I think it's a fair interpretation that radiant energy at least from a spell of 2nd level or lower would be darkened on entry into a sphere of magical darkness. The effect would be countered. The spell is darkness. An ability of light to enter is at least questioned. Fire, whether magical or not, would not be extinguished though, due to the darkness, it would shed no light.
Darkness has no effect on radiant spells unless they emit an area of light. But as written it can dispel a fire spell that emit an area of light if it's not instantaneous and it's 2nd level or lower.
And you are right, it is kind of tiring to see arguments over and over that simply ignore or don’t understand the plainly written rule on instantaneous spells and dispel.
I can understand your frustration as I feel the same whenever people talk to me like I am stupid and proceed to say "the spell ... can't be dispelled, ..." and claim to have correctly cited the rules, when they clearly leave out some very relevant parts: "..."1: "The spell harms, heals, creates or alters a creature or object" ("in a way that can't be dispelled). Clear reference to the harmful, healing, creation, or alteration effect of the spell. "..."2: "because its magic only lasts for an instant". Again referring to the effect of the spell, unless you want to argue that the spell is not magical when it flies through the air.
If you feel slightly curious to explore your assumption you could also take a look in SAC if you care for their input:
(SAC) Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic (see PH, 203). The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes.
You don't have to respond to this post, I simply wanted to convey that I understand your frustration.
I mean, I understand that there are other words in the rule. But none of them make any sort of exception for the thing that you ignored: in a way that can't be dispelled. Even the SAC entry on dispel magic uses dispel generally in its answer and talks specifically about dispel magic when it references the specifics of that spell. It is straightforward.
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend.
I can see why you are frustrated though: The rules don't say what you need them to in order to jump to the conclusions you make.
I don't exactly know why you think highlighting spell's effects somehow changes what is said in the rules. It says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. The spell's effects that are not dispelled occur, whether the dispel was there before or after the effects. Because that is what can't be dispelled means.
I think it's a fair interpretation that radiant energy at least from a spell of 2nd level or lower would be darkened on entry into a sphere of magical darkness. The effect would be countered. The spell is darkness. An ability of light to enter is at least questioned. Fire, whether magical or not, would not be extinguished though, due to the darkness, it would shed no light.
Darkness has no effect on radiant spells unless they emit an area of light. But as written it can dispel a fire spell that emit an area of light if it's not instantaneous and it's 2nd level or lower.
Fair enough on the radiant spells. The description of the darkness spell specifies that "...nonmagical light can't illuminate ..." the darkness suggesting that magical light potentially can.
I'm also amazed also to find that the light emited from a magical flame is itself considered to be magical.
In this context it would seem that the costly effects of a continual light spell would cause it to be dispelled if the 20 or 40 foot range of the light is overlapped by the area of a darkness spell. That could be costly.
A question may still be raised as to whether this action to overlap only applies to the time of a casting of darkness or whether it would also be imposed if an area of magical light later came into position to overlap with the darkness.
I mean, I understand that there are other words in the rule. But none of them make any sort of exception for the thing that you ignored: in a way that can't be dispelled. Even the SAC entry on dispel magic uses dispel generally in its answer and talks specifically about dispel magic when it references the specifics of that spell. It is straightforward.
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend.
I can see why you are frustrated though: The rules don't say what you need them to in order to jump to the conclusions you make.
I don't exactly know why you think highlighting spell's effects somehow changes what is said in the rules. It says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. The spell's effects that are not dispelled occur, whether the dispel was there before or after the effects. Because that is what can't be dispelled means.
Well it's clear that we can't fundamentally agree on the rule despite its simplicity. You seem to hold that the spell can't be dispelled no matter it's effect, while I hold that it's the spell's harmful/healing/creation/alteration effect that can't be dispelled. If you agree to disagree, lets leave it at that.
A question may still be raised as to whether this action to overlap only applies to the time of a casting of darkness or whether it would also be imposed if an area of magical light later came into position to overlap with the darkness.
It applies whenever two spells' area overlap, usually when one of them is cast (partly) within the other, or when it comes in contact with it if it can be moved.
Well, we can agree on one thing: the rule is simple. Either way, whether it is the effect or the spell, it cannot be dispelled, so the result is the spell and its effect occur as if they were not dispelled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Darkness has no effect on radiant spells unless they emit an area of light. But as written it can dispel a fire spell that emit an area of light if it's not instantaneous and it's 2nd level or lower.
I can understand your frustration as I feel the same whenever people talk to me like I am stupid and proceed to say "the spell ... can't be dispelled, ..." and claim to have correctly cited the rules, when they clearly leave out some very relevant parts:
"..."1: "The spell harms, heals, creates or alters a creature or object" ("in a way that can't be dispelled). Clear reference to the harmful, healing, creation, or alteration effect of the spell.
"..."2: "because its magic only lasts for an instant". Again referring to the effect of the spell, unless you want to argue that the spell is not magical when it flies through the air.
If you feel slightly curious to explore your assumption you could also take a look in SAC if you care for their input:
You don't have to respond to this post, I simply wanted to convey that I understand your frustration.
I mean, I understand that there are other words in the rule. But none of them make any sort of exception for the thing that you ignored: in a way that can't be dispelled. Even the SAC entry on dispel magic uses dispel generally in its answer and talks specifically about dispel magic when it references the specifics of that spell. It is straightforward.
I can see why you are frustrated though: The rules don't say what you need them to in order to jump to the conclusions you make.
I don't exactly know why you think highlighting spell's effects somehow changes what is said in the rules. It says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. The spell's effects that are not dispelled occur, whether the dispel was there before or after the effects. Because that is what can't be dispelled means.
Fair enough on the radiant spells. The description of the darkness spell specifies that "...nonmagical light can't illuminate ..." the darkness suggesting that magical light potentially can.
I'm also amazed also to find that the light emited from a magical flame is itself considered to be magical.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/949114071571341314?lang=en
In this context it would seem that the costly effects of a continual light spell would cause it to be dispelled if the 20 or 40 foot range of the light is overlapped by the area of a darkness spell. That could be costly.
A question may still be raised as to whether this action to overlap only applies to the time of a casting of darkness or whether it would also be imposed if an area of magical light later came into position to overlap with the darkness.
Well it's clear that we can't fundamentally agree on the rule despite its simplicity. You seem to hold that the spell can't be dispelled no matter it's effect, while I hold that it's the spell's harmful/healing/creation/alteration effect that can't be dispelled. If you agree to disagree, lets leave it at that.
It applies whenever two spells' area overlap, usually when one of them is cast (partly) within the other, or when it comes in contact with it if it can be moved.
Well, we can agree on one thing: the rule is simple. Either way, whether it is the effect or the spell, it cannot be dispelled, so the result is the spell and its effect occur as if they were not dispelled.