Spell Proposal: Dispel Ward (Protecting against Dispel Magic)

[meta-dnd]

I find the Dispel Magic spell somewhat overpowered. If it only dispelled one spell on the target per casting (or at least stopped as soon as any ability check failed), it would feel more tenable, but being able to dispel every spell (if the individual ability checks succeed) seems excessive.

Although I am contemplating ruling in my games that Dispel Magic is less powerful than RAW, I'm also exploring less drastic measures, including introducing the following spell. I would appreciate feedback from other DMs on game balance ramifications.



Dispel Ward
5th-level abjuration

Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 5 feet
Components: V, S, M (100gp powdered silver and iron, consumed)
Duration: 24 hours

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. You give the target a measure of protection from being dispelled.

The first time the target would otherwise be dispelled, that effect is instead negated against the target and the spell ends.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of a higher level, the duration increases to 2 days with a 6th-level slot, to 4 days for a 7th-level slot, to 8 days for an 8th-level slot, and to 16 days for a 9th-level slot.

Classes: Wizard


Although the above spell will apply much more broadly, there is one high-level arena in 5e that I feel would strongly drive research into developing a spell like the above: object-to-creature True Polymorph. Over the entire history of magic in D&D, many spell casters with access to 9th level spells will learn this (after getting Wish if they can). And many of these casters will go spend a year in a boulder-strewn field creating a menagerie of CR <= 9 creatures from those boulders. Every remotely intelligent creature created by this spell will be highly motivated to find some way to have their very existence not be wiped away by a single Dispel Magic cast on them (I can only imagine the psychological toll knowledge of this vulnerability would create in them). Sure, Nystul's Magic Aura can hide the fact that they are polymorphed (but doesn't help against truesight) ... their polymorphed nature will be quite easy for a motivated opponent to discover given enough time. I would imagine that any creature with any degree of self-preservation that is intelligent enough to understand the risk that Dispel Magic is to it would live in a state of perpetual fear and want ways to protect themselves. My proposed spell is one such example.

Does this feel game-imbalancing? Is there a game-balance reason the designers made Dispel Magic so immensely powerful in 5e that I'm missing here?

EDIT: Material components are consumed
EDIT: Upcasting duration reduced

[J-H]

It takes a 9th-level Dispel to undo a 9th-level True Polymorph. Most casters only get 1 9th level slot per day. That's a pretty specific attack to ward against.

[MaxWilson]

It takes a 9th-level Dispel to undo a 9th-level True Polymorph. Most casters only get 1 9th level slot per day. That's a pretty specific attack to ward against.

I have sometimes used this house rule too (that Dispel Magic N only works against spells of level N or lower, and requires a DC 10+N ability check) but by RAW even a CR 4 Babau can spam Dispel Magic until it breaks True Polymorph, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Forbiddence, etc., arguably even after they become "permanent".

[JackPhoenix]

I can only imagine the psychological toll knowledge of this vulnerability would create in them

Well, that's easy. What psychological toll does the knowledge that being stabbed with a knife or slipping while walking and hitting your head can wipe out your very existence creates in you? It's exactly the same thing. Polymorphed creature isn't any more mortal than anyone else (except, well, actual immortal creatures in D&D).


Does this feel game-imbalancing?

Yes. There's plenty of powerful effects that become even moreso when the single measure designed to stop them doesn't work. Magic Jar, Simulacrum, Planar Binding, True Polymorph....


Is there a game-balance reason the designers made Dispel Magic so immensely powerful in 5e that I'm missing here?

Maybe. It's not like we can read the developer's mind to see why they've designed it like they did. But as it is, Dispel Magic is balanced.

[meta-dnd]

It takes a 9th-level Dispel to undo a 9th-level True Polymorph. Most casters only get 1 9th level slot per day. That's a pretty specific attack to ward against.

I must say, it is quite irritating when someone demonstrates that they made no attempt to educate themselves before dispensing their "wisdom", by making such a patently false statement.

A 9th-level Dispel will undo a 9th-level True Polymorph automatically. On the other hand, a 5th level wizard with an Intelligence of 16, casting a 3rd level Detect Magic, need only succeed on an Intelligence ability check (at +3) against DC 19, which gives them a 25% change of dismissing that same True Polymorph. If this lowly Wizard has advantage on their ability check, they have a 43% chance of succeeding.

[Justin Sane]

Breaking news: some spells are immediately lethal.

But first, studies have shown that water is, in fact, wet.

Edit: To be somewhat constructive, the upcasting on your proposed spell looks a bit off. I'd model it off of Death Ward (as that's functionally what you expect, right?).

[meta-dnd]

Well, that's easy. What psychological toll does the knowledge that being stabbed with a knife or slipping while walking and hitting your head can wipe out your very existence creates in you? It's exactly the same thing. Polymorphed creature isn't any more mortal than anyone else (except, well, actual immortal creatures in D&D).


Your examples are CR 0 creatures, not CR 9 creatures, and are thus not accurate analogies (I do not at all agree that they "are exactly the same thing"). Furthermore, even a commoner with 4hp has more expectation of survivability than a creature that is one Dispel Magic away from annihilation, what with death saves, chances at spontaneous stabilzation, etc.

A real young Silver Dragon does not walk around worried about dying from a single blow from a dagger or slipping and hitting its head. A rock polymorphed into a young Silver Dragon *does* have to worry about something even worse ... some 5th level sorcerer with Distant Spell metamagic, Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor), and Dispel Magic can destroy this CR9 creature from 240' away (potentially without the dragon even knowing the caster is around). A 43% chance of success with a single casting of Dispel Magic. A 68% chance with 2 castings. A 82% chance with three castings. A 90% chance with four castings.

Not to mention that this extreme vulnerability presumably affects the CR of the creature. A polymorphed rock-to-YoungSilverDragon is not actually a CR9 creature, given that a single caster has such good chances of destroying it outright. I prefer not to go down that road (it opens the floodgates to allowing higher CR creatures to be created), so I am instead contemplating this new spell.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Dispel magic already has simple counterplay- counterspell. It can slap out any attempts at dispel magic on a 1:1 basis, and even better, it's very kind to the counter user's action economy compared to the dispeler's.

