Mount + Heighten Spell +Alter Summoned Monster (+Rider's Bond)?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The Alter Summoned Monster spell swaps out the summoned creature from a Conjuration (Summoning) spell for one from the same spell level of the Summon Monstrous Creature or Summoned Nature's Ally lists.

Mount is a Conjuration (Summoning) spell that produces a horse for 2 hours per caster level.

Heighten Spell is a metamagic Feat allowing you to cast a spell as a higher level spell.

Thus, a Mount spell heightened to the appropriate spell level, then followed by Alter Summon Monster results in having any creature from the Summon Monstrous Creature or Summon Nature's Ally lists with a duration of 2 hours per caster level. Correct?

A friend of mine argued that the horse produced by Mount isn't combat trained and that any creature it was swapped with wouldn't fight on command either. I'm inclined to disagree, but if that is the case, then applying the Rider's Bond trait should resolve the situation by making the summoned horse know the Attack trick before it is swapped.

I'm interested in the rules as written. If I've missed something please provide the location of the relevant rules (book w/ page number or link)so I can review them.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The usual objection is the phrase in the mount spell itself 'to serve you as a mount.' Not as a warrior, as a mount; not that it's unable to fight, but that the spell doesn't make it. Alter summoned monster doesn't change that.

It's iffy, but it's enough for people who don't want summoned monsters lasting 2 hours/level to be able to effectively reject this particular combo.


Unfortunately the spell "alter summon monster" uses the term "swap" to describe the creature replacement, and that's a term without specific in game mechanical description. My reading is that the only things shared between the new form and the old form are those specifically mentioned in the spell.
"The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over."
I don't believe a lack of combat training falls into any of those categories. However, 2 hour per level combat summons are beyond the potency of most other spells, so it seems reasonable to rule that your mount would only be changed cosmetically.

One could argue that your summon should do anything a mount would do, and that your summon would have a bunch of free tricks to learn based on their intellect. And that, therefore, your mount could reasonably be combat trained and serve as a combat mount.

But really, we're looking at a poorly thought out spell that needs a DM to look at it and make a judgement call.


I know OP doesn't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyways. Player brought this up for a game I was running a few years ago. It should work by RAW, but as GM I said no. Because that specific combination would be annoying if a player constantly abused it. Especially if they cast it multiple times. Nobody wants to sit through a 20 minute turn while the party wizard decides what his 15 summoned monsters are all going to do.


ErichAD wrote:

Unfortunately the spell "alter summon monster" uses the term "swap" to describe the creature replacement, and that's a term without specific in game mechanical description. My reading is that the only things shared between the new form and the old form are those specifically mentioned in the spell.

"The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over."
I don't believe a lack of combat training falls into any of those categories. However, 2 hour per level combat summons are beyond the potency of most other spells, so it seems reasonable to rule that your mount would only be changed cosmetically.

One could argue that your summon should do anything a mount would do, and that your summon would have a bunch of free tricks to learn based on their intellect. And that, therefore, your mount could reasonably be combat trained and serve as a combat mount.

But really, we're looking at a poorly thought out spell that needs a DM to look at it and make a judgement call.

i'd call being able to serve as mount only and not being able to attack a big penalty -so yea, that stay right there.


Meirril wrote:
I know OP doesn't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyways. Player brought this up for a game I was running a few years ago. It should work by RAW, but as GM I said no. Because that specific combination would be annoying if a player constantly abused it. Especially if they cast it multiple times. Nobody wants to sit through a 20 minute turn while the party wizard decides what his 15 summoned monsters are all going to do.

Sure but I mean If you have a wizard with 15 2nd level spells and 15 of what ever slot they are burning for the summon they could be doing a lot worse things likely.


zza ni wrote:


i'd call being able to serve as mount only and not being able to attack a big penalty -so yea, that stay right there.

Nowhere in the mount spell does it say the creature can't attack and only serves as a mount. And with the time gained one could easily apply a War saddle to the creature to make it combat trained if the GM wanted to apply the lack of combat training to the creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monster would be under no special compulsion to fight, but you could use something like diplomacy to talk an intelligent monster into fighting for you. And you could try to stick to monsters that will naturally want to fight your enemies. For instance, a summoned angel will pretty easily fight evil outsiders and undead, without you even needing to ask.


