• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Targeted Dispel

phillipjp said:
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.

Yeah, I know I'm going back to the very first post, but I'm going to answer his specific situation.

Two quotes from the SRD. First from the Vampire template.
Domination (Su): A vampire can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must take a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed at a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell cast by a 12th-level sorcerer. The ability has a range of 30 feet.

The Vampire's domination ability is Supernatural.

Now, another quote from the SRD, this time from the section on Special Abilities.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance or dispel magic. However, supernatural abilities still do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field).

So no, you cannot dispel the Vampire's domination, regardless of whether you can specifically target it or not.

Edit: Fixed the quote
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad said:
No kidding.

You don't get it.

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

You still don't get it.

KarinsDad said:
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.

How do you manage to get around in life without hurting yourself? Amazing...

EDIT: Whoops. I almost forgot. I'm bored with your argument, not the argument itself. Caliban's argument about actually needing to see something to target is a valid one, not one that I 100% agree with, but I would support it if my players insisted, as it seems quite reasonable.
 
Last edited:

Caliban said:

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

I was referring to when you wrote:

“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.”

Here, you indicated that you needed a spellcraft roll for a visual effect spell. But, it seems like we are in sync on visual spells now.

Caliban said:

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).

I can understand this. I wouldn’t be this restrictive though depending on the situation.

I use Detect Magic and notice an abjuration spell and an illusion spell. I do not think a spellcraft roll should be required to dispel the abjuration spell unless there are multiple abjuration spells of the same power.

Caliban said:
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.

I can understand this position as well. The reason I am not quite so in sync with this is that there are other spells that do not require that you see your target (ray spells for example) and dispel magic itself has other applications where you do not need to see a target (counterspelling, area dispels, etc.).

Hence, I view dispel magic as the ability to unlock pieces of magic as long as you basically know where they are.

So, if I know that Barney has a Doom spell cast on him because I made a spellcraft roll when it was cast and I know where Barney is, I basically know as much or more information about the spell than if I just see a Fire Shield where I might know nothing at all about the spell. It would seem that you should be able to dispel an invisible spell that you know exists in a given location easier than a visible one where you know nothing about the spell. Counterspelling allows you to dispel a spell before it even starts, even though you cannot see what you are counterspelling. Area dispels allow you to dispel an entire boatload of spells that you cannot perceive.

To me, these are a precedence for how single spell dispel should work. If you know where a spell is and what it is, you can dispel it. It’s fine that we disagree on this point.

Caliban said:
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.

Appropriately so since that is the rule on targeting a creature.

Caliban said:
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.

Except that there is no rule for targeting a spell, hence, extrapolating the targeting a creature rule to a targeting a spell rule is fine, but not required.

In fact, I have a little bit of an issue with a missile can hit an invisible creature and a ray spell can hit an invisible creature, but even if I know exactly where an invisible creature is located, I cannot cast a spell on it, even by making a concealment roll. But, that’s the rule so I live with it. But, I will not use that same somewhat inferior (IMO) rule for dispels since dispels by their very nature are used to counter and dispel spells that cannot be seen. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

KarinsDad said:

I use Detect Magic and notice an abjuration spell and an illusion spell. I do not think a spellcraft roll should be required to dispel the abjuration spell unless there are multiple abjuration spells of the same power.


Yes, you do. You need to make a Spellcraft check to identify the school of a magical aura (spell description).


I can understand this position as well. The reason I am not quite so in sync with this is that there are other spells that do not require that you see your target (ray spells for example) and dispel magic itself has other applications where you do not need to see a target (counterspelling, area dispels, etc.).


Rays explicitly exempt themselves from requiring you to see a target:

Here's the targetting rules from the SRD (emphasis mine):

Target or Targets: Some spellshave a target or targets. the character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. The character must be able to see or touch the target, and the character must specifically choose that target. However, the character does not have to select the character's target until the moment the character finishs casting the spell.

If the character casts a targeted spell on the wrong sort of target, such as casting charm person on a dog, the spell has no effect.

If the target of a spell is the character ("Target: the character"), the character does not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.


And here's what it says about rays (emphasis mine):

Ray: Some effects are rays. The character aims a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically the character makes a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, The character can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope the character hit something. The character doesn't have to see the creature he or she is trying to hit, as the character does with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block the character's line of sight or provide cover for the creature the character is aiming at.

If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.


So ray spells, except where explicity exempted, still use all targetting rules for spells.


Hence, I view dispel magic as the ability to unlock pieces of magic as long as you basically know where they are.

So, if I know that Barney has a Doom spell cast on him because I made a spellcraft roll when it was cast and I know where Barney is, I basically know as much or more information about the spell than if I just see a Fire Shield where I might know nothing at all about the spell. It would seem that you should be able to dispel an invisible spell that you know exists in a given location easier than a visible one where you know nothing about the spell. Counterspelling allows you to dispel a spell before it even starts, even though you cannot see what you are counterspelling. Area dispels allow you to dispel an entire boatload of spells that you cannot perceive.


