2 hour / level summoned monsters


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Casual Viking wrote:

Once you summon something that is above animal intelligence though, all this talk of tricks and pushing goes out the window. Claiming that my Bearded Devil, who "serves willingly and well", who is a Conjuration effect as described in the Magic (not Spells) chapter, and understands every word I say, is *only* willing to give me piggyback rides and nothing else....is not specifically *against* the rules, but it is a *biased interpretation* for the purpose of nerfing Alter Summoned Monster.

I totally agree that this spell is crazyballs overpowered, btw. But what it needs is errata (changing the post-change duration to a maximum of 1 round/level would be decent), not tortured interpretation.

Because of action economy restricting it to 1 round/level [which- if not written carefully- could even preclude the use of the Extend Spell feat] is rather extreme.

Now, what I would like to see- is excluding this spell from functioning on Spell Like Abilities [no freebie for Summoners and not turning it into a Crowd Control/Debuff against Demons and other creatures that frequently summon via SLA] and perhaps restricting it to no more than 10 minutes per level.

The Exchange

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

As Dieago pointed out, you can PUSH a mount to attack. It requires handle animal to do so. For our game, I'm trying to minimise the need for DM calls at all. When we have to do it, you and I will discuss it and go from there.

In all honesty, the point of our challenge for me has become something fun rather than something to prove. I'll DM like I always do, and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

The Exchange

Casual Viking wrote:

Once you summon something that is above animal intelligence though, all this talk of tricks and pushing goes out the window. Claiming that my Bearded Devil, who "serves willingly and well", who is a Conjuration effect as described in the Magic (not Spells) chapter, and understands every word I say, is *only* willing to give me piggyback rides and nothing else....is not specifically *against* the rules, but it is a *biased interpretation* for the purpose of nerfing Alter Summoned Monster.

I totally agree that this spell is crazyballs overpowered, btw. But what it needs is errata (changing the post-change duration to a maximum of 1 round/level would be decent), not tortured interpretation.

No more Biased than the other interpretation.

When you summon a monster, using summon monster spell, your magic forces it to attack for you, no matter what your intentions. In that spell, it specifically allows you to get the monster to do other things if you can communicate with it.

Summon mount does not have that wording at all. No matter what you "believe" to be true, the wording of the spells specifically prevent you do something else.

Once again, please note I am not an advocate of RAW discussions. I believe this needs to be addressed purely for the arguments it will cause at a table. But if you want to go all RAW up in the grill of a DM, then my RAW works.


Wrath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

As Dieago pointed out, you can PUSH a mount to attack. It requires handle animal to do so. For our game, I'm trying to minimise the need for DM calls at all. When we have to do it, you and I will discuss it and go from there.

In all honesty, the point of our challenge for me has become something fun rather than something to prove. I'll DM like I always do, and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

I too am looking forward to it, getting my dad settled in has been a pretty full job, but I expect to present my characters for review tomorrow.

As for a mount spell, could you explain for me exactly how the mount spell restricts the creature's actions? The only restriction I see is that it can't reject its rider [which presumably could be the caster or someone else the caster dictates.]

Are you claiming a mount is unable to attack? That if cornered it wouldn't use its Hoof attacks? Or that a rider with Handle Animal couldn't push it into attacking a target within reach?

The only restrictions I'm seeing here are based on the innate nature of the beast, nothing to do with the spell itself and nothing that would be transferred over to an Altered Summon.

Now, neither Mount nor Alter Summon Spell compels the creature to attack nearby enemies automatically as Summon monster does, but if an enemy attacks it's going to attack back, and if the caster has a means of communicating with it the 'The steed serves willingly and well.'

'Direct to Attack' is one means of communication the caster could via the ride skill - if he were mounted on the creature. EDIT: unless you assume a creature from the Summon Monster list [a list of battle-ready creatures] wouldn't qualify as a 'wartrained mount.' Granted this is one of those GM calls you love to bring up, but it makes perfect sense to me.


Wrath wrote:


No more Biased than the other interpretation.

When you summon a monster, using summon monster spell, your magic forces it to attack for you, no matter what your intentions. In that spell, it specifically allows you to get the monster to do other things if you can communicate with it.

