Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thorinXXX 05-15-07, 02:44 PM	The rule for summoning creatures states that they must arrive on a surface capable of supporting them. The obvious intent behind this rule is to prevent summoned creatures from being used as bombs. This begs the question can a flying creature be summoned flying?
JohnduBois 05-15-07, 03:35 PM	The way my Alienist has summoned flying creatures (and nobody's argued with me yet) is that they can be summoned flying, but are treated as though they were in the process of flying during their last round (thus, a summoned creature with poor manueverability that does not continue flying stalls, etc.).
ShinAkuma2 05-15-07, 05:00 PM	I guess the air isn't really a "surface", but flying creatures generally fly because the air can support them, thanks to aerodynamics.
JJeff 05-15-07, 08:49 PM	I would think the answer would be ETV. As you said, the original intent was to prevent animal bombs, but to say that flying creatures can be summoned in the air, would allow you to bomb with flying animals... It's really up to table intepretation.
clannagh 05-15-07, 10:43 PM	if you rule against summoning flying creatures in the air you create a very silly situation when the party itself is flying some distance off the ground.
katrick 05-15-07, 11:06 PM	Can you summon Water creatures in water?? Fire creatures in magma?? it's also not a surface though it can support them right?? katrick
thorinXXX 05-16-07, 12:05 PM	The consensus seems to be that most would allow it, but a GM is justified in denying it.
Timlagor 05-16-07, 01:31 PM	The consensus seems to be that most would allow it, but a GM is justified in denying it. Exactly
trollbill 05-16-07, 02:07 PM	Well, technically I think allowing them to appear in the air is a violation of RAW. Mind you, I agree its a little silly, and maybe even illogical for flying creatures. And certainly I would probably allow it in a home game. But as a LG judge I am supposed to be following RAW. Of course, I also don't think its that big a deal I would argue with a judge that decided otherwise.
gomeztoo 05-16-07, 02:22 PM	But as a LG judge I am supposed to be following RAW. Sorry, but I definitely disagree with that statement.
Rerednaw 05-16-07, 03:21 PM	Hmm I've allowed centipedes to be summoned on walls/ceilings, and fliers in the air.
trollbill 05-16-07, 03:27 PM	Sorry, but I definitely disagree with that statement. To be more accurate, I am supposed to be following both RAW and the spirit of the rules. If you disagree with that you need to reread your LGCS. But I don't see where either interpretation is affected by the spirit. Since the spirit is usually interpreted as 'designer's intent,' I don't see much concrete evidence one way or another for what the intent of the solid surface rule is. Sure, it would seem logical that it might be to stop people from summoning a Celestial Bison 30 feet above their opponent, but that's just a guess as to its actual purpose. Given the lack of obvious intent via flavor text, then I should be defaulting to RAW.
bitznarf 05-16-07, 04:27 PM	[QUOTE=trollbill;12415715]To be more accurate, I am supposed to be following both RAW and the spirit of the rules. If you disagree with that you need to reread your LGCS./QUOTE] This, I agree with. It was the 'RAW only' wording that I was silently (in this thread) objecting too.
katrick 05-16-07, 07:14 PM	To be more accurate, I am supposed to be following both RAW and the spirit of the rules. If you disagree with that you need to reread your LGCS. But I don't see where either interpretation is affected by the spirit. Since the spirit is usually interpreted as 'designer's intent,' I don't see much concrete evidence one way or another for what the intent of the solid surface rule is. Sure, it would seem logical that it might be to stop people from summoning a Celestial Bison 30 feet above their opponent, but that's just a guess as to its actual purpose. Given the lack of obvious intent via flavor text, then I should be defaulting to RAW. I don't see "solid" surface anywhere in these spell descriptions, am i missing something. If you need a solid surface, then you cannot summon a celestial porpoise the Summon monster 1 spells example, which needs to be summoned into it's own environment (water, not solid, not surface) katrick
Mommy was an Orc 05-16-07, 07:26 PM	I don't see "solid" surface anywhere in these spell descriptions, am i missing something. If you need a solid surface, then you cannot summon a celestial porpoise the Summon monster 1 spells example, which needs to be summoned into it's own environment (water, not solid, not surface) katrick It is from the Conjuration school description.. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range. The surface doesn't have to be solid and water does have a surface capable of supporting aquatic summons.
katrick 05-16-07, 07:37 PM	so the air thing works right?? doesn't have to be solid and it supports flying critters?? katrick
clannagh 05-16-07, 07:42 PM	so the air thing works right?? doesn't have to be solid and it supports flying critters?? katrick Still going to be ETV. This ruling would also effect air elementals.
katrick 05-16-07, 08:04 PM	Still going to be ETV. This ruling would also effect air elementals. No ETV in brissy, it works. I doubt melbourne or sydney either. katrick
Mommy was an Orc 05-16-07, 08:08 PM	so the air thing works right?? doesn't have to be solid and it supports flying critters?? katrick Air isn't a surface, though. You could make a pretty good argument that air constitutes a surface to something with Perfect Flight though.
trollbill 05-16-07, 08:11 PM	so the air thing works right?? doesn't have to be solid and it supports flying critters?? katrick Well, I suppose if you want to get technical with the "can't appear floating in empty space," you could argue air isn't an empty space. But somehow I don't think the designers where thinking of a perfect vacuum when they wrote that rule. I suppose you could argue "flying" isn't "floating" too, but again, that's kind of a stretch of the wording. So ETV would definitely be the word of the day.
kjenks 05-16-07, 10:22 PM	In his most recent game, my druid summoned a bat swarm. I just had them start off on the ground and fly upward. In a game I was judging, a character wanted to summon a hippogriff in mid-air. I said no, the rules don't allow that, but we were able to find a place for it to come in at the top of a near-by cliff.
