Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GANADAI 06-30-07, 10:26 PM	First off, I have done many searches looking for an answer to this question and have not found any relevant answers. If there is already a thread about this please post a link to it. Thank you. Scenario: I had a RPGA group that consisted of four 3rd level (conjuration) druids who had wolf and riding dog animal companions. During an encounter against undead, they each summon 1d3 wolves. I tell them they must make a handle animal check (Push DC 25) in order to make them attack the undead. They argued against it, saying that the spell does not say you have to, but I argued that is states "It attacks your opponents to the best of it's abilities," and since the PHB pg. 74 Handle Animal states, "The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks," that they must push the animals (DC 25 Handle Animal check) to have them attack the undead. In which they replied, "How would a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard use handle animal to make it attack undead?" To which I replied, "They wouldn't be able to force the animal to attack the undead, so the animal would not attack." Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? Also: I assume a riding dog starts with the "riding" tricks come, heel, and stay, and that the druid has to use the extra trick to teach it attack. However, they would have wait until level 3 to teach it an extra attack trick, or spend time units to train it, to attack undead. Does the wolf start with any tricks? Is there a difference between handling summoned animals and animal companions? Am I right or am I wrong here?
Eric Anondson 06-30-07, 11:13 PM	I think you are wrong. Handle Animal to push an animal is a full-round action. To say that after casting a full-round spell the PCs much do another full-round action to get the beast to attack is above and beyond. Doing this circumvents the whole "t acts immediately, on your turn" that is in the spell's description. Although after it has been summoned and given its first order on how to act, I think you would be in the right to insist the druid PCs make Handle Animal checks to get the beasts to [I]change actions. In my opinion.
Howie23 06-30-07, 11:43 PM	I assume a riding dog starts with the "riding" tricks come, heel, and stay, and that the druid has to use the extra trick to teach it attack. However, they would have wait until level 3 to teach it an extra attack trick, or spend time units to train it, to attack undead. Does the wolf start with any tricks? I'm not responding on the summoning aspect of this. The rules on the tricks for domestic animals/animal companions are on page 13 of the LGCS. The rule regarding tricks and animal companions is very clear. An animal companion starts with the maximimum number of tricks based upon its Int. So, an Int2 animal, such as a wolf or riding dog, starts with 7 tricks for a druid 1 or druid 2, more at higher levels. An everyday domestic creature with Int 2 starts with 2 tricks. How this fits in with warhorses/riding dogs is subject to extensive table variation. All players bringing animals to the table are responsible for identifying their tricks. That is very easy for animal companions. If you choose, as a DM, to assign tricks based upon the nature of the creature, in those situations where the player has not, I personally think that is reasonable, but the devil is in the details and not all will agree with what you select. David
CdrcJsn 07-01-07, 03:19 AM	Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? Nothing about your interpretation is against the rules. Also: I assume a riding dog starts with the "riding" tricks come, heel, and stay, and that the druid has to use the extra trick to teach it attack. However, they would have wait until level 3 to teach it an extra attack trick, or spend time units to train it, to attack undead. Does the wolf start with any tricks? The rules for animal companion tricks are in the LGCS. Non-companion Riding Dogs can come with any tricks when purchased. The PCs will need to specify what tricks they have. Is there a difference between handling summoned animals and animal companions? Am I right or am I wrong here? Yes. Druids and Rangers can handle their animals companions as a free action (move action to push them). Other than that...no difference. A lenient judge can allow players to summon specific animals with certain tricks (i.e. attack unnatural) but that's not really stated anywhere in the rules. Next time a similar situation comes up though, you might want to let the PC know (actually they should ask if they know what they're doing) before the game starts to avoid negative feelings during heated combat moments. At the very least, you can allow them to switch out to a non-animal summon (elemental or hippogriff).
GANADAI 07-01-07, 04:34 AM	I think you are wrong. Handle Animal to push an animal is a full-round action. To say that after casting a full-round spell the PCs much do another full-round action to get the beast to attack is above and beyond. Doing this circumvents the whole "t acts immediately, on your turn" that is in the spell's description. Although after it has been summoned and given its first order on how to act, I think you would be in the right to insist the druid PCs make Handle Animal checks to get the beasts to [I]change actions. In my opinion. I'm sorry, where does it say it is a full round action? I thought it was a move equivalent action. Also, it can still act immediately, just how it acts towards undead is my question.
GANADAI 07-01-07, 04:45 AM	I'm not responding on the summoning aspect of this. The rules on the tricks for domestic animals/animal companions are on page 13 of the LGCS. The rule regarding tricks and animal companions is very clear. An animal companion starts with the maximimum number of tricks based upon its Int. So, an Int2 animal, such as a wolf or riding dog, starts with 7 tricks for a druid 1 or druid 2, more at higher levels. Where does it state that an animal with 1 or 2 Int has a max of 7 tricks? Also, where does it state that an animal companion starts with max tricks? An everyday domestic creature with Int 2 starts with 2 tricks. How this fits in with warhorses/riding dogs is subject to extensive table variation. All players bringing animals to the table are responsible for identifying their tricks. That is very easy for animal companions. If you choose, as a DM, to assign tricks based upon the nature of the creature, in those situations where the player has not, I personally think that is reasonable, but the devil is in the details and not all will agree with what you select. David So it is upto the DM (me) right?
GANADAI 07-01-07, 04:55 AM	Nothing about your interpretation is against the rules. The rules for animal companion tricks are in the LGCS. Non-companion Riding Dogs can come with any tricks when purchased. The PCs will need to specify what tricks they have. Summon Animal / Natures Ally animals are not "purchased," they are summoned. Yes. Druids and Rangers can handle their animals companions as a free action (move action to push them). Other than that...no difference. A lenient judge can allow players to summon specific animals with certain tricks (i.e. attack unnatural) but that's not really stated anywhere in the rules. I thought it was stated pretty clearly: "The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks," Next time a similar situation comes up though, you might want to let the PC know (actually they should ask if they know what they're doing) before the game starts to avoid negative feelings during heated combat moments. At the very least, you can allow them to switch out to a non-animal summon (elemental or hippogriff). I don't really have a problem with how they control a summon with more than 2 Int, but when they are playing an APL 2 or 4 mod and I can't even touch them once there is a problem. I just don't want to have to argue about it "IF" it ever happens again. =)
awroe 07-01-07, 06:50 AM	Where does it state that an animal with 1 or 2 Int has a max of 7 tricks? Also, where does it state that an animal companion starts with max tricks? Max tricks is 2 * int (Handle Animal skill, Teach an Animal a Trick) Druid animal companions gain one bonus trick (Druid animal companion table) Animal Companions get Max Tricks (LGCS Chapter 5 Tricks section)
awroe 07-01-07, 06:52 AM	I don't really have a problem with how they control a summon with more than 2 Int, but when they are playing an APL 2 or 4 mod and I can't even touch them once there is a problem. I just don't want to have to argue about it "IF" it ever happens again. =) Note that all the creatures from the Summon Monster table are Celestial or Fiendish versions, which have a minimum of 3 intelligence and thus do not use tricks. Your question only applies to the Summon Nature's Ally line of spells.
awroe 07-01-07, 07:07 AM	I'm sorry, where does it say it is a full round action? I thought it was a move equivalent action. Also, it can still act immediately, just how it acts towards undead is my question. Handling an animal that has the trick is a move-equivalent action. *Pushing* an animal is a full round action (Action section of Handle Animal skill). While I can't find anything that clearly states Summon Nature's Ally doesn't abide by the trick selection rules, you are effectively making the spells useless. If I summon 1d3 wolves, I have to spend 1 round casting the spell (during which time I might have to make concentration checks for damage), then spend 1d3 full-round actions just to get the creatures to attack. After which time (at third level), the spell duration has nearly expired. Plus, a single Protection from Evil on the BBEG and none of my summons can hit. Four druids with focus on summoning should be able to cope with battles around their level, especially when using their highest level spell slots. They're not going to get more than 2 a day each though, and faced with a flying creature they're less useful. If you plan on making this ruling, do tell all the players before you start, as it has a major impact on spell selection / strategy and is not a common ruling.
awroe 07-01-07, 07:11 AM	but I argued that is states "It attacks your opponents to the best of it's abilities," Of course, a wolf is fully capable of attacking undead even without two attack tricks - it just doesn't like doing it (otherwise you wouldn't be able to push it). So it could easily be argued that "best of its abilities" involves attacking anything it can reach.
Lupo 07-01-07, 08:51 AM	First off, I have done many searches looking for an answer to this question and have not found any relevant answers. If there is already a thread about this please post a link to it. Thank you. Scenario: I had a RPGA group that consisted of four 3rd level (conjuration) druids who had wolf and riding dog animal companions. During an encounter against undead, they each summon 1d3 wolves. I tell them they must make a handle animal check (Push DC 25) in order to make them attack the undead. They argued against it, saying that the spell does not say you have to, but I argued that is states "It attacks your opponents to the best of it's abilities," and since the PHB pg. 74 Handle Animal states, "The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks," that they must push the animals (DC 25 Handle Animal check) to have them attack the undead. In which they replied, "How would a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard use handle the animal to make it attack undead?" To which I replied, "They wouldn't be able to force the animal to attack the undead, so the animal would not attack." Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? Also: I assume a riding dog starts with the "riding" tricks come, heel, and stay, and that the druid has to use the extra trick to teach it attack. However, they would have wait until level 3 to teach it an extra attack trick, or spend time units to train it, to attack undead. Does the wolf start with any tricks? Is there a difference between handling summoned animals and animal companions? Am I right or am I wrong here? while i agree that the rules imply this for "summon nature's ally" to some degree i wouldn't enforce it for several reasons. reason a: the part in the spell: "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability". an animal CAN attack undead - just normally doesn't like it very much. reason b: smart druids would just place the animals in a fashion that the undead attack them first, than the animals just defend themselves. for wolves: if there are plenty of them the pack will most likely defend against any creature attacking ONE of them. reason c: the moment the druid is high enough to summon "dire" animals the point becomes moot, as most dire animals have the description: dire badger - "These vicious creatures tolerate no intrusions." dire boar - "They viciously attack anything that approaches them, however." etc. so it only hurts the druid's baby levels and then can be a real neck-breaker ciao martin m.
