Defining "Your Opponent" in a spell

[rushlight]

So, this came up in last weeks game, and I'd like some feedback.

Here's the situation: Players are attacking a hobgoblin warren. Three players have gone down the 20ft hole already, one (the druid) is left at the surface, and cannot see what is going on in the hole. Two of the three players are in a covered pit at this point. One is hanging on to the edge. Several feet away from the pit (which is under the hole) are the hobgoblins - readied with their javelins.

On the surface, the druid casts "Summon Nature's Ally" and wants to summon him at the bottom of the hole. He assumes that the animal will attack the hobgoblins, since the spell says "attacks your opponets". The DM rules that the druid doesn't actually have an "opponent" since he can't see any hobgoblins, and when he cast the spell none of the party is engaged in combat. He ruled that the spell takes it's cues from the knowledge of the caster, not the combined knolwedge of the "party".

So, does the animal know who and where the hobgoblins are, even if the druid does not?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, the druid can't see the hobgoblins, but knows they're there (due to other members of the party being engaged)?

If so:

Good ruling in the general case: Summoning spells take their cue from the caster. If there's a bard traveling with the party who intends on betraying them (and is therefore conceivably "an opponent"), but the caster doesn't know, then summoning a badger will not act as a general "bad guy detection spell."

Bad ruling in the specific case: The druid knows bad guys are down the hole. He knows who his party members are. Therefore, anyone not a party member can be considered a foe. The summoned ally should then attack the nearest non-party member.

 

[Space Coyote]

The druid knows bad guys are down the hole. He knows who his party members are. Therefore, anyone not a party member can be considered a foe. The summoned ally should then attack the nearest non-party member.

Good call. If the Druid summons help and the animals start attacking the enemies that the Druid cannot see yet, but one of the "enemies" is actually a Hobgoblin slave and starts yelling "Help! Help! I'm just a slave. Call off your dogs!" Then, if the Druid believes the person, the Druid can consider that person to be "not an enemy".

 

[dcollins]

Three players have gone down the 20ft hole already, one (the druid) is left at the surface, and cannot see what is going on in the hole.

This can't happen, because the druid needs line-of-effect to the target point of the spell (assuming the issue is cover, not darkness). See PHB, "Spells: Line Of Effect".

As DM, I usually assume that the summoner can direct his creatures to attack by simple pointing. That would require the creatures have sight to the caster. The spell definitely doesn't give any mental link between caster and creature.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This can't happen, because the druid needs line-of-effect to the target point of the spell (assuming the issue is cover, not darkness). See PHB, "Spells: Line Of Effect".

Yes, it can.

Druid (D) is standing at the top of a hole, 20' deep. At the bottom is a roughly flat floor. At least one member of the party (P) is at the bottom of the hole. The hobgoblins (H) are some distance away from the bottom of the hole.

D
||
||
||
P_____HHHHH

The druid looks down the hole, casts the spell targeting the ground next to the party member (P), and the summoned whatever runs off and attacks the hobgoblins (H).

 

[rushlight]

Patryn is correct in the description. I should have thought to use a little character map!

Also, the two sides you arrived at were the exact two sides the DM (first one) and the players (second one) sided on. The DM is afraid of the PCs using a summon monster as a "detect bad guy" spell, while the PCs enterpret the phrase "attacks your opponents" in the spell description to include the party as part of the word "your". As in "it attacks your party's opponents."

So, there is no clear definition of what an "opponent" is within the rules. Which is odd, since there are a number of spells which use that to classify a target.

 

[moritheil]

I must agree with Patryn in a general sense, but the original question by rushlight stated that nobody was in combat, not that other members of the party were engaged. He specifically stated that nobody was engaged.

So, since there's no one engaged in combat, it becomes an open question. I would have stated that the druid could just yell at the bear to move forward and attack (assuming it was summoned in front of the rest of the party, and facing the hobgoblins) and things should work out just fine. Barring, of course, your DM being nitpicky over whether or not such a command can be conveyed to an animal in a quick statement.

Essentially the problem here is that the spell writers assumed that everyone would be in a clear-cut combat when the spell was cast, and your DM ruled that combat had not yet started.

So, the druid can't see the hobgoblins, but knows they're there (due to other members of the party being engaged)?

If so:

Good ruling in the general case: Summoning spells take their cue from the caster. If there's a bard traveling with the party who intends on betraying them (and is therefore conceivably "an opponent"), but the caster doesn't know, then summoning a badger will not act as a general "bad guy detection spell."

Bad ruling in the specific case: The druid knows bad guys are down the hole. He knows who his party members are. Therefore, anyone not a party member can be considered a foe. The summoned ally should then attack the nearest non-party member.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I must agree with Patryn in a general sense, but the original question by rushlight stated that nobody was in combat, not that other members of the party were engaged. He specifically stated that nobody was engaged.

I took that to mean, "Not engaged in [melee] combat" - as in, no one was currently swinging, despite the fact that they were all aware that there were enemies right there, staring them in the face.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would have stated that the druid could just yell at the bear to move forward and attack...

Not without Speak With Animals

A Celestial Bear would understand Common, but not a normal animal.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

And of course many would conclude that the Celestial Bear would speak Celestial, not Common.