No way this works like this... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

sleepyphoenixx

2013-07-25, 03:51 AM

I'm mostly going on just the fact that Ive never seen someone rule it this way and the fact it doesn't function this way in all the dnd video games (yes i know there not the same or what i should base my rules on but they are far more balanced that 3.x)

They also have only a fraction of the content and leave out a lot of rules and change others to make it work as a CRPG.
Also, none of those games use 3.5 rules iirc.

The way dispel works there is pretty much an engine limitiation.
After you cast the spell there is only the effect and no spell as a construct on several creatures at once.
In the CRPGs, Mass Haste does cast Haste on every single target. That's not how it works with the P&P version.

Devronq

2013-07-25, 03:53 AM

They also have only a fraction of the content and leave out a lot of rules and change others to make it work as a CRPG.
Also, none of those games use 3.5 rules iirc.

Actually yes never winter nights is specifically dnd 3.5.
(i think nwn1 is 3.0 and nwn 2 is 3.5)

TuggyNE

2013-07-25, 04:01 AM

I agree that this is a counter-intuitive result, and I'm not sure I'd leave it the way RAW has it, but I can't see any other reading of the text, which leaves houserules/houserules-by-misinterpretation only.

lsfreak

2013-07-25, 04:15 AM

Actually yes never winter nights is specifically dnd 3.5.
(i think nwn1 is 3.0 and nwn 2 is 3.5)

It's based on 3.5, but my understand is there are a number of alterations and diversions from what you'd find in the book.

I'd agree that RAW is pretty clear, the entire spell ends. I would houserule otherwise, though someone setting up a quantum-entanglement-like thing for some use would be pretty entertaining.

Karnith

2013-07-25, 07:23 AM

Actually yes never winter nights is specifically dnd 3.5.
While it is based on 3.5 rules, the game has made a number of changes to actual 3.5 rules. Haste, for example, increases your movement speed by 50% in NWN2, rather than by 30 feet as in 3.5. That doesn't mean that the 3.5 Haste text is wrong; it means that NWN2 changed how Haste works. They changed a lot of things to make it simpler on the game engine and to make the game easier to play. This is one of them.

The rules on this are pretty cut-and-dry. Whether or not NWN2 modeled them accurately is another issue entirely, and doesn't have any bearing on how it works in 3.5.

Talothorn

2013-07-25, 07:31 AM

I have always played:
"one object, creature, or spell is targeted"

If you targeted a creature or object, you end all magical effects on them. You can also target a spell, which ends that spell entirely.

You are facing a fighter and a cleric, both under the effects of mass haste, and the fighter also has bull's strength. Target the fighter, both spells end for him. Target the mass haste spell, it ends for both characters, even if the cleric is out of range, but the bull's strength is still active.

Segev

2013-07-25, 08:01 AM

Given how the spell is worded, despite it saying there are two options, there are actually 4:

Target one creature: Roll for each spell or effect on the creature; those for which you succeed are dispelled for that creature. (The last three words are not explicitly stated, but are fairly clearly necessary for the spell to make sense as a whole. More on that later.)
Target one object: Functions just like targeting a creature, save for the target being all spells on an object.
Target one spell: This is the interesting one. You can, as long as a spell is active within range of your Dispell, target the spell itself. If you do, you roll once, against that spell, and, if you succeed, that spell is terminated for all it is effecting. (This is why the first one only ends the effect for the target in the "target a creature/object" version. If it did not, then this option would be silly.)
Target an area: Affects all creatures and objects in the area as above, but only hits one spell effect on that creature successfully (stopping checking when it finds one that it affects). It also impacts any ongoing area-effect magic within the area overlapping with the 20-ft. burst. Notably, it expressly does not end the ongoing effect of a spell in areas impacted by such a spell that are not covered by the 20-ft. burst.

The combination of the above means that, no, if you hit a creature with a targeted dispel to try to wipe every effect on him, you only end the effects for him and not for anybody else.

The targeted dispel on a creature can end an entire "stack" of effects with one casting. "Action economy" in Dispel's favor, here.
Area Dispel can only end ongoing spell effects within its area, even sparing parts of area magics outside the area overlapping Dispel's AoE. Precedent established for Dispel only removing "some" of a spell, within Dispel's "area," while leaving spell effects outside its area alone, even if they're from the same spell.
Area Dispel ends one effect at most on each object or creature in the area; if this ended the entire spell on every creature in the area, it would actually end stacks of spells, and have a chance to end more of them the more creatures and objects are affected by such spells. This creates a degenerate effect where more buffs can be wiped from each creature the more creatures there are in the area.

Since Dispel can only affect effects in its area, if its area is "one creature" or "one object," it will only dispel effects on that creature or object, while leaving other spells alone on other creatures. If its area is "one spell," then it will end that spell, regardless of who its affecting. If its area is an area, it ends one spell per target, and all area spells (that it wins the dispel roll against), within that area, while leaving all effects outside that area alone.

Cheiromancer

2013-07-25, 08:07 AM

The same thing would hold true for antimagic field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm), wouldn't it?

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.
So if several people are hasted and one of them steps into an antimagic field, the spell is suppressed for all of them.

I wonder if some kind of long-range communication device could be made with this? A permanent spell cast on several different objects. One object could be moved in and out of an antimagic field in one city, and the effects would be displayed on its mates in cities on other continents. Morse code, or something.

Psyren

2013-07-25, 08:18 AM

So if several people are hasted and one of them steps into an antimagic field, the spell is suppressed for all of them.

AMF specifically only suppresses the parts of a spell that are within it. Even on a single creature, if that creature is half-in and half-out of the field, the half that is outside can still fire off spells, benefit from buffs etc.

Segev

2013-07-25, 08:36 AM

AMF specifically only suppresses the parts of a spell that are within it. Even on a single creature, if that creature is half-in and half-out of the field, the half that is outside can still fire off spells, benefit from buffs etc.

Same with Dispell.

Cheiromancer

2013-07-25, 08:37 AM

AMF specifically only suppresses the parts of a spell that are within it.

I must be derping. I can't see that in the spell description. I see "should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field", but that has to do with creatures, not spells that affect multiple targets.

Diarmuid

2013-07-25, 09:12 AM

Antimagic Field
Abjuration
Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: See text

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.
Arcane Material Component

A pinch of powdered iron or iron filings.

We're discussing how the Dispel part of this occurs in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294007).

As for the AMF, the relevant line would seem to be "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration. "

So, the argument in the other thread is that multiple people under the effects of a Haste spell are all under the effects of the same spell. Dispelling it on one dispels it on all. How is this now different in that "suppresses any spell brought into it" only would suppress is on one person? It's a single spell. It's either in or out and is either suppressed or not.

I personally dont agree with this interpretation but I acquiesced in the other thread that this does seem to be how RAW would have us adjudicate this.

Psyren

2013-07-25, 09:20 AM

Same with Dispell.

Not so. Dispel targets a creature, thus it doesn't matter if you dispel a creature's head or leg or left arm etc. AMF however explicitly only has an effect within the emanation.

Further, AMF doesn't end any spells - only dispel does that.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 10:14 AM

It also depends on if you cast "mass haste" or just cast "haste" multiple times on multiple characters.

Feytalist

2013-07-25, 10:19 AM

It also depends on if you cast "mass haste" or just cast "haste" multiple times on multiple characters.

Mass haste isn't a thing.

Or rather, haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm) is already "mass haste".

cerin616

2013-07-25, 11:06 AM

Mass haste isn't a thing.

Or rather, haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm) is already "mass haste".

Yea, but thats kinda what i mean, if its one spell affecting multiple people, it can all be dispelled at once.

but lets say you cast haste on a party member, then another one happens to burst through the door saying oh **** enemy wizard. you then cast haste on them too. Now there are multiple hastes casted, and each would need to be dispelled in turn.

The best part, you and the first party member now both have haste casted on you twice. They don't stack, but they do layer.

Scow2

2013-07-25, 11:12 AM

Yea, but thats kinda what i mean, if its one spell affecting multiple people, it can all be dispelled at once.

But, as Segev said, only if you target the spell, not the character.

Diarmuid

2013-07-25, 11:18 AM

Douglas

2013-07-25, 11:26 AM

But, as Segev said, only if you target the spell, not the character.
Got a rules reference for that? The only clause I see in Dispel Magic for dispelling only part of a spell rather than the entire thing is specific to area dispel vs area spells when the area spell's point of origin is not in Dispel Magic's area. In every other case (which would include targeted dispel on a creature that has some mass buffs) it ends "the spell".

Forrestfire

2013-07-25, 11:27 AM

I have always looked at it this way.

If a wizard casts a spell, he is layering magic onto the world. Whether or not it has multiple targets is irrelevant. It's still one spell, stretched over multiple things. If you're casting a dispel magic on the spell, it's going to hit the "web" of magic between them, not just one corner.

And even if it does only hit one piece of the spell, it'd probably collapse without that key bit keeping the spell active. Try stretching a rubber band on your hands, then pulling a finger out. It doesn't keep the same shape, does it?

cerin616

2013-07-25, 11:33 AM

If the fighter and the rogue are both effected by a haste, but the fighter also has 3 other buffs, and the fighter is targetted by a dispel magic...it will target all the spells currently on the fighter.

Per RAW, if the Haste is dispelled, the entire spell would then be gone and the rogue would lose its benefits as well.

I certainly dont like the way this works and dont run it in my game like that but thats clearly how the RAW would dictate this situation be ruled.

Well, no, not really, if you target the spell haste, it wont affect his other buffs. And if you target only the fighter it gets rid of all his buffs, but it wont get rid of haste on the rogue as it isn't an aura coming from the fighter, its a spell with multiple targets.

in other words you didnt cast haste "on the fighter" and the rogue was close enough to get the benefit, you cast haste in a chain, each one getting the same effect from the same spell, but targeted individually.

EDIT:

I have always looked at it this way.

If a wizard casts a spell, he is layering magic onto the world. Whether or not it has multiple targets is irrelevant. It's still one spell, stretched over multiple things. If you're casting a dispel magic on the spell, it's going to hit the "web" of magic between them, not just one corner.

And even if it does only hit one piece of the spell, it'd probably collapse without that key bit keeping the spell active. Try stretching a rubber band on your hands, then pulling a finger out. It doesn't keep the same shape, does it?

good way to look at it. Depending on how the spell targets, such as haste where you have multiple targets and not a single person emananting to more people, then you just pull one person out of the web.