Getting advantage on dispel magic checks are also really hard to come by. I can only think of three sources, and none are exactly easy to set up- the Help action is the most reliable but requires a second person capable of casting dispel magic to pull off (and no different mathematically to both of you casting it separately, making this essentially an economy version of doing so), foresight which is a level 9 spell and thus extremely limited (I've literally never seen this spell cast, despite how obviously good it is. Mostly due to wish), and inspiration (a crap shoot if they're even in your game or if you have one, and a very limited resource even in the best situations).

You could easily rule that magic resistance ought to work against dispel magic attempts. Normally it doesn't, definitely, but a simple change like this is much easier to implement and makes more thematic sense. Applying disadvantage to dispel attempts is a huge boon for villainous spellcasters. I actually like that enough that I might use it myself.

[meta-dnd]

Dispel magic already has simple counterplay- counterspell. It can slap out any attempts at dispel magic on a 1:1 basis, and even better, it's very kind to the counter user's action economy compared to the dispeler's.

I think I'm getting too hung-up on the fact that a CR9 creature should not be so easy to get rid of. There is of course nothing wrong with coming to the conclusion that object-to-creature True Polymorph produces glass tanks, and maybe that is the right direction for me to go. I'm just getting too wrapped up in the imagined experience of those entities. It raises all sorts of fascinating philosophical/ethical questions on the part of a caster creating such creatures. Is it better to have lived and been Dispelled, or to have never lived at all?

I agree that CounterSpell is useful here. But I note in passing that Dispel Magic has a range of 120' while CounterSpell has a range of 60'.


Getting advantage on dispel magic checks are also really hard to come by. I can only think of three sources, and none are exactly easy to set up- the Help action is the most reliable but requires a second person capable of casting dispel magic to pull off (and no different mathematically to both of you casting it separately, making this essentially an economy version of doing so), foresight which is a level 9 spell and thus extremely limited (I've literally never seen this spell cast, despite how obviously good it is. Mostly due to wish), and inspiration (a crap shoot if they're even in your game or if you have one, and a very limited resource even in the best situations).

Am I misreading something in these spells? Doesn't the 2nd level Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor) apply here? It gives a caster advantage on Charisma checks for one hour. Dispel Magic requires an ability check using the caster's spellcasting ability against DC 10+L. A 5th level Wizard can cast Enhance Ability, and then cast 2 Dispel Magics. At 6th, it is 3 Dispels. And they can cast it from 120' away.



You could easily rule that magic resistance ought to work against dispel magic attempts. Normally it doesn't, definitely, but a simple change like this is much easier to implement and makes more thematic sense. Applying disadvantage to dispel attempts is a huge boon for villainous spellcasters. I actually like that enough that I might use it myself.

Hmmm. This is indeed an interesting idea. Unfortunately, only a handful of CR<=9 creatures have magic resistance though. As an aside, TIL that although pseudodragons and faire dragons of Magic Resistance, metallic and chromatic dragons do not. This is ... surprising.

Your idea about allowing magic resistance raises another possibility (although admittedly it doesn't make good thematic sense). Rather than the caster making a DC 10+L ability check, the creature gets to make a Wisdom (or Charisma?) saving throw against DC 10+L. This would mean that Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance come into play (although again, few CR<=9 creatures have either), but more generally would allow True Polymorphed rocks-turned-dragons to have more of a chance to survive being dispelled. The problem here is that it doesn't exactly make sense that a creature's will (or force of personality) has anything to do with whether a magical effect on that creature gets dispelled. Actually, it definitely *does* make sense if we are talking about resisting True Polymorph being dispelled, since it is the very essence of the creature at risk. But it isn't as obvious that a creature with Stoneskin casts on it can "exert some will power" to avoid having someone else dispel the Stoneskin spell. It isn't a perfect solution, but I may experiment with this in my upcoming campaign. I continue to feel that Dispel Magic is too powerful for the attacker, with no viable way for the defender to compete.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If you want to protect a simulacrum from dispel magic, that sounds more like a magic item territory. Some amulet that protects the Simulacrum from dispeling so when the PC's kill it says with its dying breath. "All that for a pile of ice and snow" and watch the look of horror on their faces when the big bad they thought they killed was actually a copy. And not have that moment of drama killed by them dispelling it on accident while taking out other defenses.

But for this "Spell Ward" my only suggestion it imposes disadvantage on dispel magic checks rather then block it completely.



A real young Silver Dragon does not walk around worried about dying from a single blow from a dagger or slipping and hitting its head. A rock polymorphed into a young Silver Dragon *does* have to worry about something even worse ... some 5th level sorcerer with Distant Spell metamagic, Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor), and Dispel Magic can destroy this CR9 creature from 240' away (potentially without the dragon even knowing the caster is around). A 43% chance of success with a single casting of Dispel Magic. A 68% chance with 2 castings. A 82% chance with three castings. A 90% chance with four castings.
Its not a CR9 creature, its a creature created by a spell. Its not suppose to have the same resiliency as the genuine article. Taking it out with dispel magic is no different then ending a Conjure Elemental spell or one of Tasha's Conjure X spells.

If you want Pinocchio to be a real boy without the worry of dispel magic ending the effect, that's what a greater use of Wish is for.

[Eldariel]

Your examples are CR 0 creatures, not CR 9 creatures, and are thus not accurate analogies (I do not at all agree that they "are exactly the same thing"). Furthermore, even a commoner with 4hp has more expectation of survivability than a creature that is one Dispel Magic away from annihilation, what with death saves, chances at spontaneous stabilzation, etc.

A real young Silver Dragon does not walk around worried about dying from a single blow from a dagger or slipping and hitting its head. A rock polymorphed into a young Silver Dragon *does* have to worry about something even worse ... some 5th level sorcerer with Distant Spell metamagic, Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor), and Dispel Magic can destroy this CR9 creature from 240' away (potentially without the dragon even knowing the caster is around). A 43% chance of success with a single casting of Dispel Magic. A 68% chance with 2 castings. A 82% chance with three castings. A 90% chance with four castings.

Not to mention that this extreme vulnerability presumably affects the CR of the creature. A polymorphed rock-to-YoungSilverDragon is not actually a CR9 creature, given that a single caster has such good chances of destroying it outright. I prefer not to go down that road (it opens the floodgates to allowing higher CR creatures to be created), so I am instead contemplating this new spell.

