Targeted Dispel

[Caliban]

I came down on the "NO" side in that discussion, using the reasoning that you cannot target what you cannot see. (I.e. if someone is invisible, you can't target them with magic missiles, even if you know exactly which square they are standing in.)

However, if you were able to discern the dominate spell seperately from the creature and any other spells it has on it, then I would allow you to target it.

Basically I would require you to use a Detect Magic and three rounds of study (and successfully identifying the spell), or a similar effect before I would allow you to target a single spell that has no visible effects.

If the spell is visually obvious (Fire Shield, for example) then I would allow you to target it directly.

This is how I rule it, based on my understanding of the spell, and the rules for targetting things with spells.

 

[kreynolds]

How is this ambiguous?

I already stated why. I won't do so again. You are fully capable of reading on your own.

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

Your opinion.

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

Here's that thing I mentioned before that I won't state again.

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?

See previous answer.

If you target a spell, you target a spell.

Really? But then, why on earth would you then state...

There are NO rules on targeting a spell

...?

In fact, after rereading the spell, I am totally confused on what it is ambiguous to you.

I gathered that.

Please explain why it doesn't state what it states.

See first answer.

Well, you are being a pain.

How very mature of you.

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.

My interpretation is that the rules explicitly do not allow it. My initial post in this thread was worded a bit strongly, and perhaps typed up too quickly, so that is a failing on my part. I apologize.

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

I find this statement terribly amusing, seeing as how you want me to quote a rule, yet...

There are NO rules on targeting a spell

...well...there you go.

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

If there are NO rules regarding the targeting of spells, how can you be possibly quoting the rules. You quoted the description of Dispel Magic, yet Dispel Magic is only a part of the rules in question here. The other part, by your own words, does not exhist.

 

[KarinsDad]

I already stated why. I won't do so again. You are fully capable of reading on your own.

Where?

Go back and re-read the entire thread. You have only stated that it is ambiguous, you have yet to state why.

If there are NO rules regarding the targeting of spells, how can you be possibly quoting the rules. You quoted the description of Dispel Magic, yet Dispel Magic is only a part of the rules in question here. The other part, by your own words, does not exhist.

Semantics on your part.

Just because there are no rules on something does not mean that it cannot be done in the game. That's what DMs are for.

Go to page 148-150 and you will find no rules on targeting spells onto spells.

Go to the Dispel Magic description and you will note that it states that you CAN target a spell.

There are no explicit rules elsewhere in the book on how to do it or what is allowed and what is disallowed, but the spell description states that it can be done WITH THIS SPELL.

So, as you eloquently put it, the ONLY place to find information on this is within the description of Dispel Magic.

There it states that you can do it and it states the game mechanic (D20 + …) on how to do it.

Since it is there, how can you state that it is disallowed according to the rules?

My interpretation is that the rules explicitly do not allow it.

Where? Which rules? Back up your statement.


There are no explicit RULES on going backwards or forwards in time, but can a Wish spell allow it? Maybe, depending on the DM.

Dispel Magic states that it immediately dispels magic, but the Fly spell explicitly states that the magic is not immediately dispelled. Exceptions to the normal rules via spell descriptions are explicitly allowed in the game.

In this case, the Dispel Magic spell explicitly states that it can be used to dispel a single spell, hence, it can.

You have yet to quote something from the book that states otherwise.

 

[Pielorinho]

kreynolds, you're not being a pain to me by not responding how I'm interested in seeing responses. You're just not saying anything particularly interesting to me about the topic is all. Which is fine.

And the fact that there are no rules for targeting spells doesn't make the spell especially ambiguous. It just means that any restrictions you put on targeting spells, beyond the ones contained in dispel magic's description, are house rules. Since the spell allows a character to target a spell, then the character gets to target a spell. As long as the player can communicate to the DM which spell she wants targeted, then she's done what she needs to do: no further requirements (beyond the universal requirement of "tell the DM what you want to do") exist.

That is, I think, a strict reading of the rules: it doesn't create new rules to deal with the situation. However, it parses the rules heavily in favor of the dispeller. A couple of minor additions to the rules to delineate how a spell is targeted are very appropriate. I see them on a continuum:

-Require the caster to describe the effect that is being dispelled: This is probably the minimum requirement that still allows the game to continue. "I target whatever's making that dude squirt blood out of his pores!" would be enough.
-Require the player to identify, by name, the spell to target: this eliminates some possible confusion but incorporates a little more metagame knowledge. "I target Elminster's Zitpopping of Doom! would suffice.
-Require the caster to correctly identify the spell by name. Unless it was one the caster was personally familiar with, this would require a spellcraft check. This is more restrictive, but has less metagame abuse possibility. "I target (roll dice) -- dammit, I don't know what's causing the pimples to explode in blood, so I guess I don't target anything."
-Require the caster to see the spell that she wants to target, either visually or via detect magic (or similar spells). This is Caliban's interpretation, I believe. It does raise some questions: are popping bloodboils a visible spell? Is enlargement? Is haste? Nonetheless, lacking rules for targeting spells, it makes good use of the game's rules for targeting other entities.
-Don't allow dispel magic to target spells that themselves have a target. This is unambiguous, though fairly restrictive.

