Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 02-24-08, 08:13 PM	Many demons and devils have the ability to summon others of their kind. Most judges I have seen treat this as a summon monster spell in that it takes one round to cast. After reading the monster entry it looks like it shouldn't actually take more than a standard action. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Jay_Ibero_911 02-24-08, 08:25 PM	Well it's a spell-like ability sooo... Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance. A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit. Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature’s Cha modifier. Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order. So unless the specific demon/devil/anything else's entry says it's a different casting time, it's a standard action...
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 02-24-08, 08:38 PM	That's what I thought. Now I feel like I've been deceived my entire life.
JamesMaissen 02-24-08, 08:39 PM	Many demons and devils have the ability to summon others of their kind. Most judges I have seen treat this as a summon monster spell in that it takes one round to cast. After reading the monster entry it looks like it shouldn't actually take more than a standard action. Can anyone clarify this for me? Many people learn the game, or many things from it, from playing at the table. Subsequent readings of the rules normally tend to reinforce that play rather than find whatever faults might exist in it. It does just take a standard action, unless the description says otherwise. -James
copperwyrmling 02-24-08, 09:07 PM	However, from p180 of the PHB, "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name... a spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description" - that is, if a spell-like ability replicates a spell with a 1-round casting time, it generally also has a 1-round casting time. However, the demonic Summon abilities don't reference the Summon Monster line of spells, so I think it's just a standard action in this case.
boolean 02-24-08, 10:50 PM	The Monster Manual glossary does include the following on p.315: Summon (Sp):A creature with the summon ability can summon specific other creatures of its kind much as though casting a summon monster spell, but it usually has only a limited chance of success (as specified in the creature’s entry). It's not definitive, but it does indicate that summon abilities do generally reference theSummon Monster spells
Maesto 02-25-08, 01:00 AM	I think everybody else has posted all of the pertinent rules already. I'll just add that I'm fine with however a DM chooses to interpret this one - either as a standard action or as a one-round casting (the latter obviously benefiting us as PCs ;-)). As a DM, I run it as a standard action to summon. Note that these summons are special and stick around for an hour, too, as opposed to the round-per-level usual summons.
solbergb 02-25-08, 11:20 AM	However, the demonic Summon abilities don't reference the Summon Monster line of spells, so I think it's just a standard action in this case. Correct (even though I don't like it) because while it references the Summon Monster type spells, presumably for things like interaction with prot evil and dispel magic, it doesn't reference a specific spell. Given that duration is an hour, and it is random whether it works, and the monsters are usually not on any of the summon lists of same level spell, you can't assume it inherits the casting time. But the Noble Salamander his huge fire elemental references the summon monster VII and should take a full round. Likewise Balor firestorm, etc.
Sieylianna 02-25-08, 07:04 PM	Seriously, the module should predetermine this and consider it in the encounter level. Otherwise, f the creature has a 20% chance to gate in a companion, one table in five will have a more difficult combat. One long ago adventure (2nd edition, IIRC) had the low level PCs facing a succubus, but it was an entirely different matter if she gated in a Balor (low percentage chance). Ed
Howie23 02-25-08, 08:28 PM	Seriously, the module should predetermine this and consider it in the encounter level. Otherwise, f the creature has a 20% chance to gate in a companion, one table in five will have a more difficult combat. One long ago adventure (2nd edition, IIRC) had the low level PCs facing a succubus, but it was an entirely different matter if she gated in a Balor (low percentage chance). Ed The ability is part of the CR, which goes to the EL. Yes, it sometimes happens and other times doesn't. Similarly, sometimes a crit happens and sometimes it doesn't. If an author really wants to control the encounter (like if it is already APL+3 and there are iffy terrain considerations), the author may specificy that an ability is not available (already used for the day, or such). What can be summoned is usually of lesser threat or the same as the current creature, and is subject to prot evil avoidance as a summoned creature and so on. So, while it may result in some variance, it usually is manageable unless if part of an already overblown encounter. David
copperwyrmling 02-25-08, 10:16 PM	What can be summoned is usually of lesser threat or the same as the current creature, and is subject to prot evil avoidance as a summoned creature and so on. Just keep in mind, not all players (especially novices) will realize this, and certainly not all characters will (using only in-character knowledge and skills). The closest I've ever come to a TPK was a fight with (originally) two bearded devils at APL 4, in a warehouse-type room. The devils, with their excellent Listen checks, heard our four-person party coming, and used that time to summon a third bearded devil. Now... when we got in there, I knew, OOC, that one of them had to be summoned, just based on the ELs. I had a potion of prot evil. But... the PC I was playing was a fighter with no ranks in spellcraft or knowledge (the planes), who'd never fought summoned monsters before, and who had no idea what he was fighting or that they had a summon ability (nobody in the party had knowledge (the planes), in fact). It would have been total metagaming to spend a full-round action drawing and drinking my prot evil potion (as opposed to spending that action trying to kill the devils, as a frontliner and the highest-level PC in the group). I think we ended that combat in net negative hit points by the time we got all the bleeding wounds fixed... Personally, as a GM, I don't generally use the summon abilities except as a desperation tactic - the MM says that "tanar'ri are often reluctant to use this power until in obvious peril", and I can't imagine devils liking the idea of being indebted to others of their kind. Also, in most fights, my PCs wouldn't spend their action on an ability with a less than 50% chance of working (it's why I don't like save-negates spells): fiends usually have a more reliable standard-action option than summoning. I won't complain if a GM does it though: it is a legitimate (just risky) tactic within the rules.