Timlagor 05-17-07, 01:50 AM	The RAW can almost always be twisted. I would say that Air does not provide a "surface" without twisting the definition of "surface" beyond its ordinary meaning. Hower there is more to "spirit" than Designer Intent. I would also include: - making the table fun - making the rules consistent (/make sense) It seems to me that there are grounds to allow flying creatures to be summoned flying on both those grounds. There is no particular reason to have a rule that they can't (as there is for blue whales in mid-air) and it doesn't add to fun at the table.
_metz_ 05-17-07, 09:52 AM	so the air thing works right?? doesn't have to be solid and it supports flying critters?? katrick I can safely say most GMs in Sydney would allow this Especially as somethings like arrow hawks don't even have feet and fly all the time... But they would be in their right to say no, by RAW.
chesspiece 05-18-07, 09:52 AM	I've philosophized about this privately on a couple occasions. Obviously air doesn't prohibit based on the 'summoning into an object' restriction. It makes sense that water shouldn't prohibit for aquatic creatures either. So at this point, why not treat all elements (earth & fire / magma) as equivalent if they are appropriate for the creature? So a flyer could be summoned into air since air can support its flight. A earth elemental or xorn could be summoned into earth (if you can work around the line of effect issues). But most creatures couldn't be summoned into earth and the xorn couldn't appear inside a wooden wall. IOW - I'm pretty generous with summons when GMing. I still prohibit situations that allow summon bombs. I do allow druids to run their summoned animals (hippogriffs, etc.), but have overruled high-level tactics and I won't allow mid-air full attacks that would cause the creature to stall & fall.
katrick 05-18-07, 01:58 PM	where do undead have to be summoned, in earth?? sorry, just a thought. katrick
boolean 05-19-07, 02:22 PM	It seems to me that there are grounds to allow flying creatures to be summoned flying on both those grounds. There is no particular reason to have a rule that they can't (as there is for blue whales in mid-air) and it doesn't add to fun at the table. So, at your table I can't: Summon a celestial bison in mid-air to fall on my enemies. But I can: Summon a celestial hippogriff in mid-air, then order it to stall, causing it to fall on my enemies. Right?
Morgen 05-19-07, 02:29 PM	Ummm, is this really going to be some huge game breaking thing somehow? I'm failing to see the point of this whole debate. Just don't summon things in the way and you'll be good.
JamesMaissen 05-19-07, 03:26 PM	So, at your table I can't: Summon a celestial bison in mid-air to fall on my enemies. But I can: Summon a celestial hippogriff in mid-air, then order it to stall, causing it to fall on my enemies. Right? The assumption here is that the creatures falling will land on and damage those below it. This is just as false as trying to claim damage from a bull rush. -James
Timlagor 05-19-07, 03:58 PM	So, at your table I can't: Summon a celestial bison in mid-air to fall on my enemies. But I can: Summon a celestial hippogriff in mid-air, then order it to stall, causing it to fall on my enemies. Right? Sure if you speak Celestial. It won't necessarily do so though and falling on your enemies probably won't actually be any particular help.
Iswald 05-20-07, 12:52 AM	It has never crossed my mind that you wouldn't be able to summon a flying and not having it flying when it arrived. Given the absurdity of the arguments against it, I'm going to pretty much just pretend not to have heard any of them. You should be able to summon creatures into a situation that would be normal for them. Flying creatures flying. Elementals in their elements. Aquatic creatures in water. Amphibians in water or on land. It's only when you do ridiculous things like trying to summon into mid-air something that can't fly or putting elementals in the wrong element that you should run into difficulties.
kjenks 05-21-07, 07:10 AM	Although they could be clearer, I think the rules are reasonably clear: You can't summon creatures in mid-air, even creatures that can fly.
awroe 05-21-07, 08:00 AM	Excellent! Disable the high-level summoner by raising them high enough in the air that they are out of range of the ground (or under water - presumably you have to summon them on the surface of the water, not in the middle). Hmm, since my air elemental can be "supported" by a drop of water, can I summon one standing on a cloud? A molecule in the air? The creature won't fall...
kjenks 05-21-07, 11:36 AM	As far as I can tell, your air elemental can only be summoned on the ground, not in the air. Don't think of it as "being on the ground" -- think of it as "the bottom of the air."
JamesMaissen 05-21-07, 12:08 PM	Although they could be clearer, I think the rules are reasonably clear: You can't summon creatures in mid-air, even creatures that can fly. But the consequences of reading it that way leave a bit to be desired. So where can you summon a shark? Underwater is not a surface. Above water is not their environment. So they should just be ignored on the summon lists? -James
Mommy was an Orc 05-21-07, 12:12 PM	But the consequences of reading it that way leave a bit to be desired. So where can you summon a shark? Underwater is not a surface. Water is a surface on both sides...
awroe 05-21-07, 01:44 PM	Water is a surface on both sides... So I can summon an earth elemental just under the surface? The ground is a surface on both sides to an earth elemental.
Samwise 05-21-07, 01:55 PM	Water is a surface on both sides... Which means only at the interface between air and water or river/lake/ocean floor and water. So if I am just "in the middle" of the water, I can't summon anything, since there is no actual surface to summon to. Also, if we start going that far, who says gravity must be in our favor? If I am in a room or cavern with a 50' high ceiling, said ceiling could, theoretically, support the weight of a rhinoceros, and it is a surface. And what happens if I accidentally summon a critter on top of a pit trap, or other weight trigger device? Hmmm . . .
