"any" really "any"?

[isotunknown]

Summon Nature's Ally uses a parenthetical "any" when describing the the elementals by size that are summonable. Does this really mean that a third-level druid casting SNA II can summon a Living Holocaust, a small elemental, from the Fiend Folio? It can't be that "any" really means "any elemental", can it?

[Invader]

I can't find anything that says otherwise, I think you might be right.

[eggynack]

I don't have any strict RAW support for it, but the (any) is only referring to the four basic elementals. There's also storm elementals in MM III, but that takes a higher spell level.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Your question is... does a class from the SRD, written before any supplements, includes any elemental choice from a supplement... written after the SRD (Core rules).

The very nature of a GM accepting supplementary material beyond the SRD is one of negotiating. As a GM, I would interpret the text to mean any elemental in Monster Manual I, because the elementals (air, fire, earth, water) are specified in these texts. Some GMs may agree with me, other GMs would include them all (and thus make druids even more powerful). Much of the argument for a druid or wizard or cleric's power is based upon supplementary tricks from a dozen different sources beyond Core. Each supplement enhances certain classes based on the spells, feats, and prestige classes... as a matter of course. But the original classes are fairly well done in SRD/Core. The druid for instance, is limited to animal forms and elemental forms... no dragons, no hydras, nothing like that.

[isotunknown]

I think this is a reasonable middle ground. I had just never paid attention to that "(any)" before and it struck me as "raw-wrong".

[eggynack]

Your question is... does a class from the SRD, written before any supplements, includes any elemental choice from a supplement... written after the SRD (Core rules).

The very nature of a GM accepting supplementary material beyond the SRD is one of negotiating. As a GM, I would interpret the text to mean any elemental in Monster Manual I, because the elementals (air, fire, earth, water) are specified in these texts. Some GMs may agree with me, other GMs would include them all (and thus make druids even more powerful). Much of the argument for a druid or wizard or cleric's power is based upon supplementary tricks from a dozen different sources beyond Core. Each supplement enhances certain classes based on the spells, feats, and prestige classes... as a matter of course. But the original classes are fairly well done in SRD/Core. The druid for instance, is limited to animal forms and elemental forms... no dragons, no hydras, nothing like that.
Druids are basically just as powerful in core as they are out of core. They're obviously made more powerful, but they're probably made weaker relative to other classes. Most of the argument for druid, wizard, or cleric power come entirely from core. The druid can do perfectly fine with a riding dog, animal and elemental forms, and core spells. More than perfectly fine, they can do better than nearly any class in the entire frigging game. This thing about any elemental being meant to refer to anything from any source book would be somewhat crazy, but I don't think that it works. I haven't found a great justification for that yet, but it's probably somewhere. If not, I guess that druids will have just one more way to break the game. That doesn't mean that they can't break the game without super elementals though.

[Alex12]

Your question is... does a class from the SRD, written before any supplements, includes any elemental choice from a supplement... written after the SRD (Core rules).

The very nature of a GM accepting supplementary material beyond the SRD is one of negotiating. As a GM, I would interpret the text to mean any elemental in Monster Manual I, because the elementals (air, fire, earth, water) are specified in these texts. Some GMs may agree with me, other GMs would include them all (and thus make druids even more powerful). Much of the argument for a druid or wizard or cleric's power is based upon supplementary tricks from a dozen different sources beyond Core. Each supplement enhances certain classes based on the spells, feats, and prestige classes... as a matter of course. But the original classes are fairly well done in SRD/Core. The druid for instance, is limited to animal forms and elemental forms... no dragons, no hydras, nothing like that.

They can also turn into plants.

I'd also love to see a player justify something called a "Living Holocaust" falling into the category of "nature's ally"

[Boci]

Your question is... does a class from the SRD, written before any supplements, includes any elemental choice from a supplement... written after the SRD (Core rules).

Sure, but then we are still left with other elementals from the origional monster manual. Magmins are small, thoqqua are medium and belkar and invisible stalkers are large.

[eggynack]

Sure, but then we are still left with other elementals from the origional monster manual. Magmins are small, thoqqua are medium and belkar and invisible stalkers are large.
Actually, you can summon thoqquas with summon nature's ally, and they're listed separately from the elemental (any) stuff. In fact, if you take the term "elemental" to literally mean things with the word "elemental" in the name, there aren't any problems. I think that's the actual meaning. I did a monster finder search, and the only other monster with "elemental" in the name is the storm elemental, and those have explicit rules with reference to SNA. That seems like a good enough RAW justification where I'm concerned.

[ddude987]

By strict RAW it does say any. RAI, they probably only meant what is in monster manual I. As a GM I follow RAW 99% of the time so I would say yes you can summon any elemental.

[eggynack]

By strict RAW it does say any. RAI, they probably only meant what is in monster manual I. As a GM I follow RAW 99% of the time so I would say yes you can summon any elemental.
Actually, I think that my logic holds pretty well. They do not mean only what is in the MM I, because if they did, they wouldn't have thoqqua listed as a separate case. "Living holocaust" does not have "elemental" in the name, so you can not summon it. It sounds a bit arbitrary, but it looks like the truth.

[Chronos]

You're not summoning a creature of type elemental and size small; you're summoning a creature called "small elemental". For comparison, the greater and elder elementals are both size Huge, but you have to wait until SNA VII and IX to get them, not just SNA VI with "huge elemental".

[eggynack]

You're not summoning a creature of type elemental and size small; you're summoning a creature called "small elemental". For comparison, the greater and elder elementals are both size Huge, but you have to wait until SNA VII and IX to get them, not just SNA VI with "huge elemental".
Ooh, that logic adds a lot to my logic. I hadn't really considered that the sizes are also name based, so this seems like a solved problem.

[ShriekingDrake]

I agree. That is a thoughtful interpretation.

Unfortunately, isotunknown, Living Holocaust is a "Small Elemental", which means that thoughtful is not necessarily what you were looking for. :)

[Roguenewb]

You're not summoning a creature of type elemental and size small; you're summoning a creature called "small elemental". For comparison, the greater and elder elementals are both size Huge, but you have to wait until SNA VII and IX to get them, not just SNA VI with "huge elemental".

I believe this is the technical rule. You summon any greater named "Small ____ Elemental", not any elemental that is small. Now, I'm a little lazy, but I remember the last time I read this debate, there is a FAQ entry that backs this up. Now, FAQs aren't RAW as the old saying goes. Errata might exist as well. Anyone wanna do the look up?

[Squirrel_Dude]

They can also turn into plants.

I'd also love to see a player justify something called a "Living Holocaust" falling into the category of "nature's ally"Easy:

The extinction and death of a species is as much of a part of nature as anything else. Just as a Druid can summon on his powers to bring more life to his environment, so too should he be able to summon on his powers to end life. It is not a pleasing part, but Druids must understand the balance in all things. Good and Evil. Law and Chaos. Life and Death.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Druids are basically just as powerful in core as they are out of core. They're obviously made more powerful, but they're probably made weaker relative to other classes. Most of the argument for druid, wizard, or cleric power come entirely from core. The druid can do perfectly fine with a riding dog, animal and elemental forms, and core spells. More than perfectly fine, they can do better than nearly any class in the entire frigging game. This thing about any elemental being meant to refer to anything from any source book would be somewhat crazy, but I don't think that it works. I haven't found a great justification for that yet, but it's probably somewhere. If not, I guess that druids will have just one more way to break the game. That doesn't mean that they can't break the game without super elementals though.

You and I (and others) have argued about this in other threads, but most claims/evidence for Druid supremacy is actually based on supplement tricks. The druid in core is less powerful than a cleric or wizard, based upon their spells, abilities, and effectiveness for levels 1-10, and may be equal at 11+ IMO. At lower levels (1-8), the druid gets stomped repeatedly by martial classes... in my experience. If you want to look at classes, and how they work against each other, use the DMG NPC tables and run the mock combat.