Summon mount does not have that wording at all. No matter what you "believe" to be true, the wording of the spells specifically prevent you do something else.

Summon Monster does specifically make your creature attack enemies and follow orders. But Conjuration spells generally do the same thing.

Nothing in Summon Mount "specifically" prevents you from making your summoned creature attack, "no matter what you believe to be true". It's a legit interpretation of the RAW, but it's not clearly the only legit interpretation.

"to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well". Okay. So, the creature will absolutely let you ride it.

Another thing that mounts do is attack your enemies. Wartrained mounts and intelligent mounts have absolutely no problems attacking enemies.

The horse summoned by Summon Mount does not usually attack enemies, but that is a feature of the creature being a horse and not trained for combat. If you summon something capable of conversation, there is absolutely no ban whatsoever, not even an implied ban, against riding it and ordering it (verbally, not with the Ride skill or Handle Animal) to attack.

Having established that you can, in fact, make your Bearded Devil Mount attack enemies provided you ride it, I don't see the argument that you absolutely must be riding it in order to make it attack your enemies.


Communication is an issue with many lower level summons [and a decent chunk of the upper level lists] Casual Viking.

But yeah, if you're using Alter Summon for a Demon or Devil or Fey or something like that, so long as you have the same language you're golden.

The Exchange

Quotes are difficult, so I cut and pasted your post and put bold around the bits you wrote Viking. Not trying to be rude or make it look like your shouting, just separating your bits from mine.

Viking - Summon Monster does specifically make your creature attack enemies and follow orders. But Conjuration spells generally do the same thing.

Nothing in the conjuration description in the magic section says anything about summoned creatures attacking for you. Each spell has specific wording that states exactly what can be done.

Viking - Nothing in Summon Mount "specifically" prevents you from making your summoned creature attack, "no matter what you believe to be true". It's a legit interpretation of the RAW, but it's not clearly the only legit interpretation.

It's an interpretation. However, since there is no specific wording, we have to drop back to the general. Mounts will not attack unless they are Pushed by the owner. This makes it a standard action and requires the handle animal skill. It also requires a ride skill so you don't fall off.

Viking - "to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well". Okay. So, the creature will absolutely let you ride it.

Yep, true.

Another thing that mounts do is attack your enemies. Wartrained mounts and intelligent mounts have absolutely no problems attacking enemies.

Wartrained will do it without needing you to push them. Without wartraining skill set, they need to be pushed to do anything.

Viking - The horse summoned by Summon Mount does not usually attack enemies, but that is a feature of the creature being a horse and not trained for combat. If you summon something capable of conversation, there is absolutely no ban whatsoever, not even an implied ban, against riding it and ordering it (verbally, not with the Ride skill or Handle Animal) to attack.

There is no rule written anywhere that states that creatures won't attack because of their nature. You can ride a panther as a small character if its trained as a mount. But unless you give it war training, it will not attack unless you PUSH it.

You can use mammoths too. There are two entries for mammoths, one is normal, the other is wartrained.

No matter what you think is common sense, the rules are there in black and white.

Now, to the nature of conjuration

You being a creature against its will to the material plane. If this is a summoned monster spell it is forced to fight by the magic. Nothing else.

Will it defend itself if your companions attack it? No it won't. The magic does not compel it to defend itself, it only compels it to attack your enemies.

Now, lets look at summon mount. It compels a creature to act as a mount. That is all. So now you need to use the mount rules to run it. Not the summon monster rules, not the interpretation of your group, the actual rules for mounts. They are on the PFSRD, under mounts.

And now for the clincher. A creature forced into servitude by conjuration doesn't care if it dies. Because if it does, it just goes back to its own home, to do what it was doing before. In fact, if you want to bring sentience and discussion into it, they may even try to get themselves killed faster, to break the enslavement and return back to whatever the hells they were doing before you dragged them to the world so you could ride them like a pony.

Too many casters try to get away with more than their spells specifically spell out.


If you are talking about an animal, it's reasonable to say that one may need to use handle animal to induce the animal to attack, without the clause in Summon Monster that specifically says it attacks.

