Can you use mind control to force summoned monster to use abilities with XP cost?

[Graypairofsocks]

Suppose you summon a Monster and it has a spell-like ability that would normally cost XP if it was a spell, or can cast a spell with an XP cost.
The description of the summoning subschool states it refuses to use those abilities.
The question is Could it use them if we used Dominate Monster (or something) on it and ordered it to?


Some secondary questions:
Is there any summonable monster that has access to Spells that cost XP, or spell-like abilities that would Cost Xp?
If so are there one with abilities that would be useful to have for free?

[Chronos]

IIRC, the text says "will not", not just "refuses to". Even if you can use mind control to make the creature want to use its abilities, it still won't.

On the second, the obvious answer is the coatl (Summon Monster 9), which casts as a 9th-level sorcerer, and hence could potentially know any 4th-level sor/wiz spell.

[Segev]

From a practical standpoint, your DM is very likely to say "no" to this because the whole reason that rule is there is to prevent you from summoning things and bypassing XP costs by having them cast the spells for you. From a word-lawyering standpoint, you can read "will not" in one of two ways:

You can read it as an absolute, a statement of pure fact about the future. "The diamond will not spontaneously convert into chocolate." On the other, you can read it as a statement of intention and, well, well. "I will not be late for work tomorrow!"

The former is predictive, and, assuming the rules can make statements about the future with absolute certainty, could go so far as to be true because something, somehow, will prevent it from happening even if the summoned creature were convinced it wanted to. (Notably, it doesn't say the creature "cannot" do it; so something external would have to intervene.) Maybe a roc falls on it seconds before it tries?

The latter is aspirational, and you (and that creature) can fail to live up to aspirations. If you read it that way, anything that can persuade it or compel it to use the ability will work. Since it does say "will not," persuasion probably is off the table as auto-failing, but compulsion that removes free will could work.


But again, your DM is likely to rule against it, just based on the REASON for the RAW.

[Psyren]

I'd say it depends on whether the creature would consider losing XP to be "self-destructive."

[Segev]

I'd say it depends on whether the creature would consider losing XP to be "self-destructive."

The trouble here is that the rule says they won't use spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they weren't spell-like. So "spending XP is self-destructive" isn't a good place to go with this, since it's inapplicable in most of the cases the rule would be in question.

[Psyren]

The trouble here is that the rule says they won't use spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they weren't spell-like. So "spending XP is self-destructive" isn't a good place to go with this, since it's inapplicable in most of the cases the rule would be in question.

Sorry I wasn't clear - the self-destructive clause comes from Dominate, not from the creature.

[Graypairofsocks]

From a practical standpoint, your DM is very likely to say "no" to this because the whole reason that rule is there is to prevent you from summoning things and bypassing XP costs by having them cast the spells for you. From a word-lawyering standpoint, you can read "will not" in one of two ways:

You can read it as an absolute, a statement of pure fact about the future. "The diamond will not spontaneously convert into chocolate." On the other, you can read it as a statement of intention and, well, well. "I will not be late for work tomorrow!"

The former is predictive, and, assuming the rules can make statements about the future with absolute certainty, could go so far as to be true because something, somehow, will prevent it from happening even if the summoned creature were convinced it wanted to. (Notably, it doesn't say the creature "cannot" do it; so something external would have to intervene.) Maybe a roc falls on it seconds before it tries?

The latter is aspirational, and you (and that creature) can fail to live up to aspirations. If you read it that way, anything that can persuade it or compel it to use the ability will work. Since it does say "will not," persuasion probably is off the table as auto-failing, but compulsion that removes free will could work.


But again, your DM is likely to rule against it, just based on the REASON for the RAW.

D20srd.org description of the summoning subschool says it "refuses to" not "will not".

[Segev]

Sorry I wasn't clear - the self-destructive clause comes from Dominate, not from the creature.

I know.

I'm pointing out that, say, an Efreet's wish spell-like ability doesn't cost XP, but if you managed to summon one, it would still refuse to use it under the "will not" clause of summoning. It doesn't cost XP, though, so domination's "self-destructive" clause wouldn't enter in.

Thus, that clause doesn't provide a complete answer to the question.

[Graypairofsocks]

D20srd.org description of the summoning subschool says it "refuses to" not "will not".

I checked my copy of the Player's handbook and the WotC SRD and they also use the same wording.

[MisterKaws]

I'd allow it as a DM, but if the creature resists, it immediately stops doing whatever it's doing currently and charges at the summoner full-speed in rage for being betrayed.

