Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[Keltest]

So you would agree stating “BB only affects the caster” would be inaccurate?

So would casting DM on the caster, after the BB attack has been successfully made, dispel the booming energy surrounding the creature struck? I’d say no, but I’m open to hearing arguments.

In a colloquial way, sure. In the context of the game, no. It affects the caster and then a different effect happens.

[Aimeryan]

Booming Blade doesn’t create a cone or line effect, though.

No, its a kind of a sphere but only affects one target - its 'Self (5ft radius)', so again, not 'Self'.

Also, lets be honest here and realise that the change from '5ft range' was awful and makes no sense - it seems purely to try to ban it from Twinned Spell, but they didn't want to make it a 'Self' spell that cost a bonus action like the Smite line of spells because the effect of the spell already acts as a weak Extra Attack scaling intended for casters not martials who could also Extra Attack with their Action.

[Witty Username]

So you would agree stating “BB only affects the caster” would be inaccurate?

So would casting DM on the caster, after the BB attack has been successfully made, dispel the booming energy surrounding the creature struck? I’d say no, but I’m open to hearing arguments.

Why are you so adamant that a spell with range self cannot affect the caster in any way?

[Aimeryan]

Produce Flame. Ensnaring Strike. Hail of Thorns. [whatever] Smite. Flame Blade. Mirror Image. Scrying. Others I won't bother to list. Generally, spells channeled through weapon attacks or spells that create something separate from the caster.

You would not end the spell if Dispel Magic was cast on the caster for those?
All of those I would. Ensnaring Strike is the closest to being disputable, after the weapon attack has been made - before the weapon attack it shouldn't be disputable. Now, it probably should have two different range tags for the separate parts of the spell, but you know, 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

Makes sense to me. We also have never had a case where someone wasted a Dispel Magic on Shadow Blade.

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.

Yes. When one doesn't overthink things, it is pretty clear.

All spell effects are created at the point of the caster.

Not quite. Sacred flame comes down on whomever is in range; all the caster has to be able to do is see them. But that's an edge case. Your general point is pretty solid.

If you want to dispel SB, you have to target the blade itself.

That makes sense, since the magical effect is shadow blade.

Now let's think through this one step farther: if you walk into an AMF with shadow blade up, does it disappear? Yes. The magical effect goes away.

I thought the whole reason Dispel Magic uses the phrase “magical effect” was to avoid this sort of confusion.

Yes, but one cannot stop people from confusing themselves.

[schm0]

Can you think of any self-range spell (other than Shadow Blade) that you would make the same ruling for?
I found a lot of Touch-range spells that bestowed no effect upon the caster, but no self-range ones.

I wouldn't categorize them by range, since the range is entirely irrelevant. That being said, Spirit Guardians is another spell with a range of self that does not bestow an effect on the caster, but it instead creates spirits that flit around the caster (i.e. a magical effect, which in turn can be targeted by dispel magic.)

The ruling I proposed is based entirely on the nature of the spell effect per dispel magic's description. The mechanics are simple. What effect does the spell create, and does it reside on a creature, an object or in the form of a magical effect? The answer to that question is the answer to "What can dispel magic target?"

[Aimeryan]

I wouldn't categorize them by range, since the range is entirely irrelevant. That being said, Spirit Guardians is another spell with a range of self that does not bestow an effect on the caster, but it instead creates spirits that flit around the caster (i.e. a magical effect, which in turn can be targeted by dispel magic.)

The ruling I proposed is based entirely on the nature of the spell effect per dispel magic's description. The mechanics are simple. What effect does the spell create, and does it reside on a creature, an object or in the form of a magical effect? The answer to that question is the answer to "What can dispel magic target?"

Another 'Self (Area)' range. If I ask for a potato, I feel like some people here would give me a tomato. I want a 'Self' range spell, not a 'Self (Area)' range spell. They act very differently, so why would I want those in answer? I don't know why this isn't obvious.

[schm0]

Another 'Self (Area)' range. If I ask for a potato, I feel like some people here would give me a tomato. I want a 'Self' range spell, not a 'Self (Area)' range spell. They act very differently, so why would I want those in answer? I don't know why this isn't obvious.

