Okay dispel magic spell says that is can target an item, but this seems to be geared towards dispelling a spell that has been cast on an item, and when casting dispel magic on a magical item that is considered a "monster" such as an animated sword that has stats, the sword needs to make a CON save, but what happens when dispel magic is cast on a magical item (without stats) such as on a wonderous item like a immovable rod, or a more complex item like Belashyrra's Beholder Crown?
Would dispel magic spell effect a magical item like that?
If so would it dispel the magic of the item temporarily, or permanently?
What kind of save would the magical item get, and how would that be determined?
Would it dispel all the abilities of the magical item, or just one/some of the abilities?
Is this a pretty easy way to neuter evil or cursed magical items?
Page 15. Dispel Magic can end a magical effect cast by a magic item. It can, however, not affect the magical item itself. And then list some details and examples. Check it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you. ChrisW
Ones are righteous. And one day, we just might believe it.
Unlike previous versions, dispel magic in 5e doesn't interrupt the functioning of permanent magic items at all though it can dispel the effect of a spell cast by a permanent magic item.
If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?” The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.
That ties back to Dispel Magic on an item. Dispel Magic ends spells. It doesn't do other things - and it does not interfere with the "normal functioning" of the magic reality that is in D&D. Casing Dispel Magic does not negate the fact that the item is magical or has some powers, no more than casting Dispel Magic on a flying dragon would make it fall.
While not RAW, a DM is able to change how the spell works and allow it to temporarily lose it's magical properties. But that is of course up to the DM to decide.
I'll just point out that Sage Advice must be decided incorrectly or incompetently like so many other rulings it has made (i.e. like their proclaimed ability that a Wizard can Cast Counterspell to stop someone's Counterspell attempt on your Fireball Spell, letting you break their own rule against Casting 2 Slot-costing Spells in the same Turn).
With their ruling, you can't ever actually use Dispel Magic on an Object; even if a Staff of Magi is used to Cast Hold Monster, you need to Target the Held Creature, as Sage Advice says Targeting the Staff won't actually do anything.
So in effect, Sage Advice as made that part of Dispel Magic worthless, because there's no cases where an Object gains the benefit of a Spell, except Effects or Objects made by Spells or Homebrewed ones. And even then, the Object must be using a Spell, not just granting an effect to the wearer.
Another 5e Nerf to Spellcasters, who already are a comparatively minor threat to anything but swarms than every Attack-oriented Class.
[...] So in effect, Sage Advice as made that part of Dispel Magic worthless, because there's no cases where an Object gains the benefit of a Spell, except ones made by Spells or Homebrewed ones. And even then, the Object must be using a Spell, not just granting an effect to the wearer.
Another 5e Nerf to Spellcasters, who already are a comparatively minor threat to anything but swarms than every Attack-oriented Class.
(Bolding mine.)
A short list of spells that can target objects without creating the objects, with non-Instantaneous effects that can be dispelled from the objects:
...those are Spells, like I said lmao. You even bolded the part you're ignoring.
The light from Light comes from a Spell. But an Object that simply has a Magic Effect that sheds light is not from a Spell, so by Sage Advice cannot be targeted.
Then it's just Dispel Spell, not Dispel Magic lmao.
Which, again, is another inexplicable nerf 5e applied out of nowhere.
Magic is Magic, and only 5e has felt a need to change that, again for no real reason. No other editions had players thinking they could use Dispel Magic on a dragon to harm it.
Slavishly believing Sage Advice gets it right is strange at best, and damaging at worst. Easier to convert the old rules, frankly.
...those are Spells, like I said lmao. You even bolded the part you're ignoring.
The light from Light comes from a Spell. But an Object that simply has a Magic Effect that sheds light is not from a Spell, so by Sage Advice cannot be targeted.
Dispel Magic is really just Dispel Spell in 5e.
Ahhh so in the part I bolded you meant "effects created by a spell" not "objects created by a spell," which is what I was referring to in my list.