[Crake]

if you're at the level where you can cast summon monster to summon these creatures, you can probably also use planar binding, so why not just use that instead?

[Graypairofsocks]

I think you can actually use one trick earlier than Planar Binding.

Here is an idea I thought of, but I am not sure if it works:
Use Suggestion on a Mirror Mephit summoned by Summon Mirror Mephit in order to suggest it to "Make a Simulacrum of an efreeti, and tell it to grant you 2 wishes and me 1 wish."

[Melcar]

"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost" (From the SDR)...whats the discussion ablut again?

Anyways... thats why you call creatures instead!

[Darrin]

if you're at the level where you can cast summon monster to summon these creatures, you can probably also use planar binding, so why not just use that instead?

Planar binding carries some risk. But more importantly, it requires preparation and investing some time and resources to reduce that risk. It's not something you can do in a hurry or on short notice.

Summoning is relatively risk-free and requires no prep. If all you need is one SLA, summon/dominate will probably be more expedient.

I'd say with both "refuse" and "will not", then the determining factor is a question of the creature's will. The text says nothing about the creature being incapable, just that they invariably choose not to use those abilities for as long as they are able to choose. Dominate monster removes this ability to choose and trumps the creature's control of their own will. So from what I can see, dominate should work.

Another workaround would be to use a Spellthief and steal the SLA. The creature won't use the SLA, but it's still there to be stolen.



Here is an idea I thought of, but I am not sure if it works:
Use Suggestion on a Mirror Mephit summoned by Summon Mirror Mephit in order to suggest it to "Make a Simulacrum of an efreeti, and tell it to grant you 2 wishes and me 1 wish."

I don't think that gets around the "refuse" part. There's also a huge risk involved... You're giving the mirror mephit two wishes, and if it suspects you're trying to do something shady, that's two huge NOPE! Cards the mirror mephit could use to cancel your own wish. And that's assuming a simulacrum efreet is not trying to twist around the wishes into some kind of monkeypaw screwjob. That's not a scenario you want to hand over to a vindictive DM.

[Graypairofsocks]

I don't think that gets around the "refuse" part. There's also a huge risk involved... You're giving the mirror mephit two wishes, and if it suspects you're trying to do something shady, that's two huge NOPE! Cards the mirror mephit could use to cancel your own wish. And that's assuming a simulacrum efreet is not trying to twist around the wishes into some kind of monkeypaw screwjob. That's not a scenario you want to hand over to a vindictive DM.

I think it would get around the "refuse" part, as it also a compulsion spell like Dominate Monster.
Depending upon how the Suggestion is worded the problems you mentioned may arise. Maybe we could get around it by wording it better?
Could we just use Suggestion to make the Mephit follow our instructions for a while?

What about using Charm Monster on the Mirror Mephit and trying to win an opposed charisma check?

The efreeti simulacrum is under the absolute command ........ of the mirror mephit.
So as long as the Mirror mephit doesn't try to screw us over we should be fine.

[Jack_Simth]

I think you can actually use one trick earlier than Planar Binding.

Here is an idea I thought of, but I am not sure if it works:
Use Suggestion on a Mirror Mephit summoned by Summon Mirror Mephit in order to suggest it to "Make a Simulacrum of an efreeti, and tell it to grant you 2 wishes and me 1 wish."
There are at least three reasons this can fail:
1) Summon Mirror Memphit is a Summoning spell, so the summon school descriptor stops it (Simulacrum has an XP component).
2) Summon Mirror Memphit lasts rounds/level, and by default, spell-like abilities take the same time to invoke that their base spells take to cast... and Simulacrum has a pretty long casting time.
3) Simulacrum includes the clause "it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" - which, among other things, means that the DM is perfectly within rights to say that an Efreeti of 5 HD (well, 8 if you use an advanced efreeti for the base, but that's the limit without more investment for the simple reason that the Mirror Memphit has a CL of 8 for Simulacrum) doesn't have the ability to grant Wishes.

You might do better with Improved Familiar for a Mirror Memphit.

[Darrin]

1) Summon Mirror Memphit is a Summoning spell, so the summon school descriptor stops it (Simulacrum has an XP component).


We're addressing that. The compulsion effect overrides the "refuse". The dominated creature doesn't get a choice. Even if you declare that using the SLA would be "against its nature", it gets another save with a +2 bonus. If that save fails, the creature does as you direct it to do, so long as it's not self-destructive.



2) Summon Mirror Memphit lasts rounds/level, and by default, spell-like abilities take the same time to invoke that their base spells take to cast... and Simulacrum has a pretty long casting time.


