Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Pielorinho]

If a spell is on someone, I don't think you would be able to pick that spell out seperately from them (you can't "see" most spells to target them). I think you would have to target the person to dispell any spells on them. And if you target yourself with your own dispel magic, you automatically dispel all your own spells, in addition to possibly dispelling any other spells.

Caliban, that's an interesting interpretation, but I don't see any rules-justification for that -- quite the contrary, in fact. According to your ruling, if you polymorph an enemy into a frog, smack them with a geas, and then want to return them to their normal form, you have to dispel the geas at the same time -- you can't target the polymorph spell. Since you cast both spells, they'll both automatically be dispelled.

That doesn't make sense to me. Likewise, you can't dispel the polymorph from your newly frogshaped fighter buddy without getting rid of her fly spell, her haste spell, and her bull's strength spell?

Is there somewhere in the spell's description that indicates this is how it would work, or is it just how y'all play it?

Daniel

 

[coyote6]

And if you target yourself with your own dispel magic, you automatically dispel all your own spells, in addition to possibly dispelling any other spells.

Note that the PH says, "You may choose to automatically succeed at dispel checks against any spell that you have cast. [emphasis added]." Dispeling your own spells isn't necessarily automatic; you can choose to roll (and hope you fail). This is handy for when you need to cast an area dispel, but you (or your friends you've cast spells on) are in the area.

Further, it reads to me like you could decide on a case-by-case basis whether to roll or auto dispel, though situations where you'd want to auto dispel some spells & not others would seem rare. E.g., say you've cast polymorph other and cat's grace on your fighter pal, turning him into one agile troll; then he gets confused, so you cast a targeted dispel on him; you can choose to automatically dispel the polymorph, but choose to roll vs. the cat's grace, hoping not to zap it.

 

[Caliban]

Note that the PH says, "You may choose to automatically succeed at dispel checks against any spell that you have cast. [emphasis added]." Dispeling your own spells isn't necessarily automatic; you can choose to roll (and hope you fail). This is handy for when you need to cast an area dispel, but you (or your friends you've cast spells on) are in the area.

Further, it reads to me like you could decide on a case-by-case basis whether to roll or auto dispel, though situations where you'd want to auto dispel some spells & not others would seem rare. E.g., say you've cast polymorph other and cat's grace on your fighter pal, turning him into one agile troll; then he gets confused, so you cast a targeted dispel on him; you can choose to automatically dispel the polymorph, but choose to roll vs. the cat's grace, hoping not to zap it.

Your right, I missed the "you may choose" part when I answered that. It's what I get for not double-checking the book before I post.

I still believe that you would not be able to target a single spell out of several that have been cast on a person, although you can choose not to automatically dispel your own spells, as you pointed out. I think it is similar to "attended objects", where they are considered to be part of the person they are attached to.

 

[kreynolds]

Your right, I missed the "you may choose" part when I answered that. It's what I get for not double-checking the book before I post.

I still believe that you would not be able to target a single spell out of several that have been cast on a person, although you can choose not to automatically dispel your own spells, as you pointed out. I think it is similar to "attended objects", where they are considered to be part of the person they are attached to.

I agree. I think the whole purpose of targeting a spell with dispel magic is for counterspell checks and spells that are already in effect, such as stinking cloud. If you target a creature or object, you are attempting to dispel every single magical effect on them.

Check out this Sage reply for more info:

1) If a fighter is hit by a targeted Dispel Magic and that fighter is holding a flaming sword that has had Greater Magic Weapon cast upon it, is the sword affected?

Yes.

Do we need to make the dispel check to see if the GMW spell is removed from the sword even though the fighter (not the sword) was the target of the dispel?

A creature's equipment is part of the creature.

2) If instead the fighter and sword are caught in an area Dispel Magic, is the Greater Magic Weapon spell cast upon the sword in any danger?

Possibly. The sword is part of the creature, and the greater magic weapon effect goes into the queue of effects that might be dispelled.

For number 1, logically I would think "yes", but the spell description is pretty clear in saying "One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. ". Since the sword (not the character) was the target of the Greater Magic Weapon spell, it seems that it would have to be the target of a Dispel trying to get rid of it. Or do you get a bunch of objects for free when you target a creature?

See first answer.

For number 2, again I would think that the sword should be affected, but the spell description says "Magic items are not affected by area dispels. " I assume this meant that (only) the inherent magical properties of magical items are not suppressed, but that is not what is written. Any clarification (either on the rules as written or on the intent) would be much appreciated.

You assume correctly, Also see second answer.