A range of Self is just as irrelevant to this topic as a range of Self (15 ft). :)

[RSP]

In a colloquial way, sure. In the context of the game, no. It affects the caster and then a different effect happens.

If you’re fine with “affects only the caster” as meaning “affects the caster and others” then we disagree too much on that basic point for other points relevant to this topic to be meaningfully discussed in my opinion.

No, its a kind of a sphere but only affects one target - its 'Self (5ft radius)', so again, not 'Self'.

You asked for Range: Self spells, and those fit the bill. There is no separate definition I’ve found for “Range: Self (X)” spells in the rules. As far as I can tell, they count as “Range: Self” with added on info; they’re aren’t a separate ruleset.

Why are you so adamant that a spell with range self cannot affect the caster in any way?

Why do you think I think that??? When did I ever make any such claim?

Please don’t ask me to waste time defending positions I haven’t made.

[Blatant Beast]

Another 'Self (Area)' range. If I ask for a potato, I feel like some people here would give me a tomato. I want a 'Self' range spell, not a 'Self (Area)' range spell. They act very differently, so why would I want those in answer? I don't know why this isn't obvious.

Leomund's Tiny Hut is the tuber you are looking for. Tiny Hut has a Range of Self, and I think it fair to say, the magic forms the hut around the caster, but does not rest on the caster.

There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency, with the Range of Self, in general. The term is an umbrella term, with around 4 practical sub-specializations.

A Range of Self can be used to describe Tiny Hut, in which the magic rests in the hut.
The PHB states the following under Range: "Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.."

Tiny Hut would seem to violate this notational guidance.

A Range of Self, can be used to describe the effects of Blur, in-which it seems likely the magic rests upon the caster.

A Range of Self can be used to describe the effects of Mirror Image, or, Spirit Guardians, and given the lack of accord in this thread, we can collectively agree to come to our own opinions about whether the magic rests upon the caster, or becomes a free floating vapor/spell effect.

Then we have odd ball effects such as Commune or Augury, where does the magic rest on those spells? From a religious studies perspective, it might make sense thematically for the charismatic communication that takes place with the Commune spell, (charismatic in religious terms means a direct communion with the divinity, no intermediary required), that the spell effect would rest upon the caster, since it is the caster that is directly communicating with the divinity.

The devs do not seem to have diligently followed their own guidelines presented in the Chapter 10 Spellcasting section. In effect there is no hard fast rule for where a spell resides, it becomes another case of "use your judgement", as the rules were not written with that granularity in mind.

I think Korvin has the right of it, looking too hard at the rules, shows how threadbare, the rules are.

Which is why, I strongly suggest people swap out 5e's Dispel, for a prior version found in earlier editions. If players chose to cast the area effect option that was allowed in prior editions of D&D, the practical question of where a spell resides, is effectively rendered moot.

The alternative would be to work out a heuristic to apply, an easy test, to determine which of the four sub-specializations of the Range of Self, applies to a particular effect.

[GeneralVryth]

Why are you so adamant that a spell with range self cannot affect the caster in any way?

Whether it's admitted or not now, it was hinted at earlier in thread. Basically, this entire debate is spawned from not wanting more buffs dispelled when Shadow Blade is.

Yes. When one doesn't overthink things, it is pretty clear.

I feel like I have said this exact thing more than I would care to

Leomund's Tiny Hut is the tuber you are looking for. Tiny Hut has a Range of Self, and I think it fair to say, the magic forms the hut around the caster, but does not rest on the caster.

There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency, with the Range of Self, in general. The term is an umbrella term, with around 4 practical sub-specializations.

A Range of Self can be used to describe Tiny Hut, in which the magic rests in the hut.
The PHB states the following under Range: "Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.."

Tiny Hut would seem to violate this notational guidance.

A Range of Self, can be used to describe the effects of Blur, in-which it seems likely the magic rests upon the caster.

A Range of Self can be used to describe the effects of Mirror Image, or, Spirit Guardians, and given the lack of accord in this thread, we can collectively agree to come to our own opinions about whether the magic rests upon the caster, or becomes a free floating vapor/spell effect.

