What are the mechanical implications to allowing the caster to choose which effects are dispelled with Dispel Magic?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

1

We have a few questions about dispel magic that arise as a consequence of dispel magic dispelling every effect on a creature. Although situational (>1 negative effect, at least 1 positive effect)¹, sometimes you want to "intentionally fail rolls" (Can I choose to fail the ability check for Dispel Magic?), sometimes you would like a specific effect to be targeted first so it has a higher chance to fail (Who decides which spell gets dispelled first?), etc.

My point is: this seems to overcomplicate things.

If instead the DM chooses to let dispel magic select which effects will be dispelled, will there be any game-breaking or even considerably unbalancing mechanical consequences? Will it allow some Pun-Pun level of cheese? Will I have to throw a Tarrasque into my players so I can fix my own mistake?

---

¹ It also might work as an enemy spellcaster dispelling buffs without dispelling the curses, which would be >1 positive effect, at least 1 negative effect.

dnd-5e spells house-rules targeting

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

1

We have a few questions about dispel magic that arise as a consequence of dispel magic dispelling every effect on a creature. Although situational (>1 negative effect, at least 1 positive effect)¹, sometimes you want to "intentionally fail rolls" (Can I choose to fail the ability check for Dispel Magic?), sometimes you would like a specific effect to be targeted first so it has a higher chance to fail (Who decides which spell gets dispelled first?), etc.

My point is: this seems to overcomplicate things.

If instead the DM chooses to let dispel magic select which effects will be dispelled, will there be any game-breaking or even considerably unbalancing mechanical consequences? Will it allow some Pun-Pun level of cheese? Will I have to throw a Tarrasque into my players so I can fix my own mistake?

---

¹ It also might work as an enemy spellcaster dispelling buffs without dispelling the curses, which would be >1 positive effect, at least 1 negative effect.

dnd-5e spells house-rules targeting

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

1

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

1

1

We have a few questions about dispel magic that arise as a consequence of dispel magic dispelling every effect on a creature. Although situational (>1 negative effect, at least 1 positive effect)¹, sometimes you want to "intentionally fail rolls" (Can I choose to fail the ability check for Dispel Magic?), sometimes you would like a specific effect to be targeted first so it has a higher chance to fail (Who decides which spell gets dispelled first?), etc.

My point is: this seems to overcomplicate things.

If instead the DM chooses to let dispel magic select which effects will be dispelled, will there be any game-breaking or even considerably unbalancing mechanical consequences? Will it allow some Pun-Pun level of cheese? Will I have to throw a Tarrasque into my players so I can fix my own mistake?

---

¹ It also might work as an enemy spellcaster dispelling buffs without dispelling the curses, which would be >1 positive effect, at least 1 negative effect.

dnd-5e spells house-rules targeting

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

We have a few questions about dispel magic that arise as a consequence of dispel magic dispelling every effect on a creature. Although situational (>1 negative effect, at least 1 positive effect)¹, sometimes you want to "intentionally fail rolls" (Can I choose to fail the ability check for Dispel Magic?), sometimes you would like a specific effect to be targeted first so it has a higher chance to fail (Who decides which spell gets dispelled first?), etc.

My point is: this seems to overcomplicate things.

If instead the DM chooses to let dispel magic select which effects will be dispelled, will there be any game-breaking or even considerably unbalancing mechanical consequences? Will it allow some Pun-Pun level of cheese? Will I have to throw a Tarrasque into my players so I can fix my own mistake?

---

¹ It also might work as an enemy spellcaster dispelling buffs without dispelling the curses, which would be >1 positive effect, at least 1 negative effect.

dnd-5e spells house-rules targeting

dnd-5e spells house-rules targeting

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

edited 2 hours ago

V2Blast

17.4k246110

17.4k246110

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

asked 4 hours ago

HellSaint

16.7k464143

16.7k464143

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

For balance, players should have a higher cost for this

I think players (the kind I have anyway) would make hay while the sun shines with this.

• "I'm baned and entangled but also stoneskinned; I'm gonna dispel all but stoneskin."


• "That guy is levitating and blessed and was placed under hunter's mark; I am gonna dispel all but hunter's mark"


• "I'm disguise-self'ed and hexed and baned, I'm just gonna dispel the hex and bane"

And so on and so forth.

It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it could be pretty powerful. If my players wanted it real bad, I'd add a higher-level spell -- call it something like "Improved Dispel Magic" -- to our campaign setting, so they'd have to eat a higher spell slot (5th?) to get the added finesse.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
  – HellSaint
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
  – Valley Lad
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

The main consequence of this rule is that the DM would have to list all the spells affecting the target of the Dispel Magic so the caster can chose which one(s) to dispel.

While this isn't much of a problem if the target is one of the PCs or one of their allies, it's much more problematic if the target is not. It means you'd be giving a lot of information to the PC that their characters would have no way to know, which feels pretty game-breaking.

Imagine having to list all the spells active on the Evil Sorcerer or the McGuffin, most of those quite above the player's level and even some being closely guarded secrets for whatever reason, just because a lvl3 spellcaster used Dispel Magic on them? Dispel would become quite an information-gathering spell instead.

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134471%2fwhat-are-the-mechanical-implications-to-allowing-the-caster-to-choose-which-effe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

For balance, players should have a higher cost for this

I think players (the kind I have anyway) would make hay while the sun shines with this.

• "I'm baned and entangled but also stoneskinned; I'm gonna dispel all but stoneskin."


• "That guy is levitating and blessed and was placed under hunter's mark; I am gonna dispel all but hunter's mark"


• "I'm disguise-self'ed and hexed and baned, I'm just gonna dispel the hex and bane"

And so on and so forth.

