Permanent Runes and Summon Spells

[magicalmagicman]

So this handbook:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?296106-Runeblaster-A-Handbook-for-the-D-amp-D-3-5-Runecaster

says you control the monster summoned by a permanent rune. But Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting says the target of the spell is YOU. And Glyph of Warding says a summon spell in a trap that targets YOU will attack YOU.

So is the handbook wrong?

The only thing linking Rune Magic and Glyph of Warding is this line: "Unlike the spell glyph of warding, the rune spell is not concealed"

And if the handbook is wrong, is there a way to overcome this targeting so you can use permanent runes to summon monsters at-will? Like since you created the rune, you control the summoned creature since it's your spell or something like that?

side question: What happens when the stored spell is a duration:concentration spell like Summon Elemental Monolith? Does it disappear immediately after summoning or does the rune maintain concentration?

[Saintheart]

Glyph of Warding says "If the spell has a target, it targets the intruder."

Summon Monster I does not have a target. Target is part of a spell's characteristics:


Target or Targets
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Effect
Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile it can move regardless of the spell’s range.

Summon Monster I has an effect line:


"This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability."

I grant you it may not be entirely clear because of how wide Rune Magic was written, but that's wide enough to say the monster is summoned and is controlled by the person who touches the rune, same as if they'd cast a Summon Monster spell. Rune magic places no controls on what spells can be cast as a rune. It might well be worth my going back and editing that point in as something a DM is going to have to adjudicate.

On the side question, I doubt the rune concentrates for you, but I'd say it's pretty reasonable to conclude it lasts as long as you concentrate on it.

[magicalmagicman]

Oh wow! The handbook writer himself! What an honor!

The problem I'm facing is this:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm


Spell Glyph

You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph. If the spell has a target, it targets the intruder. If the spell has an area or an amorphous effect the area or effect is centered on the intruder. If the spell summons creatures, they appear as close as possible to the intruder and attack. Saving throws and spell resistance operate as normal, except that the DC is based on the level of the spell stored in the glyph.

If Runes behave like Glyph of Warding, then the summoned creature should attack the person who touched the rune no?


I grant you it may not be entirely clear because of how wide Rune Magic was written, but that's wide enough to say the monster is summoned and is controlled by the person who touches the rune, same as if they'd cast a Summon Monster spell. Rune magic places no controls on what spells can be cast as a rune. It might well be worth my going back and editing that point in as something a DM is going to have to adjudicate.

I've been tearing through that half page of Rune Rules on FCS p.58 and I got nothing that says the toucher of the rune is the caster of the spell. If anything it sounds like the Rune is the caster of the spell like how a Trap is a caster of the spell it throws at you.

I mean if an enemy triggers a Glyph of Warding with a Summon Monster I inside it, can you command the resulting summoned creature? Or does the summoned creature kill the intruder and then does nothing until its duration is up?

So basically are runes Traps or Contingency? If they're Contingency I can see how you can control the summoned creature since you're just storing the spell in the rune, but if they're traps like Glyph of Warding I don't think there's any connection to you and the rune.


Summon Monster VI Trap

CR 7; magic device; proximity trigger (alarm); no reset; spell effect (summon monster VI, 11th-level wizard), Search DC 31; Disable Device DC 31. Cost: 3,300 gp, 264 XP.

Is there a rule somewhere that says the creator of this trap can command the summoned monster? If yes then I think that would solve all problems I am facing right now. Or a rule that says Runes behave like Contingency instead of Glyph of Warding or traps. Or a rule that says the triggerer of the Rune is the caster of the spell, not the Rune.

[RoboEmperor]

If you can override "attacks the intruder" with "obeys the intruder" then I think your problem is solved.

But summon monster has this line:

It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

So it suggest the default behavior is attack your opponents (it somehow magically knows who your opponents are), and you need to override the behavior after the fact with language, so it's not part of "you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell"

But if you somehow make the Rune hold 2 spells like Ghost Sounds then I think it might work.

But it seems IMO Saintheart is wrong here. The default behavior of a summoned creature is to attack the intruder and the intruder is the one who touched the rune.

[Saintheart]

Oh wow! The handbook writer himself! What an honor!

The problem I'm facing is this:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm

If Runes behave like Glyph of Warding, then the summoned creature should attack the person who touched the rune no?

I'd say there's a couple of problems with that proposition. First, a Glyph of Warding can only contain any harmful spell you know. That influences what happens when you cast Summon Monster on it: it can only function as an offensive trap against someone who triggers it. It has only an offensive use; you can't use a Glyph to store your buffs because they aren't harmful. It's fundamentally different in that while runes and glyphs can be used as simple magic traps, that's not the only use that runes have, while for glyphs that's all you can do with them. Runes are different: it explicitly indicates that


Whoever touches the rune triggers the rune and becomes the target of the spell placed in it. The rune's creator may touch the rune safely without triggering it, or deliberately trigger it if he so desires. (Runemakers often carry healing or restorative runes for just this purpose.)

