Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Pielorinho]

Just so we're clear, let's look at some history:

You:

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.

Me:

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

You:

That's awfully presumptuous.

No it's not presumptuous. You said it was your main reason; I suggested that maybe it wasn't your main reason, and that if it wasn't, you'd misstated yourself. No presumption anywhere in there.

And when I asked you to explain your line of reasoning start to finish, sans ad hominem attacks, you said, paraphrasing, "No. I'm bored with this."

Hmm.
Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

Just so we're clear, let's look at some history:

You:

No it's not presumptuous. You said it was your main reason; I suggested that maybe it wasn't your main reason, and that if it wasn't, you'd misstated yourself. No presumption anywhere in there.

And when I asked you to explain your line of reasoning start to finish, sans ad hominem attacks, you said, paraphrasing, "No. I'm bored with this."

Hmm.
Daniel

Daniel, I just don't want to repeat myself. Also, I don't appreciate it when you take what I say out of context. I said:

No. I won't restate my argument, as I've become quite bored with this entire topic

That means the entire topic. You just happened to get involved by the time I got sick of it.

 

[AuraSeer]

Why would you prevent a caster from dispelling spells on an attended item? There is not the slightest rules indication to justify that limitation.

If my buddy the fighter were holding a cursed Backbiting Spear, and I wanted to destroy it, could I cast Shatter on just the spear? Sure I could. I've never met, seen, or talked to any DM who would rule that I need to try and Shatter the fighter himself.

If Shatter can be targeted to an item, what basis is there for assuming that Dispel Magic is any different?

 

[Caliban]

Why would you prevent a caster from dispelling spells on an attended item? There is not the slightest rules indication to justify that limitation.

If my buddy the fighter were holding a cursed Backbiting Spear, and I wanted to destroy it, could I cast Shatter on just the spear? Sure I could. I've never met, seen, or talked to any DM who would rule that I need to try and Shatter the fighter himself.

If Shatter can be targeted to an item, what basis is there for assuming that Dispel Magic is any different?

Read the previous posts.

 

[Pielorinho]

Okay, well, I finally understand why folks get irked at the Sage. He answered my question; while he sorta seemed to rule that I was wrong, his answer really addresses a different question and then gives an interesting (but completely unsupported) houserule. Here it is:

My first question to the sage!

Lemme provide three examples:
1) I polymorph an evil fighter into a frog, cast geas on him, and then want to turn him back to himself. Can I dispel the polymorph only, using the dispel magic's option of targeting a spell? (some folks think that the polymorph spell is part of the evil fighter at this point, in the same way his equipment is, and that I can only dispel the polymorph by targeting the fighter, thereby risking my geas)

No (Targeted dispels affect all ongoing effects on a creature, some DMs I know allow you to choose which effects you dispel if you can touch the target or study the target with detect magic and make a Spellcraft check to identify the aura you want to remove).

2) An evil wizard casts a deleterious spell (e.g., OA's backbiter) on my bodyguard's weapon. Can I target the weapon with a dispel magic? (some folks think that since the weapon is attended, I'd have to target the bodyguard instead)

Yes, you can use a targeted dispel to remove an effect from an item (though the spell description doesn't address this option directly). It doesn't matter of the item is attended or not.

2a) Can I target the spell on the weapon with a dispel magic?

Yes, see previous answer.

3) An evil druid casts a spell at me, and suddenly I feel extremely weak. I fail my spellcraft check, so I don't know what she cast; can I still dispel it (assuming it's an ongoing effect)?

Yes, you can target yourself. You don't need to know what an effect is to dispel it.

3a) Would it make a difference if it were an area-effect spell (e.g., it created an invisible cloud of poisonous gas)?

No.



Skip Williams

My first question was whether I can target a spell that's on a person; his answer was that when you target a person, all spells on him/her are affected. Not what I asked! Grr. Maybe he was trying to say that you can't target a spell on a person.

I still think that, absent any place in the rules saying you can't target a spell on a person, you can do so.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

My first question was whether I can target a spell that's on a person; his answer was that when you target a person, all spells on him/her are affected. Not what I asked! Grr.

He answered your question, even though the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear. It's cool to see that he doesn't mind a house rule though.

Maybe he was trying to say that you can't target a spell on a person.

From the quote below, that seems pretty obvious.

No (Targeted dispels affect all ongoing effects on a creature

That's why I got bored of this thread. The answer is so obviously right out there in plain english.

 

[Nareau]

Why is Skip still the sage? Why doesn't he have an editor? If Kreynolds is right, and the sage is agreeing with him, why not say, "No, you can't target a single spell on a creature. You must target the creature (thus potentially affecting all the spells currently cast on him and his equipment). The only cases where you can target specific spells are when they are cast in an area, on an object, or when you are using Dispel Magic to counterspell."

Or something like that. His response is more like:
"Are grapes purple?"
"Yes (Raisens are brown, and some people call 'raisens' 'dry-grapes')"

Sigh.

 

[kreynolds]

Why is Skip still the sage? Why doesn't he have an editor? If Kreynolds is right, and the sage is agreeing with him, why not say, "No, you can't target a single spell on a creature. You must target the creature (thus potentially affecting all the spells currently cast on him and his equipment). The only cases where you can target specific spells are when they are cast in an area, on an object, or when you are using Dispel Magic to counterspell."

Or something like that. His response is more like:
"Are grapes purple?"
"Yes (Raisens are brown, and some people call 'raisens' 'dry-grapes')"

Sigh.

LOL It takes a little while to get used to skip's lingo.

 

[Pielorinho]

He answered your question, even though the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear. It's cool to see that he doesn't mind a house rule though.

Hmm. My question was whether you could target a spell on a person using Dispel Magic. His answer was that when you target a person, all spells on them are dispelled. So no, actually, he didn't answer my question. Instead, he made an erroneous assumption about what I wanted to do and told me that I couldn't do that. Sigh.

Daniel

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would fall into the "Yes, you may target a specific spell" camp.

It says so right in the spell description, clearly mentioned under targetted dispelling.

The real question is how does one single out a specific spell. I would say your choices are: (1) it is visually obvious, (2) it can be discerned by a spellcraft check, or (3) you need to use Detect Magic for 3 rounds to discern specific spell aura. Rules for discerning auras are already in the core books; no real speculation required.

IMO, the Sage did not actually address the question.

I disagree with the theory that a creature or object somehow "owns" all its auras. The strong version of this theory is trivially wrong based on how Slow, Haste, Dispel Magic, saving throws and SR interact. The weak version of this theory is only supported by ambiguous rules and creative minds. It is neither obviously right or wrong. Advocates of this theory need to do more work in this thread. Or at least give a compelling vision of why it should be right, even if the evidence is lacking.