Dispel Magic and Spell Turning

[andargor]

The quote is only shorthand for what detect magic does. I completely agree that locating an aura = detecting a spell. But my point is: (1) auras are properties of objects and creatures, not spells themselves, and hence (2) "detecting" a spell is not the same thing as "seeing" it.

A question: At what stage in detect magic do you think you can "see" individual spell auras?

Search DC roll = 26. I sense a trap.

3rd round.

Are you pulling a Hypersmurf on me?

Andargor

 

[dcollins]

Search DC roll = 26. I sense a trap.

3rd round.

Are you pulling a Hypersmurf on me?

Absolutely. Now, would you agree that you've been able to "detect" spells in the 1st & 2nd rounds?

If so, then we agree that "detect" != "see". And hence with specific regard to the detect magic short description, it can hold true without "seeing" spells, only "detecting" them.

 

[andargor]

Absolutely. Now, would you agree that you've been able to "detect" spells in the 1st & 2nd rounds?

If so, then we agree that "detect" != "see". And hence with specific regard to the detect magic short description, it can hold true without "seeing" spells, only "detecting" them.

I agree that "detect" != "see" in rounds 1 and 2. The difference being that in the 3rd round you get a location, which is sufficient to target.

This horse is way into undead territory, but I'll ask one last question. By your rationale, wouldn't then arcane sight do the trick for dispel magic as well?

Andargor

 

[dcollins]

This horse is way into undead territory, but I'll ask one last question. By your rationale, wouldn't then arcane sight do the trick for dispel magic as well?

Well, I don't think so, because arcane sight still only talks about auras, while only greater arcane sight talks about individual spells.


Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. I realize that most people don't play it this way, but my honest reading is that auras are a one-per-object-or-creature property, and that you don't detect one for each spell on a person. To summarize, the evidence I see for this is:
- Standard fantasy/occult understanding of "aura" as a single color glow around a person/object.
- Detect magic text saying that auras are borne by items or creatures.
- DMG "Magic Items and Detect Magic" text saying to reveal only the school of the single highest-level spell.
- DMG "Aura" definition text saying that items only have an aura in the singular.


More importantly for this thread, do we generally agree that, if a wizard just looks at the subject of a spell using normal sight, he is unable to target a single isolated spell (like charm person or spell resistance) for dispelling? Andargor, Hypersmurf, Saeviomagy?

 

[Bad Paper]

More importantly for this thread, do we generally agree that, if a wizard just looks at the subject of a spell using normal sight, he is unable to target a single isolated spell (like charm person or spell resistance) for dispelling? Andargor, Hypersmurf, Saeviomagy?

...but what if I see you cast Bear's Endurance on yourself? I *know* that you have it running; can I target it?

 

[andargor]

More importantly for this thread, do we generally agree that, if a wizard just looks at the subject of a spell using normal sight, he is unable to target a single isolated spell (like charm person or spell resistance) for dispelling? Andargor, Hypersmurf, Saeviomagy?

...but what if I see you cast Bear's Endurance on yourself? I *know* that you have it running; can I target it?

It depends on how you define the "location" of the spell and how you may target it. If I know charm person is in effect on a creature, can I target it?

I hate to bring up fuzzy concepts such as intent of the rules, but in this case I would say that dispel magic should allow a 5th-level caster to use "targeted dispel" on a spell if she manages to identify (and therefore locate) a spell effect on a creature or object, and even in an area. Even if the effect is not visible to normal vision.

But that's just me.

Andargor

 

[dcollins]

...but what if I see you cast Bear's Endurance on yourself? I *know* that you have it running; can I target it?

Seems simple. You don't see it, you can't target it. (Similarly, even if you see someone cast invisibility on their self, and know they're still in the area, you still can't target them with a spell.)

 

[Nail]

Huh. For the first time in a long time, you've convinced me of something, dcollins. Thanks.

 

[moritheil]

And it requires a spellcraft check to identify a spell, even if you can see it - you don't know exactly what spells are there even if you can directly see their effects. Yet, I daresay, you can still dispel them.

Yes, you can dispel them by casting dispel magic on the person. That is not being disputed. What is being disputed is whether or not you can target something you do not comprehend. Really, it's sort of a trivial argument, as whether or not you can see something is not the same as whether or not you can comprehend it, but nonetheless that's what this discussion is about.

 

[moritheil]

- Standard fantasy/occult understanding of "aura" as a single color glow around a person/object.

Don't some spells suggest that the character is surrounded by a multicolored aura while the spell is in effect?

Here's entropic shield, which does not use the actual term "aura," but I know there are other effects that involve a field of light which surrounds the body and is not one color, but many:

A magical field appears around you, glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues.

Even if this fails to satisfy the "aura" requirement, I think it's evident that it's possible to glow in multiple colors.