What a surprise for me! This changes my world :-( because it seems that the SAC and even RAW are misleading :-(
In my opinion, SAC and RAW are saying it as it is--these modules are just making exceptions to the rule for the sake of putting cool things into the game. And that's a good thing because dispel magic can be a pretty versatile tool outside of RAW.
I also found an example where Dispel Magic is used to disarm a trap, but I recall this usage is officially mentioned in DMG p. 120-121 (Disabling Traps).
That does kind of throw a wrench in the whole "dispel magic is only for ending spells" statement. I suppose the magic trap might have been created by a spell, but the wording of the rule does not make that requirement.
That seems like maybe a holdover from an early draft of the rules. I can't think of a single example in a published adventure where you use dispel magic to disable a trap and the description lists a DC to do so.
EDIT2: No, apparently it is not a holdover from an older draft of the rules because Xanathar's Guide, which came out much later, includes examples of traps, along with DCs to use dispel magic to disable them. Since it shows up in two different rule books, I have to say SAC got this one wrong.
Specific Rules from adventures: Is more specific to a particular effect specifically which itself can be destroyed by dispell but has no general rule to be gleaned from, it is an exception to the general rule.
Both of these can be true at the same time. And are.
EDIT2: No, apparently it is not a holdover from an older draft of the rules because Xanathar's Guide, which came out much later, includes examples of traps, along with DCs to use dispel magic to disable them. Since it shows up in two different rule books, I have to say SAC got this one wrong.
I would say that SAC is accurately stating the rules as written. The problem is that there are also examples of using it in a way inconsistent with those rules. In some cases you can determine that the trap just includes some spell that isn't specifically stated (usually glyph of warding), but there are examples where dispel magic actually temporarily suppresses an effect (e.g. there's a wall of fire in Curse of Strahd that gets shut off for one minute by a successful dispel) and there's no way you can square that with the 5e dispel magic.
Funny thing, Dispel Magic is in the 1979 DMG as a 3rd level Cleric spell, and the short of it is at that time it ( Dispel ) was only for magic item suppression for just a turn. [ fyi p.41 if anyone is interested ]
Afterwards, it seems the effects of Dispel Magic had been expanded, till all of a sudden the description of what the spell could effect had been so shortened, it is no longer is the same.
( I too personally prefer to have a more descriptive explanation of exactly what spells are capable of, rather than a brief version that is far too misunderstood. )
The spell description says the spell ends a spell effect on the target. And elsewhere in the rules, we see that the spell does another thing as well. All of that is fine, and the two rules coexist harmoniously. My problem is that SAC clarifies that "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on... any other magical effect that isn't a spell," and that is not an accurate statement. Now we have a case of a rule (magic traps) contradicting a rule clarification (SAC) when the spell's description wasn't contradicted in the first place. This SAC entry is the problem, not the printed manuals.
Now we have a case of a rule (magic traps) contradicting a rule clarification (SAC) when the spell's description wasn't contradicted in the first place. This SAC entry is the problem, not the printed manuals.
There is no contradiction.
The spell Dispel Magic isn't what is responsible for shutting off the trap. The trap responds to a Dispel Magic by shutting down.
The rules of the trap are the rules: of the trap.
Not of the spell.
Eg. SAC clarifies for some reason that puppies aren't keys that open doors. (True) but then I make a magical door that only unlocks if you're holding a puppy. Contradiction? No. Puppies aren't keys for doors (general rule, very true, don't use them this way) and also it is true this specific magic door has special functionality when you hold a puppy it opens. No contradiction.
Again. General vs Specific this is a basic rules 101 answer. Why are people having a hard time rectifying it?
The problem is: players do not have access to the text of the trap, only the text of the spell, so they have no way of knowing whether a given effect (that does not clearly correspond to a spell) is dispellable.
What a surprise for me! This changes my world :-( because it seems that the SAC and even RAW are misleading :-(
In my opinion, SAC and RAW are saying it as it is--these modules are just making exceptions to the rule for the sake of putting cool things into the game. And that's a good thing because dispel magic can be a pretty versatile tool outside of RAW.
I also found an example where Dispel Magic is used to disarm a trap, but I recall this usage is officially mentioned in DMG p. 120-121 (Disabling Traps).