JamesMaissen 07-01-07, 09:08 AM	"The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks," I don't really have a problem with how they control a summon with more than 2 Int, but when they are playing an APL 2 or 4 mod and I can't even touch them once there is a problem. I just don't want to have to argue about it "IF" it ever happens again. =) Two things here: 1st. As stated, the animal is able to attack unnatural creatures, it just needs to be convinced (ie pushed to do so) in normal circumstances. As a summoned creature it does so automatically, instead of a handle animal (either normal or a push) you need to point. If they so indicated then there is no problem. It's not a question of tricks, as that's just how the animal knows how to respond to those directing it. Now wraiths and others with special entries are something else. 2nd. The 'I can't even touch them once there is a problem' seems to be coming from the wrong point of view as I'm reading it. It seems as if it's supposing there is something that you need to do on your end to 'fix' things. It's supposing an adversarial relationship which is not a good thing. From the sound of it all you have is a table that can drop alot of summons on the table put against things that have no quick easy recourse to them. That's how it goes, and isn't worth contorting the laws of physics for the next four hours to change. I mean you wouldn't decide that they should have potions of protection from good (assuming that they don't) and have them quaff these potions, would you? So why (assuming this is what you did) decide to 'interpret' rules to suit your needs this way? -James
KShaver 07-01-07, 10:40 AM	Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? From the SRD under Summon Natures Ally: It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. Its clear that the caster doesn't have to do anything extra to get the summon to attack their enemies, but the summoned creature does only that (to the best of its ability) unless the caster has some way of communicating with it to give it different directions. In this case the undead were their enemies, the summoned creatures would attack them. The animal companions are a different story, they require an appropriate handle animal check (which is easy if they have the trick). You don't have to do anything special to try to hurt them, just run the module as written. They are after all spending a decent amount of resources to not take that damage, thats just as good as them having to use those spells to heal.
Eric Anondson 07-01-07, 11:39 AM	I'm sorry, where does it say it is a full round action? I thought it was a move equivalent action.It says it in the Handle Animal section. You said you were making the PCs succeed a "Push" an Animal, DC 25. So: Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while pushing an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action por push it as a move action.) Your rule makes PCs perform two full-round actions to get a summoned animal to do what the caster wanted it to do. It is an unreasonable nerfing of the spell.
Howie23 07-01-07, 12:15 PM	Where does it state that an animal with 1 or 2 Int has a max of 7 tricks? Also, where does it state that an animal companion starts with max tricks? This was answered elsewhere. So it is upto the DM (me) right? If the player has not identified the tricks, for you, as the DM, to do so based upon the type of animal is something that I think is reasonable. So is having the player choose them immediately when it becomes known. So is you determining the tricks in the midst of the combat and then having the player choose them after the combat, etc. This isn't a "what's right" situation, it's a situation of how to keep the game moving without penalizing people, nor allowing players from unduly benefitting from their lack of preparation. You can avoid it altogether when you are starting the table by asking people if they have their tricks identified for their animals. David
Prof. Pacali 07-01-07, 02:51 PM	Scenario: I had a RPGA group that consisted of four 3rd level (conjuration) druids who had wolf and riding dog animal companions. During an encounter against undead, they each summon 1d3 wolves. I tell them they must make a handle animal check (Push DC 25) in order to make them attack the undead. They argued against it, saying that the spell does not say you have to, but I argued that is states "It attacks your opponents to the best of it's abilities," and since the PHB pg. 74 Handle Animal states, "The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks," that they must push the animals (DC 25 Handle Animal check) to have them attack the undead. In which they replied, "How would a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard use handle the animal to make it attack undead?" To which I replied, "They wouldn't be able to force the animal to attack the undead, so the animal would not attack." Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? Is there a difference between handling summoned animals and animal companions? Am I right or am I wrong here? You don't handle summoned monsters/nature's allies. Animals summoned with the Summon Monster spells have the celestial or fiendish templates, have an INT of 3, and speak a language. Therefore the Handle Animal skill is useless, you just need to speak the right language to get them to do anything other than attack. Animals summoned with Summon Nature's Allies do not need to be handled in order to attack. The spell summons an animal, and causes it to attack the caster's enemies. If the caster wants the summoned animal to do something else, she will either need to cast Speak with Animals, or possibly use the Handle Animal skill. You are within your rights as a DM to require a Handle Animal check if the caster wants the summoned animal to flank, aid another, track, or pull something heavy, but to require one to require one for attacking enemies (even unnatural ones) is going beyond the RAW into house rule territory.
trollbill 07-01-07, 04:37 PM	The rules state: "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability." This is a clear, concise statement with no other implications regarding additional requirements or restrictions for this one act. If something only attacks a creature if successfully pushed to do so, it is not attacking it to the best of its ability. So interpreting this statement to mean: "It attacks your opponents to the best of your ability to command it to." Is not an 'interpretation' but a gross rules violation. This violation is obviously intended to nerf a particular class ability that a DM finds annoying. Which in a home game might be okay. But in LG you are required to follow the rules. It is also important to note that every time a DM does something like this they are fueling the Player vs. DM game mentallity which I find to be a bad form of DMing even if I am occasionally guilty of it myself. Now the summoning rules can certainly be interpreted to require a Handle Animal or Diplomacy check to get summoned creatures to do something other than attack your opponent to the best of its ability, but that doesn't have any effect upon the first statement. Also note that nothing in the rules states that summoned animals know any tricks at all, and I would think it highly unlikely they would as they are supposed to be wild animals and wild animals don't know 'tricks' as that is purely a feature of trained ones. Ergo, any attempt to get a summoned animal to do a trick is a Push, as the Handle Animal rules require a Push in order for any animal to perform a trick it doesn't know. In short, the Handle Animal skill only applies to summoned animals when you are trying to get them to do anything other than attack your opponents to the best of their ability. NOTE: As the DM you are perfectly within your rights to decide what "to the best of their ability" means as far as tactics goes. While it's usually easier to let the players control their own summoned creatures make sure they aren't using tactics the animals wouldn't use themselves such as strategically positioning themselves to block charge lanes, flanking with creatures other than those summoned by the same spell, using an attack option other than just a standard melee attack, going after the wizard in the back rather than the fighter whose closer, etc.
CdrcJsn 07-01-07, 07:42 PM	I agree that a summoned animal will not normally require a separate handle animal to cause it to attack. However, ignoring the effects of unnatural creatures on animals (normally requires a trick to force them to attack) will mean that: * A dire ape will pick up rocks and throw them as improvised weapons at opponents it can't reach * animals will try to grapple those it can't physically harm due to DR or hardness Because after all, they're attacking "to the best of its ability" and those things are actions that the creature is physically capable of doing (i.e. could be pushed to do). So by the logic of some, it would use the best tactic it can physically do and not what an average animal of its type would do.
trollbill 07-01-07, 09:37 PM	I agree that a summoned animal will not normally require a separate handle animal to cause it to attack. However, ignoring the effects of unnatural creatures on animals (normally requires a trick to force them to attack) will mean that: * A dire ape will pick up rocks and throw them as improvised weapons at opponents it can't reach * animals will try to grapple those it can't physically harm due to DR or hardness Because after all, they're attacking "to the best of its ability" and those things are actions that the creature is physically capable of doing (i.e. could be pushed to do). So by the logic of some, it would use the best tactic it can physically do and not what an average animal of its type would do. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. The distinction here is that the animals attack the opponents to the best of the animal's ability. Not to the best of the player's abilities and not to the best of the character's ability to direct them. The restrictions should be based on the limitations of the animals, not the limitations of either the players or the characters, i.e. its the DM that should be using his best judgement to decide what "the best of their ability" means without consideration of player input. Players, of course, can attempt to use Handle Animal, Speak with Animals or any other method they want to try to modify that reaction. But the initial interpretation should be independent of that. The concept that wolves, for example, cannot attack Undead to the best of their ability without someone pushing them to do it is not a logical concept. Sure, the wolves may be reluctant. But if they are starving and a zombie wanders by or a ghoul threatens their cubs, I don't think the wolves will sit by helplessly hoping someone will wander by with the Handle Animal skill to push them so they can eat the zombie or protect their young. They are quite capable of attacking the undead to the best of their ability without being pushed.
CdrcJsn 07-01-07, 10:07 PM	The concept that wolves, for example, cannot attack Undead to the best of their ability without someone pushing them to do it is not a logical concept. Sure, the wolves may be reluctant. But if they are starving and a zombie wanders by or a ghoul threatens their cubs, I don't think the wolves will sit by helplessly hoping someone will wander by with the Handle Animal skill to push them so they can eat the zombie or protect their young. They are quite capable of attacking the undead to the best of their ability without being pushed. A wolf will not attack a zombie since it won't recognize it as an animal and source of food any more than it would attack a rock sitting on the ground. A tree that falls and crushes her cubs will not cause a wolf to go on a rampage and attack the tree. Under normal circumstances a natural animal will not attack unnatural creatures like golems or undead. Those things are like trees in a forest. Smelly, oozing trees that just happens to be moving. Why should he attack it? The animal might not even realize it's something it can attack. A summoned animal might just sit around confused as to why you summoned it if it doesn't see any available targets from its point of view. I've seen on TV a real-life guard dog stand around confused when a man was inside a giant metal hamster ball and walking around the area it was supposed to be guarding. This dog was fairly vicious and attacked previous targets (suitably armored) entering its territory. It just had no clue that the big ball in the yard is intelligent and was supposed to be stopped. If you're gonna allow a summoned animal enough cognizance to go beyond it's basic nature and do something that it would never do in the wild, then I see no issue with allowing Dire Apes improvised thrown weapons or grappling tigers. It's not like druids are overly screwed by requiring them to push creatures to attack things they normally won't. There are other summons available (intelligent creatures), or he can just use the actual spells rather than convert them to summons.
JamesMaissen 07-02-07, 04:41 AM	Umm.. Handle animal convinces an animal to do something. This is not a magical ability that enables it to do things it couldn't otherwise accomplish. Just because you succeed at the handle animal DC to make the animal 'come' doesn't mean it can, just that you've convinced it to do so. Summon Nature's Ally already and automatically directs the creatures summoned to attack enemies. There is no convincing required here, the spell supplies it. Don't convice 'unnatural creatures' under the second attack trick with 'unnatural aura' that some undead have. -James
trollbill 07-02-07, 10:45 AM	A wolf will not attack a zombie since it won't recognize it as an animal and source of food any more than it would attack a rock sitting on the ground. A zombie is a walking corpse. Wolves eat carrion. While the fact that the carrion is moving might confuse a wolf, it by no means would not see it as potential food. A tree that falls and crushes her cubs will not cause a wolf to go on a rampage and attack the tree. A wolf mother won't usually attack a living creature if her cubs are already dead either. They are too smart to endanger themselves when there is nothing they can do about it. I am a long time pet owner and have seen many instances of dogs attempting to protect their owners from rolly chairs and even plastic bags blowing in the wind because they thought those things were a threat to their owners. It may have been something they were unfamiliar with, but it was clear from watching the animals that it was 'movement' that defined 'living' in their eyes. Under normal circumstances a natural animal will not attack unnatural creatures like golems or undead. Those things are like trees in a forest. Smelly, oozing trees that just happens to be moving. Why should he attack it? Because it is moving and because it is a threat. Why would an animal care if it was living or not if it posed a threat? Do you really think they make that distinction before deciding to act? By your logic, a wolf wouldn't move out of the way of a boulder rolling down a slope because the boulder isn't a living creature so the wolf shouldn't care. If you're gonna allow a summoned animal enough cognizance to go beyond it's basic nature and do something that it would never do in the wild, then I see no issue with allowing Dire Apes improvised thrown weapons or grappling tigers. This all assumes I agree that animals would never attack undead or constructs in the wild. I find your arguments against that to be rather poor. While I agree they would avoid them most of the time, this is not the same thing as saying they would never attack them. It's not like druids are overly screwed by requiring them to push creatures to attack things they normally won't. There are other summons available (intelligent creatures), or he can just use the actual spells rather than convert them to summons. If you don't think a player who just spent a full round summoning an animal to fight for him who then finds out he has to spend another full round 'attempting' to get them to do what the spell descriptions says it should do automatically doesn't think he is being screwed, you obviously haven't played enough. Regardless of you arguments (none of which I agree with), it is ludicrous to interpret 'not attacking' as, in any manner, meeting the definition of 'attack to the best of their ability.' The two statements are contradictory and doing so is being deliberately obtuse.
