SHOULD Dispel Magic remove non-spell magic?

[Segev]

It is called "dispel magic" after all, not "dismiss spell." This is inspired by the discussion in the Petrification thread, but I felt it would be an off-topic tangent there.

Should dispel magic be able to take down a non-spell magical effect created by a monster? A Succubus's charm, or a bassilisk's petrification (at least before it fully sets in), or an ice devil's wall of ice that isn't a wall of ice spell?

It seemed to me that maybe it should. Otherwise, it is only for PvP, given how many obviously spell-like effects are written up as non-spell abilities of various monsters.

[Keltest]

I think it should not. There's already too much "you need a wizard to meaningfully stop a wizard" in this game.

[stoutstien]

Yes. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

[JonBeowulf]

I'm gonna go with "sometimes". I'd like it to be able to affect magical effects but it should have a limiting factor such as a not-too-complicated formula to balance spell slot used vs creature HD or CR or some such.

Or maybe just create a higher level version of the spell.

[kazaryu]

I think it should not. There's already too much "you need a wizard to meaningfully stop a wizard" in this game.

dispel magic is a universal spell. unlike counterspell its on literally every caster classes spell list except the ranger...and not all non-spell magic comes from wizards. not saying your conclusion is wrong, but this is clearly not a case of wizards v wizards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Either

a) define "magic" in a way that is stable and easy to use (the SA thing still has gaps) and then rewrite "dispel magic" in a way that works for things that don't have spell levels to reference.

b) rename "dispel magic" (and antimagic field, IMO) to something else.

Or both. I've always taken "dispel magic" (the name) as somewhat of an empty boast by wizards who think that (a) they're masters of magic, writ large, and (b) they can only do spells, so (c) all magic must be spells. Not realizing that they're only the tiniest fraction of all the wondrous variety of magic out there.

[stoutstien]

Either

a) define "magic" in a way that is stable and easy to use (the SA thing still has gaps) and then rewrite "dispel magic" in a way that works for things that don't have spell levels to reference.

b) rename "dispel magic" (and antimagic field, IMO) to something else.

Or both. I've always taken "dispel magic" (the name) as somewhat of an empty boast by wizards who think that (a) they're masters of magic, writ large, and (b) they can only do spells, so (c) all magic must be spells. Not realizing that they're only the tiniest fraction of all the wondrous variety of magic out there.
I've always thought that each archetype should have one area of magic they can dispel rather than a blanket option. Clerics and curses for example.

[Amnestic]

Do spellcasters (except Rangers, apparently) really need another way to have all the cool interactions? I'm of the opinion that no. Dispel Magic already has a place, it already does plenty.

If you do want to allow this, you need to start answering some questions including, but not limited to:
What's the spell slot level for eg. a succubus charm? Or a Solar's hovering sword? Do you need to assign one for every single magical monster ability? Or are they all treated as being 3rd level or lower?

If I can dispel a succubus charm, can I Dispel a magic item, permanently de-powering it? If not, why not? Again, do they have a spell slot level to do so? Do players want to open that crate of purple worms to be used against them?

If I can dispel magic on a succubus charm, can I counterspell a Dragon's Breath? What spell slot level is that? If not, why not? If Counterspell doesn't work, can I instead Ready a Dispel Magic to do it? If not, why not?

[KorvinStarmast]

If I can dispel a succubus charm, can I Dispel a magic item, permanently de-powering it? If not, why not? Again, do they have a spell slot level to do so? Do players want to open that crate of purple worms to be used against them?

If I can dispel magic on a succubus charm, can I counterspell a Dragon's Breath? What spell slot level is that? If not, why not? If Counterspell doesn't work, can I instead Ready a Dispel Magic to do it? If not, why not? It takes AMF to suppress a magic item, so dispel magic on a magic item should not work.

As to dragon breath: don't need to nerf dragons any further.

[Amnestic]

Other features you now have to contend with are player class features that are sort of or definitely magical: Rage, monk stuff (stunning strike?), channel divinity, artificer infusions, wild shape, etc.


It takes AMF to suppress a magic item, so dispel magic on a magic item should not work.

Anti-Magic Field suppresses spells, it explicitly does not end them and they come back if you move away. Dispel Magic ends magical effects. That's what their text says. If DM can end one magical effect (succubus charm) then why can't it end another (magic weapon - not to be confused with the spell Magic Weapon, of course).



As to dragon breath: don't need to nerf dragons any further.

That's a balance answer, not a world narrative answer. If I'm a player and I get told "dispel magic can dispel non-spell magic effects" then what do you tell me when I try it against a dragon? 'Doesn't work'? Why not? It worked against this other non-spell magical effect I used it on last session. It makes the dragon "less good"? So you're not rewarding me for using my class features? Feels like you're changing the rules on me out of nowhere.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anti-Magic Field suppresses spells, it explicitly does not end them and they come back if you move away.
Also suppresses magic items up to but not including legenary or artifacts. (Will double check on legendary when I can, might only be artifacts that it won't suppress) Checked.

Dispel Magic ends magical effects. That's what their text says. If DM can end one magical effect (succubus charm) then why can't it end another (magic weapon - not to be confused with the spell Magic Weapon, of course).
In part because magic weapons are permanent magical effects, unlike spells (well, the vast majority of spells).


That's a balance answer, not a world narrative answer. If I'm a player and I get told "dispel magic can dispel non-spell magic effects" then what do you tell me when I try it against a dragon? 'Doesn't work'? Why not? It worked against this other non-spell magical effect I used it on last session. It makes the dragon "less good"? So you're not rewarding me for using my class features? Feels like you're changing the rules on me out of nowhere. Are you there to play or argue?

[Keltest]

Are you there to play or argue?

