Targeted Dispel

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

I fear it is you who misunderstand.

No.

Strange, I must have missed that topic alltogether.

You didn't miss it. You were in that thread, IIR. The consensus of people here was that the answer is "yes", even though the rules and The Sage say "no".

Well, no biggy, since the rules clearly says 'yes'. I think it is pointless to discuss, also in the view of the D&D FAQ being utterly silent about this topic.

Actually, the rules say "no", though they do not do so clearly, and even Skip says "no", which ironically, he is the author of the FAQ.

Like I said, I support "yes", but the rules don't.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I don't recall participating in discussion about 'Dispel Magic', I would have remembered if I did.

I cannot see how the text in the PHB can be interpreted as a 'no', you must spell that out for me.

And so Skip says 'no'? When and where? Actually, it doesn't matter anyway since that position is not reflected in the D&D FAQ, or any other official source. And as long as that is the case it is Skip's House Rule. Which I in this case don't support.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't recall participating in discussion about 'Dispel Magic', I would have remembered if I did.

That's cool. I just thought I remembered you being involved.

I cannot see how the text in the PHB can be interpreted as a 'no', you must spell that out for me.

I'll see if I can find the old thread for you.

And so Skip says 'no'? When and where?

Like I said, I'll try and find the thread.

Actually, it doesn't matter anyway since that position is not reflected in the D&D FAQ, or any other official source. And as long as that is the case it is Skip's House Rule. Which I in this case don't support.

Then we have something in common. It doesn't matter to me either. I have my opinion of how the rules work, but I house rule them anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

YES:
A. The spell description says you can target "a spell".
B. Dominate is "a spell."
THEREFORE:
C. Dominate is a member of the class of objects that can be targeted by Dispel Magic.

NO:
A. The "target spell" option uses standard targeting rules.
B. Standard targeting rules require the caster to see the target.
C. The dominate spell is not itself visible.
THEREFORE:
D. The dominate spell cannot be targeted by Dispel Magic.

I think the answer (DM dependent) should be either YES or MAYBE.

It should never be NO.

The NO case here should really be a MAYBE case:

MAYBE:
A. The "target spell" option uses standard targeting rules.
B. Standard targeting rules only require the caster to see the target if it is a creature or object, there are no standard targeting rules for spells targeting spells.
C. The dominate spell is not itself visible.
THEREFORE:
D. The dominate spell can only be targeted (as per missile attacks or ray spell attacks) if the 50% miss chance for concealment (the spell is concealed if there is no Detect Magic cast) is made.

Personally, I would go with the YES case, but the MAYBE case here is a fine house rule.

So, "yes" has my support, but according to the rules, it's "no".

Since the Dispel Magic spell explicitly states that spells can be dispelled, I can see a given DM using either the YES or MAYBE case, but using the NO case just because there are no rules on how to target the Domination spell is a bit strange. You cannot ASSUME that targeting a spell is identical to targeting a creature or object because that is NOT the rule (for the rules lawyers). According to the SRD, targeted spells affect creatures or objects. It does not talk about targeting spells. Any extrapolation to targeting spells is just as much a house rule as my MAYBE example above.

The Dispel Magic spell states that it can be done, so either allow it straight up or make up house rules to allow it. When there is no explicit rule to prevent it, the spell description should take precedence.

And, of course, this is magic. So, a given DM could rule that when you cast the Dispel Magic, you explicitly indicate (by the way you cast the Dispel) what "type" of spell you are dispelling (the Domination Enchantment as opposed to the Protection Abjuration).

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

The Dispel Magic spell states that it can be done

Not unambiguously. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And, of course, this is magic. So, a given DM could rule that when you cast the Dispel Magic, you explicitly indicate (by the way you cast the Dispel) what "type" of spell you are dispelling (the Domination Enchantment as opposed to the Protection Abjuration).

The argument of allowing someone to choose what "type" of spell to dispel is exactly the kind of "Dispel Magic Sniping" that I believe is completely unfounded. But that's just my opinion.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

"The Dispel Magic spell states that it can be done"

Not unambiguously. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Incorrect.

The spell explicitly states that it can be done.

The "how can it be done" is ambiguous, but not the fact that the spell states that it can be done.

The argument of allowing someone to choose what "type" of spell to dispel is exactly the kind of "Dispel Magic Sniping" that I believe is completely unfounded. But that's just my opinion.

Sniping? What are you talking about?

This is just an idea for a how a given DM might allow it to be done. It really has no bearing on whether it can be done.


You have stated a few times in this thread that the rules do NOT allow this.

Totally incorrect.

Quote a rule.

The rules do not explicitly disallow it and the spell description says that it can be done.

The only problem is that the spell description does not say HOW it can be done. Hence, it requires DM interpretation. That is one of the reasons why we have DMs, because every situation is not always covered by the rules.

If the DM interprets that it cannot be done, then he is ignoring part of the spell description. Nothing wrong with that. Stating that you must be able to perceive what you are dispelling is fine, but it is still not a core rule, but a given DM interpretation.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

The "how can it be done" is ambiguous, but not the fact that the spell states that it can be done.

That's what I meant. Your interpretation of what I said is incorrect.

Sniping? What are you talking about?

Suddenly allowing Dispel Magic to function in such a way as to simply allow it to be targeted through multiple layers of magical effects or emanations so as to "pop" a single spell effect without hitting or effecting any of the others.

This is just an idea for a how a given DM might allow it to be done. It really has no bearing on whether it can be done.