However, intelligent devils, angels, archons, etc. can be spoken to if you know their language, and often they have truespeech or telepathy or speak common. Given that the mount spell says the summoned creature serves willingly, that would imply that if you tell it to do something that it can understand, it will do that thing if it can.

If you used speak with animals to talk to a summoned horse and asked it to do something that it wasn't trained to do but was capable of doing, it would probably do it. You might still have to use handle animal if it was something it didn't want to do, like attack something scary.

The Exchange

Paladin, it is reasonable to "assume" that. In my home games that absolutely flies.

But Anzyr pointed out this is about rules as written. The rules in Pathfinder are often abstractions of reality in order to provide balance or fixed points of reference for people without the first hand experience in the situation to make a call.

For me, this whole thing is ridiculus. I think it was answered on page one by the folks that stated they wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't allow it.

But for the sake of the rules as written guys, I've put into words an argument that lets me justify my ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:


There is no rule written anywhere that states that creatures won't attack because of their nature. You can ride a panther as a small character if its trained as a mount. But unless you give it war training, it will not attack unless you PUSH it.

Wrong. (mundane) mounts and animal companions are trained animals, not poorly programmed robots. A poorly trained panther mount absolutely will claw the everliving f~$! out of a foolish goblin attacking it. Unless trained and ordered to stay still, it absolutely will, of it's own volition, chase and kill a wild piglet crossing its' path.

Handle Animal is the skill you use (when you're not using Ride instead) to make an animal do specific things you want it to do or not do. It's not the total determinant of all actions the creature can and will take.

And you are still ignoring the fact that intelligent "mounts" don't need tricks or pushing.

Wrath wrote:

Now, to the nature of conjuration

You being a creature against its will to the material plane. If this is a summoned monster spell it is forced to fight by the magic. Nothing else.

Will it defend itself if your companions attack it? No it won't. The magic does not compel it to defend itself, it only compels it to attack your enemies.

Now you're just making (stupid) shit up.

The Exchange

Really, making stuff up?

So, if you summon a monster to attack baddies, and it happens to be a devil. The encounter ends but the devil is still there. Your Paladin companion now kills it, to send it back to the hell it came from.

Would your players be happy that the Devil attacked back, to defend itself?

While there are no rules for the section above, It is no different to what you're asking us to believe with mounts.

As for the panther, if you're riding it, it has to be domesticated (or magically compelled). If you try to ride a panther that's not domesticated, it will absolutely claw the living s!@# out of the rider.

If its an animal companion, that's different. Different rules for animal companions.

This discussion is about rules as written though. You start chucking your own interpretation about the nature of things and what they may or may not do, you might get folks telling you that you're just making stupid s!@$ up.


Wrath wrote:

Really, making stuff up?

So, if you summon a monster to attack baddies, and it happens to be a devil. The encounter ends but the devil is still there. Your Paladin companion now kills it, to send it back to the hell it came from.

Would your players be happy that the Devil attacked back, to defend itself?

I'd totally expect it would, unless its summoner relied on the compulsory service of the Summon to force it not to [hell as a GM I'd even give it a Will Save against that, though this is houserule territory.]

The Exchange

Unfortunately Kyrt, it's also house ruling to let it defend itself. The magic is very specific.

Now if one of your enemies attacked it, no problem at all. The specifics of the spell state explicitly it will attack enemies.

Common sense would tell you otherwise, I'm well aware of that. But then common sense would also tell you that what's being tried here is absolute BS and contrived to powergame.

So drop back to rules as written, or accept the GM's house rules in this case.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Wrath, most of the rules you have cited are specifical to animals with Int below 3, not to the mount spells. And even then, the mount spell specify that it obeyes you, and that is by RAW the most blanket statement it could give you. There is no clause against using her for combat. There is no clause on being unable to carry the order. Hell, there is not even any clause on the order having to be "reasonable" like charm animal or dominate. You could tell him to throw themself into a pit of lava. It just does it. Willingly. And well. And there is no wiggle room unless you Rule 0. You are free to state that you will Rule 0 it and suggest anyone else to do the same. But don't try and bullshit your way into suggesting is anything but a houserule.