 

[Ziggy]

I still believe that you would not be able to target a single spell out of several that have been cast on a person, although you can choose not to automatically dispel your own spells, as you pointed out. I think it is similar to "attended objects", where they are considered to be part of the person they are attached to.

I cannot see why spells cast on a person is different from other spells with continual effects. While I agree on the "attended objects" metaphor, there is nothing in the spell description that disallows targeted dispels for attended objects. In fact the spell description explicitly discuss how targeted dispel affects items, without any specific rules for attended objects.

What I would require is some way to *target* the dispel. You cannot target something you don't know about, thus you need some information about the spell you want to target. I would allow you to use a targeted dispel if the spell is visible (Flame Shield, Hold Person), you can see its casting, or if someone tell you about it.

I guess we need a Sage ruling on this one, any volunteers ?

.Ziggy

 

[kreynolds]

I guess we need a Sage ruling on this one, any volunteers ?

.Ziggy

Hey genius. Look up.

 

[Ziggy]

Hey genius. Look up.

Sorry, that ruling is not relevant for what we are discussing here. Let's have a look at what the Sage says:

1) If a fighter is hit by a targeted Dispel Magic and that fighter is holding a flaming sword that has had Greater Magic Weapon cast upon it, is the sword affected?

Yes.

Here the Sage states that a targeted dispel on a fighter will affect all attended objects, including spells on attended objects. Nothing here on whether spells (e.g. the GMW on the sword) can be targeted separately.

Do we need to make the dispel check to see if the GMW spell is removed from the sword even though the fighter (not the sword) was the target of the dispel?

A creature's equipment is part of the creature.

Nothing new here, just confirmation that attended objects are counted when using targeted dispel on a creature.

2) If instead the fighter and sword are caught in an area Dispel Magic, is the Greater Magic Weapon spell cast upon the sword in any danger?

Possibly. The sword is part of the creature, and the greater magic weapon effect goes into the queue of effects that might be dispelled.

This is about Area Dispel, so it's not directly relevant for Targeted Dispel. The interesting thing here is that attending an object does not impact the rules for dispelling it (using area dispel). If we use the same rules for targeted dispel, attending an object (or spell) should not disqualify it from being a target of a targeted dispel. However the Sage is not stating this explicitly, thus it is currently only my interpretation.

For number 1, logically I would think "yes", but the spell description is pretty clear in saying "One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. ". Since the sword (not the character) was the target of the Greater Magic Weapon spell, it seems that it would have to be the target of a Dispel trying to get rid of it. Or do you get a bunch of objects for free when you target a creature?

See first answer.

This is the place with some sort of relevance for our situation. Here the Sage confirms that spells (and objects) is part of the character attending them, and thus are targets when the character is the target of a dispel. He is not in any way stating that this makes them immune to a targeted dispel, nor is this in any way a logical conclusion from the answer. The Sage is just stating that attending an object (or spell) makes it vulnerable to a dispel magic.

For number 2, again I would think that the sword should be affected, but the spell description says "Magic items are not affected by area dispels. " I assume this meant that (only) the inherent magical properties of magical items are not suppressed, but that is not what is written. Any clarification (either on the rules as written or on the intent) would be much appreciated.


You assume correctly, Also see second answer.

This is definitely not relevant.

To sum it up: there is nothing in this ruling that supports either view.

In the end it boils down to whether "attending" a spell makes it immune to being targeted explicitly. While attending an object makes it immune in several situations, there are still situations where these objects can be targeted (you can Sunder it, and steal it, and cast spells on it). Thus they are not universally immune, and I see no reason why spells should be.

.Ziggy

 

[kreynolds]

This is definitely not relevant.

To sum it up: there is nothing in this ruling that supports either view.

My point is that there are only 3 things you can target with dispel magic: 1) a spell 2) a creature 3) an object.

1) If you wanna target a stinking cloud spell, no problem.

2) If you wanna target a single spell on a creature, tough luck, as you are targeting the creature. Dispel Magic is not a sniper rifle accurate pinpoint ray that disrupts a single spell on a given creature or object. If you target a wizards mage armor, and succeed in your dispel check, you might dispel his resist elements as well.

3) If you wanna target a magic sword, no problem.

So, it is most definately relevant.

 

[Ziggy]

I understand your point of view, but still disagree

If we look at what you can target, we have (as you said):

1) a spell 2) a creature 3) an object.

The sage is discussing the rules for 2), and has confirmed that attended objects (and spells on these objects) are affected when you target a creature. He has not in any way stated that this makes them impossible to target with a targeted dispel (to repeat myself).

