D&D 5E (2014) Dispel Evil and Good cleric spell 5th level in use

[Stalker0]

To be clear, I think the OP made a perfectly fine on the spot ruling for all the activities noted. If I did my own self review after a session, I wouldn't have any concerns.

I just think the conversation is now shifting more towards dispel good and evil for a future perspective. Ok now having studied the spell, would I do that a bit differently than the OP?

And so yes I do think creating an attack roll is out of scope for the spell. Its not mentioned in this touch spell when its clearly noted in other offensive touch spells. An attack wasn't added in 2024, and though a lot of spells didn't get changed it was still one more chance for designers to "fix an issue" if they thought there was one. Since they didn't, that's a number point to the notion that this is how the spell is intended to function.

 

[ECMO3]

Last night we played a big battle with a dragon possessed by a ghost dragon as a big boss fight in the adventure Divine Contention for 11th level PCs. An army of undead led by the dragon attacks the town of Leilon the same time a cult of Talos army attacks with both looking for a McGuffin. The PCs have several smaller encounters with both factions and end up with the final fight being with the dragon.

The cleric teleports with the wizard to the back of the dragon in the first encounter with the dragon. He wants to use the break enchantment part of the spell to drive out the ghost possession on the green dragon. The spell says that you tough the creature and no save.

View attachment 410972
I rule that teleporting to the back of the dragon that is flying requires a Athletics or Acrobatics check and the cleric fails. I give him a Dex save to catch himself before falling, and he fails. I lastly give a chance to touch the dragon as he is falling to do his spell, and he fails. He falls 60ft just before the dragon blasts the area he is in with 77 points of necrotic damage. He is dying and no longer concentrating. A few minutes later he is back up and the dragon moved onto finding the McGuffin and is perched on the tower fighting some ghosts of the past heroes of the town. The summoned eagles fly the PCs up to the tower and the cleric wants to cast the spell again. He is standing next to the dragon on the tower and says there is no save and he is just touching him to end the ghost possession.

I ruled that touching in this case would still need an attack roll. I figured it would be similar to a shadow or wraith touching you to death touch you and that you are trying to avoid being touched. I did give him advantage to the roll since the size of the dragon and the point that he was not trying to penetrate the dragon natural armor. Wondering what others would do or thought.

It worked and the dragon fell near death with the PCs pondering weather to kill it or release it back to its lair now that the ghost was not controlling it. They sent it back with the bargain that the dragon would not attack the town for 200 years. They could go to the dragon for future information or aid once if needed, but I do not think they will.

This beats what the barbarian was planning as a side note. He wanted to jump on the dragon and then swing a grappling hook around it like a 40ft horse. Secure the grapple and tie himself to the dragon so he could then chop the back of its head. Sounds cool, but all I was thinking was what checks and saves he would need to do this. Like the poor cleric in the first encounter I was thinking that he needed more than just all this can happen in a single turn. That player does like to get ahead of things and just assumes a lot.

Was it cool- yes. I think it could have been cooler if I thought about it more before the play started and knew what the cleric was planning.

Touch spells do not require an attack roll and if they did things like Cure Wounds, Invisibility and Protection from Evil and Good would be severely nerfed.

RAW it is pretty clear, if he teleports to within reach he can use a readied action to touch the dragon and then immediately plummets 60 feet. Alternatively he can ready an action to make an athletics check to grab the dragon, but then can't use a readied action action to break the enchantment (he could perhaps do that on his next turn).

 

[James Gasik]

Worth noting that readying a spell is super risky as you have to maintain concentration and the spell is lost if you can't use it as intended.

 

[Stormonu]

Touch spells do not require an attack roll and if they did things like Cure Wounds, Invisibility and Protection from Evil and Good would be severely nerfed.

RAW it is pretty clear, if he teleports to within reach he can use a readied action to touch the dragon and then immediately plummets 60 feet. Alternatively he can ready an action to make an athletics check to grab the dragon, but then can't use a readied action action to break the enchantment (he could perhaps do that on his next turn).

