Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Pielorinho]

thesage@wizards.com

For the record, I know that the way I think it works isn't specifically spelled out in the dispel magic description, or anywhere else in the rules. That is why I prefaced everything with "I think" or "I believe." I could be wrong.

I appreciate that, and since it's not spelled out, I agree that what you're proposing is possible. I just disagree that it's the best way to work the spell.

Imagine dispel magic as a set of disruptive magical frequencies. You can modulate your frequencies so they work in one of three ways:
1) You cause a burst of disruptive energy -- this is the area effect that hits everything indiscriminately.
2) You bathe a particular target in disruptive energy -- this is the "target a person or object" version.
3) You modulate the frequency to destroy one specific spell -- this is the "target a spell" version.

By this method of thinking, to pull off #3, you'd need enough information about the spell to correctly identify it. But it wouldn't matter whether it was an "attended" spell or not.

Alternately, think of dispel magic as a force-of-will thing: the wizard is commanding magic to not exist. In this case, as long as the wizard know what she wants to go away and can phrase it coherently enough for the DM to understand, she can target the spell.

Anyway, I just sent an email to the Sage; we'll see what he says.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

Oriental Adventures has a spell called backbiter. I believe that when you cast backbiter on someone's wooden-hafted weapon, they get a will save or else the weapon turns around and starts attacking them. For now, let's assume the spell works that way: it's certainly a reasonable spell.

Bob the fighter and his best friend Tanya the wizard are fighting Hadunami the ape wizard. Tanya has cast all sorts of good fun on Bob: bull's strength, fly, and haste, for starters. Then Hadumani casts backbiter on Bob's +2 spear -- and it begins to stab Bob in the back!

Does Tanya want to target Bob with a dispel magic? No -- she just wants to target his spear. But it's a piece of attended equipment -- can she do it?.

Nope.

If he dropped it, could she do it?

Yep.

what if he tossed it in the air and then caught it again (I'd rule such tossing to be an MEA)? Would that set off your sillymeter?

That would pretty much peg my sillyometer, but it might be possible. I suppose if she readied an action...Not sure about that one, so I'll think about it.

Further, let's say it's a +2 spear because she cast GMW on it earlier. Can she further refine her targeting of a spell so that it just targets the backbiter spell?

Nope.

Another example: Bob's picked up a few levels of cleric and is closing with a bunch of evil cultists. Tanya is hanging back while Bob runs in -- and just as Bob takes a nasty hit to the groin, one of the cultists drops a silence spell near Bob. Tanya, thankfully, is outside of the silence, but she knows that Bob (who's buffed up with spells) needs to be able to heal himself next round. Can she target the unattended silence spell? She cannot, after all, see it;

Even if she can't see it, she can go for an area dispel, which might affect Bob.

Again, since the rules don't specify that only unattended spells can be targeted (or unattended objects), I don't see where folks are getting this restriction from.

I don't where it's coming from either. Color me confused.

It sounds to me like a reasonable house rule; but since it seems to require adding the word "unattended" into the spell's description in several places, it does seem like a house rule.

My whole point exactly. But the main reason I won't let a single spell out of 4 others on a character be targeted by dispel magic? See my "sniper rifle" comment.

A list of examples of what you can target with dispel magic:
1) Fireball (counterspell)
2) Stinking Cloud (area dispel if already in effect, targeted dispel if being cast)
3) A GMW'd sword lying on the ground (targeted or area dispel)
4) A GMW'd sword in a creatures hand (targeted or area dispel)

I'll address #4. If you use an area, you might get lucky and catch a few other baddies with it. However, if you use a targeted dispel, you hit the character as well because the sword is an attended object and thus part off the creature, thus it affects the entire creature. There is no such thing as an "attended spell" or "unattended spell". So if you can't specifically target a creature's weapon and not affect the rest of them, why would you think that you could specifically target Mage Armor (just as close in proximity to the creature as the weapon, if not closer to them) while not affecting the rest of them. Answer: You can't. Make sense?

By the way, I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe I am. The reason I didn't add "IMHO" to my posts? It's already in my sig.

 

[Nareau]

I'm with Pielorinho on this one...

kreynolds, I can see your point that "you can't target a piece of equipment without targeting the whole creature, since the equipment is a part of the creature." I think that's goofy, and it won't work that way in my game...but it seems like it's in keeping with the Sage's ruling.

But remember, you can target a particular spell. So if someone had cast faerie fire on a sword (which was then picked up by my pal), I could target the faerie fire without any problems. I'm not targeting my pal (a creature), or the sword (an object), or the area that they're in (an area). I'm targeting the faerie fire.

Do you agree?

 

[kreynolds]

Re: I'm with Pielorinho on this one...

kreynolds, I can see your point that "you can't target a piece of equipment without targeting the whole creature, since the equipment is a part of the creature." I think that's goofy, and it won't work that way in my game...but it seems like it's in keeping with the Sage's ruling.

But remember, you can target a particular spell. So if someone had cast faerie fire on a sword (which was then picked up by my pal), I could target the faerie fire without any problems. I'm not targeting my pal (a creature), or the sword (an object), or the area that they're in (an area). I'm targeting the faerie fire.

Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. I'd like to, but I just don't see it within the rules. Sorry.

I don't have a problem with a house rule like that at all, in fact, it might be pretty cool. But I was never talking about a house rule. I was talking about the rules.

