Summon Monster + Spells with Spell Component

[Deighton Thrane]

So, in another thread people were discussing high level arcane abilities, and raising the dead, and it was mentioned that summoned creatures can't cast raise dead because :

PRD wrote:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

Most people seemed to take this to mean that summoned creatures can't cast spell with expensive material components of any kind. Personally, I've always thought it meant that they can't cast spells (or spell like abilities) that duplicate spells with expensive material components, namely wish or miracle. Both wish and miracle have the specific wording that they "duplicate" a spell, and wish is specifically stated as the example which is not allowed. Doesn't it seem that the limitation was put in to prohibit mass summoning of Glabrezu for wishes, instead of a blanket limitation on all spells with expensive material components. I admit the sentence can easily be read the other way, but spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish) is an oddly specific wording to mean they can't use material components. And if they did mean all spells with material components, why use wish as an example? Wouldn't almost any other spell be less misleading about how the sentence is supposed to be interpreted.

Am I just getting this one completely wrong, or am I the only one who sees it this way?

[DM_Blake]

No, your reading is too restrictive and I'm sure it's not the RAI.

Many SLAs have their own name that is different than the spell it "duplicates". The wording prohibiting expensive material components should be read like this:

Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells (or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells) with expensive material components (such as wish).

Or to be even more clear:

Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells with expensive material components or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

That that these are exactly the same sentence but my versions are a little more wordy. The official version reduces word count and says the same thing but, unfortunately, in a more confusing way.

[Crimeo]

There are two ways to read this:

1) They can't cast spells (any of them!). Also they can't use SLAs that duplicate spells with expensive components (wish, miracle, awaken, continual flame, etc.). <--this seems rather silly, but is grammatically possible.

2) They can't cast spells that duplicate spells with expensive components (wish and miracle only, as other spells don't "duplicate" other spells, they just are them). Also they can't use SLAs that duplicate spells with expensive components (wish, miracle, awaken, continual flame, etc.). <--this is much more workable and likely and also grammatically possible.

The interpretation "They can't cast spells with expensive components OR use SLAs that duplicate spells with expensive components" is not, IMO, supportable as even a valid grammatical parsing of that sentence, though. It would require inter-weaving grammar all over the place in ways that English doesn't support.

[Deighton Thrane]

That's the thing, there's clearly 2 ways to parse the sentence, to combine [spell-like abilities] with [that duplicate spells] which would mean the interpretation you favor. Or you can combine [that duplicate spells] and [with expensive material components] to mean my interpretation. It would be very easy to make the intention clear with the parentheses as you have written it, and again, wish is an odd choice to use if it's not meant to be specifically spells that duplicate other spells.

[Crimeo]

Actually upon further grammar research, unless it is otherwise specified, it appears that adjectives by default modify all of multiple nouns preceding them, without it actually being technically ambiguous (though some style guides warn you to avoid this)

So "that duplicate spells" and "with expensive material components" both apply to "spells" AND "SLAs" by default unless some other meaning is clarified.

So it means "Spells that duplicate spells with expensive material components and SLAs that duplicate spells with expensive material components"

[DM_Blake]

Crimeo wrote:

Actually upon further grammar research, unless it is otherwise specified, it appears that adjectives by default modify all of multiple nouns preceding them, without it actually being technically ambiguous (though some style guides warn you to avoid this)

So "that duplicate spells" and "with expensive material components" both apply to "spells" AND "SLAs" by default unless some other meaning is clarified.

So it means "Spells that duplicate spells with expensive material components and SLAs that duplicate spells with expensive material components"

This is technically correct but then it would mean that only two spells (Wish and Limited Wish) are prohibited while ALL SLAs that duplicate any spell with an expensive material component are prohibited.

Which is virtually incomprehensible as RAI, so I tend to think my previous parsing would stand up if they ever FAQ this.

[Deighton Thrane]

I still don't think that's right. I think the limitation is on wish, and other spells that duplicate other spells, whether it's a spell or spell-like ability. Though limiting all SLAs of spells that normally have material components would be a good idea, I don't think that's what it says.

Also, from the FAQ history, how they judge something after the fact often has no basis on what the actual rule says, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did FAQ it that way.

[vorpaljesus]

I think anybody with common sense knows exactly what they meant.