Touching allies has been one of the things over the editions that hasn't required an attack roll (maybe in 3E vs. touch, can't remember for sure).

But I've always seem to recall in older editions that offensive touch spells required some kind of attack or significant contact has been required. An offensive spell that doesn't require a hit, save or have some chance of failure, hit point limit - screw that. Not allowing that in my campaign, RAW or not.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't believe the "break enchantment" version of Dispel Evil can be considered an offensive spell, since all it does is end an effect. It's the "Dismissal" version that is offensive in nature and does require a melee spell attack.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Touching allies has been one of the things over the editions that hasn't required an attack roll (maybe in 3E vs. touch, can't remember for sure).

But I've always seem to recall in older editions that offensive touch spells required some kind of attack or significant contact has been required. An offensive spell that doesn't require a hit, save or have some chance of failure, hit point limit - screw that. Not allowing that in my campaign, RAW or not.

I understand what you're saying, but...

In 5e the lack of a touch attack is part of the intended power level. If you add that requirement it throws off the balance of those spells, making them weaker than intended.

A solution to the conceptual problem that maintains balance is to just reconceptualize what is actually happening. In this case, it isn't actually a touch at all. It has a 5' range and "Touch" is just jargon. What actually is going on is the spell's energy is blasting out in a small 5' cone. You can't completely avoid it any more than you could a color spray.

 

[Stalker0]

I understand what you're saying, but...

In 5e the lack of a touch attack is part of the intended power level. If you add that requirement it throws off the balance of those spells, making them weaker than intended.

A solution to the conceptual problem that maintains balance is to just reconceptualize what is actually happening. In this case, it isn't actually a touch at all. It has a 5' range and "Touch" is just jargon. What actually is going on is the spell's energy is blasting out in a small 5' cone. You can't completely avoid it any more than you could a color spray.

agreed, I think people are balking at the flavor of the touch, and you can easily remove that with 0 mechanical change required.

 

[TheSword]

Touching a creature in combat that doesn’t want to be touched should require an attack roll.

The reason break enchantment doesn’t require one is because the spell doesn’t envision a hostile version of removing someone’s charm or possession. In the same way cure wounds doesn’t require an attack roll. If cure wounds did do damage to a particular creature it is reasonable for them to need an attack roll to make it.

I’m surprised you didn’t ask them to use the banishment version of the spell though. Attack roll and then saving through would have made sense to me… The power of Christ compels you, and all that.

 

[ECMO3]

Worth noting that readying a spell is super risky as you have to maintain concentration and the spell is lost if you can't use it as intended.

You are not readying the spell, it has already been cast and you are concentrating on it. you are readying the magic action required to break the enchantment. There is nothing lost if circumstances preclude you using this magic action (other than your action).

 

[ECMO3]

Touching a creature in combat that doesn’t want to be touched should require an attack roll.

I don't see that this is supported in the rules. It does not mention the need for an attack roll when it talks about touch spells and the fact that some harmful touch spells state they do require an attack roll and other harmful touch spells don't state this strongly indicates that it is not intended that touch spells require an attack roll if the target does not want to be touched.

I don't see how touching someone with a touch spell is any different than targeting someone at range with a lightning Bolt or the Banishment spell. Those don't require an attack roll.

The reason break enchantment doesn’t require one is because the spell doesn’t envision a hostile version of removing someone’s charm or possession.

I would disagree with this. I think someone who is possessed is almost always going to resist this and someone who is charmed often will.

Finally you have a problem with stacked spells. If all touch spells require an attack roll, then that means it would trigger damage from Hex or similar spells that cause damage when an attack hits.

If you are talking about touching someone as part of an improvised action then an attack roll is one way to handle that, but that is an improvised ruling and it does not really apply to spell casting which already have a defined range and mechanic.