I personally strongly discourage try to wriggle around it. If you don't like it, just ban it. Or "not allow it", whitch sound nicer.


Wrath wrote:

Really, making stuff up?

So, if you summon a monster to attack baddies, and it happens to be a devil. The encounter ends but the devil is still there. Your Paladin companion now kills it, to send it back to the hell it came from.

Would your players be happy that the Devil attacked back, to defend itself?

While there are no rules for the section above, It is no different to what you're asking us to believe with mounts.

As for the panther, if you're riding it, it has to be domesticated (or magically compelled). If you try to ride a panther that's not domesticated, it will absolutely claw the living s!@# out of the rider.

If its an animal companion, that's different. Different rules for animal companions.

This discussion is about rules as written though. You start chucking your own interpretation about the nature of things and what they may or may not do, you might get folks telling you that you're just making stupid s!@$ up.

I've pointed out the issues you're repeatedly dodging, and pointed out where you are making up your own material and calling it RAW. You are no longer arguing in good faith, and I bid you good day, sir.

The Exchange

Dekalinder - Griffons are intelligent mounts. they have an intelligence of 5. I've seen characters played with that intelligence.

To ride a Griffon and have it attack for you without pushing it (costing your action) requires it to be combat trained, according to the rules.

How does your interpretation stand up to this?

now as to me houseruling it, in my homegames it doesn't even exist.
However, I think I've demonstrated sufficient rules both stating directly and setting precedent for how using this will not end up with a 36 hour combat beast.

As for the other part. It serves you willingly and well. This is the second sentence, the follow up to the first, so therefore clarifying the intent of the word serve.

The first sentence states that it summons a pony or horse to serve you as a mount.

Therefore, no matter what you turn it into, it will only serve you as a mount, but it will be a very good mount.

If you want it to fight for you, then that is a completely different task. No matter how much you talk to it, the spell won't let it serve as anything but a mount.

All the rules to do with mounts (of any type I can find) state you need to have them trained to attack specifically, or push them.

Now, in a home game and can see you being able to negotiate with something that might conceive or working with you as more than a mount. But that's a house rule, and according to some folks, they don't belong in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:

I'm usually the guy who says "F@!# your painstaking discussion of the interpretation of the words, reading takes context, interpret for consistency". But the wording of this spell is completely crystal clear, and absolutely, no doubt about it, allows you to Heighten Mount and trade the horse for a Bearded Devil.

The Bearded Devil might not automatically attack your opponent, though; it might stand around waiting to be saddled. That's less clear. But I notice that the Mount spell doesn't say anything about not going into combat, just "...to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well." It doesn't have the passus from Summon Monster about "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability", but if you can communicate with it, I see no reason it wouldn't do what you tell it. As a conjuration(summoning) effect, it obeys orders unless otherwise specified.

I want to address a couple things you bring up here. I agree that this combo works, but there are things people are missing from ASM's text that are causing misinterpretations and your post shows a couple of them.

Regarding "conditions" - this applies to what the CRB glossary defines as conditions, such as Bleed, Blind, Confused, Dead, etc., not limitations of the spell. ASM clearly states this in the spell description.

ASM wrote:
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.

Regarding selection types - You cannot trade a horse for a bearded devil. A horse is neutral. The new creature must match alignment. Moreover, using ASM on a horse would require you to select an animal. Have fun with your T-Rex.

ASM wrote:
Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:

Regarding selection types - You cannot trade a horse for a bearded devil. A horse is neutral. The new creature must match alignment. Moreover, using ASM on a horse would require you to select an animal. Have fun with your T-Rex.

ASM wrote:
Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target.

Why does the alignment of alter summon monster need to match the alignment of the creature you are changing? This line just states that if you convert the target into an angel, it is a spell with the [good] descriptor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Regarding selection types - You cannot trade a horse for a bearded devil. A horse is neutral. The new creature must match alignment. Moreover, using ASM on a horse would require you to select an animal. Have fun with your T-Rex.

ASM wrote:
Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target.
Why does the alignment of alter summon monster need to match the alignment of the creature you are changing? This line just states that if you convert the target into an angel, it is a spell with the [good] descriptor.

