Augment Summoning

[McClintock]

The way I read this feat is anytime I cast a summoning spell, including scrolls and wands, they get augmented. Am I reading that correctly?

[Aleolus]

Scrolls and wands no, because those use only the rules for the spells, and completely ignore any bonuses you may have from feats oor class abities. However it would apply when you cast them from a staff

[McClintock]

I'm not trying to argue, I just want clarification for the game I am presently playing. I just read spell completion, spell trigger, and Wand usage nothing in any of those says anything about feats not applying. That being said I know normally feats don't apply but this feat specifically says any creature you conjure with any summoning spell. The way I am reading it you're calling the creature into existence therefore your ability should work. Or am I just reading way too much into the wording of the feat.

[Ellowryn]

Hence why it doesn't work. With spell completion, spell trigger, and Wand usage you are simply activating an already cast spell, therefore anything you have that would affects spells (Including penalties and bonuses) do not work. Staves as have already been mentioned are different you are actually casting the spell.

[nedz]

The feat could be better worded but the normal way of reading the feat is that it only applies to a spell you cast rather than ones cast be a third party and placed in a wand, or scroll.

[eggynack]

As far as I can tell, none of these items work with augment summoning. The core question at hand here is whether you are the being conjuring these creatures, and you are not. The item is conjuring them, and you are simply activating their ability to do so. This same logic would apply to staffs, it seems, as staffs only make use of the caster's statistics in specifically defined ways, and feats are not one of them. The staff is still the thing conjuring the creature. Notably, skull talismans from frostburn have text which would specifically make you the person casting the spell (The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect), which would allow feats of this sort to apply, but skull talismans unfortunately can not hold summoning spells.

[McClintock]

So following the logic that is set forth in all of your explanations, as the third-party, or activator of said item, wouldn't all the parameters be set prior to me finalizing the scroll. Meaning that the monster would already be chosen prior to me activating the scroll or wand. If that was the case that I absolutely agree augment summoning does not apply. But if you get to choose the final creature that comes out of the scroll or wand you were the one "conjuring" the creature therefore I think of the should feat apply.

At this point I'm not trying to argue (I actually agree) I just like the debate and I'm trying to understand what the original writer was trying to come up with, so please take no offense to my questioning.

[Ellowryn]

You get to determine what gets summoned, just like you get to determine where they are summoned, what the summons do, weather you summon the highest tier or many of the lower tier creatures, etc.

[Strormer]

Hence why it doesn't work. With spell completion, spell trigger, and Wand usage you are simply activating an already cast spell, therefore anything you have that would affects spells (Including penalties and bonuses) do not work. Staves as have already been mentioned are different you are actually casting the spell.

Devil's Advocate:
Then, by this logic, would a caster with augment summoning create wands with the bonuses in place?

[eggynack]

So following the logic that is set forth in all of your explanations, as the third-party, or activator of said item, wouldn't all the parameters be set prior to me finalizing the scroll. Meaning that the monster would already be chosen prior to me activating the scroll or wand. If that was the case that I absolutely agree augment summoning does not apply. But if you get to choose the final creature that comes out of the scroll or wand you were the one "conjuring" the creature therefore I think of the should feat apply.

At this point I'm not trying to argue (I actually agree) I just like the debate and I'm trying to understand what the original writer was trying to come up with, so please take no offense to my questioning.
It doesn't matter what decisions you make. You're just telling the item what creatures to conjure, not conjuring them yourself.

Devil's Advocate:
Then, by this logic, would a caster with augment summoning create wands with the bonuses in place?
Probably not, no, because that's not a thing the game says you can transfer over, and again, the crafter of the item is not the one conjuring the monster.

[Ellowryn]

Devil's Advocate:
Then, by this logic, would a caster with augment summoning create wands with the bonuses in place?

To be honest, i do not know. I know you can make a wand effected by a metamagic feat, assuming it does not bring the spell above 4th level, but i do not know if you can effect a spell with other feats. I do believe you cannot use class features to augment the spell though.

[McClintock]

It doesn't matter what decisions you make. You're just telling the item what creatures to conjure, not conjuring them yourself.

