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

mrpopstar · Sep 1, 2017

Coroc said:
How ? it is invisible?

Nah joke aside, how do you be stealthy while under the effect of a fly spell?
Not flap around with your arms so fast?

And what exactly is the PC perceiving as a target? a flimmering like in predator?

Dispel magic needs a target and that implies to me visible somehow.

At least that is a hefty perception check to be involved for this. But as I said before I am not the judge on your tables, but I really would like an answer to my two questions in case I would like to rule it like that on my table, how would I explain these two issues to my PCs?

And no, I will not take sage advice for an answer in case there is some because it surely was not meant for this special case. The general philosophy of your rule makes the invisibility spell pretty useless except for characters who rarely need it because they are stealthy already.

Only you have the answer to both questions.

Ovinomancer · Sep 1, 2017

Coroc said:
How ? it is invisible?

Nah joke aside, how do you be stealthy while under the effect of a fly spell?
Not flap around with your arms so fast?

And what exactly is the PC perceiving as a target? a flimmering like in predator?

Dispel magic needs a target and that implies to me visible somehow.

At least that is a hefty perception check to be involved for this. But as I said before I am not the judge on your tables, but I really would like an answer to my two questions in case I would like to rule it like that on my table, how would I explain these two issues to my PCs?

And no, I will not take sage advice for an answer in case there is some because it surely was not meant for this special case. The general philosophy of your rule makes the invisibility spell pretty useless except for characters who rarely need it because they are stealthy already.

Useless? It dies exactly what it says on the tin: attackers have disadvantage on attacks against you, and you can attempt to hide anywhere.

What it doesn't say is that no one can tell where you are if you don't hide from them. It's only a second level spell, for cripes sake.

Elon Tusk · Sep 1, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Useless? It dies exactly what it says on the tin: attackers have disadvantage on attacks against you, and you can attempt to hide anywhere.

What it doesn't say is that no one can tell where you are if you don't hide from them. It's only a second level spell, for cripes sake.

I'm sure you meant "does" instead of "dies" but cannot interpret "tin."

Anyway, I think your paraphrase of the invisible condition makes things more ambiguous.
The invisible condition states on p. 291 of the PHB:
"Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have advantage."

From that, our flyer cannot be seen and doesn't leave tracks. Some people have mentioned you could hear him breathing - he's moving 4 times walking speed above everyone's head. You guys must know some really heavy breathers.

I'm not sure what the phrase "For the purpose of Hiding" means.
If it means, "If the invisible creature takes the Hide action" or if it means that invisibility grants heavily obscured automatically.
I'm leaning toward the latter.

Coroc · Sep 1, 2017

Elon Tusk said:
I'm sure you meant "does" instead of "dies" but cannot interpret "tin."

Anyway, I think your paraphrase of the invisible condition makes things more ambiguous.
The invisible condition states on p. 291 of the PHB:
"Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have advantage."

From that, our flyer cannot be seen and doesn't leave tracks. Some people have mentioned you could hear him breathing - he's moving 4 times walking speed above everyone's head. You guys must know some really heavy breathers.

I'm not sure what the phrase "For the purpose of Hiding" means.
If it means, "If the invisible creature takes the Hide action" or if it means that invisibility grants heavily obscured automatically.
I'm leaning toward the latter.

Thanks for pointing that out XP for that, and lol on the heavy breathers

And I think also your heavily obscured condition for hiding is the correct one.

I think people view that game as a tactical combat simulation sometimes tend to forget about context. I did never deny that someone invisible who makes a lot of noise gives himself away, what I do deny, is like you also wrote that someone makes big noise by flying via spell or leaves other tracks. So in this special case any kind of stealth check is unnecessary, it simply does not apply.

If dispel magic would target a definable area, say a couple of squares on a battle map, then I would agree with the posters having the opinion that the dispel at the wand would cause the other spells on the individual to fail.

But dispel says a creature or object and if you target the object you do not target the creature. The wand is also the only possible thing to target in this case. If I want to get action out of this scene as a DM, I would eventually give a chance the wand blows up or is discharged or something like that, just to make things interesting.

Satyrn · Sep 1, 2017

I feel like I ought to apologize for the XP spam, [MENTION=6802604]Waterbizkit[/MENTION].

I just like that you're saying "this is how I do things" without any suggestion of it being The Right Way.

Harzel · Sep 1, 2017

Coroc said:
I think people view that game as a tactical combat simulation sometimes tend to forget about context. I did never deny that someone invisible who makes a lot of noise gives himself away, what I do deny, is like you also wrote that someone makes big noise by flying via spell or leaves other tracks. So in this special case any kind of stealth check is unnecessary, it simply does not apply.

They're not forgetting about context, they (or at least I) are taking account of the fact that RAW and RAI is that being invisible does not make a creature imperceptible. In this case, it sounds like you would rule that the combination of flying and invisibility automatically makes a creature imperceptible. I, on the other hand, feel that it is always up to the creature that wants to avoid detection to explicitly attempt to avoid detection (mechanically, usually a Stealth check) and only in very special cases is success guaranteed (creatures in a position to detect usually get a Perception check). It would also be possible to avoid detection by staying far enough away from those whose notice the creature wishes to avoid.