Note, this assumes that said person knows the Silver Dragon is indeed created by True Polymorph. How would they know to target it with Dispel Magic in the first place? Even if they Detect Magic it or something (which requires being within 30' of it and using an action), they just know there's a transmutation in effect here. Given Metallic Dragons have their native Change Shape ability and there are plenty of solid low level spells of the school that Dragons can cast, even this amount of information doesn't really point towards True Polymorph.

I do agree that Dispel Magic is a bit problematic in the sense that your average level 5 Wizard can dispel deific level magic given enough time: in 3e at least there was a cap to what you could dispel but given that the check is just 10+level and you get Int, even a 10 Int Wizard 5 can Dispel a permanent 10th level spell cast by a god. Which feels a bit dumb. But it's a part of the overall simplification of the game, and just makes it more of a "magic must defeat magic"-sorta deal than it already was (which, I don't think, is really desirable).

Dispelling Ward used to exist and is kinda "fine", I think, but I'd probably make it consume components and probably last a bit shorter and appear on more lists.

[stoutstien]

Dispel magic is fairly balanced even if it should be called dispel due to only working on effects manifested by spells and not magic in general. It has two built-in counters via upcasting spells and counterspell.

Note that it limited to one creature, object, or effect. So if a creature had say magic armor and magic weapon active they would have to pick which one to dispel.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm opposed to it. It prevents counterplay in favor of the aggressor. That is, it's helping those who shouldn't be helped. You want things to go back-and forth. Player 1 takes the lead, Player 2 plays a counter and now Player 2 is in the lead. Stacking odds into a one-trick pony makes things less interesting and diverse.

Dispel Magic already has a hard time dealing with things that have multiple instances (summons), it's not as efficient as Counterspell, and the only thing it's good for is removing the worst Concentration spells and the very-inconsistent permanent magical effect that can be dispelled.

So what if they can spam a check to get rid of your spell? I could spam an attack against you during Concentration and it'd have the same effect.

If the strategy for a spell is "cast it 5 times and hope for good RNG", it's probably not overpowered. As-is, Dispel Ward comes off as one of those spells that badguys are supposed to use to ensure their plans go through without player intervention. And players have more fun when they can intervene.

[CheddarChampion]

I must say, it is quite irritating when someone demonstrates that they made no attempt to educate themselves before dispensing their "wisdom", by making such a patently false statement.

I must say, it is quite irritating when someone demonstrates that they think it's okay to belittle another person just because they didn't get something 100% correct.


As far as contributing to the conversation goes, upcasting a spell inherently makes it harder to dispel (as others have mentioned), so maybe a spell that imposes disadvantage on ability checks made to dispel a magical effect would work?

Or maybe a spell that makes the magical effect count as 3 spell levels higher would work?
This way a dispelled needs a higher level spell slot for dispel magic to automatically succeed/it makes the dispel DC 3 points higher.

Upcasting either of these theoretical spells would increase the duration of the effect, much like the spell in the original post.

[JackPhoenix]

Your examples are CR 0 creatures, not CR 9 creatures, and are thus not accurate analogies (I do not at all agree that they "are exactly the same thing"). Furthermore, even a commoner with 4hp has more expectation of survivability than a creature that is one Dispel Magic away from annihilation, what with death saves, chances at spontaneous stabilzation, etc.

So you're saying commoners are less afraid for their life than polymorphed creatures thanks to some abstract number (CR) that doesn't mean anything to them, and because they think they can survive being stabbed, while the polymorphed creature doesn't believe the dispel can fail? And that's accounting for the amount of creatures that go around attacking people compared to the amount of spellcasters that go around casting Dispel Magic on everyone they meet, in case it's TP'd rock?


A real young Silver Dragon does not walk around worried about dying from a single blow from a dagger or slipping and hitting its head.

Why not? A single blow is all it takes. Hit points are an abstraction. A CR 12 archmage doesn't just stand there when someone draws a dagger on him, assured with the knowledge that statistically, he can keep being stabbed constantly for about 2 minutes before he's in danger.


A rock polymorphed into a young Silver Dragon *does* have to worry about something even worse ... some 5th level sorcerer with Distant Spell metamagic, Enhance Ability (Eagle's Splendor), and Dispel Magic can destroy this CR9 creature from 240' away (potentially without the dragon even knowing the caster is around). A 43% chance of success with a single casting of Dispel Magic. A 68% chance with 2 castings. A 82% chance with three castings. A 90% chance with four castings.

Does it? Is there a lot of sorcerers that go around repeatedly casting Dispel Magic on (seemingly) random dragons in your games, in case one of them turns out to be True Polymorphed rock? For that matter, are all TP'd creature automatically aware of the vulnerability?


Not to mention that this extreme vulnerability presumably affects the CR of the creature. A polymorphed rock-to-YoungSilverDragon is not actually a CR9 creature, given that a single caster has such good chances of destroying it outright. I prefer not to go down that road (it opens the floodgates to allowing higher CR creatures to be created), so I am instead contemplating this new spell.

It doesn't. Fiends (and co.) don't have lower CR just because they can be Banished with a single spell either. That's not how CR works.


If you want to protect a simulacrum from dispel magic, that sounds more like a magic item territory. Some amulet that protects the Simulacrum from dispeling so when the PC's kill it says with its dying breath. "All that for a pile of ice and snow" and watch the look of horror on their faces when the big bad they thought they killed was actually a copy. And not have that moment of drama killed by them dispelling it on accident while taking out other defenses.

Rod of Absorbtion.


I do agree that Dispel Magic is a bit problematic in the sense that your average level 5 Wizard can dispel deific level magic given enough time: in 3e at least there was a cap to what you could dispel but given that the check is just 10+level and you get Int, even a 10 Int Wizard 5 can Dispel a permanent 10th level spell cast by a god. Which feels a bit dumb. But it's a part of the overall simplification of the game, and just makes it more of a "magic must defeat magic"-sorta deal than it already was (which, I don't think, is really desirable).

Considering there are no 10th level spells, there's no guarantee such purely theoretical magic shares the vulnerability of actually existing spells.