[eggynack]

You and I (and others) have argued about this in other threads, but most claims/evidence for Druid supremacy is actually based on supplement tricks. The druid in core is less powerful than a cleric or wizard, based upon their spells, abilities, and effectiveness for levels 1-10, and may be equal at 11+ IMO. At lower levels (1-8), the druid gets stomped repeatedly by martial classes... in my experience. If you want to look at classes, and how they work against each other, use the DMG NPC tables and run the mock combat.
I don't think I've ever seen you use any actual logic to justify this. If you stick druids against clerics and wizards, it's going to be about equal. I think that it generally works out that druids are better until level 11 or so, after which wizards are more powerful. There is argument there. If you stick them against core martial classes, there is no argument. I do not use DMG NPC tables. I use the classes, as written, and built by people who are building them to be their best. There is just nothing that a core martial class can do that competes, in even the most basic way.

Edit: Additionally, even more pointless than running combat using the DMG NPC tables, is running arena matches between classes and thinking that that tells you anything. It does not. Druids have frigging options. Like, infinite options, and ones that are useful in any situation, even in core. They're basically never without something that'll be good in a situation. Fighters are not like that. Fighters have maybe two or three different options that they can use, and they're not very good.

[ShriekingDrake]

You and I (and others) have argued about this in other threads, but most claims/evidence for Druid supremacy is actually based on supplement tricks. The druid in core is less powerful than a cleric or wizard, based upon their spells, abilities, and effectiveness for levels 1-10, and may be equal at 11+ IMO. At lower levels (1-8), the druid gets stomped repeatedly by martial classes... in my experience. If you want to look at classes, and how they work against each other, use the DMG NPC tables and run the mock combat.

Not wishing to drag this thread into old debates I am unaware of . . I would need to see some evidence to substantiate this point. In my experience, core druids will typically sweep the floor with the martial classes at any level. Druids have a better than even chance of beating clerics and wizards up to the 11-12 level range.

Leaving that said, there are, as there always seem to be, infelicities in the game when it comes to how druids interact with elementals, whether it's summoning them or becoming them.

[eggynack]

Leaving that said, there are, as there always seem to be, infelicities in the game when it comes to how druids interact with elementals, whether it's summoning them or becoming them.
Apart from this weird thing, which I think has been resolved, what problem is there? The only thing I can think of is using rashemi elemental summoning to apply thomil and orglash templates to other elementals. There might be some I don't know about, but I clearly don't know about them.

Edit: Actually, if my logic holds for this, then it probably holds for rashemi elemental summoning as well. The only corner case is storm elementals, and that's not a big deal.

[ShriekingDrake]

Apart from this weird thing, which I think has been resolved, what problem is there? The only thing I can think of is using rashemi elemental summoning to apply thomil and orglash templates to other elementals. There might be some I don't know about, but I clearly don't know about them.

Mostly, I was thinking about the ambiguities surrounding whether a druid can wild shape into an elemental that is not merely a vanilla air, earth, fire, or water elemental. That is, does the parenthetical in the wild shape description mean subtype or name? It seems clear to me, that RAW, the parenthetical refers to subtype and not name. That said, I think druids would have been just fine if they could merely summon and wild shape into the vanilla air, earth, fire and water elementals.

[zlefin]

I would say the rule's intent is clear. When it was written, it allowed the summoning of any of the sizedescriptor elementals in the mm1.
All of those elementals have several size settings, and each setting they have an elemental of that size AND cr. They were meant to be equivalent in value.
Any elemental from another source, which uses the exact same set of sizes AND crs for each of those sizes, should be available as an option. Others would not be.

[eggynack]

Mostly, I was thinking about the ambiguities surrounding whether a druid can wild shape into an elemental that is not merely a vanilla air, earth, fire, or water elemental. That is, does the parenthetical in the wild shape description mean subtype or name? It seems clear to me, that RAW, the parenthetical refers to subtype and not name. That said, I think druids would have been just fine if they could merely summon and wild shape into the vanilla air, earth, fire and water elementals.
Ah, so it's basically all just the one issue. Anyway, I think that the logic I used for summoning works alright for this too, though it's a bit ambiguous. Anyways, druid awesomeness isn't particularly reliant on rules ambiguities, so it's not a big deal. The fact that I talk about druid optimization all the time, and have never talked about this, should make that pretty obvious.

[ShriekingDrake]

I would say the rule's intent is clear.

:smallsmile: If I had a rulebook for every time I have heard someone utter that statement, I'd have one hell of a gaming library. (I'm not saying that you're wrong per se, only that someone certainly will say/think just that.)

[ShriekingDrake]

The fact that I talk about druid optimization all the time, and have never talked about this, should make that pretty obvious.

That statement just made my evening. (I love playing druids and had never thought of this particular nugget earlier myself. Go figure.)

[eggynack]

That statement just made my evening. (I love playing druids and had never thought of this particular nugget earlier myself. Go figure.)
Thanks. I rarely bring up the seriously borked druid stuff without talking about how borked it is, and that stuff is never rules ambiguous. Some examples off of that list are greenbound summoning, venomfire, and planar shepherd. Druids love RAW, and games with limited books, and limited or no magic item access. They thrive and adapt just about everywhere. Granted, I absolutely prefer games with a ton of books, because it lets them adapt perfectly, rather than just settling for well enough, but core is plenty. In core, they can only do stuff that is very good for a naval voyage. Out of core, they can do stuff that is specialized for a naval voyage. Those are some cool beans right there.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I would just like to point out that the shadow elemental series from ToM also qualifies for the "Small _____ Elemental" interpretation and it doesn't have any specific text about what level SNA you need to summon it. It also seems a little more powerful than the equivalent elemental if only due to being incorporeal. Seems like a good trick at level three to summon an incorporeal elemental to fight.

[Wings of Peace]

By the rules yes, any means any.

[eggynack]

I would just like to point out that the shadow elemental series from ToM also qualifies for the "Small _____ Elemental" interpretation and it doesn't have any specific text about what level SNA you need to summon it. It also seems a little more powerful than the equivalent elemental if only due to being incorporeal. Seems like a good trick at level three to summon an incorporeal elemental to fight.
Huh. That one could be an actual problem. It's not problematic for the wild shape thing, but it might be for the summoning thing. I wouldn't allow it, because things from books outside of MM I explicitly list whether they work with SNA or not, but I don't know if that's a RAW answer. This'll require some rethinking.

[eggynack]

I have a new theory, though I'm not sure if it works yet. Basically, my theory is that in order to be qualified as an elemental, you need that big "elemental" header majig. I'm pretty sure that the MM I ones are the only ones that are like that, though I'm not sure yet. I don't know why that would work, but it's what I'm going with at the moment.

[NeoPhoenix0]

You mean the big section header before the entire elemental section? The shadow elemental header is "Shadow Elemental."

Houserule-wise I think you can just leave shadow elemental summoning to the shadowcasters.

[eggynack]

You mean the big section header before the entire elemental section? The shadow elemental header is "Shadow Elemental."

Houserule-wise I think you can just leave shadow elemental summoning to the shadowcasters.
That is indeed what I'm talking about. Similarly, storm elementals have a big, "elemental, storm" above them. Neither of them just say, "elementals", so neither would be summonable. This is probably my most dubious explanation, but it's also potentially accurate.

[CaladanMoonblad]

I don't think I've ever seen you use any actual logic to justify this. If you stick druids against clerics and wizards, it's going to be about equal. I think that it generally works out that druids are better until level 11 or so, after which wizards are more powerful. There is argument there. If you stick them against core martial classes, there is no argument. I do not use DMG NPC tables. I use the classes, as written, and built by people who are building them to be their best. There is just nothing that a core martial class can do that competes, in even the most basic way.

