Are Conjurations Considered Creatures?

[keterys]

Very interesting - so they just changed the definition of conjurations in PH3. So, never is still not an appropriate answer, but 'Not usually' or 'Unless specified otherwise' is at least correct, which is a lot better than it used to be.

Now to just change shaman spirit companions to not be conjurations.

 

[DracoSuave]

Gee I dont know ..... PHB 3 p.216

Right, so you have the general rule that says they aren't, and specific rules for powers when they are...


That's not never.

That's usually not or mostly not.


And Spirit Companions -should- be conjurations... Primal powers are spirits doing stuff, which doesn't make the powers creatures.

 

[Jhaelen]

Right, so you have the general rule that says they aren't, and specific rules for powers when they are...


That's not never.

That's usually not or mostly not.

Well, since we're looking at a ruleset using an exception-based design, you can strike 'never' from your vocabulary, if that makes you happier.

Conjurations are never creatures - unless you're looking at an explicite exception. Therefore, I still firmly believe that my answer is generally more useful than yours.

Following every statement with a disclaimer doesn't really make it more clear. If I am asking 'Is today Friday?' I won't be happy if I get the answer 'Well, this depends on the kind of calendar you use and the time zone you're in - are you even from planet Earth, btw.? Because if you aren't, all bets are off.'

My point: An answer may technically be more accurate but also decidedly less helpful.

 

[DracoSuave]

My point: An answer may technically be more accurate but also decidedly less helpful.

Neither is 'Never'.

"The effect is a creature if it says it is, otherwise, it is not." is what I said, and I stand by it as the best answer.

It is accurate -AND- helpful.

 

[keterys]

And Spirit Companions -should- be conjurations... Primal powers are spirits doing stuff, which doesn't make the powers creatures.

Sure, spirit panthers and zones and all that are totally fine. In flavor, effect, great.

The problem is that conjurations are not well designed for something that can block, be attacked in melee, make opportunity actions, and otherwise act fully as a creature while not being one. It's hideous how confused people get at the table about them, and you end up with some truly stupid situations, like the spirit blocking a stairwell or corridor and goblins going 'So, err, we can't do enough damage to kill it, ever? And we can't bull rush it? Or... anything?'

Would have been an order of magnitude simpler, and I feel better for the game, to just make them a summon with a couple rules exceptions, and move on.

 

[Jhaelen]

"The effect is a creature if it says it is, otherwise, it is not." is what I said, and I stand by it as the best answer.

Yep. And this sentence makes sense if it does, otherwise it doesn't. Cheers!

 

[Ferghis]

The problem is that conjurations are not well designed for something that can block, be attacked in melee, make opportunity actions, and otherwise act fully as a creature while not being one. It's hideous how confused people get at the table about them, and you end up with some truly stupid situations, like the spirit blocking a stairwell or corridor and goblins going 'So, err, we can't do enough damage to kill it, ever? And we can't bull rush it? Or... anything?'

Would have been an order of magnitude simpler, and I feel better for the game, to just make them a summon with a couple rules exceptions, and move on.

As I mentioned in the FoWP thread, I've been veering in favor of summons, as opposed conjurations, where the effect involves a spirit, a dog, or something similarly interactive. It's a slightly better ruleset for something that plays such an active role with characters and monsters.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yep. And this sentence makes sense if it does, otherwise it doesn't. Cheers!

Not actually a legitimate criticism of my wording, seeing as the syntax is different. Nice try.

The problem is that conjurations are not well designed for something that can block, be attacked in melee, make opportunity actions, and otherwise act fully as a creature while not being one. It's hideous how confused people get at the table about them, and you end up with some truly stupid situations, like the spirit blocking a stairwell or corridor and goblins going 'So, err, we can't do enough damage to kill it, ever? And we can't bull rush it? Or... anything?'

Spirit companions don't take opportunity, or -any- actions what-so-ever.

YOU do.

Thing is, they don't have anything a creature has, hit points, ability to take any actions, ability to flank, or anything.

And if a wall of force can do it, so can a spiritual power.

 

[keterys]

Spirit companions don't take opportunity, or -any- actions what-so-ever. YOU do. Thing is, they don't have anything a creature has, hit points, ability to take any actions, ability to flank, or anything.

Correct. And that's the point. It's all non-intuitive. A player who is not particularly rules savvy (and, let's admit it, folks like us are wizards compared to a lot of casual players) is not going to realize what he's getting into, and a less rules savvy DM is going to potentially lead to some serious strife. Even rules savvy DMs and players are going to potentially have arguments on things like 'I conjure him into the square over the monster's head, so no matter where it moves it triggers my opportunity action'

WotC missed their mark pretty seriously on shaman companions, in a number of ways. Which is a shame, cause it's a very interesting conceptual field.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, non-PHB 1 classes are meant to be somewhat complex and a little bit out of basic rule, aren't they?