Probably not, no, because that's not a thing the game says you can transfer over, and again, the crafter of the item is not the one conjuring the monster.


First: these two comments contradict each other.

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

The feat says each creature you conjure, from any spell. Not that you cast, memorize or any other specific definition. Just that you conjure

[eggynack]

First: these two comments contradict each other.

Second:

The feat says each creature you conjure, from any spell. Not that you cast, memorize or any other specific definition. Just that you conjure
You conjuring means you casting. You have to be the being doing the conjuring, not the staff. And, no, those statements do not contradict each other. You can't use the feat with a staff because the staff is doing the conjuring, and a person can't transfer the feat over, because the staff doesn't have the feat, and it's the one doing the conjuring. There's no way to put the feat on the staff, and there's no way I'm aware of to get anything but the staff to be the one doing the conjuring.

[Strormer]

You conjuring means you casting. You have to be the being doing the conjuring, not the staff. And, no, those statements do not contradict each other. You can't use the feat with a staff because the staff is doing the conjuring, and a person can't transfer the feat over, because the staff doesn't have the feat, and it's the one doing the conjuring. There's no way to put the feat on the staff, and there's no way I'm aware of to get anything but the staff to be the one doing the conjuring.

Except that items cannot cast spells unless they're sentient. The staff is not casting. Nor is the wand, scroll, or any other magic item. Either the creator is providing the magical energy (wands and the like) or the user is (staves). It's vague by RAW, but as a DM I would totally allow an item to be created with Augment Summoning, just like a metamagic feat. Then again, I think it should be one anyway, so yeah. I also agree with previous comments that staves could utilize the user's AS feat, for the reason outlined above.

[eggynack]

Except that items cannot cast spells unless they're sentient. The staff is not casting. Nor is the wand, scroll, or any other magic item. Either the creator is providing the magical energy (wands and the like) or the user is (staves). It's vague by RAW, but as a DM I would totally allow an item to be created with Augment Summoning, just like a metamagic feat. Then again, I think it should be one anyway, so yeah. I also agree with previous comments that staves could utilize the user's AS feat, for the reason outlined above.
The staff can't choose to cast, but that doesn't mean that it can't cast, and more importantly, it certainly doesn't mean that it can't conjure. As for staves specifically, there doesn't seem to be anything there that would change how those items work with feats. And finally, it's irrelevant who provides the magical energy. All that matters is the thing that is conjuring.

[atemu1234]

Except that items cannot cast spells unless they're sentient. The staff is not casting. Nor is the wand, scroll, or any other magic item. Either the creator is providing the magical energy (wands and the like) or the user is (staves). It's vague by RAW, but as a DM I would totally allow an item to be created with Augment Summoning, just like a metamagic feat. Then again, I think it should be one anyway, so yeah. I also agree with previous comments that staves could utilize the user's AS feat, for the reason outlined above.

I don't think sentience affects it either way, does it?

[Strormer]

The staff can't choose to cast, but that doesn't mean that it can't cast, and more importantly, it certainly doesn't mean that it can't conjure. As for staves specifically, there doesn't seem to be anything there that would change how those items work with feats. And finally, it's irrelevant who provides the magical energy. All that matters is the thing that is conjuring.

And I would say it does matter that it can't choose. In essence, the user of the item is conjuring, via a tool. If you drive a nail into a board, you don't attribute agency to the hammer.

Also, casting conjuration spell = conjuring. The term is semantics.


I don't think sentience affects it either way, does it?

Oh yeah, just, as I said earlier, playing devil's advocate. I'm simply arguing that an inanimate object cannot "cast" a spell without magically becoming sentient, which would grant it the ability to choose to utilize a power. Therefore, it must be either the creator or the user who is actually casting. That's my reasoning for interpreting the use of the feat for certain situations as fair.

[eggynack]

And I would say it does matter that it can't choose. In essence, the user of the item is conjuring, via a tool. If you drive a nail into a board, you don't attribute agency to the hammer.
A wand isn't a hammer though. Some of its doings are purely internal, and when you swing the hammer-wand part way, it does the rest of the job for you. A wand is more akin to a calculator. You don't attribute your calculating power to yourself when you're using a calculator for it. All you're doing is telling the wand to do its thing, and maybe giving it a bit of input. Everything else is up to the wand itself.