The spell Mount states that the steed serves "willingly and well". Nothing in the wording precludes it from fighting. Even if lacking combat training were an issue, the Rider's Bond trait gives it the "Attack" trick, making it a combatant. At the beginning of combat, you can tell it to attack a specific target (DC10 Handle Animal check to make it perform a trick that it knows), but nothing in the rules suggest it would need any more coaxing.

I believe this is a compelling argument for the horse summoned by the Mount spell being a combatant for the summoner. Then you swap this horse for a creature from a list of creatures from a spell that specifically summons combatant creatures to serve the summoner. The result is that per Rules As Written, there are no hurdles to using Mount to get other summoned creatures for a number of hours per day as combatants.

If a game master is concerned about abuse, there are plenty of options to handle the situation without just banning it. For one, you can set a non-zero limit on how many summons can be maintained at a time. But I'd rather handle it in story. If a person has a herd of dangerous creatures following them around, what issues might this create outside of combat?

Did your summoned elemental inadvertently set a building on fire or wash out the road, causing the guards to come looking for the person responsible for them?

Did the angel you summoned get angry that you wasted hours of its time, and inform you that it won't answer your next summon (removing it from the list of options you can summon for a period of time)?

Did the Griffon lay an egg, and then get into a fight with townspeople trying to steal it?


well..even if the mount spell has some fault to prevent swapped creatures to attack or what ever. you can use the summon accuser spell instead. it's less duration (10 min/ level) but still very long duration with high enough level and extended rod this can last many hours easy.
and that spell has no limitation about what the summoned creature can do.

with their greater teleport and invisibility at will they can be kept hidden until you need to change them to something more combat oriented.


Talonhawke wrote:
Meirril wrote:
I know OP doesn't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyways. Player brought this up for a game I was running a few years ago. It should work by RAW, but as GM I said no. Because that specific combination would be annoying if a player constantly abused it. Especially if they cast it multiple times. Nobody wants to sit through a 20 minute turn while the party wizard decides what his 15 summoned monsters are all going to do.
Sure but I mean If you have a wizard with 15 2nd level spells and 15 of what ever slot they are burning for the summon they could be doing a lot worse things likely.

Read the title of this thread. There is a significant reason why Heighten Spell is mentioned. You make a wand of alter summoned monster, then prepare as many spell slots of 2nd level or greater you want to with Mount, heightened to the level of the spell slot. Your Mount spells can be turned into a summon monster X where X is the spell level that the mount spell was heightened to.

Most dungeon crawls don't last more than a few hours. But your caster can blow through all of his mount spells before he enters the dungeon and will have those summoned creatures through the entire run.

The most limited resource in Pathfinder is actions. Having your caster take most of his actions hours before combat begins and being able to take a dozen more actions than the rest of his party is not only unbalanced, but will also make combat drag on while the caster controls his mob of summons.


Meirril wrote:

Read the title of this thread. There is a significant reason why Heighten Spell is mentioned. You make a wand of alter summoned monster, then prepare as many spell slots of 2nd level or greater you want to with Mount, heightened to the level of the spell slot. Your Mount spells can be turned into a summon monster X where X is the spell level that the mount spell was heightened to.

Most dungeon crawls don't last more than a few hours. But your caster can blow through all of his mount spells before he enters the dungeon and will have those summoned creatures through the entire run.

The most limited resource in Pathfinder is actions. Having your caster take most of his actions hours before combat begins and being able to take a dozen more actions than the rest of his party is not only unbalanced, but will also make combat drag on while the caster controls his mob of summons.

I think you've latched onto the worst case scenario, which wasn't my intention. The fun of a spellcaster is to cast spells in and out of combat. One or two summoned creatures on the spellcaster's flanks is a precaution in case some barbarian or fighter comes running at him. Thus the spellcaster gets more protection out of 2-4 spell slots, and has the rest of them to BE THE SPELLCASTER.

The reason I mentioned Heighten Spell, was so each day the summoned bodyguard(s) would be of the highest summonable level to remain relevant.

This combination is RAW legal, and the way I'd use it doesn't cause the problems you're concerned about. I believe it's better to deal with a problem individual than to take recess from the whole class (talking with the player or bringing in story elements that disadvantage the summoned hoard, instead of banning a legal rule because someone abused it).