Posting-While-Tired™ strikes again. You are correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those of you with at least one foot in reality, here's what the mount spell does:

1)summons a light horse or pony

2)the light horse or pony is trained to accept a rider

3)the light horse or pony is under magical compulsion to obey you commands willingly and well

4)the light horse or pony has riding tack

and of course, most important :

5) a whole slew of specific restrictions that say the mount can't ever attack, charge, be used in combat, sold to an unsuspecting horse dealer, or enter (and win) a beauty pagent with the help of an extremely talented bard.

so as you can see.... what? #5 isn't in the spell listing? Just 1 to 4? oh my mistake, I thought you could just invent shit. This IS the rules forum, I thought, since I'm so awesome, I could just invent rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:

For those of you with at least one foot in reality, here's what the mount spell does:

1)summons a light horse or pony

2)the light horse or pony is trained to accept a rider

3)the light horse or pony is under magical compulsion to obey you commands willingly and well

4)the light horse or pony has riding tack

and of course, most important :

5) a whole slew of specific restrictions that say the mount can't ever attack, charge, be used in combat, sold to an unsuspecting horse dealer, or enter (and win) a beauty pagent with the help of an extremely talented bard.

so as you can see.... what? #5 isn't in the spell listing? Just 1 to 4? oh my mistake, I thought you could just invent s#&@. This IS the rules forum, I thought, since I'm so awesome, I could just invent rules.

Next BBEG for a level 1 game: a swindler with Bluff and Mount selling to horse dealers.


Lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a gnome who had the feat that allowed him to concentrate on an illusion spell as a swift action. He would buy a horse then have a semi-permanent illusion spell of smoke coming out of the horses nostrils. He would ride to the next town and teell people how the horse was the result of a breeding of a great stallion and a nightmare. He would then trade the horse for another one and 75 gold. He would continue to repeat the process over and over. Great money for a level one character.

Liberty's Edge

Casual Viking wrote:

Once you summon something that is above animal intelligence though, all this talk of tricks and pushing goes out the window. Claiming that my Bearded Devil, who "serves willingly and well", who is a Conjuration effect as described in the Magic (not Spells) chapter, and understands every word I say, is *only* willing to give me piggyback rides and nothing else....is not specifically *against* the rules, but it is a *biased interpretation* for the purpose of nerfing Alter Summoned Monster.

I totally agree that this spell is crazyballs overpowered, btw. But what it needs is errata (changing the post-change duration to a maximum of 1 round/level would be decent), not tortured interpretation.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You are limited by the summoning spell you used. You use the mount spell? You get a creature that act as a mount. full stop.

RAW isn't "RAW when it is beneficial, non-RAW when it is an hindrance". If you are bound by RAW you should always use it.

Mount say that you summon a creature "to serve you as a mount." That is what you get.
Not a combat creature, not a casting crature. a mount.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

But that is the point, beside working for you as a mount the creature is not forced to do something for you in any way.

And it will not do anything that will hinder his job as a mount.

You change your mount to a dire tiger? It will not pounce an enemy, it will stay near you to be your steed. And it has no compulsion to attack your enemies.

The Exchange

Dallium wrote:

For those of you with at least one foot in reality, here's what the mount spell does:

1)summons a light horse or pony

2)the light horse or pony is trained to accept a rider

3)the light horse or pony is under magical compulsion to obey you commands willingly and well

4)the light horse or pony has riding tack

and of course, most important :

5) a whole slew of specific restrictions that say the mount can't ever attack, charge, be used in combat, sold to an unsuspecting horse dealer, or enter (and win) a beauty pagent with the help of an extremely talented bard.

so as you can see.... what? #5 isn't in the spell listing? Just 1 to 4? oh my mistake, I thought you could just invent s#@*. This IS the rules forum, I thought, since I'm so awesome, I could just invent rules.

Number 3 is interestingly worded on your part.

It says in the spell it serves you well.

Yet you have taken that one word and made into magical compulsion to obey your commands well.

Yours is a very different and far more powerful set of words than that used in the spell.

It's almost like you invented s#%+ because you're awesome.

