PDA

View Full Version : (PF) Ring of Counterspell / Dispel question



Another_Poet
2010-12-20, 10:34 PM
Edit: We have an initial consensus. 6 people disagree with the GM and 1 person agrees with the GM. However the GM has weighed in and asked for further opinion below (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10025526#post10025526). Discussion appreciated.

I'd like to present a scenario, and my GM's ruling, and see if the playground agrees or disagrees.

1. I wear a Ring of Counterspells (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/rings.html#ring-of-counterspells) with Dispel Magic (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/dispelMagic.html#dispel-magic) placed inside of it.
2. I cast a personal-range buff spell, Mirror Image (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/mirrorImage.html#mirror-image), on myself.
3. The enemy paladin doesn't like that, so he casts Dispel Magic, targeted at my Mirror Image effect.
4. The GM rules that my ring does not activate. His reasoning is that the Dispel is targeting a spell effect, not me. So it does not meet the trigger condition of the Ring (i.e. it's not "cast upon the wearer").

Agree/disagree?

Aracor
2010-12-20, 10:39 PM
Your DM is correct. If they target a particular spell effect on you, they're not targeting you, and the ring won't help. On the plus side, he's trying to dispel only that single spell instead of every spell on you.

dextercorvia
2010-12-20, 11:03 PM
No, because of this bit right here
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.

Emphasis mine.

He can pick a spell on you, but you are still a target which means your Ring activates. This wording is different than the usual 3.5 wording. That leaves room for your DM's argument.

tyckspoon
2010-12-20, 11:19 PM
Your DM is correct. If they target a particular spell effect on you, they're not targeting you, and the ring won't help. On the plus side, he's trying to dispel only that single spell instead of every spell on you.

Unless you have something *really* big on you, you probably won't get Dispelled anywhere near as much in Pathfinder as you would in 3.x; they gimped Dispel pretty badly. It now ends 1 effect. Total. If you do a targeted dispel, you start down the list and stop as soon as you succeed at dispelling 1 thing. Mostly I don't bother with it any more.

Another_Poet
2010-12-21, 01:18 AM
So far it is 1 person saying the DM is right and 1 person saying the DM is wrong.

Could others weight in, pretty please?

DukeofDellot
2010-12-21, 01:50 AM
I'd say it could go either way... it's a very technical thing.

I'll agree with the GM on the grounds that he should be allowed to use his own interpretations (and alterations) of the rules.

I'll go further to add, that you shouldn't argue with your GM on stupid little things like this, if he were to have perfect memory and utmost understanding of the rules, he would be a computer, and you would be playing Neverwinter Nights (or Icewind Dale or what have you)... and as fun as those games are, it's the human element (and her flaws) that make DnD (or Pathfinder) fun.

Keld Denar
2010-12-21, 01:57 AM
Your DM is wrong for the reasons dextercorvia specified. Dispel Magic affects people, or spells affecting an area. If the spell is on a person, that person is the target, more or less.

Togo
2010-12-21, 08:20 AM
I'd say the DM is right. Mirror image makes it difficult to work out where you are. The spell is being targeted, not you. If he was targeting you, he'd have to work out which image he hit. He's targeting the spell.

dextercorvia
2010-12-21, 08:35 AM
I'd say the DM is right. Mirror image makes it difficult to work out where you are. The spell is being targeted, not you. If he was targeting you, he'd have to work out which image he hit. He's targeting the spell.

Follow his link above to the Dispel magic text. The PF Dispel Magic can only target a spell (alone) if it is an area spell. If he targets a spell affecting a creature or object, that creature or object is also a target.

Also, your premise is flawed. PF Mirror Image does nothing to make spells difficult to target unless they require an attack roll. Again, the OP provided a link.

Douglas
2010-12-21, 09:20 AM
By 3.5e rules, your DM is correct. By Pathfinder rules, the specific wording indicates that the creature is still the target even if you single out a specific spell to dispel, so in Pathfinder your DM is wrong.

Killer Angel
2010-12-21, 09:34 AM
We had the same issue on our campaign, and our DM ruled as yours.
My wiz got a ring of counterspell with dispel magic on it, and Mirror image active.
The npc caster wanted to made a dispel targeted on me, but he cannot tell what image was the real me, so he tried as first move, to dispel a single spell: the mirror image.

edit: we play 3.5, not PF

Anyway, a question:


By 3.5e rules, your DM is correct. By Pathfinder rules, the specific wording indicates that the creature is still the target even if you single out a specific spell to dispel, so in Pathfinder your DM is wrong.

So, since you cannot distinguish the real caster and you cannot target the real creature under the effect of mirror image, in PF it's almost impossible to dispel a mirror image? (unless you're very lucky or you've got true seeing)

Aracor
2010-12-21, 10:31 AM
I'm actually going to change my mind. In pathfinder, you cannot target a spell effect with dispel magic, per the reading of the spell as linked above. So he has to target the person.

3.5 D&D, the answer is different.

Douglas
2010-12-21, 10:35 AM
So, since you cannot distinguish the real caster and you cannot target the real creature under the effect of mirror image, in PF it's almost impossible to dispel a mirror image? (unless you're very lucky or you've got true seeing)
Actually, you can target the real creature under a Pathfinder mirror image effect. Pathfinder mirror image interferes with spells only when they use attack rolls. See the text linked to in the OP.

Dragonmuncher
2010-12-21, 02:07 PM
Dispel Magic dispels spells on a target, or spells on an area.

Mirror Image is a spell on a target.

The Ring of Counterspells should work.


I mean, it's not like the Mirror Image spell just HAPPENS to be near you and look like you. It's linked to you, in this case, projecting a few copies of you in the area.


