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

[Tormyr]

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.

Was it clear there was something special about this wand? It could just be that the DM wasn't aware of how invisibility fully works or wanted the scenario to play out a certain way. My players certainly have helped me with a number of mistakes that I have made over the years.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Was it clear there was something special about this wand? It could just be that the DM wasn't aware of how invisibility fully works or wanted the scenario to play out a certain way. My players certainly have helped me with a number of mistakes that I have made over the years.

I think it might be the wand of Orcus (not sure if it's DMG version or home-brew) because it has a skull on top and shrank when picked up.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Didn't read the whole thread, but the first "DM mistake" I see is using "Why?" in stead of "What?".

E.g.: Why are you casting dispel magic? vs What are you casting dispel magic on?

The Why is not the determining factor here, it's the What. So I'd have asked "Ok, so, What are you casting dispel magic on?" A player who says "I'm casting dispel magic to stop the wand!" hasn't given the DM enough information. What the player has done at this point is given the DM his intended result...which is fine, except players don't usually get to just decide a result; that's why there are dice. So the DM's follow up question should have been "Ok, so how are you going to do that? What are you casting dispel magic on?"

Anyway...if I made the mistake of accepting the players first statement of stopping the wand, I'd have had the player make a Wisdom save against DC 12 (my go-to DC). Failure..."Nothing happens". Success..."You figure that the way it was moving, it was being carried by something you couldn't see...[dice rolls for dispelling]...and [randomly determine if it was Invisibility or Fly that was dispelled]".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Elon Tusk]

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.​

The spell says, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."
Why do some spells say "that you can see" and this one just says "within range"?
Is there a difference or just ambiguous wording?

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

How I would rule:
1. Pixie makes a perception check to find the invisible PC to cast fly on him.
2. If the wizard saw the now-invisible PC disappear, or if the PC made noise after turning invisible, the wizard could make an arcana check to determine that the invisible PC is present and invisible. Depending on the circumstances, the wizard's passive arcana might be enough to pass this check.
3. If the wizard passed the arcana check, he or she could make a perception check to target the invisible PC with dispel magic, with advantage because the wand is visible.
3a. If the wizard failed the arcana check, he or she could make another arcana check on seeing the wand fly by. The DC for this check would be higher.
4. If the wizard successfully targeted the invisible PC with dispel magic, he would turn visible and lose his flight speed at the top of the stairs, since this is as far as his dash would have gotten him in one "round." (We're not in combat, as far as I know, but I'm thinking in rounds for the sake of timing.)
4a. If the wizard failed in targeting the invisible PC with dispel magic, the spell slot is wasted, and the invisible PC gets away.
4b. If the wizard failed the first arcana check but succeeded on the second, he or she would recognize what had happened but be too late to get the spell off. (Since the character was already invisible, I am reading "out of the other players' sight" to mean that the PC passes behind the wall or otherwise enters an area where the direct line needed for casting a spell is interrupted.)
4c. If the wizard failed both arcana checks or only did one and failed it, he or she would likely have come to believe that the wand was flying of its own accord, or that the invisible PC was inhabiting the wand or something else fun and funky. If the wizard tried to dispel the wand, the spell would be wasted.

 

[Oofta]

The spell says, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."
Why do some spells say "that you can see" and this one just says "within range"?
Is there a difference or just ambiguous wording?

Some spells work differently is all. With the case of dispel magic, you could know someone was there without being able to see them. In the case of someone flying, perhaps you hear their clothes flapping or their brushing aside cobwebs or similar.

Or, let's say you see someone invisible wading hip deep in water. There's no question you know there's someone invisible there so you can still target them.

The whole invisibility/detection thing is a whole other topic though, one that's going to see a pretty wide variety of rulings and has spawned thread that go on for hundreds of posts. Different DMs are going to handle it differently.

 

[Croesus]

Some spells work differently is all. With the case of dispel magic, you could know someone was there without being able to see them. In the case of someone flying, perhaps you hear their clothes flapping or their brushing aside cobwebs or similar.

Or, let's say you see someone invisible wading hip deep in water. There's no question you know there's someone invisible there so you can still target them.

The whole invisibility/detection thing is a whole other topic though, one that's going to see a pretty wide variety of rulings and has spawned thread that go on for hundreds of posts. Different DMs are going to handle it differently.

Yep, invisibility and hiding has spawned a lot of arguments. My group finally settled on this: Even if you're invisible, if you are not taking the Hide action, others know what space you're in (within a reasonable distance, based on the environment). The only negative in that situation is that an attack roll on that creature would be at disadvantage, and many spells don't allow you to target a creature you cannot see.

Whether or not you can target dispel magic on a creature you cannot actually see, but you know it's there...I'd probably allow it. Mainly because the PCs are far more likely to encounter invisible opponents than they are to be invisible themselves, so it helps the players more than the bad guys.

 

[Oofta]

Yep, invisibility and hiding has spawned a lot of arguments. My group finally settled on this: Even if you're invisible, if you are not taking the Hide action, others know what space you're in (within a reasonable distance, based on the environment). The only negative in that situation is that an attack roll on that creature would be at disadvantage, and many spells don't allow you to target a creature you cannot see.

Whether or not you can target dispel magic on a creature you cannot actually see, but you know it's there...I'd probably allow it. Mainly because the PCs are far more likely to encounter invisible opponents than they are to be invisible themselves, so it helps the players more than the bad guys.

We handle invisibility on a case-by-case basis, but typically if you're invisible you get a "free" stealth check. Advantage or disadvantage may apply depending on the circumstance such as distance, flying, other things going on in the environment.

And of course it has to be reasonable that you can be detected. Totally a judgement call on the DM's part.

In previous editions you could target an area with dispel magic, I'm kind of surprised they don't have that as an option any more.

 

[Elon Tusk]

So what if you dispel had been cast on the flying magical effect and not the wand or invisible flyer?

 

[mrpopstar]

So what if you dispel had been cast on the flying magical effect and not the wand or invisible flyer?

Is the flying magical effect perceptible in terms of targeting the spell?