[meta-dnd]

If you want to protect a simulacrum from dispel magic, that sounds more like a magic item territory. Some amulet that protects the Simulacrum from dispeling so when the PC's kill it says with its dying breath. "All that for a pile of ice and snow" and watch the look of horror on their faces when the big bad they thought they killed was actually a copy. And not have that moment of drama killed by them dispelling it on accident while taking out other defenses.

I like this idea, although it isn't as applicable to my actual use-case (object-to-creature True Polymorphs). In my campaigns, Simulacrums have retrograde amnesia (with all the identity-angst this implies) and anterograde amnesia (they cannot learn anything new). This, combined with the fact that they can be healed *only* with the 100gp/hp process (no spells, day-by-day recovery, etc.), means that they are useful but expensive between levels 13-16. They become much more useful at 17th level to casters with Wish, who can just recreate a new Simulacrum instantaneously without cost. Their lack of past memories and their inability to learn means there isn't nearly the same philosophical conundrum with Simulacrums as I feel there is with object-to-creature True Polymorphs. I do like the idea of a magic item for Simulacrums ... and since only one Simulacrum can exist at a time, this is easy to acquire. On the other hand, a 17th level Wizard with True Polymorph can conceivably create 365 Young Silver Dragons in a year (also with retrograde amnesia but not anterograde amnesia ... they don't have a past to remember, but they can learn and improve over time), and it isn't practical to acquire magic items for all of them.

I'm not looking at this from the perspective of the 17th level wizard (most of those Silver Dragons aren't going to be sticking around to act as slaves to the casters whims, even if the wizard did create them). Rather, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the created creatures. If there is no way to protect against Dispel Magic, their life seems unusually perilous.


But for this "Spell Ward" my only suggestion it imposes disadvantage on dispel magic checks rather then block it completely.

Imposes disadvantage on the first casting and then the spell ends? Or imposes disadvantage for the duration of the spell? The former feels a bit underpowered, and the latter feels overpowered, to my way of thinking. What leads you to suggest disadvantage instead of one-casting immunity? I modeled the spell on Death Ward, hence the one-casting immunity.


Its not a CR9 creature, its a creature created by a spell. Its not suppose to have the same resiliency as the genuine article. Taking it out with dispel magic is no different then ending a Conjure Elemental spell or one of Tasha's Conjure X spells.

Ah, thanks for this. I was fixating on the assumption that it was a CR9 creature, but your framing makes complete sense. I still have a great deal of empathy for the experience of these entities, but when I remove my story about them being CR9 creatures, the inconsistencies go away.


If you want Pinocchio to be a real boy without the worry of dispel magic ending the effect, that's what a greater use of Wish is for.

Entirely valid.

[Rukelnikov]

Your examples are CR 0 creatures, not CR 9 creatures, and are thus not accurate analogies (I do not at all agree that they "are exactly the same thing"). Furthermore, even a commoner with 4hp has more expectation of survivability than a creature that is one Dispel Magic away from annihilation, what with death saves, chances at spontaneous stabilzation, etc..

A commoner with 4 HP has almost 0 chance of surviving a Fireball, which is the same level as Dispel Magic, does every commoner live in constant fear that someone will throw them a Fireball? Hell, IRL someone could shoot me in the streets and kill me, and I don't live in constant fear of that.

The thing that really could make these creatures paranoid should not be Dispel Magic, but the fact that going to 0 hp reverts them to their original form (a boulder most likely), they cannot be treated by medicine, like a normal creature could be, and get better.

[meta-dnd]

Edit: To be somewhat constructive, the upcasting on your proposed spell looks a bit off. I'd model it off of Death Ward (as that's functionally what you expect, right?).

I did indeed model it off of Death Ward, but with the increase to level 5 I decided to give it some upcasting benefits. Initially I'd had additional levels add one more day, but that felt like too little. Than I went with the 1/5/10/30/60 progression, but I agree that is too much. I'm experimenting with 1/2/4/8/16 now.

[meta-dnd]

Note, this assumes that said person knows the Silver Dragon is indeed created by True Polymorph. How would they know to target it with Dispel Magic in the first place? Even if they Detect Magic it or something (which requires being within 30' of it and using an action), they just know there's a transmutation in effect here. Given Metallic Dragons have their native Change Shape ability and there are plenty of solid low level spells of the school that Dragons can cast, even this amount of information doesn't really point towards True Polymorph.

I agree, this requires that an opponent know to cast Dispel Magic on the creature. But the fact that Dispel Magic, when cast on a creature, has a chance to dispel every single spell that has been cast on that creature advocates for doing exactly this on every opponent. If Dispel Magic at least required the caster to know what spell effect they are dispelling, I'd be more comfortable with this.

Put yourself in the shoes of this TPed rock-turned-SilverDragon. You are 6 years old now. You can conceivably live for another 2000 years. You have an intelligence of 14, so this crazy vulnerability you are subject to will quickly become apparent to you. Would you feel comfortable with your very existence hanging on whether every single opponent you ever face in your life decides not to cast Dispel Magic on you? This dragon (and every other TPed creature) has a great deal of motivation to do their own research (and to hire/threaten/coerce others) into how to defend against this vulnerability.


I do agree that Dispel Magic is a bit problematic in the sense that your average level 5 Wizard can dispel deific level magic given enough time: in 3e at least there was a cap to what you could dispel but given that the check is just 10+level and you get Int, even a 10 Int Wizard 5 can Dispel a permanent 10th level spell cast by a god. Which feels a bit dumb. But it's a part of the overall simplification of the game, and just makes it more of a "magic must defeat magic"-sorta deal than it already was (which, I don't think, is really desirable).

Dispelling Ward used to exist and is kinda "fine", I think, but I'd probably make it consume components and probably last a bit shorter and appear on more lists.

Although I'm still contemplating this spell, I'm now also contemplating a homebrew change to Dispel Magic that adds one or more of these constraints:

the caster needs to "target" each effect (and thus must know about it)
effects are dispelled from weakest to strongest
if the ability check against a given effect fails, no other (stronger) effects are dispelled



But adding a new spell feels less intrusive than changing RAW, so I'm torn.

[meta-dnd]

Dispel magic is fairly balanced even if it should be called dispel due to only working on effects manifested by spells and not magic in general. It has two built-in counters via upcasting spells and counterspell.