What would NOT work is if you had were holding a rock with "Silence" cast on it, and the enemy targetted you with the Dispel to get rid of Silence. Silence was on the rock, not you, so targetting you doesn't do anything.

Killer Angel
2010-12-21, 05:35 PM
Actually, you can target the real creature under a Pathfinder mirror image effect. Pathfinder mirror image interferes with spells only when they use attack rolls. See the text linked to in the OP.

Ah, that's true.
Yes, OP's DM ruled wrong, for PF... maybe his mind is still settled with 3.5?

Smallberries
2010-12-23, 02:34 AM
Hello all, I am the GM who adjudicated this particular scenario.

I think a lot of people here are getting hung up on the fact that it was Mirror Image the paladin was trying to dispel; there are several comments that seem to proceed from the idea that the question is whether you can successfully target someone with Mirror Image on. This is not the question. It's whether you can use Dispel Magic to end a specific spell effect, without targeting the creature it affects (because doing so would activate the Dispel Magic in his Ring of Counterspells). For what it's worth, the paladin in question was trying to dispel Overland Flight, not Mirror Image. That isn't important; the question is whether he can target the specific spell effect, and have it possibly end the spell in question, without triggering the ring of counterspells vs. Dispel Magic the wizard was wearing.

My judgment on the matter is that yes, he can.

The first sentence under the Targeted Dispel portion of the spell description reads thus: "One object, creature or spell is the target of the Dispel Magic spell." That tells me you can target a spell. The description thereafter is rife with references to "ongoing spell effects" and verbiage of that sort, treated as an entity, a thing to be dispelled, all on its own.

The rest of that paragraph describes the mechanics for a standard, vanilla Dispel Magic - where you target a creature and step down through the spells it has up until you dispel one, or fail to dispel any. The next paragraph gives an example of a Dispel Magic targeted against a creature. They're giving a lot of inches to describing this use, because it is the most common in the game.

Then we get to this paragraph, from which I derive my ruling on this issue. It begins thus: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target, or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends."

The language of the description specifically calls out "one spell affecting the target," as opposed to "the target." If the book were referring to the creature, it would say so, and refer you to the paragraph dealing with creature-targeting. It doesn't.

It also says you can do this against one spell affecting the target, or an area effect spell - which means it treats a spell affecting the target the same as an area effect spell. So if you can specify a Wall of Fire as the target of your dispel, you can likewise call out Mirror Image, Bull's Strength, Overland Flight, or whatever spell you like, as long as you can identify it by its effect. You're targeting the spell effect. Not the caster. Not the recipient. Not the object that cast the spell. You are targeting the spell effect itself, which, in the paragraph that deals with this sort of casting, is treated as a separate entity from the creature at all times. Go through the paragraph. It is always treated as something separate from the caster, recipient, object, or whatever. At all times, this language applies to both area-effect spells and those that are "on" another entity.

Because the language of the text calls these entities out with such specificity - creature, object, spell effect on an area, spell effect on a creature or object - I am compelled to treat them with the a level of specificity concordant with the text. They are different. The application of Dispel Magic on them is different. But, I have to say, thoroughly consistent.

Now. The Ring of Counterspells description calls for a 1st-6th level spell to be cast into it, which, if cast on the wearer, fails as if counterspelled. The ring in question has Dispel Magic itself cast into it.

The argument becomes, is a casting of Dispel Magic on a spell affecting a dude with such a ring tantamount to casting it on him himself? The answer is no. Why? Because if that were the case, they wouldn't have called out the different entities on which you can cast Dispel Magic with such specificity in the first place. I would go so far as to say that if you cast Dispel Magic on the Ring of Counterspells itself (Dispel vs. Object), the Dispel Magic in the ring wouldn't even go off then. What would happen is simply the suppression of the ability of the Ring of Counterspells to function for 1d4 rounds, just as it would if any other spell were in there, or just as if Dispel Magic were cast against any other magic item. If you cast Dispel Magic on the creature wearing the ring, i.e., using the creature as the target of the Dispel Magic, the ring would activate, because the target is The Creature, who is identical to The Wearer.

But when another target is chosen, the wearer doesn't get to be a target too.

Spell effects on the creature are separate from the creature itself, and also separate from items in the creature's possession. That seems clear to me - the rules call them out to be treated separately, and differently. There is even a trade-off involved - target the creature, and you'll probably dispel something. If you want to dispel a specific effect, it's all-or-nothing. I find that trade-off reasonable.

I would appreciate any response from the community.

John Smallberries

Killer Angel
2010-12-23, 02:55 AM
Hello all, I am the GM who adjudicated this particular scenario.


Hello!


For what it's worth, the paladin in question was trying to dispel Overland Flight, not Mirror Image.


My only doubt was the chance to target a caster with mirror image active, which works differently in PF than in 3.5.



The first sentence under the Targeted Dispel portion of the spell description reads thus: "One object, creature or spell is the target of the Dispel Magic spell." That tells me you can target a spell.

Of course.



Then we get to this paragraph, from which I derive my ruling on this issue. It begins thus: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target, or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends."


Interesting...
English is not my first language, but this seems contradictory.
In the same sentence, to dispel a single spell, the target firstly is the recipient of the spell, and later it's the spell itself.

ryzouken
2010-12-23, 05:40 AM
My reading of the relevant text indicates you're still targeting the person "wearing" the spell that you're attempting to target. Dispel Magic has two targeting parameters: Area and Target (okay, and Counterspell, but that's not terribly relevant here). We want to hit a specific spell so we're obliged to use the targeted variant. So, looking at the spell's Target entry, we can choose to target a spellcaster, creature, or object. Spellcaster being a subset of creature, we can somewhat ignore that and focus instead on the creature or object part.

