I'd allow, but I'd also adjust the CR of encounters to account for the increase in power.
I don’t know if I’d allow it. If I’d allow it, enemies would use it too, and I think everyone can agree that it’d be pointless at that point.
Joshua029 wrote:
Tallyn,
I'd allow it. If a player decides to abuse it and it starts hurting the enjoyment of the other players, then I ask that person to rein it in...
No pun intended? ;)
Tallyn wrote: Joshua029 wrote:
Tallyn,
I'd allow it. If a player decides to abuse it and it starts hurting the enjoyment of the other players, then I ask that person to rein it in...
No pun intended? ;) Happy accident. :)
Just because you can break it with other spell combinations doesn’t mean it isn’t broken. You could also try switching out the two horses from conjure carriage. It’s still broken.
And an entire class feature is different than a couple of combined spells. Having a companion is a feature of those classes. And those companions are fragile things that are expensive to replace. It’s not a meaningless thing.
I also think Joshua is abusing the meaning of “RAI”. The spell was almost certainly not meant to be combined with spells like mount. The combo is just an oversight created by the future-proofing nature of the player companions.
Melkiador wrote: Just because you can break it with other spell combinations doesn’t mean it isn’t broken. You could also try switching out the two horses from conjure carriage. It’s still broken.
And an entire class feature is different than a couple of combined spells. Having a companion is a feature of those classes. And those companions are fragile things that are expensive to replace. It’s not a meaningless thing.
I believe you're abusing the meaning of "broken".
Something is "broken" if it ruins the gaming experience. A spellcaster having a companion similar but weaker to the Summoner's Eidolon is not going to ruin the gaming experience. It's not grossly overpowered, especially when another spellcaster of the same level could kill it with a single spell. Look at the other classes and get some perspective on what the power-level of the game is.
Outside of combat, an all-day summon is just there. Its significance is dependent on how well the player and game master roleplay. The roleplaying is arguably the more important part of the game.
In combat, it doesn't matter if it has been walking around with you all day, it's the same creature when the fight starts, and it doesn't re-start with fresh stats each combat like regular round-per-level summons do.
It's not broken.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tallyn wrote: So out of curiosity, which GMs that are in this thread would allow this? It's basically a 2nd level spell modifying the appropriately heightened mount spell to become a 2 hour/level Summon Monster.
It effectively makes the base level Summon Monster/Nature's Ally obsolete in most ways.
I'd let it go and adjust the world accordingly. If the trick is useful and available, than it gets used. I wouldn't worry too much about the power, summoned monsters are now one failed will save away from being turned into a dire rat by the same spell.
Joshua029 wrote:
Regarding the accusation of this use of Mount being game breaking, I present the following counter-example, showing that it's not out of line with what else is in the game.
Summon Flight of Eagles + Extend Spell + Magical Lineage trait (with or without Alter Summoned Monster) also works, and avoids the whole issue with how people view the Mount spell.
Summon Flight of Eagles: summons 2-5 creatures, for four hours at L12, Takes two total spells to have them for an 8-hour adventuring day (four spells if you replace one of the Eagles with a more powerful summon).
Mount: summons one creature, for 8 hours at level 4, Takes Two total spells to have it for an 8-hour adventuring day.
Compare 2-4 spells for 2-5 creatures, to 2 spells for 1. The latter is not a broken combination. It just lets you have your companion at the same level the Ranger gets his instead of a level about when most campaigns end.
Summon Flight of Eagles.
Ok, lets go over this comparison and show how flawed it is.
Summon Flight of Eagles costs you a 6th level spell to give you 1d4+1 CR 3 creatures for 10 min a level, 20 if we Extend the spell. The only thing that scales with level is the duration.
When combined with Alter Summoned Monster it gives you 1d4+1 targets that can be transformed into a summoned monster 6. Higher if you heighten this spell as well. Honestly, this isn't as egregious as using the mount spell. The two main factors is the much shorter duration (10 min per level instead of 2 hours per level), and the much higher level required to pull the trick off. By the time you can cast 6th level spells you could use Planar Binding to get a summoned creature for a week at a time.
Doing the same trick at 3rd level is a lot different. When you're scraping by for any spell resources being able to make 2 castings of your highest level spells last for 6 hours is impressive. Overly impressive. Continuing to scale this trick lets you use your top spell slot for your complete adventuring day at the cost of a relatively cheap 2nd level spell slot.
And if you heighten Mount to 6th level you get the same Alter Summoned Monster for 22 hours instead of 1d4+1 of them for less than 4 hours. And the reason Flight of Eagles works the way it does is because its intended to be the flying version of the mount spell with no consideration of Alter Summoned Monster.
Tallyn wrote: So out of curiosity, which GMs that are in this thread would allow this? It's basically a 2nd level spell modifying the appropriately heightened mount spell to become a 2 hour/level Summon Monster.
It effectively makes the base level Summon Monster/Nature's Ally obsolete in most ways.
I would allow it with one alteration. I would make it so that the alter summoned monster spell changes the duration to be 1/rd per level or whatever duration is remaining, whichever is less. In this way it doesn't compromise the utility of the spell while preventing much of the abuse of it.
Joshua029 wrote: Regarding the accusation of this use of Mount being game breaking, I present the following counter-example, showing that it's not out of line with what else is in the game. So.... you're example to show that it's not broken is that a 4th level wizard using a 1st level spell and a 2nd level spell gets a 8 hour summon monster while a 12th level wizard using a 2nd level spell and a 6th level spell gets a 4 hour summon monster?
I think I would counter your example with your own example that it is OP. But lets compare things equally.
as a 12th level wizard and assuming 1 potential encounter per hour for 16 hrs.
Option A: Combine 6th level mount with Alter Summoned monster to get a 24 hr summon monster VI that can fight in 16 of 16 potential encounters.