I mean, if the rules are unclear and I have to guess how they work, that dramatically hurts my ability to play the game.

[Segev]

I think it should not. There's already too much "you need a wizard to meaningfully stop a wizard" in this game.I'm not sure how this tracks. If you can meaningfully stop a wizard without dispel magic, then why would dispel magic being able to meaningfully stop them change that you could do so without it? IF you already cannot meaningfully stop a wizard even with the existing dispel magic, why would expanding it make you less able to?

I'm not really following your reasoning here, and I hope my statement above demonstrates where my brain is going with it and thus hopefully how I am missing your point so you can clarify/correct me.


Do spellcasters (except Rangers, apparently) really need another way to have all the cool interactions? I'm of the opinion that no. Dispel Magic already has a place, it already does plenty.

Does it, though? If you're not facing down NPCs built as PCs, the number of times spells come up as something your party didn't cast is rather low. And with the new direction Monsters of the Multiverse is taking things, fewer and fewer non-PC creatures will have spells at all, instead having things that are their own stand-alone magical effects.

[Zevox]

Yes. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
Concurred. I already play it like this, in fact.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, if the rules are unclear and I have to guess how they work, that dramatically hurts my ability to play the game. If the rules are unclear, throwing a tantrum isn't the answer.

The SA is pretty clear about dragon breath: it is a natural part of a dragon being a dragon, it is neither a magical effect nor a spell.
For that matter, so too is a dragon's fear effect at adult and ancient level, its ability to fly, its tail attack, its bite and claw attacks, it's legendary actions, change shape ability for selected metallic dragons, (which is not the shapechange spell) and so on

When the variant of dragon, spell caster, is used those spells are certainly spells / magical effects.

Third level spells tend to be limited in scope. How hard is that to take into account?

[Amnestic]

In part because magic weapons are permanent magical effects, unlike spells (well, the vast majority of spells).

Right, but dispel magic does end permanent spells, just the same as it does non-permanent spells. So, again, why would it end [x] but not [y], in this hypothetical where Dispel Magic affects magic things that aren't spells?



Are you there to play or argue?

I'm there to play, and I need to understand what my character can do in order to do so. If it feels like you're changing the rules on the fly - specifically, apparently, so your pet monster is better ("dragon's don't need nerfing") - then that hurts my ability to play.



If the rules are unclear, throwing a tantrum isn't the answer.

The SA is pretty clear about dragon breath: it is a natural part of a dragon being a dragon, it is neither a magical effect nor a spell.
For that matter, so too is a dragon's fear effect at adult and ancient level, its ability to fly, its tail attack, its bite and claw attacks, it's legendary actions, and so on

When the variant of dragon, spell caster, is used, those spells are certainly spells / magical effects.

No one's throwing a tantrum - asking for why you're ruling something is a totally normal thing for a player to do when they're confused by a ruling.

The examples in the OP - succubus charm, for example - is also "natural magic", in the same way a dragon's breath is.




Third level spells tend to be limited in scope. How hard is that to take into account?

So we are in agreement then that dispel magic should be left as is.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is called "dispel magic" after all, not "dismiss spell." [/i] This is a narrow semantic argument, at best. The name of the spell that we use now carries over from the original spell published in 1974, as written by someone who wasn't an English major.
Sometimes, splitting semantic hairs offers no value. This is one such case.

I suggest that you write a letter to WotC and tell them that your semantic brilliance has led you to recommend that they rename it "negate spell", since you can't abide by the original term.
Who knows, they may agree with you and change its name to "negate spell" ... other spells have, over the years, been renamed.

Also, to address another of your points, it is not obviously only for PvP.
NPC spell casters can use it, and there are spells like bane or web which can be cast on the party that the PC spell caster can dispel.

So we are in agreement then that dispel magic should be left as is. That construction leads to The Rule of So - which ends this waste of my time now. The mods zapped me the last time I explained why that is, so don't bother asking.

[Atranen]

If it can't, they should create alternative spells to dispel other sorts of effects. "Remove Charms" and the like.

Imo they should do this for both dispel and counterspell, and split them into smaller, more situational options.

[Psyren]

It is called "dispel magic" after all, not "dismiss spell." This is inspired by the discussion in the Petrification thread, but I felt it would be an off-topic tangent there.

Should dispel magic be able to take down a non-spell magical effect created by a monster? A Succubus's charm, or a bassilisk's petrification (at least before it fully sets in), or an ice devil's wall of ice that isn't a wall of ice spell?

No - monsters like these should require tactical counterplay, not a one-size-fits-all off-switch.

I'm not opposed to a spell existing that can interfere with these sorts of non-spell magical effects - we can call it "Disjunction" or "AMF Burst" or something - but it shouldn't be as widely available as DM itself.


It seemed to me that maybe it should. Otherwise, it is only for PvP, given how many obviously spell-like effects are written up as non-spell abilities of various monsters.

The PvP judgement just isn't true. Not only do many monsters actually cast spells that are subject to DM, but actual spellcasters can easily be antagonists too.

[diplomancer]

Yes, but in a case-by-case basis, not a "cure-all magical problems", or the spell becomes too powerful. So, instead of, say, dismissing a magical Charm effect, there can be adventure text for a trap/hazard/obstacle that a dispel magic (DC X) can remove the hazard.

[DarknessEternal]

Yes, especially now that monsters aren't coming with actual spells, just nebulous magical abilities.

[Tanarii]

As long as the DM is happy assigning a spell level equivalent to the magical effect, don't see why not.

[Kane0]

It is called "dispel magic" after all, not "dismiss spell."

Should dispel magic be able to take down a non-spell magical effect created by a monster?

It seemed to me that maybe it should.

