Spell Focus: Conjuration actually useful for druids?

[Ungvar]

OK, so I'm playing a druid with a significant emphasis on summoning, so I bit the bullet and took Spell Focus: Conjuration to qualify for Augment Summoning. I started going through the list of Summon Nature's Ally creatures, writing out new statblocks w/ the +4 bonuses to STR and CON. I was on Small Air Elemental when it hit me:


"A Small Air Elemental's whirlwind has as save DC of 11, which is strength-based, so the +4 to STR should up the DC to 13... Wait a minute! This Air Elemental, which is only there because of my conjuration spell, can create an effect that requires a saving throw! Why does this NOT benefit from Spell Focus: Conjuration?"

Now, for all the Summon Nature's Ally spells, the summary text always lists "None" under saving throw. But isn't this contradicted by reference to the monster stat blocks that DO have saving throws? The more I thought about it, the more I think the summary text is just wrong due to the spell not being well-thought-out (shocker!).

Consider this: Storm of Vengeance is a 9th level Conjuration (Summoning) spell in the SRD, and one of the effects is that it allows you to have a stormcloud that you summoned shoot out 6 bolts of lightning, the targets of which are allowed a reflex save for half damage.

Now, Storm Elementals were introduced in Monster Manual III, and one of their abilities is to produce a Thunder and Lightning attack, which simultaneously produces an AoE sonic attack, and a lightning bolt line attack. Both attacks allow saves. In the MMIII text, these Storm Elementals were added to the list of summonable creatures for the Summon Nature's Ally line of spells.

So you can either Conjure (Summon) a huge stormcloud that produces a lightning attack, or you can Conjure (Summon) a huge storm elemental that produces a lightning attack. Both of these allow saves, so shouldn't both benefit from the Spell Focus: Conjuration feat? Is there anything I'm missing here?

[Vladislav]

While you have the Spell Focus (Conjuration), the creature you summoned does not. The bolt of lighting, or the whirldwind, or whatnot, is his ability, not yours. Therefore, the save DC is determined by the parameters of the creature, not yours.

[Aharon]

Well, there's the fact that the feat doesn't say it works that way. It adds +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells of the school you select. Neither the small elemental's whirlwind nor the Storm elemental's attack are spells of the school you select, they are effects of spells of the school you select that are created by a spell without a saving throw.

You could read the feat the way you do, but it doesn't outright say so - if this was intended, it could be worded like " It adds +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells of the school you select, and to any saving throws effects of those spells allow."

Usually, it is assumed that if the rules don't say something is not the case, that doesn't mean that it is the case.

[Ungvar]

While you have the Spell Focus (Conjuration), the creature you summoned does not. The bolt of lighting, or the whirldwind, or whatnot, is his ability, not yours. Therefore, the save DC is determined by the parameters of the creature, not yours.

But wouldn't the same logic apply to Storm of Vengeance? The bolt of lightning is not my ability, it is the ability of the stormcloud I summon. Same deal w/ the Fire Seeds spell, the Holly Berry bombs are the ones producing the fire, not me, so why is their save DC improved by my Spell Focus?

Why isn't it the case that my Spell Focus produces a superior summons that in turn produces more potent special attacks? After all, that's essentially what Augment Summoning does, so why shouldn't the prereq for that feat also have a similar (if lesser) effect?

[Vladislav]

Why isn't it the case that my Spell Focus produces a superior summons that in turn produces more potent special attacks? After all, that's essentially what Augment Summoning does, so why shouldn't the prereq for that feat also have a similar (if lesser) effect?

Why isn't it the case that the Fighter's Weapon Focus produces a superior damage roll? After all, that's essentially what Weapon Specialization does, so why shouldn't the prereq for that feat also have a similar (if lesser) effect?

Anyway, verbal sophistry and language tricks aside, there is really nothing to support your position except a healthy doze of wishful thinking. Summon Nature's Ally (Summon Monster) have no saving throw associated with it. The abilities of the creatures you summon may, but these are calculated by the parameters of the creature.

[Ungvar]

Well, there's the fact that the feat doesn't say it works that way. It adds +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells of the school you select. Neither the small elemental's whirlwind nor the Storm elemental's attack are spells of the school you select, they are effects of spells of the school you select that are created by a spell without a saving throw.

You could read the feat the way you do, but it doesn't outright say so - if this was intended, it could be worded like " It adds +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells of the school you select, and to any saving throws effects of those spells allow."

Usually, it is assumed that if the rules don't say something is not the case, that doesn't mean that it is the case.

But I return to my Storm of Vengeance example, those lightning bolts aren't of my school, either. All the Call Lightning spells are Evocation. And I'm not sure the feat text DOESN'T say what I'm saying. The Storm Elemental is an effect of my Summon Nature's Ally, every bit as much as the Storm Cloud is an effect of my Storm of Vengeance. In both cases, a SECONDARY effect, the lightning, does the actual damage, and allows the saving throw. Monsters can roll dice all they want, but they don't get a save to prevent my Storm of Vengeance from appearing, only whether they get hit by the lightning it shoots.

