Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[Blatant Beast]

The answer is simple: the nature of the spell effect is described in the spell text. Alter self, for instance, clearly says "you adapt your body" and "you transform your appearance" and "you grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon". Clearly the spell effect resides on the caster (i.e. a creature.)

That is not a simple answer to enact in real play. The answer boils down to "use your own judgment" which means there is effectively no standard.
Your Test is to eyeball it, because you think the answer is clear. Clearly, the potential answers are not clear, if the answers were clear this thread would not exist. Multiple people have already commented that your judgement on how to adjudicate the Spirit Guardians spell vis a vis Dispel Magic, does not match their own.

As someone else already stated, there is not going to be a definitive RAW answer, because the rules are vague. So the discussion hinges upon what is the best outcome for the system, as the point of principle judgement.

5e's Dispel Magic, itself is not clearly written. Magical Effects as a category, encompass more than just spells. Dispel Magic could be read, that spells under 3rd level are canceled, spells greater than 3rd level receive a saving throw. Since, no non-spell based magical effects are not mentioned as having a saving throw, then those effects are automatically dispelled. 5e even has precedent for this type of interpretation, unattended objects generally do not receive a chance to make a Saving Throw, (which is why the Artillerist's Eldritch Cannon has a separate and specifically created category of magical object).

It is only Sage Advice that explicitly mentions that Dispel Magic is limited to only affecting spells. Dispel Magic's spell write leaves it as inference that only spells can be targeted, through not mentioning a saving throw mechanism, but that is certainly not a definitive conclusion from the text as written. A quick perusal of many threads on this board, and elsewhere on the internet demonstrates that 5e's tendency to remain silent on the specifics leave the decision up to the DM, creates a multitude of interpretations that are vigorously defended, and the answer seems to be "ask your DM".

Honestly, I use 2e AD&D's version of Dispel Magic as my house-ruled substitution for the 5e PHB version, and I do not regret it. 5e's is just a shoddy mess, in quite a few areas.

[sithlordnergal]

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.

And this is why they have the "magical effect" option in Dispel Magic. X3 You aren't targeting a creature or object with that option, just a "magical effect". And Shadow Blade is absolutely a magical effect.

[schm0]

That is not a simple answer to enact in real play. The answer boils down to "use your own judgment" which means there is effectively no standard.
Your Test is to eyeball it, because you think the answer is clear. Clearly, the potential answers are not clear, if the answers were clear this thread would not exist.

Your mischaracterization of my argument here continues. I disagree that the "standard" of "read the spell text to see what it creates" is in any way similar to "use your own judgement". Shadow blade creates an object. Spirit guardians creates a magical effect. Alter self creates an alteration on the creature. These spell effects are all perceivable by the caster and a non-issue as it pertains to casting dispel magic. Things only get tricky in the scenarios I described earlier: when the spell effects are not perceivable, the spell itself is unable to be identified, and the party does not have access to detect magic.

Magical Effects as a category, encompass more than just spells. Dispel Magic could be read, that spells under 3rd level are canceled, spells greater than 3rd level receive a saving throw. Since, no non-spell based magical effects are not mentioned as having a saving throw, then those effects are automatically dispelled. 5e even has precedent for this type of interpretation, unattended objects generally do not receive a chance to make a Saving Throw, (which is why the Artillerist's Eldritch Cannon has a separate and specifically created category of magical object).

RAW, dispel magic only works against spells. It does not work on other sorts of magic, like a green hag's illusory appearance, or a succubus' charm ability. I'm not sure what saving throws or "unattended" objects have to do with anything (the word "unattended" has never appeared in 5e to my knowledge). Perhaps you may be thinking of another edition?

It is only Sage Advice that explicitly mentions that Dispel Magic is limited to only affecting spells. Dispel Magic's spell write leaves it as inference that only spells can be targeted, through not mentioning a saving throw mechanism, but that is certainly not a definitive conclusion from the text as written.

But it's not inferred at all: "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends." It's literally the second sentence of the spell description.

