Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Storyteller01]

It also makes sense to get additional attacks at your highest BAB, thus taking out the BBEG faster, reducing the amount of harm he can do to you.

We're just repeating ourselves over and over and over and over and over.

I'm thinking now this was the purpse all along.

Well done

Nah...just trying to make a point

IF you cannot explain the action outside of the RAW (whatever your interpretation is), then (IMHO) it is a a form of twisting said rules. We can go round and round with out solid examples.

But it is funny, we can give examples as to why AoO/Cleave works without special interpretation, but we cannot explain why attacking a summoned critter is also acceptable without claiming that they are slaves or constructs.

I'm not arguing, but it is one heck of an observation.

Anyway, thanks for the responses everyone. I'm out (even deleting my sub to the thread).

Take care, and good gaming...

 

[Abraxas]

IF you cannot explain the action outside of the RAW (whatever your interpretation is), then (IMHO) it is a a form of twisting said rules. We can go round and round with out solid examples.

Can and Have.
It is unfortunate there is no real world counterpart to summoned creatures (creatures that only exist within the rules).

But it is funny, we can give examples as to why AoO/Cleave works without special interpretation, but we cannot explain why attacking a summoned critter is also acceptable without claiming that they are slaves or constructs.

Also funny - we can give examples as to why AoO/Cleave doesn't work, but we can't explain why it can't work using summoned creatures without claiming it is evil.

I'm not arguing, but it is one heck of an observation.

Observations, they are separate issues.

All done now

 

[Wrathamon]

In DND-speak, an "enemy" is a specific type of creature. It is a creature that wishes you ill as per the literal definition of enemy in the game. It is based off the reaction of that creature to you, not your reaction to it. Now, this is the literal rules definition. Please feel free to ignore it because I do.

based on your own posts you are ignoring a game mechanic term and a fundamental part of the combat system and using your own "literal" definition.

Black pawn takes Black Rook, so that he now check mates White King?

It doesnt work that way in chess, just like it doesnt work that way in D&D.

It's just easier to "change" the rules in D&D, which many people do. And, I never said they were BAD changes, just your opinion.

You seem to want to defend your opinion as if it were RAW, which it clearly is not, based on your own answers.

I have quoted the book... it clearly states "enemy" in the Attack of Opportunity section.

If you wish to find a quote from the book that says an enemy is anyone you choose as your opponent then feel free to do so. All the quotes you have provided showing the term opponents is fine, because since only enemies provoke aoo then all those opponents must first be enemies and that is the rule as written.

You dont get AoO off non-enemies.

You can't just erase the term "enemies" from the attack of opportunity section, unless you HR it.

Now, if the Wizard/druid said go attack the Fighter then you may have a case were this works, but this would only work in realistically in Evil parties, which if you are playing in an evil campaign more power to you. Now, I will agree with you it makes no sense that it works in this case, but not the former, from a realistic point of view. The rules aren't always there for realism. This is a "restriction" for game balance. If you wish to remove the "restriction" then you have opened up a loophole to abuse.

Then your buddy runs past you and you are like I chop his head off? Huh? You don't threaten against party members(they arent enemies), until you are no longer a member of the party and become their enemy. Summoned monsters, familiars, mounts I believe are extensions of a party member because they are apart of his character, class, etc.

My HR in this case is that if a player wishes to attack another player who is running by or doing an action that provokes an AoO normally from an enemy, they must ready an action, once an attack has been made then the are concidered enemies because the player being attacked is aware of a "friendly" who is now an "enemy"

This is a HR for Fairness.


I now accept that all of you are looking beyond the RAW and discussing this in a more abstract sense for the "fun of it" and for the sake of fixing something you perceive as broken (and many, many others do as well).

people should chillax and not get overly defensive about things, it makes these forums (any forums) not fun to be around. *btw I applaud Storyteller and abraxus for how they are "going at it", no venom

On a side note, Karin'sDad you never showed me where you read that summon monsters were made extra planar for the sake of morality reasons... still curious about that one. thanks


edit: btw was that a summoned dead horse?

 

[KarinsDad]

So bringing a fellow player to 0 hp (remember, he's not dead yet, therefore not slain) is not an evil act? He to is ready to die, else he wouldn't be there to begin with.

What does fellow players have to do with summoned creatures?

