Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[RSP]

So this just came up in our last session: Dispel Magic was cast on a character who had a Shadow Blade. For the sake of time we went with SB was dispelled, but I think it’s a valid argument that it wouldn’t be.

Pertinent RAW:

Dispel Magic:
“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.”

Shadow Blade:
“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”


So it’s not exactly clear cut, but since DM distinguishes that you choose either a creature or object, it seems apparent that the SB is distinct from whomever is holding it in terms of what DM effects. The caster of DM would need to choose whether they’re targeting the creature holding the SB or the SB itself. SB is clearly an object, as it’s a created “sword of solidified gloom” that “counts as a simple melee weapon”. I don’t think anyone is arguing that simple melee weapons or swords aren’t objects, but let me know if you disagree with that.

This caused me to think of similar instances were DM wouldn’t work and the first that popped to mind was Magic Weapon (which coincidentally was also cast on during our last session). Were DM cast on a character holding a weapon that had MW on it, the DM wouldn’t affect the MW spell as the weapon is an object, and a creature was targeted.

The other spell that came to mind was Creation: “You pull wisps of shadow material from the Shadowfell to create a nonliving object of vegetable matter within range.” As it likewise creates an object, it wouldn’t be dispelled if the creature holding the created item was targeted by DM (also it’s created apparently by the same shadow substance as SB).

Wondering any other thoughts on this. Hadn’t ever considered the creature vs object nature of DM before this came up so open to hearing other thoughts on it.

[Skrum]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?

I wouldn't object though to a GM that gave DM a more narrow, specific ruling, like "choose a single magical effect in range. End that effect." That would certainly make it more clear about what it did.

[schm0]

I would presume that the caster knows precisely what to target prior to casting the spell. Otherwise they wouldn't know what they were dispelling. All it takes is a reaction and an Arcana check to determine what spell is being cast, after all. Furthermore, spells like detect magic would sidestep the need to identify which was being affected in the first place: it would simply be apparent to the caster.

[GeneralVryth]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?

I wouldn't object though to a GM that gave DM a more narrow, specific ruling, like "choose a single magical effect in range. End that effect." That would certainly make it more clear about what it did.

This is right from my perspective.

But to add to it, remember Shadow Blade has the additional text about being able to reform the blade after it disappears if thrown. So there is clearly an ongoing magical effect on the caster as well.

[RSP]

Tentatively, I'd say that Shadow Blade would be both an object and a magical effect (it's taking concentration to maintain after all). DM does require that the caster target something, so the caster could either target the blade itself in which case it would be uncontroversially dispelled, or they could target the caster of the shadow blade, in which case it would also end since it's an ongoing magical effect (along with any other effects they are enjoying). I think?


This is right from my perspective.

But to add to it, remember Shadow Blade has the additional text about being able to reform the blade after it disappears if thrown. So there is clearly an ongoing magical effect on the caster as well.

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

[GeneralVryth]

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

[Skrum]

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

This. I.e., targeting the creature that cast the shadow blade or targeting the shadow blade itself should dispel shadow blade

[schm0]

I am saying the ongoing magical effect is on the caster who cast the spell. The sword is also an ongoing magical effect and a pseudo-object.

Shadow blade creates an object made of solidified gloom. It does not bestow a magical effect on the creature. The creature is precisely the same as it was before it cast the spell.

For the purposes of casting the dispel magic, this should be obvious to the caster and they would know to cast it on the object.

[Rukelnikov]

Shadow blade creates an object made of solidified gloom. It does not bestow a magical effect on the creature. The creature is precisely the same as it was before it cast the spell.

For the purposes of casting the dispel magic, this should be obvious to the caster and they would know to cast it on the object.

It does bestow an effect on the caster, they can reform the SB in their hand.

I think any of the 3 possible targettings would dispel SB.

[schm0]

It does bestow an effect on the caster, they can reform the SB in their hand.

I think any of the 3 possible targettings would dispel SB.

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

[GeneralVryth]

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

That's not how it works. The range of the spell is self, it's a buff on the caster plain and simple. The sword is just an expression of that buff.

[Rukelnikov]

That's an ability of the sword, not a magical effect on the creature.

A magical effect on a creature would be like false life (temp hit points) or aura of vitality (an aura that emanates from the creature).

The effect is on the caster, the blade may not even exist when the caster uses the spell effect to recreate it.


If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.

[Mastikator]

Just to clarify, whether or not SB is also an on-going magical effect doesn’t change that it’s different than a targeted creature. DM says you choose a) a creature, b) an object or c) an ongoing effect.

Whether SB is an object and/or an ongoing magical effect, it’s still different than targeting the creature holding that object/interacting with that ongoing magical effect.

A spell that creates a creature, an object and an ongoing effect is dispellable by targeting any one of those, even if all of those are the same thing. A spell that does multiple things simply has multiple vectors for dispel magic.

Shadow blade has target "self". So casting dispel magic on a creature with shadow blade should end it. It's not controversial at all that the shadow blade should end.

In fact it says any spell on the target ends. So if you target a creature with multiple ongoing effects it should dispel all of them. If you have mage armor, disguise self, mirror image and shadow blade and someone casts dispel magic on you, all 4 of those spells end.

Furthermore, if someone casts Conjure Animals and summon 8 wolves, casting dispel magic on one wolf should dispel all of them, since it ends the spell, not the spell effect.

[schm0]

I think we disagree on the idea that a range of self is relevant in any way here. It's not, in my opinion. The only reason the spell lists a range of self is because the sword appears in your hand and not five feet away.

There is no magical effect on the creature itself.

Even after the blade dissipates, it still persists in reality until the spell ends. Notably, dispel magic does not require you to see the object or effect you are casting it on, so dispel magic works when cast on the blade whether it is visible or not.

Either way, it is rather a moot point, because the result is the same. The only time such an interaction would come into question is if the spell effect was not perceptible and the caster failed to identify the spell.

[JNAProductions]

I think we disagree on the idea that a range of self is relevant in any way here. It's not, in my opinion. The only reason the spell lists a range of self is because the sword appears in your hand and not five feet away.

There is no magical effect on the creature itself.

Even after the blade dissipates, it still persists in reality until the spell ends. Notably, dispel magic does not require you to see the object or effect you are casting it on, so dispel magic works when cast on the blade whether it is visible or not.

Either way, it is rather a moot point, because the result is the same. The only time such an interaction would come into question is if the spell effect was not perceptible and the caster failed to identify the spell.

Except the sword isn’t invisible.
It’s dissipated. That’s gone, until the caster (who has the spell on them) takes a Bonus Action to reform it.

[schm0]

Dissipate just means disappear in this context. It is no longer visible. That's why the spell allows the object, which is the magical effect created by the spell, to reappear. It persists until the spell ends.

There is also no effect on the caster, RAW. The magical effect created by the spell takes the form of a weapon which is held in the hand. It does not alter or affect the creature in any way. If it did, the spell would cast it's effect on the creature, such as with mage armor or aura of vitality or any other number of similar effects.

[Rukelnikov]

Dissipate just means disappear in this context. It is no longer visible. That's why the spell allows the object, which is the magical effect created by the spell, to reappear. It persists until the spell ends.

There is also no effect on the caster, RAW. The magical effect created by the spell takes the form of a weapon which is held in the hand. It does not alter or affect the creature in any way. If it did, the spell would cast it's effect on the creature, such as with mage armor or aura of vitality or any of the other number of similar effects.

The spell has a range of self, references the caster, and gives it a new action it can use, the effect is also on the caster.

[RSP]

The spell doesn’t target the caster though. It affects those who are hit with it.

Just so we see if we’re on the same page, here’s my view on similar issues with DM:

1. Casting DM on a creature Concentrating on Haste cast on a different creature does nothing to the Haste: you can’t “dispel” the Concentration.

2. If Sally casts Magic Weapon on Steve’s sword, BBEG casting DM on Steve doesn’t effect the MW spell, as it’s on the weapon, not Steve.

3. If a Wizard casts Creation to make a diamond, and holds that diamond in his hand, while BBEG casts DM on the Wizard, the diamond will not be affect by the DM.

Just want to see if my basic understanding of DM matches with others.



In fact it says any spell on the target ends. So if you target a creature with multiple ongoing effects it should dispel all of them./[QUOTE]

Agree spells on the target end (assuming casting level or lower, etc), the question is whether the caster is the target of SB. Claiming Range of Self means the caster is the target means Cone of Cone targets the caster, which clearly isn’t the case. So saying “Range: Self, done deal” is not a valid argument here (unless you really believe CoC only damages the caster, I guess).