Douglas

2013-07-25, 11:38 AM

Well, no, not really, if you target the spell haste, it wont affect his other buffs. And if you target only the fighter it gets rid of all his buffs, but it wont get rid of haste on the rogue as it isn't an aura coming from the fighter, its a spell with multiple targets.
It is still a single spell. Dispel ends the spell. The entire spell.

in other words you didnt cast haste "on the fighter" and the rogue was close enough to get the benefit, you cast haste in a chain, each one getting the same effect from the same spell, but targeted individually.
Each is targeted individually, but it's still one spell. That's all the matters for Dispel.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 11:41 AM

It is still a single spell. Dispel ends the spell. The entire spell.

Each is targeted individually, but it's still one spell. That's all the matters for Dispel.

thats only if you target the spell specifically, he is saying if you target the fighter, it removes all the buffs on the fighter, and by him losing haste the rogue does too. Thats not how it works. You either target the fighter, and he loses all his buffs including haste, but the rogue maintains haste, or you target the spell itself and they both lose haste but the fighter retains his other buffs. Or you cast dispel twice.

Douglas

2013-07-25, 11:45 AM

thats only if you target the spell specifically, he is saying if you target the fighter, it removes all the buffs on the fighter, and by him losing haste the rogue does too. Thats not how it works. You either target the fighter, and he loses all his buffs including haste, but the rogue maintains haste, or you target the spell itself and they both lose haste but the fighter retains his other buffs. Or you cast dispel twice.
That is not supported by the wording of Dispel Magic. Here is the exact wording for the option of targeting a creature and what happens when you succeed:

If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.
It says "that spell". It does not say "the part of that spell on the targeted creature". Therefore the entire spell ends.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:00 PM

That is not supported by the wording of Dispel Magic. Here is the exact wording for the option of targeting a creature and what happens when you succeed:

It says "that spell". It does not say "the part of that spell on the targeted creature". Therefore the entire spell ends.

Alright, so that is true, and i can't argue it. but in my attempt to find a loophole i found something interesting.

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, 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.

By raw, you can't use a targeted dispel to get rid of a spell cast on more than one creature since it doesnt say "a spell affecting one or more creatures" and so haste can only be targeted by an area dispel.

Psyren

2013-07-25, 12:02 PM

thats only if you target the spell specifically, he is saying if you target the fighter, it removes all the buffs on the fighter, and by him losing haste the rogue does too. Thats not how it works.

That's exactly how it works. Reread the posts above.

The fighter loses his buffs, and if one of those buffs is the same haste spell that is affecting the rogue, they both lose haste.

Diarmuid

2013-07-25, 12:03 PM

That's flimsy at best and doesnt hold up to simple logic.

Haste was cast on 4 people.

Was Haste cast on 1 person? Yes
Was Haste cast on 2 people? Yes
Was Haste cast on 3 people? Yes
Was Haste cast on 4 people? Yes
Was Haste cast on 5 people? No

Deophaun

2013-07-25, 12:06 PM

By raw, you can't use a targeted dispel to get rid of a spell cast on more than one creature since it doesnt say "a spell affecting one or more creatures" and so haste can only be targeted by an area dispel.
English doesn't work that way.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:09 PM

singular vs plural?

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-25, 12:11 PM

Alright, so that is true, and i can't argue it. but in my attempt to find a loophole i found something interesting.

By raw, you can't use a targeted dispel to get rid of a spell cast on more than one creature since it doesnt say "a spell affecting one or more creatures" and so haste can only be targeted by an area dispel.

If you are gonna go there, I have another for you. That is the general description of the spell and targeted dispel is a specific use. Specific trumps general. This is obviously applicable because the area burst can affect area spells.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:15 PM

If you are gonna go there, I have another for you. That is the general description of the spell and targeted dispel is a specific use. Specific trumps general. This is obviously applicable because the area burst can affect area spells.

Oh, you are good...

Deophaun

2013-07-25, 12:15 PM

singular vs plural?
You are assuming that the use of singular precludes the inclusion of a plural. English is not precise enough for that assumption.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:19 PM

You are assuming that the use of singular precludes the inclusion of a plural. English is not precise enough for that assumption.

I don't see why it can't, I mean, there are plenty of other times when RAW states "one or more"

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-25, 12:21 PM

Oh, you are good...

The thought occurred to me because of the mystery flicker in the tome of magic. as a mystery it has a standard action casting time not modified by the text. There is text in the spell that says if you cast it in response to an attack you have a 50% miss chance. Activating the spells immediate action teleportation isn't casting the spell. so by RAW the 50% miss chance never comes into play.

The point is not all Rules text WotC writes comes into play in RAW.

Diarmuid

2013-07-25, 12:22 PM

Psyren

2013-07-25, 12:23 PM

I don't see why it can't, I mean, there are plenty of other times when RAW states "one or more"

To play devil's advocate, there are also plenty of times when RAW is more explicit, e.g. "a single X" or "only one X," So this one can go both ways.

Deophaun

2013-07-25, 12:26 PM

I don't see why it can't, I mean, there are plenty of other times when RAW states "one or more"
General: Commander, hold this position. But if you see a tank, I want you to get your troops and get the heck out of there.
--1 hour later, 10 tanks appear--
Soldier: Commander, ten tanks! We need to leave!
Commander: Ten? Damn. The General said "a" tank, so we can't leave.

As I said, English does not work that way.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:29 PM

Just because it does elsewhere does not put any sort of special interpretation into its omission here.

Remember, RAW is "Rules As Written". Taking the rules at the exact wording, no twisting or assuming or interpreting.

If you want to do that, that's perfectly fine but it doesnt have a lot of bearing on a RAW discussion.

I've already said I think the RAW is silly and dont DM that way, but that doesnt change the RAW.

I agree entirely. And in my own game i will rule as i said before, but the fact that RAW is Rules as Written, and the rule states a singular instance, you cant say that english isnt precise enough to omit plural. Singular is singular, and unless its says singular or plural, RAW states singular. Its their own fault, at that point, for using a language that isn't specific enough.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:33 PM

General: Commander, hold this position. But if you see a tank, I want you to get your troops and get the heck out of there.
--1 hour later, 10 tanks appear--
Soldier: Commander, ten tanks! We need to leave!
Commander: Ten? Damn. The General said "a" tank, so we can't leave.

As I said, English does not work that way.

Off topic, this reminds me of programming jokes... oh man.

but yea, no, english does work that way. Just because you understand that's not what he meant, doesn't mean it isn't what he said. By his wording, they should technically leave if their own tank shows up too.

And since when do we take spoken english to represent english rules? "I aint seen you in a minute" is a common slang around my area that means "I have not seen you for a long period of time" even though a minute is very specific, "ain't" is not a word, you can never be inside of a minute.

Deophaun

2013-07-25, 12:34 PM

I agree entirely. And in my own game i will rule as i said before, but the fact that RAW is Rules as Written, and the rule states a singular instance, you cant say that english isnt precise enough to omit plural.
And no one here has said that English is not precise enough to omit plural. What has been said is that the use of a singular, and only a singular, in English is not enough to preclude plurals.

English actually has a word to describe these types of things: it's "ambiguous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous)."

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:36 PM

And no one here has said that English is not precise enough to omit plural. What has been said is that the use of a singular, and only a singular, in English is not enough to preclude plurals.

English actually has a word to describe these types of things: it's "ambiguous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous)."

The use of RAW is to turn the ambiguous into specific. If everything was written nice and specific, and nothing was ambiguous, then we wouldnt need to discuss it ever.

Deophaun

2013-07-25, 12:38 PM

And since when do we take spoken english to represent english rules? "I aint seen you in a minute" is a common slang around my area that means "I have not seen you for a long period of time" even though a minute is very specific, "ain't" is not a word, you can never be inside of a minute.
1) A minute is specific. Doesn't mean that it is wrong (inaccurate, yes, but not wrong)

2) You better tell Webster about that. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t)

3) You can, indeed, be in a minute, because a minute is simply another unit of dimension.

4) Language, as it is spoken, is how definitions evolve. So, to answer your question: since English has been around.

The use of RAW is to turn the ambiguous into specific. If everything was written nice and specific, and nothing was ambiguous, then we wouldnt need to discuss it ever.
Very well. Go to the glossary in any rule book, and show me the entry for "a." If you find RAW's definition of "a," and state it here, and it agrees with your interpretation, then I will say you are correct.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-25, 12:42 PM

I feel like we need a completely stupid ambiguous RAW bombshell at the moment so here goes.

Did you know that debatable by RAW you can dump an infinite amount of nitric acid out of a spell component pouch but only less than 1/10 of a flask at a time.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:45 PM

I am actually going to not respond with anything, because I just realize the thread is derailed. So instead, I disagree with you, for reasons I choose not to disclose, and i choose not to disclose them because we are being terribly rude to the creator of the discussion.

As we have determined, RAW states that yes haste can be dispelled from all receivers of haste, if you decide haste can be the target of a targeted dispel, which is left ambiguous.

Psyren

2013-07-25, 12:46 PM

The use of RAW is to turn the ambiguous into specific.

You're kidding, right? RAW is chock-full of ambiguities and outright gaps. And WotC made the wonderfully intelligent move of outlawing their own FAQ and rules articles as primary sources, leaving us to bicker over minutiae until the end of time.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 12:48 PM

You're kidding, right? RAW is chock-full of ambiguities and outright gaps. And WotC made the wonderfully intelligent move of outlawing their own FAQ and rules articles as primary sources, leaving us to bicker over minutiae until the end of time.

Well like i said, directly after what you snipped, is that if there wasnt ambiguity, we wouldn't be discussing it. RAW is full of ambiguity, and so we discuss RAW to turn the ambiguous into specific.

Deox

2013-07-25, 12:48 PM

You're kidding, right? RAW is chock-full of ambiguities and outright gaps. And WotC made the wonderfully intelligent move of outlawing their own FAQ and rules articles as primary sources, leaving us to bicker over minutiae until the end of time.

Which is why evil will always triumph...

...because good is dumb.

Psyren

2013-07-25, 12:51 PM

Well like i said, directly after what you snipped, is that if there wasnt ambiguity, we wouldn't be discussing it. RAW is full of ambiguity, and so we discuss RAW to turn the ambiguous into specific.

You can never remove ambiguity that way in a general sense. You can rule one way or the other at your table, and others are free to disagree with you and rule opposite. The discussion in this case accomplishes nothing.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-25, 01:02 PM

Which is why evil will always triumph...

...because good is dumb.

Not true, the intelligent good people are just easier to corrupt because they take the time to listen to insane people like myself. I find it to be highly contagious.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 01:20 PM

You can never remove ambiguity that way in a general sense. You can rule one way or the other at your table, and others are free to disagree with you and rule opposite. The discussion in this case accomplishes nothing.

Well, it comes up with some different, more specific rulings.