Cardinal Teplin 05-22-07, 09:43 AM	The only problem I can see with allowing flying creatures to be summoned in mid-air is in aerial combat - where summoning a creature at a point in mid-air where it could gain a height advantage over the opponent _might_ be seen as an unfair advantage. But not much of one. In general, I don't see why you can't summon creatures in any medium that is natural to them so long as they don't immediately go into freefall, which is the intent of the rule. Of course, I notice that the rules don't technically cover summoning multiple creatures onto the same surface: "Your reign of terror is at an end don Carlo!" "The apprentice, with his <gasp> wand of mount!" "Yes, see how I send you tumbling through the floor!" He summons a horse, the horse looks at him placidly. "You fool apprentice, don't you know that a creature can only be summoned onto a surface capable of bearing it's own weight!" "Yes, that floor is capable of supporting the weight of a single horse." He summons a second horse, the combined weight of both horses is too much for the floor which collapses, plunging both horses and the mob boss into the pen of rabid pit bulls on the floor below. "The wand of mount - Don't leave home without it!"
kjenks 05-22-07, 11:45 AM	In general, I don't see why you can't summon creatures in any medium that is natural to them so long as they don't immediately go into freefall, which is the intent of the rule. I see a reason why: That interpretation of "the intent of the rule" violates the letter of the rule. "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." The intent and the wording seem pretty clear to me. No surface, no summoning.
Cardinal Teplin 05-22-07, 01:36 PM	I see a reason why: That interpretation of "the intent of the rule" violates the letter of the rule. "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." The intent and the wording seem pretty clear to me. No surface, no summoning. <Shrug> A flying or swimming creature is not 'floating in empty space'. It's flying through the empty space, or swimming in the water. Both are appearing in an open location. You might argue the bit about surface, I suppose, but we're clearly not meant to take things too literally here. Otherwise a scattering of leaves on the ground stops summoning, because the leaves can't support the weight of a creature, and the ground underneath is not an open space since it's covered in leaves. Similarly you wouldn't be able to summon when it was raining, because the rain leaves a film of water on the ground, and an area filled with raindrops is not empty space. Taken to extremes, anything short of a cleanroom dust-free enviroment would block summoning. Even ignoring dust, spray, rain etc., you'd have to allow a readied action of pitching objects into the space where the creature is supposed to appear as something that would prevent the spell from working. A penny thrown through the area where the creature is due to appear stops the area being 'open', a cloak thrown over the ground becomes a surface that can't support its weight. I'm happy to regard midair as a surface capable of supporting a flying creature, and mid water as a surface capable of supporting a swimming creature. It's simply the interpretation that gets closest to the rules as written without contradicting the intent.
trollbill 05-22-07, 03:23 PM	<Shrug> A flying or swimming creature is not 'floating in empty space'. It's flying through the empty space, or swimming in the water. Both are appearing in an open location. A flying creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement (you can guess, but it is only a guess) prior to its appearance. It cannot, therefore, be flying until it takes an action. You can argue that since it can take an action immediately upon appearing it is not "floating" but "flying," but I can use the same reasoning for summoning a Celestial Bison in midair. Since it can act immediately upon appearing, a Celestial Bison is not 'floating' it is 'falling.' If you really want to go by strict verbage and terminology, the only thing you can't do with a Summon spell is summon a levitating creature into a total vacuum.
thorinXXX 05-22-07, 03:35 PM	A flying creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement (you can guess, but it is only a guess) prior to its appearance. It cannot, therefore, be flying until it takes an action. You can argue that since it can take an action immediately upon appearing it is not "floating" but "flying," but I can use the same reasoning for summoning a Celestial Bison in midair. Since it can act immediately upon appearing, a Celestial Bison is not 'floating' it is 'falling.' If you really want to go by strict verbage and terminology, the only thing you can't do with a Summon spell is summon a levitating creature into a total vacuum. I can be fairly certain that any aquatic critter was swimming, and that an air elemental was flying.
Dominick 05-22-07, 05:30 PM	Moderatly off topic (sorry Trollbill you can club me at Oasis) Well summoning a porpose led to a humorous event where it was summoned but nobody noticed intil the porpose was place that the water was too shallow. The caster summoned a beached dolphin. The horror. Mage: "Quick drag it into to deeper water so it can fight for us!" Dolphin (in celestial): "Excuse me wizard, what was your INT score again?"
Timlagor 05-22-07, 07:09 PM	Moderatly off topic (sorry Trollbill you can club me at Oasis) Well summoning a porpose led to a humorous event where it was summoned but nobody noticed intil the porpose was place that the water was too shallow. The caster summoned a beached dolphin. The horror. Mage: "Quick drag it into to deeper water so it can fight for us!" Dolphin (in celestial): "Excuse me wizard, what was your INT score again?" You sure it didn't say "Oh Not again!" ...perception is based on Wisdom you know ;)
King Kashue 05-22-07, 07:25 PM	If people want to get really technical (which folks seem to want to do), a "surface" can be defined (by both American Heritage and the OED) as any portion of space having length and breadth but no thickness. Interjecting that definition (since no definition is given in the rules and people are arbitrarily assigning theirs) the rule would most certainly allow for summoning an aerial creature in the air, but also prevent the summoning of non-flying creatures in the air. E.g., presented with an infinite number of aerial surfaces, for purposes of convenience (and for the game rules), a summoner chooses the surface exactly 15 feet above the ground. The creature is summoned and, being a creature capable of flight, the surface is quite capable of supporting it and thus it satisfies the requirements of the summoning school. I see a reason why: That interpretation of "the intent of the rule" violates the letter of the rule. "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." The intent and the wording seem pretty clear to me. No surface, no summoning. Ah, but the wording can most certainly be satisfied (by using a common definition from respected dictionaries) and still allow for aerial summoning. The "letter of the rules" is most certainly not violated unless one wishes to intentionally disregard an accepted definition...
