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!"

 

[TheSword]

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.

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.

You’re the DM you can rule it how you like. I just made it clear how I would improvise touching a creature that doesn’t want to be touched. Banishment and lightning bolts have saves to avoid/resist.

As other people have been said the touch spells that don’t require attack rolls or saving throws are generally beneficial. Hostile spells do require an attack rolls or saves.

You say there are examples of several hostile touch spells that don’t require either. Care to elaborate?

 

[James Gasik]

You’re the DM you can rule it how you like. I just made it clear how I would improve touching a creature that doesn’t want to be touched. Banishment and lightning bolts have saves to avoid/resist.

As other people have been said the touch spells that don’t require attack rolls or saving throws are generally beneficial. Hostile spells do require an attack rolls or saves.

You say there are examples of several hostile touch spells that don’t require either. Care to elaborate?

Just a question- what do you feel about ranged offensive spells that don't require attack rolls/saves? Is there something inherent about "touch" that you think would make it easier to avoid a spell effect?

Because the way I see it, shooting someone with an arrow should be harder than punching them.

 

[TheSword]

Just a question- what do you feel about ranged offensive spells that don't require attack rolls/saves? Is there something inherent about "touch" that you think would make it easier to avoid a spell effect?

Because the way I see it, shooting someone with an arrow should be harder than punching them.

Which ones?

I think it’s hard to discuss these things in an abstract sense. Is this a single corner case spell or a common occurance? This is why I also asked @ECMO3 for his examples.

My general principle is that offensive effects unless very minor and/or very costly should offer a save or require an attack roll.

 

[James Gasik]

Which ones?

I think it’s hard to discuss these things in an abstract sense. Is this a single corner case spell or a common occurance? This is why I also asked @ECMO3 for his examples.

My general principle is that offensive effects unless very minor and/or very costly should offer a save or require an attack roll.

Magic Missile is the most obvious, but there's also Heat Metal, Cloud of Daggers, and Reverse Gravity.

Oh and I guess I should mention Immovable Object, as it's actually an offensive touch spell with no save.

 

[TheSword]

Magic Missile is the most obvious, but there's also Heat Metal, Cloud of Daggers, and Reverse Gravity.

Oh and I guess I should mention Immovable Object, as it's actually an offensive touch spell with no save.

So I guess that fits with what I’ve said. A small handful of corner case spells that have very small damage compared to other spells of their level. Or in several of these cases very specific circumstances where they are useful.

You’re not going to make a basic principle of magic on Magic Missile are you? Its benefit and utility is precisely that it doesn’t follow the general rules. It’s the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Stalker0]

Which ones?

I think it’s hard to discuss these things in an abstract sense. Is this a single corner case spell or a common occurance? This is why I also asked @ECMO3 for his examples.

My general principle is that offensive effects unless very minor and/or very costly should offer a save or require an attack roll.

I think the trick is, which was well noted above. This spell is not offensive, it’s a recovery spell. It is removing a condition from a character (in this case banishment).

That is why it doesn’t have a save or attack

 

[TheSword]

I think the trick is, which was well noted above. This spell is not offensive, it’s a recovery spell. It is removing a condition from a character (in this case banishment).

That is why it doesn’t have a save or attack

Hang on there. This isn’t being used on a party member or an ally. The OP set the premise that this was the big boss fight of a campaign against a ghost possessed dragon. Hence in my opinion it being reasonable to expect an attack roll or a saving throw. No one I’ve seen thinks that you should have to make touch attacks against someone who wants to be touched.