And in all reality, it doesn't matter because of rule 0: all other rules are just guidelines, and if the DM says "this is how it works" then that is how it works.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-25, 01:27 PM

Congrats to all for hashing this out. I like these kinds of discussions that use lots of quotes and deal with oft-used (or misused) parts of the rules. RAW parsing is hard to do on one's own, and talking it through with intelligent peers is a good way to find some small enlightenment amidst the dark morass that constitutes RAW.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-25, 01:29 PM

Well, it comes up with some different, more specific rulings.

And in all reality, it doesn't matter because of rule 0: all other rules are just guidelines, and if the DM says "this is how it works" then that is how it works.

This brings me back to the biggest dysfunction of the rules. Reading them. If you read the rules you are doing it wrong.

edit: seriously though, a DM who skims the rules is much more likely to have a coherent world even though it might have holes. example: the tippyverse, a DM who actually knows and uses all the rules come up with strange things.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 01:33 PM

This brings me back to the biggest dysfunction of the rules. Reading them. If you read the rules you are doing it wrong.

edit: seriously though, a DM who skims the rules is much more likely to have a coherent world even though it might have holes. example: the tippyverse, a DM who actually knows and uses all the rules come up with strange things.

Some of my favorite campaigns happened when we had no clue what we were doing.

But yea, I enjoy discussing RAW, even if in the end I use a system I feel fits better, which everyone has their own system that "fits better".

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-25, 02:15 PM

Psyren

2013-07-25, 03:48 PM

I honestly have a hard time telling if your being sarcastic or not we really need a smilie for that. It doesn't help

It was sarcasm - sometimes I forget the blue-text convention we have around here.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 05:08 PM

Do you also have a source for them outlawing their FAQ? I would like to read it and what they had to say about it.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 05:36 PM

Lets take this ideal to the most illogical extension possible.x

Say I haste five people then send them to five different planes of existence. If the haste is dispelled on the 7th layer of hell that somehow effected the guy who was sent to the elemental plane of air?

I would lead the line. "Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic"
To mean it can only effect the target. If you target the haste you get everyone's haste, if you target the creature you only get the creature.

Not how it works, it doesn't selectively end parts of spells, it spells, as in the whole thing, as in there is no verbiage to even suggest that "mass" spells are in any way granular, nor is there verbiage to suggest that dispel magic introduces that granularity. Even if it targets a creature, it affects only spells. I actually think not only is this RAW, it might very well be intentional, as having the dispel end spells and not effects is significantly easier, and creates less baggage than trying to define dispellable effects. The result is a cleaner and more easily readable spell. I know having WotC pick a cleaner and easier methodology seems out of character for them, but imagine if the made spell effects severable like that. Dispel magic would worse than psionic combat modes, polymorph, and grappling combined. Yes it results in having spells end in celestia when they are dispelled in baator, but it would be so much more complicated the other way.

cerin616

2013-07-25, 05:55 PM

Not how it works, it doesn't selectively end parts of spells, it spells, as in the whole thing, as in there is no verbiage to even suggest that "mass" spells are in any way granular, nor is there verbiage to suggest that dispel magic introduces that granularity. Even if it targets a creature, it affects only spells. I actually think not only is this RAW, it might very well be intentional, as having the dispel end spells and not effects is significantly easier, and creates less baggage than trying to define dispellable effects. The result is a cleaner and more easily readable spell. I know having WotC pick a cleaner and easier methodology seems out of character for them, but imagine if the made spell effects severable like that. Dispel magic would worse than psionic combat modes, polymorph, and grappling combined. Yes it results in having spells end in celestia when they are dispelled in baator, but it would be so much more complicated the other way.

I think he is saying he prefers it the way he mentioned, raw be damned.

In my opinion i think its easier to say that dispelling one person removes all the effects of the spell from them but not everyone else, (or target the spell and remove from everyone)

It just makes it as if the person were not there for the spell

TuggyNE

2013-07-25, 05:56 PM

Target one spell: This is the interesting one. You can, as long as a spell is active within range of your Dispell, target the spell itself. If you do, you roll once, against that spell, and, if you succeed, that spell is terminated for all it is effecting. (This is why the first one only ends the effect for the target in the "target a creature/object" version. If it did not, then this option would be silly.)

You're ignoring a wide swath of possible use cases here: what if, for example, you've buffed your fighter ally nicely, and then some jerk drops a solid fog on him? Surely you don't want to dispel all your buffs on the fighter just to get rid of the fog! Or consider an illusion, summon, or other such free-standing effect, or really anything where you want to get rid of some spell without having to send someone in (or where you can't).

Therefore, because there is a logical use for this option that the RAW of the other options does not cover, you can't deny the RAW of the other options.

Lets take this ideal to the most illogical extension possible.x

Say I haste five people then send them to five different planes of existence. If the haste is dispelled on the 7th layer of hell that somehow effected the guy who was sent to the elemental plane of air?

Sadly, yes. That's how it works; spooky action at a distance is pretty common in D&D magic, I guess.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 06:26 PM

I think he is saying he prefers it the way he mentioned, raw be damned.

In my opinion i think its easier to say that dispelling one person removes all the effects of the spell from them but not everyone else, (or target the spell and remove from everyone)

It just makes it as if the person were not there for the spell

That's simple to say, but to state it mechanically and even remotely semantically soundly would be either an ugly legalese mess, or painfully ambiguous.

Sadly, yes. That's how it works; spooky action at a distance is pretty common in D&D magic, I guess.

Why shouldn't it? We accept that wizards can reverse gravity, teleport, summon things from different planes, and stop time, why wouldn't quantum entanglement become a factor? I am not seeing why that should be a "saddly" scenario. When you start messing with the fundemental laws of nature, why would you not expect it to get weird? Not only am I sure it works RAW, I am perfectly happy with it.

Boci

2013-07-25, 06:32 PM

Why shouldn't it? We accept that wizards can reverse gravity, teleport, summon things from different planes, and stop time, why wouldn't quantum entanglement become a factor? I am not seeing why that should be a "saddly" scenario. When you start messing with the fundemental laws of nature, why would you not expect it to get weird? Not only am I sure it works RAW, I am perfectly happy with it.

Because being on different planes tends to block things?

Thrice Dead Cat

2013-07-25, 06:45 PM

While I agree with Curmudgeon that all multi-targeted spells would be dispelled given a single creature was successfully hit by a Dispel, since the discussion opened with haste, it's amusing that a Swiftblade can have a previous casting immune to dispel once he hits 6th level in the PrC. Oddly enough, it's (Ex) for everyone, not just him, assuming he is the one providing it for a group of characters.

Other then the classes in Tome of Magic that have mostly (Su) or eventually (Su) abilities, are there any other "spells" that are both spells and not, possibly at the same time? I realize this is a bit off topic, but it could muddy the debate a bit.

RogueDM

2013-07-25, 06:52 PM

Because being on different planes tends to block things?

Excluding the spells that it, well, doesn't. Like the spells that conduct a person or persons to another plane entirely, or allow verbal communication with beings on other planes, or allow you to briefly shift to the ethereal plane to nip down the street.

I will agree that planar boundaries disrupt many things, I do not find it beyond my suspension of disbelief to believe that a single spell cast on several individuals jointly (as opposed to a single spell recast on several individuals) could retain a transitive connection.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-25, 07:03 PM

Because being on different planes tends to block things?

Indeed, if this were the case, then the DM would sensibly rule that anyone going anywhere magically is stripped of all on-going spell effects (remember, teleportation involves using the astral then moving back to wherever you were to start).

Not a bad houserule, actually, but not what RAW indicates (this kind of thing should definitely figure in the description of plane shift, for instance).

More to the point, if a haste recipient being on a different plane than the wizard when the wizard's haste is dispelled will also be described, this isn't the only instance of "quantum entanglement" (nice word dropping, I like). The very fact that your haste is still counting down in synce with it's origin, despite being a whole planar reality away from it's origin, suggests that this entanglement is an assumed part of the game.

Should be fun when we go to parse varying time traits and mass buff durations, but, oh well. Rigor be damned is a regular refrain of RAW.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 07:05 PM

Because being on different planes tends to block things?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You can call creatures into temporary existence on this plane, but they disappear 6sec/CL later. The point is that magic is supposed to be weird, if it made sense and followed logical paths, it would be science (just not quantum physics). Also dividing up spells into "instances per target" would create a serious amount of rules baggage added to every multitarget spell with a duration, and to dispel. So this rule is as it is to clear up complications and serves the goal "mechanics serving fluff" by making magic wierder. We are so used to games giving us a simplified, discreet, repeatable results, we forget that the realworld magickal traditions are built on principles far weirder. Entanglement makes perfect sense given the magickal law/concept of sympathy. It's magic, making sense is not all that important.

Boci

2013-07-25, 07:12 PM

Excluding the spells that it, well, doesn't. Like the spells that conduct a person or persons to another plane entirely, or allow verbal communication with beings on other planes, or allow you to briefly shift to the ethereal plane to nip down the street.

Yeah, notice how all of those spells specifically interact with the planes by their nature.

The point is that magic is supposed to be weird, if it made sense and followed logical paths, it would be science (just not quantum physics).

But magic is pretty logical in 3.5. That's why this rule interaction is getting so much discussion time: because otherwise magic does tend to behave pretty "logically".

More to the point, if a haste recipient being on a different plane than the wizard when the wizard's haste is dispelled will also be described, this isn't the only instance of "quantum entanglement" (nice word dropping, I like). The very fact that your haste is still counting down in synce with it's origin, despite being a whole planar reality away from it's origin, suggests that this entanglement is an assumed part of the game.

That's just a consistent time flow on different planes.

Hyde

2013-07-25, 07:27 PM

While I agree with the consensus about what it does by RAW....

It feels way too Iron-Heart-Surgey to actually play it that way.

Though, in light of this, Maybe IHS works as written after all.:smalltongue:

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 07:29 PM

But magic is pretty logical in 3.5. That's why this rule interaction is getting so much discussion time: because otherwise magic does tend to behave pretty "logically".

Depends on how you define logically, and I may have used that particular word a touch carelessly, but when magical things act weird that's awesome. If magic was so straight forward then wizardry would be much easier and more of the population would be wizards (quickly bringing about the tippypocalypse). It involves understanding weird interactions between guano and sulpher, figuring out that animal remains contain the elements needed to create boon based on a percieved symbolic value the animal possessed, and seeing how everything works the way it does only because you haven't told it work differently.

Blackhawk748

2013-07-25, 07:30 PM

this entire thread is a massive example of why RAW makes me angry lol Its also why i DM by RAI and RACSD, RACSD is awesome

Boci

2013-07-25, 07:35 PM

Depends on how you define logically, and I may have used that particular word a touch carelessly, but when magical things act weird that's awesome.

