Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
Yeah that is what I thought as well.
Agree, and this is how I rule that effect at my table.
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
To me it makes sense that an area that instantly dispels spells that emits light would make them fizzle as soon as they enter the area, i.e. the spells don't make it through or even to the middle of the Darkness (or wherever your target might be hiding). If that is how it happens, it shouldn't matter if the spell is instantaneous or has a longer duration. Just like how an Antimagic Field works:
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects, such as magic missile and charm person, that target a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect on that target.
What do you think?
Also, does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
fireball is irrelevant as it exceeds the level cap for the effect, and its duration is instantaneous. RAI is that you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell (per the SAC), and the darkness says nothing about suppressing spells, which is what antimagic field actually does if you read the description; you are making an apples/oranges comparison.
Thezzaruz & Plaguescarred The reason I brought up Fire Bolt is exactly because the spell description doesn't say the spell emits light. However it is a fact that fire does emit light. And even if the area it illuminates is less than a 5-feet square, it'd logically be difficult to explain how a spell that creates less light than e.g. a Flaming Sphere would be more resistant to the effect of Darkness. Would you also say that Magic Missile doesn't emit light because the spell description doesn't use that exact word?
Spells only do what they say they do. Darkness will not affect anything that creates mundane light unless that light is a direct effect of the spell (you know this if the light has both a duration and/or a defined area in the spell description). And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
You are using antimagic field as a stand in for “dispel,” which is not really a general concept in 5e, but would imply that it is much more closely related to dispel magic.
You are using antimagic field as a stand in for “dispel,” which is not really a general concept in 5e, but would imply that it is much more closely related to dispel magic.
If it makes it easier for you to imagine it that way, would you say that an area with an ongoing magical effect closely related to the effect of Dispel Magic would not prevent a spell from taking effect in said area?
You are using antimagic field as a stand in for “dispel,” which is not really a general concept in 5e, but would imply that it is much more closely related to dispel magic.
If it makes it easier for you to imagine it that way, would you say that an area with a permanent magical effect closely related to the effect of Dispel Magic would not prevent a spell from taking effect in said area?
Yes, it would not prevent the spell from taking effect, because you cannot end a spell until it begins. Other effects, like antimagic field and counterspell can stop a spell from beginning or suppress its entire duration, but some instant of a spell must exist un-hindered in order for it to be dispelled.
Darkness states: "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled". Do spells like Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt actually create an area of light, or just a source of light that doesn't explicitly light up an area?
Faerie Fire yes.
For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius.
The crazy thing is, technically, if one of the creatures runs far away into a darkness effect, technically according to RAW it dispells the effect on all affected creatures.
Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
Yeah that is what I thought as well.
Agree, and this is how I rule that effect at my table.
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
To me it makes sense that an area that instantly dispels spells that emits light would make them fizzle as soon as they enter the area, i.e. the spells don't make it through or even to the middle of the Darkness (or wherever your target might be hiding). If that is how it happens, it shouldn't matter if the spell is instantaneous or has a longer duration. Just like how an Antimagic Field works:
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects, such as magic missile and charm person, that target a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect on that target.
What do you think?
Also, does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
fireball is irrelevant as it exceeds the level cap for the effect, and its duration is instantaneous. RAI is that you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell (per the SAC), and the darkness says nothing about suppressing spells, which is what antimagic field actually does if you read the description; you are making an apples/oranges comparison.
Fireball is not irrelevant in the context I used it.
Reading briefly through SAC, I think it is clear that when they address Dispel Magic and instantaneous spells, they are referring to instantaneous spells that have a lasting effect e.g. Animate Dead. When they explain why Dispel Magic can't effectively work as Counterspell they explain that Dispel Magic removes a spell that is already affecting a target. In the case at hand, the effects of Darkness is not limited to the spell description of Dispel Magic. The effect targets an area and is present at all times while it is active. So as I see it, if a spell effect that meets the trigger of Darkness enters its area, it is a legal target for the ongoing dispelling effect. The spell works on an area, not a target. As soon as the light-emitting magic is in the area it gets dispelled, just as a caster readying Dispel Magic could immediately end the effect of Hold Person being cast on another creature.