I agree, I think it should. Unless some other spell like Remove Curse, Calm Emotions, Restoration or Wish is a better fit for the effect in question

[RSP]

a) define "magic" in a way that is stable and easy to use (the SA thing still has gaps) and then rewrite "dispel magic" in a way that works for things that don't have spell levels to reference.


I’m a fan of this.

If the writers had been more intentional with how they worded things, I think they could have avoided a bunch of issues.

In the game fiction, I don’t see a reason why there shouldn’t be a way to dispel non-spell magical effects. They already have a bunch of spells that can dispel certain non-spell magical effects (like Greater Res), so the ability of spells to do so is already stated. I don’t see why Wizards or whomever, wouldn’t have developed this further.

It’s not like Wizards in the game world are unaware of non-spell magic: they’d want to be able to dismiss those effects too.

[tKUUNK]

If it can't, they should create alternative spells to dispel other sorts of effects. "Remove Charms" and the like.

Imo they should do this for both dispel and counterspell, and split them into smaller, more situational options.

I like this idea. There are already some abilities / spells along these lines (Remove Curse, Countercharm, etc). With room for more options to counter a wider variety of non-spell magic.

As others have noted, it would open a can of worms w/ respect to what is & isn't affected, and why. I mean heck, just look at the differences of (well-reasoned) opinion over on the Petrification thread....and that's just one case of many!

Yet it can be done. In 3e, many monster abilities and class features had either a "supernatural" or "magical" tag. IIRC, Supernatural abilities still worked within Antimagic and couldn't be dispelled....while Magical abilities were affected by those things. Yes it was one more thing to track (3e was an accountant's RPG dream come true), but it largely solves the question we're talking about here.

[NontheistCleric]

Supernatural abilities in 3.0 and 3.5 actually did shut off in antimagic fields. You're thinking of Extraordinary abilities.

[False God]

No. Mainly because that'd make it really powerful. Universal-purpose spells are nice, but splitting things up keeps things interesting sometimes.

IMO:
Wizards(arcane-types) would get Counterspell. It does what it says on the tin. For countering active magic use.
Clerics(divine-types) would get Remove Curse. Mainly intended to remove long-standing magical effects on people.
Druids(primal-types) would get Disenchant. Mainly intended to remove magic from objects.

Want to counter spells actively being cast? Get a Wizard or a Sorcerer or somesuch.
Want to remove curses? Go find a cleric-type.
Want to de-power magical objects? Get a Druid.

While there are solid arguments that Wizards should be able to remove the sorts of effects they place on people (buffs, debuffs, etc...), the point here in my mind is to create opportunity cost and require a party to diversify and also to add quest hooks by providing clear paths to resolution. Your friend got Petrified but you don't have a Cleric? Go get a cleric. Evil artifact needs to be disposed of? Get a Druid. Actively engaged with angry spellcasters? Get a Wizard.

And of course there might be a little overlap, maybe a Cleric of Magic gets Counterspell, but can't learn Remove Curse(Requires Healing/Restoration/blahblahblah domain) or maybe a Druid of Spirits gets Remove Curse, but not Disenchant. And other classes might get other unique combos, but never more than one.

------
Otherwise of course you just make one big umbrella spell that does everything that any spellcaster can get their hands on. Sure, thats easier to implement, but IMO, boring.

[tKUUNK]

Supernatural abilities in 3.0 and 3.5 actually did shut off in antimagic fields. You're thinking of Extraordinary abilities.

oh yeah! nice, thanks, that was it!

[Quietus]

Ignoring the debate on whether it's a good idea, and just looking at how to implement it...

I'd use something like implementing the new edition's "magic action". If something is generated via a magic action, then it can be broken via Dispel Magic.

If it's from a magic item, have a scaling DC based on the rarity of the item (Start at 10 for common, and go up by +2 for each rarity? Uncommon 12, rare 14, very rare 16, legendary 18, artifacts cannot be affected?). If targeting the effect the item leaves behind, that effect ends. If it's the item itself, Dispel turns the item off for one round. Upcasting Dispel extends the duration one round for every spell level spent.

If it's from a creature, use the creature's CR as a "caster level", and treat all non-spell magical effects it generates as having a "spell level" equal to the highest spell a caster of the equivalent level could produce. Succubus is CR 4, so its charm is a level 2 equivalent effect. A vampire is level 13, so its charm/dominate is a level 7 equivalent effect.

[Kane0]

Ignoring the debate on whether it's a good idea, and just looking at how to implement it...

I'd use something like implementing the new edition's "magic action". If something is generated via a magic action, then it can be broken via Dispel Magic.

If it's from a magic item, have a scaling DC based on the rarity of the item (Start at 10 for common, and go up by +2 for each rarity? Uncommon 12, rare 14, very rare 16, legendary 18, artifacts cannot be affected?). If targeting the effect the item leaves behind, that effect ends. If it's the item itself, Dispel turns the item off for one round. Upcasting Dispel extends the duration one round for every spell level spent.

If it's from a creature, use the creature's CR as a "caster level", and treat all non-spell magical effects it generates as having a "spell level" equal to the highest spell a caster of the equivalent level could produce. Succubus is CR 4, so its charm is a level 2 equivalent effect. A vampire is level 13, so its charm/dominate is a level 7 equivalent effect.

I think the magic action would be a better way for counterspell to operate (thus it would only be fast enough to hit action spells/magic, not bonus action or reaction ones?)

Anyways, 1/2 creature CR (rounded up) sounds good. Item rarity is linked to strength only in the loosest possible manner, but I cant think of a better way off the top of my head.

[Quietus]

I think the magic action would be a better way for counterspell to operate (thus it would only be fast enough to hit action spells/magic, not bonus action or reaction ones?)

