Should Forbiddance Bar Summoned Creatures?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

From the SRD:
Forbiddance seals an area against all planar travel into or within it. This includes all teleportation spells (such as dimension door and teleport), plane shifting, astral travel, ethereal travel, and all summoning spells. Such effects simply fail automatically.

According to this, you could summon a creature right outside the area of the spell and simply have it walk on in. Okay, maybe that seems alright. But consider this: all those nifty spells to counter summoned creatures (e.g. banishment, dismissal, dispel evil, etc.) are now totally useless since extraplanar travel is prevented inside the area of effect (how else would the creatures be sent home?).

Does this sound right to you? Part of me wants to house rule that forbiddance totally bars summoned/extraplanar creatures (since the lowly protection from evil does the same job), but I'd like to know what other people think. Does forbiddance work as written, in the particular context outlined above?

 

[Jack Simth]

I'd let the summoned creature walk in, and Banishment wouldn't get rid of it (pushes the creature home), but for things that end the spell that summoned the creature, I'd have it act more like Dimensional Lock; if the spell ends, they go home, block or no block, as the specific case isn't specified, and it's a similar spell in that regard.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

You seem to imply that by your reading, a summoned creature that walks into a Forbiddance area can stay there and won't ever be sent home?

AR

 

[Peter Gibbons]

From the SRD:
Forbiddance seals an area against all planar travel into or within it. This includes all teleportation spells (such as dimension door and teleport), plane shifting, astral travel, ethereal travel, and all summoning spells. Such effects simply fail automatically.

According to this, you could summon a creature right outside the area of the spell and simply have it walk on in. Okay, maybe that seems alright. But consider this: all those nifty spells to counter summoned creatures (e.g. banishment, dismissal, dispel evil, etc.) are now totally useless since extraplanar travel is prevented inside the area of effect (how else would the creatures be sent home?).

Does this sound right to you? Part of me wants to house rule that forbiddance totally bars summoned/extraplanar creatures (since the lowly protection from evil does the same job), but I'd like to know what other people think. Does forbiddance work as written, in the particular context outlined above?

I've highlighted the relevant portion of your post for you.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Ahhh, so "out of" is okay then?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ahhh, so "out of" is okay then?

It's awfully difficult to planar travel out of an area without doing some form of planar travel within it.

How can you teleport out without using a teleportation spell within the area?

-Hyp.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

It's awfully difficult to planar travel out of an area without doing some form of planar travel within it.

How can you teleport out without using a teleportation spell within the area?

The phrase "into or within" is an exceedingly strange one to use if the author(s) really just meant "into or out of." The only sensible construction I can make of the words used is to read them as "into or [entirely] within" the area.

Forbiddance is all about keeping things out, not in.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The phrase "into or within" is an exceedingly strange one to use if the author(s) really just meant "into or out of." The only sensible construction I can make of the words used is to read them as "into or [entirely] within" the area.

It doesn't seem strange to me at all.

1. Are you teleporting into the Forbiddance?

If your end point is in the area, the answer is yes.

2. Are you teleporting within the Forbiddance?

If your start point is in the area, the answer is yes.

You can only teleport if both your start point, and your end point, are outside the area.

-Hyp.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Isn't it possible to read the spell as it sting that you can teleport as long as your final point is outside the area.

1. I agree that the person outside who wants in is denied access by the word "into." That seems pretty clear.

2. But if the word "within" is taken very literally, then it seems to be hinting at a startingpint and ending point within the effected area. [Such as a dimension door to get to another area in combat, etc.]

If a strict literal understanding of "within" is read, it could be determined that teleportations that start on the inside bt end on the outside are not "within" ... they merely begin in the effected area. Thus, these teleportations could be allowed. As it is said earlier - this spell seems more interested in keeping things out than keeping them in.

BUT. Having said that, I would say that I personally don't agree with it. I would go by Hyp's assertion that if either your start point or your end point are within the effected area the attempt fails.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a strict literal understanding of "within" is read, it could be determined that teleportations that start on the inside bt end on the outside are not "within" ... they merely begin in the effected area. Thus, these teleportations could be allowed. As it is said earlier - this spell seems more interested in keeping things out than keeping them in.

If you're attempting planar travel, and you're within the affected area, are you not attempting planar travel within the affected area?

-Hyp.