[JackPhoenix]

As someone else already stated, there is not going to be a definitive RAW answer, because the rules are vague. So the discussion hinges upon what is the best outcome for the system, as the point of principle judgement.

5e's Dispel Magic, itself is not clearly written. Magical Effects as a category, encompass more than just spells. Dispel Magic could be read, that spells under 3rd level are canceled, spells greater than 3rd level receive a saving throw. Since, no non-spell based magical effects are not mentioned as having a saving throw, then those effects are automatically dispelled. 5e even has precedent for this type of interpretation, unattended objects generally do not receive a chance to make a Saving Throw, (which is why the Artillerist's Eldritch Cannon has a separate and specifically created category of magical object).

It is only Sage Advice that explicitly mentions that Dispel Magic is limited to only affecting spells. Dispel Magic's spell write leaves it as inference that only spells can be targeted, through not mentioning a saving throw mechanism, but that is certainly not a definitive conclusion from the text as written. A quick perusal of many threads on this board, and elsewhere on the internet demonstrates that 5e's tendency to remain silent on the specifics leave the decision up to the DM, creates a multitude of interpretations that are vigorously defended, and the answer seems to be "ask your DM".

It's no wonder you dislike people discussing RAW, because it's clear you don't read the rules, otherwise, you wouldn't post nonsense about Dispel Magic having any kind of saving throw, or "automatically dispelling" non-spell magic effects. There's nothing unclear in Dispel Magic's description if you actually read it.

And this is why they have the "magical effect" option in Dispel Magic. X3 You aren't targeting a creature or object with that option, just a "magical effect". And Shadow Blade is absolutely a magical effect.

It also lets you pick a specific effect to dispel, in case someone wants to get rid of a hostile spell affecting them without ending any beneficial magic.

[RSP]

The point is if someone wants to dispel the Shadow Blade, telling you specifically that is what he wants, you don't deny it just because the person says he casts Dispel Magic on the creature holding the Shadow Blade to be rules lawyerly picky on the difference between whether he casts it on the creature or the Shadow Blade itself.

No one is claiming SB can’t be dispelled, though. I’m not sure why you’re attacking that.

The question presented is “if you target the caster, will that dispel SB; or do you have to target the SB-created weapon or the magical effect itself.

[Blatant Beast]

It's no wonder you dislike people discussing RAW, because it's clear you don't read the rules, otherwise, you wouldn't post nonsense about Dispel Magic having any kind of saving throw, or "automatically dispelling" non-spell magic effects. There's nothing unclear in Dispel Magic's description if you actually read it.

Jack, I would advise not letting your feelings about me to sway your thoughts.

Dispel Magic can target "magical effects".
What is a magical effect?....simply put, a magical effect is any effect created by magic.
Are magical effects solely created by spells?
Of course not, there are numerous non spell based magical abilities that create effects.

The category of Magical Effects, is larger than what Crawford intended. Crawford's SAC clarification, makes it clear that what the devs intended to write was "magical effects created by spells".

Unfortunately, that is not what they wrote. So a person, possessed of reason and with a knowledge of logic, whom read Dispel Magic for the first time in 2014, prior to SAC being published, would be within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, to point out that while Dispel Magic has specific operational parameters when it comes to spells of a certain level, the spell description itself is silent on Dispel Magic having any restrictions against magical effects not created by spells.

Such silence, is a vague indicator that perhaps Dispel Magic does not impact "magical effects" but only 'magical effects created by spell'...but that is all that it is....a very vague indicator.

Imagine there was a device made to wash shoes, and the device is advertised as being able to wash all shoes . The device instructs the user to insert their shoes into the device's cleaning receptacle, but there are additional instructions regarding how to place high heeled pumps. Does this mean this device does not wash sneakers?

Well, the device was advertised as washing all shoes.....this in effect is the same dilemma for Dispel Magic.

The Designers of D&D used the wrong term when they used the phrase "magical effects". Magical effects as a category, is a much broader category than "magical effects created by spells".

As I pointed out earlier, objects do not receive saving throws. Thus, we have in 5e, a precedent for a category of things that just get affected by interactions, Objects. This would support a reading of a non clarified Dispel Magic, having hoops for spells, but just working on non spell created magical effects.

