5e Dispelling Invisibility?

[BerzerkerUnit]

I gather this is basically DM discretion, but if there’s an invisible creep in range, how do you rule whether a player can dispel their invisibility?

Dispel doesn’t affect an area but seems to be “heat seeking” in its description.

So is “someone or something invisible might be in this room, Dispel!” as a precautionary tactic viable?

[Amnestic]

You don't need to be able to see the target to hit it with dispel magic.


Choose any creature, object, or magical Effect within range. Any spell of 3rd Level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of or higher on the target, make an ability check using your Spellcasting Ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

As long as you're aware of their location* you can cast it on the creature in question. You must, however, be aware of their location still, you can't just throw out a dispel magic in a room and see what happens.

*detect magic, beating their hide check with your perception, see invisibility, etc. etc.

[quindraco]

You don't need to be aware of location. You could cast invisibility on your pet mouse, set the mouse loose in its enclosure and have it start running about in it, turn around, and cast dispel magic, declaring the mouse as your target. All dispel magic requires is that you choose. Of course, if you did this and the mouse wasn't in range, you'd be out the spell slot for no benefit.

Thing is, you can't choose to dispel an effect itself - you dispel spells on the target creature, on the target object, or on the target effect, not the effect itself. So you could cast dispel magic and select, as your target creature, "the invisible creature", but selecting "the invisibility spell" wouldn't do anything, even if you were right - Dispel Magic wouldn't even try to dispel the invisibility spell, it would try to dispel spells on the invisibility spell.

A separate question - which has nothing to do with being able to see your targets or not, or knowing their locations or not - is what exactly happens when a caster chooses multiple targets for the spell, given that it demands singular targeting. Normally, this doesn't cost you a spell slot, because it's illegal from the jump - you simply can't legally cast cast Fireball on two points in space at once, and declaring that you're going to results in the DM saying "no". In this case, I'd switch over to Xanathar's rules for illegal targets, meaning you consume the slot for no benefit. So if you cast dispel magic and declare "the invisible creature" but 2 or more are within range, I'd have you consume the slot for no effect, just as if there were 0. The spell only works if and only if you validly choose a single target for it.

[MrStabby]

I think it fair to define a creature by other knowledge.

For example, I will dispell invisibility on the creature that made the scratching sound I heard two seconds ago."

I an torn between strictness and leniency on this. On one hand is seems harsh to force a player to guess if two invisible creatures are subject to one invisibility spell or two separate effects.

On the other hand there are more specific spells to see/ dispell invisibility and their niche should not be trampled over by dispell magic being a panacea.

[J-H]

As they said, yes. It's using a 3rd level slot to break a 2nd level spell, so it's a net loss for the party. Against Improved Invisibility, you're making a contested check and/or burning a higher level slot.

It's still a bit goofy but otherwise it really limits the party in handling it.

[MrStabby]

I think dispel magic should be sufficiently restrictive to mean that if you want to see invisible creatures you take See Invisability, if you can.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Thing is, you can't choose to dispel an effect itself - you dispel spells on the target creature, on the target object, or on the target effect, not the effect itself. So you could cast dispel magic and select, as your target creature, "the invisible creature", but selecting "the invisibility spell" wouldn't do anything, even if you were right - Dispel Magic wouldn't even try to dispel the invisibility spell, it would try to dispel spells on the invisibility spell.

I'm not in agreement that this is a sound reading of Dispel Magic.

The spell is written poorly..but the idea of using Dispel Magic on a Wall of Fire effect isn't to dispel any additional spells cast on the Wall of Fire itself......(What spells would one cast on an Ongoing Spell, anyway?)

The idea is that the Dispel Magic spell is going to Dispel the Wall of Fire, itself. Otherwise, Dispel Magic is useless against a Wall of Fire......and that is just an unsound result, no matter how one slices it.🃏

[Formion]

I actually never had this situation come up, ever. Now that I think about it I'd personally rule that you need to be aware of where the invisible creature is - by sound probably, or perhaps footprints - to dispel invisibility. But that is just me.

[Mellack]

I would say you are choosing the "magical effect" portion of the spell text. The caster says they are cancelling all invisibility in the area and it goes off against everything in the range. Depending on the level of the invisibility, this may involve a contest. It may get multiple invisible things if they are in range, or it might get none if they were not in the range.

