Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[Blatant Beast]

You mean this?

“If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.”

This isn’t quite the same thing, but probably confirms the prior post’s assumption.

It is listed in the part of SAC that answers the question about using Dispel Magic on created undead, (you cant btw), the answer also states this:

"In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field."

However, this also is probably wrong as it completely scraps the idea that a magical effect can be a target (which DM clearly states it can be) by inferring in the answer that only the creature under the effect can be targeted and not the effect itself. It also is probably misleading, if not incorrect, to say “ends a spell” and not “ends spells”.

Not a great example of SAC clarifying a rules question. By RAW you very well can target a magical effect, and I’d imagine it would include the whole of the effect, if you did so.

I agree with this. In fact I stated in the course of this thread, that I did not agree with the interpretation that Dispel Magic would only dispel the actual part of the spell it was targeting, and not the whole spell.

Dispel Magic could be written in such a fashion, but the current verbiage is not that way.

[Witty Username]

On the other hand, Dwarven Thrower does not require any spell to return to the hand of its thrower.

A dwarven thrower does require attunement though, as I recall.
And if I recall returning weapons can be blocked if the physical space doesn't allow for it (that may be 3.5 brain going).

[RSP]

It is listed in the part of SAC that answers the question about using Dispel Magic on created undead, (you cant btw), the answer also states this:

"In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field."

Thanks. The wording here is such that it’s inconclusive whether a single casting of DM can end the creations of CWBs (say as if targeting the magical effect if the CWBs spell); versus a single casting of DM can dispel a single creature created by CWBs, but only one as it must target the individual creature.

[Witty Username]

To address the other end,

Not true. The spell is what allows you to command the Summons/Conjures.

Anyone can issue commands to a summon, whether or not those commands are obeyed is the question

[RSP]

A dwarven thrower does require attunement though, as I recall.
And if I recall returning weapons can be blocked if the physical space doesn't allow for it (that may be 3.5 brain going).

Which doesn’t change that the ability still comes from the weapon. Your claim was the command property came from the creatures, not the spell being on the caster. My response is the reforming is part of the weapon created by SB (akin to the returning property of some magic weapons).

Both SB and Summons/Conjures have parts of the spell that grant a benefit to the caster, the question is whether that benefit is part of what’s created by the spell; or a component of the spell separate from the creation which specifically becomes “a spell on the caster that can be dispelled”.

I see the two as similar and so either the benefit is part of the created thing (as the spell is creating something) or the spells in question do at least two things: create something(s), and also put a spell effect on the caster that allows them to in some way affect the creation.

My take is that the spells create something and the benefits to the caster are part of the thing created. My understanding of your position is the caster’s ability to control Summons/Conjures is part of the created creature; but the ability of the SB to reform is a spell effect on the caster.

I don’t think I’ve seen an argument as to why the difference here; again, with the added info of WotC designed 5e magical thrown weapons have similar features as properties of the weapon, whereas I’m not aware of WotC designed monsters that have the inherant property that they obey commands after being magically summoned/conjured.

To address the other end,


Anyone can issue commands to a summon, whether or not those commands are obeyed is the question

That’s exactly the point: the spell effect is what allows the caster to control the summons/conjures. No one else is granted that control.

[Witty Username]

That’s exactly the point: the spell effect is what allows the caster to control the summons/conjures. No one else is granted that control.

Not entirely, for one you can use general commands for the creature to obey the orders of others.

This doesn't work in the same way as shadow blade, as you can't traditionally* hand the blade off to other people as it would disapate.

*no hard rule against this but people tend to qualify that as dropping the blade. That does seem to make the spell behave oddly though. For one you cannot cause it to reapear unless it is disapated, which only occurs if you drop or throw it. So an enemy could steal the blade from you, leaving the only option to reaquire it or dismiss the spell. It further only disapates if you drop or throw it, It makes no provisions for others. So an enemy could disarm you, aquire the shadow blade and hurl it into a chasm. And you have no means of reforming the blade.

--
But all I am getting from this is by this logic some spells simply cannot be dispelled.
Sunbeam for example has a similar argument to not be dispellable by targeting the caster, and the magical effect doesn't have persistence to target.

[RSP]

Not entirely, for one you can use general commands for the creature to obey the orders of others.

That’s still very much working off the power the spell grants the caster though.

