Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I think your thinking is backwards and that's why you are confused. you keep using "magical effects' in your language. That's not right. It is quite literally only dispelling active spell effects. An enchanter casts a spell to enchant a sword. The sword created has a magical effect, but the spell is over and there is nothing to dispel and the +1 sword remains.
Are there magical curse that are not spells? Yes Lycanthropy is an example. You can be petrified by a beholder, but it wasn't from a spell so its not dispellalble.
That is the key difference, it has to be an ongoing SPELL EFFECT, not a condition that was caused by magic.
But you are right, the way the spell is written for 5e. Counterspell and Dispel Magic are in fact must have spells.
The Spell never uses the word Spell Effect, it only uses "Magic Effect" and it seems obtuse to me, to just assume magic effect can mean any spell that just exists somehow, when that particular use case is already covered by targeting a creature or object.
Light having been cast on an object? Magical effect.
The fact that Light has been cast and can be cast beyond it's magical effect which is making an object glow seems to be way to complext to deserve it's own targeting descriptor.
I am of the strong believe that a magical effect you can target is a visual magical effect or a magical effect you have deduced with an Arcana check or observed.
It's not the vague idea that a spellcaster has cast bless in the past so you can end the entirety of the bless spell.
Targeting a Spell effect should have a target. And targeting "a spell" feels like something that would be worded differently within the spell itself.
I have just put more than enough time into looking up forums and other sources, and you know what. Most of them refer you back to your DM. Our DM is Larian, and they have banned Dispel magic.
So if your DM allows you to target a spell in and off itself with dispel magic instead of the effect the spell currently exhibits, fine, but it's arguing in bad faith to pretend RAW says that this is a definitive answer.
"A Magical Effect" is not "A Spell" and occams razor tells me, that if they meant "A Spell" they would have written that instead of "A Magical effect" so yes.
Dispell Magic would dispell shield and magic armor up to 3rd level upcasts.
It should also dispell Hex if you Target the Hexed Person, and it should Remove Bless from the Person Bless was cast on, but not the caster, and you should be able to target persistent effects like hypnotic pattern. But you shouldnt be able to end the entirety of a level 5 upcast of Hold Person by targeting "the spell" itself.
no, the hag and everybody tells you, the tadpole is enchanted with shadow magic. if it was only a matter of psionic power an skilled surgeon could get it out of your brain by using any item or ways to gain psychic inmunity.
not that hard for achdruids, archpriest or bards who actually can get those kinda fast.
1) Dispel Magic is not only IN D&D 5e, it's one of the most useful spells in the game when the correct situation arises. Fighting 12 Barbarians? It's not going to help you. Fighting almost any form of caster? It's like bringing a gun to a knife fight. 'Enemy casts Bless"...Dispel Magic on my turn. 'Door magically locked and cannot be picked.' Dispel Magic on the door. 'Chest has a magical trap.' Dispel Magic on the trap. 'Hunter's Mark...I dispel on my turn.'
2) Dispel is not, and was never (in 5e), intended to counter a spell as it's cast. We have Counterspell for that. Dispel Magic is a spell to be cast on your turn. Counterspell is cast as a reaction. See the difference?
3) Just because BG3 doesn't follow D&D 5e to the letter doesn't mean that Dispel Magic wouldn't still be useful. The items that the Hag has bound to the walls near her victims? Yeah...one Dispel Magic and it's mine. Magically-locked doors that need nine chicken bones and a flask of oil to open? No problem...
4) Claiming that Silence accomplishes the same thing is simply wrong on so many levels. The main one is that it affects YOU too. Dispel magic is targeted at a specific spell, item, or effect. Silence shuts down everyone in the area.
5) Several of the comments regarding the aftereffects of spells were correct. Dispel Magic would NOT put out a fire on a character that was set alight by a flaming spell. The fire effect itself is not magical which is why you can put it out with common water. It would also not remove the water on the floor left behind by any number of cold, ice, or water spells. However, Concentration spells WOULD be affected like Heat Metal.
6) For the ultimate use of Dispel Magic, and the reason why I think the Devs didn't put it in: You can permanently remove the magical properties from magic items. There are so many enemies with so many items with such properties that I think the game would crash if they had to include Dispel Magic. Imagine a fight with almost any Act 2 or 3 character with a magic weapon or armor when the party has access to Dispel Magic. It would make the toughest level trivial.
Direct from the PHB. there is no confusion to be had. They are quite literally talking about ending a spell.
Dispel Magic
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. 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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a spell on the target if the spell's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.
So you may see the words magical effect here, but its quite clear they refer to magical effects from SPELLS
It's better to have a limited spell than not and being unable to deal with some situations.