As for the observation that runes compare themselves to GoW, note that runes also compare themselves to Symbol spells. These don't suggest they operate like or identically to Glyphs or Symbols, they only indicate similarities or distinctions from one aspect of the Symbol or Glyph.


I've been tearing through that half page of Rune Rules on FCS p.58 and I got nothing that says the toucher of the rune is the caster of the spell. If anything it sounds like the Rune is the caster of the spell like how a Trap is a caster of the spell it throws at you.

The person who triggers the rune becomes the target of the spell. But the rune is not the caster either, because as we're told the rune is a spell cast as a rune. If anything it's more like a scroll - again, per the text:


A rune is a temporary magical writing similar to a scroll.

But again, observe the distinctions: when you scribe a scroll of Summon Monster I, the summoned monster doesn't attack you because a scribe is a spell completion item; a scroll doesn't contain a full, cast spell. A rune, by contrast, does. If it was exactly the same as a scroll there'd be no need to have a separate Item Creation feat for runes - that is made clear by Complete Arcane's brief discussion on it indicating that that was the rationale for a different item creation feat - because it does things slightly differently.


I mean if an enemy triggers a Glyph of Warding with a Summon Monster I inside it, can you command the resulting summoned creature? Or does the summoned creature kill the intruder and then does nothing until its duration is up?

The answer would be no, because GoW is said only to apply to harmful spells, and it provides a specific behaviour for summoned monsters and directs them to attack the person who triggers the glyph, but that specific case is not made for runes, and therefore one would ignore that suggestion for runes. GoW is only linked to runes in that you can see a rune and you can't see a Glyph: if it was going to suggest that summoned monsters attack the person who triggers the rune, it would have specifically said so - since for GoW, the specific case is so made.

Runes are not so confined.


So basically are runes Traps or Contingency? If they're Contingency I can see how you can control the summoned creature since you're just storing the spell in the rune, but if they're traps like Glyph of Warding I don't think there's any connection to you and the rune.

The closer analogue is to consider a similiarly-gamebreaking feat: Craft Contingent Spell, which does something very similar to what a rune does, just without the need for a writing. I've never seen anyone say that Craft Contingent Spell couldn't be used for summoning. Runes can be set up as simple magical traps, but they fundamentally come down to being a spell cast as a rune, or at best a spell cast so the rune contains it. I think you're right in that they are much, much closer to Contingency since the rune explicitly contains the spell. The mistake is to think that a rune can only be used as a trap. It doesn't have to be - not at all. And because of that, the writers didn't understand exactly how powerful a weapon they were putting in the hands of players (albeit it doesn't get powerful until around character level 14.) Check page 137-139 of Complete Arcane and see what you think.


Is there a rule somewhere that says the creator of this trap can command the summoned monster? If yes then I think that would solve all problems I am facing right now. Or a rule that says Runes behave like Contingency instead of Glyph of Warding or traps. Or a rule that says the triggerer of the Rune is the caster of the spell, not the Rune.

I'd say there's still a difference: per the SRD, spell traps produce the spell's effect, not the spell itself. This is different from a rune, which produces the spell.


If you can override "attacks the intruder" with "obeys the intruder" then I think your problem is solved.

But summon monster has this line:


So it suggest the default behavior is attack your opponents (it somehow magically knows who your opponents are), and you need to override the behavior after the fact with language, so it's not part of "you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell"

But if you somehow make the Rune hold 2 spells like Ghost Sounds then I think it might work.

But it seems IMO Saintheart is wrong here. The default behavior of a summoned creature is to attack the intruder and the intruder is the one who touched the rune.

This is all premised on the assumption that the rune is a trap and/or a Glyph of Warding. Again, they can be adapted to function as "simple magic traps", but they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. Runes are far more versatile.

[RoboEmperor]

You make some very convincing points. I am glad because I want to use permanent runes in my games. Not as a runecaster, but as an artificer who crafts them via scrolls of early access wish. An item of at-will Hunters of Hades or Summon Elemental Monolith would totally change my playstyle and would be well worth losing an entire level or two's worth of xp.

You have provided the overlooked, undeniable RAW that says Runes are like Scrolls not traps. I think this essentially proves that you are right because while I was thinking about all of this, I thought "Runes are not scrolls. If they were then you would be the caster but they're not so the trap is the caster." But here it is, direct RAW that says Runes are like scrolls. The person who uses the scroll of summon monster commands the summoned monster, not the creator of the scroll.