Thezzaruz & Plaguescarred The reason I brought up Fire Bolt is exactly because the spell description doesn't say the spell emits light. However it is a fact that fire does emit light. And even if the area it illuminates is less than a 5-feet square, it'd logically be difficult to explain how a spell that creates less light than e.g. a Flaming Sphere would be more resistant to the effect of Darkness. Would you also say that Magic Missile doesn't emit light because the spell description doesn't use that exact word?
Spells only do what they say they do. Darkness will not affect anything that creates mundane light unless that light is a direct effect of the spell (you know this if the light has both a duration and/or a defined area in the spell description). And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
Are you saying that effects like Firebolt and Fireball create mundane light? And mundane flames? And mundane damage?
it would not prevent the spell from taking effect, because you cannot end a spell until it begins
Are you saying that e.g. the Firebolt that leaves your hand doesn't exist before it hits its target?
Dispel magic ends ongoing effects, so no. An instantaneous spell effect would not be dispell-able and therefore not be dispelled.
Same as above: Darkness is not limited to the spell description of Dispel Magic. The effect's target is the area, and its effect affects spells in the area, as opposed to effects on singular targets as specified in Dispel Magic.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
Yeah that is what I thought as well.
Agree, and this is how I rule that effect at my table.
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
To me it makes sense that an area that instantly dispels spells that emits light would make them fizzle as soon as they enter the area, i.e. the spells don't make it through or even to the middle of the Darkness (or wherever your target might be hiding). If that is how it happens, it shouldn't matter if the spell is instantaneous or has a longer duration. Just like how an Antimagic Field works:
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects, such as magic missile and charm person, that target a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect on that target.
What do you think?
Also, does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
fireball is irrelevant as it exceeds the level cap for the effect, and its duration is instantaneous. RAI is that you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell (per the SAC), and the darkness says nothing about suppressing spells, which is what antimagic field actually does if you read the description; you are making an apples/oranges comparison.
Fireball is not irrelevant in the context I used it.
Reading briefly through SAC, I think it is clear that when they address Dispel Magic and instantaneous spells, they are referring to instantaneous spells that have a lasting effect e.g. Animate Dead. When they explain why Dispel Magic can't effectively work as Counterspell they explain that Dispel Magic removes a spell that is already affecting a target. In the case at hand, the effects of Darkness is not limited to the spell description of Dispel Magic. The effect targets an area and is present at all times while it is active. So as I see it, if a spell effect that meets the trigger of Darkness enters its area, it is a legal target for the ongoing dispelling effect. The spell works on an area, not a target. As soon as the light-emitting magic is in the area it gets dispelled, just as a caster readying Dispel Magic could immediately end the effect of Hold Person being cast on another creature.
What is clear is that they are saying that dispel magic does not work on instantaneous spells at all, which extends to the permanent effects of such spells. The base rule is very, very, very clear on this:
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant. (PHB Chapter 10)
Thezzaruz & Plaguescarred The reason I brought up Fire Bolt is exactly because the spell description doesn't say the spell emits light. However it is a fact that fire does emit light. And even if the area it illuminates is less than a 5-feet square, it'd logically be difficult to explain how a spell that creates less light than e.g. a Flaming Sphere would be more resistant to the effect of Darkness. Would you also say that Magic Missile doesn't emit light because the spell description doesn't use that exact word?
Spells only do what they say they do. Darkness will not affect anything that creates mundane light unless that light is a direct effect of the spell (you know this if the light has both a duration and/or a defined area in the spell description). And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
Are you saying that effects like Firebolt and Fireball create mundane light? And mundane flames? And mundane damage?
Yes (assumed), no (assumed), no (confirmed). But again, see the quoted rule above for those spells.
it would not prevent the spell from taking effect, because you cannot end a spell until it begins
Are you saying that e.g. the Firebolt that leaves your hand doesn't exist before it hits its target?
And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
I think it's worth keeping in mind the game has a rationale for why instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, which doesn't necessarily apply to a situation like Guiding Bolt vs Darkness.
The game's rules effectively say the magic of instantaneous spell is active for such a short amount of time you wouldn't be able to do anything about it (even if you used the Ready action.) But timing isn't really an issue if the spell's crossing an ongoing effect that could dispel it.
