Targetted Dispel: what is affected?

[hong]

Because most buff spells affect characters, a buffed character will lose roughly a similar amount of spells from area or targeted. One version shouldn't be able to render a buffed character useless.

So use magic items. My current archer has the following:
- gloves of Dex
- amulet of Con (plus other stuff)
- headband of Wis
- ring of protection
- vest of armour
- +4 bow

None of these are affected by a targeted dispel aimed at the character. If I instead relied on empowered cat's grace, owl's wis, endurance, magic vestment, GMW, etc, that wouldn't be the case.

 

[LokiDR]

The GMW would go down on an area dispel, which means you can still get it. I am still not seeing the rules to support the sage ruling, which seems to contradict other rules. I seems to make more sense to follow the description, trageting a creature or item.

One point that no one has mentioned yet is an item in an extradimentional space. How can something not even on this dimention be hit by a dispel? I am getting this trick from a couple of Living players, so I know some one out there thinks this is offical.

 

[kreynolds]

One point that no one has mentioned yet is an item in an extradimentional space. How can something not even on this dimention be hit by a dispel?

As far as I know, it can't. However, you don't need to. Just pop the item containing the extradimensional space (BoH, HHH) and it closes temporarily.

 

[LokiDR]

As far as I know, it can't. However, you don't need to. Just pop the item containing the extradimensional space (BoH, HHH) and it closes temporarily.

Which would require a targeted dispel on the item itself (I can't think of a temperary bag-of-holding spell). Unless the bag is part of the character and can be disabled by a targeted dispel on the character, which is the part that makes no sense to me.

 

[kreynolds]

Which would require a targeted dispel on the item itself...

Maybe. Depends on what side of the fence you're on. What exactly is it about the Sage's ruling that bugs you?

 

[LokiDR]

Maybe. Depends on what side of the fence you're on. What exactly is it about the Sage's ruling that bugs you?

My items are not me
Dispel states it works on creatures OR items or a spell targeted
It isn't in the FAQ
Members of this forum have a different interpretation than the groups I run with.
I judge living events, and want to know what is "official" (Sage isn't, FAQ is)

I will definately argue against tagetted dispel on a creature "disabling" their permenant magic items. As for the GMW, I want to find firmer ground.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I will definately argue against tagetted dispel on a creature "disabling" their permenant magic items.

Has anyone suggested that it would?

The argument is for spells on a character's items, not the items themselves.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Which would require a targeted dispel on the item itself (I can't think of a temperary bag-of-holding spell). Unless the bag is part of the character and can be disabled by a targeted dispel on the character, which is the part that makes no sense to me.

So it must not be that clear. From listening to K, I would think it works the other way. That is all cleared up if items are not part of the character that carries them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No one corrected me when I posted

I'm sorry, what?

You posted that suppressing a Bag of Holding would require a targetted dispel on the bag itself.

Nobody corrected you.

Therefore you assume that we disagree?

-Hyp.