I know that usually rules mean what they say, but I'm saying that by referencing summonable creatures which do produce effects that can be saved against, the text of the Summon Nature's Ally spells are internally contradictory.

[Ungvar]

Why isn't it the case that the Fighter's Weapon Focus produces a superior damage roll? After all, that's essentially what Weapon Specialization does, so why shouldn't the prereq for that feat also have a similar (if lesser) effect?

Because nothing in the feat text suggests that effect?


Anyway, verbal sophistry and language tricks aside, there is really nothing to support your position except a healthy doze of wishful thinking. Summon Nature's Ally (Summon Monster) have no saving throw associated with it. The abilities of the creatures you summon may, but these are calculated by the parameters of the creature.

If it's just language tricks, you should be able to point them out. If you can't, then maybe there's actual logic afoot.

[Veyr]

RAW, the Spell Focus feat applies a bonus to the saving throw listed in the Saving Throw entry of the spells in the chosen school. If a spell has no listed saving throw, there is no benefit, period, even if the spell can cause saves to be thrown.

[Vladislav]

I just pointed them out.


Why isn't it the case that my Spell Focus produces a superior summons that in turn produces more potent special attacks? After all, that's essentially what Augment Summoning does, so why shouldn't the prereq for that feat also have a similar (if lesser) effect?

In case you missed it, this is a sophistry trick.


And I'm not sure the feat text DOESN'T say what I'm saying.As is this. "I'm note sure" is not an argument. It's is in fact the opposite. It's the complete lack of an argument. See the film "Thank you for smoking" for a perfect example of such sophistry in action.

[Ungvar]

I just pointed them out.

You made an assertion, I countered, and you ignored the counter.




In case you missed it, this is a sophistry trick.

Explain, rather than assert, how it's sophistry and not a hypothetical


As is this. "I'm note sure" is not an argument. It's is in fact the opposite. It's the complete lack of an argument. See the film "Thank you for smoking" for a perfect example of such sophistry in action.

Of course the words "I'm not sure" don't constitute an argument, they denote a preliminary judgment that my interpretation is correct, leaving the possibility open that it is not.

Veyr: RAW can be flawed, as anyone who's played 3.5 can attest. Since the text of SNA references monster stat blocks, they are, by reference, incorporated into the spell's text. So since the monster stat blocks contain save DCs, that portion of the spell text contradicts the leading summary text claiming that there are none.

I fully realize that the game authors merely meant for the feat to be a feat tax for Augment Summoning, but I think there is a RAW argument to be made that my interpretation is valid. At the least, it's one houserule avenue for people who want the feat to actually provide some benefit.

[Tyger]

I think the big thing that is different in your comparison (Storm of Vengeance and a summoned Storm Elemental) is that one is a spell (Storm of Vengeance) and thus has its DC increased, and one is a creature (the elemental) which your magic does not create - it summons it. That creature existed somewhere else prior to your summoning it. The Storm of Vengeance spell exists only because of your magic.

[Darrin]

There are a handful of conjuration (creation) spells that have a saving throw (notably, glitterdust and stinking cloud), but almost none of these appear on the druid spell list. The Spell Compendium adds a few, but nothing to get really excited about. It's more like a feat tax for the pure awesomeness of being Druidzilla.

There is a way to pick up Augment Summoning without taking Spell Focus (Conjuration). If you can get 8 ranks of Knowledge: the Planes (with Planar Druid substitution levels, Knowledge Devotion, etc.), you can take the Planar Touchstone feat, link it to the Catalogues of Enlightmentment, and pick up the domain power of the Cult of the Dragon Below (Eberron Campaign Setting), which grants Augment Summoning as a bonus feat. However, Spell Focus (Conjuration) is still a prereq for Imbued Summoning if you want to take that later.

Don't forget to stock up on Golden Desert Honey (300 GP, Complete Mage p. 136). Expensive, but a druid can create half a pound of the stuff (8 oz., should be good for an entire combat) with a Chaos Flask (100 GP, Planar Handbook 76) as a free action and a DC 13 Wisdom check. Or since it's made from tree sap, you can pay to summon a djinn (SMVII, 910 GP) to make 20 cubic feet of it for you (major creation as a SLA, vegetable matter = permanent duration). 20 cubic feet = 150 gallons = 19200 ounces of Golden Desert Honey.

[Yora]

I think the reason for the prerequisite is just one more instance of the designers assuming that a character specialized in summoning creatures would take the spell focus feat in that school. I think it just didn't occure to anyone that Spell Focus (conjuration) has no effect at all on summoning spells.

The psionic version of the feat (which grants your astral constructs more abilities) does not have any such prerequisite feat.

[Veyr]

Veyr: RAW can be flawed, as anyone who's played 3.5 can attest. Since the text of SNA references monster stat blocks, they are, by reference, incorporated into the spell's text. So since the monster stat blocks contain save DCs, that portion of the spell text contradicts the leading summary text claiming that there are none.
No, they are not. Just because a monster is listed in the spell's description does not mean that the monster's description has become subsumed into the spell's description. You will find absolutely no backing for the position anywhere within the rules.