Option B: Combine 6th level flight of eagles with Alter Summoned monster to get a 4 hr summon monster VI that can fight in 4 of 16 potential encounters.
Option C: Combine 6th level Eagle Aerie with Alter Summoned monster to get a 4 hr summon monster VI that can fight fight in 1 of 16 potential encounters.
Option D: Combine 6th level (Conjure Black Pudding or Summon Erodaemon or greater genie or meladaemon or summon monster VI or summon nature's ally VI or summon stampede or summon vanth) with Alter Summoned monster to get a 1 rd/lvl summon monster VI that can fight in 1 immediate encounter.
Seems to me that Option A is better then Option B in every way and that even Option B is substantially better than anything else, with anything else being literally every other level 6 spell that alter summoned monster could be applied to.
I wouldn't allow it. I'd discuss more appropriate options, both RAW and houseruled, for longer duration summons.
Detractors,
What does Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally give you?
They consume the spellcaster's first turn to give you a creature from the second turn, through the rest of the battle or until it dies.
What does having a longer duration summon give you that Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally doesn't?
It lets the spellcaster and the summoned creature act in the first turn of combat, rather than one being busy producing the other. That's however much damage two attacks can make on the enemy, not inappropriate for a L2 spell.
Compare that to Haste, which typically gives your entire party an extra attack for the entire battle. That's a L3 slot, which at CL5, brings up to 25 additional melee hits against the enemy, dealing as much or easily more damage than the round one attacks of the spellcaster and his long-time summon.
The same goes for higher levels. The spellcaster and the summon can do more damage on the first turn, but so can the rest of the party.
Some might ask, "What about after the battle?". After the battle, the summon is likely the worse for wear, and in need of healing, if it's alive at all. Keep in mind, one failed save can kill or otherwise remove a summon from combat.
Why should this be denied until Level 11, when Haste is available at L5, and causes MORE damage to the enemy than this does (at comparable party levels)?
It's creative, but it's not a Munchkin tactic unless you are maintaining a pack of all-day summons, but the only house rule needed to completely eliminate that problem is a One-at-a-time limit, like Draconic Ally has.
Regarding higher level summons, many of them are intelligent beings, so there's plenty of material and opportunity for the Game Master to make the player earn them via roleplay. Ex: an angel who's happy to help in a pinch may object to being asked or forced to stand around for hours on end, a summoned demon with idle hands is going to cause trouble, etc.
The issue I see is that a lot of people see the duration of the summon and lose their minds, because if it works well with a short duration, then a long duration must be exponentially more powerful. I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a WH40k Ork, painting it red doesn't make it go faster. You need to actually look at how the rules interact to have an accurate idea of how powerful a rule actually is.
LordKailas wrote:
...
I think I would counter your example with your own example that it is OP. But lets compare things equally.
as a 12th level wizard and assuming 1 potential encounter per hour for 16 hrs.
Option A: Combine 6th level mount with Alter Summoned monster to get a 24 hr summon monster VI that can fight in 16 of 16 potential encounters.
...
Look at the summonable monster stats compared to what the players have at the appropriate levels. No summon has any significant chance of surviving to the third encounter unless the spellcaster is taking great pains to keep it alive, particularly if you use the house rule of limiting the use of Alter Summoned Monster to one-at-a-time.
As such the idea of there being "potential" for a summon to survive into the 16th encounter is laughable. Besides, outside of a dungeon crawl, it'd be a lot to get 3 combats in a day, never-mind 16.
My general assumption is that there is time to roleplay the character in a "roleplaying game".
When I'm running, if you want an animal companion/or other type of companion, they are easy enough to get through archetypes. You've got your answer, and you're free to do it in your campaign (and in your GM's campaign if you're the player), but don't expect us to accept it because you like it.
The duration is the game breaker, and we basically have to create another house rule to deal with it, because otherwise you could summon armies that would last for hours. It nearly makes trivial any other classes with abilities to summon, or animal companion features (without summoning).
I can't describe to you exactly why I would tell you no, but it sets off something in my gut--my GM intuition sense (from 30 years personal experience) where it breaks my feeling of cohesive immersion with what is there in the game world, as I interpret as what is intended.
Anyways, you do you... feel free to use it, I just wouldn't allow it personally. It's an interesting tactic though.
Tallyn wrote: When I'm running, if you want an animal companion/or other type of companion, they are easy enough to get through archetypes. You've got your answer, and you're free to do it in your campaign (and in your GM's campaign if you're the player), but don't expect us to accept it because you like it.
The duration is the game breaker, and we basically have to create another house rule to deal with it, because otherwise you could summon armies that would last for hours. It nearly makes trivial any other classes with abilities to summon, or animal companion features (without summoning).
I can't describe to you exactly why I would tell you no, but it sets off something in my gut--my GM intuition sense (from 30 years personal experience) where it breaks my feeling of cohesive immersion with what is there in the game world, as I interpret as what is intended.
Anyways, you do you... feel free to use it, I just wouldn't allow it personally. It's an interesting tactic though.
What archetype do you suggest for a Sorcerer, Wizard or Arcanist to get an animal companion? I'm not aware of one existing.
A character having a pet is a roleplay issue, whether it's an Eidolon, animal companion, familiar, a very-long summon, purchased, or even captured. The duration outside of combat isn't a "power" issue, it doesn't break a game.
In combat, already having the summon as opposed to having to summon it once combat starts, only nets the spellcaster and summon the ability to engage the enemy on the first turn, instead of the second. That affects combat less than Haste. A L2 spell affecting combat less than a L3 spell seems pretty well balanced to me.
After the fight, if the summon is alive at all, it will be the worse for wear, and lacks a significant chance of surviving a second unless the spellcaster takes great pains to get it healed up, the same as any animal companion or purchased animal.
I hope you can see now that the duration isn't the problem. The only problem is the stackability (which is an issue with Alter Summoned Monster with any spell that summons more than one creature). Limiting the stackability to one-at-a-time completely resolves the problem, and makes this spell perfectly balanced for where it is at a L2 spell slot.
