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

[plisnithus8]

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

And, as I have said, not so strangely, the only part I see a problem with is your "starts to run" statement.

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

I apologize for the confusion, but I did address this earlier on this thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And, as I have said, not so strangely, the only part I see a problem with is your "starts to run" statement.

Which was clarified, yes? Did you need some kind of direct acknowledgement?

I apologize for the confusion, but I did address this earlier on this thread.

Huh, somehow that entire post was skipped, probably while I was responding.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Huh, somehow that entire post was skipped, probably while I was responding.

Yeah, that happens to me too.

 

[Elon Tusk]

...

 

[Harzel]

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.

Would you rule that the AC/saving throw bonus from wearing a Ring of Protection could be dispelled? If so, since (I assume) the ring itself is not affected, it seems like there would have to be some way to 'renew' the effect. How would that work? If you would rule the effect cannot be dispelled, what is the salient difference between this and an invisibility effect (not a cast spell) from an item?

 

[Maxperson]

Would you rule that the AC/saving throw bonus from wearing a Ring of Protection could be dispelled? If so, since (I assume) the ring itself is not affected, it seems like there would have to be some way to 'renew' the effect. How would that work? If you would rule the effect cannot be dispelled, what is the salient difference between this and an invisibility effect (not a cast spell) from an item?

Those would be special effects like vampire charm and would not be dispellable. Effects that duplicate spells like invisibility from a ring could be dispelled, but of course the target would just go invisible again the next round.

 

[Harzel]

Whereas I would have asked for clarification, rather than just assumed that the dispel would be on the wand. There could be magic propelling it, as well as someone invisible. Let's just say she wanted to cast dispel on the effect propelling the wand in order to "stop it", well the only effect going on would be invisibility, so that would be targeted.

So you are saying that despite the spell's requirement that the caster "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect", they can fail to do that and the spell will turn into sort of an AE that dispels the first effect it comes across? Would you allow a caster to do that explicitly, as by saying, "I cast Dispel Magic on the interior of the room"? Do you rule similarly for other single target spells?

 

[Maxperson]

So you are saying that despite the spell's requirement that the caster "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect", they can fail to do that and the spell will turn into sort of an AE that dispels the first effect it comes across? Would you allow a caster to do that explicitly, as by saying, "I cast Dispel Magic on the interior of the room"? Do you rule similarly for other single target spells?

No. The caster knows there is an effect going on right in the space that the wand is in. It's targeted.

 

[Harzel]

No. The caster knows there is an effect going on right in the space that the wand is in. It's targeted.

I disagree that the caster knows there is a magical effect there. It could be a poltergeist or an invisible stalker carrying the wand.

It still seems to me that you are treating the spell as an AE, since the only requirement you seem to be imposing is that the caster identify "the space" in which the presumed effect exists. Although in truth the caster did not even do that - you just inferred that from what she actually said.

By "the space that the wand is in" do you mean a 5 ft grid square? If so, then if there didn't happen to be any effect in that square, would you allow the spell to 'target' an effect in, say, an adjacent square? I'm just trying to understand what the scope of this implicit targeting mechanism is.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree that the caster knows there is a magical effect there. It could be a poltergeist or an invisible stalker carrying the wand.

Fine. Replace know with assume. That's not even relevant. What is relevant is that he's targeting an effect in that square.

It still seems to me that you are treating the spell as an AE, since the only requirement you seem to be imposing is that the caster identify "the space" in which the presumed effect exists. Although in truth the caster did not even do that - you just inferred that from what she actually said.

And the subsequent discussion. I'm not treating it as AOE.

By "the space that the wand is in" do you mean a 5 ft grid square? If so, then if there didn't happen to be any effect in that square, would you allow the spell to 'target' an effect in, say, an adjacent square? I'm just trying to understand what the scope of this implicit targeting mechanism is.

Why would I let a targeted spell go farther afield than what is targeted? It's not an AOE spell.