Anyways, 1/2 creature CR (rounded up) sounds good. Item rarity is linked to strength only in the loosest possible manner, but I cant think of a better way off the top of my head.

I think I recall that there were some bonus action "as a magic action" things in the new edition playtest material, but I do think there's a good chance that this is how Counterspell will start working, as countering Magic Actions. Changing Dispel to work the same way just brings things in line. But hey, what do I know? I'm no game designer!

I do recognize that item rarity is kind of an imperfect way to determine effective spell level/DC, since some rarities are all over the place. But it's a place to start from, and maybe we can cross our fingers and hope that some of those most out-there items get moved to a more appropriate rarity tier.

[Composer99]

If 5e was a bit more deliberate about keywords, you could have a magical keyword that tells you immediately and without having to read through its text whether something could be affected by dispel magic, if you wanted to expand that spell's use (or counterspell's for that matter).

That being stated, most abilities that you would expect would have this keyword do refer to being "magical" in some way in their text. For instance:

Charm. One humanoid the fiend can see within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be magically charmed for 1 day.

Invisibility. The imp magically turns invisible ...
(Emphasis on the word "magically" mine in both cases.)

This neatly takes care of semantic hair-splitting over what can or can't be affected by the expanded effect of dispel magic. - e.g. dragon breath weapons don't contain the word "magical/magically" and therefore can't be affected.

(If you as a DM quibble over a particular ability, you can then always just add or remove the reference to "magical/magically" in its text to suit your taste!)

[OldTrees1]

I prefer a gradient. Antimagic Field affects what is considered magic in universe, so it does not stop a dragon from flying or breathing. The "dispel in Dispel Magic only sounds related to spell, it is not related, so think of it as Dissipate Magic instead. Dispel Magic would affect most magic, but if you dissipate a symptom, the cause will cause the symptom again, so for many things Dispel Magic would be ineffective since it merely momentarily suppresses the magic (in contrast to the longer suppression from Antimagic Field). Finally Counterspell should only affect the spellcasting/pact magic feature.

So, yes, Dispel Magic should remove/suppress non-spell magic. Consider replacing it with "Dissipate Spell" if you want to limit it to only spell magic. Although I would suggest allowing a "Dissipate Spell" homebrewed alternative spell to still affect spell-like abilities (ex: an Illithid's Psionics).

[Quietus]

If 5e was a bit more deliberate about keywords, you could have a magical keyword that tells you immediately and without having to read through its text whether something could be affected by dispel magic, if you wanted to expand that spell's use (or counterspell's for that matter).

That being stated, most abilities that you would expect would have this keyword do refer to being "magical" in some way in their text. For instance:


(Emphasis on the word "magically" mine in both cases.)

This neatly takes care of semantic hair-splitting over what can or can't be affected by the expanded effect of dispel magic. - e.g. dragon breath weapons don't contain the word "magical/magically" and therefore can't be affected.

(If you as a DM quibble over a particular ability, you can then always just add or remove the reference to "magical/magically" in its text to suit your taste!)

Yup. For something keying off of magic actions, I'd go back to the way 3.5 did it, and have a tag on the ability indicating whether it's magic or not. So in the succubus or vampire's cases, you'd get :

Charm (magic) : <Ability text here>

[Composer99]

Yup. For something keying off of magic actions, I'd go back to the way 3.5 did it, and have a tag on the ability indicating whether it's magic or not. So in the succubus or vampire's cases, you'd get :

Charm (magic) : <Ability text here>

Also, thinking of Monsters of the Multiverse and perhaps upcoming 2024 MM monsters that have replaced spellcasting with spell-like actions, if you specifically want an action a monster can take to be dispellable or counterable as a spell without treating all magical effects as spells, you could slap on a "spell" tag, or add text to similar effect to any such action you want.

(This would be useful even if one doesn't agree with expanding the effects of dispel magic/counterspell, at least for those monsters in pre-MotM publications that used to have spellcasting or innate spellcasting as a trait and either don't as of MotM or might not in the 2024 MM.)

[RSP]

I do think there should be a “this is counterspell-able” or “this is dispel-able” in-game.

If they’re intentionally trying to create a “this may work or you may just be wasting a 3rd+ level slot” then it should definitely be more deliberate.

[Bardon]

I would say that if the DM uses the (IMHO idiotic) new "monster" sheets for enemy spellcasters where they're not actually casting spells just identical magical effects that are therefore not blockable by Counterspell, then most definitely yes.

But then again, I wouldn't play in a campaign where the DM used those rules, so for me at least a fairly moot point.

[Psyren]

I do think there should be a “this is counterspell-able” or “this is dispel-able” in-game.

If they’re intentionally trying to create a “this may work or you may just be wasting a 3rd+ level slot” then it should definitely be more deliberate.

They can already put "this can be dispelled" on any ability or monster they want though. See for example the Flying Sword (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16865-flying-sword) or Trenzia's Rejuvenation ability from Mad Mage. That's how abilities that are the exception rather than the rule should be handled.

[RSP]

They can already put "this can be dispelled" on any ability or monster they want though. See for example the Flying Sword (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16865-flying-sword) or Trenzia's Rejuvenation ability from Mad Mage. That's how abilities that are the exception rather than the rule should be handled.

Sure. I was more directing towards the idea that the Player (or in-game character) sees something that looks like it’s dispellable (or Counterspell-able), and so uses a slot: but even though it looks like a spell, it might not be and they might just be wasting resources.

If the idea (in part from the new monster stat blocks where they’re not actually casting spells, but appear to be doing so) is to make it a 50/50 maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, type situation, that needs to be more deliberately laid out from WotC in how they’re expecting those spells to be played.

[Pex]

There used to be spells like Break Enchantment and Greater Dispel Magic that did what you want. If you want Dispel Magic to do it give it a rider on what it can dispel based on the spell level slot used.

