So... Do Summoned Creatures Suck?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, to be fair... that's because you're unable to actually give him what he asks for.

Oldtimer's getting closer to what Draco's looking for, but hasn't been able to get it exact. What we have here is now a situation where without errata... the best we could do is we'd have to go back to precedent and find out if using the word 'otherwise' has in fact been used to completely negate rules in all other times it's occurred. If it has, then the argument could be made that what Oldtimer points out could be considered correct. However, if 'otherwise' was not used the same across the board for all the powers it appeared with... then Draco's point still stands.

And Moorcrys... you're wrong when you say this isn't a computer program. To the folks who talk about and argue Rules as Written... the logic to them is as if it was a computer program. (And I'm not saying that's a proper or correct way to look at things necessarily... but it is a requirement if you're playing the game of rules parsing.) It's verbal mathematics and logic is king.

It is true, but the problem is that the rules text is not formal. I've worked on lots of projects where PERFECT intelligibility is needed (yeah, I'm coding the range safety self-destruct controller of a Titan 34D, no screw ups ever get to happen). So there are formal ways to use English to get that exactness. It isn't easy, but you have to precisely define words like "will", "shall", "can", "must", "may", "else", "otherwise", etc. Then you can make these precise statements. Even then you'd STILL have to have a formal definition of how exceptions override general rules, how 2 conflicting exceptions interact, and every formal rules statement would need a unique identifier.

Given that none of this exists, the only reasonable way to proceed in a case like this is to essentially use RAI, look at the context, etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Given that none of this exists, the only reasonable way to proceed in a case like this is to essentially use RAI, look at the context, etc.

And I think that's where the conflict arises. What is 'reasonable'?

If the question is 'how is this rule supposed to work?', then absolutely, it is perfectly reasonable to look at all the stuff most of you are talking about with regards to context, fluff text, other sources, etc. etc. And I personally would vote with all of you that your interpretation is correct for what you are trying to accomplish.

But Draco's question is 'what does the specific language that is currently used to describe this situation actually produce, regardless of what we think is supposed to be the result?'. And in that regard, it is reasonable to say that Draco's point (that there is no rule written into the power that is contradicting the Summon keyword's basic duration rule of 'end of encounter or five minutes') is true. Other rules are adding to the duration rules of the power, but unless we can say that WotC's use of the word 'otherwise' is defined as a total replacement... there's nothing that is contradicting it (even though we all agree that there should be... like the word 'otherwise'.)

Yes, that goes against what we all say is the intention of how it is supposed to work... but from a English grammar / strip away all meaning behind the words and just look at how the words themselves parse out - point of view... Draco's point is just as reasonable as everyone else's (depending entirely on what you are trying to accomplish-- a usable ruling on a power, or a strict parse on Ruled As Written.)

More to the point though... I think the real problem here is that it seems most people just don't see the reason for Draco's point to be brought up. And that's the issue. No one truly ever uses the strictest sense of Ruled As Written (because as you say, AA, the rules language in D&D just isn't formal enough to accomplish that)... so no one knows why or cares about Draco's interpretation, so why is he wasting everyone's time (per se)?

And the answer to that is that is just what DracoSuave does (IMO). He's one of the ultimate RAWyers here at ENWorld and will argue a point just because it's fun and will stop at nothing to get people to see the sausage-making process and not just the sausage itself.

 

[D'karr]

so why is he wasting everyone's time (per se)?

And the answer to that is that is just what DracoSuave does (IMO). He's one of the ultimate RAWyers here at ENWorld and will argue a point just because it's fun and will stop at nothing to get people to see the sausage-making process and not just the sausage itself.

Except that his point serves to point out the weakness in relying on the "intent", when the intent is not captured in the actual RAW.

A DM can easily say the power does not "invalidate" or "expand" the definition of the SUMMON keyword, therefore it lasts until the end of the encounter, and the DM is absolutely correct. It doesn't matter what the argument from the player boils down to. A DM that parses the RAW in such a way has a leg to stand on, and the player arguing for the intent doesn't.

