Interesting Dispel Magic Questions

[JonBeowulf]

Jumping in to say that the caster cannot reform an SB that's been hit with DM because DM ends spells. The spell is gone the same as if concentration is broken or its duration expired.

As far as the question of DM and range-of-self spells... I'm for keeping it simple and allowing DM to end any such spells. I have much more important things to worry about.

[Aimeryan]

This really comes down to once again an argument about what exactly you are doing with the Bonus Action to cause the sword to reappear.

Consider this scenario: A magical cloud exists that shoots lightning bolts at wherever I point my finger. Is me pointing my finger a magical effect upon myself? Intrinsically? No; the cloud could just be capable of observing this, rather than anything magical on my part. Now replace the specifics of pointing my finger with instead 'use a bonus action' to cause the cloud to shoot a lightning bolt at a target of your choice.

The case here could just as easily be that the sword is capable of observing whatever the Bonus Action is - a hand gesture, a word, a flick of your hair, whatever - and then the sword uses magical means to appear in response.

However, I do find the 'Range: Self' argument to be compelling that at least in this case some magical link is present. If it had been 'Range: Touch' as per Goodberry then I would consider differently. Since Dispel Magic then specifically goes on to say 'Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends' rather than 'Any effect of a spell 3rd level or lower on the target ends', then Shadow Blade would disappear in its entirety because the whole spell goes poof - otherwise, I would argue for ending specifically the ability to make the sword appear after being dropped or thrown.

[Witty Username]

Is this a rule or your own design? I couldn’t find an Errata stating anything like this.

As I recall, Its in the spellcasting section of the phb of how to read different ranges and shapes, self is a self targeting spell.

Self (5ft radius) would denote a spell that uses self as a point of origin but not nessasarily as a target.

[schm0]

RSP I am not sure what you are going for here. You have been given the clear opinions of at least 3 different people that Dispel Magic targeted at the caster of Shadow Blade will dispel it. While I don't have time to look at all of them, I imagine any spell with a range of self will end up working the same way, they are dispellable if Dispel Magic targets the caster, likely all for the some reason. They are a buff/magical effect on the caster (this is what a range of self means), that can then be used to affect other things.

But that's not what a range of "self" means. The range of the spell has nothing to do with what the nature of the magical effect will be. It simply dictates where the spell effect is created.

The magical effect of shadow blade is the shadow blade itself, not any sort of effect on the caster (i.e. a "buff"). The caster remains precisely the same as they were before. Instead, the magical effect created by the spell takes the form of an object.

Another example is the spell spirit guardians. It has a range of self as well. But the spell effect created is "spirits" that "flit around you". In this case, the spirits are valid targets for dispel magic, but not the caster. There is no spell effect on the caster. Indeed, the spirits fly around the caster. So the spell effect originates on the caster (i.e. a range of self), but the spell effect is all around them.

A spell like armor of agathys, on the other hand, has a range of self, but it creates a "protective magical force" of "spectral frost" that surrounds the caster. The spell originates on the caster, and the spell effect is on the caster.

The range of the spell just explains where the spell effect is (or can be) created. It's the nature of the effect of the spell that matters for dispel magic.

[Blatant Beast]

The range of the spell just explains where the spell effect is (or can be) created. It's the nature of the effect of the spell that matters for dispel magic.

I disagree. Spirit Guardians is centered on the caster, and expands out to fill the spell's specified dimensions. Spirit Guardians, even moves with the caster, but you argue that somehow SG is not impacted by a targeted Dispel Magic on the caster? That ruling strikes me as somewhat convoluted and counterproductive, especially in regards to instilling confidence that 5e is a coherent ruleset.

Confidence in the game system is garnered when a spell like Dispel Magic, can clearly do what the spell intends and actually Dispel Magic. Confidence in the system is garnered, when a range of Self, is a clear indication that indeed, the very same spell is located, in part, on the caster's person, and in some actionable manner. The opposite is true, if one intends to rules lawyerly carve out exemptions vis a vis Dispel Magic for the most powerful spells.

As published Aganazzar's Scorcher does not have a Range of Self, while Tasha's Caustic Brew does. The salient difference between the two spells, is Caustic Brew has a lingering Acid effect, and Scorcher has no lingering effects.

Given that both spells create similar effects, we should likely conclude that the difference of Caustic Brew having a Range of Self+ is intentional. Caustic Brew can be dispelled by targeting either the caster or the spell effect, (the lingering acid). The same is not true for Aganazzar's Scorcher, which has an Instantaneous spell duration.

