If a caster uses a higher slot to animate multiple objects with tiny servant, would you allow one casting of dispel magic to deanimate all of them? If a caster uses summon minor elementals to summon 8 mephits, could you allow one dispel magic to desummon all of them at once? Would you be happy if a GM had a monster do this to your player?
Assuming you allow dispel magic to affect one entire spell, how many ability checks would you require? For example, a caster has used a 4th level slot on conjure minor elementals to summon 8 mephits. Another caster casts dispel magic on the conjure spell. How many DC 14 ability checks to they have to make - one or eight?
I have read through a lot of your replies to this so if I repeat anything apologies.
I agree with the fact that dispel magic, for say hold person, should effect one person if cast on someone affected as that wouldn't target the Spells effect only that person.
However! I am a big fan of making players think about what they are doing, and when using spells with concentration they are part of that spells effect (Where the spell is originating from whether visible or not) so if someone uses Dispel magic on the caster it would end the spell on all the targets but the caster would be able to roll against them. Depending on the spells effect aswell I would also roll a concentration check to see if it does effect the others as they may be some backlash from the spell ending early on one of the targets without the caster knowing.
I would be very careful with adding "that you can see..." RAI seems pretty clear a caster should be able to dispel a blindness cast on them...
What you are trying to get is the can dispel a magic effect they know is there. If they saw it cast, the effect can be perceived, etc. XGtE has options to use to know what spell was cast. Gestures and pointing at someone that screams and runs away, etc. It's a magical world and casters will probably figure this out or at least have sound suspicions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
The wording was simply the easiest way for me to convey, in general, my personal take on dispelling effects. Dispelling Darkness while standing in it? Absolutely. Dispelling Blindness/Deafness on yourself? Go for it. Dispelling a magical effect on your ally who is 60 ft. away, while you're blinded? Suuuure, okay, you know roughly where they are.
The wording wasn't intended to reshape its use, just to guide me (and others, if it helps) on how to manage it in a reasonable manner.
"So, we know the enemy Wizard is in the room behind this steel door, which is locked, and the walls are foot-thick stone, right?"
"Yes."
"And we know the Wizard knows we're coming."
"From past experiences, yes, you'd expect that he had alarms set to notify him."
"And he's going to have cast Mage Armor and some other magic in preparation."
"Reasonable to assume, sure."
"Okay, I cast Dispel Magic on him at xth level and remove all the magical effects."
"No. You can't see him, or even know where he's standing, or even know for sure that he's there, and Detect Magic cannot pass through the walls or door to sense the magical effects in the room, so you don't even have a sense of where the magical effects are."
"But the range for Dispel Magic is 120 ft. and I don't need to see or feel the effects to cast it."
We're DMs. It's our job to arbitrate the situations that occur due to shenanigans. In the case of Dispel Magic, it gets very messy at times. Thankfully, Sage Advice & Jeremy Crawford make the ruling about some of its use simple and straightforward, in my opinion, at my table. In other situations, I try to rule in a way that sensibly measures the spell's reach.
Basically, I treat Dispel Magic as if it read, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range that you can see." [bold is my addition]
Not a fan of this; it'd prevent someone from dispelling a wall of fire that's burning them or a web that's trapping them just because they happen to be blinded. Dispel Magic not requiring sight is a feature.
Do not confuse multiple targets with multiple effects. You can use Dispel Magic to end a single magical effect that is affecting multiple targets.
If I cast Slow on 5 creatures, they can all make their saves and end the effect on themselves at different times. Casting Dispel Magic on one of them is no different. You can't end an effect like Slow on all targets because there's nothing to target but the individual creatures it's affecting, you can only target one of them, and the lifetime of the spell on one target doesn't affect the others.
I feel like JC has contradicted himself again.
I looked at the eratta posted by Xiphias.
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect? The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting, and that spell fails to take effect. Counterspell works against any spell, regardless of a spell’s casting time or duration. With the Ready action, dispel magic can be cast in response to another spell being cast, yet dispel magic can’t substitute for counterspell. The main reason is that dispel magic removes a spell that is already on a target, whether that target is a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon. Dispel magic can’t pre-dispel something. If a spell isn’t already present on a target, dispel magic does nothing to that target. The best that a readied dispel magic can do is dispel a spell immediately after it’s been cast to prevent it from having any effect after the action used to cast it. For example, on your turn you could say something like this: “I ready dispel magic, and if the high priest casts a spell on anyone, I cast dispel magic on the target if the spell takes hold.” If the high priest then cast hold person on your companion who fails the save against it, you could unleash your readied dispel magic and end hold person.
