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!
1. 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.
Dispel magic does nothing. The magic effect is on the spell's target, not the caster, so it is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post.
2. 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.
Dispel magic does nothing, as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post.. Dispel Magic cast on the Familiar, or the Alarm itself, would dispel them and needs to be cast on the external target.
3. Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, but does not reference the caster. E.g. Magic Weapon or Bane.
Dispel magic does nothing, , as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post. The caster is concentrating, but they are not affected by the magic
4. Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, and does reference caster. E.g. Arcane Hand or Conjure Animals.
Dispel magic does nothing, , as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post. The caster is concentrating, but they are not affected by the magic
5. 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?)
The Goodberries can be dispelled by targeting them, but you cannot dispel the Goodberries by targeting the caster. There is no magical effect in play on the caster.
6. 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.
Regardless of whether it requires concentration or not, if the spell is cast on the caster, then when Dispel Magic is cast, "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends etc."
7. Spell targets the caster, does notConcentrate, but does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Mage Armor.
Regardless of whether it requires concentration or not, if the spell is cast on the caster, then when Dispel Magic is cast, "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends etc."
8. Spell targets the caster, does Concentrate, and does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Divine Favor.
As in 6 and 7, there's a spell on the caster, so it can be dispelled.
Concentration has no relation to dispelling. Once the spell has been successfully cast, the magical effect itself must be target by the Dispel Magic. If I cast polymorph on an ally, you must dispel polymorph on the ally - you cannot target me with dispel magic to attempt to end it, because there is no spell "on" me.
5-8. Spells are cast on their targets. Casters do not have spells they cast on someone else on them as well, regardless of concentration or actionable effects. Caster manipulate the magic.
This (the question being posed) is going to have to be solved via a common english argument, not necessarily one that will be decided by RAW text, because RAW text does not itself define what "on" means.
Convention would indicate that "on" means the following in the spell's context (from Google/Oxford)
physically in contact with and supported by (a surface). "on the table was a water jug"
located somewhere in the general surface area of (a place).
having (the thing mentioned) as a target, aim, or focus.
In this case the "surface" or "place" would be a creature, and that creature would be the target of said spell (which also aligns with the 3rd definition).
BUT, "on" can also mean:
so as to be supported or held by.
Which could be interpreted as the caster (since they are supporting the spell, especially if they were concentrating on it). I would disagree with this, because it is the less natural application of "on" in regard to the language of Dispel Magic (think "I cast a spell on [person]" the on is the target, not the caster). I could see someone reading this and applying this meaning to the spell, but If I were DMing I would shut it down.
To answer your question, i would rule that targeting the caster of a spell with Dispel Magic would only end if the spell had a range of self, or the caster was otherwise named as the spells target (said caster could still concentrate and maintain that spell on others though, if the spell was a multi-target spell). Dispel Magic would therefore work on #5-8 only.
I will add that the reference in #5, goodberry only references the caster in terms of the location the berries appear, and has a duration of instantaneous. So the caster is no longer part of the spell after casting (and the spell itself is no more an instant after casting). I'm unsure if targeting the berries themselves after casting would do anything either since the "spell" has ended. I understand that spell in particular to be creating a magical item with an expiration date, but the spell itself is no longer active once the initial creation is complete. All of that to say that I don't think Goodberry is a valid example of #5, and I don't think there is an ongoing spell effect that would qualify for #5 either (I could be wrong though)
I am of the belief that Dispel Magic is used to end the effects of a spell regardless of the spell(s) duration on whatever that spell is cast on. ( it's like your disrupting or dissipating the arcane energy that holds the effect in place. )
The exemption is any spell where the effect is instantaneous, ( to prevent spells that have that duration, one would need to Counterspell the casting of it.), as per the Chapter 10: Spellcasting rules for spells that have the Instantaneous effect.
So with that said, 5# wouldn't be affected, #2 Find Familiar would also be unaffected. everything else seems fair game.