[QUOTE=Mastikator;25994421]
Furthermore, if someone casts Conjure Animals and summon 8 wolves, casting dispel magic on one wolf should dispel all of them, since it ends the spell, not the spell effect.

This is just incorrect, per the RAW of DM:

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

You chose the creature, and the spell ends on that target, not in general. So if 8 rabbits are summoned, casting DM on one of them would only dispel that one.

[GeneralVryth]

The spell doesn’t target the caster though. It affects those who are hit with it.

Just so we see if we’re on the same page, here’s my view on similar issues with DM:

1. Casting DM on a creature Concentrating on Haste cast on a different creature does nothing to the Haste: you can’t “dispel” the Concentration.

2. If Sally casts Magic Weapon on Steve’s sword, BBEG casting DM on Steve doesn’t effect the MW spell, as it’s on the weapon, not Steve.

3. If a Wizard casts Creation to make a diamond, and holds that diamond in his hand, while BBEG casts DM on the Wizard, the diamond will not be affect by the DM.

Just want to see if my basic understanding of DM matches with others.


The spell does target the caster though, that is what range self means. If Dispel Magic is targeted at the caster, it will dispel Sahdow Blade, there is no ambiguity for me there. Now you could argue if it targeted the blade, the blade would wink out, but the caster could theoretically re-summon it with a Bonus Action. That depends on whether you think Dispel Magic should work on every aspect of a spell or just the pieces it's targeted at (most conjuration spells are going to depend on this question). I am not sure how I feel for example that dispelling a single animal in Conjure Animals removes the rest and ends the entire spell.

As for your bullets:
1. This is the most questionable to me. If a spell requires concentration, there is clearly some link back to the caster as they have spend ongoing effort to keep it going. So does Dispel Magic break that link and end the spell? I am not sure, I could go either way depending on the logic of magic in the world. By RAW/RAG I think you're right, but I can be convinced otherwise.

2. This is right. But see question 1 if the spell targeted Sally.

3. I agree here.



This is just incorrect, per the RAW of DM:

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

You chose the creature, and the spell ends on that target, not in general. So if 8 rabbits are summoned, casting DM on one of them would only dispel that one.

This may be technically correct, but there is room to make a different determination depending on the logic of magic in the game. It also will depend on the concentration ruling if the caster of Conjure Animals is targeted.

[greenstone]

I'd like to see a proper rules clarification on the topic of dispel magic on "resummonable" spells.

If Warlocky McPactface casts hex on an assasin, what does casting dispel magic on the assassin do? Can Warlocky use a bonus action next turn to reapply the hex on the assassin or on another creature?

Same question for when Wizardy casts telekinesis on an ogre and dispel magic is cast on an ogre.

Does the lack of concentration matter? Does casting dispel magic on Priesty end a spiritual weapon?

Also, more generally for multitarget spells.

Priesty McPriestface casts bless on themself and on two others. If dispel magic is cast on Priesty, is it ended on the two others? If dispel magic is cast on one of the two others, is ended on Priesty?

How about if Priesty cast bless on three other people, and not themself? What does casting dispel magic on Priesty do? What does casting detect magic on Priesty show? After all, in this situation we could say there is no magical effect on Priesty?

[RSP]

The spell does target the caster though, that is what range self means.

I don’t think the spell targets the caster at all: it creates a weapon. The only time a target is mentioned is in making an attack (presumably against a different creature).

“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d8 psychic damage on a hit and has the finesse, light, and thrown properties (range 20/60). In addition, when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage.

If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.”

Rereading this now just adds to the uniqueness of this situation. The bolded line is very interesting: even when the sword “dissipates”, it still exists, as it lasts until the spell ends.

Flame Blade is similar in some ways, but doesn’t actually create an object: it just evokes a flame in the shape of a blade.

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others

I will say that it being Illusion rather than Conjuration is interesting. By rule, it seems, Illusions target others: “Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.”



If Warlocky McPactface casts hex on an assasin, what does casting dispel magic on the assassin do? Can Warlocky use a bonus action next turn to reapply the hex on the assassin or on another creature?

Great question. I’d lean towards “no” as DM would dispel the effect on the target, which would mean the spell ends on the target, and so the below contingent RAW from Hex wouldn’t ever occur:

“If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature.”

That is, the spell ending on the target means the target wouldn’t ever drop to 0 hit points before the spell ends.

However, I’d go the other way for Telekinesis as it states:

“You gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought.”

So the ongoing effect is clearly on the caster (the “you” in the RAW). There would be another magical effect restraining the creature target or lifting the object target, which could be dispelled, but the caster would still maintain their magical effect, which is the spell.


Priesty McPriestface casts bless on themself and on two others. If dispel magic is cast on Priesty, is it ended on the two others? If dispel magic is cast on one of the two others, is ended on Priesty?

How about if Priesty cast bless on three other people, and not themself? What does casting dispel magic on Priesty do? What does casting detect magic on Priesty show? After all, in this situation we could say there is no magical effect on Priesty?

If it matters to you, Safe Advice Compendium answered this:

“If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets? Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.”

This also heavily suggests what I thought was commonly accepted that you can’t dispel Concentration. That is, if Priestly included himself in Bless, and he is affected by DM, the Bless would continue on the other two targets, even though DM was cast on Priestly

[Witty Username]

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others


That is not correct, range self means it targets the caster, even if it can include other targets.

Dragon breath is a good example from JC, as it targets both the creature that gains the breath weapon and the creatures caught in the exhalation.

Self (Xft) is the template for point of origin and is used for AoEs, and the blade cantrips for some reason.

Shadowblade targets the caster and forms a blade in hand, it also targets enemies struck by the blade.

[Blatant Beast]

Shadow Blade has a range of Self.
The PHB, pg 202, states the following under the Range entry in the Magic section:
“ Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

The literature itself, would seemingly refute your theory RSP.

The Range of “Self” also explains why the caster can reform the blade of shadow after throwing or dropping the blade.

[GeneralVryth]

Just to reiterate: “Range: Self” is not targeting the caster: Eyebite, Detect Thoughts, Fear, etc, all target others. It really is just setting a starting point for the range. For SB the sword is created on your person, but clearly it effects others.


All of those spells target the caster. Just like Shadow Blade, they imbue the caster with a power that can the be used on other things. If D&D was WoW, Shadow Balde and the listed spells would appear as buffs on your character even though they can also impose effects on others. And for the same reason they can be dispelled from you.

[RSP]

Shadow Blade has a range of Self.
The PHB, pg 202, states the following under the Range entry in the Magic section:
“ Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

The literature itself, would seemingly refute your theory RSP.

The Range of “Self” also explains why the caster can reform the blade of shadow after throwing or dropping the blade.

I know it says that, however, clearly SB, CoC, BHs, Eyebite, don’t follow that rule.

There is no way you can say those spells “affect only [the caster]” and uphold what their actual effects says.

My best estimation is Specific vs General. The specific rules of those spells, trump the general rule on Range: Self spells.


All of those spells target the caster. Just like Shadow Blade, they imbue the caster with a power that can the be used on other things. If D&D was WoW, Shadow Balde and the listed spells would appear as buffs on your character even though they can also impose effects on others. And for the same reason they can be dispelled from you.

None of those spells “effect only you [the caster]”, so that can’t apply, unless you’re also trying to argue all those spells only ever damage the caster.

I don’t particularly care if SB can be dispelled or not by targeting the caster, but claiming SB ever only effects the caster, as well as similarly claiming the same for Burning Hands, Eyebite, CoC, etc, it’s a horrible logical argument.

You can either accept Range: Self spells only ever target the caster, or they don’t necessarily follow that rule. But if you don’t accept they necessarily follow that rule, then that rule cannot be in and of itself evidence that a Range: Self spell only affects the caster, particularly when that spell specifically states it creates an object that clearly can effect others.

I would say BHs and CoC NEVER target the caster, which is clearly in direct opposition to the quoted rule.

[Blatant Beast]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Eyebite imbues the caster with a multitude of powers, which the caster can then use on other targets. Shadow Blade, likewise, imbues the caster with the ability to summon the blade, which the caster can use to psychically Benihana someone.

“Self” is just the range, of the spell. The condition of being a ‘Target’ in 5e is a fluid one. Delayed Blast Fireball, for example, targets both the detonation space and everything in its area of effect, at different times. The Fireball spell, meanwhile targets both the detonation space and the everything in it’s AoE, simultaneously.

[GeneralVryth]

None of those spells “effect only you [the caster]”, so that can’t apply, unless you’re also trying to argue all those spells only ever damage the caster.