SNA creates an semi-independent creature, with its own statblock. Any saves it creates depend on its stats, not yours.


I fully realize that the game authors merely meant for the feat to be a feat tax for Augment Summoning, but I think there is a RAW argument to be made that my interpretation is valid. At the least, it's one houserule avenue for people who want the feat to actually provide some benefit.
No, there is no RAW argument. Reasonable houserule, yes. RAW, no.

[Ungvar]

I think the big thing that is different in your comparison (Storm of Vengeance and a summoned Storm Elemental) is that one is a spell (Storm of Vengeance) and thus has its DC increased, and one is a creature (the elemental) which your magic does not create - it summons it. That creature existed somewhere else prior to your summoning it. The Storm of Vengeance spell exists only because of your magic.

It's true that this is a difference, but there are oodles of spells, and even several feats, that augment the abilities of creatures that already exist. That's why I brought up Augment Summoning as a comparison. That Storm Elemental that already exists before I summon him receives an enhancement bonus buff to CON and STR when I yank him to me to do my bidding. I'm saying that conceptually the same mechanism would allow SpF:C to confer an untyped buff to the DCs of creatures abilities.

[Aharon]

But I return to my Storm of Vengeance example, those lightning bolts aren't of my school, either. All the Call Lightning spells are Evocation.

Yes, but the spell itself specifically makes clear that you can save against it, and that you save against the Storm of Vengeance Conjuration, not against the Call Lightning Effect the Storm of Vengeance Conjuration has.


And I'm not sure the feat text DOESN'T say what I'm saying. The Storm Elemental is an effect of my Summon Nature's Ally, every bit as much as the Storm Cloud is an effect of my Storm of Vengeance. In both cases, a SECONDARY effect, the lightning, does the actual damage, and allows the saving throw.

In one case, the spell itself explicitly says the effect can be saved against, and is thus saved against with the focus-modifier included, in the other case, the spell doesn't say so, thus the modifier isn't included.


I know that usually rules mean what they say, but I'm saying that by referencing summonable creatures which do produce effects that can be saved against, the text of the Summon Nature's Ally spells are internally contradictory.

I can't, by the rules text, refute your argument, because it isn't covered in the rules. However, I can give you an example that shows that your interpretation would lead to more internal inconsistency and thus should be avoided. Let's take the Summon Monster IX spell and summon a Couatl. It casts Charm Monster on an opponent. By your reasoning, its' Charm Monster spell should be affected by your own Spell Focus (Conjuration) Feat, since it is a secondary effect of your Summon Monster IX spell. Now, there is nothing in the rules that says this isn't the case, but it is just a plain silly position to argue in favor for.

[Ungvar]

No, they are not. Just because a monster is listed in the spell's description does not mean that the monster's description has become subsumed into the spell's description. You will find absolutely no backing for the position anywhere within the rules.

Can you point me to RAW that supports your position? There are tons of spells which reference other spells (including SNA) and even many spells which reference monster stat blocks. In order to use the spell at the table, you are bound by the wording of the referenced text. By referencing other text, you give the other text the force of rule.


SNA creates an semi-independent creature, with its own statblock. Any saves it creates depend on its stats, not yours.

Augment Summoning is a rather obvious exception to that rule, since that feat does precisely that. Or do you deny that the bonus to STR conferred to an air elemental due to my feat increases the save DC of it's whirlwind?

[Tyger]

Augment Summoning is a rather obvious exception to that rule, since that feat does precisely that. Or do you deny that the bonus to STR conferred to an air elemental due to my feat increases the save DC of it's whirlwind?

Precisely. Augment summoning specifies that it applies to the summoned creature. Spell Focus: Conjuration does not.

Of course you can houserule it thusly, but its not RAW, and isn't supported by RAW. Just because it doesn't say you can't do something doesn't mean that you can do it.

[Veyr]

Can you point me to RAW that supports your position? There are tons of spells which reference other spells (including SNA) and even many spells which reference monster stat blocks. In order to use the spell at the table, you are bound by the wording of the referenced text. By referencing other text, you give the other text the force of rule.
I don't have to: there's absolutely no reason to assume that it does. You have the burden of proof here.


Augment Summoning is a rather obvious exception to that rule, since that feat does precisely that. Or do you deny that the bonus to STR conferred to an air elemental due to my feat increases the save DC of it's whirlwind?
Augment Summoning explicitly modifies that very statblock I was referring to. Spell Focus quite obviously does not explicitly modify anything about a summoned creature.

[Ungvar]

Yes, but the spell itself specifically makes clear that you can save against it, and that you save against the Storm of Vengeance Conjuration, not against the Call Lightning Effect the Storm of Vengeance Conjuration has.

Actually, the spell DOES specifically say you save against the call lightning effect. The storm in Storm of Vengeance also produces other effects, including Acid Rain and Hailstones, for which no save is allowed.



