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.
Look, you're not wrong - but I'm not sure you're going to find many here to join your SAC Is Wrong And Garbage crusade.
I can only assume that the authors are of the opinion that the phrase "any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends" can be taken to mean that any such spell on the target ends *on the target*, and that there is a meaning to the phrase "a spell ends on the target" that implies the wider spell itself does not end but that all effects of that spell on that target are ended.
This is not an impossible interpretation (though it would likely lose a debate without the SAC backup), and we are all free to ignore the SAC guidance until some errata is issued to clarify it in the rulebook text. But, as far as I can tell, there isn't an epidemic of confusion about how Dispel Magic is supposed to work that needs drastic action to resolve - plus any errata issued would be just as likely to cause increased problems as it tries to interact with the incredibly problematic "target" rules or some other poorly drafted feature.
The rules don’t account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session.
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.
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.
Agreed. It is one of the primary reasons I typically try to avoid this subforum, but it is like a train wreck and I keep coming back to lurk and watch the chaos.
So as to be on topic, I just think for some spells (like Telekinesis) it is up to the DM to make the call as to how Dispel Magic works for that table. I believe that is should be dispelled off the caster, but I believe RAW you would dispel it off the target of the caster.
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.
<snip>
That should not be a controversial ruling, and it's pretty sad that SAC got it wrong.
I agree with you that the clearest reading of RAW without external clarifications from SAC, suggests that dispel on one target ends the spell on all targets.
The SAC ruling suggests that they meant to append "for that target" on the end of the spell. Ideally that should be errata'd. I've always ruled it that Dispel only dispels the magic on the target.
As for Telekinesis -- it's one of those strange spells that grants the caster an on-going power. The caster is the target of the spell, and the spell gives him a power that lets him lift things with his mind. The other things are sort of targets of the spell, but so is the caster, by the way I read that spell. I'd allow someone to dispel the magic from a given item being lifted, and that would stop the magic from affecting it for a round. (and that's generous, the way I read this spell). But to end the spell, I'd rule you need to target the caster. (Again, this is a bit of a grey area, but that's how I would do it).
An interpretation where Dispel Magic sometimes ends spells, sometimes only ends the effect of spells but not the spells themselves, but never ends magical effects that are not from spells… to me, that hardly seems easier to to understand than one that just “ends spells” (as written). But, to each their own!
Some people didn’t like the way 3.5 was written and found it difficult to follow, but honestly, I miss stuff like the 3.5 Dispel. It did… a lot, probably too much, but at least took its time to tell you explicitly how it all worked. 4E dispel magic whiplashed in the opposite direction, shrunk down to two sentences of effect (“The conjuration or the zone is destroyed. All its effects end, including those that normally last until a target saves.”). It did… less, but maybe that fit since it had so much less language (and 4E was streamlined in general). But now we have… a version that uses 4E brevity to describe what is starting to sound like 3.5E complexity? Yuck, Antimagic Field is better edited by far, because at least it’s honest with itself that it needs to answer these questions. :)
but never ends magical effects that are not from spells
While I think you're trying too hard to parse out situations that don't need parsing here, I agree that Dispel Magic actually just being Dispel Spell is silly
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)
5th edition rules rely heavily on the DM to figure out how the rule interact with one another. For the designers it is a feature not a bug. For a portion of the player base, they want or need far tighter rules while others don't. For the current rule set I feel that this particular subforum is really kind of pointless, unless you just want to fight with random strangers about rules used at tables that you will never play at. Occasionally it offers advice, that often quickly trails off into tangents that help no one.
People here have offered their opinions and you can take them or leave them. My guess is that you will leave them considering you don't even want the opinions of the designers used to support opinions that you disagree with. If you won't take the designers opinions then why would you take the opinions of random strangers? This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
It wasn't an attack as far as the RAW is concerned, in that you didn't roll a d20 attack roll - but I would definitely rule that this post was sufficiently attack-adjacent to end your Invisibility spell effect...
I mean, you may think that antimagic field is better written, but I would still ask (specifically C_C) if one blessed fighter walks in to the area, does it suppress it on the wizard and the barbarian staying out of the area (lets, just for simplicity, assume the caster stays out too)?
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.
(Bless is definitely a spell and not an "other magical effect" between those two choices.)
Again, I can see where Golyarn is coming from. I understand that C_C just wants a logical way to run the game. But 5th edition is written in such a way that many times a DM has to bring that logic. Sure ending "spells" may seem right on the text, but I generally think it is the less fun way to play the game than just ending the spell effects on particular targets (especially if you are the DM and are ending player spells rather than just effects). On the other hand, there are plenty of spells where you can easily end the entire spell by choosing your target correctly. There are a relatively small number of spells that affect multiple creatures directly.
