Summons and Dispels

[LokiDR]

That comment went more to finding a point of origin, since that is the only real use for the 20' template. You can't say your 20' radius will keep all the summons within 30 of one another.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That comment went more to finding a point of origin, since that is the only real use for the 20' template.

Er... right. That was the whole point.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

No, it doesn't. The point of origin is where the effect begins. If the effect moves away from that spot, the effect has moved, but the point of origin has not.

Now, when you use Summon Monster II to summon two monsters, you don't have two Effects, each being one monster; you have one Effect, which is two monsters. The point of origin is where that Effect begins. 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.

If the Green Badger appears five feet north of the cookpot and the Scarlet Badger appears fifteen feet south of the cookpot, I'd rule the point of origin of the effect to be five feet south of the cookpot.

When the Green Badger and the Scarlet Badger run off to different parts of the house, the point of origin is still five feet south of the cookpot.

-Hyp.

Why not rule two "points of origin," one for each summoned monster? I missed the nuance that states you can only have one point of origin.

 

[LokiDR]

Er... right. That was the whole point.

And even then it isn't very efficent or accurate. I don't think it is a good mechanic at all.

 

[moritheil]

Awesome. I had always suspected that EN Worlders had a truly bizarre compulsion to argue over who was being less polite, and now I have seen another example of such an instance. Hurrah for meta-argument.

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.

You had nothing else to your post except "There you go." How did you want me to respond to nothing other than a quote? You didn't even answer the question. Providing a quote does not answer the question unless you assume that the OP didn't even bother reading the spell description. Admittedly, that happens, but your flippant response to the OP is far ruder than my simple correction of your erroneous post. Moreover, your assumption that merely quoting the spell description answers the question is false.

 

[moritheil]

And even then it isn't very efficent or accurate. I don't think it is a good mechanic at all.

If this forum concentrated on what made sense or what was efficient, it would have far fewer posts. It is my understanding that the concern of the forum is determining exactly what the rules say, no matter how illogical, nonsensical, far-fetched, or convoluted they may be.

 

[LokiDR]

So, where do rules say you should use a 20' template to determine the center of a group no two more than 30' appart? For that matter, where do the rules say a summon spell HAS a point of origin. I see that language only for bursts and spreads.

I'm here to figure out what the rules say AND find reasonable fills for what they don't say. The 20' template is neither of those.

 

[moritheil]

So, where do rules say you should use a 20' template to determine the center of a group no two more than 30' appart? For that matter, where do the rules say a summon spell HAS a point of origin. I see that language only for bursts and spreads.

I'm here to figure out what the rules say AND find reasonable fills for what they don't say. The 20' template is neither of those.

They don't. Hyp is saying it's geometrically impossible to place a bunch of creatures all within 30' of each other and not have them be within a 20' radius. I don't see any "20' template" in this thread other than the 20' reference to dispel magic.

 

[melkorspawn]

I'm going to start by saying that I'm not going to come down on one or another side of the equation here. I will say, however, that:
a) I am intrigued by the debate
and
b) I am a visual person

So I see it this way. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Hyp sees the Summoned creatures teathered to an extradimentional gate at the center of the circle in which they were initially summoned. Any cutting of the magic teather, either clipping it at the monster end, the gate end, or somewhere in the middle, will unsummon all the creatures who have lost part of their teather. The gate is invisible to the naked eye and isn't generally usable for purposes other than maintaining the summons.

Infiniti sees Summoned creatures as already having crossed through a gate that promptly closes. Afterwards they are maintained by a magic dimentional anchor, which has a limited duration. To unsummon the creature, you must disspell that creature's anchor, which is in the same square as the creature.

That about cover it?

 

[moritheil]

I'm going to start by saying that I'm not going to come down on one or another side of the equation here. I will say, however, that:
a) I am intrigued by the debate
and
b) I am a visual person

So I see it this way. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Hyp sees the Summoned creatures teathered to an extradimentional gate at the center of the circle in which they were initially summoned. Any cutting of the magic teather, either clipping it at the monster end, the gate end, or somewhere in the middle, will unsummon all the creatures who have lost part of their teather. The gate is invisible to the naked eye and isn't generally usable for purposes other than maintaining the summons.

Infiniti sees Summoned creatures as already having crossed through a gate that promptly closes. Afterwards they are maintained by a magic dimentional anchor, which has a limited duration. To unsummon the creature, you must disspell that creature's anchor, which is in the same square as the creature.

That about cover it?

It's not necessary to conceive of it in such florid terms; for my part, I imagine Hyp merely sees the rules as a set of intricately interlocked "if-then" statements that can be pulled apart like a delicate puzzle in surprising places.

I don't mean to be brusque, so let me rephrase that: Neither of them are arguing for some metaphysical description of the process that must necessarily be more valid. They are simply having an argument over the semantics and wording of the rules.