This doesn't work in the same way as shadow blade, as you can't traditionally* hand the blade off to other people as it would disapate.

Yeah I’ve never been sold on that. Common English doesn’t say giving someone a thing you’re holding is “dropping it”.

Like, in American Football, if the QB hands the ball to the RB, you wouldn’t say “he dropped the ball”.

But all I am getting from this is by this logic some spells simply cannot be dispelled.
Sunbeam for example has a similar argument to not be dispellable by targeting the caster, and the magical effect doesn't have persistence to target.

Sunbeam isn’t creating an object though: it’s solely creating a spell effect. That’s a big difference to me, at least.

Either way, I’d imagine you could very much end the magic effect of Sunbeam, even if it’s ruled not to be on the caster.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah I’ve never been sold on that. Common English doesn’t say giving someone a thing you’re holding is “dropping it”.

Like, in American Football, if the QB hands the ball to the RB, you wouldn’t say “he dropped the ball”.

It's in the SAC (not tweets), so its official:

"Can I hand a shadow blade to another PC? It only says the blade dissipates as I throw or drop it."

No. The intent is the blade vanishes when you let go of it (that’s one of the meanings of the word “drop”).

[RSP]

It's in the SAC (not tweets), so its official:

So then you can’t throw it if following that…

[Christew]

So then you can’t throw it if following that…

Shadow Blade spell description (emphasis added):
"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn."

[Witty Username]

I see the two as similar and so either the benefit is part of the created thing (as the spell is creating something) or the spells in question do at least two things: create something(s), and also put a spell effect on the caster that allows them to in some way affect the creation.

Generally speaking though, you don't need spells to direct creatures.

Also summons tend to not vanish when you throw them, or returning weapons for that matter.


A wolf can just be more or less suceptable to commands.

Weapons appearing in your hand, tend to require spells, pact, bond or attunement.

Edit:
The plain reading of shadowblade, is that it creates a weapon that lasts until the spell ends, or you throw or otherwise let go of it. While the spell is active after the weapon has vanished you can create a new one.


I could see someone dispelling just the shadowblade when targeting the blade (spell would end, but the caster would not lose any other effects like being frightened or blessed). But I don't see it being a valid target while disapated (even with RSPs reading, I am not clear what properties the blade is supposed to have while disapated, as far as I can tell the argument would mean it is still useable as a weapon while disapated - since it is still a weapon with the described properties by that reading). It disappear and reapears when the caster chooses to bring it back into existence.

It feels to me like its the caster focusing a magical effect into a shape and sustaining it with an active spell. And so dispel targeting the caster should be able to end the effect.

Most effects like this generally don't disapear and reapear depending if the caster is actively controlling them.

This makes it seem more like darkvision, the spell gives you an additional capacity that can affect other creatures.

[RSP]

Shadow Blade spell description (emphasis added):
"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn."

Yup. That’s the spell. The SAC says it vanishes when the caster lets go of it. Which, unfortunately makes it official.

[JNAProductions]

RSP, I assume you’re not a robot.
So you should be capable of reading and coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the designers meant.

For Shadow Blade, as an example, it can be thrown effectively. But it cannot be used by anyone besides the caster.

[RSP]

Generally speaking though, you don't need spells to direct creatures.

What? You’re saying PCs get to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., that they encounter? That those creatures will just automatically obey their commands?

The plain reading of shadowblade, is that it creates a weapon that lasts until the spell ends, or you throw or otherwise let go of it. While the spell is active after the weapon has vanished you can create a new one.

You’re not creating a new one, that’s not a plain reading of SB, that’s you making stuff up. It’s a single created weapon that has a different form. And nothing says it vanishes.

I could see someone dispelling just the shadowblade when targeting the blade (spell would end, but the caster would not lose any other effects like being frightened or blessed). But I don't see it being a valid target while disapated (even with RSPs reading, I am not clear what properties the blade is supposed to have while disapated, as far as I can tell the argument would mean it is still useable as a weapon while disapated - since it is still a weapon with the described properties by that reading). It disappear and reapears when the caster chooses to bring it back into existence.

It feels to me like its the caster focusing a magical effect into a shape and sustaining it with an active spell. And so dispel targeting the caster should be able to end the effect.

Most effects like this generally don't disapear and reapear depending if the caster is actively controlling them.

