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.
Is that an "area of light" as is usually defined in the rules?
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.
That's a poor comparison, as that spell specifically stops outside spell effects from entering its area, and darkness says no such thing. Technically that spell doesn't even stop the spell itself, it just prevents any effects from working on targets in the globe.
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.
The spell *is* in progress while it's in flight.
Is it? Funny that nothing in this spell indicates that said progress/flight is any different from an instantaneous spell that also sends a lit projectile. The only effect in the spell with a duration is the light on the target after a hit.
Ultimately, this is an edge case only an applicable point for warlocks with devil's sight, spellcasters with blindsight, and devils, any of which would have to have access to that spell...its an odd case, and is not fully addressed in the rules. But I stand that nothing about the wording of darkness makes this anything close to a highly specific, low level antimagic field, which is what you are arguing this to be. You have to jump about 5 different steps of logic to get there, borrow language from other unrelated spells, and make quite a few assumptions to get to your point of view.
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.
There is no definition of "dispel" in the game. Anything you are doing to separate it from the only reference where it is even close to being defined (dispel magic) is pure conjecture on your part
The bolded statement you say is wrong is the exact wording from SAC on the matter. The very first paragraph I believe.
Where? I see no reference to 'breaking' in that entry, and the first paragraph doesn't even include the word dispel except in the title...
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?
The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting, and that spell fails to take effect. Counterspell works against any spell, regardless of a spell’s casting time or duration.
Ah..I see it, you are looking at the wrong entry, for one. and 2) you also can't break a spell that hasn't started yet.
I'm not saying I'm 100%, unambiguously right, I'm saying that sentence doesn't stop at "can't be dispelled" and you should stop to consider whether the game's rationale even makes sense for this situation instead of reading selectively or pretending there's no possible nuance there.
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.
There is no definition of "dispel" in the game. Anything you are doing to separate it from the only reference where it is even close to being defined (dispel magic) is pure conjecture on your part
The bolded statement you say is wrong is the exact wording from SAC on the matter. The very first paragraph I believe.
Where? I see no reference to 'breaking' in that entry, and the first paragraph doesn't even include the word dispel except in the title...
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?
The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting, and that spell fails to take effect. Counterspell works against any spell, regardless of a spell’s casting time or duration.
Ah..I see it, you are looking at the wrong entry, for one. and 2) you also can't break a spell that hasn't started yet.
The reason I am pointing out that the word "dispel" and the spell "Dispel Magic" are not synonymous, is because there are a lot of added effects to the spell, such as its specific target. This is relevant in the case at hand.
I am looking at the exact entry I explicitly told you I was looking at: the first entry on the matter of Dispel Magic. That you don't want to focus on that section doesn't make it the wrong section.
I still don't understand your "the spell hasn't started yet" argument. Surely the Fire Bolt streaking from your finger exists and therefore has started.
You seem pretty set on your own interpretation, which is totally okay, but I'd still ask that you at least address the meat of the arguments IC and I put forth instead of glossing over it.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing in this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing is this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing is this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
Not exactly countering, as the spell materialises, but doesn't reach its target to cause the intended effect.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing is this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
Not exaclty countering, as the spell materialises, but doesn't reach its target.
That is nowhere near RAW though. The Rule says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. Darkness Dispels, but does nothing else regarding the ending, stopping, countering, or suppressing of spells. There is no other term that can be found in the game that is used here. If the choice of language matters even one iota, then Darkness can do nothing against an instantaneous spell. The text will not allow for it.
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.
There is no definition of "dispel" in the game. Anything you are doing to separate it from the only reference where it is even close to being defined (dispel magic) is pure conjecture on your part
The bolded statement you say is wrong is the exact wording from SAC on the matter. The very first paragraph I believe.
Where? I see no reference to 'breaking' in that entry, and the first paragraph doesn't even include the word dispel except in the title...
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?
The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting, and that spell fails to take effect. Counterspell works against any spell, regardless of a spell’s casting time or duration.
Ah..I see it, you are looking at the wrong entry, for one. and 2) you also can't break a spell that hasn't started yet.
The reason I am pointing out that the word "dispel" and the spell "Dispel Magic" are not synonymous, is because there are a lot of added effects to the spell, such as its specific target. This is relevant in the case at hand.
