Yeah, I would probably just describe the way I want it to work as dispel magic ends the spell effect(s) on the target (with targeting and spell levels as described) and if that spell effect is the only discrete effect of the spell, the entire spell ends. Other spell effects not on the target, even if they were from the same spell that produced an eliminated effect, would remain.
Again, as you've pointed out, RAW is tricky on this, so that is why I've added the "want it to work" rather than trying to say that this is how it must work as written. I think it is perfectly reasonable in this case to rule as you see fit.
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?
I always look for the worst case scenario and then, hope for the best.
The worst case scenario as I see it is trying to establish a rationale that using Dispel Magic on a caster would easily allow one cast of it to undo multiple spells that a caster had in effect. Let's just call this Power Stripping their spells. The evidence presented by the original poster attempts to use a few outlier examples to undermine the whole "what is the target of a spell" argument. Later, the original poster is "disappointed" that hardly anyone took the bait, that the premise that the caster should be the "target" of a dispel in every case for simplicity's sake.
The best case scenario? The original poster was seriously curious about the opinions of other forum members and had no hidden agenda for the arguments they tried to present. Most people have shown solidarity in the concept that establishing the actual target of a spell is not that difficult for the vast majority of spells.
Notes: Please keep posts directed at the topic, not the user.
I give the OP more credit than that. They like to have the rules say what they mean very precisely, which, unfortunately, isn't as common as one would like within the natural language rules of 5e. I think it is a genuine question as to what "spells on the target" means. They may be asking because of some conceived technicality, but it is generally from actual or perceived ambiguity in the rules (not from what I see all too often her: intentionally misunderstanding something). They're just looking for rule text support for why it should be played one way or another.
I know that the OP and I don't always see eye to eye and I have argued passionately (maybe sometimes too much so) with them about my position on rules topics, but I really do think that, unlike some other posters on this forum, they mostly want to explore the meaning of the actual text on the page. The major sticking point that I come to with them is that I'm quite okay with saying "What is this text supposed to mean? Ok, then that is how we'll play it at the game." I guess I'm much more of a "functionalist" rather than a "textualist."
Edit: The other thing that I respect is that if you understand that your ruling might not be RAW, then the OP seems to accept that you can play that way if you like. I don't see them jumping down peoples throats telling them "that's not RAW so you are wrong" in the way that so many other people do. In so many other threads I've been caught up repeating basically "but you don't have to read it that way" for way too long. If I say that here, I feel like, unless I've made a mistake, the OP will probably respect that.
You guys persuaded me that Dispel ends individual spell effects, not always the full spell.
I also am walking back from the position that concentration on a spell in and of itself is enough of an active spell effect that it constitutes a spell being “on” the caster. A consequence of “active ENOUGH effect”, below.
That seemed like it would just leave “target” as the hook to hang a spell being “on” something, but that didn’t quite work, since spell effects created by spells must also be Dispelled, like a Spiritual Weapon.
So instead, we’re talking about a sort of threshold “know it when I see it” sufficiently active/important spell effect to define whether a spell is “on” a target. Knowing who the spell targeted will often show who holds its effect, but some spells that don’t outright target a caster may still leave them enough of an effect to Dispel (Telekinesis), or we might say that such spells DO treat them as unspoken or secondary targets, because 5E “target” use is a little inconsistent at times…. So just reading the range in the spell header isn’t necessarily sufficient all the time.
But some active effects, like the ability to communicate with a Familiar or guide a Spiritual Weapon etc., aren’t generally considered active enough/primary enough to be effects that can be dispelled on the caster.
And when an effect on a caster is dispelled, sometimes that will end other effects elsewhere (items suspended by Telekinesis fall) that are dependent, sometimes it won’t (other Blessed creatures stay Blessed) if they’re independent.
So even if we all agree that this is “the rule,” by RAW or RAI, there will always be a body of spells that it is not really possible to say something like “X spell is RAW dispellable on the caster” because it ends up being a threshold test by the DM how active/important they find the caster’s share of the effect to be. One DM might rule that a Warding Bond effect on a caster can be Dispelled on the linked caster and it ends the benefit on the second creature because it’s a linked effect, another might say that the caster can be dispelled but the second creature keeps their (now cost-free) benefit, and a third might say that the caster isn’t really carrying the active spell effect but rather the 2nd creature is, and caster can’t be dispelled. All three would be correctly applying the same “rule”, because the rule would just be asking them to make a judgment, not outlining objective spell qualities found in its spell description.
I’m… okay with this. It isn’t the black and white rule I hoped for, to guide tables to come to predictable un-debatable rulings, but it isn’t impossible for DMs to make reasonable rulings. I think “on the target” tries to shorthand a concept that deserves more page space, like 3.5 Dispel or Antimagic Field dedicate, but after this discussion, I think I agree with you all about what the spell is “getting at” by using it.