I mean, you may think that antimagic field is better written, but I would still ask (specifically C_C) if one blessed fighter walks in to the area, does it suppress it on the wizard and the barbarian staying out of the area (lets, just for simplicity, assume the caster stays out too)?
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.
(Bless is definitely a spell and not an "other magical effect" between those two choices.)
Again, I can see where Golyarn is coming from. I understand that C_C just wants a logical way to run the game. But 5th edition is written in such a way that many times a DM has to bring that logic. Sure ending "spells" may seem right on the text, but I generally think it is the less fun way to play the game than just ending the spell effects on particular targets (especially if you are the DM and are ending player spells rather than just effects). On the other hand, there are plenty of spells where you can easily end the entire spell by choosing your target correctly. There are a relatively small number of spells that affect multiple creatures directly.
That's presumably just brevity - much like how I can say "red or blue crayon" and it's an abbreviation of "red crayon or blue crayon", "spell or other magical effect" is presumably "spell effect or other magical effect". We can't actually know that in a context like this, where the same word could be a noun or an adjective, but we're expected to use context clues. This is common in English. For example, this is valid grammar, just a bad sentence: "The burglar threatened the student with the knife". You can't actually know whether the burglar or the student had the knife here - you have to hope I give you more sentences before or after so you can figure out the answer. Same thing would apply here: spell could be a noun or adjective, but in context, adjective makes more sense.
5th edition rules rely heavily on the DM to figure out how the rule interact with one another. For the designers it is a feature not a bug. For a portion of the player base, they want or need far tighter rules while others don't. For the current rule set I feel that this particular subforum is really kind of pointless, unless you just want to fight with random strangers about rules used a tables that you will never play at. Occasionally it offers advice, that often quickly trails off into tangents that help no one.
People here have offered their opinions and you can take them or leave them. My guess is that you will leave them considering you don't even want the opinions of the designers used to support opinions that you disagree with. If you won't take the designers opinions then why would you take the opinions of random strangers? This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
If the beginning of the "discussion" is that the rules as written can only be interpreted in one way, then there's not really a discussion.
If you want to abide by the rules as tightly as you can but when the developers give their view in something like Sage Advice, if you ignore or discount them in favour of what they previously wrote down then that's a pretty weird mindset.
Personally I come to this forum when I've exhausted the other forums and I still want to talk about D&D. My answer almost always comes down to "interpret it in the spirit that you think it was meant and ignore RAW whenever you want" so I'm probably not an ideal contributor.
5th edition rules rely heavily on the DM to figure out how the rule interact with one another. For the designers it is a feature not a bug. For a portion of the player base, they want or need far tighter rules while others don't. For the current rule set I feel that this particular subforum is really kind of pointless, unless you just want to fight with random strangers about rules used a tables that you will never play at. Occasionally it offers advice, that often quickly trails off into tangents that help no one.
People here have offered their opinions and you can take them or leave them. My guess is that you will leave them considering you don't even want the opinions of the designers used to support opinions that you disagree with. If you won't take the designers opinions then why would you take the opinions of random strangers? This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
If the beginning of the "discussion" is that the rules as written can only be interpreted in one way, then there's not really a discussion.
If you want to abide by the rules as tightly as you can then when the developers give their view in something like Sage Advice, if you ignore or discount them in favour of what they previously wrote down then that's a pretty weird mindset.
Personally I come to this forum when I've exhausted the other forums and I still want to talk about D&D. My answer almost always comes down to "interpret it in the spirit that you think it was meant and ignore RAW whenever you want" so I'm probably not an ideal contributor.
What gets me is that the distinction between the PHB RAW and the SAC RAW is utterly arbitrary. Banning the SAC from a rules discussion is like banning errata from a rules discussion. It's not like the SAC is a bunch of tweets without official WOTC backing - it's literally published by WOTC in the same way as, say, Tasha's. And without the SAC, it's impossible to answer questions like "when is an attack magical?" or "is a melee weapon attack any attack which is both a melee attack and a weapon attack or is it any attack with a melee weapon?".
I mean, you may think that antimagic field is better written, but I would still ask (specifically C_C) if one blessed fighter walks in to the area, does it suppress it on the wizard and the barbarian staying out of the area (lets, just for simplicity, assume the caster stays out too)?
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.
(Bless is definitely a spell and not an "other magical effect" between those two choices.)
Again, I can see where Golyarn is coming from. I understand that C_C just wants a logical way to run the game. But 5th edition is written in such a way that many times a DM has to bring that logic. Sure ending "spells" may seem right on the text, but I generally think it is the less fun way to play the game than just ending the spell effects on particular targets (especially if you are the DM and are ending player spells rather than just effects). On the other hand, there are plenty of spells where you can easily end the entire spell by choosing your target correctly. There are a relatively small number of spells that affect multiple creatures directly.
