Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Voadam]

I too fall into the category of ruling you can target a single spell even if it is on a subject with multiple spells.

The only issue for a caster, I would say, is do they have enough info to target the spell. I would probably rule generously, "Hey my GMW weapon is curving around, I believe a spell is making it do so and so I am trying to dispel that spell." would be sufficient for me.

 

[kreynolds]

Alright. Fine. I'll play devil's frickin' advocate. Here is what you would need to do in order to target a single spell on a character/creature.

First of all, you don't want to dispel everything on them, so you need to find out what protections/spells they currently have going. In order to identify the spells currently active on the target, you must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Keep in mind, however, that you can only make a spellcraft check on a spell that you can see or otherwise detect. So, take a look at this example:

Wizard #1 has these spells currently active on him: Resist Elements, Mage Armor, Displacement, and Darkvision. Now, of these four spells, the only one that has any visual effect that others can see is Displacement. Nowhere in the descriptions of the other spells does it say that they have visual effects. So, the only spell that you can use a Spellcraft check on is Displacement, which has a Spellcraft DC of 23.

The only way you can even partially identify the other three active spells, is to cast Detect Magic or better, as the other three spells do not have any visual effects, thus you don't know that they are active. However, using Detect Magic will take you at least 3 rounds before you can even attempt to identify the other three spells. Unfortunately, Detect Magic only reveals the relative strength of the active spells and what school of magic they are from. Detect Magic will not reveal the actual spell.

So, in order to truly identify the spells, you must use Analyze Dweomer, which would take you a minimum of 3 rounds to identify all of the spells. Also, you have to make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) in order to successfully identify a spell. Also, you have a really good chance of being exhausted after casting the spell (Fort save DC 21) for the next 1d8 hours. Also, you have to use an expensive focus item, 1,500gp. Also, you have to burn up a 6th level spell.

Now, once you have successfully identified all of the spells, you can easily cast a targeted dispel magic against one of the spells without having to worry about hitting the others by accident. If, however, you did not identify all of the spells and you are unaware that Mage Armor is in place, you may inadvertantly dispel it as well.

So, considering everything that you would be required to do, doesn't this seem like a big fat pain in the rear and totally not worth it? Yep. I figured everyone would see it that way.

My point is simple. I have seen several suggestions that follow a simple theme: You cast detect magic and make spellcraft checks to identify the active spells. Unfortunately, spellcraft checks won't help you if you can't see or otherwise detect the spell in place and detect magic doesn't fully identify spells, and unless you know what the actuall spell is, I won't let you target it. Simple as that.

But even if you aren't as strict as I am, and you rule0 that a spellcraft check using Detect Magic is good enough, it will still take you 3 full rounds just to somewhat identify them (DC 15 + spell level, or higher if there are mutliple types of magic active, which you may or may not care about).

So, the Devil says YES, it can be done. But my god, unless you have plenty of time and you aren't pressured, why would you bother?

 

[Joren]

Well, FWIW, we have always played Dispel Magic as allowing a spellcaster who can percieve a spell in effect to target that specific spell, regardless of whether it is a "free-standing" spell (i.e. Stinking Cloud) or on a creature (Polymorph) or an object.

However, reading the spell description, it appears that this interpretation of the spell is not clear.

(1): The "Target or Area" is "One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 30-ft.-radius burst." No mention of "one spell" as a target.

(2): The second line of the description states "You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magic abilities of an item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster's spell." If taken literally (as we should), this allows for 4 options: (a) to end spells (plural) cast on a creature or object [i.e. Target = creature or object], (b) to suppress a magic item [i.e. Target = object], (c) to end spells within an area (which appears to refer to an "Area Dispel" - i.e. Target = 30-ft.-radius burst), or (d) to counterspell [i.e. Target = spellcaster]. These four options seem to tie into the "Target or Area" definition above. Reading analytically, none of these options appears to allow the dispelling of a "free-standing" spell (i.e. Stinking Cloud) without use of the "Area Dispel" option.

(3): A "Targeted Dispel" is defined as targeting "one object, creature, or spell." This is at odds with the "Target or Area" definition, since it states that one "target" of a dispel magic is a "spell." If we look back on the second line of the description, the only option that allows us to target a "spell" would appear to be part (c), ending spells in an area. However, this is an "Area Dispel," and as such should not be discussed under the caption of a "Targeted Dispel." This cannot refer to option (d) - counterspell, since the "counterspell" use of dispel magic targets a "spellcaster," not a "spell." Therefore, a "spell" can apparently be the target of a "targeted dispel," contrary to the "Target or Area" parameters of the spell.

