Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Voadam]

From the srd dispel magic spell text:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. The character makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.

This is the part of the spell that I think unambiguosly says you can target a single spell.

Whether or not there are other spells on the same object or creature seems irrelevant under the text of the spell.

The second sentence seems to be referring to the two separate situations, tageting a single spell and targeting an object or creature which might have multiple spells on them.

 

[kreynolds]

From the srd dispel magic spell text:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. The character makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.

This is the part of the spell that I think unambiguosly says you can target a single spell.

Whether or not there are other spells on the same object or creature seems irrelevant under the text of the spell.

The second sentence seems to be referring to the two separate situations, tageting a single spell and targeting an object or creature which might have multiple spells on them.

Unambiguous my foot! Sorry, that just ain't gonna cut it. Besides, don't you think we might have read that passage at least several times already?

 

[Voadam]

Right, while it seems unambiguous to me that "Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell." means you can target one spell, other people are saying no it does not. So by definition it is not unambiguous. Read in isolation it seems clear to me, however, and that is the basis for my reading of the rules on applying it.

To continue my reasoning from the rules.

From the SRD on targeting

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. the character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. The character must be able to see or touch the target, and the character must specifically choose that target. However, the character does not have to select the character's target until the moment the character finishes casting the spell.

If the character casts a targeted spell on the wrong sort of target, such as casting charm person on a dog, the spell has no effect.

 

[Voadam]

Yes others such as ziggy have already posted that section of text to support the proposition that you can target a single spell. But you also just asked where I thought it unambiguosly says you can target a single spell, I agree with Ziggy et al. on this

Your position seems to be an extrapolation of the sages "equipment equals part of the character" ruling that you quoted in the beginning. You also said you thought it was for dispelling or targetting long lasting spells such as stinking cloud but that if you target a character you get all spells on them.

I'm not arguing that. If you target a character you are not targeting a single spell. Its the jump to if you target a spell on an object or a creature you are targeting the object or creature, not the spell, this is the part that I am disagreeing with. I think you have your choice, target the creature and get all spells on it, or target a single spell that happens to be on a creature. These seem to both be explicit options under the wording of the spell.

I am saying if you can target a single spell (say you see invisible and can see a mage armor) then you can do a targeted dispel on that spell.

 

[kreynolds]

Yes others such as ziggy have already posted that section of text to support the proposition that you can target a single spell. But you also just asked where I thought it unambiguosly says you can target a single spell, I agree with Ziggy et al. on this

Your position seems to be an extrapolation of the sages "equipment equals part of the character" ruling that you quoted in the beginning. You also said you thought it was for dispelling or targetting long lasting spells such as stinking cloud but that if you target a character you get all spells on them.

I'm not arguing that. If you target a character you are not targeting a single spell. Its the jump to if you target a spell on an object or a creature you are targeting the object or creature, not the spell, this is the part that I am disagreeing with. I think you have your choice, target the creature and get all spells on it, or target a single spell that happens to be on a creature. These seem to both be explicit options under the wording of the spell.

I am saying if you can target a single spell (say you see invisible and can see a mage armor) then you can do a targeted dispel on that spell.

I hear ya'. I don't want you to get the wrong impression about my stance either. I'm torn 50/50 on this. Meaning, ever since I posted as Devil's Advocate, I can see either one. My only problem is that neither of the interpretations (sp?) outweighs the other. Hopefully, I'll find divine clarity soon.

 

[Pielorinho]

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.

I am as serious as you are condescending and rude, kreynolds. I asked you several days ago to recap your position; rather than do so, you said, essentially, "No, I won't. I'm bored with this topic and I'm not going to waste any more time with it."

Evidently, you're not as bored with the topic as you thought. So would you mind recapping your argument for us lesser intellects?

And as a matter of fact, rereading the spellcraft description, I don't see what it has to say about using dispel magic against area-effect spells that have no physical manifestation. Please enlighten me.

I think there are big gaping holes in your argument, but since you're posting the argument in bits and unconnected pieces, it's a little hard for me to point out where I see the holes. If you can post the entire argument against allowing dispel magic to target spells when they're on a person or object, then I can evaluate the argument in its entirety.

Daniel

 

[Voadam]

I hear ya'. I don't want you to get the wrong impression about my stance either. I'm torn 50/50 on this. Meaning, ever since I posted as Devil's Advocate, I can see either one. My only problem is that neither of the interpretations (sp?) outweighs the other. Hopefully, I'll find divine clarity soon.

Asmodeus' corrupting influence is working Defy the Sage, come on over to the dark side, it'll be a hoot!

Here is a summary of the arguments.

The dark side,

Spells can define their targets. Dispel says it can target a spell as one of its options. Therefore you can target an individual spell on an object or creature.

Extrapolated sage side.

Sage has ruled that objects count as part of creature when carried by a creature. The extrapolation is that spells are treated the same way. When you target a spell on a creature or object therefore you are targeting a creature or object. When you target a creature or object you affect every spell on them.

The sage ruling and its extrapolation work fine, I just don't see them as based in the written rules.

The dark side is quicker and easier, you just read the spell and go.

Sage extrapolation requires knowledge of the sage ruling. It also requires making the interpretation of targeting a spell more circuitous despite the apparently plain language.

 

[kreynolds]

I am as serious as you are condescending and rude, kreynolds. I asked you several days ago to recap your position; rather than do so, you said, essentially, "No, I won't. I'm bored with this topic and I'm not going to waste any more time with it."

Evidently, you're not as bored with the topic as you thought. So would you mind recapping your argument for us lesser intellects?

And as a matter of fact, rereading the spellcraft description, I don't see what it has to say about using dispel magic against area-effect spells that have no physical manifestation. Please enlighten me.

I think there are big gaping holes in your argument, but since you're posting the argument in bits and unconnected pieces, it's a little hard for me to point out where I see the holes. If you can post the entire argument against allowing dispel magic to target spells when they're on a person or object, then I can evaluate the argument in its entirety.

Daniel

Well, maybe I should explain. I did not, in fact, lose interest in the argument, as I had originally thought. Actually, I lost interest in arguing with you. I don't want to repeat myself to you over and over. Holding this discussion with you has been like trying to explain to a child why the sky is blue. A child just won't get it. So you have to tell them "The sky is blue, because if it were green, we wouldn't know where to stop mowing our lawns." A child will get that. I'm not saying you're a child. I'm just saying I find it impossible to discuss this issue with you. Very soon after a few other people showed interest, participating in this discussion was no longer like beating my head against a brick wall. Make sense?

 

[Voadam]

identifying target

From the srd portion on spell targeting I quoted above, I also do not think spellcraft is even needed to identify a spell to target. You just need to see it, and so any spell that has visible effects (fire shield, that OA backbiter, light, mage armor if you have see invisible going, etc.) you can target. If it turns out you were wrong, say you thought the gnomish trick rubber spear was a backbiter, the dispel simply has no effect.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: identifying target

If it turns out you were wrong, say you thought the gnomish trick rubber spear was a backbiter, the dispel simply has no effect.

LOL