Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Ridley's Cohort]

Outside of the moral issue, the summoned creature is not asked to do anything unusual. "Go that direction and attack nearest creature" is all that needs to be communicated (and there are ways of speaking to summoned creatures if someone wants to raise that issue).

I would picture is as "This guy is reallly, really good when the fight gets crowded and surrounded by enemies. REAL-LY good. He gets downright inspired. I am going to give him so more enemies to get his blood pumping."

I concede that may seem a little cartoony. But no more cartoony that some other legal examples of AoO + Cleave.

 

[Arkhandus]

Firstly, I do not support the tactic for the most part, as it would only make logical sense in a rare few circumstances, as my example later in this post shows. However, I do recognize it as a perfectly legal tactic by the rules.

Storyteller01, creatures summoned through Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells do not truly die. When they would die, they disappear and return to whence they came, but they do not actually die. Unlike Calling spells, Summon spells either create a temporary duplicate of the summoned creature's body (not summoning the creature itself, but a copy of its body and essence), or they otherwise fiddle with reality in such a way as to summon a creature that doesn't actually die when it dies (perhaps summoning the creature from an alternate potential timeline, or whatever). It's in the PH as far as I know, under Conjuration (Summoning) in the Magic chapter.

A Summoned creature doesn't truly die, it just returns to whence it came, and lives on. No demigod or whatnot is likely to care about this, or else I should think that if gods did care about Summoned creatures (who don't truly die), they would have already killed all mages with knowledge of Summon spells and destroyed all records of such magic. Regardless of alignment, any mage can cast Summon spells if they learn them. No deific power is going to care if a good guy Summons temporary creatures to be killed by that good guy's ally, no more so than that deific power is going to care if the bad guy Summons a temporary creature to go die for them by attacking the good guys. Whether the Summoned critter is a celestial, a fiend, an elemental, a pixie, or whatever, it doesn't matter, nobody cares, the Summoned creatures are only partially real or at least only real in some unfulfilled alternate-reality timeline that never would've come to pass anyway.

Besides, why would some demigod or whatnot see the bad guys as enemies, and be angry at the PCs using creatures they Summon from the demigod's domain for the sake of being the party Fighter's AoO-Cleave bait? The Summoned creatures would be just as dead if Summoned to attack the bad guys directly, and would be far less effective if used that way. Why wouldn't the demigod or whatever take offense at the bad guy Summoning monsters from that realm to attack the PCs or something? Exactly, it makes no sense, so nobody anywhere in the D&D multiverses cares about Summoned creatures; they're not real enough to be cared about, and they aren't really truly dying. No Cleric of Pelor (or any other compassionate deity) would dare summon anything for the purposes of fighting evil if he summoned creatures were real beings, actually suffered, and died for real.

Summoned creatures go nowhere when they die, except right back to where they were before summoning, because they didn't really die and they just go on living in whatever timeline/dimension/nonreality/whatever they existed in beforehand. Dead PCs will not be assaulted on the Fugue Plane or whatever by angry ex-Summonings.

Storyteller01, you missed something said earlier. The primary use for this tactic with a fighter and a caster is when fighting tough enemies who have high Spell Resistance and/or saving throws and/or energy resistances, making them more or less immune to the caster's spells. Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally can be stopped by Spell Resistance. The first time a summoned beastie tries attacking a foe, the summoner must roll a caster level check to beat that foe's Spell Resistance (if any), and a failed CL check results in the summoned beastie disappearing without any harm to the foe with Spell Resistance. If the summoner succeeds on their CL check, then that particular summoned beastie doesn't have to worry about Spell Resistance against that foe anymore (except for purposes of opposing the summoned beastie's own spell-like abilities or whatnot, if any).

Using the tactic discussed in this thread, the party's fighter can dish out more damage with the caster's help by AoO-ing very weak summoned beasties (all it takes is a Summon Monster I, or maybe a Summon Monster III to bring out a handful of such frail beasties if the fighter has Combat Reflexes) and then using his free Cleave attacks against the Big Bad Evil Guy. If the PC fighter has reach, then the PC caster can just summon his creatures about 15 feet behind the fighter, with a command to attack the fighter, and then the fighter will get AoO's against the critters as they pass through the fighter's outermost reach, with a weapon like the ranseur, longspear, or glaive. Critters from Summon Monster I will only have a few hit points, and the fighter's Strength alone will probably make his minimum damage sufficient to drop the summoned critters. If the party is fighting an enemy that has little or no Spell Resistance, then of course the PC caster is better off summoning a powerful critter with Summon Monster VII or something, which can then dish out decent damage and take some hits that might have otherwise been directed at the fighter. However, big summons don't help when fighting an enemy who has high Spell Resistance, just as blaster spells don't work well against high-SR enemies.