I don't think you're understanding what we're saying. The spells target the caster, but the totality of their effects don't only effect the caster.

Using Shadow Blade as an example. A spellcaster casts Shadow Blade, as result they gain a buff that we shall call Shadow Blade (Aura). Shadow Blade (Aura) summons an initial Shadow Blade (Object), the blade itself. That same buff Shadow Blade (Aura) is what allows the caster to re-create the blade if it dissipates. Shadow Blade (Aura) is also what is being dispelled when the caster is hit with Dispel Magic. As a result an existing Shadow Blade (Object) would also disappear.

[RSP]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Eyebite imbues the caster with a multitude of powers, which the caster can then use on other targets. Shadow Blade, likewise, imbues the caster with the ability to summon the blade, which the caster can use to psychically Benihana someone.

Except whereas Eyebite’s effect states the caster’s eyes change, SB doesn’t state anything about effecting the caster: it states an object is made. The spell description is way more akin to Creation or Illusory Dragon than Eyebite: there’s no descriptive text of affecting the caster.

By this argument, DM would likewise dispel those other spells if DM is cast on the caster (as opposed to the item).



“Self” is just the range, of the spell. The condition of being a ‘Target’ in 5e is a fluid one. Delayed Blast Fireball, for example, targets both the detonation space and everything in its area of effect, at different times. The Fireball spell, meanwhile targets both the detonation space and the everything in it’s AoE, simultaneously.

Yes and no. As pointed out by others, “Self” actually has a definition that includes only affecting the caster, it’s just apparently also used specifically not in that way.


I don't think you're understanding what we're saying. The spells target the caster, but the totality of their effects don't only effect the caster.

Using Shadow Blade as an example. A spellcaster casts Shadow Blade, as result they gain a buff that we shall call Shadow Blade (Aura). Shadow Blade (Aura) summons an initial Shadow Blade (Object), the blade itself. That same buff Shadow Blade (Aura) is what allows the caster to re-create the blade if it dissipates. Shadow Blade (Aura) is also what is being dispelled when the caster is hit with Dispel Magic. As a result an existing Shadow Blade (Object) would also disappear.

Except none of that is true, per the effect of the spell. You changing the spell to an Aura, doesn’t change what the spell says it does, which is it creates an object that exists even while dissipated.

The quote on Range: Self, is that it specifically only targets the caster.


That is not correct, range self means it targets the caster, even if it can include other targets.

The rules in my books state otherwise (in line with BB’s quote, I believe).



Self (Xft) is the template for point of origin and is used for AoEs, and the blade cantrips for some reason.

Is this a rule or your own design? I couldn’t find an Errata stating anything like this.



Shadowblade targets the caster and forms a blade in hand, it also targets enemies struck by the blade.

Which would very much mean it doesn’t follow the general rule of what “Range: Self” is described as.

[Blatant Beast]

By this argument, DM would likewise dispel those other spells if DM is cast on the caster (as opposed to the item).

Of course. “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the Target ends.”
Eyebite would require an upcast Dispel Magic.

Dispel Magic, historically, throughout multiple editions, has been capable of ending all the spells that meet Dispel Magic’s criteria when targeted against a creature.

In the case of Shadow Blade, the spell ends, if Dispel Magic targets the sword of solidified gloom. Shadow Blade also ends if Dispel Magic targets the caster.

[GeneralVryth]

RSP I am not sure what you are going for here. You have been given the clear opinions of at least 3 different people that Dispel Magic targeted at the caster of Shadow Blade will dispel it. While I don't have time to look at all of them, I imagine any spell with a range of self will end up working the same way, they are dispellable if Dispel Magic targets the caster, likely all for the some reason. They are a buff/magical effect on the caster (this is what a range of self means), that can then be used to affect other things.

If you don't like that answer obviously you can rule/houserule differently in your games, or try to convince your DM too. But I am not sure how else to try and convince at least not without better understanding why you disagree with the reasoning so far.

[JonBeowulf]

Jumping in to say that the caster cannot reform an SB that's been hit with DM because DM ends spells. The spell is gone the same as if concentration is broken or its duration expired.

As far as the question of DM and range-of-self spells... I'm for keeping it simple and allowing DM to end any such spells. I have much more important things to worry about.

[Aimeryan]

This really comes down to once again an argument about what exactly you are doing with the Bonus Action to cause the sword to reappear.

Consider this scenario: A magical cloud exists that shoots lightning bolts at wherever I point my finger. Is me pointing my finger a magical effect upon myself? Intrinsically? No; the cloud could just be capable of observing this, rather than anything magical on my part. Now replace the specifics of pointing my finger with instead 'use a bonus action' to cause the cloud to shoot a lightning bolt at a target of your choice.

The case here could just as easily be that the sword is capable of observing whatever the Bonus Action is - a hand gesture, a word, a flick of your hair, whatever - and then the sword uses magical means to appear in response.

However, I do find the 'Range: Self' argument to be compelling that at least in this case some magical link is present. If it had been 'Range: Touch' as per Goodberry then I would consider differently. Since Dispel Magic then specifically goes on to say 'Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends' rather than 'Any effect of a spell 3rd level or lower on the target ends', then Shadow Blade would disappear in its entirety because the whole spell goes poof - otherwise, I would argue for ending specifically the ability to make the sword appear after being dropped or thrown.

[Witty Username]

Is this a rule or your own design? I couldn’t find an Errata stating anything like this.


As I recall, Its in the spellcasting section of the phb of how to read different ranges and shapes, self is a self targeting spell.

Self (5ft radius) would denote a spell that uses self as a point of origin but not nessasarily as a target.

[schm0]

RSP I am not sure what you are going for here. You have been given the clear opinions of at least 3 different people that Dispel Magic targeted at the caster of Shadow Blade will dispel it. While I don't have time to look at all of them, I imagine any spell with a range of self will end up working the same way, they are dispellable if Dispel Magic targets the caster, likely all for the some reason. They are a buff/magical effect on the caster (this is what a range of self means), that can then be used to affect other things.

But that's not what a range of "self" means. The range of the spell has nothing to do with what the nature of the magical effect will be. It simply dictates where the spell effect is created.

The magical effect of shadow blade is the shadow blade itself, not any sort of effect on the caster (i.e. a "buff"). The caster remains precisely the same as they were before. Instead, the magical effect created by the spell takes the form of an object.

Another example is the spell spirit guardians. It has a range of self as well. But the spell effect created is "spirits" that "flit around you". In this case, the spirits are valid targets for dispel magic, but not the caster. There is no spell effect on the caster. Indeed, the spirits fly around the caster. So the spell effect originates on the caster (i.e. a range of self), but the spell effect is all around them.

A spell like armor of agathys, on the other hand, has a range of self, but it creates a "protective magical force" of "spectral frost" that surrounds the caster. The spell originates on the caster, and the spell effect is on the caster.

The range of the spell just explains where the spell effect is (or can be) created. It's the nature of the effect of the spell that matters for dispel magic.

[Blatant Beast]

The range of the spell just explains where the spell effect is (or can be) created. It's the nature of the effect of the spell that matters for dispel magic.

I disagree. Spirit Guardians is centered on the caster, and expands out to fill the spell's specified dimensions. Spirit Guardians, even moves with the caster, but you argue that somehow SG is not impacted by a targeted Dispel Magic on the caster? That ruling strikes me as somewhat convoluted and counterproductive, especially in regards to instilling confidence that 5e is a coherent ruleset.

Confidence in the game system is garnered when a spell like Dispel Magic, can clearly do what the spell intends and actually Dispel Magic. Confidence in the system is garnered, when a range of Self, is a clear indication that indeed, the very same spell is located, in part, on the caster's person, and in some actionable manner. The opposite is true, if one intends to rules lawyerly carve out exemptions vis a vis Dispel Magic for the most powerful spells.

As published Aganazzar's Scorcher does not have a Range of Self, while Tasha's Caustic Brew does. The salient difference between the two spells, is Caustic Brew has a lingering Acid effect, and Scorcher has no lingering effects.

Given that both spells create similar effects, we should likely conclude that the difference of Caustic Brew having a Range of Self+ is intentional. Caustic Brew can be dispelled by targeting either the caster or the spell effect, (the lingering acid). The same is not true for Aganazzar's Scorcher, which has an Instantaneous spell duration.

I am fine, with spells that have a Range of Self, having potentially two failure condition points vis a vis Dispel Magic. Such is the subtleties of magic, c'est la vie.