kjenks 05-22-07, 11:00 PM	That's some pretty word-impressive twisting there. But just play it by the rules, okay?
clannagh 05-22-07, 11:53 PM	If you try and follow strict RAW here you are going to get some pretty counter intuitive and stupid results for aquatic creatures. Let's try and summon a shark. A shark is salt water so creeks and rivers are out. Lets try and summon one while well out to sea, that makes sense. However sharks cannot breathe air and by SRD "Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them." So no summoning a shark onto the surface of the water or deck of the boat .. it has to be summoned IN water. So far so good, all makes sense as well. However by the RAW argument presented here they must also be summoned on a "surface" which can support them. (note the two different uses of the word support here) In terms of a natural environment out to sea this leaves the floor of the ocean some 3000 feet below and out of summon range. So where CAN you summon a shark when out to sea?? Its obvious .. the only place you can legally summon a shark when out to sea is in a shark sized tub of salt water on the deck of your ship, at which point you are free to tip it out of the tub into the ocean :)
King Kashue 05-23-07, 01:38 AM	That's some pretty word-impressive twisting there. But just play it by the rules, okay? Word twisting... I took them verbatim from the dictionary...and then typed them on my keyboard... They stayed quite free of torsion... As for "playing it by the rules", you need not worry about me. I'll never (ever) play at a table you're judging, so it's of little concern to you...
kjenks 05-23-07, 07:22 AM	This game doesn't use the OED for its glossary.
pedr 05-23-07, 07:36 AM	So define 'surface', then, using only the D&D rulebooks as sources. One of the principles of statutory interpretation is to avoid absurd results. Now, obviously 'absurd' is a matter of perspective, but there are things which the rules cannot mean. They cannot mean that it is impossible to summon an aquatic creature underwater (as that would make it impossible or nearly impossible to summon an aquatic creature at all). Sometimes the 'best' interpretation (most valid, most 'fitting' with the totality of the rules) is one which strains some of the language. This is only due to poor drafting - but if it is necessary with professionally drafted laws (and it frequently is!) then it is going to be even more necessary with rules for a game which aren't written with the same level of exactness.
Dominick 05-23-07, 08:19 AM	So define 'surface', then, using only the D&D rulebooks as sources. (SNIP) Sometimes the 'best' interpretation (most valid, most 'fitting' with the totality of the rules) is one which strains some of the language. (SNIP) "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." Lets suppose surface was used in the context of a place to put a creature. Lets assume that the author used surface so as to prevent summoning large creatures as kinetic weapons. This keeps the stone giant union happy. We can then conclude surface is used as meaning a place where the creature can exist normally. Sharks CAN live in water (salt or fresh), birds CAN live in air, dogs CAN walk on land. None of these creatures can survive for long in a hard vacuum, falling through air, in a magma lake, or drowning in an acid pool. In English we use environment to mean a place where a creature lives. Replace "on a surface" with "in an environment" We get: "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location in an environment capable of supporting it." This makes perfect sense intuitively, and is in the spirit of the rules.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-07, 07:55 PM	So where CAN you summon a shark when out to sea?? Its obvious .. the only place you can legally summon a shark when out to sea is in a shark sized tub of salt water on the deck of your ship, at which point you are free to tip it out of the tub into the ocean :) Indeed so. You get a similar problem with flying swarms, which take up a 10' by 10' area when summoned. This by definition means that flying creatures are being summoned in mid air. I don't see how it can possibly be the intention of the general rules on summoning that flying creatures couldn't be summoned in mid-air, because it would prevent flying swarms from being summoned at all. It can't be the intention that aquatic creatures can not be summoned in water. If your reading of the rules says otherwise, then you've got a problem that needs resolving.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-07, 08:02 PM	A flying creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement (you can guess, but it is only a guess) prior to its appearance. It cannot, therefore, be flying until it takes an action. That doesn't follow. You can only guess as to it's mode of movement therefore it can't be flying? That doesn't make sense. You're assuming a default of being on the ground, which doesn't make much sense for flying creatures, makes even less for creatures from the elemental planes, and makes none at all for aquatic creatures. Seriously, try out the same reasoning for a shark: 'A swiming creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement prior to its appearance. It cannot therefore, be swimming until it takes an action.' So a shark must be, what, resting on a rock or something?
clannagh 05-23-07, 08:06 PM	Seriously, try out the same reasoning for a shark: 'A swiming creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement prior to its appearance. It cannot therefore, be swimming until it takes an action.' So a shark must be, what, resting on a rock or something? Even more counter-intuitive when you consider that sharks have no gills and hence suffocate if they are not swimming at all times. In fact when I think about it summoning a shark stationary on a surface (even under water) would probably contravene the "within an environment that can support it".
King Kashue 05-23-07, 10:49 PM	This game doesn't use the OED for its glossary. So define 'surface', then, using only the D&D rulebooks as sources. Pedr beat me to it... Show me the definition of "surface" in any rule book, and I'll instantly agree with you. The rest of Pedr's post = what I would have said (and have said)...