What you're looking for is an Antimagic Field encompassing a lava pit. That'll destroy the Staff of the Magi for good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I'll just point out that Sage Advice must be decided incorrectly or incompetently like so many other rulings it has made (i.e. like their proclaimed ability that a Wizard can Cast Counterspell to stop someone's Counterspell attempt on your Fireball Spell, letting you break their own rule against Casting 2 Slot-costing Spells in the same Turn).
There is no general rule about casting 2 slot-costing spells in the same turn.
The only rule says that if you cast a spell with a BONUS action, then "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Dispel Magic did not permanently damage Magic Items; it just suppressed them for 1d4 Rounds.
That seemed extremely reasonable. To get rid of that feature makes Magic Items more potent amd reliable, sure. But we've already nerfed Casters by erasing their ability to outdamage Attackers against single Targets, and by making only the most powerful Spells able to kill someone: and even then, only relatively weak Targets.
I don't see a valid reason to maintain the change, so I just don't see why one should follow Sage Advice because they made a ruling. Nick Fury gave a great statement on ignoring decisions that don't make sense.
At your table you're welcome to houserule however you like and add in whatever rules you prefer from previous editions. But this forum is specifically about explaining and understanding the rules as written of 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and the SAC is part of what explains the rules (but isn't the rules itself.)
I'll just point out that Sage Advice must be decided incorrectly or incompetently like so many other rulings it has made (i.e. like their proclaimed ability that a Wizard can Cast Counterspell to stop someone's Counterspell attempt on your Fireball Spell, letting you break their own rule against Casting 2 Slot-costing Spells in the same Turn).
There is no general rule about casting 2 slot-costing spells in the same turn.
The only rule says that if you cast a spell with a BONUS action, then "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Perhaps you can argue that their inadmission on the matter means you can Cast them both; that just shows the next problem that you're Casting 2 Spells *at the same time*.
And further, since Counterspell is a Reaction, you're somehow Reacting *FASTER* than your opponent is...while still Casting Fireball. Now let another enemy Cast Counterspell, and down the line someone is Casting faster than lightspeed.
At your table you're welcome to houserule however you like and add in whatever rules you prefer from previous editions. But this forum is specifically about explaining and understanding the rules as written of 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and the SAC is part of what explains the rules (but isn't the rules itself.)
D&D Beyond is not WotC-sponsored. It also consistently has errors as to what the books say.
It is quite a stretch to suggest that its forums are purely for RAW. And considering Sage Advice has reverse stances on its own rulings, it is unreliable at the least.
A developer explaining what they believe something in their book means doesn't make it the rule. The U.S. Constitution was developed to exclude non-whites and females from citizenship; we accept they got it wrong, not that their way is the correct way lmao.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay dispel magic spell says that is can target an item, but this seems to be geared towards dispelling a spell that has been cast on an item, and when casting dispel magic on a magical item that is considered a "monster" such as an animated sword that has stats, the sword needs to make a CON save, but what happens when dispel magic is cast on a magical item (without stats) such as on a wonderous item like a immovable rod, or a more complex item like Belashyrra's Beholder Crown?
Would dispel magic spell effect a magical item like that?
If so would it dispel the magic of the item temporarily, or permanently?
What kind of save would the magical item get, and how would that be determined?
Would it dispel all the abilities of the magical item, or just one/some of the abilities?
Is this a pretty easy way to neuter evil or cursed magical items?
Please help - PCs messing with my game again.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium
Page 15. Dispel Magic can end a magical effect cast by a magic item. It can, however, not affect the magical item itself. And then list some details and examples. Check it out.
Thank you.
ChrisW
Ones are righteous. And one day, we just might believe it.
Dispel magic is only for spells.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Unlike previous versions, dispel magic in 5e doesn't interrupt the functioning of permanent magic items at all though it can dispel the effect of a spell cast by a permanent magic item.
Thanks for the input, especially the Sage advice compendium reference. This will help because I have stickler for rules in my group. Thank you
A very related one is https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224 , about Dragon breath weapons. (Bear with me, it's related!)
That ties back to Dispel Magic on an item. Dispel Magic ends spells. It doesn't do other things - and it does not interfere with the "normal functioning" of the magic reality that is in D&D. Casing Dispel Magic does not negate the fact that the item is magical or has some powers, no more than casting Dispel Magic on a flying dragon would make it fall.
