The Unchained Summoner gets this ability:
At 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing on this ability uses up the same power that the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can use this ability only when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by 1 spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 17th level). At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX . If used as gate, the summoner must pay any required material components. A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate from this spell-like ability immediately ends. These summon spells are considered to be part of the summoner’s spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items. In addition, the summoner can expend uses of this ability to fulfill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell.
Is it a Standard action only if you use the Spell-like ability? Or is Summon Monster ALWAYS a standard for a summoner?
I feel sure the intention was that only the spell like ability can be used as a standard action. But I see how someone could read that it changes how the summoner casts the spell itself.
only the spell like ability. or are you saying the next following sentences also talk about when ever he cast summon monsters?
also the sentence before and after talk about the ability. why would it go talk about something else then come back without telling us?
" Drawing on this ability uses up the same power that the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can use this ability only when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by 1 spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures"
just remember that having a sla make you alliable for requirement asking for you to be able to 'cast that spell'.
as in. heaving a fire ball sla, doesn't make you a 'caster who is able to cast arcane spells' or '3rd level spells' for requirements, but it does make you a 'caster able to cast fireball' for requirements. (such as crafting an item with the requirement of fireball spell)
so talking about 'casting the spell' when talking about a sla actually refer to the sla, not casting the spell normally.
also the sentence before and after talk about the ability. why would it go talk about something else then come back without telling us?
That kind of thing isn't completely unusual, and often leads to head scratching. The wording on tumor familiar is at least as confusing.
The problem is keywords. A "spell-like ability" is not a "spell". There have been a lot of FAQ about that issue and it causes a lot of ripple effects that also cause problems.
He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
Clearly it should have said "use this ability" instead of "cast this spell". We tend to sweep this kind of thing under the rug, because those FAQs were written after this text, and at certain points in time, spell-like abilities were spells for almost all purposes.
|
At 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability
You cast SLA.
BTW: the writer has used "this ability" several times in the previous piece of text. To make a text more readable it is suggested to avoid endless repetitions of the same term. The writer simply followed what is considered a good writing habit.
At 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like abilityYou cast SLA.
No one said you don't. An SLA is still not a "spell".
A spell-like ability is not a spell
There have been a lot of FAQ about that issue and it causes a lot of ripple effects that also cause problems.
The FAQ you're referring to and later quoted from did not exist at the time the Summoner was written. It is thus irrelevant for trying to determine what the author meant.
The last sentence of the ability ("In addition, the summoner can expend uses of this ability to fulfill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell.") makes it crystal clear that the author uses "spell" to describe the effect of the cast SLA in the description of this ability. It doesn't matter whether that's technically incorrect, it is how the author uses the term. Therefore, the word "spell" in "He can cast this spell as a standard action" must also refer to the SLA.
At 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like abilityYou cast SLA.No one said you don't. An SLA is still not a "spell".
A spell-like ability is not a spell
true. a sla is a sla and a spell is a spell. but if you'd read my post with the understanding that the point i try to make out is that casting a sla count as casting a spell for everything even requirements (except the parts that is not the same, see sla in the magic section, which say this at least twice, once to explain how it differ from process of casting a spell and once in how other things that interact with casting differ when interacting with a sla. point was it only differ with a limited ways and in any other way it act and count as casting the spell) . you'd notice that the dev's make a difference between being able to cast a spell and the implication of knowing how to cast a spell. (there was a post by the devs a while ago about that) having a sla doesn't grant you the experience of a spellcaster who is able to cast the same spell, which is why having a sla doesn't let you fill in requirements for being able to cast arcane\divine spells or spell of the sla's level. but it is still count as being able to cast said spell (link right after the one Derklord mentioned before). since the 'A spell-like ability is not a spell' you can't get any benefit that having the spell in your spell list\known spell etc have. such as using an item that need it to be. but as for being able to cast it, you are. so words about casting the spell can and will also refer to the sla.
and in this case should not mean anything but the sla, unless specifically called out. you have no mention of casting summon monster from an other ability in this section, and without it you must default to what the ability talk about, the sla itself. which the summoner CAST
There have been a lot of FAQ about that issue and it causes a lot of ripple effects that also cause problems.The FAQ you're referring to and later quoted from did not exist at the time the Summoner was written. It is thus irrelevant for trying to determine what the author meant.
I never questioned the intent. I've even explained what you mentioned earlier. But intent isn't enough for some people. Personally, I think RAW is way, way overrated, because it leads to problems like this.
But intent isn't enough for some people.
Which is why I didn't talk about intend, but rather about figuring out what the author was saying. Not what the author wanted to say, but what they did say. How the author used the word "spell" indubiously refers to SLAs as well, and thus there is no problem with keywords.
|
|
I never questioned the intent. I've even explained what you mentioned earlier. But intent isn't enough for some people. Personally, I think RAW is way, way overrated, because it leads to problems like this.
Honestly, I fail to see how some people's wishful thinking and will to forego any coherent reading of an ability description is related to RAW.
Deciding that an ability text is speaking of something that isn't that ability in the middle of the description is very, very far from arguing Rules As Written. It is arguing Rules As Wished.Badly written rules exist, but constantly arguing that rules should be read as badly written because with some level of willful incomprehension the text can be bent that way is simply trying to get more benefits than what the ability says.
The PFS tables i played at always let the spell and SLA both be cast as standard actions
Huh. I was just treating this as an interesting thought experiment. A little surprised that people actually run it that way.
Do they also have the spell last minutes per round, because that's done in the same sentence as making it a standard action?
He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
|
The PFS tables i played at always let the spell and SLA both be cast as standard actionsHuh. I was just treating this as an interesting thought experiment. A little surprised that people actually run it that way.
Do they also have the spell last minutes per round, because that's done in the same sentence as making it a standard action?
He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
Yep.