Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit

[brujon]

I have to wonder how you measure whether or not the Wizard is in combat. If he becomes ethereal and sinks into the floor, is he still part of the encounter? He certainly has the opportunity to act, if he chooses, but any wizard that knows the location of his enemy could act, regardless of his own location.
The cleric in the example might leave the succubus behind to fight the PCs, but if he waits on the other side of the door he still isn't part of the encounter. Both the cleric and the wizard are effectively outside of combat until they choose.

I don't know myself how I'd handle this, but I would consider the interpretation that the wizard is not a part of the encounter entirely valid, if he has chosen to "leave the room", so to speak.

That's the same as saying an invisible enemy isn't part of the encounter if there's no one in the party that can see invisible or otherwise target the invisible creature.

The Wizard in this particular instance, *is* still in combat. He is still in the encounter, his initiative is still being taken in consideration, and he'll get a turn to act when his initiative counter turns up. He hasn't chosen to flee the scene, but rather to take a defensive position where the fighter couldn't target him, but was still present. Had the fighter somehow managed to defeat the 4 gold dragons, the Wizard was still in a position to come up with another strategy and continue the fight. It would be a different thing, however, if he had left the scene - to another plane, or teleported to another location. But since he was still present at the scene, and his initiative was still being taken into consideration during combat, it's clear that he never actually left combat.

Another good example would be a Rogue who chooses to stay hidden during combat, biding his time until a good opportunity to sneak attack something shows itself. Because he's hiding, does it mean that he's not actually in the combat? Does it mean that someone who's actually in the combat and know he's there somewhere doesn't have the possibility of somehow discerning his location and forcefully take him out of hiding? It's the same thing with the Wizard.

In the example given by the FAQ, a Wizard barricaded on the other side of the door, the fact that he is not in combat is given by the fact that the PC's don't know he's actually on the other side of the door. He's not a participant in the fight, he hasn't rolled initiative in combat, and didn't join the fight at any point. The "combat area" is delimited and he's outside of that zone, without having taken any actions from the start of the combat to the end of it.

So, at least that's how i see it. A combatant hasn't removed himself from combat until he leaves the "combat area" and takes no more actions in combat, and furthermore, has no more actions taken against him by any of the other combat participants for the duration of the combat, actively removing himself from combat, voluntarily or otherwise, meaning he no longer has the *ability* to interfere in combat anymore.

For instance, an Outsider player who is Banished during the course of combat is forcefully removed from the Combat, because he cannot return to the plane and location where the combat is going on for the next 24 hours. If he by some means managed to overcome this restriction and come back to combat, he is to be treated as a new participant, and roll initiative again, to determine his initiative count. Returning to the Rogue example who uses his stealth abilities to reposition himself during combat by staying hidden during his movement, he doesn't actually get a new initiative count, because he has never left the combat area. If the same Rogue had stayed hidden from *before* the combat actually started, then his initiative would only be rolled when he decided to act, and depending on the situation, he might even be awarded a Surprise Round against the other combatants, who would be flat-footed against him.

So it's a question of mutual Awareness of the combat participants of the presence of an enemy, the delimitation of the combat area (Which has to be done by the GM, don't forget it's still a tabletop game, it's supposed to use miniatures and such), and the possibility of action by the combat participant in combat. All three conditions have to be met for an enemy or player to be considered "in combat". If someone from outside of the combat area is to interfere in the combat, what would happen is that this new participant would be now included in the combat with a new initiative count, and the combat area to be expanded to include this new border. Would this not be the case, and there weren't any limitations of a "combat area", the PC's would be then constantly in combat, and there'd be no need of ever rolling new initiative, since the whole Setting is considered a combat zone. Similarly, a player who is unable to take *any* actions is not participating in the combat, and doesn't have an initiative count anymore. An example would be a Petrified player, but not a player under the effects of a "Hold Person" spell, because the latter is still capable of making mental actions, and as such has to maintain his initiative count(A Psion who was the target of a Hold Person spell could still affect combat immensely by using mental-only Psionics). And the mutual awareness part is also important, because it determines whether combat has started or not for one of the parties, and as such, the possibility of a Surprise Round and Flat-Footedness.

