Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Ziggy]

Okay, I'll do this slowly so everybody understands it

A) Dispel Magic can be used to dispel an ongoing spell with a targeted dispel.

B) The issue here is whether spells "attended" (i.e. cast on a person, or on a object attended by a person) can be the only target of a targeted Dispel Magic.

[BTW, By "immunity" in my previous post I meant immunity against being targeted as the only target of Dispel Magic, not a general immunity to Dispel Magic. This has been changed in the previous post]

C) This has not been discussed by the Sage, he only confirmed that attended objects (and their spells) are vulnerable to a targeted Dispel Magic on the creature holding them. He did not in any way discuss whether this limited their suitability as single targets of a targeted Dispel Magic.

Everyone still with me ? Okay, let's move on to the conclusion !

The possible rulings in this situation are:

1. "Attended" spells; i.e. spells cast on a person or on an object attended on a person cannot be singled out as the only target of a targeted Dispel Magic. This is not supported by the spell description, but is supported by similarities to the rules for attended objects. This ruling was proposed by Caliban and supported by kreynolds.

2. There is no difference between spells cast on a person, on an attended object, and on a general area. All can be the target of a targeted Dispel Magic, but the caster must have some knowledge of the spell. This is how the spell description is written. This ruling was proposed by Pielorinho and supported by me.

It's as simple as that. Both rulings are reasonable, and (IMHO) within the parameters of the rules as of now. I still think this is a prime example of a situation where the Sage should be consulted.

---------------------------

I'll round of with some answers to kreynolds:

What is this "immune" thing you keep mentioning? Nothing on a creature is immune to dispel magic, even if dispel magic is targeting their mage armor, it will effect everything on the creature. The only reason that "targeting a spell" is mentioned in the description of Dispel Magic is so that it is made clear that you can target and attempt to dispel and ongoing spell, such as stinking cloud.

This was sloppy wording from my side, has been clarified above.

Why would you need any information about a Stinking Cloud spell? You can see the horrid looking puff of smoke filling a huge area. That's information enough. You see the cloud, target it, bang

But what about other spells. Take e.g. an illusion. Do you need to notice it before dispelling it ? (I guess so) Do you have to disbelieve it before dispelling it ? (Probably not, but not really defined). Do you need to detect the area it covers ? (probably at least partly). There are lots of issues here as well, but these were not the topic of my post.

Why would you bother targeting a creature's sword or helm when it's just as easy to just target the creature? Answer: You don't. You just target the creature. Why? There is no point in targeting the helm or sword. Why? Because you get no bonus for targeting the creature and all his gear as a whole, nor do you get a penalty for specifically targeting his sword. Thus, targeting an item held by a creature is pointless, as the creature is considered part of the item, and the item is considered part of the creature. Why? Because the item is "attended".

See the initial post for why you would want to dispel just a single spell.

You're right. But like I said, doing so is absolutely pointless. However, you don't need a hard and fast rule in a book to figure this out. It's pretty simple enough.

No it's not. Read the post by Pielorinho again. You don't want to dispel all the buff spells on the fighter just to get rid of that Hold Person.

That's a really thin argument. If you have three lemons lined up in front of you, and the sage points to the one in the middle and says "That's a lemon." then walks away, do you just naturally assume the other two are not lemons because the sage didn't say they were? That's what you're trying to do with the sage reply above.

But my point is that they are not three lemons. It's an orange, a lemon and a nectarine. And because the sage states that all lemons are yellow does not make all oranges yellow, even though they are both citrus fruits.

It has already been clarified. Reread the sage reply about 50 more times.

I understand that you're confused, yes.

If you got nothing better to say I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

.Ziggy

 

[kreynolds]

If you got nothing better to say I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

OK. Now you and I have a real problem. I used smilies, you didn't. I've been civil, even playful, up to this point, and no worse than many people on these boards, but you just crossed the line. So, the gloves come off.

I refuse to waste any further time with you on this matter, as it is readily apparent to me that you are talking out of your arse, and not only do you refuse to even acknowledge the sages post above, but I seriously doubt that you even have the capacity to understand it. Have fun with your house rules. And I truly am sorry that you are so confused.

Ya' know, you really should have used a smiley.

 

[kreynolds]

If you got nothing better to say I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

I felt like I should justify my previous post, so as to clear up any misunderstandings before they occur. Being rude is one thing, but the statement I quoted above is just plain mean.

My 2cp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Kreynolds, it wasn't nice to tell you to keep your mouth shut - but reading this thread, smilies or no smilies, I've been surprised by what seems like uncharacteristic rudeness from you toward Ziggy. I can't blame him for being irritated at it.

Ms. Manners-comments aside, let's look at some more troublesome examples:

Oriental Adventures has a spell called backbiter. I believe that when you cast backbiter on someone's wooden-hafted weapon, they get a will save or else the weapon turns around and starts attacking them. For now, let's assume the spell works that way: it's certainly a reasonable spell.

Bob the fighter and his best friend Tanya the wizard are fighting Hadunami the ape wizard. Tanya has cast all sorts of good fun on Bob: bull's strength, fly, and haste, for starters. Then Hadumani casts backbiter on Bob's +2 spear -- and it begins to stab Bob in the back!