I am looking at the exact entry I explicitly told you I was looking at: the first entry on the matter of Dispel Magic. That you don't want to focus on that section doesn't make it the wrong section.
I copied the link from the exact entry I quoted above, if D&D Beyond isn't that exact, that is not my fault nor yours, but the entry i meant was the one i started to quote.
I still don't understand your "the spell hasn't started yet" argument. Surely the Fire Bolt streaking from your finger exists and therefore has started.
There is not rules guidance on whether the attack is part of the casting or the duration. But regardless of whether it is or not, that is an instantaneous spell. The rules do not allow instantaneous spells to be dispelled, and that rule does not care whether the dispelling is done via dispel magic or any other effect.
You seem pretty set on your own interpretation, which is totally okay, but I'd still ask that you at least address the meat of the arguments IC and I put forth instead of glossing over it.
I'm not sure what meat hasn't been addressed that I haven't already responded to, I'm not going to repeat every response I've given every time I post.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing is this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
Not exaclty countering, as the spell materialises, but doesn't reach its target.
That is nowhere near RAW though. The Rule says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. Darkness Dispels, but does nothing else regarding the ending, stopping, countering, or suppressing of spells. There is no other term that can be found in the game that is used here. If the choice of language matters even one iota, then Darkness can do nothing against an instantaneous spell. The text will not allow for it.
As I just wrote somewhere above, that specific rule states that Instantaneous effects can't be dispelled after they have taken effect. We are discussing them being dispelled before they take effect, after they have materialised.
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.
The magic only exists for an instant, so cannot be dispelled. There is no magic to dispel before the spell effect comes into being, so it cannot be dispelled before it is cast.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing is this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
Not exaclty countering, as the spell materialises, but doesn't reach its target.
That is nowhere near RAW though. The Rule says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. Darkness Dispels, but does nothing else regarding the ending, stopping, countering, or suppressing of spells. There is no other term that can be found in the game that is used here. If the choice of language matters even one iota, then Darkness can do nothing against an instantaneous spell. The text will not allow for it.
As I just wrote somewhere above, that specific rule states that Instantaneous effects can't be dispelled after they have taken effect. We are discussing them being dispelled before they take effect, after they have materialised.
Read globe of invulnerability...that is basically what you are describing, and that is a lot of effect content to infer from what little is written in Darkness, especially with no other backup. If the attack and hit are part of an instantaneous duration as you say prior, then they, like the effects themselves are too fast for any dispelling to occur per the rule in PHB. I don't read that text the way you are, because to do so would create an exception for darkness that is not explicitly mentioned in the spell text. I cannot apply specific v general to a specific that doesn't exist because it isn't written.
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.
The magic only exists for an instant, so cannot be dispelled. There is no magic to dispel before the spell effect comes into being, so it cannot be dispelled before it is cast.
The spell "harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled". If the spell does any of the above mentioned examples, the spell has already taken effect and can thus not be dispelled. In the case at hand the spell hasn't reached its target doing any of the above mentioned examples.
We are discussing a case where e.g. a light-emitting Guiding Bolt has been cast and streaks towards its target but encounters a force that dispels magic of that specific nature upon entering. To illustrate how an Instantaneous spell can materialise without having the intended effect, one need only look at Antimagic Field: A spell gets cast, it materialises, it flies forth, it encounters the Antimagic Field and immediately gets suppressed. Only difference in the case at hand is that the spell gets dispelled, not suppressed.
People are arguing a lot over the significance of the duration of the spell: can an instantaneous spell be dispelled or not? But I think there is an easier way to disqualify it based on the language "area of light" in the Darkness description. Most spells that are explicitly about creating light provide a radius for that light in the description. For example, the Light cantrip "sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet". If a spell doesn't say anything about shedding dim or bright light, then it doesn't have an "area of light", even if by common sense it emits light.
Fire Bolt and Fireball do not even mention light. Fireball has a radius, but that's the radius for damage, not the radius for light emitted, which is presumably a larger area, but how far Fireball's light reaches is not mentioned. Guiding Bolt mentions "dim light", but does not give a radius.
My interpretation of all of these is that they give off light, but not an "area of light". You can see the effect itself, presumably from nearly unlimited distance, but you cannot see anything else by the light they emit. They do not illuminate anything. If a monster is standing just outside the radius of the Fireball in natural darkness, you cannot see that monster even for the instant the Fireball goes off. And therefore they're not intended to be dispelled by Darkness.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing in this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
It doesn't matter. The definition of instantaneous includes "can't be dispelled".