I am fine, with spells that have a Range of Self, having potentially two failure condition points vis a vis Dispel Magic. Such is the subtleties of magic, c'est la vie.

The Devs failed to sufficiently describe Dispel Magic. I'm sure the veteran Design group, just figured with their rushed schedule, that people would just understand how to run Dispel Magic, as they clearly were not considering providing examples for new players.

[schm0]

Spirit Guardians is centered on the caster, and expands out to fill the spell's specified dimensions. Spirit Guardians, even moves with the caster, but you argue that somehow SG is not impacted by a targeted Dispel Magic on the caster? That ruling strikes me as somewhat convoluted and counterproductive, especially in regards to instilling confidence that 5e is a coherent ruleset.

Seems pretty coherent to me. The spell creates an effect. That effect are spirits that flit around the caster. Not on the caster at all. Hence, dispel magic must target the spirits to dispel them. Mechanically speaking, unless the caster is unable to identify the spell being used, or the spell effect is non-perceivable, and the party has no access to detect magic, this is not going to be an issue at the table. In this example, the spirits are visible and therefore an obvious target for dispel magic. There's no chance for the caster to make a mistake, and a ruling doesn't need to be made.

Confidence in the game system is garnered when a spell like dispel magic, can clearly do what the spell intends and actually Dispel Magic. Confidence in the system is garnered, when a range of Self, is a clear indication that indeed, the very same spell is located, in part, on the caster's person, and in some actionable manner. The opposite is true, if one intends to rules lawyerly carve out exemptions vis a vis Dispel Magic for the most powerful spells.

I'm not carving out exemptions to Dispel Magic. I'm just saying the idea that range = self does not mean the magical effect of the spell is located on the creature. A range of self just means the spell effect is initially created on or around the caster. It has no bearing on the nature of the magical effect it creates. The spell description describes to us what magical effects are created by it.

Consider the following examples:

• Armor of Agathys creates a magical effect in the form of a protective magical force on the creature, which means the creature is the valid target of dispel magic.
• Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that fly around the creature, which means the magical effect is the valid target of dispel magic.
• Nystul's Magic Aura (when cast on an object) creates a magical effect in the form of an illusion on the object, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

Hence, shadow blade creates a magical effect in the form of a sword of solidified gloom, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

[Witty Username]

But that's not what a range of "self" means. The range of the spell has nothing to do with what the nature of the magical effect will be. It simply dictates where the spell effect is created.

All spell effects are created at the point of the caster.
Take the firebolt cantrip, it creates the blast at the caster and goes to the target. Which is why spells, as a general rule, need a clear line of effect betwern the caster and either the applicable target or intended point of origin.

[RSP]

Of course. “Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the Target ends.”
Eyebite would require an upcast Dispel Magic.

Disagree on that. Creation and Illusory Dragon certainly wouldn’t dispel if you cast DM on the caster. Are you assuming Concentration would be interrupted by DM?

Those spells use similar language to how SB is formed.

As I recall, Its in the spellcasting section of the phb of how to read different ranges and shapes, self is a self targeting spell.

Self (5ft radius) would denote a spell that uses self as a point of origin but not nessasarily as a target.

Are you thinking of this line?

“Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.”

This line says nothing of “Range: Self (30’ cone) changing the “self” rule. It certainly does completely contradict it, but it at no point provides alternate definitions like you suggest.

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”

And the above quoted rule doesn’t give an alternate definition, it just uses two “Self” spells as examples of spells that affect multiple targets (again, going against the “Self” definition).

But the non-compliance with that rule isn’t just those spells: neither Eyebite nor Detect Thoughts have ranges following Self, just “Self”, yet clearly target creatures other than the caster (as described in their descriptions).

[Witty Username]

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”

The only is the sticking point, "Self" does not mean it targets only you, it does mean that it does target you.

Eyebite is an example, it grants the caster additional actions, those actions are also part of the spell, all affected including the caster are targets (either by being the victims of its special actions or by being granted them).

Smite spells are another example, when they are cast, they buff a paladins next hit, and then also target the enemy hit.

[GeneralVryth]

Are you thinking of this line?

“Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.”

This line says nothing of “Range: Self (30’ cone) changing the “self” rule. It certainly does completely contradict it, but it at no point provides alternate definitions like you suggest.

