New FAQ over at Wizards.com

[youspoonybard]

Thanks, does is say that in the rules somewhere?

 

[ciaran00]

So what would be the level of the "caster" in the case of a dispel? Creature HD?

ciaran

 

[shilsen]

So what would be the level of the "caster" in the case of a dispel? Creature HD?

ciaran

Unless there is any other specific information in the creature description, yes.

 

[Stalker0]

What I don't get is why certain abilities that are "like spells" like the sage's mentioned darkness ability for the darkmantle aren't "spell-like" abilities.

 

[dcollins]

If a creature uses a [Su] ability to turn invisible, that can't be dispelled. If it uses a [Su] ability to turn you invisible, the invisibility on you can be dispelled.

Actually, I have to disagree with your reading of that, Hypersmurf. The Sage seems to actually be reinforcing no-dispel-against supernatural abilities by taking the "yes" out of the table.

To youspoonybard's question, "When, exactly, can you use spells to remove the effects of SU abilities?", by my reading the proper answer is, "When using anything except dispel magic."

Here's the language boiled down by snipping out the rambling examples:

While you cannot dispel a supernatural ability with the dispel magic spell, you can remove or reverse its effects... in other ways.

The follow-up examples are then:
(1) Using break enchantment versus Su petrification.
(2) Using daylight against Su darkness.
(3) Using dispel evil against Su domination.
(4) Using protection from evil against Su domination.

None of the language or examples is opening the door to using the dispel magic against the effects of a Supernatural ability.

 

[isoChron]

The follow-up examples are then:
(1) Using break enchantment versus Su petrification.
(2) Using daylight against Su darkness.
(3) Using dispel evil against Su domination.
(4) Using protection from evil against Su domination.

None of the language or examples is opening the door to using the dispel magic against the effects of a Supernatural ability.

OK, but if you don't allow Dispel Magic you don't allow Dispel Evil either ...
From SRD 3.5:

Dispel Evil
[...]
Third, with a touch you can automatically dispel any one enchantment spell cast by an evil creature or any one evil spell. Exception: Spells that can’t be dispelled by dispel magic also can’t be dispelled by dispel evil. Saving throws and spell resistance do not apply to this effect. This use discharges and ends the spell.


Or am I missing something ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I have to disagree with your reading of that, Hypersmurf.

Oops - yeah, I missed the "in other ways".

But IsoChron brings up a good point.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Yes, IsoChron does indeed have a good point. So does Stalker0. I figured I'd leave my "As a separate issue, do I agree with the Sage's ruling?" memo for it's own post.

I'm (a) not so sure it makes sense to separate Su vs. Sp effects for dispel purposes, and (b) think there's a huge danger that Su abilities were originally meant to be really different from Sp but monster creators wind up assigning them willy-nilly.

As an aside, has anyone else noticed this: in the 3.0 PHB, dispel magic said it did work against Su effects, but the DMG table said it did not. In 3.5 they flip-flopped in both places. Wierd, huh?

 

[hong]

Can anyone think of a good reason _not_ to let dispel magic affect supernatural effects in general? Seems it would clear up the whole issue quite nicely.

 

[dcollins]

Well, if you read the 3.0 DMG text (p. 71) -- where it first said you can't dispel Su effects -- it sort of sounds like it should make sense. The examples there are "the basilisk's petrifying stare, the monk's ki strike, and the ghoul's paralytic touch".

So at the time they first wrote it, they were thinking of innate abilities that had their effect and then were over, with no "magic" left behind (attacks, petrification, paralysis). That sort of makes sense, but it seems like there has to be a constraint on what counts as Su that isn't being followed by monster designers.