As for the whole ally/enemy thing, the PC caster can always choose to consider the PC fighter as an enemy for purposes of his summoning, and direct his summoned creatures to move in such a way as to provoke AoOs from the reach-fighter. By the "Rules as Written", the cleave-mooks-to-hit-BigBad or AoO-mooks-to-cleave-BigBad tactics are useable and workable. From a logical standpoint, no, they certainly don't make any sense. The Big Bad or whatever is doing absolutely nothing at the moment to let down his guard and draw in a sword through his gut, regardless of how idiotic and helpless his henchmen are being. It also doesn't make sense that the PC fighter should get cleave-attacks against the Big Bad just because he AoO'd the PC caster's summoned weenies, for the same reasons.

But you have to realize that AoOs by their nature aren't terribly logical as to how they work in 3.x D&D, so nothing that deals with them is going to be entirely logical either; no reason why you should get extra attacks in a round just because someone's prancing around you like a moron as opposed to you just charging in and swinging like a madman to kill everything in your path. So you have to try and not think too much about attacks of opportunity during play, or else you'll just hurt your brain trying to wrap it around the inconsistencies and illogic of it all.

Now, the only way I can partially rationalize this nonsense is to consider that those weak little mooks are being clumsy and getting in the Big Bad's way when they do whatever it is that draws AoO's from the PC fighter. The mook lets down his guard by charging the ranseur-wielding PC fighter, then the fighter takes advantage of the reckless movement, spearing the mook in the arm as he starts to move into and then through the fighter's outermost reach.....then the fighter just continues his momentum and steps forward a foot or two, driving the ranseur's tines into the Big Bad's shoulder too as the mook either dies (if it's a relatively-frail mook) or blusters past with the gash in his arm and completes his charge against the fighter. The Big Bad couldn't see the ranseur coming at his own shoulder because his mook was in the way, and he didn't expect the fighter to lunge like that when his mook charged forward so recklessly. It's harder to rationalize with critters the PCs summon, though.

 

[Storyteller01]

My concern isn't whether deities get involved (although it is my way as a DM to check players. If they want it, there will be consequences).

My concern is the player attacking allies to gain a mechanics bonus, with the justification of 'there are no consequences' or 'the rules do not stop such actions' or 'they don't really die (sounds similar to the Movie Dumbo . 'He's made a rubber. Not'ing 'll happen to him!').

Allies making a mistake and getting you injured is one thing, and justified IMHO (to quote the starting thread "get better mooks"). Whacking the ally next to you to get an advantage seems, although logical by the RAW, REALLY detrimental in the long run. And admittedly, the reason we don't use other players for this tactic is not because it hurts the character. It's because it hurts the player, and the gaming group (similar to the 'I'm evil, it's what I do' syndrome)

Not to be insulting, but it also smacks of metagaming, as the only justification I've heard, and just starting to hear it this far in the dicussion (counting the previous thread) is "the fighter goes wild (an intrepretation, I know) when in the thick of battle". So why not be a barbarian and rage. At least then I can see WHY summoned creatures get hit (the wizard summons more mooks to keep Balrog going). In that situation, both the wizard and the barbarian would be neutral, if not evil (immortal or not, I would assume that being hacked to pieces is not pleasant. I'd also be hard pressed to believe said critters are magical constructs, given the extensive material in the Manual of the Planes, and the rules that book gave to play creatures from those planes. Just by the RAW though )

However, this justification had not been presented initially. The situation had been presented as a means to nerf and abuse the AoO/Cleave combo.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

To some extent, how I picture it is kind of irrelevant to me, as I find that most of the "realism" arguments for AoO + Cleave beyond my SOD. It is just plain odd when the targets are separated by a lot of physical space. I am sure we can rationalize better if I put my mind to it....

I would suggest a completely different tact.

Our hero is not actually killing those summoned monsters. No, he is tripping them and shoving them into the BBEG such that the BBEG is actually killing them without even blinking. But when doing so the BBEG allows a miniscule opening in defenses such that our hero can take advantage.

While our hero is using his longspear stats to resolve this action mechanically, what is really happening is something else entirely.

How does that sound?

You should be used to oddly abstract post hoc narratives if you have followed these threads as long as you have.

 

[Abraxas]

Not so much a moral qualm as..well...it makes no sense to me. I can understand a BBEG getting hit because a mook does something that provides an AoO. That's the price of combat. I find it hard to justify gaining an AoO from creatures you introduced into the battle, doing as you wish (even if you can't control them. It IS why they were summoned...), fighting your fight, just because the rules don't say that it can't be done.

Certain actions in combat provoke AoOs. The fact that the critters performing those actions may or may not be on your side shouldn't affect whether or not you can make the AoO. Why do you accept that it does make a difference? Why do you accept that its OK to AoO the BBEG's mooks and Cleave the BBEG.

I'll bet that any reason you give could be turned around and used to defend why you shouldn't be able to.

AoOs themselves are the sticking point. Why don't you provoke AoOs for every situation where you can't properly defend yourself (such as when held, pinned or paralyzed)? Why does a character have to do something to provoke an AoO? Shouldn't the player just be able to say I provoke an AoO?

Saying you can't AoO the summoned badger as it moves by cause your mage buddy summoned it doesn't make sense to me. Saying that it doesn't make sense because nobody would do it in the real world doesn't make sense to me either.

