It should also be noted that Dispel Magic doesn't end a spell wholesale, it ends a spell on a target creature or object (it can also target a specific spell effect on a creature or object to end that spell on that target). If a spell is on multiple creatures, dispelling the spell on one does not end it on any other creature the spell is on. Functionally, this would mean for some of your examples:
...
Issues about targeting aside, this is separately incorrect (though, it seems like this mistaken conclusion is also coloring your reason about the targeting question as well). Dispel Magic tells that a spell ends, not a spell's effect. What you're describing is more like Antimagic Field, which can suppress a spell's effect on one creature while leaving it unsuppressed on another.
If a spell has more than one discrete effect such as conjure animals, then I don’t really know if you dispel the entire spell or just that effect. I would guess you dispel one effect.
If a spell has one effect that is spread across multiple creatures, like warding bond, then dispel dispels it all, as far as I’m concerned. But again, I’m not entirely sure on it.
The big thing here is I don’t think I would let you go directly after concentration with the spell. I think there would be stronger language saying it broke concentration if that were an intended use.
It should also be noted that Dispel Magic doesn't end a spell wholesale, it ends a spell on a target creature or object (it can also target a specific spell effect on a creature or object to end that spell on that target). If a spell is on multiple creatures, dispelling the spell on one does not end it on any other creature the spell is on. Functionally, this would mean for some of your examples:
...
Issues about targeting aside, this is separately incorrect (though, it seems like this mistaken conclusion is also coloring your reason about the targeting question as well). Dispel Magic tells that a spell ends, not a spell's effect. What you're describing is more like Antimagic Field, which can suppress a spell's effect on one creature while leaving it unsuppressed on another.
I know you don't like it, and I don't care: From the SAC
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.
When you cast Bless, how many Bless spells are cast? How many Bless spells are being concentrated on? One.
If a Bless spell ends, it ends. Dispel Magic does not say that it ends an effect, it is explicit that it ends a spell.
When Bless ends, it ends. If you lose concentration on it, you lose concentration on it, not on several different versions of it. "Your Blesses end" or "one Bless ends but the others don't" is nonsense jargon in 5E.
That should not be a controversial ruling, and it's pretty sad that SAC got it wrong.
Casting dispel magic on a caster would do nothing unless the spell has a specific ongoing magical effect on them, i.e. mage armor. Merely needing to concentrate on the spell, or even being able to control it etc. as with a familiar or arcane hand, wouldn't be enough for me to make the caster a viable option for dispelling the spell.
If you want to get rid of daylight or tiny hut or Arcane Hand, you target the effect itself, not the caster.
If you want to dispel warding bond, you target the other person, not the caster.
If you want to decide dispelling telekinesis requires targeting the caster because the telekinetic effect isn't necessarily ongoing and visible a la Daylight, that seems reasonable, but targeting the telekinetic effect as it lifts something into the air would work just as well.
Like others in this thread, for the most part I'm confused as to why this would be confusing.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Okay, then moving off of Bless, there is no way to dispel Telekinesis in a way that ends the spell? You can dispel a single object being held aloft to make it drop, but that doesn't end the spell because you're only dispelling the spell on that object, leaving the caster free to just pick it back up again with the still-in-effect spell?
This is a significant nerf to Dispel Magic, FYI, not just business as usual.
Okay, then moving off of Bless, there is no way to dispel Telekinesis in a way that ends the spell? You can dispel a single object being held aloft to make it drop, but that doesn't end the spell because you're only dispelling the spell on that object, leaving the caster free to just pick it back up again with the still-in-effect spell?
This is a significant nerf to Dispel Magic, FYI, not just business as usual.
