Summons and Dispels

[Hypersmurf]

Just for the record, my reading is exactly the opposite.

The stat block reads "Effect: One or more..."

Singular effect, resulting in multiple creatures.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Because you've decided that, at a certain point, what the RAW actually say doesn't matter because you're going to run it however you're going to run it.

That's generally what house rules do.

Now, it's possible that sometimes, such an attitude doesn't lead to house rules - but it sometimes does, as well.

No, that's what you are trying to make me say. That's not what I'm saying.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

The only reason to use a fireball template as Hyp suggested is to find the center of the group. Now, how do you place that template to find said center if the creatures are scattered in some odd pattern? What do you do if the point is not on a grid intersection? How about remembering that point later in the combat, after the creatures have moved? It is for these reasons I think the mechanic Hyp invented is not a good way to rule.

 

[dcollins]

The stat block reads "Effect: One or more..."
Singular effect, resulting in multiple creatures.

I disagree. If there's two monsters, there are clearly two effects. Just because the header format doesn't provide for "Effects(s)" is insufficient evidence otherwise.

Consider also the following which argues that one monster = one effect, and contradicts your prior argument that there's a magic dispelling point at the original summoning. From 3.0 PHB p. 151, under "Subjects, Effects, and Areas"):

The effect might move (such as a summoned monster chasing your enemies) or remain still.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Consider also the following which argues that one monster = one effect...

I have no issue with one monster = one effect. I take issue with two monsters = two effects. (Assuming a single Summoning spell.)

... and contradicts your prior argument that there's a magic dispelling point at the original summoning. From 3.0 PHB p. 151, under "Subjects, Effects, and Areas"):

Again, the example shows an effect moving, not a point of origin moving.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Again, the example shows an effect moving, not a point of origin moving.

Why does a non-area spell need a point of origin?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why does a non-area spell need a point of origin?

What does 'need' have to do with it?

It has an Effect. Where the Effect begins is the point of origin.

It's like asking "Why does a magic item need an aura?" It's not that it needs one; it just has one.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I have no issue with one monster = one effect. I take issue with two monsters = two effects. (Assuming a single Summoning spell.)

How so? It says under "Aiming a Spell" that an "effect" may by mobile, such as "a summoned monster". It doesn't say "summoned monster(s)".

 

[spunky_mutters]

Effect spells like Summon Monster do not have a point of origin because none is designated by the caster, nor does any rule call out that one needs to be designated. It is simply not relevant for these spells. This is held up by the treatment of Target and Effect spells in other parts of the magic section.

Under Duration: Subjects, Effects, and Areas (PHB 176), it is stated:

If the spell affects creatures directly (...), the result travels with the subjects... If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. If the spell affects an area, as silence does, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.

It seems clear that only area spells that need a point of origin actually have the spell present at that point of origin, and are subject to that particular clause of dispel magic.

Since Summon Monster creates an effect, and you cannot target an effect with dispel, you must target the creature. It still ends the spell if you succeed. If you hit them with an area dispel, only the portion inside the area is dispelled if you are successful.

I would also argue that while the Area Dispel explains that only the portion within the area is affected, this is called out to show that portions of a spell or spell effect can be dispelled, when they overlap the area, but this exception sets the rule. The rule being that the spell is only dispelled where it is affected by the dispel, area or target. If this was not the case, it would not be necessary to call out the exception.

With this interpretation, a targeted dispel will only remove effects from the individual targeted.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

Of course I did. The quote is the answer to the question. Perhaps I could have spelled it out in more detail. "As this quote states, if one of the creatures is in the area of an area dispel, you can make a check to dispel the monster summoning spell." But that seemed self-evident.

Providing a quote does not answer the question unless you assume that the OP didn't even bother reading the spell description.

I assumed nothing of the sort. Many posters, myself included, have asked questions about the rules only to find that the answer lay right there in the text. People overlook things all the time. I provided what I felt was the relevant portion of the text, which IMO clarifies the issue.

Admittedly, that happens, but your flippant response to the OP is far ruder than my simple correction of your erroneous post.

My post wasn't flippant in the least. It might have been brief, but at that point I hadn't realized there were folks who felt there was any ambiguity whatsoever to this question, at least from a RAW perspective.

Moreover, your assumption that merely quoting the spell description answers the question is false.

In this case, apparently so, as there are several folks arguing against what seems to me (still) to be a clear-cut rule. But it's hardly false in every case, or even most cases.

Basically I felt like a guy in a library. Someone calls out "what does this mean?" And after searching through a reference book I reply "here's a quote that I think explains it," only to have you reply "you mispronounced 'quote.'" Then silence.

In any case, you seem fairly sure of your own impeccable behavior, so it's probably pointless to continue this "meta-discussion."

Good gaming.