Sylvan sorcerors can have an animal companion IIRC.
This combo doesn't effect combat less than or even equally to haste. You cast your summon spell once and then have the remainder of your spell slots to use freely on other things for several hours, enough that it is fair to say that you only have to summon once per day. Haste has a duration of rounds. The haste caster has to cast haste as many times per day as there are combats to compare to your single summon. The haste caster is limited in the way that summoners are intended to be--by their number of spells per day and having to choose carefully which spells to cast--but you have significantly altered the way this character is limited on that spectrum.
born_of_fire wrote: Sylvan sorcerors can have an animal companion IIRC.
This combo doesn't effect combat less than or even equally to haste. You cast your summon spell once and then have the remainder of your spell slots to use freely on other things for several hours, enough that it is fair to say that you only have to summon once per day. Haste has a duration of rounds. The haste caster has to cast haste as many times per day as there are combats to compare to your single summon. The haste caster is limited in the way that summoners are intended to be--by their number of spells per day and having to choose carefully which spells to cast--but you have significantly altered the way this character is limited on that spectrum.
Props to Sylvan Wildblood option for having an animal companion.
Anything for Wizard or Arcanist that doesn't just borrow the Sylvan bloodline?
Your critique was a false comparison though.
One casting of Alter Summoned Monster, requires two spells to be expended, because it alters another spell. It doesn't grant any increased durability or damage potential to the summoned creature swapped in, beyond being able to fight on the first round of combat, instead of starting on the second. Its frailness means it is highly likely to die in any given combat, and even if it survives, it will need significant healing to be able to be of use in a second combat (likely more spell slots to heal it, or monetary cost from other sources of healing).
One casting of Haste buffs the entire party for the entire combat, increasing the entire party's potential to deal damage every round. It's guaranteed to last for a known number of rounds (longer than most combats I've been in), and a single failed save doesn't remove that from the party, the way a single failed save can wipe out a summoned creature.
A second spell slot... that's a whole additional combat of the entire party being Hasted.
Haste deals more damage throughout a combat than one round of s Summoned creature. It's just less direct. and more consistent.
A summon having a long duration isn't any different than a person not aging but not gaining any other powers. A bad fall down the stairs or something equally mundane can still kill either of them. There's no guarantee that it will last its duration, and the spellcaster saving a slot isn't any different than someone getting a combat spell as a spell-like ability from a race, class, or trait. It is balanced.
The only real issue is stacking, and I don't understand why the internet keeps conflating that with duration.
Internet: Duration is OP
Me: No Stacking is the problem.
Internet: No! Duration is OP.
Me: Why is Duration op?
Internet: When you stack it...
Alter Summoned Monster is poorly written. It allows transformations from any form one can summon into a set of forms, from S.M. and S.N.A., provided one can cast those, but not from those forms into other forms one can summon.
Using Mount to get summons that last hours, provided they survive, has immense benefits in combat and exploration. This clearly wasn't intented by the developers.
I also know that being able to use summons in exploration is an interesting idea, the short duration of S.M. and S.N.A. prevents it.
However, it would create another instance of "there is a spell for that". I do not believe, metagaming-wise, that the spellcasters need yet another tool.
As such, as a G.M., I'd re-write A.S.M., either as has been proposed above, that the duration becomes then that of S.M./S.N., pro-rated to what is left of the original spell, or that it can only target creatures summoned with S.M./S.N.A. in the first place, but this would tremendously diminish the offensive power of A.S.M.
I'd also talk to my player to understand what s/he is looking for in the exploit. If it is just abusing the oversight, I'd close it, if it is trying to create interesting play out of it, I'd work with the player to get to what is being found interesting without resorting to this exploit.
Joshua029 wrote: born_of_fire wrote: Sylvan sorcerors can have an animal companion IIRC.
This combo doesn't effect combat less than or even equally to haste. You cast your summon spell once and then have the remainder of your spell slots to use freely on other things for several hours, enough that it is fair to say that you only have to summon once per day. Haste has a duration of rounds. The haste caster has to cast haste as many times per day as there are combats to compare to your single summon. The haste caster is limited in the way that summoners are intended to be--by their number of spells per day and having to choose carefully which spells to cast--but you have significantly altered the way this character is limited on that spectrum.
Props to Sylvan Wildblood option for having an animal companion.
Anything for Wizard or Arcanist that doesn't just borrow the Sylvan bloodline?
Your critique was a false comparison though.
One casting of Alter Summoned Monster, requires two spells to be expended, because it alters another spell. It doesn't grant any increased durability or damage potential to the summoned creature swapped in, beyond being able to fight on the first round of combat, instead of starting on the second. Its frailness means it is highly likely to die in any given combat, and even if it survives, it will need significant healing to be able to be of use in a second combat (likely more spell slots to heal it, or monetary cost from other sources of healing).
One casting of Haste buffs the entire party for the entire combat, increasing the entire party's potential to deal damage every round. It's guaranteed to last for a known number of rounds (longer than most combats I've been in), and a single failed save doesn't remove that from the party, the way a single failed save can wipe out a summoned creature.
A second spell slot... that's a whole additional combat of the entire party being Hasted.
Haste deals more damage throughout a combat than one round of s Summoned creature. It's... Why does there need to be another option? Your claim was that there are no options you are aware of. You are now aware that there is an option. How many options are required to satisfy the condition of an existing option? Moving goal posts is very poor debate.
If archetypes granting standard action summoning and minute long durations are widely recognized as exponentially more powerful than their base classes and are, in at least one case, banned from PFS play as a result, it boggles the mind that you claim a spell combo granting hour long summons and eliminating the need to cast more than one summon per day is somehow balanced.