The Devs failed to sufficiently describe Dispel Magic. I'm sure the veteran Design group, just figured with their rushed schedule, that people would just understand how to run Dispel Magic, as they clearly were not considering providing examples for new players.

[schm0]

Spirit Guardians is centered on the caster, and expands out to fill the spell's specified dimensions. Spirit Guardians, even moves with the caster, but you argue that somehow SG is not impacted by a targeted Dispel Magic on the caster? That ruling strikes me as somewhat convoluted and counterproductive, especially in regards to instilling confidence that 5e is a coherent ruleset.

Seems pretty coherent to me. The spell creates an effect. That effect are spirits that flit around the caster. Not on the caster at all. Hence, dispel magic must target the spirits to dispel them. Mechanically speaking, unless the caster is unable to identify the spell being used, or the spell effect is non-perceivable, and the party has no access to detect magic, this is not going to be an issue at the table. In this example, the spirits are visible and therefore an obvious target for dispel magic. There's no chance for the caster to make a mistake, and a ruling doesn't need to be made.


Confidence in the game system is garnered when a spell like dispel magic, can clearly do what the spell intends and actually Dispel Magic. Confidence in the system is garnered, when a range of Self, is a clear indication that indeed, the very same spell is located, in part, on the caster's person, and in some actionable manner. The opposite is true, if one intends to rules lawyerly carve out exemptions vis a vis Dispel Magic for the most powerful spells.

I'm not carving out exemptions to Dispel Magic. I'm just saying the idea that range = self does not mean the magical effect of the spell is located on the creature. A range of self just means the spell effect is initially created on or around the caster. It has no bearing on the nature of the magical effect it creates. The spell description describes to us what magical effects are created by it.

Consider the following examples:


Armor of Agathys creates a magical effect in the form of a protective magical force on the creature, which means the creature is the valid target of dispel magic.
Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that fly around the creature, which means the magical effect is the valid target of dispel magic.
Nystul's Magic Aura (when cast on an object) creates a magical effect in the form of an illusion on the object, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.


Hence, shadow blade creates a magical effect in the form of a sword of solidified gloom, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

[Witty Username]

But that's not what a range of "self" means. The range of the spell has nothing to do with what the nature of the magical effect will be. It simply dictates where the spell effect is created.


All spell effects are created at the point of the caster.
Take the firebolt cantrip, it creates the blast at the caster and goes to the target. Which is why spells, as a general rule, need a clear line of effect betwern the caster and either the applicable target or intended point of origin.

[RSP]

Of course. “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the Target ends.”
Eyebite would require an upcast Dispel Magic.


Disagree on that. Creation and Illusory Dragon certainly wouldn’t dispel if you cast DM on the caster. Are you assuming Concentration would be interrupted by DM?

Those spells use similar language to how SB is formed.


As I recall, Its in the spellcasting section of the phb of how to read different ranges and shapes, self is a self targeting spell.

Self (5ft radius) would denote a spell that uses self as a point of origin but not nessasarily as a target.

Are you thinking of this line?

“Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.”

This line says nothing of “Range: Self (30’ cone) changing the “self” rule. It certainly does completely contradict it, but it at no point provides alternate definitions like you suggest.

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”

And the above quoted rule doesn’t give an alternate definition, it just uses two “Self” spells as examples of spells that affect multiple targets (again, going against the “Self” definition).

But the non-compliance with that rule isn’t just those spells: neither Eyebite nor Detect Thoughts have ranges following Self, just “Self”, yet clearly target creatures other than the caster (as described in their descriptions).

[Witty Username]

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”


The only is the sticking point, "Self" does not mean it targets only you, it does mean that it does target you.

Eyebite is an example, it grants the caster additional actions, those actions are also part of the spell, all affected including the caster are targets (either by being the victims of its special actions or by being granted them).

Smite spells are another example, when they are cast, they buff a paladins next hit, and then also target the enemy hit.

[GeneralVryth]

Are you thinking of this line?

“Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.”

This line says nothing of “Range: Self (30’ cone) changing the “self” rule. It certainly does completely contradict it, but it at no point provides alternate definitions like you suggest.

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”

And the above quoted rule doesn’t give an alternate definition, it just uses two “Self” spells as examples of spells that affect multiple targets (again, going against the “Self” definition).

But the non-compliance with that rule isn’t just those spells: neither Eyebite nor Detect Thoughts have ranges following Self, just “Self”, yet clearly target creatures other than the caster (as described in their descriptions).

This why I kind of harp on RAG ("Rules as Guidelines") over RAW ("Rules as Written"). The rules are not written to clarity level of law, much less computer code, there are inconsistencies, unclear rules, and outright errors. Every range self spell mentioned in this thread so far (and other I have looked at) all have the theme of empowering the caster to do something. That something may effect other targets (and this is called out in () in some range self spells like Eyebite). But, the consistent thing is they all affect the caster initially empowering them to do something. That's also what they can be dispelled when the caster is targeted.

[Pex]

So this just came up in our last session: Dispel Magic was cast on a character who had a Shadow Blade. For the sake of time we went with SB was dispelled, but I think it’s a valid argument that it wouldn’t be.

Pertinent RAW:

Dispel Magic:
“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.”

Shadow Blade:
“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”


So it’s not exactly clear cut, but since DM distinguishes that you choose either a creature or object, it seems apparent that the SB is distinct from whomever is holding it in terms of what DM effects. The caster of DM would need to choose whether they’re targeting the creature holding the SB or the SB itself. SB is clearly an object, as it’s a created “sword of solidified gloom” that “counts as a simple melee weapon”. I don’t think anyone is arguing that simple melee weapons or swords aren’t objects, but let me know if you disagree with that.

This caused me to think of similar instances were DM wouldn’t work and the first that popped to mind was Magic Weapon (which coincidentally was also cast on during our last session). Were DM cast on a character holding a weapon that had MW on it, the DM wouldn’t affect the MW spell as the weapon is an object, and a creature was targeted.

The other spell that came to mind was Creation: “You pull wisps of shadow material from the Shadowfell to create a nonliving object of vegetable matter within range.” As it likewise creates an object, it wouldn’t be dispelled if the creature holding the created item was targeted by DM (also it’s created apparently by the same shadow substance as SB).

Wondering any other thoughts on this. Hadn’t ever considered the creature vs object nature of DM before this came up so open to hearing other thoughts on it.

You're focusing on semantics. What was the intent of the Dispel Magic? Was it specifically to end the Shadow Blade? Then it's done and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. Was it cast as a generic debuff to dispel whatever magic buff the character had? If Shadow Blade was the only spell in effect then it's dispelled and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. If the character had Shadow Blade and another buff spell on him, Bless, Protection From Energy, Aid, whatever buff spell you can think of, even having more than one buff spell by a million different spellcasters, since in this example the caster wasn't specific as to which spell he wanted to dispel just dispel something, then randomly choose which buff spell is dispelled which may or may not be Shadow Blade as the final choice and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword.

[Blatant Beast]

I'm not carving out exemptions to Dispel Magic. I'm just saying the idea that range = self does not mean the magical effect of the spell is located on the creature.

This ignores the Player's Handbook. pg 202:
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space
where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some
spells can target only a creature (including you) that you
touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate
from you also have a range of self, indicating that the
origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see "Areas
of Effect" later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its
range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."

The Range on Spirit Guardians is "Self", the only target can be the cleric. A spell with a Range of self, can only affect the caster, but that does not mean that others may not suffer from the effects of the spell.

The conclusion that you reach is only attainable if you ignore the italicized sentences. A conclusion reached while ignoring critical information is by definition an incomplete conclusion.

Which is why, I reject it.

Dispel Magic is a horribly written spell, hopefully future versions are better. Spell Descriptions as a whole need to be modernized, and made clearer.

[schm0]

Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range of self. "

The Range on Spirit Guardians is "Self", the only target can be the cleric. A spell with a Range of self, can only affect the caster, but that does not mean that others may not suffer from the effects of the spell.

The conclusion that you reach is only attainable if you ignore the italicized sentences. A conclusion reached while ignoring critical information is by definition an incomplete conclusion.

Which is why, I reject it.

Dispel Magic is a horribly written spell, hopefully future versions are better. Spell Descriptions as a whole need to be modernized, and made clearer.

I'm not ignoring the text. I'm saying that it is irrelevant. A range of "self" does not mean that the magical effect resides on the caster (i.e. shadow blade, spirit guardians, etc.) It just means that "self" is the target of the spell, and thus it is created there.