[Psyren]

Sure. I was more directing towards the idea that the Player (or in-game character) sees something that looks like it’s dispellable (or Counterspell-able), and so uses a slot: but even though it looks like a spell, it might not be and they might just be wasting resources.

If the idea (in part from the new monster stat blocks where they’re not actually casting spells, but appear to be doing so) is to make it a 50/50 maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, type situation, that needs to be more deliberately laid out from WotC in how they’re expecting those spells to be played.

I'd say if your DM never gives you any means of telling something is dispellable before burning a slot then they're probably being adversarial/a jerk. Just ask, and you'll figure out quickly what kind of game you're in.

[rel]

My latest house rule, still being finalised, removes dispel magic and the other utility spells from the spell lists and makes analogous powers available to all classes via an alternate progression system.

So yes, I think dispel magic should break any standing magical effect, but with the caveat that it shouldn't be a spell at all, but rather something more like feat; a power that any character can gain access to, regardless of class.

[RSP]

I'd say if your DM never gives you any means of telling something is dispellable before burning a slot then they're probably being adversarial/a jerk. Just ask, and you'll figure out quickly what kind of game you're in.

I’m not worried about my table, or any specific table: I’m talking about design.

I was saying if the spell(s) was meant by WotC to fool players into not knowing whether or not it’ll work, that should be stated in the spell.

For example, if the intent of the new monster stat blocks that aren’t spells, but appear to be spells, is, in part at least, meant to trick players into using resources; then the spell descriptions should now cover that possibility.

Something like that added to Counterspell, for example:

“Many creatures have magic abilities and magic attacks that appear to be casting a spell, but aren’t susceptible to countering. If you target one of these with Counterspell, the spell slot is used and the spell has no effect.”

I’m of the opinion this isn’t meant to be a trick, but I’m suggesting if WotC does want it that way, they should be upfront about it being intentional in their design.

[Chronos]

I think we're all in agreement that it's bad adversarial design if the players can't know whether a monster ability is dispellable unless they waste a spell slot on it, and that this is one of the potential pitfalls of the new "the monster uses this magic thing that isn't a spell" design.

[Psyren]

I’m not worried about my table, or any specific table: I’m talking about design.

So was I; that was a generic "you."


I was saying if the spell(s) was meant by WotC to fool players into not knowing whether or not it’ll work, that should be stated in the spell.

For example, if the intent of the new monster stat blocks that aren’t spells, but appear to be spells, is, in part at least, meant to trick players into using resources; then the spell descriptions should now cover that possibility.

Something like that added to Counterspell, for example:

“Many creatures have magic abilities and magic attacks that appear to be casting a spell, but aren’t susceptible to countering. If you target one of these with Counterspell, the spell slot is used and the spell has no effect.”

I’m of the opinion this isn’t meant to be a trick, but I’m suggesting if WotC does want it that way, they should be upfront about it being intentional in their design.

Counterspell doesn't need any such thing. The current trigger for Counterspell is:

"1 Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

If the magic thing they're doing isn't casting a spell, you can't take the reaction as nothing allowed it to trigger - simple as that.

[Segev]

Counterspell doesn't need any such thing. The current trigger for Counterspell is:

"1 Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

If the magic thing they're doing isn't casting a spell, you can't take the reaction as nothing allowed it to trigger - simple as that.

Which is fine as long as monsters and NPCs cast spells, but when they use non-spell abilities, counterspell is, as you note, useless. And if only PCs are casting spells anymore, that makes the spell a trap option.

[Psyren]

Which is fine as long as monsters and NPCs cast spells, but when they use non-spell abilities, counterspell is, as you note, useless. And if only PCs are casting spells anymore, that makes the spell a trap option.

Recent monsters do still have spellcasting; Counterspell is still useful.

[Nagog]

Yes and no. Some things should, others shouldn't. Curses are already laughably easy to solve, so making them a narrative device is basically impossible. Making any magical effect on a character cost a 3rd level spell slot (and perhaps a bit of investment into the right stat) to solve feels... too easy.

By the same token, there are a lot of magical effects that are low tier and don't have long-term narrative potential that should be able to be Dispelled.

[Keltest]

Recent monsters do still have spellcasting; Counterspell is still useful.

Which ones? Because Im pretty sure there's been a deliberate effort to remove spellcasting as a feature from NPC stat blocks, replacing it with generic brand non-spellcasting abilities that just look similar.

[stoutstien]

Which ones? Because Im pretty sure there's been a deliberate effort to remove spellcasting as a feature from NPC stat blocks, replacing it with generic brand non-spellcasting abilities that just look similar.

Most still so. The issue is it's min n matches so you could have them cast a spell then make a nonspell <spell> attack that promotes using thing like CS as a filter to figure out what's what
.

[Chronos]

Remove Curse does exist, but so do curses that say things like "can only be removed by direct intervention of a deity", or the like. Ordinary curses are easy to fix, but not all curses are ordinary.

[Psyren]

Which ones? Because Im pretty sure there's been a deliberate effort to remove spellcasting as a feature from NPC stat blocks, replacing it with generic brand non-spellcasting abilities that just look similar.

No, they have both. Check MPMM vs. their Volo or MToF counterparts.

For example, Necromancer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17339-necromancer) (Volo) vs. Necromancer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2560883-necromancer-wizard) (MPMM). The former's offense almost entirely comes from spells apart from Withering Touch. The latter gets the Arcane Burst ability but still has nastier stuff like Circle of Death or Bestow Curse that you can (and might want to) counterspell.

