Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[RSP]

So this just came up in our last session: Dispel Magic was cast on a character who had a Shadow Blade. For the sake of time we went with SB was dispelled, but I think it’s a valid argument that it wouldn’t be.

Pertinent RAW:

Dispel Magic:
“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.”

Shadow Blade:
“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”


So it’s not exactly clear cut, but since DM distinguishes that you choose either a creature or object, it seems apparent that the SB is distinct from whomever is holding it in terms of what DM effects. The caster of DM would need to choose whether they’re targeting the creature holding the SB or the SB itself. SB is clearly an object, as it’s a created “sword of solidified gloom” that “counts as a simple melee weapon”. I don’t think anyone is arguing that simple melee weapons or swords aren’t objects, but let me know if you disagree with that.

This caused me to think of similar instances were DM wouldn’t work and the first that popped to mind was Magic Weapon (which coincidentally was also cast on during our last session). Were DM cast on a character holding a weapon that had MW on it, the DM wouldn’t affect the MW spell as the weapon is an object, and a creature was targeted.

The other spell that came to mind was Creation: “You pull wisps of shadow material from the Shadowfell to create a nonliving object of vegetable matter within range.” As it likewise creates an object, it wouldn’t be dispelled if the creature holding the created item was targeted by DM (also it’s created apparently by the same shadow substance as SB).

Wondering any other thoughts on this. Hadn’t ever considered the creature vs object nature of DM before this came up so open to hearing other thoughts on it.

[Skrum]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?

I wouldn't object though to a GM that gave DM a more narrow, specific ruling, like "choose a single magical effect in range. End that effect." That would certainly make it more clear about what it did.

[schm0]

I would presume that the caster knows precisely what to target prior to casting the spell. Otherwise they wouldn't know what they were dispelling. All it takes is a reaction and an Arcana check to determine what spell is being cast, after all. Furthermore, spells like detect magic would sidestep the need to identify which was being affected in the first place: it would simply be apparent to the caster.

[GeneralVryth]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?

I wouldn't object though to a GM that gave DM a more narrow, specific ruling, like "choose a single magical effect in range. End that effect." That would certainly make it more clear about what it did.

This is right from my perspective.

But to add to it, remember Shadow Blade has the additional text about being able to reform the blade after it disappears if thrown. So there is clearly an ongoing magical effect on the caster as well.

[RSP]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?

This is right from my perspective.

But to add to it, remember Shadow Blade has the additional text about being able to reform the blade after it disappears if thrown. So there is clearly an ongoing magical effect on the caster as well.

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

[GeneralVryth]

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

[Skrum]

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

This. I.e., targeting the creature that cast the shadow blade or targeting the shadow blade itself should dispel shadow blade

[schm0]

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

Shadow blade creates an object made of solidified gloom. It does not bestow a magical effect on the creature. The creature is precisely the same as it was before it cast the spell.

For the purposes of casting the dispel magic, this should be obvious to the caster and they would know to cast it on the object.

[Rukelnikov]

Shadow blade creates an object made of solidified gloom. It does not bestow a magical effect on the creature. The creature is precisely the same as it was before it cast the spell.

For the purposes of casting the dispel magic, this should be obvious to the caster and they would know to cast it on the object.

It does bestow an effect on the caster, they can reform the SB in their hand.

I think any of the 3 possible targettings would dispel SB.

[schm0]

It does bestow an effect on the caster, they can reform the SB in their hand.

I think any of the 3 possible targettings would dispel SB.

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

[GeneralVryth]

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

That's not how it works. The range of the spell is self, it's a buff on the caster plain and simple. The sword is just an expression of that buff.

[Rukelnikov]

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

The effect is on the caster, the blade may not even exist when the caster uses the spell effect to recreate it.

If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.

[Mastikator]

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

A spell that creates a creature, an object and an ongoing effect is dispellable by targeting any one of those, even if all of those are the same thing. A spell that does multiple things simply has multiple vectors for dispel magic.

Shadow blade has target "self". So casting dispel magic on a creature with shadow blade should end it. It's not controversial at all that the shadow blade should end.