I'm talking about the magical effect that is created, which is the only thing that matters for dispel magic. Dispel magic doesn't care where the spell is created, it only cares about the nature of the magical effect, because that is what it targets. As I wrote before:


Consider the following examples:


Armor of Agathys creates a magical effect in the form of a protective magical force on the creature, which means the creature is the valid target of dispel magic.
Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that fly around the creature, which means the magical effect is the valid target of dispel magic.
Nystul's Magic Aura (when cast on an object) creates a magical effect in the form of an illusion on the object, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.


Hence, shadow blade creates a magical effect in the form of a sword of solidified gloom, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

I agree with Pex, as well. This is a mostly semantic argument that could only possibly occur if the spell effect were imperceptible, the spell could not be identified, and detect magic is not available. In (almost?) all of the cases we are talking about, the spell effects are obvious and casting the spell should be similarly so.

EDIT: magical effect

[Blatant Beast]

I'm not ignoring the text. I'm saying that it is irrelevant. A range of "self" does not mean that the magical effect resides on the caster (i.e. shadow blade, spirit guardians, etc.) It just means that "self" is the target of the spell, and thus it is created there.

So you contend you cast a spell at a 'Target of self' but the spell does not actually land on the target, but instead becomes an independent free floating vapor.

So an Alter Self spell is not actually on the target, despite altering their body?
A Detect Thoughts spell is not actually on the caster, nor is Divine Favor?

I would imagine the rules would point out that spells with a Range of Self are immune to Dispel Magic, since as the Sage Advice Compendium states: "Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells" or when SAC mentions: "For example, if you cast dispel magic on a staff of power, the spell fails to disrupt the staff’s magical properties, but if the staff’s wielder casts hold monster from the staff, dispel magic can end that spell if cast on the target of hold monster."

We have already established the PHB states as the first sentence of Range: "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range."

So definitionally, all spells of Self target the caster....but for some spells the magic just does not linger on the target, but becomes a free floating vapor, with no rules exception that explains why?

When PCs reach zero hit points they fall unconscious, unless they have an specific ability that states they do not. What makes Spirit Guardians, Target the caster, but not magically linger unlike all other spells? Are you truly contending that all spells with a Range of Self, are free floating vapors, not subject to Dispel Magic cast upon the caster?

Great Googly moogly!

[schm0]

So you contend you cast a spell at a 'Target of self' but the spell does not actually land on the target, but instead becomes an independent free floating vapor.

So an Alter Self spell is not actually on the target, despite altering their body?
A Detect Thoughts spell is not actually on the caster, nor is Divine Favor?

No, that is not an accurate description of my argument. I'm not sure what kind of tone you are going for in your post, but it's not appreciated.

What I am saying is this: where a spell effect is created (the target) is one thing, what it creates (the spell effect) is another. Dispel magic only concerns itself with the latter. In other words, the spell effects that can be subsequently targeted: a creature, object or magical effect.

Thus, we have spells with a range of self that alter the creature (alter self, most others), but we also have a spell with a range of self that creates an object (shadow blade) and spells with a range of self that create a magical effect (produce flame, spirit guardians).

[JNAProductions]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

[Amnestic]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

Not effectively, but technically yes.

You'd have to Ready a reaction to drop the sword on someone else's turn, they'd get to pick it up and use it for that turn before it disappeared.

[schm0]

You can also just hand over the sword to someone else without triggering the "drop the weapon or throw it" clause.

[GeneralVryth]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

No. It's clearly meant to dissipate if it leaves the caster's hand.

[JackPhoenix]

It's actually much simpler: Shadow Blade, like many summoning spells, doesn't have a target when cast. You're not targetting yourself or anything else, the blade will appear in your hand without you being the spell's target.
If you want to dispel SB, you have to target the blade itself.

[greenstone]

Hence, dispel magic must target the spirits to dispel them.
I don't think that is true. Dispel magic can target effects but it can also target a creature.

For something like spirit guardians or shadow blade, both the caster and the effect are valid targets for the casting of dispel magic, and in both of those cases the spell is ended.

[schm0]

I don't think that is true. Dispel magic can target effects but it can also target a creature.

For something like spirit guardians or shadow blade, both the caster and the effect are valid targets for the casting of dispel magic, and in both of those cases the spell is ended.

That's just not true.

Shadow blade creates an object. It does not bestow any spell effect on the creature (such as the benefits we see with other spells like alter self or blur). The spell text explains how the caster can interact with the object.

Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that circle around the creature (not on the creature at all). The spell text explains how the magical effect works.

Neither spell creates a spell effect on the creature.

[RSP]

The only is the sticking point, "Self" does not mean it targets only you, it does mean that it does target you.


“Self” absolutely only targets the caster, per the RAW. Again, it’s a rule oft broken, but that is very much the rule:

“Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell’s range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.

Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”


You're focusing on semantics. What was the intent of the Dispel Magic? Was it specifically to end the Shadow Blade? Then it's done and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. Was it cast as a generic debuff to dispel whatever magic buff the character had? If Shadow Blade was the only spell in effect then it's dispelled and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. If the character had Shadow Blade and another buff spell on him, Bless, Protection From Energy, Aid, whatever buff spell you can think of, even having more than one buff spell by a million different spellcasters, since in this example the caster wasn't specific as to which spell he wanted to dispel just dispel something, then randomly choose which buff spell is dispelled which may or may not be Shadow Blade as the final choice and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword.

Has nothing to do with being “rules lawyer”. DM dispels (or attempts to dispels) everything on its target. You can house rule it to be “pick just one spell” but RAW, what you’re targeting matters.

That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

[GeneralVryth]

Neither spell creates a spell effect on the creature.

Both do actually. However based on the debate so far neither side is likely to be convinced by the other so it may just be agree to disagree time.



That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

And that is really what this is all about. If Dispel Magic only affected 1 spell, then you wouldn't have an incentive for players to argue the various Range: Self spells don't effect the caster and are actually some other magical effect separate from them.

[Pex]

Has nothing to do with being “rules lawyer”. DM dispels (or attempts to dispels) everything on its target. You can house rule it to be “pick just one spell” but RAW, what you’re targeting matters.

That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

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

[Blatant Beast]

No, that is not an accurate description of my argument. I'm not sure what kind of tone you are going for in your post, but it's not appreciated. .

The tone is incredulity. Incredulity at ignoring important text, like the word self, incredulity at endorsing an interpretation that just adds confusion, and essentially renders Dispel Magic non useable, because now spells get the same “Mother May I” treatment as skills.

I am also expressing incredulity, because if we couple your interpretation with some of the rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium, the sum of the wisdom is Dispel Magic could be ruled to do next to nothing against Spiritual Guardians.

Crawford rules in SAC that using Dispel Magic on one of the recipients a Bless spell, would not end the entire spell, (not an interpretation I agree with). A DM could rule that only a single spirit is dispelled not the spell effect, based off the example given in SAC.

Again, we know the rules intent clearly from SAC, I quoted them above, and Dispel Magic is intended to dispel spells.

The simplest, and best ruling is letting the spell do just that. 5e is not designed with the level of granularity assumed when we posit spells with a Range of Self, do not actually adhere to the self, despite the exact text that states that.

Pex has the right of it, too much DM discretion in this regard just renders Dispel Magic unusable…which is bad for player confidence.

[schm0]

The tone is incredulity. Incredulity at ignoring important text, like the word self, incredulity at endorsing an interpretation that just adds confusion, and essentially renders Dispel Magic non useable, because now spells get the same “Mother May I” treatment as skills.

I am also expressing incredulity, because if we couple your interpretation with some of the rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium, the sum of the wisdom is Dispel Magic could be ruled to do next to nothing against Spiritual Guardians..

As I wrote elsewhere (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25994908&postcount=36), the "spirits" of the spirit guardians are a singular magical effect that is created by the spell, and casting dispel magic on them would cause the spell to be dispelled in its entirety. They are not individually summoned creatures. Further, I did not write anything that would render dispel magic unusable or require permission from the DM to use, so I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion.

The main sticking point in this thread seems to be that some people seek to conflate the range of the spell (i.e. where it is created) and the spell effect (i..e what is created), when they are two very different things. I contend that assumption is incorrect. For the purposes of determining what to target, the caster need only care about the nature of the spell effect: whether a spell effect resides on a creature or object, or takes the form of a magical effect. Where the spell effect is initially created is largely irrelevant.

[Blatant Beast]

The “sticking point” is not the conflation you are contending.
The salient question, (which has been asked before), is what is the process, what is the test to be applied that will enable DMs to determine when a Range of Self results in the spell adhering to the caster, and when a spell makes a free floating vapor/stand alone effect?

