Targeted Dispel

[Caliban]

Hence, I personally lean towards being able to dispel any single spell you know exists, regardless of how you know it. Fred cast a spell at Barney, I know not what it is, I know not if it is still up, Barney has 20 spells on him, but I want to dispel what was just cast on him. It's magic, I do not care how it works and how it determines to dispel the proper one.

This is exactly what I would never allow as a DM, and not how I think it should work as the player of a 10th level wizard who always carries a Dispel Magic. I simply don't find it a reasonable interpretation.

Even magic has limitations. Dispel Magic is not a divination spell and is not self-directing. It doesn't let you magically select a single unknown, non-detected spell on a person. You have to be able to detect your target before you can target it with a spell. Dispel Magic is no different.

Using KD's definition, if a person was invisible you could not target them with dispel magic, but you would still be able to target a spell on them (such as their invisibility spell). I simply don't find this reasonable.

 

[kreynolds]

What is not reasonable is stating that no single spell (e.g. Growth on a character) can be dispelled

I bet that just burns you up.

when the Dispel Magic spell clearly states that it can be used to dispel a spell.

Yes, it does state that. What it does not state, however, is whether or not you can dispel a single ongoing spell among a myriad of ongoing spells that are functioning upon a creature without your dispel attempt effecting any of the others.

This is from the description of Dispel Magic: Targeted Dispel...

The character makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.

I interpret this to state that you can 1) target an ongoing spell, such as Blade Barrier 2) target an object with ongoing spells, such as a rock with Darkness and Silence, 3) target a creature with ongoing spells, such as Mage Armor and Cat's Grace.

I do not interpret this to mean that you can 1) target just the Darkness spell on the rock while leaving the Silence spell alone or 2) target just the Cat's Grace on the creature while leaving the Mage Armor spell alone.

You know the funny part? I already stated this...

...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...

...but I guess you missed that. *shrug*

 

[KarinsDad]

Even magic has limitations. Dispel Magic is not a divination spell and is not self-directing. It doesn't let you magically select a single unknown, non-detected spell on a person. You have to be able to detect your target before you can target it with a spell. Dispel Magic is no different.

Using KD's definition, if a person was invisible you could not target them with dispel magic, but you would still be able to target a spell on them (such as their invisibility spell). I simply don't find this reasonable.

Fair enough.

I was explicitly talking about dispelling a single spell on a creature that you could target. If I can hit the creature with a spell, why can I not dispel his Fire Shield spell?

In the case of not knowing which spell was cast, it makes more sense that you would have to know at least something about the spell (i.e. see an effect, or make a Spell Craft to know that Protection From Evil was cast on the target while the spell was being cast). But, to me, this was not necessarily an absolute requirement. Just knowing that a spell was on the target would be sufficient.

Maybe some middle ground.

If you know which exact spell is on the creature, you can target the spell if you can target the creature, even if the spell is not visible. For example, Fred casts Doom on Barney and since you made your Spell Craft roll, you know Barney has Doom on him and you can dispel the Doom if you can target Barney.

If you cannot target the creature, you cannot single spell dispel a spell on him. Detect Magic and Detect Invisibility would both allow you to target your opponent (per se, you are actually targeting the magic).

An exception to this would be if I have a Mage Armor spell and an Improved Invisibility spell on myself, I should be able to single spell dispel the Mage Armor if I so desire, even if I cannot see myself. I know where I am and I know what spells are on me.

But, I find requiring a Spell Craft roll to dispel Fire Shield when it has visible effects as too restrictive. To me, that is no different than dispelling a Wall of Fire, or an Obscuring Mist. If I can see it, I should be able to target it, even if I do not know what it is.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, it does state that. What it does not state, however, is whether or not you can dispel a single ongoing spell among a myriad of ongoing spells that are functioning upon a creature without your dispel attempt effecting any of the others.

Of course it states that. You are just taking one sentence out of the half page description and ignoring the rest. In its entire context, it states that you can dispel a single ongoing spell among a myriad of ongoing spells because it states you can target a spell. If it meant that it could not dispel one amongst many, it would have clearly stated that it could not.

Directly from the spell:

“One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell.”

Ok, I choose the Fire Shield spell on Barney.

That is one spell. That is the spell that is the target of the Dispel Magic spell. Barney is not the target of the spell, the Fire Shield spell is the target

Just because you CAN choose to target Barney and possibly dispel multiple spells on him does NOT mean that you MUST do it that way.

I interpret this to state that you can 1) target an ongoing spell, such as Blade Barrier 2) target an object with ongoing spells, such as a rock with Darkness and Silence, 3) target a creature with ongoing spells, such as Mage Armor and Cat's Grace.

