PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder - Quick Summoner Question



Freylorn
2010-07-23, 05:26 AM
Hello, Playground!

We're starting up a Pathfinder game, and I need to clarify something with you guys quickly.

The Summoner class is able to use the Summon Monster line as spell-like abilities. Would Augment Summoning be applicable in this situation, or would it absolutely have to be cast as a spell for the feat to work?

Thank you in advance!

Saph
2010-07-23, 06:53 AM
Going to the source, here's the text of Pathfinder Augment Summoning (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/augment-summoning---final):


Your summoned creatures are more powerful and robust.

Prerequisite: Spell Focus (conjuration).

Benefit: Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.

And here's their text on spell-like abilities (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering---final/special-abilities---final):


Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)

Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.

Since Augment Summoning specifically says that you have to cast a summon spell for it to work, and spell-like abilities are only "very much like" spells instead of being identical to them, Augment Summoning, by default, doesn't work on spell-like-abilities.

It's the kind of thing a DM might be very easily persuaded to allow, but by the strict reading of the rules, it doesn't work. For it to work, the Summoner class would need to have a clause saying something like "Any monster summoned by this ability is treated as if you had summoned it via a summon monster spell".

Rixx
2010-07-23, 11:03 AM
I think I remember the official ruling as "yes", though it might have changed since then. Someone asked about it on the Paizo playtest forums.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 12:54 PM
Since Augment Summoning specifically says that you have to cast a summon spell for it to work, and spell-like abilities are only "very much like" spells instead of being identical to them, Augment Summoning, by default, doesn't work on spell-like-abilities.

I'm not sure I agree. The various Sudden Metamagic feats also only refer to "spells" but according to Complete Arcane 71 they work fine with SLAs. In addition, there's this passage on the next page:



SPECIFIC SPELL REQUIREMENTS
A requirement based on a specific spell measures whether the character or creature in question is capable of producing the necessary effect, and as such, invocations and spell-like abilities that generate the relevant effect meet the requirements for specific spell knowledge. For example, a prestige class with a spellcasting requirement of “Must know (or be able to cast) darkness” is met by a warlock who chooses darkness as one of her invocations, or by any creature with darkness as a spell-like ability.

Because the Summoner's SLA specifically references the Summon Monster 1 spell, it meets the Specific Spell Requirement above. The example they give is for a PrC, but it should apply equally well to feats that require a specific spell. Is there a rule in Pathfinder that would override the above?

Saph
2010-07-23, 01:00 PM
Well, that might be enough if it was a 3.5 question, but since Complete Arcane's not a Pathfinder book, I'm not sure if it would work with Pathfinder. This might be one of those cases where it was intended to work and the wording isn't as clear as it might be - it comes down to whether a spell-like-ability counts as a spell, and strictly by the rules I don't think it does.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 01:04 PM
Well, that might be enough if it was a 3.5 question, but since Complete Arcane's not a Pathfinder book, I'm not sure if it would work with Pathfinder. This might be one of those cases where it was intended to work and the wording isn't as clear as it might be - it comes down to whether a spell-like-ability counts as a spell, and strictly by the rules I don't think it does.

But isn't the default rule that anything Pathfinder didn't explicitly change is fair game? If they don't have a ruling on SLAs satisfying (or failing to satisfy) the specific spell requirement, that means the D&D ruling carries over.

Were it a generic SLA then I would agree with you - but this one specifically references the SM line.

Saph
2010-07-23, 01:06 PM
But isn't the default rule that anything Pathfinder didn't explicitly change is fair game? If they don't have a ruling on SLAs satisfying the specific spell requirement, that means the D&D ruling carries over.

I'm not really sure. As far as I know Pathfinder doesn't have any official stance on 3.5 material such as the section you mention of Complete Arcana, or the Rules Compendium. I might have missed it, though.

Akal Saris
2010-07-23, 01:20 PM
The ruling for Pathfinder Organized Play is that it does count towards summoned monsters using the SLA, but not towards buffing the eidolon.

Which seems to me like the fairest ruling possible, really.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 01:32 PM
The ruling for Pathfinder Organized Play is that it does count towards summoned monsters using the SLA, but not towards buffing the eidolon.

Which seems to me like the fairest ruling possible, really.

It makes sense too, because the Eidolon isn't an SLA. (Or [Su] for that matter.)

Freylorn
2010-07-24, 11:05 AM
Nor does the eidolon have anything to do with the Summon X spells, which Augment Summoning explicitly calls out.

We knew it wouldn't work with the eidolon - that would make it into a no-brainer feat of Natural Spell proportion. But if the official word from Paizo is that it works on the summon monster SLA, that's fantastic. Thank you, guys!

And Saph, your thought process was essentially what I was thinking in the first place - close, but not close enough to qualify. I'm actually a bit surprised to find out Paizo officially stated that it works. But they did, so... yeah...