gomeztoo 07-02-07, 01:24 PM	I don't think any explanation of RL animal havior is useful in this discussion. The spells summons a creature for you that attacks your enemies. It doesn't say 'provided you make your Handle Animal check'. It attacks. It is not an animal that just wandered by. It is not a pet that follows you. It is a magically summoned, expendable (since it can't really die), creature, called for a purpose and therefor willing to perform that purpose. You have little control over which enemy it attacks unless you can speak with it, but it will attack your enemies, just like creatures summoned with summon monster.
trollbill 07-02-07, 02:28 PM	I don't think any explanation of RL animal havior is useful in this discussion. The spells summons a creature for you that attacks your enemies. It doesn't say 'provided you make your Handle Animal check'. It attacks. It is not an animal that just wandered by. It is not a pet that follows you. It is a magically summoned, expendable (since it can't really die), creature, called for a purpose and therefor willing to perform that purpose. You have little control over which enemy it attacks unless you can speak with it, but it will attack your enemies, just like creatures summoned with summon monster. You've got no argument from me on that.
CdrcJsn 07-02-07, 05:49 PM	Summoned Animals will attack creatures with no other cue from the caster (i.e. no handle animal check) to the best of their ability. I agree with that statement. My only contention though is that the animals are not magical constructs, but are rather summoned natural animals and will act like natural animals. They are not likely to attack things that they normally won't (unnatural creatures) unless they've had special training (know attack unnatural trick) or something is forcing them (i.e. pushing them). Handle Animals states "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." Most here seem to be of the opinion that the spell automatically causes the animal to attack things it is physically capable of attacking even if it normally won't do that in the wild, based on the reading of the spell (to the best of its ability). I'm just pointing out that if you follow that same logic, people should also accept that the summoned animal will attack using tactics it normally won't in the wild. Throwing an improvised weapon at unreachable foes is something a Dire Ape can physically do, though it might not be in its normal nature, much like attacking unnatural creatures is something a summoned animal can physically do, but is against it's normal nature. The other interpretation is that the animal is a normal animal and that it will attack things it recognizes as a hostile target (i.e. not unnatural creatures) and to make it attack something unnatural would necessitate a handle animal check or some other means to communicate with the animal.
solbergb 07-02-07, 06:02 PM	My take. 1. Summoned monsters without instructions go after whatever the caster thinks is his enemies. They "know" who enemies are the same way bardsong "knows" who allies are. Summoned animals will still attack unnatural things, unless they have some ability like the wraith fear aura which will panic anything of animal type...they "know" they are an enemy and will keep attacking, moving from enemy to enemy until killed, all foes are dead or they're somehow called off. Unlike a normal wolf, it won't care that the tree is walking and normally it doesn't attack trees. The tree has the "enemy" marker, it's closest (or was pointed to by summoner) so it tries to attack it. 2. If you can communicate with them normally (eg, you speak ignan and are summoning fire elementals, or you have speak with animals running and summon an animal, or you summon a critter with telepathy or that speaks common such as giant owl) they will do whatever you ask them to do that they're capable of, not just attacking enemies. 3. If you can't communicate, you may be able to use some alternate means of communication that is harder. With animals, that's usually a "push" on a handle animal check, because with the exception of "Mount" the critters you summon aren't trained in any tricks. With nonanimals, you may be able to communicate something with other means (gestures, pantomime, emotional displays) but that may require int checks or sense motive checks or something on the summoned critter part to guess what you want, and they might guess wrong. If confused - they probably default to attacking your enemies.
CdrcJsn 07-02-07, 07:06 PM	By the way, I'm just playing devil's adovate here. I don't think I've ever called for a Handle Animal check for summoned animals while judging nor has my druid ever been called to make one. I just don't think that calling for a handle animal for summoned animals to attack unnatural creatures is necessarily against the rules. It's more of a grey area and is therefore subject to the Judge's interpretation. I also don't think that it unfairly nerfs druids because they still have a ton of options other than summoning animals.
solbergb 07-02-07, 07:42 PM	I just don't think that calling for a handle animal for summoned animals to attack unnatural creatures is necessarily against the rules. It's more of a grey area and is therefore subject to the Judge's interpretation. I wouldn't argue with the judge but I would ask if I could have chosen a different beast after he ruled that way. I think the ruling is wrong but there's enough support for the opinion that a player isn't gonna win that argument.
GANADAI 07-02-07, 09:40 PM	Max tricks is 2 * int (Handle Animal skill, Teach an Animal a Trick) Druid animal companions gain one bonus trick (Druid animal companion table) Animal Companions get Max Tricks (LGCS Chapter 5 Tricks section) Thank you. Yah, I saw that right after I posted the question. :)
GANADAI 07-02-07, 09:42 PM	Note that all the creatures from the Summon Monster table are Celestial or Fiendish versions, which have a minimum of 3 intelligence and thus do not use tricks. Your question only applies to the Summon Nature's Ally line of spells. That's a good point. I hadn't noticed that.
GANADAI 07-02-07, 11:06 PM	By the way, I'm just playing devil's adovate here. I don't think I've ever called for a Handle Animal check for summoned animals while judging nor has my druid ever been called to make one. I just don't think that calling for a handle animal for summoned animals to attack unnatural creatures is necessarily against the rules. It's more of a grey area and is therefore subject to the Judge's interpretation. I also don't think that it unfairly nerfs druids because they still have a ton of options other than summoning animals. I really like how you put that, and feel exactly the same way. However, I don't think is illogical, as several other people have stated, to ask a druid to handle a wild animal to do something it would not normally do (i.e. attack something unnatural) when the Handle Animal skill clearly states that, "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." If a druid wants to summon 1d3 wild animals into the combat he can, but he is going to have to spend time handling them. What's the point of even having a Handle Animal skill if animals just act like intelligent NPC's? The group that I described earlier were playing at APL4 and were summoning 1d3 wolves at a time and having them move to flank human skeletons, wolf skeletons, human zombies and a ghoul ogre in an EL7 encounter. I think at one point there were six or seven summoned wolves in the combat (not including the druids animal companions). Since I gave in and didn't require them to make the handle animal checks they felt that they could just move the wolves around the board like highly trained attack dogs, while they spent their time making ranged attacks and casting other spells. When they should have had to spend that time trying to handle the six wolves they had summoned into combat. I don't even so much mind that they always moved the wolves to flank, because it says in the wolf's description that in a pack they will try and flank, but they will not attack a horde of undead, even as a pack, unless pushed to do so. If that means that the animal will disappear before the druid is able to convince it to attack, then they should try different tactics, not complain that the DM is trying to nerf their class by asking for a skill check.
clannagh 07-02-07, 11:38 PM	I really like how you put that, and feel exactly the same way. However, I don't think is illogical, as several other people have stated, to ask a druid to handle a wild animal to do something it would not normally do (i.e. attack something unnatural) when the Handle Animal skill clearly states that, "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." If a druid wants to summon 1d3 wild animals into the combat he can, but he is going to have to spend time handling them. What's the point of even having a Handle Animal skill if animals just act like intelligent NPC's? The group that I described earlier were playing at APL4 and were summoning 1d3 wolves at a time and having them move to flank human skeletons, wolf skeletons, human zombies and a ghoul ogre in an EL7 encounter. I think at one point there were six or seven summoned wolves in the combat (not including the druids animal companions). Since I gave in and didn't require them to make the handle animal checks they felt that they could just move the wolves around the board like highly trained attack dogs, while they spent their time making ranged attacks and casting other spells. When they should have had to spend that time trying to handle the six wolves they had summoned into combat. I don't even so much mind that they always moved the wolves to flank, because it says in the wolf's description that in a pack they will try and flank, but they will not attack a horde of undead, even as a pack, unless pushed to do so. If that means that the animal will disappear before the druid is able to convince it to attack, then they should try different tactics, not complain that the DM is trying to nerf their class by asking for a skill check. But they are just summons not actual wild creatures ?? In terms of the combat described I actually don't see the problem. If your party has a lot of summoners there are situations where they will swamp some encounters. So what ? With a party full of sorcerors there are some encounters that will be vaporised by multiple empowered scorching rays before you get out of the surprise round. It can get worse .. its possible with several druids at work at APL8 and up to get multiple huge creatures that can then be animal growthed. On the other hand there are encounters where multiple summons are useless .. at slightly higher levels creatures with DR and great cleave make multiple summoned natural creatures laughable. Not every seperate encounter needs to be balanced .. its just on average things have to balance out. In the situation you describe I would be cheering saying .. "go for it guys this is the time to use those wolves .. in fact I am calling the encounter as you have clearly won and moving on with the mod". The main argument against your interpretation is not RAW .. its based on an impression that it is highly unlikely that taking 4 rounds to get a first level spell to function properly is part of the original intent. (Especially when you make it clear that the wolves can more than handle the combat without a problem .. the only reason they are apparently wary is IF they were true natural creatures the undead aura would raise there hackles a bit) The second argument is not to do with the rules but more purpose of the GM. In LG the adversarial style of GMing (my monsters versus the party) is discouraged.
