The Crimson Binome
Hero
Specifically for the case of invisibility, it's an effect that you may want to target even though you can't see it. This wording lets you target the effect anyway, as long as it's in range.
D&D 5E How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
- Thread starter Elon Tusk
- Start date
plisnithus8
Adventurer
There's a visible wand flying overhead, caused by magic.
Spell says it can target magical effect.
mrpopstar
Sparkly Dude
There is no magical effect causing this visible wand to fly overhead.
In order to target the effect, you would first have to investigate and deduce that the object is being carried by an invisible flying creature. -- You might be able to target the effect then?
(The whole scenario is rather silly, really.)
Last edited:
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
As a DM, I don't want my characters to fail at things they try to do purely because of semantics. If you see a wand fly by, and you want to dispel whatever magic is making it fly, cast dispel magic and tell me what you're trying to achieve, and I'll have it shoot for whatever is appropriate, be that a telekinesis spell on the wand, or an invisible, flying creature holding it.
plisnithus8
Adventurer
Flyer is aldo PC trying to avoid other players.
In your scenario helping Wizard succeed, flyer fsils.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Sure, and I'm not going to make him waste time and resources playing "guess the correct noun" either.
Waterbizkit
Explorer
This is one of those situations that is likely to be ruled differently depending on the group you're playing with. While there's obviously going to be plenty of overlap in how some of us would rule, the thread clearly shows that everyone is going to interpret such a convoluted situation differently and then apply rules as they see fit, rules which themselves may be interpreted differently at any given table.
Of course that's all obvious, so on to how I'd rule it.
For me the key to this one is in how I interpret and use the rules regarding invisibility and hiding. The invisible and flying PC never actually attempts to hide, at least not based on what I can recall reading in the OP. Because of this when that PC passes by the others they all know that there's some invisible, flying thing passing them by. They might not know who or what it is, but they know it's there and more importantly they know specifically where it is. Because of this the other PC can target the invisible, flying PC and dispel both spells. If Dispel Magic specified that it had to be a creature you could see that would be a whole new ballgame, but it doesn't.
By the by, notice how my ruling has nothing to do with the wand itself being visible or not. This is because in scenario as presented it doesn't matter in the slightest. At least not to me. If the invisible flier had decided to try and hide than maybe the wand being visible would play a part... say maybe advantage for the other PC on their perception check to notice the flying invisible PC carrying the wand.
Anyway, what a silly game we all play...
Of course that's all obvious, so on to how I'd rule it.
For me the key to this one is in how I interpret and use the rules regarding invisibility and hiding. The invisible and flying PC never actually attempts to hide, at least not based on what I can recall reading in the OP. Because of this when that PC passes by the others they all know that there's some invisible, flying thing passing them by. They might not know who or what it is, but they know it's there and more importantly they know specifically where it is. Because of this the other PC can target the invisible, flying PC and dispel both spells. If Dispel Magic specified that it had to be a creature you could see that would be a whole new ballgame, but it doesn't.
By the by, notice how my ruling has nothing to do with the wand itself being visible or not. This is because in scenario as presented it doesn't matter in the slightest. At least not to me. If the invisible flier had decided to try and hide than maybe the wand being visible would play a part... say maybe advantage for the other PC on their perception check to notice the flying invisible PC carrying the wand.
Anyway, what a silly game we all play...
Invisibility clearly states anything you wear or carry becomes invisible.
That is the real Problem here. Either the wand turns invisible as soon as it is picked up, then no one can cast dispel, because no one sees anything to target dispel.
The other variant i could not find in the RAW:
In former Editions, as soon as you interacted with something e.g. pick a wand up, the Standard invisibility ended.
In 5E only attacking or casting a spell ends the invisibility.
Asuming the DM somehow rules that the spell does not end e.g. because no one observed the guy while picking up the wand, then the target is clearly the wand and not some other effect, since no one did cast fly or invisibility on the wand and the invisibility did not include the wand, and it is only flying because it is attached to an invisible flying creature.
Since as stated the target is the wand nothing happens, since dispel Magic is not an area effect but needs a defined target.
That is the real Problem here. Either the wand turns invisible as soon as it is picked up, then no one can cast dispel, because no one sees anything to target dispel.
The other variant i could not find in the RAW:
In former Editions, as soon as you interacted with something e.g. pick a wand up, the Standard invisibility ended.
In 5E only attacking or casting a spell ends the invisibility.
Asuming the DM somehow rules that the spell does not end e.g. because no one observed the guy while picking up the wand, then the target is clearly the wand and not some other effect, since no one did cast fly or invisibility on the wand and the invisibility did not include the wand, and it is only flying because it is attached to an invisible flying creature.
Since as stated the target is the wand nothing happens, since dispel Magic is not an area effect but needs a defined target.
[MENTION=6802604]Waterbizkit[/MENTION] How do they clearly know where the invisible creature is? he could be in front, behind, above, below or in any position around the wand You cannot simply say there is an item carried by an invisible creature so the creature has to be exactly right there. Asume the wand is a sword: You cannot see if the creature is carrying the sword by ist tip by the hilt in the middle of the blade pointing it in front of him dragging it behind him Holding it above his head etc.
You can Interpret it like you want being the DM, but you see your logic is clearly flawed on this one.
You can Interpret it like you want being the DM, but you see your logic is clearly flawed on this one.