Having in mind that those three conditions have to be fulfilled simultaneously, it's then easy to determine who is actively in a determined combat or not.

[Echoes]

Zugschef didn't cuss at you, but I will: you're a lying sack of shit.

Orly?

Basic Linguistics. Words are used to communicate thoughts and ideas and each person uses their own set of encoding. Often dubbed speech patterns when talking, they have a certain way to put their thoughts into words which also makes them predisposed to translate patterns into certain thoughts. Keep this in mind noob, because the 4 years of school you've attended hasn't thought you shit and you need to remember it so stop staring at the red bull can and pay attention.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. No really, that paragraph was entertaining as hell. Please, respond like this more often. Meaningless blather is so much easier for my child intellect to gloss over.

The DMG stats all creatures created by "magical powers" do not give XP, we know for an absolute fact Undead and Constructs give XP and are meant to so the author cannot in fact mean that, as he goes on and into details he talks about abilities to summon monsters. This is something we can go with. When using more than a single sentence the author goes into details on summoning. Does he mean ability like the other 95% of uses of a printed concept or is he using quote on quote plain old english? I'm going with the latter.

And why? Summoning it's self is noted not to give XP as part of the rules redundancy reminder thing D&D writers love to do. As they often print some sort of reminder to something it references. As two examples, MM1's Summon Monster entry says monsters summoned in this way don't give XP see DMG pg37 and the Glossary entry on the Summoning subschool which also reminds you of such. Calling has no such reminder.

Is it wrong to read it that way?

No.

Pithy One-Line Answer: Yes.

Real Answer: Calling doesn't need to have reminder text for the actual rules to still apply. I don't give a flying monkey's testicle whether summoning has reminder text and calling doesn't, because it doesn't matter. And those actual rules are that dudes you add to your team right now via magical bullshit don't give XP because the ability to do that exact thing is (supposedly) accounted for in the CR/XP system. Now, again, we know for a fact that the CR/XP system is completely fucked six ways from sunday, but that in no way changes what the actual fucking rules are.

Cocks up the ass aside, the FAQ is official rules and you're a nobody on the forums coming out of no where to insult me. It goes into exact detail and in one such example the spellcaster is down the spell slot, and the spell consumes XP to cast just like Gate, and both creatures award their full XP. The no contradiction in RAW is just bonus points because these forums are full of stupid people like you that cannot read headers and sour grape over nerfs. Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't use a complex term such as sour grapes around you and I must continue to talk down at your level. It actually doesn't matter what the DMG says, FAQ as a continually updated document on rule interpretation that explains specific examples which simply holds more priority on wither or not Planar Ally gives XP than the DMG does. And it is in those rules this line of posts operates in.

Man, this shit is great. It's like going to the movies and watching some dude arguing with the screen. I really like your idea that because I swore at you, I must be a child. That really is super-entertaining given the context of this whole thing. Have you ever considered comedy? I hear caustic, antagonistic comics are in right now.

OK, serious game-gace time! Let's say that, hypothetically, what the Sage says is actual game rules and shit. Given that, you realize your example of the Cleric casting Planar Ally is evidence against you, right? The Sage even outright states that you technically should reduce the XP cost of the subsequent fight with the Cleric, then says that it's probably not worth the effort overall. The reason, by the way, is that it's a pretty dickbag thing to do to declare that every fight the PCs get into is against summoned/called creatures and thus they don't get XP. Like I said, D&D's XP system is fucked at a pretty fundamental level, and I will in no way try to defend that nor is that what we're discussing here.

Also, and this is just for clarification since I do understand the nature of the situation: I don't post a lot on these forums. I did post fairly frequently back on the old BG forums (pretty sure I even used the same handle), although I was by no means one of the super-prolific posters.