Different eyeballs, different people will reach different conclusions.
Spirit Guardians is not Spiritual Weapon, so for me, it seems consistent to conclude that a spell like Spirit Guardians must be located on the caster, which helps to explain why the spell follows the caster at no action cost.

Ultimately, though this is but one judgement that can be reached, given the vague and ill defined vagueness of the 5e ruleset.

Which, leads us back to the salient question: is it better for the game, that a central effect like Dispel Magic, be subjected to a Byzantine set of atomically parsed targeting restrictions, when 5e itself was not designed with such parsing in mind?

In this regard, given the rule’s lack of certainty and clarity, and the apparent fact that player base can’t seem to see a clear answer to where/what a Spirit Guardians spell adheres to, that the best ruling is to assume the fictional PC does know the answer to that dilemma, and take the most generous targeting assumption vis a vis Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic can have a firmer effectiveness floor.

As I asked before, what benefits does the game garner, when a DM tells a player that read the Players Handbook, that they wasted their action and a spell slot by selecting the caster of a Spirit Guardians spell as the target for their Dispel Magic?

[Zuras]

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

If someone is concentrating on a spell, it’s still “attached” to them. The idea that someone is concentrating on a spell effect but you can’t target it even when they are within your range just seems silly to me.

The clear intent of Dispel Magic was that it be limited by only affecting spells, not by intensely parsing 5e’s targeting rules or the precise meanings of prepositions.

There’s a clear tradeoff in that targeting a creature could potentially remove all effects on it, while targeting an effect simply ends the spell causing that effect. The rules are so vague in defining what a “magical effect” is that you can rule however you want and probably remain within the RAW. I don’t think it would be good DMing, though.

Dispel Magic is a narrow, reactive spell. If a player preps it and casts it on something that counts as a spell, they should at least get a d20 roll to see if it works.

[schm0]

The salient question, (which has been asked before), is what is the process, what is the test to be applied that will enable DMs to determine when a Range of Self results in the spell adhering to the caster, and when a spell makes a free floating vapor/stand alone effect?

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


Different eyeballs, different people will reach different conclusions.

I don't see how that could possibly be the case, unless one fails to read the spell text.


Spirit Guardians is not Spiritual Weapon, so for me, it seems consistent to conclude that a spell like Spirit Guardians must be located on the caster, which helps to explain why the spell follows the caster at no action cost.

The spell text is clear: it does not alter the creature, but instead creates "spirits" that "flit around you". I'm not sure how one can argue that "around" the creature is the same as "on" the creature.


Which, leads us back to the salient question: is it better for the game, that a central effect like Dispel Magic, be subjected to a Byzantine set of atomically parsed targeting restrictions, when 5e itself was not designed with such parsing in mind?

In this regard, given the rule’s lack of certainty and clarity, and the apparent fact that player base can’t seem to see a clear answer to where/what a Spirit Guardians spell adheres to, that the best ruling is to assume the fictional PC does know the answer to that dilemma, and take the most generous targeting assumption vis a vis Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic can have a firmer effectiveness floor.

As I noted in previous posts, the hypothetical is rather convoluted. To the caster, it should be apparent what form the spell effect has taken in order to cast the spell in the first place. So we agree there. In the case of spirit guardians, they can clearly see spirits flying to and fro around the caster, for example. For shadow blade, it should be apparent that the target is the blade itself. For alter self, it should be apparent that the target is the creature. The only time when the target of dispel magic would ever come into question is when the spell effects are not perceivable, the spell itself is unable to be identified, and the party does not have access to detect magic.

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sithlordnergal]

So this just came up in our last session: Dispel Magic was cast on a character who had a Shadow Blade. For the sake of time we went with SB was dispelled, but I think it’s a valid argument that it wouldn’t be.

Pertinent RAW:

Dispel Magic:
“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.”

Shadow Blade:
“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”


So it’s not exactly clear cut, but since DM distinguishes that you choose either a creature or object, it seems apparent that the SB is distinct from whomever is holding it in terms of what DM effects. The caster of DM would need to choose whether they’re targeting the creature holding the SB or the SB itself. SB is clearly an object, as it’s a created “sword of solidified gloom” that “counts as a simple melee weapon”. I don’t think anyone is arguing that simple melee weapons or swords aren’t objects, but let me know if you disagree with that.

This caused me to think of similar instances were DM wouldn’t work and the first that popped to mind was Magic Weapon (which coincidentally was also cast on during our last session). Were DM cast on a character holding a weapon that had MW on it, the DM wouldn’t affect the MW spell as the weapon is an object, and a creature was targeted.

The other spell that came to mind was Creation: “You pull wisps of shadow material from the Shadowfell to create a nonliving object of vegetable matter within range.” As it likewise creates an object, it wouldn’t be dispelled if the creature holding the created item was targeted by DM (also it’s created apparently by the same shadow substance as SB).

Wondering any other thoughts on this. Hadn’t ever considered the creature vs object nature of DM before this came up so open to hearing other thoughts on it.

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

[schm0]

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

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


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

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


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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

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

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


As I pointed out earlier, objects do not receive saving throws. Thus, we have in 5e, a precedent for a category of things that just get affected by interactions, Objects. This would support a reading of a non clarified Dispel Magic, having hoops for spells, but just working on non spell created magical effects.
OK, and? Dispel Magic has nothing to do with saving throws.


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


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

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

[Pex]

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

Incorrect per the SB spell:

“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”

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

[Witty Username]

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

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

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

[Reynaert]

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[schm0]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Witty Username]

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


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

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

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


Nothing says the dissipated shadow isn’t targetable. Maybe it’s like a small cloud of shadow waiting to be reformed. But either way, it still exists.
Nothing says you can't dispel it if you target the caster, the spell clearly gives the caster additional abilities so they are affected by the spell.

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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


Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see "Areas of Effect" later in the this chapter).


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

[RSP]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Shadow Blade has a range of Self.
The PHB, pg 202, states the following under the Range entry in the Magic section: “ Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

The literature itself, would seemingly refute your theory RSP.

The Range of “Self” also explains why the caster can reform the blade of shadow after throwing or dropping the blade. Makes sense to me. We also have never had a case where someone wasted a Dispel Magic on Shadow Blade.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Eyebite imbues the caster with a multitude of powers, which the caster can then use on other targets. Shadow Blade, likewise, imbues the caster with the ability to summon the blade, which the caster can use to psychically Benihana someone. Yes. When one doesn't overthink things, it is pretty clear.

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

If you want to dispel SB, you have to target the blade itself. That makes sense, since the magical effect is shadow blade.

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

I thought the whole reason Dispel Magic uses the phrase “magical effect” was to avoid this sort of confusion. Yes, but one cannot stop people from confusing themselves.

[schm0]

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

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

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

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

[schm0]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

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

Tiny Hut would seem to violate this notational guidance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

Tiny Hut would seem to violate this notational guidance.

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't categorize them by range, since the range is entirely irrelevant. That being said, Spirit Guardians is another spell with a range of self that does not bestow an effect on the caster, Uh, what? It bestows on the caster a 15' radius aura that damages things and slows them down. I find your take to be well off the mark.

[schm0]

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

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

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


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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

It does not "bestow an aura". It creates "spirits" that "flit around" the caster. This magical effect does not reside on the caster at all. It moves with the caster, so no, your assessment is incorrect.
It functions as an aura with those two properties, whirling around the cleric even if he/she moves, with a 15' radius for 10 minutes, or until concentration is broken.

[schm0]

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

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

Completely different.

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

Or, you know, it’s a legit question.

____

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

[RSP]

Interesting, but not exactly rules official:

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

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

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


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

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

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

[GeneralVryth]

Or, you know, it’s a legit question.


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



For those wishing to discuss the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

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

I believe that answer made it to SAC.




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


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

[RSP]

I believe that answer made it to SAC.

You mean this?

“If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.”

This isn’t quite the same thing, but probably confirms the prior post’s assumption.

However, this also is probably wrong as it completely scraps the idea that a magical effect can be a target (which DM clearly states it can be) by inferring in the answer that only the creature under the effect can be targeted and not the effect itself. It also is probably misleading, if not incorrect, to say “ends a spell” and not “ends spells”.

Not a great example of SAC clarifying a rules question. By RAW you very well can target a magical effect, and I’d imagine it would include the whole of the effect, if you did so.

[greenstone]

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


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


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

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

Does this mean the dispel magic spell does nothing?

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

This can't be right?