Give me a reason (other than the rules say enemy and the summoned creature/PC isn't an enemy) why you couldn't get an AoO or an AoO/Cleave attack when an ally does something that would otherwise provoke an AoO.

 

[Storyteller01]

Give me a reason (other than the rules say enemy and the summoned creature/PC isn't an enemy) why you couldn't get an AoO or an AoO/Cleave attack when an ally does something that would otherwise provoke an AoO.

Because you choose not to, gaining the benefit of greater numbers. I'm not saying you couldn't but I'm wondering why you would. I spent four years in the military, having the concept of teamwork and combat by strength of numbers drilled into my head. You don't kill (or incapcitate, or remove from combat) those working with you.

My turn: If you are willing to AoO a summoned creature, why not do so with a player character? Agreed, the player loses a level, but so what. The player returns to the game.

Per the previous logic (as I see it anyway), you choose your enemy, and his loss is not your direct consequence. His level loss is his own problem, and no concern of the wizard or the fighter.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

From a mechanical POV, the only question is whom do you threaten and whom do you not threaten. This enemy/ally thing is just a sloppy means of handling something that is rarely worth slowing the game down to handle in an methodical and explicit manner.

There are unambiguously legit reasons why I may want to threaten an ally. Frex, he is under a magical compulsion and I want to trip him before he runs off somewhere where he might come to harm. Can I not trip my friend as he runs past? If you say "no" we are really off the deep end, and maybe we should all hand our character sheets over to the DM because we clearly cannot trusted to play our PCs correctly.

Why would it be different for a summoned badger?

BTW, a BBEG may well choose to threaten all his nearby minions all the time. For sound reasons. If he does not like what his minion is doing, he may kill the miscreant right then and there! This does have the downside that his minions would get flanked very easily.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My turn: If you are willing to AoO a summoned creature, why not do so with a player character? Agreed, the player loses a level, but so what. The player returns to the game.

Mechanically speaking, why not? There is a weird detail (alluded to above) of when do you declare whether you threaten a particular creature. This is usually handled implicitly.

You certainly could do this with a PC if the HPs are whittled down to the right level. It is not a logical impossibility that the only hope for the party to survive is for someone to be cleave fodder. Imagine if the BBEG is one hit from death and about to hit the entire party with a killing area attack. My PC casts his last decent offense spell, than falls on my buddies spear to save the rest of the party...helping to guide the spearpoint into the BBEG's chest while dying. Heroic stuff!

The reason no one usually does this the player does not always return to the game if you volunteer his PC for fodder duty.

 

[Abraxas]

Because you choose not to, gaining the benefit of greater numbers. I'm not saying you couldn't but I'm wondering why you would. I spent four years in the military, having the concept of teamwork and combat by strength of numbers drilled into my head. You don't kill (or incapcitate, or remove from combat) those working with you.

But, unlike your real world teamwork/combat by strength of numbers, greater numbers in the game world may not help you and in fact may hurt you, significantly. The presence of multiple combatants in D&D only helps if they can attack effectively, if the characters/creatures can flank, or if they use the aid another action. The fact that these creatures may get killed doesn't just mean the BBEG has fewer targets to choose from, it very well could mean that you are going to get cleaved because your ally died.

In the real world you don't have magically created teammates who just attack the enemy unless you can communicate with them and they have enough intelligence to follow your orders. In the game world these summoned creatures don't use teamwork, they use mob tactics. They aren't normally an organized force and they only last until brought to 0 hit points or the spell ends. They aren't your buddies who you have been risking your life with for the last 7 levels. They aren't going to stop and stabilize you, or use curing magic on you, or pull you ass out if you drop. They are going to keep attacking unless someone tells them to do something else.

Now to turn it around. Because you choose to gain the benefit of one more meaningful attack compared to anything all of the summoned creatures could manage together.

My turn: If you are willing to AoO a summoned creature, why not do so with a player character? Agreed, the player loses a level, but so what. The player returns to the game.

Because the PC does die. Because the PC has been my character's ally for the last X levels. Because the PC isn't a spell effect. Because I don't send the PC in to trigger a trap. Because the PC can think for himself and do more than dog pile on the BBEG. Because the PC is not an expendable asset and the summoned creatures are.

Per the previous logic (as I see it anyway), you choose your enemy, and his loss is not your direct consequence. His level loss is his own problem, and no concern of the wizard or the fighter.

Thats wrong. Forgetting for a second that the characters are probably friends, his level loss makes the party weaker. Done enough times he becomes a liability and a drain on resources (it costs money to have someone raised - plus they can decide not to come back after you've spent that money). This isn't true with summoned creatures. No matter how many times they die, they are exactly the same when they come back. No matter how many times you send summoned creatures to their death, you will still be able to summon more. Send your PC buddies to their death even once and they may not be there for you ever again.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm in the "No difference" camp on this. Either way they are being slaughtered.
Summoned celestials dying for the cause, what a glorious way to go. Summoned celestials dying because the mage is down to his last spells and desparate and they can't do anything but delay his death as they get cut to ribbons - what a bummer.

It is the nature of "good" to care about the difference.