_metz_ 02-26-08, 12:36 AM	I can't imagine devils liking the idea of being indebted to others of their kind. Fluffwise, Devils are actually really likely to summon things. (especially stuff one step lower on the rung than they are)They are a lawful military fighting force, and Most higher APL Devils aren't supposed to be encountered by themselves, and ususally use their summoning ability if expecting a fight. (E.g: If a 'stealthy' group of typical arrogant adventurers wanders into their lair) Tanari on the other hand, you are correct, they don't work so much together. But Devils definetly do, if splatbooks are anything to go off.
copperwyrmling 02-26-08, 01:48 AM	Fluffwise, Devils are actually really likely to summon things. (especially stuff one step lower on the rung than they are) Lower-ranking devils, sure. Their level or higher? Not so much. That said, checking the MM devils, none of them can summon creatures more powerful than them, which is good from both a flavor and balance perspective. Summoning devils of equal power seems like it would be an admission of weakness to their rivals, though. From the MM glossary entry on "Summon (Sp)", "Most creatures with the ability to summon do not use it lightly, since it leaves them beholden to the summoned creature. In general, they use it only when necessary to save their own lives." Most higher APL Devils aren't supposed to be encountered by themselves, Then their minions should be in the module, counted in the ELs, not only there 35% of the time when the devil manages to get the summoning to work. and ususally use their summoning ability if expecting a fight. Source? I don't see this anywhere in their MM standard tactics, and it seems to directly contradict the "Summon" glossary entry. This would be a risky tactic even without the issue of being indebted to your summoned creatures, as the summons only last for an hour and the ability can only be used once/day (i.e. if you guess wrong about when a fight is coming, you may not have the option to try summoning when it's your only chance of survival). I'm not saying GMs can't use the ability, but I do think using it as the first action in demon/devil combats generally makes little sense fluffwise (I do like that word ;) )
_metz_ 02-26-08, 02:00 AM	I'm not saying GMs can't use the ability, but I do think using it as the first action in demon/devil combats generally makes little sense fluffwise (I do like that word ;) ) I'm mainly going off splatbooks here. (Hence the statement on Fluff) See fiendish codex for more info, as well as some of the pre monster manual 3.5 stuff on devils. OFF TOPIC (who'd a thought a post would ever go off topic copper?) For those not in the know: Fluff is an old gamer term for all the non rules related flavour text that went along the rules. Fluff always caused issues with rules clashes, particularly in DnD. (See the occult slayer) It was 'fluff' it filled in bits but wasn't actually important. Fluff, Beardy, and a few other words like that come from some wargaming stuff. Not sure on the origin of 'cheesy' but I do know it was used over 10 years ago to describe Eldar 'Kraftworlds' in warhammer 40k. Also it seems to be the american version of Beardy. I always wonder where 'cheesy' came from originally. It's definetly an originally wargamer thing though, asfaik: see here (http://us.games-workshop.com/e-zine/issues/blackgobbo-02/cheese/default.htm) Yeah I'm bored. ;)
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 02-26-08, 02:24 AM	I'm not saying GMs can't use the ability, but I do think using it as the first action in demon/devil combats generally makes little sense fluffwise (I do like that word ;) ) If I was a devil/demon, and I found myself fighting a group of adventurers, summoning help would be the first thing I did.
