Dispel happy Druid

[Piratecat]

The druid player is trying to break the rules, taking advantage of the DM.

I'd guess that he didn't realize the rule, either. I agree that discussing it as a group of friends seems like absolutely the right solution.

 

[Nail]

BTW: Can anyone find the spot where it says: "Constructs aren't subject to Dispel Magic"?

Seems like a rules quote would go a long way here.

 

[werk]

BTW: Can anyone find the spot where it says: "Constructs aren't subject to Dispel Magic"?

Seems like a rules quote would go a long way here.

That's somewhat the problem I think. The rules tell you what a spell does, not the infinite things that it doesn't do.

So dispel does four things:
- end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object
- temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item
- end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area
- counter another spellcaster’s spell


Good luck!

 

[jason_gosse]

I am hoping that this can be resolved with a discussion, although I am not sure.
Some may think that if the dm makes an error that benifits the party, you let it slide. This fellow is one of them. I don't, I would rather spend an hour in combat then having one spell defeat the enemy.

 

[Piratecat]

Some may think that if the dm makes an error that benifits the party, you let it slide. This fellow is one of them.

For me, that's the line I draw for cheating. I'm impressed you're calling him on it, and don't fault you for it one bit. It's only fair.

 

[Nail]

That's somewhat the problem I think. The rules tell you what a spell does, not the infinite things that it doesn't do.

I agree, but my point was: this is an area that is a bit unclear in the RAW. It's not surprising that a newbie DM is having trouble here, especially if he's not a "careful reader".

Here's what the FAQ says:

Unfortunately, this is just one of those places where two
completely separate areas of the rules have grown together in
an unusual manner. Historically, golems and intelligent magic
items haven’t shared much (if anything) in common. But as the
rules for golems have made them more like magic items (in that
they’re crafted in a similar manner) and the rules for intelligent
magic items have made them more like golems (in that they’re
considered creatures with the construct type), weird situations
like this occur. Two adjacent branches, but growing from
slightly different trees, and therefore interacting slightly
differently in occasional corner cases of the rules.

Here’s the important distinction: Golems are not magic
items, and Mordenkainen’s disjunction affects only “magical
effects and magic items.” Intelligent magic items are, as one
would expect from their name, magic items (even though
they’re also creatures), so the spell affects them.

We can substitute "any construct that is not a spell effect" for "golem" in this quote.

 

[Nail]

Further example: Constructs, although constructed by magic, are not detected by Detect Magic (at least last I checked). This can seem quite weird to a newbie DM or player.

 

[Nifft]

Some may think that if the dm makes an error that benifits the party, you let it slide. This fellow is one of them. I don't, I would rather spend an hour in combat then having one spell defeat the enemy.

I'm the sort of guy who reminds the DM that my PC is poisoned....
Honesty & integrity are good. Stay good, man. It's hard enough to be a newbie DM.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Deset Gled]

The Antimagic Field spell has some interesting things to say that may help you out...

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field.

First, this is proof that golems (as well as undead, who I bet would be the Druid's next target) are not inherently magic, even though they are created through magic.

Second, if a field where no magic exists doesn't affect a golem, it's an awfully hard sell to say that a simple dispel could affect one.

 

[jason_gosse]

The Antimagic Field spell has some interesting things to say that may help you out...



First, this is proof that golems (as well as undead, who I bet would be the Druid's next target) are not inherently magic, even though they are created through magic.

Second, if a field where no magic exists doesn't affect a golem, it's an awfully hard sell to say that a simple dispel could affect one.

This is perfect. Thank you. This should get The rule across and should halt further arguments . . . on this subject. I am taking personal responsiblity for keeping the druid in check from now on. The DM is good guy with the grasp of the rules, and he is the one who brought me into my first campaign. So I watch his back for slip ups.

Expect to hear more from me on the "Happy Druid" issue.