Dispel Magic vs. multiple summoning

[Hypersmurf]

This is similar to an Antimagic Field. If you put up an AMF next to one of the summoned monsters, that monster is suppressed. The monsters outside the area are not.

Antimagic Field states how it interacts with summoned monsters; the creature winks out.

Area Dispel states how it interacts with summoned monsters; the spell that summoned the creature ends.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

... or at least the effect. Which is the only logical possibility in the case where one monster is within the area, and one monster without the area.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... or at least the effect. Which is the only logical possibility in the case where one monster is within the area, and one monster without the area.

"or at least the effect" is a general description of one of the capabilities of a spell which behaves differently depending on application.

"The spell ends" is a specific description of what happens when that spell is applied in a certain way.

Can I use a targeted dispel magic to dispel a Spiritual Weapon? Dancing Lights?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

"or at least the effect" is a general description of one of the capabilities of a spell which behaves differently depending on application.

It's the principal definition of the "area dispel" capacity of dispel magic.

Do you disagree that it's a requirement that a spell be within the area to be ended by dispel magic?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you disagree that it's a requirement that a spell be within the area to be ended by dispel magic?

If an object or creature that is an ongoing effect of that spell is within the area? The spell itself is not within the area, but it is ended.

Spiritual Weapon - can it be ended with a targeted dispel?

-Hyp.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Sits down grabs some popcorn and looks on with my Alienist friend Lucifus Cray.
At this point we're finding ourselves nodding in agreeance with Hypersmurf's simpler and more cogent response.

Duke it out lads, this should be a good one.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[KarinsDad]

I can understand that you are basing your interpretation on the following quote:

If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.

But, it seems apparent to me that this sentence was written without taking into account multiple monsters summoned by the same spell. For one thing, the "object or creature" portion of it is singular. It in no way talks about multiple monsters summoned by the same spell, it just happens to have wording that would wipe them all out, apparently by accident.


I suspect that the designers never even considered the question. However, they did consider the question with Antimagic Field (or any other area or single creature target spells) and the entire spell is not surpressed, just the monsters within the area.

The fact that area dispels on area spells where the point of origin is outside the radius of the dispel also works this way is also an indicator that only targeting a single summoned mosnter (or targeting all of those within an area) is what is supposed to happen.

Granted, you are correct with a literal interpretation, but I think that sentence is an accident. JMO.


It seems very odd to me that any other spell which catches some of the monsters within its area only affects those within the area or any other spell which targets a single monster only affects it, but Dispel works counter-intuitive to all other such spells. There is no need for a special rule here, hence, I think it is an accident of how they worded it.

 

[dcollins]

The spell itself is not within the area, but it is ended.

Well then, you're simply contradicting the primary definition that it can "end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area".

Dispel magic says it ends spells within an area. You're saying that it ends spells not within the area. You're contradicting the written text with your argument.

 

[KarinsDad]

I cast Summon Monster III, summoning 4 celestial badgers. They go off in four different directions.

You cast Dispel Magic as an area dispel, with one badger in the area.

If an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning) is in the area, you can make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured that object or creature (returning it whence it came) in addition to attempting to dispel spells targeting the creature or object.

The badger is a monster summoned by monster summoning, and is a creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell. It is in the area. If your dispel check succeeds, you 'end the spell that conjured that object or creature'.

The spell that conjured the creature is Summon Monster III. Summon Monster III ends. When Summon Monster III ends, all four badgers disappear. They can't remain once the spell is ended.

I think this is a good example.

What happens if TWO badgers are in the area? Or three? Or all four?

Do you get to roll the Dispel Magic against every single summoned monster from that spell in the area?

If so, then this is a major exception to the rules in that you get multiple dispel attempts against the same spell.

If not, then the text above is proven to be in error with regard to dispelling summoned creatures (i.e. it works for the "first creature", but not all creatures).


Either way, I think this illustrates the problems with this sentence and reinforces my belief that it is in error and an accident.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well then, you're simply contradicting the primary definition that it can "end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area".

Which brings me back to my Spiritual Weapon question.

Do you get to roll the Dispel Magic against every single summoned monster from that spell in the area?

Q. Can I make a dispel check to end Summon Monster III?
A. Is there an object or creature that is the effect of the ongoing spell in the area?

I can see an argument either way. One check per creature, or the check is either allowed or disallowed depending on whether or not there is a creature in the area.

Note that it's not only Summon Monster that's potentially affected. The example in the PHB is of a targeted dispel on a drow who is under the effects of a haste spell; if Mialee succeeds on her check, the haste spell is dispelled. That spell might be affecting several other characters who weren't the target of the dispel magic, but the spell ends as if its duration had expired.

For dcollins' benefit, there's no contradiction here with the 'primary' sentence; we are using dispel magic to end an ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object.

-Hyp.