_metz_ 05-24-07, 03:29 AM	Even more counter-intuitive when you consider that sharks have no gills and hence suffocate if they are not swimming at all times. In fact when I think about it summoning a shark stationary on a surface (even under water) would probably contravene the "within an environment that can support it". I think the best answer is hope common sense prevails and expect table variation from the odd DM that lacks it. By the same token, if you try to abuse said common sense then the DM will whip out RAW and stop you. I agree totally here in that a Shark cannot really be summoned into any environment that is suitable by RAW unless you are underwater at the time at the bottom of the ocean in a moving current of oxygenated salt water... Hence applying the arguement that RAW must stand as is with no GM interpretation seems daft to me and completely against the whole point of summoning different creatures for different situations.
trollbill 05-24-07, 10:24 AM	That doesn't follow. You can only guess as to it's mode of movement therefore it can't be flying? That doesn't make sense. You're assuming a default of being on the ground, which doesn't make much sense for flying creatures, makes even less for creatures from the elemental planes, and makes none at all for aquatic creatures. Seriously, try out the same reasoning for a shark: 'A swiming creature cannot be flying upon its appearance as it had no defined state of movement prior to its appearance. It cannot therefore, be swimming until it takes an action.' So a shark must be, what, resting on a rock or something? That's not what I said. I didn't say they couldn't have been flying, I said their state of movement was 'undefined.' So they can't be defined as flying, walking, crawling, resting, swimming or any other specifically defined state of movement. Undefined means undefined. You simply don't know, and have no way of determining it. The best you can do is a good guess, as in the case of your shark. But if you've ever heard of Sleeping Sharks of Isla Mujeres you know it is possible for sharks to be resting on the bottom (and live). And it is also known that some sharks leap from the water in pursuit of prey. Such a shark would not be at a state of swimming, but rather jumping. Because more than one possibility exists (even if its remote), you cannot define the previous state. I reiterate, the state of movement of a summoned creature prior to being summoned is 'undefined' by RAW. And since you cannot define that previous state, you cannot make arguments for the location of a summoned creature based upon its previous state of movement.
pedr 05-24-07, 10:34 AM	That has set me thinking: How does summoning work? You can't summon a specific named creature, right? But perhaps you can summon one in a particular state of movement. After all you are making some choices about the qualities of the creature you summon, namely its species. It's not a case of reaching blindly into some other plane, opening a hole and seeing what pops through: you are in some respect, searching for something which matches your criteria, chosen at the time of casting (as you don't have to prepare Summon Monster I: Celestial porpoise but rather get to choose the porpoise from a range of creatures that spell allows you to summon when you cast it). Of course that's a different question from the logical/legalistic one of 'what do the rules say'. For which, see my opinion earlier in the thread.
JamesMaissen 05-24-07, 01:09 PM	I reiterate, the state of movement of a summoned creature prior to being summoned is 'undefined' by RAW. And since you cannot define that previous state, you cannot make arguments for the location of a summoned creature based upon its previous state of movement. I think that you're trying to add in a level of complexity that was most certainly not intended. D&D can get convoluted but it doesn't get that complex. It's a turn based system after all. There's no reason not to have such things defined by the summoner with some caveats. You would apply the rules for environment and being able to be supported to prevent abuse. This way you could summon a flying creature in the air, but you could not set it to being stalled when summoned, rather depending on maneuverability you would need to set things like facing. But other than cruel, there would be no advantage to summoning something like a bison as altitude. Unless you believe somehow it is going to hit someone during the fall and do damage, which I do not. It is not only unsupported by the rules, it causes a great deal of abuse in and of itself. -James
trollbill 05-24-07, 01:33 PM	I think that you're trying to add in a level of complexity that was most certainly not intended. What complexity? I am simply refuting one particular argument. D&D can get convoluted but it doesn't get that complex. It's a turn based system after all. There's no reason not to have such things defined by the summoner with some caveats. You would apply the rules for environment and being able to be supported to prevent abuse. This way you could summon a flying creature in the air, but you could not set it to being stalled when summoned, rather depending on maneuverability you would need to set things like facing. I agree that's a perfectly reasonable way of House Ruling it. My point is, though, that you are House Ruling it. Which should be minimized in LG (if possible) since that creates table variation. Since the rules clearly state they have to come in on a surface that supports them and cannot come in floating in mid air, you have a straight forward, consistant, if not necessarily totally logical rule. Ergo, no need to House Rule it even if your rule is better than RAW. But other than cruel, there would be no advantage to summoning something like a bison as altitude. Maybe he thought they had Buffalo Wings? ;)
Hand_OF_Mystra 05-25-07, 11:05 AM	Even more counter-intuitive when you consider that sharks have no gills and hence suffocate if they are not swimming at all times. In fact when I think about it summoning a shark stationary on a surface (even under water) would probably contravene the "within an environment that can support it". Sharks do have gills but "A small subset of shark species that spend their life constantly swimming, a behavior common in pelagic sharks, have lost the ability to pump water through their gills. These species are obligate ram ventilators and would presumably asphyxiate if unable to stay in motion." (wikipedia referencing http://www.textbookleague).org/73shark.htm (http://www.textbookleague.org/73shark.htm)
Hand_OF_Mystra 05-25-07, 11:14 AM	So a flyer could be summoned into air since air can support its flight. A earth elemental or xorn could be summoned into earth (if you can work around the line of effect issues). But most creatures couldn't be summoned into earth and the xorn couldn't appear inside a wooden wall. But how could you possibly work around line of effect to summon in rock or magma?
katrick 05-27-07, 06:25 AM	I see a reason why: That interpretation of "the intent of the rule" violates the letter of the rule. "A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." The intent and the wording seem pretty clear to me. No surface, no summoning. I see one slight problem with this argument. The summoned creature cannot be summoned into another object. By RAW you can't summon at all, as the environments themselves are objects, the Ocean(object), Atmosphere(object),the Earth(object), Volcanic Rock(object). Notice the capitals for Pro-nouns, naming words which describe objects. On the Undefined movement mode, what if the summoned creature was asleep or having a bath or making the two headed beast? katrick
_metz_ 05-27-07, 07:43 AM	I see one slight problem with this argument. The summoned creature cannot be summoned into another object. By RAW you can't summon at all, as the environments themselves are objects, the Ocean(object), Atmosphere(object),the Earth(object), Volcanic Rock(object). Notice the capitals for Pro-nouns, naming words which describe objects. On the Undefined movement mode, what if the summoned creature was asleep or having a bath or making the two headed beast? katrick I see your point, but I would like to point out that scientifically, they are all mediums unless you are in a vacuum. I would rule within the bounds of common sense. If a player at the table argued RAW that his mate couldn't summon his Arrowhawk in flight, I would let that player be 'right' and stop his fellow party member, but in most situation would allow it. If I felt the player was abusing the rules I would RAW them on the spot to prevent it. However, in most situations its not going to be a player trying to abuse the rules. This is about a fun and 'semi' realistic game (in terms of common sense) and Any DM that stopped a summoner character cos the module was out at sea and made the sharks be summoned in a flowing tank of sea water on the ship instead of out at sea would get stern looks of disapproval form me.