[Dimcair]

Ill agree with: If you craft it with the feat, the scroll or wand will add the effect. The staff merely saves the spells you embue it with, it defenately has the feat, if you had it at the moment of charging the staff

[Aasimar]

If you craft a wand of maximized magic missile, it will cost the same as a wand with any 4th level spell

I can't help but think if a caster made scrolls or wands with augmented summoning spells, he would charge a premium for them.

[SkipSandwich]

How would you price an Augment Summoning-enhanced wand or scroll? The closest I can see in the SRD is the Dark Blue Ioun stone, which grants the Alertness feat for 10k. Dividing cost by 2 because Ioun stones are slotless gives us a base price of 5k for an item that grants a single bonus feat that's always active. I think adding +5,000 to the base cost of a wand of Augmented Summon XYZ isn't unreasonable.

For feats like Ectopic Form (for psionic dojores) or any similar feats that let you summon something Different and not necessarily more powerful, I'd rule that a character with that feat can simply create a wand/scroll/whatever to summon that thing at no additional cost.

[Strormer]

I can't help but think if a caster made scrolls or wands with augmented summoning spells, he would charge a premium for them.

You're probably right, and that's how I would run it, but there could be made an argument that this isn't really an active choice by the caster, but rather just an innate proclivity for summoning that makes her a better summoner. This is because AS isn't a metamagic feat, but is just a regular feat that applies to all summons. Now, as I mentioned above, I think it should be a +0 or +1 spell level metamagic feat in all honesty, but that would definitely be a big change to make, particularly if one of your players is a minionmancer.


A wand isn't a hammer though. Some of its doings are purely internal, and when you swing the hammer-wand part way, it does the rest of the job for you. A wand is more akin to a calculator. You don't attribute your calculating power to yourself when you're using a calculator for it. All you're doing is telling the wand to do its thing, and maybe giving it a bit of input. Everything else is up to the wand itself.

Semantics. A calculator is still just a tool and cannot make any calculation without input from the user, which in the analogy would be the caster adding magical energy to the item. Tools, by nature, provide part of an ability we could not have without the tool, but that still fails to make the tool the thing doing to task, because without the user's input the tool is useless.

That said, this is starting to devolve into a bit of an argument, which is not my intent. I respect that you have a different opinion and I think both of us have a logic behind our beliefs, so it's up to the individual DM which way they would read it. RAW, it's left pretty vague, and I try not to speak to RAI as I'm not the author/designer and can't know the intention behind the design with certainty. Thanks for the debate, though. Most enjoyable.

[Chronos]

The wand might be casting the spell, but Augment Summoning doesn't care who's casting the spell. The user of the wand is conjuring a creature, and so if the user has Augment Summoning, it works. The creator of the wand is not conjuring a creature, so if the creator has Augment Summoning, it doesn't do anything.

[eggynack]

Semantics. A calculator is still just a tool and cannot make any calculation without input from the user, which in the analogy would be the caster adding magical energy to the item. Tools, by nature, provide part of an ability we could not have without the tool, but that still fails to make the tool the thing doing to task, because without the user's input the tool is useless.
The tool is useless without the user, but in this case, the user is just as useless without the tool. And of course it's semantics. This is a fundamentally semantics related issue, determining where the conjuring is happening.


That said, this is starting to devolve into a bit of an argument, which is not my intent. I respect that you have a different opinion and I think both of us have a logic behind our beliefs, so it's up to the individual DM which way they would read it. RAW, it's left pretty vague, and I try not to speak to RAI as I'm not the author/designer and can't know the intention behind the design with certainty. Thanks for the debate, though. Most enjoyable.
I suppose. I do enjoy an arbitrary D&D rules argument from time to time, though this one is a bit fluffier than I'd like. I don't feel like you're getting into the real stuff until you get a pile of citations from across either one book or several getting tossed back and forth.