3) is basically okay. It is unclear whether attending an object makes it impossible to target with a targeted dispel, but we'll pass that one for now.

1) is the big issue here. For "unattended" spells (note that this term is normally not used for spells, but we'll use it anyway), the rules are pretty clear (e.g. Stinking Cloud). You could argue about how much information you need about the spell, but I'll pass that one as well.

The issue here is whether spells on a creature (or spells on the objects of a creature) can be targeted.

Using a literal reading of the rules they can be targeted. There is absolutely no rules stating that they cannot, the rules just state spells. No qualifier, no nothing. Just Spells.

The Sage has not ruled on this situation (AFAIK). He has ruled on situation 2 (quoted above), but not on situation 1. And the ruling on situation 2 is not directly applicable for situation 1 (see my argumentation above).

Now, the suggested ruling by you (and Caliban) is not unreasonable, it has roots in the rules for attended objects. But my interpretation also has merit, it argues based on the actual spell description, and the Sage's ruling on area dispel.

We can of course continue the discussion, but the problem is that this situation has very few explicit rules and rulings. Thus it is mainly a question of intepretation and gut-feeling, at least until WoC clarify the situation.

That is why a suggested a Sage ruling on situation 1. Understand ?

.Ziggy

[Edited for clarity]

 

[kreynolds]

The sage is discussing the rules for 2), and has confirmed that attended objects (and spells on these objects) are affected when you target a creature. He has not in any way stated that this makes them immune to a targeted dispel (to repeat myself).

What is this "immune" thing you keep mentioning? Nothing on a creature is immune to dispel magic, even if dispel magic is targeting their mage armor, it will effect everything on the creature. The only reason that "targeting a spell" is mentioned in the description of Dispel Magic is so that it is made clear that you can target and attempt to dispel and ongoing spell, such as stinking cloud.

3) is basically okay. It is unclear whether attending an object makes it immune to a targeted dispel, but we'll pass that one for now.

Let's not pass this one. I still have no idea what the heck you're talking about when you mention "immune". If the fighter is targeted with a dispel magic, nothing on him is "immune" to the dispel attempt, not even the Greater Magic Weapon spell on his sword.

1) is the big issue here. For "unattended" spells (note that this term is normally not used for spells, but we'll use it anyhow), the rules are pretty clear (e.g. Stinking Cloud). You could argue about how much information you need about the spell, but I'll pass that one as well.

Why would you need any information about a Stinking Cloud spell? You can see the horrid looking puff of smoke filling a huge area. That's information enough. You see the cloud, target it, bang.

The issue here is whether spells on a creature (or spells on the objects of a creature) can be targeted.

Why would you bother targeting a creature's sword or helm when it's just as easy to just target the creature? Answer: You don't. You just target the creature. Why? There is no point in targeting the helm or sword. Why? Because you get no bonus for targeting the creature and all his gear as a whole, nor do you get a penalty for specifically targeting his sword. Thus, targeting an item held by a creature is pointless, as the creature is considered part of the item, and the item is considered part of the creature. Why? Because the item is "attended".

Using a literal reading of the rules they can be targeted. There is absolutely no rules stating that they cannot, the rules just state spells. No qualifier, no nothing. Just Spells.

You're right. But like I said, doing so is absolutely pointless. However, you don't need a hard and fast rule in a book to figure this out. It's pretty simple enough.

The Sage has not ruled on this situation (AFAIK). He has ruled on situation 2 (quoted above), but not on situation 1. And the ruling on situation 2 is not directly applicable for situation 1 (see my argumentation above).

That's a really thin argument. If you have three lemons lined up in front of you, and the sage points to the one in the middle and says "That's a lemon." then walks away, do you just naturally assume the other two are not lemons because the sage didn't say they were? That's what you're trying to do with the sage reply above.

Now, the suggested ruling by you (and Caliban) is not unreasonable, it has roots in the rules for attended objects. But my interpretation also has merit, it argues based on the actual spell description, and the Sage's ruling on area dispel.

This is where I disagree with you. I don't think your argument makes any sense, as the evidence is there in front of you. Granted, I'll respect your right to your own interpretation of the rules and sage reply, but you're still wrong.

We can of course continue the discussion, but the problem is that this situation has very few explicit rules and rulings. Thus it is mainly a question of intepretation and gut-feeling, at least until WoC clarify the situation.

It has already been clarified. Reread the sage reply about 50 more times.

That is why a suggested a Sage ruling on situation 1. Understand ?

I understand that you're confused, yes.