Edit: Additionally, even more pointless than running combat using the DMG NPC tables, is running arena matches between classes and thinking that that tells you anything. It does not. Druids have frigging options. Like, infinite options, and ones that are useful in any situation, even in core. They're basically never without something that'll be good in a situation. Fighters are not like that. Fighters have maybe two or three different options that they can use, and they're not very good.

You may not recognize classic scientific methodology of quasi-experimental design, but that's no reason to label such methodologies as illogical. The DMG tables express a uniform stat array, placed in the way the game's designers believe the classes function. The only things left is to allow feats and skill selection, which is less variable than the rest. Stick to Core only, as the class is originally designed, and you have an experiment. All things being equal, and what I have stated remains the truth.

You on the other hand, use claim after claim after claim... sans evidence. It's not even an argument, let alone uses pathos or ethos or logos.

I'm done with this thread. Any addition to the "any elemental" is ultimately a GM decision because the GM determines what supplements are part of their game.

[Jigokuro]

I believe the ruling regarding SNA elementals are wildshape elementals is/should be different for the following reasons.
SNA: Water/Fire/Air/Earth only. Because everything else on that list is the name of something in the MM as it is there; Elementals in the MM aren't in 4 different spots as "Air Elemental" etc, but all in one titled "Elemental" in the 'e' section alphabetically by creature name. The SNA list is referring to that heading.
Wildshape: Any elemental of the correct size. Every other type of wildshape refers to a creature type,* such as [Plant], [Dragon], etc. In that that case, then, it should be clear it is meaning [Elemental] as the type as well.

*could be some minor counterexample, but I believe that is generally true at least.

P.S. I've read the previous discussions with Caladan regarding tiers. I'll just leave it at, "I agree with the 'druids are better' camp." and strongly recommend not revisiting the topic--no one's opinions are going to be changed.:smallannoyed:

[eggynack]

You may not recognize classic scientific methodology of quasi-experimental design, but that's no reason to label such methodologies as illogical. The DMG tables express a uniform stat array, placed in the way the game's designers believe the classes function. The only things left is to allow feats and skill selection, which is less variable than the rest. Stick to Core only, as the class is originally designed, and you have an experiment. All things being equal, and what I have stated remains the truth.

You on the other hand, use claim after claim after claim... sans evidence. It's not even an argument, let alone uses pathos or ethos or logos.

I'm done with this thread. Any addition to the "any elemental" is ultimately a GM decision because the GM determines what supplements are part of their game.
I believe that I have seen your methodologies, and if I'm correct, they're anything but scientific. Games often have a point buy of 25, so it seems reasonably likely for that to be the case. It's not a necessary component for success, but there needs to be a starting point, and that one is as good as any. After that, you have the selection of feats, items, spells, skills, any selection related to class features, and anything else in existence really. Limiting it to core is fine, as I mentioned. After that, we can build the classes however we want, and it will still be perfectly scientifically valid. As long as both classes are being played to maximum effectiveness, things remain equal. Given that you said that druids derive most of their broken power from supplements, it seems perfectly valid to optimize. Druids don't actually need a good build to succeed, even in core, but I have the right to use one, due to that claim. You just need to pick a level, and I'll have a druid set and ready. It's not that hard to make one, especially in core. I've proven my claims with logic many times in the past; you just refuse to actually test them.

[TuggyNE]

:smallsmile: If I had a rulebook for every time I have heard someone utter that statement, I'd have one hell of a gaming library. (I'm not saying that you're wrong per se, only that someone certainly will say/think just that.)

This is so true. It's why RAI is such a lousy construct; it doesn't actually help discussion all that much.

[ShriekingDrake]

I believe the ruling regarding SNA elementals are wildshape elementals is/should be different for the following reasons.
SNA: Water/Fire/Air/Earth only. Because everything else on that list is the name of something in the MM as it is there; Elementals in the MM aren't in 4 different spots as "Air Elemental" etc, but all in one titled "Elemental" in the 'e' section alphabetically by creature name. The SNA list is referring to that heading.
Wildshape: Any elemental of the correct size. Every other type of wildshape refers to a creature type,* such as [Plant], [Dragon], etc. In that that case, then, it should be clear it is meaning [Elemental] as the type as well.

*could be some minor counterexample, but I believe that is generally true at least.

This is a reasonable distinction. I like it.

[Psyren]

I think the problem is more the Living Holocaust's CR than the SNA spell itself. A small elemental with CR 13 is a bit much.

[Hecuba]

This is so true. It's why RAI is such a lousy construct; it doesn't actually help discussion all that much.

It almost certainly is never useful in discussing game-play and adjudication: if you are willing to assign special authority to authorial intent (even when well demonstrated, which is tedious), it is almost always more prudent and time-effective to assign that authority instead to desired outcome.

It can be useful if you're discussing game design: if you can make a reasoned & defensible textual analysis of the rules, you can use it as a case study in how to (or not to) design such rules.
And given the amount of design discussion that can go on in these parts, I usually feel compelled to point that out.

Don't discount the intent or interpretation: they can answer many important questions. Just not any question that can be generalized to "what are the rules governing x?".

/end soapbox

[Talya]

Your question is... does a class from the SRD, written before any supplements, includes any elemental choice from a supplement... written after the SRD (Core rules).


Minor point of order:

The Fiend Folio was published in April 2003, under 3rd edition rules.
The Players Handbook for 3.5 was published in July 2003.

This supplement (still completely valid for 3.5) was published and probably written well before the SRD.


That said, I agree that this is NOT meant to apply to the Living Holocaust.

[ericgrau]

This is so true. It's why RAI is such a lousy construct; it doesn't actually help discussion all that much.
That's a bit of a generalization to use in response to a specific statement. That in this particular case the RAI is clear. And it is. Nobody in their right mind wants druids summoning elementals with double the CR of the originals. Unless he believes the originals are way underpowered, and thus despises the original rule.

If you want a RAW discussion that's fine too, even to the exclusion of all else if that entertains you more. But it is not more useful to play with, it's less useful. And RAW is never ever free from interpretation, despite what people may claim about the infallibility of their own interpretation.

There are other times when RAI isn't so clear, but the original statement was talking about this specific instance not a generality.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd also love to see a player justify something called a "Living Holocaust" falling into the category of "nature's ally"

Druids are allowed to be Evil (so long as they revere nature), and extinction/mass slaughter is pretty natural.

[Psyren]

That's a bit of a generalization to use in response to a specific statement. That in this particular case the RAI is clear. And it is. Nobody in their right mind wants druids summoning elementals with double the CR of the originals. Unless he believes the originals are way underpowered, and thus despises the original rule.

If you want a RAW discussion that's fine too, even to the exclusion of all else if that entertains you more. But it is not more useful to play with, it's less useful. And RAW is never ever free from interpretation, despite what people may claim about the infallibility of their own interpretation.

There are other times when RAI isn't so clear, but the original statement was talking about this specific instance not a generality.

Precisely. "We can't KNOW that 3rd-level Druids aren't meant to summon CR 13 minions!" may be technically true, but it doesn't take much brainpower to consider it banworthy either.

[nedz]

Summon Nature’s Ally 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, except that you can summon one 2nd-level creature or 1d3 1st-level creatures of the same kind.

The SRD clearly states one 2nd-level creature
Small Elementals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm) are 2HD and CR1
Many of the other options are 3HD but all are CR1 or CR2

Living Holocaust is 15 HD and CR 13 which is clearly not a 2nd-level creature

[TuggyNE]

That's a bit of a generalization to use in response to a specific statement. That in this particular case the RAI is clear. And it is. Nobody in their right mind wants druids summoning elementals with double the CR of the originals. Unless he believes the originals are way underpowered, and thus despises the original rule.