That does kind of throw a wrench in the whole "dispel magic is only for ending spells" statement. I suppose the magic trap might have been created by a spell, but the wording of the rule does not make that requirement.
That seems like maybe a holdover from an early draft of the rules. I can't think of a single example in a published adventure where you use dispel magic to disable a trap and the description lists a DC to do so.
EDIT2: No, apparently it is not a holdover from an older draft of the rules because Xanathar's Guide, which came out much later, includes examples of traps, along with DCs to use dispel magic to disable them. Since it shows up in two different rule books, I have to say SAC got this one wrong.
Just to give you all more detail, this is the trap I was referring to (sorry for the spoiler!)
Cold Trap. lf a creature enters the vault without first saying "Gold is my shield," an intense blast of magical cold fills the room. All creatures in the vault at that time must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 36 (8d8) cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A detect magic spell reveals the secret to disabling the trap: a tiny magical glyph is inscribed in the middle of the ceiling. lf this glyph is dispelled with a successful casting of dispel magic (DC 16), the trap ceases to function.
Again. General vs Specific this is a basic rules 101 answer. Why are people having a hard time rectifying it?
The problem is: players do not have access to the text of the trap, only the text of the spell, so they have no way of knowing whether a given effect (that does not clearly correspond to a spell) is dispellable.
The text of the spell plus this statement that @TexasDevid pasted from the SAC: "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on ... any other magical effect that isn't a spell,"
So it can be difficult for the players determine whether to use dispel magic in a module or any adventure (official or not), unless the DM explicitly guides them to do so.
What a surprise for me! This changes my world :-( because it seems that the SAC and even RAW are misleading :-(
In my opinion, SAC and RAW are saying it as it is--these modules are just making exceptions to the rule for the sake of putting cool things into the game. And that's a good thing because dispel magic can be a pretty versatile tool outside of RAW.
I also found an example where Dispel Magic is used to disarm a trap, but I recall this usage is officially mentioned in DMG p. 120-121 (Disabling Traps).
That does kind of throw a wrench in the whole "dispel magic is only for ending spells" statement. I suppose the magic trap might have been created by a spell, but the wording of the rule does not make that requirement.
That seems like maybe a holdover from an early draft of the rules. I can't think of a single example in a published adventure where you use dispel magic to disable a trap and the description lists a DC to do so.
EDIT2: No, apparently it is not a holdover from an older draft of the rules because Xanathar's Guide, which came out much later, includes examples of traps, along with DCs to use dispel magic to disable them. Since it shows up in two different rule books, I have to say SAC got this one wrong.
Just to give you all more detail, this is the trap I was referring to (sorry for the spoiler!)
Cold Trap. lf a creature enters the vault without first saying "Gold is my shield," an intense blast of magical cold fills the room. All creatures in the vault at that time must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 36 (8d8) cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A detect magic spell reveals the secret to disabling the trap: a tiny magical glyph is inscribed in the middle of the ceiling. lf this glyph is dispelled with a successful casting of dispel magic (DC 16), the trap ceases to function.
Again. General vs Specific this is a basic rules 101 answer. Why are people having a hard time rectifying it?
The problem is: players do not have access to the text of the trap, only the text of the spell, so they have no way of knowing whether a given effect (that does not clearly correspond to a spell) is dispellable.
The text of the spell plus this statement that @TexasDevid pasted from the SAC: "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on ... any other magical effect that isn't a spell,"
So it can be difficult for the players determine whether to use dispel magic in a module or any adventure (official or not), unless the DM explicitly guides them to do so.
Absolutely. Modules frequently use Dispel Magic in ways that are outside the spell description. The spell description itself refers only to removing "spells" and RAW, if cast by a player character, that is all it will dispel. Non-standard uses become a problem when the players aren't aware it can target anything else AND the spell description doesn't indicate it could have any other possible use.
"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."
However, your example actually fits (somewhat) within the rules since the magical trap uses a "glyph" which could just be some sort of modified/permanent "glyph of warding" .. so presumably could be dispelled.
There are other examples of Dispel Magic being used in 5e content to disable magic items temporarily which was something it could do in previous editions of the game but which aren't even mentioned as a possibility in the 5e spell description. If a Dispel Magic can sometimes be used in such a way then it would be nice to have it noted so that the characters (and players) might think to try it.
