Targeted Dispel

[phillipjp]

Suppose Fighter A is dominated by a vampire. Wizard B manages to get a Protection From Evil spell on Fighter A to suppress the domination. Wizard B now wants to cast Dispel Magic on Fighter A to remove the domination.

From the SRD:
Targeted Dispel: 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.


So, can Wizard B SPECIFICALLY target the Domination on Fighter A? Or, does he have to dispel Fighter A as a creature, and if he fails his Dispel check on the Domination, he might actually dispel his own Protection from Evil on Fighter A?

(The way I read the "or spell" means an existing environmental spell effect, like an illusion or wall of fire or something. IMO, spells in effect on a creature are already covered by the "object or creature" category and cannot be specifically targeted.)

 

[AGGEMAM]

Yes, you can target one specific spell.

Actually, you have to ...

 

[Jeremy]

I'd say you could target the domination.

When the fictional wizards designed this spell, they--in their vast intellect--surmised that occasionally, while protected from evil, surrounded by mage armor, and fly-ing above a battle field; they would be affected by a spell they wouldn't like, such as slow or blindness.

Not wanting to dispel all their protections, they made Dispel Magic targettable to a single spell.

Or, at least that's what I'd do if I was the original wizard who created the spell.

 

[Jeremy]

Yes, you can target one specific spell.

Actually, you have to ...

Doesn't *have* to. He could target the area and hope to get lucky, or he could target the person and make dispel checks against all the spells currently affecting him, presumably just the protection from evil (bad to dispel) and the dominate person (good to dispel). Of course, being able to take the third option of targeted dispel magics is the best choice. Target a single spell.

 

[Alejandro]

I'd have to vote no.

If a spell is already on a creature or object, I think you'd need to target the creature or object. I, too, think the "spell" option is only for independent environmental effects (or counterspelling).

 

[kreynolds]

So, can Wizard B SPECIFICALLY target the Domination on Fighter A?

No. A lot of people don't like that (and rightfully so), but you can use a house rule.

Or, does he have to dispel Fighter A as a creature

Yes.

and if he fails his Dispel check on the Domination, he might actually dispel his own Protection from Evil on Fighter A?

Possible. But, he doesn't have to fail his check on Domination. When you target a creature with Dispel Magic, you are target all ongoing effects, including magic items, spells, etc. When you target a creature, you make a dispel check against everything they have going.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

No. A lot of people don't like that (and rightfully so), but you can use a house rule.

The Dispel Magic spell description in the PHB say specifically that you can target 'object, creature or spell'.

Then it gives a lousy example from which you cannot discern anything.

There is no evidence to support a position of not allowing the targeted dispeling of a single spell on a creature with multiple spells cast on them.

Otherwise you couldn't yourself dispel a spell you have cast on yourself that you do no longer want to be in effect.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

The Dispel Magic spell description in the PHB...<snip>

You misunderstand. This wasn't an invitation to reopen such a pointless discussion (nothing personal, it's just the topic has been beaten to hell and back). The rules say "no". People say "yes". I understand more why people say "yes" than I understand why the rules say "no".

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

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted Dispel

You misunderstand.

I fear it is you who misunderstand.

Strange, I must have missed that topic alltogether.

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.

 

[Pielorinho]

I was in that topic (before I left in disgust at the insulting tone it was degenerating to) before. As near as I can tell, here are the two sides of the debate:

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.

There were other arguments on the "no" side, but this was the only one that made any sense to me. Strangely, it was one of the few arguments presented without calling people "idiots" or "morons." Hmm.

Personally, I go with "yes," for several reasons.

First, the targeting rules are not terribly clear, and spells such as Nightmare clearly don't follow them.

Secondly, the point of being able to see a target is so that you can pinpoint it in space. A spell which effects a target is where the target is; you should be able to pinpoint it just as surely as a dragon could target an invisible wizard with Magic Missile, using its blindsight.

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.

Fourth, it's more fun.

However, by one very strict reading of the rules (not, I think, the only strict reading of the rules), it may be illegal. Talk with your DM or with your players and come to some consensus on it. Either way, I think, is well within a plausible reading of the rules.

Daniel