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: I'm with Pielorinho on this one...

I don't have a problem with a house rule like that at all, in fact, it might be pretty cool. But I was never talking about a house rule. I was talking about the rules.

I'm having trouble following your argument. Is this your argument?

1) Dispel magic can target a creature, an object, or a spell.
2) The sage says that attended objects count as part of the creature.
3) By inference, spells on a creature count as part of a creature.
4) Therefore, a spell on a creature (or on an attended object) can only be targeted by targeting the creture.

I have problems with step 2 and 3:

2) While targeting a creature includes targeting the creature's items, I don't see that the opposite always applies. Indeed, the fact that there are rules for attacking an attended object, but not for attacking an actual part of a creature, suggests that attended objects can be targeted separately from the attending creature.
3) Even if dispel magic can't target an attended object separately from the attending creature, I don't see how you get from #2 to #3.

Given that #2 and #3 seem to me to be on such shaky grounds, how do you claim that targeting a spell on a creature is a house rule? Quite the opposite, forbidding such a target seems to me like a nonstandard rule.

I may, of course, be misunderstanding what you're arguing; if so, could you restate your argument in toto? And please, no "look up, genius" comments.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

But the main reason I won't let a single spell out of 4 others on a character be targeted by dispel magic? See my "sniper rifle" comment.

Given that this is the rules forum, would you mind giving us a rules-cite on the sniper rifle analogy? Failing that, I'll assume that this was a misstatement on your part.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: I'm with Pielorinho on this one...

I may, of course, be misunderstanding what you're arguing; if so, could you restate your argument in toto? And please, no "look up, genius" comments.

Daniel

No. I won't restate my argument, as I've become quite bored with this entire topic, so maybe someone else will take over. I hope you guys figure out a solution to this, and I look forward to watching this thread and reading all of your comments. But my god, I won't stand for someone flying off the handle and telling me to keep my mouth shut, especially when they had no provocation. If anyone believes that there was provocation for that comment, then what the hell is the point of having smileys?

The "look up, genius" comment was in good fun, as Ziggy requested a sage reply and I was playfully pointing out that I had already posted one. Ziggy responded with another smiley, so he wasn't pissed about it and he obviously recognized that I was playing around. If Ziggy was pissed off about the comment, he should have said so, but he didn't. Instead, he decided to totally flip out 3 posts later.

Why Ziggy suddenly got so upset baffles me. I wasn't being cruel about it. My replies were short because I didn't want to restate my responses over and over and over and over and over and over. Is that inherently cruel? No. My replies were not filled with insults. Is that cruel? Apparently so. Go figure.

Right now, I'm comfortable with my viewpoint, but I do hope you guys make some progress.

 

[kreynolds]

Given that this is the rules forum, would you mind giving us a rules-cite on the sniper rifle analogy? Failing that, I'll assume that this was a misstatement on your part.

Daniel

What? What's the point of this question? Are you saying that all analogies are useless unless they are already printed in the rulebooks? If that's so, then it would be impossible to cite any example for any given rule.

Besides, you know what they say what happens when you make an assumption.

 

[Pielorinho]

Analogies are fine -- but your main reason for advancing a position in the rules forum, especially when you refer to the counterargument as a house rule, ought to have some basis in the rulebook.

Now, maybe the sniper analogy ISN'T your main reason for advancing your position. In which case, you misstated yourself.

Maybe it IS your main reason for advancing your position. In which case, I wanna see where this analogy (or even a similar analogy or straightforward rule) appears in any of the books.

I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

And just so you know, often your posts come across as rude and insulting to me. A smiley is useful for indicating that something shouldn't be taken seriously; however, mocking and snide is still mocking and snide, whether or not accompanied by a yellow happy face. When you call someone an idiot (or "genius," said sarcastically), accompanying it by a smiley makes it no less insulting.

But this isn't the Emily Post forum, so I'll not belabor the point .

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

Analogies are fine -- but your main reason for advancing a position in the rules forum, especially when you refer to the counterargument as a house rule, ought to have some basis in the rulebook.

That made absolutely no sense too me. I think you've lost sight of the argument, or you're just trying to belittle my stance by tightly focusing your guns elsewhere. I don't know.

Now, maybe the sniper analogy ISN'T your main reason for advancing your position. In which case, you misstated yourself.

That's awfully presumptuous.

Maybe it IS your main reason for advancing your position. In which case, I wanna see where this analogy (or even a similar analogy or straightforward rule) appears in any of the books.

I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

Yes it is an unreasonable request. I thougt this was pretty clear - "No. I won't restate my argument, as I've become quite bored with this entire topic, so maybe someone else will take over. I hope you guys figure out a solution to this, and I look forward to watching this thread and reading all of your comments."

And just so you know, often your posts come across as rude and insulting to me. A smiley is useful for indicating that something shouldn't be taken seriously; however, mocking and snide is still mocking and snide, whether or not accompanied by a yellow happy face. When you call someone an idiot (or "genius," said sarcastically), accompanying it by a smiley makes it no less insulting.

Apparently I don't have the immunity that comes along with seniority yet, cause I'm not the only one that "comes across as rude". Hell, rarely are my statements worse than other members of this board. *shrug*

But this isn't the Emily Post forum, so I'll not belabor the point .

Way too late. You've already done that and then some.

Come on, get this thread back on topic.