The Summoning keyword is finally explained. What do you think?
One of the best advantages of a summoned monsters is that it can die. That is, it can die instead of your allies because your enemies have to spend time killing the summoned monster instead of killing your friends. I figured that WOTC would fix that by making a summoned monster cost a healing surge every time you did it, and then you'd get the healing surge back if you voluntarily dismissed the monster. But this is better. This is much cleaner, and avoids the problem of players dismissing the monster right before it dies to avoid damage.
now i can't wait for Arcane Power...
I couldn't wait for Arcane Power long before this. :D
Summoning sounds fun though.
Especially us heathens working on custom "summoning" classes? :D :D
I'm working on a necro and I rather not just have only one pet available.
Pwease.
I'm working on a necro and I rather not just have only one pet available.
I'm pretty sure that can be addressed with feats, or of that's too good, a "Master Summoner" PP.
- Summoned Monster's statistics are based on yours. HP, Defenses, Healing Surge value... all depend on you. Summoners naturally want a high Constitution.
- You're devoting yourself to controlling your summoned monsters. You
EDIT: Moving a summoned creature takes a minor action.
- Summoned creatures have their own special attacks and effects. That's what they're there for, obviously. Generally, offensive creatures (summoned through daily powers) have basic attacks and opportunity attacks. Defensive creatures (summoned through utility powers) grant a whole range of other abilities, such as raising defenses, giving you super spy powers, and making doors go away through liberal use of sledgehammer hands.
- Summoning creatures is taxing on your body. If the monster dies, you lose a healing surge. If the monster gets healed, you lose a healing surge. Did I mention constitution was important? Durable too... Now that I think about it, because of Dwarven Durability, Dwarven summoners... hm...
So... them's the breaks. You all got that?
Thanks.
/loves LV long time
- You're devoting yourself to controlling your summoned monsters. You move them with your move action, make them attack with your standard action, etc.
Slight correction. Commanding a summoned creature to move, open a door, pick something up, etc. is a Minor action, not a Move action. So the summoner can move in the same turn as the creature does, and then spend his Standard action to either attack or have it attack.
I think it is great for balance concerns. It keeps economy of actions in the equation as well as keeping surges involved.
I really, REALLY don't like this because it has a crappy Yu-Gi-Oh kinda feel to it. You have to burn your standard to have it attack while you hold up a card and yell "UBER-MINO-WERE-POKE-DRAGON-FAIRY SPIN ATTACK!"
Yeah... not doing it for me. I really, really hate that show. The kids learned quickly that daddy got cranky if they tried to watch that crap. Thankfully, we've been tv-free for a couple years now. *Ahem* At any rate, I think it's good for balance, but likely will not be playing any summoners myself unless they do a really fantastic job of fluffing this out so I don't automatically feel like some spikey haired crash helmet wearing weeabo.
I really, REALLY don't like this because it has a crappy Yu-Gi-Oh kinda feel to it. You have to burn your standard to have it attack while you hold up a card and yell "UBER-MINO-WERE-POKE-DRAGON-FAIRY SPIN ATTACK!"
Arrowhawk! I choose you! Use your Marking attack!
* I can picture someone the age of Warlawk's father making the very same complaints, only about D&D. I sure bet Warlawk is glad his own father didn't try to stop him from playing D&D, although perhaps he did and Warlawk is simply repeating the cycle onto his own children with their entertainment of choice.
Warlawk's old angry man rant aside*, what classes can summon? I thought I heard Wizards are going to have a build that lets them summon in Arcane Power?
* I can picture someone the age of Warlawk's father making the very same complaints, only about D&D. I sure bet Warlawk is glad his own father didn't try to stop him from playing D&D, although perhaps he did and Warlawk is simply repeating the cycle onto his own children with their entertainment of choice.
Nah, I just encourage my kids to DO things instead of sitting on their asses and watching someone else do it. They have some of the cards and play, no problem. I have no issues with the game, just with the show. Doubtlessly an extension of my distaste for television in general. But hey, have fun making uninformed misguided borderline personal attacks against people you know nothing about.
E-Thuggin 4tw!
Warlawk's old angry man rant aside*, what classes can summon? I thought I heard Wizards are going to have a build that lets them summon in Arcane Power?
