D&D 5E How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?

[The Crimson Binome]

Okay, think of it in terms of the movie Inception. The idea of an invisible creature is planted inside the player's head because she hears it at the table. Her character would not have that clue within the game world. The belief comes from the inception placed into the character's head from an outside the game source. That's why I'd say a die roll would be a better determiner.
Or you could compare the situation to a player who knows germs cause disease letting their character believe the same.

In my experience, the most common cause of such "meta-gaming" is simply a lack of communication between the player and the DM. Even if the character shouldn't know about the possibility of invisible monsters, the player doesn't know that the character shouldn't know that, because the DM failed to adequately describe the setting.

The question of how much the characters know about the setting beforehand is a significant one, which can greatly change the tone of a campaign. If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, then it makes sense that everyone would immediately assume invisibility, because spellcasters are all over the place in that setting. If you're playing in a setting that's more historical, then perhaps nobody would think of it unless they'd encountered it before. The easiest way to resolve this question is usually to make a check, using the appropriate knowledge-type skill, where the DM can set the DCs as appropriate for the setting; that way, it only takes a brief conversation at the start of the game to get everyone on the same page about what can be assumed and what requires a check (and how high those checks are likely to be).

 

[Aenorgreen]

That was my point.

Then if that was the case, the original question was moot. They could not cast Dispel Magic so why worry about what happens?

 

[plisnithus8]

Then if that was the case, the original question was moot. They could not cast Dispel Magic so why worry about what happens?

There has been some disagreement regarding "clear path" vs. the spell's only stipulation "within range."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, think of it in terms of the movie Inception. The idea of an invisible creature is planted inside the player's head because she hears it at the table. Her character would not have that clue within the game world. The belief comes from the inception placed into the character's head from an outside the game source. That's why I'd say a die roll would be a better determiner.
Or you could compare the situation to a player who knows germs cause disease letting their character believe the same. Or a smart player having to roll Intelligence checks for a less intelligent character or strong players having to roll strength checks for weak characters. I would think it's about roleplaying the character in these cases, not just letting the player do whatever they want to "win" the game.

No, I understand the concept your pushing, I just don't understand the idea of pushing a mechanic that controls what players are allowed to think. It's not a mechanical problem. Either stop caring about controlling what players think or find fellow players that approach the game the way you do. Making them roll dice to be allowed to think things is just silly.

As for PVP, there are a number if good suggestions around, from not allowing it by dint of social contract to allowing the targeted player to narrate the outcome to rolling dice and letting the chips fall where they may, but please skip the "You can't think that unless you roll high enough first" bits.

 

[Elon Tusk]

No, I understand the concept your pushing, I just don't understand the idea of pushing a mechanic that controls what players are allowed to think. It's not a mechanical problem. Either stop caring about controlling what players think or find fellow players that approach the game the way you do. Making them roll dice to be allowed to think things is just silly.

As for PVP, there are a number if good suggestions around, from not allowing it by dint of social contract to allowing the targeted player to narrate the outcome to rolling dice and letting the chips fall where they may, but please skip the "You can't think that unless you roll high enough first" bits.

You say you understand what I am saying, yet I never said I wanted to control "what players are allowed to think." I'm talking about what their characters think.

You're calling my idea "silly" and telling me to "skip" how I might run a game while championing the right for letting people believe and think what they want.

 

[Harzel]

No, I understand the concept your pushing, I just don't understand the idea of pushing a mechanic that controls what players are allowed to think. It's not a mechanical problem. Either stop caring about controlling what players think or find fellow players that approach the game the way you do. Making them roll dice to be allowed to think things is just silly.

You keep saying players, but I think you mean characters? I don't think anyone is suggesting trying to control what the players think.

In the case at hand, we have something that the player knows, but the PC would have to deduce. This seems to me to be a case of a PC attempting something at which she might succeed or fail. Several thoughts occur to me, which seem to lead in different directions.

1. The description "a PC attempting something at which she might succeed or fail" sounds like something that is usually within the DM's purview to adjudicate. Why is this case different?
2. If not for the player's knowledge, we would readily accept the player making a deduction on behalf of the PC. If we do not accept it in this case, is it just because we mistrust the player?
3. If the player had no knowledge of what was going on, she might well declare an "attempt to deduce" action and expect the DM to adjudicate. Why does the player's knowledge entitle her to adjudicate instead of the DM?
4. If an analogous situation occurred with an NPC, I would expect the DM to decide amongst a) declare failure, b) declare success, and have a really solid explanation, c) roll the dice. If we leave it to the player, shouldn't we have the same expectations?

I think #4 has the most resonance for me, but I'm not sure I see all the implications.

 

[Harzel]

And then a metagame argument broke out.

So we have metagaming and stealth, which can easily be turned into hiding, in the same thread. All we need now is for someone to work in resting and we'll be in for a good long thread.

 

[Harzel]

Ok point taken, in my example with the guy in metal boots not trying to be stealthy while invisible, yes you can target him by pointing in his general direction.

But in the given example if you would say to the player make a stealth check, after you turn invisible and start flying, in this moment he is unobserved, if I interpreted the OP correctly. So that is an auto succeed for me so no need for it.

That's fine for you to make it an auto-success. I'm not even arguing that that is contrary to RAW; I don't care. But RAW is that being invisible does not make you imperceptible. Therefore it is also consistent with RAW to require a stealth check.

So he is stealthy automatically, because 20 ft / second do not produce any large air movement

20 ft. / second is around 13-14 mph. I think a medium humanoid going by at 13 mph might well create air movement depending on how close it passed.

and since nothing is stated about him wearing a long billowing cloak it is just an assumption he might have one.

If he has equipment on him, it has the potential to make noise. Again, my general view is that if you are moving you will make noise unless you are trying not to, and even then you may fail. Special circumstances could change this assumption, but, for me, just being in flight is not enough. It helps, but does not create an automatic success.

Still no raw on this.

The conclusion for me is: The other guys ONLY see a flying wand. There is no clue at all that a person is attached to it!

If in your view this is not the case then tell me HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THE SCENE TO YOUR PLAYERS AND BE TRUE TO RAW?

Anybody in this thread is evading giving me an answer to this elephant in the room!

Because you cannot!

I did. You just don't happen to like the answer.

You insist on RAW by the letter and still you neglect there is nothing in the RAW to describe a invisible person that gives himself away in a way like the OP.
There is no footsteps

I agree - no footsteps.

no rustling cloaks and no noticeable air draft.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Because the flying speed is low and constant and the person makes no local movement at all!´
Do you expect the flyer in this situation to state explicitely that he is holding his breath also, otherwise he is in plain sight for not being stealthy?

Waiter! Take this back to the kitchen! I ordered my conversation without the strawman.

 

[Satyrn]

So we have metagaming and stealth, which can easily be turned into hiding, in the same thread. All we need now is for someone to work in resting and we'll be in for a good long thread.

You left out alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, think of it in terms of the movie Inception. The idea of an invisible creature is planted inside the player's head because she hears it at the table. Her character would not have that clue within the game world. The belief comes from the inception placed into the character's head from an outside the game source. That's why I'd say a die roll would be a better determiner.
Or you could compare the situation to a player who knows germs cause disease letting their character believe the same. Or a smart player having to roll Intelligence checks for a less intelligent character or strong players having to roll strength checks for weak characters. I would think it's about roleplaying the character in these cases, not just letting the player do whatever they want to "win" the game.

I disagree. A wand flying by all by itself is a clue within the game world that someone invisible is holding it. It could also be a clue within the game world that someone is using telekinesis. The PC can think either one, or something completely different without a roll in my opinion.