The Official Game Rules provided by Wizard of the Coast agrees that I am fairly close in how to interpret those couple of paragraphs. After all, for an absolute fact it says I'm not a lier on a Called creature gives full XP, making your claim the real lie. You on the other hand, can't even handle two words without bitching at people like you know what the hell you're talking about. So in lieu of that.

Fuck off noob.
I've already wasted more time with you than you will ever be worth.

Wow. I need to amend my previous statement: caustic, antagonistic, and unintentionally ironic comics are all the rage right now! You'll do marvelously. Also, the FAQ, aka the Sage, is literally one dude answering bullshit questions to the best of his ability (OK, granted, the actual position has changed hands a few times and I couldn't even tell you who it specifically was in the most recent updates to the FAQ). It's not errata, it's not published game rules, it's one dude going "I think this is how this works" and trying to give clarifications or advice based on that. So no, I really don't consider you going "but the FAQ says THIS!" as anything more valid than "CustServ said THIS!". Mostly because it's the exact same fucking thing.

Also, you are completely correct about one thing: you are not a "lier". Unless you are, but I don't know what a lier is so I'm not going to even try to judge you for being one, if you are.

Finally, am I supposed to be impressed or intimidated by your hyper-aggressive self-assured tone? I hope that's what you intend, anyway. I do so get a kick out of people who think if they get super-aggressive over the internet that it will somehow achieve something other than being entertainingly ridiculous (by the way, I really hope I'm hitting the right mix of irrational anger, snark, and whimsy!).

Also, and I'm assuming this based on your utter lack of addressing anything I said on this, do you agree with my generalization of your argument vis a vis Wizards giving XP based on their spell slots, since they work just like traps?

[SorO_Lost]

I have to wonder how you measure whether or not the Wizard is in combat.

Besides Brujon's rather long answer, "Encounter" is a Metagame element that isn't specific enough to be anything other than up to the DM's interpretation.

Like take Brujon's limitation on range with my previous statement on examples. Under his definition, Time Stop doesn't remove you from combat because you are in close proximity, are aware of your opponent, and using 6 six intervals for your turn rather than "as the DM pleases". However, casting Plane Shift and going to Quori or Mechanus planes means you are both away and unaware and the time difference throws a wrench into things. Under him you start a new encounter, and yet mayhap exactly one round has passed on the battle field.

It's not a bad way to read things and I'm not saying Brujon is wrong with that, but the what is or isn't an Encounter is designed to be vague. With a massively diverse rule set, such as D&D, sometimes ambiguity is exactly what is needed.

@Concerned Ninja Citizen
In English, parentheses is deemphasized text set outside of the sentence you're creating. It's to say, Example 3 is the Cleric using Planar Ally, expends XP, and sends a magical addition. Either the was Cleric there or not hardly makes a difference. Then it goes on to note if the PCs were to face this Cleric before he has a chance to offset his losses full XP for both monsters is still granted. And even aside, it make no real difference. Example 2 is a Necromancer Animating Undead and joins the battle at the same time which is exactly what your point is based on. Except, you claim the outcome is no XP and obviously. It isn't. And we're discussion monsters worth several thousand XP, even at 1/6 its more than enough to level up once. So unless you intentionally bring Gate down to a Summon Monster IV level, it's not even something to worry about.

@Echoes, I seen you posted but I cannot bring my self to read anything you type. I did spot you ranting about Customer Service (a separate distinct entity that no one can truly provide proof they received such an answer) but I wasn't discussing an official email service or your self-entitlement based problems with authority. *Shrugs* Hi Welcome.

[brujon]

I have to wonder how you measure whether or not the Wizard is in combat.

Besides Brujon's rather long answer, "Encounter" is a Metagame element that isn't specific enough to be anything other than up to the DM's interpretation.

Like take Brujon's limitation on range with my previous statement on examples. Under his definition, Time Stop doesn't remove you from combat because you are in close proximity, are aware of your opponent, and using 6 six intervals for your turn rather than "as the DM pleases". However, casting Plane Shift and going to Quori or Mechanus planes means you are both away and unaware and the time difference throws a wrench into things. Under him you start a new encounter, and yet mayhap exactly one round has passed on the battle field.