Who said it wouldn't end the spell in the case of telekinesis?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Icon just got done quoting SAC (which is, as usual, wrong) that says that Dispel magic "ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets." In the context of Bless, one spell has effects on multiple targets, and JC thinks that ending the spell/effect on one doesn't end it for others. Telekinesis can have a different target effected every round, in addition to its ongoing effect on the caster. If ending one Blessed-creature's effect doesn't end Bless, why would ending one Telekinesised-creature's effect end Telekinesis? And so, if Telekinesis isn't ended by dispelling its lifted victim, and if it can't be dispelled by targeting the caster who is doing the lifting because they were never a target... then there's just no way to end a Telekinesis spell apart from hitting the caster until they lose concentration. They can just keep picking up their victim every round, even if you try to rescue them by dispelling it on the victim.
I just want to move it squarely into focus, that the combination of "active effects on a caster aren't a spell on the caster unless the caster was the target" + "dispel ends individual effects, not spells, despite the explicit wording of Dispel Magic" combine to render all sorts of spells un- Dispellable. Maybe you don't see that as a problem, but don't pretend it isn't a consequence of these two rulings being paired.
I think that its very RAI debatable whether or not you guys are right about a spell needing to "target" a creature in order for it to be "on" that creature (of course, recall that 5E uses "target" in at least two different ways, if not more, so good luck treating THAT as the bright line simple rule you're looking for). But to go further and disregard the plain language of Dispel Magic, as the SAC does, is an objective violation of RAW.
The "Target" of a Dispel Magic is not the effect the spell causes, but the spell the caster is concentrating on that causes the effect.
Cheeky way to try and break concentration without the damage and rolling to see if the caster maintains concentration. ;p
If that is the case, then I would rule you could still try and break the spell and concentration of the caster by beating the DC portion of Dispell, but would add you needed to beat the casters Spell Save DC in order to break the mental training the caster has to hold the spells concentration.
Okay, then moving off of Bless, there is no way to dispel Telekinesis in a way that ends the spell? You can dispel a single object being held aloft to make it drop, but that doesn't end the spell because you're only dispelling the spell on that object, leaving the caster free to just pick it back up again with the still-in-effect spell?
This is a significant nerf to Dispel Magic, FYI, not just business as usual.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think this. I just think it is stealing a base to try to dispel, say, the cleric when they blessed the fighter, barb, and wizard.
The result of Dispel Magic (or at least, attempted result) is always "any spell on the target ends." Not spell effects, magical effects, or anything else... spells.
What is the spell "on"? A "creature, object, or magical effect" that you targeted with Dispel Magic to attempt to end all of the spells "on" that target.
Target a creature? End the spells (not the effects) on that creature.
Target an object? End the spells on that object.
Target a magical effect? This can get weird.... this is another way where "a spell is "on" X if that spell "targeted" X" starts to really break apart in a new way. Okay, I've targeted a Spiritual Weapon that's floating around, it isn't a real creature, or a real object, but it's a magical effect that can be targeted by Dispel Magic, right? So what spells were cast that "targeted" that floating spectral weapon for me to end? Ummm.... none? A spell created it... does that spell end now, even though it wasn't cast in a way that "targeted" the weapon? Sure, yeah, obviously that makes sense and is RAI... but now we're already stepping beyond the bounds of "on always means targeted", so isn't our nice clean bright line getting a little fuzzier already....?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think this. I just think it is stealing a base to try to dispel, say, the cleric when they blessed the fighter, barb, and wizard.
For the record, I'm willing to consider that Concentration in-and-of-itself is not enough of an effect on the caster to let Dispel Magic get its teeth into the spell. A Bless that doesn't include the caster as one of the blessed creatures would fall under #3 in my original post (a spell with external targets, which DOES take concentration, but does NOT reference the caster). What shocks my conscious more than #3 not being dispellable by targeting the caster, is #2 not being dispellable (a spell with external targets, which does NOT take concentration, but which DOES reference the caster), like Warding Bond. When spells reference a creature in their spell effect in a meaningful way, I consider that spell to be "on" that creature... the spell is giving them a magical benefit, how would it not be "on" them???
