L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
D&D 5E How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
I do not think this is a case of specific beats general. There is no more specific rule to point to that I am aware of. This seems closer to a house rule or a DM ruling that wanted invisibility to only cover objects at the time of casting, which is fine.
I was just agreeing with most everyone else there, but thanks for pointing out that dispel magic does not actually require sight just knowledge of the invisible creature's location.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/2...e-an-invisible-creature-to-cast-dispel-magic/
It does not really matter since it is my own house rule anyway, but if the party knew the wizard had the pixie familiar and that it could cast fly, it would be a way to remove it in my game.
plisnithus8
Adventurer
These are interesting suggestions.
I think the important thing in this is what us targeted -
if wand, nothing happens;
if wand-holder, then he turns visible and takes falling damage;
if magical effect, then that one effect ends (not both gly and invisible).
But how to go about deciding the target?
If DM asks, "what is the target?" she is giving a hint that the wand may not be acting alone.
If wand-holder is flying and invisible and dashing yet the wand is visible, how obvious is he?
Should DM ask dispeller for a perception or arcana check to determine if wand is acting alone?
I think the important thing in this is what us targeted -
if wand, nothing happens;
if wand-holder, then he turns visible and takes falling damage;
if magical effect, then that one effect ends (not both gly and invisible).
But how to go about deciding the target?
If DM asks, "what is the target?" she is giving a hint that the wand may not be acting alone.
If wand-holder is flying and invisible and dashing yet the wand is visible, how obvious is he?
Should DM ask dispeller for a perception or arcana check to determine if wand is acting alone?
Sure. It sounds like a home-brew wand with a specific rule giving it a chance to not turning invisible.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Oofta
Legend
Dispel Magic: Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.
So yes, you have to know something's there in order to dispel it. However, being invisible does not mean you are automatically hidden, not even if you are flying.
How you handle that is of course up the DM. I'd give someone advantage if they made a stealth check to hide but in this case they didn't. I'd still give stealth check given the circumstances (if they were walking it would be at disadvantage).
But if someone sees a "flying wand" I'd probably give them an easy investigation check to figure out that wands don't normally fly.
So a whole lot of rulings there and how I would handle it. In addition, I see no reason the wand would not be invisible.
Mechanically, if the spell is cast on the wand, nothing happens. If the spell is cast on the person fly and invisibility end.
So yes, you have to know something's there in order to dispel it. However, being invisible does not mean you are automatically hidden, not even if you are flying.
How you handle that is of course up the DM. I'd give someone advantage if they made a stealth check to hide but in this case they didn't. I'd still give stealth check given the circumstances (if they were walking it would be at disadvantage).
But if someone sees a "flying wand" I'd probably give them an easy investigation check to figure out that wands don't normally fly.
So a whole lot of rulings there and how I would handle it. In addition, I see no reason the wand would not be invisible.
Mechanically, if the spell is cast on the wand, nothing happens. If the spell is cast on the person fly and invisibility end.
Sorry, not trying to confuse. It happened. I wanted to post it because there was much table discussion, actually bled over to other groups nearby. I posted without actual results that might influence. In hindsight, I should have mentioned that.
I was the player and don't know what the wand is quite yet or if the DM has rules all spelled out for it.
What if, however, the flyer wasn't invisible but flew out of the dispeller's sight?
Dispeller would know flyer is flying.
Flyer is out of sight at the end his turn but not out of spell's range.
Spell just says choose target within range.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
There's some sort of magical effect which is causing a wand to be floating with no visible means of support, and simply knowing that the effect exists should be enough to target it with Dispel Magic. I'd let it get both the Fly and the Invisibility.
Dispel Magic isn't exactly user-friendly, as written, so I would guide the player to targeting the spell in such a way that it would actually do something. Even if the player doesn't declare that they are targeting the magical effect rather than the object, it's something that their character would know.
Dispel Magic isn't exactly user-friendly, as written, so I would guide the player to targeting the spell in such a way that it would actually do something. Even if the player doesn't declare that they are targeting the magical effect rather than the object, it's something that their character would know.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
That's a different issue
Page 80, basic rules
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it,
so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t
see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you
and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the
near side of that obstruction.
To target something, you must have a clear path to it,
so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t
see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you
and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the
near side of that obstruction.
