Summoned creatures and Exp

[Tindragon]

When a caster summons a creature, or Gates one in, do you give full exp for the creature(s)? Or do you consider this part of the casters CR/Exp...

[Necroticplague]

When a caster summons a creature, or Gates one in, do you give full exp for the creature(s)? Or do you consider this part of the casters CR/Exp...

Would you give more XP if an enemy cast fireball? If not, why would you give more XP if they use a spell slot for monster 3 instead? Either way, they're just using their class ability.

[Flickerdart]

You should only give extra XP when you as the DM put the creature there using your DM powers. After that, anything the creature does is fair game.

So a cleric who has rebuked some undead is still evaluated at the base cleric's CR. A wizard with an Improved Familiar is calculated at the base wizard's CR. A succubus that summoned a vrock is still CR6. A paladin with a summoned mount, a druid or ranger with an animal companion, all rated at their base CR.

And yes, you can exploit this with spawn-stacking or letting the NPCs pre-cast fifty dominate person spells, but the CR system is already broken and this particular facet of it works fine if you don't try to game it.

[Sliver]

Usually, no. The caster used resources and that's part of his abilities. But if the used resources didn't count against what the caster has when the PCs battle him, then I would reward them xp for defeating those encounters.

If the party faces a monster that the caster Gated a week in advance to guard a spot, they deserve xp for that monster. Should they face the caster on the same day, he will not have had a spell slot less (xp and gold, maybe, if you design your NPCs that accurately...).

Same with Dominate and Diplomacy, but not with Leadership and it's variants.

So yeah, my rule of thumb is that if it reduces the NPCs resources (actions, limited daily abilities, class features (familiars, animal companions) or feats (wild cohort, leadership) and the like) for when he faces the PCs, then it counts as part of the NPC's CR, and not a challenge on it's own. If it doesn't take his resources (Dominated or Gated ahead of time, convinced folk to follow him (or pay them but I'm not counting the gold against his equipment/treasure), constructed traps and so on), then I would count it as a separate encounter.

I don't count skill point investment as part of class features, not because it isn't, but because it's usually insignificant compared to the entire build... And if the entire build is focused around optimizing a certain skill (trapmaking, Diplomacy, basketweaving or w/e) then the separate encounters would be the actual challenge, and the NPC himself would likely not be.

Otherwise, an NPC could build a lot of traps and then you simply claim that trapmaking is part of his CR and none of these traps count as encounters...

Would you not reward xp for an Acid Splash trap, or a Summon Monster trap, simply because your wizard BBEG was the one that constructed it and you have trapmaking on his sheet?

[Tindragon]

You should only give extra XP when you as the DM put the creature there using your DM powers. After that, anything the creature does is fair game.

So a cleric who has rebuked some undead is still evaluated at the base cleric's CR. A wizard with an Improved Familiar is calculated at the base wizard's CR. A succubus that summoned a vrock is still CR6. A paladin with a summoned mount, a druid or ranger with an animal companion, all rated at their base CR.

And yes, you can exploit this with spawn-stacking or letting the NPCs pre-cast fifty dominate person spells, but the CR system is already broken and this particular facet of it works fine if you don't try to game it.

Thanks. I am aware, I was just curious, and still am if anyone does it differently.

I tend to play to my party. A couple of party members are opening the 'break the game' door. It's all RAW good, so I'm not gonna say no. I just tell them, turn about is fair play.

In prepping for my next session, I'm planning on having the NPC lich bring in a Pit Fiend. CR 27... the party is all 17-19 level, and top tier at that. And overly lucky with rolls this entire campaign. There is some discussion on our group FB page, about their awesomeness and how they are gonna break the game vs the lich.

I've always DMd turnabout is fair play, they know this. This is the 1st time most of them have played at these levels, and they have gotten very very cocky.

I'm seriously contemplating just summoning an Uvuudaum if they keep it up..

