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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 256509" data-attributes="member: 2829">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Targeted DispelThat's what I meant. Your interpretation of what I said is incorrect.Suddenly allowing Dispel Magic to function in such a way as to simply allow it to be targeted through multiple layers of magical effects or emanations so as to "pop" a single spell effect without hitting or effecting any of the others.And why is just an idea for a how a given DM might allow it to be done? Well, there are only two possibilities for that. 1) The passage is ambiguous, thus it is under contention. 2) It's a house rule. Pick one.Yes, I have.Prove it. You can't. Because the topic at hand is ambiguous and doesn't provide it's own answer.The only rule to quote is the description of Dispel Magic, and it's ambiguous as hell.Exactly.That's odd. You just stated previously that the spell description does not say HOW it can be done, yet you now say that if a DM determine that it cannot be done, then he is ignoring the part of the spell description. Granted, what you stated here doesn't completely go back on what you stated immediately prior, but it contradicts itself.You also stated that one of the reasons why we have DMs is because every situation is not covered by the rules. You also stated the it requires DM interpretation, and I agree, it does. Are you now saying that any DM which interprets the description of Dispel Magic is simply wrong because he doesn't agree with you?Neither is your viewpoint a core rule, but simply an interpretation of a core rule, yet you continue to argue with me that my interpretation is obviously incorrect, even though I am performing my duty as a DM by interpreting an ambiguous game element because there is no specific rule that covers this given situation.</blockquote>

Verification