It says at the end.
If the high priest then cast hold person on your companion who fails the save against it, you could unleash your readied dispel magic and end hold person.
I interpret that as ending the Spell Hold Person. All of it. In the pervious eratta they say all that important is the duration not instantaneous? If it's not then it can be dispelled. It should be able to end the entire spell. I guess the interpretation is on if Slow/Haste/Invisibility is a magical effect in the area. To me that interpretation feels 1) weak sauce for a 3rd+ level spell. It should dispel the spell not just the effect on one person.
That example discusses using Dispel Magic to remove a single magical effect that is affecting a single target, "your companion". It doesn't contradict the other answers he's given.
That said, I'd love to see him address the same scenario, but where Hold Person was cast at 3rd level or above and affected two or more targets. An answer for that scenario would answer this whole thread. :)
If the high priest then cast hold person on your companion who fails the save against it, you could unleash your readied dispel magic and end hold person.
I interpret that as ending the Spell Hold Person. All of it.
There's only one target in that example, and the question doesn't have anything to do with whether Dispel Magic ends "all of it". Specifying that you end hold person on your companion would've been redundant.
In the pervious eratta they say all that important is the duration not instantaneous? If it's not then it can be dispelled. It should be able to end the entire spell.
What does the duration have to do with ending the entire spell?
I guess the interpretation is on if Slow/Haste/Invisibility is a magical effect in the area. To me that interpretation feels 1) weak sauce for a 3rd+ level spell. It should dispel the spell not just the effect on one person.
Dispel Magic is 1 spell that can deal with any non-instantaneous spell in the game, including higher level spells. Even affecting 1 creature at a time, it's almost too good to pass up as it is.
I managed to get Jeremy's attention today. I was wrong about being able to single out specific spells on a creature, but you still only end it for that creature.
Me: "Dispel Magic says 'Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.' Is it possible to choose a magical effect on a creature (e.g. Bless) without targeting the creature? Or is the intent that you choose a tangible/perceptible effect like Web?"
Me: "Last question: if you targeted the Slow spell directly (as opposed to the creature) in that situation, would it end for all other targets too or only that one creature?"
...Me: "Last question: if you targeted the Slow spell directly (as opposed to the creature) in that situation, would it end for all other targets too or only that one creature?"
Hmm, I still don't think this has answered the question you wanted to ask. Jeremy's answer implies that he still thinks you are targeting the Slow effect on one creature, and he rules that this does not dispel the Slow effect on other creatures affected by the same casting. The question you were trying to ask was "is it possible to target the Slow spell itself and thereby cancel its effect on more than one creature targeted by that casting?". The answer to that is either "yes" or "no, you can only choose one creature". If the answer is no (as I suspect they intend it to be), then the remaining question is what about a spell like Cloudkill, which is covering an area and affecting multiple creatures - is that something you can dispel? And if so, where is the line between a magical spell effect you can cancel entirely and one you can cancel only by dispelling from each of its target creatures individually?
To me at least, it's clear the last sentence of his answer is saying multi-target spells produce a distinct magical effect on each target, which can be individually targeted by Dispel Magic. If someone else wants to flag him down and split hairs further, that's cool, but I'm happy with the answer I got.
Greenstone_Walker... you do not seem to mind one spell creating multiple tiny servants or 8 minor elementals, but you are opposed to one spell dispelling them? this can already be done by Counterspell ...Dispel Magic is for getting rid of a spell once it has already been cast. If you are targeting each creature you would have to use one spell for each and they would each require a roll, but if you are targeting one spell then you would only make one roll. One spell creating one magical effect that includes multiple creatures does not make multiple effects.
It is not the dispelling part that I mind, it's the number of rolls. If my character casts slow on 6 foes then six saving throws have to be made. If one of them tries to dispel my spell then I'd like six ability checks to be made.
