Official ruling on Dispel Magic vs. Etherealness?

[jmourao]

Hello, everyone! (^_^)

Recently, in my gaming group, there was a bit of an argument about the effect of a dispel magic spell on an ethereal creature.

The creature we were fighting had cast etherealness (PHB, p228) on itself, preventing the PCs, who were on the Material Plane, from directly attacking it. Our arcane spellcaster wanted to cast an area dispel, hoping to end the etherealness spell and bring the creature back to the Material Plane. But our DM ruled that only a targeted dispel would work. He based this decision on his interpretation of the following part of the ehtereal jaunt spell, on which etheralnes is based:

(...) Force effects (such as magic missile and wall of force) and abjurations affect an ethereal creature normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. (...) (empashis mine)

He argued that an area dispel does not target the creature directly. Obviously, we pointed out the rest of the text, which says that abjuration effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane. We argued that the area targeted by the area dispel would be the same on both planes, but he refused to accept our argument. Since he was the DM, we had to abide by his decision.

My question is: is there any official ruling on this matter? Was it ever covered by the Sage Advice column?

I tried to find more details on this situation, but the passages I found pretty much just say the same as above:

The only exceptions are spells and spell-like abilities that have the force descriptor, such as magic missile and wall of force, and abjuration spells that affect ethereal beings. Spellcasters on the Material Plane must have some way to detect foes on the Ethereal Plane before targeting them with force-based spells, of course. While it’s possible to hit ethereal enemies with a magic missile spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isn’t possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.

A force effect originating on the Material Plane extends onto the Ethereal Plane, so that a wall of force blocks an ethereal creature, and a magic missile can strike one (provided the spellcaster can see the ethereal target). Gaze effects and abjurations also extend from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. None of these effects extend from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane.

To me, and my fellow players (and most people on this forum, from what I could find), it seems reasonably clear that an area dispel CAN affect ethereal creatures, provided they are inside the area of effect. But I'd like to have an official ruling, to try (again) to convince our DM.

Thanks!

 

[Empirate]

I'm sorry, but you won't find a ruling that's more official than the rules text you just quoted. The rules are very clear and not subject to shades of interpretation IMHO. So you'll probably be out of luck finding an "official" ruling (whatever that may be) to convince your DM.

It's pretty cut and dried: abjuration effects extend from the material to the ethereal plane. It doesn't get much sharper than that. Area, targeted or whatever spell: as long as it's abjuration, it works normally on both planes. That would include the most iconic of all abjuration spells ever, namely, Dispel Magic. It also includes Alarm, Magic Circle vs. Alignment, Globe of Invulnerability and a plethora of other area effects of the Abjuration school.

But your DM seems to have decided otherwise. I think he's obviously wrong where the rules are concerned, but that's also obviously within his rights as a DM. However, if this messes up your game plan and your fun, you as the players are similarly within your rights to call him out upon an unfair decision without grounds in the rules text, and asking him to change his ruling because you're not having fun.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Affect <> Target.

It should have worked.

 

[airwalkrr]

First of all, shame on you and your fellow players for arguing with your DM in the middle of a game. Very bad form. He decides what is fair and what isn't and obviously decided this was not. So long as he is consistent, this is not a problem.

Second of all, I hope it makes you feel better to say that you are absolutely correct in your interpretation, although I am unaware of any official word on the subject. It certainly isn't one of the hotly contested rules debates (of which there were many) from the 3e era.

Finally, before going back to your DM with this, decide for yourself whether you are doing it because you feel it is going to have a seriously negative impact on game balance, or because you just want to win an argument. I mean, you are right, but fighting an argument just to win is never a very laudable motive. I sense some anger and a bit of resentment in your post and believe you might want to think this one over. I honestly don't believe it will make a very big difference in the grand scheme of things so long as your DM is consistent in the ruling. And remember that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If an area dispel won't remove etherealness from an NPC, it won't work against a PC either. I have to admit that as a DM, one of the most cogent arguments a player can make concerning whether a ruling I've made is incorrect is by demonstrating in play how the situation can be exploited by a player. In these cases, I allow the player to take advantage of the exploit for the sake of consistency, then I may reevaluate the matter. Or I may not. It all depends on how drastically it impacts the game as a whole.

Of course, had I been the DM this never would have been an issue because I never would have allowed my players to believe there was a rules dispute in the first place. If I didn't feel like dispel magic ought to carry to the Material Plane, I would have rolled some dice behind the table and said "nope, it looks your spell did not remove the etherealness spell." Then the players would have shrugged and said "Oh well, at least we tried." Any number of things could have happened. The area dispel check might have failed, or another lower or higher level spell might have been dispelled instead. There was no reason for the players to have ever known there was a rules dispute, but if they were talking about it and the DM disagreed (privately), he could always investigate it later and make the determination then. A good DM is sneaky and underhanded, but often has happier players as a result.