You can interpret it that way, but that is not what is stated. You are allowed to target a spell, a creature, or an object. There are no restrictions in the spell at all about which spell, which creature, or which object.

If you declare the target of the spell to be a spell, guess what? The target of the spell is not a creature or an object.

If you declare that you are casting an Area Effect Dispel, guess what? It is not a Targeted Dispel.

As a caster, you can choose any option allowed by the spell. You have 3 choices with regard to Targeted Dispels:

1) Spell
2) Creature
3) Object

Nowhere in the Dispel Magic spell description does it state that if you want to dispel a spell that happens to be residing on a creature or happens to be residing on an object, that you MUST pick option #2 or #3 respectively. That is a personal spin that you put on the spell which is not written within the spell.

 

[kreynolds]

You can interpret it that way, but that is not what is stated.

That's your opinion, and you have a right to it, only I don't share it.

Nowhere in the Dispel Magic spell description does it state that if you want to dispel a spell that happens to be residing on a creature or happens to be residing on an object, that you MUST pick option #2 or #3 respectively. That is a personal spin that you put on the spell which is not written within the spell.

Funny. I find that your viewpoint has your own personal spin on the rules.

Once again, that's your opinion. I have mine. You have your own. You have yet to convince me that your viewpoint is correct, and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying and just let it be, as your argument is becoming quite boring, and only because it has taken this long and I haven't even wavered a bit. I was surprised. I thought you might convince me, but all you have offered thus far is your own interpretation of the issue, which lacks concrete proof, much as my own.

Let us simply agree to disagree.

 

[KarinsDad]

Funny. I find that your viewpoint has your own personal spin on the rules.

The difference is that it is easy to have your viewpoint with a casual reading of the spell.

It is very difficult to have your viewpoint with a careful reading of the spell. If you note, you are the only person who still has your viewpoint this long into this thread. Not only that, on numerous instances in this thread, you stated that your viewpoint was the rule. As has been shown and even finally admitted by you, it is merely your interpretation which virtually everyone else has disagreed with. Hence, I think you are in a minority here.

Your interpretation is based on how the spell works when cast on a creature. For some obscure reason, you feel that you must cast it that way in order to remove a spell from a creature and that is the only way you can do that. The spell description, however, does not indicate that this must be done.

“One X, Y, or Z is the target of the spell. You make a dispel check against Z or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on Y or Z.”

Your choice, X, Y or Z.

Z can be any spell, not just those that kreynolds think it should be.

You are focusing solely on the second sentence and disregarding the first. If the first sentence was not in the spell description, then your viewpoint might have some merit. But, the sentence is there and cannot be ignored in a rationale discussion.

I thought you might convince me, but all you have offered thus far is your own interpretation of the issue, which lacks concrete proof, much as my own.

The difference is that my interpretation is backed up by two sentences in the spell description. Your interpretation ignores one of those two sentences completely. You have yet to explain why you can ignore that sentence.

As a spell caster, you can choose your targets. The spell gives you 3 targets to choose from: spell, creature, or object.

I choose my target as the Fire Shield spell.

Please explain why I cannot do that when the spell states that I can.

That’s all I am asking. In order to back up your point of view, explain why a caster cannot choose the Fire Shield spell on his opponent when the sentence states:

“One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell.”

You have no credibility if you cannot explain why the word spell in this sentence can be a Wall of Fire spell, but cannot be a Fire Shield spell.

This really is not an interpretation issue. It clearly states that you can dispel a spell. Any spell.

If you can show us why this is not the case, please do so. If you cannot, then maybe you should stick to sentences like "your argument is becoming quite boring" and "Let us simply agree to disagree" because that's what your side of the discussion has come down to, attacks and waffling since you seem to have no real explainable rationale on the issue itself.

 

[kreynolds]

<snip blah blah blah blowin hot air>If you can show us why this is not the case, please do so. If you cannot, then maybe you should stick to sentences like "your argument is becoming quite boring" and "Let us simply agree to disagree" because that's what your side of the discussion has come down to, attacks and waffling since you seem to have no real explainable rationale on the issue itself.

Are you always this dense? What did I tell you? Do you think I said those two things because I was hungry? Do you think I said them because I wanna go to the park? No. That post was to get a message across to you that was very clear, and that is "your argument is becoming quite boring" because it is in fact becoming quite boring.

Not once in that thread did I even continue the argument. Not once did I even add on to anything in the discussion. In fact, the entire post was a withdrawl from further discussions with you on this because I'm sick of your argument. You just keep regurgitating the same crap over and over, and your case hasn't become any more solid than it was when you first posted.