* I can picture someone the age of Warlawk's father making the very same complaints, only about D&D. I sure bet Warlawk is glad his own father didn't try to stop him from playing D&D, although perhaps he did and Warlawk is simply repeating the cycle onto his own children with their entertainment of choice.
Invokers and Wizards, currently. Well, by currently I mean with PHB2 & AP of course, and that as far as anyone knows no other class has the build option. Shamans do technically, but using a different system. I wouldn't be surprised if Primal Power adds a summoner build to Druids though.
But hey, have fun making uninformed misguided borderline personal attacks against people you know nothing about.
I based eveything I said based on your post. If I got the wrong idea, its because of how you represented yourself.
Invokers and Wizards, currently. Well, by currently I mean with PHB2 & AP of course, and that as far as anyone knows no other class has the build option. Shamans do technically, but using a different system. I wouldn't be surprised if Primal Power adds a summoner build to Druids though.
Thanks :D
Perhaps 'zombie hordes' will be treated as single summons that take up multiple spaces. Or they'll be more of a 'wall' effect that attacks nearby enemies and is treated like a group of minions that go down in one hit (which can be moved around using the necromancer's minor action).
With the summoning classes' focus on CON, I could see the necromancer gaining 'temporary' healing surges by killing enemies with his powers, which disappear at the end of the encounter. These can be used to bolster his undead minions, giving them greater survivability, or perhaps heal his allies if he's a Leader class or a Controller with a secondary Leader focus.
I based eveything I said based on your post. If I got the wrong idea, its because of how you represented yourself.
Thanks :D
The fact that I think Yu-Gi-Oh is a stupid show, and this reminds me of it clearly tells you a lot about myself and my relationship with my parental figures. Your weak excuse doesn't hold up. You wanted to make a personal attack, and did so. Trying to justify it with that kind of weak "logic" just makes you look worse.
As for the subject at hand I will be surprised if they manage to fluff it out well enough that it actually makes sense that you stand around devoting your standard action to making your summoned creature attack. I know people will handwave and say that it is focusing on controlling, blah blah blah... I just don't care for it and hope they really put some effort into fluffing it out.
The fact that I think Yu-Gi-Oh is a stupid show
That wasn't what you said. You said you scared your children into submission simply because you disliked a particular television show.
The kids learned quickly that daddy got cranky if they tried to watch that crap.
Again if that didn't actually happen, you should have worded your initial post better.
As for the insult, all I did was characterise your post as that of a cranky old man, and say perhaps you should consider how others think of your pastime before you condemn what others enjoy. If that is some oh so terrible injury to you, you should probably place me on your ignore list. Especially considering the fact the ORCs don't think it was a breach of CoC (otherwise my post would have been edited).
As for the subject at hand I will be surprised if they manage to fluff it out well enough that it actually makes sense that you stand around devoting your standard action to making your summoned creature attack. I know people will handwave and say that it is focusing on controlling, blah blah blah... I just don't care for it and hope they really put some effort into fluffing it out.
Its no different to the current mechanics we have for:
* Beast Companions - these can move for free on your turn. To attack with it requires an action (unsure which type).
* Wondrous figurines - These require minor actions to command.
* Magical constructs such as Bigby's Icy Grasp - These require minors in every turn, as well as a move action to move it and a standard action to attack with it.
I imagine summoning will be similar to the above.
As for the subject at hand I will be surprised if they manage to fluff it out well enough that it actually makes sense that you stand around devoting your standard action to making your summoned creature attack. I know people will handwave and say that it is focusing on controlling, blah blah blah... I just don't care for it and hope they really put some effort into fluffing it out.
Warlawk, I do not think the phrases handwave and fluff out mean what you think they mean.
A Handwave is an explanation that does not really explain anything. If you asked someone how a fireball occurred and the person said, "Its magic," they just brushed away your question with a wave of their hand.
Fluffing something out is expanding on something by adding little or no useful information. If a campaign setting support book was describing an important NPC, previously described in the main setting book as loving horses, and had a huge list of the NPC's favorite horses' names, ages and breeds this would be an example of fluffing something out. Fluffing out does not mean give an in game explanation for something.