There have been numerous threads on the subject. What novel argument do you have to dislodge the current consensus?


blahpers wrote:
There have been numerous threads on the subject. What novel argument do you have to dislodge the current consensus?

Why did you bother writing a question that's literally answered in the initial post of this thread?


Joshua029 wrote:


This combination is RAW legal, and the way I'd use it doesn't cause the problems you're concerned about. I believe it's better to deal with a problem individual than to take recess from the whole class (talking with the player or bringing in story elements that disadvantage the summoned hoard, instead of banning a legal rule because someone abused it).

Yes, its RAW. It is also against RAI. The spell was clearly intended to target Summon Monster. Alter Summoned Monster isn't an issues, outside of the interaction with Mount, because Mount is the only conjuration spell that has a long duration. Mount itself isn't a problem because it creates a harmless creature for transportation. And now you want to exploit it 'a little'.

This is the same as asking a GM for 1 week of crafting time when you're playing a Gunslinger so you can start with 2 Mastercrafted Pistols and an extra 1,200gp worth of equipment because Gunsmithing lets you by RAW make 400gp a day. Technically correct but abusive and unfair to other players. Unless your entire group is looking for exploits to abuse. If that describes your crowd, have fun and look up "unlimited wishes".


Meirril wrote:
The spell was clearly intended to target Summon Monster.

I'm really not sure about that. I think mount may have been an oversight, but the effect was pretty obviously kept vague on purpose to allow for a wide variety of summoning. For instance, it's pretty clearly intended to work with summon nature's ally, because the spell was also given to druids. And it is intended to work with summoning spells that last longer than 1 round per level, hence all of the duration wording in the spell.

The Exchange

It is one of those areas that wasn't completely thought out I think. I also dont ever see anyone taking the spell unless it is with mount. Most GMs will tell you not to use it, because it is so powerful a combo. This is your GMs call and only he can do so.


Joshua029 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
There have been numerous threads on the subject. What novel argument do you have to dislodge the current consensus?
Why did you bother writing a question that's literally answered in the initial post of this thread?

There's no need to be rude.

There is no novel (i.e., new, unaddressed) argument in the initial post of this thread--the numerous threads on this very subject already covered everything there at length. There's little point to relitigating the same debate without a new bit of evidence or angle of argument. If the previous discussions don't convince you one way or the other, nothing here will either. This isn't an insult; it's just an observation that trying the same thing the same way is kind of a waste of time.


Meirril wrote:
Joshua029 wrote:


This combination is RAW legal, and the way I'd use it doesn't cause the problems you're concerned about. I believe it's better to deal with a problem individual than to take recess from the whole class (talking with the player or bringing in story elements that disadvantage the summoned hoard, instead of banning a legal rule because someone abused it).

Yes, its RAW. It is also against RAI. The spell was clearly intended to target Summon Monster. Alter Summoned Monster isn't an issues, outside of the interaction with Mount, because Mount is the only conjuration spell that has a long duration. Mount itself isn't a problem because it creates a harmless creature for transportation. And now you want to exploit it 'a little'.

This is the same as asking a GM for 1 week of crafting time when you're playing a Gunslinger so you can start with 2 Mastercrafted Pistols and an extra 1,200gp worth of equipment because Gunsmithing lets you by RAW make 400gp a day. Technically correct but abusive and unfair to other players. Unless your entire group is looking for exploits to abuse. If that describes your crowd, have fun and look up "unlimited wishes".

Cut out the straw man. This is nothing like "unlimited wishes". Using two spell slots, a feat, and a trait to give a spellcaster an animal companion roughly half his level IS NOT MUNCHKIN MOVE. It's fully RAW, and the wording of the Alter Summoned Monster spell does not support your assumptions regarding RAI (as others have pointed out).


blahpers wrote:
Joshua029 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
There have been numerous threads on the subject. What novel argument do you have to dislodge the current consensus?
Why did you bother writing a question that's literally answered in the initial post of this thread?

There's no need to be rude.

