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

[ECMO3]

Absolutely. It’s a question of Natural Justice. Hostile spells should get saves or attack rolls in all but the most unusual cases. Basic principle!

Why should a touch spell with a save automatically hit, but a touch spell without anything mentioned need an attack roll to hit?

 

[ECMO3]

You're kidding, right? You're arguing that touch is a ranged attack?

No actually according to the 5E rules on spells "touch" is a range, just like "XX feet" or "self". It is not a mechanic, an attack or anything. It is specifically the range for a spell as noted in the description above.

It is not an attack at all. I am the one arguing the opposite.

Also when it comes to spells "ranged attack" vs "melee attack" are specified in the spell's description and have nothing to do with the range of the spell or the caster's reach.

Good God almighty.

You said, "When I cast a spell, either I can automatically touch someone who does not want to be touched or I can't automatically touch someone who does not want to be touched."

That is clearly untrue because of the designers.

It is not "clearly" untrue. Nowhere do the designers state, nor suggest that I can't automatically touch someone I target with a spell, and clearly I can touch people with some touch spells and effect them even when they are harmful and even when they get a save.

You will need to talk to them if you want the all or nothing consistency of your statement there.

There is nothing inconsistent about it. Nowhere does it say I can't automatically touch someone with a touch spell.

Dispel Magic does nothing to the target. Like at all. It only affects spells.

Right, it can be cast on an enemy under the effect of a spell who does not want it cast on him and it is canceled. He gets no save, you don't have to make any attack roll .... kind of like we are talking about with Dispel Good and Evil.

 

[Maxperson]

No actually according to the 5E rules on spells "touch" is a range, just like "XX feet" or "self". It is not a mechanic, an attack or anything. It is specifically the range for a spell as noted in the description above.

It is not an attack at all. I am the one arguing the opposite.

Also when it comes to spells "ranged attack" vs "melee attack" are specified in the spell's description and have nothing to do with the range of the spell or the caster's reach.



It is not "clearly" untrue. Nowhere do the designers state, nor suggest that I can't automatically touch someone I target with a spell, and clearly I can touch people with some touch spells and effect them even when they are harmful and even when they get a save.

You do realize that "doesn't state" =/= "can do." You cannot do anything the rules don't state unless the DM okays it via a ruling. The don't state that you can automatically touch someone you target with a spell, so you can't unless the DM says you can.

Right, it can be cast on an enemy under the effect of a spell who does not want it cast on him and it is canceled. He gets no save, you don't have to make any attack roll .... kind of like we are talking about with Dispel Good and Evil.

It cannot be cast on the enemy. It can only be cast on the spells around the enemy you target.

 

[Stalker0]

You cannot do anything the rules don't state unless the DM okays it via a ruling. The don't state that you can automatically touch someone you target with a spell, so you can't unless the DM says you can.

Very true....but of course, the rules also don't state that dispel evil and good requires a save or an attack roll. And so....the spell doesn't require that unless the DM says so.

 

[Maxperson]

Very true....but of course, the rules also don't state that dispel evil and good requires a save or an attack roll. And so....the spell doesn't require that unless the DM says so.

Right. The OP is questioning the auto hit because the caster missed the athletics check to stay on the dragon as well as the dex check to catch himself. In an uncontrolled fall off of a dragon, an attack roll is not only reasonable, but really it's generous.

 

[TheSword]

Why should a touch spell with a save automatically hit, but a touch spell without anything mentioned need an attack roll to hit?

I get what you’re saying, and it’s a fair point. But I think we’re coming at this from different directions. I revise my original point about not being touched if you don’t want to be touched. You are right - that is too specific.

Instead let me explain it this way. There is a basic principle replicated across a huge number of spells that if you don’t want something to affect you, whether player or NPC, you have the ability to resist. Either by actively avoiding the attack (AC) or by throwing your energy into resisting the effect (Save). There are hostile exceptions but they are exceedingly rare.

