Summon Nature's Ally II, small elemental (Int 4), does it understand Common?

[Banaticus]

When you cast Summon Nature's Ally II, and get a small elemental (Int 4), does it understand Common? If you only speak Common, can you communicate with it?

[eggynack]

No, it only understands the languages it is listed as understanding. In this case, it would be auran for air elementals, terran for earth, ignan for fire, and aquan for water.

[Vaz]

No. If you look under the individual entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm), you'll see things like


Air elementals speak Auran, though they rarely choose to do so.

Unless you yourself can speak the language, then you'll be fine;


If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

It doesn't understand Common until it becomes Greater and you cast Foxes Cunning on it (Int 12), SNA7.


Intelligence: A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).

Alternatively, there's Summon Greater Elemental or Elementite Swarm (Druid 6 and 4 respectively) which explicitly states that it can understand your language, whatever that may be.

[Darrin]

By RAW (Rules As Wriiten), no. Animals you summon via SNA don't understand Common either, don't know any tricks, and have to be pushed via Handle Animal to do basic commands. Near as I can tell, this was an oversight, and the designers never realized that SNA doesn't use celestial/fiendish templates, and thus makes sure a summoned monster has an Int 3, so by default it understands Common. I don't feel that the game would be significantly improved by enforcing this oversight with SNA.

[Vaz]

Or perhaps the designers did... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm)

Magical Beasts is where the trouble comes, but that's where Tongues comes in

[Darrin]

Or perhaps the designers did... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm)


I've never seen a druid cast speak with animals to communicate with his SNA summons. I can see where someone who was a stickler for RAW might demand such a thing, but that's a level of pedantry I can't really condone.



Magical Beasts is where the trouble comes, but that's where Tongues comes in

Not really an option for a druid.

[eggynack]

Not really an option for a druid.
True, though you can potentially make use of low efficiency versions of the effect, like using dragon wild shape to become a song dragon (MoF, 44), or casting speak with anything (MotW, 94). As for the lack of control without magic being an unintended consequence, or somehow problematic, I don't really see how. The spell explicitly sets attacking enemies at the best of its abilities as the baseline competence of the creature, minus any communication method. If you want the creature to do something other than attacking stuff, you're probably going to need speak with animals or something similar.

[Vaz]

I've never seen a druid cast speak with animals to communicate with his SNA summons. I can see where someone who was a stickler for RAW might demand such a thing, but that's a level of pedantry I can't really condone.

And yet people complain about T1 overpowering everything? I'm not saying that expending 2 spell slots to be able to command animals is going to limit their power, but it helps limit the overpowering nature; either risk it attacking your own party because it can't understand what you're saying, or cast 2 spells to give it directions.

[eggynack]

And yet people complain about T1 overpowering everything? I'm not saying that expending 2 spell slots to be able to command animals is going to limit their power, but it helps limit the overpowering nature; either risk it attacking your own party because it can't understand what you're saying, or cast 2 spells to give it directions.
I don't see how it attacking your own party follows. The spell explicitly states that the animal attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. As long as your party is composed of non-opponents, there should be no danger of this outcome. There is no perfectly explicit mechanism that would allow summoned creatures to tell the difference between enemies and friends, but there doesn't need to be. The spell says that it functions in a certain way, which allows for some speak with animals based utility, so it does. I mean, if you're just talking about house ruling here, I suppose that's a thing of some variety, but the context of this discussion implies that it's a discussion based on what is, rather than on what could be.

[Deophaun]

The spell explicitly states that the animal attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. As long as your party is composed of non-opponents, there should be no danger of this outcome.
But what if you were ambushed in the middle of an intra-party chess tournament?

[eggynack]

But what if you were ambushed in the middle of an intra-party chess tournament?
"Argle bargle. I concede! I concede!"

"Hah. Just as planned. The match, and with it, the tournament, has ended in my favor. Thank you, hired bandits. Now, I shall accept my just reward. A delicious piece of cake. There is no stopping me now."

[dextercorvia]

I don't think it was an oversight, in that you don't need to communicate with it for it to attack your opponents as per the spell (which was the intended use of the spell). The extra bit of communication is only if you want it to do something else.

[squiggit]

Attacking your allies is an issue, but it does seem silly to be asking for raw lenience for one of the best forms of magic for one of the best classes in the game. Druids don't exactly need the help.

[Killer Angel]

I've never seen a druid cast speak with animals to communicate with his SNA summons. I can see where someone who was a stickler for RAW might demand such a thing, but that's a level of pedantry I can't really condone.


The spell explicitly says "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions".
It's not RAW pedantry, it's plain and simple the spell's description. If you cannot speak with the creature, it will merely attack your opponents, and you cannot even decide which one.

[Devils_Advocate]

Darrin, why do you think it's an oversight? The opening clause bolded by Killer Angel above pretty plainly indicates that it's supposed to be possible for inability to communicate with a summoned creature to limit your control of it. And given that the rules' writers were perfectly willing to have a spell simply make creatures without the intelligence to understand your orders follow those orders regardless, even though that makes absolutely no sense -- see animate dead -- the notion that that restriction is merely meant to be a nod to realism (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111220) seems dubious at best.

The summon nature's ally spells tend to provide creatures one level earlier than the summon monster line, but without the celestial and fiendish templates. It being harder to talk to them is just a part of the tradeoff involved.


I've never seen a druid cast speak with animals to communicate with his SNA summons. I can see where someone who was a stickler for RAW might demand such a thing, but that's a level of pedantry I can't really condone.
Well, I don't condone ignoring a rule because it limits your character in some way, but if you can tolerate my and others' rule-lawyerin', I can tolerate your munchkinry, I reckon. ;)

[Fitz10019]

It doesn't understand Common until it becomes Greater and you cast Foxes Cunning on it (Int 12), SNA7.

Fox's Cunning doesn't enter into it. Increased Int improves your capacity for knowing languages. It does not teach you a language.

[Vaz]

Most abilities work as described in Chapter 1 of the Player ’s Handbook, with exceptions given below.

Intelligence: A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).

Simply upping the intelligence of the target creature to 12 or higher will be able to speak that language. It doesn't make sense at all, simply upping the Intelligence lets it speak the language. Having said that, there's no verbiage which includes that. This is where the oversights come in.

[Fitz10019]

Simply upping the intelligence of the target creature to 12 or higher will be able to speak that language. It doesn't make sense at all, simply upping the Intelligence lets it speak the language. Having said that, there's no verbiage which includes that. This is where the oversights come in.

I don't see how that counters the rules for the Speak Language skill, or the clause of Fox's Cunning that you can't spend skill points as a result of the spell. Monsters start with the intelligence and language(s) in their entry (like a PC at 1st level). Fox's Cunning would not add to their languages. That's my read, anyway.

[Vaz]

There's no reference to speak language because it's not necessary. All the relevant rules are within; it explicitly states that they are the exception to the normal rules.