As an analogy, there's no way I could possibly react to a laser pointer being aimed at me. By the time the photons hit my retinas it'd already be too late. But even light doesn't get from point A to point B in 0 time, and if I was behind a magical space that destroyed photons, surely the laser wouldn't reach me.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
Whether they do or don't, it is moot...you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell per the rules in Chapter 10 of the PHB, so the effect of darkness can have no effect on those spells by default.
On guiding bolt, the light doesn't occur until after the hit. So the spell would still strike and deal damage even if it were then dispelled by the darkness spell.
And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
I think it's worth keeping in mind the game has a rationale for why instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, which doesn't necessarily apply to a situation like Guiding Bolt vs Darkness.
The game's rules effectively say the magic of instantaneous spell is active for such a short amount of time you wouldn't be able to do anything about it (even if you used the Ready action.) But timing isn't really an issue if the spell's crossing an ongoing effect that could dispel it.
As an analogy, there's no way I could possibly react to a laser pointer being aimed at me. By the time the photons hit my retinas it'd already be too late. But even light doesn't get from point A to point B in 0 time, and if I was behind a magical space that destroyed photons, surely the laser wouldn't reach me.
I disagree, 1) because this is magic, and IRL physics will always be an incomplete analogy, 2) because the spell description clearly describes two effects: Damage, which occurs on a hit, and a light effect that also occurs on a hit and lasts for a duration. nothing in the spell says the damage occurs over the duration; like all other spells and damage instances, it can be assumed to be an instantaneous effect that occurs at a specific point in time (in this case, on the hit). By the time darkness can dispel this spell (ie, after the light has come into being), the damage is done and cannot be reversed.
Spells have to begin for them to end. Nothing about darkness says anything about countering or suppressing a spell. It says dispel, and that has a meaning that can be applied, which is to end a spell already in progress.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
I am using what we know from the game: Dispel Magic break spells, Darkness affects magical effects in its area. The specific target (area) outlined in the description of Darkness takes priority over the (non)reference to Dispel Magic. As per SAC, the reason why Dispel Magic can't prevent spells from taking effects on their targets is because Dispel Magic's target is the affected creature. As per the Darkness spell's description, this restriction is not there as the target is the area.
Does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
Whether they do or don't, it is moot...you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell per the rules in Chapter 10 of the PHB, so the effect of darkness can have no effect on those spells by default.
On guiding bolt, the light doesn't occur until after the hit. So the spell would still strike and deal damage even if it were then dispelled by the darkness spell.
I agree fully, now that I've read your CH 10 reference.
On an unrelated note, what I find really odd is the line of logic that comparing to an unrelated spell is fine for some people, unless of course you find a more apt comparison, then YOU are wrong.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
I am using what we know from the game: Dispel Magic break spells, Darkness affects magical effects in its area. The specific target (area) outlined in the description of Darkness takes priority over the (non)reference to Dispel Magic. As per SAC, the reason why Dispel Magic can't prevent spells from taking effects on their targets is because Dispel Magic's target is the affected creature. As per the Darkness spell's description, this restriction is not there as the target is the area.
Does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
The bolded is incorrect, it ends spells. to be dispelled, a spell must 1) begin (see SAC entry on dispel magic and hold personhttps://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA181 ) and 2) not be instantaneous. Additional rules apply to darkness which are 3) the spell effect must include an "area of light" which overlaps with the area of darkness and 4) the spell dispelled must be of 2nd level or lower.
There is no use in the game of a dispel effect that would end a spell before its effects come into being, full stop.
I disagree, 1) because this is magic, and IRL physics will always be an incomplete analogy, 2) because the spell description clearly describes two effects: Damage, which occurs on a hit, and a light effect that also occurs on a hit and lasts for a duration.
The projectile that causes the damage is described as a streak of light.
nothing in the spell says the damage occurs over the duration; like all other spells and damage instances, it can be assumed to be an instantaneous effect that occurs at a specific point in time (in this case, on the hit). By the time darkness can dispel this spell (ie, after the light has come into being), the damage is done and cannot be reversed.