It feels really unnatural to me to say that casting dispel on a caster who is currently holding something in the air with an active telekinesis or levitate spell would not in anyway screw up that telekinesis. I think that there is some conflation going on with where the spell is targeted, vs. with whether the spell is affecting the caster. A great many spells are cast somewhere external to the caster themself, but have ongoing effects that can only be understood as affecting the caster by giving them an ongoing ability or control. Detect thoughts for example… casting dispel magic on a caster who is actively detecting somebody’s thoughts would not interrupt the spell that is in effect linking the casters mind with those they are reading? Floating Disk? Tiny Hut? Those spells cannot be understood to do anything except in relation to the caster.... so why isn't the effect "on" them?
I think the defining “on” as ONLY being short hand for ”target” is a mistake.
It feels really unnatural to me to say that casting dispel on a caster who is currently holding something in the air with an active telekinesis or levitate spell would not in anyway screw up that telekinesis. I think that there is some conflation going on with where the spell is targeted, vs. with whether the spell is affecting the caster. A great many spells are cast somewhere external to the caster themself, but have ongoing effects that can only be understood as affecting the caster by giving them an ongoing ability or control. Detect thoughts for example… casting dispel magic on a caster who is actively detecting somebody’s thoughts would not interrupt the spell that is in effect linking the casters mind with those they are reading? Floating Disk? Tiny Hut? Those spells cannot be understood to do anything except in relation to the caster.... so why isn't the effect "on" them?
I think the defining “on” as ONLY being short hand for ”target” is a mistake.
Detect Thoughts and Tiny Hut, at least, target Self, so targeting the caster with Dispel Magic would be appropriate regardless.
and again, no one will be able to prove definitively what "on" means in the context of Dispel Magic only using RAW, because the RAW doesn't exist. I agree with the standard convention, you don't, and that's ok; If we are ever at a shared table whichever of us is DM'ing can have their way.
Okay, but Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis, while having a different target, essentially work the same way: for the duration, the caster gains the ability to use their mind to magically do X to creatures around them. Whether that's reading thoughts psychically, or lifting creatures telekinetically... clearly there's a meaningful way that both spells work similarly, wouldn't you agree?
Tiny Hut, while it springs its area around the caster, and owes its continued existence to the caster, is not an aura that continues centered "on" the caster. Again, it's hard to see why Tiny Hut would be dispellable from the caster but Floating Disk wouldn't, because both are external spells that similarly reference an ongoing relationship to the caster for their duration despite not literally being a spell on their body. They're both planes of force that exist for a duration with no concentration. They both can only be understood in relation to their caster's ongoing control/relation to them. Why would the accident of one being targeted in a radius around the caster, and one being targeted at a point within 30 feet of the caster, be the end of the conversation about one being dispelable and the other not???
Okay, but Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis, while having a different target, essentially work the same way: for the duration, the caster gains the ability to use their mind to magically do X. Whether that's reading thoughts psychically, or lifting objects telekinetically... clearly there's a meaningful way that both spells work similarly, wouldn't you agree?
I agree that both spell descriptions are worded similarly, especially with "you gain the ability..." in Telekinesis and "you can read the thoughts..." in detect thoughts. I'd even argue Telekinesis should be worded to target self the same way as Detect Thoughts is, though that is a different topic of discussion. But, I have enough on my plate as a DM. Saying Dispel Magic can only be cast on the target of a spell is easy to understand, works for 95% (approximation) of cases the way it should, and can be clearly communicated. In terms of game time and maximizing my fun and the fun of my players, I'm still sticking with convention.
Throw Warding Bond into the pile as well while we're at it. "A spell isn't on you unless it targets you" is a profoundly unsatisfactory ruling for many spells, I really don't think that you can hand wave that this will work for "most" spells...
Throw Warding Bond into the pile as well while we're at it. "A spell isn't on you unless it targets you" is a profoundly unsatisfactory ruling for many spells, I really don't think that you can hand wave that this will work for "most" spells...
So far you have ID'ed 2 problematic spells out of hundreds of spells that can be dispelled (about 372 if my math is right, less any whose descriptions say they can't be). I'm comfortable with my "most" statement for now.