[Diarmuid]

Everyone's take is mostly correct, but then you take into account spells that create traps that have their own CR it starts to once again get a little murky.

My rule of thumb is that if the encounter takes into account anything other than the resources that would be available to the NPC on any given day, then it probably warrants a review of the EL.

If you take the "it's something they could do so it doesnt change the EL" logic too far, then a skilled person with a lot of time could create an amazing network of traps up to their assumed WBL and it would still only be that 1 NPC's CR as the EL and I imagine most people wouldnt argue that sounds off.

So if the caster becomes aware of the PC's prior to the encounter and has expended resources to cast his buffs/summons and those magics are no longer available to him, then I would probably not raise the EL. However, if the encounters is created in such a way as to give an advantage to the NPC in the form of many rounds of preparations then I might consider slightly increasing the EL. I think that aligns with the DMG suggestions for reasons to potentially increase EL in the "Modifying Difficulty" section on page 50.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you take the "it's something they could do so it doesnt change the EL" logic too far, then a skilled person with a lot of time could create an amazing network of traps up to their assumed WBL and it would still only be that 1 NPC's CR as the EL and I imagine most people wouldnt argue that sounds off.
I disagree. NPC WBL is already lower than PC WBL. As long as it falls within that limit it's all part of the same encounter. Or are you going to substract encounter XP from players who chose to play a Combat Trapsmith or something similar?


So if the caster becomes aware of the PC's prior to the encounter and has expended resources to cast his buffs/summons and those magics are no longer available to him, then I would probably not raise the EL. However, if the encounters is created in such a way as to give an advantage to the NPC in the form of many rounds of preparations then I might consider slightly increasing the EL. I think that aligns with the DMG suggestions for reasons to potentially increase EL in the "Modifying Difficulty" section on page 50.
If the players are too dumb to scry or scout and prepare it's their own fault. I don't give higher XP for being stupid or lazy.
It's a refreshing change if the NPCs actually get the time to pre-buff in the game i'm currently DMing. My players are paranoid bastards (and we like playing that way).

[Diarmuid]

Then why do traps have their own CR and thus their own EL?

As to your second point, I specifically said that the encounter is designed to give the enemy an advantage of time. Heck, by the DMG orcs standing behind barrels shooting at the party are worth more XP than those same orcs standing in a room swinging swords at those same PC's.

You can call people dumb all you want, but it doesnt make you right.

[Sliver]

If the players are too dumb to scry or scout and prepare it's their own fault. I don't give higher XP for being stupid or lazy.

As Diarmuid said, check the DMG, page 39, "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels".

Challenge Rating isn't just about the CR that the monsters have on their listing. It's about how big of a challenge they pose and how hard it is for the PCs to overcome.

[Inevitability]

Would you give more XP if an enemy cast fireball? If not, why would you give more XP if they use a spell slot for monster 3 instead? Either way, they're just using their class ability.

Well, Summon Monster 3 wouldn't have been a waste of a spell slot. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Normally no for the reason stated above. However, if the enemy caster is able to "pre-cast" their summons before the party gets there, this is considered "favorable terrain or circumstances" for them and their EL will increase, which in turn does cause the encounter to be worth more XP.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Then why do traps have their own CR and thus their own EL?

As to your second point, I specifically said that the encounter is designed to give the enemy an advantage of time. Heck, by the DMG orcs standing behind barrels shooting at the party are worth more XP than those same orcs standing in a room swinging swords at those same PC's.

You can call people dumb all you want, but it doesnt make you right.
Yes, i know the RAW.
That doesn't change the facts The DMG assumes a fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric party with feats like Weapon Focus and Toughness and spells like Fireball prepared, so their suggestions on encounter design are obviously to be taken with a grain of salt if your party is more optimized then that.

I don't stop my players from optimizing, but in return i optimize the encounters to a similar degree.
It works. My players like it, i don't fall asleep or get bored of the campaign and when the campaign is over and i get to be a player again i'll enjoy the challenge too instead of stomping all over everything.
Anything else would be incredibly boring, and it sure isn't worth more XP to have enemies actually using their Int score, no matter what the DMG says.