That's presumablyjust brevity - much like how I can say "red or blue crayon" and it's an abbreviation of "red crayon or blue crayon", "spell or other magical effect" is presumably "spell effect or other magical effect". We can't actually know that in a context like this, where the same word could be a noun or an adjective, but we're expected to use context clues. This is common in English. For example, this is valid grammar, just a bad sentence: "The burglar threatened the student with the knife". You can't actually know whether the burglar or the student had the knife here - you have to hope I give you more sentences before or after so you can figure out the answer. Same thing would apply here: spell could be a noun or adjective, but in context, adjective makes more sense.
Exactly. It is a presumption, and a bad one.
On the other hand, that same spell definitely uses "Spells and other magical effects" elsewhere (almost everywhere else that the two are discussed together, in fact) in the description, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that presumption you made is obviously incorrect. "An orange or other orange fruit" certainly doesn't read the same as "a red or blue crayon" (especially when we've been discussing oranges and other orange fruits up to now).
Level 3. Casting Time 1 Action. Range/Area 120 ft. Components V, S. Duration Instantaneous.
School Abjuration. Attack/Save None. Damage/Effect Control.
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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell’s level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.
Spell Tags: Control
Available For: Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, Artificer, Trickery or Arcana Domain Cleric, and Oath of Devotion Paladin.
Basic Rules, pg. 234
It is useful to note that the duration of the spell is "Instantaneous" so choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range, and poof, no save, gone, for an instant.
Use this on the caster themselves, and whatever spells or magical effects are gone for the usual amount of time. If they are using an effect like Telekinesis, it's gone, and they can't use it until they produce it again. Their target stops moving, and that pretty much doesn't mean a whole lot unless they were in the air, because they would take falling damage. Dispel Magic on the target of the spell instead, same effect.
The same thing goes with all spells or magical effects. You create one object of up to 25,000 gp in value that isn't a magic item. with the Wish spell. and Dispel Magic won't cause the valuable item to go away.
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?
I don't think Telekinesis target objects. The spell target the caster, which then gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought. I know it refers to target of the manipulation within the spell, but the target of the spell, onto which its active, remain the caster in my opinion. The other is just reference for who or what is being affected. When an object is moved this way, the caster is the creature that has the spell telekinesis on, not the object.
5th edition rules rely heavily on the DM to figure out how the rule interact with one another. For the designers it is a feature not a bug. For a portion of the player base, they want or need far tighter rules while others don't. For the current rule set I feel that this particular subforum is really kind of pointless, unless you just want to fight with random strangers about rules used a tables that you will never play at. Occasionally it offers advice, that often quickly trails off into tangents that help no one.
People here have offered their opinions and you can take them or leave them. My guess is that you will leave them considering you don't even want the opinions of the designers used to support opinions that you disagree with. If you won't take the designers opinions then why would you take the opinions of random strangers? This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
If the beginning of the "discussion" is that the rules as written can only be interpreted in one way, then there's not really a discussion.
If you want to abide by the rules as tightly as you can then when the developers give their view in something like Sage Advice, if you ignore or discount them in favour of what they previously wrote down then that's a pretty weird mindset.
Personally I come to this forum when I've exhausted the other forums and I still want to talk about D&D. My answer almost always comes down to "interpret it in the spirit that you think it was meant and ignore RAW whenever you want" so I'm probably not an ideal contributor.
What gets me is that the distinction between the PHB RAW and the SAC RAW is utterly arbitrary. Banning the SAC from a rules discussion is like banning errata from a rules discussion. It's not like the SAC is a bunch of tweets without official WOTC backing - it's literally published by WOTC in the same way as, say, Tasha's. And without the SAC, it's impossible to answer questions like "when is an attack magical?" or "is a melee weapon attack any attack which is both a melee attack and a weapon attack or is it any attack with a melee weapon?".
If the writers see that a rule is generating confusion, they have two ways to address it. Errata and an "official" ruling. Errata certainly has the weight of import, because it says 'we were wrong, this is the right way' but it cannot fix documents already in print. But it is only "fixes" in that errata only very rarely will add new information, it will only correct what is already there. That's great when you wrote "disadvantage" but meant "advantage" but isn't so great when someone asks you "who chooses which animals are conjured when options are presented?"
