COUNTERSPELLING: Dispel Magic Qustion

[ardentmoth]

I was just making an observation that you and a few others (Inf) come off a little, shall I say, annoyed, emotional and frustrated. There may or may not be anything personal "going on." Snarky tone doesn't help your case, though.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I was just making an observation that you and a few others (Inf) come off a little, shall I say, annoyed, emotional and frustrated. There may or may not be anything personal "going on." Snarky tone doesn't help your case, though.

Unfortunately, for a non-author I sometimes find it difficult to make a post toneless. I intended nothing snarky at all in this entire thread; I'm not annoyed, emotional, or even frustrated by it.

When an epic spell is brought into an antimagic field and a successful dispel check is made, is the epic spell dispelled?

It looks like a conflict of rules. In this case, it's clear that the conflict is resolved by the explicit wording and specific overrules general (specific being the epic rule on AMF vs. epic spells vs. the general of dispel checks).

Is there any such clarification, given similar explicit wording, for the non-epic case we have before us?

Inf, if you were not using dispel magic and not making a dispel check, would you still argue that counterspelling is inherently dispelling?

(Sorry, I missed this comment.) First, keep in mind that I'm arguing Devil's Advocate here, so if that doesn't sit well with you, then just ignore the discussion. The entire ambiguity comes into play only when a dispel check is made. So, if there's no dispel check, then counterspelling is not dispelling.

 

[Corsair]

I have to go with Hyp on this one. Countering is not dispelling. Countering is something that is done to a spell as it is being cast. Dispelling is something that is done to a magical effect that is already in place.

Dispel Magic just happens to use the same mechanic for both.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.

It's saying you can't dispel the effect of the spell, because the magic causing it's gone already. This has nothing to do with countering it as it's being cast. What's so confusing here?

 

[s-dub]

See here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a


The relevant text I have quoted.

"The rules don't specifically say so, but you can use a dispel magic or greater dispel magic spell to counter any spell, even a spell that normally isn't subject to dispelling. For example, you could use a dispel magic spell to counter another character's wall of force spell. This works because when you use a counterspell, you're catching and disrupting the spell before it actually has any results."

 

[moritheil]

(Sorry, I missed this comment.) First, keep in mind that I'm arguing Devil's Advocate here, so if that doesn't sit well with you, then just ignore the discussion. The entire ambiguity comes into play only when a dispel check is made. So, if there's no dispel check, then counterspelling is not dispelling.

(Just saw that you finally answered my question.)

So my next question is, if there's no ambiguity coming from the act of counterspelling itself, why are you introducing ambiguity? Does the mere fact that counterspell comes from a use of dispel magic indicate to you that the normal counterspell considerations should be thrown out the window?

If the language seems strong, it's just because I'm baffled by your position.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So my next question is, if there's no ambiguity coming from the act of counterspelling itself, why are you introducing ambiguity? Does the mere fact that counterspell comes from a use of dispel magic indicate to you that the normal counterspell considerations should be thrown out the window?

The answer to your second question, albeit a leading one, is essentially yes. However, "normal counterspell considerations" should not be thrown out the window. They are just superseded by those in the dispel magic description, wherever applicable. Keep in mind that my previous post upon which you commented (quoted below and edited for clarity with underlines signifying added words) was specifically in regards to dispel magic, not counterspelling in general.

Counterspell could simply be a subset of the dispel magic (spell or SPA) possibilities, which it is. So, you can use dispel magic and not counterspell, but whenever you counterspell using dispel magic, you actually dispel.

 

[moritheil]

Okay. Allow me to make an observation. Where the main difference between your understanding and the understanding of those you disagree with is in the hierarchical nature of counterspelling and dispel magic.

Your position seems to be that counterspelling is here a subset of (and therefore a function of) dispelling.

The other common position I see here is that counterspelling is an alternative to dispelling, and not a subset at all.

I do not see anything that necessitates the former interpretation. For that matter, I do not see anything that necessitates the latter interpretation, though it has the appeal of simplicity.