Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6576936" data-attributes="member: 4937">I concur largely with Rabulias - it depends on the sort of area of effect spell in question.  Spells like your example circle of protection are emanations, and I concur with his analysis that the point of origin must be included in the spell if only for the sake of simplicity and coherence. Spells that have no point of origin I'd probably rule are in the area of effect if any part of them overlaps the dispel zone - for example, a wall of fire.  Again, the goal here is simplicity.    The one area where I don't like that all or nothing interpretation is shapeable spells, which in 3.X are generally composed of some number of 10' or 20' cubes that can be arranged according to the caster's preference.   For those, I'd tend to rule that dispel destroyed only those cubes which overlapped the area dispel.  This is slightly more complex, but simple to adjudicate because the spell area breaks into clear components anyway, and for me feels 'right'.  It's similar to how I'd rule an area dispel against a spell with multiple individual targets - only those targets within the area of effect are effected.I don't know what the official rules are, if any, but I suggest the above because I know it would work in pretty much all cases.  And it feels fair.</blockquote>