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

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.










share|improve this question



























    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.










    share|improve this question

























      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.










      share|improve this question















      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















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago









      V2Blast

      17.4k246110




      17.4k246110










      asked 4 hours ago









      HellSaint

      16.7k464143




      16.7k464143




















          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






















          • 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

















          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






















            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


















            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






























            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






















            • 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














            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






















            • 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












            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















            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














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 1 hour ago

























            answered 1 hour 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
















            • 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












            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


























              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
























                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














                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














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 11 mins ago

























                answered 17 mins ago









                Sava

                1,5061418




                1,5061418



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?