Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Harzel" data-source="post: 7220150" data-attributes="member: 6857506"><p>I assume what you are really asking is whether we agree with those assumptions. My short answer is 'no'.</p><p></p><p>1-7. Ignoring a few nit-picks, these sound fine.</p><p>8. I don't know what this ruling is in response to. As a DM, I certainly would not spontaneously blurt this out. One thing that has not been clarified is what (if anything) the player of the wizard* asserted about what the wizard PC knew. As for the ruling itself, "the wand is not flying on its own and the wand is carried by a magical effect caused by a spell and not an inherent magical ability" is a bit vague. I can't quite tell whether that excludes a spell cast on the wand itself or not. I'll assume it does exclude that.</p><p>8a. Something not mentioned is that it is possible that the wizard will notice that there is an invisible creature involved. With a 15' ceiling, even with the wizard being a halfing, that is not that much clearance if the flyer passes overhead or nearly overhead. If the flyer comes within, let's say, 20 ft. of the wizard, she may get some kind of Perception check to see if she notices. It will depend on how the conversation about what the PC knows goes and exactly what is happening in the room. If she notices that there is an invisible creature, then a lot of things change after this.</p><p>9. What? The wizard says, "stop it"? I thought that "stop it" was part of the player's action declaration for the wizard, as in, "I cast Dispel Magic to stop it" or "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic". I really need to know what the player's action declaration was. I'll assume it's, "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic".</p><p>11. To me, this assumption (not asking for clarification) precludes a good adjudication. If I nevertheless had to, I guess there are a couple ways this could go.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If nothing had been said about what the wizard believed (it's still a little unclear what actually happened in that regard), then I would have only the wizard player's action declaration to go on. If it was, "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic", then the only possible target explicitly mentioned is "it", referring to the wand. So the spell is cast on the wand and nothing happens.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If I take the somewhat vague description of what the wizard believed to mean that she did not think that there was a spell in effect on the wand itself, then she would not cast Dispel on the wand. But I'm still in doubt about what effect she thinks she is choosing. To me, the most obvious description based on her action declaration would be "an effect that is causing the wand to move". Unfortunately for the wizard, there is no such effect - Fly enables flying, but does not actually cause movement.** If I'm will to stretch the implied description to "an effect that is enabling the wand to fly", then Fly is dispelled, but that's a real stretch IMO. All that said, I don't see any way that the Invisibility to get dispelled.</li> </ul><p></p><p>* By the way, is she a wizard or a bard? One time you seemed to say she was a bard. Not that it makes any difference.</p><p>** No, I'm not usually that lawyer-like. But in addition to being in a situation full of hypotheticals, there is PvP going on and so I would feel a need to be assiduously fair to both sides.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7220150, member: 6857506"] I assume what you are really asking is whether we agree with those assumptions. My short answer is 'no'. 1-7. Ignoring a few nit-picks, these sound fine. 8. I don't know what this ruling is in response to. As a DM, I certainly would not spontaneously blurt this out. One thing that has not been clarified is what (if anything) the player of the wizard* asserted about what the wizard PC knew. As for the ruling itself, "the wand is not flying on its own and the wand is carried by a magical effect caused by a spell and not an inherent magical ability" is a bit vague. I can't quite tell whether that excludes a spell cast on the wand itself or not. I'll assume it does exclude that. 8a. Something not mentioned is that it is possible that the wizard will notice that there is an invisible creature involved. With a 15' ceiling, even with the wizard being a halfing, that is not that much clearance if the flyer passes overhead or nearly overhead. If the flyer comes within, let's say, 20 ft. of the wizard, she may get some kind of Perception check to see if she notices. It will depend on how the conversation about what the PC knows goes and exactly what is happening in the room. If she notices that there is an invisible creature, then a lot of things change after this. 9. What? The wizard says, "stop it"? I thought that "stop it" was part of the player's action declaration for the wizard, as in, "I cast Dispel Magic to stop it" or "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic". I really need to know what the player's action declaration was. I'll assume it's, "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic". 11. To me, this assumption (not asking for clarification) precludes a good adjudication. If I nevertheless had to, I guess there are a couple ways this could go. [LIST] [*]If nothing had been said about what the wizard believed (it's still a little unclear what actually happened in that regard), then I would have only the wizard player's action declaration to go on. If it was, "I stop it by casting Dispel Magic", then the only possible target explicitly mentioned is "it", referring to the wand. So the spell is cast on the wand and nothing happens. [*]If I take the somewhat vague description of what the wizard believed to mean that she did not think that there was a spell in effect on the wand itself, then she would not cast Dispel on the wand. But I'm still in doubt about what effect she thinks she is choosing. To me, the most obvious description based on her action declaration would be "an effect that is causing the wand to move". Unfortunately for the wizard, there is no such effect - Fly enables flying, but does not actually cause movement.** If I'm will to stretch the implied description to "an effect that is enabling the wand to fly", then Fly is dispelled, but that's a real stretch IMO. All that said, I don't see any way that the Invisibility to get dispelled. [/LIST] * By the way, is she a wizard or a bard? One time you seemed to say she was a bard. Not that it makes any difference. ** No, I'm not usually that lawyer-like. But in addition to being in a situation full of hypotheticals, there is PvP going on and so I would feel a need to be assiduously fair to both sides. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you rule on this Dispell Magic?
Top