In fact it says any spell on the target ends. So if you target a creature with multiple ongoing effects it should dispel all of them. If you have mage armor, disguise self, mirror image and shadow blade and someone casts dispel magic on you, all 4 of those spells end.

Furthermore, if someone casts Conjure Animals and summon 8 wolves, casting dispel magic on one wolf should dispel all of them, since it ends the spell, not the spell effect.

[schm0]

I think we disagree on the idea that a range of self is relevant in any way here. It's not, in my opinion. The only reason the spell lists a range of self is because the sword appears in your hand and not five feet away.

There is no magical effect on the creature itself.

Even after the blade dissipates, it still persists in reality until the spell ends. Notably, dispel magic does not require you to see the object or effect you are casting it on, so dispel magic works when cast on the blade whether it is visible or not.

Either way, it is rather a moot point, because the result is the same. The only time such an interaction would come into question is if the spell effect was not perceptible and the caster failed to identify the spell.

[JNAProductions]

I think we disagree on the idea that a range of self is relevant in any way here. It's not, in my opinion. The only reason the spell lists a range of self is because the sword appears in your hand and not five feet away.

There is no magical effect on the creature itself.

Even after the blade dissipates, it still persists in reality until the spell ends. Notably, dispel magic does not require you to see the object or effect you are casting it on, so dispel magic works when cast on the blade whether it is visible or not.

Either way, it is rather a moot point, because the result is the same. The only time such an interaction would come into question is if the spell effect was not perceptible and the caster failed to identify the spell.

Except the sword isn’t invisible.
It’s dissipated. That’s gone, until the caster (who has the spell on them) takes a Bonus Action to reform it.

[schm0]

Dissipate just means disappear in this context. It is no longer visible. That's why the spell allows the object, which is the magical effect created by the spell, to reappear. It persists until the spell ends.

There is also no effect on the caster, RAW. The magical effect created by the spell takes the form of a weapon which is held in the hand. It does not alter or affect the creature in any way. If it did, the spell would cast it's effect on the creature, such as with mage armor or aura of vitality or any other number of similar effects.

[Rukelnikov]

Dissipate just means disappear in this context. It is no longer visible. That's why the spell allows the object, which is the magical effect created by the spell, to reappear. It persists until the spell ends.

There is also no effect on the caster, RAW. The magical effect created by the spell takes the form of a weapon which is held in the hand. It does not alter or affect the creature in any way. If it did, the spell would cast it's effect on the creature, such as with mage armor or aura of vitality or any of the other number of similar effects.

The spell has a range of self, references the caster, and gives it a new action it can use, the effect is also on the caster.

[RSP]

The spell doesn’t target the caster though. It affects those who are hit with it.

Just so we see if we’re on the same page, here’s my view on similar issues with DM:

1. Casting DM on a creature Concentrating on Haste cast on a different creature does nothing to the Haste: you can’t “dispel” the Concentration.

2. If Sally casts Magic Weapon on Steve’s sword, BBEG casting DM on Steve doesn’t effect the MW spell, as it’s on the weapon, not Steve.

3. If a Wizard casts Creation to make a diamond, and holds that diamond in his hand, while BBEG casts DM on the Wizard, the diamond will not be affect by the DM.

Just want to see if my basic understanding of DM matches with others.

[QUOTE=Mastikator;25994421]
In fact it says any spell on the target ends. So if you target a creature with multiple ongoing effects it should dispel all of them./[QUOTE]

Agree spells on the target end (assuming casting level or lower, etc), the question is whether the caster is the target of SB. Claiming Range of Self means the caster is the target means Cone of Cone targets the caster, which clearly isn’t the case. So saying “Range: Self, done deal” is not a valid argument here (unless you really believe CoC only damages the caster, I guess).

Furthermore, if someone casts Conjure Animals and summon 8 wolves, casting dispel magic on one wolf should dispel all of them, since it ends the spell, not the spell effect.

This is just incorrect, per the RAW of DM:

“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.”

