The party had an encounter with an Oni and one of the party's casters used Dispel Magic on the invisible creature. That led me to wonder a few things about how Dispel Magic works.
Does the spell require any targeting at all? If the caster just suspected there was someone invisible around, could they say, "I'm going to cast Dispel Magic at the invisibility" and one invisible thing within a 120' radius around them would be affected?
Would it matter if the invisible target was also hiding?
Would total cover matter?
In the case of the Oni, it later went into gaseous form and slipped into some cracks in the rocks to flee. Could that be dispeled as well?
I think that Dispel Magic is purposefully inclusive on the targeting, to allow more flexibility - it says, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range," and doesn't mention anything about being able to see it or target it, though it's fairly implicit that the entity you are targeting needs to exist.
I don't think I would allow a player to try to dispel magic on invisibility, unless they had some clue that a creature was actually there.
As for hiding - only the invisibility has been dispelled, so if the target is naturally hidden as well, I'm pretty sure they still be hidden.
It's an odd situation though, for sure!
As for dispelling gaseous form, whilst the target is slipping through gaps in rocks .... that sounds .... messy!
1. As per Jeremy Crawford here, "Dispel magic can target a discrete magical effect on a creature or an object, provided that effect is choosable. In other words, you have to be aware of it to be able to choose it as the target." You need to be able to perceive the invisibility effect in order to target it.
Alternatively, you can target the invisible creature - you don't need to see it, just know it's there. In which case, you break the effect for that creature alone (read on the above link, with an example with Slow).
2. Yes. Since you need to be aware of the creature/effect, you can't target a hiding creature until you notice them (with passive perception, or actively looking for them).
3. Total (heavy) concealment wouldn't matter. Total cover generally means they're behind a wall or something, so I'd be careful about how you handle it. As far as I know, "line of effect" and such complexities haven't made it from previous editions, but the DM may want to disallow targeting things in other rooms unless you have some special means of verifying (such as Clairvoyance or a familiar). Unless you want random Cloudkills in the party's room from two floors above.
All in all, this can be a discussion on its own. I have a few questions myself about this topic. :p
4. Sure it could. Details about handling it don't come with the package deal, so it's up to the DM. I'd personally handle it like Etherealness spitting you out in an occupied space, or a wrong target in Teleport.
It looks like there's some contention in terms of how the spell works. I'm not surprised. When I searched for this question online, I got mostly conflicting answers, which is why I was curious how people here felt about it and how people play it at their tables.
I feel like the answers to #3 and #4 might depend on how you feel about #1. If the caster is targeting the location of one creature, object, or magical effect within range, then, "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." (PHB, p.204) applies and total cover would prevent Dispel Magic from reaching the target when it emits from the caster. For example, it would mean you couldn't dispel an effect on someone who was behind a door or on on the other side of a wall or in a room above/below you within range. Alternately, if you feel that's a bunch of nonsense and the spell just hits the effect without any sort of targeting required, then total cover would no longer matter and therefore, the gaseous form in the cracks of the rock wouldn't benefit from total cover.
Which leads us back to the initial question, does Dispel Magic require any targeting at all? Or does it just... happen?
I think that settles total cover then. As for dispelling invisibility, how specific do you need to be in targeting the effect? There's no requirement that you see the target, but do you need to be aware of the target well enough to guess the location in space where the target is? Do you just need to be aware that there's something invisible nearby? Could you just dispel invisibility on an uninformed guess just in case there's an invisible target within range?
That's what I was getting at with the idea of an invisible target or an invisible/hidden target. Does it even matter? Am I sweating the details too much?
This happened again in today's session. The party was fighting a coven of green hags and a hag went invisible and attempted to flee. The bard cast dispel magic on the invisibility. I allowed it because the Invisible Passage action clearly says it is magical, but I'm still not entirely satisfied with the idea of dispeling something you can't perceive. Hag invisibility is a little more robust than normal invisibility so she was effectively hidden in addition to being invisible as far as conventional perception is concerned.
Invisible Passage. The hag magically turns invisible until she attacks or casts a spell, or until her concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell). While invisible, she leaves no physical evidence of her passage, so she can be tracked only by magic. Any equipment she wears or carries is invisible with her.
What DC would I use in this case for the bard's ability check to determine success?
I’d make the bard guess her location at the time he cast the spell unless he knew exactly where she was. To me Dispel Magic works on invisibility only if you target the 5’ square where the invisible creature is located. That’s why wise casters cast invisibility and then move immediately!