Telekinesis can have a different target effected every round
No, Telekinesis has the same effect every round -- granting the caster telekinesis. It might affect a different object each round, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Icon just got done quoting SAC (which is, as usual, wrong) that says that Dispel magic "ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets." In the context of Bless, one spell has effects on multiple targets, and JC thinks that ending the spell/effect on one doesn't end it for others. Telekinesis can have a different target effected every round, in addition to its ongoing effect on the caster. If ending one Blessed-creature's effect doesn't end Bless, why would ending one Telekinesised-creature's effect end Telekinesis? And so, if Telekinesis isn't ended by dispelling its lifted victim, and if it can't be dispelled by targeting the caster who is doing the lifting because they were never a target... then there's just no way to end a Telekinesis spell apart from hitting the caster until they lose concentration. They can just keep picking up their victim every round, even if you try to rescue them by dispelling it on the victim.
I just want to move it squarely into focus, that the combination of "active effects on a caster aren't a spell on the caster unless the caster was the target" + "dispel ends individual effects, not spells, despite the explicit wording of Dispel Magic" combine to render all sorts of spells un- Dispellable. Maybe you don't see that as a problem, but don't pretend it isn't a consequence of these two rulings being paired.
I think that its very RAI debatable whether or not you guys are right about a spell needing to "target" a creature in order for it to be "on" that creature (of course, recall that 5E uses "target" in at least two different ways, if not more, so good luck treating THAT as the bright line simple rule you're looking for). But to go further and disregard the plain language of Dispel Magic, as the SAC does, is an objective violation of RAW.
If the target of Dispel Magic is a creature, then that creature must be a target of an ongoing spell in order for Dispel Magic to do anything.
When a spell had many targets, only the effect on the Dispelled creature is ended - not the whole spell.
Your problem here is the definition of 'target'. A target is not *just* the thing pointed at in the range of the spell's description, it is any object, creature or spacial area that is affected by that spell. So, in order to judge whether Dispel Magic works to end a spell effect on a creature you just need to answer the two questions: "Is it ongoing?" and "Is this creature a target?"
The first question is pretty easy, and generally an Instant spell will not be considered ongoing, but it is still possible they might include some ongoing effects. The standard definition would be if there is an effect which would be ended were the spell ended prematurely, then that effect can be dispelled. (Though personally I would allow Dispel Magic to remove the potential healing effect from a single Goodberry, despite this not aligning with the official guidance.)
The second question is harder. There are the easy ones like Mage Armor or Bless. Those targeted creatures are the targets. Then there are all the very many edge cases, like those we are currently discussing - a spell which grants the caster the ability to control some summoned thing, or do some other magical thing, but does not specifically target the caster.
I would split these into to groups for Dispel Magic: granting the ability to use actions to control or influence other discrete spell effects (like issuing commands to summoned animals, moving or attacking with a Spiritual Weapon, or commanding a charmed enemy), and new abilities provided by the spell which create discrete spell effects on other targets (like Dragon's Breath or Telekinesis).
I would rule that the first set do not grant abilities to the caster per se - to much as they create a spell effect with the property of being controllable by the caster, and then give instructions on how those control directives must be delivered. If the caster does not give directives, then the spell effect does not cease to exist. Helpfully also, these spells grant a very easy way to dispel them in that you can target the summoned animal, the floating weapon or giant hand with your Dispel Magic and the summoned effect goes away. The caster then loses the ability to command that effect, not because they were a target of the spell, but because there is nothing to command.
The second set are harder. I would argue that, regardless of the range of the spell, if it grants the caster an ability to affect others with some magical effect (that does not itself linger in space and time) - then the caster must in fact be a target of that spell. I would therefor rule that telekinesis has the caster as one of its targets, and that the ability it grants could be dismissed by Dispel Magic.
I would split these into to groups for Dispel Magic: granting the ability to use actions to control or influence other discrete spell effects (like issuing commands to summoned animals, moving or attacking with a Spiritual Weapon, or commanding a charmed enemy), and new abilities provided by the spell which create discrete spell effects on other targets (like Dragon's Breath or Telekinesis).