The wand might be casting the spell, but Augment Summoning doesn't care who's casting the spell. The user of the wand is conjuring a creature, and so if the user has Augment Summoning, it works. The creator of the wand is not conjuring a creature, so if the creator has Augment Summoning, it doesn't do anything.
I certainly don't think there's enough evidence to support the idea that the wand's user is absolutely the one doing the conjuring. He's making conjuring happen, certainly, but the term implies that you are the one responsible for the actual meat of the magic. There's some kinda spectrum here, I think, where one side has a caster just pretending to use a stick as a wand, and doing all of the work, and where the other has a guy just feebly holding onto an intelligent wand that's choosing to toss spells all over the place, and things on the first side have the caster conjuring, and things on the second have the wand responsible. I suspect that these items lie mostly on the second side.

[Bullet06320]

its one of those weird oddities of the game
while the castor isn't casting the spell him self, merely using a tool at his disposable to do the casting, he is still by proxy conjuring critters and I don't see any issues with him being able to use augment summoning to enhance it. nothing says you can or can't, so its a DM's call

I also see no reason why a castor couldn't create an augmented summoning wand or scroll, at an extra cost maybe, I would treat as a +0 metamagic effect since there is no increase in the level of the spell for using the feat, similar to how eschew materials was originally a +0 metamagic feat in 3.0, again it falls into DM call territory

[Taelas]

Augment Summoning works on scrolls and wands by RAW. The feat does not affect a spell directly, it affects creatures you conjure with any summoning spell. Conjuring them via a wand or scroll is still conjuring them via a spell, therefore the feat gets applied.

[Strormer]

The tool is useless without the user, but in this case, the user is just as useless without the tool. And of course it's semantics. This is a fundamentally semantics related issue, determining where the conjuring is happening.

I suppose. I do enjoy an arbitrary D&D rules argument from time to time, though this one is a bit fluffier than I'd like. I don't feel like you're getting into the real stuff until you get a pile of citations from across either one book or several getting tossed back and forth.

I certainly don't think there's enough evidence to support the idea that the wand's user is absolutely the one doing the conjuring. He's making conjuring happen, certainly, but the term implies that you are the one responsible for the actual meat of the magic. There's some kinda spectrum here, I think, where one side has a caster just pretending to use a stick as a wand, and doing all of the work, and where the other has a guy just feebly holding onto an intelligent wand that's choosing to toss spells all over the place, and things on the first side have the caster conjuring, and things on the second have the wand responsible. I suspect that these items lie mostly on the second side.

Awesome! I heartily agree. I just always like to ensure we're not going the route of flame war. It's been far too long since I've spent time on the playground. The rest of the internet is a dark and angry place. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WretchedHive) Anyway, in that case...

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Reading through this passage we see that the creator of the wand must prepare and expend the spell in the creation of the wand, "just as if it had been cast." By this reading, the creator is decidedly enacting the spell as part of the creation of the item, even if the spell's energy is being stored in the wand for later release. Now, as I've mentioned previously, since the feat is not a metamagic feat, there's no "activating" the effect. Augment Summoning simply occurs when a caster with the feat summons a creature, which is what the spells in question would do.

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Further, upon reading the above, we see that the user of the wand must have knowledge of the spell in question, in the sense that it is on his class's spell list, but need do no actual casting in order to enact the effect. By this reading, it would seem that the spell, which was cast by the creator as part of the creation of the item, was simply delayed in it's effect taking full shape. That would still make it the same spell, however, meaning that the feat from the creator would still take effect. This would, however, prevent the user from actually utilizing the feat with the wand, if the user had the feat.

Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

By contrast, we see here that scrolls require the user to actually perform some of the casting. This implies that scrolls act basically as physical spell-slots which can be prepared and stored for later use, outside of those within the caster's mind (his daily allotment). In this instance, it is fairly clear that the user is the one doing the casting, and therefore should be able to utilize his own Augment Summoning bonus, even if the creator did not have the bonus.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. A material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

However, just as with the wand, a scroll's creator does in fact need to prepare and "cast" the spell in order to create the scroll, effectively meaning that, as before, if he had the feat he could apply it as well. In this sense, for scrolls, if either the creator or the user has the feat, the effects could be applied to the spell cast from the item. In this case, one key thing to note, however, is that, since Augment Summoning is not a metamagic feat, there's no special change made to the spell as it is written on the scroll, so a wizard or similar caster who copies the scroll into his spellbook would not get the effect as a default part of his new spell. In the instances of metamagic feats, the wizard would clearly see the notation that the spell was being affected by metamagic and would know not to copy that information down as he could only utilize it with his own feat.

