D&D 5E What can be dispelled?

[KarinsDad]

In a similar vein however I'm unsure if dispel magic should be capable of dispelling summoned creatures.

I think that conjured animals or creatures fall under the "creature, object, or magical effect" clause with the conjuring spell being the spell on them (i.e. cast to bring them there). Ditto for illusions.

The magical effect clause of Dispel Magic appears to be for things like conjured creatures, illusions, Wall of Ice, etc. where the effect is the object, creature, or magical effect in question, and the spell is the spell that allowed for that effect.

 

[KarinsDad]

As DM, dispel magic does whatever I say it does and I say it does dispel the charm effects of a succubus or vampire.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

For your table. The OP was asking about the confusion in the spell. The spell isn't confusing if one understands that the Dispel Magic spell only has the power to dispel spells. As per the reading of Dispel Magic, it does not have the ability to dispel magical effects unless those effects are created by a spell.

You want to expand that at your table (or if you want to say that Vampire Charm is a spell), great. Do so.

 

[iserith]

For your table. The OP was asking about the confusion in the spell. The spell isn't confusing if one understands that the Dispel Magic spell only has the power to dispel spells. As per the reading of Dispel Magic, it does not have the ability to dispel magical effects unless those effects are created by a spell.

You want to expand that at your table (or if you want to say that Vampire Charm is a spell), great. Do so.

Go back and read my posts in context and you'll see that I've always been talking about my ruling, from post one.

In any case, the wording of dispel magic doesn't prohibit it working on any other magical effect. It simply gives rules for adjudication when dispelling spells, that being, the outcome is uncertain if the slot you use to cast the spell is lower level than the spell being targeted.

 

[Sunseeker]

It does not dispel magical effects, just like it does not dispel creatures or objects. For all intents and purposes, a Wall of Fire is a magical effect with a spell on it (or a spell driving it, i.e. the Wall of Fire spell).

Then the better question would be: how does one dispell a non-spell magical effect?

 

[KarinsDad]

Then the better question would be: how does one dispell a non-spell magical effect?

I would think a ritual in some cases.

One does not want a PC to be able to dispel a Mythal for example without a lot of work.

I would think a more powerful spell in other cases. i.e. Dispel Supernatural/Magical Effect.

I think that certain supernatural abilities like Vampire Charms and Harpy Charms (and many curses) should require something more than just Dispel Magic or Remove Curse. JMO.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then the better question would be: how does one dispell a non-spell magical effect?

My ruling, as DM, would give an equivalent-spell-level to supernatural effects. A harpy is a level 1 challenge, so I guess that would be equal to a level 1 spell.

Equivalent spell level = (challenge level)/2

 

[KarinsDad]

In any case, the wording of dispel magic doesn't prohibit it working on any other magical effect.

So, Dispel Magic can dispel creatures and objects then? For example, a creature like a vampire or an object like +1 armor can be dispelled because the first sentence states that the target can be a creature or an object (just like with your interpretation , the first sentence states that the target can be a magical effect)?

The first sentence is only target selection (Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range). That's all the first sentence is. The second sentence and third sentence indicates what the spell actually does. It dispels spells.

Sorry, but you are reading a lot more into that spell than it indicates (and hence, the OP's question).


According to your interpretation, Dispel Magic can dispel a glowing +1 sword. Err no, it can't. It can do so in your game with your "assign a DC" house rule. But it's fairly clear from the wording that the designers only wanted it to affect spells, not magic items, vampire charms, Mythals, or any other source of magical effects. Earlier versions of the game allowed Dispel Magic to suppress magic items for 1D4 rounds and such, but that is no longer the case. Dispel Magic can no longer affect areas, nor can it be used as a counterspell, nor can it affect spell-like effects. All four of these features are no longer part of the Dispel Magic spell.

 

[iserith]

So, Dispel Magic can dispel creatures and objects then?

It does when I, as DM, say it does.

The first sentence is only target selection (Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range). That's all the first sentence is. The second sentence and third sentence indicates what the spell actually does. It dispels spells.

That's one thing it can do. It can do other things if I, as DM, say it does.

But it's fairly clear from the wording that the designers only wanted it to affect spells

Why should I care what the designers wanted? I run my game - not the rules, not the designers.

 

[baric]

How does one put a spell on a magical effect? It is very simple though. The spell was worded properly and more detailed in GYgax D&D. When it came to objects it rendered them inert for a period of time etc. A magical effect is nothing more than a SPELL effect therefore can be dispelled. It is up to the DM to choose the spell that the effect imitates and set the DC. As for objects I do it old school...if you actually hit the DC I set you render the object inert temporarily.

Anyone with a brain knows RAW and wizards of the coast are not very compatible. They rush things and fail to think of how they word stuff. Dispel magic is proof of that. If you go by rules as written dispel magic wont affect anything at all. Because a spell creates a magical effect which is no longer a spell so cannot be dispelled. See what I did there?

Blame wizards for their shoddy wording and adjudicate the spell at your table the way you want it to be and make sure your players understand the ruling. Then play your game and have fun and dont let the rules bog you down and kill the fun factor.

 

[iserith]

Or it could be that they write the rules for the DM to use as a basis for adjudication - if the DM needs them at all - rather than for strict interpretation and adherence.