If a group optimizes but starts complaining at their DM and demanding extra XP anytime an encounter is not a curbstomp it's no wonder their games just fall apart.
I don't substract XP from my players for using tactics, so i won't add any if their enemies do the same unless it's a really big advantage that go beyond the encounters resources.
A few barrels to hide behind or spending their WBL on traps instead of other stuff is not a really big advantage.

Also, if players charge into the BBEG's lair without scouting or buffing they are dumb.
That's not even worth arguing about when there's a whole bunch of skills, feats and an entire spellschool specifically to do that.

I'm not telling you how to play your campaigns, i'm describing how i play mine.


As Diarmuid said, check the DMG, page 39, "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels".

Challenge Rating isn't just about the CR that the monsters have on their listing. It's about how big of a challenge they pose and how hard it is for the PCs to overcome.
So if my party has 4 optimized casters i should substract 2-3 from the encounter level on general principles? Or does that only apply when it favors the players?
As i've explained above, the DMG assumes a non-optimized core-only party. The challenge varies based on optimization level, but instead of adding more monsters to keep things interesting i optimize the ones i have and play them smarter.
That's not worth more XP, it's just good encounter design for a group with some optimization experience.

[Necroticplague]

Also, if players charge into the BBEG's lair without scouting or buffing they are dumb.
That's not even worth arguing about when there's a whole bunch of skills, feats and an entire spellschool specifically to do that.


Not necessarily. They could just find tactical play more interesting than strategic play, and find scouting and buffing to be very boring aspects of the game.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Not necessarily. They could just find tactical play more interesting than strategic play, and find scouting and buffing to be very boring aspects of the game.
If you find buffing very boring you might not be playing the right game for your tastes. :smalltongue:

But seriously, if you have an agreement that your monsters won't use buffs (or be casters at all) because your players just don't want to bother with it (the only way i can see such a group surviving), that's fine. There's even a variant for that that replaces magic items with standardized bonuses (or was that only PF?). Maybe give everyone VoP and let them have only non-magic items?

But the default assumption is that D&D has casters, and casters buff. If you want to keep up you'll probably have to buff too.
Not taking the time to do that before a fight isn't worth more XP just because you made things harder for yourself. It's just dumb.
The same applies to running in blind when you're perfectly capable of taking a peek to see what you're up against first and prepare accordingly. Just because you don't want to bother doesn't make it worth more XP.

[Sliver]

So if my party has 4 optimized casters i should substract 2-3 from the encounter level on general principles? Or does that only apply when it favors the players?

Either balance encounters around their actual power (as you have been doing), or consider everything else to be weaker than usual when compared to them. Both approaches achieve the same thing, and I don't see one as more unreasonable than the other. But you take the stance that lowering the given CR is more unreasonable than powering up your monsters without raising their CR.

Experience is tied to Challenge Rating, and if the challenge wasn't as challenging as originally designed, or more challenging, adjustment is in order.

But of course, ignore the fact that the page I mentioned brings up situations where the PCs have advantage and that encounter level should be adjusted appropriately, being higher or lower.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Either balance encounters around their actual power (as you have been doing), or consider everything else to be weaker than usual when compared to them. Both approaches achieve the same thing, and I don't see one as more unreasonable than the other. But you take the stance that lowering the given CR is more unreasonable than powering up your monsters without raising their CR.

Experience is tied to Challenge Rating, and if the challenge wasn't as challenging as originally designed, or more challenging, adjustment is in order.

But of course, ignore the fact that the page I mentioned brings up situations where the PCs have advantage and that encounter level should be adjusted appropriately, being higher or lower.
No, i take the stance that playing monsters as something other than dumb brutes who are incapable of strategy is somehow automatically worth more XP as unreasonable.