I can't, by the rules text, refute your argument, because it isn't covered in the rules. However, I can give you an example that shows that your interpretation would lead to more internal inconsistency and thus should be avoided. Let's take the Summon Monster IX spell and summon a Couatl. It casts Charm Monster on an opponent. By your reasoning, its' Charm Monster spell should be affected by your own Spell Focus (Conjuration) Feat, since it is a secondary effect of your Summon Monster IX spell. Now, there is nothing in the rules that says this isn't the case, but it is just a plain silly position to argue in favor for.

Where's the inconsistency? That would actually be MORE consistent. After all, the statblocks given in the MM are just the average for the type. Maybe your SpF:C feat attracts slightly more powerful examples of the breed. I could see an argument that it makes the feat too powerful because of the versatility, but that really is more the fault of the summoning spells themselves.

[Ungvar]

Precisely. Augment summoning specifies that it applies to the summoned creature. Spell Focus: Conjuration does not.

Of course you can houserule it thusly, but its not RAW, and isn't supported by RAW. Just because it doesn't say you can't do something doesn't mean that you can do it.

SpF:C specifies that it applies to Conjuration school spells, to which the SNA line belongs.

We disagree on what the RAW is, then. I contend that it is (poorly written) RAW, to the point that multiple interpretations are possible. This is not new, either.

[Darrin]

You might have a stronger argument with the conjure ice beast spells from Frostburn, which are Conjuration (Creation) effects rather than Conjuration (Summoning). Although the base creature loses all its SA/SQ abilities, you can add SAs that have saves (Engulf, for example).

Whether or not you can gain the benefits of either Spell Focus (Conjuration) or Augment Summoning is probably going to boil down to a DM call, because the spell description ends wth the sentence: "In all other ways, conjure ice beast I functions like summon monster I."

[Ungvar]

I don't have to: there's absolutely no reason to assume that it does. You have the burden of proof here.

Then how about explaining how text that is necessary to give mechanical effect to a spell (the monster statblock referenced) is not part of the RAW of that spell? Can you point to a RAW definition of what the RAW of a spell is? If not, how do you know that your definition is, in fact, RAW?



Augment Summoning explicitly modifies that very statblock I was referring to. Spell Focus quite obviously does not explicitly modify anything about a summoned creature.

It explicitly modifies the save DCs of Conjuration spells, and I have already given an example of where the save is not against the summoned entity itself, but against the effect it creates. Fire Seeds is another example, where you don't save against the Acorn Grenades or Holly Berry Bombs, you save against the effect they produce when they blow.

[erikun]

Can you point me to RAW that supports your position?
Stating that there is not a RAW reading which explicitly excludes your proposal does not mean that RAW supports it. It means that RAW is silent. You can't exactly say "my interpretation is RAW" when RAW never mentions the issue either way.


Veyr: RAW can be flawed, as anyone who's played 3.5 can attest.
Technically, if we're using a RAW-only discussion, that isn't true. RAW doesn't care about absurdities, just what is written (unless it is contradictory). If you're trying to base your reasoning on RAW-only, then the fact that it isn't mentioned in RAW - and the fact that RAW outright contradicts it, in the saving throw line - is enough to counter the argument.


Of course, you could say that "It seems like it would make sense for Spell Focus to apply to summon monsters' abilities." This goes beyond rules into player interpretation of how the rules should work, and while you could interpret the feat that way, that doesn't mean the feat should be interpreted that way. It certainly doesn't mean that RAW supports such an interpretation. Heck you mentioned yourself that "the game authors merely meant for the feat to be a feat tax for Augment Summoning"!

It seems pretty clear what the Spell Focus (Conjuration) feat is and is not designed to do. If you want to convince a DM to allow it to apply to summoned monsters' abilities, you are welcome to. There isn't anything in the ruleset supporting it, though, regardless of how much you try to twist the language.

[Aharon]

=>Storm of Vengeance
By "it says so", I meant that it has the line Saving Throw: see text, unlike SNA.
=>Couatl
It is frigging silly to apply the bonus from your Spell Focus: Conjuration to an Enchantment spell.

Go ahead and use your interpretation, I doubt anyone will convince you you're wrong.

[Ungvar]

Stating that there is not a RAW reading which explicitly excludes your proposal does not mean that RAW supports it. It means that RAW is silent. You can't exactly say "my interpretation is RAW" when RAW never mentions the issue either way.

But it is being claimed that RAW explicitly prohibits my reading. Is it unreasonable to ask for where that is written?



Technically, if we're using a RAW-only discussion, that isn't true. RAW doesn't care about absurdities, just what is written (unless it is contradictory). If you're trying to base your reasoning on RAW-only, then the fact that it isn't mentioned in RAW - and the fact that RAW outright contradicts it, in the saving throw line - is enough to counter the argument.

It's not a RAW-only discussion in the sense that when RAW contradicts itself, something outside of RAW must rule. I'm claiming that the text of the SNA spells is internally inconsistent. Do you believe that the monster stat blocks do not constitute part of the rules for SNAs?



Of course, you could say that "It seems like it would make sense for Spell Focus to apply to summon monsters' abilities." This goes beyond rules into player interpretation of how the rules should work, and while you could interpret the feat that way, that doesn't mean the feat should be interpreted that way. It certainly doesn't mean that RAW supports such an interpretation. Heck you mentioned yourself that "the game authors merely meant for the feat to be a feat tax for Augment Summoning"!