Does Tanya want to target Bob with a dispel magic? No -- she just wants to target his spear. But it's a piece of attended equipment -- can she do it? If he dropped it, could she do it? what if he tossed it in the air and then caught it again (I'd rule such tossing to be an MEA)? Would that set off your sillymeter?

Further, let's say it's a +2 spear because she cast GMW on it earlier. Can she further refine her targeting of a spell so that it just targets the backbiter spell?

****

Another example: Bob's picked up a few levels of cleric and is closing with a bunch of evil cultists. Tanya is hanging back while Bob runs in -- and just as Bob takes a nasty hit to the groin, one of the cultists drops a silence spell near Bob. Tanya, thankfully, is outside of the silence, but she knows that Bob (who's buffed up with spells) needs to be able to heal himself next round. Can she target the unattended silence spell? She cannot, after all, see it; as you posted earlier:

Why would you need any information about a Stinking Cloud spell? You can see the horrid looking puff of smoke filling a huge area. That's information enough. You see the cloud, target it, bang.

Again, since the rules don't specify that only unattended spells can be targeted (or unattended objects), I don't see where folks are getting this restriction from. It sounds to me like a reasonable house rule; but since it seems to require adding the word "unattended" into the spell's description in several places, it does seem like a house rule.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Also, can anyone direct me toward the sage's email address? I'm having trouble finding it, and I wanted to send him these questions. (In case you're wondering, kreynolds, I don't think what you posted relates: while it's a settled matter than attended items count as part of a person, I've seen no ruling that spells work the same way, or even that attended items can ONLY be counted as part of a person).

Daniel

 

[Caliban]

Also, can anyone direct me toward the sage's email address? I'm having trouble finding it, and I wanted to send him these questions. (In case you're wondering, kreynolds, I don't think what you posted relates: while it's a settled matter than attended items count as part of a person, I've seen no ruling that spells work the same way, or even that attended items can ONLY be counted as part of a person).

Daniel

thesage@wizards.com

For the record, I know that the way I think it works isn't specifically spelled out in the dispel magic description, or anywhere else in the rules. That is why I prefaced everything with "I think" or "I believe." I could be wrong.

However, I can't understand how you would detect a single spell out of several that may have been cast on a person. How do you differentiate any single spell from the person? What exactly are you using to percieve and thus target the spell?

That is why I do not believe you can target a single spell that is attached to a person. The only thing your character can accurately percieve is the person, and thus that is what you target.

 

[Ziggy]

However, I can't understand how you would detect a single spell out of several that may have been cast on a person. How do you differentiate any single spell from the person? What exactly are you using to percieve and thus target the spell?

That is why I do not believe you can target a single spell that is attached to a person. The only thing your character can accurately percieve is the person, and thus that is what you target.

I see your point, and agree that you need *some* sort of information about the spell in order to dispel it. But I don't buy the argument that no attended spell can be perceived. If we classify these spells according to how easy it is to perceive them:

1. The spell is visible and obvious to everybody who can see it (e.g. Fireshield)
2. The effect of the spell is visible, but the spell is not (e.g. Hold Person)
3. The effect of the spell is visible, but only if you know what to look for (e.g Cat's Grace)
4. The effect of the spell is impossible to detect without magic (e.g. Detect Undead)
   [/list=1]
   
   I would allow a targeted Dispel Magic for category 1 and 2, and possibly 3 in some situation. I would require some way of gathering information about the spell before you could target a spell of category 4.
   
   Finally, the perception problem van also be present for unattended spell (e.g. illusions). Would you put the same restrictions on these spells?
   
   .Ziggy

 

[Shin Okada]

1. The spell is visible and obvious to everybody who can see it (e.g. Fireshield)
2. The effect of the spell is visible, but the spell is not (e.g. Hold Person)
3. The effect of the spell is visible, but only if you know what to look for (e.g Cat's Grace)
4. The effect of the spell is impossible to detect without magic (e.g. Detect Undead)
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   I have been always thinking Spellcraft check allow a character to know the spell in the case of 3. In the case of 4, I also think a character need to use Detect Magic.
   
   By the way, onto the original situation, when the enemy cast Glitterdust spell, a character could make Spellcraft check. IMHO if he succeeds, he can dispel Glitterdust (only).

 

[Geoff Watson]

OK. Now you and I have a real problem. I used smilies, you didn't.

Ya' know, you really should have used a smiley.

Being insulting with a smiley is still being insulting.

As to the rules question, I think you can target an individual spell with dispel magic. It is listed as an acceptable target. The spell doesn't limit the targets.

Geoff.

 

[hong]

I have been always thinking Spellcraft check allow a character to know the spell in the case of 3. In the case of 4, I also think a character need to use Detect Magic.

By the way, onto the original situation, when the enemy cast Glitterdust spell, a character could make Spellcraft check. IMHO if he succeeds, he can dispel Glitterdust (only).

This would seem to be covered by one of the uses of Spellcraft in the table on p.74 of the PHB:


DC 20 + spell level    Identify a spell that's already in place and in effect. (You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell.) No retry.


You could extend this use of Spellcraft to allow targeting a particular spell for dispel magic. In this case it would mean that you were not only identifying that particular spell, but also gaining the information necessary to disentangle its effects from any other spells that may be active on the creature.