The way the case being discussed was presented, it sounds to me like the flyer made no attempt to be stealthy and passed very close by the other PCs. If that is the case, then I would definitely rule that the flyer is noticed. Narratively, that might be air movement, the rustle of clothing or equipment, odor, various bodily noises, or even brushing against one of the other PCs if the quarters are particularly close.

Other circumstances, I would handle differently. For instance, if the flyer was able to stay 30 ft away from the other PCs while going past them, they probably will not notice him (except for the complication of the wand being visible). As another example, if the flyer states that he is trying to be stealthy, he will get to make a stealth roll (with advantage if the wand weren't visible); the Perception rolls for the other PCs might or might not be at disadvantage depending on distance and what else is going on and whether the wand is visible.

discosoc · Sep 1, 2017

Coroc said:
But dispel says a creature or object and if you target the object you do not target the creature. The wand is also the only possible thing to target in this case. If I want to get action out of this scene as a DM, I would eventually give a chance the wand blows up or is discharged or something like that, just to make things interesting.

You can target invisible things just fine, with dispel magic, if I recall. As mentioned below:

http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3

7:20 Jeremy Crawford "One of the things I want to say, right at the outset, that is a misconception that often comes up related to spell targeting is that a spell does not require you to see your target, unless the spell says you do. Players will often think things need to be within line of sight for them to target them with their spell. That's only true for spells that say -- they usually say it in some form of like 'choose one creature you can see' -- that kind of thing. Otherwise, you can shoot in the dark. If the spell involves an attack role, our attack rules already have ways of dealing with you attacking something you can't see."

I think further on he kind of rationalizes it as simply a facet of being a magical effect in the first place.

Waterbizkit · Sep 1, 2017

Satyrn said:
I feel like I ought to apologize for the XP spam, @Waterbizkit.

I just like that you're saying "this is how I do things" without any suggestion of it being The Right Way.

No worries. It essentially is what I'm saying. It's what I always try to say. The different ways people play this game may as well be endless. Everything from minor stuff like this, what races or classes they allow, to full-blown overhauls of some part of the game a group feels is especially weak. And at the end of the day it's all the "right way" to play the game.

We're all playing the game to have fun, the specifics of how we play don't necessarily matter. In matters like this where a topic is being hotly debated the best thing a person can do is state their own opinion and acknowledge that's what it is, an opinion. Things get messy when we start trying to pass our own opinions off as fact or deride others simply because their views don't match our own. Best to just avoid it, eh?

Anyway, didn't mean to get all preachy. The xp, but more importantly to me the comment, was greatly appreciated. Nice to know I'm succeeding at least a little bit at getting my views out there without dumping on other people in the process.

Harzel · Sep 1, 2017

Elon Tusk said:
I'm sure you meant "does" instead of "dies" but cannot interpret "tin."

"tin" in this case means "can", as in "tin can". Equivalently, you could substitute "box" or "package". It is a colloquial way of saying that it does exactly what the description says it does.

he's moving 4 times walking speed

Actually, (if I interpret the OP correctly - that he just has Fly but is not hasted) his speed is still 60 ft. He's just using his action to Dash, which grants extra movement distance, not extra speed. See the description of the Dash action.

above everyone's head.

This was not clear in the OP. How far above everyone's head? For me, it would make a difference whether it was 3 ft. or 20 ft.

You guys must know some really heavy breathers.

I think breathing was offered as an example. There are plenty of other noises he might make unless he was taking care to be quiet.

I'm not sure what the phrase "For the purpose of Hiding" means.

It means "when trying to decide whether the creature can hide or stay hidden, treat an invisible creature as if it were heavily obscured".

Harzel · Sep 1, 2017

discosoc said:
You can target invisible things just fine, with dispel magic, if I recall. As mentioned below:

http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3

7:20 Jeremy Crawford "One of the things I want to say, right at the outset, that is a misconception that often comes up related to spell targeting is that a spell does not require you to see your target, unless the spell says you do. Players will often think things need to be within line of sight for them to target them with their spell. That's only true for spells that say -- they usually say it in some form of like 'choose one creature you can see' -- that kind of thing. Otherwise, you can shoot in the dark. If the spell involves an attack role, our attack rules already have ways of dealing with you attacking something you can't see."

I think further on he kind of rationalizes it as simply a facet of being a magical effect in the first place.

Your point is correct and JC's statements are consistent with RAW. But there is one subtlety to keep in mind. Although you don't need to be able to see your target unless the spell says that you do, you always need a clear path to the target. You may not be able to see along that path (e.g. because it is dark), but you must have a path to the target that is physically unobstructed. And, even though the PHB does not say so explicitly, it is clear from the examples given that the intent is that it must be a straight line path.