The person who triggers the rune becomes the target of the spell. But the rune is not the caster either, because as we're told the rune is a spell cast as a rune. If anything it's more like a scroll - again, per the text:


a spell cast as a rune, .

Where does it say that exactly? I'm having trouble locating this sentence.


Runes are not so confined.

I think this is a solid point. They could've copied and pasted Glyph of Warding's targeting rules, but they didn't. They cut it short because Runes are not so confined. We have a solid argument that summoned creatures attack the intruder because GoW is restricted, and since Runes are not so confined they are not bound to that.


I'd say there's still a difference: per the SRD, spell traps produce the spell's effect, not the spell itself. This is different from a rune, which produces the spell.

I think you should have a section on your handbook with the outcome of this thread. I remember tearing through your handbook and in the end assuming you overlooked Glyph of Warding's targeting clause. This is very solid RAW reasoning. Containing the spell itself instead of a spell effect.

Just to be absolutely clear
1. The spell targets you.
2. The spell was summon monster I. Runes are not GoWs and Summon Monster I does not have a Target so the summoned creature just appears and does nothing.
3. Runes are like scrolls, he who casts the scroll is the caster, so you're the one who cast summon monster I.
4. You use a free action to communicate with the badger to do whatever you want.

3. is still a bit iffy for me, so if we have definitive RAW that says the rune doesn't cast the spell then I think we're good, hence why I'm pestering you about more RAW or proof that "a rune is a spell cast as a rune"

[Saintheart]

Where does it say that exactly? I'm having trouble locating this sentence.


3. is still a bit iffy for me, so if we have definitive RAW that says the rune doesn't cast the spell then I think we're good, hence why I'm pestering you about more RAW or proof that "a rune is a spell cast as a rune"

As close as it seems to get is the first sentence from the FRCS section "Creating Runes": (p. 58)


If you know Inscribe Rune, any divine spell you currently have prepared can instead be cast as a rune.

Thus my reasoning: a rune is a spell cast as a rune.

I'd say there's further support in the same section - the suggestion that a failed Craft check triggers the rune, expending the prepared spell from your slots "just as if it had been cast".

[RoboEmperor]

As close as it seems to get is the first sentence from the FRCS section "Creating Runes": (p. 58)



Thus my reasoning: a rune is a spell cast as a rune.

I'd say there's further support in the same section - the suggestion that a failed Craft check triggers the rune, expending the prepared spell from your slots "just as if it had been cast".

There it is. I found it. Ok you've fully convinced me. Again you should put some of the info in this thread in your handbook.

[magicalmagicman]

I am never posting a question in the simple RAW thread ever again. Ever!

Just one last thing, if YOU are casting the spell as a rune, then wouldn't only YOU be able to command the summoned creature? Like Contingency. Not whoever triggers the rune?

[Saintheart]

I am never posting a question in the simple RAW thread ever again. Ever!

Just one last thing, if YOU are casting the spell as a rune, then wouldn't only YOU be able to command the summoned creature? Like Contingency. Not whoever triggers the rune?

On that one, if the rune deems the person triggering it as the "caster", then the triggerer has to be the one who commands the summoned creature.

The same question may be asked of a magic trap of Summon Monster. The maker of the magic trap has no idea whether or not the person setting off the trap is his enemy or not, and generally isn't around to command the monster so summoned. The monster doesn't know whether you're the maker's enemy or not. Remember, a magic trap isn't the precisely the caster either, it only produces a spell's effect, by RAW. How does a monster summoned by a magic trap know who to attack?

Another point being: if you're using runes basically as spell storage devices and you're touching the runes off to generate a mini-army of denizens for yourself and not for your partymates, then that might be precisely the interpretation you want.




I will adjust the handbook out of all of this - it does need a little clarification if not some editing. It's been a while :)

[RoboEmperor]

I'd say the highlights of this thread are:
1. Runes are Scrolls. Make this abundantly clear.
2. The Rune is not the caster. You're casting the Spell as a Rune.
3. Runes are not GoWs. It's a scroll and is compared to symbol spells as well.
4. GoW's targeting is the result of it being very restrictive. Runes are not restrictive so none of it applies.


I'd say there's further support in the same section - the suggestion that a failed Craft check triggers the rune, expending the prepared spell from your slots "just as if it had been cast".

This is incorrect. Every single magic item creation feat says "just as if it had been cast". Including Wondrous Items which is used to make traps.

[magicalmagicman]

You forgot
5. Runes hold spells. They're not spell effects like traps.

[RoboEmperor]

Considering Runes also need to work like traps, I think it's definitive that the creator of the Rune is the caster of the rune. As in he controls all summoned creatures. If the person who triggered the rune controls the summoned creature then it is literally impossible for the Rune to act as a summon trap.