I would rule that the first set do not grant abilities to the caster per se - to much as they create a spell effect with the property of being controllable by the caster, and then give instructions on how those control directives must be delivered. If the caster does not give directives, then the spell effect does not cease to exist. Helpfully also, these spells grant a very easy way to dispel them in that you can target the summoned animal, the floating weapon or giant hand with your Dispel Magic and the summoned effect goes away. The caster then loses the ability to command that effect, not because they were a target of the spell, but because there is nothing to command.
The second set are harder. I would argue that, regardless of the range of the spell, if it grants the caster an ability to affect others with some magical effect (that does not itself linger in space and time) - then the caster must in fact be a target of that spell. I would therefor rule that telekinesis has the caster as one of its targets, and that the ability it grants could be dismissed by Dispel Magic.
This is some good nuance. My attempt to lump all "active effects on the caster" into one category, rather than recognizing that there's different types of effects that casters often retain (the ability to control something like a summon, vs. a spatial relationship dependence with something like a floating disc, vs. a new spell like ability like telekinesis, vs. a static bonus like mage armor, etc.). Maybe the intent really is that a DM needs to dive in and discriminate among these different types of effects to determine whether an effect is 'active enough ' to be a spell that is "on" the caster. I'd rather not, but maybe one must.
When a spell had many targets, only the effect on the Dispelled creature is ended - not the whole spell.
This however, remains an inexcusable elevation of SAC over RAW.
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. 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. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.
No matter how much more sensible it might be for Dispel Magic to only end the effects local to the thing it has targeted, that is unequivocally not how the spell is worded. The 5E system overall is very comfortable using "spell" when it means "spell" and "spell effect" or "effect" when it means "effect." There's no excuse to pretend that Dispel Magic does not say that it ends spells.
I say if you use Dispel Magic to end the spell of a caster, that spell ends. Even if the caster has to concentrate to maintain the arcane energy of the spell, dispelling the casters SPELL would be the same as ether the caster ending the spell early, or the caster having their concentration broken.
I think many tend to use Dispel Magic on things that have just simply been effected by a spell, but never really used it to end a SPELL that may still be "Running" by the caster.
Preamble: As usual, a citation to a published rule book (not SAC) for RAW or textually-based-RAI is preferred, or at least your own reasoning, I'm not really looking for "well Jeremy Crawford once tweeted...." or "well Reddit/RPGStackExchange/Some Blog says...." If you must reference SAC, fine, but let's try to think this out ourselves as well!
So Dispel Magic came up in a game last night, and I was a little caught off guard by how differently the group read it!
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. 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. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.
I'm interested specifically in what the boundaries are on what types of spells you can end by casting Dispel Magic on the enemy caster. Without spoiling the specific use I was trying to leverage it for, let me lay out some examples, and hear what you think Dispel Magic does or doesn't do.
Spell has an external target, does not Concentrate, and does not reference the caster as having any special interaction with the spell's effect. E.g. Daylight.
Spell has an external target, does notConcentrate, but doesreference the caster having ongoing control/interaction with the spell effect. E.g. Find Familiar or Alarm.
Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, but does not reference the caster. E.g. Magic Weapon or Bane.
Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, and does reference caster. E.g. Arcane Hand or Conjure Animals.
Spell targets the caster, does not Concentrate, and does not reference caster with ongoing effect. E.g. Goodberry (but this is kind of a weird type of spell to try to imagine, one which takes effect in relation to the caster or a creature that can be you, but then isn't maintained by you or interact with you or the creature in the future?)
Spell targets the caster, does Concentrate, but does not reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g.... even harder to think of an example, this might be an empty category.
Spell targets the caster, does notConcentrate, but does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Mage Armor.
Spell targets the caster, does Concentrate, and does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Divine Favor.
For my money, I would say that a Dispel Magic on a caster would end everything except for #1 and #5, because the the caster either (a) concentrating to maintain a spell or (b) having a benefit from or control over the spell effect both qualify as that spell being in some way "on" the caster.