This makes it seem more like darkvision, the spell gives you an additional capacity that can affect other creatures.

Again, very similar to magic on the caster allowing them to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., they created. You’re just (rather arbitrarily it seems) deciding one is on the caster and one isn’t. There’s no reason a magic weapon can’t have magical properties (theres already plenty in the DMG).

There is no already existing ability to command monsters; that’s 100% part of the spell that summons/conjures them.

RSP, I assume you’re not a robot.
So you should be capable of reading and coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the designers meant.

For Shadow Blade, as an example, it can be thrown effectively. But it cannot be used by anyone besides the caster.

Yup. I can. But poorly written rules are still poorly written rules: I’m not sure why you’re against pointing them out.

And I’m a lot less concerned about them then I am curious about DM and its interactions.

By all means, though, if you believe handing something to someone is common English for “dropping it”, continue to do so. I don’t think it is.

[JNAProductions]

Do you think the spell is written in a way that an average DM would actually have trouble running it?
I certainly don’t. It could be phrased better, sure, but it’s perfectly fine as-is.

Has this been an actual issue at your table? I’m phone posting so can’t easily reread the thread to remember if this was a hypothetical or not.

[Witty Username]

Again, very similar to magic on the caster allowing them to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., they created. You’re just (rather arbitrarily it seems) deciding one is on the caster and one isn’t. There’s no reason a magic weapon can’t have magical properties (theres already plenty in the DMG).

Yes,
Spells like Eyebite, Glibless, and Eagle's splendor all make it easier to control others. And they definitely affect the caster.

Summons spells summon one specific creature, Conjure spells a set number that obey your commands. They read to me as similar to charm spells at the heaviest which affect the creature.*

I happen to think the ability to spawn a new sword every 6 seconds is more similar to the former, not the latter. It also feels like spells like Sunbeam, Detect Thoughts, Darkvision, and haste, which affect a character by giving them abilities.

* It could also be matter of disposition, as a Summoner I tend to RP such as allies. A holdover from an optional rule I rather liked in 3.5 where you could summon creatures in specific. You can read it however like in terms of individual spells, but you can command and a creature obey that command without compulsion - summons in Naruto is a good example of that conceptually.

Which does get into your other question, yes, I allow character to ride trained horses. I also allow them to command soldiers under their authority. Things like animal handling and Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation can definitely create scenarios where players can issue obeyed commands. Even creatures like demons and angels can follow directions with the right incentive.

Are characters in you games incapable of having pets or authority without spellcasting?

[RSP]

Do you think the spell is written in a way that an average DM would actually have trouble running it?
I certainly don’t. It could be phrased better, sure, but it’s perfectly fine as-is.

Has this been an actual issue at your table? I’m phone posting so can’t easily reread the thread to remember if this was a hypothetical or not.

Not sure what you’re referring to: specific to SB or DM as a whole but, yes, to both. We’ve had a number of issues surrounding DM: not just in relation to SB, which was an actual occurrence in a session, but just overall with how poorly it’s written (the biggest being that while it specifically can target magical effects, it doesn’t give any other rules in how to interact with them if they aren’t spells, which, per this forum, isn’t a unique incident to our table).

I think it’s important for tables to have consistency (though, obviously, most concerned with mine), so I think questions like these, which, I believe, help us get a better understanding of the system as a whole, aid in that. And if you or another doesn’t feel that way, there’s no requirement to post here or follow the thread (not saying you specifically JNA, just generally, if this thread doesn’t seem helpful, then people don’t need to follow it).

If sometimes DM dispels certain things, and other times different things, I think it behaves everyone playing (to include the DM) to understand how it works. This way anyone who is considering casting DM understands what the effect will be.

If a PC cast DM on an enemy, and the DM says “okay. All 3rd level and lower spells on them are dispelled.” And the next turn, that enemy attacks the PC with SB, there may be some confusion.

Likewise, if a PC has a Summons up, and an enemy casts DM on the PC, and then the summons disappear, which the PC didn’t think would occur, that’s a big discrepancy.

[Witty Username]

Likewise, if a PC has a Summons up, and an enemy casts DM on the PC, and then the summons disappear, which the PC didn’t think would occur, that’s a big discrepancy.

At least for that, I am the wrong person to ask, as casting dispell magic to break concentration is within stuff I would allow.