It also seems a bit strange that if a caster casts aid on a number of characters who travel away using high speed and/or teleportation, a dispel magic cast on one of them affects the other two even though they might be hundreds or thousands of km away (or maybe even on another plane). On the other hand... magic. :-)
Updated the main post to try and detail the 2 specific views on magical effects. Included links folks have posted plus others that concern dispel magic for folks trying to make their own decision on ruling it in their personal games.
That is a sensible ruling. Still some thought and decisions for DMs to decide what is discrete or who is aware of what. So casting dispel your choices are roughly:
1. Target a creature or object - attempts to dispel all magical effects that are currently attached to that creature/object (Slow, Haste, Bless, Heat Metal etc.). This has no effect on any other creatures affected by that same spell, nor does targeting a caster have any effect on spells they have cast or are concentrating on.
2. Target a single known magical effect on a creature/object - this allows you to dispel a negative effect on an ally without also removing any positive buffs. Still no effect on any other creatures.
3. Target a single, known, "targetable" magic effect that is not attached to a creature or object: a Cloudkill cloud, a wall of fire, the surface of a tiny hut, etc. This may mean canceling an effect that is affecting multiple creatures, but the effect is not attached separately to those creatures. You can't target "the Sleep spell" because that is not targetable, it is now several discrete effects attached to different creatures.
Why didn't you ask him something like... if I don't target any of the 6 creatures affected by the slow spell, but instead target the magical effect from the slow spell itself, can dispel magic dispel the magical effect... not a creature, not targeting a creature, not targeting the effect on a creature... nothing to do with creatures, leave them out of the question all together... what we all simply want to know is can dispel magic end a magical effect created by a spell (like it says it can right in the spell).
Yeah, I think he has already answered that question. The question this tweet is responding to was "Is the intent that you cannot target the "magical effect" of Water Walk to remove on every PC because in this scenario it's actually multiple magical effects, 1 effect per PC so the PC must be the target?", so when he answers no and says that "each of those creatures bears a discrete, targetable effect" he has given all the required answer to that question, no matter how you phrase it.
Dispel Magic cannot target a spell. It can target magical effects created by spells. A spell such as Slow or Bless or Hold Monster cast at a higher level places a discrete magical effect on each creature affected by it when it is cast. You can target those effects, but you cannot end more than one effect per casting of Dispel Magic.
That isn't one magical effect. If Sleep puts three creatures to sleep then there are now three magical effects. There is not one effect to target. One spell, three effects. That is what the tweets linked to above actually say. If you don't agree with the ruling then that's fine you can play using your rule interpretations, but in this case the question has actually been asked very clearly, in almost the exact wording you wanted, and it has been answered unequivocally.
Again, appreciate all the thoughts here. I think for those who are referencing Jeremy Crawford's answers on Dispel Magic, you've got a pretty definitive direction. For those who are saying it's not, that's your call and do what you need to in order to make your game fun.
For anyone trying to "win" the argument, let's not. That wasn't the point of this thread. It was to get others opinions. And let me be clear on that - I asked for OPINIONS on how other DMs interpret and rule on Dispel Magic. Those opinions have been shared. If someone doesn't like what the rules designer has shared on Twitter or doesn't interpret it the way you do, that's their opinion. Let them have it and let it go so you can both go run your own games the way you like. I'm not really seeing much point to further beating this dead horse.
Thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a caster uses a higher slot to animate multiple objects with tiny servant, would you allow one casting of dispel magic to deanimate all of them? If a caster uses summon minor elementals to summon 8 mephits, could you allow one dispel magic to desummon all of them at once? Would you be happy if a GM had a monster do this to your player?
Assuming you allow dispel magic to affect one entire spell, how many ability checks would you require? For example, a caster has used a 4th level slot on conjure minor elementals to summon 8 mephits. Another caster casts dispel magic on the conjure spell. How many DC 14 ability checks to they have to make - one or eight?
I have read through a lot of your replies to this so if I repeat anything apologies.
I agree with the fact that dispel magic, for say hold person, should effect one person if cast on someone affected as that wouldn't target the Spells effect only that person.
However! I am a big fan of making players think about what they are doing, and when using spells with concentration they are part of that spells effect (Where the spell is originating from whether visible or not) so if someone uses Dispel magic on the caster it would end the spell on all the targets but the caster would be able to roll against them. Depending on the spells effect aswell I would also roll a concentration check to see if it does effect the others as they may be some backlash from the spell ending early on one of the targets without the caster knowing.