Now, this is already long enough... but if there's a different criteria for examining whether a spell is "on" a target than some combination of where it's targeted, who concentrates to maintain it, or who the spell effect interacts with/is controlled by.... then feel free to set me straight!
Mage Armor and Divine Favor are the only spells you listed that are on the caster when you bean the caster with Dispel Magic. The single most egregious example you listed was Find Familiar - Dispel Magic can't end an instantaneous spell, because the spell already ended. You can't end a spell twice.
Here's how you tell if a spell can be ended by Dispel Magic when you target the caster:
Does the spell currently exist? If not - for example, it is Duration: Instantaneous, or Duration: 1 minute and it was cast 2 minutes ago, or for any other reason the spell has already ended - then Dispel Magic can't end it.
Can the spell target the caster? This doesn't mean initial targeting necessarily - Fireball can and does target creatures - but if the spell literally can't target creatures, e.g. any summon spell ever, then of course it can't target the caster, either. There may be nuance to this. But if the spell literally can't target the caster, you know for certain the spell isn't on the caster, so Dispel Magic on the caster can't end it.
If it can target the caster, did it target the caster? This gets into very potentially weedy territory, but it's hard to go wrong with changing this question to "did the spell's effects happen to the caster"? In any case, you need a way to answer this question in general anyway, for a wide variety of other effects in the game that interact with spell targeting, so figure out the answer. If it didn't actually target the caster, it's the same as if it couldn't.
If it did target the caster, you have to work out if it's still affecting the caster. If not, it's not on the caster.
If you got here, the spell is on the caster, and Dispel Magic will work.
Issues about targeting aside, this is separately incorrect (though, it seems like this mistaken conclusion is also coloring your reason about the targeting question as well). Dispel Magic tells that a spell ends, not a spell's effect. What you're describing is more like Antimagic Field, which can suppress a spell's effect on one creature while leaving it unsuppressed on another.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If a spell has more than one discrete effect such as conjure animals, then I don’t really know if you dispel the entire spell or just that effect. I would guess you dispel one effect.
If a spell has one effect that is spread across multiple creatures, like warding bond, then dispel dispels it all, as far as I’m concerned. But again, I’m not entirely sure on it.
The big thing here is I don’t think I would let you go directly after concentration with the spell. I think there would be stronger language saying it broke concentration if that were an intended use.
I know you don't like it, and I don't care: From the SAC
You're right, I don't like it :)
When you cast Bless, how many Bless spells are cast? How many Bless spells are being concentrated on? One.
If a Bless spell ends, it ends. Dispel Magic does not say that it ends an effect, it is explicit that it ends a spell.
When Bless ends, it ends. If you lose concentration on it, you lose concentration on it, not on several different versions of it. "Your Blesses end" or "one Bless ends but the others don't" is nonsense jargon in 5E.
That should not be a controversial ruling, and it's pretty sad that SAC got it wrong.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Casting dispel magic on a caster would do nothing unless the spell has a specific ongoing magical effect on them, i.e. mage armor. Merely needing to concentrate on the spell, or even being able to control it etc. as with a familiar or arcane hand, wouldn't be enough for me to make the caster a viable option for dispelling the spell.
If you want to get rid of daylight or tiny hut or Arcane Hand, you target the effect itself, not the caster.
If you want to dispel warding bond, you target the other person, not the caster.
If you want to decide dispelling telekinesis requires targeting the caster because the telekinetic effect isn't necessarily ongoing and visible a la Daylight, that seems reasonable, but targeting the telekinetic effect as it lifts something into the air would work just as well.
Like others in this thread, for the most part I'm confused as to why this would be confusing.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Up to three creatures get Blessed. If you target one of those creatures with Dispel Magic, it is no longer Blessed. It's not that deep.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Okay, then moving off of Bless, there is no way to dispel Telekinesis in a way that ends the spell? You can dispel a single object being held aloft to make it drop, but that doesn't end the spell because you're only dispelling the spell on that object, leaving the caster free to just pick it back up again with the still-in-effect spell?