"Ah, but Ryzouken!" you exclaim, "later on the spell indicates we're able to target a particular spell effect!" Yup, but it at no time obviates the initial targeting we've done: that of a creature or object. We target the critter who's got a spell effect we don't like, then choose to focus on a specific spell instance instead of just doing a general sweep on everything. The ring should have gotten a chance to activate.

I will note that the wording is positively horrible, though.

Toliudar
2010-12-23, 05:50 AM
I'll agree that the PF text seems contradictory. If the creature on which a spell is the "target", you shouldn't also be able to "target" the spell affecting the "target". The DM's ruling would definitely have been true for 3.5. I'm less clear about PF, but would uphold his interpretation.

MickJay
2010-12-23, 06:02 AM
It's the whole "going up a level", "going down a level" thing again, and I think Ryzouken got it right. There's a target (1) at which you cast the spell, and when doing so, you can target (2) a spell effect which you want removed specifically.

1 - targeting means aiming
2 - targeting means selecting the effect affecting the aimed target

dextercorvia
2010-12-23, 08:54 AM
The first sentence under the Targeted Dispel portion of the spell description reads thus: "One object, creature or spell is the target of the Dispel Magic spell." That tells me you can target a spell. The description thereafter is rife with references to "ongoing spell effects" and verbiage of that sort, treated as an entity, a thing to be dispelled, all on its own.

The rest of that paragraph describes the mechanics for a standard, vanilla Dispel Magic - where you target a creature and step down through the spells it has up until you dispel one, or fail to dispel any. The next paragraph gives an example of a Dispel Magic targeted against a creature. They're giving a lot of inches to describing this use, because it is the most common in the game.

Then we get to this paragraph, from which I derive my ruling on this issue. It begins thus: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target, or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends."

The language of the description specifically calls out "one spell affecting the target," as opposed to "the target." If the book were referring to the creature, it would say so, and refer you to the paragraph dealing with creature-targeting. It doesn't.

It also says you can do this against one spell affecting the target, or an area effect spell - which means it treats a spell affecting the target the same as an area effect spell. So if you can specify a Wall of Fire as the target of your dispel, you can likewise call out Mirror Image, Bull's Strength, Overland Flight, or whatever spell you like, as long as you can identify it by its effect. You're targeting the spell effect.
John Smallberries

This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. You can target a specific spell, but if that spell affects a creature, you are likewise targeting the creature. The only spells you can target independent of a creature (or object) are those which aren't cast upon creatures or objects, ie. Area Effects.

I think what PF is attempting to do here is treat those spells on creatures as "attended". What I mean is, if you cast a spell on the armor someone is wearing, it is for all* game purposes, like casting a spell on the wearer.

*Maybe not all, but hopefully, you know what I mean.

Smallberries
2010-12-23, 02:28 PM
This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. You can target a specific spell, but if that spell affects a creature, you are likewise targeting the creature. The only spells you can target independent of a creature (or object) are those which aren't cast upon creatures or objects, ie. Area Effects.

I think what PF is attempting to do here is treat those spells on creatures as "attended". What I mean is, if you cast a spell on the armor someone is wearing, it is for all* game purposes, like casting a spell on the wearer.

*Maybe not all, but hopefully, you know what I mean.

I think I understand, but I have to disagree. If they had intended to have dispel-vs-spell-effect work only on area spells, they would have said that. Instead, they quite clearly say it works on a spell effect on a creature OR on a spell effect on an area. It can do either.

Furthermore, if they had intended for "attended" objects (or spell effects) to be treated differently, there would be rules regarding those differences. Plenty of spells work differently on attended objects (such as using the wielder's save if it's better), but no such rules apply to Dispel Magic. You can cast dispel magic on an object carried by a creature, and its success depends on a roll-off between your caster level and that of the item, just as if the object were lying on the ground. It does not use the caster level of the wielder, or any other type of wielder-based exceptions. It targets the object, not the wielder.

My argument is that the same goes for spell effects: you target the effect. Not the "wielder" of the effect. This usage is called out specifically in the description as separate and distinct from targeting the "wielder," (i.e., the creature), just as casting vs. an object is called out as separate and distinct. So, just as you can target an object regardless of whether it's held by a creature with no difference in effect, you can also target a spell effect regardless of whether it's "on" a creature.

The root question, I suppose, is whether casting dispel magic on an item or spell effect that is being "held" by someone is tantamount to targeting "the wearer." Now, I'll admit that the rules are not clear on this point, but since they consistently treat the three uses of Dispel Magic (vs. creature, object and spell effect) as separate and distinct, and they provide no rules or exceptions based on whether objects or spell effects are "attended," and in fact specifically call out "spell affecting a creature" as a legitimate target of the dispel, I have to say no - targeting a spell effect or object is not tantamount to targeting the wearer.

Douglas
2010-12-23, 02:33 PM
The critical point here is that, even in the section about singling out a specific spell on a creature, it still refers to that creature as "the target". The exact quote is

You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target
This clearly indicates that the creature affected by the spell in question is still considered a target of Dispel Magic.

This is distinct and separate from dispelling someone's magic item, btw, as in that case you are targeting only the object and the creature wielding it is not involved. Similarly, dispelling Greater Magic Weapon would not be blocked by the ring because GMW is on an item, not the creature wielding it, so it is the item being targeted in that case. If the item itself has some dispel protection then that protection would be effective, but a Ring of Counterspells on the wielder would not help.

Forged Fury
2010-12-23, 02:46 PM
I think I agree with most here. I think the ring should work.

