Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 256388" data-attributes="member: 2011">Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted DispelI 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.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).</blockquote>

Verification