Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Storyteller01]

Sure - if they were the enemy of my enemy.

now your using circular logic (he is the enemy of my enemy, there fore counts as a target, since he is an 'enemy'), and I have yet to see a plausible example of killing an ally to gain another aattack (real time).


EDIT: Sorry to point fingures (should take my own advice, eh?)

Just got out of a critical thinking class, and this is what I perceive...

 

[Abraxas]

OK fine.

I'm an sociopathic immoral bastard. My brother Bob moves past me as we're both chopping up some upstart drug dealer muscling in on our territory. For some reason unknown to anyone, even ourselves, we're using axes. As he moves past I realize if I hack him down he will fall against Bill the rival drug dealer, tangling up his axe and probably knocking him down. I take a backhand swing at Bob cutting a swath through his side, spilling intestines. He stumbles and falls into Bob, both tangling up Bill's axe in his spleen and causing Bill to stumble backwards. I reverse my swing while Bob's axe is down and plant the blade in his skull. I am really happy that I bought the double bitted axe and realize that I don't have to split profits with Bob any more.

 

[Abraxas]

now your using circular logic (he is the enemy of my enemy, there fore counts as a target, since he is an 'enemy'), and I have yet to see a plausible example of killing an ally to gain another aattack (real time).

And I have yet to see a plausible explanation of why it can't work in the game world.

 

[Storyteller01]

You keep asking how can you attack an ally and get an advantage against an enemy - examples have been stated. The fact that I personally would never cut down my close friends to kill someone else isn't relevant. The game world isn't the real world. The fact that in the game world I wouldn't (almost certainly wouldn't but you never know) have my character cut down a fellow PC isn't relevant. Summoned monsters are not PCs and in our games the gods are happy to send in the cannon fodder via summon monster spells


It doesn't matter how many times you say you wouldn't do this, that is a function of your game world, it is not a function of the game itself.

Certainly you can understand that.

Actually, the question had been 'when can you kill an ally to gain an extra attack on an enemy'

the game world is created using the real world as a model. Mathematically (by the RAW) this can be done, but is it plausible, even in a fantasy setting (kind of like 'I can effect my own frame of reference, but can I move faster than light')

Now it has been stated that an ally can be used, if said ally was previously (or still) an enemy. How does the 'Summoned Creature' tactic fit this senario, given that said creature is not a construct. Heck, what if it is a construct? How would you be able to take an AoO on something doing what your allie has told it to do? If you can hit your ally, why create the set up to begin with?

It seems (to me, milage may vary) that this is metagaming, as it cannot be explained in any way other than 'the rules allow (or do not disallow) this to happen'.

taking morality out of the issue, when is setting up an ally to take a hit worth while if you can make the hit regardless? Game example, so I can make a hit out of turn.

Real time example: -------

If it cannot be explained outside of rules context, can it(or should it be allowed to) be done?

 

[Abraxas]

To a point, but the game world is created using the real world as a model. Mathematically (by the RAW) this can be done, but is it plausible, even in a fantasy setting (kind of like 'I can effect my own frame of reference, but can I move faster than light')

Explain why it isn't plausible.

Now it has been stated that an ally can be used, if said ally was previously (or still) an enemy. How does the 'Summoned Creature' tactic fit this senario, given that said creature is not a construct. Heck, what if it is a construct? How would you be able to take an AoO on something doing what your allie has told it to do? If you can hit your ally, why create the set up to begin with?

Any character that is next to another character that performs an action that normally provokes an AoO should be able to take that AoO if they choose. What is magical force is protecting a fellow PC when he drinks that potion in the square behind my character when my character threatens every square around him - other than using metagame knowledge that in one section of the PHB when describing AoOs the word enemy is used?

As to the why summon a creature/create an astral construct - it is very simple. In some peoples games there is no morality question about how these creatures are used.

It seems (to me, milage may vary) that this is metagaming, as it cannot be explained in any other way than 'the rules allow (or do not disallow) it to happen'.