It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it could be pretty powerful. If my players wanted it real bad, I'd add a higher-level spell -- call it something like "Improved Dispel Magic" -- to our campaign setting, so they'd have to eat a higher spell slot (5th?) to get the added finesse.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
  – HellSaint
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
  – Valley Lad
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

For balance, players should have a higher cost for this

I think players (the kind I have anyway) would make hay while the sun shines with this.

• "I'm baned and entangled but also stoneskinned; I'm gonna dispel all but stoneskin."


• "That guy is levitating and blessed and was placed under hunter's mark; I am gonna dispel all but hunter's mark"


• "I'm disguise-self'ed and hexed and baned, I'm just gonna dispel the hex and bane"

And so on and so forth.

It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it could be pretty powerful. If my players wanted it real bad, I'd add a higher-level spell -- call it something like "Improved Dispel Magic" -- to our campaign setting, so they'd have to eat a higher spell slot (5th?) to get the added finesse.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
  – HellSaint
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
  – Valley Lad
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

up vote
2
down vote

For balance, players should have a higher cost for this

I think players (the kind I have anyway) would make hay while the sun shines with this.

• "I'm baned and entangled but also stoneskinned; I'm gonna dispel all but stoneskin."


• "That guy is levitating and blessed and was placed under hunter's mark; I am gonna dispel all but hunter's mark"


• "I'm disguise-self'ed and hexed and baned, I'm just gonna dispel the hex and bane"

And so on and so forth.

It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it could be pretty powerful. If my players wanted it real bad, I'd add a higher-level spell -- call it something like "Improved Dispel Magic" -- to our campaign setting, so they'd have to eat a higher spell slot (5th?) to get the added finesse.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

For balance, players should have a higher cost for this

I think players (the kind I have anyway) would make hay while the sun shines with this.

• "I'm baned and entangled but also stoneskinned; I'm gonna dispel all but stoneskin."


• "That guy is levitating and blessed and was placed under hunter's mark; I am gonna dispel all but hunter's mark"


• "I'm disguise-self'ed and hexed and baned, I'm just gonna dispel the hex and bane"

And so on and so forth.

It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it could be pretty powerful. If my players wanted it real bad, I'd add a higher-level spell -- call it something like "Improved Dispel Magic" -- to our campaign setting, so they'd have to eat a higher spell slot (5th?) to get the added finesse.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

edited 1 hour ago

edited 1 hour ago

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

answered 2 hours ago

Valley Lad

1895

1895

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
  – HellSaint
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
  – Valley Lad
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
  – HellSaint
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
  – Valley Lad
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
– HellSaint
1 hour ago

These applications are already possible because you can target a magical effect instead of the creature itself.
– HellSaint
1 hour ago

@HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
– Valley Lad
1 hour ago

@HellSaint of course you're right, I got the examples inverted. Point is when you wanna cancel two effects on a target but leave another effect intact, and do it all in one casting. Edited examples accordingly.
– Valley Lad
1 hour ago

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

The main consequence of this rule is that the DM would have to list all the spells affecting the target of the Dispel Magic so the caster can chose which one(s) to dispel.

While this isn't much of a problem if the target is one of the PCs or one of their allies, it's much more problematic if the target is not. It means you'd be giving a lot of information to the PC that their characters would have no way to know, which feels pretty game-breaking.

Imagine having to list all the spells active on the Evil Sorcerer or the McGuffin, most of those quite above the player's level and even some being closely guarded secrets for whatever reason, just because a lvl3 spellcaster used Dispel Magic on them? Dispel would become quite an information-gathering spell instead.

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

The main consequence of this rule is that the DM would have to list all the spells affecting the target of the Dispel Magic so the caster can chose which one(s) to dispel.

While this isn't much of a problem if the target is one of the PCs or one of their allies, it's much more problematic if the target is not. It means you'd be giving a lot of information to the PC that their characters would have no way to know, which feels pretty game-breaking.

Imagine having to list all the spells active on the Evil Sorcerer or the McGuffin, most of those quite above the player's level and even some being closely guarded secrets for whatever reason, just because a lvl3 spellcaster used Dispel Magic on them? Dispel would become quite an information-gathering spell instead.

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

up vote
1
down vote

The main consequence of this rule is that the DM would have to list all the spells affecting the target of the Dispel Magic so the caster can chose which one(s) to dispel.

While this isn't much of a problem if the target is one of the PCs or one of their allies, it's much more problematic if the target is not. It means you'd be giving a lot of information to the PC that their characters would have no way to know, which feels pretty game-breaking.

Imagine having to list all the spells active on the Evil Sorcerer or the McGuffin, most of those quite above the player's level and even some being closely guarded secrets for whatever reason, just because a lvl3 spellcaster used Dispel Magic on them? Dispel would become quite an information-gathering spell instead.

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

The main consequence of this rule is that the DM would have to list all the spells affecting the target of the Dispel Magic so the caster can chose which one(s) to dispel.

While this isn't much of a problem if the target is one of the PCs or one of their allies, it's much more problematic if the target is not. It means you'd be giving a lot of information to the PC that their characters would have no way to know, which feels pretty game-breaking.

Imagine having to list all the spells active on the Evil Sorcerer or the McGuffin, most of those quite above the player's level and even some being closely guarded secrets for whatever reason, just because a lvl3 spellcaster used Dispel Magic on them? Dispel would become quite an information-gathering spell instead.

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 19 mins ago

edited 19 mins ago

edited 19 mins ago

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

answered 25 mins ago

Sava

1,5061418

1,5061418

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134471%2fwhat-are-the-mechanical-implications-to-allowing-the-caster-to-choose-which-effe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email