It's not a bad way to read things and I'm not saying Brujon is wrong with that, but the what is or isn't an Encounter is designed to be vague. With a massively diverse rule set, such as D&D, sometimes ambiguity is exactly what is needed.

@Concerned Ninja Citizen
In English, parentheses is deemphasized text set outside of the sentence you're creating. It's to say, Example 3 is the Cleric using Planar Ally, expends XP, and sends a magical addition. Either the was Cleric there or not hardly makes a difference. Then it goes on to note if the PCs were to face this Cleric before he has a chance to offset his losses full XP for both monsters is still granted. And even aside, it make no real difference. Example 2 is a Necromancer Animating Undead and joins the battle at the same time which is exactly what your point is based on. Except, you claim the outcome is no XP and obviously. It isn't. And we're discussion monsters worth several thousand XP, even at 1/6 its more than enough to level up once. So unless you intentionally bring Gate down to a Summon Monster IV level, it's not even something to worry about.

@Echoes, I seen you posted but I cannot bring my self to read anything you type. I did spot you ranting about Customer Service (a separate distinct entity that no one can truly provide proof they received such an answer) but I wasn't discussing an official email service or your self-entitlement based problems with authority. *Shrugs* Hi Welcome.

Your example with Quori and Mechanus really does throw a wrench in my definition. Under strict RAW, by what i said, this would effectively be a way to reroll initiative. But in practice, what i would rule is that since the effect is almost instantaneous, and since only one round has passed, there hasn't been enough time for the absence of the caster to be "registered".

For all intents and purposes, it's as if he had "blinked" out for 6 seconds, and then reappeared, not unlike someone who becomes Ethereal and then breaks the effect the next round. Interestingly, over strict RAW, becoming Ethereal would break combat, since you're effectively leaving the combat area, as the Ethereal is another plane that is not the Material plane (where the combat is happening).

My interpretation is a good rule, but as with all rules, it has exceptions that have to be taken into consideration. These are all special cases and have to be adjudicated as such.

But let's think together here. Combat, as defined by me, relies in no small part to the awareness of the combatants of A) The Combat Zone B) The Other Involved. The other component would be the individual capabilities of each to use actions in their turn to influence the combat area or the other involved. Since the initiative determines the order in which actions are taken by those involved in the combat, i'd rule that in order to be effectively removed from combat, the one that is to be removed has to be out of the combat area and unable to take action until after his next initiative came up, in effect not fulfilling condition C) which is the ability to act.

Let's call them X Y and Z. The initiative rolls are as such, X = 20, Y = 19, Z = 18. X is a powerful wizard that knows his planes, and goes first. He Plane Shifts to Quori and abuses the faster time to buff himself to hell and back. Y goes next. Since X has apparently vanished, he uses his turn to attack Z. One round has passed, and X pops up back in the battlefield, before his initiative order came up, and before Z has taken his action. He sees that X has returned, and uses his turn to attack him in melee, dying horribly to his Fire Shield buff. Because he came back to the battlefield before his original initiative order came up, in effect it's as if he never leaved the battlefield at all, and he uses his original initiative, since not enough time has passed with him outside of the battlefield to his absence to "register" in the initiative order, and then he uses his original one.

This does not disturb the initial definition, because for the involved, not enough time has passed for the absence of the time mage to be registered in the initiative counter.

It's a stretch, but it conforms to the notions of how initiative, combat and awareness relate to eachother in D&D.