One of the worst examples I have run across is:
From Rime of the Frost Maiden ..
The encounter is impossible to win without using Dispel Magic to temporarily disable a magic item. The magic item prevents the inhabitants from dropping below 1hp. These inhabitants are fairly powerful opponents for the level they are encountered. A party arriving here has a reasonable chance to have no access to dispel magic (part of a wilderness encounter in the module can teleport the characters to this location with no save). The players have no reason to think that Dispel Magic might be useful since it only works on spells (RAW). There are no hints or information available in the module that would allow the characters to figure out that they need to use Dispel Magic in a non-standard way. The stone brazier is found some distance inside the cave complex.
There is one berserker in the complex (along with a couple of dragon wrymlings) and 3 more berserkers on their way back. The berserkers have 3 attacks and can use Reckless for advantage .. which they will because they can't be killed inside the cave as long as the fire is lit.
Poor encounter design in my opinion since unless the DM provides some hints on the non-standard use of Dispel Magic is impossible for the characters/players to figure out. In addition, if Dispel Magic isn't available or prepped by someone in the party, then the options to deal with the encounter are very limited (basically try and grapple NPC barbarians in the middle of a fight and try to tie them up - while simultaneously engaging a couple of white dragon wyrmlings).
------
"A detect magic spell reveals a powerful aura of abjuration magic around the 3-foot-high stone brazier, which rises naturally from the floor and is therefore not a discrete object. It can't be moved or damaged, and its magical flame can't be smothered or put out with water. Any creature that comes into direct contact with the fire for the first time on a turn takes 10 (3d6) cold damage.
Casting dispel magic on the fire snuffs it out for l hour, after which the fire reignites on its own. Using a stone shape spell to alter the brazier's shape puts out the fire for good. As long as the brazier's cold fire burns, chardalyn berserkers inside the cave (areas Q3 through QB, and the tunnels and chutes that attach to them) can't drop below 1 hit point. No other creatures gain this benefit. Characters who fight the berserkers inside their lair see them shake off damage that would normally kill them. The berserkers are aware of the fire's benefit, as evidenced by the rictus grins that cross their faces when intruders realize the berserkers are seemingly unkillable."
Funny thing, Dispel Magic is in the 1979 DMG as a 3rd level Cleric spell, and the short of it is at that time it ( Dispel ) was only for magic item suppression for just a turn. [ fyi p.41 if anyone is interested ]
Afterwards, it seems the effects of Dispel Magic had been expanded, till all of a sudden the description of what the spell could effect had been so shortened, it is no longer is the same.
( I too personally prefer to have a more descriptive explanation of exactly what spells are capable of, rather than a brief version that is far too misunderstood. )
Oddly enough, the AD&D PHB specifically says Dispel Magic doesn't work against magic items :) ... while it does remove spells. The DMG adds the option for the spell to stop the magic item functioning for a round. (Note that the cleric, druid and magic user versions of the spell are basically the same).
"Explanation/Description: When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or obiects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect. The base chance for success of a dispel magic spell is 50%. ... "
However, as mentioned, the AD&D DMG says:
"Dispel Magic: If this spell is cast upon a magic item it most certainly will have the effect of causing it to be non-operational for 1 round thereafter if the item does not make a saving throw - if the item is not in the possession of any creature, then the item gets no saving throw, and it is nonoperational for 1 round. Note that artifacts and relics are NOT subject to this effect. Any dispel magic spell must be cast directly at the obiect, not anything or anyone else, to be so effective."
So - not clear that the AD&D PHB writer was talking to the AD&D DMG writer :)
In terms of 5e:
The PHB indicates that ONLY spells are affected by Dispel Magic. The DMG however adds that magical traps might be affected.
"In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic."
In 5e, neither the PHB nor the DMG mention the possible use of Dispel Magic to suppress or disable the functioning of magical items. That is a hold over from previous editions that some content writers appear to have missed :). Newer 5e players without exposure to earlier editions may not even think of using Dispel Magic in such a way.
The PHB indicates that ONLY spells are affected by Dispel Magic. The DMG however adds that magical traps might be affected.
"In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic."