But then what word did you mean? I understand you don't mean anything bad by describing magic as weird, I'm just not seeing. As a whole, the 3.5 magic system seems fairly consistent and governed by laws. It doesn't seem all that dissimilar to science, although material components are a noted exception to this format (at least now).

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 07:54 PM

this entire thread is a massive example of why RAW makes me angry lol Its also why i DM by RAI and RACSD, RACSD is awesome

1) RAI is frequently hard to determine.
2) only raw is universal enough to debate, the others are too interpreted to debate.
3) RACSD is just a fancy acronym for rule 0, what you define as common sense may not be what I define as common sense.

Example: I posed the central question of this debate to a friend (I framed it as wizard casts mass bull's strength on himself and his party, then planshifts himself only to baator and a devil dispels it), and she's pretty new, and said that the whole spell going away is the most "common sense" answer. OTOH, I have seen this debate on 4chan's /tg/ board and it go on for 200 posts (and weirdly it stayed mostly on topic, and with only 2 40k references), plus this debate, and another one on the same topic that is also running at the moment. This pretty much shows you that common sense is not common (at least not on this topic, but it's pretty much true in general).

Boci

2013-07-25, 07:58 PM

1) RAI is frequently hard to determine.
2) only raw is universal enough to debate, the others are too interpreted to debate.

Often yes, but there are some exceptions. For example I never seen someone argue that monks weren't meant to be proficient with their own fists.

IHS is another notable example.

3) RACSD is just a fancy acronym for rule 0, what you define as common sense may not be what I define as common sense.

Not if the whole group gives input on what constitutes "common sense".

Blackhawk748

2013-07-25, 08:12 PM

Well RACSD can be debated, usually using mostly RL examples, and i do agree that most people have different views of common sense but we can usually see where everyone is coming from and at least get a good compromise on how it should work. I wind up having to do this a lot in DnD because i hate the RAW answer most of the time, as it usually blatantly favors one thing over another and that just makes me angry.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-25, 08:27 PM

But then what word did you mean? I understand you don't mean anything bad by describing magic as weird, I'm just not seeing. As a whole, the 3.5 magic system seems fairly consistent and governed by laws. It doesn't seem all that dissimilar to science, although material components are a noted exception to this format (at least now).

I meant the word "logically" as the word I may have used carelessly. And by "carelessly" I don't mean that it might have engendered offense, only that it may have muddied my point.

Often yes, but there are some exceptions. For example I never seen someone argue that monks weren't meant to be proficient with their own fists.
Monk being given fist proficiency seems like a fairly clear case of RAI, as opposed to RACSD, though I suppose it could go either way.

IHS is another notable example.

IHS is a mess, it doesn't end things that it feels like it should stop, like dazing and paralysis, and can (by RAW) end things that it really shouldn't (sunlight for example). The problem is that IHS has is a problem that dispel magic does not. IHS gets into the muddy water of "what constitutes an effect" and to a lesser extent "what is meant by affecting". Dispel does not hop in that muddy water, it ends spells (and powers due to transparency) and cares not about the nebulous mess that is "effects". If you want dispel magic to work granularly, then this is the kind of wording you are going to end up with, and it is going to be ugly.

Not if the whole group gives input on what constitutes "common sense".

That is part of what we call houserules, and it's a big part of why groups have them.

Honestly, I can't even see how common sense would dictate that only part of a spell is dispelled. Maybe it's due to years of object oriented programming, but it seems obvious that the spell is one object, and if you destroy that object, then it is removed from all other objects it affects. A chainspell bull's strength would make sense as severable, since chainspell creates multiple instances, but a mass spell is a single instance operating on multiple other objects. (Note in this paragraph I mean object in programming sense, not the "normal" sense)

Blackhawk748

2013-07-25, 08:31 PM

I just want you to know that i agree with you assessment of Dispel, haste is one spell therefore it would dispel it. I guess the best way to say it is "Did you use one cast to get all those targets? Yes? Ok then if i dispel it on one i dispel it on all." I may have just confused more people but it made sense in my head

TuggyNE

2013-07-25, 10:03 PM

Yeah, notice how all of those spells specifically interact with the planes by their nature.

I can't say I like the way all multi-target spells come with free "works across any distance and even on other planes!", but there it is.

Hmm, I wonder, what would a more sane and plausible rule be? I'm not convinced that (greater) dispel magic really needs to be able to affect the entire spell just by hitting one of its subjects, game-balance-wise.

3) RACSD is just a fancy acronym for rule 0, what you define as common sense may not be what I define as common sense.

Sort of. There are two crucial things that distinguish RACSD from RAI, and one crucial thing that distinguishes it from RAMS. The first is that it does not rely on mind reading or higher-critical textual analysis. The second is that it relies on a general consensus among as much of the community as possible; you're free to disagree, but the corpus of RACSD is intended to be as widely-accepted as possible. Any given person can easily make a mistake or have odd ideas, but when a dozen or more reasonably-competent people have considered it carefully and hashed out the problems, the consensus is a lot higher-quality.

Not if the whole group gives input on what constitutes "common sense".

… or, basically, this, and then some.

That is part of what we call houserules, and it's a big part of why groups have them.

Yeah, although again, the benefit of RACSD as a concept is that you can discuss a common set of houserules and put more eyes on them, without having to demand that people come look at your idiosyncratic houserules and tell you what's wrong with them.

Honestly, I can't even see how common sense would dictate that only part of a spell is dispelled. Maybe it's due to years of object oriented programming, but it seems obvious that the spell is one object, and if you destroy that object, then it is removed from all other objects it affects. A chainspell bull's strength would make sense as severable, since chainspell creates multiple instances, but a mass spell is a single instance operating on multiple other objects. (Note in this paragraph I mean object in programming sense, not the "normal" sense)

Well, as a programmer myself, the fine shades of precise logic needed are very often counter-intuitive to most people. I can understand why the rules are implemented this way, but I'm not sure it's an intended property of the system, or simply a casual choice on something not, as it were, contained in the project specifications.

Also, for what it's worth, copy-by-reference and copy-by-value (which is essentially what's going on here) is something that can trip up even moderately experienced programmers. Pointers are not something everyone can understand!

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 12:12 AM

Well, as a programmer myself, the fine shades of precise logic needed are very often counter-intuitive to most people. I can understand why the rules are implemented this way, but I'm not sure it's an intended property of the system, or simply a casual choice on something not, as it were, contained in the project specifications.

Also, for what it's worth, copy-by-reference and copy-by-value (which is essentially what's going on here) is something that can trip up even moderately experienced programmers. Pointers are not something everyone can understand!

My best guess is that the rules verbiage they chose (whenever they were chosen since this might be legacy rules crossover) was the cleaner ande easier to implement than the granular option, and possibly to preserve a cast-dispel action equality. Making dispel work the otherway would have been significantly messier. There is the possibility that the interaction was unintentional, but from a purely abstract view of what dispel does (get rid of undesired spells), either implementation is logically defensible, but, as I have stated before, the current implementation was the cleaner of the two.

TL;DR: it's a feature, not a bug.

lsfreak

2013-07-26, 12:24 AM

Say I haste five people then send them to five different planes of existence. If the haste is dispelled on the 7th layer of hell that somehow effected the guy who was sent to the elemental plane of air?

Like I brought up earlier, this would make a fascinating form of "quantum entanglement communication." Someone sets up an extremely high-caster-level (like, as hard as they can possibly cheese it), long-duration (preferably permanent) spell between the "agent" and the "handler." If the handler's spell is ever removed (i.e.: contingency + word, or a contingency that if the contingent teleport set to a command word fails to go off, a CL5 dispel cast by the same caster as the original QE spell goes off), they know the "agent" is probably deeeeep ****, and they break out the serious scrying, the deity-contacting spells, and so on to find out what happened.

And on a much less awesome scale, you could use something like 1st-level spells and a warlock's unlimited dispelling power to make a system for transmitting a single, simple message while on a scouting mission before telepathy, etc is in reach.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-26, 12:51 AM

Honestly, I can't even see how common sense would dictate that only part of a spell is dispelled.
Because if your not targeted or in the area of a dispel magic it shouldn't effect you. Just like you don't take damage from a fireball a mile away

Honestly, I can't even see how common sense would dictate that only part of a spell is dispelled. Maybe it's due to years of object oriented programming, but it seems obvious that the spell is one object, and if you destroy that object, then it is removed from all other objects it affects. A chainspell bull's strength would make sense as severable, since chainspell creates multiple instances, but a mass spell is a single instance operating on multiple other objects. (Note in this paragraph I mean object in programming sense, not the "normal" sense)
How do you know that a mass spell doesn't function on the same principle as a chain spell creating multiple instances. If the spell ceased to function when the targets. Really I think its hypocritical to say a chain spell creates multiple instances(less vulnerable to dispeling) while a regular mass spell does not.

To take your programming argument to another level.

Say a business runs its programs on a cloud rather then having them stored on each individual computer. If I sever access to a program on Computer A it has no effect on Computer B. But if I wipe the program from the source(even if that source doesn't run the program it self). I effectively wipe it from all of them.

Douglas

2013-07-26, 12:56 AM

Really I think its hypocritical to say a chain spell creates multiple instances(less vulnerable to dispeling) while a regular mass spell does not.
If you're referring to the Chain Spell metamagic, I think dispelling that works exactly the same as dispelling mass buffs like Haste (i.e. dispelling a Chained Greater Magic Weapon on one target dispels it on all), and I don't recall anyone stating otherwise in this thread.

If you're referring to something else, I have no idea what it is. Please clarify.

Hyde

2013-07-26, 12:56 AM

A: It's not being hypocritical. The very definition of the word is being more critical of others than one is of oneself. It's like hypothermia.

B:To take your very not programming argument. In your example, the "server" has to be the wizard. The terminals are the targets of the spell. Dispelling a spell in this example would be accessing a terminal to disable the spell effect on the server- which is totally something you can do, since dispel effectively has root access- which thereby ends the effect/program.

Regardless, your analogy isn't very helpful.

Hyde

2013-07-26, 01:00 AM

Anyway, Chainspell creates new targets for the same spell, it strictly does not create new castings. Twin Spell, on the other hand, would.

Douglas

2013-07-26, 01:18 AM

Anyway, Chainspell creates new targets for the same spell, it strictly does not create new castings. Twin Spell, on the other hand, would.
Yeah, Twin Spell and Repeat Spell both create additional castings of the spell, which have to be dispelled separately. Chain Spell does not.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 01:33 AM

Because if your not targeted or in the area of a dispel magic it shouldn't effect you. Just like you don't take damage from a fireball a mile away

True i don't take damage from a fireball a mile away, but the spell doesn't affect the target (at least not directly), it affects a spell. The same way that you are hit by a fireball within 30' even if the caster didn't know you were there.