I agree there are some counters. Note though that upcasting is not much protection (a 5th level Wizard with Int 16 and EnhanceAbility/Fox's Cunning has a 43.7% chance of dispelling a 9th level spell), and counterspell has a range of 60' while Dispel Magic has a range of 120'.


Note that it limited to one creature, object, or effect. So if a creature had say magic armor and magic weapon active they would have to pick which one to dispel.

If your interpretation were correct, I would have less objection to Dispel Magic as written. Unfortunately, RAW if you cast Dispel Magic (at level L) on a creature, every single spell currently affecting that creature has a (good) chance of being dispelled. Every spell of level <= L is automatically dispelled. And your chances of dispelling higher-level spells is (to my way of thinking) inordinately high (there is just no way that a 5th level Int 16 Wizard should be able to easily arrange to have a 43.75% chance of dispelling a 9th level spell, and to have a 25% chance by default).

[Eldariel]

But adding a new spell feels less intrusive than changing RAW, so I'm torn.

Meh. If RAW doesn't suit your needs or you don't like it, just throw it to the trashcan. It has no value beyond being a common ground for random people online. Everyone has their houserules anyways. I for example run many ****ty spells totally non-RAW. For example, I kinda mimicked AD&D Stoneskin since I just prefer the spell and I like how it interacts with hordes and iterative attacks, I replaced Simulacrum with its 3e version, and I stole DR from 3e since the 5e Resistance is just boring. And I stole a whole bunch of spells including metabreath spells and such from 3e. None of my players have complained: on the contrary, they're having fun with and against all the new toys.

This is actually an attitude I see a lot with 5e and one I don't really understand: why be afraid of changing the game? It's not like you can make balance much worse than it already is so that's a poor reason. If you don't like something and have something you consider more interesting, just give it a whirl. We'll all end up better off in the best case (I love stealing cool fixes from others and I bet I'm not the only one) and in the worst case, you can just roll back the changes.

[LudicSavant]

I find the Dispel Magic spell somewhat overpowered. If it only dispelled one spell on the target per casting (or at least stopped as soon as any ability check failed), it would feel more tenable, but being able to dispel every spell (if the individual ability checks succeed) seems excessive.

There's a lot of ways you can increase your resistance to dispels in the system already. I suggest exploring these more fully before homebrewing a solution.

For example, if the target is inside a Globe of Invulnerability, you can't dispel anything on them (you'd have to dispel the Globe first, just like your Dispel Ward).

For another, let's say you're using a Dispel Magic against a higher level spell. There's a chance of failure there, and that chance of failure can be augmented by things like Cutting Words.

There's also the fact the Dispel Magic can be Counterspelled.

Some spells, like Wall of Force, are simply entirely immune to being dispelled.

Just for a few of the ways.

Spellcasters already have a ton of tools for countering your counter to their counter to your counter (and so on). It's just a matter of knowing what the play is.

[meta-dnd]

I'm opposed to it. It prevents counterplay in favor of the aggressor. That is, it's helping those who shouldn't be helped. You want things to go back-and forth. Player 1 takes the lead, Player 2 plays a counter and now Player 2 is in the lead. Stacking odds into a one-trick pony makes things less interesting and diverse.

I'm definitely in favor of allowing both aggressors and defenders a way to navigate around the opponents tactics. In fact, that is why I'm exploring Dispelling Ward ... it feels like the aggressor has an advantage here that the defender has no moves against. I am not understanding why defenders shouldn't be helped. Nor am I understanding how this makes one-trick ponies. Can you clarify?


Dispel Magic already has a hard time dealing with things that have multiple instances (summons), it's not as efficient as Counterspell, and the only thing it's good for is removing the worst Concentration spells and the very-inconsistent permanent magical effect that can be dispelled.

Counterspell only works against a spell being cast in this moment, requires that you still have your reaction, and requires you to decide whether the spell being countered is worth spending a Counterspell on. Dispel Magic works on every single spell currently in effect on the target (if target is a creature) regardless of whether the spells were cast last round or a century ago (see my example below). You and I have very different ideas about what "the only things it is good for" means.


So what if they can spam a check to get rid of your spell? I could spam an attack against you during Concentration and it'd have the same effect.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a player interacting with opponents (completely valid). I'm looking at it from the perspective of a 6yo stone-turned-YoungSilverDragon that has 2000 years of life ahead of it and is motivated to find ways to defend against a vulnerability most sentient creatures do not have.


If the strategy for a spell is "cast it 5 times and hope for good RNG", it's probably not overpowered. As-is, Dispel Ward comes off as one of those spells that badguys are supposed to use to ensure their plans go through without player intervention. And players have more fun when they can intervene.

I agree that if a spell needs to be cast 5 times, it probably isn't overpowered. But that isn't the case for Dispel Magic. Let's suppose that an PC/NPC has the following spells cast on them (ignoring the impracticality of these spells all being in effect at the same time, just for the purposes of illustration):

MageArmor (L1)
SeeInvisibility (L2)
Tongues (L3)
Stoneskin (L4)
Rary's Telepathic Bond (L5)
Contingency (L6)
Regenerate (L7)
Glibness (L8)
True Polymorph (L9)


It just seems overpowered to me that a 5th level Wizard with Int 16 and EnhanceAbility/Fox's Cunning has the following probabilities of dispelling each of the above spells with a single casting of Dispel magic: 100% (L1), 100% (L2), 100% (L3), 75% (L4), 69.75% (L5), 64% (L6), 57.75% (L7), 51% (L8), 43.75% (L9). With one more casting of Dispel Magic, these probabilities become: 100% (L1), 100% (L2), 100% (L3), 93.75% (L4), 90.5% (L5), 87% (L6), 82% (L7), 76% (L8), 68.4% (L9).

[LudicSavant]

It just seems overpowered to me that a 5th level Wizard with Int 16 and EnhanceAbility/Fox's Cunning has the following probabilities of dispelling each of the above spells [I]with a single casting of Dispel magic[I]: 100% (L1), 100% (L2), 100% (L3), 75% (L4), 69.75% (L5), 64% (L6), 57.75% (L7), 51% (L8), 43.75% (L9). With one more casting of Dispel Magic, these probabilities become: 100% (L1), 100% (L2), 100% (L3), 93.75% (L4), 90.5% (L5), 87% (L6), 82% (L7), 76% (L8), 68.4% (L9).