[Echoes]

@Concerned Ninja Citizen
In English, parentheses is deemphasized text set outside of the sentence you're creating. It's to say, Example 3 is the Cleric using Planar Ally, expends XP, and sends a magical addition. Either the was Cleric there or not hardly makes a difference. Then it goes on to note if the PCs were to face this Cleric before he has a chance to offset his losses full XP for both monsters is still granted. And even aside, it make no real difference. Example 2 is a Necromancer Animating Undead and joins the battle at the same time which is exactly what your point is based on. Except, you claim the outcome is no XP and obviously. It isn't. And we're discussion monsters worth several thousand XP, even at 1/6 its more than enough to level up once. So unless you intentionally bring Gate down to a Summon Monster IV level, it's not even something to worry about.

CNC, SorO doesn't know what a parenthetical statement is, or at least he doesn't know what they are for. You're right, by the way, the portion you bolded is the relevant part of that statement, and it does in fact make the situation completely different from the wizard gating in a bunch of dragons during the middle of fight.

The Wizard here is spending time and resources while actively engaged in combat, whereas the example Cleric is utilizing the called minion in question to attack the party remotely. Now, in a system that assigned XP sensibly, the party would get XP for defeating the succubus and then XP for defeating the Cleric later, because the combat with the succubus didn't even involve the Cleric directly. He wasn't under direct threat at the time, and he didn't suffer any consequences due to the succubus' defeat (other than the continued existence of the party, which was a given if the Cleric did nothing at all so that's a wash). However, D&D doesn't apportion XP that way. If I was the DM, I totally would go "That's fucking stupid, you get XP for beating the succubus because it's an independent encounter in every relevant way", but that is A) not what the actual written rules posit and B) doesn't match to the situation under discussion, so I don't even know why this is a discussion. Other than SorO hates Wizards and wants to make up arbitrary house-rules to dick over the most effective tactics they can employ.

@Echoes, I seen you posted but I cannot bring my self to read anything you type. I did spot you ranting about Customer Service (a separate distinct entity that no one can truly provide proof they received such an answer) but I wasn't discussing an official email service or your self-entitlement based problems with authority. *Shrugs* Hi Welcome.

Oh man, I got Hi Welcomed! Wait, you're not Sunic_Flames! Also, I find it really funny that, when confronted by someone who doesn't mindlessly accept your pronouncements and instead fires back with your same insulting, confrontational attitude, you get all huffy.

Also, I love how you didn't read me ranting about CustServ. Although really, can literally less than a sentence legitimately be called a rant? I mean, I could rant about CustServ, but I don't think my off-hand comment really counts as a rant. More of a quip, if you will. Not that you read anything I posted, of course. That would be beneath you. Better to just ignore people who don't agree with you.

[brujon]

@Echoes you know what you are forgetting? The most basic part of what DEFINES (calling) spells, and what Outsiders are. Outsiders, differently from Material Plane dwellers, don't have a distinction between their Physical bodies and their Soul. Their soul, in effect, IS their physical body. When you summon a creature, you don't actually bring it's soul (real body), but instead create a vessel that can house a manifestationof that creature in the Material Plane, which is why when a summoned creature dies, it doesn't die in whatever plane it comes from, and can be summoned again.

When you use a (calling) spell, you're actually physically transporting the creature, equipment and all, to wherever you are. It's the real deal, and if it dies it's dead for real. In effect, calling a Solar with Gate is the same thing as hitching a ride to Celestia, putting a Solar into a Cage and bringing it to the Material Plane. Killing a gated Solar is the same deal as killing a Solar in Celestia.

What you're fighting is not a manifestation of a Caster's power, but instead a completely different and individual being, that the caster somehow bargained to fight for him. In effect, being a completely different and individual being, a Called creature is more similar to a Cohort or a Follower, than it is to a Summoned creature.

The effect of (calling) spells is not to PRODUCE the creatures, but to BRING them to where you are. The creatures themselves are not part of the spell, differently from summoned creatures.

This all combined is strong evidence for the fact that killing a CALLED  is a challenge in and of itself, and completely detached from the Caster, and should award XP independent of the Caster.

