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

[ECMO3]

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 don't believe this is the intent any more. The spells that are intended to require an attack roll say so in the spell description (for example Shocking Grasp). If a spell requires an attack roll, it will say so in the description, regardless of the range of the spell.

Certainly in the 2024 rules there are multiple objectively harmful spells with a range of touch that don't require an attack roll and many more that do require an attack roll. There are fewer harmful touch spells in the 2014 rules that don't require an attack roll, but there still are some. They would not list the requirement for an attack roll on some spells with range of touch if the intent was for all of them to have an attack roll requirement against an unwilling foe.

 

[James Gasik]

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).

Oh you're right, I somehow forgot the spell has a duration. Derp!

 

[James Gasik]

I don't believe this is the intent any more. The spells that are intended to require an attack roll say so in the spell description (for example Shocking Grasp). If a spell requires an attack roll, it will say so in the description, regardless of the range of the spell.

Certainly in the 2024 rules there are multiple objectively harmful spells with a range of touch that don't require an attack roll and many more that do require an attack roll. There are fewer harmful touch spells in the 2014 rules that don't require an attack roll, but there still are some. They would not list the requirement for an attack roll on some spells with range of touch if the intent was for all of them to have an attack roll requirement against an unwilling foe.

For example, look at Bestow Curse. It has a range of Touch, but there is no attack roll- only that the target make a Wisdom save. Being able to avoid it is simply not an option as it's not a Dex save (and the Dodge action would affect it).

See also Contagion or Inflict Wounds. Now you can infer from this that offensive spells with touch range should require a saving throw, but in this case, the "Break Enchantment" function of Dispel Evil and Good is not an offensive action. It removes a harmful status effect- it's no different than Greater Restoration in this regard- a spell that can also remove the Charmed condition.

Dispel Evil and Good is only unique in it's ability to end possession (I think the only other way around that is Magic Circle or Hallow- well, I think Dispel Magic would work against Magic Jar). The argument seems to be that "well, the person possessing the body would attempt to resist", but by this logic, you'd be forced to make an attack roll against an ally who has been the target of Dominate Person when trying to use Greater Restoration on them. Which the spell doesn't require any more than DE&G does.

Plus, imagine how this plays out in game. The super high AC Fighter gets possessed by a ghost. The party's options are to knock them out or use DE&G- both of which have the same issue of how do we even hit this guy? LOL. Better hope you have someone who can Turn Undead or something, I guess.*

*I'm fully aware that some DM's will read this sentence and say "yes, exactly! Serves them right for playing a high AC character!"