Just changing the description of Dispel Magic to add something like
Dispel magic may also, at the DMs discretion, be usable to dispel or temporarily suppress magical effects that resemble spells, including some magical traps. The DM should generally allow a arcana check to know whether a given effect is dispellable.
would solve most cases (note that "this is a spell that the PCs have never encountered before" is also a dispellable but hard to recognize effect).
The PHB indicates that ONLY spells are affected by Dispel Magic. The DMG however adds that magical traps might be affected.
"In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic."
Just changing the description of Dispel Magic to add something like
Dispel magic may also, at the DMs discretion, be usable to dispel or temporarily suppress magical effects that resemble spells, including some magical traps. The DM should generally allow a arcana check to know whether a given effect is dispellable.
would solve most cases (note that "this is a spell that the PCs have never encountered before" is also a dispellable but hard to recognize effect).
Funny thing, Dispel Magic is in the 1979 DMG as a 3rd level Cleric spell, and the short of it is at that time it ( Dispel ) was only for magic item suppression for just a turn. [ fyi p.41 if anyone is interested ]
Afterwards, it seems the effects of Dispel Magic had been expanded, till all of a sudden the description of what the spell could effect had been so shortened, it is no longer is the same.
( I too personally prefer to have a more descriptive explanation of exactly what spells are capable of, rather than a brief version that is far too misunderstood. )
Oddly enough, the AD&D PHB specifically says Dispel Magic doesn't work against magic items :) ... while it does remove spells. The DMG adds the option for the spell to stop the magic item functioning for a round. (Note that the cleric, druid and magic user versions of the spell are basically the same).
"Explanation/Description: When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or obiects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect. The base chance for success of a dispel magic spell is 50%. ... "
However, as mentioned, the AD&D DMG says:
"Dispel Magic: If this spell is cast upon a magic item it most certainly will have the effect of causing it to be non-operational for 1 round thereafter if the item does not make a saving throw - if the item is not in the possession of any creature, then the item gets no saving throw, and it is nonoperational for 1 round. Note that artifacts and relics are NOT subject to this effect. Any dispel magic spell must be cast directly at the obiect, not anything or anyone else, to be so effective."
So - not clear that the AD&D PHB writer was talking to the AD&D DMG writer :)
In terms of 5e:
The PHB indicates that ONLY spells are affected by Dispel Magic. The DMG however adds that magical traps might be affected.
"In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic."
In 5e, neither the PHB nor the DMG mention the possible use of Dispel Magic to suppress or disable the functioning of magical items. That is a hold over from previous editions that some content writers appear to have missed :). Newer 5e players without exposure to earlier editions may not even think of using Dispel Magic in such a way.
Explanation/Description: When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or obiects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect. The base chance for success of a dispel magic spell is 50%. For every level of experience of the character casting the dispel magic above that of the creature whose magic is to be dispelled (or above the efficiency level of the object from,which the magic is issuing), the base chance increases by 5%, so that if there are 10 levels of difference, there is a 100% chance. For every level below the experience/efficiency level of the creature/object, the base chance is reduced by 2%. Note that this spell can be very effective when used upon charmed and similarly beguiled creatures. It is automatic in negating the spell casters own magic.
The DMG printed later added item magical effect suppression for a limited time to Dispel Magic in an effort to, ( personal understanding ), to prevent players from breaking the game and magical items.
Now if one accepts the fact that a year ( more or less ) passed between such printings, and the fact the game was ( and still is ) in a state of constant development, why is the 5E version of Dispel Magic ( any many other such instances) so anemic in terms of usage, and restricted by terminology? ( that can be widely misunderstood )
By which source of the RAW, is one to understand the context of how such interactions can occur? ( and a lot of new RAW has been developed that makes the whole specific vs general a f’ing nightmare. )
( IMO in the description of Dispel Magic the word SPELL should be replaced with ‘magical effect equivalent to respective spell type’ plus what has been suggested by others. that would to me be a better representation of what the spell is capable of as a player. )
Again. General vs Specific this is a basic rules 101 answer. Why are people having a hard time rectifying it?
The problem is: players do not have access to the text of the trap, only the text of the spell, so they have no way of knowing whether a given effect (that does not clearly correspond to a spell) is dispellable.