I would be very careful with adding "that you can see..." RAI seems pretty clear a caster should be able to dispel a blindness cast on them...
What you are trying to get is the can dispel a magic effect they know is there. If they saw it cast, the effect can be perceived, etc. XGtE has options to use to know what spell was cast. Gestures and pointing at someone that screams and runs away, etc. It's a magical world and casters will probably figure this out or at least have sound suspicions.
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
The wording was simply the easiest way for me to convey, in general, my personal take on dispelling effects. Dispelling Darkness while standing in it? Absolutely. Dispelling Blindness/Deafness on yourself? Go for it. Dispelling a magical effect on your ally who is 60 ft. away, while you're blinded? Suuuure, okay, you know roughly where they are.
The wording wasn't intended to reshape its use, just to guide me (and others, if it helps) on how to manage it in a reasonable manner.
"So, we know the enemy Wizard is in the room behind this steel door, which is locked, and the walls are foot-thick stone, right?"
"Yes."
"And we know the Wizard knows we're coming."
"From past experiences, yes, you'd expect that he had alarms set to notify him."
"And he's going to have cast Mage Armor and some other magic in preparation."
"Reasonable to assume, sure."
"Okay, I cast Dispel Magic on him at xth level and remove all the magical effects."
"No. You can't see him, or even know where he's standing, or even know for sure that he's there, and Detect Magic cannot pass through the walls or door to sense the magical effects in the room, so you don't even have a sense of where the magical effects are."
"But the range for Dispel Magic is 120 ft. and I don't need to see or feel the effects to cast it."
We're DMs. It's our job to arbitrate the situations that occur due to shenanigans. In the case of Dispel Magic, it gets very messy at times. Thankfully, Sage Advice & Jeremy Crawford make the ruling about some of its use simple and straightforward, in my opinion, at my table. In other situations, I try to rule in a way that sensibly measures the spell's reach.
I feel like JC has contradicted himself again.
I looked at the eratta posted by Xiphias.
It says at the end.
I interpret that as ending the Spell Hold Person. All of it.
In the pervious eratta they say all that important is the duration not instantaneous? If it's not then it can be dispelled. It should be able to end the entire spell.
I guess the interpretation is on if Slow/Haste/Invisibility is a magical effect in the area. To me that interpretation feels 1) weak sauce for a 3rd+ level spell. It should dispel the spell not just the effect on one person.
That example discusses using Dispel Magic to remove a single magical effect that is affecting a single target, "your companion". It doesn't contradict the other answers he's given.
That said, I'd love to see him address the same scenario, but where Hold Person was cast at 3rd level or above and affected two or more targets. An answer for that scenario would answer this whole thread. :)
There's only one target in that example, and the question doesn't have anything to do with whether Dispel Magic ends "all of it". Specifying that you end hold person on your companion would've been redundant.
What does the duration have to do with ending the entire spell?
Dispel Magic is 1 spell that can deal with any non-instantaneous spell in the game, including higher level spells. Even affecting 1 creature at a time, it's almost too good to pass up as it is.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Remove one magical effect.
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
I managed to get Jeremy's attention today. I was wrong about being able to single out specific spells on a creature, but you still only end it for that creature.
Me: "Dispel Magic says 'Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.' Is it possible to choose a magical effect on a creature (e.g. Bless) without targeting the creature? Or is the intent that you choose a tangible/perceptible effect like Web?"
Jeremy: "Dispel magic can target a discrete magical effect on a creature or an object, provided that effect is choosable. In other words, you have to be aware of it to be able to choose it as the target."
Me: "So you could remove a spell like Slow without removing other spells on the creature if you're aware they're under the effects of the Slow spell?"
Jeremy: "That's correct."
Me: "Last question: if you targeted the Slow spell directly (as opposed to the creature) in that situation, would it end for all other targets too or only that one creature?"