GANADAI 07-03-07, 02:13 AM	But they are just summons not actual wild creatures ?? Summon Nature’s Ally: "This spell summons a natural creature." Not magical, not celestial, not dire, an everyday, run of the mill wild animal. Just because it is summoned from another plane does not make it special. In terms of the combat described I actually don't see the problem. If your party has a lot of summoners there are situations where they will swamp some encounters. I understand that, and it's fine as long as they do it by the rules. So what ? With a party full of sorcerors there are some encounters that will be vaporised by multiple empowered scorching rays before you get out of the surprise round. So by that logic, there is no point in having the sorcerers make their ranged touch attacks because they'll swamp the encounter anyways. It can get worse .. its possible with several druids at work at APL8 and up to get multiple huge creatures that can then be animal growthed. What does this have to do with whether or not a 1 or 2 INT summoned animal will attack an unnatural creature? On the other hand there are encounters where multiple summons are useless .. at slightly higher levels creatures with DR and great cleave make multiple summoned natural creatures laughable. Not every seperate encounter needs to be balanced .. its just on average things have to balance out. In the situation you describe I would be cheering saying .. "go for it guys this is the time to use those wolves .. in fact I am calling the encounter as you have clearly won and moving on with the mod". Encounters are supposed to be challenging though, not just, "Oh lets skip this encounter because you don't want to play by the rules." The main argument against your interpretation is not RAW .. its based on an impression that it is highly unlikely that taking 4 rounds to get a first level spell to function properly is part of the original intent. (Especially when you make it clear that the wolves can more than handle the combat without a problem .. the only reason they are apparently wary is IF they were true natural creatures the undead aura would raise there hackles a bit) Summon Nature’s Ally: "All the creatures on the table are neutral unless otherwise noted." I think it functions exactly like the original intent. summoning one wolf with Summon Nature’s Ally I or 1d3 wolves with Summon Nature’s Ally II to attack natural enemies is fine. You don't have to make any check for the animal to attack, but you would still need to make a check for it to attack a specific enemy or to move to flank, etc.. However, once you start playing higher level mods those spells that were great at APL 2 don't work quite as well. Almost all spells are like this whether they have a save, max dmg, max HD affected... The higher the EL the higher the CR and the higher the HD the less effective spells become, but players don't argue about creatures getting saves, or having DR or SR, but as soon as they have to make a single skill check to get a first level spell to work properly at APL 4 they argue about it. Why should druids get special treatment while all the other players follow the rules? Besides, it would only take four rounds to make Summon Nature’s Ally II work if you decided to summon 1d3 animals, rolled a 3 and you were fighting only unnatural enemies, and by that time you should be at least level 3 or higher and you have the option to summon one animal instead which doesn't need to be pushed to attack. The second argument is not to do with the rules but more purpose of the GM. In LG the adversarial style of GMing (my monsters versus the party) is discouraged. This has nothing to do with my monsters versus the party. It has to do with players arguing with the Judge about rules that they don't like because it makes encounters challenging for them, which they should be. I played in an adventure recently, and one of the players from my game was there. During the encounter we had to fight lots of undead, and once again they kept summoning 1d3 wolves. I pointed out to the Judge that they are supposed to roll Handle Animal checks to push the wolves to attack the undead to which they replied, "I know, but most players don't like to play that way." WTF, they know, but they're just going to let it slide because the player doesn't like to play by the rules? I'm sorry, but according to the RPGA conduct rules that is flat out cheating.
gomeztoo 07-03-07, 03:11 AM	Not allowing a summon animal to work without full round actiosn to push an animal does nerfs druids. Seriously, summoned animals are not that powerful compared to summoned monsters. And in this case a summon monster works but a summon animal not? Because you didn't like it that your monsters were defeated with more ease? People keep talking as if an animal attacking a zombie suddenly turns it into an intelligent being that can wield weapons and make battlesplans or something. It doesn't. It is a creature that attacks your enemies. If you can talk to it you can even tell it how to attack, but even without it it attacks (unless the creature has a specific defence against aninmals). That's the fucntion of the spell. Whether a summoned animal would flank is a bit more suspect. It would generally go for the closest enemy, regardless of whetehr that is tactically sound. I had a problem once when I wnated to get a pouncing creature into combat - I couldn't place it in a spot where it would be able to pounce - as it would always be within 10 feet of another creature (which it woudl thus attack rather than the one it could pounce). That is a limitation of the spell - and you can certainly disallow such tactics. But the animal will attack. If there were any limitations it would say so in the spell. Handle Animal doesn't come into it unless you want to have the creature attack (or do) something else.
_metz_ 07-03-07, 03:26 AM	I played in an adventure recently, and one of the players from my game was there. During the encounter we had to fight lots of undead, and once again they kept summoning 1d3 wolves. I pointed out to the Judge that they are supposed to roll Handle Animal checks to push the wolves to attack to which they replied, "I know, but most players don't like to play that way." WTF, they know, but they're just going to let it slide because the player doesn't like to play by the rules? I'm sorry, but according to the RPGA rules that is flat out cheating. I have heard this arguement several times. "Who cares if they are fudging rolls, it keeps em alive and makes it more fun for everyone else cos they rely on that character" "Its about having fun, so I don't mind playing our house interpretation of the rule" "X isn't as powerful as Y therefore we give it the following breaks." I am a pretty ardent believer that core rules shouldn't be messed with. Not only does it set dangerous precedents, but also imo violates whats good about LG, consistent gaming rules in most situations. I have personally had players doing illegal things, and then been shocked when I told them they couldn't do it. They cited house rulings and other precedents to that effect as to why I should let them. Illegal is Illegal in my books. (May be pedantic, but hey, we are playing a game with a set of rules, ignore them and you may as well go LARP without dice) I definitely agree that Druids would have to press their creatures at low APLs to do things out of the ordinary for natural animals. Druids are beings who defend and live with nature, they don't operate out of it. I would like to point out that Animals DON'T attack dead things unless they are trained or hungry. A zombie is supposed to be unsettling to an animal. I don't really see it as a nerf, I see it as being in character. As to the statement on summoning, YES they are summoned creatures, summoning (conjuration) effect, but that means nothing as to how the creature is controlled. Such descriptions are in the spell description, and as such its a big leap to equate - Loyal summoned creature to something that you can either communicate with or get to do things that are unnatural. Gomeztoo, you have a valid point, however, whether it is 'fair' or not is kind of irrelevant. I come to a module where all the bad guys are undead with a rogue and I can't do anything. just like the druid you describe. I get over it, such things happen, and its the nature of the system, not EVERY class needs to have an ability inherent at low levels to deal with every type of challenge. It's why we have adventuring PARTIES. Issues of game balance in general are to do with core rules which we cannot change. (Would love a Rogue 10th level ability to allow it to sneak attack undead for example, which i think would be reasonable)
gomeztoo 07-03-07, 03:53 AM	I definitely agree that Druids would have to press their creatures at low APLs to do things out of the ordinary for natural animals. Druids are beings who defend and live with nature, they don't operate out of it. That would apply to normal creatures they have with them. My druid, who specializes in summoning, travels with a set of jackals (one at a time since the recent DC, but she owns several), and until recently her hyena companion (RIP). They have the attack and attack unnatural trick, so I don't have to push them, but I still need to handle them. And yes, I occasionally fail, and need to spend another move action to get my jackal to attack. But I do not think that applies to summoned animals. Now, I generally summon swarms or dustform craetures, which are constructs and therefor not subject to this ruling. But that doens't change my stance: summoned animals attack your enemies. IMO, they have been summoned to serve and they serve willingly. They CAN attack, and therefor they DO attack, regardless of what is 'normal' behavior. After all, being summoned isn't 'normal' either.
_metz_ 07-03-07, 04:32 AM	That would apply to normal creatures they have with them. My druid, who specializes in summoning, travels with a set of jackals (one at a time since the recent DC, but she owns several), and until recently her hyena companion (RIP). They have the attack and attack unnatural trick, so I don't have to push them, but I still need to handle them. And yes, I occasionally fail, and need to spend another move action to get my jackal to attack. But I do not think that applies to summoned animals. Now, I generally summon swarms or dustform craetures, which are constructs and therefor not subject to this ruling. But that doens't change my stance: summoned animals attack your enemies. IMO, they have been summoned to serve and they serve willingly. They CAN attack, and therefor they DO attack, regardless of what is 'normal' behavior. After all, being summoned isn't 'normal' either. I didn't weigh into the arguement on that really, I weighed in on the arguement that 'because its balancing/druids have been nerfed/I like it this way', so my statement was those aren't very valid.
GANADAI 07-03-07, 06:32 AM	That would apply to normal creatures they have with them. Once again, summoned animals are normal creatures. Summon Nature’s Ally: "This spell summons a natural creature." Therfore it does apply to them. If you can find anyplace that states otherwise I'd love to know where. My druid, who specializes in summoning, travels with a set of jackals (one at a time since the recent DC, but she owns several), and until recently her hyena companion (RIP). They have the attack and attack unnatural trick, so I don't have to push them, but I still need to handle them. And yes, I occasionally fail, and need to spend another move action to get my jackal to attack. Do you think playing a druid might make your opinion a little bias? But I do not think that applies to summoned animals. I get the impression it's more that you don't want it to apply to summoned animals, even though you know it does. Now, I generally summon swarms or dustform craetures, which are constructs and therefor not subject to this ruling. But that doens't change my stance: summoned animals attack your enemies. Only if they're attacking a natural enemy, not if they're attacking an unnatural enemy. IMO, they have been summoned to serve and they serve willingly. So you admit it is your "opinion" and you have presented no evidence to back it up. They CAN attack, and therefor they DO attack, regardless of what is 'normal' behavior. After all, being summoned isn't 'normal' either. What does it being summoned have to do with anything? It's basically the same thing as teleporting. If you teleport somewhere are you suddenly abnormal? NO. Summon Natures Ally doesn't even say the animal is summond from another plane, unlike Summon Monster, which would lead one to believe the animal is just summond from somewhere on Oreth. It is a normal animal. If you can find somewhere that says otherwise I'd love to know where. Otherwise the spell specifically states: "This spell summons a natural creature." Here is another way to think of it... normally, if you encountered an animal in the wild it would be either indifferent, unfriendly or hostile towards you, and you would have to use Handle Animal to change its attitude or possibly fight it. When you cast Summon Natures Ally, it changes the summond animals attitude toward your group to 'Friendly' and its attitude toward your enimies to 'Hostile'. Now take a look at the possible actions for Hostile; Attack, interfere, berate, flee. So, even though the animal will not attack the unnatural enemy, as the Handle Animal skill clearly states, "an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." It can still either interfere, berate or flee. Since it also states that it fights to the best of it's ability I'd assume it would interfere and berate the undead. Basically bark and provide flanks for you and your other party members, but it will not attack unless you push it to. I miss the good old days of moral saves.
pedr 07-03-07, 07:05 AM	Summoning is not, however, the same as finding and befriending an animal. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.The magic of summoning means the creature knows which things are 'your opponents' and which are not. The magic of summoning means it is already predisposed to attack 'your opponents' - and to do so 'to the best of its ability'. If you can reconcile 'it attacks your opponents to the best of its ability' with 'it sits there and waits for you to give it a command' then you're fine to go ahead and make that ruling. You are the GM, after all. I believe, however, that it is the wrong ruling because I do not believe that it is possible to reconcile the two positions. You shouldn't necessarily allow your players to control the creatures as if they had a telepathic link to them, or as if they were part of a D&D Minis warband. You are right that they are animals with an Int of 1 or 2. In fact, you'd perhaps be within your rights to take control of the animals yourself - though I'd not recommend it, and certainly only do that if you were sure that none of your players thought of you as their adversary! Note, however, that wolves instinctively flank, and riding dogs almost certainly will as well. Other animals are more likely to simply charge up and attack as ferociously as they can. But I am convinced that no further action by a druid is necessary in order to get a summoned animal to 'attack [the druid's] opponents to the best of [its] ability'.