See, this is getting more into "Rules As I Feel They Should Be", which is quite sensible, but isn't RAI: it's RACSD, which is more useful for that precise reason.

The intent of the rule is … probably clear here, but not so clear as to be useful in discussion with someone who disagrees; you basically have to say, "Well, I'm silenced but not convinced", which doesn't help much. Common sense, though, allows you to appeal to the general consensus of how things should probably work, rather than attempting to mind-read the original author.

[NeoPhoenix0]

The SRD clearly states one 2nd-level creature
Small Elementals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm) are 2HD and CR1
Many of the other options are 3HD but all are CR1 or CR2

Living Holocaust is 15 HD and CR 13 which is clearly not a 2nd-level creature

Your extremely dysfunctional interpretation is extremely dysfunctional. SNA lv 9 says 9th level and lists elder elementals which have about 24 HD. Not 9th level. Any reasonable interpretation of that spell description is to use the appropriate level table not that the creature has to be that level. To be clear i am defiantly not saying Living Holocaust should be on the list. Just that this isn't a workable interpretation.

[ShriekingDrake]

To me, at least, it is clear that it was neither intended nor is it common sense for a level 2 spell to summon a CR 13--which, I suspect, is what the OP was clearly intimating. That said, thinking we understand one aspect of what "(any)" does not mean, does not mean that we understand what "(any)" does mean--also, I suspect, what the OP was querying.

[Steward]

Honestly, because of the SRD I always assumed that the Summon Nature's Ally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyII.htm) spell allowed you to summon the creatures linked in the spell, which are just these guys (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm). It never occurred to me that a DM would even consider interpreting that to mean anything because I've always had the SRD as a reference so I didn't even think about what it would be like to only have the book.

That being said, in an actual game I would be surprised if your DM let you call forth a monster whose CR is over six times your character level with a 2nd level spell. How would you even balance an encounter for a party that could do that on a regular basis? Anything tough enough to challenge the summoned elemental could make mincemeat out of the party.

[ShriekingDrake]

While I don't disagree with the general tenor of your conclusions, I don't believe the linking choices in the SRD to be dispositive. Someone made the choice to put the link there--someone not being the Wizard's team that authored the PH--and while the link is useful, it really isn't a part of the rules.

[Karnith]

Any reasonable interpretation of that spell description is to use the appropriate level table not that the creature has to be that level.
Particularly since the Summon Nature's Ally spells function like Summon Nature's Ally I, which says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyI.htm):

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.
(Emphasis mine)

The references to a creature of X level clearly refers to a creature on an appropriate SNA table.

[Steward]

While I don't disagree with the general tenor of your conclusions, I don't believe the linking choices in the SRD to be dispositive. Someone made the choice to put the link there--someone not being the Wizard's team that authored the PH--and while the link is useful, it really isn't a part of the rules.

I definitely agree with that. It's just that I've essentially never had the book alone without the SRD, so this confusion never occurred to me. I don't mean to suggest that the SRD trumps the book, only that it's interesting (at least to me) how having that as a resource takes some of the guesswork / confusion out of parsing the text.

I do like the reference to "rules as common sense dictates" though. That's really the DM's role in my opinion; to apply the rules in a way that makes the game interesting and fun for everyone. We do that with straight house rules, so I can definitely see a DM interpreting this line as referring to the elementals in the link I provided only, not because the other alternatives are crazy but because the game has to function somehow and the DM has to make a determination one way or another how to treat such ambiguities.

[ShriekingDrake]

Particularly since the Summon Nature's Ally spells function like Summon Nature's Ally I, which says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyI.htm):

(Emphasis mine)

The references to a creature of X level clearly refers to a creature on an appropriate SNA table.

While I can see where this reasoning has an intuitive appeal, I don't think it addresses the OP's query--not that such a query can satisfactorily be answered--because it begs the question. That is, the OP asked about entries on the types of lists you reference (you reference the SNA I list, he references the SNA II list). Moreover, the "1st-level list" is not referring to either the level of the player or the level of the creatures; it is, as I think you've suggested, a reference to the SNA I list itself. The point the OP is making is that the list contains the entry "Elemental Small (any)" and he, reasonably, can't believe that this refers to any small elemental in the game, even some that don't seem congruous with a 2nd level spell.

[olentu]

I definitely agree with that. It's just that I've essentially never had the book alone without the SRD, so this confusion never occurred to me. I don't mean to suggest that the SRD trumps the book, only that it's interesting (at least to me) how having that as a resource takes some of the guesswork / confusion out of parsing the text.

I do like the reference to "rules as common sense dictates" though. That's really the DM's role in my opinion; to apply the rules in a way that makes the game interesting and fun for everyone. We do that with straight house rules, so I can definitely see a DM interpreting this line as referring to the elementals in the link I provided only, not because the other alternatives are crazy but because the game has to function somehow and the DM has to make a determination one way or another how to treat such ambiguities.

I'm not currently going to speak about the summoning argument but the official SRD is found here, https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35. That thing you linked to is just a third party website made by some random guy.

[ShriekingDrake]

I definitely agree with that. It's just that I've essentially never had the book alone without the SRD, so this confusion never occurred to me. I don't mean to suggest that the SRD trumps the book, only that it's interesting (at least to me) how having that as a resource takes some of the guesswork / confusion out of parsing the text.

I hear you. I think that's why so many of us who love to play druids never quite thought of it before. Or we brushed it off as ridiculous, or just didn't read it all that carefully, or just made assumptions.


I do like the reference to "rules as common sense dictates" though. That's really the DM's role in my opinion; to apply the rules in a way that makes the game interesting and fun for everyone. We do that with straight house rules, so I can definitely see a DM interpreting this line as referring to the elementals in the link I provided only, not because the other alternatives are crazy but because the game has to function somehow and the DM has to make a determination one way or another how to treat such ambiguities.
I certainly agree that it is up to the DM to create game balance and to make the game fun, challenging, memorable, etc. for the players. This is just another very small wrinkle, one where a player might say, that she wants to play an ice -themed druid who can summon the ice para-elemental and the DM can consider it--even if he'll reject the holocaust.

[Karnith]

While I can see where this reasoning has an intuitive appeal, I don't think it addresses the OP's query--not that such a query can satisfactorily be answered--because it begs the question. That is, the OP asked about entries on the types of lists you reference (you reference the SNA I list, he references the SNA II list). Moreover, the "1st-level list" is not referring to either the level of the player or the level of the creatures; it is, as I think you've suggested, a reference to the SNA I list itself. The point the OP is making is that the list contains the entry "Elemental Small (any)" and he, reasonably, can't believe that this refers to any small elemental in the game, even some that don't seem congruous with a 2nd level spell.
I was not attempting to answer the OP's question, but rather to provide a rules citation to NeoPhoenix0's assertion. I believe that eggynack and Chronos have already provided what appears to be a satisfactory RAW answer to the OP's question.

I'm not currently going to speak about the summoning argument but the official SRD is found here, https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35. That thing you linked to is just a third party website made by some random guy.A website that generally copies the Wizards SRD exactly, except that it is vastly more navigable. (http://www.d20srd.org/changes.htm)

[ShriekingDrake]

Ah, I take your point. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[olentu]

A website that generally copies the Wizards SRD exactly, except that it is vastly more navigable. (http://www.d20srd.org/changes.htm)

People are free to use the website if they trust that guy to not have messed anything up. However I feel that people should be informed of what it is that they are dealing with so as to avoid such things as basing their decision on some random guy's choice of hyperlink should they so desire.