Liberty's Edge

Wrath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

As Dieago pointed out, you can PUSH a mount to attack. It requires handle animal to do so. For our game, I'm trying to minimise the need for DM calls at all. When we have to do it, you and I will discuss it and go from there.

In all honesty, the point of our challenge for me has become something fun rather than something to prove. I'll DM like I always do, and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

And you can't use Handle animal on a creature with an intelligence greater than 2. [Barring it being a animal companion with increased intelligence]

It is very simple: a creature summoned to be a mount act as a mount.
It will defend itself? Yes. Unless that reduce its effectiveness as a mount.
It will allow itself to be ridden and be guided by the ride skill? Yes.
It is trained to fight together with his rider like a war trained horse? No.
And so on.
There are several weird interactions of those effects, but the basis is very simple: it will do it best to work as a mount, at the expense of any other ability it has.
And it will not use his abilities unless:
1) it don't hinder in any way its mount role;
2) the base behavior of the creature will have it use its ability in that situation.

The Exchange

I find it rather enlightening to see people are more than happy to feel magic is powerful enough to transform a horse into a T- Rex, but they won't accept that the same magic will limit what the T-Rex will do.

Liberty's Edge

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If you are talking about an animal, it's reasonable to say that one may need to use handle animal to induce the animal to attack, without the clause in Summon Monster that specifically says it attacks.

However, intelligent devils, angels, archons, etc. can be spoken to if you know their language, and often they have truespeech or telepathy or speak common. Given that the mount spell says the summoned creature serves willingly, that would imply that if you tell it to do something that it can understand, it will do that thing if it can.

If you used speak with animals to talk to a summoned horse and asked it to do something that it wasn't trained to do but was capable of doing, it would probably do it. You might still have to use handle animal if it was something it didn't want to do, like attack something scary.

AS A MOUNT

It don't serve willingly as everything. It serve willingly for a specific role.

The Exchange

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the most asinine twisting of rules to accomplish a goal I have ever seen.

Liberty's Edge

Can't we just use Summon Accuser (in the hypothetical scenario that a GM is actually game for these shenanigans) and enjoy the 10 min/level (20 with a rod of extend!) summon we get. No fuss needed about language saying its a mount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

How is this any different from the Magical Beast mounts that are sold on the open market?

Axe Beaks and Griffons serve as mounts, and given the proper instruction [some of it via Handle Animal] they do a ton of fighting as well- in the capacity as Steed AKA Partner-Who-Is-Sometimes-Ridden.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Can't we just use Summon Accuser (in the hypothetical scenario that a GM is actually game for these shenanigans) and enjoy the 10 min/level (20 with a rod of extend!) summon we get. No fuss needed about language saying its a mount.

The problem is that doesn't come online for another four levels after Alter Summoned Monster.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

How is this any different from the Magical Beast mounts that are sold on the open market?

Axe Beaks and Griffons serve as mounts, and given the proper instruction they do a ton of fighting as well- in the capacity as Steed AKA Partner-Who-Is-Sometimes-Ridden.

They aren't constrained by magic to cover a specific role.

As they are constrained by magic to be a mount they will not fight wile ridden as that can hinder the one riding them, unless they are directed by the rider, with the appropriate skills. But those skills don't apply to a intelligent mount. And there is no compulsion to be helpful beside being a "perfect" mount in the spell, so an intelligent creature, like a devil, can perfectly refuse to fight for the summoner if that don't suit it.
As most of them aren't even shaped to be ridden their first and foremost duty is to help the rider stain in the "saddle".
When not ridden they will defend themselves, but they will not leave the owner side as they should be ready to be mounted.
They will not take actions that will reduce their movement.
And so on.

You guys don't want to accept the basic limitation of the Mount spell.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've gotten out of this is I can cast a heightened mount to sixth level then use a second level spell to get a succubus to let me mount her for the better part of a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you summon an intelligent mount. The only magical obligation they have toward you is to serve you as a mount, and you can't use Handle Animal on them because they're too smart.

So why not just use Diplomacy?