Iswald 02-26-08, 09:35 AM	Now I feel like I've been deceived my entire life. Just wait until you find out what's really going on. ;) If I was a devil/demon, and I found myself fighting a group of adventurers, summoning help would be the first thing I did. The 4th Ed Pit Fiend (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125) will summon allies the first round of any fight. Two, five or eight devils of levels 21 or 22 with the pit fiend being level 26.
MwaO 02-26-08, 10:19 AM	Correct (even though I don't like it) because while it references the Summon Monster type spells, presumably for things like interaction with prot evil and dispel magic, it doesn't reference a specific spell. Given that duration is an hour, and it is random whether it works, and the monsters are usually not on any of the summon lists of same level spell, you can't assume it inherits the casting time. I'm not sure why it would have to reference a specific version of summon monster. It works much as though casting summon monster. All Summon monster spells are a one round action - there's only a need to be specific if any Summon monster spell fails to follow that rule. The much as refers to the hour duration and random working...presumably, they're listing the differences to casting it as summon monster - and hour duration, random working, specific creature, and it being a spell-like ability seem to be it. (i.e. I'm pretty sure it takes a one-round action)
Rerednaw 02-26-08, 11:17 AM	Just wait until you find out what's really going on. ;) The 4th Ed Pit Fiend (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125) will summon allies the first round of any fight. Two, five or eight devils of levels 21 or 22 with the pit fiend being level 26. The entry states that the PF summons as a standard action. (course that's 4th not 3.5) Hngh, because the description references the spell I've always run it as a full-round. Making a standard certainly changes the dynamic. Like doing it during the surprise round. You've only got a standard anyway, unless of course you have something better to use instead (Blasphemy, etc.) Unless it is explicity stated in the mod, I tend to factor in other considerations. Are the Dem/Dev aware of the party? Has the party romped through several waves of guards/encounters/set off the alarm? Unless the D/D are out front, by the time they encounter the party they may have a pretty good idea whether or not they are fighting for their lives. And if you have a % chance of calling for reinforcements, I'd do it up front rather than risking it during the middle of a fracas. Well maybe more if your Dev than Dem due to the lawful factor.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-26-08, 02:17 PM	I'm certain somewhere it mentions that pre-summoned creatures DO increase the EL of a fight...
copperwyrmling 02-26-08, 03:53 PM	If I was a devil/demon, and I found myself fighting a group of adventurers, summoning help would be the first thing I did. So if you're a demon or devil and you run into a random group of heavily armed mortals, the very first thing you do is attempt to summon others of your kind, displaying your own weakness to your rivals and putting you in debt to one or more Evil creatures? (the MM explicitly says that creatures with this ability are reluctant to use it) The entry states that the PF summons as a standard action. (course that's 4th not 3.5) The 4e rules aren't really relevant for LG ;) Rogues can apparently only sneak attack once per round in 4e, too... That said, the pit fiend is a bit different to the other devils, as it has no failure chance on its ability and all its summons are weaker than it is (i.e. minions, not rivals). You've only got a standard anyway, unless of course you have something better to use instead (Blasphemy, etc.) I tend to feel that with a 65% failure chance, my devils (other than pit fiends) usually have something better to do with their standard even if they wanted to use the ability. by the time they encounter the party they may have a pretty good idea whether or not they are fighting for their lives. And if you have a % chance of calling for reinforcements, I'd do it up front rather than risking it during the middle of a fracas. Sure - if the devil has been hiding at the back while the party chews through all its minions, and it has some way to know what's been happening (e.g. the PCs set off the alarm so it could estimate their power from how long they took to defeat all its subsequent defences, or one or more creatures from the earlier fights escaped to report, or it had some sort of scrying ability which it used on its minions), and its goal both requires it to remain where it is and is more important than the risks of bringing in rival devils (of equal power) to help it fight, THEN summoning makes more sense. Generally, though, I'll follow the advice under the glossary description of the ability, only using it when the devil feels its life is seriously threatened - which is not in the surprise round of a random encounter.