How do you know that a mass spell doesn't function on the same principle as a chain spell creating multiple instances. If the spell ceased to function when the targets. Really I think its hypocritical to say a chain spell creates multiple instances(less vulnerable to dispeling) while a regular mass spell does not.

I don't remember the exact wording of chain spell, but if memory serves (and it very well may not), it explicitly copies the spell. If it copies the spell for each target than we are dealing with multiple instances. If that is untrue, then any argument dries up. Note I said, I could seen an argument for, not I know/feel/think/believe.

EDIT: as has been made clear, I did not correctly remember how chain spell functions, my bad. As such there is no real argument for it's granularity.

To take your programming argument to another level.

Say a business runs its programs on a cloud rather then having them stored on each individual computer. If I sever access to a program on Computer A it has no effect on Computer B. But if I wipe the program from the source(even if that source doesn't run the program it self). I effectively wipe it from all of them.

Lets pretend this company has a policy, all interdepartmental data (multitarget spells) must be stored on the cloud to allow realtime updates and reporting. Now the HR department has access to several kinds of employee records, but shares the payroll data with accounting. If I take an accounting terminal I can delete all of the payroll data, even if HR is in New York and accounting is in LA. This is how dispel works, any terminal with access to data can be used to delete that data.

Telok

2013-07-26, 01:37 AM

This is an interesting argument. However in the lat 25 years I've never met a group that read that a targeted Dispel Magic also dispelled associated targets that were not the target of the Dispel Magic. It's interesting.

Now, here's the text of area dispelling (just for reference and coupling each bolded bit to the following italicized bit).Area Dispel

When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius.

For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.

For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.

For each ongoing area or effect spell whose point of origin is within the area of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to dispel the spell.

For each ongoing spell whose area overlaps that of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to end the effect, but only within the overlapping area.

If an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning) is in the area, you can make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured that object or creature (returning it whence it came) in addition to attempting to dispel spells targeting the creature or object.

You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast. Under the strict RAW rules as posited in this thread as I understand it the following scenario can occur. Three PCs get hit with Scintillating Pattern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scintillatingPattern.htm) and are affected, so the wizard casts an area Dispel Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) at them because it is better than trying to dispel the pattern directly. Parse it: He rolls to dispel the pattern from each affected PC (presuming that the pattern is the highest level spell affecting them), he rolls to dispel the point of origin of the pattern (the areas of the two spells are the same), and he rolls to dispel the effect of the pattern within the area of the dispel.

This is correct is it not?
If it is correct then all area spells with durations that affect targets are better dispelled by using the area dispel option due to the multiple chances to end the spell.

Douglas

2013-07-26, 01:41 AM

Scintillating Pattern does not have targets. It creates an effect, and only the "For each ongoing area or effect spell..." clause of an area dispel applies to it.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 01:46 AM

Scintillating Pattern does not have targets. It creates an effect, and only the "For each ongoing area or effect spell..." clause of an area dispel applies to it.

Area mode dispel magic affects effected creatures in addition to area effects in the affected area (say that 5 times fast). Note it doesn't say targetted, it says affected.

Boci

2013-07-26, 02:15 AM

I meant the word "logically" as the word I may have used carelessly. And by "carelessly" I don't mean that it might have engendered offense, only that it may have muddied my point.

So that's what you didn't mean. What did you mean?

Monk being given fist proficiency seems like a fairly clear case of RAI, as opposed to RACSD, though I suppose it could go either way.

Its both. Its quite clear monks where intended to be proficient with their own fists, and common sense dictates that they should.

IHS is a mess

And everyone agrees, showing that although RAW thing is the only universal (except when it isn't, different interpretations of the rules) we can still agree on other matters, such as when an ability like IHS. After all, I could argue "But we cannot be sure IHS doesn't work as intended", and I'd right, technically. But you do not see people doing that.

That is part of what we call houserules, and it's a big part of why groups have them.

I don't see a major difference between using RACSD and having houserules. You could just as easily say "Houserules are just a fancy word for rule 0".

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-26, 02:50 AM

True i don't take damage from a fireball a mile away, but the spell doesn't affect the target (at least not directly), it affects a spell. The same way that you are hit by a fireball within 30' even if the caster didn't know you were there.
It affects the spell but it TARGETS the creature unless you specify a spell.

Targeted dispel magic says
One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. At no point does it say the dispel has an effect on other creatures or objects who share the same spell, The implication is only the target is effected by the dispel magic.

The overall spell says the target is "One spellcaster, creature, or object or 20-ft.-radius burst"

A spell CAN'T effect what its not targeting or is outside the area. That's simply how aiming magic works. Dispel magic may effect spells but it targets creatures so only the target should be effected. Unless your targeting the spell specifically the rules of aiming a spell say dispel magic can only effect the target.

If you target a creature or object with a spell, only that creature or object is effected, if you target an area only that area is effected its a basic rule of aiming spells why is dispel magic different?

I would presume if dispelling say haste on one target effected all targets the example of using dispel magic in the PHB would have included something that important instead of implying ONLY the target of a dispel magic was effected by dispel magic.(like every other spell in existence) But no it doesn't say that if Mialee's haste is dispelled then everyone effected by the haste cast by the unnamed drow wizard's is also dispelled. To me the implication from reading the entire spell description is that dispel magic is only suppose to effect the people hit by the dispel magic.

Curmudgeon

2013-07-26, 03:00 AM

Targeted dispel magic says ...
At no point does it say the dispel has an effect on other creatures or objects who share the same spell,
It doesn't need to say that, because that's inherent in the described result:

If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.
The implication is only the target is effected by the dispel magic.
It have no clue where you're getting that "implication" from. It says the spell is dispelled. It doesn't say only the part of the spell affecting that target is dispelled.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 03:05 AM

And everyone agrees, showing that although RAW thing is the only universal (except when it isn't, different interpretations of the rules) we can still agree on other matters, such as when an ability like IHS. After all, I could argue "But we cannot be sure IHS doesn't work as intended", and I'd right, technically. But you do not see people doing that.

In this particular scenario the rules do make sense, and there is no compelling reason to believe anything was ever intended to be different. The RAW here is as plain as fireball dealing fire damage.

I don't see a major difference between using RACSD and having houserules. You could just as easily say "Houserules are just a fancy word for rule 0".

Houserules are in many ways rule 0. RACSD is nebulous, and subject to local consensus. And racsd is houserules, but not all houserules are racsd. Example my group has a houserule that any tibbit caster can use natural spell to cast in cat form, but that rule is not even remotely related to RAW, RAMS, RAI, or RACSD.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-26, 03:10 AM

It doesn't need to say that, because that's inherent in the described result:

Yes it does need to say that because other spells can only effect what they target. If a spell can effect a dozen people by targeting one guy that needs to be in the spell description.

Other spells aren't required to remind people they only effect the target.

ryu

2013-07-26, 03:14 AM

And it is quite plainly. It quite openly states that the spell with no reference to parts or pieces or other such nonsense is dispelled. This implication is something you've made up yourself.

AntiTrust

2013-07-26, 03:17 AM

On the flip side does that mean that when casting it as an area spell does the caster only get one chance to dispel haste even if more than one hasted person is within dispels area?

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-26, 03:22 AM

And it is quite plainly. It quite openly states that the spell with no reference to parts or pieces or other such nonsense is dispelled. This implication is something you've made up yourself.

Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object

Targeted Dispel

One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.

Its referenced several times by how the spell is targeted, Finger of Death doesn't have to specify that ONLY the target is affected.

It doesn't say the spell is dispelled on everyone, so dispel magic should be held to the same rules of aiming a spell that every other spell is bound to. Only the target is effected by the spell.

On the flip side does that mean that when casting it as an area spell does the caster only get one chance to dispel haste even if more than one hasted person is within dispels area?

Oh no because dispelling one is dispelling all... they have X many chances. So if five people are hasted the area dispel would give them five chances to dispel it. That was the original question of the OP.

The tricky part is dispelling a spell discharges the dispel magic on that creature. If you treated each casting of haste individually that goes away.

Douglas

2013-07-26, 03:25 AM

It doesn't say the spell is dispelled on everyone
It doesn't have to, because that's inherently what dispelling "the spell" means. Restricting it to only the portion of it on the target creature would require additional clauses, not the other way around.

Boci

2013-07-26, 03:28 AM

In this particular scenario the rules do make sense, and there is no compelling reason to believe anything was ever intended to be different.

I...don't believe you. No. No one can look at IHS and think "Yeah, that was how it was intended to work, I'm sure the writer completely understood how stupidly vague and thus powerful this ability was".

Houserules are in many ways rule 0.

I agree. I just found it strange you were removing the possibility of player input for common sense.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-26, 03:31 AM

It doesn't have to, because that's inherently what dispelling "the spell" means. Restricting it to only the portion of it on the target creature would require additional clauses, not the other way around.

In your opinion dispel magic overrides the rules for targeting a spell, in my opinion The target limitation of a spell implies the limitation it only affects the target(s) and overriding the rules for targeting a spell would be what requires additional clauses.

Douglas

2013-07-26, 03:40 AM

In your opinion dispel magic overrides the rules for targeting a spell, in my opinion The target limitation of a spell implies the limitation it only affects the target(s) and overriding the rules for targeting a spell would be what requires additional clauses.
The rules for targeted spells say the following:

Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Nowhere in any of that does it say that the spell's effect is restricted solely to the chosen target. That detail is covered by the individual spell descriptions of each targeted spell, which generally say something along the lines of "X happens to the target". In Dispel Magic's case, a targeted creature is used solely as a reference for which spells might be affected, not as the thing to be affected directly.

The general rule you are attempting to apply does not exist.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 03:41 AM

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 04:00 AM

It affects the spell but it TARGETS the creature unless you specify a spell.

No disagreement here

Targeted dispel magic says At no point does it say the dispel has an effect on other creatures or objects who share the same spell, The implication is only the target is effected by the dispel magic.

1) be clear of affect and effect, one letter makes a huge difference.

2) fireball has ZERO targets, and affects everything in radius. Targetting and affecting are not always linked.

3) >implying implications, there is not any sort of "implication", targetting a creature is merely how dispel finds a spell to affect. The creature is NOT directly effected, the spell is effected. The spell is an indivisible entity, if it ends the whole thing goes, because it's ONE spell. There is no verbiage that would "imply" that a mass spell is severable, granular, or any other sort of divisible. Quote me a contradictory rule and you could have a leg to stand on. As such there is nothing to "imply" anything different. The rules are very clear, the RAW is easily assumed, given that clarity, to be RAI, and since they make perfect sense they satisfy RACSD amd RAMS.