Also, the facts that said creatures are asleep, out of it, have no memory, are not listed in the RAW.

No, but the fact that they are not affected IS listed in the FAQ:

"In any case, they suffer no lasting effect (for good or ill) from any summoning episode. If a character uses a summon nature's ally spell to summon an animal, the caster could indeed cast an animal friendship spell on it. When the summon nature's ally spell ends, however, the animal is gone, and it is no longer affected by the animal friendship spell."

In order to "suffer no lasting effect", you have to have no memory of the events. Otherwise, you are still affected by that "summoning episode".

 

[KarinsDad]

Not trying to, just want to know two things...

1) Why summoned creatures, but not anything else?

Why summoned creatures what?

2) Can you give an example where attacking an ally is advantagous (how can said attack on an ally coming from the rear make your attack on the guy infront of you faster?)

Irrelevant to the conversation.

I had a fellow player quit 3E because getting an AoO at the guy behind you with your Longspear didn't make sense because you were using it to attack someone in front of you (he also had a problem with there being no facing in 3E).

The point is that "cinematic descriptions" of "how does it work" are irrelevant to the rules. They work that way because the rules state so, not because it makes logical sense in every case.


I can also turn your question around to:

"Can you give an example where attacking an enemy is advantagous (how can said attack on an enemy coming from the rear make your attack on the guy infront of you faster?)"

It doesn't change anything.

 

[KarinsDad]

@KarinsDad
I'd be very oblieged if you'd stop shouting your interpretation of the rules into my ears. I'm not deaf (blind). You keep insisting that a creature that has been reduced to -10 HP is not dead, but, according to the game we are playing, it is.

I have never once said that. Show me where I said that.

Also, I have to shout because you are NOT listening. I'll prove this in a second.

Just as dead as the henchman that was reduced to -10. Or any other creature. Being at -10 HP is defined as being dead in D&D.
And just because the body is reformed 24 hours later doesn't make it less dead.

"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again."

The creature is killed according to game mechanics and game mechanics only, but it does not die in the reality of the game.

"It is not really dead."
"It is not really dead."
"It is not really dead."

This is RAW. This is why Clerics have no problem with summoning them in the first place.


"Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose."

"When a living creature dies, its soul departs its body, leaves the Material Plane, travels through the Astral Plane, and goes to abide on the plane where the creature’s deity resides."

These are NOT living creatures that can die in this circumstance. They do not die when summoned. Their souls do not leave their bodies.

By the RAW.

Get it?

And what has this "they are slaves" got to do with anything else?

Is it a good act to have and control slaves???

You are allowing a morality of "slaves are ok", but "sending creatures back to their original plane of existence by destroying them on this plane of existance (even though it does not harm them to do so) is not ok".

This is a very skewed morality.

I would even say that destroying them on this plane IS a good act because it frees them from slavery.


The assumption all of the "this is an evil act" people are making is that it is an evil act.

Prove that it is evil according to RAW.

I have used RAW to prove the opposite. It is a neutral act because the deities set the system up this way. It is a neutral act because they are not truly harmed. It is a good act because it frees them from slavery.

Evil and good is based on the reasons for doing so. Your extremely naive opinion that "it is evil because harming another is evil" does not cut it.

Your PCs "harm others" all of the time. If your assumption here was true, then all PCs are evil. Including yours.

 

[KarinsDad]

You seem to want to defend your opinion as if it were RAW, which it clearly is not, based on your own answers.

I have quoted the book... it clearly states "enemy" in the Attack of Opportunity section.

If you wish to find a quote from the book that says an enemy is anyone you choose as your opponent then feel free to do so. All the quotes you have provided showing the term opponents is fine, because since only enemies provoke aoo then all those opponents must first be enemies and that is the rule as written.

You dont get AoO off non-enemies.

This is total nonsense and everyone here knows it.

There are two ways to interpret an enemy, the literal way and the logical way:

1) Enemies are literally as defined in the game. In other words, an enemy is (PHB pg 308) "A creature unfriendly to you.". Unfriendly is (PHB pg 72): "Wishes you ill". Possible Actions: "Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult".

So, you can AoO according to YOUR literal definition if someone avoids you or insults you. But, you cannot AoO them if you want to.