Cardinal Teplin 05-27-07, 08:13 AM	I reiterate, the state of movement of a summoned creature prior to being summoned is 'undefined' by RAW. And since you cannot define that previous state, you cannot make arguments for the location of a summoned creature based upon its previous state of movement. If you were right, then by the same token no creature summoned could ever be 'floating', since it's state of movement is undefined. Thus the porhibition in the RAW of 'floating in midair' is neatly circumvented, and creatures can be summoned in mid-air. Not a happy result. Of course, the restriction on a surface that can support it remains. Since mid-air is a surface that can support a creature with a fly speed, we're back to summoning creatures in mid-air. I don't agree with your line of reasoning, since it seems to confuse 'unknown' or 'unspecified' with 'none available'. But even following your arguement, I don't see that it takes you anywhere useful in any case.
chesspiece 05-27-07, 11:49 AM	But how could you possibly work around line of effect to summon in rock or magma? I didn't have anything specific in mind, I just didn't want to talk in absolutes in case there is a race / PRC / spell / feat that would allow one to ignore certain materials with respect to LoE. I know that there's a class in Races of Stone that permits line of sight through stone and I'm not up on the Planar books. I guess the typical case would be summoning something half-in the material. For instance a large earth elemental / xorn in a 5' high earth tunnel. I'd have to read up on it, but some GMs might even allow you to summon just below the surface. Since the creature couldn't be 'completely' under the surface (to give you line of effect to part of the creature you're summoning), it would give the opposition the telltale sign that an earth creature was summoned in that square (slight bulge / ripple of earth). But I suppose the key points of this discussion are: Your Mileage May Vary and Expect Table Variation.
King Kashue 05-29-07, 01:21 AM	By RAW you can't summon at all, as the environments themselves are objects, the Ocean(object), Atmosphere(object),the Earth(object), Volcanic Rock(object). Notice the capitals for Pro-nouns, naming words which describe objects. [grammar police] Those aren't pronouns (and they certainly aren't pro-nouns). Those are just nouns. Nouns are names of specific things or classes of things. Pronouns replace a noun. "He, she, it, they, them, you, that, this..." etc... [/grammar police]
trollbill 05-29-07, 01:30 PM	If you were right, then by the same token no creature summoned could ever be 'floating', since it's state of movement is undefined. Thus the porhibition in the RAW of 'floating in midair' is neatly circumvented, and creatures can be summoned in mid-air. Not a happy result. Of course, the restriction on a surface that can support it remains. Since mid-air is a surface that can support a creature with a fly speed, we're back to summoning creatures in mid-air. I don't agree with your line of reasoning, since it seems to confuse 'unknown' or 'unspecified' with 'none available'. But even following your arguement, I don't see that it takes you anywhere useful in any case. Well, my entire point there was to invalidate the argument that you could circumvent the 'floating in midair' rule by claiming the creature had some form of movement state other than 'floating' prior to it being summoned. It could have been flying, it could have been floating, it could have been hitchhiking. You just don't know. I believe I also point out previously that if you do wish to take the rules on this to their technical conclusion, you would only be violating them if you summoned a creature into the middle of a total vaccum. Regardless, I still don't consider 'air' to be a surface from a gaming perspective.
katrick 05-30-07, 08:40 AM	[grammar police] Those aren't pronouns (and they certainly aren't pro-nouns). Those are just nouns. Nouns are names of specific things or classes of things. Pronouns replace a noun. "He, she, it, they, them, you, that, this..." etc... [/grammar police] oops proper nouns, i was pretty close for remembering grammar from school 25 years ago, but i'm sure it had the hyphon then. katrick
King Kashue 05-30-07, 06:20 PM	oops proper nouns, i was pretty close for remembering grammar from school 25 years ago, but i'm sure it had the hyphon then. katrick [grammar police...again, sorry ;)] They're not proper nouns either. Proper nouns refer to a specific individual thing "The Pantheon", "The Atlantic Ocean", "The Detroit Tigers"... 'volcanic rock', etc. are just plain old nouns... [/grammar police]
Cardinal Teplin 05-30-07, 06:56 PM	Regardless, I still don't consider 'air' to be a surface from a gaming perspective. <Shrug.> I consider that any interpretation of the rules that bans things that are supposed to be achievable under the rules, must be incorrect. Like summoning sharks in water. So I go with an interpretation that allows birds in the air, fish in the sea, and land creatures on terra firma. No plummeting whales, no collapsing floors with a single creature. This has the advantage of fulfilling the spirit of the rule, the stated intention of the rule, and being reasonable. It does require a somewhat atypical definition of 'surface', but it's better than any of the alternatives I've heard so far. It works, they don't. If anyone has a better solution, let's hear it.
trollbill 05-30-07, 07:17 PM	This has the advantage of fulfilling the spirit of the rule, the stated intention of the rule, and being reasonable. Well, see, that's where I diverge. Not that I disagree with the concepts you just listed, spirit, intent and reasonableness are all important, but because I don't think the intent of the rule is as clear as you make it out to be. Just because the rule has the effect of preventing you from dropping a whale on someone's head doesn't mean that was the intent, or perhaps more accurately, the only intent. I am not fully convinced of the entirety of the intent, so I fall back on the letter.