I always wonder what purpose posing a question or theory on which your stance is 100% settled serves. Bored? Need attention? Seeking approval for something you know deep down is horribly wrong but can convince yourself otherwise if just one person agrees with you? *shrug* Play what you want. Well, play whatever you can convince a GM to let you play. Best of luck with this one.
born_of_fire wrote:
Why does there need to be another option? Your claim was that there are no options you are aware of. You are now aware that there is an option. How many options are required to satisfy the condition of an existing option? Moving goal posts is very poor debate.
If archetypes granting standard action summoning and minute long durations are widely recognized as exponentially more powerful than their base classes and are, in at least one case, banned from PFS play as a result, it boggles the mind that you claim a spell combo granting hour long summons and eliminating the need to cast more than one summon per day is somehow balanced.
I always wonder what purpose posing a question or theory on which your stance is 100% settled serves. Bored? Need attention? Seeking approval for something you know deep down is horribly wrong but can convince yourself otherwise if just one person agrees with you? *shrug* Play what you want. Well, play whatever you can convince a GM to let you play. Best of luck with this one.
Dude, you misinterpreted everything I said. I said that I didn't know of any archetypes that granted an animal companion to the Arcanist, Wizard, or Sorcerer. That wasn't an assertion that they didn't exist, it was a statement of fact that I wasn't aware of any.
I never "moved the goal posts". When you brought up the Sylvan Bloodline, I accepted that as a Touchdown. However, Tallyn said that animal companions were easy to get through archetypes (plural) so I inquired about that, which in the Football metaphor is giving you the chance to go for the additional two points, NOT moving the goal posts.
In my experience, PFS is excessively overhanded in how restrictive it is on what it allows, because they're running modules that are more or less on rails, and they can't deal with a table full of creative people with a plethora of tools to solve problems in ways the writer of the module didn't expect.
A summon that lasts all day ONLY IF IT DOESN'T DIE IN COMBAT (which it most likely will, because it has exactly no durability beyond what it would have under normal summoning conditions)isn't likely to be effective (if present at all) in more than one combat unless great pains are taken to restore it to health. It's a summon, not an elder dragon. One failed save can remove it from the table. It's not broken.
When I posed the question, I was largely sure that I'd read the rules correctly, but made the terrible decision to turn to the most hyper-critical killjoys available... an internet forum, just to see if any of them knew of a rule, or caught a wording I'd missed. And if you read through the thread, I applauded when a decent, rational argument was presented. The problem is that nearly all of the rest are like you, who already had in your mind what sort of player I must be, and condescendingly shot down the idea without addressing the arguments. So of course, I didn't place much weight on these comments.
The initial question:
Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?
Alter Summoned Monster's only stated requirement is that the creature being swapped out has to be from Conjuration (Summoning). That pans out.
There was an argument that since Mount isn't a combat spell, that the replacement creature wouldn't be either. This can be countered by the wording of Alter Summoned Monster, in that it says it swaps out the summoned creature, meaning it's a different creature, not bound to the initial limitation.
I also posed the possibility of using Rider's Bond with Mount, giving it the Attack Trick, making it a combatant, shortcutting around the argument of the Mount not fighting, by giving it the abilty to fight. The most reasonable challenge to this was that the wording of Rider's Bond says that the mount has to be from a "class feature". My position is that the Mount in question is produced via spellcasting, which is a class feature, which I believe resolves the challenge. He didn't respond after that so this line of the conversation just ended there.
Every other detractor has had no other argument than,"Long duration must be broken!!!" When asked why, They can only point to what happens when Alter Summoned Monster is stacked, or fall back on the faulty assumption that the summon is somehow invincible and is guaranteed to be at full-fighting power for the full duration of the spell.
It's not that I was 100% sure of my position when I asked the question. It's that I haven't been confronted with any arguments that hold up.
Joshua029 wrote: I also posed the possibility of using Rider's Bond with Mount, giving it the Attack Trick, making it a combatant, shortcutting around the argument of the Mount not fighting, by giving it the abilty to fight. The most reasonable challenge to this was that the wording of Rider's Bond says that the mount has to be from a "class feature". My position is that the Mount in question is produced via spellcasting, which is a class feature, which I believe resolves the challenge. He didn't respond after that so this line of the conversation just ended there.
Every other detractor has had no other argument than,"Long duration must be broken!!!" When asked why, They can only point to what happens when Alter Summoned Monster is stacked, or fall back on the faulty assumption that the summon is somehow invincible and is guaranteed to be at full-fighting power for the full duration of the spell.
Rider's Bond very clearly states it works with class features. Spell effects are not class features. Things listed under a class description are class features. Nobody else bothered to refute this because your argument is ridiculous.
Well, the largest benefit from being able to summon stuff before combat is that it doesn't take your actual actions during combat. Which has been pointed out quite a few times. In effect, you've gotten the benefit of Quicken Spell or Time Stop depending on just how many summons you have running. Getting the equivalent of a +4 level metamagic or a 9th level spell is very good for the additional cost of a 2nd level spell on top of the mount spell you're abusing to turn into a higher level summon monster.
You are breaking action economy. Get it?
Meirril wrote: Joshua029 wrote: I also posed the possibility of using Rider's Bond with Mount, giving it the Attack Trick, making it a combatant, shortcutting around the argument of the Mount not fighting, by giving it the abilty to fight. The most reasonable challenge to this was that the wording of Rider's Bond says that the mount has to be from a "class feature". My position is that the Mount in question is produced via spellcasting, which is a class feature, which I believe resolves the challenge. He didn't respond after that so this line of the conversation just ended there.
Every other detractor has had no other argument than,"Long duration must be broken!!!" When asked why, They can only point to what happens when Alter Summoned Monster is stacked, or fall back on the faulty assumption that the summon is somehow invincible and is guaranteed to be at full-fighting power for the full duration of the spell.
Rider's Bond very clearly states it works with class features. Spell effects are not class features. Things listed under a class description are class features. Nobody else bothered to refute this because your argument is ridiculous.
