Summonings

[hayek]

By directing you to page 137 of Arcane Power, where it specifically states that familiars can't flank.

Ah, well then, I consider my familiar logic officially owned in the face...

I think the argument still comes down to whether you see a difference in "an effect preventing OA's" and "not having OA's". I can see how you might read those as being two different things, but I think they're equivalent. Nonetheless, I'd concede that it's perfectly justified to see things your way.

If only they had been as clear with summons as they were with familiars. I was really hopeful when I cracked open the RC that there would be at least a little additional information in the Summoning section. I was very sad to see it was just a reprint of the woefully incomplete Arcane Power rules.

I know WotC didn't want a redux of the massive increase in complexity that summonings caused in 3.5, so they made the Summoning rules as streamlined as possible. But keeping the rules short and simple and keeping them incomplete are two different things.

 

[Aegeri]

To be honest, once you get over how summons work they are pretty straightforward. As for flanking a condition that prevents you taking OAs is debatable if it stops flanking as well - because not being able to take OAs is not a function of if you can flank anymore. It's very debatable if Winged Horde (for example) can break flanking anymore by the Rules Compendium update. Note that dazed specifically states you can't flank, with stunned/dominated being entirely obvious that you can't (as you have no actions).

It depends on your interpretation of "prevents you from taking actions".

 

[the Jester]

I was referencing the rules citation that Wednesday Boy provided

Ah, gotcha, all the stuff I was looking up was in the RC since my PH isn't handy.

I believe the original PHB provided the rules as Wednesday Boy quoted them – Opp Attacks rely on being able to take Opportunity Actions. Whether I’m right or wrong, the Rules Cyclopedia seems to have changed that rule, but since it is most recent I guess I’ll accept that as the new rule (assuming of course that it’s not a misprint because misprints and errata never happen).

I'd argue that the original flanking rules rely not on being able to take an opportunity action, but rather on not being denied the ability to take an opportunity action. It's a subtle difference and one that is often meaningless, but an important one. There are even a couple of monsters (maybe the rat swarm? I can't recall off hand) that don't have basic attacks and so cannot make opportunity attacks, but they can contribute to flanking (by my reading, at least).

In that case, there’s a few issues with the rule as the RC states it that I would appreciate hearing your take on, Jester:

1 . There are many utility summons in the game that have absolutely no ability to attack whatsoever. Iron Cohort for example – just moves around the battlefield until you command it to soak up an attack for you. Are you arguing that this creature can flank even though it has no offensive powers whatsoever?

2. Familiars are creatures (and allies) when in their active state, however they cannot flank. They are capable of taking the same actions as an Iron Cohort, why can the Iron Cohort flank if familiars cannot?

Again, not having my books in front of me and not knowing what Iron Cohort does off hand, my take is- if it has an attack (the other requirement for being to flank is being able to attack), then yes, it can contribute to flanking. If it cannot attack, then it cannot contribute to flanking.

As to familiars, I haven't seen the familiar rules in play and am totally hazy on how they work (I haven't re-read them since they first came out). Is the "cannot flank" clause a part of the familiar rules? In that case, the answer is simply- they can't flank because they are familiars.

As you quote the RC: A creature also cannot flank while it is subject to any effect that prevents it from taking actions.

All summoned creatures are subject to an important effect that prevents them from taking actions: they don’t have any actions to take. The summoning rules say they have no actions of their own except for those granted by the text of the spell.

That's not an effect, that's a trait. It's like the difference between a class power and a class feature.

2. So let me get this straight, you're saying I have a dretch that I've summoned and it can't take opportunity actions, but i can move it in position to flank with my party's rogue. Then an enemy zaps my dretch with a power that says 'The target can no longer take opportunity actions'. This changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the powers/actions/abilities of the dretch in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER, but it suddenly can't flank because of the power. I'm not sure how to point out how illogical this argument is other than to use LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS to point out its inconsistencies...

It changes the abilities of the dretch by removing its ability to contribute to flanking. The fact that a dretch has less to lose doesn't matter- this would work the same on a creature that lacks basic attacks, too. (Pretty sure at least one of them is from the original MM.)

 

[hayek]

To be honest, once you get over how summons work they are pretty straightforward.

This is mostly true, but there are some other unobvious things they could be a lot more explicit about.

#1 on that list by far:

Does attacking through a summons provoke Opportunity Attacks on the caster?

You're using the summoning power which is listed as a 'Ranged' power, but it's the summons making the attack using your stats, so it seems like it shouldn't.

I think the way the summon rules phrase things it's definitley the case that you do not provoke OA by attacking with them, but I'm amazed there is not a clear sentence in the rules somewhere that says, "Although the act of summoning a creature is a Ranged power that provokes Opportunity Attacks, attacking with a summons is a melee attack by the creature that does not provoke Opportunity Attacks for the caster."

 

[Pbartender]

I think the argument still comes down to whether you see a difference in "an effect preventing OA's" and "not having OA's".

Of course they're different... It's like the difference between "lying" and "not telling the truth". Telling a lie is one way of not telling the truth, but you don't have to lie to not tell the truth.

Likewise, just because you don't have the ability to make an Opportunity Attack, that doesn't mean you don't have it because an effect is preventing it... Familiars don't have Opportunity Attacks because the rules say they don't, for example, and summoned creatures don't have Opportunity Attacks because the rules don't say they do.

The end result is the same in all three instances -- the creature can't make Opportunity Attacks -- but causes are different. And in the case of flanking, the wording is such that it's the cause that's important, not the result.