The text of the spell plus this statement that @TexasDevid pasted from the SAC: "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on ... any other magical effect that isn't a spell,"
So it can be difficult for the players determine whether to use dispel magic in a module or any adventure (official or not), unless the DM explicitly guides them to do so.
Ah, that... that is true. I'm a chronic DM, and most of my takes are from a DM's perspective. But I can see how this might be an issue for players simply not knowing that there are traps and etc out there that might respond to magic in ways that isn't specifically addressed by the spell.
But, that's true of all sorts of traps. There might be a pillar with some arcane sigil for the element of fire scrawled into it that collapses under anyone's weight unless you deal it fire damage first. Scorching Ray could do that. But it doesn't say anything about maintaining pillar structural integrity. Nor should it.
Maybe there should be an explainer for players about how to approach traps and how they might have unique solutions.
Maybe there should be an explainer for players about how to approach traps and how they might have unique solutions.
"This trap has a solution that is in no ways implied by the rules I have access to" is not a good puzzle. If it's intended that dispel magic can work on magical effects that are not identified spells, it should just say so in the description (e.g. the sentence I give upthread).
Maybe there should be an explainer for players about how to approach traps and how they might have unique solutions.
"This trap has a solution that is in no ways implied by the rules I have access to" is not a good puzzle. If it's intended that dispel magic can work on magical effects that are not identified spells, it should just say so in the description (e.g. the sentence I give upthread).
Again, the trap is what has the effect of being turned off/suppressed by Dispel Magic. It isn't a direct ability of Dispel Magic.
I've explained this upthread. A few times.
Edit: I also fully disagree with your opinion about what makes a good trap. You don't need to include in the description of every object ever single possible exhaustive way they might possibly interact with a trap. Can you imagine a presure plate triggered trap needing the items used to trigger its weight limit to have to specifically say in the item description. "The weight of this object might be able to trigger pressure plate traps". That's just an untenable opinion.
Edit: I also fully disagree with your opinion about what makes a good trap. You don't need to include in the description of every object ever single possible exhaustive way they might possibly interact with a trap. Can you imagine a presure plate triggered trap needing the items used to trigger its weight limit to have to specifically say in the item description. "The weight of this object might be able to trigger pressure plate traps". That's just an untenable opinion.
"The solution to this puzzle is attempting something that according to the rules is impossible" is not good design. It's not necessary to detail all options, but they should be choices that it's reasonable for the player to think could work.
Edit: I also fully disagree with your opinion about what makes a good trap. You don't need to include in the description of every object ever single possible exhaustive way they might possibly interact with a trap. Can you imagine a presure plate triggered trap needing the items used to trigger its weight limit to have to specifically say in the item description. "The weight of this object might be able to trigger pressure plate traps". That's just an untenable opinion.
"The solution to this puzzle is attempting something that according to the rules is impossible" is not good design. It's not necessary to detail all options, but they should be choices that it's reasonable for the player to think could work.
Given that we have many, many examples of magical traps being shut off or suppressed by Dispel Magic it seems both 1. Well within the rules that it is possible and 2. Reasonable for players to know it might work.
Edit: Again, Dispel Magic has rules for how it specifically works. And those are its rules. Traps have rules for specifically how they work, and those are the trap's rules. Dispel Magic doesn't need to say it can shut off a magic trap. The TRAP needs to say it can be shut off by Dispel Magic (and any other means to overcome it) This is a clearcut General vs Specific. Why does this particular case cause this confusion? It is standard rule vs rule interaction.
Edit: Again, Dispel Magic has rules for how it specifically works. And those are its rules. Traps have rules for specifically how they work, and those are the trap's rules. Dispel Magic doesn't need to say it can shut off a magic trap. The TRAP needs to say it can be shut off by Dispel Magic (and any other means to overcome it) This is a clearcut General vs Specific. Why does this particular case cause this confusion? It is standard rule vs rule interaction.
Because the rule accessible to players, and thus the one they should be using when making decisions about what might work, is the text of dispel magic. It should not be necessary for the player to access DM resources to understand how a player ability works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my opinion, SAC and RAW are saying it as it is--these modules are just making exceptions to the rule for the sake of putting cool things into the game. And that's a good thing because dispel magic can be a pretty versatile tool outside of RAW.