Well, the largest benefit from being able to summon stuff before combat is that it doesn't take your actual actions during combat. Which has been pointed out quite a few times. In effect, you've gotten the benefit of Quicken Spell or Time Stop depending on just how many summons you have running. Getting the equivalent of a +4 level metamagic or a 9th level spell is very good for the additional cost of a 2nd level spell on top of the mount spell you're abusing to turn into a higher level summon monster.
You are breaking action economy. Get it? Can you point to any official ruling that states spell-casting isn't a class feature? That would give credence to your argument.
Also, Rider's Bond was a proposed fix for one chain of assumptions, a chain that's broken before that point when you consider that Alter Summoned Monster says it swaps the summoned creature with another, explicitely stating that it keeps the duration, hit points, and status effects/condition, and nothing else (supposed limitations on what the original creature could and couldn't be asked to do).
Using multiple spell slots instead of a higher spell slot isn't a bad trade, and won't break the game.
Time Stop is completely different, giving you multiple turns to set up before combat commences, and with the normal summon monster spell could be used to summon an army that all comes into existence on the next turn. That's a far cry different than having a single creature already with you that the enemy can see and plan for before commencing the fight.
Also, you're objectively wrong when you say that Alter Summoned Monster is turning a Mount into a higher level monster. To get a higher-level monster, you have to expend a higher level spell slot via Heighten Spell. The monster you get is appropriate for the spell slot you expended. Alter Summoned Monster gives that summoned creature the ability to act on the first turn of combat (at best typically dealing a few dice with a single-digit modifier on each in damage, Not any more than the Spellcaster could do with another spell).
The only instance where Alter Summoned Monster raises a creature's level without raising the casting level is when you're using it will a spell that summons multiple creatures (each a lower level because the group is the appropriate level of power for the spell), and that condition doesn't apply to Mount, and what's more, the spell itself doesn't say that such use is against its intent, because it specifically rules that when a spell summons multiple creatures, Alter Summoned Monster only affects one of them. So again, you're wrong about RAI.
It doesn't break the action economy.
you are convinced that everyone is killjoys cause they dont agree with you and say it is overpowered. did you read the other threads on this before posting? you will find that, I think, 9 out of 10 GMs in those threads were against this combo. i ask, what creatures per level do you think is balanced? what effects are legal to add? how bout augumented, advanced, celestial, and giant?
Joshua029 wrote: The initial question:
Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?
So are the Cyclops Helm, the Candle of Invocation or Pun Pun.
You are missing the premises of the game, that the writers are prone to error and that the game happens through a game master, whose, among others, role it is to keep things from getting out of hand, using his wisdom, with help from the rest of the table.
We've done a show of hands asking which G.M. present on those boards would run Heightened Mount + Altered Summoned Monster as is, the answer is a resounding zero.
Agénor wrote: Joshua029 wrote: The initial question:
Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?
So are the Cyclops Helm, the Candle of Invocation or Pun Pun.
You are missing the premises of the game, that the writers are prone to error and that the game happens through a game master, whose, among others, role it is to keep things from getting out of hand, using his wisdom, with help from the rest of the table.
We've done a show of hands asking which G.M. present on those boards would run Heightened Mount + Altered Summoned Monster as is, the answer is a resounding zero. I asked about RAW. The answer has been confirmed that it is.
The most common response received though was various people's "how I would rule at my table", which wasn't the question.
However, you've over-stated the consensus. Several people stated that they'd allow it with a slight home-brew tweak, or with prior discussion about what would be done between the game master and player. So you're incorrect in saying that absolutely no-one would allow it.
It's also frustrating that you've made an appeal to the majority to assert your "correctness", when no one has provided any compelling argument against my points against the presented complaints. You didn't win the argument, you just made a logical fallacy.
Seriously, PFS doesn't allow Alter Summoned Monster at all, so this clearly isn't about organized play.
If this combo were anywhere near as powerful as a lot of you seem to think (which it's not), then just give the other party members some cool class-appropriate loot and scale up the encounter. It's not hard to balance.
You play your tables how you like,but please learn the difference between your preferences and how things actually mechanically balance.
I already recognized that stacking is an issue (unrelated to the Mount spell, I might add) and agreed that setting a limit to one at a time would be fair.
Regarding the duration, the main argument presented for it being over-powered was "because it is", which is asinine. If that were the case, Draconic Ally would be the single most powerful spell in the game (which it clearly isn't). It's good enough to take, but it's not going to break the game unless the game-master isn't up to the task of being the game-master. I think a lot of game masters would be up to the task, but are too afraid to try.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Joshua029 wrote: Regarding the duration, the main argument presented for it being over-powered was "because it is", which is asinine. Pray, keep it polite and courteous.
Joshua029 wrote: Can you point to any official ruling that states spell-casting isn't a class feature? That would give credence to your argument.
Also, Rider's Bond was a proposed fix for one chain of assumptions, a chain that's broken before that point when you consider that Alter Summoned Monster says it swaps the summoned creature with another, explicitely stating that it keeps the duration, hit points, and status effects/condition, and nothing else (supposed limitations on what the original creature could and couldn't be asked to do).
Using multiple spell slots instead of a higher spell slot isn't a bad trade, and won't break the game.
Time Stop is completely different, giving you multiple turns to set up before combat commences, and with the normal summon monster spell could be used to summon an army that all comes into existence on the next turn. That's a far cry different than having a single creature already with you that the enemy can see and plan for before commencing the fight.
Also, you're objectively wrong when you say that Alter Summoned Monster is turning a Mount into a higher level monster. To get a higher-level monster, you have to expend a higher level spell slot via Heighten Spell. The monster you get is appropriate for the spell slot you expended. Alter Summoned Monster gives that summoned creature the ability to act on the first turn of combat (at best typically dealing a few dice with a single-digit modifier on each in damage, Not any more than the Spellcaster could do with another spell).