gomeztoo 07-03-07, 07:30 AM	Once again, summoned animals are normal creatures. No, they are not. They do not really die, they follow your orders, and they, specifically, attack your enemies. There is NO exclusion anywhere in the spell that says 'only natural enemies'. Do you think playing a druid might make your opinion a little bias? I think far less than that your position as a DM does, as you apparently (but that is just my impression) take the stance mainly because it frustrates you that PCs can deal with your critters so easily. And as I already wrote, I don't summon animals. I get the impression it's more that you don't want it to apply to summoned animals, even though you know it does. You are wrong. But you are forgiven, as I have exactly the same impression about your opinion. Only if they're attacking a natural enemy, not if they have 1 or 2 INT and you're trying to make them attack an unnatural enemy. I am not trying to make them attack anything - they already do. The spell says so. I do not need to make Handle Animal checks to have them attack. Otherwise, logically, I would need to make those checks also to have them attack normal creatrures, because I have to do that when I order my companion to attack. But the animals already atatck - the spell ensures that. An dthere si no distinction at that point between types of enemies. So you admit it is your "opinion" and you have presented no evidence to back it up. It is my interpretation of the text of the spell. If you so desperately need 'evidence', there it is. What does it being summoned have to do with anything? It's basically the same thing as teleporting. Summoning is entirely different form teleporting. Teleport just moves things. Summoning calls creatures to do your bidding. Summoned creatures do not die, they cannot use certain abilities, and there is a measure of control. It is not like teleporting at all. When you cast Summon Natures Ally, it changes the summond animals attitude toward your group to 'Friendly' and its attitude toward your enimies to 'Hostile'. If that was the effect, the spel would say so. It doesn't. It says : the craeture attacks your enemies. Period. No except, no buts. It attacks. there are no other options given. So, even though the animal will not attack the unnatural enemy, as the Handle Animal skill clearly states, "an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." This only applies when you need to make a check to have the animal act. which is not the case here: it already acts. You connect the rules for how you use a skill to a sitiuation where that skill is not used at all. Again: this is magic. You summon a creature, and it fights.
GANADAI 07-03-07, 09:03 AM	I WANT AN OFFICIAL RULING FROM WOTC!!! I'm so tired of opinions, interpretations and half truths.
gomeztoo 07-03-07, 10:02 AM	That would be useful, but I think the only way to get one is to ask the sage (does h still exist? I mean the FAQ guy).
pedr 07-03-07, 10:27 AM	I WANT AN OFFICIAL RULING FROM WOTC!!! I'm so tired of opinions, interpretations and half truths.The only official ruling from WotC which would be binding is those which make it into the FAQ. However for your own guidance, if you believe this is unclear, you can get an answer, though not necessarily a perfectly correct or fully worked-out one, by contacting WotC via the customer help system. Go to http://wizards.custhelp.com then select 'Email Us' then you'll have to create an account and you can then submit a question. You'll have to read what happens next carefully as the system will want to refer you to existing answers but you can persevere and send the question to the customer service people. The reply won't be binding, so you can ignore it if you choose. As I said, when you're the GM you're almost certainly the final authority at the time (unless you're GMing at a convention where you aren't the organiser) but this is the easiest way of getting at least some kind of answer from WotC. A word of advice: ask a very simple question in a very straight-forward manner. If you can phrase it so it can be answered 'Yes' or 'No' then so much the better. Try: "When a Druid casts Summon Nature's Ally to summon a wolf, does he then have to spend a full round action to push that wolf to attack an unnatural creature, such as a zombie?"
solbergb 07-03-07, 10:29 AM	I WANT AN OFFICIAL RULING FROM WOTC!!! I'm so tired of opinions, interpretations and half truths. Then write to Sage Advice and hope they FAQ it. You won't get an official ruling here. I'm sorry that it isn't obvious, but if it was, this thread woudln't exist. Grey areas are the rule, not the exception. All summoned creatures mystically know who your enemies are, and if not instructed otherwise will attack them to the best of their ability. That is not at ALL the same situation as dealing with a trained domestic animal trying to do something it was not trained to do. In my view, the description of the actual spell trumps the handle animal description, and in any event there is a ruling that is consistent with ALL the rules. Here it is: You can think of summoned animals as knowing the "attack" and "attack unnatural " trick as part of the spell (as having those tricks would allow them to do exactly what the spells says they do) and NO other tricks. In addition, the spell mystically indicates to them the enemies of the caster (many spells can somehow tell allies from foes) and they're willing to be directed which enemy to attack by a gesture with a limb (because the spell says they can). This interpretation is consistent with the PHB summoning rules, with the SNA spell description, with the PHB handle animal rules, with the Monster Manual animal descriptions and animal type description. The other interpretations in this thread which prohibited animals attacking without a push are ignoring both the spell description, spell type description and the fact that animals CAN be trained to attack anything. In any event, magical beasts and dire animals can attack anything. So all of this only applies to animal type creatures.
trollbill 07-03-07, 11:48 AM	I WANT AN OFFICIAL RULING FROM WOTC!!! I'm so tired of opinions, interpretations and half truths. I apologize if I come off as short here, but your stubborn refusal to accept the plain text rules staring you in the face as somehow 'not' official is extremely frustrating. Player's Handbook, page 288, Summon Nature's Ally 1: "It attacks your opponent to the best of its ability." That is the official rule, plain and simple. There is no possible way of reconciling "attacks your opponent to the best of its ability" with "attacks your opponent to the best of your ability to command it to." Ergo, the clear, explicite text in the description overrides any other rules that would prevent this text in regards this particular spell. All you arguments regarding natural creatures, handle animal, etc. are made completely irrelavent by the explicite text in the spell description. If this were a home campaign, I would say fine. If it doesn't make sense to you by the rules, go ahead and change the rules. But this is LG and LG judges are supposed to follow the rules. The rules for the spell explicitely states what the creatures summoned by this spell do. What they would do under other circumstances is completely irrelavent. The text for the spell overrides it. Disregarding this is a violation of the rules, not an interpretation.
Samwise 07-03-07, 12:31 PM	The animals summoned are natural. Looking in the Monster Manual under the animal type, I see nothing that says they will not, let alone can not, attack any type of creature. So by that, there is no limitation on what they will attack. There is a line under the general Animal section: "Most animals, even predators, do not attack unless they or their young are threatened." By that, you'd have to argue that summoned animals won't attack at all unless handled or attacked first. That obviously isn't right. The spell description doesn't mention handle animal checks. It just says if you can communicate with the animal you can direct it to do things other than attack. The whole thing with handle animal is based on PCs using the skill to control ordinary creatures they encounter. Nothing in it suggests it is required to interact with summoned creatures. The limit on attacking unnatural creatures is only a function of using the skill, and not one of the inherent abilities of the creatures. So however peculiar or counter-intuitive it may seem, even I, a great hater of druids who summon huge giant crocogators then hit them with animal growth in constricted areas, can not convince myself that they won't attack. Your animal companion pet won't with the extra trick. Or any animal you buy. But a summoned animal will swarm those undead and aberrations and outsiders with gleeful abandon.
GANADAI 07-03-07, 07:18 PM	I've sent an e-mail to customer support, so we'll see what they have to say.
gomeztoo 07-04-07, 02:42 AM	I posted the question to the sage (via 'Ask Wizards'), just to be sure.
mowaca 07-05-07, 09:04 PM	I wouldn't argue with the judge but I would ask if I could have chosen a different beast after he ruled that way. . If I was the judge, that's what I'd offer - some other action since they weren't expecting what you did. In these kind of cases since its not cut and dry I'd probably say it works this time and the next time you'd know it wouldn't. I think the spell is pretty specific about attacking your enemies even though its another place in the game it reads more like flavor text than an actual rule. So they attack whoever you designate as enemies when the spell is cast - that's pretty much all they do. Tricks don't come into play because they are not trained, so you didn't need to worry about 'two attack tricks' or a handle animal check. I've always assumed you designate who is an enemy somehow and who to attack first when the Summon Nature's Ally/Monster spell is cast. Also, I've always thought a summoned creature (or animal companion) should do whatever what makes sense according to their tactical notes or their special abilities. Finally, if you want them to do something other than attack, or attack new enemies who weren't there when the spell was cast, you have to speak their language, speak with animals or handle animal. Wolves flank and trip (tactical notes), Lions charge and pounce (extraordinary attack). Wolves don't bull rush, Lions don't grapple without using improved grab. You can tell a Unicorn which buddy to heal because they understand Common. You can't have a Earth Elemental stop attacking one enemy and swim under a few monsters to pop up and grapple the sorcerer in the back unless you speak Terran.
Fitz10019 07-13-07, 12:49 PM	Summoned monsters without instructions go after whatever the caster thinks is his enemies. They "know" who enemies are the same way bardsong "knows" who allies are. I agree, however I have a DM who does not. As a druid, I summoned wolves, took wolf form, and commanded them to follow me. After we found the enemy (a human in platemail), they attacked. Still in wolf form, I summoned a constrictor snake. The DM thought the snake should attack a wolf, it's natural enemy, not the tin can. He didn't rule that way at the time, he said it as a regret after combat. So, do the summoned acquire the summoner's state of mind about who is an enemy and who is an ally? Is that official, anywhere?
pedr 07-13-07, 01:29 PM	I quoted from the spell above: "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability." There's no need to think too hard about 'state of mind' or whatnot - it's not a question of attacking the snake's enemies, it attacks 'your opponents'. It's clear who 'your opponents' are, and it attacks them. No problem.
MatteBlack 07-13-07, 01:30 PM	I've seen on TV a real-life guard dog stand around confused when a man was inside a giant metal hamster ball and walking around the area it was supposed to be guarding. This dog was fairly vicious and attacked previous targets (suitably armored) entering its territory. It just had no clue that the big ball in the yard is intelligent and was supposed to be stopped. I don't think this really applies. I saw the same demonstration(Mythbusters?) and I'd tend to believe the dog would attack an animated humanoid or animal shape which would describe most of those unnatural targets.
rockondon 07-16-07, 02:33 PM	The PHB states that they attack your opponents to the best of their abilities. BUT WHAT IF THE ENEMY HAS BODY ODOR, THE BOOK SAYS NOTHING ABOUT BODY ODOR SO I GUESS THEY DON'T ATTACK, SOMEBODY CALL WOTC!!! The notion of wolves having an aversion against attacking undead was created by you and only you. The book says they attack. That means that...they attack. If a wizard casts a fireball, do you check the entry for handle animal to decide how the fireball functions - that would make just as much sense as checking it after a summons. Basically, the question is: After using Summon Monster or Summon Natures Ally to summon an "animal" does the caster have full control of it, or does it have to make "Handle Animal" checks to make it do tricks (i.e. attack undead or aberrations)? That's a false dichotomy I'd say. The summons attack to the best of their ability, and without the need for direction from the caster. Whenever I've casted a summons the GM always controlled their actions for me. Please cite the source where one can teach the 'trick' to attack undead or aberrations.