solbergb 02-26-08, 10:25 PM	Yeah. When I GM barring module text that says otherwise, I base the decision on whether to summon on how effective the PC's are perceived to be. Ie, if the poor outsider suddenly realizes he's in an EL+6 encounter, he'll start summoning to even things up, assuming he doesn't just try to evade the encounter entirley, or can't for plot reasons. I am more likely to summon if they're in a pack...ie, those 35% chances Tracy complains about are mitigated if 3 summon with the idea of getting a fourth into the fight. Assuming that's more helpful than all 3 taking some other action. One thing the summoned guys really help with is occupying the party while the "real" outsider attempts to accomplish whatever other objective he has before teleporting out. (IIRC, an APL8 party of 6 characters is an EL13 encounter when looked at it from the other side. If I am one of four CR7 demons facing this party, that is an EL+6 encounter for us. But levels aren't stamped on foreheads. Once parties get masterwork equipment and wear some jewelry you can't really distinguish a level 4 party vs a level 10 party by appearances alone. Until the party starts tossing level 4 spells around, the fighters dish out 50ish points of damage a round etc, how are they to know? They probably have also had tiered encounters their entire career that they easily won, just like PC's until they ran into the death encounter that is the PC's) I occasionally have NPC's break the fourth wall and complain about the encounter difficulty if the encounter has turned into a comedy already.... "Man, this is so unfair. They've got WAY too much gear for their level, and there are 6 of them and they got autosurprise (by PC capabilities/actions) and have all those cheesy noncore feats..."
Rerednaw 02-26-08, 11:22 PM	I usually try to follow logic. If the Devil in question is towards the back of a fortress/lair and there are a lot of high-powered guards, wards, alarms and he finds himself facing a group of PCs who has beaten or bypassed them. Add in a healthy dose of various divination spells or guards they have reported how easily these invaders have mowed through them. Factor in their relatively high intelligence...unless he's suicidally fanatical (fight to the death), stupid or scripted to be played otherwise I figure he's either going to: 1) run 2) summon aid as soon as possible. Even if he is hesitant to do so, owning someone a favor and losing some face beats being dead. I kind of find it similar to PCs who open with their biggest guns in a boss fight. I still would like to know if it's a standard or full-round though. I've always run it as full-round. After reading this thread, I'm not sure anymore.
MwaO 02-27-08, 12:15 AM	Even if he is hesitant to do so, owning someone a favor and losing some face beats being dead. I'm not sure I would look at it that way - if you kill a demon/devil on the prime material plane, they just go back to their home plane. Which is perhaps extremely inconvenient, but not the end of their lives. You're overlooking the third option - now imagine they summon up this lesser being, die anyway, and now this lesser being is owed a favor and knows the manner of its death. That's more than just losing a little face.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-27-08, 08:51 PM	I'm not sure I would look at it that way - if you kill a demon/devil on the prime material plane, they just go back to their home plane. Which is perhaps extremely inconvenient, but not the end of their lives. You're overlooking the third option - now imagine they summon up this lesser being, die anyway, and now this lesser being is owed a favor and knows the manner of its death. That's more than just losing a little face. Not sure where you are getting that demons/devils don't just die. If they were summoned creatures they vanish when reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, but creatures who are called actually die when they are killed. Same goes for if they travelled to the material plane by any other means.
MwaO 02-27-08, 09:13 PM	Not sure where you are getting that demons/devils don't just die. If they were summoned creatures they vanish when reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, but creatures who are called actually die when they are killed. Same goes for if they travelled to the material plane by any other means. Hmm, I guess you can now tell how long I've played D&D. Never realized they took that out.
solbergb 02-28-08, 11:48 AM	If you read some of the splatbooks there is still a little truth to the 1st edition idea that they're not permanently dead. It's similar to how killing a mortal does not kill the soul. They're usually demoted to Mane or Lemure by a failure like that though, and may never get promoted again or regain their former personality. So it's pretty darn close to utter destruction. It is likely that a demon or devil that goes down swinging, behaving appropriately for its alignment and goals will have a better afterlife than one who summons help and then goes down, as the summonee will now be motivated to go find the soul in the abyss or 9 hells and torment it to get payment back.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-28-08, 05:05 PM	If you read some of the splatbooks there is still a little truth to the 1st edition idea that they're not permanently dead. It's similar to how killing a mortal does not kill the soul. They're usually demoted to Mane or Lemure by a failure like that though, and may never get promoted again or regain their former personality. So it's pretty darn close to utter destruction. It is likely that a demon or devil that goes down swinging, behaving appropriately for its alignment and goals will have a better afterlife than one who summons help and then goes down, as the summonee will now be motivated to go find the soul in the abyss or 9 hells and torment it to get payment back. Well according to the description of the outsider entry, I don't think they HAVE an afterlife: 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. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and 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. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. So unless they are restored to life, I think death really is the end for them.
