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: 256706" data-attributes="member: 259">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</blockquote>

Verification