I'm at one end of the spectrum. I believe kreynolds is at the other. I believe that my interpretation is best supported by the rules, for the reasons I stated in the argument above; all the other interpretations are interesting and playable.

Daniel

 

[Jeremy]

My opinion is still that it says "dispel object, creature, or spell". It doesn't say you can only target those few spells like web and wall of fire that are visible, it says you can target a spell.

So my opinion is, if it is a spell, you can target it. Might not work, but you can try.

I would require a spellcraft roll to identify the spell being cast that you are going to target, or that the change in behavior is similar to the symptoms of a domination, but that's neither here nor there.

I dunno, that's what the spell says, so that's what I think. I'm beginning to get a simplicity ruling preference in D&D. I don't think the designers were thinking about every other spell or rule in the game when they designed each spell. They figured saying object, creature, or spell was explicit enough because they weren't thinking about the line of effect or targetting visible targets rule or any other extenuating circumstances. They were just writing what they thought was a simple spell.

Just like mind blank, I'm sure they meant that it protects against scrying, greater scrying, and any other version of scry someone could invent. They tried to use strong language to do that but weren't thinking about spells like true strike and invisibility at the time and thus the confusion. Their words with the proper complicated logic and/or application of real world physics or complex proofs could clearly state something that they probably had no intention of saying.

Blech. I'm gonna shut up. This probably makes no sense at all.

If you get me, I'm glad. If not, I'm sorry.

 

[kreynolds]

Where?

That's your problem, not mine.

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds, you're not being a pain to me by not responding how I'm interested in seeing responses. You're just not saying anything particularly interesting to me about the topic is all. Which is fine.

That's cool. I'm not trying to bring anyone over to see it my way. I was stating how I see it.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's your problem, not mine.

I really do not have a problem per se.

Conversing with someone who says that the rules prevent X and then does not support their contention is somewhat difficult. But then again, I'm sure the other people reading your posts have made up their mind as to how informative the phrase "the rules say no" is without any backing.

 

[Caliban]

In this case, the Dispel Magic spell explicitly states that it can be used to dispel a single spell, hence, it can.

I agree that it can target a single spell, but I think it is reading to much into it to say that it can target a single spell in all cases.

I think that the "single spell" it is referring to would be a standalone spell, such as Otiluke's Resilient sphere, or Globe of Invulnerability (which mention in their descriptions that they are vulnerable to a targetted Dispel Magic).

Basically, I think that targeting a spell with Dispel Magic works just like targeting anything with a spell: You have to be able to somehow sense the target accurately enough to pinpoint it. You can't target an invisible opponent with magic missiles even if you know exactly where he is standing. You have to be able to pinpoint him, either through see invisible, Blindsight, or even scent.

In most cases you cannot percieve a single spell on a person, especially if they have multiple spells active, thus you would not be able to target that spell and would instead need to target the person (possibly taking down all their spells), or target the area and only get one spell from the person (possibly not the one you want).

If you can discern the spell for some reason (because it has a visual effect and you made your spellcraft roll, or because you used detect magic for 3 rounds and made your spellcraft check), then you can target it normally.

This just seems to be the most consistent with the way targetted spells work within the rules: you have to see your target somehow, even if you know where it is.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you can discern the spell for some reason (because it has a visual effect and you made your spellcraft roll, or because you used detect magic for 3 rounds and made your spellcraft check), then you can target it normally.

This just seems to be the most consistent with the way targetted spells work within the rules: you have to see your target somehow, even if you know where it is.

I think this is a reasonable ruling by a DM for something which does not have a set rule.

But, since there is no set rule, taking a literal interpretation of the Dispel Magic spell is also reasonable (i.e. any spell can be dispelled unless the spell itself states that it cannot be dispelled).

Any middle ground between these two also seems reasonable. For example, dispelling a Fire Shield spell, even if you do not know what it is, with or without a Spell Craft roll.

One note on Caliban's ruling: The Spell Craft requirement sounds house rulish and not consistent with the other uses of the Dispel Magic spell (target on creature, area dispel, counterspell). You do not need Spell Craft rolls for them, so why do you need it when targeting a single spell? Not necessarily knowing what spell you are dispelling or seeing what spell you are dispelling, however, is status quo for the other applications of Dispel Magic. 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.

But, like I said, either is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is stating that no single spell (e.g. Growth on a character) can be dispelled when the Dispel Magic spell clearly states that it can be used to dispel a spell.