Dispel Magic - Dispel single spell only?

[Pielorinho]

Holding this discussion with you has been like trying to explain to a child why the sky is blue. A child just won't get it.

How incredibly rude. Get on my ignore list, kreynolds, and stay there!

Daniel

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Extrapolated sage side.

Sage has ruled that objects count as part of creature when carried by a creature. The extrapolation is that spells are treated the same way. When you target a spell on a creature or object therefore you are targeting a creature or object. When you target a creature or object you affect every spell on them.

The sage ruling and its extrapolation work fine, I just don't see them as based in the written rules.

The problem with this extrapolation is it is simply not correct as a general rule.

Example: Haste on creature. Cast Slow on creature.

If spells are truly "owned" by creature, then creature should get SR and save against Slow before Haste is dispelled.

But the rules clearly say otherwise. So a spell is in some sense functioning separately from the creature. To my mind, that means targetting a spell separately with Dispel Magic is not a new thing; it already happens in the special case of spells that are explicitly in opposition.

 

[kreynolds]

How incredibly rude. Get on my ignore list, kreynolds, and stay there!

Daniel

I just love how selective this guy is with his quotes. Perhaps he didn't see the part that stated "I'm not saying you're a child. I'm just saying I find it impossible to discuss this issue with you."?

 

[Pielorinho]

The problem with this extrapolation is it is simply not correct as a general rule.

There's another problem with this extrapolation: while objects count in some ways as part of their carrier, they don't count as part of their carrier in all ways.

Specifically, a combatant can choose to target an attended item, using striking an object or disarm rules, instead of targeting the item's carrier.

If you use this extrapolation, then a spellcaster oughta be able to choose to target an attended spell instead of targeting the spell's carrier.

The only valid argument I can see limiting the targeting of seplls is that the spellcaster must be able to see the target. A spell like cat's grace or silence is not normally visible and so cannot be targeted.

This thread has had no coherent argument that I've seen explaining why a spell cannot be targeted if it's got a target of its own.

Daniel