Most of them have near-human or above-human intelligence, so that should be expected and not an unexpected difficulty that you get extra rewards for.
The same applies to spellcasters remembering to cast their long-term buffs in the morning, ranged attackers taking advantage of available cover (unless you're seriously stacking the deck) or encounters like kobolds or a thieves guild spending part of their WBL on traps.
If the traps are in addition to the WBL by all means, increase the CR. But if they're paid for by the NPCs WBL they're part of the encounter and not worth extra rewards.
I'm pretty sure that "i picked good feats/spells" is also not an advantage that modifies encounter levels, for players or monsters, not even by RAW.
And the same approach applies to summons (to get back to the point of the OP). Summoning spells are easy, they're short-term enough that they count as normal resource use.
For called creatures it depends on if you substract their cost from the encounters WBL. If you do they're part of the original encounters resource use and not worth extra XP.

You don't substract XP from your players for using summons, setting traps or remembering to use their buffs before engaging. I don't see why the same standards shouldn't apply to monsters.

As for just increasing CR to deal with optimized players, that just turns the game even more into rocket tag. Higher CR monsters just come with bigger numbers and possibly special abilities that the party has no way to deal with yet.
That's no way to design a challenging encounter, imo.

[Diarmuid]

Sleepy, you're more than welcome to your opinion just like everyone else in the thread. The OP asked for opinions on whether something would add to the EL and many people have answered and cited RAW (the best default answer when unsure of houserules or optimization methods being used by someone).

Your opinion not matching with someone else's is mostly irrelevant to the OP's question and is just muddying the responses at this point. Everyone plays differently and your way is by no means the "right" way or the "only" way.

Let it go.

[Sliver]

Optimizing monsters or lowering their CR is simply a matter of taste. I'm not sure I agree that higher CR equates bigger numbers, but that mostly depends on what opponents you are using.

But you haven't actually contradicted anything that my original post in this thread has been about. I said that if the encounter reduces the resources that the NPC has when he encounters the PCs, then the encounters aren't separate and shouldn't award extra XP. Neither should encounters that are generated by feats or class features, such as animal companions, familiars or followers due to Leadership. Though if an animal companion is faced solo and by the time the PCs encounter the NPC it has been replaced, the case is somewhat different.

But the original question also included Gate, which opens the option for resources not to be used, (unless you actually lower the NPCs wealth and xp accordingly). But you also have Dominate and other ways to create encounters without having to reduce available resources for the actual encounter. Yes, Dominate and Diplomacy are parts of what the NPC has access to, but they wouldn't reduce the NPCs available resources and I don't think it's fair not to award XP for beating NPCs that were dominated for a couple of days just because the BBEG has access to Dominate and is smart enough to use it.

[NapazTrix]

My opinion seems to be in line with most other people.

If they summon a monster during combat, no extra xp.
If they summon before the battle, no extra xp.
If they summon it a day before and have that spell again to recast, the ones summoned a day ago grant some more exp.

Same for traps, if they are set up before the battle they should give exp, if it's a class ability that is used within combat then no xp.
Animals they buy should give exp, but animal companions should not.
Mercenaries they hire should give exp, cohorts should not.


The DMG says to alter EXP Based on how hard it is, but still leaves the ultimate decision to you as a DM. A group of orcs "hiding" against a group of orcs out in the open is debatable, since you could just put it down to the party not scouting ahead with their own sneaker or losing a spot check. The players made that encounter harder then it needed to be just as much as you did.
But again, as a DM it's up to you how you let the party know this. If they heard from the local pub of bandits who attack unsuspecting travellers, then you told the party "Hey, these guys might be hiding". If they didn't get the hint, they will after that encounter and listen to you more closely... or die more often.
If the party decide to talk to that passerby, Diplomacy them, give them a bigger hint.