EDIT:
That does kind of throw a wrench in the whole "dispel magic is only for ending spells" statement. I suppose the magic trap might have been created by a spell, but the wording of the rule does not make that requirement.
That seems like maybe a holdover from an early draft of the rules. I can't think of a single example in a published adventure where you use dispel magic to disable a trap and the description lists a DC to do so.
EDIT2: No, apparently it is not a holdover from an older draft of the rules because Xanathar's Guide, which came out much later, includes examples of traps, along with DCs to use dispel magic to disable them. Since it shows up in two different rule books, I have to say SAC got this one wrong.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This isn't as complicated as yall are making it.
General Rule: Dispel Magic only dispels spells.
Specific Rules from adventures: Is more specific to a particular effect specifically which itself can be destroyed by dispell but has no general rule to be gleaned from, it is an exception to the general rule.
Both of these can be true at the same time. And are.
I got quotes!
I would say that SAC is accurately stating the rules as written. The problem is that there are also examples of using it in a way inconsistent with those rules. In some cases you can determine that the trap just includes some spell that isn't specifically stated (usually glyph of warding), but there are examples where dispel magic actually temporarily suppresses an effect (e.g. there's a wall of fire in Curse of Strahd that gets shut off for one minute by a successful dispel) and there's no way you can square that with the 5e dispel magic.
The specific rules found in a trap's description tell us how the trap functions. Not how the spell dispel magic functions.
If a specific trap says it gets supressed for a minute by Dispel Magic that is a property of the trap. Not the spell.
Again. General vs Specific this is a basic rules 101 answer. Why are people having a hard time rectifying it?
I got quotes!
Funny thing, Dispel Magic is in the 1979 DMG as a 3rd level Cleric spell, and the short of it is at that time it ( Dispel ) was only for magic item suppression for just a turn. [ fyi p.41 if anyone is interested ]
Afterwards, it seems the effects of Dispel Magic had been expanded, till all of a sudden the description of what the spell could effect had been so shortened, it is no longer is the same.
( I too personally prefer to have a more descriptive explanation of exactly what spells are capable of, rather than a brief version that is far too misunderstood. )
Byte my shiny metal ass
The spell description says the spell ends a spell effect on the target. And elsewhere in the rules, we see that the spell does another thing as well. All of that is fine, and the two rules coexist harmoniously. My problem is that SAC clarifies that "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on... any other magical effect that isn't a spell," and that is not an accurate statement. Now we have a case of a rule (magic traps) contradicting a rule clarification (SAC) when the spell's description wasn't contradicted in the first place. This SAC entry is the problem, not the printed manuals.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is no contradiction.
The spell Dispel Magic isn't what is responsible for shutting off the trap. The trap responds to a Dispel Magic by shutting down.
The rules of the trap are the rules: of the trap.
Not of the spell.
Eg. SAC clarifies for some reason that puppies aren't keys that open doors. (True) but then I make a magical door that only unlocks if you're holding a puppy. Contradiction? No. Puppies aren't keys for doors (general rule, very true, don't use them this way) and also it is true this specific magic door has special functionality when you hold a puppy it opens. No contradiction.
I got quotes!
The problem is: players do not have access to the text of the trap, only the text of the spell, so they have no way of knowing whether a given effect (that does not clearly correspond to a spell) is dispellable.
Thanks for your kind words.
Just to give you all more detail, this is the trap I was referring to (sorry for the spoiler!)
Cold Trap. lf a creature enters the vault without first saying "Gold is my shield," an intense blast of magical cold fills the room. All creatures in the vault at that time must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 36 (8d8) cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A detect magic spell reveals the secret to disabling the trap: a tiny magical glyph is inscribed in the middle of the ceiling. lf this glyph is dispelled with a successful casting of dispel magic (DC 16), the trap ceases to function.
The text of the spell plus this statement that @TexasDevid pasted from the SAC: "dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on ... any other magical effect that isn't a spell,"
So it can be difficult for the players determine whether to use dispel magic in a module or any adventure (official or not), unless the DM explicitly guides them to do so.
Absolutely. Modules frequently use Dispel Magic in ways that are outside the spell description. The spell description itself refers only to removing "spells" and RAW, if cast by a player character, that is all it will dispel. Non-standard uses become a problem when the players aren't aware it can target anything else AND the spell description doesn't indicate it could have any other possible use.