Yeah, I would probably just describe the way I want it to work as dispel magic ends the spell effect(s) on the target (with targeting and spell levels as described) and if that spell effect is the only discrete effect of the spell, the entire spell ends. Other spell effects not on the target, even if they were from the same spell that produced an eliminated effect, would remain.
Again, as you've pointed out, RAW is tricky on this, so that is why I've added the "want it to work" rather than trying to say that this is how it must work as written. I think it is perfectly reasonable in this case to rule as you see fit.
Having read the thread, yeh, that's how I see it.
I always look for the worst case scenario and then, hope for the best.
The worst case scenario as I see it is trying to establish a rationale that using Dispel Magic on a caster would easily allow one cast of it to undo multiple spells that a caster had in effect. Let's just call this Power Stripping their spells. The evidence presented by the original poster attempts to use a few outlier examples to undermine the whole "what is the target of a spell" argument. Later, the original poster is "disappointed" that hardly anyone took the bait, that the premise that the caster should be the "target" of a dispel in every case for simplicity's sake.
The best case scenario? The original poster was seriously curious about the opinions of other forum members and had no hidden agenda for the arguments they tried to present. Most people have shown solidarity in the concept that establishing the actual target of a spell is not that difficult for the vast majority of spells.
I give the OP more credit than that. They like to have the rules say what they mean very precisely, which, unfortunately, isn't as common as one would like within the natural language rules of 5e. I think it is a genuine question as to what "spells on the target" means. They may be asking because of some conceived technicality, but it is generally from actual or perceived ambiguity in the rules (not from what I see all too often her: intentionally misunderstanding something). They're just looking for rule text support for why it should be played one way or another.
I know that the OP and I don't always see eye to eye and I have argued passionately (maybe sometimes too much so) with them about my position on rules topics, but I really do think that, unlike some other posters on this forum, they mostly want to explore the meaning of the actual text on the page. The major sticking point that I come to with them is that I'm quite okay with saying "What is this text supposed to mean? Ok, then that is how we'll play it at the game." I guess I'm much more of a "functionalist" rather than a "textualist."
Edit: The other thing that I respect is that if you understand that your ruling might not be RAW, then the OP seems to accept that you can play that way if you like. I don't see them jumping down peoples throats telling them "that's not RAW so you are wrong" in the way that so many other people do. In so many other threads I've been caught up repeating basically "but you don't have to read it that way" for way too long. If I say that here, I feel like, unless I've made a mistake, the OP will probably respect that.
You guys persuaded me that Dispel ends individual spell effects, not always the full spell.
I also am walking back from the position that concentration on a spell in and of itself is enough of an active spell effect that it constitutes a spell being “on” the caster. A consequence of “active ENOUGH effect”, below.
That seemed like it would just leave “target” as the hook to hang a spell being “on” something, but that didn’t quite work, since spell effects created by spells must also be Dispelled, like a Spiritual Weapon.
So instead, we’re talking about a sort of threshold “know it when I see it” sufficiently active/important spell effect to define whether a spell is “on” a target. Knowing who the spell targeted will often show who holds its effect, but some spells that don’t outright target a caster may still leave them enough of an effect to Dispel (Telekinesis), or we might say that such spells DO treat them as unspoken or secondary targets, because 5E “target” use is a little inconsistent at times…. So just reading the range in the spell header isn’t necessarily sufficient all the time.
But some active effects, like the ability to communicate with a Familiar or guide a Spiritual Weapon etc., aren’t generally considered active enough/primary enough to be effects that can be dispelled on the caster.
And when an effect on a caster is dispelled, sometimes that will end other effects elsewhere (items suspended by Telekinesis fall) that are dependent, sometimes it won’t (other Blessed creatures stay Blessed) if they’re independent.
So even if we all agree that this is “the rule,” by RAW or RAI, there will always be a body of spells that it is not really possible to say something like “X spell is RAW dispellable on the caster” because it ends up being a threshold test by the DM how active/important they find the caster’s share of the effect to be. One DM might rule that a Warding Bond effect on a caster can be Dispelled on the linked caster and it ends the benefit on the second creature because it’s a linked effect, another might say that the caster can be dispelled but the second creature keeps their (now cost-free) benefit, and a third might say that the caster isn’t really carrying the active spell effect but rather the 2nd creature is, and caster can’t be dispelled. All three would be correctly applying the same “rule”, because the rule would just be asking them to make a judgment, not outlining objective spell qualities found in its spell description.
I’m… okay with this. It isn’t the black and white rule I hoped for, to guide tables to come to predictable un-debatable rulings, but it isn’t impossible for DMs to make reasonable rulings. I think “on the target” tries to shorthand a concept that deserves more page space, like 3.5 Dispel or Antimagic Field dedicate, but after this discussion, I think I agree with you all about what the spell is “getting at” by using it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.