Meanwhile there is a whole class of touch spells that don’t have this requirement as standard because they are usually beneficial and it is assumed the person affected wants to be. Presumably the designers didn’t want to add text and caveats to every spell like this just for the one in a thousand chance someone wouldn’t want to be cured. You seem to treat beneficial spells as if they were intentionally designed to overcome all defenses. When in fact the text just doesn’t need a thousand extra words to say something that is largely redundant.

However let’s take another scenario. I have a player who doesn’t want a fly spell to be cast on him. The other player tries to cast Fly on him against his will. The first player said they want to actively resist this. It sounds like because it’s not in the text you wouldn’t allow the player any defense against that effect - to try and leap out of the way or fend the wizard off with a weapon. I think this would be a mistake because resisting beneficial spells is not envisioned in the original framing of spell. If it did it would be treated like other spells folks want to resist like shocking grasp or inflict wounds and either allow a save or an attack roll.

There is an even more fundamental point behind this. I try and give a PC broad autonomy over their characters wherever possible. I don’t give them broad autonomy over other characters.

Direct control over a PC for possession or Domination is usually a temporary measure. I have no problem with a cure spell automatically working on a player for that reason. Being unable to control your character as a player is generally not great so as a DM being generous in overcoming that is a good thing.

By the same token in the case of the BBEG possessed dragon - a creature designed by the DM to be a particular challenge - the DM has huge latitude in deciding the abilities of monsters. This can easily be justified in game by the length of time the dragon has been possessed or event the sheer fury of the dragon. Or as Maxperson said the fact that they were all hurtling through the air. Either way this is (as it is in the case of player who doesn’t want to fly) totally within the rules of the game for the DM to make judgement calls around sensible exceptions to the normal running of the game where it is warranted.

Folks in my games that don’t like that can raise it and have a discussion about style in the same way they would if they didn’t like any other judgement call. I hope that explains my position better.

 

[Hriston]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned (afaics) the 4d6 force damage called out in dimension door that could arguably apply for attempting to teleport into a place already occupied by a creature, if that "place" were interpreted to be the space controlled by the dragon. Personally, though, like the OP, I would allow the spell to work, treating the dragon's back as the "floor" of the desired spot to which the wizard and cleric would teleport on the wizard's turn and putting them in adjacent spaces just above the dragon's. At this point, therefore, they would be in "free fall" above the dragon rather than supported by it.

What would happen next, in my game, would depend on initiative order. The wizard has already used their action to cast the spell, so assuming no movement on the wizard's part, their turn would end with the wizard and cleric in their spaces above the dragon's space. If the dragon's turn intervenes between the teleportation and the cleric's turn, then the dragon would continue its flying movement out from under the two PCs, and they would both fall. This could be avoided, however, if necessary, by the wizard holding the spell's effect until some perceivable circumstance after the dragon's turn and before the cleric's turn, if one can be arrived at, like the attack of some ally whose turn happens between the two. In either case, though, when the dragon moves, the wizard falls, so hopefully they have feather fall prepared.

The cleric's turn, assuming it happens before the dragon's, begins with the cleric in free fall just above the dragon. They would need to enter the dragon's space in order to treat its back as terrain and not to begin falling immediately by taking the Climb onto a Bigger Creature action from DMG, p 271. You can only enter a hostile creature's space if it's two sizes larger or smaller, so a green dragon would need to be an adult or older, or the presumably medium-sized cleric couldn't land on it and would begin falling immediately. If the cleric was small, it could be a young green dragon. For the purpose of this example, I'm treating the use of this action as an exception to the general (albeit unstated afaics) rule that falling is resolved instantaneously. I would not, for example, simply allow the cleric to use their action to reach out and touch the dragon before falling. This is based on an assumption that the general rules assume characters have a place to stand or some other means of support rather than being in free fall. In this way, use of the action is operating somewhat like a saving throw except it would use the cleric's action to change the default situation which is that the cleric is in free fall and falling instantly.

According to the optional rule, I would ask the cleric's player for a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the dragon's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to successfully land on the dragon's back. On a failure, they would fall instantly. If successful, the dragon would have a chance on its turn, again according to the optional rule, to dislodge the cleric as an action by making a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the cleric's choice of a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the cleric is again successful and still maintaining concentration on dispel evil and good, only then could the cleric, on their next turn, use their action to touch the dragon and break the enchantment.