Those probabilities can drop if the enemy caster is taking any countermeasures against having their stuff dispelled.

That said, there's already a "you must dispel this first before you can dispel anything else inside it" effect in the game. It's Globe of Invulnerability.

Also, the 5th level Wizard is making a big investment here... that Dispel is her highest level slot, and she had to pre-buff with a 2nd-highest-level slot specifically to boost the dispel. And it doesn't eliminate the entire effect of the spell, only the remaining duration of the spell.

I would advise being very careful about adding anything that makes caster players harder to disrupt.

[meta-dnd]

As far as contributing to the conversation goes, upcasting a spell inherently makes it harder to dispel (as others have mentioned), so maybe a spell that imposes disadvantage on ability checks made to dispel a magical effect would work?

If upcasting a spell had a larger impact on the probability of dispelling it, I'd be less concerned about DispelMagic (as it stands, it seems crazy to me that a 5th level caster has a base 25% chance of dispelling a 9th level spell, with lots of options for increasing that probability). An enthusiastic yes to a spell that imposes disadvantage on ability checks to dispel the effect ... I quite like this idea.


Or maybe a spell that makes the magical effect count as 3 spell levels higher would work?
This way a dispelled needs a higher level spell slot for dispel magic to automatically succeed/it makes the dispel DC 3 points higher.

This is probably overpowered, since it would mean that 7th-9th level spells could not be dispelled. I don't want to preclude the attacker having some counter to the defenders counter ... I just want to give the defender a counter in the first place.

EDIT: Oh, in rereading this, I'm realizing I was (for some reason) reading your comment as implying it would need a higher level spell (when that isn't what you were saying). Yeah, a spell that increases the DC on the dispel is indeed another way we could go here.


Upcasting either of these theoretical spells would increase the duration of the effect, much like the spell in the original post.

I like it.

[LudicSavant]

An enthusiastic yes to a spell that imposes disadvantage on ability checks to dispel the effect ... I quite like this idea. You can apply Disadvantage to someone's Dispel checks with as little as a level 1 Hex spell.

[stoutstien]

I agree there are some counters. Note though that upcasting is not much protection (a 5th level Wizard with Int 16 and EnhanceAbility/Fox's Cunning has a 43.7% chance of dispelling a 9th level spell), and counterspell has a range of 60' while Dispel Magic has a range of 120'.



If your interpretation were correct, I would have less objection to Dispel Magic as written. Unfortunately, RAW if you cast Dispel Magic (at level L) on a creature, every single spell currently affecting that creature has a (good) chance of being dispelled. Every spell of level <= L is automatically dispelled. And your chances of dispelling higher-level spells is (to my way of thinking) inordinately high (there is just no way that a 5th level Wizard should be able to easily arrange to have a 43.75% chance of dispelling a 9th level spell, and to have a 25% chance by default).

If the wizard is maintaining concentration on EA and is Willing to burn multiple slot for Dispel I would count that as a win for team monster.

If you want a dispel nuker the artificer can apply FoG on top of EA which can be put in the SSI.

Magic weapon targets a weapon not the wielder. They would have to pick one or the other. In order for DM to work the spell effect must effect the target directly. So it would work on bless or shield by targeting a creature but would do nothing for healing spirit or animate object unless they target that effect.
I lot of the area CC effects fall under this clause as well so while it's strong it's not the ultimate mage slaying weapon.

[meta-dnd]

So you're saying commoners are less afraid for their life than polymorphed creatures thanks to some abstract number (CR) that doesn't mean anything to them, and because they think they can survive being stabbed, while the polymorphed creature doesn't believe the dispel can fail? And that's accounting for the amount of creatures that go around attacking people compared to the amount of spellcasters that go around casting Dispel Magic on everyone they meet, in case it's TP'd rock?

We may be talking past one another here. Different people can come to different (reasonable) conclusions about the same inputs. If you don't feel there is a difference in mortality between a commoner and a real SilverDragon, then you have every right to play that in your worlds. In my worlds, a SilverDragon *knows* that a single sword strike will not kill it, and a commoner *knows* that a single sword stroke has a very good chance of killing it.

The argument about how unlikely it is that a person will cast Dispel Magic in case an opponent is a TPed rock doesn't hold up when you put yourself in the shoes of that TPed rock (turned SilverDragon). You have 2000 years of possible life ahead of you. The question isn't how likely it is that any given opponent casts Dispel Magic on you (relatively low probability), but how likely it is that at least one opponent, over that 2000 years, does so (a probability approach 100% the longer one lives). Especially given that, RAW, the caster does not need to know the opponent is a TPed rock (they are far more likely to be casting Dispel Magic to remove buffs the dragon has in place). One simple addition to Dispel Magic would make it more tenable (IMO): the caster needs to target each effect they want to dispel (although this does open up questions about what it means to target an effect ... is knowledge of the effect's existence sufficient, or do they need to "see" it with Detect Magic, etc).



Why not? A single blow is all it takes. Hit points are an abstraction. A CR 12 archmage doesn't just stand there when someone draws a dagger on him, assured with the knowledge that statistically, he can keep being stabbed constantly for about 2 minutes before he's in danger.

This is a discussion for another time. The HP mechanic is a "necessary evil" that breaks realism and immersion in a variety of ways. In my worlds, I try to address this issue (but again, that is a discussion for another time).


Does it? Is there a lot of sorcerers that go around repeatedly casting Dispel Magic on (seemingly) random dragons in your games, in case one of them turns out to be True Polymorphed rock? For that matter, are all TP'd creature automatically aware of the vulnerability?

See my comments above (it isn't about individual probability, but aggregate probability). And I would contend that any creature with an intelligence of 12+ would quite quickly work this out on their own. But it is entirely understandable if you want to rule differently on that question.


It doesn't. Fiends (and co.) don't have lower CR just because they can be Banished with a single spell either.

I get your point here. But there is a difference between banishment and obliteration, especially for the one being banished/obliterated.


That's not how CR works.

Different people can interpret the guidelines of the source material differently, so your reading of DMG-277 may differ from my own.



Step 9. Damage Vulnerabilities, Resistances, And Immunities

...