[kazaryu]

Remove Curse does exist, but so do curses that say things like "can only be removed by direct intervention of a deity", or the like. Ordinary curses are easy to fix, but not all curses are ordinary.

and generally speaking the curses that can be removed via remove curse aren't all that interesting because they can be so easily removed....thus defeating the story purpose of a curse anyway.

[Segev]

No, they have both. Check MPMM vs. their Volo or MToF counterparts.

For example, Necromancer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17339-necromancer) (Volo) vs. Necromancer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2560883-necromancer-wizard) (MPMM). The former's offense almost entirely comes from spells apart from Withering Touch. The latter gets the Arcane Burst ability but still has nastier stuff like Circle of Death or Bestow Curse that you can (and might want to) counterspell.

WHich makes it more of a trap to cast counterspell against the MPMM necromancer, because the things he's using that look like spells might not be spells.

[Zanos]

If the only difference between a monster ability and a spell is that the monster ability happens to be in a monster statblock, I see no reason why dispel magic shouldn't work on it. As others have said it's "dispel magic" not "unweave spellcast" or something. Shutting down monster abilities with resource expenditure is tactical gameplay, in my opinion. Nobody is going to say that the DM isn't using tactics when an enemy spellcaster disables the PC wizards wall of ice spell with a dispel magic.

[Psyren]

WHich makes it more of a trap to cast counterspell against the MPMM necromancer, because the things he's using that look like spells might not be spells.

You can't attempt to counterspell something that isn't a spell. Reactions cannot exist independently of their trigger.

[RSP]

You can't attempt to counterspell something that isn't a spell. Reactions cannot exist independently of their trigger.

Yes and no. You’re in DM adjudication territory here (which is why I’d want WotC to be more intentional if this kind of stuff is what they intend).

Player says he wants his PC to use their Reaction to Counterspell what he (Player and PC) believes is a spell being cast.

So the Player has stated their PC’s intention and DM has to decide what the outcome is: can they Counterspell the spell-like effect even though it’s not a “spell”; can they react to the non-casting, losing their Reaction, while wasting a spell slot because their target is non-existent; can the PC not even react to what they think is happening even though they want to; etc?

It’s not as cut and dry as you seem to believe it is, particularly if this comes up during live game play as opposed to as part of a forum discussion.

[Segev]

You can't attempt to counterspell something that isn't a spell. Reactions cannot exist independently of their trigger.

Fair enough. How many times do you want players to stop the DM whenever the baddies take any action to ask, "Can I counterspell that?" This still seems like bad design.

[stoutstien]

Fair enough. How many times do you want players to stop the DM whenever the baddies take any action to ask, "Can I counterspell that?" This still seems like bad design.

Yea it's the acid splash test method all-over again.

[Psyren]

Fair enough. How many times do you want players to stop the DM whenever the baddies take any action to ask, "Can I counterspell that?" This still seems like bad design.

It's not bad design. How this is any different/more onerous than, say, trying to counterspell an enemy Eladrin's Fey Step or something is beyond me. Do you describe that the same way you'd describe Misty Step?

Just don't say the enemy is casting a spell. Considering stuff like Arcane Burst and Fey Step have no spell components anyway, that shouldn't be a problem.



Player says he wants his PC to use their Reaction to Counterspell what he (Player and PC) believes is a spell being cast.

So the Player has stated their PC’s intention and DM has to decide what the outcome is: can they Counterspell the spell-like effect even though it’s not a “spell”; can they react to the non-casting, losing their Reaction, while wasting a spell slot because their target is non-existent; can the PC not even react to what they think is happening even though they want to; etc?

It’s not as cut and dry as you seem to believe it is, particularly if this comes up during live game play as opposed to as part of a forum discussion.

What precisely is the PC reacting to in your view? These abilities have no spell components. Because they're not spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've been thinking more about this and am moving toward the following model:

1. Counterspell is significantly reworked. For one, it's not a generic spell anymore. It's something that various people can do in different ways, with different costs. And it generally can interrupt anything marked as a magical ability. It forces the caster to save vs a DC or lose the cast. This DC does not depend on the thing being cast. Some casters might get bonuses against this.

2. Monster unique spell attacks uniformly state that they (a) count as magical and (b) count as cantrips for anything that matters. In fact, that's part of the definition of a spell attack (with (b) being overridable by specific abilities, but only to push the "level" higher).

2. The base "dispel magic" (renamed 'unbind') only affects spells. And only ends a single effect. And works by making a spellcasting-modifier check against a fixed DC, where the DC is one of

15: "normal" spells (level <= 5)
20: "strong" spells (level > 5)

3. Different classes have different methods of amping up their 'unbind'. For example, the cleric might get the ability to purge all harmful (defined in some more rigorous fashion) effects (not just spells) from an ally. An arcane caster[1] might get the ability to dispel beneficial effects on an enemy. Etc. Monster abilities use their CR to determine the DC--DC 15 if the CR <= 10, DC 20 for higher CRs.

4. Generally being more explicit about what counts as magical.

[1] Specifically that'd fit best on the class I'm calling "spellblade", basically an inverted bard (debuffer/damage instead of support).

[RSP]

What precisely is the PC reacting to in your view? These abilities have no spell components. Because they're not spells.

Whatever the DM describes the action as.

[Psyren]

Whatever the DM describes the action as.

So don't describe it as a spell. If you say they're casting a spell when they're not and the player wastes game time trying to counterspell it, that's on you. Even in-universe, they'd have no means of thinking it was one either.

[RSP]

So don't describe it as a spell. If you say they're casting a spell when they're not and the player wastes game time trying to counterspell it, that's on you. Even in-universe, they'd have no means of thinking it was one either.

What is the in-game description of a Spell Attack? What is the in-game description of an ability that uses magic as its source and has a sustained magical effect?