It seems so strange that there is so much confusion over a simple spell. You need to make a Perception check in order to detect the target, and this can be done by as much as 120 feet away. Once you know what your target is, one creature, object, or magical effect within range, all magical properties are then removed.
There are things what magic changes, and then the item is no longer considered magical. Creatures that have been permanently polymorphed into something that is no longer capable of magical effects remains whatever it is. There is no save against Dispel magic, so once it is cast, the magic is gone. A Goodberry becomes a normal berry. If someone casts Detect Thoughts, what ever was the subject of this spell will have the magic removed. If the caster wishes to know what their target is thinking, they will have to use the spell again, and they can use it as many times as they like for one minute. If you use this on the caster, they will be unable to cast any spells at all for one instant, which would be rather silly.
There are a few weird spells, but I think it's pretty clear that you need to cast dispel on the target of the spell, not the caster of the spell.
If the target is the caster, that's not a problem.
Sometimes the effect is to give the target (often the caster) a power to affect other things that aren't the target (e.g. telekinesis and detect thoughts).. But in those cases the target is still the caster. (And casting dispel on someone who is having their mind read with detect thoughts doesn't actually have any effect).
Yes, sometimes this feels weird. Also, the fact something requires concentration doesn't mean dispelling the caster disrupts that concentration. There's no magical conduit that you can break with dispel magic. You have to target the target of the spell.
The simplest reading of the way dispel magic works is that the only time casting dispel on the caster is useful, is when the caster is the target of the spell. In other words category 1-5 cannot be dispelled by casting dispel magic on the caster (if the caster isn't the target).
There are a few weird spells, but I think it's pretty clear that you need to cast dispel on the target of the spell, not the caster of the spell.
If the target is the caster, that's not a problem.
Sometimes the effect is to give the target (often the caster) a power to affect other things that aren't the target (e.g. telekinesis and detect thoughts).. But in those cases the target is still the caster. (And casting dispel on someone who is having their mind read with detect thoughts doesn't actually have any effect).
Yes, sometimes this feels weird. Also, the fact something requires concentration doesn't mean dispelling the caster disrupts that concentration. There's no magical conduit that you can break with dispel magic. You have to target the target of the spell.
The simplest reading of the way dispel magic works is that the only time casting dispel on the caster is useful, is when the caster is the target of the spell. In other words category 1-5 cannot be dispelled by casting dispel magic on the caster (if the caster isn't the target).
Telekensis does not target its caster. So to accept that "simplest" reading, you're going to need to embrace the cognitive dissonance and not set it aside so easily.
Here's a short selection of spells (that would have been type 2 or type 4 on my original post) that won't be able to dispelled by targeting the caster controlling the spell, if we just treat "on the target" as "originally targeted the target":
Telekinesis: Caster has an ongoing effect letting them lift objects and creatures
Warding Bond: Caster has an ongoing effect taking damage and granting damage reduction and bonus armor.
Beast Bond: Caster is one half of an ongoing telepathic link.
Beast Sense: Caster has an ongoing effect letting them move their senses to the beast.
Bigby's Hand: Caster has an ongoing effect letting them move and control a force construct.
Call Lightning: Caster has an ongoing effect letting them create new spell effects within an area.
Clairvoyance: Caster has an ongoing effect letting them move their senses to a remote location.
Clone: Caster has an ongoing passive effect that will save them from death.
Control Winds: Caster has an ongoing ability to control wind around them
Enthrall: Caster has an ongoing ability to captivate others with their speech.
Hex: Caster has an ongoing personal damage enhancement vs. target, and an ongoing ability to move it to new targets.