While not RAW, a DM is able to change how the spell works and allow it to temporarily lose it's magical properties. But that is of course up to the DM to decide.
Agreed.
I allow dispel magic to affect items because I consider the enchantment to be "a spell on the target"
Mordenkainen’s Disjunction was that spell. Great opportunity to add a homebrew High-level spell to the game. 🙂
I'll just point out that Sage Advice must be decided incorrectly or incompetently like so many other rulings it has made (i.e. like their proclaimed ability that a Wizard can Cast Counterspell to stop someone's Counterspell attempt on your Fireball Spell, letting you break their own rule against Casting 2 Slot-costing Spells in the same Turn).
With their ruling, you can't ever actually use Dispel Magic on an Object; even if a Staff of Magi is used to Cast Hold Monster, you need to Target the Held Creature, as Sage Advice says Targeting the Staff won't actually do anything.
So in effect, Sage Advice as made that part of Dispel Magic worthless, because there's no cases where an Object gains the benefit of a Spell, except Effects or Objects made by Spells or Homebrewed ones. And even then, the Object must be using a Spell, not just granting an effect to the wearer.
Another 5e Nerf to Spellcasters, who already are a comparatively minor threat to anything but swarms than every Attack-oriented Class.
This is correct because...
"Not all those who wander are lost"
(Bolding mine.)
A short list of spells that can target objects without creating the objects, with non-Instantaneous effects that can be dispelled from the objects:
...And that's just covering cantrips and levels 1-3.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
...those are Spells, like I said lmao. You even bolded the part you're ignoring.
The light from Light comes from a Spell. But an Object that simply has a Magic Effect that sheds light is not from a Spell, so by Sage Advice cannot be targeted.
Dispel Magic is really just Dispel Spell in 5e.
Then it's just Dispel Spell, not Dispel Magic lmao.
Which, again, is another inexplicable nerf 5e applied out of nowhere.
Magic is Magic, and only 5e has felt a need to change that, again for no real reason. No other editions had players thinking they could use Dispel Magic on a dragon to harm it.
Slavishly believing Sage Advice gets it right is strange at best, and damaging at worst. Easier to convert the old rules, frankly.
Ahhh so in the part I bolded you meant "effects created by a spell" not "objects created by a spell," which is what I was referring to in my list.
What you're looking for is an Antimagic Field encompassing a lava pit. That'll destroy the Staff of the Magi for good.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
There is no general rule about casting 2 slot-costing spells in the same turn.
The only rule says that if you cast a spell with a BONUS action, then "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
I mean, yeah, that's about all you can do.
Dispel Magic did not permanently damage Magic Items; it just suppressed them for 1d4 Rounds.
That seemed extremely reasonable. To get rid of that feature makes Magic Items more potent amd reliable, sure. But we've already nerfed Casters by erasing their ability to outdamage Attackers against single Targets, and by making only the most powerful Spells able to kill someone: and even then, only relatively weak Targets.
I don't see a valid reason to maintain the change, so I just don't see why one should follow Sage Advice because they made a ruling. Nick Fury gave a great statement on ignoring decisions that don't make sense.
At your table you're welcome to houserule however you like and add in whatever rules you prefer from previous editions. But this forum is specifically about explaining and understanding the rules as written of 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and the SAC is part of what explains the rules (but isn't the rules itself.)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Perhaps you can argue that their inadmission on the matter means you can Cast them both; that just shows the next problem that you're Casting 2 Spells *at the same time*.
And further, since Counterspell is a Reaction, you're somehow Reacting *FASTER* than your opponent is...while still Casting Fireball. Now let another enemy Cast Counterspell, and down the line someone is Casting faster than lightspeed.
And Sage Advice fully supports that illogic.
D&D Beyond is not WotC-sponsored. It also consistently has errors as to what the books say.
It is quite a stretch to suggest that its forums are purely for RAW. And considering Sage Advice has reverse stances on its own rulings, it is unreliable at the least.
A developer explaining what they believe something in their book means doesn't make it the rule. The U.S. Constitution was developed to exclude non-whites and females from citizenship; we accept they got it wrong, not that their way is the correct way lmao.