Blaming me for this, isn’t appropriate in my mind, as the game seems to lack rules for these, generally speaking.

[Psyren]

What is the in-game description of a Spell Attack? What is the in-game description of an ability that uses magic as its source and has a sustained magical effect?

Blaming me for this, isn’t appropriate in my mind, as the game seems to lack rules for these, generally speaking.

What is the in-game description of a Subtle Spell? What is the in-game description of a racial ability?

Non-counterable magic is not new. How have you been describing it up till now?

[RSP]

What is the in-game description of a Subtle Spell? What is the in-game description of a racial ability?

Non-counterable magic is not new. How have you been describing it up till now?

I’m not discussing my game. The thread is asking if DM should be played a certain way. I’m discussing that. Counterspell was added to that in dealing with similar stuff.

I’ve played in enough games to know DMs are reacting to stuff like “what does my character see” or deciding if something is Dispel-able, or not, on the fly more often than not.

Having the wording of DM specifically refer to targeting magic effects, but then not having anything in the description of the spell stating what happens, isn’t helping anyone and just slows down games while DMs figure out what should happen.

Likewise, I can see having spell-like abilities on monsters, particularly ones that would appear to be spell casters, is likewise going to cause confusion if they use what seems like a spell and a character tries to counter it with Counterspell.

I agree with what I believe is your position: that Counterspell only works on spells. However, my point is that, as the line between spell and non-spell becomes blurry (apparently a by-product of WotC trying to make monster work smoother for DMs), it becomes less clear cut when playing the game.

If a monster that very much appears to be a spell caster, uses their Action to throw a ball of fire at the PCs that very much resembles the Fireball spell, I could see the conversation of “well can I Counter it?” coming up.

[Psyren]

I know what the thread is asking. My (rhetorical) question still stands; magic abilities that are not counterable or dispellable are as old as 5e itself. However a given DM was handling those, can simply be applied to things like Arcane Burst.

And the game does tell you what should happen. Counterspell is a reaction that can only be used when a spell with spell components is cast within range; these abilities don't have those. Dispel Magic not working on everything magical in the game is a phenomenon that is as old as Dungeons and Dragons itself (though I'm guessing we're all glad it no longer destroys your potions.) Would we have been better off if Gygax chose a less pithy but more accurate name for the thing decades ago, probably, but it is what it is.

I don't see any of those MPMM "SLAs" that could be confused for a fireball either.

[Keltest]

I know what the thread is asking. My (rhetorical) question still stands; magic abilities that are not counterable or dispellable are as old as 5e itself. However a given DM was handling those, can simply be applied to things like Arcane Burst.

And the game does tell you what should happen. Counterspell is a reaction that can only be used when a spell with spell components is cast within range; these abilities don't have those. Dispel Magic not working on everything magical in the game is a phenomenon that is as old as Dungeons and Dragons itself (though I'm guessing we're all glad it no longer destroys your potions.) Would we have been better off if Gygax chose a less pithy but more accurate name for the thing decades ago, probably, but it is what it is.

I don't see any of those MPMM "SLAs" that could be confused for a fireball either.

The point isnt that the players are confusing them, the point is that the game is moving away from enemies having spells, which makes Dispel Magic and Counterspell "trap" options by virtue of not ever being able to use them.

[Brookshw]

The point isnt that the players are confusing them, the point is that the game is moving away from enemies having spells, which makes Dispel Magic and Counterspell "trap" options by virtue of not ever being able to use them.

I vaguely recall we did an analysis when this first came out and discovered there were still a lot of enemies with spells in the game, so it's really that the utility is decreased but still exists. Is my memory failing?

If not, I don't see it as any more of a trap than Sentinel, i.e., is only ever going to come up in certain situations (actually, less of a trap considering spells are easily swappable, and your spell slots aren't locked into particular spells like prior editions).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I vaguely recall we did an analysis when this first came out and discovered there were still a lot of enemies with spells in the game, so it's really that the utility is decreased but still exists. Is my memory failing?

If not, I don't see it as any more of a trap than Sentinel, i.e., is only ever going to come up in certain situations (actually, less of a trap considering spells are easily swappable, and your spell slots aren't locked into particular spells like prior editions).

Yeah. Totally this.

As a percentage of monsters, those who cast spells with components (which is required to counterspell) is... Not large. Many, of not outright most, monsters don't cast any spells at all; a good chunk of the rest use innate casting without components.

This doesn't make counterspell a trap, because it's still really useful when it is useful, even if that's not most of the time. Adjusting the percentages a small amount (mostly only moving cantrips and non AOE damage around) doesn't, for me, move the needle significantly.

As for dispel magic... I've seen it used in combat effectively zero times that I can remember. Maybe 2, outside. So meh.

[Psyren]

The point isnt that the players are confusing them, the point is that the game is moving away from enemies having spells, which makes Dispel Magic and Counterspell "trap" options by virtue of not ever being able to use them.

I covered this already:



Recent monsters do still have spellcasting; Counterspell is still useful.

We're just going to end up circling the same drain we always do.
Also, what Brookshw said.



This doesn't make counterspell a trap, because it's still really useful when it is useful, even if that's not most of the time. Adjusting the percentages a small amount (mostly only moving cantrips and non AOE damage around) doesn't, for me, move the needle significantly.

Correct.

Besides, we're talking about making PC spellcasters (slightly) weaker relative to the monsters. Isn't that what a bunch of y'all want?

[Zuras]

Man, if you’re disappointed that Dispel Magic doesn’t work on all magic, I have some unfortunate news for you about Fire Extinguishers.

If you’re not running a fiction-first game that defines how magic works on a much deeper level that provided in the PHB and DMG, your going to be disappointed with every answer to a “why” question regarding the D&D magic system.