Maybe some of these bug you, and maybe some others don't. Maybe that's a good indication that my analysis along three criteria (is the caster targeted, is the caster maintaining with concentration, is the caster personally affected by the spell) weren't the right three perspectives (or not the only three?) to look at this from. But I really don't think that "is the caster targeted" is the only way for a spell to be "on" the caster. It may be that every spell that targets the caster is "on" the caster, but that isn't to say that those are necessarily the only spells that are "on" the caster. If they were, why would Dispel Magic not have more directly stated "any spell which targeted the creature ends"? If they were, why would Telekinesis feel so dirty to the point that you guys keep forgetting it doesn't target self?
I think that "any spell that targets the caster, is maintained by the caster (Concentration or as otherwise described in spell), or which provides the caster an ongoing effect or power, is a spell that is "on" the caster for purpose of Dispel Magic" is an easy enough to apply bright line that a DM could handle it... even if it is longer than just "any spell that targets a creature is on the creature."
I only have my opinion on this topic. I have also not carefully read every argument in this thread.
A spell is a discrete magical effect, and dispel magic works on spells. That leads me to believe that it is intended to work on those effects. Concentration can be interrupted (see sleet storm), so concentration can be targeted but generally is discussed as such. But on the other hand, concentration isn’t part of that discrete magical effect. I’m of the opinion that dispel magic works on effects and not concentration itself.
With that being said, just about every spell that is dispellable has an effect that is either on a creature, object, or in space that can be targeted.
Concentration is not a spell effect, a spell, or even magical. It is a (presumably mental due to plain english but otherwise undefined) effort on the part of the caster to maintain a spell, but it is not part of the spell effect or spell (it is not part of the spells description). If it is the only way a caster is connected to a spell after it's casting, then there is nothing for dispel magic to end.
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:
Warding Bond: Presuming you can target the caster to end this spell, what would it end? all of the effects are connected to the target except the caster taking the same damage as the target.
Beast Bond: All spell effects are on the target, there are no effects "on" the caster. You could always try to telepathically speak to the target, its just before the spell, they wouldn't hear you.
Enthrall: Nothing about the spell changes your words or speech. The only effect is on the target's perception of those words/speech
Hex: The only part of the effect that could conceivably on you would be the extra damage.
Note: on Clone, there is no magic to dispel after the spell is cast, It is instantaneous, and it's magic lasts only for that instant. Likewise, you could not dispel zombies made by animate dead, a statue made by flesh to stone (after the duration has passed) or a familiar summoned by find familiar. Any magic left in those spell effects are self-sustaining; not part of the spell, because the spell has ceased.
The rest of your spells where you can control the effects, can be reasonably assumed to be tied to your concentration, which again, is not magical nor a spell or spell effect.
The only ones in that list that could be targeting self and have an actual effect on the caster beyond the simple ability to control the effects at another location (but don't only because the spell description names another target) are Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and Beast Sense. And yes, i can live with the disconnect there.
I only have my opinion on this topic. I have also not carefully read every argument in this thread.
A spell is a discrete magical effect, and dispel magic works on spells. That leads me to believe that it is intended to work on those effects. Concentration can be interrupted (see sleet storm), so concentration can be targeted but generally is discussed as such. But on the other hand, concentration isn’t part of that discrete magical effect. I’m of the opinion that dispel magic works on effects and not concentration itself.
With that being said, just about every spell that is dispellable has an effect that is either on a creature, object, or in space that can be targeted.
Okay, but don't many spells have more than one effect, on more than one creature? When a spell is cast by the caster on a second creature (like Warding Bond) that creates an effect on BOTH the second creature AND the caster.... shouldn't the part of the effect that's on the caster be vulnerable to a Dispel?
I'm hearing that.... most of you so far don't agree, and favor the simpler "spells are just on their targets" ruling. That's... disappointing, but I'm not really aware of any rule text that would specifically require otherwise, rather than the logical tension of pretending that Telekinesis isn't as much or more enchanting the caster who's been granted new ongoing powers as it is the piece of rock that they're temporarily lifting.
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!
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.
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!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
1. 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.
Dispel magic does nothing. The magic effect is on the spell's target, not the caster, so it is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post.
2. Spell has an external target, does not Concentrate, but does reference the caster having ongoing control/interaction with the spell effect. E.g. Find Familiar or Alarm.