To me, the whole point of targeting a specific spell effecting a creature rather than targeting the creature was to insure you dispelled the spell you wanted and not some random effect, not that you were able to target the spell independently of the person on which it was cast. Since Pathfinder changed dispel magic to dispelling one spell only, rather than the potential to dispel all spells, it was needed, IMO.

If you're a Magic Missile focused caster, you absolutely want to take down their shield spell. They may have a blur, fly, stoneskin, and a host of Magic Aura spells up just to mess with you, but the only one you really care about is that shield spell since it is preventing you from doing your thing. This allows you to specifically target that spell, but still is dispelling the effect from the creature.

Smallberries
2010-12-23, 03:28 PM
The critical point here is that, even in the section about singling out a specific spell on a creature, it still refers to that creature as "the target". The exact quote is

This clearly indicates that the creature affected by the spell in question is still considered a target of Dispel Magic.



I meant to address this in my previous post, because it is a good point. Note that the next sentence is: "You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way."

They're using the word "target" in contradictory ways in these two sentences. That is, one of those uses of the word "target" in those two sentences was a poor word choice. You can support your case based on the assumption that the latter use of the word is wrong, while I can support my case based on the assumption that the former use is wrong. We won't get anywhere doing that.

What I'm saying is, had their intention been as you and others contend, it would have been clearer (and easier to write), to say something along the lines of, "You can target a creature in one of two ways: either by attempting to dispel each spell effect on the creature starting with the highest until you dispel one, or by calling out one specific spell effect on the creature and attempting to dispel just that one. You can also target an object or area effect spell (here are the rules for those usages)."

They didn't do that. They went out of their way to specify spell effects as separate from the creature when targeted in this manner. That indicates to me that their intention was in accordance with my reading, and I'd say that the use of the word "target" in the sentence you referred to was simply a poor choice of word, along the lines of the whole "go down a level to go up a level" routine someone referred to earlier.

Another_Poet
2010-12-23, 03:55 PM
Does it bother you at all that you're virtually the only one reading it that way?

It is a complicated spell description and poorly written. Let me do my best to show how it should be parsed.


School abjuration; Level bard 3, cleric 3, druid 4, paladin 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or to counter another spellcaster's spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired. Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can't be defeated by dispel magic. Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells. The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.

You choose to use dispel magic in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or a counterspell.

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.

For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.

You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.

If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by summon monster), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional opening (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item's physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.

Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.


In other words the spell describes 6 different uses, each with different parameters.
Targeted Dispel (Purple): Target 1 creature or object and go down the line of spells on it
Targeted Dispel (Green): Target 1 creature or object and choose a specific spell on it
Targeted Dispel (Red): Target 1 spell effect which must be an ongoing area effect.
Targeted Dispel (Blue): Target 1 creature or object which is itself a spell effect (summoned creatures/objects)
Targeted Dispel (Orange): Target 1 object which is a magic item
Counterspell (Grey): Target 1 spellcaster

Yes, the spell offers many different types of targets. But no, not all types of targets are valid for every use of the spell. There are 6 uses presented, 5 of which fall under "targeted dispel." It would've been nice if they made each one a single paragraph but they didn't. Even so, jumbling the parameters of any one use into the other 5 uses just muddies things further.

This is the reading the majority of people above are suggesting. It's also the one that makes the most sense.

Forged Fury
2010-12-23, 04:06 PM
So what effect was dispelled? OP says Mirror Image, DM says Overland Flight. If you use the PF version of Dispel Magic and attempt to nullify a specific spell, you don't get to check for any others. Seems odd that there is confusion.

Another_Poet
2010-12-23, 04:15 PM
So what effect was dispelled? OP says Mirror Image, DM says Overland Flight. If you use the PF version of Dispel Magic and attempt to nullify a specific spell, you don't get to check for any others. Seems odd that there is confusion.

In the actual arena fight where this came up it was Mirror Image. Though Overland Flight would presumably work the same way.

Forged Fury
2010-12-23, 04:22 PM
The reason I ask is that the DM indicated the Paladin was trying to dispel Overland Flight.

For what it's worth, the paladin in question was trying to dispel Overland Flight, not Mirror Image. That isn't important; the question is whether he can target the specific spell effect, and have it possibly end the spell in question, without triggering the ring of counterspells vs. Dispel Magic the wizard was wearing.
You are saying Mirror Image was dispelled. The Paladin can't do that under the specific rule set the DM is using. He has to specify which spell he is attempting to dispel. If it fails, that's it.

Another_Poet
2010-12-23, 04:32 PM
The reason I ask is that the DM indicated the Paladin was trying to dispel Overland Flight.

You are saying Mirror Image was dispelled. The Paladin can't do that under the specific rule set the DM is using. He has to specify which spell he is attempting to dispel. If it fails, that's it.

Let's say it was Overland Flight then. There were a few of my buffs he didn't like, so I may have misremembered. Either way, the paladin specified the spell. It only affected 1 spell.

norboden
2010-12-26, 04:41 PM
I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the first use of the word target in the following:

"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell [ex. Overland Flight which has a spell effect of fly] affecting the target [the target of Overland Flight] or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way." I added the two brackets to add clarity to what the spell is saying when it says target which is ambiguous when taken out of context.

If interpreted incorrectly these two sentences contradict each other with the first sentence saying you must target the creature to specifically target the spell you want to dispel while the second sentence clearly states you are targeting the spell effect and you must name the spell effect to be targeted in this way. This interpretation is clearly not their intention because the two sentences contradict each other.

If interpreted correctly these two sentences are mutually supportive. The target in the first sentence is not referring to the target of the dispel but the target of the spell whose effect you want to dispel (Overland Flight targeting a creature). When you read the use of target as the target of Overland Flight both sentences make sense. The dispel magic can be used to dispel a spell effect from Overland Flight that has targeted a creature (the target of Overland Flight) by naming the spell effect (flight) that you are targeting with the dispel magic.