Historically, Dispel Magic throughout the various editions could produce an area effect dispel, could suppress a magical item, could destroy potions, and could dispel innate and spell like abilities.

In 5e, PCs and creatures have vast array of non spell based magical effects,(more than in AD&D, certainly), thus without the clarification from SAC, it would not be an unreasonable thought to think that perhaps the devs intended for Dispel Magic to be usable against that vast array of non spell based magical effects that 5e has.

Simply put, compare 5e's Dispel Magic to 3e's or 2e AD&D's. The 2e and 3e version of Dispel Magic are written with clarity. The write ups are longer, but the spell description tells you exactly what they do. https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3e_SRD:Dispel_Magic

5e's does not. The silly thing, is WotC should have errata'd the spell, and made it perfectly clear, by replacing the phrase "magical effects" (which categorically includes non spell based magical effects), with the phrase: "magical effects created by a spell".

So, Jack, as to your contention, that I have not read the rules...that is incorrect. I have read the rules. The 'problem', perhaps, is I have read the rules too well, (and at face value), and have played every other version of D&D and have independent thoughts...and for some reason that might trouble someone, like yourself.

5e's version of Dispel Magic is the worst written version in the history of D&D, pure and simple.

[JackPhoenix]

Dispel Magic can target "magical effects".
What is a magical effect?....simply put, a magical effect is any effect created by magic.
Are magical effects solely created by spells?
Of course not, there are numerous non spell based magical abilities that create effects.

The category of Magical Effects, is larger than what Crawford intended. Crawford's SAC clarification, makes it clear that what the devs intended to write was "magical effects created by spells".

Unfortunately, that is not what they wrote. So a person, possessed of reason and with a knowledge of logic, whom read Dispel Magic for the first time in 2014, prior to SAC being published, would be within the bound of reasonable interpretations, to point out that while Dispel Magic has specific operational parameters when it comes to spells of a certain level, the spell itself is silent on Dispel Magic having any restrictions against magical effects not created by spells.

Completely irrelevant. Yes, Dispel Magic can target magical effects not created by spells. And?

As I pointed out earlier, objects do not receive saving throws. Thus, we have in 5e, a precedent for a category of things that just get affected by interactions, Objects. This would support a reading of a non clarified Dispel Magic, having hoops for spells, but just working on non spell created magical effects.

OK, and? Dispel Magic has nothing to do with saving throws.

Historically, Dispel Magic throughout the various editions could produce an area effect dispel, could suppress a magical item, could destroy potions, and could dispel innate and spell like abilities.

Irrelevant.

So, Jack, as to your contention, that I have not read the rules...that is incorrect. I have read the rules. The 'problem', perhaps, is I have read the rules too well, (and at face value), and have played every other version of D&D and have independent thoughts...and for some reason that might trouble someone, like yourself.

If you'd "read the rules too well", why do you keep talking about saving throws and writting long paragraphs about magical effects? Dispel Magic is one of the simplest spells in 5e, and I genuinely don't understand how can anyone with even average reading comprehension skills find it confusing or require a clarification of any kind on its effects.

[Pex]

No one is claiming SB can’t be dispelled, though. I’m not sure why you’re attacking that.

The question presented is “if you target the caster, will that dispel SB; or do you have to target the SB-created weapon or the magical effect itself.

You're missing the part where if a player wants to dispel Shadow Blade don't be rules lawyerly on if the player says he casts Dispel Magic on the sword or caster. If the player did not specifically say he wanted to dispel Shadow Blade, just any spell that happens to exist, choose randomly from among the spells including Shadow Blade. Don't be rules lawyerly on the player saying he casts Dispel Magic on the caster.

[JNAProductions]

I think it's worth it to parse and understand the rules as best you can.

But, for actual gameplay, I'm 100% on board with Pex. If there's confusion on what the player is trying to target, just ask them to clarify what effect they're aiming for. Don't be a slave to the RAW and exact words spoken.