The only instance where Alter Summoned Monster raises a creature's level without raising the casting level is when you're using it will a spell that summons multiple creatures (each a lower level because the group is the appropriate level of power for the spell), and that condition doesn't apply to Mount, and what's more, the spell itself doesn't say that such use is against its intent, because it specifically rules that when a spell summons multiple creatures, Alter Summoned Monster only affects one of them. So again, you're wrong about RAI.
It doesn't break the action economy.
Spell-Casting *is* a class feature. Spells are not a class feature. Things listed on the class page in the class description in the section "Class Features" are class features. What your argument was is the equivalent of saying "I get proficiency with medium armor, so this Breastplate is a class feature for me". Yes your class features let you use that piece of gear, but it doesn't make the gear a class feature for you. The same way your class features let you pick up spells from a list, but those spells are not class features.
Using a trick to have a summoned monster that normally lasts rounds now lasts hours and casting them before you get in combat is the equivalent of Quickening (+4 spell levels) if you use 1 altered mount spell. If you use more than 1, its the equivalent of using Time Stop to get that many extra actions before combat begins to cast summon monster. Both of those are far more costly than a 2nd level Alter Summoned Monster, no matter how you want to dress that up. Having to explain this twice makes me believe I'll have to explain this a third time because someone is in denial.
When Mount is cast, no matter what level the spell has been heightened to, it produces exactly the same mount. A CR 1 light horse or pony. How you can claim that using Alter Summoned Monster doesn't give you a better creature is baffling.
Meirril wrote: Spell-Casting *is* a class feature. Spells are not a class feature. Things listed on the class page in the class description in the section "Class Features" are class features. What your argument was is the equivalent of saying "I get proficiency with medium armor, so this Breastplate is a class feature for me". Yes your class features let you use that piece of gear, but it doesn't make the gear a class feature for you. The same way your class features let you pick up spells from a list, but those spells are not class features.
Using a trick to have a summoned monster that normally lasts rounds now lasts hours and casting them before you get in combat is the equivalent of Quickening (+4 spell levels) if you use 1 altered mount spell. If you use more than 1, its the equivalent of using Time Stop to get that many extra actions before combat begins to cast summon monster. Both of those are far more costly than a 2nd level Alter Summoned Monster, no matter how you want to dress that up. Having to explain this twice makes me believe I'll have to explain this a third time because someone is in denial.
When Mount is cast, no matter what level the spell has been heightened to, it produces exactly the same mount. A CR 1 light horse or pony. How you can claim that using Alter Summoned Monster doesn't give you a better creature is baffling.
No Rider's Bond... fine, it was a side path branching from the core topic. It's not vital to the core question.
Quickening a summoning spell gives you a surprise summon on the spot, whereas if the creature is already there, it's not a surprise, and is subject to getting nailed in an enemy's surprise attack. It's not a 1-for-1 correlation. It's two spell slots being used to produce a similar effect to a single higher-level spell slot. You're drastically overstating the advantage of a single summon joining combat one turn sooner.
As I've said multiple times, any stacking issue with Alter Summoned Monster has NOTHING to do with its use with Mount. Other Conjuration(Summoning) spells have durations measured in tens-of-minutes. If you're unable to read what's already been said, perhaps you should take some time to have someone read it to you.
You can try to conflate Alter Summoned Monster with Time Stop a third, time, but it won't be any more accurate than it was the first two.
Regardless of which spell level you use, and regardless of which Conjuration(Summoning) spell you use, Alter Summoned Monster turns one summoned creature into an option from the same spell level as the one expended. If you use an 8th level spell to cast Summon Monster VIII, you get a Summon Monster VIII summon. If you cast Mount heightened to 8th level and cast Alter Summoned Monster, you still get a Summon Monster VIII summon. The only difference to the combat is that you spent an additional L2 spell, and the summon is already there at the start of combat (meaning it gets to attack, and the enemy already knows where and what it is and can adjust their plan accordingly).
You get what you pay for (in spell levels and slots). It's not broken, and it won't unbalance a game. Any gamemaster worth his/her salt shouldn't have any trouble with this.
But really, your courtesy's failing. My courtesy's failing. Can we just agree that I'll never have a slot at your table and you'll never have a slot at mine, and let the matter rest?
OP, you do realize that Clerics and Paladins, as well as some other classes, the typical healers, can channel energy, right? Meaning no extra effort is spent to heal the Alter Summoned Monster between combats. Meaning it does in fact last 16 encounters. Meaning IT IS IN FACT OVERPOWERED EVEN IF YOU ONLY USE ONE!
Reksew_Trebla wrote: OP, you do realize that Clerics and Paladins, as well as some other classes, the typical healers, can channel energy, right? Meaning no extra effort is spent to heal the Alter Summoned Monster between combats. Meaning it does in fact last 16 encounters. Meaning IT IS IN FACT OVERPOWERED EVEN IF YOU ONLY USE ONE! Two things. One, you need to take a deep breath and chill out. Two, a single failed save can take out a summon, so even with a L20 healer, there's no guarantee of it surviving any encounter, including the first.
And if you're using your precious healing on a summon instead of the party members, those are additional payments on the summon. It costs you more to keep it alive the more you use it... and that's IF it isn't killed before you get a chance to heal it on your turn. And what's more, most classes don't have any significant ability to heal it, even if they wanted to.
It's not lasting 16 encounters even with healing, it's not over-powered.
I think it's a bit harder to estimate their survival without a list of scenarios, and eventually full day summoning gives you endless healing as well through Akhana on the neutral summoning list. That is at top level though, so the games a mess by then anyway.
Using the expanded/evil/neutral/good summon monster feat to pull out Aghash for free all day dimension door, without the usual self only limit, as a 4th level spell seems pretty extreme regardless of whether or not they die right off in combat. You're spending the same slot as dimension door and a 2nd level spell, in order for it to be usable for 14 hours. Just have him dimdoor out of combat so your free dimdoors don't die and you're all good.