If you can interpret RAW a certain way, then by definition RAW supports it. The trouble is that multiple interpretations can be supported by the same RAW, simply because the authors were imprecise, or did not foresee and account for possible interpretations. And sure, I don't doubt but that the authors meant it to be a feat tax, but then we're getting into Intent.


It seems pretty clear what the Spell Focus (Conjuration) feat is and is not designed to do. If you want to convince a DM to allow it to apply to summoned monsters' abilities, you are welcome to. There isn't anything in the ruleset supporting it, though, regardless of how much you try to twist the language.

At this point, I'd settle for people seeing that there is, indeed, a contradiction in the text. I mean, my character's a druid; he doesn't NEED more power. And as for what supports the interpretation, I'm not twisting the language one iota. But if you care to provide a specific example of twisting, I'd be happy to discuss it.

[Pentachoron]

If you can interpret RAW a certain way, then by definition RAW supports it.


If you're interpreting in the first place, you're not RAW anymore.

[Ungvar]

=>Storm of Vengeance
By "it says so", I meant that it has the line Saving Throw: see text, unlike SNA.

Here's the text from SRD SNA I:

"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."

That table, in turn, hyperlinks to the individual statblocks for the monsters listed.

Now, if you don't think hyperlinks function to establish/incorporate RAW, how do you explain this, the full text of the SRD SNA II:

"Conjuration (Summoning)
Level: Drd 2, Rgr 2
Effect: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
This spell functions like summon nature’s ally I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyI.htm), except that you can summon one 2nd-level creature or 1d3 1st-level creatures of the same kind."

You can't know what SNA II does w/o referencing SNA I. You can't know what either one of them does w/ out referencing monster stat blocks.


=>Couatl
It is frigging silly to apply the bonus from your Spell Focus: Conjuration to an Enchantment spell.

Pun-Pun is silly, too. Doesn't mean it's not RAW.

[MeeposFire]

I think the reason for the prerequisite is just one more instance of the designers assuming that a character specialized in summoning creatures would take the spell focus feat in that school. I think it just didn't occure to anyone that Spell Focus (conjuration) has no effect at all on summoning spells.

The psionic version of the feat (which grants your astral constructs more abilities) does not have any such prerequisite feat.

I agree people like to think that they are a feat tax but it is just another case of the designers applying fluff to their decisions (that of those who are taking a feat to specialize in conjuration should take the feat about enhancing conjuration spells). Sort of like dwarven defenders needing toughness. It is not about power it requires toughness as it is a class based around being tough.

[Ungvar]

If you're interpreting in the first place, you're not RAW anymore.

If you read words, you are interpreting the markings you see, and are translating them into meaning using the vehicle of convention. If you apply RAW at all, you are actually just applying your interpretation of RAW. When RAW is internally consistent and clear, then everyone has the same RAI

[Keld Denar]

The answer lies in the spell's stat block:


Conjuration (Summoning)
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One summoned creature
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No


Period. End of debate.

But, since this is a discussion forum, I'll discuss. If you have Spell Focus Transmutation, and you cast a Disintegrate spell on a load bearing column that causes the temple roof to collapse on the bad guy forcing him to make a Ref save vs tons of crushing stone, is the DC 1 higher because you have Spell Focus?

If a caster casts Control Water and raises the water level in a lake near a village, and all the commoners in the village have to hold their breath while they swim to the surface, is the DC to hold one's breath one higher because the caster has Spell Focus?

Nope. Its an indirect result of your spell. The Whirlwind effect of a summoned Air Elemental is a function of the elemental, not a function of the spell. Its indirect. Just like the Disintegrate example. Just like the Control Water example. Some things are the direct result of the spell...being burned by a Fireball. Some things are an indirect result of a spell...being burned by the mundane fire the Fireball started that you can't get away from because you are trapped in a wooden building that is non-magically burning. Direct things are affected by Spell Focus. Indirect things aren't.

[Ungvar]

The answer lies in the spell's stat block:


Period. End of debate.

But, since this is a discussion forum, I'll discuss. If you have Spell Focus Transmutation, and you cast a Disintegrate spell on a load bearing column that causes the temple roof to collapse on the bad guy forcing him to make a Ref save vs tons of crushing stone, is the DC 1 higher because you have Spell Focus?

The Reflex save you just mentioned is not a part of the spell text, the way the Air Elemental's Whirlwind is a part of the SNA spell text through incorporation by reference. Or do you maintain that the elemental stat block is not part of the RAW of the SNA spell?


If a caster casts Control Water and raises the water level in a lake near a village, and all the commoners in the village have to hold their breath while they swim to the surface, is the DC to hold one's breath one higher because the caster has Spell Focus?

Same answer as above


Nope. Its an indirect result of your spell. The Whirlwind effect of a summoned Air Elemental is a function of the elemental, not a function of the spell. Its indirect. Just like the Disintegrate example. Just like the Control Water example. Some things are the direct result of the spell...being burned by a Fireball. Some things are an indirect result of a spell...being burned by the mundane fire the Fireball started that you can't get away from because you are trapped in a wooden building that is non-magically burning. Direct things are affected by Spell Focus. Indirect things aren't.