"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."
However, your example actually fits (somewhat) within the rules since the magical trap uses a "glyph" which could just be some sort of modified/permanent "glyph of warding" .. so presumably could be dispelled.
There are other examples of Dispel Magic being used in 5e content to disable magic items temporarily which was something it could do in previous editions of the game but which aren't even mentioned as a possibility in the 5e spell description. If a Dispel Magic can sometimes be used in such a way then it would be nice to have it noted so that the characters (and players) might think to try it.
One of the worst examples I have run across is:
From Rime of the Frost Maiden ..
The encounter is impossible to win without using Dispel Magic to temporarily disable a magic item. The magic item prevents the inhabitants from dropping below 1hp. These inhabitants are fairly powerful opponents for the level they are encountered. A party arriving here has a reasonable chance to have no access to dispel magic (part of a wilderness encounter in the module can teleport the characters to this location with no save). The players have no reason to think that Dispel Magic might be useful since it only works on spells (RAW). There are no hints or information available in the module that would allow the characters to figure out that they need to use Dispel Magic in a non-standard way. The stone brazier is found some distance inside the cave complex.
There is one berserker in the complex (along with a couple of dragon wrymlings) and 3 more berserkers on their way back. The berserkers have 3 attacks and can use Reckless for advantage .. which they will because they can't be killed inside the cave as long as the fire is lit.
Poor encounter design in my opinion since unless the DM provides some hints on the non-standard use of Dispel Magic is impossible for the characters/players to figure out. In addition, if Dispel Magic isn't available or prepped by someone in the party, then the options to deal with the encounter are very limited (basically try and grapple NPC barbarians in the middle of a fight and try to tie them up - while simultaneously engaging a couple of white dragon wyrmlings).
------
"A detect magic spell reveals a powerful aura of abjuration magic around the 3-foot-high stone brazier, which rises naturally from the floor and is therefore not a discrete object. It can't be moved or damaged, and its magical flame can't be smothered or put out with water. Any creature that comes into direct contact with the fire for the first time on a turn takes 10 (3d6) cold damage.
Casting dispel magic on the fire snuffs it out for l hour, after which the fire reignites on its own. Using a stone shape spell to alter the brazier's shape puts out the fire for good. As long as the brazier's cold fire burns, chardalyn berserkers inside the cave (areas Q3 through QB, and the tunnels and chutes that attach to them) can't drop below 1 hit point. No other creatures gain this benefit. Characters who fight the berserkers inside their lair see them shake off damage that would normally kill them. The berserkers are aware of the fire's benefit, as evidenced by the rictus grins that cross their faces when intruders realize the berserkers are seemingly unkillable."
Oddly enough, the AD&D PHB specifically says Dispel Magic doesn't work against magic items :) ... while it does remove spells. The DMG adds the option for the spell to stop the magic item functioning for a round. (Note that the cleric, druid and magic user versions of the spell are basically the same).
"Explanation/Description: When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or obiects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect. The base chance for success of a dispel magic spell is 50%. ... "
However, as mentioned, the AD&D DMG says:
"Dispel Magic: If this spell is cast upon a magic item it most certainly will have the effect of causing it to be non-operational for 1 round thereafter if the item does not make a saving throw - if the item is not in the possession of any creature, then the item gets no saving throw, and it is nonoperational for 1 round. Note that artifacts and relics are NOT subject to this effect. Any dispel magic spell must be cast directly at the obiect, not anything or anyone else, to be so effective."
So - not clear that the AD&D PHB writer was talking to the AD&D DMG writer :)
In terms of 5e:
The PHB indicates that ONLY spells are affected by Dispel Magic. The DMG however adds that magical traps might be affected.
"In addition, dispel magic has a chance of disabling most magic traps. A magic trap's description provides the DC for the ability check made when you use dispel magic."
In 5e, neither the PHB nor the DMG mention the possible use of Dispel Magic to suppress or disable the functioning of magical items. That is a hold over from previous editions that some content writers appear to have missed :). Newer 5e players without exposure to earlier editions may not even think of using Dispel Magic in such a way.
Just changing the description of Dispel Magic to add something like
would solve most cases (note that "this is a spell that the PCs have never encountered before" is also a dispellable but hard to recognize effect).
