Spirits- what can they do, and what can be done to them

[NorthSaber]

The issues are crystal clear now, thanks DracoSuave for the help!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While I accept that DracoSuave's logic is reasonable, I disagree entirely that it is anywhere near as clear cut as he seems to think. Conjurations CAN be creatures. That is clearly stated in PHB2. Beyond that there are already rulings from WotC that say that a companion triggers OAs and provides cover to allies. That actually makes the rules MORE consistent because otherwise they are in a 'neverland' where they deny terrain to enemies but let allies pass (a feature of a creature), yet don't provoke an OA, etc. The ruling from CS on flanking (they don't provide it) is NOT inconsistent with that either, since they lack an MBA, which is a requirement to flank.

I see NOTHING in the rules which requires ALL creatures to have an MBA. It may bolster the 'not a creature' argument that they don't, but it is perfectly within the rules for a creature to exist which cannot make any attacks at all.

Now, if WotC seemed to be comming completely down on the 'its not a creature' side, I'd be perfectly happy with that and it would be a reasonably consistent interpretation. They aren't, and it isn't the only consistent interpretation. So I don't think it is good advice to tell people an SC is unequivocally not a creature. It just is NOT that clear cut. The issue of OAs and possibly flanking are simply open questions at this time, which have been addressed by CS with rules advice which we may interpret to mean they aren't sure either. No doubt the design team will address this issue soon enough since it seems to be generating a lot of questions. Once that happens THEN we will know for sure.

 

[DracoSuave]

While I accept that DracoSuave's logic is reasonable, I disagree entirely that it is anywhere near as clear cut as he seems to think. Conjurations CAN be creatures. That is clearly stated in PHB2.

I don't disagree that Conjurations -can- be creatures. By the same token, Dwarves -can- be paladins, weapons -can- be magical. But that doesn't mean that every dwarf is a paladin, nor every weapon is magical, and it would be silly to assume that without a statement to the contrary.

What I am saying is that, seeing as the term 'creature' contains rules baggage, that a power that actually conjures a creature will say 'This is a creature.' This, coupled with the number of powers that conjure 'creatures' but do not actually summon creatures (look at the cleric dailies) and have been ruled not to conjure actual creatures, that a power that uses the same language and templating will not also summon a creature. If Knight of Glory, Knights of Unyielding Valor, Astral Defenders, and Spiritual Weapon aren't creatures, then I see no reason to believe that Call Spirit Companion is a creature.

Beyond that there are already rulings from WotC that say that a companion triggers OAs and provides cover to allies. That actually makes the rules MORE consistent because otherwise they are in a 'neverland' where they deny terrain to enemies but let allies pass (a feature of a creature), yet don't provoke an OA, etc. The ruling from CS on flanking (they don't provide it) is NOT inconsistent with that either, since they lack an MBA, which is a requirement to flank.

It's only a neverland if you forget that other conjurations have that same 'neverland.' Some of the cleric prayers mentioned above do, as well as Flaming Sphere, and some of the wizard conjurations. It's hardly unprecedented, and in fact, before the errata, ALL Conjurations worked in that way.

I see NOTHING in the rules which requires ALL creatures to have an MBA. It may bolster the 'not a creature' argument that they don't, but it is perfectly within the rules for a creature to exist which cannot make any attacks at all.

Basic attacks are attack powers everyone has, regardless of class. PHB p287.

Now, if WotC seemed to be comming completely down on the 'its not a creature' side, I'd be perfectly happy with that and it would be a reasonably consistent interpretation. They aren't, and it isn't the only consistent interpretation.

The problem is that the interpretation requires multiple inferences and assumptions, while ignoring the fact that other powers using the same template are not creatures. The interpretation 'This is not a creature' is arrived at simply by applying the 'Specific Beats General' rule, in that in the absence of a specific rule, apply the general rule. It would be easy to infer that SC is a creature if, for instance, they said 'Your Spirit Companion is a creature.' Contrast that with Summoning. Summoning flat out states you summon creatures. Which means that the assumption is, with every Summoning power, that if you Summon, it's a creature unless otherwise stated.

So I don't think it is good advice to tell people an SC is unequivocally not a creature. It just is NOT that clear cut. The issue of OAs and possibly flanking are simply open questions at this time, which have been addressed by CS with rules advice which we may interpret to mean they aren't sure either. No doubt the design team will address this issue soon enough since it seems to be generating a lot of questions. Once that happens THEN we will know for sure.

That's the sticking point with me, re: the design team. They've done a lot of research and work the past year improving templating and making their powers read better. A lot of powers, for example, don't mention 'when attacked' but read 'when hit or missed' which is a lot more precise. They've included a section on how powers are read in order, and they've even included the occasional double-attack-style power that goes Attack, Hit, then Effect: Make two more attacks.

So, with the clean up of powers to improve readability and all that, I find it -very- hard to believe that they'd forget to put 'This is a creature' on a class's defining feature. I find it -very- hard to believe that, after a year of playtesting, that the question 'Hey, is this a creature?' never came up.

So, it's -reasonable- to assume that it is not a creature. It's the -only- interpretation that doesn't involve making rules up.