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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 256514" data-attributes="member: 259">Karinsdad, am I agreeing with you?  This is freaking me out! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />At any rate, your point about targeting rules applying specifically to spells that target creatures or objects is well-taken.  Given that point, I think the "no" case is really weakened.Other than the "argument-by-assertion" (you can't target dominate because you're actually targeting the victim of the dominate spell) or the "argument-by-effect" (allowing the caster to target dominate gives an overpowerful sniper's shot ability to spellcasters), I don't think I've seen any other arguments against allowing a spellcaster to target a targeted spell with Dispel Magic.The "no" argument would be bolstered by the following sentence appearing in the spell description:A spell with a targeted effect may not be directly targeted by dispel magic.  Instead, the spell's own target must be targeted by dispel magic.  Other spells on this target will be affected by dispel magic as normal.  This restriction does not apply to the use of dispel magic as a counterspell.This sentence would outline the hypothesized exception to dispel magic's actual ability to target spells.  Lacking such an exception, I see nowhere that the exception can be generated within the rules as written.I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can outline an argument similar to my arguments above that results in a "no" answer to the question.Daniel</blockquote>

Verification