Summoning gems as traps

[phiwum]

Back in the thread about the problem of keeping things locked, Shadekeep suggested traps involving summoning gems, which I thought was a great idea. Anyone who enters the vault causes a few summoning gems to fall and shatter, producing ready-made guards.

But I was thinking about this last night and I realized that the effects of a summoning gem trap are hard to suss. When one throws a summoning gem onto the ground, the spell is cast and the thrower controls the summoned being. But what happens when a trap is sprung? The person who set the trap isn't even there. He's not the proximate cause of the summoning.

Moreover, most traps are set by someone hired for the purpose, not the beneficiary of the trap.

The proximate cause of the summoning is actually the person who triggered the trap, though triggering isn't an intentional act and I wouldn't think he gets to control the summoned being.

So the question is: how can we interpret summoning traps like this in a reasonable and consistent manner? Is it the action of the one who sets the gem in the trap that binds the summoned being to him? Is the summoned being not bound to a summoner in this case -- and so not likely to fight on behalf of the trap's owner?

Similar questions occur in the odd situation where a gem is shattered unintentionally.

I guess I'm leaning towards intention playing the significant role. The person who sets the gem in the trap (perhaps the owner rather than the mechanician) has control of the summoned being. No one controls a summoned being accidentally summoned and he may be quite pissy about the summoning. The same is true in a trap set long ago whose owner has since passed.

And perhaps a devious wizard could create a summoning gem that allows him to control the summoned being rather than the person who throws it to the ground? Not per RAW, I s'pose.

Obviously, I'm uncertain how to think about these things. A simple and relatively cheap summoning gem seems like it could be fairly powerful if used in unusual ways. If the person "using" the gem doesn't have to be present when it is triggered, all sorts of opportunities arise. Of course, it would take some effort to break the gem from a distance (most obvious: building a trap, but clever folk may think of other options).

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

So the question is: how can we interpret summoning traps like this in a reasonable and consistent manner? Is it the action of the one who sets the gem in the trap that binds the summoned being to him? Is the summoned being not bound to a summoner in this case -- and so not likely to fight on behalf of the trap's owner?

The intention of the person building the trap initiated the gem's actuation, which remains suspended until the gem breaks.

Another way to do it is with a secret spell Summoning Gem Trap, which would prevent run-of-the-mill summoning gems from being used this way.

[hcobb]

What happens when the setter of the trap is asleep when the trap is triggered?

IMTFTC I require that maintain image and illusion specify the full behavior of the summons when it is cast with no information route back to the caster to prevent use as a cheap Proxy. I suggest a similar restriction here.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

What happens when the setter of the trap is asleep when the trap is triggered?

IMTFTC I require that maintain image and illusion specify the full behavior of the summons when it is cast with no information route back to the caster to prevent use as a cheap Proxy. I suggest a similar restriction here.

Well, that would fix the issues I'm considering, but I'm trying to avoid ad hoc rules here. Obviously there's something ad hoc no matter what I do, but figuring that the person who intended for the summoning to occur is the summoner seems less drastic than requiring a "pre-programmed" summoned being I think.

[crazycaleb]

I'm pretty new to TFT, so I might be overlooking things, but the way I interpret the idea behind a summoning gem is that the spell is activated upon the gem breaking, so that person is essentially treated as the "caster" of the spell (even though they weren't the one to imbue the magic into the gem). If I were going to allow any alternative to that, what makes most sense to me lore-wise is that the person creating the gem could perhaps specify a particular "master" for the creature at the time of the gem creation. I do see some logic behind having the person who "sets" the gem in a trap be the one to imbue it with the intention, but the most intuitive idea to me is that the person who created the gem would have to set the intention of the spell at the time of the creation of the magic item. (After that, the spell is set "in stone," haha.) So a gem to be used for a trap is something that would have to be custom-ordered, and the master might have to, say, give some piece of themself (a strand of hair or something) to be imbued into the gem to magically bind the summoned creature to them, since they probably wont be the one to break the gem.

If the master isn't present, they would still be able to see and hear what the creature sees and hears (I think ITL only specifies that for the Summon Scout spell, but I assume it holds true for other summoned creatures) and I don't think it would be unreasonable to rule that the activation of the gem would cause the master to wake up if they were asleep. Though I suppose I might be overlooking some range limit for Summoning spells.

But you would also still run into the issue of what happens if the gem is broken after the master is dead. I suppose the creature would just stand there for 6 (or 12) turns. So that makes it useless for situations where the party triggers a trap in a long-forgotten wizard's laboratory or something.