So in a sense it is good that he brings this type of discussion to the forefront. A player can have this type of discussion with the DM before selecting the power for use and have a common understanding of how this specific power will work in that DMs environment. Specially since the power, as written, does not do what the player would be arguing for.

 

[Moorcrys]

I'm not, nor have I been or will ever be, interested in that debate. It is not, literally, a computer program - it's an attempt to unify language as much as possible to speed play and allow DMs to adjudicate fairly.

My argument is simply that the author has specifically written in the book the duration of the power, and none of the wording in the little green power box contradicts it. Draco's beginning argument was that it wasn't stated in the book, only a mention in a dragon 'up and coming' article. Thats not the case - in the first paragraph of the power's description the author tells you In plain terms how long the power lasts. You're asking me to completely disregard what the author plainly states in order to get into a niggling argument over one word in the green power box and thereby argue the the power doesn't work the way the author states it does. I say nonsense. The intent of the power is crystal clear and written in black and white, and the powerbox doesn't contradict it. If the author had written 'this power lasts all day' and the box stated 'this power lasts until the end of the encounter' then I'd agree. It doesn't. The book plainly states that the power lasts indefinitely, and the powerbox plainly states the three methods whereby the power ends - death, dismissal, or using the power again. In addition, NO other summoning power lists these conditions explicitly in their powerbox. They don't need to because they use the standard summoning duration.

Furthermore, in the glossary, the summoning rules state this:

The following rules are a reference for summoning in general. As usual, if a particular power contains exceptions to these rules, the exception takes precedence.

The power contains obvious exceptions, written clearly and succinctly by the author in the power description. That is reinforced by the fact that this particular power, unlike any other summoning power in the book, lists the three specific ways by which the power ends. So 4e is exception-based, except in this instance, because even though it's laid out in clear terms how long the power lasts, and even though the author lists the exception at the very beginning if the power, it's not written using he exact wording one person would like it to be?

Honesty, how much clearer does it need to be?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not, nor have I been or will ever be, interested in that debate.

//

My argument is simply that the author has specifically written in the book the duration of the power, and none of the wording in the little green power box contradicts it.

Well, unless I'm not understanding you correctly... these two statements seem to be in direct contradiction with each other. You're not interested in computer program-like rules analysis debates... but you also discuss the reasons why you think you're right and Draco's wrong.

I leave it to Draco to go over the points you must made and attempt to shoot holes in it, but if you really aren't interested in the debate, you might not want to goad him into responding by giving analysis of the rules language in a thread he's already been posting in.

 

[Moorcrys]

Well, unless I'm not understanding you correctly... these two statements seem to be in direct contradiction with each other. You're not interested in computer program-like rules analysis debates... but you also discuss the reasons why you think you're right and Draco's wrong.

I leave it to Draco to go over the points you must made and attempt to shoot holes in it, but if you really aren't interested in the debate, you might not want to goad him into responding by giving analysis of the rules language in a thread he's already been posting in.

Yeah I probably wasn't clear - I was typing the message on my iphone on the train. Using my iphone to type is a bit like herding cats even under the best of circumstances. Add me bouncing around in an Amtrak car and it's a recipe for disaster.

What I what hoping to convey is that I'm not interested in arguing the broader point of whether 4e is, essentially, equivalent to a computer programming language. That doesn't mean I can't use the text that's written when I'm arguing my points.

I do believe it's exception based and the only specific language I brought up was from the summoning glossary text to support that. Maybe I muddied my point in doing so. My bad.

 

[mneme]

Moorcrys: What's your point here?

If you're arguing about how things should be rules -in a game-, doubt you'd find any argument. It's pretty clear that Summon Shadow Servant is way weak if it doesn't last past the encounter, and it's clear that that's the designer intent.

If you're arguing that the text successfully overwrites the base Summon text (I'd say that it doesn't, because we have plenty of other situations where exactly the same kind of text doesn't override, and trying to point out nigling wording differences and make sauce out of them just leads to more madness), and doesn't need nor want eratta to have the text do (without GM judgement in-game) exactly what it's intended to do...why?