So now it becomes clear that the first sentence is saying that you can use a targeted dispel to specifically target a spell effect regardless of whether the spell effect is affecting a target (such as Overland Flight targeting a creature) or the spell effect is affecting an area (such as wall of fire targeting an area).

Forged Fury
2010-12-26, 05:19 PM
Or, we could just be checking the Target line: One spellcaster, creature, or object. How could you cast Dispel Magic on a spell effect when it isn't a valid target? Within the text, the spell specifically allow you to dispel a continuous spell effecting an area, but makes no concession for dispelling a spell targeting a character exclusive of casting the spell on the target creature. It merely allows you to attempt to specifically dispel one particular spell, rather than making it random.

I think the majority here would argue the target of the Dispel Magic has to match the target of the spell effect to be dispelled.

Honestly, the only time an interpretation of the spell suggested by the DM would be relevant would be the specific instance of the Ring of Counterspells/Dispel Magic combo. Does it seem likely PF would have specifically written the spell to address that issue? I'll say that I don't.

kme
2010-12-26, 06:03 PM
RAI here is obvious. Designers clearly intended for dispel to be able to target a single spell specifically. The spirit of the whole description suggests it. They just worded it badly.

Or, we could just be checking the Target line: One spellcaster, creature, or object
This is another proof of a mistake on designers part. The text is obviously meant to say: one spell, creature, or object. Having a word spellcaster is completely useless and not in line with the part of description where it says:
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

Additionally, we can all agree that it is not clear enough to warrant arguing with the DM.

Douglas
2010-12-26, 06:31 PM
This is another proof of a mistake on designers part. The text is obviously meant to say: one spell, creature, or object. Having a word spellcaster is completely useless and not in line with the part of description where it says:
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
No, the use of the word "spellcaster" there is quite deliberate - it's there for the counterspell use of Dispel Magic.

Forged Fury
2010-12-26, 08:56 PM
No, the use of the word "spellcaster" there is quite deliberate - it's there for the counterspell use of Dispel Magic.
Yup.

In my opinion, RAI is this: You can cast dispel magic to eliminate spell effects active on an individual (shield, blur, mage armor, etc), temporarily disable the functioning of magic items (wands, misc magic items, staves, rods, magic weapons, etc), or disable a single spell effect that is active in an area (grease, entangle, etc). You can also counterspell.

If you're dispelling a spell active on a person, you're casting dispel on the person, not the spell effect. You can either have dispel magic randomly dispel effects (since you may not know what spells are actually active unless you've observed them and rolled Spellcraft checks at some point, barring massive metagaming), or you can dispel a spell effect that you know is active on the character by specifically identifying that spell to dispel. In no case does this change the target of the dispel, it's still the character that is the target of the active spell you're trying to dispel. The advantage of being able to dispel a specific spell is in case there is a particular spell that is of more concern than others (Levitate, Shield, Protection from Arrows, etc)

Again, I can't think of any reason why the interpretation presented here by the DM would ever come up except in the interaction with the Ring of Counterspelling/Dispel Magic combo. I don't think the PF designers specifically wrote the spell to provide a defense against this combo.

kme
2010-12-26, 09:18 PM
No, the use of the word "spellcaster" there is quite deliberate - it's there for the counterspell use of Dispel Magic.
You are right, and I checked now it's the same in 3.5 (I never noticed it).

In fact, most of the text is copy pasted except for the parts where it states that only one spell is dispelled. It seems that designers never considered that someone may want to (or could) target a specific spell instead of a creature. Because of this, they had to add the (problematic) paragraph so that the spell can keep at least some of it's usefulness.

Now I am not so sure about the RAI. It could be just the bad wording in the problematic paragraph. It could also be that they simply never considered it and went with the default method of targeting the creature first which would in this case be RAI.

Of course there is the option that they intentionally wrote that paragraph to disallow targeting the spell itself. In this case the lack of clarification is unacceptable, considering that most players are ex-3.5 who would have to spot the change easily.

norboden
2010-12-28, 04:13 AM
The problem with targeting a creature to end a specific spell (instead of targeting the spell effect itself) is that it clearly states that when you target a creature affected by multiple spells that you don't get to choose which spell is dispelled. It starts at the highest level spell and works its way down. You can't end a specific spell effect by targeting a creature being affected by multiple ongoing spells.

Pathfinder doesn't make any distinction between targeting a spell effect cast on a creature versus a spell effect cast on an area because there isn't one in pathfinder. They are treated the same which is why they use a single sentence to describe them both and a single sentence to tell you in both cases you are attempting to end a specific spell by targeting a specific spell effect.

"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way."

The line that keeps confusing people has two spells and two targets. The targeted dispel magic targeting a spell effect (overland flight) and overland flight is targeting a creature ("the target" of overland flight). "You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way." This second sentence says in both cases you are targeting a spell effect. That's only true if "the target" is referring to the target of the spell being dispelled (overland flight) leaving the targeted dispel to be obviously targeting the spell effect (overland flight).

Killer Angel
2010-12-28, 04:36 AM
At the risk of repeating myself...



You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target, or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends.


This is contradictory. Once, to dispel a single spell, the target is the recipient of the spell, and later it's the spell itself.
If the text is contradictory, the DM can rule the thing he sees as more appropriate, and Smallberries' interpretation isn't out of nowhere.

Another_Poet
2010-12-28, 02:43 PM
Hi Norboden. You've restated your original post, but your points have all been addressed by other posters. I'll try to make it more clear.