[RSP]

You're missing the part where if a player wants to dispel Shadow Blade don't be rules lawyerly on if the player says he casts Dispel Magic on the sword or caster. If the player did not specifically say he wanted to dispel Shadow Blade, just any spell that happens to exist, choose randomly from among the spells including Shadow Blade. Don't be rules lawyerly on the player saying he casts Dispel Magic on the caster.

I’m not missing anything, and I don’t know why you feel the need for continued accusations.

It’s not a “rules lawyerly” question. It’s not a question at all about what was trying to be dispelled. It’s a question of whether SB is its own distinct object, or a magical effect targeted on the caster.

Also, DM at least has a chance to dispel any spells on the selected target, it’s not just one.

[Witty Username]

No one is claiming SB can’t be dispelled, though. I’m not sure why you’re attacking that.

The question presented is “if you target the caster, will that dispel SB; or do you have to target the SB-created weapon or the magical effect itself.

That does assume the shadow blade spell is a weapon at the time, which isn't always the case.

[RSP]

That does assume the shadow blade spell is a weapon at the time, which isn't always the case.

Incorrect per the SB spell:

“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.”

The sword is created and lasts until the spell ends, regardless of whether it’s dissipated or not, it’s still a weapon, so long as the spell last.

[Witty Username]

The sword is created and lasts until the spell ends, regardless of whether it’s dissipated or not, it’s still a weapon, so long as the spell last.

So, its still a weapon, but doesn't exist while disapated. So it can't be dispelled then, because it doesn't exist to be targeted then?

Or you can target the caster, at dispel it whether it is present or not?

[Reynaert]

You're missing the part where if a player wants to dispel Shadow Blade don't be rules lawyerly on if the player says he casts Dispel Magic on the sword or caster. If the player did not specifically say he wanted to dispel Shadow Blade, just any spell that happens to exist, choose randomly from among the spells including Shadow Blade. Don't be rules lawyerly on the player saying he casts Dispel Magic on the caster.

Scenario: Your teammate, who is attacking with Shadow Blade, has been targeted by both a Blindness/Deafness spell and a Ray of Enfeeblement spell. You decide to cast Dispel Magic on them to help. DM says: Ok, cool, but unfortunately for you that also hits the Shadow Blade.

[Aimeryan]

So, its still a weapon, but doesn't exist while disapated. So it can't be dispelled then, because it doesn't exist to be targeted then?

Or you can target the caster, at dispel it whether it is present or not?

The question RSP is asking is essentially 'Does creating a magical object allow the object to be dispelled by casting Dispel Magic at the caster?'. It is a relevant question, not an obtuse one.

With Shadow Blade in particular, the spell is cast on 'Self' and includes the ability to call the object to the caster (unstated 'how' other than a Bonus Action cost). Because Dispel Magic ends the spell and not just the relevant effect, it ends the entirety of Shadow Blade if cast on the caster - as long as you rule that there is indeed any effect still present on the caster while Shadow Blade exists. I do, because of the 'Self' range implies something was cast on the caster, highly implying there is a magical link between the caster and object (probably the unstated 'how').

If you take instead Goodberry; this spell also creates an object, however, the Goodberry spell has the range of 'Touch'. Furthermore, the spell does not describe any interaction specifically between the caster and the object, and the spell is Instantaneous (so the spell has already ended). Thus, casting Dispel Magic on the caster would not remove all the Goodberries still existing.

A more relevant comparison may be Drawmij's Instant Summons; the spell marks an object for calling later - similar to Shadow Blade. However, the spell is 'Touch' range, and it specifies how you call it; crush the sapphire used to cast the spell. Would a Dispel Magic on the caster end the spell? No, probably not; it does state 'you' can take the action to crush the sapphire to call the object, which is up to interpretation I would think about whether the 'you' is specifically the caster (which it normally says 'the caster can') or a general 'you'. This is important, because if specific to the caster then this suggests the spell can somehow know this and react appropriately - which could be argued that there is a link present on the caster, however, the lack of 'Self' and any text specific enough to this effect suggests otherwise. Now, if we cast Dispel Magic on the sapphire? Interestingly, it does not say that there is a magical effect left on the sapphire like it does say is left on the object to be called - you could argue that the spell on the object detects the crushing of the sapphire, rather than a magical link specifically - however, as the sapphire is used in the casting I would say there is enough to state a magical effect is upon the sapphire, and therefore Dispel Magic on the sapphire would dispel the spell.