[Phelix-Mu]

Frankly, I am of the opinion that the consensus that "any" refers only to MM1 monsters appearing under the entry "Elemental" also works for the elemental wildshape debate, which I also failed to realize was a debate until looking around internet forums.

The argument it's supposed to be any creature of the elemental type with the listed subtypes boggles my mind, mainly because it's so plausible. It mystifies me that the original class feature description and the various errata for wildshape all failed to clarify this.

It seems to me that the precise language used in the PHB doesn't always mesh well with the precise language in the DMG and the MM. Things that mean the same thing aren't always said the same way, and things that don't mean the same thing are said the same way.

In any case, I like eggynack's solution. By RAW, this is probably under some form of dysfunction. When there is a specific meaning, specific language should be used, but, alas, no time machine, so the developers will never hear my cries in order to fix it.

[eggynack]

People are free to use the website if they trust that guy to not have messed anything up. However I feel that people should be informed of what it is that they are dealing with so as to avoid such things as basing their decision on some random guy's choice of hyperlink should they so desire.
I've heard this argument a lot, and it's rarely justified. The document is right there, and the actual book is right over somewhere else in another form. If you think there are discrepancies, the burden of proof is on you, because I've never really experienced one. The biggest problems I've faced with it are places where they just don't have rules from the relevant rule books, like wealth by level, and places where the book is too accurate, because the SRD has errata built in. There's really no errors that I'm aware of.



In any case, I like eggynack's solution. By RAW, this is probably under some form of dysfunction. When there is a specific meaning, specific language should be used, but, alas, no time machine, so the developers will never hear my cries in order to fix it.
It looks workable, though it's certainly not a perfect RAW solution. I'm currently favoring the, "The header of the section has to be just the word 'elemental'," interpretation. Until I find another identical section title, that appears to be what they meant. I have no idea why they'd do it like that though, so my D&D heart is troubled.

[olentu]

I've heard this argument a lot, and it's rarely justified. The document is right there, and the actual book is right over somewhere else in another form. If you think there are discrepancies, the burden of proof is on you, because I've never really experienced one. The biggest problems I've faced with it are places where they just don't have rules from the relevant rule books, like wealth by level, and places where the book is too accurate, because the SRD has errata built in. There's really no errors that I'm aware of.

Eh, an argument against people making informed decisions is not one I can really agree with. The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up. Feel free to keep people uninformed but do not ask me to do the same.

[Phelix-Mu]

It looks workable, though it's certainly not a perfect RAW solution. I'm currently favoring the, "The header of the section has to be just the word 'elemental'," interpretation. Until I find another identical section title, that appears to be what they meant. I have no idea why they'd do it like that though, so my D&D heart is troubled.

I'd say it has to do with the language discrepancy from before. Type[subtype] is common language in the MM, but only used inconsistently in the PHB. Some of this inconsistency is likely down to lamentable copypasta (zomg...the copy editor in me rears its head in primal outrage), and some is probably due to the volume of stuff they were producing.

Specific trumping general, though, seems to imply limited scope to "any." Due to other elementals that would normally be included in "any" being specifically called out in the SNA tables, then it seems that this specific use of "any" isn't as general as the english language would normally imply, and specifically means the creatures appearing under the matching entries in the Monster Manual, by creature name, not by creature type or [subtype].

[eggynack]

Eh, an argument against people making informed decisions is not one I can really agree with. The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up. Feel free to keep people uninformed but do not ask me to do the same.
I'm not asking you to make an uninformed decision. I'm asking you to actually do the research, instead of jumping to snap judgements. If you want people to be informed, all of the tools are right there in front of you to make it be so. You could even start a thread called, "discrepancies between the d20SRD and RAW." However, if you're going to claim that a source isn't a valid one, I'm going to need some actual proof. Otherwise, your statements are nothing but conjecture.

[olentu]

I'm not asking you to make an uninformed decision. I'm asking you to actually do the research, instead of jumping to snap judgements. If you want people to be informed, all of the tools are right there in front of you to make it be so. You could even start a thread called, "discrepancies between the d20SRD and RAW." However, if you're going to claim that a source isn't a valid one, I'm going to need some actual proof. Otherwise, your statements are nothing but conjecture.

Hmm, I am not getting what specifically you are disagreeing with. Please indicate which of these statements "The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up." you believe to be factually incorrect.

[Steward]

Yikes, I didn't mean to turn this into a fight. I never said even once that the d20srd.org website was authoritative. My only point in bringing it up is to note how interesting I found it that my use of that website has made it so that I didn't even think about any of these debates from the perspective of someone who only has the book and doesn't have the additional guidance/suggestion of the website. Obviously the link choice doesn't actually trump the rules in the book since that's just a coding decision.

[eggynack]

Hmm, I am not getting what specifically you are disagreeing with. Please indicate which of these statements "The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up." you believe to be factually incorrect.
The thing I disagree with is the idea that you are informing people of something. If you think that the d20SRD is mistaken somehow, prove it, and if you don't, don't prove it. Talking about the author's credentials is utterly pointless.

[olentu]

The thing I disagree with is the idea that you are informing people of something. If you think that the d20SRD is mistaken somehow, prove it, and if you don't, don't prove it. Talking about the author's credentials is utterly pointless.

Hmm, you really need to be more specific in what you mean. Perhaps you can point out which post of the ones that I have made in this thread, provided below, is the one that you mean.

This should be all of them.


I'm not currently going to speak about the summoning argument but the official SRD is found here, https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35. That thing you linked to is just a third party website made by some random guy.


People are free to use the website if they trust that guy to not have messed anything up. However I feel that people should be informed of what it is that they are dealing with so as to avoid such things as basing their decision on some random guy's choice of hyperlink should they so desire.


Eh, an argument against people making informed decisions is not one I can really agree with. The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up. Feel free to keep people uninformed but do not ask me to do the same.


Hmm, I am not getting what specifically you are disagreeing with. Please indicate which of these statements "The website is a third party website. The owner is some random guy that to the best of my knowledge is not affiliated with WotC. The person claims that he has not messed anything up and gives his word to back that up." you believe to be factually incorrect.

Once we have identified the post that has the claim in question we can move on from there.

[eggynack]

Hmm, you really need to be more specific in what you mean. Perhaps you can point out which post of the ones that I have made in this thread, provided below, is the one that you mean.


Once we have identified the post that has the claim in question we can move on from there.
I guess there's nothing wrong if you're not implying anything by your claims. There seems to be the underlying assertion that this source is invalid, based on the fact that it's a third party website. If you are not claiming that there is something wrong with the d20SRD, then I don't really have much of an argument. However, I don't think that the fact that it's a third party website by a random guy is particularly relevant with reference to the website's accuracy. My only assertion is that the website is completely accurate, and I think that's the only thing that matters. I suppose that my objection is to the idea that it's not the only thing that matters. It'd matter if the website were inaccurate, but it's not.

[olentu]

I guess there's nothing wrong if you're not implying anything by your claims. There seems to be the underlying assertion that this source is invalid, based on the fact that it's a third party website. If you are not claiming that there is something wrong with the d20SRD, then I don't really have much of an argument. However, I don't think that the fact that it's a third party website by a random guy is particularly relevant with reference to the website's accuracy. My only assertion is that the website is completely accurate, and I think that's the only thing that matters. I suppose that my objection is to the idea that it's not the only thing that matters. It'd matter if the website were inaccurate, but it's not.

I do not claim that the source is valid or invalid, as I have no idea whether it is or not. As such I can not present it as a valid source, nor can I merely dismiss it as an invalid source. For that reason I have chosen to provide the official SRD in this thread, since it is official, and make note that said website is third party, and thus official.