It seems like they'd have a starting attitude somewhere between indifferent and helpful, depending on what your GM thinks would make sense. So you (or the party face) could just try to convince them to help you, first by trying to improve their attitude toward you, if necessary, and then by making the appropriate request. The difficulty of the request would probably depend on how dangerous the situation is and how inclined the creature would be to act that way anyway (I doubt it would be difficult to convince an archon to fight demons, but convincing an archon to fight archons would be impossible). But I think in some circumstances it would work pretty well.

What do you guys think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Despite my previous belief otherwise, those skills do apply to an intelligent mount.

A blog post some time ago even highlighted the Griffon was handled as a Mount via Ride and Tricks/Handle Animal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aeric Blackberry wrote:

OMG! You have broken the book in a record time!

How long till they publish a FAQ correcting this imbalance?

Since it is a caster being OP I would venture to say years. If ever.

The Exchange

TOZ wrote:
This is the most asinine twisting of rules to accomplish a goal I have ever seen.

Is this more asinine than the huge number of other "omg I found another broken combo, Paizo you fools" rules manipulations out there?

The Exchange

Avoron wrote:

So you summon an intelligent mount. The only magical obligation they have toward you is to serve you as a mount, and you can't use Handle Animal on them because they're too smart.

So why not just use Diplomacy?

It seems like they'd have a starting attitude somewhere between indifferent and helpful, depending on what your GM thinks would make sense. So you (or the party face) could just try to convince them to help you, first by trying to improve their attitude toward you, if necessary, and then by making the appropriate request. The difficulty of the request would probably depend on how dangerous the situation is and how inclined the creature would be to act that way anyway (I doubt it would be difficult to convince an archon to fight demons, but convincing an archon to fight archons would be impossible). But I think in some circumstances it would work pretty well.

What do you guys think?

If the DM were letting this fly (which most probably won't) then your diplomacy thing sounds feasible. However, the starting attitude may well be angry, since an archon being forced to act as a mount is pretty demeaning.

How long it takes to convince it is a factor too. Those checks do not have a time on them. DM may decide that it takes 15 hours to convince the thing that fighting for you is acceptable.

Having someone other than the caster try probably not allowed. These things obey the casters only in general. Something you'd need to negotiate with your DM.

This makes it more like gate now, using two lower spells and a feat to achieve the same outcome. Is that balanced more? Seems not too bad.


Summon monster one isn't summon monster 3. If you're playing a sorcerer they aren't the same spell.

Nothing in these feats and spells allows you to alter that option to make it a different spell.

Not valid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody ever said you altered that spell.

Please carefully read Alter Summoned Monster.

Then do it again.

Alter Summoned Monster functions entirely off the spell level of the spell it is altering.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
TOZ wrote:
This is the most asinine twisting of rules to accomplish a goal I have ever seen.
Is this more asinine than the huge number of other "omg I found another broken combo, Paizo you fools" rules manipulations out there?

Yes.


Diego Rossi wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

How is this any different from the Magical Beast mounts that are sold on the open market?

Axe Beaks and Griffons serve as mounts, and given the proper instruction they do a ton of fighting as well- in the capacity as Steed AKA Partner-Who-Is-Sometimes-Ridden.

They aren't constrained by magic to cover a specific role.

As they are constrained by magic to be a mount they will not fight wile ridden as that can hinder the one riding them, unless they are directed by the rider, with the appropriate skills. But those skills don't apply to a intelligent mount. And there is no compulsion to be helpful beside being a "perfect" mount in the spell, so an intelligent creature, like a devil, can perfectly refuse to fight for the summoner if that don't suit it.
As most of them aren't even shaped to be ridden their first and foremost duty is to help the rider stain in the "saddle".
When not ridden they will defend themselves, but they will not leave the owner side as they should be ready to be mounted.
They will not take actions that will reduce their movement.
And so on.

You guys don't want to accept the basic limitation of the Mount spell.

I'm looking for the text in the mount spell that constrains the summoned creature to only act as a mount and not do anything that 'interferes' with its mount-ly duties. Furthermore, I don't see any pathfinder rules listing that defines such 'mount-ly' duties as only bearing a rider on its back and specifically restricting any offensive or defensive actions.

I just can't find this anywhere, perhaps you can help.