[McGarnagle]

I think dispel magic should be sufficiently restrictive to mean that if you want to see invisible creatures you take See Invisability, if you can.
These are two different things. Dispelling invisibility means everyone can see the formerly magically invisible creature or object, See Invisibility means the caster can see it, but no one else can.

Given that Invisibility Purge didn't make it into the official 5e spell lists (as far as I know, at least), I'd be fine with having Dispel Magic act like Invisibility Purge if that's what the caster wants. I wouldn't require casting something like See Invisibility before using Dispel Magic in this way, although if you really want to be sure, you can do it that way.

[Person_Man]

You don't need to be able to see the target to hit it with dispel magic.

As long as you're aware of their location* you can cast it on the creature in question. You must, however, be aware of their location still, you can't just throw out a dispel magic in a room and see what happens.

*detect magic, beating their hide check with your perception, see invisibility, etc. etc.

This is my reading as well.

Also, just from a balance perspective, its perfectly reasonable. Someone is spending an Action and a limited resource to undo an Action and a resource someone else took.

And it makes sense within the logic of the game world. Invisibility is magic. Dispel Magic ends ongoing magical effects.

In cases like these where the balance and the logic make sense, I’d still allow it, even if the rules were poorly written in such a way that it wasn’t technically RAW.

[Thunderous Mojo]

One aspect that I find curious is the narrowing down of the scope of the term "magical effect " to solely meaning 'just spells'.

Many Channel Divinity powers seem to qualify for the very broad category of Magical Effect.

If one authors a broadly and unclearly worded Dispel Magic spell, one should also realize, (from prior D&D editions alone), that explicit exceptions, ( e.g. text that states :Turn Undead for example is not subject to Dispel Magic), needs to be included.

Alas, the D&Design team didn't realize the above🃏

[Millstone85]

One aspect that I find curious is the narrowing down of the scope of the term "magical effect " to solely meaning 'just spells'. Technically, you can target a non-spell magical effect, just like you can target a creature or object that does not have any spell on it.

It is the next step, ending all spells, that is restrictive.

[dreast]

I feel like something needs to be cleared up here (as the wizard in my last game, finally realizing how sight works in 5e, got entirely disgusted by the Invisibility spell when it didn't work like it had in previous versions).

If I cast invisibility, the enemy still knows where I am (if they did before I cast it). They can dispel me if they are in range. They have disadvantage on attacks against me, though, and I get advantage on attacks against them.

If I cast invisibility and move, the enemy still knows where I am (if they did before I cast it). They can dispel me if they are in range. They have disadvantage on attacks against me, though, etc.

If I cast invisibility and THEN make a Dexterity (Stealth) check successfully against their (non-sight-based) passive perception scores (which generally means they get disadvantage (-5), but it's DM dependent on how good they are at listening for me; a creature with Keen Hearing would actually get advantage (+5) on their passive perception), THEN they may not attack me and can not cast dispel magic against me at all without first succeeding on a perception check on their turn (which consumes an action) or being alerted to my presence by others whom I have not successfully hidden from. If I fail at this stealth check against any individual, they can still dispel me, or attack (with disadvantage, etc.) Even if success is achieved against all present, I still must move at maximum half speed to move stealthily, although as a DM I would not force further checks round-by-round until circumstances change. On their turns, enemies may still make their own active perception checks to attempt to locate me, but that would take their action (putting them in the same boat), and I could remake stealth checks to Hide again on my turn even if they do spot me. All it takes is one successful spot for them to alert others to my presence, however, so they can in that circumstance "gain" the advantage of a single success (and might even use their action to prepare a dispel magic as soon as someone ELSE spots me and indicates my location). All of this is pertinent if the enemy tries to use invisibility against my party as well, of course.

Note that dragons have a legendary ability that lets them make a perception check. This is why that's important.

If I do not have some ability like Cunning Action (to make hiding a bonus action), the Quicken metamagic ability (to make the invisibility a bonus action), or the Action Surge ability (to take two actions in a turn), then I can not cast invisibility and hide in the same turn. Invisibility, by itself, does nothing to "take my figurine off the table" as far as enemies are concerned, although it does make me immune to spells that require sight and gives disadvantage to attacks against me. It also enables me to make that stealth check regardless of circumstances (unless the enemy has blindsight or truesight, of course)... but not in the same turn, barring the above exceptions, and it does not guarantee sucess.