It still has to physically travel from the caster to the target. This is like saying a Globe of Invulnerability doesn't have time to stop guiding bolt from crossing it.
Spells have to begin for them to end. Nothing about darkness says anything about countering or suppressing a spell. It says dispel, and that has a meaning that can be applied, which is to end a spell already in progress.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how anyinstantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
I am using what we know from the game: Dispel Magic break spells, Darkness affects magical effects in its area. The specific target (area) outlined in the description of Darkness takes priority over the (non)reference to Dispel Magic. As per SAC, the reason why Dispel Magic can't prevent spells from taking effects on their targets is because Dispel Magic's target is the affected creature. As per the Darkness spell's description, this restriction is not there as the target is the area.
Does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
There is no use in the game of a dispel effect that would end a spell before its effects come into being, full stop.
The SAC reference you linked to is the exact one I referred to earlier that explains the reason Dispel Magic can't be effectively used as Counterspell is because the spell targets a singular target :) The Darkness spell removes this problem. Also, this reference is specific to the spell Dispel Magic not the word 'dispelling' in general.
The bolded statement you say is wrong is the exact wording from SAC on the matter. The very first paragraph I believe.
And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
I think it's worth keeping in mind the game has a rationale for why instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, which doesn't necessarily apply to a situation like Guiding Bolt vs Darkness.
The game's rules effectively say the magic of instantaneous spell is active for such a short amount of time you wouldn't be able to do anything about it (even if you used the Ready action.) But timing isn't really an issue if the spell's crossing an ongoing effect that could dispel it.
As an analogy, there's no way I could possibly react to a laser pointer being aimed at me. By the time the photons hit my retinas it'd already be too late. But even light doesn't get from point A to point B in 0 time, and if I was behind a magical space that destroyed photons, surely the laser wouldn't reach me.
You're summing up my sentiment neatly :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agree, and this is how I rule that effect at my table.
fireball is irrelevant as it exceeds the level cap for the effect, and its duration is instantaneous. RAI is that you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell (per the SAC), and the darkness says nothing about suppressing spells, which is what antimagic field actually does if you read the description; you are making an apples/oranges comparison.
Spells only do what they say they do. Darkness will not affect anything that creates mundane light unless that light is a direct effect of the spell (you know this if the light has both a duration and/or a defined area in the spell description). And again, for instantaneous examples, the spell can't be dispelled. Even for durational examples like guiding bolt, the damage occurs before the light effect establishes, so the spell would still strike and damage the target before being dispelled.
You are using antimagic field as a stand in for “dispel,” which is not really a general concept in 5e, but would imply that it is much more closely related to dispel magic.
If it makes it easier for you to imagine it that way, would you say that an area with an ongoing magical effect closely related to the effect of Dispel Magic would not prevent a spell from taking effect in said area?
Dispel magic ends ongoing effects, so no. An instantaneous spell effect would not be dispell-able and therefore not be dispelled.
Yes, it would not prevent the spell from taking effect, because you cannot end a spell until it begins. Other effects, like antimagic field and counterspell can stop a spell from beginning or suppress its entire duration, but some instant of a spell must exist un-hindered in order for it to be dispelled.
Also this
Faerie Fire yes.
The crazy thing is, technically, if one of the creatures runs far away into a darkness effect, technically according to RAW it dispells the effect on all affected creatures.
Fireball is not irrelevant in the context I used it.
Reading briefly through SAC, I think it is clear that when they address Dispel Magic and instantaneous spells, they are referring to instantaneous spells that have a lasting effect e.g. Animate Dead. When they explain why Dispel Magic can't effectively work as Counterspell they explain that Dispel Magic removes a spell that is already affecting a target. In the case at hand, the effects of Darkness is not limited to the spell description of Dispel Magic. The effect targets an area and is present at all times while it is active. So as I see it, if a spell effect that meets the trigger of Darkness enters its area, it is a legal target for the ongoing dispelling effect. The spell works on an area, not a target. As soon as the light-emitting magic is in the area it gets dispelled, just as a caster readying Dispel Magic could immediately end the effect of Hold Person being cast on another creature.
Are you saying that effects like Firebolt and Fireball create mundane light? And mundane flames? And mundane damage?