Jeremy: "Just for the creature. The target in this case is the magical effect of slow on that creature, not the entire spell and all its targets."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Hmm, I still don't think this has answered the question you wanted to ask. Jeremy's answer implies that he still thinks you are targeting the Slow effect on one creature, and he rules that this does not dispel the Slow effect on other creatures affected by the same casting. The question you were trying to ask was "is it possible to target the Slow spell itself and thereby cancel its effect on more than one creature targeted by that casting?". The answer to that is either "yes" or "no, you can only choose one creature". If the answer is no (as I suspect they intend it to be), then the remaining question is what about a spell like Cloudkill, which is covering an area and affecting multiple creatures - is that something you can dispel? And if so, where is the line between a magical spell effect you can cancel entirely and one you can cancel only by dispelling from each of its target creatures individually?
To me at least, it's clear the last sentence of his answer is saying multi-target spells produce a distinct magical effect on each target, which can be individually targeted by Dispel Magic. If someone else wants to flag him down and split hairs further, that's cool, but I'm happy with the answer I got.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It is not the dispelling part that I mind, it's the number of rolls. If my character casts slow on 6 foes then six saving throws have to be made. If one of them tries to dispel my spell then I'd like six ability checks to be made.
It also seems a bit strange that if a caster casts aid on a number of characters who travel away using high speed and/or teleportation, a dispel magic cast on one of them affects the other two even though they might be hundreds or thousands of km away (or maybe even on another plane). On the other hand... magic. :-)
Updated the main post to try and detail the 2 specific views on magical effects. Included links folks have posted plus others that concern dispel magic for folks trying to make their own decision on ruling it in their personal games.
Jeremy tweeted a bit more since the tweets from Monday prompted additional questions.
"When you use dispel magic to target a magical effect within range, you're choosing a discrete effect that you're aware of, often one created by a spell. If a spell has put an ongoing effect on multiple creatures, each of those creatures bears a discrete, targetable effect."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That is a sensible ruling. Still some thought and decisions for DMs to decide what is discrete or who is aware of what. So casting dispel your choices are roughly:
1. Target a creature or object - attempts to dispel all magical effects that are currently attached to that creature/object (Slow, Haste, Bless, Heat Metal etc.). This has no effect on any other creatures affected by that same spell, nor does targeting a caster have any effect on spells they have cast or are concentrating on.
2. Target a single known magical effect on a creature/object - this allows you to dispel a negative effect on an ally without also removing any positive buffs. Still no effect on any other creatures.
3. Target a single, known, "targetable" magic effect that is not attached to a creature or object: a Cloudkill cloud, a wall of fire, the surface of a tiny hut, etc. This may mean canceling an effect that is affecting multiple creatures, but the effect is not attached separately to those creatures. You can't target "the Sleep spell" because that is not targetable, it is now several discrete effects attached to different creatures.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yeah, I think he has already answered that question. The question this tweet is responding to was "Is the intent that you cannot target the "magical effect" of Water Walk to remove on every PC because in this scenario it's actually multiple magical effects, 1 effect per PC so the PC must be the target?", so when he answers no and says that "each of those creatures bears a discrete, targetable effect" he has given all the required answer to that question, no matter how you phrase it.
Dispel Magic cannot target a spell. It can target magical effects created by spells. A spell such as Slow or Bless or Hold Monster cast at a higher level places a discrete magical effect on each creature affected by it when it is cast. You can target those effects, but you cannot end more than one effect per casting of Dispel Magic.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1022951482604367875
The lead rules designer for Dungeons and Dragons has literally answered the question. We're not being stubborn, we're just being right.
That isn't one magical effect. If Sleep puts three creatures to sleep then there are now three magical effects. There is not one effect to target. One spell, three effects. That is what the tweets linked to above actually say. If you don't agree with the ruling then that's fine you can play using your rule interpretations, but in this case the question has actually been asked very clearly, in almost the exact wording you wanted, and it has been answered unequivocally.
Again, appreciate all the thoughts here. I think for those who are referencing Jeremy Crawford's answers on Dispel Magic, you've got a pretty definitive direction. For those who are saying it's not, that's your call and do what you need to in order to make your game fun.
For anyone trying to "win" the argument, let's not. That wasn't the point of this thread. It was to get others opinions. And let me be clear on that - I asked for OPINIONS on how other DMs interpret and rule on Dispel Magic. Those opinions have been shared. If someone doesn't like what the rules designer has shared on Twitter or doesn't interpret it the way you do, that's their opinion. Let them have it and let it go so you can both go run your own games the way you like. I'm not really seeing much point to further beating this dead horse.
Thanks!