I’m not saying don’t play it as you described it, I’m just saying using “Self” as “only effects the caster” is clearly an oft broken rule for plenty of spells, most of which do the opposite of that (they only effect other creatures)”

And the above quoted rule doesn’t give an alternate definition, it just uses two “Self” spells as examples of spells that affect multiple targets (again, going against the “Self” definition).

But the non-compliance with that rule isn’t just those spells: neither Eyebite nor Detect Thoughts have ranges following Self, just “Self”, yet clearly target creatures other than the caster (as described in their descriptions).

This why I kind of harp on RAG ("Rules as Guidelines") over RAW ("Rules as Written"). The rules are not written to clarity level of law, much less computer code, there are inconsistencies, unclear rules, and outright errors. Every range self spell mentioned in this thread so far (and other I have looked at) all have the theme of empowering the caster to do something. That something may effect other targets (and this is called out in () in some range self spells like Eyebite). But, the consistent thing is they all affect the caster initially empowering them to do something. That's also what they can be dispelled when the caster is targeted.

[Pex]

So this just came up in our last session: Dispel Magic was cast on a character who had a Shadow Blade. For the sake of time we went with SB was dispelled, but I think it’s a valid argument that it wouldn’t be.

Pertinent RAW:

Dispel Magic:
“Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.”

Shadow Blade:
“You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.”


So it’s not exactly clear cut, but since DM distinguishes that you choose either a creature or object, it seems apparent that the SB is distinct from whomever is holding it in terms of what DM effects. The caster of DM would need to choose whether they’re targeting the creature holding the SB or the SB itself. SB is clearly an object, as it’s a created “sword of solidified gloom” that “counts as a simple melee weapon”. I don’t think anyone is arguing that simple melee weapons or swords aren’t objects, but let me know if you disagree with that.

This caused me to think of similar instances were DM wouldn’t work and the first that popped to mind was Magic Weapon (which coincidentally was also cast on during our last session). Were DM cast on a character holding a weapon that had MW on it, the DM wouldn’t affect the MW spell as the weapon is an object, and a creature was targeted.

The other spell that came to mind was Creation: “You pull wisps of shadow material from the Shadowfell to create a nonliving object of vegetable matter within range.” As it likewise creates an object, it wouldn’t be dispelled if the creature holding the created item was targeted by DM (also it’s created apparently by the same shadow substance as SB).

Wondering any other thoughts on this. Hadn’t ever considered the creature vs object nature of DM before this came up so open to hearing other thoughts on it.

You're focusing on semantics. What was the intent of the Dispel Magic? Was it specifically to end the Shadow Blade? Then it's done and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. Was it cast as a generic debuff to dispel whatever magic buff the character had? If Shadow Blade was the only spell in effect then it's dispelled and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. If the character had Shadow Blade and another buff spell on him, Bless, Protection From Energy, Aid, whatever buff spell you can think of, even having more than one buff spell by a million different spellcasters, since in this example the caster wasn't specific as to which spell he wanted to dispel just dispel something, then randomly choose which buff spell is dispelled which may or may not be Shadow Blade as the final choice and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword.

[Blatant Beast]

I'm not carving out exemptions to Dispel Magic. I'm just saying the idea that range = self does not mean the magical effect of the spell is located on the creature.

This ignores the Player's Handbook. pg 202:
"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space
where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some
spells can target only a creature (including you) that you
touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate
from you also have a range of self, indicating that the
origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see "Areas
of Effect" later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its
range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."

The Range on Spirit Guardians is "Self", the only target can be the cleric. A spell with a Range of self, can only affect the caster, but that does not mean that others may not suffer from the effects of the spell.

The conclusion that you reach is only attainable if you ignore the italicized sentences. A conclusion reached while ignoring critical information is by definition an incomplete conclusion.

Which is why, I reject it.

Dispel Magic is a horribly written spell, hopefully future versions are better. Spell Descriptions as a whole need to be modernized, and made clearer.

[schm0]

Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range of self. "

The Range on Spirit Guardians is "Self", the only target can be the cleric. A spell with a Range of self, can only affect the caster, but that does not mean that others may not suffer from the effects of the spell.

The conclusion that you reach is only attainable if you ignore the italicized sentences. A conclusion reached while ignoring critical information is by definition an incomplete conclusion.

Which is why, I reject it.

Dispel Magic is a horribly written spell, hopefully future versions are better. Spell Descriptions as a whole need to be modernized, and made clearer.

I'm not ignoring the text. I'm saying that it is irrelevant. A range of "self" does not mean that the magical effect resides on the caster (i.e. shadow blade, spirit guardians, etc.) It just means that "self" is the target of the spell, and thus it is created there.