I think that should be enough to get the debate really rolling! Argue on! (http://www.republibot.com/sites/default/files/images/gamers2-first.png)

[Chronos]

If I make a scroll of Summon Monster I, what monster am I conjuring? There's no way to answer that, since it hasn't been decided yet. I can't make a scroll of Summon Celestial Dog or Summon Fiendish Monkey. That decision is made by the user of the scroll. Thus, the user is the one doing the conjuring, not the creator.

Yes, the creator is arguably casting the spell, but again, who casts the spell is irrelevant.

[prufock]

The wording is not consistent or clear. They use "activating" and "casting" almost interchangeably throughout the magic item section of the SRD.

However, I think it's easy to form an argument that the implication is that you don't apply feats directly through magic items. This intent seems pretty clear when you consider the existence of things like the Metamagic Spell Trigger feat and the artificer's Metamagic Spell Completion feature. These define special rules for applying feats to magic items. If the reading that you can apply feats to magic items by default was correct, these feats and class features would be worse than useless.

You might want to chalk that up to a mistake on the part of the authors, but without a clear contradictory rule, we should accept the reading that grants the most internal consistency. That is, you don't apply feats to magic items unless it specifically says so.

[Taelas]

Augment Summoning is not a metamagic feat. It is not even close to one. It functions in a fundamentally different way. Metamagic alters a spell as you are casting it (so you can create scrolls/wands with metamagic effects). Augment Summoning doesn't affect a spell at all: it alters the result, after the spell has been cast.

You are not applying Augment Summoning to a magic item or even a spell. You are applying it to a creature you have conjured.

[prufock]

Augment Summoning is not a metamagic feat. It is not even close to one. It functions in a fundamentally different way. Metamagic alters a spell as you are casting it (so you can create scrolls/wands with metamagic effects). Augment Summoning doesn't affect a spell at all: it alters the result, after the spell has been cast.

You are not applying Augment Summoning to a magic item or even a spell. You are applying it to a creature you have conjured.

This is all true, but also inconsequential to my point. See the last paragraph of my post.

Basically, I see it this way:
A. There is no clear ruling regarding whether feats that apply to spells also apply to magic item effects.
B. Metamagic Spell Trigger and Metamagic Spell Completion exist.
C. This implies that metamagic feats do not normally apply to magic items.
D. Therefore, at least some feats do not normally apply to magic item effects by default.

There are three readings possible:
1. No feats normally apply to magic item effects. This is consistent with the above.
2. All feats normally apply to magic item effects. This is inconsistent with the above.
3. Some feats normally apply to magic item effects and some do not. This is consistent with the above, but there is little delineation as to which is which.

We can eliminate #2. Between #1 and #3, #1 offers the most simplicity. This isn't a proof, because see A above, it's just an implication.

Another example: Staffs use special rules when determining saving throw DCs. Normally, feats the wielder possesses do not affect the DCs of magic items, however staffs make a special exception, explicitly spelling out that feats apply. Spell Focus is a General-tag feat. We can therefore add that
E. At least some General feats do not normally apply to magic item effects by default.

This makes reading #3 more convoluted.

Feats that specify "casting a spell" are more explicitly disallowed - activating a magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#activateMagicItem) and casting a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell) are two different types of action. But even then it isn't perfect, since some magic items mention "casting a spell" from it.

[Taelas]

Metamagic feats do not affect the end result of a spell, as such. They alter the spell itself. You are essentially making a new spell that functions slightly differently from the old one (with caveats).

Magic items that are use-activated have essentially already cast the spell. The time when metamagic could have been applied is over and done with. That is why you can't use metamagic with scrolls or wands. When using them, you are finishing the spell that has already been cast, and since it didn't have metamagic applied, you can't just apply it on the fly--the spell is already done.

