a temp construct.

This is a core rules/Golarion disconnect.

What I state above is canonical in Golarion. It is not perfectly enshrined in the core rules. I'll try and find a citation sometime, though the main source I remember is just James Jacobs mentioning it (which is enough to be canonical in Golarion until stated otherwise), but I do seem to recall it showing up in several books as well.

Zaister wrote:
All that may not be valid anymore in PF2.

They don't seem to be changing Golarion canon too much, so I suspect it still holds true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
All that may not be valid anymore in PF2.

It's true there may be changes, but I was replying to "Well, per PF1" and "I had no idea this was the case in 1e".

Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is a core rules/Golarion disconnect.

That's new to me.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll try and find a citation sometime, though the main source I remember is just James Jacobs mentioning it (which is enough to be canonical in Golarion until stated otherwise), but I do seem to recall it showing up in several books as well.

I don't recall any book/official post with it. It might be something from the 'ask James Jacobs thread' but I didn't follow it much after the 'posts aren't official unless they say they are official' rule came out. If you can find what you're thinking of, please post as I'd be curious to see it.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
That's new to me.

I'll have a look around and see where I got the idea from.

graystone wrote:
I don't recall any book/official post with it. It might be something from the 'ask James Jacobs thread' but I didn't follow it much after the 'posts aren't official unless they say they are official' rule came out. If you can find what you're thinking of, please post as I'd be curious to see it.

Well, this would've been before that particular rule, since I haven't read the Ask James Jacobs thread in quite a while. That may well be where I originally saw it, but I'm pretty sure it was in some book as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


I've personally always liked this explanation and I suspect they're keeping it.

I've always thought it was kind of janky, personally. It basically turns Summon Monster into Simulacrum rather than summoning. It feels like kind of just a quick and dirty way around the "should a druid for letting their summoned animals get killed?" type thing.

It also makes for worse roleplaying opportunities I think, since summoned monsters aren't real and that kind of limits your ability to interact with them.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


They don't seem to be changing Golarion canon too much, so I suspect it still holds true.

I mean they're completely changing kobold physiology for one, so who knows what might else be on the table.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I've always thought it was kind of janky, personally. It basically turns Summon Monster into Simulacrum rather than summoning. It feels like kind of just a quick and dirty way around the "should a druid for letting their summoned animals get killed?" type thing.

Well, on a meta-level, sure, but it works nonetheless.

Squiggit wrote:
It also makes for worse roleplaying opportunities I think, since summoned monsters aren't real and that kind of limits your ability to interact with them.

Given the duration of Summon Monster spells (the only ones this applies to) is in rounds, and thus less than a minute most times, I think roleplaying with them is verging on nonexistent in the first place.

Squiggit wrote:
I mean they're completely changing kobold physiology for one, so who knows what might else be on the table.

They're changing the pictures used in their books, not how much kobolds weigh or how much they eat or where they live.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Given the duration of Summon Monster spells (the only ones this applies to) is in rounds

Summoners don't follow that, as they manage to keep them around for minutes per level with their class ability.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Given the duration of Summon Monster spells (the only ones this applies to) is in rounds
Summoners don't follow that, as they manage to keep them around for minutes per level with their class ability.

True, but Summoners are a weird exception to all sorts of rules.


Originally the longest duration was permanent via conjuration wizard (second largest was 3 minutes). After summoner was released, they released many summon abilities that were 1 minute/lv.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all very confusing.

Summoning is a synonym for calling, hailing, convoking... I thought summons were actual creatures who came to your aid, more or less willingly. If they're constructs... it can be okay, of course, it's not making or breaking anything... but it's a bit weird.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Roswynn wrote:

This is all very confusing.

Summoning is a synonym for calling, hailing, convoking... I thought summons were actual creatures who came to your aid, more or less willingly. If they're constructs... it can be okay, of course, it's not making or breaking anything... but it's a bit weird.

Calling is a specific type of Summoning in Pathfinder, where you bring the actual Outsider over.

Normal summoning you're basically bringing forth an astral construct/imprint from that creature's Plane momentarily, you're not bringing forth an actual creature.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
That's new to me.
I'll have a look around and see where I got the idea from.

I've heard the idea as D&D 3.5's way of handling summons. I never saw anything about it in PF1. You could just be remember the old 3.5 rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
That's new to me.
I'll have a look around and see where I got the idea from.
I've heard the idea as D&D 3.5's way of handling summons. I never saw anything about it in PF1. You could just be remember the old 3.5 rule.