Animate Dreams as a 6th level spell also seem like they'd be a pain as you can just send them ahead of you without risk to yourself and being incorporeal means they're going to face a few things that can't touch them anyway.
I doubt all your summons would last all day every day, but I'm sure some would and others have enough of a non-combat benefit that how well they'd survive wouldn't matter, they'd just be cheaper versions of the spell's they can cast. Dismissing the idea that the spell could be over powered out of hand doesn't seem fair.
If we speak of high-end games, summon a Ghaele.
The spells of a 13th level cleric, CLW at will, a bunch of special abilities and two decent ranged attacks.
@ Joshua029: try a little test. Play in a group where you use a martial and the others use or can use this combo.
Let's see how fun it is for you and how long you will play.
ErichAD wrote: I think it's a bit harder to estimate their survival without a list of scenarios, and eventually full day summoning gives you endless healing as well through Akhana on the neutral summoning list. That is at top level though, so the games a mess by then anyway.
Using the expanded/evil/neutral/good summon monster feat to pull out Aghash for free all day dimension door, without the usual self only limit, as a 4th level spell seems pretty extreme regardless of whether or not they die right off in combat. You're spending the same slot as dimension door and a 2nd level spell, in order for it to be usable for 14 hours. Just have him dimdoor out of combat so your free dimdoors don't die and you're all good.
Animate Dreams as a 6th level spell also seem like they'd be a pain as you can just send them ahead of you without risk to yourself and being incorporeal means they're going to face a few things that can't touch them anyway.
I doubt all your summons would last all day every day, but I'm sure some would and others have enough of a non-combat benefit that how well they'd survive wouldn't matter, they'd just be cheaper versions of the spell's they can cast. Dismissing the idea that the spell could be over powered out of hand doesn't seem fair.
Note: The Kineticist can accomplish all of that as at-will spell-like-abilities from their Wild Talents, without summoning exploits. You're pointing out how extreme this can be, but it's still comparable to another class in the game.
Diego Rossi wrote: try a little test. Play in a group where you use a martial and the others use or can use this combo.
Let's see how fun it is for you and how long you will play.
L3 Unchained Rogue, Fighter L4+, Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree + Two-Weapon Feint = I can ignore Str & Int (adding Dex to Attacks and Damage), and I use the first attack each round to Feint so I get an extra 2d6 Sneak Attack damage on every hit, with Keen Kukri (Crit threat on 15-20)and the advanced weapon training feat that make them deal damage as if my fighter levels were Warpriest levels (the equivalent of dual-wielding two-handed weapons at mid-level, without penalty and with the larger crit range).
I'm sure I'd be just fine with another monster on my team, especially if the caster has it flank with me so I don't have to spend the first attack to feint.
Kineticist has free at will dimension door, free healing, ethereal monsters with negative energy touch attacks and the ability to spend a second level spell to gain a decent set of spells? Either you're making things up or I've missed some interesting kineticist abilities. What are those abilities called?
And dude, use your advanced weapon training for warrior spirit:bane instead. Better yet, dump rogue for brawler so you only need one weapon and can swap around your weapon master options. It'll also stack with fighter for how many advanced weapon feats you can have. Then slap versatile weapon mod:close on a fauchard and you're effectively dual wielding a reach weapon with similar crit and damage stats at the same level without needing to spend 3/4 of your gold on two +2 weapons. And you don't need to waste actions or attacks feinting. Taking an actual weapon master feat, rather than a temporary one, locks you out of swapping through item mastery feats for utility, it's a huge waste.
At that level you're playing across from the guy who can summon the at will dimension door monster, or medium aether elementals. A melee only martial isn't going to be able to participate in as many encounters as the monsters being summoned.
ErichAD wrote: Kineticist has free at will dimension door, free healing, ethereal monsters with negative energy touch attacks and the ability to spend a second level spell to gain a decent set of spells? Either you're making things up or I've missed some interesting kineticist abilities. What are those abilities called?
And dude, use your advanced weapon training for warrior spirit:bane instead. Better yet, dump rogue for brawler so you only need one weapon and can swap around your weapon master options. It'll also stack with fighter for how many advanced weapon feats you can have. Then slap versatile weapon mod:close on a fauchard and you're effectively dual wielding a reach weapon with similar crit and damage stats at the same level without needing to spend 3/4 of your gold on two +2 weapons. And you don't need to waste actions or attacks feinting. Taking an actual weapon master feat, rather than a temporary one, locks you out of swapping through item mastery feats for utility, it's a huge waste.
At that level you're playing across from the guy who can summon the at will dimension door monster, or medium aether elementals. A melee only martial isn't going to be able to participate in as many encounters as the monsters being summoned.
The Kineticist has unlimited access to wild talents that simulate the effect of a bunch of medium and upper level spells. Telekinesis, Flight, Invisibility, Animate Object, Wall of Force, Breath of Life, Suffocate, Spell Turning, and those are just some of the options of the Aether Kineticist, which is only one of SEVEN elements available in addition to the Universal Wild Talents.
Ride the Blast: The kineticist literally targets a blast anywhere in range and appears at the end of it. It can even beat dimension door because it's not blocked by Dimensional Anchor... and did I mention... it's also an at-will ability.
Since you're perfectly capable of looking at the Kineticist's Wild Talents, I think this suffices to prove my point that almost anything you can accomplish by using a summon, the Kineticist can do without one.
As for the second part of your comment, That was just a quick concept of a character that with average rolls will deal more damage per turn to a target than a wizard with his summon can, and you immediately leapt into how you'd make it "better".
A spellcaster having a level appropriate summon (regardless of duration) is not mechanically broken compared to what other classes can do at similar levels.
