Sage Answers on Dispel Magic

[Xahn'Tyr]

To summarize, the common sense ruling seems to apply (or rather, it works like I thought it should, instead of how the book seems to say). Anyway, here is email:

- - -

1) If a fighter is hit by a targeted Dispel Magic and that fighter is holding a flaming sword that has had Greater Magic Weapon cast upon it, is the sword affected?

Yes.

Do we need to make the dispel check to see if the GMW spell is removed from the sword even though the fighter (not the sword) was the target of the dispel?

A creature's equipment is part of the creature.


2) If instead the fighter and sword are caught in an area Dispel Magic, is the Greater Magic Weapon spell cast upon the sword in any danger?

Possibly. The sword is part of the creature, and the greater magic weapon effect goes into the queue of effects that might be dispelled,


For number 1, logically I would think "yes", but the spell description is pretty clear in saying "One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. ". Since the sword (not the character) was the target of the Greater Magic Weapon spell, it seems that it would have to be the target of a Dispel trying to get rid of it. Or do you get a bunch of objects for free when you target a creature?

See first answer.


For number 2, again I would think that the sword should be affected, but the spell description says "Magic items are not affected by area dispels. " I assume this meant that (only) the inherent magical properties of magical items are not suppressed, but that is not what is written. Any clarification (either on the rules as written or on the intent) would be much appreciated.

You assume correctly,
Also see second answer.

 

[gfunk]

Wow I envy you, the Sage never seems to respond to me

But anway, I agree with this ruling.

 

[DrSpunj]

Yeah...

This makes sense to me, despite the poor wording of the text.

BTW, how long did it take him to respond to your e-mail?

 

[Caliber]

Ok. Just to clarify.

If a Sorcerer wearing a pair of Slippers of Spiderclimb is hit with a Dispel Magic are the slippers possibly Dispeled for 1d4 rounds? (assuming the caster check is made of course)

 

[Vanye]

Ok. Just to clarify.

If a Sorcerer wearing a pair of Slippers of Spiderclimb is hit with a Dispel Magic are the slippers possibly Dispeled for 1d4 rounds? (assuming the caster check is made of course) [/QUOTE

Nope. The Slippers are a magical item, not an item that a spell has been cast upon, so they wouldn't be included in the list of affectable effects.

Now, if the Slippers were the target of the spell, then yes, they'd be affected...

 

[hong]

Ok. Just to clarify.

If a Sorcerer wearing a pair of Slippers of Spiderclimb is hit with a Dispel Magic are the slippers possibly Dispeled for 1d4 rounds? (assuming the caster check is made of course) [/QUOTE

Nope. The Slippers are a magical item, not an item that a spell has been cast upon, so they wouldn't be included in the list of affectable effects.

Now, if the Slippers were the target of the spell, then yes, they'd be affected...

However, the spell description also says that it can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells. It seems fair to say that slippers of spider climb grant their wearer the supernatural ability to climb walls, so that effect should be dispellable. This wouldn't stop the wearer from just climbing up again, since the slippers themselves would still work.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, the spell description also says that it can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells. It seems fair to say that slippers of spider climb grant their wearer the supernatural ability to climb walls, so that effect should be dispellable.

"Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance or dispel magic."

PHB p158, repeated in DMG p71-72.

"Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells."

PHB p196.

We have a problem.

But in any event, I would disagree that you can make someone fall off the wall without targetting the slippers. It's a use-activated magic item, not a spell effect.

Would you let an area dispel deactivate (requiring reactivation) the flames on a Flaming weapon, or the invisibility of a ring?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But in any event, I would disagree that you can make someone fall off the wall without targetting the slippers. It's a use-activated magic item, not a spell effect.

It's still supernatural. You would fall off if you used your slippers to wander into an antimagic field, for instance.

Would you let an area dispel deactivate (requiring reactivation) the flames on a Flaming weapon, or the invisibility of a ring?

If those were the highest-caster-level effects on the person using them, why not?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's still supernatural. You would fall off if you used your slippers to wander into an antimagic field, for instance.

Yup. 'cos in that case, the magic of the slippers is suppressed. Like if you hit them with a targetted dispel. Like what specifically doesn't happen to magic items in an area dispel.

If those were the highest-caster-level effects on the person using them, why not?

Because they aren't spells, or spell-like abilities. They're magic items.

If your +1 sword glows because you cast light on it, it's subject to an area dispel. If it glows because the creator decided it would during the creation process, it isn't.

That's what targetted dispels are for.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Yup. 'cos in that case, the magic of the slippers is suppressed. Like if you hit them with a targetted dispel. Like what specifically doesn't happen to magic items in an area dispel.

The item isn't suppressed. It still works as normal. However, the _effect_ that it grants its user is dispelled (but can be reactivated).

Because they aren't spells, or spell-like abilities. They're magic items.

If your +1 sword glows because you cast light on it, it's subject to an area dispel. If it glows because the creator decided it would during the creation process, it isn't.

In the case of the ring of invisibility, the user "becomes invisible, as the spell". That sounds a lot like an ongoing magical effect, even if the source of that effect was an item. Much the same goes for the flaming sword. There's nothing stopping the user from going invisible again on the next round, or reigniting the sword. This is unlike a targeted dispel on a magic item, where the item itself is unusable for 1d4 rounds.