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).
What does "mundane light" mean? Is that even a thing the rules discuss?
We are discussing a case where e.g. a light-emitting Guiding Bolt has been cast and streaks towards its target but encounters a force that dispels magic of that specific nature upon entering.
You are assuming that Guiding Bolt emits light, which is not part of the spell description at all. While it is described as "a flash of light", it does not illuminate the space around it and is therefore not considered an area of light. The secondary effect of Guiding Bolt does mention a "mystical dim light glittering on the target" which is potentially an area of light, but is vague enough that it should be left up to the DM to decide on. If the DM does rule that it is dispelled by Darkness, this only happens after the damage has already been done by the bolt's impact.
I actually do believe you are both correct that RAI is that for a spell to be considered to be a mechanically valid target for the effect of Darkness, the spell's description should mention an area of illumination.
However, RAW simply mentions an "area of light". When is something considered an area? To me, even the area of the Guiding Bolt's "flash of light" is considered an area, albeit a small one. And to me it doesn't make logical or narrative sense to say that the Darkness spell only dispels spells emitting light of 2nd level and below 'that also lights up an area larger than 5 square feet'. Why should areas of less than 5 square feet be exempt from the spell effect when they're arguably a weaker light source?
As for how you don't believe a Fireball lights up any area (not even the area of effect?), RAW states that fires create bright light (PHB, Vision and Light) and existing rules for different types of light sources can be used for reference. The same rules should apply to Fire Bolt in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is that an "area of light" as is usually defined in the rules?
That's a poor comparison, as that spell specifically stops outside spell effects from entering its area, and darkness says no such thing. Technically that spell doesn't even stop the spell itself, it just prevents any effects from working on targets in the globe.
Is it? Funny that nothing in this spell indicates that said progress/flight is any different from an instantaneous spell that also sends a lit projectile. The only effect in the spell with a duration is the light on the target after a hit.
Ultimately, this is an edge case only an applicable point for warlocks with devil's sight, spellcasters with blindsight, and devils, any of which would have to have access to that spell...its an odd case, and is not fully addressed in the rules. But I stand that nothing about the wording of darkness makes this anything close to a highly specific, low level antimagic field, which is what you are arguing this to be. You have to jump about 5 different steps of logic to get there, borrow language from other unrelated spells, and make quite a few assumptions to get to your point of view.
But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
There is no definition of "dispel" in the game. Anything you are doing to separate it from the only reference where it is even close to being defined (dispel magic) is pure conjecture on your part
Where? I see no reference to 'breaking' in that entry, and the first paragraph doesn't even include the word dispel except in the title...
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?
The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting, and that spell fails to take effect. Counterspell works against any spell, regardless of a spell’s casting time or duration.
Ah..I see it, you are looking at the wrong entry, for one. and 2) you also can't break a spell that hasn't started yet.
Also very very true
Re-read my post.
I'm not saying I'm 100%, unambiguously right, I'm saying that sentence doesn't stop at "can't be dispelled" and you should stop to consider whether the game's rationale even makes sense for this situation instead of reading selectively or pretending there's no possible nuance there.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The reason I am pointing out that the word "dispel" and the spell "Dispel Magic" are not synonymous, is because there are a lot of added effects to the spell, such as its specific target. This is relevant in the case at hand.
I am looking at the exact entry I explicitly told you I was looking at: the first entry on the matter of Dispel Magic. That you don't want to focus on that section doesn't make it the wrong section.
I still don't understand your "the spell hasn't started yet" argument. Surely the Fire Bolt streaking from your finger exists and therefore has started.
You seem pretty set on your own interpretation, which is totally okay, but I'd still ask that you at least address the meat of the arguments IC and I put forth instead of glossing over it.
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing in this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
So countering the spell? Well, that is different altogether.
Not exactly countering, as the spell materialises, but doesn't reach its target to cause the intended effect.
That is nowhere near RAW though. The Rule says that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. Darkness Dispels, but does nothing else regarding the ending, stopping, countering, or suppressing of spells. There is no other term that can be found in the game that is used here. If the choice of language matters even one iota, then Darkness can do nothing against an instantaneous spell. The text will not allow for it.
I copied the link from the exact entry I quoted above, if D&D Beyond isn't that exact, that is not my fault nor yours, but the entry i meant was the one i started to quote.