"The summoner is focused on controlling and directing the summoned creature." is not a handwave answer to the question of "Why does a summoner have to give up a standard action to direct a summoned creature?" It is a plausible answer to the question. What you may be looking for is a in game reason to explain this answer (i.e. fluff it out).
It also does not help that the links between Yu-Gi-Oh, a gaming comic where an expy of M:tG took over, and summoning magic are tenuous at best. If you had compared the new summoning rules to say Pokemon your arguments would have a much stronger basis.
...War Pikachumon!
I load my War Pikachumon into my catapult turtle and summon a light mist.
Then I tap my turtle to fire my pikachu into the mist dealing 20d6 lightning damage!
...I'm going to love summoners...
Makes perfect sense to me.
I play Pikachu, then use my Digivice to digivolve him toooooooo
...War Pikachumon!
I load my War Pikachumon into my catapult turtle and summon a light mist.
Then I tap my turtle to fire my pikachu into the mist dealing 20d6 lightning damage!
...I'm going to love summoners...
I play Pikachu, then use my level up to digivolve him to Blood Mage Pikachu!
I load my Magic Staff +4 into my pickachu and then summon a fireball and do 10d6 fire damage!
I sure love [insert class here]
Seriously guys, you're probably overweight men who play with other overweight people who each pretend to be a member of a fictitious race who do amazing feats against monsters that aren't real and become heroes to entire cities and countries. You also do this by moving little toys across a board.
How do you get to say D&D is better then Pokemon/Yu-Gi-Oh/insert-game-choice-here?
Also as I demonstrated, the Invoker and a new Wizard build are no different from beast companions (which have been a D&D staple at least since 3rd edition), wondrous figurines or already existing wizard spells. I don't see why a spell having the keyword "summon" suddenly makes it pokemon.
I was just making a joke.
Are you insulting me for satiring the poke-haters?
I was just making a joke.
Pig, just remember that transmission of satire and sarcasm over the internet are hard checks.
Are you insulting me
Nope :P I was speaking the truth (you're probably male, you're probably overweight, and at least some of the people you play with are also probably overweight. I know I'm an overweight male and from what I've seen so far, so is your average D&D player ;)).
And I didn't realise you were satirising the poke-haters. I thought you were actually saying that summoning reminds you of pokemon and is therefore bad which is why I also addressed that ;)
...Calories.
So I should be fat. But I'm rail thin. Long live science! :D
Warlawk, I do not think the phrases handwave and fluff out mean what you think they mean.
A Handwave is an explanation that does not really explain anything. If you asked someone how a fireball occurred and the person said, "Its magic," they just brushed away your question with a wave of their hand.
Saying "You have to concetrate really hard to control your summon" is a handwave answer.
Why do you have to concentrate really hard? A divine character summoning an angel for assistance... the character and angel likely share an alignment. The angel is an agent of the characters deity and likely wants to help the character out. Where is the "MUST CONCENTRATE REALLY HARD!" to this? You do not have to bind it to your will, it is not stupid and needing direction, it is not a random piece of magical energy forced into that shape by you.
It does not make sense, and it needs to be well fluffed out to better fit the game. And on the note of fluff...
Fluffing something out is expanding on something by adding little or no useful information. If a campaign setting support book was describing an important NPC, previously described in the main setting book as loving horses, and had a huge list of the NPC's favorite horses' names, ages and breeds this would be an example of fluffing something out. Fluffing out does not mean give an in game explanation for something.
Perhaps it is my long history with Warhammer, but crunch is the merchanics (commonly accepted around here) and fluff is the non-mechanics text associated with it. Pretty sure I have seen those used in that exact context around here many many times.
Crunch=Making your summoned creature attack requires a standard action.
Fluff=The description saying that your character summons up an angel of vengeance to smite your foes.
I've seen those words used in those contexts on these forums more times than I can count. Perhaps I am not the one using them wrong?
"The summoner is focused on controlling and directing the summoned creature." is not a handwave answer to the question of "Why does a summoner have to give up a standard action to direct a summoned creature?" It is a plausible answer to the question. What you may be looking for is a in game reason to explain this answer (i.e. fluff it out).