In that latter case, it's better to answer the question and not amend the actual text, because eventually the added information will begin adding significant length to the rules. That both 1) makes them harder to parse and 2) adds to the cost of revision and printing (this is less so for digital versions). For the above question on conjured animals, it would only add a sentence to that spell, but it would also add similar sentences to the 5-ish other spells that use similar language. That one correction could throw off the formatting for the whole chapter. Add to that every other "fix" that would add language and you may as well just be reformatting the whole book series. Thus the SAC, a place for that information to live that won't affect the books. Most of the SAC is answering common questions in more detail, detailing intent where the written language can be taken multiple ways (an unfortunate side effect of the English Language; I can't fully blame them for bad writing in every instance), and detail the game designers idea for what happens when two disparate effects meet. All of it is additional info, and it is being codified in a manner that doesn't require them to reformat the entire book (or sections of it).
I'm not saying the SAC is perfect, but it is a valid technique that has precedent in other places. I work with building codes, which are written with the force of law where they are adopted. The code authorities will issue errata, but they will also issue commentary and rulings. Rulings answer specific questions posed and have nearly the same force of law as the original text (and often get integrated into later editions). Commentary explains what the writers intended with the actual code. Commentary doesn't have the force of law, but it is useful to frame an argument with the code official (in D&D this would be the DM) and to understand how to apply the code beyond any specific examples cited. The SAC is both rulings and commentary for D&D, and while I am not saying they should have force of law (the DM after all is free to interpret the rules for their table as they see fit), I am saying they should not be discarded.
Rambling over: Dispel Magic should only be cast on the target of the spell because they are the recipients of the spells effects and magic, see this from the PHB:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
If a spell is not targeting you, you are not affected by it, so there is no spell to end if you are targeted by dispel magic.
Regarding whether dispelling a spell on one target ends the spell for all others. The language can reasonably be taken both ways. It does say the spell ends, but it also says "on the target", which can be seen as excluding other targets of the same spell from the effect of dispel magic. As noted above, what is needed is clarification; an addition to the text, thus the ruling appearing in the SAC, not the errata. The ruling definitively elevates one interpretation over the other, which is that other targets do not have the spell ended on them.
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?
I don't think Telekinesis target objects. The spell target the caster, which then gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought. I know it refers to target of the manipulation within the spell, but the target of the spell, onto which its active, remain the caster in my opinion. The other is just reference for who or what is being affected. When an object is moved this way, the caster is the creature that has the spell telekinesis on, not the object.
This spell is one where an errata should be issued, changing the range to "Self (60 ft)" rather than just "60 Feet". It fits the description of that spell better.
That said, I think it is disingenuous to say that because of this issue, dispel magic should work completely differently than it is intended.
I’ll just throw out there, I post on this forum because it is fun. I like debating rules, thinking about why they work one way and not another, etc. I think SAC is often wrong, but worse than that, it usually doesn’t talk about WHY it rules as it does despite having a virtually unlimited page space in which it could do so. It’s anti-intellectual, JC issuing commandments in a forum that isn’t supposed to be where rules happen, rather than talking about things like a designer pulling back the veil to let you see into their thought processes that there wasn’t room for in the books. When I ask others how they’d rule, “no,” “yes,” or “what they said” isn’t interesting or helpful for exploring where and why there’s a disconnect… I already know we disagree, WHY? Where? Is there a core assumption that Im making for one spell and not another? Etc. That’s why this forum, and your posts, are MORE persuasive to me than SAC is. I can and often do change my mind about things after these discussions… but when the discussion is just “see SAC, end of story,” I don’t. If that isn’t how you operate, if you aren’t here because it’s fun for you, just…. Don’t participate?
I’ll just throw out there, I post on this forum because it is fun. I like debating rules, thinking about why they work one way and not another, etc. I think SAC is often wrong, but worse than that, it usually doesn’t talk about WHY it rules as it does despite having a virtually unlimited page space in which it could do so. It’s anti-intellectual, JC issuing commandments in a forum that isn’t supposed to be where rules happen, rather than talking about things like a designer pulling back the veil to let you see into their thought processes that there wasn’t room for in the books. When I ask others how they’d rule, “no,” “yes,” or “what they said” isn’t interesting or helpful for exploring where and why there’s a disconnect… I already know we disagree, WHY? Where? Is there a core assumption that Im making for one spell and not another? Etc. That’s why this forum, and your posts, are MORE persuasive to me than SAC is. I can and often do change my mind about things after these discussions… but when the discussion is just “see SAC, end of story,” I don’t. If that isn’t how you operate, if you aren’t here because it’s fun for you, just…. Don’t participate?
I think this is fair. My post was written is a state of frustration due to heat and headache and was in poor judgement.
However I think that no one here has better incite into the rules than the creators of said rules. We may not always agree with them, but that doesn't invalidate what they say. I certainly don't always agree with SAC, but I (and anyone really) can ignore SAC at their tables. But here, that is not really the case. Here their intent matters whether we like it or not because they are the only ones that know what that intent was. Ignoring what the actual writers have to say about it is completely illogical.
