Yeah, Wild shape doesn't really have a level to interact with dispel magic and isn't intended to. It's not crazy or necessarily unbalanced to have dispel magic effect general magical effects, but they would have to come up with a level for each effect for it to function.
It is kind of illogical. Anti magic field does suppress Wildshape...however dispel magic does not work because it is not a spell.
Something that needs cleaning up in the next version I suppose.
Yeah, dnd is kind of a weird about what is and isn't magic as well as what is and isn't a spell. This is both a mechanical and a lore issue because there are things like gods of magic
PF2e runs different forms as spells and then wild shape is basically an ability that allows druids to cast that spell more often with bonuses, it also levels like a cantrip. Specifically you get a spell that scales to half your level and can use some of the effects from other spells on a short rest recharge. That would work for using dispel magic. PF2e wild shape is really very different though. Rather than using a creature stat block you use stats described by the spell and there are many form spells that have different stats and abilities many of which get more powerful as you level.
It's an unpopular opinion and comes from the time before the internet, but if you feel that the rules as written are unclear in any way it's the DM's job to make a ruling. Before you could hop on here and ask questions, before Sage Advice and the like, DMs would have to judge how these things worked for themselves. I tend to try and make clear to players that this is how I as a DM operate. If there is inconsistency in the rules as written (there's loads), then the final decision rests with me alone. I don't care what a forum says, I don't care what Crawford says. If WotC or Crawford missed the inconsistency prior to printing, they've missed their opportunity to have a say.
Trying to be generous to your players, I would suggest that the line that they are hung up on is: 'Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.'
I can quite see some players or even some DMs interpreting Magical Effect as including Wild Shape, or Artificer Infusions or the like. If you're looking for evidence within the written text I'd point the players to the rest of description where it include spell levels for your 'evidence' to support your ruling. 'Wild shape doesn't have an associated spell level, so as the rest of the description includes information about spell levels, I'm going to rule that Wild Shape isn't dispelled by Dispel Magic.'
If your players have come from other systems (D&D 3.5, and Pathfinder as two examples), there are arguments that dispel magic would work to dispel wild shape. I believe (and admittedly may not be remembering exact description here) that Version 3 of D&D called Wild Shape a 'spell-like ability'. And I know that some DMs did sieze upon that as a way of justifying their allowing Wild Shape to be dispelled by Dispel Magic. More than that, if like me the players don't care who Jeremy Crawford is, and don't care what Sage Advice says, then saying 'oh the lead writer says that Wild Shape isn't a spell' doesn't hold water because the response is that the spell is poorly worded. There are people out there that do hold the opinion that Magical Effects are poorly worded.
Either way, you're the DM. Your decision is final. (With the side note of saying that if the entire table disagrees with your ruling you may wish to side with the table rather than your decision because it does make for a more harmonious group in my experience)
I suppose you can target the magical effect, which would include Wild Shape. However the dispel magic spell will then try to remove the spell from that magical effect. Since Wild Shape doesn't involve a spell, then there will be change.
I suppose you can target the magical effect, which would include Wild Shape. However the dispel magic spell will then try to remove the spell from that magical effect. Since Wild Shape doesn't involve a spell, then there will be change.
Yup. I agree with the 5e RAW.
Just think it could be something to tweak in future editions.
Dispel magic in 3.x only worked on spells and spell-like abilities; antimagic also worked on supernatural abilities. Wild shape was a supernatural ability in 3.x, so the interaction is unchanged.
I somewhat expect antimagic shell to change in One D&D, because 5e doesn't use keywords and thus determining what abilities are magical is quite erratic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
NEW DM PEOPLE THAT I PLAY WITH THINK THAT CAN DISPEL WILD SHAPE WITH DISPEL MAGIC SPELL.
Why are you shouting?
But to answer what I think was the question, wild shape is not affected by dispel magic. Dispel magic works on spells, and wild shape is not a spell.
But that’s just the RAW. If your DM has a house rule otherwise, that’s what takes precedence.
thank you
Yeah, Wild shape doesn't really have a level to interact with dispel magic and isn't intended to. It's not crazy or necessarily unbalanced to have dispel magic effect general magical effects, but they would have to come up with a level for each effect for it to function.
It is kind of illogical. Anti magic field does suppress Wildshape...however dispel magic does not work because it is not a spell.
Something that needs cleaning up in the next version I suppose.
Yeah, dnd is kind of a weird about what is and isn't magic as well as what is and isn't a spell. This is both a mechanical and a lore issue because there are things like gods of magic
PF2e runs different forms as spells and then wild shape is basically an ability that allows druids to cast that spell more often with bonuses, it also levels like a cantrip. Specifically you get a spell that scales to half your level and can use some of the effects from other spells on a short rest recharge. That would work for using dispel magic. PF2e wild shape is really very different though. Rather than using a creature stat block you use stats described by the spell and there are many form spells that have different stats and abilities many of which get more powerful as you level.
No clearing up needed. 5E has specifically changed Dispel Magic to only work on spells, not any other type of magic.
The clue is in the name "dispel" -> "dis-spell" -> "remove spell".
We can agree to disagree on this. :-)
It's an unpopular opinion and comes from the time before the internet, but if you feel that the rules as written are unclear in any way it's the DM's job to make a ruling. Before you could hop on here and ask questions, before Sage Advice and the like, DMs would have to judge how these things worked for themselves. I tend to try and make clear to players that this is how I as a DM operate. If there is inconsistency in the rules as written (there's loads), then the final decision rests with me alone. I don't care what a forum says, I don't care what Crawford says. If WotC or Crawford missed the inconsistency prior to printing, they've missed their opportunity to have a say.
Trying to be generous to your players, I would suggest that the line that they are hung up on is: 'Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.'
I can quite see some players or even some DMs interpreting Magical Effect as including Wild Shape, or Artificer Infusions or the like. If you're looking for evidence within the written text I'd point the players to the rest of description where it include spell levels for your 'evidence' to support your ruling. 'Wild shape doesn't have an associated spell level, so as the rest of the description includes information about spell levels, I'm going to rule that Wild Shape isn't dispelled by Dispel Magic.'
If your players have come from other systems (D&D 3.5, and Pathfinder as two examples), there are arguments that dispel magic would work to dispel wild shape. I believe (and admittedly may not be remembering exact description here) that Version 3 of D&D called Wild Shape a 'spell-like ability'. And I know that some DMs did sieze upon that as a way of justifying their allowing Wild Shape to be dispelled by Dispel Magic. More than that, if like me the players don't care who Jeremy Crawford is, and don't care what Sage Advice says, then saying 'oh the lead writer says that Wild Shape isn't a spell' doesn't hold water because the response is that the spell is poorly worded. There are people out there that do hold the opinion that Magical Effects are poorly worded.
Either way, you're the DM. Your decision is final. (With the side note of saying that if the entire table disagrees with your ruling you may wish to side with the table rather than your decision because it does make for a more harmonious group in my experience)
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I suppose you can target the magical effect, which would include Wild Shape. However the dispel magic spell will then try to remove the spell from that magical effect. Since Wild Shape doesn't involve a spell, then there will be change.
Yup. I agree with the 5e RAW.
Just think it could be something to tweak in future editions.
Dispel magic in 3.x only worked on spells and spell-like abilities; antimagic also worked on supernatural abilities. Wild shape was a supernatural ability in 3.x, so the interaction is unchanged.
I somewhat expect antimagic shell to change in One D&D, because 5e doesn't use keywords and thus determining what abilities are magical is quite erratic.