Howie23 07-16-07, 02:47 PM	Please cite the source where one can teach the 'trick' to attack undead or aberrations. PHB, Handle Animal skill description.
solbergb 07-16-07, 03:14 PM	Handle animal isn't a skill that applies to summoned animals, or even wild animals under most circumstances. It is strictly for domestic animals (ie an animal that has been trained over a long period of time to do certain things) The summoned animals are neither domestic or wild animals. They're spell effects that behave the way the spell says they behave - they attack your enemies, and will accept "pointing" as an indication of who you want them to attack. Speak with animals or animal empathy might get them to do something else, because the summon spells say that if you can communicate with summoned critters, they'll do other things for the summoner. But saying you need to push a summoned wolf to attack a golem is like saying you need to push a spiritual weapon to attack a golem. Barring an additional effect such as the wraith's fear aura, both are going to attack what you send them after. Even if it's ineffectual.
CdrcJsn 07-16-07, 04:28 PM	The summoned animals are neither domestic or wild animals. They're spell effects that behave the way the spell says they behave - That's the thing though. The spell also says they otherwise behave as normal animals. The rules of Conjuration (Summoning) magic indicate that these are normal creatures that have been plucked from somewhere else and not magical constructs like animals from a bag of tricks. You're right that Handle Animal is normally not the means to control wild animals. You'll need the Wild Empathy or similar ability to do that. However, under the Handle Animal rules, there is a section that states that normal animals will not attack unnatural creatures without special training. That statement is not qualified that it only applies when training animals or for domesticated creatures. Should we ignore that part just because it's found in a different section of the book? When I judge, I usually take a lenient role and would allow the spell to impell animals to use tactics that aren't normal for creatures of its type (i.e. attack unnatural), taking a very liberal stance on the phrase "attack to the best of its ability". However I wouldn't argue with a judge who takes a stricter view and require some sort of checks (handle animal or wild empathy). If I'm playing my druid under such a judge, I would opt to simply use the intelligent creatures on the list for summons when facing unnatural threats (unicorns, elementals, etc).
solbergb 07-16-07, 05:18 PM	You shouldn't ignore the rule. But you should be aware of which rules take precedence. The behavior of a spell as described in its own spell description takes precedence over pretty much any other rule. This is why feather fall works when a wizard is suprrised, even though immediate actions don't....because the spell says it does. It's also why joyous noise (somatic component only bardsong) is legal even though the bard class description says all bard spells have verbal components and you can't use silent spell on a bard. The summon spells say the summoned creatures attack your enemies to the best of their ability and that they will attack a creature you point to. OTHER THAN THAT they're normal creatures of their type. What they attack is specified in the spell. Other general rules don't get to override what the summon monsters spells say summoned creatures in a spell will do unless they're somehow more specific to the situation, such as a summoned creature which has been dominated. Three examples of this concept in play. A summoned wolf will attempt to attack the enemy protected by a prot evil spell if it is the most obvious enemy or the caster points to it. It will not however, succeed, because the prot evil spell explicitly hedges out natural attacks from summoned monsters. A summoned wolf will attemt to attack a wraith to the best of its ability if it is the most obvious or "pointed at" enemy...which in the case of a wolf the best of its ability is "it runs away when it gets too close" unless it has been made immune to fear somehow to defeat the wraith's unnatural aura, and even then, it does no damage because of incorporeality unless somebody casts magic fang or similar on it. A summoned wolf WILL attack a fire-shielded creature to the best of its abilitiy even if it is suicidal to do so. They don't have any sense of self preservation like a real animal would. Summoned creatures don't really die when they "die" and they are compelled to attack by the spell description unless ordered in a way they understand to do something else. Indeed they HAVE to attack. You need to communicate with them to make them "stand down". "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack," "A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again." conjuration(calling) spells conjure the actual creature, which will behave in all ways as the same creature met normally. They are not at all like summoned creatures, which are both invulnerable to death and compelled by the spell to behave in certain ways.
CdrcJsn 07-16-07, 05:28 PM	The behavior of a spell as described in its own spell description takes precedence over pretty much any other rule. This is the main point of this whole argument. The phrase in the spell that says the animal will attack 'to the best of its ability' can be interpreted in different ways. It seems the majority interpret that as the animal is willing to do anything it's capable of physically doing. A minority is reading that and the following description in the spell that says they otherwise act as normal creatures and conclude that the animal will attack according to its nature (i.e. attacking unnatural creatures is beyond it's natural ability and nature).
solbergb 07-16-07, 09:45 PM	Yeah, well, my problem with that argument is it isn't very hard to train animals to "attack unnatural" and they'll do it in self defense in any event and no matter what the normal behavior of the animal is, the spell turns them into attack-enemy-machines to the exclusion of everything else if you can't communicate with them. An animal needing to be "pushed" or "trained" doesn't "want" to do the thing you're wanting it to do. It is however CAPABLE of doing it. With summon monster, the default "want" is "attack"....you can't assume normal personalities here, as most animals do NOT in fact rabidly attack "enemies" nearby or that you point to and need a speak with animals or animal empathy check to get them to not attack.
solbergb 07-16-07, 09:51 PM	also, being a bit tired of snippets taken out of context, here is the entire spell description. You will note that nowhere does it say it behaves like a normal creature of its type. Instead it says it must attack your opponents and can't NOT ATTACK or perform other actions unless you can communicate with it. People are just making up that minority argument out of whole cloth. The primary source, the spell description, don't support it. "This spell summons a natural creature. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st-level list on the accompanying Summon Nature's Ally table. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell. All the creatures on the table are neutral unless otherwise noted." Other relevant misquoted rules Magic overview, Conjuration "Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling)," (they do not bring real creatures, that's "calling". They just bring a "manifistation" of a creature, whatever that means) Summoning subschool (nothing about behavior here, and the critter doesn't die) "Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again. When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells."
CdrcJsn 07-17-07, 01:38 AM	also, being a bit tired of snippets taken out of context, here is the entire spell description. You will note that nowhere does it say it behaves like a normal creature of its type. None of the quoted material disputes the fact that it summons an existing creature. It doesn't create one out of nothing. The bit about the manifestation of a creature doesn't say that it isn't exactly like a natural creature. It's like the astral projection of a creature. The first line of the Summon Nature's Ally spell is: This spell summons a natural creature. It might be an assumption on my part, but in my games a natural creature behaves like a natural creature of its type. The spell provides additional behavior modification to its normal behavior (under caster's control and will attack his enemies), but other than that, it IS a natural creature and will behave as such. People are just making up that minority argument out of whole cloth. The primary source, the spell description, don't support it. Summon Nature's Ally also doesn't address other traits of normal animals (can't affect incorporeal, can't use some skills if they're not suited for it, etc.), it doesn't mean those rules don't apply. Are you gonna allow full movement in Obscuring Mist just because the spell doesn't explicitly state it and the rules for moving while vision is obscured is in another part of the PHB?
solbergb 07-17-07, 10:32 AM	None of the quoted material disputes the fact that it summons an existing creature. Actually it does. I'll repeat it for the third time "Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool)" A manifistation of a creature is not the actual creature. It might be an assumption on my part, but in my games a natural creature behaves like a natural creature of its type. That's an assumption and a rather large one. The spell actually says how they behave. They attack your enemies unless you can communicate with them to do otherwise. They literally can't do anything else unless you can tell them to do something else. That behavior is out of character for EVERY summoned creature, not just the non-Dire animals. The spell provides additional behavior modification to its normal behavior (under caster's control and will attack his enemies), but other than that, it IS a natural creature and will behave as such. They're actually not under the caster's control if he can't commmunicate. If he can't point for some reason (paralyzed, grappled) he can't even tell them which enemy to attack. Are you gonna allow full movement in Obscuring Mist just because the spell doesn't explicitly state it and the rules for moving while vision is obscured is in another part of the PHB? Irrelevant. I'd say straw man but I'm not up on rhetoric terms and might be misusing it. The spell talks about behavior explicitly, and overrides default behaviors. The spell doesn't talk about movement, so it doesn't override movement rules. It's a case of specific vs general. Specific wins. The creatures attack and they don't leave corpses or even bodies that bleed out (so they can't be healed if dropped but not killed). Both are specific exceptions to more general rules (monster manual descriptions of how the type and individuals behave, and the PHB rules on death and bleeding out)
CdrcJsn 07-17-07, 04:13 PM	I concede the argument. It's hard to support the minority viewpoint when I don't really believe it myself. Examining the fine points of the spell and the general rules surrounding Conjuration (summoning) spells, it does seem to indicate that summoned monsters are more akin to spell effects than real creatures. I guess the first line of the summon nature's ally spell should be interpreted more as "this spell summons a creature of nature" than "this spell summons a normal creature". I'm still of the opinion that natural, normal animals will not attack unnatural creatures without training. If injured or cornered, it will do its best to run away rather than fight. However, I concede that the Summon Nature's Ally spell doesn't summon a natural, normal animal and the rules for attacking unnatural creatures found in the handle animal skill shouldn't apply. There, happy? :P Cedric
solbergb 07-17-07, 04:29 PM	Very :) And I agree with you on the natural, normal animal not attacking unnatural bit. I don't think there was any disagreement there in this thread.
clannagh 07-17-07, 07:22 PM	Very :) And I agree with you on the natural, normal animal not attacking unnatural bit. I don't think there was any disagreement there in this thread. If you went with the round to handle teh animal ruling it would make for amusing results for a level 1 druid ... summoning badger ... summoning badger .. nearly here .. summoning badger .. Yay !! here it is ... handle animal ... handle animal ... good its nearly ready to fight .. handle animal Yay!! its ready to ... WTF? its gone .. hmm .. better summon another one ...
GANADAI 07-18-07, 02:18 PM	If you went with the round to handle teh animal ruling it would make for amusing results for a level 1 druid ... summoning badger ... summoning badger .. nearly here .. summoning badger .. Yay !! here it is ... handle animal ... handle animal ... good its nearly ready to fight .. handle animal Yay!! its ready to ... WTF? its gone .. hmm .. better summon another one ... Which Living Greyhawk introduction module did you fight unnatural creatures in? I don't think I've ever come across unnatural creatures in an intro mod.
