Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[Witty Username]

I see the two as similar and so either the benefit is part of the created thing (as the spell is creating something) or the spells in question do at least two things: create something(s), and also put a spell effect on the caster that allows them to in some way affect the creation.

Generally speaking though, you don't need spells to direct creatures.

Also summons tend to not vanish when you throw them, or returning weapons for that matter.


A wolf can just be more or less suceptable to commands.

Weapons appearing in your hand, tend to require spells, pact, bond or attunement.

Edit:
The plain reading of shadowblade, is that it creates a weapon that lasts until the spell ends, or you throw or otherwise let go of it. While the spell is active after the weapon has vanished you can create a new one.


I could see someone dispelling just the shadowblade when targeting the blade (spell would end, but the caster would not lose any other effects like being frightened or blessed). But I don't see it being a valid target while disapated (even with RSPs reading, I am not clear what properties the blade is supposed to have while disapated, as far as I can tell the argument would mean it is still useable as a weapon while disapated - since it is still a weapon with the described properties by that reading). It disappear and reapears when the caster chooses to bring it back into existence.

It feels to me like its the caster focusing a magical effect into a shape and sustaining it with an active spell. And so dispel targeting the caster should be able to end the effect.

Most effects like this generally don't disapear and reapear depending if the caster is actively controlling them.

This makes it seem more like darkvision, the spell gives you an additional capacity that can affect other creatures.