D&D 5E How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?

[Aenorgreen]

I was about to agree with everything you just said, but then you said the knight couldn't run (fly) without rolling iniative. Thr knight was hidden from the wizard when he took the wand - he was on a lower level in a different room. He decided to fly while still hidden from the wizard in another room, used fly to move across the room he was in, up into the room with the wizard before she had an opportunity to even consider the wand that just appeared might be animated or held by an invisible creature. She was not looking down the ladder, as she was finishing up with a confrontation with a mummy. The wizard would have no reason to do something about him snatching the wand before he ran/flew.

The bolded part is where I think the error is. If you are not in rounds, and there is conflicting desires in timing, then initiative should be roiled. You made an assumption that there was no time for the wizard to do something. That is not known. That is why initiative is part of the game, to resove those conflicts. If the knight wins, he is able to move away before the wizard gets to act. If the wizard wins, he is able to act before the knight gets away. It is basically the purpose of that mechanic.

 

[plisnithus8]

The One Ring basically does cast invisibility as an effect. There's a difference between a vampires "charm"(in quotes because it isn't at all like charm person) and an invisibility effect like one generated from an item. Special abilities like the vampire "charm" can't be dispelled. That's why it says magic effect under the the dispel rules.

I still read it differently: the difference I see is that it says the weilder of the staff casts a spell using the rod, that spell can be dispelled. On the other hand dispel failed to disrupt the staff's magical properties, which to me would be the One Ring turning its wearer invisible - there is no spell cast, the wearer turns invisible whether he wants to or not.

If you look at other 5e magic rings, some just say "while wearing the ring" and others say that and "as an action" you can do something like cast a spell.
The One Ring eould be in the former category, doesn't require an action or for the wearer to cast anything. The magical property of it turns the wearer and itself invisible.

 

[plisnithus8]

The bolded part is where I think the error is. If you are not in rounds, and there is conflicting desires in timing, then initiative should be roiled. You made an assumption that there was no time for the wizard to do something. That is not known. That is why initiative is part of the game, to resove those conflicts. If the knight wins, he is able to move away before the wizard gets to act. If the wizard wins, he is able to act before the knight gets away. It is basically the purpose of that mechanic.

You said the wizard would get a chance to dispel before the knight "starts to run." It's cause and effect. If he didn't act first to move, then she would have no reason to even think about him, much less cast a spell to stop him from doing something he isn't doing yet. Perhaps initiative and/or dispel magic interupts his flight while he is above her, but he would have to run/fly first to get there.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Actually I did not say "starts to run." I said the wizard could act before the knight gets away. As I said, when there is conflicting desires in timing, roll initiative. It is esentially the same as if a gunman walks into a saloon and sees his hated foe. Both want to draw and shoot each other. Does one of them get to go first just because he was the one who walked into the saloon? No, that is what initiative is for. It doesn't really matter if the knight was moving, it triggers initiative.

 

[Maxperson]

I still read it differently: the difference I see is that it says the weilder of the staff casts a spell using the rod, that spell can be dispelled. On the other hand dispel failed to disrupt the staff's magical properties, which to me would be the One Ring turning its wearer invisible - there is no spell cast, the wearer turns invisible whether he wants to or not.

If you look at other 5e magic rings, some just say "while wearing the ring" and others say that and "as an action" you can do something like cast a spell.
The One Ring eould be in the former category, doesn't require an action or for the wearer to cast anything. The magical property of it turns the wearer and itself invisible.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. For me, a spell generates an invisibility effect and The One Ring generates an invisibility effect. There's no difference in the effects, only in the paths that got them there.

 

[plisnithus8]

Actually I did not say "starts to run." I said the wizard could act before the knight gets away. As I said, when there is conflicting desires in timing, roll initiative. It is esentially the same as if a gunman walks into a saloon and sees his hated foe. Both want to draw and shoot each other. Does one of them get to go first just because he was the one who walked into the saloon? No, that is what initiative is for. It doesn't really matter if the knight was moving, it triggers initiative.

Sorry. I responded to your response, thinking it was Ovinomancer, to whom my quote that you replied to addressed:

So, after the knight snatched the wand AND the wizard decides to do something about it, initiative should be rolled right there -- before the knight starts to run.

 

[plisnithus8]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. For me, a spell generates an invisibility effect and The One Ring generates an invisibility effect. There's no difference in the effects, only in the paths that got them there.

I agree the effects are the same but think the path matters.
I'm fine if we disagree will let it go but wouldn't mind if others weigh in.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually I did not say "starts to run." I said the wizard could act before the knight gets away. As I said, when there is conflicting desires in timing, roll initiative. It is esentially the same as if a gunman walks into a saloon and sees his hated foe. Both want to draw and shoot each other. Does one of them get to go first just because he was the one who walked into the saloon? No, that is what initiative is for. It doesn't really matter if the knight was moving, it triggers initiative.

This. You don't have discreet total actions outside of combat unless your DM is running everything in rounds (which, while I suppose it could be done, would be very weird). So the knight isn't entitled to getting a full combat round's of actions and movements in before anyone else can react. This is why the game provides initiative as a mechanic to resolve timing disputes.

 

[Elon Tusk]

This. You don't have discreet total actions outside of combat unless your DM is running everything in rounds (which, while I suppose it could be done, would be very weird). So the knight isn't entitled to getting a full combat round's of actions and movements in before anyone else can react. This is why the game provides initiative as a mechanic to resolve timing disputes.

You saying "This" to Aenorgreen saying "Actually I did not say 'starts to run'" makes no sense.
I agreed with everything you said except the "starts to run," which you did say.
The knight would have to move into the room with the wizard before anything else would happen.
Rolling initiative before he moves makes no sense.
I agreed that his movement could be interrupted after he had moved into the room with the wizard.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You saying "This" to Aenorgreen saying "Actually I did not say 'starts to run'" makes no sense.

Strangely, [MENTION=6793508]Aenorgreen[/MENTION] said much more that "Actually I did not say 'starts to run'".

I agreed with everything you said except the "starts to run," which you did say.
The knight would have to move into the room with the wizard before anything else would happen.
Rolling initiative before he moves makes no sense.
I agreed that his movement could be interrupted after he had moved into the room with the wizard.

Wait, are you plisnithus8? Why are you posting under two different accounts?