[Witty Username]

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



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

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

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

[Rukelnikov]

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

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

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

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

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

[Aimeryan]

If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.


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

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

[Witty Username]

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


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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

Again, seems very hypocritical to me.

_____

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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


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

[RSP]

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

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

You mean this?

“If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.”

This isn’t quite the same thing, but probably confirms the prior post’s assumption.

It is listed in the part of SAC that answers the question about using Dispel Magic on created undead, (you cant btw), the answer also states this:

"In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field."


However, this also is probably wrong as it completely scraps the idea that a magical effect can be a target (which DM clearly states it can be) by inferring in the answer that only the creature under the effect can be targeted and not the effect itself. It also is probably misleading, if not incorrect, to say “ends a spell” and not “ends spells”.

Not a great example of SAC clarifying a rules question. By RAW you very well can target a magical effect, and I’d imagine it would include the whole of the effect, if you did so.

I agree with this. In fact I stated in the course of this thread, that I did not agree with the interpretation that Dispel Magic would only dispel the actual part of the spell it was targeting, and not the whole spell.

Dispel Magic could be written in such a fashion, but the current verbiage is not that way.

[Witty Username]

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

A dwarven thrower does require attunement though, as I recall.
And if I recall returning weapons can be blocked if the physical space doesn't allow for it (that may be 3.5 brain going).

[RSP]

It is listed in the part of SAC that answers the question about using Dispel Magic on created undead, (you cant btw), the answer also states this:

"In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field."

Thanks. The wording here is such that it’s inconclusive whether a single casting of DM can end the creations of CWBs (say as if targeting the magical effect if the CWBs spell); versus a single casting of DM can dispel a single creature created by CWBs, but only one as it must target the individual creature.

[Witty Username]

To address the other end,

Not true. The spell is what allows you to command the Summons/Conjures.

Anyone can issue commands to a summon, whether or not those commands are obeyed is the question

[RSP]

A dwarven thrower does require attunement though, as I recall.
And if I recall returning weapons can be blocked if the physical space doesn't allow for it (that may be 3.5 brain going).

Which doesn’t change that the ability still comes from the weapon. Your claim was the command property came from the creatures, not the spell being on the caster. My response is the reforming is part of the weapon created by SB (akin to the returning property of some magic weapons).

Both SB and Summons/Conjures have parts of the spell that grant a benefit to the caster, the question is whether that benefit is part of what’s created by the spell; or a component of the spell separate from the creation which specifically becomes “a spell on the caster that can be dispelled”.

I see the two as similar and so either the benefit is part of the created thing (as the spell is creating something) or the spells in question do at least two things: create something(s), and also put a spell effect on the caster that allows them to in some way affect the creation.

My take is that the spells create something and the benefits to the caster are part of the thing created. My understanding of your position is the caster’s ability to control Summons/Conjures is part of the created creature; but the ability of the SB to reform is a spell effect on the caster.

I don’t think I’ve seen an argument as to why the difference here; again, with the added info of WotC designed 5e magical thrown weapons have similar features as properties of the weapon, whereas I’m not aware of WotC designed monsters that have the inherant property that they obey commands after being magically summoned/conjured.


To address the other end,


Anyone can issue commands to a summon, whether or not those commands are obeyed is the question

That’s exactly the point: the spell effect is what allows the caster to control the summons/conjures. No one else is granted that control.

[Witty Username]

That’s exactly the point: the spell effect is what allows the caster to control the summons/conjures. No one else is granted that control.

Not entirely, for one you can use general commands for the creature to obey the orders of others.

This doesn't work in the same way as shadow blade, as you can't traditionally* hand the blade off to other people as it would disapate.

*no hard rule against this but people tend to qualify that as dropping the blade. That does seem to make the spell behave oddly though. For one you cannot cause it to reapear unless it is disapated, which only occurs if you drop or throw it. So an enemy could steal the blade from you, leaving the only option to reaquire it or dismiss the spell. It further only disapates if you drop or throw it, It makes no provisions for others. So an enemy could disarm you, aquire the shadow blade and hurl it into a chasm. And you have no means of reforming the blade.

--
But all I am getting from this is by this logic some spells simply cannot be dispelled.
Sunbeam for example has a similar argument to not be dispellable by targeting the caster, and the magical effect doesn't have persistence to target.

[RSP]

Not entirely, for one you can use general commands for the creature to obey the orders of others.

That’s still very much working off the power the spell grants the caster though.



This doesn't work in the same way as shadow blade, as you can't traditionally* hand the blade off to other people as it would disapate.

Yeah I’ve never been sold on that. Common English doesn’t say giving someone a thing you’re holding is “dropping it”.

Like, in American Football, if the QB hands the ball to the RB, you wouldn’t say “he dropped the ball”.



But all I am getting from this is by this logic some spells simply cannot be dispelled.
Sunbeam for example has a similar argument to not be dispellable by targeting the caster, and the magical effect doesn't have persistence to target.

Sunbeam isn’t creating an object though: it’s solely creating a spell effect. That’s a big difference to me, at least.

Either way, I’d imagine you could very much end the magic effect of Sunbeam, even if it’s ruled not to be on the caster.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah I’ve never been sold on that. Common English doesn’t say giving someone a thing you’re holding is “dropping it”.

Like, in American Football, if the QB hands the ball to the RB, you wouldn’t say “he dropped the ball”.

It's in the SAC (not tweets), so its official:


"Can I hand a shadow blade to another PC? It only says the blade dissipates as I throw or drop it."

No. The intent is the blade vanishes when you let go of it (that’s one of the meanings of the word “drop”).

[RSP]

It's in the SAC (not tweets), so its official:

So then you can’t throw it if following that…

[Christew]

So then you can’t throw it if following that…
Shadow Blade spell description (emphasis added):
"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn."

[Witty Username]

I see the two as similar and so either the benefit is part of the created thing (as the spell is creating something) or the spells in question do at least two things: create something(s), and also put a spell effect on the caster that allows them to in some way affect the creation.


Generally speaking though, you don't need spells to direct creatures.

Also summons tend to not vanish when you throw them, or returning weapons for that matter.


A wolf can just be more or less suceptable to commands.

Weapons appearing in your hand, tend to require spells, pact, bond or attunement.

Edit:
The plain reading of shadowblade, is that it creates a weapon that lasts until the spell ends, or you throw or otherwise let go of it. While the spell is active after the weapon has vanished you can create a new one.


I could see someone dispelling just the shadowblade when targeting the blade (spell would end, but the caster would not lose any other effects like being frightened or blessed). But I don't see it being a valid target while disapated (even with RSPs reading, I am not clear what properties the blade is supposed to have while disapated, as far as I can tell the argument would mean it is still useable as a weapon while disapated - since it is still a weapon with the described properties by that reading). It disappear and reapears when the caster chooses to bring it back into existence.

It feels to me like its the caster focusing a magical effect into a shape and sustaining it with an active spell. And so dispel targeting the caster should be able to end the effect.

Most effects like this generally don't disapear and reapear depending if the caster is actively controlling them.

This makes it seem more like darkvision, the spell gives you an additional capacity that can affect other creatures.

[RSP]

Shadow Blade spell description (emphasis added):
"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn."

Yup. That’s the spell. The SAC says it vanishes when the caster lets go of it. Which, unfortunately makes it official.

[JNAProductions]

RSP, I assume you’re not a robot.
So you should be capable of reading and coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the designers meant.

For Shadow Blade, as an example, it can be thrown effectively. But it cannot be used by anyone besides the caster.

[RSP]

Generally speaking though, you don't need spells to direct creatures.

What? You’re saying PCs get to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., that they encounter? That those creatures will just automatically obey their commands?



The plain reading of shadowblade, is that it creates a weapon that lasts until the spell ends, or you throw or otherwise let go of it. While the spell is active after the weapon has vanished you can create a new one.

You’re not creating a new one, that’s not a plain reading of SB, that’s you making stuff up. It’s a single created weapon that has a different form. And nothing says it vanishes.



I could see someone dispelling just the shadowblade when targeting the blade (spell would end, but the caster would not lose any other effects like being frightened or blessed). But I don't see it being a valid target while disapated (even with RSPs reading, I am not clear what properties the blade is supposed to have while disapated, as far as I can tell the argument would mean it is still useable as a weapon while disapated - since it is still a weapon with the described properties by that reading). It disappear and reapears when the caster chooses to bring it back into existence.

It feels to me like its the caster focusing a magical effect into a shape and sustaining it with an active spell. And so dispel targeting the caster should be able to end the effect.

Most effects like this generally don't disapear and reapear depending if the caster is actively controlling them.