A spell CAN'T effect what its not targeting or is outside the area. That's simply how aiming magic works. Dispel magic may effect spells but it targets creatures so only the target should be effected. Unless your targeting the spell specifically the rules of aiming a spell say dispel magic can only effect the target.

Can you cite a source on that? I have seen no rule to that effect. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is pure assumption. There are rules about what you can target, but to my knowledge, there aren't any to prevent affecting.

If you target a creature or object with a spell, only that creature or object is effected, if you target an area only that area is effected its a basic rule of aiming spells why is dispel magic different?

The target creature is NOT directly effected by the dispel, the spell is effected. The spell is very clearly ended, and there is nothing in the rules that would indicate that you can split a spell. You are confusing aiming with affecting, they are not the same. If aim a gun at someone and shoot them, it will ruin their shirt, their shirt is effected, even though I didn't aim at it.

I would presume if dispelling say haste on one target effected all targets the example of using dispel magic in the PHB would have included something that important instead of implying ONLY the target of a dispel magic was effected by dispel magic.(like every other spell in existence) But no it doesn't say that if Mialee's haste is dispelled then everyone effected by the haste cast by the unnamed drow wizard's is also dispelled. To me the implication from reading the entire spell description is that dispel magic is only suppose to effect the people hit by the dispel magic.

Key words in this segment bolded by me.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 04:04 AM

I...don't believe you. No. No one can look at IHS and think "Yeah, that was how it was intended to work, I'm sure the writer completely understood how stupidly vague and thus powerful this ability was".

I was referring to dispel, not the ridiculousness of IHS.

Zaq

2013-07-26, 04:05 AM

I'll be honest, I'd never seen the interpretation of "dispel one = dispel all" for Dispel Magic before, nor has my group played it as such. We did for reversed Spell Rebirth, but I honestly just chalked that up to poor writing. After reading this thread, though, I can't disagree that it does seem to be RAW. Can't say I'm too terribly sad, either . . . Seeing additional balances on magic makes me happy.

Boci

2013-07-26, 04:08 AM

I was referring to dispel, not the ridiculousness of IHS.

Fair enough, but there are plenty of people on this thread who think otherwise.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 04:12 AM

Can't say I'm too terribly sad, either . . . Seeing additional balances on magic makes me happy.
I've never really been sure about whether dispel magic is a balance on magic, or its opposite. It makes magic less stable, but only if you're using magic, so a party wizard has resources against an enemy wizard that the fighter doesn't have. I'm not saying that dispel magic being better is necessarily a boost to wizard power, but I am saying that it being a balancing factor is a complicated issue. It's a lot like antimagic field in that way. It looks like it nerfs wizards, but wizards aren't hit by it too hard, mundane classes are hit by it surprisingly hard, and you can only use it if you're a wizard. In fact, dispel magic could be harmful to mundane guys in the same way, if they've been relying on buffs and items to operate. It's all rather muddled.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 04:37 AM

I've never really been sure about whether dispel magic is a balance on magic, or its opposite. It makes magic less stable, but only if you're using magic, so a party wizard has resources against an enemy wizard that the fighter doesn't have. I'm not saying that dispel magic being better is necessarily a boost to wizard power, but I am saying that it being a balancing factor is a complicated issue. It's a lot like antimagic field in that way. It looks like it nerfs wizards, but wizards aren't hit by it too hard, mundane classes are hit by it surprisingly hard, and you can only use it if you're a wizard. In fact, dispel magic could be harmful to mundane guys in the same way, if they've been relying on buffs and items to operate. It's all rather muddled.

Magic is never a balance on magic, saying otherwise is double talk. It can serve as a check sometimes, but mostly it's a caster vs. caster play that has utility against non-casters.

TuggyNE

2013-07-26, 04:55 AM

Really I think its hypocritical to say a chain spell creates multiple instances(less vulnerable to dispeling) while a regular mass spell does not.

Hypocritical? No. Inconsistent, maybe, but most of us in the thread arguing that RAW says the whole spell is taken down are not arguing that Chain Spell is an exception.

To take your programming argument to another level.

Suffice it to say that implementation and design choices vary quite dramatically based on nitpicky little business rules; no useful analogy is to be found here.

A spell CAN'T effect what its not targeting or is outside the area. That's simply how aiming magic works.

Sure it can! Take love's pain for instance, or maybe you'd prefer another dispel magic example: if you summon a creature and have it cast bless on the party, but then some jerk targeted-dispels the summon, the bless spell disappears. Now that's magic!

I'll be honest, I'd never seen the interpretation of "dispel one = dispel all" for Dispel Magic before, nor has my group played it as such.

More and more I'm thinking this is one of those annoying cases in any large system design where, unless it's very clearly specified what the chosen intent is, two or more completely contradictory schools of thought will spontaneously spring up among those implementing it.

Put another way, it's not at all obvious which way they should have gone on this, especially since there's no particularly great explanation, fluff-wise, for why it works; it's only reasonably clear which way they did go.

:smallsigh:

Douglas

2013-07-26, 10:54 AM

another dispel magic example: if you summon a creature and have it cast bless on the party, but then some jerk targeted-dispels the summon, the bless spell disappears. Now that's magic!
You appear to be under the misconception that the caster of a spell dying or ceasing to exist causes the spell to end. It does not.

The only way in which targeted-dispelling the summon would end the Bless is by making a dispel check against Bless due to it being a spell in effect on the target, and there's nothing special about having a summon spell in there for that interaction.

Karnith

2013-07-26, 10:57 AM

You appear to be under the misconception that the caster of a spell dying or ceasing to exist causes the spell to end. It does not.
Actually, it's a Summoning subschool rule. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning):

A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.
(Emphasis mine)

Douglas

2013-07-26, 11:12 AM

Huh. That's a bit of obscure minutiae I hadn't been aware of.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 12:28 PM

Huh. That's a bit of obscure minutiae I hadn't been aware of.
I'm with you on that one. It's one of those things that keeps bringing me back to this system, that I'm always learning esoteric rules that only have interactions and effects in corner cases.

Mnemnosyne

2013-07-26, 12:46 PM

I have to say that before this thread, it never would have occurred to me to think that anyone would say the targeted version of dispel magic could affect anyone other than the target.

Technically, now that it has been pointed out, yeah, that does appear to be RAW, although from my point of thinking, it's RAW in the same way that ending sunlight with iron heart surge is RAW. I can't imagine using it in that manner, and in all the years I've played D&D, I've never heard anyone read it that way, until now.

cerin616

2013-07-26, 12:52 PM

I love the programmer banter.

If I can try and use that to be clear... hmm...

I feel like you are saying that when you cast haste on a group of people you take one object, a group of people, and grant it the variable (haste). When you remove (haste) it cant be on only parts of the object, and thus is dispelled the whole way.

What I look at when I see casting (haste) there are two things happening. One, a new instance of (haste is created, and it is simply an array of haste.castOn with each character it was casted on in this array. In addition, character.buffs has an added (haste) value entered into it.

now we dispel, I would say you have 2 options. You can target haste and run haste.removecharacters. which for each character in haste, character.removebuff(haste) is run. your other option is to target fighter. now fighter runs character.removebuff(all). The fighter loses all buffs you pass a check on. Fighter is still in haste.castOn as haste was cast on him, but he no longer has the effect.

Granted my code is a bit sloppy right now, and this probably isnt the best way to do this from a memory/process intensive standpoint, but its how I saw it working.

Hyde

2013-07-26, 01:18 PM

eggynack

2013-07-26, 02:32 PM

Ending someone's haste buff across planes because someone dispelled another recipient on the plains is kind of hard to 'splain, huh?
Why? If a spell works across multiple planes, it should be able to be dispelled across multiple planes. A spell is a single object that can theoretically spread across any amount of space, and through dimensional walls. If you dispel a spell, that object is removed from the game entirely. I don't see why it would matter at all that one guy is hanging out on the prime material, and the other guy is in mechanus. It's still the one haste.

Boci

2013-07-26, 02:41 PM

Why? If a spell works across multiple planes

If works across multiple plains in the same way a bottle of water works across multiple plains: if I pour it onto three people and they then teleport to three different plains, they will all still be wet.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 02:55 PM

If works across multiple plains in the same way a bottle of water works across multiple plains: if I pour it onto three people and they then teleport to three different plains, they will all still be wet.
Magic and water are different. There are things which interrupt magic, and magic works as a single cohesive whole. You can take a bucket of water, with the water being defined as a single object, and take a cup of water out of the bucket, and you'd have two water objects. There would be no intrinsic difference between that cup of water and a cup of water taken from anywhere else. This isn't true of magic. There's no apparent apparatus to divide the spell object, and if there is, it has to be explicit rather than implicit. If one guy goes to a different plane, the haste that was cast on him doesn't become a second haste object. It's just the one haste. Missing from your analogy is why dispel wouldn't work across planes. There's no real fundamental difference between dispelling across planes, and dispelling across miles. If there is one, you have to explain and prove it.

Boci

2013-07-26, 03:01 PM

Magic and water are different.

I just felt it was misleading to claim haste "worked across multiple planes".

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 03:08 PM

eggynack

2013-07-26, 03:10 PM

I just felt it was misleading to claim haste "worked across multiple planes".
What I'm saying is that it's actually not misleading. If you pour water on two guys, and one guy goes to a different plane, the two guys have different water on them. If you cast a spell on two guys, and one guy goes to a different plane, those two guys have the same spell on them. Spells are indivisible, while water is not. For this reason, spells work across multiple planes.

Boci

2013-07-26, 03:16 PM

What I'm saying is that it's actually not misleading. If you pour water on two guys, and one guy goes to a different plane, the two guys have different water on them. If you cast a spell on two guys, and one guy goes to a different plane, those two guys have the same spell on them. Spells are indivisible, while water is not. For this reason, spells work across multiple planes.

Except when they don't, like spells tied to specific locations. And even then I find it misleading when talking about spells. I cannot be bothered arguing about, I'm sorry I even started. I shouldn't have, but its too late for that now.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 03:23 PM

Except when they don't, like spells tied to specific locations. And even then I find it misleading when talking about spells.
I'm just pointing out that I had an addendum about exceptions in my first post on the topic. Things that allow spells to be divisible, or cause them to not follow you across planes, must be explicit rather than implicit. Haste, having no section describing its interaction with planar boundaries, continues to act as a singular spell. If there's another spell called, "Suleiman's Spell Separator," obviously the game changes somewhat, and we need to evaluate the effects of dispel on a case by case basis. Not to continue arguing past the point's prime, but it seemed like a relevant thing.

