D&D 5E Can Dispel Magic target Greater Invisibility if you know the square?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Prakriti
Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
Dispel Magic can target "magical effects," so yes, it can dispel Greater Invisibility. You do not need to know where the invisible creature is to do this.
Edit: Although Mike Mearls seems to disagree with part of the above: "invisible does not equal hidden = can target if invisible but not hidden, but not if the invisible creature is hidden." The answer to your question, though, is still yes. The party knows where the Greater Invisible creature is, therefore it's not hidden, which means it's targetable.
Edit: Although Mike Mearls seems to disagree with part of the above: "invisible does not equal hidden = can target if invisible but not hidden, but not if the invisible creature is hidden." The answer to your question, though, is still yes. The party knows where the Greater Invisible creature is, therefore it's not hidden, which means it's targetable.
Salthorae
Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I agree with @Prakriti here
Dispel doesn't say "creature, object, or effect within range that you can see", just choose one in range.
I'll also say that Mike Mearls' track record as an arbiter of the rules is... not great. He and Crawford were often at odds when Mearls still had a presence on Social Media. And the sage advice is just that advice.
Dispel doesn't say "creature, object, or effect within range that you can see", just choose one in range.
I'll also say that Mike Mearls' track record as an arbiter of the rules is... not great. He and Crawford were often at odds when Mearls still had a presence on Social Media. And the sage advice is just that advice.
Todd Roybark
Hero
As a Table Ruling, I do not find Mike’s statement to be inconsistent. If the creature is hidden then by definition you do not know where the creature is at. You may strongly suspect, but don’t know.
As a DM intrusion, I would most likely rule the Dispel Check is made w/ Disadvantage.
Being hidden, and Invisible due to Greater Invisibility should count for something, my gut is telling me.
As a DM intrusion, I would most likely rule the Dispel Check is made w/ Disadvantage.
Being hidden, and Invisible due to Greater Invisibility should count for something, my gut is telling me.
Salthorae
Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
OP says the party knows where the creature is, so they're not hidden.
I don't think you could target a hidden invisible creature's invisibility, but one that isn't hidden should be fair game. That's kind of the point of spells like Dispel Magic in combat since it can't do the counterspell function anymore.
Todd Roybark
Hero
Right, which, if I am reading correctly means we are in perfect agreement, Salt.
Concurring with Mearls ruling, as it seems you did as well, is in no way disputing the advice you and Prak, gave. I’m assuming something in my prior post gave you an unintended sense that I was disagreeing with you.
Concurring with Mearls ruling, as it seems you did as well, is in no way disputing the advice you and Prak, gave. I’m assuming something in my prior post gave you an unintended sense that I was disagreeing with you.
toucanbuzz
No rule is inviolate
Sure.
There's a variety of effects in which you can simply target a square, including taking a blind swing with a weapon. If you're wrong, the target is invalid and the attack/spell is wasted. Invisibility is simply a condition in which you cannot see the target. It doesn't mean you don't know where it is.
This was in some ways addressed a few years ago in some sage advice discussions on "illegal targeting" and eventually made it into Xanathar's Guide to Everything:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
In your case, if the Dispel fails, there'd be no way to tell if it failed because the target wasn't in the square anymore or because the spell check failed (though savvy players can probably puzzle it out).
There's a variety of effects in which you can simply target a square, including taking a blind swing with a weapon. If you're wrong, the target is invalid and the attack/spell is wasted. Invisibility is simply a condition in which you cannot see the target. It doesn't mean you don't know where it is.
This was in some ways addressed a few years ago in some sage advice discussions on "illegal targeting" and eventually made it into Xanathar's Guide to Everything:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
In your case, if the Dispel fails, there'd be no way to tell if it failed because the target wasn't in the square anymore or because the spell check failed (though savvy players can probably puzzle it out).
Phazonfish
B-Rank Agent
Or make the DC 14 spellcasting ability check.
Casting Dispel Magic with a 4th level slot means that you automatically dispel 4th level and less spell effects. Otherwise its a check.
Similar Threads