In the case of Dispel Magic vs Telekinesis, I believe the issue is the the range of Telekinesis not the the wording of Dispel Magic. Telekinesis gives the caster the ability to move things with their mind the same way Dragon's Breath gives the target the ability to do an AoE. As was stated above, if Telekinesis had a range of Self(60') there wouldn't be an issue.
I’ll just throw out there, I post on this forum because it is fun. I like debating rules, thinking about why they work one way and not another, etc. I think SAC is often wrong, but worse than that, it usually doesn’t talk about WHY it rules as it does despite having a virtually unlimited page space in which it could do so. It’s anti-intellectual, JC issuing commandments in a forum that isn’t supposed to be where rules happen, rather than talking about things like a designer pulling back the veil to let you see into their thought processes that there wasn’t room for in the books. When I ask others how they’d rule, “no,” “yes,” or “what they said” isn’t interesting or helpful for exploring where and why there’s a disconnect… I already know we disagree, WHY? Where? Is there a core assumption that Im making for one spell and not another? Etc. That’s why this forum, and your posts, are MORE persuasive to me than SAC is. I can and often do change my mind about things after these discussions… but when the discussion is just “see SAC, end of story,” I don’t. If that isn’t how you operate, if you aren’t here because it’s fun for you, just…. Don’t participate?
Chicken, I think my, and others (I assume, I'm not speaking for them) frustration is that our expectations for what one considers valid evidence is different. I get that you don't like the SAC, though i think your criticism of it is unfair in that it is not intended to be an "academic" or "intellectual" document. it is there to answer questions for players and DMs, and thusly is written somewhat direct and simply in certain cases. I'm not defending the writing, and I'm not intending to try to end the conversation (my blunt statement a few pages back was at least partially tongue-in-cheek), but I don't think discarding the designer's intent entirely is a responsible approach either.
I think though the entirety of the entries on dispel magic are useful, because collectively they span well over a page, and do go into some detail regarding what they think the spell is for the game.
I mean, you may think that antimagic field is better written, but I would still ask (specifically C_C) if one blessed fighter walks in to the area, does it suppress it on the wizard and the barbarian staying out of the area (lets, just for simplicity, assume the caster stays out too)?
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.
(Bless is definitely a spell and not an "other magical effect" between those two choices.)
Again, I can see where Golyarn is coming from. I understand that C_C just wants a logical way to run the game. But 5th edition is written in such a way that many times a DM has to bring that logic. Sure ending "spells" may seem right on the text, but I generally think it is the less fun way to play the game than just ending the spell effects on particular targets (especially if you are the DM and are ending player spells rather than just effects). On the other hand, there are plenty of spells where you can easily end the entire spell by choosing your target correctly. There are a relatively small number of spells that affect multiple creatures directly.
That's presumablyjust brevity - much like how I can say "red or blue crayon" and it's an abbreviation of "red crayon or blue crayon", "spell or other magical effect" is presumably "spell effect or other magical effect". We can't actually know that in a context like this, where the same word could be a noun or an adjective, but we're expected to use context clues. This is common in English. For example, this is valid grammar, just a bad sentence: "The burglar threatened the student with the knife". You can't actually know whether the burglar or the student had the knife here - you have to hope I give you more sentences before or after so you can figure out the answer. Same thing would apply here: spell could be a noun or adjective, but in context, adjective makes more sense.
Exactly. It is a presumption, and a bad one.
On the other hand, that same spell definitely uses "Spells and other magical effects" elsewhere (almost everywhere else that the two are discussed together, in fact) in the description, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that presumption you made is obviously incorrect. "An orange or other orange fruit" certainly doesn't read the same as "a red or blue crayon" (especially when we've been discussing oranges and other orange fruits up to now).
It is interesting that Antimagic Field suppresses "any active spell or other magical effect on a creature." I would agree, that its abundantly clear in the context of Antimagic Field, that it suppresses only the parts of spells that are within it, not unraveling entire spells just because it gets its teeth into one of several Blessed targets (the section on "Areas of Magic" makes this explicit, even if the rest of the spell could be misunderstood). If Antimagic Field and Dispel Magic use the same terminology when talking about a "spell... on a creature," then yeah, this would be a pretty good RAI argument that 5E has a concept of ending/suspending a "[part of a] Spell on a creature" not being ending/suspending the spell as a whole.
OK, you convinced me! So would we say.... Dispel Magic only ends spell effects on a target when the spell has other targets active on other creatures, but ends the entire spell if its only effect is on that creature, or if its remaining effects can't be meaningfully understood without the effect that is being dispelled? Something like that?