It is a handwave answer, because all it does is say "this is the mechanics for the power" it does not give a reason why. I know the mechanics, I was not asking about the mechanics. I was asking for a fluff (IE RP based reason) answer to why it should be that way. I understand the mechanics, that was never in question. The question was why it requires that kind of concentration and expenditure of will for all summoning spells across the board. "because the rules say so" does not explain why the world works that way. The whole point was I will be surprised if they can come up with a good RP explanation for this that is not cheesy or contrived. More likely, they simply will not try to and just leave the subject alone.
It also does not help that the links between Yu-Gi-Oh, a gaming comic where an expy of M:tG took over, and summoning magic are tenuous at best. If you had compared the new summoning rules to say Pokemon your arguments would have a much stronger basis.
Well, I am not terribly familiar with pokemon, so pardon my ignorance.
The whole subject is a matter of taste. I understand the mechanic is there for balance and why it was done. I do not like the effect that has on the RP/Fluff side of things however, which was the entire point of my statements.
That wasn't what you said. You said you scared your children into submission simply because you disliked a particular television show.Again if that didn't actually happen, you should have worded your initial post better.
Wrong, I said I got cranky if they watched it. Anything beyond that you extrapolated from thin air. Just because you misinterpreted that to mean I forced them to stop, or "scared" them into anything doesn't mean my statement was wrong, it just means you added connotations to the statement that did not exist and tried to make negative implications about me from things you simply made up. IE A personal attack.
Fluffing something out is expanding on something by adding little or no useful information. If a campaign setting support book was describing an important NPC, previously described in the main setting book as loving horses, and had a huge list of the NPC's favorite horses' names, ages and breeds this would be an example of fluffing something out. Fluffing out does not mean give an in game explanation for something.
Actually fluff has a different meaning when used in reference to D&D and most other roleplaying games. Fluff is roleplaying information and is the opposite of crunch which is rules information.
I know the mechanics, I was not asking about the mechanics. I was asking for a fluff (IE RP based reason) answer to why it should be that way. I understand the mechanics, that was never in question. The question was why it requires that kind of concentration and expenditure of will for all summoning spells across the board. "because the rules say so" does not explain why the world works that way. The whole point was I will be surprised if they can come up with a good RP explanation for this that is not cheesy or contrived. More likely, they simply will not try to and just leave the subject alone.
How about:
1) Because summoned creatures are confused about where they are and what they should be doing. They've just been snatched from their normal cozy existence and thrust into a strange new world where they're just trying to get their bearings. Some instructions are needed.
2) Because summoned creatures don't want to be summoned and certainly don't want to help the summoner, so they have to be magically coerced.
Either of those will work fine, and I just pulled them off the top of my head. Both are based on long-standing traditions in fantasy litterature, of course.
Not so hard, was it?
How about:
1) Because summoned creatures are confused about where they are and what they should be doing. They've just been snatched from their normal cozy existence and thrust into a strange new world where they're just trying to get their bearings. Some instructions are needed.
2) Because summoned creatures don't want to be summoned and certainly don't want to help the summoner, so they have to be magically coerced.
Either of those will work fine, and I just pulled them off the top of my head. Both are based on long-standing traditions in fantasy litterature, of course.
Not so hard, was it?
3) Summoned creatures are made of elemental forces (shadow power, astral essence, infernal fire, raw magic, etc.) and didn't even exist until your spell called them into being. They don't have developed minds and need to be controlled by the caster's will.
There's one more off-the-cuff idea that doesn't transform swords & sorcery into a card game ;)
Wrong, I said I got cranky if they watched it. Anything beyond that you extrapolated from thin air.
You said you got cranky in such an obvious way that others are not only aware of it, but can quickly determine the cause of it. I did believe that this implied that your children stopped the behaviour which got you so cranky. However if instead your children continued to watch the show which continued to make their father cranky everytime he heard it. You're right, I'm wrong. I read an implication in your post that wasn't there.
As for this personal attack, I repeat what I said last time in response to your last post which you did not respond to:
all I did was characterise your post as that of a cranky old man, and say perhaps you should consider how others think of your pastime before you condemn what others enjoy.
