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

[plisnithus8]

Nope, not at all. Having worked in a bar, it is pretty easy to react as the first guy pulls back to throw a punch. It is also the typical western shootout, the first to go for his gun is not always the first to shoot. Watch action movies and you can see it as well.
In this game the mechanic is the initiative order.

Yes, that makes sense.

Sorry I was imprecise in my language. To attempt to stealth is using the hide action.

Okay, I can see that.
But surely there's a slight attempt at least for the knight to be stealthy if he takes time to turn invisible.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Turning invisible is what allows the knight to attempt to hide at all. Otherwise flying out in plain sight would be automatically noticed. Turning invisible means he can now choose to make a hide check in a location forbidden before. It still requires making that check, to my reading. Realize that the hide rules are a topic of some contention.

 

[Maxperson]

So first, you may not know, but when a post is quoted it sends a copy of the post to your cell phone. Later deleting it because you responded on the wrong account doesn't get rid of it. Not sure why you feel the need to discuss this topic under two names. One has always sufficed for me.

The Dispel Magic description states that the caster can choose one magical effect.
Shouldn't the caster have to decide and not the spell?

The caster can decide effect, since he knows something is going on and where. If he does not specify and multiple effects are present that can be dispelled, it should in my opinion be random as to which gets hit.

If the 1e dispel magic does "not affect" the magic armor that is creating the invisible magic effect, then it seems that the invisibility holds.

Only if the armor itself is what is invisible. If the armor instead makes the wearer invisible, it is effectively casting invisibility on the wearer and that effect can be dispelled. An effect is not the same as being the armor.

What you are quoting is only in the 1e description so that dispel magic could not be used to turn magic items themselves into mundane items.

In 2e it does change to "it removes spell and spell-like effects (including devices and innate abilities) from creatures and objects." PHB p. 191

In 3.5 it reads: "You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities if a magic item, to end ongoing spells (ir at least their effects) within range, ir to counter another spellcaster's spell." PHB p. 223

In 4e, it says "You unleash a ray if crackling arcane energy that destroys a magical effect created by an opponent...[on a hit] The conjuration or the zone is destroyed. All its effects end, including thise that normally last until target saves" - Unknown internet source since I don't have 4e materials.

The description of what Dispel Magic does and effects has changed - sometimes drastically - with each edition so saying recent Sage Advice makes it "contrary to what the spell has stood fir since 1e" seems exagerated.

And yet across all editions, it can dispel magical effects.

 

[Maxperson]

But surely there's a slight attempt at least for the knight to be stealthy if he takes time to turn invisible.

No. At least not as the game defines it. 5e is notorious for having words with multiple meanings, depending on whether you are using the rules or not. There is Stealth, which is taking an action to hide, and then there's stealth, which is the non-crunchy "stealthy" things like turning invisible, putting on soft soled boots, etc.

 

[plisnithus8]

So first, you may not know, but when a post is quoted it sends a copy of the post to your cell phone. Later deleting it because you responded on the wrong account doesn't get rid of it. Not sure why you feel the need to discuss this topic under two names. One has always sufficed for me.

Yes, 2 accounts, one on my phone and one on my laptop, started as a result of password issues. I didn't mean to be deceptive and try to not abuse it in any way. If there's a policy, let me know and I'll delete one. I replied from closest device, saw I had replied in a way that would make it weird and thought it would be easier to not have to explain it all.

The caster can decide effect, since he knows something is going on and where. If he does not specify and multiple effects are present that can be dispelled, it should in my opinion be random as to which gets hit.

My reading is caster has to choose effect.

Only if the armor itself is what is invisible. If the armor instead makes the wearer invisible, it is effectively casting invisibility on the wearer and that effect can be dispelled. An effect is not the same as being the armor.

My DM says it allows wearer to cast invisibility as a bonus action. In that case, 5e dispel magic definitely ends inisibility if that was what caster wanted. She said "stop it" so i I think she wanted flying to stop though.

What you are quoting is only in the 1e description so that dispel magic could not be used to turn magic items themselves into mundane items.

I figured it was there to prevent that.
I'm not sure how to determine if it is the only reason it's there.

And yet across all editions, it can dispel magical effects.

Okay, just did some more research.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
I think the answer is here.