If you wish to claim that the website in question is completely accurate then I must answer that I have seen no proof supporting that.

If you wish to claim that the owner's word is proof enough then that is fine. I personally do not usually accept as absolute fact the word of some person on the internet that I do not know and so must disagree with that being proof enough.

[eggynack]

that is fine. I personally do not usually accept as absolute fact the word of some person on the internet that I do not know and so must disagree with that being proof enough.
I don't think that's what's happening here. It'd be one thing if this website just sprouted into existence, and I was just taking the author's word on it. Tons of gamers have been using it for years, and I don't think there has been much in the way of noted discrepancies. You've gotta figure that if there were huge changes, there would be posts all over the place decrying the myriad inaccuracies. Thus far, I've never really found any mistakes in the d20SRD, and I don't think anyone else has either. The absolute word of some internet guy isn't enough for me, but a pile of people using the site for a long enough period of time is. If you want, you could always do as I said and make a thread requesting errors in the d20SRD. If they exist, you're better off relying on a large crowd, anyway. Thus far though, I've never seen any objection to the site beyond the type you've made.

[olentu]

I don't think that's what's happening here. It'd be one thing if this website just sprouted into existence, and I was just taking the author's word on it. Tons of gamers have been using it for years, and I don't think there has been much in the way of noted discrepancies. You've gotta figure that if there were huge changes, there would be posts all over the place decrying the myriad inaccuracies. Thus far, I've never really found any mistakes in the d20SRD, and I don't think anyone else has either. The absolute word of some internet guy isn't enough for me, but a pile of people using the site for a long enough period of time is. If you want, you could always do as I said and make a thread requesting errors in the d20SRD. If they exist, you're better off relying on a large crowd, anyway. Thus far though, I've never seen any objection to the site beyond the type you've made.

I have found that many people are really really bad at understanding the rules. Consider all the cases where someone does not even notice their houserule is a houserule. In fact I have even found quite a few people who believed that said website was an official publication. If you want to trust these guys be my guest but I do not think that I will.

[eggynack]

I have found that many people are really really bad at understanding the rules. Consider all the cases where someone does not even notice their houserule is a houserule. In fact I have even found quite a few people who believed that said website was an official publication. If you want to trust these guys be my guest but I do not think that I will.
I'm not trusting a few guys who are really really bad at understanding the rules. I'm trusting an entire community that nitpicks constantly, and has never seen cause to nitpick about this. If you could find a single thing on the site that supports your argument, that'd be one thing, but until you do, I don't see your point. It's not even a website for rulings and stuff. It's just copying over all of the material from the rules that it can. There's no real reason for there to be a mistake.

[olentu]

I'm not trusting a few guys who are really really bad at understanding the rules. I'm trusting an entire community that nitpicks constantly, and has never seen cause to nitpick about this. If you could find a single thing on the site that supports your argument, that'd be one thing, but until you do, I don't see your point. It's not even a website for rulings and stuff. It's just copying over all of the material from the rules that it can. There's no real reason for there to be a mistake.

Eh, perhaps I would be more trusting if the same community had a record of diligence when it comes to sourcing their material. And that is not to mention those things that I have seen which the community has misinterpreted despite having the rules right there in front of them. Mistakes can happen and I see no reason to take that chance I'll just use the official source.

Come to think of it, did we ever find those rules in stormwrack on how to stop drowning.

[eggynack]

Come to think of it, did we ever find those rules in stormwrack on how to stop drowning.
I don't think so. The point is, you know about it. Specifically, you know about random rules quirks like that because of the endless nitpicking of countless community members. People find stuff eventually, and they tend to do it pretty reliably.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think what you two have is more of a difference in methodology than an actual disagreement. "Verify then trust" and "trust that it was verified" are mostly similar, in the end, especially as this specific case is just a matter of source preference (wotc's version and the more convenient third party cut-and-paste job that probably gets used more often).

Frankly, such quibbles pale in comparison with the conveniently mac-truck sized holes that regularly appear in RAW, and which are much more fun to discuss.:smalltongue:

[olentu]

I don't think so. The point is, you know about it. Specifically, you know about random rules quirks like that because of the endless nitpicking of countless community members. People find stuff eventually, and they tend to do it pretty reliably.

Eh, the problem is that I have no clear memory of anyone but myself asking where that rule came from. Did other people ask. Quite possibly, but I do not remember them doing so. Without that I can say that I am good at nitpicking the rules but don't really know about the rest of the community.

[Beheld]

I'm currently favoring the, "The header of the section has to be just the word 'elemental'," interpretation. Until I find another identical section title, that appears to be what they meant. I have no idea why they'd do it like that though, so my D&D heart is troubled.

Your "interpretation" is an non-falsifiable justification for the rule you want.

You are using the lack of a specific title "Elemental" in other books that don't include multiple types of elementals and therefore can provide more specific elemental headings as justification that the words "elemental (any)" only apply to this magic heading.

Think about that. If you found a heading that said "Elemental" you would say those monsters were summonable, and you would persist in your interpretation. You tell us now that the lack of any "Elemental" heading outside the MMI is evidence that the PHB meant that heading.

Your interpretation is worse than literally every other one presented in this thread, because at least every other suggested interpretation does not rely on a completely arbitrary heading that is dictated by number of different monsters instead of anything about the monsters themselves.

If Shadow Elementals or Living Holocausts came in the MMI they would be under the Elemental heading. The MMI has a separate chapter for Vermin, but most books include Vermin in the generic monster section. Would you claim that a Vermin summon ability only applied to things in the Vermin chapter?

Subtypes and names exist. There is no reason to think that mechanical abilities describing what you can and cannot summon would rely on organizational and layout specific headings instead of names and subtypes that actually distinguish monsters based on content.

[eggynack]

Your "interpretation" is an non-falsifiable justification for the rule you want.

You are using the lack of a specific title "Elemental" in other books that don't include multiple types of elementals and therefore can provide more specific elemental headings as justification that the words "elemental (any)" only apply to this magic heading.

Think about that. If you found a heading that said "Elemental" you would say those monsters were summonable, and you would persist in your interpretation. You tell us now that the lack of any "Elemental" heading outside the MMI is evidence that the PHB meant that heading.

Your interpretation is worse than literally every other one presented in this thread, because at least every other suggested interpretation does not rely on a completely arbitrary heading that is dictated by number of different monsters instead of anything about the monsters themselves.

If Shadow Elementals or Living Holocausts came in the MMI they would be under the Elemental heading. The MMI has a separate chapter for Vermin, but most books include Vermin in the generic monster section. Would you claim that a Vermin summon ability only applied to things in the Vermin chapter?

Subtypes and names exist. There is no reason to think that mechanical abilities describing what you can and cannot summon would rely on organizational and layout specific headings instead of names and subtypes that actually distinguish monsters based on content.
The fact of the matter is, it's a bit on the arbitrary side, but it's just about all we've got. If we just disregard shadow elementals, the name thing works, but that makes it a slightly less accurate solution. Type (not subtype) is absolutely not the answer. This is verifiable just by looking at something like a thoqqua, which is an elemental, but is summoned by rules outside of the elemental (any) rule. What it is, is a rule that fits with the evidence. When they were talking about "elementals," I'm think that they were talking about that specific book section. I suppose I can go back to the name thing, and we'd just allow shadow elementals, but that seems a bit arbitrary as well. My interpretation is better than literally every other interpretation in this thread, because it actually manages to match with the way they put it together. I think that it seems like a perfectly workable interpretation.