There is no novel (i.e., new, unaddressed) argument in the initial post of this thread--the numerous threads on this very subject already covered everything there at length. There's little point to relitigating the same debate without a new bit of evidence or angle of argument. If the previous discussions don't convince you one way or the other, nothing here will either. This isn't an insult; it's just an observation that trying the same thing the same way is kind of a waste of time.

There's no legitimate argument against the combination. I laid out clearly how the rules work together and clear away any challenges presented.

You must be able to see that you've added nothing of value to this conversation, just condescension. As such it's a legitimate question to ask why are you trolling?


This is not going to be a productive conversation at this point, so, well, see you next thread.


I believe this question has been fully resolved.

Mount + Riders Bond trait + Heighten Spell + Alter Summoned Monster = a summoned Monster or Natures Ally that will fight for you, and lasts for 2hrs per level, per the rules published by Paizo.

This is longer than if this combination used "Summon Flight of Eagles" as the base spell (10min/lv duration), but it is significantly shorter than the duration of the spell "Draconic Ally" on its own, which gives you a medium dragon for a DAY PER LEVEL.

The effect of this combination of feat, trait, and spells is roughly that of a Ranger's animal companion, except you summon it each day like an Eidolon.

Given the ability to buy magical creatures, figurines of wondrous power, and summon even celestial hosts, this combination of feat, trait, and spells is not over-powered, or even exceptionally unusual when used with any restraint at all.

This is a tabletop role-playing game, where the game master can literally create worlds for the player-characters to inhabit. There are plenty of ways to fix munchkin behavior without just banning everything that can be abused for everyone.

A wizard with a Dire Wolf following him around is not going to be any more disruptive than the ranger having a bear at his side, or the ork having an elephant for a mount.

I don't challenge game masters having the right to set the rules at their tables, but they should have enough humility to not thrust their house rules at others as how we "should" do things. I also wish more people would show more restraint before declaring what "Rules as Intended" are, and consider the chance that they might not be right about what the writers intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resolved to your satisfaction sure Joshua, but rider's bond doesn't interact with the mount spell not requiring the summoned mount to fight - only with a presumed lack of training to do so. It is therefore only a resolution given your own assumption that the lack of training is the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joshua029 wrote:

Cut out the straw man. This is nothing like "unlimited wishes". Using two spell slots, a feat, and a trait to give a spellcaster an animal companion roughly half his level IS NOT MUNCHKIN MOVE. It's fully RAW, and the wording of the Alter Summoned Monster spell does not support your assumptions regarding RAI (as others have pointed out).

A little intellectual honestly would go a long way here. You're using a 2nd level spell to extend the duration of a Summon spell 60 times its normal duration at what becomes a trivial cost with just a few levels. If that isn't a Munchkin move then I really don't know what is. And you're base spell for this summons a creature that can only be used as a mount. What part of this doesn't scream abuse?

Just because something can be done by RAW doesn't mean it should be done. If your GM is good with it, then go ahead. You seem fine with it. But lets not pretend this isn't abusing the rules. This is a huge exploit.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Joshua029 wrote:


Given the ability to buy magical creatures, figurines of wondrous power, and summon even celestial hosts, this combination of feat, trait, and spells is not over-powered, or even exceptionally unusual when used with any restraint at all.

"Given unlimited funds and/or unlimited levels, this trick isn't overpowered."


It compares pretty well to spending the two feats to get an animal companion(animal ally), or two feats to suspend the duration of an already summoned monster when you don't need it(tattoo attunement). The issue is doing the alter monster mount thing multiple times to generate a small army. The combo on it's own isn't that big a deal.

I'd certainly encourage my players to pick up summon guardian spirit and tattoo attunement instead as that cost seems slightly more in line with other methods of getting a permanent helper creature.


Its meeting poor reception because it's just system abuse not in keeping slightly with any intention of the spells in question, while at the same time skirting the RAW as well.

This isnt the first time the subject has been been brought up, it would have been better to read those topics and see how the conclusion was reached rather than start a new topic and say its resolved too when everyone states the opposite of your opinion.

What you wanted was confirmation, you havent got it. You want to run it that way fine but no GM I know would let you. But there is a hostility coming from you about the fact no one agrees with you that isnt going to help people see things your way in this topic or future ones.