The problem with targeting a creature to end a specific spell (instead of targeting the spell effect itself) is that it clearly states that when you target a creature affected by multiple spells that you don't get to choose which spell is dispelled.

That is a different use of targeted dispel. There are several uses of it in the spell description.


It starts at the highest level spell and works its way down. You can't end a specific spell effect by targeting a creature being affected by multiple ongoing spells.

Yes you can. The spell description specifically says that you can target a creature and choose 1 spell to dispel. It never says you can target a spell effect on a creature without targeting the creature.


Pathfinder doesn't make any distinction between targeting a spell effect cast on a creature versus a spell effect cast on an area because there isn't one in pathfinder.

Yes it does, which is why the spell description specifically offers a sentence about targeting an area effect. It also offers sentences about targeting a summoned creature, targeting a magic item or targeting an artefact. You don't get to play mix 'n' match.


They are treated the same which is why they use a single sentence to describe them both and a single sentence to tell you in both cases you are attempting to end a specific spell by targeting a specific spell effect

That's one way to read it, and doing so leads to the contradiction Killer Angel talks about. For an alternate way to read it, which doesn't lead to any contradictions within the text, see my color-coded breakdown (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10028546&postcount=26) above.


The line that keeps confusing people has two spells and two targets. The targeted dispel magic targeting a spell effect (overland flight) and overland flight is targeting a creature

Take a moment to apply the test of reason.

In Pathfinder...
If you target my breastplate with a sunder, you roll against my CMD.
If you target my ring with a ray effect, you roll against my touch AC.
If you target anything on me with a spell, I roll my saving throw.
If you try to take something out of my hand - the same thing applies.

In every aspect of PF, targeting something that's on a creature means targeting the creature. There are no exceptions in any part of the rules.

ap

Popertop
2010-12-29, 01:30 AM
I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the first use of the word target in the following:

"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell [ex. Overland Flight which has a spell effect of fly] affecting the target [the target of Overland Flight] or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way." I added the two brackets to add clarity to what the spell is saying when it says target which is ambiguous when taken out of context.

if they wanted you to be able to target the spell, then they would have said, "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target of that spell or..."

Because they didn't add that little bit, it's less of a solid interpretation to say that you aren't targeting the creature.

Killer Angel
2010-12-29, 03:17 AM
That's one way to read it, and doing so leads to the contradiction Killer Angel talks about. For an alternate way to read it, which doesn't lead to any contradictions within the text, see my color-coded breakdown (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10028546&postcount=26) above.


eheheh, we should take some rank in profession: lawyer... :smalltongue:
But yeah, it seems solid.


If you target my breastplate with a sunder, you roll against my CMD.
If you target my ring with a ray effect, you roll against my touch AC.
If you target anything on me with a spell, I roll my saving throw.
If you try to take something out of my hand - the same thing applies.

In every aspect of PF, targeting something that's on a creature means targeting the creature. There are no exceptions in any part of the rules.


Good point.
It seems that the contradiction I pointed out, it's only apparent, due to poor writing.

norboden
2010-12-29, 05:07 AM
Hi Another Poet,

I did want to point out a couple things you are getting incorrect.

You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way.

You parsed this suggesting that the second sentence was only referring to the second half of the first sentence in red but this isn't grammatically supported. The second sentence doesn't refer to ending spells affecting an area so grammatically we know it is referring to the subject of the first sentence and not just the second half of the sentence. The subject of the first sentence is ending one specific spell and it gives two examples: ending one spell affecting the target of the spell or ending one spell affecting an area.

The second sentence tells you how to end one spell (regardless of whether the spell you would like to end was cast on a target or was cast on an area). You end one specific spell by naming the spell effect you would like to target. You can't target an area any more. You have to target the spell. This is a change from the way people used to use dispel magic back in 3.5. You now have to target spells in Pathfinder.

Look at the way the paragraphs are laid out under targeted dispel. The first paragraph is an overview saying you can target an object,creature, or spell. The next paragraph is about targeting a creature. The paragraph after that is all about targeting a spell (if interpreted correctly), and the paragraph after that is about targeting an object.

The writers grouped this material together by content. The two examples given in ending one specific spell are listed together because both of them are examples of different scenarios where you may want to end one specific spell by naming the spell effect you would like to target. In both cases you end one specific spell by naming the spell effect you want to target. That whole paragraph is about targeting a spell just like the paragraph before it was about targeting a creature and the paragraph after it was about targeting an object.

If you want to make sure you are following the writers intent you can't ignore how they have laid out their description and how the writer grouped the content.

You also pointed out similarities between targeting an item and targeting a spell. The most relevant example is that you can target an item being worn with a targeted dispel and it doesn't use the wearers save or the wearers caster level. It uses the items caster level for the dispel check because the item is treated separately from the person wearing it when it comes to dispel magic in Pathfinder.

The same thing is true of a spell cast on a creature. You can end a spell cast on a target of the spell the same way you can end a spell cast on an area. Both are examples of ending one specific spell. You end one specific spell by naming the spell effect to be targeted. This information is found in the paragraph devoted to using a targeted dispel to target a spell.

A targeted dispel check to end a specific spell affecting a creature or to suppress a magic item worn by a creature won't use the creatures saves or caster level for the check because the spell/item is the target not the wearer. It also won't trigger the wearers saving throws or spell resistance because the wearer isn't the target of the dispel magic.

My interpretation is supported grammatically by the second sentence, is supported by how the writers grouped the material into the three ways of using a targeted dispel, is consistent with the spell description, and it uses a valid way of interpreting an ambiguous sentence so that it is consistent with the entire spell description and the writers clear intent. The writers intended you to be able to end a specific spell by targeting the spell effect regardless of whether the original spell was cast on a target or cast on an area just like they intended you to be able to target a magic item regardless of whether it was being worn by a creature or lying on the ground.

