Suppose I want to cast Dispel Magic (at 3rd level) on a target that has one beneficial spell on it and one harmful spell on it. I only want to dispel the harmful spell and leave the beneficial spell intact. Clearly, if the beneficial spell is 3rd level or lower, I am out of luck, since it is dispelled automatically. However, if the beneficial spell is of a higher level, it is only dispelled with a successful spellcasting ability check. Can I choose to fail this check on purpose to ensure that the beneficial spell is not dispelled while still attempting to dispel the harmful spell?  Another less likely context where this might come up would be if I was being forced under duress to dispel a spell, and I wanted to pretend to try and fail. This seems somewhat similar to  about destroying a spell scroll by intentionally misreading it, but it also seems different enough that I can't quite tell how to apply that answer here.
45431
Here are the general guidelines regarding ability checks:     The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.   In some cases, you could want to fail an ability check. If you are climbing a wall an want to drop off, you fail simply because you stop attempting to climb, but in other cases, success and failure are both tied to the actual action and may both have desirable outcomes.  Example 1: Spell scrolls  An evil adversary wants you to cast a spell scroll for him, but you have him figured out and want to destroy his spell scroll instead, seemingly by accident. The rules on spell scrolls read:     If the spell is on your class’s spell list but of a higher level than you can normally cast, you must make an ability check using your spellcasting ability to determine whether you cast it successfully. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a failed check, the spell disappears from the scroll with no other effect.   A failure means that you successfully destroy the spell scroll.  Example 2: Amulet of the Planes  You are in possesion of the Amulet of the Planes. Your party is being overrun by terrible monsters, and the only way to save your party is to sacrifice yourself by sending yourself and the monsters to another plane of existence.     While wearing this Amulet, you can use an action to name a location that you are familiar with on another plane of existence. Then make a DC 15 Intelligence check. On a successful check, you cast the Plane Shift spell. On a failure, you and each creature and object within 15 feet of you travel to a random destination. Roll a d100. On a 1-60, you travel to a random location on the plane you named. On a 61-100, you travel to a randomly determined plane of existence.   By walking up to the monsters and failing the check, you and the monsters would be sent to another plane of existence.  The question  The rules seem to assume that you always want to succeed when you perform an ability check. Sometimes, however, you could want to fail on purpose. A sensible DM would rule that if you are skilled enough to succeed the check, then you would undoubtly be able to fail it on purpose as well. What does the rules as written say -- if anything -- about this circumstance?  According to RAW, is it possible to attempt an ability check and intentionally fail?
113717
One of the rules for targeting spells in the Player's Handbook says that spells must have :  A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.  And the description for  says:  A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.  However, the spell  says that the target &quot;gains no benefit from cover&quot;. Does this mean sacred flame can target someone that is behind total cover?
11376
A cleric casts a Command spell targeting you, specifying the Flee option.  You have a Ring of Spell Turning and you get a 20 for the save, so the spell is returned.  We are going to assume that the cleric fails his save.   The spell is returned but, can you specify other option for the spell (halt, approach, etc.) ? From where the cleric will flee?  From his original position, from you, from the ring, from himself? In case the spell was cast using a higher level (affecting a second creature), could be the spell be returned? Extra: In case the returned spell had concentration or a dismiss option. Could the original caster finish the spell ending the concentration or using the appropriate action to end the effect?  When could he finish the concentration?
86632
I would like to know what happens if you use the Magic Jar spell to possess a creature which is capable of casting spells. Below are 3 different situations. I post all these questions in the same question because all of them are heavily related.  1st Situation: Creatures with Innate Spellcasting.  For example Kraken Priest (MM 215).  Would I be able to use its Innate Spellcasting? I mean, being able to cast its spells as the creature does (X uses per day). I don't say using my spell slots because that is impossible (eg. a Drow Elf Warlock can't use its spell slots to cast Darkness).  2nd Situation: Creatures with Spellcasting (similar to Pact Magic).  For Example Warlock of the Archfey (MM 219).  Would I be able to use its spellcasting? Note that this creature is an "11th-level spellcaster", not an "11th-level warlock" (its spellcasting isn't a class feature).  What would happen with the spell slots? Would I be able to cast its spells with my own slots? Would I be able to cast my spells with its slots?  3rd Situation: Creatures With Spellcasting (similar to Spellcasting of Clerics or Wizards)  For Example Diviner (MM 213).  Would I be able to use its spellcasting? Note that this creature is a "15th-level spellcaster", not a "15th-level wizard" (its spellcasting isn't a class feature).  What would happen with the spell slots (considering that for example, I'm a 16th-level Wizard)?   Would our spellcaster level sum (as if multiclassing)? Should I use the highest spellcaster level instead of summing them? Should I count the spellcaster level separated, each one with its spell slots separated? For example, Would I have 8 1st-level spell slots (4 + 4)?   Finally (without considering a specific situation):  Would I have to recalculate the spell's attack bonus and spell's DC if my mental stats are different from the creature's stats?  I know that these are a lot of multiple questions, but I don't think that posting them separately would be beneficial. If you think so, let me know and I will do that.