I basically never played 3.5 (well, okay, once or twice very briefly for like 5-10 sessions total over its entire existence...never as a spellcaster). So that's definitely not it.


Rysky wrote:
Normal summoning you're basically bringing forth an astral construct/imprint from that creature's Plane momentarily, you're not bringing forth an actual creature.

This is incorrect going by the rule books. If you have a quote from one of the lore books, please post it. I'd really like to see where this came from since multiple people seem to recall it.

"Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Normal summoning you're basically bringing forth an astral construct/imprint from that creature's Plane momentarily, you're not bringing forth an actual creature.
This is incorrect going by the rule books. If you have a quote from one of the lore books, please post it. I'd really like to see where this came from since multiple people seem to recall it.

It's in the quote above by First World Bard.

Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.

The difference between calling and summoning is that one brings an actual creature, the other brings a "manifestation," whatever that is.

The issue is that there are two different explanations for summoning on the same page, one in the overview of conjurations and one actually under Summoning, and the ambiguity goes back to 3.5.

d20SRD wrote:

Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.

........

Summoning
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Normal summoning you're basically bringing forth an astral construct/imprint from that creature's Plane momentarily, you're not bringing forth an actual creature.
This is incorrect going by the rule books. If you have a quote from one of the lore books, please post it. I'd really like to see where this came from since multiple people seem to recall it.

It's in the quote above by First World Bard.

Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.

The difference between calling and summoning is that one brings an actual creature, the other brings a "manifestation," whatever that is.

The issue is that there are two different explanations for summoning on the same page, one in the overview of conjurations and one actually under Summoning, and the ambiguity goes back to 3.5.

d20SRD wrote:

Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.

........

Summoning
A summoning spell

...

Good summing up. I still think this doesn't need to be the same in 2e. 1e followed a slew of archaic and arbitrary decisions accumulated in 3.5 starting from the '70s. PF can totally shed what isn't necessary and work at its own identity now, with no need to appropriate game elements from The Game Which Shall Not Be Named.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Joana: That's taking the intro paragraph over the actual detailed description: That IMO is like taking the chart snippet over the actual feat/spell/ect description.

As to the difference between calling and summons, it's in the descriptions too: calling "transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on" while the summons doesn't require another plane.

Secondly, nothing in the word 'manifestations" implies creation:

manifestation = outward or perceptible indication; materialization.

#1 to come into perceptible existence; appear; become actual or real; be realized or carried out.
#2 to assume material or bodily form; become corporeal.

It's about making something appear not making something from nothing. You need the wording from Creation to actually make something like that: "A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates" and "If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic."

PS: Let me thank you though. If this is the cause of the confusion it's good to know. It seems, IMO, people have GREATLY expanded "manifestations" to " you're basically creating a temporary magical construct, the platonic ideal of the creature in question, rather than a specific individual." As I said above, that's what creation has specifically listed as under it purview. As such, if it's meant to be the way people are saying, all summoning spells should be relabeled creation spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
As to the difference between calling and summons, it's in the descriptions too: calling "transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on" while the summons doesn't require another plane.

It does, by RAW:

Summon Monster wrote:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane).

The descriptions are just a mess. As Roswynn says, 2e is a chance for Paizo to get rid of the copy/pasted legacy text that's been clogging up the works since the '90s*. The playtest document eliminated the five subschools, which is a hopeful step in the direction of simplification.

*:
I amended from Roswynn's "'70s" since I checked AD&D, and it's fairly clear. No subschools, and a druid explicitly summons real animals from the general area, like Aquaman or Tarzan or a Disney princess, while a magic-user makes monsters blink into and out of existence at their designation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
graystone wrote:
As to the difference between calling and summons, it's in the descriptions too: calling "transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on" while the summons doesn't require another plane.

It does, by RAW:

Summon Monster wrote:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane).

That's NOT contradictory. Summoning doesn't require the creature come from another plane: this doesn't mean it can't come from another plane. This is because you have Summon Nature's Ally that pulls from the plane you're on and Summon Monster that pulls from other planes. Calling MUST be from another plane: see the difference?

Joana wrote:
As Roswynn says, 2e is a chance for Paizo to get rid of the copy/pasted legacy text that's been clogging up the works since the '80s*.

I'm all for tidying things up where possible but I have to say I never found an issue with conjuration spells before.


Joana wrote:
The playtest document eliminated the five subschools, which is a hopeful step in the direction of simplification.

Indeed! Not having to distinguish between various types of spells all doing different things but belonging to the same school is definitely one good thing that will come of this new edition, if nothing else.

201 to 250 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.