(4): The second sentence of the "Targeted Dispel" subsection states "You make a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature" (emphasis added). This appears to reinforce the idea that you can target "a spell" or "a creature or an object". Again, remember that this is all under the heading of a "Targeted Dispel" rather than an "Area Dispel".

(5): The examples provided under "Targeted Dispel" do not appear to resolve the issue. The first example states that Mialee casts dispel magic on a hasted, mage armored, strengthened drow. The target of the action is the drow, not the spells. Thus, this is an example of dispel magic cast on a creature, which we all agree (I assume) forces a dispel attempt on each and every spell in effect on that creature. The second example does not help either, since it refers to targeting "an object or creature" that is the effect of a spell.

Well, what does this all mean? I know what it means to me - it means (a) the spell is not clear, and (b) when I find a spell that's not clear, I make my own ruling.

If you're looking for the one true answer, it's my opinion that there is no clear answer in the text of the PHB (maybe someone with the SRD can see if there are any clarifications in there). And of course with all due respect, I also don't believe that the Sage's response clears up the issue. The text of the spell appears to say two different things, and like all good DMs, I have to make the call myself.

YMMV, 2 cp, yadda yadda yadda

Joren

 

[Pielorinho]

Joren -- good analysis of the ambiguity.

kreynolds: if your reading is correct -- that in order to target a spell on a person, you must either see it and identify it, or else cast analyze dweomer on it -- then how would you target a silence 15' radius? or a teleportation circle?


Note this exchange with Skip:

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

No.

Given his penchant for misinterpreting my questions, he may have been saying that you could dispel the proposed area-effect spell with an area dispel. However, since i was asking about targeted dispels, we may assume that an invisible spell may be targeted with dispel magic.

Hmm...is that the problem? Are people objecting to the targeting of entities that you can't see? Now that I think about it, that does seem to violate the general rules for acquiring targets. I'll have to think about that.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds: if your reading is correct -- that in order to target a spell on a person, you must either see it and identify it, or else cast analyze dweomer on it -- then how would you target a silence 15' radius? or a teleportation circle?

You can't be serious. It's in the description of the Spellcraft skill. Read that. Then read my post again. If you don't get my drift by then, let me know and I'll recap. Keep in mind, that if I were to allow this variant (?), I would require full identification of the active spells. A spellcraft check, by the rules, allows you to identify a spell, but only if you can see it or otherwise detect it.

 

[Voadam]

Alright. Fine. I'll play devil's frickin' advocate. Here is what you would need to do in order to target a single spell on a character/creature.

First of all, you don't want to dispel everything on them, so you need to find out what protections/spells they currently have going.

. . .

Now, once you have successfully identified all of the spells, you can easily cast a targeted dispel magic against one of the spells without having to worry about hitting the others by accident. If, however, you did not identify all of the spells and you are unaware that Mage Armor is in place, you may inadvertantly dispel it as well.

Your honor, I must object to the assertions of my esteemed colleague Mr. Asmodeus' advocate.

When you have identified the one spell you want to target, why is it necessary to identify or even be aware of any other spell if you are targeting that single spell only for dispelling?

I would submit, your honor, that the other spells are irrelevant. A dispel targeted on an identified spell does not risk accidentally hitting any other spell.

 

[godfear]

Or otherwise detect...

Couldn't you cast detect magic, wait the requisite 3 rounds and follow that up with a Spellcraft check and call the spell identified? Not foolproof, assuredly, and probably still not worth the effort, but still easier than Analyze Dweomer.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Or otherwise detect...

Couldn't you cast detect magic, wait the requisite 3 rounds and follow that up with a Spellcraft check and call the spell identified? Not foolproof, assuredly, and probably still not worth the effort, but still easier than Analyze Dweomer.

Like I said in my post, and I'm really getting tired of repeating myself (not your fault), that's reasonable, but I'm more strict when it comes to targeting a single spell.

 

[godfear]

...genius

*looks up, like the genius he is*

d'oh.

*goes back to lurking*

 

[kreynolds]

Your honor, I must object to the assertions of my esteemed colleague Mr. Asmodeus' advocate.

When you have identified the one spell you want to target, why is it necessary to identify or even be aware of any other spell if you are targeting that single spell only for dispelling?

I would submit, your honor, that the other spells are irrelevant. A dispel targeted on an identified spell does not risk accidentally hitting any other spell.

Cute verbage. However, I would ask that you quote the unambiguous passage that states you can target a single spell upon a creature/character with dispel magic. You can't, as the boundaries of this type of situation are dubious at best.