King Kashue 05-30-07, 07:26 PM	It does require a somewhat atypical definition of 'surface', but it's better than any of the alternatives I've heard so far. It works, they don't. If anyone has a better solution, let's hear it. As I said, the definition is not so atypical as it's being made out. It's the secondary definition in most scholarly dictionaries (including the OED, which as we know is infallible ;)) I am not fully convinced of the entirety of the intent, so I fall back on the letter. And since "surface" isn't defined in the core rule books, despite Ken's (still) entirely unsupported claim, there are legitimate, common usages of the word that allow for airborne creature in the air and waterborne creatures in the water, while still satisfying the explicit letter of the rules.
JamesMaissen 05-30-07, 10:49 PM	Well, see, that's where I diverge. Not that I disagree with the concepts you just listed, spirit, intent and reasonableness are all important, but because I don't think the intent of the rule is as clear as you make it out to be. So where would you say a Shark could be summoned? Is it even possible under your reading? -James
Cardinal Teplin 05-31-07, 10:48 AM	I am not fully convinced of the entirety of the intent, so I fall back on the letter. We're both following the letter. Your interpretation is a more natural reading of the letter, mine is a less common meaning of the letter, but we're both following the letter. Since yours doesn't actually make sense in the context of the ability, I fall back on mine. I have no particular objection to your interpretation, or the way you reached it. It's just that it doesn't work in practice.
trollbill 05-31-07, 11:08 AM	So where would you say a Shark could be summoned? Is it even possible under your reading? -James If you will look back through my posts you will see I never contended that I felt water wasn't a 'surface' in the context of the rules. I only stated that for air, and that mostly because of the statement regarding not appearing "floating in midair," which appears to be a clarification of what is meant by a surface capable of supporting the summoned creature. Perhaps you confused by arguments against the 'drowning Shark' argument as being against summoning creatures in the water, but it wasn't. It was soley meant to dispute the contention of the state of movement prior to being summoned as a known factor. So to answer your question, my interpretation of the rules matches yours when it comes to water and water-borne creatures. Also note that it is necessary to have water-borne creatures appear in water in order to be useful. The same is not true of flying creatures who can appear on the ground and then take flight. So it does work in practice.
JamesMaissen 05-31-07, 07:56 PM	So to answer your question, my interpretation of the rules matches yours when it comes to water and water-borne creatures. Also note that it is necessary to have water-borne creatures appear in water in order to be useful. The same is not true of flying creatures who can appear on the ground and then take flight. So it does work in practice. Not if you are flying at the time of summoning. If you are a 100ft off the ground suddenly you can't summon an Air Elemental without land for it to be standing(?) on. But I'm not sure how in the middle of water and without action subsequently sinking is much different from the middle of the air and without action subsequently falling. So to the next absurd situation, how would a bat swarm be summonable? As a flying swarm it has far more creatures than a crawling one and as such appearing with them all on the ground is not an option. Or is it possible to appear in mid-air if one is *close* to the ground? -James
Timlagor 05-31-07, 09:28 PM	Your ruling is now practical.. it's just not internally consistent instead.
clannagh 05-31-07, 10:08 PM	Not if you are flying at the time of summoning. If you are a 100ft off the ground suddenly you can't summon an Air Elemental without land for it to be standing(?) on. -James The situation where the PC is flying at a reasonable altitude (either mounted, using an innate ability or through a spell doesnt really matter how) is one of the circumstantial non-rule-based points against insisting on flying summons having to be parked on a solid surface (albiet with engine checks done, nav lights on and with tower permission to enter the main runway). What on earth does a PC do if they are flying themselves at 1000' or so ? Wear a large flat hat and summon it on top of their own head ????
katrick 06-01-07, 03:30 PM	NooooooooO!! all my hopes are dashed! You can't summon on the Elemental Plane of Air, Or the Ethereal, Astral, Negative Energy or Purgatory. Or more importantly in a Bag of Holding. katrick luck I bought my Flying carpet(surface)
trollbill 06-01-07, 03:33 PM	Not if you are flying at the time of summoning. If you are a 100ft off the ground suddenly you can't summon an Air Elemental without land for it to be standing(?) on. How does it not work in practice? By my interpretation of the rules, a summoner could not summon under these conditions. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean it neither fails to work nor is inconsistent. A summoner stuck in a 5'x5'x5' chamber with no exits can't summon either. Should we misinterpret the rules just so he can? But I'm not sure how in the middle of water and without action subsequently sinking is much different from the middle of the air and without action subsequently falling. Let's go back to the root of the argument, shall we? It was proposed that a creature that was flying prior to having been summoned did not violate the prohibition against being summoned "floating in midair,' due to the fact that it was 'flying' and not 'floating.' My counter to this was that since the state of movement prior to being summoned was unknown, and thus undefined, a summoned creature could not be in a state of 'flying' (or 'walking' or 'swimming' or 'doing the Macarena') at the moment it was summoned. However, since a summoned creature may act the instant after it is summoned, it could then have a defined movement state on its turn. Thus a water-borne creature summoned into the water could not have a movement state of 'swimming' at the instant it is summoned, but could have such a state immediately thereafter. Thus it would neither sink if negatively buoyant, nor rise if positively buoyant. A flying creature summoned in midair could immediately thereafter be flying also, except, of course, for the fact the rules say you can't summon creatures in midair. So to the next absurd situation, how would a bat swarm be summonable? As a flying swarm it has far more creatures than a crawling one and as such appearing with them all on the ground is not an option. Or is it possible to appear in mid-air if one is *close* to the ground? Well, if you want to play technical absurdism I will indulge this once. A Swarm is defined by the rules as a single creature. Thus it is possible for a swarm to be on a solid surface even though some of its constituent members are not. And now that this discussion has devolved into no longer being about the rules, but rather about how many absurdly picayune exceptions can be found under the misguided assumption that the ability to argue ad-nauseam is the same as being 'right,'... I will now leave this discussion. As a note: I don't think your interpretation is 'wrong.' Many portions of the rules are subject to interpretation and therefore have no one right answer (though infinite wrong ones). This is one of those cases and since your interpretation is a valid one that does not violate RAW, I would not argue it with a judge. Please extend that same courtesy to me. :tiphat:
mowaca 06-01-07, 07:11 PM	I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed that the game works better on a 2D surface - once you add water or flying, things get complicated. You can come up with all sorts of weird situations that could happen while flying or swimming that your GM will have to rule on. I don't think the building of strawmen here is really helpful. I'd rule that air isn't a surface, and the rules are pretty clear about where you can summon creatures. I think many of you have made valid points that would sway almost any GM to allow variations (perfect maneuverability would be the exception I'd allow), but the original poster should expect that flying creatures are not summoned as flying. I was also curious about the 'bomb' comment - without tactical height advantage, creature bombs are not particularly effective with a short range spell. But with the help of a fly spell, flying to 210ft would produce 20d6 damage from a 1st level spell ... sounds like what they wanted to avoid.