But Augment Summoning doesn't work in that way. It doesn't alter the spell--it only affects the end result.

The reason that metamagic feats do not apply to magic items aren't relevant.

[Chronos]

I don't think that "feats that apply to spells" is a consistent enough category to be meaningful. Weapon Focus: Ray, for instance, is a feat that applies to spells, but I think everyone agrees that you'd still get the +1 to your attack roll with a wand of scorching ray. Metamagic feats are a consistent category, but we're not talking about one of those here, so that's irrelevant.

[prufock]

Metamagic feats do not affect the end result of a spell, as such. They alter the spell itself. You are essentially making a new spell that functions slightly differently from the old one (with caveats).
Citation needed? Double duration, maximum damage, invisible visual effects, etc are certainly altered end effects in my view.


But Augment Summoning doesn't work in that way. It doesn't alter the spell--it only affects the end result.
What can we point to that signifies that this matters? The stance I think you're taking is "Feats apply to magic item effects unless otherwise indicated." It's a fair stance, but I think it just loses out on simplicity. Not that simplicity is the end-all metric, but it's a generally useful one.


I don't think that "feats that apply to spells" is a consistent enough category to be meaningful. Weapon Focus: Ray, for instance, is a feat that applies to spells, but I think everyone agrees that you'd still get the +1 to your attack roll with a wand of scorching ray.
Interesting point, but I don't think WF is a good example. WF: Ray treats a ray as a weapon; it doesn't mention any casting or spell effect.

[Taelas]

Citation needed? Double duration, maximum damage, invisible visual effects, etc are certainly altered end effects in my view.
Metamagic alters the spell itself. The spell is different (which means the spell has a different effect).

Augment Summoning does not do that. It doesn't increase the cast time for spontaneous casters, because it doesn't actually alter the spell at all. It has an effect on the end result.

It's the cart-before-the-horse thing.


What can we point to that signifies that this matters? The stance I think you're taking is "Feats apply to magic item effects unless otherwise indicated." It's a fair stance, but I think it just loses out on simplicity. Not that simplicity is the end-all metric, but it's a generally useful one.
No, the stance I take is that the rules are what they say they are.

Augment Summoning doesn't apply to a magic item effect. It applies to a creature you have conjured.

[Chronos]

Quoth prufock:

Interesting point, but I don't think WF is a good example. WF: Ray treats a ray as a weapon; it doesn't mention any casting or spell effect.
My point is that some feats are different than others. You appear to be saying that my point doesn't apply, because some feats are different than others. Which is my point.

[Aleolus]

Metamagic alters the spell itself. The spell is different (which means the spell has a different effect).

Augment Summoning does not do that. It doesn't increase the cast time for spontaneous casters, because it doesn't actually alter the spell at all. It has an effect on the end result.

It's the cart-before-the-horse thing.


No, the stance I take is that the rules are what they say they are.

Augment Summoning doesn't apply to a magic item effect. It applies to a creature you have conjured.

Except that in the case of summoning spells, the creature summoned is the spell effect. Since Augment Summoning changes the creature summoned (by making it more powerful) it falls into the same boat as metamagic feats. The reason it isn't tagged as one is because it applies every time you cast the relevant spell types, and it doesn't boost the effective spell level

[prufock]

No, the stance I take is that the rules are what they say they are.

Augment Summoning doesn't apply to a magic item effect. It applies to a creature you have conjured.

Summon Monster I
"Effect: One summoned creature" followed by a list of creatures you can summon. The summoned creature IS the effect, explicitly.


My point is that some feats are different than others. You appear to be saying that my point doesn't apply, because some feats are different than others. Which is my point.
No, I agree with your point: "feats that apply to spells" may not be a good category, and there is probably a better way to categorize them. "Feats that alter spells" or "feats that modify spell effects" might be more accurate.

[Taelas]

Summon Monster I
"Effect: One summoned creature" followed by a list of creatures you can summon. The summoned creature IS the effect, explicitly.