I'm talking about the magical effect that is created, which is the only thing that matters for dispel magic. Dispel magic doesn't care where the spell is created, it only cares about the nature of the magical effect, because that is what it targets. As I wrote before:

Consider the following examples:

• Armor of Agathys creates a magical effect in the form of a protective magical force on the creature, which means the creature is the valid target of dispel magic.
• Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that fly around the creature, which means the magical effect is the valid target of dispel magic.
• Nystul's Magic Aura (when cast on an object) creates a magical effect in the form of an illusion on the object, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

Hence, shadow blade creates a magical effect in the form of a sword of solidified gloom, which means the object is the valid target of dispel magic.

I agree with Pex, as well. This is a mostly semantic argument that could only possibly occur if the spell effect were imperceptible, the spell could not be identified, and detect magic is not available. In (almost?) all of the cases we are talking about, the spell effects are obvious and casting the spell should be similarly so.

EDIT: magical effect

[Blatant Beast]

I'm not ignoring the text. I'm saying that it is irrelevant. A range of "self" does not mean that the magical effect resides on the caster (i.e. shadow blade, spirit guardians, etc.) It just means that "self" is the target of the spell, and thus it is created there.

So you contend you cast a spell at a 'Target of self' but the spell does not actually land on the target, but instead becomes an independent free floating vapor.

So an Alter Self spell is not actually on the target, despite altering their body?
A Detect Thoughts spell is not actually on the caster, nor is Divine Favor?

I would imagine the rules would point out that spells with a Range of Self are immune to Dispel Magic, since as the Sage Advice Compendium states: "Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells" or when SAC mentions: "For example, if you cast dispel magic on a staff of power, the spell fails to disrupt the staff’s magical properties, but if the staff’s wielder casts hold monster from the staff, dispel magic can end that spell if cast on the target of hold monster."

We have already established the PHB states as the first sentence of Range: "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range."

So definitionally, all spells of Self target the caster....but for some spells the magic just does not linger on the target, but becomes a free floating vapor, with no rules exception that explains why?

When PCs reach zero hit points they fall unconscious, unless they have an specific ability that states they do not. What makes Spirit Guardians, Target the caster, but not magically linger unlike all other spells? Are you truly contending that all spells with a Range of Self, are free floating vapors, not subject to Dispel Magic cast upon the caster?

Great Googly moogly!

[schm0]

So you contend you cast a spell at a 'Target of self' but the spell does not actually land on the target, but instead becomes an independent free floating vapor.

So an Alter Self spell is not actually on the target, despite altering their body?
A Detect Thoughts spell is not actually on the caster, nor is Divine Favor?

No, that is not an accurate description of my argument. I'm not sure what kind of tone you are going for in your post, but it's not appreciated.

What I am saying is this: where a spell effect is created (the target) is one thing, what it creates (the spell effect) is another. Dispel magic only concerns itself with the latter. In other words, the spell effects that can be subsequently targeted: a creature, object or magical effect.

Thus, we have spells with a range of self that alter the creature (alter self, most others), but we also have a spell with a range of self that creates an object (shadow blade) and spells with a range of self that create a magical effect (produce flame, spirit guardians).

[JNAProductions]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

[Amnestic]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

Not effectively, but technically yes.

You'd have to Ready a reaction to drop the sword on someone else's turn, they'd get to pick it up and use it for that turn before it disappeared.

[schm0]

You can also just hand over the sword to someone else without triggering the "drop the weapon or throw it" clause.

[GeneralVryth]

Can Person A wield a Shadow Blade cast by Person B?

No. It's clearly meant to dissipate if it leaves the caster's hand.

[JackPhoenix]

It's actually much simpler: Shadow Blade, like many summoning spells, doesn't have a target when cast. You're not targetting yourself or anything else, the blade will appear in your hand without you being the spell's target.
If you want to dispel SB, you have to target the blade itself.

[greenstone]

Hence, dispel magic must target the spirits to dispel them.

I don't think that is true. Dispel magic can target effects but it can also target a creature.

For something like spirit guardians or shadow blade, both the caster and the effect are valid targets for the casting of dispel magic, and in both of those cases the spell is ended.

[schm0]

I don't think that is true. Dispel magic can target effects but it can also target a creature.

For something like spirit guardians or shadow blade, both the caster and the effect are valid targets for the casting of dispel magic, and in both of those cases the spell is ended.