Dispel magic does nothing, as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post.. Dispel Magic cast on the Familiar, or the Alarm itself, would dispel them and needs to be cast on the external target.
3. Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, but does not reference the caster. E.g. Magic Weapon or Bane.
Dispel magic does nothing, , as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post. The caster is concentrating, but they are not affected by the magic
4. Spell has an external target, does Concentrate, and does reference caster. E.g. Arcane Hand or Conjure Animals.
Dispel magic does nothing, , as the spell is not on the target as per the rules quoted in the post. The caster is concentrating, but they are not affected by the magic
5. 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?)
The Goodberries can be dispelled by targeting them, but you cannot dispel the Goodberries by targeting the caster. There is no magical effect in play on the caster.
6. 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.
Regardless of whether it requires concentration or not, if the spell is cast on the caster, then when Dispel Magic is cast, "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends etc."
7. Spell targets the caster, does not Concentrate, but does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Mage Armor.
Regardless of whether it requires concentration or not, if the spell is cast on the caster, then when Dispel Magic is cast, "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends etc."
8. Spell targets the caster, does Concentrate, and does reference caster with its ongoing effect. E.g. Divine Favor.
As in 6 and 7, there's a spell on the caster, so it can be dispelled.
Concentration has no relation to dispelling. Once the spell has been successfully cast, the magical effect itself must be target by the Dispel Magic. If I cast polymorph on an ally, you must dispel polymorph on the ally - you cannot target me with dispel magic to attempt to end it, because there is no spell "on" me.
5-8. Spells are cast on their targets. Casters do not have spells they cast on someone else on them as well, regardless of concentration or actionable effects. Caster manipulate the magic.
This (the question being posed) is going to have to be solved via a common english argument, not necessarily one that will be decided by RAW text, because RAW text does not itself define what "on" means.
Convention would indicate that "on" means the following in the spell's context (from Google/Oxford)
In this case the "surface" or "place" would be a creature, and that creature would be the target of said spell (which also aligns with the 3rd definition).
BUT, "on" can also mean:
Which could be interpreted as the caster (since they are supporting the spell, especially if they were concentrating on it). I would disagree with this, because it is the less natural application of "on" in regard to the language of Dispel Magic (think "I cast a spell on [person]" the on is the target, not the caster). I could see someone reading this and applying this meaning to the spell, but If I were DMing I would shut it down.
To answer your question, i would rule that targeting the caster of a spell with Dispel Magic would only end if the spell had a range of self, or the caster was otherwise named as the spells target (said caster could still concentrate and maintain that spell on others though, if the spell was a multi-target spell). Dispel Magic would therefore work on #5-8 only.
I will add that the reference in #5, goodberry only references the caster in terms of the location the berries appear, and has a duration of instantaneous. So the caster is no longer part of the spell after casting (and the spell itself is no more an instant after casting). I'm unsure if targeting the berries themselves after casting would do anything either since the "spell" has ended. I understand that spell in particular to be creating a magical item with an expiration date, but the spell itself is no longer active once the initial creation is complete. All of that to say that I don't think Goodberry is a valid example of #5, and I don't think there is an ongoing spell effect that would qualify for #5 either (I could be wrong though)
I am of the belief that Dispel Magic is used to end the effects of a spell regardless of the spell(s) duration on whatever that spell is cast on. ( it's like your disrupting or dissipating the arcane energy that holds the effect in place. )
The exemption is any spell where the effect is instantaneous, ( to prevent spells that have that duration, one would need to Counterspell the casting of it.), as per the Chapter 10: Spellcasting rules for spells that have the Instantaneous effect.
So with that said, 5# wouldn't be affected, #2 Find Familiar would also be unaffected. everything else seems fair game.
