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

[ECMO3]

It does have a save in 2024. He has just missed out that part from the description for some reason.

I did not miss it. It has a save. That is not the point. You can touch the enemy automatically whether he saves or not, and the save is a Constitution save which does not imply it has anything to do with dodging your hand.

The whole argument against Dispel Evil and good is that you should not be able to automatically touch an enemy.

 

[ECMO3]

Inflict Wounds has a saving throw that represents the defenders attempt to resist the effect. You’re missing that crucial detail in your description.

But the point is the creature does not want to be touched and yet you can automatically touch it when you cast the spell. Whether it makes its save or not you still touch it and it still takes damage. The save does not stop you from touching it.

So how do you explain that you can automatically touch an "unwilling" target with one spell with a range of touch, but with another spell with a range of touch you need to roll an attack roll to do this even if the spell description does not require an attack roll for either spell.

What about making a saving throw lets you bypass the alleged requirement for an attack roll to touch an enemy.

 

[ECMO3]

Thanks. Then it's not an example of what is being discussed.

It is exactly an example. You automatically touch the creature you target. The save does not stop the target from being touched and it still takes damage even if it makes the save.

This is the whole argument you should have to roll an attack roll to touch someone who does not want to be touched. That makes no sense with respect the way the magic system is designed. Not for spells with a range of touch, not with spells for a different range.

 

[James Gasik]

I would imagine, if pressed, some of the people in favor of an attack roll for touch spells would rather go back to "need to hit and the target gets a save" design, like how 3e Inflict Wounds worked. 5e sought to streamline this process, ditching some die rolls and hopefully making these sorts of spells more reliable, but from the arguments I'm seeing, it appears that some in this thread want spells to go in the opposite direction.

My only point of contention with that is, let's not do that before the game also allows you to solve problems without magic. For it's entire lifespan, there have been problems that pretty much require magic to fix- oh your all-martial party fought a medusa? Uh....quick, let's have a spellcasting NPC they can find, or make up something about smearing the medusa's blood on the statue!

-

I've been converting some old modules to 5e lately, and I'm always floored when the module presents a problem that can only be solved via very specific spells (or worse, spells that the party won't even have access to)!

UK1 for example has this bit where it's like "uh, you could solve this problem with dispel magic. Mind you, the adventure is for levels 4-7, so you might not even have anyone who can cast the spell, and even if you do, the effect was cast by a 20th level archmage..."

Like, uh, what are you supposed to do if you don't have this particular magic bullet lined up? Or you do, but you fail because the bar was set too high? The answer some people seem to have is "oh well, better luck next time", lol. Which I mean, if it works for them, fine, but I have serious reservations about basically telling my players to "roll good or else". Especially if I would have to step outside the game's rules to put them in that situation!

 

[Maxperson]

It is exactly an example. You automatically touch the creature you target. The save does not stop the target from being touched and it still takes damage even if it makes the save.

It's not at all the same as auto touch, auto full effect with no save. Apples do not equal oranges.

This is the whole argument you should have to roll an attack roll to touch someone who does not want to be touched.

No. The argument is that you should have to roll an attack to touch someone if THERE IS NO SAVE.

 

[ECMO3]

It's not at all the same as auto touch, auto full effect with no save. Apples do not equal oranges.

It is not apples and oranges. You still touch him if he makes the save, he still takes damage if he makes the save. He still suffers effects from the spell if he makes a save.

No. The argument is that you should have to roll an attack to touch someone if THERE IS NO SAVE.

What is the logic there? 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. the spell itself describes any effects and what methods are available to mitigate those effects. Whether they get to save against the effect of the spell is irrelevant to the argument presented that you should not automatically be able to touch an enemy with a touch spell.

Why should it be automatic to touch an enemy when they get a save on a different spell but not when they don't get a save on that particular spell and no attack roll is called for in either?

Moreover why is it an attack roll and not a save to touch the guy? If your argument is an enemy (in this case the possessing entity) should always get either a save or an attack roll to resist at least part of a spell effects, why does the ghost possessing someone require a successful attack roll against the guy being possessed to be forced out instead of making its own unsuccessful save to be forced out when the spell itself requires neither of these in the description?

 

[Maxperson]

What is the logic there? 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. Whether they get to save against the effect is irrelevant

Talk to the designers about that one. But from a sheer balance perspective, there should pretty much never be an auto success for a hit AND no save in the same spell. That's broken on its face.

Magic Missile is a sacred cow and should have a to hit roll or save involved. That it doesn't is why it has been a staple favorite of players since the game was created.

Why should it be automatic to touch an enemy when they get a save but not when they don't get a save?

The designers are inconsistent. In my view all hostile touch spells should require a hit roll of some sort, even if it means bringing back touch AC in order to balance it properly.