Note: With the literal definition, you cannot AoO someone who is hostile to you. Hostile is (PHB pg 72): "Will take risks to hurt you". Possible Actions: "Attack, interfere, berate, flee".

So, also according to YOUR definition (i.e. following the literal definition of enemy), if someone is attacking you, you cannot AoO them.

Obviously the literal definition is lacking. According to the RAW, you cannot attack a hostile, hence, this interpretation is bogus.

2) The logical definition is that an "enemy" (for rules purposes) is anyone who is an opponent. Suddenly, all of those spells (like Summon Monster itself) which talk about both opponents and enemies make total sense. All of the AoO rules which sometimes talk about enemies and sometimes talk about opponents make total sense.


Note: YOUR interpretation is also stupid for other reasons. For example, the Fighter in our group wants to pick up the magical gem. The Cleric in our group is suspicious of the gem and asks the Fighter to not pick it up. The Fighter goes to do it anyway, so the Cleric tries to grapple the Fighter.

According to you: "You dont get AoO off non-enemies."

So, either the Fighter gets an AoO for the Cleric trying to grapple him and these best of friends are now enemies, OR, the Fighter does not get an AoO because these two are not enemies.

Both of these are silly and illogical. The Cleric is NOT the Fighter's enemy when he tries to protect him and yes, the Fighter DOES get the AoO if he wants it.

They are opponents in this case. But, the Cleric is not unfriendly (or really hostile) to the Fighter, he is trying to save his life. The Fighter, for example, might just be trying to be obstinate. But, they are NOT enemies (i.e. not unfriendly).


I suspect that WotC did not even think too much about the words enemies and opponents precisely because MOST of the time, opponents are enemies. But, not always. Hence, you have to use a little common sense here Wrathamon.

And that is why we have DMs. To have someone to interpret rules with a little common sense and not be robot rules lawyers, especially when terms like "enemies" is taken literally by someone like yourself.


If you want the best friends Cleric and Fighter to become enemies in your game when one is trying to save the life of the other, go for it. But, don't expect most people to enjoy those types of unusual interpretations.

 

[KarinsDad]

On a side note, Karin'sDad you never showed me where you read that summon monsters were made extra planar for the sake of morality reasons... still curious about that one. thanks

I cannot show you. It was something like an Email response from the Sage that someone posted here maybe three years ago with regard to a question that he asked the Sage on the "bucket of snails" problem in the case of Whirlwind with regard to this same issue of cleaving summoned creatures. The only support I have for this memory is the following quote from the FAQ which answered a totally different question:

"In any case, they suffer no lasting effect (for good or ill) from any summoning episode."

and the following rules change from 3E to 3.5 for Whirlwind:

"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."

It is fairly evident that the Sage did not want them getting injured or "killed" to be an issue for summoning them or not. Otherwise, there is no real need for this type of statement in the FAQ (i.e. who cares if they are affected once they go back if it is ok to do whatever you want to them? doing it this way sidesteps that entire issue).

Additionally, he wanted to limit Cleave to be on a normal attack. I suspect that if the Sage was asked about the AoO Cleave problem like he was the Whirlwind Cleave problem back then, he might have changed AoO for 3.5 as well.

But, there was not a rule change for allowing Summoned Creatures to be Whirlwinded or not, so I suspect that the morality of that was a non-issue for the Sage and he fixed it in the game mechanics with regard to Cleave as opposed to dictating alignment morality.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I have never once said that. Show me where I said that.

Also, I have to shout because you are NOT listening. I'll prove this in a second.

Hmhmm...maybe someone should tell you that just because you shout louder doesn't mean your arguments get better?

"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again."

The creature is killed according to game mechanics and game mechanics only, but it does not die in the reality of the game.

"It is not really dead."
"It is not really dead."
"It is not really dead."

So the game mechanics don't describe the reality of the game anymore, is it that? This neat "It is not really dead" sentence is pretty useless with the preface that the creature has been killed. One excludes the other, by very simple logic. Either it has been killed, then it is dead, or it isn't dead, which means it couldn't have been killed before. Effects that restore life to a slain creature make it "no longer dead" or "alive again". There is no "It is not really dead." That's about as nonsensical as saying "She's not really pregnant, just a little bit."

This is RAW. This is why Clerics have no problem with summoning them in the first place.