It feels really unnatural to me to say that casting dispel on a caster who is currently holding something in the air with an active telekinesis or levitate spell would not in anyway screw up that telekinesis. I think that there is some conflation going on with where the spell is targeted, vs. with whether the spell is affecting the caster. A great many spells are cast somewhere external to the caster themself, but have ongoing effects that can only be understood as affecting the caster by giving them an ongoing ability or control. Detect thoughts for example… casting dispel magic on a caster who is actively detecting somebody’s thoughts would not interrupt the spell that is in effect linking the casters mind with those they are reading? Floating Disk? Tiny Hut? Those spells cannot be understood to do anything except in relation to the caster.... so why isn't the effect "on" them?
I think the defining “on” as ONLY being short hand for ”target” is a mistake.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Detect Thoughts and Tiny Hut, at least, target Self, so targeting the caster with Dispel Magic would be appropriate regardless.
and again, no one will be able to prove definitively what "on" means in the context of Dispel Magic only using RAW, because the RAW doesn't exist. I agree with the standard convention, you don't, and that's ok; If we are ever at a shared table whichever of us is DM'ing can have their way.
Okay, but Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis, while having a different target, essentially work the same way: for the duration, the caster gains the ability to use their mind to magically do X to creatures around them. Whether that's reading thoughts psychically, or lifting creatures telekinetically... clearly there's a meaningful way that both spells work similarly, wouldn't you agree?
Tiny Hut, while it springs its area around the caster, and owes its continued existence to the caster, is not an aura that continues centered "on" the caster. Again, it's hard to see why Tiny Hut would be dispellable from the caster but Floating Disk wouldn't, because both are external spells that similarly reference an ongoing relationship to the caster for their duration despite not literally being a spell on their body. They're both planes of force that exist for a duration with no concentration. They both can only be understood in relation to their caster's ongoing control/relation to them. Why would the accident of one being targeted in a radius around the caster, and one being targeted at a point within 30 feet of the caster, be the end of the conversation about one being dispelable and the other not???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree that both spell descriptions are worded similarly, especially with "you gain the ability..." in Telekinesis and "you can read the thoughts..." in detect thoughts. I'd even argue Telekinesis should be worded to target self the same way as Detect Thoughts is, though that is a different topic of discussion. But, I have enough on my plate as a DM. Saying Dispel Magic can only be cast on the target of a spell is easy to understand, works for 95% (approximation) of cases the way it should, and can be clearly communicated. In terms of game time and maximizing my fun and the fun of my players, I'm still sticking with convention.
Throw Warding Bond into the pile as well while we're at it. "A spell isn't on you unless it targets you" is a profoundly unsatisfactory ruling for many spells, I really don't think that you can hand wave that this will work for "most" spells...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So far you have ID'ed 2 problematic spells out of hundreds of spells that can be dispelled (about 372 if my math is right, less any whose descriptions say they can't be). I'm comfortable with my "most" statement for now.
Any non-instantaneous spell active on a creature, object, or area such as magical effect can potentially be dispelled basically.
It seems so strange that there is so much confusion over a simple spell. You need to make a Perception check in order to detect the target, and this can be done by as much as 120 feet away. Once you know what your target is, one creature, object, or magical effect within range, all magical properties are then removed.
There are things what magic changes, and then the item is no longer considered magical. Creatures that have been permanently polymorphed into something that is no longer capable of magical effects remains whatever it is. There is no save against Dispel magic, so once it is cast, the magic is gone. A Goodberry becomes a normal berry. If someone casts Detect Thoughts, what ever was the subject of this spell will have the magic removed. If the caster wishes to know what their target is thinking, they will have to use the spell again, and they can use it as many times as they like for one minute. If you use this on the caster, they will be unable to cast any spells at all for one instant, which would be rather silly.
<Insert clever signature here>
That is so basically as to be entirely unclear what you mean. :)
is Telekinesis on its caster yes or no?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'd say it is on the caster as it gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or objects by thought while the spell last.
There are a few weird spells, but I think it's pretty clear that you need to cast dispel on the target of the spell, not the caster of the spell.
If the target is the caster, that's not a problem.