Monsters don't normally have vulnerability to more than one or two types of damage. Vulnerabilities don't significantly affect a monster's challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent, especially bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. For such a strange monster, reduce its effective hit points by half. Or even better, eliminate the vulnerabilities and give the brittle monster fewer hit points.


Personally, I feel that there being a good chance that a single casting of Dispel Magic can wipe out one's existence to be at least as much of a weakness as having vulnerability to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage. A YoungSilverDragon has, on average, 168hp. Using the CR-computing process enumerated on DMG-274+, and assuming the Dispel Magic vulnerability is represented by a halving of (effective) HP, the new CR of this TPed YoungSilverDragon is CR7.

Again, you can of course come to a different conclusion here, but I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable.

[meta-dnd]

Meh. If RAW doesn't suit your needs or you don't like it, just throw it to the trashcan. It has no value beyond being a common ground for random people online. Everyone has their houserules anyways. I for example run many ****ty spells totally non-RAW. For example, I kinda mimicked AD&D Stoneskin since I just prefer the spell and I like how it interacts with hordes and iterative attacks, I replaced Simulacrum with its 3e version, and I stole DR from 3e since the 5e Resistance is just boring. And I stole a whole bunch of spells including metabreath spells and such from 3e. None of my players have complained: on the contrary, they're having fun with and against all the new toys.

I totally relate to your sentiment here (and I too miss DR, MR, the Draconomicon, and various other things from 3.5). Absolutely nothing wrong with creating new material, and I appreciate you pointed out that I may be fixating too much on RAW.




This is actually an attitude I see a lot with 5e and one I don't really understand: why be afraid of changing the game? It's not like you can make balance much worse than it already is so that's a poor reason. If you don't like something and have something you consider more interesting, just give it a whirl. We'll all end up better off in the best case (I love stealing cool fixes from others and I bet I'm not the only one) and in the worst case, you can just roll back the changes.

I think my fixation with RAW (or, more accurately, RAI) comes from the belief that the 5e designers have spent some serious time attempting to provide real game balance, and have thought through all sorts of ramifications/impacts that I'm not aware of. I'm definitely an advocate of RAF (rules-as-fun) being more important than RAI being more important than RAW, but I do like to put some checks-and-balances on my RAF rulings.

You appear to feel that 5e isn't well balanced ... that is not my experience (but maybe we are talking about different things). My impression that 5e *is* well balanced leads me to a concern about how introducing new ideas can lead to unintended problems. Or, more accurately, I enjoy exploring how newly introduced rules/ideas can have unintended consequences on the game.

[JackPhoenix]

We may be talking past one another here. Different people can come to different (reasonable) conclusions about the same inputs. If you don't feel there is a difference in mortality between a commoner and a real SilverDragon, then you have every right to play that in your worlds. In my worlds, a SilverDragon *knows* that a single sword strike will not kill it, and a commoner *knows* that a single sword stroke has a very good chance of killing it.

I guess the dragon will be surprised when he encounters someone who *can* kill it with a single sword strike (there are ways to easily do over 168 damage with a single attack, and there's Vorpal sword and other items).


The argument about how unlikely it is that a person will cast Dispel Magic in case an opponent is a TPed rock doesn't hold up when you put yourself in the shoes of that TPed rock (turned SilverDragon). You have 2000 years of possible life ahead of you. The question isn't how likely it is that any given opponent casts Dispel Magic on you (relatively low probability), but how likely it is that at least one opponent, over that 2000 years, does so (a probability approach 100% the longer one lives). Especially given that, RAW, the caster does not need to know the opponent is a TPed rock (they are far more likely to be casting Dispel Magic to remove buffs the dragon has in place).

The simple solution is to not get in a situation where you'd face someone who would have a reason to cast dispel on you. Or use one of the multiple existing options that prevents dispel.


IOne simple addition to Dispel Magic would make it more tenable (IMO): the caster needs to target each effect they want to dispel (although this does open up questions about what it means to target an effect ... is knowledge of the effect's existence sufficient, or do they need to "see" it with Detect Magic, etc).

And that addition is also a bad idea. A 2nd level spell (Nystul's Magic Aura) would be sufficient to stop any attempt at dispelling.


I get your point here. But there is a difference between banishment and obliteration, especially for the one being banished/obliterated.

Not in the context of 5e encounter building. The possibility of meeting the banished demon in the future doesn't matter any more than the possiblity anyone will be resurrected, what matters is that you've deal with it for now.


Different people can interpret the guidelines of the source material differently, so your reading of DMG-277 may differ from my own.

Personally, I feel that there being a good chance that a single casting of Dispel Magic can wipe out one's existence to be at least as much of a weakness as having vulnerability to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage. A YoungSilverDragon has, on average, 168hp. Using the CR-computing process enumerated on DMG-274+, and assuming the Dispel Magic vulnerability is represented by a halving of (effective) HP, the new CR of this TPed YoungSilverDragon is CR7.

Again, you can of course come to a different conclusion here, but I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable.

Well, of course my reading is different from your own, if you add things that aren't there. Vulnerability to a specific spell is not the same as vulnerability to extremely common damage type.

[MaxWilson]

I think I'm getting too hung-up on the fact that a CR9 creature should not be so easy to get rid of. There is of course nothing wrong with coming to the conclusion that object-to-creature True Polymorph produces glass tanks, and maybe that is the right direction for me to go. I'm just getting too wrapped up in the imagined experience of those entities. It raises all sorts of fascinating philosophical/ethical questions on the part of a caster creating such creatures. Is it better to have lived and been Dispelled, or to have never lived at all?

On questions such a creature might ask itself:

And then what if after Dispel, that original boulder True Polymorphed back into a Young Silver Dragon by a friend? Is it the same dragon? Or did one dragon die and a new one take its place?

Ship of Theseus anyone?

All of this is a bit of a red herring though. The ones who are actually likely to research Spell Lock or some equivalent, if such a thing is possible, aren't the Polymorphed subjects. It's the archmage who loves True Polymorph in the first place. Anti-Dispel protection would be great for Teleport Block (a.k.a. Mordenainen's Private Sanctum), Planar Binding, Magic Jar, and yes, True Polymorph. But being motivated to want a thing does not guarantee that the thing is possible. It's a DM judgment call, not an in-character decision.


