D&D 3.x Dispel Magic changed in 3.5?

[Saeviomagy]

As I understand it, this is only true if you select your friend as the target of the dispel magic. You can target only the confusion spell, and not risk dispelling beneficial spells. If there are multiple spells you wish to dispel, then, you have the choice of targetting your friend and trying to remove all of them, but risk dispelling any beneficial spells, or casting multiple dispel magics to dispel them individually.

Here's my reasoning.

Firstly, the spell's block specifies creature, object or spellcaster, or a 20ft burst.

However, if we ignore that (because it is, after all, just the stat block, and if the text counters it, we run with the text...) and go with the text of the spell, we get the following:

Oh, bugger. I'm wrong. Disregard my previous post.

I missed a bit. You can indeed target a spell, and the results of that are indeed defined.

Yup - you can target the spell itself. Presumably you must know it's there. I'd have the caster announce the name of the spell he's going to dispel, and the target of said spell. How he finds that information out is entirely up to him. It could be anything from a lucky guess to a spellcraft check when the spell was cast, to a visual lock on the spell (via arcane sight or somesuch).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or an "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect." spellcraft check, at DC 20 + Spell Level.

 

[Gansk]

Actually after reading the SRD, I am now leaning against allowing the spell to be a target.

The SRD does not include any text, either in the header or detail, specifically mentioning that an existing spell can be a target. The explanation is much clearer than the PHB. The closest thing that is listed is using Dispel Magic as a counterspell, which is pretty straightforward.

My DM also used a WOTC website Rules of the Game article by Skip Williams to contradict what Sav just said - when there is a discrepancy between a spell header and the spell detail, the header text takes precedence! This seems backwards to me, and of course people have different opinions about Skip Williams' interpretations, so YMMV.

 

[Kashell]

Whatever makes most sense to you and your DM, is what it comes down to.

 

[Len]

The SRD does not include any text, either in the header or detail, specifically mentioning that an existing spell can be a target.

We must be reading different SRDs. The one currently on WotC's web site says:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.
[From SpellsD-E.rtf. Emphasis added.]

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You mean text like this, Dingo?

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

 

[Gansk]

Oooops!

You're right, the text is still there in the SRD. I must have been hallucinating.

Back to square one.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or an "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect." spellcraft check, at DC 20 + Spell Level.

You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell.

What counts? Arcane sight? Detect magic? Just going "hey, billy bob's actin' funny"?

 

[Len]

You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell.

What counts? Arcane sight? Detect magic? Just going "hey, billy bob's actin' funny"?

Any of those, I'd say. The difficulty of identifying the spell is represented by the Spellcraft check. The "see or detect the effects of the spell" is just to make sure there's something to apply your spellcraft to. If it only worked in conjunction with Detect Magic, I think it'd say so.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Heck, you could make a Sense Motive check and know that "Billy Bob's been charmed or sumptin'" - I couldn't see ruling out a spellcraft check in the exact same circumstances.

The effects of the spell - confusion, in this case - is that "Billy Bob's actin' funny."