[Echoes]

@Echoes you know what you are forgetting? The most basic part of what DEFINES (calling) spells, and what Outsiders are. Outsiders, differently from Material Plane dwellers, don't have a distinction between their Physical bodies and their Soul. Their soul, in effect, IS their physical body. When you summon a creature, you don't actually bring it's soul (real body), but instead create a vessel that can house a manifestationof that creature in the Material Plane, which is why when a summoned creature dies, it doesn't die in whatever plane it comes from, and can be summoned again.

When you use a (calling) spell, you're actually physically transporting the creature, equipment and all, to wherever you are. It's the real deal, and if it dies it's dead for real. In effect, calling a Solar with Gate is the same thing as hitching a ride to Celestia, putting a Solar into a Cage and bringing it to the Material Plane. Killing a gated Solar is the same deal as killing a Solar in Celestia.

What you're fighting is not a manifestation of a Caster's power, but instead a completely different and individual being, that the caster somehow bargained to fight for him. In effect, being a completely different and individual being, a Called creature is more similar to a Cohort or a Follower, than it is to a Summoned creature.

The effect of (calling) spells is not to PRODUCE the creatures, but to BRING them to where you are. The creatures themselves are not part of the spell, differently from summoned creatures.

This all combined is strong evidence for the fact that killing a CALLED  is a challenge in and of itself, and completely detached from the Caster, and should award XP independent of the Caster.

The issue with that is it runs right back into the problem with the XP system, namely that CR is supposed to already take into account all of that. A creature's CR is supposed to represent the challenge of fighting it, including any abilities it may possess, such as being able to bring allies to the fight (in whatever form). That, of course, brings us back around to the point that the CR/XP system is fundamentally broken and contradictory, which is a point I will not argue in any way. More specifically, it's an issue with how CR is assessed to PC classes, namely that it treats any given PC class of level X as having a CR of X, regardless of what the class actually is. That's obviously broken given the power disparity between various classes, but again that is what the rules posit.

Now, you are absolutely right that it would make sense for the XP rules to work the way you describe. And you could even write rules that revise the CR/XP system to patch it into some semblance of working order. But that is not what the rules actually say. What they actually say is that monsters that are added to your forces via "magical powers" do not give XP when defeated. Again, and I only reiterate this because it is a fundamental principle of the system, the ability to add allies to your forces is supposedly already built into the CR system.

[brujon]

But what i'm saying is that the monster isn't "added to your forces via magical powers". The effect is to call the creature to where you are, and compel it to obey your command. You're not creating a creature, you're calling an existing one, and compelling it to fight for you.

It is, effectively, the same thing as using Dominate Person and making the party BSF turn on their friends. If the party ends up having to kill their friend, would you argue that they should receive XP for that?

[Echoes]

But what i'm saying is that the monster isn't "added to your forces via magical powers". The effect is to call the creature to where you are, and compel it to obey your command. You're not creating a creature, you're calling an existing one, and compelling it to fight for you.

It is, effectively, the same thing as using Dominate Person and making the party BSF turn on their friends. If the party ends up having to kill their friend, would you argue that they should receive XP for that?

The rules don't say when you create a creature via magical power. They say whenever you "add" a creature to your forces via magical power. When I use planar binding to call up a succubus and compel it into my service, I have used a magical power to add the succubus to my forces. I'm pretty sure spells fit into any reasonable definition of "magical power" that you or I can come up with.

As to your question, the answer is no. By the rules as they exist, you would not get XP for defeating your erstwhile comrade.

[veekie]

Cool it, people. Sniping at each other is neither constructive nor relevant to the discussion.

[Necrosnoop110]

I still don't get how you are leveling up at the encounter level. Isn't the timing of leveling up a metagame element that requires a DM's hand? At the minimum doesn't the RAW indicate two possible times to level up at the end or at the beginning of sessions/adventures? 

 

[SorO_Lost]

I still don't get how you are leveling up at the encounter level. Isn't the timing of leveling up a metagame element that requires a DM's hand? At the minimum doesn't the RAW indicate two possible times to level up at the end or at the beginning of sessions/adventures?