"Can you use dispel magic to dispel a magical effect like a vampire’s Charm ability? Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a vampire’s Charm ability or any other magical effect that isn’t a spell. It also does nothing to the properties of a magic item. It can, however, end a spell cast from a magic item or from another source. Spells—they’re what dispel magic is about. For example, if you cast dispel magic on a staff of power, the spell fails to disrupt the staff’s magical properties, but if the staff’s wielder casts hold monster from the staff, dispel magic can end that spell if cast on the target of hold monster."

Since this armor allows knight to cast invisibility, invisibility ends.
But, if the armor acted more like Tolkein's One Ring, turning the ring and wearer invisible without a spell being cast, the invisibility would not be ended by dispel magic.
Sound right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, that makes sense.

Exactly, and it's the DM's responsibility to frame the situation appropriately when initiative is called.

Initiative should be used whenever there's a question of who goes first. So, after the knight snatched the wand AND the wizard decides to do something about it, initiative should be rolled right there -- before the knight starts to run.

Okay, I can see that.
But surely there's a slight attempt at least for the knight to be stealthy if he takes time to turn invisible.

Well, he took the time to be invisible, but he didn't take the time to not bump into things, or quiet his armor, or not sneeze... If you want to be not perceived, you Hide. Invisible just means not seen, which means you can Hide wherever. It doesn't automatically make you hidden. You can tell because the spell description doesn't say so.

 

[plisnithus8]

No. At least not as the game defines it. 5e is notorious for having words with multiple meanings, depending on whether you are using the rules or not. There is Stealth, which is taking an action to hide, and then there's stealth, which is the non-crunchy "stealthy" things like turning invisible, putting on soft soled boots, etc.

I see there are 2 meanings they have for stealth, which doesn't help.
The non-crunchy seems to be the one used in Surprise; that's why I thought there might be a chance for Surprise when knight turned invisible.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, just did some more research.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
I think the answer is here.

"Can you use dispel magic to dispel a magical effect like a vampire’s Charm ability? Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a vampire’s Charm ability or any other magical effect that isn’t a spell. It also does nothing to the properties of a magic item. It can, however, end a spell cast from a magic item or from another source. Spells—they’re what dispel magic is about. For example, if you cast dispel magic on a staff of power, the spell fails to disrupt the staff’s magical properties, but if the staff’s wielder casts hold monster from the staff, dispel magic can end that spell if cast on the target of hold monster."

Since this armor allows knight to cast invisibility, invisibility ends.
But, if the armor acted more like Tolkein's One Ring, turning the ring and wearer invisible without a spell being cast, the invisibility would not be ended by dispel magic.
Sound right?

The One Ring basically does cast invisibility as an effect. There's a difference between a vampires "charm"(in quotes because it isn't at all like charm person) and an invisibility effect like one generated from an item. Special abilities like the vampire "charm" can't be dispelled. That's why it says magic effect under the the dispel rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I see there are 2 meanings they have for stealth, which doesn't help.
The non-crunchy seems to be the one used in Surprise; that's why I thought there might be a chance for Surprise when knight turned invisible.

The surprise rules don't actually require stealth. They just require that one side be unnoticed. A troll walking down the path can surprise the party if no one rolls(or passive perceptions) high enough to hear it moving.

 

[plisnithus8]

Exactly, and it's the DM's responsibility to frame the situation appropriately when initiative is called.

Initiative should be used whenever there's a question of who goes first. So, after the knight snatched the wand AND the wizard decides to do something about it, initiative should be rolled right there -- before the knight starts to run.



Well, he took the time to be invisible, but he didn't take the time to not bump into things, or quiet his armor, or not sneeze... If you want to be not perceived, you Hide. Invisible just means not seen, which means you can Hide wherever. It doesn't automatically make you hidden. You can tell because the spell description doesn't say so.

I was about to agree with everything you just said, but then you said the knight couldn't run (fly) without rolling iniative. Thr knight was hidden from the wizard when he took the wand - he was on a lower level in a different room. He decided to fly while still hidden from the wizard in another room, used fly to move across the room he was in, up into the room with the wizard before she had an opportunity to even consider the wand that just appeared might be animated or held by an invisible creature. She was not looking down the ladder, as she was finishing up with a confrontation with a mummy. The wizard would have no reason to do something about him snatching the wand before he ran/flew.