To sum up: you don't need us to confirm something you're just going to do your way anyways, and because of the fact our opinions mean nothing to you, you shouldn't get mad about them. It's just a game, you knew when making this topic it was a sketchy rule loophole.


Joshua029 wrote:

I believe this question has been fully resolved.

Mount + Riders Bond trait + Heighten Spell + Alter Summoned Monster = a summoned Monster or Natures Ally that will fight for you, and lasts for 2hrs per level, per the rules published by Paizo.

This is longer than if this combination used "Summon Flight of Eagles" as the base spell (10min/lv duration), but it is significantly shorter than the duration of the spell "Draconic Ally" on its own, which gives you a medium dragon for a DAY PER LEVEL.

.

just pointing out

draconic ally is conjuration (creation) not (summoning) so alter summon wont work on it.
('You swap a creature summoned by a conjuration (summoning) spell..')

the eagles flight (and my above accuser) spells should work they are 10 min\level but unlike mount they are not mount only spells


It appears that there's a lot of not paying attention going on here.

The Mount spell says NOTHING regarding if it can or can't fight. What it does say is that it's a mount that serves "Willingly and Well". This means if it knows a trick, it will do it for you, and the Rider's Bond trait can be used to give it the Attack trick, guaranteeing that it can fight, even if it wouldn't have been otherwise. Saying that the mount can't fight is a disingenuous argument that ignores the officially Paizo-published, Pathfinder Society approved Trait.

avr,
You suggest that lack of combat training isn't the problem, but you neglect to present any problem. By all means, if you're going to say there's a problem, SHOW ME THE RULE.

Meirril,
This combination of two spells, a feat, and a trait, only extends the duration of the summon. It doesn't give the summoned creature any combat advantage beyond it possibly getting a singular extra turn. The summon is often half the level of the player-characters, so it's highly likely to die in any given combat, so realistically, it's not going to be used in more than two combats unless you're sinking healing spells into it. On top of that, I've rarely been in a game that has more than 1-2 combats per day outside of a dungeon crawl where most of the fights are inconsequential. Having the summon for the rest of the day is a roleplay experience, not a mechanical problem, and thus, it is not a munchkin move.

Diego Rossi,
Come back to reality, and leave that straw man where you found it. There's plenty of limitation in how summons work, their potential for dealing damage, and their limited durability in combat, that prevent an all-day summon from being abused. See my response to Meirril.

ErichAD,
I see where you're coming from. I like the potential roleplay opportunities that come with the method I presented in this thread though.

Cavall,
Who are you to speak for what the writers intended? Show me the credential that says you have any more insight than I do into what they think. This is what I hate about the RAI arguments, people just assume the writers agree with them with no physical evidence to support it.

This doesn't skirt rules as written. It's putting the square block in the square hole, fitting the language of the components completely. I said it's resolved because neither you nor anyone else actually presented any valid argument against the topic of this thread. You just say it's wrong and hope that's enough to squash it.

"and because of the fact our opinions mean nothing to you"
I asked for what the RULES say. Your opinions that contradict the explicite wording of the rules ARE IRRELEVANT. If you could point to ANY rule that contradicted me, I'd happily take it, but you're elevating your own opinions to the level of the rules, and that is irritating.

zza ni,
Obviously. If you re-read what I stated, I pointed out that Draconic Ally stands alone. I wasn't proposing it to be swappable. But outside of that it seems we're on the same page.


Joshua029 wrote:
The Mount spell says NOTHING regarding if it can or can't fight. What it does say is that it's a mount that serves "Willingly and Well". This means if it knows a trick, it will do it for you,

That last sentence is where we diverge. Serving willingly and well as a mount doesn't have to mean that at all. As I read it the spell only compels serving as a mount.

If it was a weak combo I'd probably be more open to other readings, but it's not. Draconic ally gives you a 2 HD creature for a cost of 250 gp/casting (Edit: and it's a great spell!), eagle's aerie lasts only 1 round/level once the summoned monster attacks, normal summon monster lasts 1 round/level for most, 1 minute/level for some specialised summoners. 2 hours/level is right out there.

Joshua029 wrote:

avr,

You suggest that lack of combat training isn't the problem, but you neglect to present any problem. By all means, if you're going to say there's a problem, SHOW ME THE RULE.

I did.