Depends very much on the cleric

"Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose."

Let me just finish that:
"Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate or resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle or true resurrection to restore it to life.
MHB 3.5, p. 313

"When a living creature dies, its soul departs its body, leaves the Material Plane, travels through the Astral Plane, and goes to abide on the plane where the creature’s deity resides."

These are NOT living creatures that can die in this circumstance. They do not die when summoned. Their souls do not leave their bodies.

By the RAW.

Yeah, because they are souls made flesh and blood. Which only means that you kill a soul when you kill a summoned outsider. Congrats. So you don't usually just kill an outsider, you completely obliterate it from the face of creation. You kill a soul. The only redeeming factor of Summon Monster spells is, apparently, that it is able to reform that slain creature as if it was a limited wish or higher.
Or is an outsider that was not summoned, but was killed in battle, "not really dead", too?
What constitutes being dead, then? Staying dead? Not being resurrected? A character, who was killed in battle, is he "not really dead", too, because his friends will resurrect him as soon as possible?

Is it a good act to have and control slaves???

You are allowing a morality of "slaves are ok", but "sending creatures back to their original plane of existence by destroying them on this plane of existance (even though it does not harm them to do so) is not ok".

This is a very skewed morality.

Mate, apparently it's not me not listening. Do me a favour, read beyond my very last post before you try to claim I'm treating summoned monsters as slaves of the summoners.
And kindly refrain from trying to attack my morality, okay? Otherwise you're on a fast trip to my ignore list.

I would even say that destroying them on this plane IS a good act because it frees them from slavery.

No comment.

The assumption all of the "this is an evil act" people are making is that it is an evil act.

Prove that it is evil according to RAW.

Heh...yeah, we're all just assuming. Too bad none of us lives in D&D game world, so we could speak from first-hand experience.

I have used RAW to prove the opposite. It is a neutral act because the deities set the system up this way. (Insert question: What deities are you talking about?) It is a neutral act because they are not truly harmed. It is a good act because it frees them from slavery.

Evil and good is based on the reasons for doing so. Your extremely naive opinion that "it is evil because harming another is evil" does not cut it.

Your PCs "harm others" all of the time. If your assumption here was true, then all PCs are evil. Including yours.

What you have done is the same the rest of us are doing as well...just that the rest of us freely admit to it: you are interpreting the rules as written to the point you want to argue.
You want a counterargumet, from the rules as written? Fine, for the very last time:
1) Using a creature that has been summoned by an ally, and as such does neither qualify as an enemy and neither as an opponent, as a source for an Attack of Opportunity with the intent of killing it to gain a Cleave attack constitutes the act of killing an innocent creature because it is convenient to do so. This is even independent of it being dead or not, it was killed. (And before you try to make me sound like I've admitted to your repeated "the puppy is not really dead, hon" sentence, I still claim that a killed creature is also dead.). There are rare examples where this might be more than a killing out of convenience, and these are different cases.

2) “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil
creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without
qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing
for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
PHB 3.0, p.88 or PHB 3.5, p. 104
Killling an innocent creature out of convenience constitutes an evil act according to the RAW. My "extremely naive opinion" that harming others out of convenience is evil is, in this discussion, not my extremely naive opinion, but the extremely naive opinion of the RAW.

Make something out of it. Just don't think getting personal will get you much credit in a discussion like this.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

"In any case, they suffer no lasting effect (for good or ill) from any summoning episode."

...

It is fairly evident that the Sage did not want them getting injured or "killed" to be an issue for summoning them or not. Otherwise, there is no real need for this type of statement in the FAQ (i.e. who cares if they are affected once they go back if it is ok to do whatever you want to them? doing it this way sidesteps that entire issue).

The only thing that is fairly evident from the FAQ you cite is that the Sage didn't want any long-lasting spell effects to complicate the matter with summoned creatures. Being dead has no lasting effects on any creature that is brought back completely 24 hours later.

Additionally, he wanted to limit Cleave to be on a normal attack. I suspect that if the Sage was asked about the AoO Cleave problem like he was the Whirlwind Cleave problem back then, he might have changed AoO for 3.5 as well.

Check the thread that spawned this thread here. Somebody asked WoTC. They answered that yes, you do get a Cleave attack out of an AoO if you haven't had a Cleave in the round yet.