Look, you're not wrong - but I'm not sure you're going to find many here to join your SAC Is Wrong And Garbage crusade.
I can only assume that the authors are of the opinion that the phrase "any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends" can be taken to mean that any such spell on the target ends *on the target*, and that there is a meaning to the phrase "a spell ends on the target" that implies the wider spell itself does not end but that all effects of that spell on that target are ended.
This is not an impossible interpretation (though it would likely lose a debate without the SAC backup), and we are all free to ignore the SAC guidance until some errata is issued to clarify it in the rulebook text. But, as far as I can tell, there isn't an epidemic of confusion about how Dispel Magic is supposed to work that needs drastic action to resolve - plus any errata issued would be just as likely to cause increased problems as it tries to interact with the incredibly problematic "target" rules or some other poorly drafted feature.
Agreed. It is one of the primary reasons I typically try to avoid this subforum, but it is like a train wreck and I keep coming back to lurk and watch the chaos.
So as to be on topic, I just think for some spells (like Telekinesis) it is up to the DM to make the call as to how Dispel Magic works for that table. I believe that is should be dispelled off the caster, but I believe RAW you would dispel it off the target of the caster.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree with you that the clearest reading of RAW without external clarifications from SAC, suggests that dispel on one target ends the spell on all targets.
The SAC ruling suggests that they meant to append "for that target" on the end of the spell. Ideally that should be errata'd.
I've always ruled it that Dispel only dispels the magic on the target.
As for Telekinesis -- it's one of those strange spells that grants the caster an on-going power. The caster is the target of the spell, and the spell gives him a power that lets him lift things with his mind. The other things are sort of targets of the spell, but so is the caster, by the way I read that spell.
I'd allow someone to dispel the magic from a given item being lifted, and that would stop the magic from affecting it for a round. (and that's generous, the way I read this spell). But to end the spell, I'd rule you need to target the caster.
(Again, this is a bit of a grey area, but that's how I would do it).
An interpretation where Dispel Magic sometimes ends spells, sometimes only ends the effect of spells but not the spells themselves, but never ends magical effects that are not from spells… to me, that hardly seems easier to to understand than one that just “ends spells” (as written). But, to each their own!
Some people didn’t like the way 3.5 was written and found it difficult to follow, but honestly, I miss stuff like the 3.5 Dispel. It did… a lot, probably too much, but at least took its time to tell you explicitly how it all worked. 4E dispel magic whiplashed in the opposite direction, shrunk down to two sentences of effect (“The conjuration or the zone is destroyed. All its effects end, including those that normally last until a target saves.”). It did… less, but maybe that fit since it had so much less language (and 4E was streamlined in general). But now we have… a version that uses 4E brevity to describe what is starting to sound like 3.5E complexity? Yuck, Antimagic Field is better edited by far, because at least it’s honest with itself that it needs to answer these questions. :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
While I think you're trying too hard to parse out situations that don't need parsing here, I agree that Dispel Magic actually just being Dispel Spell is silly
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)
5th edition rules rely heavily on the DM to figure out how the rule interact with one another. For the designers it is a feature not a bug. For a portion of the player base, they want or need far tighter rules while others don't. For the current rule set I feel that this particular subforum is really kind of pointless, unless you just want to fight with random strangers about rules used at tables that you will never play at. Occasionally it offers advice, that often quickly trails off into tangents that help no one.
People here have offered their opinions and you can take them or leave them. My guess is that you will leave them considering you don't even want the opinions of the designers used to support opinions that you disagree with. If you won't take the designers opinions then why would you take the opinions of random strangers? This not meant to be an attack, just an observation.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It wasn't an attack as far as the RAW is concerned, in that you didn't roll a d20 attack roll - but I would definitely rule that this post was sufficiently attack-adjacent to end your Invisibility spell effect...
I mean, you may think that antimagic field is better written, but I would still ask (specifically C_C) if one blessed fighter walks in to the area, does it suppress it on the wizard and the barbarian staying out of the area (lets, just for simplicity, assume the caster stays out too)?
(Bless is definitely a spell and not an "other magical effect" between those two choices.)
Again, I can see where Golyarn is coming from. I understand that C_C just wants a logical way to run the game. But 5th edition is written in such a way that many times a DM has to bring that logic. Sure ending "spells" may seem right on the text, but I generally think it is the less fun way to play the game than just ending the spell effects on particular targets (especially if you are the DM and are ending player spells rather than just effects). On the other hand, there are plenty of spells where you can easily end the entire spell by choosing your target correctly. There are a relatively small number of spells that affect multiple creatures directly.