1. Casting Dispell magic on yourself, ending all the magic effects you cast on yourself just to get rid of Hunters Mark seems hilarious to me considering that no enemy in the game has shield and, as I have calculated, against an enemy with a 75% chance to succeed their concentration safe, magic missiles on 3rd level has a 76% chance to end concentration
Also, as me and mutant have discussed at length, it is debatable whether Bless can be ended on all targets with a single cast.
2. Sure, but what's the point?
3. Okay? And you dont think the devs maybe didnt want you to have those items and therefore didnt give you dispel magic? Or, has the thought crossed your mind, that maybe the hag has used magic that traditional magic cant dispel?
4. As we have also discussed, no Dispel Magic does not target a spell, it targets a Creature, object or magical effect. If they meant for it to target a spell they would have written a spell.
5. sure as long as you cast dispel magic not just on the person, but on the item heat metal was cast on, and are therefore okay with all other 3rd level or lower spells on the item ending immediatly.
6. Sure that is a reason, or maybe it's because "I cast Dispel Magic on Ethel while she is still in the Tiefling Camp" may lead to more hours of writing. Or "I cast Dispel Magic on Ethel while she is talking to the brothers" or any other situation where the result of casting Dispel Magic on anything may lead to additional work needed to account for literally everything you might wanna dispel.
You are doing this out of order. You need to target something, and then all spells on the target end.
If you target a magical effect the spell on/off the magical effect ends.
For the Spells on a Target to end, you need to target something, and the spell allows you to target a magical effect. The magical effect must therefore be a tangible thing you can target, and that is the effect the spell has and not the existence of the spell itself.
Dispel magic is cast on a creature, an object, or another phenomenon that is under the effect of a spell. You don't cast it on that spell's caster. To dispel a spell like banishment, you'd have to somehow cast dispel magic on the banished target. #DnD
Which to me doesnt sound like you can just look at where your banished friend was and say "I dispell magic on the magic effect I know is happening here because Banishment was just cast"
You need to target something. Then all Spells on that Target are ended.
But if you Target a Magical effect, and say "well that magical effect can be the spell itself" then if you substitute "Target" with "The Spell Bless" the Wording doesnt make sense anymore.
"Any Spell of 3rd level or lower on the spell Bless ends"
Which kind of spell targets another spell?
You are ending a phenomenon that is either the result of an ongoing spell or you end all spell effects that directly target an object or person.
The description Jeremy put there directly contradicts your interpretation. And that's fine if your games do it like that. Whatever Jeremy also said "If you dont like a rule, be rid of it"
But you cant claim that what you are saying is universal truth when a designer of 5th edition directly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ said "You need to cast the Dispel Magic on the Target of a Magical Effect not the spell itself.
Edit:
If of course you mean you target a creature and then a specific effect on that creature, then this is also against raw, because it says you target a creature object OR magical effect, not "and".
You cant have your cake and eat it too.
Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.
Who is saying you can do all of the above? You have to choose the target. If you pick the person with the spell on them, every spell on them ends. If you chose the spell effect, the spell ends. In your example, there would be no purpose to ending the spell effect, because you are only limited to one person and thus would always choose the person. That would be a self defeating design, a purposeless design. And for historical reference, every version of dispel magic defeats bless all the way back to 2e.
You keep referencing the same reddit thread about, but that is HIS interpretation. And he is wrong.
And it says magical effect and not spell.
And a Spell in and off itself is not a magical effect, it creates a magical effect, so if you target a magical effect that magical effect ends and not all the other magical effects created by the spell.
The only way the segment about spells ending makes sense, is if you target a person or creature, because they can be affected by spells and therefore have multiple magical effects on them. but if you target a magical effect, that magical effect is not equivalent with the spell that created it.
That's what you are misrepresenting.
Our interpretations simply clash, and I have Jeremies support.
1 - what you say is happening
The Spell Bless has only 1 magical effect that affects 3 creatures, so I can target that magical effect and the effect ends on all 3 creatures
2 - what I and Jeremy say is happening
The Spell Bless creates 3 magical effects that affect 3 creatures, and when you want to dispel these effects you have to target the affected creatures.
3 - What can happen outside of effects that need to be targeted:
The Spell Hypnotic Pattern does not target a creature, it creates a magical effect, a cube, that has an effect on all creatures within it, it is an effect you can target with dispell magic, because it's a tangible thing happening.
I am done talking to a wall. You keep trying to argue with a definition that clashes with RAW and Jeremies own words, and keep huffing hopium that Larian will agree to add a spell that would be a hard requirement if they ever chose to give NPCs Shield.