And the lightning bolt produced by the stormcloud that was summoned by the Storm of Vengeance spell is every bit an "indirect thing", insofar as you don't summon the lightning, you summon the stormcloud which produces the lightning effect. And yet, this indirect thing does have a saving throw, which everyone here would attest is affected by SpF:C. So if the direct/indirect convention were what the game authors meant to use, they failed to maintain consistency in at least the spell of Storm of Vengeance.

[Veyr]

You can't pick and choose which written rules are RAW. RAW defines a "spell's saving throw" as its entry in the "Saving Throw" line. Spell Focus modifies only that saving throw. This is RAW. What you are talking about is a houserule.

If you found a spell that actually had a direct saving throw as a result of its effects, but yet had "Saving Throw: None" in its entry, Spell Focus would fail to work with that spell, by strict RAW. And if you're making a RAW argument, "strict RAW" is the only RAW. It would be a pretty clear case of editor-mistake, but still, by RAW, Spell Focus would not work.

And it most certainly does not work with any Summon spell.

[Keld Denar]

No, you are drawing conclusions where you are not allowed to.

And no, the elemental's stat block is not part of the SNA's rule's text. SNA summons an elemental. The elemental, however, exists independant of the stat block.

And yes...the lightning generated by Storm of Vengeance is DIRECTLY part of Storm of Vengeance. Its spelled out explicitly in the rules text.

It doesn't work like you want, by RAW, and we've explained it. Whether or not you want to use the RAW, that's your own call, but you can't say that AND call it RAW. Period.

[Ungvar]

You can't pick and choose which written rules are RAW. RAW defines a "spell's saving throw" as its entry in the "Saving Throw" line. Spell Focus modifies only that saving throw. This is RAW. What you are talking about is a houserule.

If you found a spell that actually had a direct saving throw as a result of its effects, but yet had "Saving Throw: None" in its entry, Spell Focus would fail to work with that spell, by strict RAW. And if you're making a RAW argument, "strict RAW" is the only RAW.

I'm not picking and choosing. I'm giving the force of effect to all the RAW of a spell. You are the one saying that the "Saving Throw:" line supersedes the referenced text of the stat block. That's not an unreasonable stance, in fact it's the default rule used by WotC. See this header info from the Spell Compendium errata:

"When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically."

So yes, the "Saving Throw" text is presumed to control, but it's a case by case determination, and sometimes the secondary reference forces an errata. Until there IS an errata, you have a conflict of the RAW, admitting multiple possible interpretations.

And I continue to be baffled why the direct/indirect effect matters to people. I've given time and again the example of Storm of Vengeance, where the saving throw is against the indirect effect of the lightning. So you're saying that if the Storm of Vengeance text read the same as it does, including a reflex save against the lightning, but in the header it said "Saving Throw: None", you would insist that there is no contradiction and no saving throw allowed?

[Ungvar]

No, you are drawing conclusions where you are not allowed to.

And no, the elemental's stat block is not part of the SNA's rule's text. SNA summons an elemental. The elemental, however, exists independant of the stat block.

The elemental is a figment of our shared imaginations, and as far as the game mechanics are concerned, owes it's entire existence to the stat block. In fact "small air elemental" is really just shorthand for all that stuff in the statblock.


And yes...the lightning generated by Storm of Vengeance is DIRECTLY part of Storm of Vengeance. Its spelled out explicitly in the rules text.

How is it any more directly a part of the Storm of Vengeance than is the fire of a Fire Elemental? And yet you get a reflex save to avoid catching fire from that. How is it more directly a part than is the poison of a summoned viper, for which you get a fort save? The only reason the stat blocks of the various summonable creatures aren't spelled out in the text of the spell is because it would take up far too much space, so they simply reference other text. If only the text given in the spell were RAW, then SNA II through IX are essentially rules-free, because they merely reference SNA I, and note a few differences. But if you accept that referenced text is incorporated into the RAW, then you have no problem.


It doesn't work like you want, by RAW, and we've explained it. Whether or not you want to use the RAW, that's your own call, but you can't say that AND call it RAW. Period.

So just to be straight, the monster stat blocks referenced by the various summon spells aren't part of RAW with respect to those spells. Is that your position?

[Flickerdart]

Say I have Spell Focus Enchantment. I Dominate Person a wizard. The wizard is clearly spelled out in the text (a person) and so all his spells should get the DC boost.

Say I have Spell Focus Necromancy. I kill someone with Enervation and they rise as a Wight. Wights are a function of negative levels, clearly spelled out in the text. The Wight's Energy Drain ability should now have a higher DC.

Say I have Spell Focus Conjuration. I cast a Plane Shift and shift myself to another plane. Because mine being here is a function of the spell's effect, I now have +1 DC on my abilities.

Say I have Spell Focus Conjuration again. I cast Genesis and fill the plane with smoke. Anyone interacting with this smoke has to beat a higher DC.

