Dispel Magic vs. multiple summoning

[Cabral]

How about Spiritual Weapon? You don't target the creature it is attacking, you target the Spiritual Weapon spell. Sometimes, you target an effect. For example, Charm Person. You might not know your friend is charmed, but he is acting strange and you think a mind affecting spell is the cause. As DM, I would allow you to target the effect which is on the creature.

The spiritual weapon summons a weapon of Force. While it doesn't state that the weapon is visible, it does not state that it is invisible when it mentions its touch AC. Therefore, you target the glowing flying weapon with dispel magic.

The charm person bit is, in my opinion, poor execution. That appears to be a case of targeting the intangible. However, I'd interpret it to be an exception because you know (or think you know) the spell is there. In effect you're targeting the friend but restricting the dispel magic. If your friend was instead the target of confusion, but you rolled a 1 on spellcraft, the dispel magic would, in my opinion, simply fail.

 

[KarinsDad]

The spiritual weapon summons a weapon of Force. While it doesn't state that the weapon is visible, it does not state that it is invisible when it mentions its touch AC. Therefore, you target the glowing flying weapon with dispel magic.

It does not summon anything. It is not a conjuration spell. It is an evocation spell.

And, it's not an object. Objects have hardness and hit points in the game. A Spirtual Weapon does not. It's merely a spell effect. Not a creature. Not an object.

You target the spell effect. The spell effect just happens to be weapon shaped and looks like a weapon. It is not a weapon. It is a spell effect. In fact, the spell compares it to "real weapons".

The charm person bit is, in my opinion, poor execution. That appears to be a case of targeting the intangible. However, I'd interpret it to be an exception because you know (or think you know) the spell is there. In effect you're targeting the friend but restricting the dispel magic. If your friend was instead the target of confusion, but you rolled a 1 on spellcraft, the dispel magic would, in my opinion, simply fail.

I do not think you should need to know the exact spell in order to dispel it. What if it is Proctor's Similar to Charm Spell spell? Since you cannot use Spellcraft to determine the exact spell if you did not see it being cast, this seems like a harsh ruling.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does not summon anything. It is not a conjuration spell. It is an evocation spell.

And, it's not an object. Objects have hardness and hit points in the game. A Spirtual Weapon does not. It's merely a spell effect. Not a creature. Not an object.

You target the spell effect. The spell effect just happens to be weapon shaped and looks like a weapon. It is not a weapon. It is a spell effect. In fact, the spell compares it to "real weapons".

I'm still keen to hear dcollins' opinion on that one

-Hyp.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm still keen to hear dcollins' opinion on that one

-Hyp.

Herremann the Wise and Lucifus Cray eagerly turn to await dcollins' response.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Cabral]

It does not summon anything. It is not a conjuration spell. It is an evocation spell.

And, it's not an object. Objects have hardness and hit points in the game. A Spirtual Weapon does not. It's merely a spell effect. Not a creature. Not an object.

You target the spell effect. The spell effect just happens to be weapon shaped and looks like a weapon. It is not a weapon. It is a spell effect. In fact, the spell compares it to "real weapons".

Spiritual Weapon: "A weapon made of pure force springs into existence." So while the spell is not a Conjuration(Creation) spell, it still creates an object made of force. Now, ruleswise it may be considered a "spell effect", but it is still a visible, physical, tangible target as opposed to "I strike at the darkness ..."

I do not think you should need to know the exact spell in order to dispel it. What if it is Proctor's Similar to Charm Spell spell? Since you cannot use Spellcraft to determine the exact spell if you did not see it being cast, this seems like a harsh ruling.

Although I don't really understand "Proctor's Similar to Charm Person" I disagree. The way I would adjucate it is: You cast dispel magic. You tell me what you want to dispel. You can't say all harmful effects, but you can say all enchantments or charm person or even all spells. Whatever you choose to limit the spell scope to, is what I limit the dispel magic effects to. I will generally be a little forgiving (lumping charm monster and charm person together, for example)

 

[dcollins]

It's not at all clear in the spell, but I have always interpreted the ability to target a spell as the ability to target a tangible spell effect, for instance Wall of Fire. There is no way to target it then to target a spell effect. A bad example is Charm Person. According to the RAW, you can target a Charm Person spell on your friend and, by targetting only the spell, leave all the other buffs untouched. The spell would be much clearer if it said spell effect rather than simply spell.

Simply apply standard targeting rules.

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 can see a wall of fire, so you can target it with dispel magic.
You cannot see a charm person, so you cannot target it with dispel magic.

 

[KarinsDad]

Spiritual Weapon: "A weapon made of pure force springs into existence." So while the spell is not a Conjuration(Creation) spell, it still creates an object made of force. Now, ruleswise it may be considered a "spell effect", but it is still a visible, physical, tangible target as opposed to "I strike at the darkness ..."

There is no such thing in the game as an object made of force. There are force effects.

For example, PHB page 308.

"Force Damage: A special type of damage dealth by force effects such as Magic Missile. A force effect can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality."

 

[0-hr]

While discussing this elsewhere, I was told the following:

the dispelling of a single spell requires you to target the spells point of origin (the spell itself, not the caster) and since the point of origin for the spell effect on a summoned creature is the summoned creature itself a targeted dispel will negate the spell with respect to only the creature targeted.
...
These are merely the rules as written.
/

Then it was made clear I should drop the matter. Unfortunately, I still want to know how this works with the rules as actually written. So could someone point me to the text where this is discussed?

I'd like to read the text about having to target the origin of a spell, and also the part about the point of origin of a summons moving with the creature summoned. I run my own games sometimes and so need to know what all is acutally in the books and what is just interpretation.

Thank you for you time all, this thread has really helped me understand the issues involved.

 

[Cabral]

There is no such thing in the game as an object made of force. There are force effects.

For example, PHB page 308.

"Force Damage: A special type of damage dealth by force effects such as Magic Missile. A force effect can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality."

That's what I said. Conceptually it's an object. Ruleswise, it's a spell effect. just a visible, tangible effect. By contrast, where do you cast dispel magic to dispel unhallow if you don't detect magic first?

You can see a wall of fire, so you can target it with dispel magic.
You cannot see a charm person, so you cannot target it with dispel magic.

Well, if you cast detect magic or arcane sight, you can.

 

[dcollins]

Well, if you cast detect magic or arcane sight, you can.

Many would agree, but I disagree with that. Feel free to search for the previous thread where this was discussed.