That's presumably just brevity - much like how I can say "red or blue crayon" and it's an abbreviation of "red crayon or blue crayon", "spell or other magical effect" is presumably "spell effect or other magical effect". We can't actually know that in a context like this, where the same word could be a noun or an adjective, but we're expected to use context clues. This is common in English. For example, this is valid grammar, just a bad sentence: "The burglar threatened the student with the knife". You can't actually know whether the burglar or the student had the knife here - you have to hope I give you more sentences before or after so you can figure out the answer. Same thing would apply here: spell could be a noun or adjective, but in context, adjective makes more sense.
If the beginning of the "discussion" is that the rules as written can only be interpreted in one way, then there's not really a discussion.
If you want to abide by the rules as tightly as you can but when the developers give their view in something like Sage Advice, if you ignore or discount them in favour of what they previously wrote down then that's a pretty weird mindset.
Personally I come to this forum when I've exhausted the other forums and I still want to talk about D&D. My answer almost always comes down to "interpret it in the spirit that you think it was meant and ignore RAW whenever you want" so I'm probably not an ideal contributor.
What gets me is that the distinction between the PHB RAW and the SAC RAW is utterly arbitrary. Banning the SAC from a rules discussion is like banning errata from a rules discussion. It's not like the SAC is a bunch of tweets without official WOTC backing - it's literally published by WOTC in the same way as, say, Tasha's. And without the SAC, it's impossible to answer questions like "when is an attack magical?" or "is a melee weapon attack any attack which is both a melee attack and a weapon attack or is it any attack with a melee weapon?".
Exactly. It is a presumption, and a bad one.
On the other hand, that same spell definitely uses "Spells and other magical effects" elsewhere (almost everywhere else that the two are discussed together, in fact) in the description, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that presumption you made is obviously incorrect. "An orange or other orange fruit" certainly doesn't read the same as "a red or blue crayon" (especially when we've been discussing oranges and other orange fruits up to now).
Dispel Magic
Level 3. Casting Time 1 Action. Range/Area 120 ft. Components V, S. Duration Instantaneous.
School Abjuration. Attack/Save None. Damage/Effect Control.
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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell’s level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.
Spell Tags: Control
Available For: Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, Artificer, Trickery or Arcana Domain Cleric, and Oath of Devotion Paladin.
Basic Rules, pg. 234
It is useful to note that the duration of the spell is "Instantaneous" so choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range, and poof, no save, gone, for an instant.
Use this on the caster themselves, and whatever spells or magical effects are gone for the usual amount of time. If they are using an effect like Telekinesis, it's gone, and they can't use it until they produce it again. Their target stops moving, and that pretty much doesn't mean a whole lot unless they were in the air, because they would take falling damage. Dispel Magic on the target of the spell instead, same effect.
The same thing goes with all spells or magical effects. You create one object of up to 25,000 gp in value that isn't a magic item. with the Wish spell. and Dispel Magic won't cause the valuable item to go away.
<Insert clever signature here>
I don't think Telekinesis target objects. The spell target the caster, which then gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought. I know it refers to target of the manipulation within the spell, but the target of the spell, onto which its active, remain the caster in my opinion. The other is just reference for who or what is being affected. When an object is moved this way, the caster is the creature that has the spell telekinesis on, not the object.
If the writers see that a rule is generating confusion, they have two ways to address it. Errata and an "official" ruling. Errata certainly has the weight of import, because it says 'we were wrong, this is the right way' but it cannot fix documents already in print. But it is only "fixes" in that errata only very rarely will add new information, it will only correct what is already there. That's great when you wrote "disadvantage" but meant "advantage" but isn't so great when someone asks you "who chooses which animals are conjured when options are presented?"
In that latter case, it's better to answer the question and not amend the actual text, because eventually the added information will begin adding significant length to the rules. That both 1) makes them harder to parse and 2) adds to the cost of revision and printing (this is less so for digital versions). For the above question on conjured animals, it would only add a sentence to that spell, but it would also add similar sentences to the 5-ish other spells that use similar language. That one correction could throw off the formatting for the whole chapter. Add to that every other "fix" that would add language and you may as well just be reformatting the whole book series. Thus the SAC, a place for that information to live that won't affect the books. Most of the SAC is answering common questions in more detail, detailing intent where the written language can be taken multiple ways (an unfortunate side effect of the English Language; I can't fully blame them for bad writing in every instance), and detail the game designers idea for what happens when two disparate effects meet. All of it is additional info, and it is being codified in a manner that doesn't require them to reformat the entire book (or sections of it).