Needing different types of spells to stop different types of magic isn’t any weirder than needing different types of fire extinguishers for electrical or grease fires than a wood fire, though.

[rel]

I've been thinking more about this and am moving toward the following model:

1. Counterspell is significantly reworked. For one, it's not a generic spell anymore. It's something that various people can do in different ways, with different costs. And it generally can interrupt anything marked as a magical ability. It forces the caster to save vs a DC or lose the cast. This DC does not depend on the thing being cast. Some casters might get bonuses against this.

2. Monster unique spell attacks uniformly state that they (a) count as magical and (b) count as cantrips for anything that matters. In fact, that's part of the definition of a spell attack (with (b) being overridable by specific abilities, but only to push the "level" higher).

2. The base "dispel magic" (renamed 'unbind') only affects spells. And only ends a single effect. And works by making a spellcasting-modifier check against a fixed DC, where the DC is one of

15: "normal" spells (level <= 5)
20: "strong" spells (level > 5)

3. Different classes have different methods of amping up their 'unbind'. For example, the cleric might get the ability to purge all harmful (defined in some more rigorous fashion) effects (not just spells) from an ally. An arcane caster[1] might get the ability to dispel beneficial effects on an enemy. Etc. Monster abilities use their CR to determine the DC--DC 15 if the CR <= 10, DC 20 for higher CRs.

4. Generally being more explicit about what counts as magical.

[1] Specifically that'd fit best on the class I'm calling "spellblade", basically an inverted bard (debuffer/damage instead of support).

I'm looking at doing something similar for dispel magic as part of a plan to remove all utility magic and replace it with a parallel utility progression that exists separate to PC class.

The character doing the dispelling rolls against a fixed DC with bonuses from their proficiency, how long they take, how many resources they expend, and how well they understand the effect and creator.

I'm still not sure how to handle retries, but I'm considering going old school and saying any subsequent attempt must have a higher static bonus than the previous one to have any chance of working.

[RSP]

As a percentage of monsters, those who cast spells with components (which is required to counterspell) is... Not large. Many, of not outright most, monsters don't cast any spells at all; a good chunk of the rest use innate casting without components.

I was under the impression the MotM example used was an intentional move by WotC attempting to streamline monster stat blocks to make it easier on DMs. I could be wrong, but I thought that was actually expressed by them at some point.

So then, the expectation (under that presumption) is that with the new rules and new MM this will become more the norm.

However, WotC seem to be prepping for issues by introducing the new “magic action”, which I’m assuming is an attempt to redefine what can and can’t be counterable/dispelled.

I certainly could be wrong though.



As for dispel magic... I've seen it used in combat effectively zero times that I can remember. Maybe 2, outside. So meh.

I’ve definitely seen it used a bunch. At my table, it’s used a lot for stuff like Cloudkill. So when my PC notices similar effects that could be harmful to the group, it makes sense to try and dispel them (in addition to trying to break Conc of the caster - when it’s known who/where the caster is).



The character doing the dispelling rolls against a fixed DC with bonuses from their proficiency, how long they take, how many resources they expend, and how well they understand the effect and creator.

I'm still not sure how to handle retries, but I'm considering going old school and saying any subsequent attempt must have a higher static bonus than the previous one to have any chance of working.

This is another question I’ve had in the past: what is the skill check the PC makes representing?

I’m pretty sure I (the Player) can understand what is being attempted with regards to any other skill check: grapples, lock picking, stealth, insight, persuasion, etc.

When a PC tries to dispel something that requires a skill check, what the heck is the PC doing? What are they experiencing that makes dispelling something similar to picking a lock or grappling? The rules only give us the dice roll and DC, but those don’t exist in the game world.

Is it like untying a knot? If so, what does the PC perceive in the untying attempt? Do they perceive the same things with non-spell magic? If not, then it should be easy to tell what is, or isn’t, dispellable. If so, why can’t that unravel it?

[stoutstien]

Yeah. Totally this.

As a percentage of monsters, those who cast spells with components (which is required to counterspell) is... Not large. Many, of not outright most, monsters don't cast any spells at all; a good chunk of the rest use innate casting without components.

This doesn't make counterspell a trap, because it's still really useful when it is useful, even if that's not most of the time. Adjusting the percentages a small amount (mostly only moving cantrips and non AOE damage around) doesn't, for me, move the needle significantly.

As for dispel magic... I've seen it used in combat effectively zero times that I can remember. Maybe 2, outside. So meh.

IMO Dispel magic is the GMs fireball. A lot more potent when you basically have a 100% chance of something it can effect on just about anyone you target and it isn't action denial so it's impactful but not in an annoying way.

[RSP]

Here’s part of the issue. I believe this only applies to FR, but as it’s the base world the game references, it’s what we have:

“Mortals can’t directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can’t light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn. But surrounded by the Weave, a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast foes, transport hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or even reverse death itself.

All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding—learned or intuitive—of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.

Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell. And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways—or not at all.”

So, here, we get two things I’ll point out:

- the first is that mortals can’t access magic except through the Weave, and “all magic depends on the Weave”. So any “mortal” doing magic, is manipulating the Weave.

- the second, and perhaps a consequence of the first, is that this writing appears to me to use “magic” and “spell” as interchangeable synonyms. For instance, it directly states “Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave.”

So magical effects are knots in the Weave, and Dispel Magic undoes those knots. Here, it again suggests that DM affects magic effects.


IMO Dispel magic is the GMs fireball. A lot more potent when you basically have a 100% chance of something it can effect on just about anyone you target and it isn't action denial so it's impactful but not in an annoying way.

It’s definitely more effective against PCs: when your Aid, Mage Armor and anything else you have up at the time, drops mid combat, it’s not a good situation.