In the second situation, where the cleric has a solid surface on which to stand and has managed to come within five feet of the dragon, I would not require an attack roll but would allow the cleric to use their action to touch the dragon as the spell describes.

 

[Stalker0]

Instead let me explain it this way. There is a basic principle replicated across a huge number of spells that if you don’t want something to affect you, whether player or NPC, you have the ability to resist. Either by actively avoiding the attack (AC) or by throwing your energy into resisting the effect (Save). There are hostile exceptions but they are exceedingly rare.

Meanwhile there is a whole class of touch spells that don’t have this requirement as standard because they are usually beneficial and it is assumed the person affected wants to be. Presumably the designers didn’t want to add text and caveats to every spell like this just for the one in a thousand chance someone wouldn’t want to be cured. You seem to treat beneficial spells as if they were intentionally designed to overcome all defenses. When in fact the text just doesn’t need a thousand extra words to say something that is largely redundant.

However let’s take another scenario. I have a player who doesn’t want a fly spell to be cast on him. The other player tries to cast Fly on him against his will. The first player said they want to actively resist this. It sounds like because it’s not in the text you wouldn’t allow the player any defense against that effect - to try and leap out of the way or fend the wizard off with a weapon. I think this would be a mistake because resisting beneficial spells is not envisioned in the original framing of spell. If it did it would be treated like other spells folks want to resist like shocking grasp or inflict wounds and either allow a save or an attack roll.
...

By the same token in the case of the BBEG possessed dragon - a creature designed by the DM to be a particular challenge - the DM has huge latitude in deciding the abilities of monsters. This can easily be justified in game by the length of time the dragon has been possessed or event the sheer fury of the dragon. Or as Maxperson said the fact that they were all hurtling through the air. Either way this is (as it is in the case of player who doesn’t want to fly) totally within the rules of the game for the DM to make judgement calls around sensible exceptions to the normal running of the game where it is warranted.

I'll fall back to my notes a few posts ago. I do think this position is a fine one. You have a special BBEG experience, and you made some custom rulings to ensure a good experience. That I have no issue with.

My concern is for the people that think there is no ruling needed here, that dispel evil and good is simply "incorrect" and it "of course has a save or something".

That is the part where I disagree. Your notes above are correct that it would exceptionally rare for a beneficial spell to be resisted, so why bother with rules for it when 5e is the "rulings not rules" edition. But on the counterpoint, it would be exceedingly rare for a possessing spirit to want to be ejected from the person it is possessing. So we should assume the default experience would be "a ghost would very much like for dispel evil and good to not work". So the fact that the spell in two versions of the game does not provide an attack roll or save to me indicates the designers intended the spell to work automatically.... that is the intended default game experience.

 

[Hriston]

After some reflection, although I might resolve the players' declared actions in a similar way to what I posted above, I really don't think the rules support characters taking actions while in free fall, so the exploit essentially wouldn't work as stated because once the PCs teleported to the space above the dragon, they would instantly plummet to the ground before any action was possible.

There is a way it could work using feather fall, but it strikes me as a little bit cheesy. It would depend on a wizard-cleric-dragon initiative order or a third party who could cast feather fall so the wizard could ready dimension door to replicate that order. Instead of aiming for the dragon's back, the wizard would teleport them to a spot sixty feet above the dragon and then cast feather fall. On the cleric's turn, they would fall to the level of the dragon, falling at a rate of 10 ft/s, and would have about 2.5 seconds in which the dragon would be within reach to use their action to touch the dragon.

 

[NotAYakk]

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.

I'd treat that as a grapple.

The grapple rules say you can't grapple a creature more than 1 size larger; I houserule them to say "if the creature you grapple is more than 1 size larger, their speed is not reduced and you move along with the creature".

Using the chain to secure the grapple without a hand, I'd treat as maybe a 2nd grapple or an attack roll.

Escaping from the grapple (by the dragon) would drop the grappler by default. I might allow a grappler to resist being dropped with acrobatics.