I'm not saying the SAC is perfect, but it is a valid technique that has precedent in other places. I work with building codes, which are written with the force of law where they are adopted. The code authorities will issue errata, but they will also issue commentary and rulings. Rulings answer specific questions posed and have nearly the same force of law as the original text (and often get integrated into later editions). Commentary explains what the writers intended with the actual code. Commentary doesn't have the force of law, but it is useful to frame an argument with the code official (in D&D this would be the DM) and to understand how to apply the code beyond any specific examples cited. The SAC is both rulings and commentary for D&D, and while I am not saying they should have force of law (the DM after all is free to interpret the rules for their table as they see fit), I am saying they should not be discarded.
Rambling over: Dispel Magic should only be cast on the target of the spell because they are the recipients of the spells effects and magic, see this from the PHB:
If a spell is not targeting you, you are not affected by it, so there is no spell to end if you are targeted by dispel magic.
Regarding whether dispelling a spell on one target ends the spell for all others. The language can reasonably be taken both ways. It does say the spell ends, but it also says "on the target", which can be seen as excluding other targets of the same spell from the effect of dispel magic. As noted above, what is needed is clarification; an addition to the text, thus the ruling appearing in the SAC, not the errata. The ruling definitively elevates one interpretation over the other, which is that other targets do not have the spell ended on them.
This spell is one where an errata should be issued, changing the range to "Self (60 ft)" rather than just "60 Feet". It fits the description of that spell better.
That said, I think it is disingenuous to say that because of this issue, dispel magic should work completely differently than it is intended.
I’ll just throw out there, I post on this forum because it is fun. I like debating rules, thinking about why they work one way and not another, etc. I think SAC is often wrong, but worse than that, it usually doesn’t talk about WHY it rules as it does despite having a virtually unlimited page space in which it could do so. It’s anti-intellectual, JC issuing commandments in a forum that isn’t supposed to be where rules happen, rather than talking about things like a designer pulling back the veil to let you see into their thought processes that there wasn’t room for in the books. When I ask others how they’d rule, “no,” “yes,” or “what they said” isn’t interesting or helpful for exploring where and why there’s a disconnect… I already know we disagree, WHY? Where? Is there a core assumption that Im making for one spell and not another? Etc. That’s why this forum, and your posts, are MORE persuasive to me than SAC is. I can and often do change my mind about things after these discussions… but when the discussion is just “see SAC, end of story,” I don’t. If that isn’t how you operate, if you aren’t here because it’s fun for you, just…. Don’t participate?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think this is fair. My post was written is a state of frustration due to heat and headache and was in poor judgement.
However I think that no one here has better incite into the rules than the creators of said rules. We may not always agree with them, but that doesn't invalidate what they say. I certainly don't always agree with SAC, but I (and anyone really) can ignore SAC at their tables. But here, that is not really the case. Here their intent matters whether we like it or not because they are the only ones that know what that intent was. Ignoring what the actual writers have to say about it is completely illogical.
In the case of Dispel Magic vs Telekinesis, I believe the issue is the the range of Telekinesis not the the wording of Dispel Magic. Telekinesis gives the caster the ability to move things with their mind the same way Dragon's Breath gives the target the ability to do an AoE. As was stated above, if Telekinesis had a range of Self(60') there wouldn't be an issue.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Chicken, I think my, and others (I assume, I'm not speaking for them) frustration is that our expectations for what one considers valid evidence is different. I get that you don't like the SAC, though i think your criticism of it is unfair in that it is not intended to be an "academic" or "intellectual" document. it is there to answer questions for players and DMs, and thusly is written somewhat direct and simply in certain cases. I'm not defending the writing, and I'm not intending to try to end the conversation (my blunt statement a few pages back was at least partially tongue-in-cheek), but I don't think discarding the designer's intent entirely is a responsible approach either.
I think though the entirety of the entries on dispel magic are useful, because collectively they span well over a page, and do go into some detail regarding what they think the spell is for the game.
Then again, if you're frustrated, feel free to see yourself out.
It is interesting that Antimagic Field suppresses "any active spell or other magical effect on a creature." I would agree, that its abundantly clear in the context of Antimagic Field, that it suppresses only the parts of spells that are within it, not unraveling entire spells just because it gets its teeth into one of several Blessed targets (the section on "Areas of Magic" makes this explicit, even if the rest of the spell could be misunderstood). If Antimagic Field and Dispel Magic use the same terminology when talking about a "spell... on a creature," then yeah, this would be a pretty good RAI argument that 5E has a concept of ending/suspending a "[part of a] Spell on a creature" not being ending/suspending the spell as a whole.
OK, you convinced me! So would we say.... Dispel Magic only ends spell effects on a target when the spell has other targets active on other creatures, but ends the entire spell if its only effect is on that creature, or if its remaining effects can't be meaningfully understood without the effect that is being dispelled? Something like that?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.