Otherwise, the rules for flanking would read:

Must Be Able to Attack: You and your ally must be able to attack the enemy, whether you’re armed or unarmed. If there’s no line of effect between your enemy and either you or your ally, you don’t flank. If you cannot take opportunity actions, you don’t flank.​

 

[DracoSuave]

1) Keywords that have specific rules in place are themselves effects. Effects are not restricted to the 'effect' line of a power. If a power does something, it's an effect. If a power's keyword does something, it's an effect. It does not even have to be a power, if a feat, trait, feature, or any other aspect of the rules does something to something else, it is an effect.

So the pertinent question is: Does the Summoning keyword do something to the summoned creature? The answer here is no. The Summoning keyword does not forbid the creature from taking actions, it merely states that the creature has no actions of its own.

That's a distinct difference, having no actions is not the same thing as being forbidden from taking actions.

Therefore, summonings can flank.

What most summonings do not have are basic attacks, and that is why they cannot inherently make opportunity attacks, unless the power that creates it has an opportunity attack as part of the creature's ensemble.

Does attacking through a summons provoke Opportunity Attacks on the caster?

You're using the summoning power which is listed as a 'Ranged' power, but it's the summons making the attack using your stats, so it seems like it shouldn't.

I think the way the summon rules phrase things it's definitley the case that you do not provoke OA by attacking with them, but I'm amazed there is not a clear sentence in the rules somewhere that says, "Although the act of summoning a creature is a Ranged power that provokes Opportunity Attacks, attacking with a summons is a melee attack by the creature that does not provoke Opportunity Attacks for the caster."

That entirely depends on the power the summoning is using, doesn't it?

Let's take the case of Summon Blade Angel, Invoker 9, PHB2.

It is itself a ranged 5 power, so normally any attacks it makes would be ranged attacks. However, the actual attacks listed say 'Melee' as clear as day on them. This contradicts the Ranged attack-type of the Summon Blade Angel power, and as a specific case, therefore supercedes it.

Thusly, that attack is a melee attack, and melee attacks do not trigger opportunity attacks.

'Okay, Draco, Mister Smart Guy, what if it's a ranged or area attack?'

Well, firstly, the summoned creature will, itself, trigger an opportunity attack. It is making a ranged/area attack, it triggers an OA. This is pretty simple.

HOWEVER:

YOU also trigger an OA. This is because the summoning has you make the attack. Because you are now making a ranged/area attack, you are also now triggering OAs.

'What, so you're saying we BOTH trigger OAs?'

Yes I am. The summoning is making an attack by the rules, and any time it makes an attack, you are also making an attack by the rules. As you are both making an attack, it only makes sense you both trigger.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This still doesn't explain why familiars in their active state can't flank. They are creatures capable of taking actions and even capable of attacking if you choose the right one. Yet, even when not subjected to an OA-preventing effect they can't flank.

I would say familiars can't flank because there is no difference between:

1. being subjected to an effect that prevents Opportunity Actions
and
2. not having any Opportunity Actions

How else do you explain their inability to flank?

As a larger observation that relates back to the OP's post, this goes to show that summons are a poorly supported game feature from a rules perspective and brining them into the game usually results in lots of confusing, murky situations.

OK, nothing confusing or murky about it WRT familiars. NOTHING in the rules ever calls a familiar a creature. They simply are NOT creatures. In fact they aren't described as summons, conjurations, creatures, or in fact any other category of thing. They aren't even an effect of a power. They are a game element all of their own which arises as an effect of a feat.

Since this is the case familiars are not allies either, ergo they cannot flank. They are also not generally capable of making attacks, which also makes them ineligible as flankers.

Honestly in most cases the rules DO actually seem to envisage familiars as being treated LIKE creatures. They can be attacked, they have defenses, etc. The fact that they aren't ever defined clearly as being any specific category of 'game element' is actually pretty troublesome from a RAW perspective. It is understandable that people DO think of them as creatures since this usually works best, but as in the FAQ entry that states they can't flank there are some exceptions and gray areas.

I don't see ANY problem personally with summons being able to flank. The rules arguments for it have been made already so it isn't worth rehashing, but clearly they are intended to work like normal combatants with the caveat that they work off the caster's actions.

I think the intent of the flanking rules is that any time a creature has 2 enemies on opposite sides of it which represent a threat of some sort that it creates a disadvantage in combat. Imagine the action. The orc has a dretch on one side and a fighter on the other side of him. He can only parry one or the other at any instant and will necessarily have to move his attention from one to the other. The IN GAME action isn't divided up into turns or even specific attacks. The fighter and the dretch are both hacking away at the orc as best they can, perhaps even striking simultaneously to try to get past his defenses. Now the dretch gets stunned. He's no longer a threat because he's standing there drooling instead of fighting. The orc can now concentrate on the fighter and no longer grants CA.

Mechanically the "must not be under an effect that prevents OAs" clause is just there to capture the concept of "this guy is an active threat". I don't think that it was intended to mean, or does mean, that the creature has to actually be able to make a specific OA, just be capable of attacking and not 'disabled' in some fashion. Maybe each condition should actually list "cannot flank" as one of its effects when that is the case and it would be more clear, but that is what they were trying to capture IMHO.

In any case I'm pretty sure there is a FAQ entry on summons and flanking that says they can do so. It has certainly been brought up many times in Q&A and always the consensus is they can flank.