I think my fixation with RAW (or, more accurately, RAI) comes from the belief that the 5e designers have spent some serious time attempting to provide real game balance, and have thought through all sorts of ramifications/impacts that I'm not aware of.

Hahahahahahaha!

Hoo, haha. [deep breath] I'm okay now. Heh.

I wish. But no. There's no secret master plan--5E was balanced via playtesting, which means its balance is not smarter than the average playtester.

[JackPhoenix]

I wish. But no. There's no secret master plan--5E was balanced via playtesting, which means its balance is not smarter than the average playtester.

Not to mention lot of the suggestions from the playtesters was ignored anyway. And there's been little playtesting done after the core releases.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe. It's not like we can read the developer's mind to see why they've designed it like they did. But as it is, Dispel Magic is balanced. +1

Dispel magic already has simple counterplay- counterspell. +1

I'm opposed to it. It prevents counterplay in favor of the aggressor. +1

A commoner with 4 HP has almost 0 chance of surviving a Fireball, which is the same level as Dispel Magic, does every commoner live in constant fear that someone will throw them a Fireball? Actually, in my brother's world, the reputation of our party seems to aid and abet the growth of that fear given how often our Wizard fireballs first and asks questions later. (As a fellow PC I can only say that I try to stop that when I see it coming ...)

You can apply Disadvantage to someone's Dispel checks with as little as a level 1 Hex spell. +2

And then what if after Dispel, that original boulder True Polymorphed back into a Young Silver Dragon by a friend? Is it the same dragon? Or did one dragon die and a new one take its place? DM call.


There's no secret master plan--5E was balanced via playtesting, which means its balance is not smarter than the average playtester. Well, let's give the team a little more credit, but there are some holes in that block fo cheese ...

[LudicSavant]

+1
+1
+1
Actually, in my brother's world, the reputation of our party seems to aid and abet the growth of that fear given how often our Wizard fireballs first and asks questions later. (As a fellow PC I can only say that I try to stop that when I see it coming ...)
+2
DM call.

Well, let's give the team a little more credit, but there are some holes in that block fo cheese ...

Whoa. I am honored to receive the rare +2! :smallredface:

[meta-dnd]

I must say, it is quite irritating when someone demonstrates that they think it's okay to belittle another person just because they didn't get something 100% correct.


You are absolutely right. One of my personal flaws is being triggered when someone tells me something I already know (which is ridiculous ... how can anyone else know what I do and do not know?) and when someone asserts something as true when it isn't true (also ridiculous ... we all make mistakes). And just because I get triggered by something does not mean I should dump the resulting irritation onto other people, as I did here. I could obviously have been more constructive in my response.


It takes a 9th-level Dispel to undo a 9th-level True Polymorph. Most casters only get 1 9th level slot per day. That's a pretty specific attack to ward against.

A sincere public apology to you J-H, for my previous response to your comment. Let me try again.

I would really prefer if it required 9th level Dispel to undo a 9th level spell effect. Sadly, that is not how things work, RAW. Using a 9th level Dispel Magic will indeed automatically dispel a 9th level spell effect. But even a 3rd level Dispel Magic has a change of dispelling a 9th level spell effect. This fact is the crux of why I feel Dispel Magic is overpowered.

[meta-dnd]

On questions such a creature might ask itself:

And then what if after Dispel, that original boulder True Polymorphed back into a Young Silver Dragon by a friend? Is it the same dragon? Or did one dragon die and a new one take its place?

Ship of Theseus anyone?


Exactly! This question (and many others) were what I was wanting to explore in Request For Collaboration: Metaphysics of True Polymorph (and beyond). As an aside, I'm amused by the fact that the subject of that thread was sufficiently interesting to inspire almost 2k views, but the content of the post was sufficiently uninteresting as to inspire exactly zero responses ;-). Which is understandable ... taking time out of one's life to discuss/brainstorm/create internally consistent philosophical metaphysics underpinning a made-up RPG is obviously not of interest to most people. But since there is at least one person interested in such things (me), I thought there might be a chance others were interested too.

The "what happens if a TPed stone is returned to stone and then TPed again (is it the same creature?)" is definitely one I'm contemplating, and those contemplations are leading me toward the need for a theory of "souls" and "animating spirits" that can also be used to explain sentient magic items, constructs, unseen servants ability to understand commands, etc. etc.

And yes to the philosophical questions underlying the Ship of Theseus ... exactly the kind of stuff I love contemplating.



All of this is a bit of a red herring though. The ones who are actually likely to research Spell Lock or some equivalent, if such a thing is possible, aren't the Polymorphed subjects. It's the archmage who loves True Polymorph in the first place. Anti-Dispel protection would be great for Teleport Block (a.k.a. Mordenainen's Private Sanctum), Planar Binding, Magic Jar, and yes, True Polymorph. But being motivated to want a thing does not guarantee that the thing is possible. It's a DM judgment call, not an in-character decision.


I'm pretty focused on the benefits to the creatures themselves, but certainly this has benefits to spell-casters who can benefit from True Polymorph, etc.

Your comment raises another question (about Mordenainen's Private Sanctum, so maybe I shouldn't be posing it here, but I'm going to anyways ;-). Although it is obviously dispel-able in its non-permanent form, I'm not as clear that (RAW) it is dispel-able in its permanent form (although I agree with you that it *should* be, and probably is RAI). The spell description itself does not indicate "until dispelled", unlike spells like Major Image (MM) and Druid Grove (XGTE) which explicitly state "until dispelled". According to the SRD (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf) the True Polymorph spell is slightly different than the printed book ("the transformation becomes permanent" is changed to "lasts until it is dispelled", although this change is not mentioned in the 2020 PHB Errata (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf)).

The point being, there are various spells that explicitly state "until dispelled" or "permanent until dispelled". That being the case, if a spell says "permanent", does that mean it is no longer dispel-able, RAW? I suspect it just needs some errata to update it similar to True Polymorph.



I wish. But no. There's no secret master plan--5E was balanced via playtesting, which means its balance is not smarter than the average playtester.

Oh, there was much more thought put into game balance by the designers than just "throwing random ideas against playtesters". And given the complexity involved in trying to provide balance between very diverse ideas (without using the horrible and failed 4e approach), I think the designers did a great job (and yes, there is always room for improvement).

But I do not need you to share my thoughts on this ... we can agree to disagree.