Mount wrote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount.

That's all it does.

BTW, I think toning the aggression back a bit would be polite. Or maybe I'm reading that aggression into your words, but it really does look like it to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joshua029 wrote:
It appears that there's a lot of not paying attention going on here.

Is there?

The general consensuses is

"yes you can do it, but its an OP combination that your DM is likely to balk at"

The rest of the thread seems to purely be an argument on if it is actually OP or not. It doesn't matter if you use a certain combination in a non-abusive way. There are a couple of things to keep in mind.

1. Over time you may end up leaning more heavily on it and abusing it more, in response to the DM turning up the difficulty of encounters to balance this tactic. This sort of escalation ends up not being fun for everyone at the table.

2. Another play might see what you're doing and also start doing it in a way that is more abusive. This could lead to number 1.

3. Munchkin players never consider themselves to be munchkin players. I'm not saying you are or aren't. Just that if someone is crying munchkin you should be receptive to their compliant and consider why the combo is game breaking. If you can't see how it is, ask. If self restraint is the only thing keeping you from breaking the game with it, it doesn't change the fact that it's game breaking. A player should not be in a position to break the game on a whim.

4. Would you consider another option that is less powerful but would fulfill the same role for a similar amount of investment? If the answer is no then that's an indication that roleplaying is not the main driver of your desire to use this combination. That doesn't mean that you're wrong in wanting to use it. Just that it's disingenuous to claim you want it for "roleplaying reasons".

5. Many players are going to be hostile toward anything that looks game breaking. Probably because they've experienced number 1 first hand. Maybe you can use it in your own home game and your DM will be cool with it and no problems will arise. That's awesome, just don't expect others to feel the same way.

Personally, I like recognizing what combinations are OP. In this way I can recognize if another combination is actually OP or not and I know what combinations to avoid and/or may need to be house ruled in order to keep the game enjoyable for everyone.


Joshua029 wrote:


Meirril,
This combination of two spells, a feat, and a trait, only extends the duration of the summon. It doesn't give the summoned creature any combat advantage beyond it possibly getting a singular extra turn. The summon is often half the level of the player-characters, so it's highly likely to die in any given combat, so realistically, it's not going to be used in more than two combats unless you're sinking healing spells into it. On top of that, I've rarely been in a game that has more than 1-2 combats per day outside of a dungeon crawl where most of the fights are inconsequential. Having the summon for the rest of the day is a roleplay experience, not a mechanical problem, and thus, it is not a munchkin move.

If you look back at AD&D 3.0 you'll notice a huge difference between Polymorph Self and all of the Polymorph spells in Pathfinder. The biggest difference is duration. Polymorph Self use to last 1 hour per level. Back then GMs complained about Wizards polymorphing into Trolls and Hags all day long. Pathfinder's fix was to nerf the duration down to minutes per level, and create a list of abilities that each polymorph spell can give.

The Mount + Alter Summoned Monster combination break Summon Monster in the opposite direction. Now you take a spell line that has always been rounds and make it into a spell you cast when you wake up and it lasts all day.

This exploit is even better when you consider that Summon Monster line of spells are 1 round cast spells. Normally you are extremely vulnerable to having your spell disrupted because of the extra long casting time. With this combination you've moved that vulnerable window to hours before combat. And if you summoned the wrong creature? Alter it. I'm sure you're planning on a wand because Alter Summons is perfect for a wand spell.

You're making excuses why this isn't an exploit. And you keep using softer language because you want to avoid acknowledging this is an exploit. Exploits are rules legal. If they weren't, they would be called cheating. This is clearly exploiting the rules.


Doubling down on your anger isn't helping your case. At this point I wouldn't just ban this idea from my table I'd ban the person suggesting it too.

I don't have to prove intention to someone who can't do the same, but paizo will always err on the side of caution over game breaking loophole. Always. So if I wanted to state intention I'm well on firmer ground than you by way of constant examples. I simply don't feel the need to provide obvious examples to someone who seems incapable of accepting them anyways.


Just going to point out that Rider's Bond isn't going to help you at all here anyways. This creature is neither an animal companion or a mount granted as one of your class abilities.

