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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy" data-source="post: 256763" data-attributes="member: 4036">My opinion is still that it says "dispel object, creature, or spell".  It doesn't say you can only target those few spells like web and wall of fire that are visible, it says you can target a spell.So my opinion is, if it is a spell, you can target it.  Might not work, but you can try.I would require a spellcraft roll to identify the spell being cast that you are going to target, or that the change in behavior is similar to the symptoms of a domination, but that's neither here nor there.I dunno, that's what the spell says, so that's what I think.  I'm beginning to get a simplicity ruling preference in D&D.  I don't think the designers were thinking about every other spell or rule in the game when they designed each spell.  They figured saying object, creature, or spell was explicit enough because they weren't thinking about the line of effect or targetting visible targets rule or any other extenuating circumstances.  They were just writing what they thought was a simple spell.Just like mind blank, I'm sure they meant that it protects against scrying, greater scrying, and any other version of scry someone could invent.  They tried to use strong language to do that but weren't thinking about spells like true strike and invisibility at the time and thus the confusion.  Their words with the proper complicated logic and/or application of real world physics or complex proofs could clearly state something that they probably had no intention of saying.Blech.  I'm gonna shut up.  This probably makes no sense at all.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If you get me, I'm glad.  If not, I'm sorry.</blockquote>

Verification