SLAs are a standard action to cast unless noted otherwise. They only inherit the base spell's casting time if it's shorter than 1 standard action, and that's only if you're using the Rules Compendium.



3) Simulacrum includes the clause "it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" - which, among other things, means that the DM is perfectly within rights to say that an Efreeti of 5 HD (well, 8 if you use an advanced efreeti for the base, but that's the limit without more investment for the simple reason that the Mirror Memphit has a CL of 8 for Simulacrum) doesn't have the ability to grant Wishes.


The efreet's wish ability isn't tied to or dependent on it's HD. Yes, the DM is within his rights to say it doesn't have that ability, but he's gone beyond the rules at that point.

[Psyren]

The efreet's wish ability isn't tied to or dependent on it's HD. Yes, the DM is within his rights to say it doesn't have that ability, but he's gone beyond the rules at that point.

No he hasn't - the only certain RAW we have is that the printed efreet with 10 HD has wish. You can rule at your table that a 5HD efreet does too, but there is no statblock anywhere to support this viewpoint as being universal.

[Jack_Simth]

We're addressing that. The compulsion effect overrides the "refuse". The dominated creature doesn't get a choice. Even if you declare that using the SLA would be "against its nature", it gets another save with a +2 bonus. If that save fails, the creature does as you direct it to do, so long as it's not self-destructive.
Possibly. Why they refuse will have a significant impact, though.


SLAs are a standard action to cast unless noted otherwise. They only inherit the base spell's casting time if it's shorter than 1 standard action, and that's only if you're using the Rules Compendium.
How sure are you? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities):
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. (emphasis added)

Where does this seemingly-ubiquitous belief that spell-like abilities are always a standard action come from?

The efreet's wish ability isn't tied to or dependent on it's HD. Yes, the DM is within his rights to say it doesn't have that ability, but he's gone beyond the rules at that point.The Simulacrum spell doesn't say it has to be tied to HD, just that it has to be "appropriate" to a creature of that level or HD, and special abilities are included. It's well within the rules for the DM to say "neener neener" here, even without rule 0, because the Simulacrum spell itself says they might be short.

You're much better off with Lesser Planar Binding or Improved Familiar, and a few spells to up the caster level to ten (not too hard - Orange Prism Ioun Stone and Create Magic Tattoo will do it), then have the beast Simulacrum up a copy of an advanced-to-20 HD Efreeti, resulting in... a bog-standard 10 HD efreeti.

[Darrin]

Where does this seemingly-ubiquitous belief that spell-like abilities are always a standard action come from?


Huh. Apparently I was looking at the wrong SRD (http://dndsrd.net/monsterTypes.html#special-abilities). (Rules Compendium also has the standard action language. Odd.)

This is the text straight out of the MM:

"Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise"

I'm looking at the MM errata, and it didn't change any of that text. The Hypertext SRD also lists SLAs as a standard action in the Actions in Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) section.

Hmm. It looks like when Jans Carton merged the Special Abilities into one document, he may have altered the wording slightly. I'm not seeing the "same amount of time" language anywhere else.

So, to answer your question... somewhat sure! But not entirely.

[Jack_Simth]

Oh, that's fun!

When I go back to the printed Player's Handbook, there's multiple different definitions for spell-like abilities. The one on page 180 includes the line "unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description", while the one on page 142 just uses unless "unless the ability description notes otherwise". 142 is part of Actions in Combat from the Combat section, page 180 is under Special Abilities from the Magic Overview.

The Monster Manual I has a definition for it in the Glossary as part of special abilities on page 315... just says "unless noted otherwise", but no indication of where it needs to be noted.

Do we have it in the DMG... yes, page 289, doesn't list an action type at all - and the Glossary again.

So....

If we treat Glossaries in the MMI and the DMG as supplemental quick reference, we can ignore them.
Then the question becomes which is primary: Combat section or the magic overview?

Well, at least now I know where it comes from.

Edit: Yay errata! Even more confusion abounds! The errata for the PHB includes, explicitly "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." (emphasis added) - However, the MMI just says "unless noted otherwise" on the action type, no notes about where it might be noted, so spell description might work. Errata otherwise does not mention, one way or another.

[Graypairofsocks]

Edit: Yay errata! Even more confusion abounds! The errata for the PHB includes, explicitly "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." (emphasis added) - However, the MMI just says "unless noted otherwise" on the action type, no notes about where it might be noted, so spell description might work. Errata otherwise does not mention, one way or another.

In the rules compendium it says that the note would be description of the ability.
I think there are actually some spell-like abilities that are noted to have longer casting time.