TetsujinOni 07-18-07, 02:22 PM	Which Living Greyhawk introduction module did you fight unnatural creatures in? I don't think I've ever come across unnatural creatures in an intro mod. Intro mods tend to be active for 3+ years. Don't ask for spoilers. That said, I believe there was some tomb raiding action in KEO4-IS1 Hide and Seek which might or might not have involved encountering things which fear to walk around in Keoland. Any APL2 adventure is also a possibility.
GANADAI 07-18-07, 03:17 PM	Intro mods tend to be active for 3+ years. Don't ask for spoilers. That said, I believe there was some tomb raiding action in KEO4-IS1 Hide and Seek which might or might not have involved encountering things which fear to walk around in Keoland. Any APL2 adventure is also a possibility. I'm not looking for spoilers, I was simply trying to make a point that you generally do not encounter unnatural creatures at level 1. Even if you did encounter something unnatural at level one and could not come up with anything else to do besides casting Summon Natures Ally, then you have bigger problems then just rolling a skill check. Why did the designers create two separate spells, Summon Monster and Summon Natures Ally, if they work exactly the same way? Why did they differentiate between Magical Beasts and Animals if they act exactly same way? Why does the PHB state, "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals." If they normally attack anything? Why did they give you the option to summon a dire animal instead? Perhaps because they assumed people would realize that natural animals can not attack unnatural creatures without being pushed? I started this thread hoping that WotC had already made an official ruling on this, but apparently they haven't. So there is no more point in arguing because it's all just personal interpretations of the phrase, "to the best of its ability."
TetsujinOni 07-18-07, 03:39 PM	I'm not looking for spoilers, I was simply trying to make a point that you generally do not encounter unnatural creatures at level 1. Even if you did encounter something unnatural at level one and could not come up with anything else to do besides casting Summon Natures Ally, then you have bigger problems then just rolling a skill check. Das Summoner, M NG Humanoid(Human) Druid 1 Feats: Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration) .. Das Summoner, M NG Humanoid (human) Druid 3 .... Feat:Rapid Spell Das Summoner, Druid 6 Feat: Metamagic school focus (conjuration) or Imbued Summoning AKA the Rapid Summoner build. Tends to start out with SNA as a good tactical option, summoning a flanker for his animal companion or the party rogue, or perhaps summoning to block a charge line by dropping something bitey in the way. Even for one-round-duration summons at first level, this threat and target environment multiplication is supposed to be part of the Druid's core ability set, or they couldn't spontaneously cast the SNA tree.
Eric Anondson 07-18-07, 03:39 PM	I'm not looking for spoilers, I was simply trying to make a point that you generally do not encounter unnatural creatures at level 1."Generally" is probably a regional thing. Because skeletons are not completely unheard of in intros I'm familiar with.
solbergb 07-18-07, 05:14 PM	I've seen the following in intro mods, including adaptable and core. For APL2, sky is the limit. I've seen every "unnatural" monster type. devils undead (quite common, actually) ooze magical beasts Fey I don't *think* I've seen any constructs or elementals but can't see why a low-moderate hardness animated objects, minor plant-type creatures or small elementals wouldn't be possible opponents.
TetsujinOni 07-18-07, 05:17 PM	I've seen several of the major creature types /in the same current intro mod/. Fairly good mod, too. Ah, Keoland - If you can't cut the cheese, the cheese will cut you! :D
LeeShort 07-18-07, 05:32 PM	"Generally" is probably a regional thing. Because skeletons are not completely unheard of in intros I'm familiar with. As you well know, skellies are just the start of it here in the Shield Lands...even if the "all undead, all the time" intro just got retired, I can still think of 3 of our 8 active intros that feature unnaturals, off the top of my head.
JamesMaissen 07-18-07, 08:48 PM	Perhaps because they assumed people would realize that natural animals can not attack unnatural creatures without being pushed? I'm sorry... do you think that using the handle animal skill to order animals enables them to do something they otherwise could not do? They either don't *want* to do certain things or they don't *know* that you want them to do certain things. Handle animal used in this fashion conveys that both the knowledge and also convinces them to do it for you. Now if a druid cast 'dominate animal' on such a creature, what else would be required to get the animal to attack something it wouldn't otherwise want to attack? -James
GANADAI 07-18-07, 11:24 PM	I'm sorry... do you think that using the handle animal skill to order animals enables them to do something they otherwise could not do? I do not think it enables them to do something they could not do. I do think it should be used to make them do something they would not do. They either don't *want* to do certain things or they don't *know* that you want them to do certain things. Handle animal used in this fashion conveys that both the knowledge and also convinces them to do it for you. Right, and in the case of unnatural creatures it could be either they don't want to, they don't know to, or both, depending on the unnatural creature. In which case you would have to push them since they do not have the intelligence and are not trained to attack such creatures. Now if a druid cast 'dominate animal' on such a creature, what else would be required to get the animal to attack something it wouldn't otherwise want to attack? A Handle Animal check to push it.
_metz_ 07-18-07, 11:30 PM	Which Living Greyhawk introduction module did you fight unnatural creatures in? I don't think I've ever come across unnatural creatures in an intro mod. Come to Australia, you'll see.
TetsujinOni 07-19-07, 12:14 AM	Regarding dominate animal, you said: A Handle Animal check to push it. Are you talking about the same spell we are? Dominate animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominateAnimal.htm) will definitely not require a handle animal check of any DC. Clearly, you want to nerf Druids and spells which interact with animals.
gomeztoo 07-19-07, 03:55 AM	Why did the designers create two separate spells, Summon Monster and Summon Natures Ally, if they work exactly the same way? For flavor. Fiendish monsters don't 'fit' a druid. Note that Summon Nature's Ally does not summon animals. It summons creatures of nature, including elementals, fey, genies, and magical beasts.
clannagh 07-20-07, 02:41 AM	Which Living Greyhawk introduction module did you fight unnatural creatures in? I don't think I've ever come across unnatural creatures in an intro mod. There is a Ratik regional intro with undead in it. There are several Perrenland Regional intro's with undead in them.
GANADAI 07-20-07, 12:14 PM	Regarding dominate animal, you said: Are you talking about the same spell we are? Dominate animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominateAnimal.htm) will definitely not require a handle animal check of any DC. Clearly, you want to nerf Druids and spells which interact with animals. I'm not trying to nerf druids, I'm trying to get them to play by the rules as writen. Dominate Animal states, "You can enchant an animal and direct it with SIMPLE commands such as 'Attack,' 'Run,' and 'Fetch.'" You assume that Attack unnatural is a simple command despite the fact that it takes extra training for the animal to perform, and it would not normally do. However, it also says that, "Because you are directing the animal with your own intelligence, it may be able to undertake actions normally beyond its own comprehension." So you're probably right that it wouldn't need a handle animal check, but this thread is not about Dominate animal, it is about Summon Natures Ally. If you have questions about the Dominate Animal spell please start your own thread. Trying to ignore rules that you do not like is called cheating.
GANADAI 07-20-07, 12:21 PM	Note that Summon Nature's Ally does not summon animals. Then why in the table does it say "(ANIMAL)" next to most of them?
GANADAI 07-20-07, 12:24 PM	Once again... I started this thread hoping that WotC had already made an official ruling on this, but apparently they haven't. So there is no more point in arguing because it's all just personal interpretations of the phrase, "to the best of its ability."
LeeShort 07-20-07, 12:28 PM	I'm not trying to nerf druids, I'm trying to get them to play by the rules as writen. Dominate Animal states, "You can enchant an animal and direct it with SIMPLE commands such as 'Attack,' 'Run,' and 'Fetch.'" You assume that Attack unnatural is a simple command despite the fact that it takes extra training for the animal to perform, and it would not normally do. However, it also says that, "Because you are directing the animal with your own intelligence, it may be able to undertake actions normally beyond its own comprehension." So you're probably right that it wouldn't need a handle animal check, but this thread is not about Dominate animal, it is about Summon Natures Ally. If you have questions about the Dominate Animal spell please start your own thread. Trying to ignore rules that you do not like is called cheating. First of all, please avoid the ad hominem. Second, how is the command 'ATTACK' complicated? The reason it requires additional training is because animals are not accustomed to attacking unnatural creatures, not because attacking them is any more complicated than attacking natural creatures. The command itself is no more complicated than the command to attack a natural creature.
JamesMaissen 07-20-07, 12:35 PM	So you're probably right that it wouldn't need a handle animal check, but this thread is not about Dominate animal, it is about Summon Natures Ally. If you have questions about the Dominate Animal spell please start your own thread. Trying to ignore rules that you do not like is called cheating. Probably right about DOMINATE animal needing to be convinced to do things it otherwise wouldn't? I think that you have a *very* different idea of what *handle* animal does than everyone else. That you believe (or at least initially believed) that a dominated creature needs to be convinced to do something says a lot. I would suggest that you give this more thought. And one other note: it's not cheating to read the rules differently than you do. Applying your same logic here everyone else could call you out for cheating.. are you? I wouldn't say so myself. I just think that you've misunderstood the rules rather badly in this case. Consider that a wild animal doesn't know any tricks (as it hasn't been trained). So with that in mind: 1. Can it attack on its own without someone to direct it? 2. Can it guard its own lair? 3. If charmed will it defend the person/thing that charmed it? 4. If it starts attacking can it stop? As I follow your argument you would claim that a wolf in the wild could not attack without a person pushing it to do so. I think the rest of us find that absurd. -James
TetsujinOni 07-20-07, 02:56 PM	Trying to ignore rules that you do not like is called cheating. I find this grossly offensive. Moving on: You are conflating ability and inclination. This is an incorrect association. The Handle Animal push is not "you tell the animal in combat how to hurt XYZ", but "you convince an animal not trained to overcome its urge not to fight unnatural creatures to attack one anyway". Animals with zero or two "attack" tricks have the ability to attack a skeleton, but without one of the following, an animal will not have the inclination to do so: Two attack tricks, Handle Animal DC10 Zero or one attack trick, Handle Animal DC25 Manifested conjuration, i.e. produced by a summon nature's ally spell, and the skeleton in question is an opponent of their summoner. Your point of disagreement is that you feel that the third category is actually part of the second category. Those of us who disagree with you find it very difficult to support that position based on the rules as written. Attack is listed as one of the default simple commands in dominate animal. Attack wall, attack bush, attack person, attack this thing which is trying to beat me up, which happens to be an undead/construct/aberration - all the same simple command, "attack" - the animal's inclinations are ignored because they are dominated. "Attack my enemy" - when the summon nature's ally spell family provides the understanding of "my enemy", and explicitly *forces* the attack, you are ignoring the rule you don't like (text of summon nature's ally). You might want to rethink the throwing-about of the accusation of ignoring rules and cheating when discussing a rules interaction where your position seems to be distinctly in the minority, and seems to require inserting additional intent text into the rules to support it.