Arcane Lock is also an interesting comparison; once again, 'Touch' range. More importantly here, the spell is DEFINITELY able to discern things about others including who they are and/or a password being spoke nearby - it then reacts appropriately. THIS is the possibility that Shadow Blade could be using to appear when called; the object being granted the ability by the spell to perceive the calling and react appropriately rather than the caster/others being magically linked - however, the 'Self' range on Shadow Blade is suggestive enough that something is being directly cast on the caster, where as Arcane Lock lacks that.

[schm0]

So, its still a weapon, but doesn't exist while disapated. So it can't be dispelled then, because it doesn't exist to be targeted then?

Or you can target the caster, at dispel it whether it is present or not?

The shadow blade persists until the spell ends. It's simply not visible once it dissipates. Furthermore, dispel magic does not require you to see the creature, target or magical effect in order to dispel it. So even if it is no longer visible, it is still able to be dispelled by targeting the sword.

Scenario: Your teammate, who is attacking with Shadow Blade, has been targeted by both a Blindness/Deafness spell and a Ray of Enfeeblement spell. You decide to cast Dispel Magic on them to help. DM says: Ok, cool, but unfortunately for you that also hits the Shadow Blade.

The shadow blade is an object, but the magical effect of blindness/deafness and ray of enfeeblement resides on the creature. Thus, you could cast dispel magic on the creature and the shadow blade would remain.

The question RSP is asking is essentially 'Does creating a magical object allow the object to be dispelled by casting Dispel Magic at the caster?'. It is a relevant question, not an obtuse one.

With Shadow Blade in particular, the spell is cast on 'Self' and includes the ability to call the object to the caster (unstated 'how' other than a Bonus Action cost). Because Dispel Magic ends the spell and not just the relevant effect, it ends the entirety of Shadow Blade if cast on the caster - as long as you rule that there is indeed any effect still present on the caster while Shadow Blade exists. I do, because of the 'Self' range implies something was cast on the caster, highly implying there is a magical link between the caster and object (probably the unstated 'how').

The only implication of spell range is to explain where the spell effect is created. It has no bearing on the nature of the spell effect. Dispel magic only cares about the nature of the spell effect: an alteration to a creature, an object, or a magical effect.

If you take instead Goodberry; this spell also creates an object, however, the Goodberry spell has the range of 'Touch'. Furthermore, the spell does not describe any interaction specifically between the caster and the object, and the spell is Instantaneous (so the spell has already ended). Thus, casting Dispel Magic on the caster would not remove all the Goodberries still existing.

The range is similarly irrelevant here. Like shadow blade, it creates an object. More specifically, it creates 10 objects. You would need to cast dispel magic on each berry.

A more relevant comparison may be Drawmij's Instant Summons; the spell marks an object for calling later - similar to Shadow Blade. However, the spell is 'Touch' range, and it specifies how you call it; crush the sapphire used to cast the spell. Would a Dispel Magic on the caster end the spell? No, probably not; it does state 'you' can take the action to crush the sapphire to call the object, which is up to interpretation I would think about whether the 'you' is specifically the caster (which it normally says 'the caster can') or a general 'you'. This is important, because if specific to the caster then this suggests the spell can somehow know this and react appropriately - which could be argued that there is a link present on the caster, however, the lack of 'Self' and any text specific enough to this effect suggests otherwise. Now, if we cast Dispel Magic on the sapphire? Interestingly, it does not say that there is a magical effect left on the sapphire like it does say is left on the object to be called - you could argue that the spell on the object detects the crushing of the sapphire, rather than a magical link specifically - however, as the sapphire is used in the casting I would say there is enough to state a magical effect is upon the sapphire, and therefore Dispel Magic on the sapphire would dispel the spell.

