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, 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!
Jean Mourao
Teresina, PI - Brazil
It seems to me that if your direct citations from the DMG did not convince your DM, then nothing will. It is his game so I would tell him his ruling must be considered a house rule and leave it at that.
The answer to this question is real simple.
As you already pointed out, Abjurations are stated to extend FULLY and normally into the Ethereal Plane from the Prime Material ('scuse my old 2nd-edeese...)
This means that the text of Dispel Magic exists only as a clarification, not as a special note for the spell itself. Done. Finished. El fin.
You as a group of players need to band together and not let your DM roadkill you. The DM is there to tell a story that entertains the group, not to pidgeonhole the players into what s/he feels the game should be. You all need to come out together and say, "If you're going to reinterpret the rules, you have the responsibility to tell us that BEFORE we waste our time."
Hm.
Okay, according to dispel magic,...
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by summon monster), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional opening (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item's physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.
You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.
I'd suggest, then, that there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from dispelling the etherealness... unless the target had plane-shifted to the ethereal plane. But since you seem to know it was using etherealness (which is noted as working mostly like ethereal jaunt, then, yeah, there's no reason for it not to be dispelled.