And why is just an idea for a how a given DM might allow it to be done? Well, there are only two possibilities for that. 1) The passage is ambiguous, thus it is under contention. 2) It's a house rule. Pick one.

You have stated a few times in this thread that the rules do NOT allow this.

Yes, I have.

Totally incorrect.

Prove it. You can't. Because the topic at hand is ambiguous and doesn't provide it's own answer.

Quote a rule.

The only rule to quote is the description of Dispel Magic, and it's ambiguous as hell.

The only problem is that the spell description does not say HOW it can be done. Hence, it requires DM interpretation.

Exactly.

If the DM interprets that it cannot be done, then he is ignoring part of the spell description.

That's odd. You just stated previously that the spell description does not say HOW it can be done, yet you now say that if a DM determine that it cannot be done, then he is ignoring the part of the spell description. Granted, what you stated here doesn't completely go back on what you stated immediately prior, but it contradicts itself.

You also stated that one of the reasons why we have DMs is because every situation is not covered by the rules. You also stated the it requires DM interpretation, and I agree, it does. Are you now saying that any DM which interprets the description of Dispel Magic is simply wrong because he doesn't agree with you?

Nothing wrong with that. Stating that you must be able to perceive what you are dispelling is fine, but it is still not a core rule, but a given DM interpretation.

Neither is your viewpoint a core rule, but simply an interpretation of a core rule, yet you continue to argue with me that my interpretation is obviously incorrect, even though I am performing my duty as a DM by interpreting an ambiguous game element because there is no specific rule that covers this given situation.

 

[Pielorinho]

Karinsdad, am I agreeing with you? This is freaking me out!

At any rate, your point about targeting rules applying specifically to spells that target creatures or objects is well-taken. Given that point, I think the "no" case is really weakened.

Other than the "argument-by-assertion" (you can't target dominate because you're actually targeting the victim of the dominate spell) or the "argument-by-effect" (allowing the caster to target dominate gives an overpowerful sniper's shot ability to spellcasters), I don't think I've seen any other arguments against allowing a spellcaster to target a targeted spell with Dispel Magic.

The "no" argument would be bolstered by the following sentence appearing in the spell description:

A spell with a targeted effect may not be directly targeted by dispel magic. Instead, the spell's own target must be targeted by dispel magic. Other spells on this target will be affected by dispel magic as normal. This restriction does not apply to the use of dispel magic as a counterspell.

This sentence would outline the hypothesized exception to dispel magic's actual ability to target spells. Lacking such an exception, I see nowhere that the exception can be generated within the rules as written.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can outline an argument similar to my arguments above that results in a "no" answer to the question.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can outline an argument similar to my arguments above that results in a "no" answer to the question.

I fail to see what difference it would make whether or not someone presents an argument similar in method to the one you presented. I don't see it as necessary to do so. If I interpret the capablity of targeting a spell with dispel magic as only applying to an ongoing effect that is independent of it's surroundings (such as cloudkill or darkness) or by means of counterspelling, then I don't need to format an argument similar to yours.

I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm just explaining why I won't delve so deeply into the machanics of Dispel Magic when my opinion differs with yours so closely to the "surface" of the spell description.

Besides, one of your points...

Thirdly, it makes more sense to me: if you're targeting a spell, then you're tailoring your dispel magic to effect only that spell. If you're tailoring the magic, it doesn't matter whether you're tailoring it for a wall of fire or for a dominate: as long as you know what you're targeting, you can tailor it.

...I disagree with. The only way to truly "tailor" a spell is via metamagic. I'm not aware of any spells that allow you to select your targeting method in such a specific and pin-point accurate way.

 

[KarinsDad]

The only rule to quote is the description of Dispel Magic, and it's ambiguous as hell.

How is this ambiguous? It doesn't give an example, but it tells you how to do it. Roll a dispel check of D20 + 1 per caster level (max 10) vs. DC of 11 + spell casters level.

It is definitely NOT ambiguous on whether it can be done.

By your own admission, the "only rule to quote is the description of Dispel Magic".

So, I will quote it:

"One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. The character makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. A dispel check is 1d20 +1 per caster level (maximum +10) against a DC of 11 + the spell's caster level."

What is ambiguous about this?

If you target a spell, you target a spell. If you target a spell, you are NOT targeting an object or creature, hence, the first part of the second sentence here applies ("The character makes a dispel check against the spell"), the second sentence here does not apply ("or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature").

The rules on page 148 (I think, do not have PHB in front of me) do not say that you cannot target a spell if you cannot see it like they say that you cannot target a creature or object that you cannot see.

There are NO rules on targeting a spell, hence, the best you can do is say that since Dispel Magic states that you can do it, you can do it.

In fact, after rereading the spell, I am totally confused on what it is ambiguous to you. It appears crystal clear to me. Please explain why it doesn't state what it states.

If I interpret the capablity of targeting a spell with dispel magic as only applying to an ongoing effect that is independent of it's surroundings (such as cloudkill or darkness) or by means of counterspelling, then I don't need to format an argument similar to yours.

I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm just explaining why I won't delve so deeply into the machanics of Dispel Magic when my opinion differs with yours so closely to the "surface" of the spell description.

Well, you are being a pain.

You are explicitly stating that the rules do not allow it, then you turn around and state that it is an interpretation on your part.

You have yet to quote a rule that disallows it, but you repeatedly state that it is disallowed.

Don't state your interpretation, state the rules (as I have above).