There is no spell effect created on the caster. It imbues its effect on the object itself, which makes the object the only valid target for dispel magic. Here it may be argued that the sapphire may similarly contain a portion of the spell effect, and thus also be a valid target for dispel magic, but certainly not the caster. The spell grants the creature no benefits, only instructs them on how they may interact with the objects that are the subject of the spell effect.

Arcane Lock is also an interesting comparison; once again, 'Touch' range. More importantly here, the spell is DEFINITELY able to discern things about others including who they are and/or a password being spoke nearby - it then reacts appropriately. THIS is the possibility that Shadow Blade could be using to appear when called; the object being granted the ability by the spell to perceive the calling and react appropriately rather than the caster/others being magically linked - however, the 'Self' range on Shadow Blade is suggestive enough that something is being directly cast on the caster, where as Arcane Lock lacks that.

The result of the spell here is to imbue an object with the arcane lock. Hence, the object is the only valid target for dispel magic. The spell effect merely instructs the caster how certain creatures interact with the object, but imbues them with no magical effect. An object imbued with the effects of arcane lock is simply able to magically recognize certain creatures.

[RSP]

So, its still a weapon, but doesn't exist while disapated. So it can't be dispelled then, because it doesn't exist to be targeted then?

Or you can target the caster, at dispel it whether it is present or not?

A weapon is created throughout the duration, whether it’s solidified or dissipated. I don’t know why you default to “it doesn’t exist” when the rule says it absolutely exists.

Nothing says the dissipated shadow isn’t targetable. Maybe it’s like a small cloud of shadow waiting to be reformed. But either way, it still exists.

The shadow blade persists until the spell ends. It's simply not visible once it dissipates. Furthermore, dispel magic does not require you to see the creature, target or magical effect in order to dispel it. So even if it is no longer visible, it is still able to be dispelled by targeting the sword.

As I stated above, nothing in SB’s description states it’s invisible or otherwise undetectable when dissipated. If it is determined at a table to be invisible, I’d imagine the magic is still detectable by Detect Magic. Likewise, as you say, Dispel Magic doesn’t require the target to be seen, just that it’s within range.

[Witty Username]

The shadow blade persists until the spell ends. It's simply not visible once it dissipates. Furthermore, dispel magic does not require you to see the creature, target or magical effect in order to dispel it. So even if it is no longer visible, it is still able to be dispelled by targeting the sword.

You do need to determine where the effect is, which given the blade disapears to be reformed later, I have no clue how one is expected to go about that. Is it still inbeded in the creature it was thrown at?

I just seems like the spell gives the caster the ability to form and maintain a shadow blade. The caster is a valid dispel target.

If a player targeted the effect directly, I see no reason it wouldn't work, but targeting the caster will get rid of it.

Nothing says the dissipated shadow isn’t targetable. Maybe it’s like a small cloud of shadow waiting to be reformed. But either way, it still exists.

Nothing says you can't dispel it if you target the caster, the spell clearly gives the caster additional abilities so they are affected by the spell.

Also, by your argument, wouldn't it still be a weapon? So people could pick up and use it. It doesn't say people can't do that.

[RSP]

You do need to determine where the effect is, which given the blade disapears to be reformed later, I have no clue how one is expected to go about that. Is it still inbeded in the creature it was thrown at?

I just seems like the spell gives the caster the ability to form and maintain a shadow blade. The caster is a valid dispel target.

If a player targeted the effect directly, I see no reason it wouldn't work, but targeting the caster will get rid of it.

Nothing says you can't dispel it if you target the caster, the spell clearly gives the caster additional abilities so they are affected by the spell.

The ability isn’t on the caster: it’s not like they can BA summon anything else, it’s strictly the weapon. Similar, in my mind to a magic weapon with the Returning property: it’s a property of the weapon, even though it’s returning to whomever threw it.

And again, nothing states the dissipated weapon isn’t visible.

Also, by your argument, wouldn't it still be a weapon? So people could pick up and use it. It doesn't say people can't do that.

