Dispel Magic vs. multiple summoning

[KarinsDad]

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.

Which leads us to a contradiction in how this spell works in the game with regards to other spells. This is something that does not happen elsewhere in the game.

You do not get a dispel check multiple times against the same spell elsewhere in the game (nor does any other spell affect one spell multiple times elsewhere in the game).

or

The text you quoted does not apply to every summoned creature in the area.

Either way, you have a weirdness in the rules.

Like I said, your interpretation is the literal one, it just happens to be one that does not match the rest of the spell (i.e. only dispelling part of another spell when the other spell is "spread out") nor the rest of the spell rules (i.e. a single target spell only affects one creature and an area spell only affects creatures within the area).

The spell appears to be in error with regard to this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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

No. Because "Spell" is not a valid Target for Dispel Magic. You can only target a spellcaster, creature, or object.

This hoped-for errata brought to you by I2K . . . please continue the discussion.

 

[KarinsDad]

No. Because "Spell" is not a valid Target for Dispel Magic. You can only target a spellcaster, creature, or object.

This hoped-for errata brought to you by I2K . . . please continue the discussion.

Not in my copy of the spell:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not in my copy of the spell:

Reread the "Target or Area" line again. And then note that I said "hoped-for errata."

Unless, of course, you think that the Target or Area line shouldn't read: "One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst"?

 

[KarinsDad]

Reread the "Target or Area" line again. And then note that I said "hoped-for errata."

Unless, of course, you think that the Target or Area line shouldn't read: "One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst"?

The Target or Area line does not ever take precedence over the text in the spell. Just like information in tables do not take precedence over the text.

As for hoping for an errata, why? You don't want a way in the game to get rid of a spell?


The Target or Area line could read (as you suggest):

"One spell, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst"

with no problem. This handles all of the situations. I have no idea why they put "spellcaster" in that line. What's the difference between a spellcaster and any other creature? Counterspell? Counterspell can be handled by the word "spell". You're aren't countering the spellcaster.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The Target or Area line does not ever take precedence over the text in the spell. Just like information in tables do not take precedence over the text.

Agreed, of course, but you knew that.

As for hoping for an errata, why? You don't want a way in the game to get rid of a spell?

Huh? I want a way, and that's why the errata is necessary. The stat block disagrees with the text and is therefore in error. It does not allow "spell" and yet the text does. Do you not see this as an error?

 

[KarinsDad]

Huh? I want a way, and that's why the errata is necessary. The stat block disagrees with the text and is therefore in error. It does not allow "spell" and yet the text does. Do you not see this as an error?

Got it. I thought you meant you wanted a way to get rid of dispelling a spell.

You want the Target line fixed. That's cool.

 

[Cabral]

I don't know that the stat block is in error ... How do you target a spell? You target something the spell is affecting to dispel the spell.

As for the Summon Monster issue, I see the dispel magic attempt as nullifying part of the area of a spell. Therefore, the summoned monsters in the area poof if the check is successful, but the spell doesn't end. On the other hand, this probably a house rule I'm calling a rule interpretation

 

[Abstraction]

It's not at all clear in the spell, but I have always interpreted the ability to target a spell as the ability to target a tangible spell effect, for instance Wall of Fire. There is no way to target it then to target a spell effect. A bad example is Charm Person. According to the RAW, you can target a Charm Person spell on your friend and, by targetting only the spell, leave all the other buffs untouched. The spell would be much clearer if it said spell effect rather than simply spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't know that the stat block is in error ... How do you target a spell? You target something the spell is affecting to dispel the spell.

How about Spiritual Weapon? You don't target the creature it is attacking, you target the Spiritual Weapon spell. Sometimes, you target an effect. For example, Charm Person. You might not know your friend is charmed, but he is acting strange and you think a mind affecting spell is the cause. As DM, I would allow you to target the effect which is on the creature.

As for the Summon Monster issue, I see the dispel magic attempt as nullifying part of the area of a spell. Therefore, the summoned monsters in the area poof if the check is successful, but the spell doesn't end. On the other hand, this probably a house rule I'm calling a rule interpretation

Agreed. I think the text as written is in error and I choose to ignore text I consider in error.