GANADAI 07-20-07, 04:56 PM	Once again... I started this thread hoping that WotC had already made an official ruling on this, but apparently they haven't. So there is no more point in arguing because it's all just personal interpretations of the phrase, "to the best of its ability."
pedr 07-20-07, 07:49 PM	Once again... I started this thread hoping that WotC had already made an official ruling on this, but apparently they haven't. So there is no more point in arguing because it's all just personal interpretations of the phrase, "to the best of its ability."Yes and no... You are quite correct (and I believe that I said above) that the table GM's interpretation of the spell is what matters here, subject to the jurisdiction of a Senior GM. However it is vital in a large campaign like this to thoroughly discuss unclear rules topics so that good interpretations flourish and poorer ones do not. The process of discussion brings to the fore the reasoning used to support GMs' rulings and this helps others to decide the rulings which they believe best reflect the totality of the rules. I don't believe that we can eliminate table variation. But I do believe that we can have better reasoned and increasingly more correct rulings through sharing our interpretations and being willing to think through the implications of additional rules sources and/or interactions between rules which we may not have considered.
solbergb 07-20-07, 08:14 PM	Yeah. This thread actually made me really go look at what summoned critters really were and I learned several things by going through the motions. I'm in a much better position to discuss this and other summon-related topics should they come up at the table. Being a rules lawyer away from the table does a lot to eliminate boring rules discussions AT the table. Backing the GM's ruling with "that's one of the commonly accepted interpretations, it's grey and this is a valid choice, go with it" has done more to end rules discussions when I'm a player backing a GM call than anything else I could have done. As a GM, it's more like "there are multiple interpretations, I'm aware of yours, this is the one I am using, please respect it at my table". A few times this leads to interesting discussions after the game but it tends to move things back to the action, with the feeling that at least the GM isn't blindly ignorant even if the player doesn't agree.
rockondon 07-21-07, 01:52 PM	Thought I'd hijack this thread to ask a question of my own: is there a trick you can teach animals so that they will do subdual damage? If so, where can I read about it? I want my druid's animal companion to do subdual damage sometimes.
awroe 07-21-07, 02:36 PM	Thought I'd hijack this thread to ask a question of my own: is there a trick you can teach animals so that they will do subdual damage? If so, where can I read about it? I want my druid's animal companion to do subdual damage sometimes. There's a trick in Complete Adventurer called "Subdue" that does this - I think all the CA tricks are now Open access?
GANADAI 07-22-07, 12:49 AM	pedr and solbergb, Thank you, I really needed to hear that. It's so aggravating arguing for weeks with unreasonable people. There are many threads like: "Is Summon Nature's Ally Broken?" "My DM baned Summon Nature's Ally!!!" "Summon Nature's Ally > Summon Monster" But none of those threads have addressed the notion that perhaps it seems more powerful than it is because everyone is playing it wrong. Mainly the rule that animals will not normally attack unnatural creatures. I still don't think it's that big of a deal to ask a druid to make a Handle Animal check to make a summoned animal attack an unnatural creature, because SNA even provides them with alternative summons at every level that they wouldn't have to handle. (i.e. Dire rat, Dire badger, Dire bat, Hippogriff, etc.) I know most people would just argue that this is a coincidence, but I really think the designers added these creatures to the list for a reason. Another bit of flavor I noticed is the druid description: "While druids accept that which is horrific or cruel in nature, they hate that which is unnatural, including aberrations and undead. Perhaps that's because the poor little woodland animals are afraid of them? Which leads me to my next bit of flavor: "Dire animals are bigger, stronger, faster, and more aggressive than their normal counterparts. No one is certain what causes a dire animal to be born. Some druids maintain that Nature creates dire animals as a direct response to some environmental threat." Perhaps the threat of unnatural creatures that the rest of the poor little woodland animals are afraid of?
gomeztoo 07-22-07, 08:09 AM	It's so aggravating arguing for weeks with unreasonable people. I'm sorry, but this response is so offensive I don't even know where to begin. So I won't.
Eric Anondson 07-22-07, 10:53 AM	It's so aggravating arguing for weeks with unreasonable people.We're all looking back at you, Mr. Veiled-insults. And why exactly don't you think wild empathy needs to apply but Handle Animal does If you are insisting that summoning animals brings forth wild normal animals, and the PC and DM are expected to cross reference obscure rules all over the place rather than just follow the spell, let's pull out the obscure reference from wild empathy regarding what a normal wild animal is like. . . . The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly. So, if a druid summons a normal wild animal they show up with an unfriendly attitude, right? The spell doesn't say otherwise!:thinks: So the normal wild animal is . . . normal, i.e. unfriendly. :teach: Let's keep going down this leap of logic that you think means Handle Animal must be made to "push" a wild normal animal. Why should the druid not be made to spend a full minute using wild empathy to improve the unfriendly normal wild animal's attitude to helpful before it will attack the druid's enemies? The spell doesn't say the normal wild animal has a helpful attitude to the druid. Or you could just follow the spell. No Handle Animal, no wild empathy, the manifestation of an animal just attacks the enemy of the spellcaster.
clannagh 07-22-07, 08:06 PM	pedr and solbergb, There are many threads like: "Is Summon Nature's Ally Broken?" "My DM baned Summon Nature's Ally!!!" "Summon Nature's Ally > Summon Monster" But none of those threads have addressed the notion that perhaps it seems more powerful than it is because everyone is playing it wrong. Mainly the rule that animals will not normally attack unnatural creatures. Hang on ... So you are saying that because it seems overpowered to you, you then decided people were playing it wrong and went out looking for a rules issue to restrict your players use of it ?? Not to matter ... If you pursue this line its all well and good, but with your players be sure to stick to ALL the rules .. 1. They will definitely either need a wild empathy before attempting to PUSH the animal or a modified push DC and the push DC will already be a minimum of 25 before other modifiers (DC 27 if they take injuries) My inclination is that you should add a "rushed" modifier of +10 because they are in combat. Giving a DC of 35 2. If the druid has no ranks in handle animal he cannot push the summoned animal, without ranks you can only give orders to domestic animals. 3. Should you decide to apply this to summon monster as well ( and "its not overpowered" is not sufficient justification to exclude summon monster) the DC will be 30 as they are not animals. 4. I see no reason whatsoever to exclude Dire Animals. There is nothing about Dire Animals that says they will attack unnatural. Dire Animals are just bigger tougher animals and have all animal traits. 5. No taking 10 in combat they must roll against the DC.
GANADAI 07-23-07, 01:46 AM	Hang on ... So you are saying that because it seems overpowered to you, you then decided people were playing it wrong and went out looking for a rules issue to restrict your players use of it ?? First, I never said it seems overpowered, I said many other people think it is over powered. Second, the story in the first post of this thread is a hypothetical situation. Actually it was a story a fellow DM told me, which sparked the discussion about the phrase, "to the best of it's ability," and whether or not Handle Animal applies to the Summon spells. I went out looking for good arguments for and against it, but there isn't really any solid argument that can be made, just interpretations of the phrase "to the best of it's ability." If you pursue this line its all well and good, but with your players be sure to stick to ALL the rules .. 1. They will definitely either need a wild empathy before attempting to PUSH the animal or a modified push DC and the push DC will already be a minimum of 25 before other modifiers (DC 27 if they take injuries) My inclination is that you should add a "rushed" modifier of +10 because they are in combat. Giving a DC of 35 2. If the druid has no ranks in handle animal he cannot push the summoned animal, without ranks you can only give orders to domestic animals. 3. Should you decide to apply this to summon monster as well ( and "its not overpowered" is not sufficient justification to exclude summon monster) the DC will be 30 as they are not animals. You really should read the thread before you post. There never was any argument about if a summoned creatures knows who to attack. The spells are clear in that regard. 4. I see no reason whatsoever to exclude Dire Animals. There is nothing about Dire Animals that says they will attack unnatural. Dire Animals are just bigger tougher animals and have all animal traits. 5. No taking 10 in combat they must roll against the DC. That's why it is called "flavor". Anyways, the problem is that the Summon Nature's Ally table specifically lists some of the creatures as being animals and not others. Why is that?
TetsujinOni 07-23-07, 01:56 AM	The problem is that the Summon Nature's Ally table specifically lists some of the creatures as being animals and not others. Please explain why that is. Two simple reasons: targeting of other spells on the summoned creatures, and speeding the lookup process.
GANADAI 07-23-07, 02:14 AM	Two simple reasons: targeting of other spells on the summoned creatures, and speeding the lookup process. Why are Dire Animals, which are listed as animals in the PHB, not labeled as animals on the SNA table?
gomeztoo 07-23-07, 02:56 AM	Why are Dire Animals, which are listed as animals in the PHB, not labeled as animals on the SNA table? Because dire animals are not in the (seperate) Animal section of the MM. They are under the 'D" of 'Dire Animal'. A shark is under the Animal section, which is a seperate list. Hence, it is useful if this is listed, lest you go look under the 'S' in the MM and cannot find it. Note: other examples are grig (sprite), janni (genie) and triceratops (dinosaur).
GANADAI 07-23-07, 11:30 AM	Because dire animals are not in the (seperate) Animal section of the MM. They are under the 'D" of 'Dire Animal'. A shark is under the Animal section, which is a seperate list. Hence, it is useful if this is listed, lest you go look under the 'S' in the MM and cannot find it. Good point, never noticed that.
GANADAI 07-23-07, 11:49 AM	Once again... I started this thread hoping that WotC had already made an official ruling on this, but apparently they haven't. So there is no more point in arguing because it's all just personal interpretations of the phrase, "to the best of its ability." I think it is more of a choice of bad wording and lack of explanation on the developers part. Now to go rain supernatural wolves upon the world of Oreth!!!
MatteBlack 07-23-07, 12:22 PM	Hang on ... So you are saying that because it seems overpowered to you, you then decided people were playing it wrong and went out looking for a rules issue to restrict your players use of it ?? Is investigating limiting rules you may have missed on parts of the game that seem unbalanced a bad thing? Especially looking into it now instead of during an adventure when time is ticking away, I think DMs should do this whenever something seems off. As long as DMs stay within the rules and don't start dismissing rules merely because they do not like them, it's all good to me. Lee
solbergb 07-23-07, 12:40 PM	There's a trick in Complete Adventurer called "Subdue" that does this - I think all the CA tricks are now Open access? Try Races of Wild or Complete Adventurer. Most of the weird tricks are in there. The LGCS opened some of them up last time around I think. I *think* there is a subdual option.
bitznarf 07-23-07, 12:43 PM	Yes, there is a subdual trick, and yes, all tricks are Open.
solbergb 07-23-07, 12:46 PM	Why are Dire Animals, which are listed as animals in the PHB, not labeled as animals on the SNA table? Aside from the other reasons mentioned, dire animals have their own flavor text on what they'll normally do which is different from the animal section. (mostly that they're bigger, meaner, etc and have bones sticking out) They also have a different save progression (will save isn't "bad").