Then we have odd ball effects such as Commune or Augury, where does the magic rest on those spells? From a religious studies perspective, it might make sense thematically for the charismatic communication that takes place with the Commune spell, (charismatic in religious terms means a direct communion with the divinity, no intermediary required), that the spell effect would rest upon the caster, since it is the caster that is directly communicating with the divinity.

The devs do not seem to have diligently followed their own guidelines presented in the Chapter 10 Spellcasting section. In effect there is no hard fast rule for where a spell resides, it becomes another case of "use your judgement", as the rules were not written with that granularity in mind.

I think Korvin has the right of it, looking too hard at the rules, shows how threadbare, the rules are.

One thing you are missing in your assessment is duration. Anything with an instantaneous duration is going to be resolved before it can be dispelled and pretty much all such effects can't be dispelled. Everything with a concentration based duration (along with the self target) is going to be an ongoing effect on the caster. The only question is spells with a non-concentration duration, which will need to be handled on a case by case basis, though I suspect Tiny Hut is one of the only real oddballs here.

Which is why, I strongly suggest people swap out 5e's Dispel, for a prior version found in earlier editions. If players chose to cast the area effect option that was allowed in prior editions of D&D, the practical question of where a spell resides, is effectively rendered moot.

The alternative would be to work out a heuristic to apply, an easy test, to determine which of the four sub-specializations of the Range of Self, applies to a particular effect.

I don't think this helps. Remember the unstated driver here is to avoid having multiple buffs dispelled which older versions of Dispel Magic allowed. Also, an area effect then brings up which effects are targeted, and potential for random rolls, it makes things more complicated.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't categorize them by range, since the range is entirely irrelevant. That being said, Spirit Guardians is another spell with a range of self that does not bestow an effect on the caster,

Uh, what? It bestows on the caster a 15' radius aura that damages things and slows them down. I find your take to be well off the mark.

[schm0]

The alternative would be to work out a heuristic to apply, an easy test, to determine which of the four sub-specializations of the Range of Self, applies to a particular effect.

For the vast majority of spells that have been examined, we don't need a heuristic. For most spells, their effects are apparent, and thus the question of "what to cast it on" never comes into play. Other spells have me wondering when, if ever, they might become dispelled (i.e. commune, for example, is unlikely to ever be cast in front of hostile parties.)

As I have pointed out many times, the only time such a conundrum might occur is if the spell effects are imperceptible, the spell can't be identified using an reaction, and the party/NPC doesn't have access to detect magic. Such scenarios are quite rare, in my experience.

Uh, what? It bestows on the caster a 15' radius aura that damages things and slows them down. I find your take to be well off the mark.

It does not "bestow an aura". It creates "spirits" that "flit around" the caster. This magical effect does not reside on the caster at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

It does not "bestow an aura". It creates "spirits" that "flit around" the caster. This magical effect does not reside on the caster at all.

It moves with the caster, so no, your assessment is incorrect.
It functions as an aura with those two properties, whirling around the cleric even if he/she moves, with a 15' radius for 10 minutes, or until concentration is broken.

[schm0]

It moves with the caster, so no, your assessment is incorrect.
It functions as an aura with those two properties, whirling around the cleric even if he/she moves, with a 15' radius for 10 minutes, or until concentration is broken.

You may wish to read the aura spells, such as aura of purity. All of them clearly state that the aura radiates from the caster. Spirit guardians on the other hand, does not. The spirits "flit around" the caster.

Completely different.

[Blatant Beast]

The exact quote from Spirit Guardians: "You call forth spirits to protect you. They flit around you to a distance of 15 feet for the duration."

I saw Raiders of the Lost Arc, the Spirit Guardians definitely came from, and was tied to the caster, in that case, the Arc of the Covenant. :{}

Now a point in favor of your argument is the Summon Fey and other summoning spells from Tasha's Cauldron, and Spirit Shroud use the same formulation of "You call forth X".

A point against, is that the Conjure line of spells in the PHB, use the phrase: "You Summon".

Whether these preset phrases of WotC actually do correlate to Dispel Magic exposure, is an open question, though the repetition certain would lead one to think they are denoting some common characteristics for spell descriptions that use them. To What End, only the Devs and their Abyssal Masters know for sure.