Clearly, the text is at least somewhat ambiguous, whereas adding "only" would remove that ambiguity (so would "...and not at the end of the encounter"). So what's the benefit of not pushing Wizards to cleaning up the spell?

Now, to play devil's advocate...I do think that the spell has wording that is not unreasonable as contradicting the base rules. Specifically, in "if you use this spell again". This is a daily spell. You cannot use it more than once a day. So if you're using it again, this means you have to be using it on a future day. As such, this directly implies that the spell's duration exceeds that of an encounter. Effectively, the second clause (and not the first) contradicts the "at the end of the encounter" text -- it's a variant on "or at the end of your next extended rest" (which would clearly contradict the "end of the encounter" default endpoint) that lets the Shadow Servant last into the next day and be an extra daily on that day.

That reminds me, moving back to the OP (and using the spell as intended, regardless of argument on RAW), one thing (aside from timing the spell right) is that you should always have a Shadow Servant at the beginning of each adventure. After all, the spell lasts until you use it again; unless you start an adventure less than a day after the previous adventure, you should be casting it before each long rest as SOP unless you used it earlier, therefore it should be available as, functionally, an "extra" daily at the start of that adventure (and you can then be judicious about your -second- use of SSS on that day).

 

[DracoSuave]

I leave it to Draco to go over the points you must made and attempt to shoot holes in it, but if you really aren't interested in the debate, you might not want to goad him into responding by giving analysis of the rules language in a thread he's already been posting in.

I'm TRYING to get out! You all keep suckin' me back in!

Don't wake the Draco! Rawr!

 

[Moorcrys]

Moorcrys: What's your point here?

If you're arguing about how things should be rules -in a game-, doubt you'd find any argument. It's pretty clear that Summon Shadow Servant is way weak if it doesn't last past the encounter, and it's clear that that's the designer intent.

If you're arguing that the text successfully overwrites the base Summon text (I'd say that it doesn't, because we have plenty of other situations where exactly the same kind of text doesn't override, and trying to point out nigling wording differences and make sauce out of them just leads to more madness), and doesn't need nor want eratta to have the text do (without GM judgement in-game) exactly what it's intended to do...why?

Clearly, the text is at least somewhat ambiguous, whereas adding "only" would remove that ambiguity (so would "...and not at the end of the encounter"). So what's the benefit of not pushing Wizards to cleaning up the spell?

Now, to play devil's advocate...I do think that the spell has wording that is not unreasonable as contradicting the base rules. Specifically, in "if you use this spell again". This is a daily spell. You cannot use it more than once a day. So if you're using it again, this means you have to be using it on a future day. As such, this directly implies that the spell's duration exceeds that of an encounter. Effectively, the second clause (and not the first) contradicts the "at the end of the encounter" text -- it's a variant on "or at the end of your next extended rest" (which would clearly contradict the "end of the encounter" default endpoint) that lets the Shadow Servant last into the next day and be an extra daily on that day.

That reminds me, moving back to the OP (and using the spell as intended, regardless of argument on RAW), one thing (aside from timing the spell right) is that you should always have a Shadow Servant at the beginning of each adventure. After all, the spell lasts until you use it again; unless you start an adventure less than a day after the previous adventure, you should be casting it before each long rest as SOP unless you used it earlier, therefore it should be available as, functionally, an "extra" daily at the start of that adventure (and you can then be judicious about your -second- use of SSS on that day).

My point... I think the summoned creature lasts until it reaches 0 hit points. Otherwise it lasts until you dismiss it as a minor action or until you cast the spell again.

I don't believe we're at odds here. I was saying that it's already stated that it lasts past an encounter - in the book. Unambiguously - I listed the page, the column, and the paragraph. I'm not coming down on anyone who wants to write wizards and ask them to clean it up in the power box. All I was saying was that it's clearly in the book... it's not implied. It's there, written down. If the powerbox is muddy, then by all means ask them to clean it up. I'm all for clarifying anything that helps us use these powers as the author's and designers intended.

And apologies if it seemed like I was trying to goad anyone into anything.