[sleepyphoenixx]

But the original question also included Gate, which opens the option for resources not to be used, (unless you actually lower the NPCs wealth and xp accordingly). But you also have Dominate and other ways to create encounters without having to reduce available resources for the actual encounter. Yes, Dominate and Diplomacy are parts of what the NPC has access to, but they wouldn't reduce the NPCs available resources and I don't think it's fair not to award XP for beating NPCs that were dominated for a couple of days just because the BBEG has access to Dominate and is smart enough to use it.

Fair enough, but i wouldn't award full XP for a bunch of dominated NPCs, if i used them like that.
Dominate is too easy to break for that, and suddenly your players have the big advantage for the cost of a simple dispel or bringing along the wizards Coure Eladrin familiar.
That's also assuming the BBEG can actually find NPCs that are 1. worth XP 2. useful enough to bother including in the encounter 3. vulnerable to dominate.
Those don't exactly show up out of nowhere, or at least they shouldn't.
I use dominate more as a plot device (like on a mayor/baron/other important figure). It's just too unreliable for direct combat when a first level spell or a bunch of common abilities turn it around.

Gate is pretty clear i think. Nobody keeps track of NPC experience, so anything gated is essentially free for the encounter. It counts as a separate combatant for XP unless it's gated in the middle of combat (and costs a spell slot and action).
The same for diplomacy and similar stuff. That's just "more NPCs", not class resources used up. Otherwise every druid would show up with an army of animals and magical beasts he has befriended.

[Necroticplague]

If you find buffing very boring you might not be playing the right game for your tastes. :smalltongue: Most buffs are incredibly boring. "Oh boy, +2 to some statistics" or "Joy, now I can pay less attention to what's happening" (because I'm immune to it now).


But seriously, if you have an agreement that your monsters won't use buffs (or be casters at all) because your players just don't want to bother with it (the only way i can see such a group surviving), that's fine. There's even a variant for that that replaces magic items with standardized bonuses (or was that only PF?). Maybe give everyone VoP and let them have only non-magic items?I don't see how you're making any kind of logical leap from how I don't think 20 questions is an interesting way to play dnd (which is what I find to often is the end result of divination and buffs being the center of things, probing away at one question a round until they get an affirmative answer, and then things are over), to that I want to remove all magic from dnd. I simply think that abilities should occur on a tactical level, and not a strategic one. It should be one's skill at maneuvering and making use of your abilities within an encounter that determine victory, not making sure the deck is stacked in your favor ahead of time.


But the default assumption is that D&D has casters, and casters buff. If you want to keep up you'll probably have to buff too.

Casters cast spells. Nothing more and nothing less. Buffing is not necessarily what they do.

[sleepyphoenixx]

...
Casters cast spells. Nothing more and nothing less. Buffing is not necessarily what they do.
Yeah, you can play that way. But that still relies on the (implicit or explicit) agreement for your DM to not stack the deck for his monsters with buffs.
Your "skill at maneuvering" and "making use of your abilities within an encounter" don't matter much if there's too much of a numbers gap, and that's what buffs do.
You still die if you can't hit your enemy, do enough damage or resist his spells when your enemy does not have that problem.

Buffs are a big chunk of spells. Buffs are also incredibly powerful even if they're "just numbers", which is why smart casters use them so much unless you artificially constrain them.
That's just how D&D is build.

[SethoMarkus]

Yeah, you can play that way. But that still relies on the (implicit or explicit) agreement for your DM to not stack the deck for his monsters with buffs.
Your "skill at maneuvering" and "making use of your abilities within an encounter" don't matter much if there's too much of a numbers gap, and that's what buffs do.
You still die if you can't hit your enemy, do enough damage or resist his spells when your enemy does not have that problem.

Buffs are a big chunk of spells. Buffs are also incredibly powerful even if they're "just numbers", which is why smart casters use them so much unless you artificially constrain them.
That's just how D&D is build.

What about a compulsive, active dispeller?

[Sliver]

Fair enough, but i wouldn't award full XP for a bunch of dominated NPCs, if i used them like that.
Dominate is too easy to break for that, and suddenly your players have the big advantage for the cost of a simple dispel or bringing along the wizards Coure Eladrin familiar.

