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

[plisnithus8]

Oki we did not have a clue about all these preconditions in the first OP, but combat going of with 30 ppl? the wizard trying to dispel focussing on a most fearsome mummy?

Nah, no without altering my previous line of arguments based on other preconditions,
No way anyone sees the invisible flying EK even if his armor clanks like big ben at noon, there is plenty of other clanking and noise going on in the room.

I tried to simplify the originsl post by leaving out all the details. I wasn't going for a specific answer. But then the details were asked fir so given. I known they change things so now a specific situation answer can be looked at instead if a general.

 

[Oofta]

HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THE SCENE TO YOUR PLAYERS AND BE TRUE TO RAW?

The rules don't, and can't cover every situation. Sometimes the DM has to make a call based on the scene.

I've given you examples of how I handle it, other DMs are going to handle it differently. We're not discussing a board game. It's not computer code. It's dynamic and fluid and messy sometimes. As long as the DM is logical and consistent in their reasoning and people are having fun, it's being done right.

Welcome to D&D.

 

[plisnithus8]

The rules don't, and can't cover every situation. Sometimes the DM has to make a call based on the scene.

I've given you examples of how I handle it, other DMs are going to handle it differently. We're not discussing a board game. It's not computer code. It's dynamic and fluid and messy sometimes. As long as the DM is logical and consistent in their reasoning and people are having fun, it's being done right.

Welcome to D&D.

Exactly. That was the intent of my original post. Our DM is rather new to DMing. I tried to assist him as I could without interferring too much. I thought it ws an interesting set if circumstances, asked around other d&d tables nearby, and posted here just to see what other interpretations might be.

And just ti give a bit more context, my eldritch knight had been offered a deal by a lich. It offered saftey from its armies and the invisible armor if I would fetch his wand. He gave me a deadline so My character wanted to get it quickly and not be slowed (or stopped) by discussing with ghe rest of the party. So he grabbed the wand, turned invisible, asked his familar to turn cast fly on him, and tried to zip out and head to the lich.

 

[Coroc]

Exactly. That was the intent of my original post. Our DM is rather new to DMing. I tried to assist him as I could without interferring too much. I thought it ws an interesting set if circumstances, asked around other d&d tables nearby, and posted here just to see what other interpretations might be.

And just ti give a bit more context, my eldritch knight had been offered a deal by a lich. It offered saftey from its armies and the invisible armor if I would fetch his wand. He gave me a deadline so My character wanted to get it quickly and not be slowed (or stopped) by discussing with ghe rest of the party. So he grabbed the wand, turned invisible, asked his familar to turn cast fly on him, and tried to zip out and head to the lich.

Uh that is a mean intra party plot , how did his fellows react to this little treason ?

 

[plisnithus8]

Uh that is a mean intra party plot , how did his fellows react to this little treason ?

The party forsn't know what happened; they had no idea what the wand was. The eldritch knight rejoined them after they exited the dungeon as if nothing happened. He was suspicious of the lich, but when he prayed to his god, he was encouraged to go along with the plan. He did hand over the wand (though he considered using it to fight the lich). I'm sure his choices will have grave consequences.

 

[discosoc]

See my post above, you are right but this does not apply, imho the others have by RAW no single clue that a flying wand is something other than just this.

A flying wand that's moving as if being wielded by a person... I'm not sure how much you've seen of mimes, but it takes a great deal of talent to make something you're holding look like it's moving on its own when you're "invisible." You're basically just removing player agency by telling your players they their characters can't reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person.

 

[plisnithus8]

A flying wand that's moving as if being wielded by a person... I'm not sure how much you've seen of mimes, but it takes a great deal of talent to make something you're holding look like it's moving on its own when you're "invisible." You're basically just removing player agency by telling your players they their characters can't reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person.

There's not much need of miming here; it's a few seconds of a wand flying overhead. It's not bring waved around. The flyers arms aren't swaying with its footsteps.

If the other players are supposed to "reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person" does that mean that that would also be their first assumption when seeing an animated object? Anecdotally, I've never heard players' first assumption be that a flying sword is held by an invisible creature.

 

[discosoc]

There's not much need of miming here; it's a few seconds of a wand flying overhead. It's not bring waved around. The flyers arms aren't swaying with its footsteps.

If the other players are supposed to "reasonably conclude that a floating want might possibly be held by an invisible person" does that mean that that would also be their first assumption when seeing an animated object? Anecdotally, I've never heard players' first assumption be that a flying sword is held by an invisible creature.

But if a player wants to believe it's a person holding the want, why prevent that? It sounds like the GM is just trying to "beat" the players with semantics because he thinks the scene should play out a certain way.

 

[plisnithus8]

But if a player wants to believe it's a person holding the want, why prevent that? It sounds like the GM is just trying to "beat" the players with semantics because he thinks the scene should play out a certain way.

Because that it is just meta-gaming because the dispel player knows the knight player is invisible. Saying that a character "wants to believe" there is an invisible creature sounds similar to saying a character believes she should drop her sword to use fire on this unknown monster because that player has read in the Monster Manual that fire is a troll's weakness. If I were DMing that, I'd probably have the player roll a nature check to see what she knows about trolls just like I'd have them roll a perception to know about the invisible creature.

In the actuality of this situation, she did roll and fail the perception check. The DM had no pre-conceived notion of how the scene would play out because I was the player who in the moment whi devided to turn invisible and fly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And then a metagame argument broke out.