Two tiefling wizards have Spell Focus Conjuration. They take turns planar binding each other, and each time gain +1 to all their DCs. Within days, their spells are irresistible and they rule the world.

All of these make as much sense as your argument.

[Runestar]

The closest thing I can find to a ruling is this entry in the FAQ.


Do metamagic effects apply to creatures summoned by summoning spell? For example, does a monster summoned by a maximized summon monster spell have maximum hit points?

No. The metamagic effect applies only to the specific rules of the spell itself -- the spell’s range, its casting time, the variable number of creatures summoned, and so forth -- not to the monsters it brings.

For example, an extended summon monster I would double the duration that the monsters remain, but wouldn’t have any effect on the durations of the monsters’ special powers.

A parallel could be made for spell focus: conjuration.

[Keld Denar]

They take turns planar binding each other

So thats what you kids are calling it these days...

:smallcool:

[Ungvar]

Say I have Spell Focus Enchantment. I Dominate Person a wizard. The wizard is clearly spelled out in the text (a person) and so all his spells should get the DC boost.

Say I have Spell Focus Necromancy. I kill someone with Enervation and they rise as a Wight. Wights are a function of negative levels, clearly spelled out in the text. The Wight's Energy Drain ability should now have a higher DC.

Say I have Spell Focus Conjuration. I cast a Plane Shift and shift myself to another plane. Because mine being here is a function of the spell's effect, I now have +1 DC on my abilities.

Not the same, as the wizard and and the victim of enervation and plane-shifting you were all the targets of the spell, not the spell effects themselves.


Say I have Spell Focus Conjuration again. I cast Genesis and fill the plane with smoke. Anyone interacting with this smoke has to beat a higher DC.

Not familiar w/ Genesis, so I can't comment.


Two tiefling wizards have Spell Focus Conjuration. They take turns planar binding each other, and each time gain +1 to all their DCs. Within days, their spells are irresistible and they rule the world.

And again, they are the targets of the spell, not the spell effects themselves.


All of these make as much sense as your argument.

With the possible exception of Genesis (and you may elaborate if you wish) I don't think any of the scenarios you pose is similar for the reasons stated.

[Ungvar]

The closest thing I can find to a ruling is this entry in the FAQ.



A parallel could be made for spell focus: conjuration.

But the specific rule of the SpF:C feat calls out save DCs, and we're still talking about save DCs when we're talking about the Fort Save against the summoned viper.

[Runestar]

But the specific rule of the SpF:C feat calls out save DCs, and we're still talking about save DCs when we're talking about the Fort Save against the summoned viper.

Yes, but a parallel can be drawn between the 2 examples. If spell focus were to say, improve the DCs of special attacks of summoned monsters, then why would metamagic feats not improve their stats? Why would a maximized summon monster not bring in creatures with max hp and dealing max damage with every hit?

Simply put, they apply only to the spell itself.

[Keld Denar]

Conjuration (Summoning)
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One summoned creature
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No


See bolded section above. SNA doesn't have a save, therefore is not affected by Spell Focus. Simple as that. Don't read so much into it.

There's an old saying, "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

Sorry man, it was a good effort, but it just doesn't do what you think it does. Its right there in the stat block. Saving Throw: None. Period. End of debate. In the words of Curmudgeon: "It's very explicit what it does. It doesn't say it does that, so it doesn't do that."

[erikun]

If you can interpret RAW a certain way, then by definition RAW supports it.
This is silly. I mean, I could say that RAW allows my character to hold his breath and make a Concentration check to instantly kill any creature he sees. There is no RAW which explicitly denies this, and so my your logic, it would be supported by RAW. I would find such logic highly questionable, in the very least.


Do you believe that the monster stat blocks do not constitute part of the rules for SNAs?
No, I do not. There are numerous spells which either produce an item (Fabricate) or create an effect (Shapechange) that has an associated DC. None of these spells increase the DCs of their effects through Spell Focus either; you cannot make super Alchemist Fire by fabricating it rather than making it with skills.

Also...

Not the same, as the wizard and and the victim of enervation and plane-shifting you were all the targets of the spell, not the spell effects themselves.
A summoned creature is the target of the spell and is brought to you with the summoning; it is not the spell effect itself. Both Calling and Summoning spells bring a specific creature to a destination you desire. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#conjuration) Neither one creates a creature from scratch. Because the creature is not created from the spell and is not a part of the spell, it's abilities would not benefit from feats that affect only the cast spell. (Note that Storm of Vengeance is actually created by the spell, and thus benefits from the feat.)

[minchazo]

So just to be straight, the monster stat blocks referenced by the various summon spells aren't part of RAW with respect to those spells. Is that your position?
Unless explicitly called out in the feat/ability, YES!


Yes, but a parallel can be drawn between the 2 examples. If spell focus were to say, improve the DCs of special attacks of summoned monsters, then why would metamagic feats not improve their stats?
Well said!

[Ungvar]

Yes, but a parallel can be drawn between the 2 examples. If spell focus were to say, improve the DCs of special attacks of summoned monsters, then why would metamagic feats not improve their stats? Why would a maximized summon monster not bring in creatures with max hp and dealing max damage with every hit?