As I said upthread, the caster doesn’t have the ability to dissipate it and other characters can use it (in accordance with the spell description) against the casters wishes - it’s an object that was created and follows those rules like any other, except when the spell description states otherwise. It is always a weapon, even when dissipated (ask your DM what a dissipated shadow weapon counts as and if able to attack with it).

The easiest way to view this is the monk ability Deflect Missiles. If the caster had control over the weapon through magic, they could dissipate it before it’s returned back at them. But they can’t, because the dissipating property is part of the weapon, as is, in my opinion, the reforming (again, like the property of some magic weapons).

[Aimeryan]

The only implication of spell range is to explain where the spell effect is created. It has no bearing on the nature of the spell effect. Dispel magic only cares about the nature of the spell effect: an alteration to a creature, an object, or a magical effect.

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.

[RSP]

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.

Not the poster for that, but Burning Hands and Cone of Cold are “Self” range spells that most would say explicitly don’t affect the caster, dispite “Range: Self”

Specific to DM, booming blade is another Self spell. Would casting DM on the caster of BB dispel the movement damage on the target of BB?

Or would you have to target the creature “sheathed in booming energy” to dispel that effect?

[Aimeryan]

Not the poster for that, but Burning Hands and Cone of Cold are “Self” range spells that most would say explicitly don’t affect the caster, dispite “Range: Self”

You mean 'Self (Xft shape)'? Those are explicitly stating they come from you, and actually can affect the caster. In any case, its a different type of range than 'Self'.
Again, find any spell that has 'Self' range that doesn't affect the caster.

[RSP]

You mean 'Self (Xft shape)'? Those are explicitly stating they come from you, and actually can affect the caster. In any case, its a different type of range than 'Self'.

Per the RAW, there is no additional rules for those spells. That is, nothing in the rules amend or otherwise change the rules in the Range section for “Self”. As stated upthread, the ONLY rule for “Range Self” is that it only affects the caster, which is clearly not the case on enough Range Self spells that it is at best easily overcome by specific vs general, which occurs here: the spell tells you a) the targets are those damaged by the SB, and b) the spell creates an object that originates at you (the much better definition of “range self”). (Side note: the example given of Range Self spells is Shieod, which clearly operates in a much different manner than SB.)

So while it may be common to play that way, it is not “explicitly stated” to be otherwise.

[Aimeryan]

Per the RAW, there is no additional rules for those spells. That is, nothing in the rules amend or otherwise change the rules in the Range section for “Self”.

So while it may be common to play that way, it is not “explicitly stated” to be otherwise.

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 (see "Areas of Effect" later in the this chapter).

It calls them out with additional rules.
In any case, I am not asking about that range type. I am not asking about 120ft range spells, either. I am asking, specifically, about 'Self' range spells.

[RSP]

It calls them out with additional rules.
In any case, I am not asking about that range type. I am not asking about 120ft range spells, either. I am asking, specifically, about 'Self' range spells.

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

[Keltest]

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

Booming Blade is basically a buff spell that adds a rider to your attack, which it also enables. It puts the effect on you, it just discharges it immediately.

[RSP]

Booming Blade is basically a buff spell that adds a rider to your attack, which it also enables. It puts the effect on you, it just discharges it immediately.

And yet, it clearly affects the target of the attack who is sheathed in booming energy, no?

I’m pretty sure you aren’t contending BB damages the caster if the caster moves. So, again, the Range Self rule doesn’t apply (it affects someone other than the caster). It is, however, where the magic’s point of origin is.

If you just want to dismiss a valid response to the question, then I’m not sure what you’re expecting to get out of the discussion. BB fits the criteria asked for.

[Keltest]

And yet, it clearly affects the target of the attack who is sheathed in booming energy, no?

I’m pretty sure you aren’t contending BB damages the caster if the caster moves. So, again, the Range Self rule doesn’t apply (it affects someone other than the caster). It is, however, where the magic’s point of origin is.

If you just want to dismiss a valid response to the question, then I’m not sure what you’re expecting to get out of the discussion. BB fits the criteria asked for.

After the attack lands, sure. But the discharge is a different effect.

[RSP]

After the attack lands, sure. But the discharge is a different effect.

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.

[JackPhoenix]

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.

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.