You chose the creature, and the spell ends on that target, not in general. So if 8 rabbits are summoned, casting DM on one of them would only dispel that one.

[GeneralVryth]

The spell doesn’t target the caster though. It affects those who are hit with it.

Just so we see if we’re on the same page, here’s my view on similar issues with DM:

1. Casting DM on a creature Concentrating on Haste cast on a different creature does nothing to the Haste: you can’t “dispel” the Concentration.

2. If Sally casts Magic Weapon on Steve’s sword, BBEG casting DM on Steve doesn’t effect the MW spell, as it’s on the weapon, not Steve.

3. If a Wizard casts Creation to make a diamond, and holds that diamond in his hand, while BBEG casts DM on the Wizard, the diamond will not be affect by the DM.

Just want to see if my basic understanding of DM matches with others.

The spell does target the caster though, that is what range self means. If Dispel Magic is targeted at the caster, it will dispel Sahdow Blade, there is no ambiguity for me there. Now you could argue if it targeted the blade, the blade would wink out, but the caster could theoretically re-summon it with a Bonus Action. That depends on whether you think Dispel Magic should work on every aspect of a spell or just the pieces it's targeted at (most conjuration spells are going to depend on this question). I am not sure how I feel for example that dispelling a single animal in Conjure Animals removes the rest and ends the entire spell.

As for your bullets:
1. This is the most questionable to me. If a spell requires concentration, there is clearly some link back to the caster as they have spend ongoing effort to keep it going. So does Dispel Magic break that link and end the spell? I am not sure, I could go either way depending on the logic of magic in the world. By RAW/RAG I think you're right, but I can be convinced otherwise.

2. This is right. But see question 1 if the spell targeted Sally.

3. I agree here.

This is just incorrect, per the RAW of DM:

“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.”

You chose the creature, and the spell ends on that target, not in general. So if 8 rabbits are summoned, casting DM on one of them would only dispel that one.

This may be technically correct, but there is room to make a different determination depending on the logic of magic in the game. It also will depend on the concentration ruling if the caster of Conjure Animals is targeted.

[greenstone]

I'd like to see a proper rules clarification on the topic of dispel magic on "resummonable" spells.

If Warlocky McPactface casts hex on an assasin, what does casting dispel magic on the assassin do? Can Warlocky use a bonus action next turn to reapply the hex on the assassin or on another creature?

Same question for when Wizardy casts telekinesis on an ogre and dispel magic is cast on an ogre.

Does the lack of concentration matter? Does casting dispel magic on Priesty end a spiritual weapon?

Also, more generally for multitarget spells.

Priesty McPriestface casts bless on themself and on two others. If dispel magic is cast on Priesty, is it ended on the two others? If dispel magic is cast on one of the two others, is ended on Priesty?

How about if Priesty cast bless on three other people, and not themself? What does casting dispel magic on Priesty do? What does casting detect magic on Priesty show? After all, in this situation we could say there is no magical effect on Priesty?

[RSP]

The spell does target the caster though, that is what range self means.

I don’t think the spell targets the caster at all: it creates a weapon. The only time a target is mentioned is in making an attack (presumably against a different creature).

“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d8 psychic damage on a hit and has the finesse, light, and thrown properties (range 20/60). In addition, when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage.

If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.”

Rereading this now just adds to the uniqueness of this situation. The bolded line is very interesting: even when the sword “dissipates”, it still exists, as it lasts until the spell ends.

Flame Blade is similar in some ways, but doesn’t actually create an object: it just evokes a flame in the shape of a blade.

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others

I will say that it being Illusion rather than Conjuration is interesting. By rule, it seems, Illusions target others: “Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.”

If Warlocky McPactface casts hex on an assasin, what does casting dispel magic on the assassin do? Can Warlocky use a bonus action next turn to reapply the hex on the assassin or on another creature?

Great question. I’d lean towards “no” as DM would dispel the effect on the target, which would mean the spell ends on the target, and so the below contingent RAW from Hex wouldn’t ever occur:

“If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature.”