Joshua, I think you're getting a little too into the arguments of what other classes can do. You're not going to convince the people on the other side (myself included) that it's ok. I think it's neat, but I wouldn't allow it, personally.
Also, while the Aether Kineticist can do that... can they cast wish? Can they create their own demiplane? Can they create simulacrums/clones? Wizards and other full progression arcane casters get a LOT of power. Near universally, the Wizard is considered the most powerful class in the game. You're adding a little bit of power to a class that really doesn't need it (IMO).
While you aren't abusing it, I can see many who would try, and if I were an unscrupulous GM and used it, could have a single Wizard with an army of summons at his disposal that lasted long enough to wreak havoc on cities/settlements/armies/etc.
I think this is just one of those situations where we're going to have to agree to disagree. But definitely be polite in doing so. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this to forum for the discussion even though I won't allow it in my games :)
Tallyn wrote: Joshua, I think you're getting a little too into the arguments of what other classes can do. You're not going to convince the people on the other side (myself included) that it's ok. I think it's neat, but I wouldn't allow it, personally.
Also, while the Aether Kineticist can do that... can they cast wish? Can they create their own demiplane? Can they create simulacrums/clones? Wizards and other full progression arcane casters get a LOT of power. Near universally, the Wizard is considered the most powerful class in the game. You're adding a little bit of power to a class that really doesn't need it (IMO).
While you aren't abusing it, I can see many who would try, and if I were an unscrupulous GM and used it, could have a single Wizard with an army of summons at his disposal that lasted long enough to wreak havoc on cities/settlements/armies/etc.
I think this is just one of those situations where we're going to have to agree to disagree. But definitely be polite in doing so. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this to forum for the discussion even though I won't allow it in my games :)
This combo (outside of stacking it, of which I've long-since acknowledged the issues) isn't an increase in power for a wizard, rather it's a step sideways from how most people play wizards.
Note: to point out something that a Kineticist doesn't do, you went straight for 9th level magic. Kineticists abilities may stop short of wish, but the vast abilities they have are at-will, as opposed to limited spell slots, and that's significant.
I never challenged the right of anyone to decide what to allow at their own tables, so you do you, and have a nice day.
Many of the examples you gave for the kineticist aren't at will powers though. I'd agree that the abilities were comparable if they could use gather power or infusion specialization to reduce burn costs for utility talents, but since they can't I'm not sure it's a good comparison. Some of telekinesis, flight, invisibility and spell turning are cool free abilities though, I'll give you that.
Ride the blast can't take you through solid objects and can't take people with you. It's cool, but at 12th level it's coming online a bit too late for what it is.
The kineticist breath of life ability is pretty great despite the 2 burn it's going to cost the party. I think the earliest you can use a summon to cast breath of life is 13th level, so one level after the kineticist can do so and 4 after a normal caster. And the Jyoti (summon neutral monster list) isn't great for much else, maybe their breath weapon. Disappointing when compared to the at will etherealness of the Shoki from the same list.
There could be some seriously weird options in the deity summons, but that's a mess I don't want to sort through as I think everyone's mind is made up on the topic at this point.
Maybe you missed my question, so will all again. What creatures per spell level are you looking to summon all day? What about templates or add on's? Why don't you focus on standard action summons so you can have what you need?
Jeff Morse wrote: Maybe you missed my question, so will all again. What creatures per spell level are you looking to summon all day? What about templates or add on's? Why don't you focus on standard action summons so you can have what you need? (Celestial template)
L1:Dog, L2:Wolf, L3:Cheetah, L4:Lion, L5:Dire Lion, L6+:Dire Tiger
My personal interest isn't focused on the combat aspect of having a summon with a long duration. I like the idea of the spellcaster having a bonded spirit that falls somewhere between a Familiar and an Eidolon. A companion that is summoned fresh each day fits that role nicely.
The concept is that the spellcaster befriended a spirit (roleplay it being the same summon each time), and the casting of spells to summon it is essentially an invitation which it accepts, and it takes the form it believes will best suit the expected day's events (within the limits of its abilities, which grow with the caster). Most days are out of combat more than they're in combat, so a fuzzy mammal that can have its ears scratched is usually the better choice over something like a fire elemental that inadvertently sets everything ablaze.
I don't like the idea of summoning angels or other sentient humanoid beings. For one, they certainly have their own plans that don't include some mortal ripping them out of their plain of existence to follow him around all day. Another thing is that they're people, so it basically makes the game master control a character in the party (at least out of combat)if you summon one of them for an extended duration.
It is much simpler when the summons are of animal-level intelligence, when it's not a full-blown additional character. If the player roleplays the animal's personality like any real world pet he/she knows, there shouldn't be any issues, and it might even end up a party mascot.
The forms I chose are animals that can conceivably travel with the caster under most circumstances. In the real world people have had pets ranging from dogs to tigers, so the choices aren't that crazy in a world where dragons burn cities.
That's the short answer followed by a longer explanation. I hope it answers your question to your satisfaction.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
so something like this feat does https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Animal%20Ally
Jeff Morse wrote: so something like this feat does https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Animal%20Ally Color me impressed. That is the single most helpful comment on this thread, and it only took I think 15+ people, and 96 comments to get here.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of those feats. The animal companion does most of what I wanted, and my caster build isn't feat intensive, so it can afford the two feats. For me at least it's worth it to not be bound to a specific Sorcerer bloodline to get a companion.
All it took was for you to say what you actually wanted for someone to help you. I'm also coloured impressed.
Cavall wrote: All it took was for you to say what you actually wanted for someone to help you. I'm also coloured impressed. Actually, from the beginning I was posting here about its combat use being defensive, and out-of-combat being roleplay, it's just that nearly everyone lacked anything useful to say because they were hung up on the idea that a wizard having a combat-capable creature for longer than a few turns would be "broken and overpowered".
And it is.
But you have an alternative. So it all worked out.
|