Timlagor 02-29-08, 10:28 AM	I treat Summoning as a Full Round action. I consider it relevant that the Demon entry says they are "reluctant to use this power" while the Devil does not. - always check the full entry for your critters :)
solbergb 02-29-08, 02:34 PM	Well according to the description of the outsider entry, I don't think they HAVE an afterlife: So unless they are restored to life, I think death really is the end for them. Yeah. Of course that MM text is contradicted by later sourcebooks, but as the MM text is official in LG and the other sorucebooks are not (similar to the weird Libris Mortis thing allowing grappling of incorporeals) if it ever matters we should likely go with that description. As with many things, different authors have different ideas of D&D rules and cosmology.
copperwyrmling 02-29-08, 03:23 PM	I consider it relevant that the Demon entry says they are "reluctant to use this power" while the Devil does not. - always check the full entry for your critters :) I'm aware of the difference, but the general entry on Summon also has a note on them being reluctant to use it, and nothing in the devil entry overrides that, it's just not emphasized as much as it is for demons.
_metz_ 03-03-08, 03:02 AM	I'm aware of the difference, but the general entry on Summon also has a note on them being reluctant to use it, and nothing in the devil entry overrides that, it's just not emphasized as much as it is for demons. Thats excessive use of RAW over intent. Devils are in older DnD incarnations liable to summon/work with other Devils. Devils are Lawful. Devils do not say they are reluctant to Summon. THe summoning Ability is incorporated into their CR. Old AND New Splatbooks based on original sourcing of these monsters state they use thier summoning ability. I'm sorry Copper, but it seems like you are argueing for the sake of arguing, and from any legal standpoint intent is completely against you. In the case of Devils. Monster Manual 3.5 is where we get are RAW from. The DnD cosmology is where we get our behaviour/intent from. Its just like Asheratis are different in LG than they are in Sandstorm.
solbergb 03-03-08, 01:33 PM	I'm sorry Copper, but it seems like you are argueing for the sake of arguing, and from any legal standpoint intent is completely against you. In the case of Devils. No, she is showing the source of reasoning that arrives at a different conclusion than yours. You both present arguments that will hold up in LG, since the text doesn't say explicilty one way or the other. Whoever is GMing the table "wins" those kinds of arguments. In this case the argument shouldn't come up, because whether or not a demon or devil chooses to summon is a function of what the author writes and what the GM believes their behavior to be. It's not the sort of thing a player is going to have the context to know if anything is being done inappropriately.
_metz_ 03-03-08, 11:21 PM	No, she is showing the source of reasoning that arrives at a different conclusion than yours. You both present arguments that will hold up in LG, since the text doesn't say explicilty one way or the other. Whoever is GMing the table "wins" those kinds of arguments. In this case the argument shouldn't come up, because whether or not a demon or devil chooses to summon is a function of what the author writes and what the GM believes their behavior to be. It's not the sort of thing a player is going to have the context to know if anything is being done inappropriately. NOt really, as Copper's arguement is based on the notion that becuase in the Demon entry, it states that summoning creatures is not often emplyed unless there is an emrgency, ergo it is applied to the devil entry which has no such citation. Even in the overall summoning rules, the devil summoning has been superceded by splatbooks, so intent is extremely clear that that is waht they do with their summoning. One is ignoring intent in favour of non specific raw. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable for copper to use it as GM, that is her perogotive, she doesn't have much of a rules basis to complain against a GM that uses it themselves. At least in the case of the Devils. Arguing monster manual intent is kind of flawed when later fiendish codexes override that intent. Whilst not core books for LG they reproduce the monsters with the intended fluff that for editing purposes could not make it into the monster manual. It is iessentially like a FAQ of intent. The fiendish codexes amusingly enough are also largely set in the greyhawk world, and use old fluff that has existed before 3.5 There is often far too excessive use of RAW versus intent on these forums, something that always makes little sense to myself, and several other gamers I know who have actually done law. The Law is interpreted as intent, with precedent helping to establish this in many cases. The law is not RAW. there is no such thing in modern legal thought. Just sayin.
