Do creatures called via Gate count as Summoned or Conjured?

[Christian]

Well, people can argue about anything. It's pretty clear to me on review, though-the Gate spell is basically just like the Planar Binding spells. They have the same school and subschool descriptors, the same basic effects, except the Gate adds a planar travel and possible compulsion effect. And the PH quite clearly states that the Magic Circle spells are effective against creatures Conjured (Called) by Planar Binding et. al., so it must be effective against creatures Conjured (Called) by Gate. Q.E.D.

 

[Alejandro]

Christian, I'm not trying to ignore your post. The first section of your post was quite clear, in that you're referencing the difference between Called creatures and Summoned creatures. I agree with your "no" answer.

The second section of your post dealt with the usage of Magic Circles as they are specifically focused inward in Planar Binding spells. Outward-facing Magic Circles do not protect against bodily contact from Called creatures, nor can inward-facing Magic Circles be used except in conjuction with binding spells. I agree with the fact that Magic Circles can be used in bindings, but the question is about Gate.

The description of Gate does not provide for the usage of Magic Circles, and Gate's bargaining process is different than the bargaining process described in the binding spells. This is why I answered that Gated creatures are Called, not Summoned, and cannot be warded against with Protection spells unless you believe that it's better to use the actual school (Conjuration) rather than the specific subschool (Calling or Summoning).

 

[AuraSeer]

Then why does the Calling section in the Conjuration school section of the PH discuss using the Magic Circle spells to contain creatures called by the various Planar Binding spells?

Perhaps because that section was written before Planar Binding was errataed, when it was still listed as a Summoning spell. When the errata was issued, the editor changed the text on the spell, but may have failed to find every place that referred to that information.

(FTR, I dunno whether this is really what happened; I could go either way on the OP question.)

 

[Christian]

That's a reasonable response, Alex, but not clearly correct. You didn't answer my second question above-why do the various Protection spells say they protect against 'conjured or summoned' creatures if they only protect against summoned creatures?

That's definitely poorly worded, as summoning is a subschool of conjuration. (Protection from Dogs protects against animals that are dogs or German shepherds ...) But I think that the most reasonable interpretation of that sentence is that the spell works against any conjured creature, whether it is called or summoned. (One wouldn't interpret Protection from Dogs as applying only to German shepherds in the previous paranthetical aside, would one?) Especially since the only other way to conjure a creature is to call it-if calling were excluded, they could have just said 'summoned' instead of 'conjured or summoned', couldn't they?

Of course, I'd abide by any decision made by a DM, after my requisite 15 seconds of grumbling about it.

 

[Christian]

AuraSeer, the first printing of the PH had both Lesser PB and Greater PB listed as Conjuration (Calling)-only PB was listed as a Summoning spell ...

 

[Alejandro]

I speak without full knowledge of why the description is worded that way, but Hong's reference back to 2E is quite plausible. That is, though terminology has become more specific in 3E, this spell suffers from an imprecise phrase.

 

[Christian]

Yes, it does, which is why some interpretation is necessary. C'est la vie. The question is, does 'conjured or summoned' mean 'summoned', or does it mean 'conjured (including summoned or called)'? My reasoning was that there was a specific example of the spell applying to called creatures in the description of the Calling subschool. Yours is that the spell referenced in that section contains a specific reference to the Magic Circle spells in its description, which would override any restriction on the spells not applying to called creatures generally. I still prefer mine, but I do understand yours.

Dang, I guess the individual DM will have to make a ruling. Or we could write the Sage, I suppose.

 

[Arravis]

** No, and probably not. Unhallow creates a Magic Circle Against Good effect, yes-but this doesn't prevent creatures from being called (or summoned) into it-they just can't cross the barrier in the direction it is oriented. So, a good creature gated in would not be able to exit the unhallowed area, if the MCAG associated with it is oriented as a prison. (Again, see the examples in the PH of using a Magic Circle spell to imprison a creature called by Planar Binding. The MC spell doesn't prevent you from calling a creature into it-it just prevents the creature from getting out [other than extradimensionally] once it's in.)***

Does Unhallow create a wall like barrier or is it the entire area? I'd think it was the entire area and the Gate would open, but the creature could just not step through. Additionally, the spell description doesn't mention that Summoned or Conjured creatures have to be of good alignment, I was under the impression that no Summoned or Conjured creatures of any alignment could enter.

 

[Christian]

There's nothing in either the Magic Circle spell description or the Unhallow spell description to suggest that outsiders cannot be called into the affected area. In fact, as I re-read the Magic Circle Against Evil spell, it's not clear that the spell even hedges out outsiders summoned/called outside it ... It just says that everyone in the area gets the benefit of a Protection from Evil spell, which means they can't be touched by the outsiders. So, in the standard configuration, the alignment of the outsider certainly does matter, because it does in the Protection from Evil spell. (Note that, under this reading, if the evil outsider is in range when the spell is cast, it also gets the benefit of a Protection from Evil spell. Which means it can't be touched by non-good outsiders. Which means it can't touch itself. [What's so funny? Perv!] There's got to be some kind of tactical use for that.)

In the 'confining circle' configuration, the spell does create an impassible (for the outsider) barrier. (By the way, this use specifically applies to called creatures in the text of the spell, so it definitely does apply to outsiders called by the Gate spell. Why anyone would do this is another story-anyone who can cast Gate can use the spell to control called outsiders of less than 35 hit dice anyway, and I don't think a third-level Magic Circle spell will last long against a 35+ hit die outsider ...) The text of the spell does not limit this use by alignment, so technically you could trap a Neutral Good outsider with a Magic Circle Against Evil spell, which could not otherwise affect it in any way. If you think this is how it is intended to work, well, fine, whatever. By the text of the spells, a true Neutral outsider can only be hedged out by a Protection from/Magic Circle Against Evil spell, while Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral outsiders have the distinction of having the only alignments that are subject to two protection spell types.

 

[Arravis]

One of my players likes to use Gate and I was going to have the antagonist cast "Unhallowed" on his home. It does seem to protect those affected by the spell from physicall contact by Summoned or Conjured creatures, regardless of the alignment of the Summoned or Conjured creature. When it comes to such crearures, what does seem to matter is the alignment of the protected. Is this correct?