If the phrases do correspond to internal usage by WotC just for that reason, WotC should share that information with it's customers, (might as well chip in the real CR calculation guidelines that WotC really uses and not the fugazi in the DMG).

[RSP]

Whether it's admitted or not now, it was hinted at earlier in thread. Basically, this entire debate is spawned from not wanting more buffs dispelled when Shadow Blade is.

Or, you know, it’s a legit question.

____

For those wishing to discuss the topic, I find it odd that a spell that creates an object is not viewed as similar to spells that create or summon creatures.

My understanding is it’s generally accepted that DM on the caster of a Summon or Conjure spell will not dispel the summons or conjures. Likewise, casting DM on a creature summoned or conjured will only affect that creature, and not others summoned or conjured with the same spell.

Yet it seems hypocritical to state the reforming of the SB as a spell on the caster, while ignoring that Summons and Conjures allow continued control (sometimes even via a BA) over the creatures summoned/conjured. Is the control over the creatures not a magical effect of the spell cast?

Why is it a property of the caster to reform a weapon (a la the returning property of some magic items), but a property of the creature when the caster gets to control them?

And yeah, reading it, Spirit Guardians is a Conjuration spell that summons spirits, which doesn’t appear to actually affect the caster. In fact, the caster has no control over who the spirits affect once the spell is cast. For instance, if a PC is invisible when the SG is cast, they can’t be included in the creatures unaffect (which you need to be able to see). The caster can’t decide “add them to the unaffected list” at a later point: the spirits aren’t following commands.

I think there’s plenty there to say it’s not a spell affecting the caster.

[JNAProductions]

If you have to maintain Concentration on a spell, a Dispel targeting you can end the spell.
That’s one ruling I'd stand by.

[RSP]

Interesting, but not exactly rules official:

“Nov 15, 2016
@JeremyECrawford If I Dispel Magic one of many creations from a 'Conjure ???' Spell, does the entire spell end, or just that one creature?
2:15 PM · Nov 15, 2016

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
If you cast dispel magic on a creature, the spell affects only that creature. If you cast it on an object, it affects only that object. #DnD”

So JC seems to answer the RAI for this, though, again, grain of salt on the tweet.

If you have to maintain Concentration on a spell, a Dispel targeting you can end the spell.
That’s one ruling I'd stand by.

I’ve always thought it generally accepted that you cannot dispel Concentration, and in line with the above tweet, back from when tweets were “official” (I think: 2016 seems to be when that was the case).

Also wouldn’t that then mean if you target another creature with Haste, the spell is also on you? Would both creatures (caster and target) lose the ability to act on their subsequent turns when dispelled?

[GeneralVryth]

Or, you know, it’s a legit question.

And I answered it as such on page 1. Also, the question of why it matters is very relevant to the discussion, and the only reason it matters is because Dispel Magic can dispel more than 1 thing when targeted at a person or object.

For those wishing to discuss the topic.

But if you are actually interested in discussion, what is kind of being danced around is the question is really about how magic works in the game world, which is DM dependent. The books don't provide a clear answer (something that people are getting reminded of in the inconsistency of some rules).

The people in the camp that think Shadow Blade would be dispelled if the caster is targeted, believe that Shadow Blade (like most range self spells) is a magical buff or enhancement on the caster that grants the ability to manifest the Shadow Blade. If that buff is dispelled the blade goes with it. Despite what some people think there is nothing in the spell that contradicts this view.

But clearly that is not the only take. There is also the view that even range self spells create things (like Shadow Blade), and only those things can be targeted by Dispel Magic if you want to dispel them. There is nothing really to contradict this view in the spells either.

There is also the view/idea that if you are concentrating on a spell, then you have some link to it, and being Dispel Magic can also break that link and end the spell. As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules to contradict this either (though arguing specific wording of Dispel Magic is possible).

Personally, I am in the buff camp, because I think that is more internally consistent. I also like the concentration link aspect for a similar reason, and I find it to be more balanced.

[Blatant Beast]

So JC seems to answer the RAI for this, though, again, grain of salt on the tweet.

I believe that answer made it to SAC.

I’ve always thought it generally accepted that you cannot dispel Concentration, and in line with the above tweet, back from when tweets were “official” (I think: 2016 seems to be when that was the case).