Simply put, they apply only to the spell itself.

In this example, it's because monsters don't have variable HP, they have a given HP value that isn't variable. Unless you roll the HP of the monsters you summon each time, in which case I'd say you have a good argument that yes, they do get max HP.

And you have an interesting argument for max damage, too. But that just means that a similar loophole might exist for the maximize spell metamagic feat.

[Ungvar]

See bolded section above. SNA doesn't have a save, therefore is not affected by Spell Focus. Simple as that. Don't read so much into it.

There's an old saying, "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

Sorry man, it was a good effort, but it just doesn't do what you think it does. Its right there in the stat block. Saving Throw: None. Period. End of debate. In the words of Curmudgeon: "It's very explicit what it does. It doesn't say it does that, so it doesn't do that."

How many times have you posted some version of "Period. End of debate"?

And yet you're still repeating that over and over.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I've given time and again the example of Storm of Vengeance
How many times have you posted some version of "Period. End of debate"?

And yet you're still repeating that over and over.Given that you have had all these people spelling out the obvious and sensible and are still refusing to listen, I am just going to leave these two quotes here. Thanks for the best chortle I have had all week.:biggrin:

[Thefurmonger]

HAHAHAHAHAHA, +1 for Hypocricy.

And for the record, this thread is either so full of win it hurts, or really, really, really sad.

[jiriku]

Interesting discussion.

Well, let's consider the basic text of the feat:


Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.

Emphasis mine.

Now, this is explicit for a reason. The game includes a variety of "engines", if you will, that generate effects that require saving throws. A saving throw can be required by a spell, a spell-like ability, a supernatural ability, or an extraordinary ability. Now, let's reason through this:

All of these categories are mutually exclusive -- you cannot have an ability that is simultaneously supernatural and extraordinary, for example.
Benefits (like spell focus) that apply to only one category can't apply to other categories. For example, Spell Focus: Evocation will benefit a fireball spell, but not a fireball spell-like ability.

So, let's look at, say, the poison on a summoned viper. What type of ability is the viper's poison? It's an extraordinary ability. Since it's extraordinary, it cannot also be a spell. Since it is not a spell, effects that improve only spells cannot improve it. QED.


Or we can pursue the argument from a different direction:

"Creatures" in D&D are, as has been pointed out, essentially tidy little bundles of statistics. These bundles are discrete and non-overlapping.
Feats that a creature possesses benefit only the creature itself, not other creatures (unless the feat explicitly provides a benefit usable by others). RAW support for this is on PH89, "Benefit: What the feat enables the character to do...."
Even feats that affect others do so within defined limits. For example, while Augment Summoning improves another creature's statistics, it specifies "Each creature you conjure...." Creatures I conjure get a stat boost, but they don't gain the ability to buff creatures that they might summon in turn (if they even could), because the feat applies only to me. Summoned creatures can't fulfill the "you conjure" requirement because they're not me.

Regardless of what relationship a creature might have to me, it still isn't me, and thus doesn't qualify for the benefits of my feats unless those benefits are explicitly granted to others. Spell Focus: Conjuration does not explicitly grant any benefits to anyone other than me. Given this, my Spell Focus: Conjuration feat applies only to me, and not to any other creatures. QED.

The strongest part of your argument is the assertion that a creature summoned by a spell is considered both a creature and a spell effect. If you can prove this, then you're on solid ground. However, this position is strongly undermined by the definition of Conjuration (summoning) spells, which state "A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate." The creature is simply a passenger; the magic of the spell is merely transporting, not creating. And it's worth noting that the benefits of the Augment Summoning feat don't undermine this proposal: it's not the spell that grants the ability score boosts to your summoned creatures -- it's your feat.

I'm just not seeing any support in the rules for what you describe.

[Keld Denar]

Regardless of what relationship a creature might have to me, it still isn't me

Hello conjurers, look at your summon, now back to me, now back to your summon, now back to me. Sadly, it is not me, but if it took it's own feats, it could summon like me. Look down, back up, your in a battle with the creature your spell could summon. What's in your hand? I have it...its the feat your creature doesn't have. The feat is now diamonds. Anything is possible when you do what the feat actually says.

I'm on a phantom steed!

[dextercorvia]

Here's the text from SRD SNA I:

"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."

That table, in turn, hyperlinks to the individual statblocks for the monsters listed.

Now, if you don't think hyperlinks function to establish/incorporate RAW, how do you explain this, the full text of the SRD SNA II:

"Conjuration (Summoning)
Level: Drd 2, Rgr 2
Effect: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
This spell functions like summon nature’s ally I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyI.htm), except that you can summon one 2nd-level creature or 1d3 1st-level creatures of the same kind."

You can't know what SNA II does w/o referencing SNA I. You can't know what either one of them does w/ out referencing monster stat blocks.



Pun-Pun is silly, too. Doesn't mean it's not RAW.

The official SRD does not have hyperlinks. Those are provided by the creator of that page to make it easier for you to read the document. They are not RAW.