copperwyrmling 03-04-08, 12:35 AM	NOt really, as Copper's arguement is based on the notion that becuase in the Demon entry, it states that summoning creatures is not often emplyed unless there is an emrgency, ergo it is applied to the devil entry which has no such citation. No. Your argument is based on the notion that because the devil entry does not explicitly say anything on the topic, this means that the general rules on the Summon ability (at the back of the MM) do not apply. I find this just as odd as you seem to find my position, to be honest. My argument is based on the notion that with no explicit mention in the devil section, the general rules apply. (There's plenty of precedent for needing to check the index to get all the rules: for example, most monsters with Improved Grab don't explicitly mention that the ability works only on creatures smaller than them.) Even in the overall summoning rules, the devil summoning has been superceded by splatbooks, Splatbooks don't override Core rules sources, at least not in Living Greyhawk. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable for copper to use it as GM, that is her perogotive, she doesn't have much of a rules basis to complain against a GM that uses it themselves. At least in the case of the Devils. I said, in my very first post on this question (post 11 in this thread), that I would not complain about a GM using the ability for demons or devils - anything based on the psychology of the monsters is purely a GM call, the abilities are there to be used when the GM feels it makes sense from the monster's perspective. Everything I've said has been about how I run this as a GM, based on my interpretation of the rules and the nature of the creatures in question. The only reason I'm posting is that it might help some people clarify in their own minds how they would handle it as a GM (which doesn't mean agreeing with me - they may decide that all demons should summon on round 1 - but it might mean faster and more carefully-thought-out fiend tactics at a few tables). Arguing monster manual intent is kind of flawed when later fiendish codexes override that intent. Whilst not core books for LG they reproduce the monsters with the intended fluff that for editing purposes could not make it into the monster manual. It is iessentially like a FAQ of intent. Except the FAQ is an LG-legal rules source required to play the game, and the Fiendish Codices are not. I haven't read the Fiendish Codices, and have no particular desire to. I don't think I'm being a bad GM by sticking to the MM text relevant to the ability in question rather than drawing on later splatbooks to make my rulings. (I don't think you're accusing me of that anyway, just to be clear.)
clannagh 03-04-08, 01:23 AM	The Law is interpreted as intent, with precedent helping to establish this in many cases. The law is not RAW. there is no such thing in modern legal thought. Well "no such thing" is a bit extreme there definitely still is .. especially in contract law and torts where literal interpretations seem to still rule, though much less so in act interpretation and constitutional law than in the past. Bearing in mind that, in law as with in a game, 99% of legal cases are straightforward and the interpretation is obvious and uncontroversial. Its always the boundary cases that are interesting. The Australian Act Interpretation Act for example requires contextual approaches be considered when looking at legislation along side the literal approach (although there is a world of difference between a contextual approach and an interpretation based on determining intent). In criminal cases there is a tendency not to stray from the literal too much unless unjust or silly consequences will result ... as consistency in interpretation of the law is seen as a very desirable thing. In the end, if there are no precedent cases (or the court is high enough to not be bound by precedent) it comes down to the individual judge. Just like LG some judges tend more towards the literal than others. I do agree that many gamers assume that real world law is a lot more bound by literal interpretaton (RAW) than is actually the case.
_metz_ 03-04-08, 02:30 AM	I do agree that many gamers assume that real world law is a lot more bound by literal interpretaton (RAW) than is actually the case. This is the main issue. 1. RAW is badly worded, intent is clear. 2. Because it is RAW that is how it must be ruled. I disagree with this fallacy, as it is the role of the gaming community to see the intent and go off it. Many who argue raw, or obscure notions of how things are done to exploit the rules are not in fact playing a roleplaying game. They are attempting to play a wargame. I play wargames, and I am very guilty of doing this in a wargame. I disagree with its presence in a roleplaying game however. Part of the main way I see monsters ruled is how the monster itself would act. Demons act chaotically, doing what is more 'fun' and often visually damaging. Inevitables attack with straight cold logic, and are merciless if someone is deemed worthy of extermination. I play monsters to their intelligence, and to their fluff. Some GMs do not, either in an attempt to provide consistancy, an attempt to softball, or an attempt to make monsters harder than they actually are. The RAW interpretation that it makes the summoning creature owe a favour to the summoned creature means nothing in a lawful evil devil society where you have minions you callously expend. By fluff, "most monsters" notably seems to exclude Devils by their own character text, whilst the other ones have it. I can understand your interpretation, based alone on the MM but in light of actual DnD cosmology find it unusual that a learned and experienced player as yourself ignores the written fluff, and the 'most' clause That is all copper, I still have the highest respect for you. Bring on 4th ed, lets have something new to argue about.