Would you also give less xp if the group defeats high CR animals with a casting of Ray of Stupidity? (This has little to do with the thread, I'm just curious)

It's not very different than having dispel against dominated foes. An easy solution to a problem.

[nyjastul69]

Normally no for the reason stated above. However, if the enemy caster is able to "pre-cast" their summons before the party gets there, this is considered "favorable terrain or circumstances" for them and their EL will increase, which in turn does cause the encounter to be worth more XP.

Can you cite your source on this please?

[Sliver]

Can you cite your source on this please?

The source for what? For enemies having enough warning to have a few rounds to cast short-term spells being favorable circumstances? I'm not sure there needs to be a source in order to claim that having an advantage you wouldn't normally have is considered favorable circumstances.

[sleepyphoenixx]

What about a compulsive, active dispeller?
That helps a litte, sure, but dispelling is a CL check. Unbuffed you have about a 50% chance to get a buff from an equal level caster.
From a BBEG who is usally a few levels above the party? Probably more like 20%. You can buff your dispel checks of course, but buffs are boring, aren't they?

Also keep in mind that this only applies to NPCs with class levels. Monsters at higher levels assume a certain degree of buffing on the party, be it from magic or items.
You can't dispel them, and chances are good that you'll run into abilities that you really should have spent time protecting against with stuff like Death Ward or Freedom of Movement. Or at least higher saving throws, even if they're "just numbers".
If you do the math you'll notice that it's pretty much impossible to keep up level appropriate defenses with gear alone. It's just too expensive. The game expects magic to be used to fill the gap at least partially.


Would you also give less xp if the group defeats high CR animals with a casting of Ray of Stupidity? (This has little to do with the thread, I'm just curious)

It's not very different than having dispel against dominated foes. An easy solution to a problem.
No. Ray of Stupidity is really good against animals, but that's just good spell selection.
But dominated enemies are different in that they can break free by themselves, can be freed by a whole host of commonly used spells and will then likely turn on your enemy without further effort. That warrants a reduction in XP reward for them i think.

[nyjastul69]

The source for what? For enemies having enough warning to have a few rounds to cast short-term spells being favorable circumstances? I'm not sure there needs to be a source in order to claim that having an advantage you wouldn't normally have is considered favorable circumstances.

Yes, exactly that.

[Sliver]

Yes, exactly that.

Well, enemies having guaranteed surprise is called out as an element that modifies difficulty, and having a few rounds of prep before combat is quite similar to that. If you want source that calls each specific scenario that should count as favorable circumstances and how it should exactly alter the CR... Well, that's not going to happen. The DMG expects the DM to make a lot of judgment calls, and only gives guidelines to that.

Between the Difficulty section (starts at page 49) and the Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels section (Page 39), you are given the tips and guidelines that they felt you need in order to make those calls.

How much did the difficulty change due to the circumstances is something that is up to each DM to decide. If you design a caster that starts only with long-term buffs and circumstances alter it, either by the caster having extra time to pre-cast short-term buffs or by having the long-term buffs dispelled before the encounter, for example, you you might want to consider changing the EL.

[nyjastul69]

Well, enemies having guaranteed surprise is called out as an element that modifies difficulty, and having a few rounds of prep before combat is quite similar to that. If you want source that calls each specific scenario that should count as favorable circumstances and how it should exactly alter the CR... Well, that's not going to happen. The DMG expects the DM to make a lot of judgment calls, and only gives guidelines to that.

Between the Difficulty section (starts at page 49) and the Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels section (Page 39), you are given the tips and guidelines that they felt you need in order to make those calls.

How much did the difficulty change due to the circumstances is something that is up to each DM to decide. If you design a caster that starts only with long-term buffs and circumstances alter it, either by the caster having extra time to pre-cast short-term buffs or by having the long-term buffs dispelled before the encounter, for example, you you might want to consider changing the EL.