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:

So you summon an intelligent mount. The only magical obligation they have toward you is to serve you as a mount, and you can't use Handle Animal on them because they're too smart.

So why not just use Diplomacy?

It seems like they'd have a starting attitude somewhere between indifferent and helpful, depending on what your GM thinks would make sense. So you (or the party face) could just try to convince them to help you, first by trying to improve their attitude toward you, if necessary, and then by making the appropriate request. The difficulty of the request would probably depend on how dangerous the situation is and how inclined the creature would be to act that way anyway (I doubt it would be difficult to convince an archon to fight demons, but convincing an archon to fight archons would be impossible). But I think in some circumstances it would work pretty well.

What do you guys think?

Could work, but there is the problem that the creature can bring nothing back with it. At the same time, if it is sufficiently intelligent and/or has enough spellcraft/knowledge arcana it know that it risk nothing.

So you could convince a demon to do mayhem or a aasimar to do good actions, as long as it don't contrast with his forced role as a mount.

The problem is that they have a forced role and are constrained to it by the summoning magic, so there are things they will not do as they go against the magic used to summon them.

Liberty's Edge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

How is this any different from the Magical Beast mounts that are sold on the open market?

Axe Beaks and Griffons serve as mounts, and given the proper instruction they do a ton of fighting as well- in the capacity as Steed AKA Partner-Who-Is-Sometimes-Ridden.

They aren't constrained by magic to cover a specific role.

As they are constrained by magic to be a mount they will not fight wile ridden as that can hinder the one riding them, unless they are directed by the rider, with the appropriate skills. But those skills don't apply to a intelligent mount. And there is no compulsion to be helpful beside being a "perfect" mount in the spell, so an intelligent creature, like a devil, can perfectly refuse to fight for the summoner if that don't suit it.
As most of them aren't even shaped to be ridden their first and foremost duty is to help the rider stain in the "saddle".
When not ridden they will defend themselves, but they will not leave the owner side as they should be ready to be mounted.
They will not take actions that will reduce their movement.
And so on.

You guys don't want to accept the basic limitation of the Mount spell.

I'm looking for the text in the mount spell that constrains the summoned creature to only act as a mount and not do anything that 'interferes' with its mount-ly duties. Furthermore, I don't see any pathfinder rules listing that defines such 'mount-ly' duties as only bearing a rider on its back and specifically restricting any offensive or defensive actions.

I just can't find this anywhere, perhaps you can help.

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

Pretty straightforward, unless you don't want to see.

It is constrained into serving "willingly and well" as a mount.

Serving well as mount mean exactly that. If you order it to do something that make it serve less well as a mount you go against the spell constraint.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Once again, please point out where pathfinder defines and restricts what duties a mount may perform. From what I can tell, it's purely your interpretation that restricts such duties to transportation only.


Dot


Ozy, obviously they don't. That said, it takes a second level spell (Summon Monster II) to summon a horse capable of fighting for you for rounds / level. That makes it clear to me, at leaat, that the first level mount spell that lasts hours is only supposed to be used "as a mount". Let the GM decide what role a mount plays. Interpreting words like this is his job.


MeanMutton wrote:
Ozy, obviously they don't. That said, it takes a second level spell (Summon Monster II) to summon a horse capable of fighting for you for rounds / level. That makes it clear to me, at leaat, that the first level mount spell that lasts hours is only supposed to be used "as a mount". Let the GM decide what role a mount plays. Interpreting words like this is his job.

No, it takes a 2nd level spell for you to summon a horse that is forced, by magic, to fight for you.

There is nothing in the 1st level mount spell that would indicate a summoned mount is stripped of all free will to do nothing but transport you from point A to point B.

If you think this is what the mount spell does, then you're going to break a lot more things than you think.

Listen, nobody is saying that a 'mount' will be magically 'willed' to fight for you, but there is nothing in the spell that says the mount won't otherwise act like a normal creature outside of magically 'induced' to willingly act as a mount.

It's patently ridiculous to suggest that if you somehow summoned a dragon as a 'mount' that it would just sit there stupidly while being attacked because, you never know, the summoner might want to ride him somewhere.

101 to 150 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 2 hour / level summoned monsters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.