Rider's Bond
Source Heroes of the High Court pg. 3
Category Basic (Combat)
Requirement(s) Asociated with the court of Castle Overwatch in Lastwall
Your mount keenly understands your commands. If you gain a horse as an animal companion or mount as one of your class abilities, it gains two bonus tricks that don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal.


Animal Purpose Training(fighting) should get the job done for animals, though that's not a wizard spell.

The Exchange

Joshua029 wrote:

It appears that there's a lot of not paying attention going on here.

, Pathfinder Society approved Trait.

this made me smile, cause they banned Alter summon in PFS,cause recognized how broken it can get.


Jeff Morse wrote:
Joshua029 wrote:

It appears that there's a lot of not paying attention going on here.

, Pathfinder Society approved Trait.

this made me smile, cause they banned Alter summon in PFS,cause recognized how broken it can get.

It's a shame they couldn't just tweak it a little bit. If you remove the option for hour per level summons, it's not too OP.

Although the assumed use for the spell can still be quite strong at higher level, with a 2nd level spell potentially giving you access to a second set of higher level spell-like abilities. For instance, at SM5, we have a Bralani with 2 cure serious wounds and 2 lightning bolts per day. So, that's 4 level 3 spells for the cost of one level 5 spell. Then after that Bralani is used up, you could swap it out for a fresh Bralani and have 2 more cure serious wounds spells and 2 more lightning bolts for the cost of just one 2nd level spell. That's quite the bargain.

Really, every fight that ends with your SM5+ summon still alive could benefit from a cheap alter summon monster for some cheap out of combat healing.


Meirril wrote:


If you look back at AD&D 3.0 you'll notice a huge difference between Polymorph Self and all of the Polymorph spells in Pathfinder. The biggest difference is duration. Polymorph Self use to last 1 hour per level. Back then GMs complained about Wizards polymorphing into Trolls and Hags all day long. Pathfinder's fix was to nerf the duration down to minutes per level, and create a list of abilities that each polymorph spell can give.

The Mount + Alter Summoned Monster combination break Summon Monster in the opposite direction. Now you take a spell line that has always been rounds and make it into a spell you cast when you wake up and it lasts all day.

What made polymorph powerful was not the duration, it was the full list of special abilities granted directly to the wizard + the stat swapping.

Neither of those are issues with summoned monsters.

Now, if you want to complain about the 3.0 polymorph rules making a comeback in Pathfinder, you should be looking at Greater Possession.


AS a GM, I would apologize to the player, but I would houserule that it would not work. It may be ok RAW, but I believe it subverts the purpose of the Mount spell, as it was intended to be used.

If you look at the duration of nearly any spell that summons things in game (other than the planar ally/binding spells), 2 hours/level is well beyond the scope of anything that is intended for combat (IIRC). I agree with Meirril above.. the Mount spell's intention is for just a mount. I would clarify with the player, that in my campaign, that is all it would be useable for, it would not be able to be used in combat.


Tallyn wrote:

AS a GM, I would apologize to the player, but I would houserule that it would not work. It may be ok RAW, but I believe it subverts the purpose of the Mount spell, as it was intended to be used.

If you look at the duration of nearly any spell in game (other than the planar ally/binding spells), 2 hours/level is well beyond the scope of anything that is intended for combat (IIRC). I agree with Meirril above.. the Mount spell's intention is for just a mount. I would clarify with the player, that in my campaign, that is all it would be useable for, it would not be able to be used in combat.

Yeah pretty much 100% this


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone saying mounts can’t fight clearly hasn’t played certain classes recently, like all the classes that have a class feature called “mount” with the mount being able to fight. Yes this is a spell and not an animal companion, but it is a spell that summons a creature that can serve as a mount, and Paizo’s stance is clearly that mounts can fight.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Anyone saying mounts can’t fight clearly hasn’t played certain classes recently, like all the classes that have a class feature called “mount” with the mount being able to fight. Yes this is a spell and not an animal companion, but it is a spell that summons a creature that can serve as a mount, and Paizo’s stance is clearly that mounts can fight.

That's totally your prerogative, and a ruling you can clearly make when GMing games. But when you're playing at someone else's table, be prepared if the GM disagrees with your stance (regarding the Mount spell specifically) and does not allow what is being proposed in this thread. Just saying.

