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

[Waterbizkit]

[MENTION=6802604]Waterbizkit[/MENTION] How do they clearly know where the invisible creature is? he could be in front, behind, above, below or in any position around the wand You cannot simply say there is an item carried by an invisible creature so the creature has to be exactly right there. Asume the wand is a sword: You cannot see if the creature is carrying the sword by ist tip by the hilt in the middle of the blade pointing it in front of him dragging it behind him Holding it above his head etc.

You can Interpret it like you want being the DM, but you see your logic is clearly flawed on this one.

Firstly, and I mean no disrespect, but I haven't a clue what you're on about? You seem to be muddling up several parts of my post and so I'm not entirely sure what it is you're taking issue with. That said, I'll see if I can't clarify anyway.

Take the wand, or any other carried object out if the equation. Forget them. They don't exist for the purposes of what I'm about to say. Good? Now, so far as I'm concerned and how I run it in my games, simply being invisible does not make you hidden. Other creatures can still attack you or even target you with spells, assuming the spell doesn't specify the target be "seen". They know exactly what space you're in for these purposes. If an invisible creature wants to avoid this they need to also take the hide action and make a stealth roll, setting the DC for other creatures to find them again. Clear? Hopefully, because if it isn't nothing from this point forward will make any sense.

In the scenario presented in the OP a PC has flying and invisibility cast on them. That PC then tries to pass the rest of the party without taking the hide action. So far as I'm concerned, given what I said above, the party knows that an invisible creature is moving by them. They even know where it is because again, the flying invisible PC has made absolutely no attempt to hide. Because of this I would allow the party wizard to cast Dispel Magic on the invisible creature because he knows where it is and the spell doesn't specify that the target be seen.

See? The wand never comes into it. Doesn't matter if it were a sword, as you mentioned, or even if it were a bloody ten foot pole. The carried item in this instance is completely meaningless to how I would have ruled this situation playing out. To me tbis entire scenario comes down to how the rules for invisibility and hiding work, and perhaps to a lesser degree how Dispel Magic is targeted.

All of that said, if you don't like how I rule invisibility and it's impact, or lack thereof, on hiding or avoiding being targeted by spells and effects... that's fine! Considering the stealth rules and how invisibility worms into those rules has been a highly contentious issue in the past I'd be flabbergasted if someone didn't take issue with my ruling.

Anyway, tldr: PC turns invisible -> PC makes no other attempt to hide -> PC can be targeted with Disspel Magic without issue. The wand, the flying and all the rest of it can all take a long walk on a short pier as far as I'm concerned because they're completely irrelevant. Hope that sort of clears things up for you. If it doesn't, if you still feel my logic is flawed here, that's fine, to each their own and all that jazz.

 

[Elon Tusk]

That is the real Problem here. Either the wand turns invisible as soon as it is picked up, then no one can cast dispel, because no one sees anything to target dispel.

The wand is a homebrew magic item of significant power.
One of properties gave it a % chance not to turn invisible.
I'm not sure why that is a problem; home-brew is fairly common.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Shades of the original Tomb of Horrors. You did not say you shove the door up, left, right, down, x button, y button, left arrow left arrow enter.

That cluster of secret doors was the horror I felt trying to run players through it.

 

[plisnithus8]

Take the wand, or any other carried object out if the equation.

Let's look at it from the perspective of the dispel caster.
There's a wand that flies up a ladder in the floor of the room she is in.
It is moving at 120'.
There is an invisible (dashing, no hide action) wizard flying and holding the wand.
There would be a significant amount of turbulence and wind noise but no foot steps or prints or obvious signs that a creature is invisible or holding the visible wand.
The wand can be seen fliying over her head and the rest of the party and up a staircase, out of the dungeon, and then out of sight.
On her turn, she casts dispel magic to stop the wand that she can no longer see but is within range.

I believe the wand is very relevant because it at the very least would be a distraction from even considering that there is something else unseen and a potential cause of all the turbulence. During the 6 seconds of the 120' move, the wand is hidden, appears unexpectedly, then becomes hidden again. Let's estimate the dispelling wizard sees/hears the wand for half that turn, 3 seconds. She is startled and sees there is a skull on a flying wand.
It seems possible but difficult to Perceive that there is an option nvisible creature.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6802604]Waterbizkit[/MENTION]

Cite from your post:

"That PC then tries to pass the rest of the party without taking the hide action. So far as I'm concerned, given what I said above, the party knows that an invisible creature is moving by them. They even know where it is because again, the flying invisible PC has made absolutely no attempt to hide. Because of this I would allow the party wizard to cast Dispel Magic on the invisible creature because he knows where it is and the spell doesn't specify that the target be seen."


End cite, Sorry i got some editor issue on this machine so i have to cite like this.


You have clearly found out where i take issue, exactly here-

First the wand is not hidden due to homebrew as stated, which i admit i did overread, but that is good so we do not need another ruling here concerning wether it would interact with the illusion spell invisibility, it is simply not affected by it due to it being homebrew.

Second you state someone needs to be under invisibility spell AND use the hide action to really not be seen. That is imho not the case. Somebody with invisibility cast on it
not moving but not taking hide action would in your interpretation of the rules be seen clearly visible as in broadest daylight just because --- what? he is breathing? Say it is an invisible Acid blob not moving not breathing but not hiding what discernable noise would it make?

Ok i am a bit drastic, i agree to your rule if e.g. someone casts invisibility on himself and then makes loud noise by walking with with metal boots on a stone floor would clearly give away his general position but thats about it.

As would someone casting the spell on himself in view of an observer who is then using his perception (active roll!) to figure out where the first one would move after the casting.

But someone flying, what noise would he make at say 120 ft / 6 seconds thats 20 feet per second that is nothing my friend, that certainly does not imply to an observer:

"Oh i see a flying wand but it is making a noise like a starting jet nearby so someone must be using a fly spell to carry that wand and since i cannot seem to see him he must be invisible but not hiding ah there he is lets cast dispel to get him falling for the lulz."

According to your interpretation, which you can certainly use on your table - i do not deny rule zero to any DM - what in the hell would the player noticing the flying invisible wand wielder exactly see? Flimmering air? a shadow?

Sorry but someone with a fly spell simply flies he does not make footstep noise or flaps with his arms or whatever.

If in your group someone has the observant feat i would allow a DC 20 perception check with disadvantage to notice anything other than a flying wand.

And do not fixate on he passes the party in the OP, since according to the OP he does this in a height of 50 ft which means 43 feet above their heads, it is not like he rushes by while trying not to touch them with the edges of his cloak.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I believe the wand is very relevant

And I don't. I'm not sure what other response you'd like nor do I have any idea what the rest of what you wrote has to do with anything given my rather plainly stated opinion. I don't care what the invisible creature is carrying. I don't care if what it's carrying is invisible or visible. I don't even care what the creatures means of locomotion is except within the context of whether or not the creature is attempting to be stealthy.

In this case you have a fast moving, flying, invisible creature that has made no attempt to be stealthy. Per how I interpret the rules for being invisible and the rules for hiding and rules for targeting an invisible and/or hiding creature... this creature is perceivable and therefore a viable target for Dispel Magic. Done. The end.

Now, I've quite literally no more desire to defend my position. This is how things work at my table. If your table runs differently, bully for you. That's sort of how this game works, we all read the same rules but those rules are open to at least a modicum of interpretation and we end up with discussions like this. I've no intention of trying to change anyone's mind here, nor am I planning to kidnap any of you at gunpoint and force you to play at my table... So how I rule should be no skin off your nose. Agree to disagree, to each their own. I've no intention of discussing this further.

 

[Coroc]

It is flying not really fast 20 ft / seconds, that is not making loud noises thats a draft of air like someone closing a door not more. That is as silent as breathing low.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Dispel does not interrupt the flyer's action so would be cast when the flyer is out of the dungeon, clearly with a wall(s) between him and caster.
Even if invisibility didn't keep flyer from being perceived, would the dispel - though within range - work?
I don't think dispeller could intuit which flight path it was going once it left her line of sight.

 

[mrpopstar]

In this case you have a fast moving, flying, invisible creature that has made no attempt to be stealthy. Per how I interpret the rules for being invisible and the rules for hiding and rules for targeting an invisible and/or hiding creature... this creature is perceivable and therefore a viable target for Dispel Magic. Done. The end.

How I see it!

 

[Coroc]

How I see it!

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.