You're a genius, man! ❤️
I think you missed a part:
DispelMagic (Abjuration)
Level: 3
Range: 6“
Duration: Permanent
Area of Effect: 3”cube
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 6 segments
Saving Throw: None
Explanation/Description: When a cleric casts this spell, it neutralizes or negates the magic it comes in contact with as follows: A dispel magic will not affect a specially enchanted item such as a scroll, magic ring, wand, rod, staff, miscellaneous magic item, magic weapon, magic shield, or magic armor. It will destroy magic potions (they are treated as 12th level for purposes of this spell), remove spells cast upon persons or obiects, or counter the casting of spells in the area of effect. The base chance for success of a dispel magic spell is 50%. For every level of experience of the character casting the dispel magic above that of the creature whose magic is to be dispelled (or above the efficiency level of the object from,which the magic is issuing), the base chance increases by 5%, so that if there are 10 levels of difference, there is a 100% chance. For every level below the experience/efficiency level of the creature/object, the base chance is reduced by 2%. Note that this spell can be very effective when used upon charmed and similarly beguiled creatures. It is automatic in negating the spell casters own magic.
The DMG printed later added item magical effect suppression for a limited time to Dispel Magic in an effort to, ( personal understanding ), to prevent players from breaking the game and magical items.
Now if one accepts the fact that a year ( more or less ) passed between such printings, and the fact the game was ( and still is ) in a state of constant development, why is the 5E version of Dispel Magic ( any many other such instances) so anemic in terms of usage, and restricted by terminology? ( that can be widely misunderstood )
By which source of the RAW, is one to understand the context of how such interactions can occur? ( and a lot of new RAW has been developed that makes the whole specific vs general a f’ing nightmare. )
( IMO in the description of Dispel Magic the word SPELL should be replaced with ‘magical effect equivalent to respective spell type’ plus what has been suggested by others. that would to me be a better representation of what the spell is capable of as a player. )
Byte my shiny metal ass
Ah, that... that is true. I'm a chronic DM, and most of my takes are from a DM's perspective. But I can see how this might be an issue for players simply not knowing that there are traps and etc out there that might respond to magic in ways that isn't specifically addressed by the spell.
But, that's true of all sorts of traps. There might be a pillar with some arcane sigil for the element of fire scrawled into it that collapses under anyone's weight unless you deal it fire damage first. Scorching Ray could do that. But it doesn't say anything about maintaining pillar structural integrity. Nor should it.
Maybe there should be an explainer for players about how to approach traps and how they might have unique solutions.
I got quotes!
"This trap has a solution that is in no ways implied by the rules I have access to" is not a good puzzle. If it's intended that dispel magic can work on magical effects that are not identified spells, it should just say so in the description (e.g. the sentence I give upthread).
Again, the trap is what has the effect of being turned off/suppressed by Dispel Magic. It isn't a direct ability of Dispel Magic.
I've explained this upthread. A few times.
Edit: I also fully disagree with your opinion about what makes a good trap. You don't need to include in the description of every object ever single possible exhaustive way they might possibly interact with a trap. Can you imagine a presure plate triggered trap needing the items used to trigger its weight limit to have to specifically say in the item description. "The weight of this object might be able to trigger pressure plate traps". That's just an untenable opinion.
I got quotes!
"The solution to this puzzle is attempting something that according to the rules is impossible" is not good design. It's not necessary to detail all options, but they should be choices that it's reasonable for the player to think could work.
Given that we have many, many examples of magical traps being shut off or suppressed by Dispel Magic it seems both 1. Well within the rules that it is possible and 2. Reasonable for players to know it might work.
Edit: Again, Dispel Magic has rules for how it specifically works. And those are its rules. Traps have rules for specifically how they work, and those are the trap's rules. Dispel Magic doesn't need to say it can shut off a magic trap. The TRAP needs to say it can be shut off by Dispel Magic (and any other means to overcome it) This is a clearcut General vs Specific. Why does this particular case cause this confusion? It is standard rule vs rule interaction.
I got quotes!
Because the rule accessible to players, and thus the one they should be using when making decisions about what might work, is the text of dispel magic. It should not be necessary for the player to access DM resources to understand how a player ability works.