Agincourt

2013-07-26, 05:28 PM

I am going to agree with Lord Vukodlak that Dispel Magic works on the targeted creature only. (I can see the counter-argument.) From the PHB glossary:

dispel: Negate, suppress, or remove one or more existing spells or other effects on a creature, item, or area. Dispel usually refers to a dispel magic spell, though other forms of dispelling are possible. Certain spells cannot be dispelled, as noted in the individual spell descriptions.

It's always dangerous when someone uses the word that is being defined within the definition. This is where the ambiguity lies with Dispel Magic. When the book says "that spell is dispelled" they are using the word from the title of the spell to describe what the spell does. But as the glossary indicates dispel can mean "negate, suppress, or remove" an effect. In order for each of these words to mean something, they need distinct meanings. "Suppress" is the easy one. It's the only word that's actually used in the Dispel Magic description, and it applies to magic objects.

So what then do "negate" and "remove" refer to? It is my contention that negate refers to counterspelling. When a spellcaster counterspells, they negate the spell entirely. That leaves "remove" to apply to all the other situations.

To remove a spell effect from a target creature tells us nothing about what it does to anyone else. To go back to the glossary, it says "remove one or more existing spells or other effects on a creature," which suggests that it only affects the one creature. Removing the effect from the target should leave the effect in tact for anyone else who was the subject of the spell.

Just to be clear, I can see the counter-argument. The spell description also says, "a dispelled spell ends as if its duration expired." I am proposing, though, that with the explanation provided in the glossary, the writers were saying the spell ends for the targeted creature as though it had expired, and not for anyone else, because it uses the singular "creature." They did not intend for the spell effect to be removed from "creatures" plural.

To stick with the Haste example, when a spellcaster dispels Haste on the fighter, the Haste effect has been removed from the target creature—the fighter—only. The rogue is unaffected.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 05:38 PM

Stuff of some length.
There's no real evidence here for your claims. You're removing a spell from a single creature. That spell is also on other creatures. Thus, the rogue also loses his haste. The glossary does nothing to dispute this. There's also no indication that dispelling and counterspelling have anything to do with each other, though it's notable that if you counter haste, you counter the whole shebang. There's no part of counterspell that requires that you counter the part targeting the fighter, over the part targeting the rogue, and I don't think you could if you wanted to. I just don't see the part of the things you're citing that lends any credence to the idea that dispelling hits only the part of a spell on one creature.

Agincourt

2013-07-26, 05:57 PM

There's no real evidence here for your claims.
You're removing a spell from a single creature. That spell is also on other creatures. Thus, the rogue also loses his haste.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. You are arguing that it is impossible to sever recipients of a spell from any other recipients of that same spell. That's certainly a position you can take, but I don't see anywhere in the rules that it says this.

The glossary does nothing to dispute this.
The glossary says it removes a spell effect on a creature, singular, not creatures. That was one of my points, which you did not address. Proof by assertion by repeating your conclusion is no proof at all.

There's also no indication that dispelling and counterspelling have anything to do with each other, though it's notable that if you counter haste, you counter the whole shebang.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, but I am having difficulty. Dispel Magic has a paragraph at the end of its description where it describes using it as a counterspell. Dispelling and counterspelling have everything to do with one another. I needed to discuss counterspelling to explain a specific word within the definition of "dispel" (negate).

There's no part of counterspell that requires that you counter the part targeting the fighter, over the part targeting the rogue, and I don't think you could if you wanted to. I just don't see the part of the things you're citing that lends any credence to the idea that dispelling hits only the part of a spell on one creature.
You seem to have gone on a sidetrack here. When you counterspell you target the spellcaster and keep the spell from ever taking effect. This is a different situation than the targeted dispel on a creature with several ongoing effects.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 06:10 PM

I'm going to respectfully disagree. You are arguing that it is impossible to sever recipients of a spell from any other recipients of that same spell. That's certainly a position you can take, but I don't see anywhere in the rules that it says this.
Things are easier in chunky bits. Anyway, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to sever recipients of a spell from other recipients of that spell. It might be, and I don't know how I'd do it, but that's beside the point. Anyway, the point is that a spell is naturally a single and cogent object. When you cast haste on two people, you're casting one spell on two people. Just because it's on two people, doesn't mean it's two spells.

The glossary says it removes a spell effect on a creature, singular, not creatures. That was one of my points, which you did not address. Proof by assertion by repeating your conclusion is no proof at all."
Actually, it doesn't say that it removes a spell effect. It says that it, "removes one or more existing spells or other effects."You don't remove a spell effect from a single creature. Even in the glossary, it says that you just remove the spell wholesale.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, but I am having difficulty. Dispel Magic has a paragraph at the end of its description where it describes using it as a counterspell. Dispelling and counterspelling have everything to do with one another. I needed to discuss counterspelling to explain a specific word within the definition of "dispel" (negate).
The counterspelling effect of dispel is not the effect we're talking about. We're talking about the dispelling aspect, which is a different thing. In any case, it's a bit of a side point, given the other stuff I've said.

You seem to have gone on a sidetrack here. When you counterspell you target the spellcaster and keep the spell from ever taking effect. This is a different situation than the targeted dispel on a creature with several ongoing effects.
Sure, because they're basically unrelated. Counterspelling isn't really dispelling, so things that apply to one tend to not apply to the other. I was just pointing out that not even counterspelling only hits one target. You're always hitting the spell wholesale.

Karnith

2013-07-26, 06:12 PM

The glossary says it removes a spell effect on a creature, singular, not creatures.A glossary entry is a quick summary of a game term; it is overridden by more specific rules. Such as, say, the Dispel Magic spell. And, as has been said ad nauseum in this thread already, Dispel Magic says this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm):

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, 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.(Emphasis mine)

Agincourt

2013-07-26, 06:20 PM

Anyway, the point is that a spell is naturally a single and cogent object. When you cast haste on two people, you're casting one spell on two people. Just because it's on two people, doesn't mean it's two spells.

This is really the crux of our disagreement. I am arguing that a spell can be broken up, piecemeal. Spells or effects can be removed from a target creature, leaving the effects in place for everyone else who received that spell. You are saying it is indivisible and cannot be broken up without the spell ending for everyone.

This is what it boils down to. I don't see anything in the rules that says a spell cannot be broken up, but neither do I see anything permitting it. This is why we are at an impasse.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 06:25 PM

This is really the crux of our disagreement. I am arguing that a spell can be broken up, piecemeal. Spells or effects and be removed from a target creature, leaving the effects in place for everyone else who received that spell. You are saying it is indivisible and cannot be broken up without the spell ending for everyone.

This is what it boils down to. I don't see anything in the rules that says a spell cannot be broken up, but neither do I see anything permitting it. This is why we are at an impasse.
Well, spells obviously start out as one unit. You don't cast a pile of spells. You just cast the one spell. A spell is a singular entity that you cast out of a spell slot. There's no real indication in the rules that it would work any differently, and the fact that you cast a spell as a singular cogent mass means that it defaults to that state. The rules need to explicitly state that the spell is being broken up, or it defaults to its nature as one object.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-26, 07:02 PM

This is really the crux of our disagreement. I am arguing that a spell can be broken up, piecemeal. Spells or effects can be removed from a target creature, leaving the effects in place for everyone else who received that spell. You are saying it is indivisible and cannot be broken up without the spell ending for everyone.

This is what it boils down to. I don't see anything in the rules that says a spell cannot be broken up, but neither do I see anything permitting it. This is why we are at an impasse.

You can rule 0 this to be the case in your games, but you have no legs to stand on in a RAW argument. There is no clause in the rules to indicate any severability in multi-target spells, anything. I can see wanting it severable, but I have yet to see any justification for that principle. Mass spells are clearly 1 spell, and dispel clearly ends the spell it affects. To justify anything else would require evidence of divisibility, of which none has been provided.

Agincourt

2013-07-26, 07:05 PM

Well, spells obviously start out as one unit. You don't cast a pile of spells. You just cast the one spell. A spell is a singular entity that you cast out of a spell slot. There's no real indication in the rules that it would work any differently, and the fact that you cast a spell as a singular cogent mass means that it defaults to that state. The rules need to explicitly state that the spell is being broken up, or it defaults to its nature as one object.

You are correct. I do not dispute that spells start as one unit that can be counterspelled. However, spells can have an effect on more than 1 creature or object. Each creature or object interacts with the spell individually.

For example, take Goodberry. A single casting of the spell affects 2d4 fresh berries. They last one day/level until eaten.

This is how I rule the spell; you can tell me if you disagree. The magic has been split up between the berries. Eating, destroying, or otherwise mutilating 1 berry, does nothing to the magic of the other berries. They continue behaving magically until the duration expires. Nothing I wrote in this paragraph is stated in the spell description.

If we accept your "cogent mass" argument, then the spell should end for the other berries. Do you rule it does?

A glossary entry is a quick summary of a game term; it is overridden by more specific rules. Such as, say, the Dispel Magic spell. And, as has been said ad nauseum in this thread already, Dispel Magic says this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm):
(Emphasis mine)

If your reading is correct, Reaving Dispel (SC 169) is a worthless spell. "Each spell you dispel with a targeted dispel can be reaved if you so desire." Since dispelling a spell means it has expired, there is nothing left to reave. It's a 9th level spell with the same power as Greater Dispel Magic, a 6th level spell.

My argument is that you have to take the line, "a dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired" in context.

Karnith

2013-07-26, 07:15 PM

If your reading is correct, Reaving Dispel (SC 169) is a worthless spell.Except for the part where it's Greater Dispel Magic with a better counterspelling mode, even assuming that it doesn't function completely as advertised.
"Each spell you dispel with a targeted dispel can be reaved if you so desire." Since dispelling a spell means it has expired, there is nothing left to reave.The rest of that very same sentence specifies what happens when you reave a spell. Per the Spell Compendium:
Each spell you dispel with a targeted dispel can be reaved if you so desire, and the spell's effects are redirected to you, continuing as if cast on you by the original caster with no interruption to or extension of the duration.(Emphasis mine)

Since specific trumps general, you get the effect of the spell as if its duration were not interrupted. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument at hand, since Reaving Dispel would be nonfunctional under your proposed reading regardless of whether spells are divisible.

EDIT:

If we accept your "cogent mass" argument, then the spell should end for the other berries.A spell is indivisible. A spell's effect can be divisible, depending on the spell in question. A Haste spell can affect up to one creature per level, but it is only ever one spell.

eggynack

2013-07-26, 07:18 PM

You are correct. I do not dispute that spells start as one unit that can be counterspelled. However, spells can have an effect on more than 1 creature or object. Each creature or object interacts with the spell individually.

For example, take Goodberry. A single casting of the spell affects 2d4 fresh berries. They last one day/level until eaten.

This is how I rule the spell; you can tell me if you disagree. The magic has been split up between the berries. Eating, destroying, or otherwise mutilating 1 berry, does nothing to the magic of the other berries. They continue behaving magically until the duration expires. Nothing I wrote in this paragraph is stated in the spell description.