Another_Poet
2010-12-29, 11:33 AM
Norboden,

The first sentence has two ideas in it. You're making an argument that a second sentence has to clarify/support both of those ideas, and couldn't possibly clarify or support just one of them. Wow.

But let's set that aside. Here are the problems with your interpretation:

You ask us to ignore the Target entry at the top of the spell.
When two different sentences use the word "target" differently, you want us to assume the writers were wrong and that they really meant it to be the same.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the PF rules, where targeting something on a creature always targets the creature and allows the creature to use its own defences.
You treat the uses of Targeted Dispel as an either/or - either "go down the line of spells on a target" or "other." The "other" is actually three paragraphs expressing at least five different ideas (4 uses of targeted dispel, plus the rule that targeted dispel fails against gods/artefacts).
No one agrees with you. So far the only people who agree with your interpretation are you and Smallberries, who made the call in the first place. Two other posters initially agreed with you, but then they changed their answer after reading the rules. Everyone else has said either "I can see how Smallberries read it this way but...." or just "Smallberries is wrong."


In my opinion, a ruling that assumes the book is wrong, is inconsistent with the rest of the ruleset, and fails to convince any other gamers is... a mistaken ruling.

Ultimately it's up to Smallberries to decide, but he's always been a reasonable GM and I hope this discussion causes him to reconsider.

Note to all: Norboden is the player who runs the paladin, so if anyone's wondering why we care so much - it's 'cuz it's going to come up when next he and I try to kill each other in the arena :)

Forged Fury
2010-12-29, 12:50 PM
Nice to know the background of the posters and why they may be arguing a particular way. I'll also say it is a little arrogant to claim to know the intent of the writers, particularly when very few people agree with what is purported to be the intent. Unless you're one of the writers, it's only a guess.

I stand by my interpretation of the RAI. You're casting the dispel on the creature, not the spell effect. The normal way is to cast it on the character and start rolling, first spell dispelled ends the spell. This works well on enemies. In the case of dispelling a debuff on an ally without risking dispelling any buffs they may have up, you can select which spell you want to have dispelled. If you fail it, no more rerolling, but this doesn't circumvent the fact you're casting the spell on the ally.

It's a mixed blessing though, as this can cause problems for a character who has numerous spell buffs up and then has a spell debuff cast on them by an opponent. There's no way of getting rid of the debuff without having the Ring of Counterspells go off unless you take the time to remove the ring, assuming there isn't another spell that will remove the debuff. It's similar to the pain of having Spell Reisistance (having to lower it for beneficial spells).

dextercorvia
2010-12-29, 12:51 PM
AP -- I do think forboden is right about the naming modifying both parts of the sentence (although, I agree with you on the rest). The only way to target a specific spell effect (whether on a creature or an area) would seem to be if you can identify it, which, btw in 3.5 requires a spellcraft check DC 20+spell level, but doesn't seem to be possible using PF spellcraft. So, I'm not sure how you are supposed to identify the spell that you are observing to name it. This is especially true of Overland Flight, since there are several spells that grant the ability to fly.

norboden
2010-12-29, 12:58 PM
Hi Another Poet,

I think the two examples of legitimate choices they provide in the first sentence is confusing people on the process you follow when you want to use a targeted dispel to end a specifically chosen spell so let's look at the paragraph without the examples of choices they provide until the end so we can focus on the process we're supposed to follow.

"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell" (examples of choices omitted). "You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends."

"You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell".
This first sentence isn't about targeting a spell, a creature, or an area. The first sentence is just telling us that a targeted dispel can be used to specifically end one spell and then it gives examples of choices you can make.

"You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way."
This second sentence tells us how we target the spell which is by naming the specific spell effect to be targeted so you can end the spell. This is the first instruction that this paragraph gives us for how to end a specifically chosen spell. It tells us the first step in ending a spell is naming the spell effect to be targeted.

"If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends."
The third sentence is actually the second step in the process and tells us how to determine if we succeeded in ending the spell which is by doing a caster level check against the DC of the spell.

So the process you follow to use a targeted dispel to end a specifically chosen spell is the following:

1) Name the spell effect to be targeted to end this spell
2) Perform a DC check against the caster level of the spell to see if you are successful.

Now that we have established the process you follow lets look at how you apply that to the two examples they give:

Choosing to specifically end a Wall of Fire
1) I think we all agree that you can use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting an area. According to the process, I specifically choose to end the spell, wall of fire.
2) My first step in ending the spell is to name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. I want to target the spell effect of the physical wall of fire.
3) The second step in ending the spell is for me to roll a caster level check against the DC of the wall of fire to see if I successfully end the spell.

Choosing to specifically end Overland Flight
1) Following the process they have laid out in this paragraph it says you can use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target of overland flight. This creature may have multiple spells on them but you can choose to use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target. I specifically choose to end overland flight. This just says it is a valid choice or a legitimate choice to choose to end this spell.
2) The first step in the process is to name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. I will target the ability of the creature to fly as the chosen spell effect to target.
3) The second step is to roll a caster level check against the DC of Overland Flight to see if I successfully end the spell.

There is only one process to follow for ending a specifically chosen spell. You choose a spell effect to target. You roll a caster level check against the DC of the spell targeted. The paragraph gives two examples of legitimate choices for ending a spell and the two examples of choices are spells affecting a target and spells affecting an area. Once you have chosen what you want to end you follow the process they provide. The spell description specifically states that you can use this process to end a spell affecting the target which means you can follow the process they provide for ending a spell which is selecting the spell effect to target and rolling a caster level check against the DC of the spell.