Also please note the way that it is worded for classes with a special mount. Below is the description of the Paladin "Divine Bond" ability:

"The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a medium paladin) or a pony (for a small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an intelligence of at least 6."


They are clear that mounts trained to fight can fight.

They are also clear the mount spell has no attacks. Nor is it trained for anything except serve as a mount.

Nothing in the mount spell says "can make attacks"

Switch it to any animal or creature you want, nothing in the mount spell says can do anything except serve as a mount.

It would be better served to read the spell and what it can do rather than what a cavalier and his pet can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a point to this particular side-argument? Even if the creature is not compelled to fight for you, there is still nothing preventing it from being convinced/compelled/tricked to fight for you. Quality of life issues aren't going to change much about how powerful this is.

The DM is either going to allow this combo or he is not. This kind of pedantry around the argument is probably not going to sway the DM's opinion either way.


Cavall wrote:

They are clear that mounts trained to fight can fight.

They are also clear the mount spell has no attacks. Nor is it trained for anything except serve as a mount.

Nothing in the mount spell says "can make attacks"

Switch it to any animal or creature you want, nothing in the mount spell says can do anything except serve as a mount.

It would be better served to read the spell and what it can do rather than what a cavalier and his pet can do.

This is flat out a lie. Nowhere in the spell does it say it loses the ability to fight. Just that it can serve well as a mount, which again, nowhere in the rules of the entire game does it say mounts can’t fight. It also says nothing about its training, just saying it can serve as a mount. Since creatures can normally fight, it is a fact that the creature summoned with Mount can fight. You are welcome to make houserules saying otherwise, but this is the Rules Questions forum. Houserules are not welcome here.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Cavall wrote:

They are clear that mounts trained to fight can fight.

They are also clear the mount spell has no attacks. Nor is it trained for anything except serve as a mount.

Nothing in the mount spell says "can make attacks"

Switch it to any animal or creature you want, nothing in the mount spell says can do anything except serve as a mount.

It would be better served to read the spell and what it can do rather than what a cavalier and his pet can do.

This is flat out a lie. Nowhere in the spell does it say it loses the ability to fight. Just that it can serve well as a mount, which again, nowhere in the rules of the entire game does it say mounts can’t fight. It also says nothing about its training, just saying it can serve as a mount. Since creatures can normally fight, it is a fact that the creature summoned with Mount can fight. You are welcome to make houserules saying otherwise, but this is the Rules Questions forum. Houserules are not welcome here.

This is a flat out lie.

It's a houserule to say it can attack when the spell doesn't say it can.

This is the rules forum. Please stick to what the spell says you CAN do over what it doesn't say you can't. You're welcome to houserule what you sent but please don't say that not being not to somehow allows you to do something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Cavall wrote:

They are clear that mounts trained to fight can fight.

They are also clear the mount spell has no attacks. Nor is it trained for anything except serve as a mount.

Nothing in the mount spell says "can make attacks"

Switch it to any animal or creature you want, nothing in the mount spell says can do anything except serve as a mount.

It would be better served to read the spell and what it can do rather than what a cavalier and his pet can do.

This is flat out a lie. Nowhere in the spell does it say it loses the ability to fight. Just that it can serve well as a mount, which again, nowhere in the rules of the entire game does it say mounts can’t fight. It also says nothing about its training, just saying it can serve as a mount. Since creatures can normally fight, it is a fact that the creature summoned with Mount can fight. You are welcome to make houserules saying otherwise, but this is the Rules Questions forum. Houserules are not welcome here.

This is a flat out lie.

It's a houserule to say it can attack when the spell doesn't say it can.

This is the rules forum. Please stick to what the spell says you CAN do over what it doesn't say you can't. You're welcome to houserule what you sent but please don't say that not being not to somehow allows you to do something.

All creatures can fight, ergo the general rule is that creatures can fight. In order for something to change that, it would have to specifically call that change out. No such change is called out. Ergo, the creature summoned with Mount can fight.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I probably wouldn't allow it, but I'd hope my players wouldn't try something quite this cheezy in the first place. The spell is already powerful enough without abusing it. It'd be different if the spell needed this combo to be worthwhile.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Mount + Heighten Spell +Alter Summoned Monster (+Rider's Bond)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.