Okay, so no source citation. I would generally disagree. I wouldn't adjust the EL of the encounter unless the the precast spells were somehow available again. If a beastie has rounds to prepare and uses spell slots for said prep, I wouldn't alter the EL. Those all come from a well prepped beastie. If a beastie was able to buff and somehow regain those slots to use again, I would consider raising the EL.

[Fitz10019]

If a beastie was able to buff and somehow regain those slots to use again, I would consider raising the EL.

So it could be enough to have a round to cast Summon (support), and another round to use a Pearl of Power before the PC-party enters, and you'd raise the EL?

[nyjastul69]

So it could be enough to have a round to cast Summon (support), and another round to use a Pearl of Power before the PC-party enters, and you'd raise the EL?

Probably not in that case. What spell exactly?

[Diarmuid]

So it could be enough to have a round to cast Summon (support), and another round to use a Pearl of Power before the PC-party enters, and you'd raise the EL?

In that scenario, no I would not unless the encounter is specifically designed to give an advantage of time to the enemy. The enemy's daily allotment of resources has been depleted, his is the exact thing that many people have been trying articulate but have not felt the need to go into detail about every possible permutation of how that might come about. You've presented an example that only relates to a single piece of the discussion while ignoring the other, or as they say in the business...presented a straw man.

The crux of this whole thing is that the DMG gives guidelines on how to adjust EL. There are a few specific examples of how this might be done, but outside of those much of this is left to the DM. For those whose groups are super optimized and never open a door without having spent 8 days divining what might be behind it, then those guidelines are likely to be exercised differently. There is no clear cut "Do X in all scenarios", so there is no "right" answer.

Some games dont wait on the whims of casters and have actions and plots that are going to progress along a timeline, etc etc. YMMV

[Psyren]

Can you cite your source on this please?

DMG 39, "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels":



An orc warband that attacks the PCs by flying over them on primitive hang gliders and dropping large rocks is not the same encounter as one in which the orcs just charge in with spears. Sometimes, the circumstances give the characters’ opponents a distinct advantage. Other times, the PCs have an advantage. Adjust the XP award and the EL depending on how greatly circumstances change the encounter’s difficulty.

Being able to prepare the battlefield ahead of time with summons is such a circumstance. You've effectively given the monster several free rounds to cast spells unmolested that it wouldn't otherwise get were it to use its abilities during combat. Circumstances can make things more difficult even if the stats of the monster itself are the same.

I also consider it akin to "guaranteed surprise" (DMG 50) because again, it's like giving them a free surprise round (or more than one.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

The crux of this whole thing is that the DMG gives guidelines on how to adjust EL. There are a few specific examples of how this might be done, but outside of those much of this is left to the DM. For those whose groups are super optimized and never open a door without having spent 8 days divining what might be behind it, then those guidelines are likely to be exercised differently. There is no clear cut "Do X in all scenarios", so there is no "right" answer.

Some games dont wait on the whims of casters and have actions and plots that are going to progress along a timeline, etc etc. YMMV
Or you could just buy a Third Eye:Sense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/universalItems.htm#sense) or do something similar that accomplishes the same thing instead of resorting to hyperbole.
There is a middle ground between rushing in blindly and "never go anywhere without spending 2 days worth of divinations first", and encouraging one extreme in your players is as bad as the other.

Presenting every group that uses a bit of forethought as "paranoid munchkins that can never go anywhere without casting days worth of divinations first" is just as much of a straw man as what you just accused Fitz of using.
"Waiting on the whims of casters" indeed.

[Fitz10019]

You've presented an example that only relates to a single piece of the discussion while ignoring the other, or as they say in the business...presented a straw man.
It was a genuine question, seeking an edge case, actually. Note the 'could' and the question mark.

[Diarmuid]

Apologies then, it seemed to be a leading question meant to poke holes in logic that was not presented as concrete originally.