For counterspelling, you must also see your target. However, instead of targetting the spell (something you couldn't see) you must target the caster. (PHB p152)

Counterspelling still abides by the rules for targetting.


Except that there is no rule for targeting a spell, hence, extrapolating the targeting a creature rule to a targeting a spell rule is fine, but not required.


There are no rules for targetting creatures. There are only rules for targetting (quoted above). Because targetted dispel magic requires a target, it must use the targetting rules presented in the PHB.

In fact, I have a little bit of an issue with a missile can hit an invisible creature and a ray spell can hit an invisible creature, but even if I know exactly where an invisible creature is located, I cannot cast a spell on it, even by making a concealment roll. But, that’s the rule so I live with it. But, I will not use that same somewhat inferior (IMO) rule for dispels since dispels by their very nature are used to counter and dispel spells that cannot be seen. YMMV.

True, dispel magic is used to prematurely end or suppress magical effects, whether or not you can see them. However, in order to use targetted dispel magic, you need a target. Because the rules for spell targetting require that you see the target, you must be able to see the spell you are targetting.
 

da chicken said:

Yes, you do. You need to make a Spellcraft check to identify the school of a magical aura (spell description).

I expressed myself poorly there.

If you have multiple auras that you can see, you should be able to dispel any aura you wish without a spellcraft roll.

If you want to dispel an abjuration spell, yes, you would still need the spellcraft roll to determine that any of the existing spells is an abjuration spell.

da chicken said:

There are no rules for targetting creatures. There are only rules for targetting (quoted above). Because targetted dispel magic requires a target, it must use the targetting rules presented in the PHB.

You missed the first sentence in what you quoted above:

“Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. the character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.”

The SRD and the PHB ONLY talk about targets as creatures or objects. They do not discuss at all, spells as targets.

Extrapolating the targeting rules to include spells is fine, but it is not a core rule. It is an extrapolation. Granted, the DMG mentions on page 9:

“Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there…”

But, this is an adjudication guideline, it is not a rule. I just happen to extrapolate based on the other alternate ways of casting Dispel Magic as opposed to extrapolating on the other alternate targets of spells.

da chicken said:

True, dispel magic is used to prematurely end or suppress magical effects, whether or not you can see them. However, in order to use targetted dispel magic, you need a target. Because the rules for spell targetting require that you see the target, you must be able to see the spell you are targetting.

Not exactly true. The rules for targeting refer only to creatures and objects. They do not discuss spells.

Nit picky I know, but that’s how us Rules Lawyers operate. :)
 

KarinsDad said:

Not exactly true. The rules for targeting refer only to creatures and objects. They do not discuss spells.

Nit picky I know, but that’s how us Rules Lawyers operate. :)

When the intent is obvious, and you choose a less obvious interpretation to make it more advantageous for your character, then it's not being a Rules Lawyer.
 
Last edited:

Caliban said:

When the intent is obvious, and you choose a less obvious interpretation to make it more advantageous for your character, then it's not being a Rules Lawyer.

Several points on this Caliban:

1) I am currently the DM. I do not have a character per se. So, I am not min-maxing with my opinion here for a given character.

2) Any rule in the game that applies to spells typically applies the same for PCs as NPCs (unless it is spells that PCs do not have access to).

3) The targeting spell rules are inconsistent with the ray spell rules and the missile rules. I live with that, but I do not have to extrapolate what I consider inconsistent rules into an area of the game that does not have a rule.

4) I think both your interpretation and my interpretation are fine. Both allow people to play the game and have fun. Yours is consistent with the targeting rules. Mine is consistent with the other dispeling and countering rules.

5) When the intent (poor as it may be) of the targeting rules is X for creatures and objects, it probably should be X for spells. However, when the intent of Dispels is to dispel any spell that characters are aware of (and even ones they are not aware of), I do not think that the only criteria should be spell visibility. I think the same for the other targeting rules, but there I have to put in a house rule as opposed to an adjudication.

6) Getting back to the subject of Invisibility and why I dislike the targeting rules, Invisibility is a 50% miss chance for ray spells and missiles. It is an unknown miss chance for Area of Effect spells (since you either have to detect the invisible character in some manner, or you have to get lucky). It is a 100% miss chance for targeted spells. As we have had in numerous conversations, I dislike 100% absolutes in the game. Invisibility (and it's worse bigger brother Improved Invisibility) are combined Invisibilty and Immunity to Targeted Spells. A single second level Invisibilty spell is approximately as protective versus spells as a Globe of Invulnerability since the list of targeted spells in the book is probably 50% or more. I personally do not like this, but that's the rule. If you know exactly where an invisible opponent is located (and that is typically hard to do in the game), a 50% miss chance for concealment would be a much better rule and consistent with the Ray and Missile targeting rules. IMO.

So, in any rules discussion about a rule that does not exist, yes we should consider other similar rules. But, we should not be slaves to that to the point that we close our minds to better rules, especially when the similar rules are inferior. Again, IMO.
 