We're talking a magic item, such as a wand or a scroll. In that case, the effect of the item is the spell. The spell summons a creature, but that is immaterial.

[prufock]

We're talking a magic item, such as a wand or a scroll. In that case, the effect of the item is the spell. The spell summons a creature, but that is immaterial.
I can't find a primary reference to back that up. A magic item is referred to as replicating a spell, casting a spell, or having a spell effect or spell-like effect. The effect of a summon monster spell is the monster summoned.

Even if true, though, I think the transitive property applies. The item's effect is the spell, the spell's effect is a monster.

[Taelas]

I can't find a primary reference to back that up. A magic item is referred to as replicating a spell, casting a spell, or having a spell effect or spell-like effect. The effect of a summon monster spell is the monster summoned.

Even if true, though, I think the transitive property applies. The item's effect is the spell, the spell's effect is a monster.

It's about degrees of separation. In any case, it doesn't matter: you're using a spell to conjure a creature, which is all that Augment Summoning requires. The fact that the spell came from an item is irrelevant.

[Roga]

The fact that the spell came from an item is irrelevant.

So if a conjuration you didn't cast can gain the benefit of your feats when you direct something, in this case an object, to conjure a creature, how far does that go?
Can I order someone under my command to conjure a creature and have it gain the effects?
What about mentally commanding someone I have dominated by Dominate Person?
If I have Augment Summoning and a Spell thief takes one of my Summon Monster spells, does it have the effect when he casts it?
If I'm a Spell thief and I steal the spell-like ability from a devil to conjure another outsider, and I have the feat, does it affect the summons? What if the devil has the feat instead?

FYI, the stolen spells and spell-like abilities are cast/used as if cast by the original owner normally.

This is not meant to be patronizing, I'm genuinely curious.

[Segev]

This is gray enough that it's honestly going to come down to a DM call. I know DMs who, for the sake of avoiding cheese, have the rule that "whatever screws the player the most" is the way such things fall out. I know others who are permissive enough that whatever HELPS the most works.

Personally, I would run it as the person who spent the feat slot getting the benefit. i.e., if you have the feat and are using a wand, you get the benefit. (This is for augment summoning and feats like it which alter what happens when YOU use a magical effect, not metamagic which has to be applied to the spell.) I see it this way: I don't want people spending gp to get items "better" than normal ones in lieu of taking feats, essentially paying NPCs to have the feats; I do want people who spent resources like feats to get the benefits thereof.

If you have Augment Summoning and Craft Wand, and you make a Wand of Summon Monster IV, your feat works! It also works if you buy the wand. Or find it. To you, it doesn't matter who made it, but beign able to make it is still its own benefit.

[nedz]

Yes, it requires (possibly several) house rules; which is why I've included this entire thread in the Dysfunctional rules thread already.

[Taelas]

So if a conjuration you didn't cast can gain the benefit of your feats when you direct something, in this case an object, to conjure a creature, how far does that go?
Can I order someone under my command to conjure a creature and have it gain the effects?
What about mentally commanding someone I have dominated by Dominate Person?
If I have Augment Summoning and a Spell thief takes one of my Summon Monster spells, does it have the effect when he casts it?
If I'm a Spell thief and I steal the spell-like ability from a devil to conjure another outsider, and I have the feat, does it affect the summons? What if the devil has the feat instead?

FYI, the stolen spells and spell-like abilities are cast/used as if cast by the original owner normally.

This is not meant to be patronizing, I'm genuinely curious.

There is really no ambiguity here. Each creature you conjure via a summoning spell gets the benefit. So no to the first three, yes to the first part of the fourth and no the second. If the Spell thief in the third also has the feat, then his own feat would work.

Even if the spell is cast as if it were cast by the original creature, the original creature isn't actually conjuring anything, so Augment Summoning doesn't trigger.

[Telonius]

Just from the Vancian fluff - that the spell is set by the caster, in whose head it was before it was put into an item - I'd lean towards Augment Summoning being determined by the person who scribed the scroll or crafted the staff or wand. But there aren't any rules in the item creation section for creating something like that. If it was intended that it could be put into an item, I'd think it would be found there.