Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7216939" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Somewhat obviously, it would be RAW. If you want to nitpick over targeting the wand instead of the invisible flying guy holding the wand, it is not at all a stretch to say the wand is -being held by- under the "effect" of the fly spell. It isn't flying by itself. The magic immediately occurring "around" (if you prefer) the wand, is the fly spell. If nothing else, the fly would be stripped off. If you want to say, because the wand was not invisible (which, is most certainly, also, NOT RAW, so I don't think we need any rules-lawyering nitpickers here) that the guy falls but stays invisible (since the source of that is the guy's armor and the guy wasn't "the target"), fine. I wouldn't, but you could. </p><p></p><p>As for quoting "attached to" that was just my knack for air quoting things in writing. I never meant, and didn't think it could possibly be confused with, for the reader to think that was a quote of the spell description. There is no exact term for "this energy field that is occurring around this thing [whether you want to say it's the wand or the guy holding the wand, the spell effect is happening around either/all of it] that this other energy field is designed to counteract"...so I went with "attached to it."</p><p> </p><p>Regardless, the OP asked [paraphrasing, don't be thrown by the quotation marks!] "How would you rule this scenario?" My response is what it is...and stands. Don't like it? That's fine. You're not playing at my table. But it is not an incorrect ruling or any worse than your interpretation of what could have happened in this situation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7216939, member: 92511"] Somewhat obviously, it would be RAW. If you want to nitpick over targeting the wand instead of the invisible flying guy holding the wand, it is not at all a stretch to say the wand is -being held by- under the "effect" of the fly spell. It isn't flying by itself. The magic immediately occurring "around" (if you prefer) the wand, is the fly spell. If nothing else, the fly would be stripped off. If you want to say, because the wand was not invisible (which, is most certainly, also, NOT RAW, so I don't think we need any rules-lawyering nitpickers here) that the guy falls but stays invisible (since the source of that is the guy's armor and the guy wasn't "the target"), fine. I wouldn't, but you could. As for quoting "attached to" that was just my knack for air quoting things in writing. I never meant, and didn't think it could possibly be confused with, for the reader to think that was a quote of the spell description. There is no exact term for "this energy field that is occurring around this thing [whether you want to say it's the wand or the guy holding the wand, the spell effect is happening around either/all of it] that this other energy field is designed to counteract"...so I went with "attached to it." Regardless, the OP asked [paraphrasing, don't be thrown by the quotation marks!] "How would you rule this scenario?" My response is what it is...and stands. Don't like it? That's fine. You're not playing at my table. But it is not an incorrect ruling or any worse than your interpretation of what could have happened in this situation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
Top