If we accept your "cogent mass" argument, then the spell should end for the other berries. Do you rule it does?
No, if you eat one of the berries, the rest of the berries continue to be magic. Nothing has disrupted the underlying spell. Similarly, if you kill a hasted guy, other guys remain hasted, because you're not stabbing the spell itself; you're stabbing the guy who the spell was cast on. However, if you cast dispel magic on one of the berries, the whole spell is removed. If you can find other stuff that turns off spells, those things would interact with goodberry in the same way. Eating, however, does not turn off spells.

If your reading is correct, Reaving Dispel (SC 169) is a worthless spell. "Each spell you dispel with a targeted dispel can be reaved if you so desire." Since dispelling a spell means it has expired, there is nothing left to reave. It's a 9th level spell with the same power as Greater Dispel Magic, a 6th level spell.

My argument is that you have to take the line, "a dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired" in context.
I don't even know what this has to do with anything. Reaving dispel explicitly works differently from dispel magic, in that it continues the duration on yourself. That's just a case of specific versus general. If you cast reaving dispel on a single enemy out of a group, that haste would be dispelled on that one target, and then the duration would continue as if it had been cast on you. I honestly have absolutely no idea why this would be changed by spells being a cogent force. What are you arguing? That if you reaving dispel haste on one target out of a bunch, the spell continues to operate allowing you to steal it, but if you reaving dispel a mage armor, the spell immediately stops thus causing the reaving not to work? That's ridiculous.

TuggyNE

2013-07-26, 07:40 PM

Huh. That's a bit of obscure minutiae I hadn't been aware of.

You're welcome! :smallcool:

Pseudocode discussion:
I love the programmer banter.

If I can try and use that to be clear... hmm...

I feel like you are saying that when you cast haste on a group of people you take one object, a group of people, and grant it the variable (haste). When you remove (haste) it cant be on only parts of the object, and thus is dispelled the whole way.

What I look at when I see casting (haste) there are two things happening. One, a new instance of (haste is created, and it is simply an array of haste.castOn with each character it was casted on in this array. In addition, character.buffs has an added (haste) value entered into it.

now we dispel, I would say you have 2 options. You can target haste and run haste.removecharacters. which for each character in haste, character.removebuff(haste) is run. your other option is to target fighter. now fighter runs character.removebuff(all). The fighter loses all buffs you pass a check on. Fighter is still in haste.castOn as haste was cast on him, but he no longer has the effect.

Granted my code is a bit sloppy right now, and this probably isnt the best way to do this from a memory/process intensive standpoint, but its how I saw it working.

OK, let's try a tidier explanation, with two similar examples that lead to different results.

/* NOTES: I'd use LINQ and anonymous functions and what-not if they wouldn't distract from the point
Error handling, Concentration, spell failure, etc etc etc all elided
Pretend the FindTarget* methods make choices as appropriate*/

// Cast haste
SpellEffect h = this.SpellsAvailable.PrepareToCast(typeof HasteEffect);
foreach (Character c in this.FindTargetsByMaxSeparationAndRange(30, Range.Close)) {
c.CurrentEffects.Add(h);
}

// Dispel it, the way it would work if it was target-limited
SpellEffect d = this.SpellsAvailable.PrepareToCast(typeof DispelEffect);
Character c = this.FindTargetByRange(Range.Medium);
foreach (SpellEffect se in c.CurrentEffects.ToArray()) {
if (d.CanDispel(se)) {
c.CurrentEffects.Remove(se);
}
}

// Dispel it, the way it actually works
SpellEffect d = this.SpellsAvailable.PrepareToCast(typeof DispelEffect);
Character c = this.FindTargetByRange(Range.Medium);
foreach (SpellEffect se in c.CurrentEffects.ToArray()) {
if (d.CanDispel(se)) {
se.Dispose();
}
}

If the spell was modified by Twin or something to actually create multiple spell copies, it'd change accordingly, since there'd be multiple spell effect objects kicking around.

Hyde

2013-07-26, 08:06 PM

Why? If a spell works across multiple planes, it should be able to be dispelled across multiple planes. A spell is a single object that can theoretically spread across any amount of space, and through dimensional walls. If you dispel a spell, that object is removed from the game entirely. I don't see why it would matter at all that one guy is hanging out on the prime material, and the other guy is in mechanus. It's still the one haste.
So if Giselle casts a spell on Danielle and Raquel in a dell then Raquel goes to Hell where the spell is dispelled then the dispelled spell is dispelled on Danielle as well even though Giselle and Danielle remain in the dell having said farewell to Raquell before she went to Hell to have the spell Giselle spelled dispelled?

eggynack

2013-07-26, 08:12 PM

So if Giselle casts a spell on Danielle and Raquel in a dell then Raquel goes to Hell where the spell is dispelled then the dispelled spell is dispelled on Danielle as well even though Giselle and Danielle remain in the dell having said farewell to Raquell before she went to Hell to have the spell Giselle spelled dispelled?
Well, as far as I can tell, if Raquel fell to hell, and the spell were then dispelled, then all would not be well, for targets not in hell. Indeed, for Danielle, who is still in the dell, it would be a pell mell.

Arkturas

2013-07-26, 08:12 PM

If you put a spell on a person, and then transported them backward in time, then dispelled the spell, does that mean it would never take effect?

If you transported them forward in time, would the spell fizzle due to it being far past it's duration?

Also, you could use this interaction to send messages faster than Light, and without teleportation magic. If it gets upheld.

TuggyNE

2013-07-26, 11:20 PM

If you put a spell on a person, and then transported them backward in time, then dispelled the spell, does that mean it would never take effect?

If you transported them forward in time, would the spell fizzle due to it being far past it's duration?

These are just time-travel shenananananigans, and I don't want to deal with those, since headaches and/or madness lie that way.

Also, you could use this interaction to send messages faster than Light, and without teleportation magic. If it gets upheld.

What is this "faster than light" that you speak of, and why is it significant?

Darth Stabber

2013-07-27, 12:12 AM

TuggyNE

2013-07-27, 01:02 AM

I can't figure out verb tenses when dealing with time-travel, what are the odds I can figure that out.

When you look back at this post tomorrow, you won't have done.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-27, 02:33 AM

When you look back at this post tomorrow, you won't have done.

That will have been gooder than it were?

cerin616

2013-07-29, 01:11 PM

My oppinion explained in code

Wrapped in a spoiler so you dont need to look at it if you wont have any clue what it is anyway.

Campaign{
ArrayList characters<> = (whatever is in your campaign);
ArrayList activeSpells<> = (spells currently in effect);

(wizard casts haste)
activeSpells.add(Haste = new Haste(characters));

}

Haste{

onCreate(characters[]){
haste[] = (move speed increase, attack bonus, etc)

for each (character in characters[]){

character.addEffects(haste[])

}

}

dispel(){

for each (character in characters[]){

character.removeEffects(haste[])

}

}

}

DispelMagic{

onCreate(character){

Campaign.characters[character].removeEffects(all)

}

onCreate(spell){

Campaign.ActiveSpells[spell].dispel();

}

}

Granted, I agree, thats now how raw says it works, but I prefer it looking like this.

DuncanMacleod

2013-07-29, 10:17 PM

I've been lurking on here for a while and had to register to jump in on this one. I really enjoy these rules lawyering threads (I don't use the term at all pejoratively), thanks all for the entertainment.

I'm afraid I'm yet another programmer, and I have to agree that, if we're looking purely at RAW, the text is pretty darn clear.

To counter the Goodberry example, no, of course eating a berry doesn't destroy the spell. Each berry object has a reference (or think of it as a hyperlink if you like) to the singular spell object, and destroying the berry destroys that particular reference, but has no effect on the spell object. However, if we were to follow the reference and destroy the spell object itself because the RAW explicitly told us to, then all the other berries would have a reference pointing at nothing and could no longer have the effects of the now non-existent spell. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no explicit text stating that eating has this effect, where there is very specific text that dispelling does.

That said, I probably would house rule this fact away, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the RAW. Equally, the fact that this might mean that another spell doesn't make sense is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is strikingly obvious that a RAW is not actually what the publishers intended or that it doesn't make sense. If an entry said:

Protection from Good:

The target of this spell is protected from God for 2d6 rounds....

... then the rules as written would definitively state that the spell provides protection from God and absolutely no protection from Good in any other form. The fact that it's clearly a typo is irrelevant. Whether a sensible DM would choose to interpret the rule that way is an entirely separate issue :smallwink:

Edt: To the chap posting the code above: yes, that would be more sensible, but, as you acknowledge, that's not what it says due to the lack of the word effect after the word spell.

"A dispelled spell [effect] ends as if its [the spell's] duration had expired" would be more in line with what most people's intuitive interpretation seems to be, but it doesn't say that.

We're left with: "If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect".

Darth Stabber

2013-07-30, 01:00 AM

would be more in line with what most people's intuitive interpretation seems to be

Maybe my group is just weird, but everyone in my group "intuited" the RAW solution. I don't even see how the granular dispelling is any more intuitive than the RAW one. And the wording would pretty jacked up if they tried for the granular version. "A spell's effect" would be a very vague, and lead to very messy, or just very long entry. Think about how confuzzeling most people find polymorph, that is what we'd have. Treating spells as granular entities would only lead to higher complexity, and neither is "more intuitive", but the current implementation is cleaner. By all means fix it with houserules if you want to make it work the way you think it does, but these issues are mostly corner case, as they only come up on a few spells, and it's been my experience that dispel is significantly underused. Making and thinking of a spell as a single entity is much easier to deal with for several reasons, and if the spooky action at a distance bothers you, why are you a spellcaster in the first place.

Douglas

2013-07-30, 01:14 AM

Maybe my group is just weird, but everyone in my group "intuited" the RAW solution. I don't even see how the granular dispelling is any more intuitive than the RAW one.
The RAW "entire spell" behavior is how I read it the first time, the other way never even occurred to me until it was brought up here, and I've been running it RAW in my campaign and none of my players have said anything opposing it.

DuncanMacleod

2013-07-30, 01:29 AM

Actually I think my "intuitive" response probably comes from playing DnD computer games many years ago which tended to have it that way. I hadn't noticed that that's not what it actually said until reading this thread. The "spooky action at a distance" doesn't bother me at all, it's frickin' magic. I don't understand the whole "but that would be faster than light information" arguments either, there are plenty of other magical ways to convey information immediately, even to other planes, and no one bats an eyelid.

I take the point on dispel being underused, I actually don't see it all that often. Perhaps I'll see if people are willing to give the RAW way a run next game. Should be interesting anyway.