Summons and Dispels

[Legildur]

The simpler method is to note that "no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart" can be approximated by a 20' radius circle. It's not perfect, but it's close (it provides a slightly larger area than that in which you could actually place creatures). The point of origin of the effect is the centre of a 20' radius circle that all the summoned creatures fit into.

And now you can use your fireball template to determine where that point is on the grid.

Coincidentally, that 20' radius is the same size as an area dispel, so your dispel magic will always cover the initial positions of all creatures if it's centred on that point anyway.

-Hyp.

I only have the SRD to refer to, but the Summon Monster VII, VIII, and IX spells don't seem to have the "no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart" restriction? That's not fair to Druids! (out of curiosity, what does the PHB say about SMVII etc?)

But I still think that manufacturing a 'point of origin' is problematic in that if the area Dispel Magic is not cast for some time after the summons is cast (particularly if the caster did not see the arrival of the summoned critters), then the caster may not completely cover the either the point of origin or the area encompassing where the critters were originally summoned to. Of course, using area dispel on Summon Monster VII+ would be even more problematic given the wider area they can be summoned into if you were not allowing a manufactured point of origin.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I only have the SRD to refer to, but the Summon Monster VII, VIII, and IX spells don't seem to have the "no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart" restriction? That's not fair to Druids! (out of curiosity, what does the PHB say about SMVII etc?)

Well, the Effect line is missing entirely. Which would mean that the Effect is the same as Summon Monster I: "One summoned creature". This, obviously, conflicts with the text, which allows for more than one, while the inherited Effect line doesn't.

I'm away from my PHB, though.

But I still think that manufacturing a 'point of origin' is problematic in that if the area Dispel Magic is not cast for some time after the summons is cast (particularly if the caster did not see the arrival of the summoned critters), then the caster may not completely cover the either the point of origin or the area encompassing where the critters were originally summoned to.

Well, that's why I suggested considering the point of origin to be the centre of that 20' radius. That way, either it's in the Dispel Magic, or it isn't... there's no 'completely' or 'incompletely' to worry about.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

My reading is certainly that spells that target multiple creatures create separate individual magical effects. Not that dispel magic has the power to make creatures entirely outside the burst area simultaneously lose their haste or summons that came from the same casting as someone inside the area.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My reading is certainly that spells that target multiple creatures create separate individual magical effects. Not that dispel magic has the power to make creatures entirely outside the burst area simultaneously lose their haste or summons that came from the same casting as someone inside the area.

But it's not the 'separate individual magical effect' that 'ends as if its duration had expired'. It's 'the spell'.

And the separate individual magical effects are all produced by the same spell.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

But it's not the 'separate individual magical effect' that 'ends as if its duration had expired'. It's 'the spell'.

I read that as shorthand for "spell (or at least its effect)" as phrased in the first sentence of dispel magic's description.

 

[Caliban]

That's right. So as well as being able to get rid of both badgers by casting an area dispel that encloses either or both of them, you could also get rid of both badgers by casting an area dispel that encloses the point of origin.

-Hyp.

That's just arguing technicalities. Would you actually play it that way?

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's not defined how that is determined when the Effect exists as multiple discrete entities, but my ruling as a DM would be to take the 'centre of gravity' of where the two (or more) creatures appeared.

Well, I'd say it is defined. The definition for point of origin states that the caster designates it for any spell in which it is variable. Unless, of course, you also contend that the point of origin for SMII is not variable then this rule holds true.

However, the definition on point of origin and none of the rules on Effect spells require that a point of origin even exist for non-spread Effect spells.

More importantly, the definition of 'begins' is important. It seems clear to me that you are using it with respect to where the spell was originally cast (not currently located). I disagree with this interpretation and contend that it refers to the where the spell currently begins. Consider arcane eye, which is another Effect spell that is not a spread. Am I right in stating that you would say that the point of origin is the point originally chosen to create the arcane eye and not the point where the arcane eye is currently located?

Finally, let's look at cloudkill. It says, "Figure out the cloud’s new spread each round based on its new point of origin, which is 10 feet farther away from the point of origin where you cast the spell." This clearly indicates that the point of origin follows my interpretation, not yours.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I can't tell if you're berating me for correcting your quote or not. If you post an rule erroneously, you should expect it to be corrected so that the error is not propagated to those reading this thread.

I'm berating you for choosing to nitpick an irrelevant portion of the text I quoted to correct, and then ignoring the rest of my post as unworthy of comment. Had you corrected the srd quote and then commented on my point, fair enough. But taking the time to respond to my post only to correct an error not germaine to the point, and then ignore that point, strikes me as, at the very least, rude.

 

[Stalker0]

"Figure out the cloud’s new spread each round based on its new point of origin, which is 10 feet farther away from the point of origin where you cast the spell." This clearly indicates that the point of origin follows my interpretation, not yours.

Don't have my book handy, but if that quote is true it does gives some credance that the point of origin can move and is not in fact a static location. So I guess with that you would interpret the point of origin to be the monsters themselves. And so dispelling one monster would allow you to dispel them all.

Now assuming that's actually true, another question: if I hit all 3 monsters with an area dispel, do I get 3 checks for 3 monsters, or 1 check for 1 summoning spell?

 

[green slime]

That's just arguing technicalities. Would you actually play it that way?

Hooray!!! Common Sense makes a foray into the rules forum!!! Go Caliban!