[RSP]

At least for that, I am the wrong person to ask, as casting dispell magic to break concentration is within stuff I would allow.

Fair, though I believe this makes DM more powerful than expected: it essentially dispels all spells on a caster and an effect, rather than one or the other.

And to respond to your previous post: there’s a difference between a character attempting to issue commands to another creature; and a spell granting the effect that whatever a character commands, it is flawlessly followed.

You’re equating those two things as equivalent when they are not.

The magic of the summons/conjure spells ensures commands are followed that are issued by the caster. That’s not the same thing as trying to convince a creature to your wants through RP.

[JNAProductions]

Fair, though I believe this makes DM more powerful than expected: it essentially dispels all spells on a caster and an effect, rather than one or the other.

And to respond to your previous post: there’s a difference between a character attempting to issue commands to another creature; and a spell granting the effect that whatever a character commands, it is flawlessly followed.

You’re equating those two things as equivalent when they are not.

The magic of the summons/conjure spells ensures commands are followed that are issued by the caster. That’s not the same thing as trying to convince a creature to your wants through RP.

What exactly is a caster Concentrating on if not the spell?
If there's no magic linking the caster's abilities to the spell, why does losing Concentration affect it?

[RSP]

What exactly is a caster Concentrating on if not the spell?
If there's no magic linking the caster's abilities to the spell, why does losing Concentration affect it?

They are Concentrating on whatever they cast. But Concentrating on a spell isn’t the same thing as having a spell on you. That’s the issue with how it relates to DM. Here’s the relevant RAW:

“Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability.”

So if Concentrating on Sickening Radiance, is SR on the caster? That’s not how I’ve ever seen it. For me, a spell being on someone means they’re under the effect of said spell.

For instance, if Hold Person is “on someone”, I’m assuming that character is paralyzed.

[da newt]

1) is it written anywhere that casting DM on a caster who is concentrating on a spell DOES or DOES NOT affect the spell? I am not aware of anything written that resolves this question directly. (This is ABSOLUTELY something that should be resolved in the next published rule set.)


2) DM does not require you to SEE the target so IF a caster states, "I cast DM to end the magical effect invisibility" and there are 2 creatures within range that have the invisibility spell cast on them and one w/ greater invisibility which spells are affected?

[Amnestic]

2) DM does not require you to SEE the target so IF a caster states, "I cast DM to end the magical effect invisibility" and there are 2 creatures within range that have the invisibility spell cast on them and one w/ greater invisibility which spells are affected?

Even though you don't need to see it, you still need to be able to target it.

In the event that there's three people obscured by invisibility (greater or otherwise), you'd point at the one you want to dispel out of the three. It wouldn't be declaring "I want to dispel invisibility", it'd be declaring "I want to dispel that invisibility".

If one or more are hidden, you can't dispel them, because...they're hidden.

[RSP]

1) is it written anywhere that casting DM on a caster who is concentrating on a spell DOES or DOES NOT affect the spell? I am not aware of anything written that resolves this question directly. (This is ABSOLUTELY something that should be resolved in the next published rule set.)

I don’t know that anything about concentration is necessarily magical. I mean, in common English, concentrating on something isn’t magical at all (us non-magical folks concentrate all the time), so I feel there would need to be something noting it as different from regular, real life concentration.

Also of note: in the Concentration rules it list what can break Concentration, then states the following:

“The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.”

So DM is not any of the listed ways to lose Comcentration, nor is it an environmental phenomena, so, RAW, it doesn’t break Concentration.

[Witty Username]

Concentrating does imply a connection between the spell and the caster. If the spell and the caster are unrelated, why would concentration breaking affect the spell?

[RSP]

Concentrating does imply a connection between the spell and the caster. If the spell and the caster are unrelated, why would concentration breaking affect the spell?

Concentration, is by my reading of the RAW, just mundane, real world concentrating.

Now I will say, one of the big questions I’ve always had is whether a character Concentrating on a spell is aware of the spell ends.

For instance, if Wizard casts Haste on Fighter, then Teleports back to base, 100 miles away. Fighter than gets DM’ed. Is the Wizard away he no longer needs to concentrate?

If so, it probably lends credence to there being a magical spell connection between caster and spell effect when Concentrating.

But my take has always been they wouldn’t know, because it’s described as mundane Concentration.