| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
As Hammerjack pointed out, they are different.
An Eidolon, AC, or familiar is a partner of the character.
A summon spell is not. Now, I do not play summons as being resentful of being magically ripped away from what they were doing, and being made to risk their lives for someone they do not even know, but that is what they are being made to do.
From a mechanical perspective, it's something I got used to in D&D and other games where summons spells could summon tons of monsters, and it was just easier on me as GM, and players in general, to have me handle the 6 wolves quickly rather than have a table discussion for each wolf each round.
In PF2, with one summon at a time, it could be easier to give player control over, but as I'm used to running them, and my players haven't expressed an interest to run them, I just handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW: yeah, I can see why the GM can point to the rules to say that the GM gets to control the summoned creature's actions.
That doesn't 'feel' very good in practice though.
Consider Floating Flame. It has no intelligence. It cannot be communicated with at all. It is a spell from a spell slot, so it is no more and no less a part of a PC than a summoning spell is.
But no one argues that I am not able to control Floating Flame that I cast. That spell effect is part of my player toolkit. I get to control it.
Now, if the GM is an ally of the players, it probably won't make much difference which way this is played. However, if the GM is an antagonist of the players, it most definitely will.
If I summon a Skunk, it is most certainly so that it will use its Spray Musk ability to hit as many enemies as possible to get that Sickened 1 condition on a successful save. And I expect that it won't friendly fire any of my character or my character's allies on the battlefield.
But the GM doesn't have to respect that by RAW. The only requirement is that "the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability."
So this summoned skunk could be controlled by the GM to use nothing but Stride/Strike for the entire combat. Or it could use Spray Musk in less optimal ways: spraying one enemy only, or spraying an area that includes both enemies and allies.
Summoning spells are already pretty bad. They don't need nerf'ed even more by restricting the control of them from the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned, summoned creatures in PF are not creatures w/ lives (or unlives) that the spells yank theme away from (which is how D&D had it, which led to moral conundrums). So yeah, whether they're a platonic manifestation, summoned from a platonic realm (which I suppose the Golarion cosmos contains), or come from the caster's notions themselves though infused beyond them, who knows. But no moral qualms here, no baggage on the minion's part, and only an extra ability to determine who's an enemy (but not who's an ally, so it might regard disposable neutral creatures as allies out of ignorance). I'll add an unnatural tendency to remain in combat (even if not suicidal)!
And yeah, I like the phrasing in PF2 as a GM, as it gives me a veto in the situations listed by others above. But most players respect norms thankfully, and do come prepared, making them more natural to run the creature. (I had one player whose PC argued with his eidelon, at times considering it out of his PC's control, even if under his own.)
I do not understand the table etiquette of the GM in question, as that's disruptive hyper-vigilance that goes against PF2 norms IMO. I guess online it'd be difficult to nix a player's unreasonable request if the token's controlled by the player? Can GMs not back up a step should a player overstep with their minion?
It just struck me that the post-Remaster lack of alignment means these minions will have fewer desires, qualms, or guardrails. Hardly any, if any, generic creatures come with Edicts and Anathema so players shouldn't just come with stats, but a summary of the critters' standard personality. (And thinking a player can't see the stats when obviously they chose the creature because they have seen the stats...silly.)
I actually dont love summons as platonic versions of things too much. Like I rewarded my druid player with a token from a dryad NPC his character really impressed. He doesn't know it yet but with her token he will be able to specifically summon her at the appropriate spell rank.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually dont love summons as platonic versions of things too much. Like I rewarded my druid player with a token from a dryad NPC his character really impressed. He doesn't know it yet but with her token he will be able to specifically summon her at the appropriate spell rank.
The lore of summoned creatures being a pure construction of magic rather than an actual creature transported from their native location onto the battlefield is just that - lore added in Secrets of Magic.
It isn't part of the rules for the Summoned trait or the rules for summoning spells. So it also isn't the only lore that is possible.
I actually dont love summons as platonic versions of things too much. Like I rewarded my druid player with a token from a dryad NPC his character really impressed. He doesn't know it yet but with her token he will be able to specifically summon her at the appropriate spell rank.
The lore of summoned creatures being a pure construction of magic rather than an actual creature transported from their native location onto the battlefield is just that - lore added in Secrets of Magic.
It isn't part of the rules for the Summoned trait or the rules for summoning spells. So it also isn't the only lore that is possible.
Thanks Finoan, I appreciate that clarification.
Thanks Finoan, I appreciate that clarification.I actually dont love summons as platonic versions of things too much. Like I rewarded my druid player with a token from a dryad NPC his character really impressed. He doesn't know it yet but with her token he will be able to specifically summon her at the appropriate spell rank.
The lore of summoned creatures being a pure construction of magic rather than an actual creature transported from their native location onto the battlefield is just that - lore added in Secrets of Magic.
It isn't part of the rules for the Summoned trait or the rules for summoning spells. So it also isn't the only lore that is possible.
Right, that's a Golarion interpretation, and IMO only for the moral simplicity. If playing PF2 in Planescape, where the morality and effects of summoning are a facet of the setting, then I'd rule the old way. As I might in grimmer, grayer settings as well.
