In these situations you always run into what the player knows, versus what the character may know. It is a mesh of the game rules and a living and breathing fantasy world. Under most circumstances I would supplement what the player knows and add some type of skill or ability check on what the character may know; even if it is behind the DM screen. A wizard may know more about the possibilities of a wand flying by itself or actually needing someone to possess it, versus a barbarian that may not have a clue. Once we get the argument of can the holder be detected (success or fail) the rest of the argument is easier to determine based on the rules.
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
D&D 5E How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
- Thread starter Elon Tusk
- Start date
plisnithus8
Adventurer
Agreed. I would don't think player's belief that an invisible creature be the end of it without some type of ability check.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
What other things should a PC not be allowed to think without a check?
plisnithus8
Adventurer
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here.
I'd say anything gained from meta-gaming could require a check, such as in this instance or "believing" other details where the player and PC knowledge differ.
It's not that I'm saying a PC has to believe a certain way, just that a DM should have modest control over the game and not just let players achieve things because they desire to. The fact in this instance is that this is one PC's desire to not be seen vs. another's desire to think there is something invisible. A die roll seems in order.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I'll grant a die roll mat be in order, but not to control what the PC can think or not think. A roll to successfully target where the invisible thief they think is flying away with the wand is, sure, that's fine. When you get into die rolls to control what players are allowed to think, that's too far.
In other words, the conversation about how you might target an invisible flying wand thief was interesting. The conversation about how you shouldn't let players even think some things without a die roll is less so.
plisnithus8
Adventurer
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.
Aenorgreen
First Post
Sidesteping the whole hide argument, I think the Dispel Magic should work. The spell can target a magical effect. If they caster said they were trying to dispel what was making the wand fly, that is the effect they are targetting. I do not think it would matter if that was fly, levitate, telekensis or unseen servant, as Dispel say effect, not spell. They named the effect and that is what they are trying to end.
plisnithus8
Adventurer
Even if the wand flew out of the dungeon and out of sight (though still in range) before Dispel is cast?
Aenorgreen
First Post
If there is no clear path then you cannot target it.
plisnithus8
Adventurer
That was my point.
Similar Threads