solbergb 03-04-08, 05:48 PM	The RAW interpretation that it makes the summoning creature owe a favour to the summoned creature means nothing in a lawful evil devil society where you have minions you callously expend. Um...what? I read the most recent book about the 9 hells cosmology in 3.5 D&D (got it as swag for GMing). Devils are in constant competition with other devils and the slightest mistake or sign of weakness can get them demoted to a lemure, or worse, to one of the dumber devils where they're unlikely to scheme a way to promotion again. I didn't see the bit where a bone devil can summon another bone devil and suffer no consequences. I'm not sure they can even ask for trivial favors and not have long term consequences. Sure, a devil can summon lemures, or a much weaker devil without much risk (unless he fails, and the weaker devil gets promoted over him). But such summonings are pretty much never what will happen at the table unless module tactics specify them. What happens at the table is the devil finds himself in an EL+4-6 encounter and if he chooses to summon, he tries to bring in the biggest guy he can. Which means a peer. Which means it is not a meaningless minion, but a rival - or he is expending a favor earned earlier to pull him in and thus losing leverage for any other goals he might have. Furthermore it is exposing weakness and possibly failure to such a peer, who will gleefully report it to all your enemies. That's what sucks about lawful evil. Yes it is lawful...but it is EVIL. Any advantage that doesn't actually break a rule and allows you to switch modes from Beseecher to Commander will be taken if the risk of reprisal is low.
_metz_ 03-04-08, 10:08 PM	Furthermore it is exposing weakness and possibly failure to such a peer, who will gleefully report it to all your enemies. That's what sucks about lawful evil. Yes it is lawful...but it is EVIL. Any advantage that doesn't actually break a rule and allows you to switch modes from Beseecher to Commander will be taken if the risk of reprisal is low. I said minions earlier. Btw in a proper lawful society one Bone Devil could be much higher ranked than another one...
Timlagor 03-05-08, 01:07 PM	And if you win that fight against the adventurers, you both gain their equipment and get to carry through whatever agenda had you fighting them in the first place. Seems well worth the favour to me.
twells 03-06-08, 10:43 AM	Who's to say that the summoned devil didn't owe the summoning devil a favor .... and this is a way of paying it back.
MwaO 03-07-08, 12:00 PM	Not sure where you are getting that demons/devils don't just die. If they were summoned creatures they vanish when reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, but creatures who are called actually die when they are killed. Same goes for if they travelled to the material plane by any other means. Looked this up - this isn't accurate for 3.5 - it isn't a legal book for LG, but I'm not sure that matters - as any mod is extremely unlikely to work through this... Because slain devils rematerialize in Baator, killing a devil on the Material Plane merely inconveniences and humiliates it. Since failure to perform a mission can result in demotion or worse in the Nine Hells... So as an example, Bone Devil 1 summons up Bone Devil 2 to help it out. Bone Devil 1 perishes, rematerializes in Baator. Summoned Bone Devil 2 shows up to demand payment for services rendered. There are two big problems here for BD1: He might get demoted for failure and not be able to pay BD2 back. BD2 might make an example of him... His superiors might not be aware of how he failed or what he was up to and BD2 could use that to blackmail him - pay BD2 more than expected or BD2 reveals the nature of BD1's failure.
solbergb 03-07-08, 02:00 PM	Who's to say that the summoned devil didn't owe the summoning devil a favor .... and this is a way of paying it back. This is indeed the likely scenario. Now you've lost your leverage on that devil and can't work him into your nefarious schemes. Plus the damage to your reputation if the fight goes badly, or even if it was a near thing.
_metz_ 03-07-08, 05:54 PM	You are all forgetting the fact that summoned fiends enjoy the oppurtunity to wreak a little carnage... It's not JUST a major imposition. Also lets not forget its going to be in te listed first round tactics of major fiends in 4th ed (for those argueing against intent). and who says the summoning favour isn't just 'next time I get to summon you?' You are reading too much into the specifics and creating scenarios that are irrelevant, there are a myriad of ways it could be dealt with.
magebeast 03-08-08, 06:25 PM	Also lets not forget its going to be in te listed first round tactics of major fiends in 4th ed (for those argueing against intent). Demons and Devils have undergone some major changes in 4E. Beyond that, we've already discussed the difference between major fiends and mid-level fiends.