Cardinal Teplin 06-01-07, 08:31 PM	As a note: I don't think your interpretation is 'wrong.' Many portions of the rules are subject to interpretation and therefore have no one right answer (though infinite wrong ones). This is one of those cases and since your interpretation is a valid one that does not violate RAW, I would not argue it with a judge. Please extend that same courtesy to me. :tiphat: <Shrug> I suspect we can all agree on that. While I wouldn't want to be discourtious, it is very hard to square statements such as these: I agree that's a perfectly reasonable way of House Ruling it. My point is, though, that you are House Ruling it. I am not fully convinced of the entirety of the intent, so I fall back on the letter. With the idea that you don't feel my interpretation violates RAW. This is, of course, a message board, and confusion and misunderstanding are commonplace. I guess we chalk this one up to a misunderstanding.
JamesMaissen 06-02-07, 12:06 AM	I was also curious about the 'bomb' comment - without tactical height advantage, creature bombs are not particularly effective with a short range spell. But with the help of a fly spell, flying to 210ft would produce 20d6 damage from a 1st level spell ... sounds like what they wanted to avoid. I still don't think that this is correct. Merely falling doesn't mean that you fall on and hit a creature below you. There seems to be a leap of logic here and the result is somewhat absurd to me. Besides if that's the case then simply dropping boulders would do the same. -James
awroe 06-02-07, 11:32 AM	I still don't think that this is correct. Merely falling doesn't mean that you fall on and hit a creature below you. Heroes of Battle p68 suggests rules for bombardment that might be appropriate - an attack vs. AC5 to hit the square (with -4 for non-proficiency and 50' range increments), and allowing a DC15 reflex save to avoid the attack entirely. There may also be a penalty assigned since you can't aim the falling creature at all making it even harder to hit the right square.
JamesMaissen 06-02-07, 03:17 PM	Heroes of Battle p68 suggests rules for bombardment that might be appropriate - an attack vs. AC5 to hit the square (with -4 for non-proficiency and 50' range increments), and allowing a DC15 reflex save to avoid the attack entirely. There may also be a penalty assigned since you can't aim the falling creature at all making it even harder to hit the right square. Well a few things there: First it's not an LG rule as it's in a supplemental source. Much like we don't use the rules for firing volleys of arrows or morale checks in that section of that book. Second it is referring (as you allude) to is an attack, not merely dropping or falling. Third, I, atleast, find it a bit insane to think that a kamakazi(sp) belly flop is a desired attack form doing optimized damage over using spells or weapons. -James
Mystical_Tutor 06-02-07, 10:29 PM	It has never crossed my mind that you wouldn't be able to summon a flying and not having it flying when it arrived. Given the absurdity of the arguments against it, I'm going to pretty much just pretend not to have heard any of them. You should be able to summon creatures into a situation that would be normal for them. Flying creatures flying. Elementals in their elements. Aquatic creatures in water. Amphibians in water or on land. It's only when you do ridiculous things like trying to summon into mid-air something that can't fly or putting elementals in the wrong element that you should run into difficulties. Amen. I think if I ever ran into a GM that prohibited summoning a flying creature into its natural fighting element, specially an Arrowhawk, I'd just scoop my materials and head to the nearest bar. I would feel certain the individual had intentionally decided to be an advisary instead of a guide.
trollbill 06-03-07, 02:48 AM	With the idea that you don't feel my interpretation violates RAW. This is, of course, a message board, and confusion and misunderstanding are commonplace. I guess we chalk this one up to a misunderstanding. In this particular regard, by my interpretation of RAW, you are violating it. But I can see from the basis of your arguments that it is possible to interpret it your way and still be RAW, though this requires some stretching of the letter. Maybe that doesn't make any more sense...
Cardinal Teplin 06-03-07, 09:11 AM	In this particular regard, by my interpretation of RAW, you are violating it. But I can see from the basis of your arguments that it is possible to interpret it your way and still be RAW, though this requires some stretching of the letter. Maybe that doesn't make any more sense... Not entirely, but it does help me understand where you're coming from. Thanks.