Spellcraft Checks and Dispel

Oftentimes in this post, there were references to making Spellcraft checks. This is required to determine the school of magic with detect magic. The spell says that you can make Spellcraft checks for each aura. Is the check a FRA or MEA? In general, are the checks FRA or MEA? And does a wizard get to make a Spellcraft check against spells being cast "for free?"

It seems that determining a specific aura make take some time. It takes 3 rounds of study to get to the point where you can start making Spellcraft checks. (Would the first check be on round 3 or round 4?) Then, it's a little better than pot luck at choosing which aura to check. Even then, you may not find the aura you are looking for especially since weaker auras are confused or overshadowed by stronger auras.

I do not think that you have to know the spell by name to dispel it as a previous poster suggested. This would make custom spells overly powerful. Instead, "knowing" the spell with a Spellcraft 20 + spell level would be sufficient.

I'm confused by the SRD reference with respect to the dispel magic description as cited by Trine:
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance or dispel magic. However, supernatural abilities still do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field).
However, in the dispel magic description, paragraph one, it states:
Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells.
I understand this to mean that you cannot stop, in this case, the vampire from dominating creatures. You can dispel its effects, though.

/ds
 
Last edited:

KarinsDad said:


Several points on this Caliban:

1) I am currently the DM. I do not have a character per se. So, I am not min-maxing with my opinion here for a given character.

2) Any rule in the game that applies to spells typically applies the same for PCs as NPCs (unless it is spells that PCs do not have access to).

3) The targeting spell rules are inconsistent with the ray spell rules and the missile rules. I live with that, but I do not have to extrapolate what I consider inconsistent rules into an area of the game that does not have a rule.

4) I think both your interpretation and my interpretation are fine. Both allow people to play the game and have fun. Yours is consistent with the targeting rules. Mine is consistent with the other dispeling and countering rules.

5) When the intent (poor as it may be) of the targeting rules is X for creatures and objects, it probably should be X for spells. However, when the intent of Dispels is to dispel any spell that characters are aware of (and even ones they are not aware of), I do not think that the only criteria should be spell visibility. I think the same for the other targeting rules, but there I have to put in a house rule as opposed to an adjudication.

6) Getting back to the subject of Invisibility and why I dislike the targeting rules, Invisibility is a 50% miss chance for ray spells and missiles. It is an unknown miss chance for Area of Effect spells (since you either have to detect the invisible character in some manner, or you have to get lucky). It is a 100% miss chance for targeted spells. As we have had in numerous conversations, I dislike 100% absolutes in the game. Invisibility (and it's worse bigger brother Improved Invisibility) are combined Invisibilty and Immunity to Targeted Spells. A single second level Invisibilty spell is approximately as protective versus spells as a Globe of Invulnerability since the list of targeted spells in the book is probably 50% or more. I personally do not like this, but that's the rule. If you know exactly where an invisible opponent is located (and that is typically hard to do in the game), a 50% miss chance for concealment would be a much better rule and consistent with the Ray and Missile targeting rules. IMO.

So, in any rules discussion about a rule that does not exist, yes we should consider other similar rules. But, we should not be slaves to that to the point that we close our minds to better rules, especially when the similar rules are inferior. Again, IMO.


Yeah, but that's still not being a Rules Lawyer. That's being a DM and using Rule 0 to get things the way you want them for your campaign.

DM Rule 0 is more powerful than Rules Lawyer BS. Less arguements.
 
Last edited:

KarinsDad said:

You missed the first sentence in what you quoted above:

“Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. the character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.”

The SRD and the PHB ONLY talk about targets as creatures or objects. They do not discuss at all, spells as targets.

Extrapolating the targeting rules to include spells is fine, but it is not a core rule. It is an extrapolation. Granted, the DMG mentions on page 9:

“Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there…”

But, this is an adjudication guideline, it is not a rule. I just happen to extrapolate based on the other alternate ways of casting Dispel Magic as opposed to extrapolating on the other alternate targets of spells.

[...]

The rules for targeting refer only to creatures and objects. They do not discuss spells.

Nit picky I know, but that’s how us Rules Lawyers operate. :)

My dear friend, "creatures or objects" is an exhaustive set. Any possible thing you could need or desire to target is either a creature or an object. Spells are objects. (Unless you think they're creatures.)

So you say "But objects are things you can attack as per PHB 135-6!". True. And you can, indeed attack spells. Nearly any wall spell can be attacked. Wall of force for example, is what amounts to an object with unlimited hardness and no energy weakness. Consider Otiluke's resiliant sphere. Bigby's interposing hand. And if I can't attack spells, why do things like spectral hand or Bigby's interposing hand have AC and hp?

In fact, the only reason you can't attack any spell you want is because they are imperceptible or they consist of immaterial substances. This is, by the way, nearly the same reason you can't attack the atmosphere. Doesn't mean air isn't an object.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top