No, it's a suggestion of convenience for the DM. You may award it at the end, which lets players handle level ups on their own time, or alternatively at the start of the session if you needed a couple hours to figure out how much XP to give.

As noted, this is based in favorable readings.

There is two lines worth reading into for a "when" part. One is in the steps to total XP where you factor the defeated monsters. Something that would typically be at the end of things obviously since we're talking at an Encounter level. The other line is "You must decide when a challenge has been overcome. Usually, this is simple to do. Did the PCs defeat the enemy in battle? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points.^DMG36" which states PCs technically earn the XP at each kill, it's just not handed out until the DM figures out how much XP to give.

What is or isn't an Encounter is up to the DM and as as people have quoted and already brought up, the DMG is very suggestive that the DM can pretty much hand out the earned XP whenever the hell he feels like it which is that "RAW" point you're talking about now. It is a very Metagame area subjective to the DM. However, we want something that's convenient for the Player and not under the tyrant's hand when he feels like getting around to things. We want the XP we earned the moment we earned any values of it rather than waiting for people to get the paperwork double checked. So like highlander power rangers, we chop off a dudes head and merge into a megazord to make the rest of the fight easier.

[Garryl]

Quick question: How is this discussion relevant? All 3 fights ended when the Fighter surrendered, before even killed any of the Gold Dragons, right? Did I miss something?

[Demelain]

Quick question: How is this discussion relevant? All 3 fights ended when the Fighter surrendered, before even killed any of the Gold Dragons, right? Did I miss something?

We're in hypotheticals, right now. This is only tangentially relevant to the actual fight in that gold dragons are involved.

[veekie]

Quick question: How is this discussion relevant? All 3 fights ended when the Fighter surrendered, before even killed any of the Gold Dragons, right? Did I miss something?

Pretty sure it isn't, once the timestop was deployed, it's over.
The wizard could have stacked up Delayed Fireballs until the Fighter exploded from the half damage if he wanted. Or hit Summon Monster <whatever> for things with enough SLAs to vaporize the fighter. Or Unshrink sacks of large boulders over his head. Or Shapechange and stack buffs to beat him in melee a round later.

The dragons were flashy, but that was pretty much it.

[brujon]

Quick question: How is this discussion relevant? All 3 fights ended when the Fighter surrendered, before even killed any of the Gold Dragons, right? Did I miss something?

Soro_LOst started going in hypotheticals about how the Gate tactic could backfire given the interpretation that XP awards are instantaneously given to players upon completion of a challenge, and if the fighter could defeat one or more of the Dragons, since this would level up the fighter several levels above the Wizard, which could give him the OOMPH necessary to beat him in single combat. It's not relevant in relation to the combat in the way that it actually took place, but relevant in the sense that it could've gone another way.

I personally have already voiced that i don't agree with his interpretation of the XP system, and i maintain the traditional view that XP is awarded during "downtime", at the end of an adventure or in-between encounters that are far apart of eachother. It seems logical to me, that in order to learn new spells, come up with different combat tactics, learn new weapons, or take up new classes, the character has to have, in-game, a lot of time to actually get these awesome new abilities and toughness that come with more HD.

Of course, i completely understand when this is thrown away in the name of fun(tm), and the whole training and acquiring PrC's and feats are simply "implied", or flat out ignored, in place of just advancing the character's and getting on with the main plot. But levelling up in the middle of combat is a big no-no for me, and i don't see it anywhere on the rules a sentence to support it. It just reminds me of the way computer games work, where you just level up in the middle of a fight, instantly recover all your mana and HP, and win a fight you otherwise would've lost. Like most MMO's.

What i DO agree, is where Soro_Lost was mentioning that CALLED creatures *DO* give XP when they're defeated, as opposed to summoned creatures, and i maintain that interpretation because, unlike summoned creatures, they're actual beings that come with their own equipment and agenda, and are in no way maintained or created by the caster's power, but rather simply transported to a location. In that vein, i also disagree with the F.A.Q when it gives an example of Animated minions not always giving full XP when defeated, because the spell that creates them, Animate Dead, is instantaneous, and thus the creatures animated are completely and utterly separate from the caster that created them, and don't vanish or become inactive when the caster is defeated, like Summoned monsters, being then, a challenge on their own.