That is, the spell ending on the target means the target wouldn’t ever drop to 0 hit points before the spell ends.

However, I’d go the other way for Telekinesis as it states:

“You gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought.”

So the ongoing effect is clearly on the caster (the “you” in the RAW). There would be another magical effect restraining the creature target or lifting the object target, which could be dispelled, but the caster would still maintain their magical effect, which is the spell.

Priesty McPriestface casts bless on themself and on two others. If dispel magic is cast on Priesty, is it ended on the two others? If dispel magic is cast on one of the two others, is ended on Priesty?

How about if Priesty cast bless on three other people, and not themself? What does casting dispel magic on Priesty do? What does casting detect magic on Priesty show? After all, in this situation we could say there is no magical effect on Priesty?

If it matters to you, Safe Advice Compendium answered 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 also heavily suggests what I thought was commonly accepted that you can’t dispel Concentration. That is, if Priestly included himself in Bless, and he is affected by DM, the Bless would continue on the other two targets, even though DM was cast on Priestly

[Witty Username]

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others

That is not correct, range self means it targets the caster, even if it can include other targets.

Dragon breath is a good example from JC, as it targets both the creature that gains the breath weapon and the creatures caught in the exhalation.

Self (Xft) is the template for point of origin and is used for AoEs, and the blade cantrips for some reason.

Shadowblade targets the caster and forms a blade in hand, it also targets enemies struck by the blade.

[Blatant Beast]

Shadow Blade has a range of Self.
The PHB, pg 202, states the following under the Range entry in the Magic section:
“ Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

The literature itself, would seemingly refute your theory RSP.

The Range of “Self” also explains why the caster can reform the blade of shadow after throwing or dropping the blade.

[GeneralVryth]

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others.

All of those spells target the caster. Just like Shadow Blade, they imbue the caster with a power that can the be used on other things. If D&D was WoW, Shadow Balde and the listed spells would appear as buffs on your character even though they can also impose effects on others. And for the same reason they can be dispelled from you.

[RSP]

Shadow Blade has a range of Self.
The PHB, pg 202, states the following under the Range entry in the Magic section:
“ Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

The literature itself, would seemingly refute your theory RSP.

The Range of “Self” also explains why the caster can reform the blade of shadow after throwing or dropping the blade.

I know it says that, however, clearly SB, CoC, BHs, Eyebite, don’t follow that rule.

There is no way you can say those spells “affect only [the caster]” and uphold what their actual effects says.

My best estimation is Specific vs General. The specific rules of those spells, trump the general rule on Range: Self spells.

All of those spells target the caster. Just like Shadow Blade, they imbue the caster with a power that can the be used on other things. If D&D was WoW, Shadow Balde and the listed spells would appear as buffs on your character even though they can also impose effects on others. And for the same reason they can be dispelled from you.

None of those spells “effect only you [the caster]”, so that can’t apply, unless you’re also trying to argue all those spells only ever damage the caster.

I don’t particularly care if SB can be dispelled or not by targeting the caster, but claiming SB ever only effects the caster, as well as similarly claiming the same for Burning Hands, Eyebite, CoC, etc, it’s a horrible logical argument.

You can either accept Range: Self spells only ever target the caster, or they don’t necessarily follow that rule. But if you don’t accept they necessarily follow that rule, then that rule cannot be in and of itself evidence that a Range: Self spell only affects the caster, particularly when that spell specifically states it creates an object that clearly can effect others.

I would say BHs and CoC NEVER target the caster, which is clearly in direct opposition to the quoted rule.

[Blatant Beast]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Eyebite imbues the caster with a multitude of powers, which the caster can then use on other targets. Shadow Blade, likewise, imbues the caster with the ability to summon the blade, which the caster can use to psychically Benihana someone.

“Self” is just the range, of the spell. The condition of being a ‘Target’ in 5e is a fluid one. Delayed Blast Fireball, for example, targets both the detonation space and everything in its area of effect, at different times. The Fireball spell, meanwhile targets both the detonation space and the everything in it’s AoE, simultaneously.