[Beheld]

The fact of the matter is, it's a bit on the arbitrary side, but it's just about all we've got. If we just disregard shadow elementals, the name thing works, but that makes it a slightly less accurate solution. Type (not subtype) is absolutely not the answer. This is verifiable just by looking at something like a thoqqua, which is an elemental, but is summoned by rules outside of the elemental (any) rule. What it is, is a rule that fits with the evidence. When they were talking about "elementals," I'm think that they were talking about that specific book section. I suppose I can go back to the name thing, and we'd just allow shadow elementals, but that seems a bit arbitrary as well. My interpretation is better than literally every other interpretation in this thread, because it actually manages to match with the way they put it together. I think that it seems like a perfectly workable interpretation.

If your argument is that the only correct interpretation can be one that only includes the MMI monsters they were specifically thinking about then make that argument, it looks like this:

"The designers only considered the MMI, because they didn't think about other books that hadn't been written, and they didn't consider the SNA spells when they wrote future elementals (except Storm, which they specified)."

That would be an argument that is better than your current one that Vermin in other books stop being Vermin because they aren't in the Vermin chapter. It is very obvious that the Elemental heading had absolutely nothing to do with the SNA spell.

I am perfectly fine just saying "they didn't consider X" because human beings make mistakes. The RAW answer can be anything, and it doesn't matter, but in this case, the name based answer is a superior statement of RAW than an arbitrary heading. By your argument Dinosaurs are not Dinosaurs if they are in a book that files them under "X, (Dinosaur)" When it is the only Dinosaur in the book, but they are Dinosaurs when they are filed under "Dinosaurs: X and Y" because the book has two.

If you want to make an argument based on designers intent, make it based on designers intent. If you want to make an argument based on consequences, make it based on consequences. But an argument that things do or do not fall in certain categories based solely on how many monsters of a specific category are in a book is a terrible justification.

[fluke1993]

@beheld & eggy:

The moment interpretation enters the equation we have left RAW. If a ruling needs to be offered (not to be confused with rules clarification) then it is not RAW anymore.

This being said I believe that RAW here is pretty clear: any creature of the elemental type (or sub-type in PF, then again i'm not really sure how exactly SNA works in PF as it relates to this topic) that is of small size is summon-able with SNA2, this includes the Living Holocaust (OJ for humor the guy who decided to name a fantasy elemental after the freakin holocaust should probably have been fired, if only for the bad PR that it could have caused)

That said, RAI and RACSD are also clear here. I doubt I'm in the minority here when I say that ECL3 characters should not be able to summon a CR 13 monster with a second level spell. While eggy's solution is a little bit blanket for my liking (and still potentially capable of being twisted), it is one of the better solutions to this problem I have seen presented short of going through all elementals on a case by case basis.

Edit: @beheld specifically: Just because you implement a house rule for this set of spells specifically doesn't mean that you have to extend it to other types. Also I don't believe that eggy is trying to change the monsters type, (I.E. vermin that aren't vermin) just trying to narrow down what exactly can be summoned with the SNA series of spells.

[Beheld]

While eggy's solution is a little bit blanket for my liking (and still potentially capable of being twisted), it is one of the better solutions to this problem I have seen presented short of going through all elementals on a case by case basis.

It is not the consequences of eggy's solution that I have a problem with. Again, I am fine with just saying, "I think only the MMI Elementals should be summoned." There are even some logical arguments why this is RAW. (SNA lists cannot include things that do not exist, all future books that add something to the SNA lists specifically say so, even Elementals.) What I am objecting to is the argument that it has to do with sub headings in the books. Because sub headings are very easy to understand and standardized across all books.

It is a fact that if the living holocaust and the shadow elemental where both in the same book they would both be under the sub heading "Elemental" just like the MMI. Relying on something that changes based on which books something is in is beyond absurd.

[eggynack]

@beheld & eggy:

The moment interpretation enters the equation we have left RAW. If a ruling needs to be offered (not to be confused with rules clarification) then it is not RAW anymore.

This being said I believe that RAW here is pretty clear: any creature of the elemental type (or sub-type in PF, then again i'm not really sure how exactly SNA works in PF as it relates to this topic) that is of small size is summon-able with SNA2, this includes the Living Holocaust (OJ for humor the guy who decided to name a fantasy elemental after the freakin holocaust should probably have been fired, if only for the bad PR that it could have caused)

That said, RAI and RACSD are also clear here. I doubt I'm in the minority here when I say that ECL3 characters should not be able to summon a CR 13 monster with a second level spell. While eggy's solution is a little bit blanket for my liking (and still potentially capable of being twisted), it is one of the better solutions to this problem I have seen presented short of going through all elementals on a case by case basis.

Edit: @beheld specifically: Just because you implement a house rule for this set of spells specifically doesn't mean that you have to extend it to other types. Also I don't believe that eggy is trying to change the monsters type, (I.E. vermin that aren't vermin) just trying to narrow down what exactly can be summoned with the SNA series of spells.
Yeah, that's a pretty good summation of the state of things. This is obviously not the only way to do things, and is certainly not the least arbitrary, but I think it's the most accurate to the way folks play, and it technically works as a plausible interpretation. I just wanted to note that I probably wouldn't default to the type-based, living holocaust, interpretation, after leaving the header interpretation. I'd probably shift back over to the name interpretation, which only allows shadow elementals out of the list of things I wouldn't expect to be summonable. The header interpretation was actually only to handle that one corner case, so if there's a better justification for shadow elementals not working, we could default to a significantly less arbitrary solution.

[Beheld]

which only allows shadow elementals out of the list of things I wouldn't expect to be summonable. The header interpretation was actually only to handle that one corner case, so if there's a better justification for shadow elementals not working, we could default to a significantly less arbitrary solution.

If your argument is that only a specific consequence is acceptable and that any interpretation that doesn't specifically match your predetermined consequence is unacceptable on that grounds alone then you do not have an interpretation.

You have a specific set of consequences and the plan to reject any interpretation that doesn't match your consequences. So say that instead of talking about sub headings.

[eggynack]

It is a fact that if the living holocaust and the shadow elemental where both in the same book they would both be under the sub heading "Elemental" just like the MMI. Relying on something that changes based on which books something is in is beyond absurd.
This just seems completely untrue. Belkers, invisible stalkers, magmins, and thoqquas are all elementals, and none of them are under the elemental header. I don't think there's any justification for the idea that all creatures of a subtype automatically fit under the same header.

[Beheld]

This just seems completely untrue. Belkers, invisible stalkers, magmins, and thoqquas are all elementals, and none of them are under the elemental header. I don't think there's any justification for the idea that all creatures of a subtype automatically fit under the same header.

I never said that all things with the same type go under the same heading. But both Shadow, Storm, and Living Holocausts follow the template established by the MMI Elementals. Therefore, they would, if in the same book, be grouped together under the same heading, just like the MMI monsters are.

Surely you recognize this because of the way Shadow Elementals and Storm Elementals fall under their own sub headings.

[fluke1993]

@beheld:

While I agree that basing something off of something that changes is stupid, if it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid. The thing I like about eggy's solution is that it allows for the summoning of things like small storm elementals (which fit the spirit of the MM1 elemental enough that I believe they should be summon-able) but prohibit the summoning of things like the LH and elemental wierds (MM2, yes I know their large but their are higher level SNA spells).

A minor nit-pick here but the creators of 3.5 could certainly have foreseen the use of SNA2 to summon the LH, if I remember correctly it's a 3.0 monster. This s why they fall under their own sub-headings, heading conventions have changed between editions.

Edit: okay my mistake LH's are in 3.5 I'll go to my corner now.

[eggynack]

it allows for the summoning of things like small storm elementals (which fit the spirit of the MM1 elemental enough that I believe they should be summon-able)
Small storm elementals are already summonable. Specifically, they're at SM IV, and SNA III.