It's pretty easy to see why i see things that way. Golems, too, are created by Wizards with magic and gold expenditure, a process often requiring weeks or even years, and yet they ALWAYS give XP separate from the casters which created them. In essence, an Undead created by a Necromancer isn't any different from a Golem, except on it's capabilities. Both are beings created with the power of magic, but that once created, are capable of existing on their own even after the original creator died, in effect not being tied to it's power apart from the moment of creation. Because of this, they're separate challenges. If you kill the Wizard, in effect defeating the encounter or challenge that HE himself represents, it doesn't get rid of Golems, Undead or Called creatures, but it does get rid of summons.

EDIT: Also, on the subject of the F.A.Q and Sage. Neither are official rulings in my opinion. Only those rules reviewed on the Rules Compendium or a product's official Errata are official rulings and should be viewed as RAW. Both the F.A.Q and Sage are RAI in the same way as DM interpretation is, and there have been numerous instances of flat out wrongful rulings made by both the F.A.Q and Sage that have been made fun of here in these very boards.

[Kethrian]

I agree.  Anything which can be defeated with a simple Dispel Magic should not award XP, while other creatures should.  That is a huge key difference between summon spells and calling spells.

[veekie]

It still probably wouldn't matter though. Leveling mid battle, without a comparable gain in gear or status reset, wouldn't save him. Not when all the other dragons go.

[brujon]

I agree.  Anything which can be defeated with a simple Dispel Magic should not award XP, while other creatures should.  That is a huge key difference between summon spells and calling spells.

Yes, it's a key difference between a spell effect, and an actual independent entity. Calling spells also only really have a place in D&D because of the (very real) chance that they can backfire. Begetting favor from entities that are more powerful than yourself is a good way of ending up dead or a slave, since most such beings don't particularly favor the idea of being used...

It's something i never understood about Gate. Most effects that exert a measure of "Control" over a creature are Mind-Affecting in nature, but the kind of control exerted by Gate seems like doesn't fall in such a category. In fact, the text "you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord." Seems to indicate that there *IS* a mind-affecting component to gate, for nondeific and non-unique beings, because Compulsion is always [mind affecting]. But nowhere in the spell do we find the mind affecting tag, or a text indicating that creatures immune to mind affecting spells or abilities cannot be compelled or controlled through Gate.

It's obviously magical in nature, since it originates in a spell, but in what way? If you call in a creature, and it thens wanders into an Antimagic Zone, does control over the creature fade? Can the control be dispelled?

It's not clear based on the description of the spell.

 "...a controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell."

The bolded sections seem to further indicate that the creature is, really, under some sort of compulsion. It flat-out states that the creature is "controlled", and mentions being "commanded". It also makes mention that it does not require any agreement, meaning the creature *cannot* refuse, and furthermore says that the creature departs at the end of the spell, indicating that it has to leave, wanting or not.

If it is interpreted to be a mind affecting effect, mindless or otherwise immune to mind affecting creatures cannot be controlled through gate, and the only option is to use the bargaining option outlined on the description text. It also indicates that being on a antimagic field immediately cancels out the effect, and the creature regains it's free will. Differently from other calling spells, it also does not requires the use of Dimensional Anchor to prevent planar travel, or Magic Circle to prevent the creature from fleeing. But it does not ellaborate on how using a Magic Circle to entrap the called creature interferes with the spell. It ALSO does not ellaborate on what would happen should the gate that called the creature be shut before the effect ends.

A lot of questions.

[zugschef]

people always bitch about raw, and when the raw are clear for once people ignore them. casting gate or planar binding are magical powers and thus, you don't get any xp for defeating a called or bound creature according to the dmg. end of story.
everything else is a houserule, no matter how reasonable it may be.