Are you saying that e.g. the Firebolt that leaves your hand doesn't exist before it hits its target?
Same as above: Darkness is not limited to the spell description of Dispel Magic. The effect's target is the area, and its effect affects spells in the area, as opposed to effects on singular targets as specified in Dispel Magic.
No, you are right. Darkness is limited to its text. If you aren’t going to use what we know about dispel from the game, then you are at the DM’s whim. But the spell has to create an area of light in order to be dispelled. I still fail to see how any instantaneous spell could create an area of light. Even guiding bolt that says that it creates light doesn’t creat an area of it.
What is clear is that they are saying that dispel magic does not work on instantaneous spells at all, which extends to the permanent effects of such spells. The base rule is very, very, very clear on this:
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant. (PHB Chapter 10)
Yes (assumed), no (assumed), no (confirmed). But again, see the quoted rule above for those spells.
Again, see quoted rule above.
I think it's worth keeping in mind the game has a rationale for why instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, which doesn't necessarily apply to a situation like Guiding Bolt vs Darkness.
The game's rules effectively say the magic of instantaneous spell is active for such a short amount of time you wouldn't be able to do anything about it (even if you used the Ready action.) But timing isn't really an issue if the spell's crossing an ongoing effect that could dispel it.
As an analogy, there's no way I could possibly react to a laser pointer being aimed at me. By the time the photons hit my retinas it'd already be too late. But even light doesn't get from point A to point B in 0 time, and if I was behind a magical space that destroyed photons, surely the laser wouldn't reach me.
Whether they do or don't, it is moot...you cannot dispel an instantaneous spell per the rules in Chapter 10 of the PHB, so the effect of darkness can have no effect on those spells by default.
On guiding bolt, the light doesn't occur until after the hit. So the spell would still strike and deal damage even if it were then dispelled by the darkness spell.
I disagree, 1) because this is magic, and IRL physics will always be an incomplete analogy, 2) because the spell description clearly describes two effects: Damage, which occurs on a hit, and a light effect that also occurs on a hit and lasts for a duration. nothing in the spell says the damage occurs over the duration; like all other spells and damage instances, it can be assumed to be an instantaneous effect that occurs at a specific point in time (in this case, on the hit). By the time darkness can dispel this spell (ie, after the light has come into being), the damage is done and cannot be reversed.
Spells have to begin for them to end. Nothing about darkness says anything about countering or suppressing a spell. It says dispel, and that has a meaning that can be applied, which is to end a spell already in progress.
I am using what we know from the game: Dispel Magic break spells, Darkness affects magical effects in its area. The specific target (area) outlined in the description of Darkness takes priority over the (non)reference to Dispel Magic. As per SAC, the reason why Dispel Magic can't prevent spells from taking effects on their targets is because Dispel Magic's target is the affected creature. As per the Darkness spell's description, this restriction is not there as the target is the area.
Does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
I agree fully, now that I've read your CH 10 reference.
On an unrelated note, what I find really odd is the line of logic that comparing to an unrelated spell is fine for some people, unless of course you find a more apt comparison, then YOU are wrong.
The bolded is incorrect, it ends spells. to be dispelled, a spell must 1) begin (see SAC entry on dispel magic and hold person https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA181 ) and 2) not be instantaneous. Additional rules apply to darkness which are 3) the spell effect must include an "area of light" which overlaps with the area of darkness and 4) the spell dispelled must be of 2nd level or lower.
There is no use in the game of a dispel effect that would end a spell before its effects come into being, full stop.
The projectile that causes the damage is described as a streak of light.
It still has to physically travel from the caster to the target. This is like saying a Globe of Invulnerability doesn't have time to stop guiding bolt from crossing it.
The spell *is* in progress while it's in flight.
Immaterial. By definition, instantaneous spells can't be dispelled.
The SAC reference you linked to is the exact one I referred to earlier that explains the reason Dispel Magic can't be effectively used as Counterspell is because the spell targets a singular target :) The Darkness spell removes this problem. Also, this reference is specific to the spell Dispel Magic not the word 'dispelling' in general.
The bolded statement you say is wrong is the exact wording from SAC on the matter. The very first paragraph I believe.
You're summing up my sentiment neatly :)