That's just not true.

Shadow blade creates an object. It does not bestow any spell effect on the creature (such as the benefits we see with other spells like alter self or blur). The spell text explains how the caster can interact with the object.

Spirit Guardians creates a magical effect in the form of spirits that circle around the creature (not on the creature at all). The spell text explains how the magical effect works.

Neither spell creates a spell effect on the creature.

[RSP]

The only is the sticking point, "Self" does not mean it targets only you, it does mean that it does target you.

“Self” absolutely only targets the caster, per the RAW. Again, it’s a rule oft broken, but that is very much the rule:

“Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell’s range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.

Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.”

You're focusing on semantics. What was the intent of the Dispel Magic? Was it specifically to end the Shadow Blade? Then it's done and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. Was it cast as a generic debuff to dispel whatever magic buff the character had? If Shadow Blade was the only spell in effect then it's dispelled and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword. If the character had Shadow Blade and another buff spell on him, Bless, Protection From Energy, Aid, whatever buff spell you can think of, even having more than one buff spell by a million different spellcasters, since in this example the caster wasn't specific as to which spell he wanted to dispel just dispel something, then randomly choose which buff spell is dispelled which may or may not be Shadow Blade as the final choice and don't get rules lawyerly on whether the caster said he casts it on the character or the sword.

Has nothing to do with being “rules lawyer”. DM dispels (or attempts to dispels) everything on its target. You can house rule it to be “pick just one spell” but RAW, what you’re targeting matters.

That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

[GeneralVryth]

Neither spell creates a spell effect on the creature.

Both do actually. However based on the debate so far neither side is likely to be convinced by the other so it may just be agree to disagree time.

That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

And that is really what this is all about. If Dispel Magic only affected 1 spell, then you wouldn't have an incentive for players to argue the various Range: Self spells don't effect the caster and are actually some other magical effect separate from them.

[Pex]

Has nothing to do with being “rules lawyer”. DM dispels (or attempts to dispels) everything on its target. You can house rule it to be “pick just one spell” but RAW, what you’re targeting matters.

That’s why the question is important: if the DM targets the SB, SB is gone, but no other spells on the character are affected. Whereas if the character is targeted, the object SB may be unaffected.

The point is if someone wants to dispel the Shadow Blade, telling you specifically that is what he wants, you don't deny it just because the person says he casts Dispel Magic on the creature holding the Shadow Blade to be rules lawyerly picky on the difference between whether he casts it on the creature or the Shadow Blade itself.

[Blatant Beast]

No, that is not an accurate description of my argument. I'm not sure what kind of tone you are going for in your post, but it's not appreciated. .

The tone is incredulity. Incredulity at ignoring important text, like the word self, incredulity at endorsing an interpretation that just adds confusion, and essentially renders Dispel Magic non useable, because now spells get the same “Mother May I” treatment as skills.

I am also expressing incredulity, because if we couple your interpretation with some of the rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium, the sum of the wisdom is Dispel Magic could be ruled to do next to nothing against Spiritual Guardians.

Crawford rules in SAC that using Dispel Magic on one of the recipients a Bless spell, would not end the entire spell, (not an interpretation I agree with). A DM could rule that only a single spirit is dispelled not the spell effect, based off the example given in SAC.

Again, we know the rules intent clearly from SAC, I quoted them above, and Dispel Magic is intended to dispel spells.

The simplest, and best ruling is letting the spell do just that. 5e is not designed with the level of granularity assumed when we posit spells with a Range of Self, do not actually adhere to the self, despite the exact text that states that.

Pex has the right of it, too much DM discretion in this regard just renders Dispel Magic unusable…which is bad for player confidence.

[schm0]

The tone is incredulity. Incredulity at ignoring important text, like the word self, incredulity at endorsing an interpretation that just adds confusion, and essentially renders Dispel Magic non useable, because now spells get the same “Mother May I” treatment as skills.

I am also expressing incredulity, because if we couple your interpretation with some of the rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium, the sum of the wisdom is Dispel Magic could be ruled to do next to nothing against Spiritual Guardians..

As I wrote elsewhere, the "spirits" of the spirit guardians are a singular magical effect that is created by the spell, and casting dispel magic on them would cause the spell to be dispelled in its entirety. They are not individually summoned creatures. Further, I did not write anything that would render dispel magic unusable or require permission from the DM to use, so I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion.