I just found this in the Sage Advice Compendium. I feel like it would also apply to the Green Hag's Invisible Passage ability.
Can you use dispel magic to dispel a magical effect like a vampire’s Charm ability? Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a vampire’s Charm ability or any other magical effect that isn’t a spell.
The party had an encounter with an Oni and one of the party's casters used Dispel Magic on the invisible creature. That led me to wonder a few things about how Dispel Magic works.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that Dispel Magic is purposefully inclusive on the targeting, to allow more flexibility - it says, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range," and doesn't mention anything about being able to see it or target it, though it's fairly implicit that the entity you are targeting needs to exist.
I don't think I would allow a player to try to dispel magic on invisibility, unless they had some clue that a creature was actually there.
As for hiding - only the invisibility has been dispelled, so if the target is naturally hidden as well, I'm pretty sure they still be hidden.
It's an odd situation though, for sure!
As for dispelling gaseous form, whilst the target is slipping through gaps in rocks .... that sounds .... messy!
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Let's see...
1. As per Jeremy Crawford here, "Dispel magic can target a discrete magical effect on a creature or an object, provided that effect is choosable. In other words, you have to be aware of it to be able to choose it as the target." You need to be able to perceive the invisibility effect in order to target it.
Alternatively, you can target the invisible creature - you don't need to see it, just know it's there. In which case, you break the effect for that creature alone (read on the above link, with an example with Slow).
2. Yes. Since you need to be aware of the creature/effect, you can't target a hiding creature until you notice them (with passive perception, or actively looking for them).
3. Total (heavy) concealment wouldn't matter. Total cover generally means they're behind a wall or something, so I'd be careful about how you handle it. As far as I know, "line of effect" and such complexities haven't made it from previous editions, but the DM may want to disallow targeting things in other rooms unless you have some special means of verifying (such as Clairvoyance or a familiar). Unless you want random Cloudkills in the party's room from two floors above.
All in all, this can be a discussion on its own. I have a few questions myself about this topic. :p
4. Sure it could. Details about handling it don't come with the package deal, so it's up to the DM. I'd personally handle it like Etherealness spitting you out in an occupied space, or a wrong target in Teleport.
It looks like there's some contention in terms of how the spell works. I'm not surprised. When I searched for this question online, I got mostly conflicting answers, which is why I was curious how people here felt about it and how people play it at their tables.
I feel like the answers to #3 and #4 might depend on how you feel about #1. If the caster is targeting the location of one creature, object, or magical effect within range, then, "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." (PHB, p.204) applies and total cover would prevent Dispel Magic from reaching the target when it emits from the caster. For example, it would mean you couldn't dispel an effect on someone who was behind a door or on on the other side of a wall or in a room above/below you within range. Alternately, if you feel that's a bunch of nonsense and the spell just hits the effect without any sort of targeting required, then total cover would no longer matter and therefore, the gaseous form in the cracks of the rock wouldn't benefit from total cover.
Which leads us back to the initial question, does Dispel Magic require any targeting at all? Or does it just... happen?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The spell clearly asks you to choose a target.
The general rules for casting a spell say you can't target something behind total cover. An exception to that rule has to be explicit.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think that settles total cover then. As for dispelling invisibility, how specific do you need to be in targeting the effect? There's no requirement that you see the target, but do you need to be aware of the target well enough to guess the location in space where the target is? Do you just need to be aware that there's something invisible nearby? Could you just dispel invisibility on an uninformed guess just in case there's an invisible target within range?
That's what I was getting at with the idea of an invisible target or an invisible/hidden target. Does it even matter? Am I sweating the details too much?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This happened again in today's session. The party was fighting a coven of green hags and a hag went invisible and attempted to flee. The bard cast dispel magic on the invisibility. I allowed it because the Invisible Passage action clearly says it is magical, but I'm still not entirely satisfied with the idea of dispeling something you can't perceive. Hag invisibility is a little more robust than normal invisibility so she was effectively hidden in addition to being invisible as far as conventional perception is concerned.
What DC would I use in this case for the bard's ability check to determine success?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I’d make the bard guess her location at the time he cast the spell unless he knew exactly where she was. To me Dispel Magic works on invisibility only if you target the 5’ square where the invisible creature is located. That’s why wise casters cast invisibility and then move immediately!
Professional computer geek
I just found this in the Sage Advice Compendium. I feel like it would also apply to the Green Hag's Invisible Passage ability.
"Not all those who wander are lost"