Right back at you. Explain why, other than AoOs can only be taken against an enemy, why it can't happen. You are also metagaming.

As for your real time example. The game world is different than the real world. In a game world where there is no moral problem with how summoned creatures end their existance on the summoners plane - it is simply an AoO/cleave - like every example you have provided.

There are so many things in the game that you wouldn't do in the real world that it isn't funny. Here is a simple one. Unless you were in truly dire straights you wouldn't jump off a hundred foot cliff and if you did, you wouldn't expect to be more or less fine. In the D&D game I have seen high level characters do that without a second thought - why because they know that in their world it is almost imnpossible for such a fall to kill them and if it doesn't kill them, it won't even slow them down. Meta gaming? No, heroics - just like in umpteen thousand stories and movies.

The game world is different. Your real world model falls flat in so many places that it isn't helpful. So repeating "you wouldn't do that in the real world" is completely unhelpful.

I can't explain it any better.
I can't even fathom how you can't understand how this could happen in someone else's game with a different morality about summoned creatures.

Ciao

 

[Storyteller01]

OK fine.

I'm an sociopathic immoral bastard. My brother Bob moves past me as we're both chopping up some upstart drug dealer muscling in on our territory. For some reason unknown to anyone, even ourselves, we're using axes. As he moves past I realize if I hack him down he will fall against Bill the rival drug dealer, tangling up his axe and probably knocking him down. I take a backhand swing at Bob cutting a swath through his side, spilling intestines. He stumbles and falls into Bob, both tangling up Bill's axe in his spleen and causing Bill to stumble backwards. I reverse my swing while Bob's axe is down and plant the blade in his skull. I am really happy that I bought the double bitted axe and realize that I don't have to split profits with Bob any more.

SWEET!! A true real time example!

now, here's the catch. Should the lawful good palladin (or lawful good anybody) be allowed to use the same tactic, since the explaination given is to wipe the competition, not gain another attack out of turn?

I know, it comes back to morality. But, given that it plays a vital role in the spellcasting (who gets what bonuses, who takes what damage, etc) I would think that the same applies for melee combat. Just a thought though.

 

[Storyteller01]

Explain why it isn't plausible.



I can't explain it any better.
I can't even fathom how you can't understand how this could happen in someone else's game with a different morality about summoned creatures.

Ciao

Got me on the first one .

Second, it's not the fact that others do it, it's the fact that others do it for no better reason then 'to gain the extra attack'.

One of the reasons SF/fantasy is so loved (and why I love D&D specifically) is that you can take something from the real world, something assumed familiar to you, can put it in a totally different situation. Then you let logic or intuition run
its course (lets see what happens)

If the DM states ahead of time 'gods don't mind summoned critters being used as cannon fodder. they are a gift to you', so be it. Different moral issues (do I kill this thing, is it alive) but that's for the DM to deal with, as he set the precident. There is a worth while explanation for the tactic.

To me, metagaming is the 'I attack said summoned critter to gain an out of turn attack' 'Why?" 'Because the rules don't say I can't'

If given a worthwhile reason, I'm okay with the plan. If done simply to improve the numbers, then I have a problem (unless the whole reason to play that campaigh is to abuse the numbers. Done that one before. )

 

[Abraxas]

To me, metagaming is the 'I attack said summoned critter to gain an out of turn attack' 'Why?" 'Because the rules don't say I can't'

Which is Identical to I AoO the BBEG's mook so i can get another attack against him. Why, because the rules say I can.

 

[Storyteller01]

Which is Identical to I AoO the BBEG's mook so i can get another attack against him. Why, because the rules say I can.

Right, but I can give an off rule reason as to why I can do this (heck, I've given several already). If I couldn't, I wouldn't expect my DM to allow the maneuver, or at least set a rules prescident (you need a natural 20, or it's a no go).

 

[Abraxas]

And I can give off rule reasons as to why I could use an ally for the same trick.

We disagree - lets let these threads go. Its time.