If you wanted to, I also don't think it would be unreasonable to allow for a summoning gem to be "programmed" with a limited set of instructions for the creature. I think those instructions would have to be very straightforward to maintain the idea that these aren't fully sentient creatures. But I might allow for say, a Gem of Summoning with a Summon Myrmidon spell in it to have the Myrmidon ask for a password and, if the exact password isn't given, attack whoever is present. But I'm not sure where exactly you would draw the line on the number and complexity of rules that could be "programmed."

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by crazycaleb

I'm pretty new to TFT, so I might be overlooking things, but the way I interpret the idea behind a summoning gem is that the spell is activated upon the gem breaking, so that person is essentially treated as the "caster" of the spell (even though they weren't the one to imbue the magic into the gem). If I were going to allow any alternative to that, what makes most sense to me lore-wise is that the person creating the gem could perhaps specify a particular "master" for the creature at the time of the gem creation. I do see some logic behind having the person who "sets" the gem in a trap be the one to imbue it with the intention, but the most intuitive idea to me is that the person who created the gem would have to set the intention of the spell at the time of the creation of the magic item. (After that, the spell is set "in stone," haha.) So a gem to be used for a trap is something that would have to be custom-ordered, and the master might have to, say, give some piece of themself (a strand of hair or something) to be imbued into the gem to magically bind the summoned creature to them, since they probably wont be the one to break the gem.

If the master isn't present, they would still be able to see and hear what the creature sees and hears (I think ITL only specifies that for the Summon Scout spell, but I assume it holds true for other summoned creatures) and I don't think it would be unreasonable to rule that the activation of the gem would cause the master to wake up if they were asleep. Though I suppose I might be overlooking some range limit for Summoning spells.

The bolded part is correct and mentioned on ITL 137, near the bottom of the left hand column.

But you would also still run into the issue of what happens if the gem is broken after the master is dead. I suppose the creature would just stand there for 6 (or 12) turns. So that makes it useless for situations where the party triggers a trap in a long-forgotten wizard's laboratory or something.

If you wanted to, I also don't think it would be unreasonable to allow for a summoning gem to be "programmed" with a limited set of instructions for the creature. I think those instructions would have to be very straightforward to maintain the idea that these aren't fully sentient creatures. But I might allow for say, a Gem of Summoning with a Summon Myrmidon spell in it to have the Myrmidon ask for a password and, if the exact password isn't given, attack whoever is present. But I'm not sure where exactly you would draw the line on the number and complexity of rules that could be "programmed."

Your interpretation puts quite a limitation on the use of summoning gems. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but a normal gem only works when the person holding it intentionally breaks it according to your rules. You also make them more flexible in other ways.

I'm not sure what I think about that. I guess I'm partial to Shadekeep's summoning trap, so I'm a little loath to rule it out of bounds. I'm also not keen on complicating matters by adding programmed gems, though they might be interesting.

They might in fact be pretty deadly, since the party might find an old programmed gem among treasure and try to use it in the heat of battle only to be attacked by the summoned critter. But that sort of devious trap looking like treasure is a bit too mean-spirited for me to implement. These gems are only used on rare occasions when the party needs an ally. I don't want to kick them when down.

In a lot of ways, requiring that breaking the gem is an intentional act (and that the actor is the proximate cause of the breakage) does simplify a lot of things. An accidentally broken gem does nothing and traps can't use summoning gems. All of the problems go away. But, dammit, I liked Shadekeep's idea.

[crazycaleb]

Originally Posted by phiwum

They might in fact be pretty deadly, since the party might find an old programmed gem among treasure and try to use it in the heat of battle only to be attacked by the summoned critter.

Ooh, I didn't even think about that. Someone could hide a "trap" gem in a treasure chest, just to spite anyone who was successful in stealing their loot. As you say, it's maybe a bit too mean-spirited, but I kind of like it. I think the results of a successful Analyze Magic spell should give them the details of the programming, though, if the party thought to use that.

I also like Shadekeep's idea, though, if I think of any other ideas on how to implement that I'll certainly post them here.

[phiwum]

This forum is great for tossing ideas around. If you haven't seen it yet, the thread about locking things was pretty useful for me.

Until, of course, I started thinking about those darned summoning gem traps.

[JimmyPlenty]

I think the definition of "controlling" a summoned creature is the answer here.

When a wizard (assuming they aren't good with swords), summons a myrmidon, the wizard does not tell the creature when to swing or dodge, it is the creature that does so.

This makes sense as wizards can do other things while the summoned creature is doing it's thing. How could a wizard multitask another spell while moving a summoned creature like a puppet? (although that would be a great condition for a weaker summon spell)

Since magic in Cidri is mostly psionic. Leaving the command "Kill anyone who enters this room" in a summoning gem could be easy to be allowed.

[hcobb]

Compare to zombies of an expired wizard.