There is not rules guidance on whether the attack is part of the casting or the duration. But regardless of whether it is or not, that is an instantaneous spell. The rules do not allow instantaneous spells to be dispelled, and that rule does not care whether the dispelling is done via dispel magic or any other effect.
I'm not sure what meat hasn't been addressed that I haven't already responded to, I'm not going to repeat every response I've given every time I post.
As I just wrote somewhere above, that specific rule states that Instantaneous effects can't be dispelled after they have taken effect. We are discussing them being dispelled before they take effect, after they have materialised.
No, the rules don’t say that. They say :
The magic only exists for an instant, so cannot be dispelled. There is no magic to dispel before the spell effect comes into being, so it cannot be dispelled before it is cast.
Read globe of invulnerability...that is basically what you are describing, and that is a lot of effect content to infer from what little is written in Darkness, especially with no other backup. If the attack and hit are part of an instantaneous duration as you say prior, then they, like the effects themselves are too fast for any dispelling to occur per the rule in PHB. I don't read that text the way you are, because to do so would create an exception for darkness that is not explicitly mentioned in the spell text. I cannot apply specific v general to a specific that doesn't exist because it isn't written.
The spell "harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled". If the spell does any of the above mentioned examples, the spell has already taken effect and can thus not be dispelled. In the case at hand the spell hasn't reached its target doing any of the above mentioned examples.
We are discussing a case where e.g. a light-emitting Guiding Bolt has been cast and streaks towards its target but encounters a force that dispels magic of that specific nature upon entering. To illustrate how an Instantaneous spell can materialise without having the intended effect, one need only look at Antimagic Field: A spell gets cast, it materialises, it flies forth, it encounters the Antimagic Field and immediately gets suppressed. Only difference in the case at hand is that the spell gets dispelled, not suppressed.
People are arguing a lot over the significance of the duration of the spell: can an instantaneous spell be dispelled or not? But I think there is an easier way to disqualify it based on the language "area of light" in the Darkness description. Most spells that are explicitly about creating light provide a radius for that light in the description. For example, the Light cantrip "sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet". If a spell doesn't say anything about shedding dim or bright light, then it doesn't have an "area of light", even if by common sense it emits light.
Fire Bolt and Fireball do not even mention light. Fireball has a radius, but that's the radius for damage, not the radius for light emitted, which is presumably a larger area, but how far Fireball's light reaches is not mentioned. Guiding Bolt mentions "dim light", but does not give a radius.
My interpretation of all of these is that they give off light, but not an "area of light". You can see the effect itself, presumably from nearly unlimited distance, but you cannot see anything else by the light they emit. They do not illuminate anything. If a monster is standing just outside the radius of the Fireball in natural darkness, you cannot see that monster even for the instant the Fireball goes off. And therefore they're not intended to be dispelled by Darkness.
It doesn't matter. The definition of instantaneous includes "can't be dispelled".
What does "mundane light" mean? Is that even a thing the rules discuss?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think pavilionaire has summed this up nicely above, but to directly address BeyondMisty's point:
You are assuming that Guiding Bolt emits light, which is not part of the spell description at all. While it is described as "a flash of light", it does not illuminate the space around it and is therefore not considered an area of light. The secondary effect of Guiding Bolt does mention a "mystical dim light glittering on the target" which is potentially an area of light, but is vague enough that it should be left up to the DM to decide on. If the DM does rule that it is dispelled by Darkness, this only happens after the damage has already been done by the bolt's impact.
@Pavilionaire & Gruntier
I actually do believe you are both correct that RAI is that for a spell to be considered to be a mechanically valid target for the effect of Darkness, the spell's description should mention an area of illumination.
However, RAW simply mentions an "area of light". When is something considered an area? To me, even the area of the Guiding Bolt's "flash of light" is considered an area, albeit a small one. And to me it doesn't make logical or narrative sense to say that the Darkness spell only dispels spells emitting light of 2nd level and below 'that also lights up an area larger than 5 square feet'. Why should areas of less than 5 square feet be exempt from the spell effect when they're arguably a weaker light source?
As for how you don't believe a Fireball lights up any area (not even the area of effect?), RAW states that fires create bright light (PHB, Vision and Light) and existing rules for different types of light sources can be used for reference. The same rules should apply to Fire Bolt in my opinion.