Rules for Summoned minions

[Ezzard]

So we were playing Saturday night pathfinder (online) and I used summon construct to summon a Animated Armor.
I've always been told to have the stat blocks for the things I've summoned. Knowing what I'm summoning takes weight off the GM. This is what I was taught to do. This is relevant.

The GM made a token for the Armored knight. As per the minion trait it got two actions upon summon. I went to attack with the Armored Knight. I didn't have access to the token. No big deal the GM prolly forget to set it up, I have the stat block already so I roll manually. GM tells me I can't do that, it needs to be from the Armored Knight. I say I don't have control over the token. GM responds "your not supposed to have control over the things you summon, only the Gm does."
To which I, and other members of the party raised an eyebrow. It felt like something insane had been said to us. But apparently he's right. The rules for creatures summoned by spell read as follows:

"It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands."

Personally I'm both confused and turned off by this. Like I don't think I can keep using summons spells after this. It seems like such an superfluous ruling. But maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm here. Our GM said it's in place because Players shouldn't be looking at stat blocks of monsters they summon, specifically in 2e. I don't really get that either as it just puts more work on the GM, which is the whole point of having them prepared yourself. So we didn't really buy that either, but we pressed on, finished the session. Had our laughs. But curiosity still has me on this one. I don't get what benefit this rule has for either the GM or the Player. I don't get how anyone would want to ask permission every time they wanted their minion to act on their turn. I don't get why any Gm would want to be given an extra unit to roll for when the player could be handling what they brought to the table. If any of you can tell me why this rule was written like this, I'd appreciate the clarity.

thank you.

[HammerJack]

That rule is there to cover some cases like "You've summoned something that you can't communicate with. It will fight your enemies, but you aren't going to be directing it precisely" or "You're trying to direct something in a way that is more elaborate than it would be capable of understanding, and it doesn't really make sense" or "you've come up with a plan so at odds with a creatures nature that it really doesn't make sense for it to follow the command."

Only the first of those comes up that often, but it is a good safety valve.

There's no general expectation of not reading the statblock of the creature you're summoning. It can certainly be how a given group does things, but it's not a universal.

[Rosc]

I dunno, maybe it's from my years playing tons of summoners but the GM controlling my summons for me feels like a mild overreach. It seems like the purpose of the rule is to make it so your summon can't perform complicated actions unless your character is capable of giving it commands. Can't make a summoned wild bull perform hard labor without a Nature check, etc.

I've never heard of a GM who takes control over what's essentially a player tool. It would be like them seizing direct control over a familiar or animal companion. And in my mind, that kind of removes it from feeling like an aspect of your character.

I'd suggest having a chat with the GM between games and tell them how you feel about it. Maybe try to reach an agreement that you can control your own summons so long as it acts in a 'reasonable' way as per a creature of its nature.

[Perpdepog]

Full-on control does feel odd to me. I've always viewed that rule as an indication that the GM may have some say, pointing out that it doesn't make sense for minion X to do the thing the player wants it doing, but I also expect that to come up infrequently. I'm imagining many of the same scenarios HammerJack already mentioned, as well as adding that, depending on the type of minion, I'd also raise an eyebrow at a player having that minion do obviously self-destructive behaviors if that minion is intended to be intelligent.
Even in that case summons are more permissive than, say, a familiar or animal companion because IIRC they aren't the actual creatures being called, more like platonic copies being created.

And I also agree that it's always been good table etiquette with groups I play with to have your statblocks ready. I know that's definitely not an extra load I want as the GM; I already have monsters and other PC abilities to juggle.

[Lia Wynn]

Yes, the player should run something like an Eidolon, AC, or familiar.

For a summon from a spell, I've always run those as the GM. It is convenient if the caster has a stat block ready, but with something like Nethys, that's not really needed.

If one of my players does want to summon things, we sit down and look over the options, so that they can decide what they think would be best for how they envision using the summon.

I don't think either way of handling them is right or wrong. I think you should do what is best for your table/GM.

[Ezzard]

Lia Wynn wrote:

Yes, the player should run something like an Eidolon, AC, or familiar.

For a summon from a spell, I've always run those as the GM. It is convenient if the caster has a stat block ready, but with something like Nethys, that's not really needed.

If one of my players does want to summon things, we sit down and look over the options, so that they can decide what they think would be best for how they envision using the summon.

I don't think either way of handling them is right or wrong. I think you should do what is best for your table/GM.

I'm curious to know why you view summon monster type spells differently from Eidolons. Since summoners can also cast summon monster spells. (Or at least the could in 1e.)

And yeah. I still have to speak with the Gm about it. If I don't like it I'll just shift stratagems. Part of why I play wizard is to have the freedom to do so.

[HammerJack]

Ezzard wrote:

Lia Wynn wrote:

Yes, the player should run something like an Eidolon, AC, or familiar.

For a summon from a spell, I've always run those as the GM. It is convenient if the caster has a stat block ready, but with something like Nethys, that's not really needed.

If one of my players does want to summon things, we sit down and look over the options, so that they can decide what they think would be best for how they envision using the summon.

I don't think either way of handling them is right or wrong. I think you should do what is best for your table/GM.

I'm curious to know why you view summon monster type spells differently from Eidolons. Since summoners can also cast summon monster spells. (Or at least the could in 1e.)

And yeah. I still have to speak with the Gm about it. If I don't like it I'll just shift stratagems. Part of why I play wizard is to have the freedom to do so.

Eidolons are absolutely different than summoned creatures, animal companions, etc. Eidolons aren't Minions. You don't take a Command action to get them to do things.

[WatersLethe]

I'll control summons if the player is new. However, if they're a reliable straight shooter, heck I'd let them control enemies if I thought it would be fun.

In short, it's weird to not have a player control their summons unless they need the help. A GM can put the kibosh on things like asking the summoned angel to explain in depth about the afterlife, but pretty much all combat options should be fine.