This makes it seem more like darkvision, the spell gives you an additional capacity that can affect other creatures.

Again, very similar to magic on the caster allowing them to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., they created. You’re just (rather arbitrarily it seems) deciding one is on the caster and one isn’t. There’s no reason a magic weapon can’t have magical properties (theres already plenty in the DMG).

There is no already existing ability to command monsters; that’s 100% part of the spell that summons/conjures them.


RSP, I assume you’re not a robot.
So you should be capable of reading and coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the designers meant.

For Shadow Blade, as an example, it can be thrown effectively. But it cannot be used by anyone besides the caster.

Yup. I can. But poorly written rules are still poorly written rules: I’m not sure why you’re against pointing them out.

And I’m a lot less concerned about them then I am curious about DM and its interactions.

By all means, though, if you believe handing something to someone is common English for “dropping it”, continue to do so. I don’t think it is.

[JNAProductions]

Do you think the spell is written in a way that an average DM would actually have trouble running it?
I certainly don’t. It could be phrased better, sure, but it’s perfectly fine as-is.

Has this been an actual issue at your table? I’m phone posting so can’t easily reread the thread to remember if this was a hypothetical or not.

[Witty Username]

Again, very similar to magic on the caster allowing them to command animals, fey, elementals, etc., they created. You’re just (rather arbitrarily it seems) deciding one is on the caster and one isn’t. There’s no reason a magic weapon can’t have magical properties (theres already plenty in the DMG).


Yes,
Spells like Eyebite, Glibless, and Eagle's splendor all make it easier to control others. And they definitely affect the caster.

Summons spells summon one specific creature, Conjure spells a set number that obey your commands. They read to me as similar to charm spells at the heaviest which affect the creature.*

I happen to think the ability to spawn a new sword every 6 seconds is more similar to the former, not the latter. It also feels like spells like Sunbeam, Detect Thoughts, Darkvision, and haste, which affect a character by giving them abilities.

* It could also be matter of disposition, as a Summoner I tend to RP such as allies. A holdover from an optional rule I rather liked in 3.5 where you could summon creatures in specific. You can read it however like in terms of individual spells, but you can command and a creature obey that command without compulsion - summons in Naruto is a good example of that conceptually.

Which does get into your other question, yes, I allow character to ride trained horses. I also allow them to command soldiers under their authority. Things like animal handling and Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation can definitely create scenarios where players can issue obeyed commands. Even creatures like demons and angels can follow directions with the right incentive.

Are characters in you games incapable of having pets or authority without spellcasting?

[RSP]

Do you think the spell is written in a way that an average DM would actually have trouble running it?
I certainly don’t. It could be phrased better, sure, but it’s perfectly fine as-is.

Has this been an actual issue at your table? I’m phone posting so can’t easily reread the thread to remember if this was a hypothetical or not.

Not sure what you’re referring to: specific to SB or DM as a whole but, yes, to both. We’ve had a number of issues surrounding DM: not just in relation to SB, which was an actual occurrence in a session, but just overall with how poorly it’s written (the biggest being that while it specifically can target magical effects, it doesn’t give any other rules in how to interact with them if they aren’t spells, which, per this forum, isn’t a unique incident to our table).

I think it’s important for tables to have consistency (though, obviously, most concerned with mine), so I think questions like these, which, I believe, help us get a better understanding of the system as a whole, aid in that. And if you or another doesn’t feel that way, there’s no requirement to post here or follow the thread (not saying you specifically JNA, just generally, if this thread doesn’t seem helpful, then people don’t need to follow it).

If sometimes DM dispels certain things, and other times different things, I think it behaves everyone playing (to include the DM) to understand how it works. This way anyone who is considering casting DM understands what the effect will be.

If a PC cast DM on an enemy, and the DM says “okay. All 3rd level and lower spells on them are dispelled.” And the next turn, that enemy attacks the PC with SB, there may be some confusion.

Likewise, if a PC has a Summons up, and an enemy casts DM on the PC, and then the summons disappear, which the PC didn’t think would occur, that’s a big discrepancy.

[Witty Username]

Likewise, if a PC has a Summons up, and an enemy casts DM on the PC, and then the summons disappear, which the PC didn’t think would occur, that’s a big discrepancy.

At least for that, I am the wrong person to ask, as casting dispell magic to break concentration is within stuff I would allow.

[RSP]

At least for that, I am the wrong person to ask, as casting dispell magic to break concentration is within stuff I would allow.

Fair, though I believe this makes DM more powerful than expected: it essentially dispels all spells on a caster and an effect, rather than one or the other.

And to respond to your previous post: there’s a difference between a character attempting to issue commands to another creature; and a spell granting the effect that whatever a character commands, it is flawlessly followed.

You’re equating those two things as equivalent when they are not.

The magic of the summons/conjure spells ensures commands are followed that are issued by the caster. That’s not the same thing as trying to convince a creature to your wants through RP.

[JNAProductions]

Fair, though I believe this makes DM more powerful than expected: it essentially dispels all spells on a caster and an effect, rather than one or the other.

And to respond to your previous post: there’s a difference between a character attempting to issue commands to another creature; and a spell granting the effect that whatever a character commands, it is flawlessly followed.

You’re equating those two things as equivalent when they are not.

The magic of the summons/conjure spells ensures commands are followed that are issued by the caster. That’s not the same thing as trying to convince a creature to your wants through RP.

What exactly is a caster Concentrating on if not the spell?
If there's no magic linking the caster's abilities to the spell, why does losing Concentration affect it?

[RSP]

What exactly is a caster Concentrating on if not the spell?
If there's no magic linking the caster's abilities to the spell, why does losing Concentration affect it?

They are Concentrating on whatever they cast. But Concentrating on a spell isn’t the same thing as having a spell on you. That’s the issue with how it relates to DM. Here’s the relevant RAW:

“Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability.”

So if Concentrating on Sickening Radiance, is SR on the caster? That’s not how I’ve ever seen it. For me, a spell being on someone means they’re under the effect of said spell.

For instance, if Hold Person is “on someone”, I’m assuming that character is paralyzed.

[da newt]

1) is it written anywhere that casting DM on a caster who is concentrating on a spell DOES or DOES NOT affect the spell? I am not aware of anything written that resolves this question directly. (This is ABSOLUTELY something that should be resolved in the next published rule set.)


2) DM does not require you to SEE the target so IF a caster states, "I cast DM to end the magical effect invisibility" and there are 2 creatures within range that have the invisibility spell cast on them and one w/ greater invisibility which spells are affected?

[Amnestic]

2) DM does not require you to SEE the target so IF a caster states, "I cast DM to end the magical effect invisibility" and there are 2 creatures within range that have the invisibility spell cast on them and one w/ greater invisibility which spells are affected?

Even though you don't need to see it, you still need to be able to target it.

In the event that there's three people obscured by invisibility (greater or otherwise), you'd point at the one you want to dispel out of the three. It wouldn't be declaring "I want to dispel invisibility", it'd be declaring "I want to dispel that invisibility".

If one or more are hidden, you can't dispel them, because...they're hidden.

[RSP]

1) is it written anywhere that casting DM on a caster who is concentrating on a spell DOES or DOES NOT affect the spell? I am not aware of anything written that resolves this question directly. (This is ABSOLUTELY something that should be resolved in the next published rule set.)


I don’t know that anything about concentration is necessarily magical. I mean, in common English, concentrating on something isn’t magical at all (us non-magical folks concentrate all the time), so I feel there would need to be something noting it as different from regular, real life concentration.

Also of note: in the Concentration rules it list what can break Concentration, then states the following:

“The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.”

So DM is not any of the listed ways to lose Comcentration, nor is it an environmental phenomena, so, RAW, it doesn’t break Concentration.

[Witty Username]

Concentrating does imply a connection between the spell and the caster. If the spell and the caster are unrelated, why would concentration breaking affect the spell?

[RSP]

Concentrating does imply a connection between the spell and the caster. If the spell and the caster are unrelated, why would concentration breaking affect the spell?

Concentration, is by my reading of the RAW, just mundane, real world concentrating.

Now I will say, one of the big questions I’ve always had is whether a character Concentrating on a spell is aware of the spell ends.

For instance, if Wizard casts Haste on Fighter, then Teleports back to base, 100 miles away. Fighter than gets DM’ed. Is the Wizard away he no longer needs to concentrate?

If so, it probably lends credence to there being a magical spell connection between caster and spell effect when Concentrating.

But my take has always been they wouldn’t know, because it’s described as mundane Concentration.