But, in your amazingly stubborn thick-headedness, you apparently felt that you should go ahead and vomit up yet another reply, when I clearly stated that I was finished in regards with you because I find no merit in your argument whatsoever, thus there is no chance in sight that you could convince me, thus why bother wasting the time.

What part of "Let us agree to disagree" don't you get?

I have my opinion. You have yours. Simply accept the fact that you have gotten nowhere in convincing me that you can target a single spell within a mass of them and let someone else speak up. Sheesh.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not once did I even add on to anything in the discussion.

No kidding.

In fact, the entire post was a withdrawl from further discussions with you on this because I'm sick of your argument.

So, why do you keep posting if your point is that you do not want to discuss?

But, in your amazingly stubborn thick-headedness

Pot calling the kettle black today?

The problem with people like you is that you make amazing claims like the rules do not allow something. Then, when you cannot back up your position, you whine about how other peoples viewpoints are not convincing, even though they come straight out of the book and then finally you resort to insulting people.

The closest I’ve come to insulting you is by agreeing that you are being a pain because you will not support your point of view (of course, I can understand how difficult it is to do that when the description of the spell states otherwise). But, your concept of continuing a discussion where the facts do not support you is to first disseminate, then when that does not work, attack with phrases like:

“your argument is becoming quite boring”

“snip blah blah blah blowin hot air”

“Are you always this dense?”

“your amazingly stubborn thick-headedness”

“you should go ahead and vomit up yet another reply”

For someone who does not want to continue the discussion and cannot explain why the word spell in the sentence cannot mean just any spell, you sure do post a lot of worthless posts that add nothing.

If you are bored, go away.

 

[coyote6]

Okay, so Karinsdad and kreynolds have taken opposite sides of a rules issue.

So, should we open a pool? How many pages will the thread go? Will they combine to bring the mighty new server to its knees?

 

[Caliban]

I was explicitly talking about dispelling a single spell on a creature that you could target. If I can hit the creature with a spell, why can I not dispel his Fire Shield spell?

I never said you couldn't. Fire Shield has a visible effect, so would be able to target it individually.

Spells like mage armor, shield, charm person, or dominate person do not have a visible effect, and thus would not be able to be targeted unless you had some method of perceiving them. If the DM is generous, see invisible might allow you to perceive a mage armor or shield spell directly, while for charm or dominate I think you would need detect magic (to see the magical aura's on the creature), and a spellcraft check (to determine which magical aura is the one you want to dispel).

In the case of not knowing which spell was cast, it makes more sense that you would have to know at least something about the spell (i.e. see an effect, or make a Spell Craft to know that Protection From Evil was cast on the target while the spell was being cast). But, to me, this was not necessarily an absolute requirement. Just knowing that a spell was on the target would be sufficient.

To me, being able to perceive the target of your spell (when casting a targeted spell) is an absolute requirement, whether that target is a creature, object, or another spell.

Maybe some middle ground.

I thought that allowing a detect magic spell plus spellcraft check was middle ground. Originally I would have said you couldn't target spells like charm or dominate at all.

If you know which exact spell is on the creature, you can target the spell if you can target the creature, even if the spell is not visible. For example, Fred casts Doom on Barney and since you made your Spell Craft roll, you know Barney has Doom on him and you can dispel the Doom if you can target Barney.

Sorry, but not in any game I run. It doesn't matter if you know exactly where an invisible person is, you still can't target them with a magic missile spell unless you can directly percieve them yourself. The same would hold true for using dispel magic on a spell that you know is there, but cannot detect. You can't target it, although you could target the creature the spell is affecting, or use an area affect dispel.

If you cannot target the creature, you cannot single spell dispel a spell on him. Detect Magic and Detect Invisibility would both allow you to target your opponent (per se, you are actually targeting the magic).

As far as I know, there is no "detect invisibility" spell in 3e. Perhaps you mean see invisibility, which allows you to see invisible creatures or objects (but not spells, unless they are creating an invsible creature or object).

An exception to this would be if I have a Mage Armor spell and an Improved Invisibility spell on myself, I should be able to single spell dispel the Mage Armor if I so desire, even if I cannot see myself. I know where I am and I know what spells are on me.

I agree that a spellcaster would be intimately aware of any spells that they had cast on themselves. It may not be the case if an enemy spellcaster has cast a spell on them.

But, I find requiring a Spell Craft roll to dispel Fire Shield when it has visible effects as too restrictive. To me, that is no different than dispelling a Wall of Fire, or an Obscuring Mist. If I can see it, I should be able to target it, even if I do not know what it is.

I agree with that.

The only time a visible effect would require a spellcraft check is if you want to make sure the effect is actually created by a spell (so you don't waste a targeted dispel magic on a natural ability or something). That's what I meant earlier, but I wasn't very clear about it.