The main sticking point in this thread seems to be that some people seek to conflate the range of the spell (i.e. where it is created) and the spell effect (i..e what is created), when they are two very different things. I contend that assumption is incorrect. For the purposes of determining what to target, the caster need only care about the nature of the spell effect: whether a spell effect resides on a creature or object, or takes the form of a magical effect. Where the spell effect is initially created is largely irrelevant.

[Blatant Beast]

The “sticking point” is not the conflation you are contending.
The salient question, (which has been asked before), is what is the process, what is the test to be applied that will enable DMs to determine when a Range of Self results in the spell adhering to the caster, and when a spell makes a free floating vapor/stand alone effect?

Different eyeballs, different people will reach different conclusions.
Spirit Guardians is not Spiritual Weapon, so for me, it seems consistent to conclude that a spell like Spirit Guardians must be located on the caster, which helps to explain why the spell follows the caster at no action cost.

Ultimately, though this is but one judgement that can be reached, given the vague and ill defined vagueness of the 5e ruleset.

Which, leads us back to the salient question: is it better for the game, that a central effect like Dispel Magic, be subjected to a Byzantine set of atomically parsed targeting restrictions, when 5e itself was not designed with such parsing in mind?

In this regard, given the rule’s lack of certainty and clarity, and the apparent fact that player base can’t seem to see a clear answer to where/what a Spirit Guardians spell adheres to, that the best ruling is to assume the fictional PC does know the answer to that dilemma, and take the most generous targeting assumption vis a vis Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic can have a firmer effectiveness floor.

As I asked before, what benefits does the game garner, when a DM tells a player that read the Players Handbook, that they wasted their action and a spell slot by selecting the caster of a Spirit Guardians spell as the target for their Dispel Magic?

[Zuras]

I thought the whole reason Dispel Magic uses the phrase “magical effect” was to avoid this sort of confusion.

If someone is concentrating on a spell, it’s still “attached” to them. The idea that someone is concentrating on a spell effect but you can’t target it even when they are within your range just seems silly to me.

The clear intent of Dispel Magic was that it be limited by only affecting spells, not by intensely parsing 5e’s targeting rules or the precise meanings of prepositions.

There’s a clear tradeoff in that targeting a creature could potentially remove all effects on it, while targeting an effect simply ends the spell causing that effect. The rules are so vague in defining what a “magical effect” is that you can rule however you want and probably remain within the RAW. I don’t think it would be good DMing, though.

Dispel Magic is a narrow, reactive spell. If a player preps it and casts it on something that counts as a spell, they should at least get a d20 roll to see if it works.

[schm0]

The salient question, (which has been asked before), is what is the process, what is the test to be applied that will enable DMs to determine when a Range of Self results in the spell adhering to the caster, and when a spell makes a free floating vapor/stand alone effect?

The answer is simple: the nature of the spell effect is described in the spell text. Alter self, for instance, clearly says "you adapt your body" and "you transform your appearance" and "you grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon". Clearly the spell effect resides on the caster (i.e. a creature.)

Different eyeballs, different people will reach different conclusions.

I don't see how that could possibly be the case, unless one fails to read the spell text.

Spirit Guardians is not Spiritual Weapon, so for me, it seems consistent to conclude that a spell like Spirit Guardians must be located on the caster, which helps to explain why the spell follows the caster at no action cost.

The spell text is clear: it does not alter the creature, but instead creates "spirits" that "flit around you". I'm not sure how one can argue that "around" the creature is the same as "on" the creature.

Which, leads us back to the salient question: is it better for the game, that a central effect like Dispel Magic, be subjected to a Byzantine set of atomically parsed targeting restrictions, when 5e itself was not designed with such parsing in mind?

In this regard, given the rule’s lack of certainty and clarity, and the apparent fact that player base can’t seem to see a clear answer to where/what a Spirit Guardians spell adheres to, that the best ruling is to assume the fictional PC does know the answer to that dilemma, and take the most generous targeting assumption vis a vis Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic can have a firmer effectiveness floor.

As I noted in previous posts, the hypothetical is rather convoluted. To the caster, it should be apparent what form the spell effect has taken in order to cast the spell in the first place. So we agree there. In the case of spirit guardians, they can clearly see spirits flying to and fro around the caster, for example. For shadow blade, it should be apparent that the target is the blade itself. For alter self, it should be apparent that the target is the creature. The only time when the target of dispel magic would ever come into question is when the spell effects are not perceivable, the spell itself is unable to be identified, and the party does not have access to detect magic.