This is a significant nerf to Dispel Magic, FYI, not just business as usual.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Who said it wouldn't end the spell in the case of telekinesis?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Icon just got done quoting SAC (which is, as usual, wrong) that says that Dispel magic "ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets." In the context of Bless, one spell has effects on multiple targets, and JC thinks that ending the spell/effect on one doesn't end it for others. Telekinesis can have a different target effected every round, in addition to its ongoing effect on the caster. If ending one Blessed-creature's effect doesn't end Bless, why would ending one Telekinesised-creature's effect end Telekinesis? And so, if Telekinesis isn't ended by dispelling its lifted victim, and if it can't be dispelled by targeting the caster who is doing the lifting because they were never a target... then there's just no way to end a Telekinesis spell apart from hitting the caster until they lose concentration. They can just keep picking up their victim every round, even if you try to rescue them by dispelling it on the victim.
I just want to move it squarely into focus, that the combination of "active effects on a caster aren't a spell on the caster unless the caster was the target" + "dispel ends individual effects, not spells, despite the explicit wording of Dispel Magic" combine to render all sorts of spells un- Dispellable. Maybe you don't see that as a problem, but don't pretend it isn't a consequence of these two rulings being paired.
I think that its very RAI debatable whether or not you guys are right about a spell needing to "target" a creature in order for it to be "on" that creature (of course, recall that 5E uses "target" in at least two different ways, if not more, so good luck treating THAT as the bright line simple rule you're looking for). But to go further and disregard the plain language of Dispel Magic, as the SAC does, is an objective violation of RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
OK, I get what C_C is trying to accomplish.
The "Target" of a Dispel Magic is not the effect the spell causes, but the spell the caster is concentrating on that causes the effect.
Cheeky way to try and break concentration without the damage and rolling to see if the caster maintains concentration. ;p
If that is the case, then I would rule you could still try and break the spell and concentration of the caster by beating the DC portion of Dispell, but would add you needed to beat the casters Spell Save DC in order to break the mental training the caster has to hold the spells concentration.
There are flaws in every written rule of this game. You can pick pretty much every aspect of this game apart if you put in even the slightest effort.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
For what it’s worth, I don’t think this. I just think it is stealing a base to try to dispel, say, the cleric when they blessed the fighter, barb, and wizard.
Not exactly :)
The result of Dispel Magic (or at least, attempted result) is always "any spell on the target ends." Not spell effects, magical effects, or anything else... spells.
What is the spell "on"? A "creature, object, or magical effect" that you targeted with Dispel Magic to attempt to end all of the spells "on" that target.
Target a creature? End the spells (not the effects) on that creature.
Target an object? End the spells on that object.
Target a magical effect? This can get weird.... this is another way where "a spell is "on" X if that spell "targeted" X" starts to really break apart in a new way. Okay, I've targeted a Spiritual Weapon that's floating around, it isn't a real creature, or a real object, but it's a magical effect that can be targeted by Dispel Magic, right? So what spells were cast that "targeted" that floating spectral weapon for me to end? Ummm.... none? A spell created it... does that spell end now, even though it wasn't cast in a way that "targeted" the weapon? Sure, yeah, obviously that makes sense and is RAI... but now we're already stepping beyond the bounds of "on always means targeted", so isn't our nice clean bright line getting a little fuzzier already....?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
For the record, I'm willing to consider that Concentration in-and-of-itself is not enough of an effect on the caster to let Dispel Magic get its teeth into the spell. A Bless that doesn't include the caster as one of the blessed creatures would fall under #3 in my original post (a spell with external targets, which DOES take concentration, but does NOT reference the caster). What shocks my conscious more than #3 not being dispellable by targeting the caster, is #2 not being dispellable (a spell with external targets, which does NOT take concentration, but which DOES reference the caster), like Warding Bond. When spells reference a creature in their spell effect in a meaningful way, I consider that spell to be "on" that creature... the spell is giving them a magical benefit, how would it not be "on" them???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, Telekinesis has the same effect every round -- granting the caster telekinesis. It might affect a different object each round, though.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This subforum has proven repeatedly that if one tries hard enough to inject ambiguity into anything, one will succeed, at least to one's self.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If the target of Dispel Magic is a creature, then that creature must be a target of an ongoing spell in order for Dispel Magic to do anything.