Is someone saying your post reads as that from a cranky old man truly worth this much of your time? Or was there some other uninformed misguided borderline personal attack that has motivated you to make this many posts over the issue?
Also my original point still stands: Rather then going around angry whenever someone plays a television show you dislike, perhaps you should consider how others find your entertainment choices and instead show the same level of courtesy that you would wish for.
Could you please take the "cranky old man" discussion to PM instead if you plan to continue it? Thanks.
Sorry. I do have trouble staying on track in threads.
There's one more off-the-cuff idea that doesn't transform swords & sorcery into a card game ;)
I'm not sure how summoning turns D&D into a card game when the following don't:
* Wondrous figurines (similar to such items from past editions)
* Ranger beast companions (similar to druid and ranger beast companions)
* Already existing wizard spells such as Bigby's Icy Grap.
Ultimately though the core fluff will only matter to people who play in LFR as everyone else can easily make their own fluff for their homebrew game if they find the fluff provided by WotC lacking. I'd personally rather WotC spend more time balancing the mechanics in the PHB2 then toiling over the fluff of a powers keyword.
3) Summoned creatures are made of elemental forces (shadow power, astral essence, infernal fire, raw magic, etc.) and didn't even exist until your spell called them into being. They don't have developed minds and need to be controlled by the caster's will.
Except Conjurations are already basically described in this way in the PHB - objects or creatures created out of magical energy - and have specific rules to differentiate them from summoned creatures.
The article which previews the Summoning keyword says this in the fluff line before the rules themselves: Powers that have the summoning keyword bring creatures from other planes to serve you in a variety of ways.
Similar to Bolongo above, I sort of imagine a summoned creature as being in an almost dreamlike state when called by the spell. It's not fully conscious of what's happening and needs to be directed. When "killed", it's merely sent back to it's home plane/location with only a vague memory of what happened.
I had a DM that liked Pokemon too much... And yeah we tried to beat a pokemon person over the head with our poke-ball... I mean summoning staff.
3) Summoned creatures are made of elemental forces (shadow power, astral essence, infernal fire, raw magic, etc.) and didn't even exist until your spell called them into being. They don't have developed minds and need to be controlled by the caster's will.
There's one more off-the-cuff idea that doesn't transform swords & sorcery into a card game ;)
4) The creature exists, is aware of it's surroundings and willing to help it's summoner, but the summoner must concentrate in order to keep the link between his plane and the plane from wich he's summoning, or else the creature would be dismissed.
Why do you have to concentrate really hard? A divine character summoning an angel for assistance... the character and angel likely share an alignment. The angel is an agent of the characters deity and likely wants to help the character out.
I have to disagree with this point, Warlawk. I'm not sure how up to date on the 4E Angels you are, but they are not what you are describing. Angels in 4E are almost like robots, fully devoted to fulfilling their diety's ideals, regardless of the "little mortal people" they interact with. To quote Worlds & Monsters:
"...an Angel of Battle leads mortals to war, but it cares little for their hurts, fears, and desires. It exists only to serve its master and embody its ideals."
This is why we can have Angels serving all the dieities now.
Plus, as a side note, since when did two people sharing an alignment and following the same god automatically mean they want the same thing? I think that's a pretty big assumption to make.
Sometimes the rules don't make complete sense, but we are playing a game here, and sometimes we have to turn a blind eye towards it to favor the game balance. I'm not familiar with it, but I would be VERY surprised if Warhammer doesn't do this same thing in some cases.
Funny thing is I seem to be able to cancel out Calories with...
...Calories.
So I should be fat. But I'm rail thin. Long live science! :D
GG rapid metabolism. I never leave home without it!
I'm not sure how summoning turns D&D into a card game when...
It doesn't have that effect for me, but there was at least one person who might benefit from some more fluff ideas for this.
Except Conjurations are already basically described in this way in the PHB - objects or creatures created out of magical energy - and have specific rules to differentiate them from summoned creatures.
Conjuration, summoning... it's all pretty close. I was adding on to Bolongo's list of ways that a DM could portray summoning. If it steps on the toes of conjuration's fluff, what's the harm? I'd rather give someone more ideas for how to enjoy D&D than stress about which fluff is whose.