Where in SoM specifically? I wouldn't mind giving that bit-o-lore a looksie.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in SoM specifically? I wouldn't mind giving that bit-o-lore a looksie.
Page 21
Conjuration encompasses several related concepts. The magic of creation gathers raw material essence, the matter of the universe, and temporarily confines it in a concrete physical form, which dissipates when the spell ends. Summoning magic is similar but creates a simulacrum of a creature from matter, willpower, and sometimes raw spiritual quintessence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that minions are actually controlled by the GM dates way back; I remember similar discussions about animal companions in PF1.
It does make sense. It's just a playstyle that many don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, as a DM I would just allow the player to control the summoned creature. That way if they did do something that I thought wouldn't work, I would tell them before the action was committed. In that way, you are having the discussion BEFORE the action, not afterwards.
If a player commands their summons to do X and the DM has it do Y, that action is already spent in game, the player is pissed. In the end, this is a game that everyone is meant to enjoy.
In fact, if everyone in the game plays well, the DM could inform the player that the summons would be confused and a good player might do it anyway and allow the summons to be confused. This puts the power of the role playing and adding flavor to an encounter in the player's hand. You can even reward players for choosing compromising actions that enhance the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally prefer allowing players to run their own summons, with the caveat that the GM may have a certain amount of veto power (in much the way GMs have the final say on weird corner cases with other spells). The GM does not need the extra cognitive load of deciding whatto do with a summon, and making summons pointlessly disobedient is pointlessly antagonistic. The GM should be able to say no to the sort of theoretical optimization chicanery that is the stuff of memes and thought experiments, but that's not exclusive to summon spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All minions, AC, summons, etc are controlled by the GM. That's RAW. You tell them to do something by commanding or sustaining and they do that to the best of their ability and understanding AKA they do what the GM will allow.
The vast majority of time that's just needlessly complicated at the table. Its far easier to let players run their minions but step in and say "I think that's a bit complex for them, they would likely do X", or "The dragon knows what you want to accomplish, but its got its own ideas about how to get it done," when players try for complex things with low Int minions or for flavor when it makes sense.
It's this way to prevent player shenanigans. GMs however should be lenient in this area as it's often resource intensive to have such things. Trust going both ways makes the best of such things.
I would think it's better your character know what the thing they summoned can do, either by study or some experience with such creature. Otherwise you'll never have access to any of their special abilities or spells, and that could easily be the whole reason you would summon some creatures.
To be clear, what that rule says is "the GM determines the extent to which it follows your commands," NOT "the GM always controls it with no player input." Technically the GM can choose to never allow players any control, but that's a decision the GM is making, not what the system actually says to do. And a pretty crappy decision at that. These kinds of GM perogatives are so that the GM can veto things which don't make sense or are being abused, not to shut things down completely. And there are a lot more rules like this, so I'm concerned about playing with this GM...
Not letting people see the stat blocks though? That's insane and has zero rules support. Summons are too weak to use blindly. They are a utility tool belt that you can pull specific creatures out with, like if you need a specific spell cast, something to fly you up, or provide buffs for allies. It's tantamount to saying players shouldn't read their own magic items. I mean, how would you even know what you're summoning? Summon animal or elemental are probably easy enough to get the general idea, but summon aberration, celestial, fiend, etc all require knowing what a "Kaya Azata" or whatever is.
Players aren't encouraged to look at stat blocks generally, but only so they don't try and use meta knowledge. But anyone who has GM'ed themselves will have looked at monster stat blocks and know how zomhie weaknesses and skeleton resistances work. We trust those people not to be meta. And we already have a good way to adjucaate whether PCs share the knowledge players already have via Recall Knowledge.
If the GM can't be convinced, I'd be real leery of continuing at that table. At bare minimum I would abandon summoning spells. It might help to note that even creatures summoned with your highest rank slots are just on the cusp of being relevant because their level is so low compared to the party and opposition. A common creature 4 or 5 levels below you isn't a credible enough threat to sweat knowing their ins and outs. And it would be easy to Recall Knowledge about as well.
Hey you could always ask for a RK check on what they plan to summon and if they succeed say to pull out the stat block.
Maybe it could be a hassle in some games but it could be fun to add into a game.
Kind of a reward of you know what it can do and can call out specific commands because your character actually knows what it can do. The concept seems neat.
I also like running with players building a rapport with summons that can be NPCs but not all summons would be, too much work.
I kind of like it as a reward for players that through the campaign get a summonanable creature to in a way "join" them as a willing summon.
In that case I would have the player tell me, what do you command the summon to do? Then I decide what the summon does.
If its a summon with no character or personality I see less gameplay enhancing value in going through that whole song and dance. It would be better to just leave it to the player to take direct control.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a neat idea, but would massively slow things down in practice. And again, summons are not strong enough to warrant jumping through extra hoops. They need to be used tactically to justify being used instead of a blast or more direct control effect. If you're going to make players go through a side quest to unlock every, the creatures would need to be at least as strong as animal companions. And then you are just doing a pokemon campaign, which is fine, but definitely requires rebalancing.