Nothing in the rules state that you can. That said, I think it is an interesting design space. I wish instead of rearranging class and subclass abilities, the playtest packets had experimented more with option like Dispel Magic canceling Concentration.

[RSP]

I believe that answer made it to SAC.

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.

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.

[greenstone]

Re-reading the rules for the dispel magic spell, I am struck by an interpretation of the text that makes no sense to me.

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

If you choose a magical effect, namely a shadow blade, then dispel magic ends spells on the target.

But there are no spells on the shadow blade. It is the result of a spell.

Does this mean the dispel magic spell does nothing?

The same goes for casting dispel magic on a summoned creature. There are no spells on it, therefore nothing to dispel.

This can't be right?

[Witty Username]

while ignoring that Summons and Conjures allow continued control (sometimes even via a BA) over the creatures summoned/conjured. Is the control over the creatures not a magical effect of the spell cast?

There is an argument to be had whether the contol aspect of summons is part of the creature summoned. Especially with the Tasha's spells as they are more spell effect than creature.

A better example would be animate dead, which both creates an undead creature permanently asserts control over it for a period of time.

I would say any spell that allows telepathic command to be dispelled by targeting the caster definitely.

[Rukelnikov]

There is an argument to be had whether the contol aspect of summons is part of the creature summoned. Especially with the Tasha's spells as they are more spell effect than creature.

A better example would be animate dead, which both creates an undead creature permanently asserts control over it for a period of time.

I would say any spell that allows telepathic command to be dispelled by targeting the caster definitely.

Hmm, I'd say no to dispelling Animate Dead.

Mummy? Dispel Magic! Don't think it works that way, mainly cause AD is instant duration.

[Aimeryan]

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.

That is completely contrary to the text of the spell. Dispel Magic states it ends the spell, not the spell's effects on that target. This is one of those cases where you are either playing by 5eSAC edition or 5e. If they want to errata Dispel Magic, then errata it - don't give 'advice' that is completely contrary to what the text says!

Yep, if you follow this 'advice' then all you would do is end the ability to recall the Blade if cast on the caster, since that is the spell effect on the caster. Would affect a lot of other spells, too.

[Witty Username]

Hmm, I'd say no to dispelling Animate Dead.

I would say personally say the skeleton stays, control is broken.

[RSP]

There is an argument to be had whether the contol aspect of summons is part of the creature summoned. Especially with the Tasha's spells as they are more spell effect than creature.

A better example would be animate dead, which both creates an undead creature permanently asserts control over it for a period of time.

I would say any spell that allows telepathic command to be dispelled by targeting the caster definitely.

I don’t mind hearing that argument, but to me it seems really odd that while we know (d/t the existing magic items in the game) that weapons have properties similar to reforming the SB, there are people who say “that can’t be a property of the weapon”; while at the same time, while there is no “control property” on the creatures in question on Summons and Conjures, that “that must be a property of the creature”.

Again, seems very hypocritical to me.

_____

Though some choose to mock these questions, I love them for how they get us to figure out how magic works in our 5e games (which can be different table to table, but I think it’s worthwhile to understand it at our own table(s)).

One other question that came up from this is “if the caster of Bless includes themself as a target of the Bless effect, and DM is cast on them, does it end Concentration?” Can you only lose Concentration on some targets?

The rules state that if Concentration ends, then the spell ends. But is the inverse true? Can you Concentrate on specific targets while ending them on others? At first thought, I’d say no: it’s all or nothing. But open to other thoughts.

[Witty Username]

I don’t mind hearing that argument, but to me it seems really odd that while we know (d/t the existing magic items in the game) that weapons have properties similar to reforming the SB, there are people who say “that can’t be a property of the weapon”; while at the same time, while there is no “control property” on the creatures in question on Summons and Conjures, that “that must be a property of the creature”.

I mean, you don't need a spell to make verbal commands. You don't even need a spell for them to followed some of the time.
You do need a spell to make swords magically apear in your hand.

[RSP]

I mean, you don't need a spell to make verbal commands. You don't even need a spell for them to followed some of the time.
You do need a spell to make swords magically apear in your hand.

Not true. The spell is what allows you to command the Summons/Conjures. For instance, no one else other than the caster is afforded that permission.

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