Smallberries
2010-12-30, 10:11 PM
OK, I'll try one more time.

The spell description, like all other spell descriptions (and most other game mechanics in the book) is written in a top-down format. It gives you generalities first, and then goes into specifics. And it does so in a very specific way.

It says up front that you can target a creature, spell or object, or use dispell in a counterspell action. Those are the legitimate uses of Dispel Magic. It then goes on to describe in detail how it works when targeting a creature. Then it goes on to describe how it works when targeting a spell, and then it goes on to describe how it works when targeting an object. The "creature targeting" portion gets the most play, including a detailed example, because that's the most common use the spell sees. But the other uses for the spell are there, and they do get paragraphs of their own. They are separated out quite distinctly in the description.

You can parse the text out in such a way that supports the idea that you can't target a spell independently of the target of that spell (I'm referring to Another Poet's post with the bold, colored text), but the fact remains, as I said in a previous posting, had that been their intention, they would have put it up in the creature-targeting paragraph. They would have had it as a mode of targeting a creature, and said something about it there. They spent a huge chunk of text talking about creature targeting; had they meant for this use to be treated the same, they would have put it there. They didn't.

To me, it's pretty clear. A player casts Dispel Magic, first question is: are you targeting a creature, spell effect, or object? If he's targeting a creature, the rules are clear and specific. If he's targeting an object, the rules are still clear and specific. If he's targeting a spell effect, the rules are still goddamn clear and specific. It does not matter if the spell effect is an area spell or a single-target spell. It is a legitimate target. It has been stated in the spell description as a legitimate target. It is the same as all other legitimate targets. I don't know how to make this more clear.

There are exactly two modes in which to use Dispel Magic: either as a counterspell or as a targeted dispel.

If you choose targeted dispel, there are exactly three legitimate choices: a creature, a spell effect or an object.

If you choose Creature as the target, Dispel magic will step through each spell effect until it dispels one, starting with the highest. If you choose object, it will try to suppress that object's magical abilities for 1d4 rounds. If you choose spell effect, it will try to end that particular spell effect.

The creature does not get to also be a target because it is convenient for him to do so. {Scrubbed} you target a creature, spell effect, or object. The rules on all of those targets are clear. You don't get to interpose yourself as a target just because you have a ring of counterspells with Dispel Magic stored in it. The spellcaster gets to choose the target, and you are not the target. The kinds of things offered as legitimate targets are well-described: a creature, an object, or a spell effect.

A lot of this debate has boiled down to "targeting a spell effect should be treated just like targeting a creature."

There is nothing in the rules to indicate that. If anything, it should be treated like targeting an object. Better yet, it should be treated as its own separate category. That's what I've chosen to do.

Forged Fury
2010-12-30, 10:47 PM
{Scrubbed}

You realize you're completely ignoring a part that comes well before anything you've mentioned:


Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object

It doesn't say spell. Therefore, you cannot target a spell. It would be easier to extrapolate a "point in space" as an object more than creating a new target class (e.g. spell).

{Scrubbed} We're not playing in your game and could not care less about how you choose to rule on a spell effect. No reason to get upset that people disagree with you.

Good gaming!

Another_Poet
2010-12-31, 01:17 AM
Well, I guess I have to throw in the towel. Smallberries is the GM and I'll just have to suck it up and deal with it.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-12-31, 04:54 AM
I guess the issue is academic now, but this is the internet, where discussing moot arguments is the norm.

It seems quite clear from the text that the caster of dispel magic has to go through targeting twice; in this case the Paladin specifies he is targeting the Wizard, and then he specifies he is targeting the Overland Flight.

The PFSRD's wording is confusing to say the least, but it becomes intuitive as one imagines what it means when it comes to an actual combat scenario. Take, for instance, the case where our Paladin now faces two Wizards, both of whom cast Overland Flight on themselves earlier. When the Paladin states he would like to dispel Overland Flight, he must first specify which Wizard's Overland Flight he wishes to dispel. This is the same thing as targeting one Wizard and then targeting that Wizard's spell effect.

One could, of course, argue that "The Overland Flight of the Wizard on the Left" is the target of the Paladin's dispel magic, but then there is a contradiction between the target/area line and the specific description of targeted dispel. No matter how many ways you look at the targeted dispel text, consistent writing would have included "spell" or "see text" in the initial target line.

If in one interpretation we arrive at a contradiction and in another we do not, it seems reasonable to use the consistent interpretation. That said, with rules as vague and unreliable as PF or its parent 3.5, consistent interpretations are often insane. That said, a Ring of Counterspells with Dispel Magic in it is almost useless under the current interpretation, so I would count this as a stealth nerf and reward the wizard a new relevant magic item in place of the ring. The Ring of Enduring Arcana is from the Magic Item Compendium, not allowed in this arena duel, but it is inexpensive, relevant to the duel at hand, and causes no rules confusion.

Smallberries
2011-01-01, 12:51 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


I was going to leave this alone, but I have to respond to that. My only purpose here was to demonstrate my case. I didn't have anything to do with Noborden's response, nor with Another Poet's initial posting of the question. I agree that my argument was doomed to failure before I even started; {Scrubbed} That's not why I'm here. I'm here because AP asked me to respond.

I am not trying to win an argument here. All I wanted to do was demonstrate my case so that the winning argument wouldn't be just, "The GM's a retard." I have a case. It isn't one you agree with, but it is legitimate. I have read the rules and thought them through. I have explained my position. I have considered the ramifications. I think my position is correct. You can disagree with it, but you can't say that I pulled it straight out of my ass. That was the idea, anyway.

{Scrubbed}

-Smallberries