Summoning: Casting times and preferences

[Flexor the Mighty!]

*shrug* A combination of things, including (but not exhaustive):

- good tactical positioning at the outset
- good defense from the fighters
- good Concentration check modifier (really - what spellcaster botches a Concentration check these days?)

Bingo. In my last campaign the wizard used Summon Monster all the time to tremendous effect. It turned the tide of many a tough fight, especially as he got to higher levels. I see no reason to shorten the casting time, you have to put a bit of thought into it as it is now. That is a good thing.

 

[MarkB]

*blink*

*blink, blink*

You, sir, are hereby officially granted the title of "Genius." Expect many a kudo to arrive via US Post.



Seriously, that's a fantastic idea. I may tweak the details a bit, but I'm definitely stealing the general concept for future use.

Thanks.

Channelled spellcasting was one of the things I really liked in the PHB II, and I'd like to see it applied more widely.

 

[Li Shenron]

Okay, I haven't seen a lot of characters focus on the summon monster or summon nature's ally spells. The only ones that have have all made use of optional rules (such as the conjurer in Unearthed Arcana) that reduce the casting time.

So, would people use these spells more if they were standard actions? Is there really a need for them to have 1 round casting times? Personally, I've seen no real evidence that these spells are particularly broken (though I admit they can be pretty potent). I'm not convinced such a long casting time is necessary, and I've almost never seen anyone use them when they had to abide by that restriction.

Just curious what others think.

I think I would generally prefer that there would be no spell at all with 1 round casting time.

As a balance thing it is only a minor penalty, unless the DM purposefully likes to always foil your spellcasting.

The only reason for a long casting time is if the spell seems to be too good to be cast in combat (but otherwise is not as better as requiring a level increase), in which case I'd rather make the casting time many rounds at least.

One round only is an awkward position: long enough to bother you, not long enough to prevent you from casting.

 

[frankthedm]

As a balance thing it is only a minor penalty, unless the DM purposefully likes to always foil your spellcasting.

Intelligent NPCs foil your spellcasting because they see it as a threat they can’t quantify[Unless they ID it with Spellcraft, then they know if it is a threat or not]. Hungry monsters foil your spellcasting because you are standing there shouting and waving your arm, when the other members of your pack are encased in spikey steel and waving sharp blades. The DM does not simply say “the spell is disrupted”. If you start a summon spell when ranged troops have line of sight on you, you better have Protection From Arrows going.

I feel more spells need a 1 round casting time. That way it is more natural to the system rather than the oddity it is now.

 

[Gargoyle]

Intelligent NPCs foil your spellcasting because they see it as a threat they can’t quantify[Unless they ID it with Spellcraft, then they know if it is a threat or not]. Hungry monsters foil your spellcasting because you are standing there shouting and waving your arm, when the other members of your pack are encased in spikey steel and waving sharp blades. The DM does not simply say “the spell is disrupted”. If you start a summon spell when ranged troops have line of sight on you, you better have Protection From Arrows going.

I feel more spells need a 1 round casting time. That way it is more natural to the system rather than the oddity it is now.

I agree. It adds some tactical considerations that do not exist when nearly every casting time is 1 standard action. Perhaps metamagic effects could cause the casting time to extend for all casters, instead of costing spell levels, and instead of just for spontaneous casters.

 

[Stalker0]

1 round casting time is just fine imo. Here's another example of a 1 round casting spell in the core PH just to compare.

This spell does the following:
Increases one characters damage by +5d6
Grants all characters 20 temp hitpoints
Grants one character a +2 to attack rolls


Oh wait...that would be what summons can do

Now...the one exception I think should be summon monster I. When you cast this spell, the duration is so short its not worth waiting a round. I think only this one should get a standard casting time, all the others can stay at 1 full round.

 

[Wrathamon]

it's the book keeping, not the casting time that makes players not use this type of spell.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am happy as is.

I do think there is room for a weaker version of the summon spell that has a 1 Action casting time, and a longer duration version of the summon spell that takes longer to cast.

The Summon spells as is are very powerful if your party has effective scouting or your party is large enough to protect the casters well.

 

[Henry]

I agree. It adds some tactical considerations that do not exist when nearly every casting time is 1 standard action. Perhaps metamagic effects could cause the casting time to extend for all casters, instead of costing spell levels, and instead of just for spontaneous casters.

Bingo. In my last campaign the wizard used Summon Monster all the time to tremendous effect. It turned the tide of many a tough fight, especially as he got to higher levels. I see no reason to shorten the casting time, you have to put a bit of thought into it as it is now. That is a good thing.

*shrug* A combination of things, including (but not exhaustive):

- good tactical positioning at the outset
- good defense from the fighters
- good Concentration check modifier (really - what spellcaster botches a Concentration check these days?)

You guys have had better luck than me, because in addition to wasting the first round to cast, my experience is to have been hit with missile weapons frequently enough and get assaulted in melee enough to where the op-attack generated by me standing and chanting was damage somewhere in the teens and up, causing a concentration check that was only beatable by rolls of 15 and up on the d20.

E.g. a First level caster getting hit for about 8 points of damage, and assuming he's still up, having to make a DC 19 check against a concentration bonus of +4 or 5...

Or a 10th level caster taking about an 18 point ranged hit, causing a DC 33 check vs. his measly +15 or so skill bonus...

Or more recently, an 18th level caster with +27 bonus having to save vs. a spell that just did about 55 points of damage... Fortunately, I had put rapid on my spell when I prepped it, and finished it on my turn, but this would have been really impossible to make.

I reiterate, how are people getting this stuff off with as many deadly effects flying on the battlefield?

 

[Rackhir]

Those of you complaining about all the work needed to get the stats right, infiniti has posted a zip file with a pdf of all the creatures with and without the augment summoning stuff figured out.

Mighty mighty handy. Won't play a caster without it.

Mark

Link Please!

In Shilsen's Saturday campaign, I run a summoner wizard who uses the option where he gives up the familiar to summon as a standard action. He summons stuff all the time and it's never been over powering. The Druids in the party by contrast, have pretty much given up on using the SNA spells because they almost never get them off and there is usually something better they could be doing given the action costs of the spell.