[GeneralVryth]

None of those spells “effect only you [the caster]”, so that can’t apply, unless you’re also trying to argue all those spells only ever damage the caster.

I don't think you're understanding what we're saying. The spells target the caster, but the totality of their effects don't only effect the caster.

Using Shadow Blade as an example. A spellcaster casts Shadow Blade, as result they gain a buff that we shall call Shadow Blade (Aura). Shadow Blade (Aura) summons an initial Shadow Blade (Object), the blade itself. That same buff Shadow Blade (Aura) is what allows the caster to re-create the blade if it dissipates. Shadow Blade (Aura) is also what is being dispelled when the caster is hit with Dispel Magic. As a result an existing Shadow Blade (Object) would also disappear.

[RSP]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Eyebite imbues the caster with a multitude of powers, which the caster can then use on other targets. Shadow Blade, likewise, imbues the caster with the ability to summon the blade, which the caster can use to psychically Benihana someone.

Except whereas Eyebite’s effect states the caster’s eyes change, SB doesn’t state anything about effecting the caster: it states an object is made. The spell description is way more akin to Creation or Illusory Dragon than Eyebite: there’s no descriptive text of affecting the caster.

By this argument, DM would likewise dispel those other spells if DM is cast on the caster (as opposed to the item).

“Self” is just the range, of the spell. The condition of being a ‘Target’ in 5e is a fluid one. Delayed Blast Fireball, for example, targets both the detonation space and everything in its area of effect, at different times. The Fireball spell, meanwhile targets both the detonation space and the everything in it’s AoE, simultaneously.

Yes and no. As pointed out by others, “Self” actually has a definition that includes only affecting the caster, it’s just apparently also used specifically not in that way.

I don't think you're understanding what we're saying. The spells target the caster, but the totality of their effects don't only effect the caster.

Using Shadow Blade as an example. A spellcaster casts Shadow Blade, as result they gain a buff that we shall call Shadow Blade (Aura). Shadow Blade (Aura) summons an initial Shadow Blade (Object), the blade itself. That same buff Shadow Blade (Aura) is what allows the caster to re-create the blade if it dissipates. Shadow Blade (Aura) is also what is being dispelled when the caster is hit with Dispel Magic. As a result an existing Shadow Blade (Object) would also disappear.

Except none of that is true, per the effect of the spell. You changing the spell to an Aura, doesn’t change what the spell says it does, which is it creates an object that exists even while dissipated.

The quote on Range: Self, is that it specifically only targets the caster.

That is not correct, range self means it targets the caster, even if it can include other targets.

The rules in my books state otherwise (in line with BB’s quote, I believe).

Self (Xft) is the template for point of origin and is used for AoEs, and the blade cantrips for some reason.

Is this a rule or your own design? I couldn’t find an Errata stating anything like this.

Shadowblade targets the caster and forms a blade in hand, it also targets enemies struck by the blade.

Which would very much mean it doesn’t follow the general rule of what “Range: Self” is described as.

[Blatant Beast]

By this argument, DM would likewise dispel those other spells if DM is cast on the caster (as opposed to the item).

Of course. “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the Target ends.”
Eyebite would require an upcast Dispel Magic.

Dispel Magic, historically, throughout multiple editions, has been capable of ending all the spells that meet Dispel Magic’s criteria when targeted against a creature.

In the case of Shadow Blade, the spell ends, if Dispel Magic targets the sword of solidified gloom. Shadow Blade also ends if Dispel Magic targets the caster.

[GeneralVryth]

RSP I am not sure what you are going for here. You have been given the clear opinions of at least 3 different people that Dispel Magic targeted at the caster of Shadow Blade will dispel it. While I don't have time to look at all of them, I imagine any spell with a range of self will end up working the same way, they are dispellable if Dispel Magic targets the caster, likely all for the some reason. They are a buff/magical effect on the caster (this is what a range of self means), that can then be used to affect other things.

If you don't like that answer obviously you can rule/houserule differently in your games, or try to convince your DM too. But I am not sure how else to try and convince at least not without better understanding why you disagree with the reasoning so far.