So, to summon a Jann would require a 5th rank summoning spell.
Summoned Trait says that if the creature attempts to cast a spell of equal or greater rank than the spell that summoned it, it ends the summoning spell.
So the Jann, under spells lists Truespeach (5th) listed as a Constant spell.
Does that mean:
[1] You simply can't successfully summon a Jann until you cast it as a Rank 6 summoning spell? (it should be removed from the list of spells for that rank and moved to a higher one)
[2] You can summon a Jann, but it will be unable to access that ability which would be normally natural for them?
[3] Since it says it is constant, they didn't cast the spell, so it doesn't interact with the summoning trait and they can use the effects as per the spell ability since it is constant effect.
[4] Some other interpretation I haven't thought of.
I'm inclined to simply make it #2, as #3 seems to0 powerful a precedent, and #1 seems to0 limiting seeing the summon spells list it in Archives of Nethys, making me think the intent would be for them to be able to be summoned.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 seems like the correct answer. The rule limits what spells a creature can cast, but the spell in question is never being cast in the first place, so it's an irrelevant restriction here. It's just a passive ability of the creature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.
I think I come to the same conclusion, but for different reasoning.
It is a spell - it is listed in the Jann's spell list. It may not have been cast after the summoning spell was, but it was cast at some point. So I can follow the reasoning that the spell shouldn't be available when the summoning spell is only Rank 5. Especially if using the summoning magic narrative flavor in Secrets of Magic that a summoned creature is a pure construct of magic and not something that existed previous to the summoning spell being cast.
I would allow it though because it isn't a problem in the game balance to allow it. If you are casting a Summon spell to get a Jann to translate for the party out of combat, then you are still casting a Rank 5 spell to get the effects of Rank 5 Truespeech. For a Rank 4 spell slot you could cast Translate and affect 10 creatures who can then all understand and speak the same language.
It's one of those things that's fine until it's not. I personally adore ideas where you cast spells by summoning something to cast for you, but it's possible that it can grant you access to something way too early. That may not currently be the case, but I wouldn't take it as a given long-term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.
What does it say about a Constant Spell being dispelled? It's not an at will spell or a spell cast on the list. It's a spell listed as constant. Do they have to cast it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.What does it say about a Constant Spell being dispelled? It's not an at will spell or a spell cast on the list. It's a spell listed as constant. Do they have to cast it?
Yes.
If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.What does it say about a Constant Spell being dispelled? It's not an at will spell or a spell cast on the list. It's a spell listed as constant. Do they have to cast it?
Yes.
If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.
Good to know. Yet another reason why I don't care for the current summoning rules. Too many corner cases that don't make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.
It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast.
Constant Spells
Source Monster Core pg. 358
A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it, and its duration is unlimited. If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.
So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.
3 seems like the correct answer. The rule limits what spells a creature can cast, but the spell in question is never being cast in the first place, so it's an irrelevant restriction here. It's just a passive ability of the creature.
I would say it is [4], the spell is conjured with a creature under the effect of a more powerful magic creating a magical moto-continuum that in the distant future will allow the citizens of Golarion to have an infinite source of energy, but that will grow in power until it loses control and will consume the entire planet, including the space-time around it causing the Gap! :P
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast.
Constant Spells
Source Monster Core pg. 358
A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it, and its duration is unlimited. If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.
Good catch. That is true. It says reactivated and uses very specific language to avoid saying cast.
Highlighted relevant part. It's not "normal number of spellcasting actions", it's "normal spellcasting actions". While it does say it's kind of not casting, when you need to spend normal spellcasting actions I would rule it is almost like normal spellcasting, with all traits and effects. So maybe Counterspell won't work (though it's extremely strange when it's a spell which can be counteracted), but other reactions based on traits absolutely will work.I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast.
Constant Spells
Source Monster Core pg. 358
A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it, and its duration is unlimited. If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.
Still doesn't say it's a cast a spell activity. Still can't be cast on other people because it's not an at will spell even though the normal truespeech spell can affect others. It's definitely something else.
Once again, corner case that a DM will have to decide by any criteria they feel like applying because it's pretty clear that it isn't the cast a spell activity, pretty clear the spell only affects the creature and cannot be cast on others even if the spell could normally be cast on others, can be counteracted, and requires the same spellcasting actions to reactivate.
Definitely something other than the cast a spell activity, but what it is is something a DM must decide if they don't want the summon to work for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Highlighted relevant part. It's not "normal number of spellcasting actions", it's "normal spellcasting actions". While it does say it's kind of not casting, when you need to spend normal spellcasting actions I would rule it is almost like normal spellcasting, with all traits and effects. So maybe Counterspell won't work (though it's extremely strange when it's a spell which can be counteracted), but other reactions based on traits absolutely will work.
I take the highlighted part as telling you that you spend the same number of actions, not that it's some mysterious pseudo-casting when it specifically tells you what I highlighted: "A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it" especially when it states "reactivate" and "normal spellcasting actions" when it's SO, SO much easier to say 'A constant spell once cast affects the monster for an unlimited amount of time.' and 'If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can recast it.'
They went out of their way to make it non casting. If they wanted it to be casting, it takes a LOT less space and can be much more direct in saying so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the creature just has an on switch for the spell effect to become continuous again.
It doesn’t look like the creature actually casts the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are seriously going to try and define "normal spellcasting actions" as something other than the Cast a Spell activity?
Well, I guess the only people you have to convince are the other people at your table. Best of luck to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are seriously going to try and define "normal spellcasting actions" as something other than the Cast a Spell activity?
Well, I guess the only people you have to convince are the other people at your table. Best of luck to you.
Yes. It clearly says something different. It clearly has different rules as it can't be cast on others when truespeech can be cast on others. You're the one taking a very liberal view of "normal spellcasting actions" when it clearly could have just said, "They can recast it when it is down" but they used language that made it very clear it wasn't a spellcasting activity and wasn't not a spellcasting activity, it's something else.
They don't tell you you can't cast it on any other creature even when truespeech can be cast on others, but you don't seem to be bringing that up. But a constant spell is usually not something they can cast on others and why is that if it is a normal cast a spell activity?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess the only people you have to convince are the other people at your table. Best of luck to you.
"A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it": it doesn't feel like I have to do a lot of convincing to do with this being said in the rules. I mean it LITERALLY and EXPLICITLY says you don't have to cast it. IMO, it'd be you that has to convince people that "spending the normal spellcasting actions" is Casting a Spell when it JUST told you they don't have to cast and it says it's an activation vs Casting.