[fluke1993]

Bahh yet again I'm reminded that I don't yet have the system knowledge to effectively debate on these forums (this isn't intended to be a shot at the forums or anything I just need to read better is all) and as such I will bow out of this discussion.

Dumb question, what do I have to do to get rid of this pixie tag?

Edit: I'm laughing right now because I am only now just reading the post's in between my first post and the post immediately above my second one.

[eggynack]

Bahh yet again I'm reminded that I don't yet have the system knowledge to effectively debate on these forums (this isn't intended to be a shot at the forums or anything I just need to read better is all) and as such I will bow out of this discussion.

Dumb question, what do I have to do to get rid of this pixie tag?
I believe you need 50 total posts, so 11 more. Anyways you shouldn't worry too much about mistakes like that. I'm pretty sure that everyone here, myself included, has made some pretty dumb ones, even the folks who have been here for infinity time.

[fluke1993]

Okay then, here's my take on it: SNA spells allow you to summon any elemental that fits the flavor of the MM1 elementals AND has an appropriate CR as determined by the DM. If a creature show up on a table in a different book at a different level (like storm elementals) use the more specific entry. Any Elemntals summoned this way that are not from the elementals listed under Elemental heading in MM1 must be cleared with the DM before the session begins. (that means no whipping the feind folio out and debating the merits of summoning the LH with in the middle of play)

[NeoPhoenix0]

Bahh yet again I'm reminded that I don't yet have the system knowledge to effectively debate on these forums (this isn't intended to be a shot at the forums or anything I just need to read better is all) and as such I will bow out of this discussion.

Dumb question, what do I have to do to get rid of this pixie tag?

Edit: I'm laughing right now because I am only now just reading the post's in between my first post and the post immediately above my second one.

Don't worry the longer you stay the better you get. look at me, I joined after you and through rigorous debates have accumulated a decent knowledge of the system and the general thought process behind RAW.


I believe you need 50 total posts, so 11 more. Anyways you shouldn't worry too much about mistakes like that. I'm pretty sure that everyone here, myself included, has made some pretty dumb ones, even the folks who have been here for infinity time.

I thought it was 75 i didn't pay too much attention back then. I believe they occasionally change it.

Also have you heard the slogan Urpriest is always right? Haven't seen him slip up yet.

Despite the increase in power i like the idea of summoning shadow elementals. I wonder what an appropriate way to summon them would be, or is there a calling spell that would work. I am horribly unfamiliar with actual summoning and calling because those are the two subschools of conjuration i never use.

[TuggyNE]

Don't worry the longer you stay the better you get. look at me, I joined after you and through rigorous debates have accumulated a decent knowledge of the system and the general thought process behind RAW.

To be quite honest, forum debates and checking the rules for myself have been the major sources of my own knowledge. I have had nowhere near as much actual game experience as I'd like. :smallfrown: *blames living in an obscure town in the middle of nowhere*

[nedz]

The SRD clearly states one 2nd-level creature
Small Elementals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm) are 2HD and CR1
Many of the other options are 3HD but all are CR1 or CR2

Living Holocaust is 15 HD and CR 13 which is clearly not a 2nd-level creatureYour extremely dysfunctional interpretation is extremely dysfunctional. SNA lv 9 says 9th level and lists elder elementals which have about 24 HD. Not 9th level. Any reasonable interpretation of that spell description is to use the appropriate level table not that the creature has to be that level. To be clear i am defiantly not saying Living Holocaust should be on the list. Just that this isn't a workable interpretation.

Hey, I'm just trying to analyse what they did.
Looking at SNA IX

Elder Elementals are CR 11
Grig [with fiddle] CR 1, plus a low level effect
Pixie CR 5
Unicorn, celestial charger CR 11

I think this whole list is somewhat dysfunctional.

Somehow these spells are not in the Dysfunctional rules thread — about to fix that.

[Phelix-Mu]

Wow, lots of traffic.

A few points.

1.) The holocaust in "living holocaust" refers to the original definition used in the Bible and other religious texts, a sacrifice by fire. Any IRL sketchiness due to historical definitions ("the Holocaust" v "a holocaust") seems to have been intentionally ignored. Fair enough, as there's a whole heap of historically objectionable references littered throughout fantasy themes and language. Just FYI, really.

2.) I don't personally have an issue with using formatting choices in the Monster Manual as basis for an argument for an interpretation of RAW. A slightly stronger position is probably the one I referenced before, where "any" in the context of "elemental" in the context of SNA doesn't mean "any" in normal English parlance with regards to the elemental type, as specifically the spell calls out "elemental, size (any)" and other critters of the elemental type in the same tables, and the different summoning entries clearly don't overlap. Specific usage of the language in the spell description trumps general usage.

3.) The spell in the PHB was written for easy use by players. It makes no sense to index summonable stuff by type, since the Monster Manual is indexed alphabetically by monster name. Call it heading, call it monster name, whatever; a player with the spell looks at the summoning table, picks something, and looks it up by it's creature name, not by type and subtype. If it's true for the other entries ("pixie" not "fey"), why not for all of them? It seems an unnecessary complication to assume "elemental, [size] (any)" is somehow using a different format. This is especially true in reference to the layout of the "Elemental" entry in the MM, which is by size. In this context, looking up "Elemental" in the MM, one finds sizes. Ergo, "any" means any of the four subtypes in that entry.

[fluke1993]

@phelix:

1) Huh, didn't know that about "holocaust"

[eggynack]

3.) The spell in the PHB was written for easy use by players. It makes no sense to index summonable stuff by type, since the Monster Manual is indexed alphabetically by monster name. Call it heading, call it monster name, whatever; a player with the spell looks at the summoning table, picks something, and looks it up by it's creature name, not by type and subtype. If it's true for the other entries ("pixie" not "fey"), why not for all of them? It seems an unnecessary complication to assume "elemental, [size] (any)" is somehow using a different format. This is especially true in reference to the layout of the "Elemental" entry in the MM, which is by size. In this context, looking up "Elemental" in the MM, one finds sizes. Ergo, "any" means any of the four subtypes in that entry.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable justification for the interpretation. Type based separation makes absolutely no sense for the reason I stated, so it looks like it's down to name or heading. There's also a decent interpretation that looks a lot like what you're using here, and is based on the header one. In other words, it's name only, and restricted to the relevant book. In any case, I think that shadow elementals are the biggest problem, above and beyond something like the living holocaust. They seem to have a similar CR to storm elementals, so if I were to put them on the list, I'd probably just do it at one level above the normal elementals of that size. It seems reasonable enough, though I haven't looked too deeply into the implications of a summon of that type.

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't feel a need to give druids access to shadow elementals. The implication is that incorporeal touch attacks are bad news for enemy mooks, though the ones that the shadow elemental has aren't that terrible, if memory serves. Would be an awesome scout critter, though.:smallsmile:

Anyway, the matter should definitely be monitored heavily by DMs. SNA is already the bees' knees when combined with various feats, items and class features (yay, automatic extended SNA IV that lets me pick from the SNA V list and lets me automatically put some 2nd level or lower buff on them when they arrive). Herds of gargantuan megaraptors? Yes, please.

[ShriekingDrake]

Hey, I'm just trying to analyse what they did.
Looking at SNA IX

Elder Elementals are CR 11
Grig [with fiddle] CR 1, plus a low level effect
Pixie CR 5
Unicorn, celestial charger CR 11

I think this whole list is somewhat dysfunctional.

Somehow these spells are not in the Dysfunctional rules thread — about to fix that.

So true. I've been tinkering with an alternative list, myself. One of my groups has bee trying to both narrow and make more rigimented the SNA list. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282552) is what I've come up with so far. And while this doesn't answer the "any" question, I can say that we're not likely to allow any elementals outside Air, Earth, Fire, and Water when it comes to "any".