When a spell had many targets, only the effect on the Dispelled creature is ended - not the whole spell.
Your problem here is the definition of 'target'. A target is not *just* the thing pointed at in the range of the spell's description, it is any object, creature or spacial area that is affected by that spell. So, in order to judge whether Dispel Magic works to end a spell effect on a creature you just need to answer the two questions: "Is it ongoing?" and "Is this creature a target?"
The first question is pretty easy, and generally an Instant spell will not be considered ongoing, but it is still possible they might include some ongoing effects. The standard definition would be if there is an effect which would be ended were the spell ended prematurely, then that effect can be dispelled. (Though personally I would allow Dispel Magic to remove the potential healing effect from a single Goodberry, despite this not aligning with the official guidance.)
The second question is harder. There are the easy ones like Mage Armor or Bless. Those targeted creatures are the targets. Then there are all the very many edge cases, like those we are currently discussing - a spell which grants the caster the ability to control some summoned thing, or do some other magical thing, but does not specifically target the caster.
I would split these into to groups for Dispel Magic: granting the ability to use actions to control or influence other discrete spell effects (like issuing commands to summoned animals, moving or attacking with a Spiritual Weapon, or commanding a charmed enemy), and new abilities provided by the spell which create discrete spell effects on other targets (like Dragon's Breath or Telekinesis).
I would rule that the first set do not grant abilities to the caster per se - to much as they create a spell effect with the property of being controllable by the caster, and then give instructions on how those control directives must be delivered. If the caster does not give directives, then the spell effect does not cease to exist. Helpfully also, these spells grant a very easy way to dispel them in that you can target the summoned animal, the floating weapon or giant hand with your Dispel Magic and the summoned effect goes away. The caster then loses the ability to command that effect, not because they were a target of the spell, but because there is nothing to command.
The second set are harder. I would argue that, regardless of the range of the spell, if it grants the caster an ability to affect others with some magical effect (that does not itself linger in space and time) - then the caster must in fact be a target of that spell. I would therefor rule that telekinesis has the caster as one of its targets, and that the ability it grants could be dismissed by Dispel Magic.
This is some good nuance. My attempt to lump all "active effects on the caster" into one category, rather than recognizing that there's different types of effects that casters often retain (the ability to control something like a summon, vs. a spatial relationship dependence with something like a floating disc, vs. a new spell like ability like telekinesis, vs. a static bonus like mage armor, etc.). Maybe the intent really is that a DM needs to dive in and discriminate among these different types of effects to determine whether an effect is 'active enough ' to be a spell that is "on" the caster. I'd rather not, but maybe one must.
This however, remains an inexcusable elevation of SAC over RAW.
No matter how much more sensible it might be for Dispel Magic to only end the effects local to the thing it has targeted, that is unequivocally not how the spell is worded. The 5E system overall is very comfortable using "spell" when it means "spell" and "spell effect" or "effect" when it means "effect." There's no excuse to pretend that Dispel Magic does not say that it ends spells.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I say if you use Dispel Magic to end the spell of a caster, that spell ends. Even if the caster has to concentrate to maintain the arcane energy of the spell, dispelling the casters SPELL would be the same as ether the caster ending the spell early, or the caster having their concentration broken.
I think many tend to use Dispel Magic on things that have just simply been effected by a spell, but never really used it to end a SPELL that may still be "Running" by the caster.
Mage Armor and Divine Favor are the only spells you listed that are on the caster when you bean the caster with Dispel Magic. The single most egregious example you listed was Find Familiar - Dispel Magic can't end an instantaneous spell, because the spell already ended. You can't end a spell twice.
Here's how you tell if a spell can be ended by Dispel Magic when you target the caster: