Dispel Magic

[SpamCreateWater]

What are your thoughts and reasonings on the following?

A person has a spell effect on them.
A spellcaster casts Dispel Magic on them. The reading of Dispel Magic says "a spell effect chosen by you".
The spellcaster hasn't, doesn't, and won't cast Detect Magic.


Would the spellcaster dispel the spell effect if they didn't know there was a spell effect?

Assuming yes, would it change at all if the spell was Nystul's Magic Aura?

Assuming no, what if they suspected there was a spell?
Assuming no, what if they knew there was a spell effect but didn't know anything else about it? (Arcane/divine, school, the effect it had, etc)

[DarkKnightJin]

They would need to suspect that a magical effect was in play, or they wouldn't be casting Dispel Magic in the first place..

Barring any further inspection, they would Dispel the most obvious magical effect. This might be Nystul's Magic Aura, or something the Aura was trying tonhide magically, but is plainly visible for some reason.

This is really too specific and without context on why Dispel Magic would come into play to make a unilateral decision/ruling one way or the other.

[Bubbs]

Dispel magic is resolved against *every* spell on the target (which is a creature in your example). The caster's awareness or ignorance of what spells are affecting the target makes absolutely no difference.

If you'll forgive me for veering into RAI interpretations, I'm pretty certain that when the spell description mentions a "magical effect" as a potential target for the spell they're referring to independent phenomena (like a wall of fire or a silent image illusion or what have you) rather than singling out specific spells that are being applied to a creature.

I'll admit that as written, "magical effect" is certainly vague enough to allow for other interpretations though.

[opaopajr]

Are you sure you are talking about D&D 5e? :smallsmile:
Here is the text of Dispel Magic straight from the D&D 5e SRD. Fair use of text used for citation:

Dispel Magic
3rd level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action Range: 120 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneous

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

(WotC. D&D 5e SRD. p. 135.)

That clause you mentioned is not present which renders your following questions moot. :smallwink: Sometimes we forget that what was worded in one edition doesn't necessarily carry over. :smallcool: It's an innocent mistake, but a good reminder to check text first because of text migration between editions.

[Solunaris]

What are your thoughts and reasonings on the following?

A person has a spell effect on them.
A spellcaster casts Dispel Magic on them. The reading of Dispel Magic says "a spell effect chosen by you".
The spellcaster hasn't, doesn't, and won't cast Detect Magic.


Would the spellcaster dispel the spell effect if they didn't know there was a spell effect?

Assuming yes, would it change at all if the spell was Nystul's Magic Aura?

Assuming no, what if they suspected there was a spell?
Assuming no, what if they knew there was a spell effect but didn't know anything else about it? (Arcane/divine, school, the effect it had, etc)

Unless my PHB has the wrong text for Dispel Magic, you choose between any one creature, object, or magical effect in range and Dispel Magic tries to nullify all of the spells on the target (making a separate ability check for each spell affecting the target).

It would be perfectly reasonable to suspect magical foul play and simply cast Dispel Magic on a person (to either remove any buffs or debuffs). However, if the target had a magical item under the effect of Nystul's Magic Aura it would be unaffected since Dispel Magic only dispells and spells on the target; not on items worn or carried by the target.

Hilariously enough, with the way the spell is written Dispel Magic doesn't actually do anything to things like "Wall of Fire" since you would be targeting the wall, but the wall doesn't have any spells on it. Most DM's probably go by the RAI and not the RAW in this case and allow Dispell Magic to remove things created by spells as well.

[JPicasso]

Hilariously enough, with the way the spell is written Dispel Magic doesn't actually do anything to things like "Wall of Fire" since you would be targeting the wall, but the wall doesn't have any spells on it. Most DM's probably go by the RAI and not the RAW in this case and allow Dispell Magic to remove things created by spells as well.

wut? The wall of fire IS a magical effect is it not? Especially since it requires concentration.

[Solunaris]

wut? The wall of fire IS a magical effect is it not? Especially since it requires concentration.

Oh yes, the wall of fire is for sure a valid target for the spell, but the effects of Dispell Magic end any spells currently cast on the target. As Wall of Fire isn't cast on the wall of fire it produces but instead is an aoe spell that persists as a concentration spell there is no spell to dispel. As it stands, the spell Dispell Magic lacks the clause that says if it targets a magical effect produced by a spell it can end that effect, Dispell Magic by RAW has no effect on magical effects produced by spells. Merely on spells cast onto those magical effects.

This is by the strictest reading of the RAW, mind you, and it entirely dumb in my opinion. If you tried to argue this case at your table I'd expect several books headed in the general direction of you head immediately after.

[SpamCreateWater]

Well. It would seem someone made a mistake. Guess that makes my question moot.
Thanks for the correction :smallsmile: