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

[Maxperson]

My understanding is they were already in combat and going by turns. Initiative had already been rolled. We were not told of the wizard moving.

Apparently not, since he wonders why casting a hostile spell on an invisible evading target would change it from out of combat to combat.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Apparently not, since he wonders why casting a hostile spell on an invisible evading target would change it from out of combat to combat.

Yet there is also this from earlier "- The wizard was in the room with over 30 creatures finishing combat with a mummy." So I am confused as to the actual events.

 

[plisnithus8]

It wasn't an out of combat action. As soon as you had two PCs in opposition to one another to the point of taking combat actions(moves, evasion, spells, etc.), it was a combat situation. Combat doesn't have to mean trying to kill, or even doing damage to each other. Just opposing one another to the point of trying to restrain, evade or cast a hostile spell on one another is sufficient.

Yes, the dispel would have been cast during a combat action. But the invisible flyer began his stated 120' flying action without the wizard or any of the rest of his party were aware what he was doing or where he was. There was no oposition until dispel magic was cast, but that takes an action (not a reaction) so I would think the flyer would get to finish his move first.

 

[plisnithus8]

Yet there is also this from earlier "- The wizard was in the room with over 30 creatures finishing combat with a mummy." So I am confused as to the actual events.

IRL the combat with the wizard vs. the mummy had just finished, ending iniative.

But I don't think that matters: the flyer took his action (in or out of combat) to fly 100' over the wizard and out of the dungeon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

IRL the combat with the wizard vs. the mummy had just finished, ending iniative.

But I don't think that matters: the flyer took his action (in or out of combat) to fly 100' over the wizard and out of the dungeon.

Well, it seems more was done. An action to turn invisible. An action for the fairy to cast fly. An object interaction to swipe the wand. Then a move and finally a dash action. But no one else gets to do anything while all that goes on?

 

[Elon Tusk]

Well, it seems more was done. An action to turn invisible. An action for the fairy to cast fly. An object interaction to swipe the wand. Then a move and finally a dash action. But no one else gets to do anything while all that goes on?

Yes, more was done, no seeming about it, but everyone else was finishing up a battle. The eldritch knight and fairy were a floor below, the rest of the party unaware of what they were doing.

Of the bonus action to turn invisible (DM's home-brew armor), the fairy's action to cast fly, the taking of the wand, the stated flying dash, only the dash would be something the other characters would notice.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, the dispel would have been cast during a combat action. But the invisible flyer began his stated 120' flying action without the wizard or any of the rest of his party were aware what he was doing or where he was. There was no oposition until dispel magic was cast, but that takes an action (not a reaction) so I would think the flyer would get to finish his move first.

There doesn't have to be a combat action for combat to start. Two sides see each other and initiative is rolled before anyone gets to move. The flyer was not hidden and was holding a visible wand, so he would not be able to just unilaterally get an action without anyone else being able to act.

The way you are fighting for this flyer to succeed and for the caster to not have been able to do anything, makes me think that you are the flying trying to get away with the wand of orcus at the expense of the rest of the party.

 

[Harzel]

Dispel Magic is going to work, somewhat obviously, on functioning magic first. SO, casting it "on the wand flying by" is going to disrupt the magic "attached to it"...that is, the invisible flying PC who is wielding the wand.

I'm not sure why you put "attached to it" in quotes. The spell description definitely does not use those words. What the spell does say is that the caster has to choose "one creature, object, or magical effect" as a target, and that the spell dispels effects, if any, on that target. It says nothing about the spell propagating to other creatures or objects until it finds something to dispel. The effect you describe is, somewhat obviously, not RAW.

 

[Harzel]

If you're going to throw in alignment, I'm going to have to toss in paladins, too.

Aaargh. But that will force a mention of gnomes and rapiers, and then [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] will appear.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure why you put "attached to it" in quotes. The spell description definitely does not use those words. What the spell does say is that the caster has to choose "one creature, object, or magical effect" as a target, and that the spell dispels effects, if any, on that target. It says nothing about the spell propagating to other creatures or objects until it finds something to dispel. The effect you describe is, somewhat obviously, not RAW.

Somewhat obviously, it would be RAW. If you want to nitpick over targeting the wand instead of the invisible flying guy holding the wand, it is not at all a stretch to say the wand is -being held by- under the "effect" of the fly spell. It isn't flying by itself. The magic immediately occurring "around" (if you prefer) the wand, is the fly spell. If nothing else, the fly would be stripped off. If you want to say, because the wand was not invisible (which, is most certainly, also, NOT RAW, so I don't think we need any rules-lawyering nitpickers here) that the guy falls but stays invisible (since the source of that is the guy's armor and the guy wasn't "the target"), fine. I wouldn't, but you could.

As for quoting "attached to" that was just my knack for air quoting things in writing. I never meant, and didn't think it could possibly be confused with, for the reader to think that was a quote of the spell description. There is no exact term for "this energy field that is occurring around this thing [whether you want to say it's the wand or the guy holding the wand, the spell effect is happening around either/all of it] that this other energy field is designed to counteract"...so I went with "attached to it."

Regardless, the OP asked [paraphrasing, don't be thrown by the quotation marks!] "How would you rule this scenario?" My response is what it is...and stands. Don't like it? That's fine. You're not playing at my table. But it is not an incorrect ruling or any worse than your interpretation of what could have happened in this situation.