Sometimes the effect is to give the target (often the caster) a power to affect other things that aren't the target (e.g. telekinesis and detect thoughts).. But in those cases the target is still the caster. (And casting dispel on someone who is having their mind read with detect thoughts doesn't actually have any effect).
Yes, sometimes this feels weird.
Also, the fact something requires concentration doesn't mean dispelling the caster disrupts that concentration. There's no magical conduit that you can break with dispel magic. You have to target the target of the spell.
The simplest reading of the way dispel magic works is that the only time casting dispel on the caster is useful, is when the caster is the target of the spell. In other words category 1-5 cannot be dispelled by casting dispel magic on the caster (if the caster isn't the target).
Telekensis does not target its caster. So to accept that "simplest" reading, you're going to need to embrace the cognitive dissonance and not set it aside so easily.
Here's a short selection of spells (that would have been type 2 or type 4 on my original post) that won't be able to dispelled by targeting the caster controlling the spell, if we just treat "on the target" as "originally targeted the target":
Maybe some of these bug you, and maybe some others don't. Maybe that's a good indication that my analysis along three criteria (is the caster targeted, is the caster maintaining with concentration, is the caster personally affected by the spell) weren't the right three perspectives (or not the only three?) to look at this from. But I really don't think that "is the caster targeted" is the only way for a spell to be "on" the caster. It may be that every spell that targets the caster is "on" the caster, but that isn't to say that those are necessarily the only spells that are "on" the caster. If they were, why would Dispel Magic not have more directly stated "any spell which targeted the creature ends"? If they were, why would Telekinesis feel so dirty to the point that you guys keep forgetting it doesn't target self?
I think that "any spell that targets the caster, is maintained by the caster (Concentration or as otherwise described in spell), or which provides the caster an ongoing effect or power, is a spell that is "on" the caster for purpose of Dispel Magic" is an easy enough to apply bright line that a DM could handle it... even if it is longer than just "any spell that targets a creature is on the creature."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I only have my opinion on this topic. I have also not carefully read every argument in this thread.
A spell is a discrete magical effect, and dispel magic works on spells. That leads me to believe that it is intended to work on those effects. Concentration can be interrupted (see sleet storm), so concentration can be targeted but generally is discussed as such. But on the other hand, concentration isn’t part of that discrete magical effect. I’m of the opinion that dispel magic works on effects and not concentration itself.
With that being said, just about every spell that is dispellable has an effect that is either on a creature, object, or in space that can be targeted.
Concentration is not a spell effect, a spell, or even magical. It is a (presumably mental due to plain english but otherwise undefined) effort on the part of the caster to maintain a spell, but it is not part of the spell effect or spell (it is not part of the spells description). If it is the only way a caster is connected to a spell after it's casting, then there is nothing for dispel magic to end.
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:
Note: on Clone, there is no magic to dispel after the spell is cast, It is instantaneous, and it's magic lasts only for that instant. Likewise, you could not dispel zombies made by animate dead, a statue made by flesh to stone (after the duration has passed) or a familiar summoned by find familiar. Any magic left in those spell effects are self-sustaining; not part of the spell, because the spell has ceased.
The rest of your spells where you can control the effects, can be reasonably assumed to be tied to your concentration, which again, is not magical nor a spell or spell effect.
The only ones in that list that could be targeting self and have an actual effect on the caster beyond the simple ability to control the effects at another location (but don't only because the spell description names another target) are Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and Beast Sense. And yes, i can live with the disconnect there.
Okay, but don't many spells have more than one effect, on more than one creature? When a spell is cast by the caster on a second creature (like Warding Bond) that creates an effect on BOTH the second creature AND the caster.... shouldn't the part of the effect that's on the caster be vulnerable to a Dispel?
I'm hearing that.... most of you so far don't agree, and favor the simpler "spells are just on their targets" ruling. That's... disappointing, but I'm not really aware of any rule text that would specifically require otherwise, rather than the logical tension of pretending that Telekinesis isn't as much or more enchanting the caster who's been granted new ongoing powers as it is the piece of rock that they're temporarily lifting.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.