52834
With the metamagic "Careful Spell" does the caster protect his friend from a Web spell for its full duration or just for the first save? If the friend stays in the area or re-enters the area does he continue to automatically save against the restraining effect?
1172
The spell description of  is silent on the question of whether spell effects can pass through the wall.  The semi-relevant part of the description states:     Nothing can physically pass through the wall.  It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic.  A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however.  The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.   How are folks ruling on the question of spells passing through the wall (in both directions)?  If the answer is that spells cannot pass through the wall, do you rule that it also blocks line of effect (so that you can't target a spell on the other side)?
102602
An enemy casts  to communicate with a player from far away. In this example, the player character doesn't know anything about the sending spell and he might think he is just hearing voices or going crazy. Another player casts  to scan the area. Can this player detect the presence of the telepathic message inside the first player's head as an evocation spell via detect magic?
5331
I first thought that the answer to this question was a definite 'yes.' The target is "A creature of your choice that you can see within range" (PHB 250). Presumably the caster is a creature, can be seen by him/herself, and is within range of 60' of him/herself.  Then I read the description for Greater Invisibility which specifies "You or a creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends" (PHB 246). It seems that Wizards have emphasized that Greater Invisibility can be applied to oneself while the same option is not emphasized for Healing Word.  Am I to interpret the lack of a specific option to heal oneself as meaning Healing Word cannot target self?  Bonus question: does this apply to Cure Wounds (PHB 230) as well?
68714
The text of the  spell reads:      A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for the duration and harms neither you nor your equipment. The flame sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. The spell ends if you dismiss it as an action or if you cast it again.   Emphasis mine. The druid in our party asked our DM if he is able to cast produce flame in a dark cave, then opt not to attack with it, and wield a shield and sword. The goal is to continue emitting light, since he doesn't have the light spell. He claims that since the flame does not harm his equipment, he is able to hold a shield or sword with the fiery hand with no problem.  Is this okay to do RAW, or are we missing something?  This is specifically not asking about casting spells with a sword in hand. He wants to draw his weapon after casting and holding the flames.  Related, but not the same question: , , .
105258
The Scrying spell allows players to look at distant targets. Are there abilities or spells that allow players or characters to launch attacks against a target they are scrying?   While I am aware that characters could teleport in, I'm more concerned about zero-risk attacks from super far away.   This question was spurred by the UA sorcerer ability, Hound of Ill Omen. Recently, one of my players cast Scrying on an commoner NPC from a great distance, and then used her Hound of Ill Omen feature on the NPC. The text of the feature reads,      As a   bonus   action, you can spend   3   sorcery points  to  summon  a   hound   of  ill omen    to  target  one creature    you can see.    The hound   uses    a dire  wolf’s  statistics  ...   Because the character could see the NPC, I couldn't find a good reason to disallow this, and the NPC was torn to pieces.  I'm not sure if this is just a quirk of the UA wording, or if there is a precedent for this kind of attack.  Just to be clear, my question is not whether Hound of Ill Omen works this way. My question is whether other abilities/spells/etc. also work this way.
73572
is a conjuration spell that is able to be used to duplicate lower level spells as follows:     The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.   When used in this way, does the resulting spell count as a conjuration spell or whatever the school duplicated spell is?    As an example (since there was some confusion): say I used wish to cast  on a creature. After a period of time passes I cast detect magic on the creature. What school of magic do I detect?
92557
So, consider  or   and generally other spells that do multiple things, whether as 1 sentence, 1 sentence with commas, 2 sentences, 2 separated sentences, etc. etc.  I struggle with understanding when failure to do or be able to do parts of a spell will stop other bits from happening. As far as I can tell sometimes the spell fizzles, sometimes you go "up to the bit you can't do", and sometimes you get to keep going anyway?  Obviously, for an individual card the gatherer errata generally tell you such things.  Is there a complete description of the rules for this.  Ideally a complete readable description, rather than "here are the 17 formal rules clauses that apply", though obviously having a record of those clauses would be a useful addendum, and might be the only viable answer.
119660
has a duration of instantaneous. However, it also produces an ongoing effect, and the spell's text describes when this effect ends (emphasis added):  At the end of every 30 days, the creature can repeat its saving throw against this spell. If it succeeds on its saving throw, the spell ends. The spell can also be ended by greater restoration, heal, or wish.  The fact that the text refers to the spell ending, as opposed to just &quot;the effect&quot; or something similar, implies that it produces an ongoing magical spell effect, which can be dispelled using Dispel Magic. However, it has also been argued that any effects that persist beyond a spell's stated duration cannot be considered magical (with the classic example being fires started by a Fireball spell). Applying this rule to Feeblemind, it shouldn't have any ongoing effects since its duration is instantaneous. So, which is it? Are the ongoing effects of Feeblemind considered magical and therefore susceptible to effects like Dispel Magic, or are are they simply the lingering result of the initial shattering of the creature's intellect and personality? (Note that the final sentence quoted above does not by itself rule out Dispel Magic and other ways of ending the spell. It gives additional options for ending the spell, but it doesn't say these are the only options.)
79199
Does casting dispel magic on a plain +1 sword make it no longer +1?   Also does dispel magic work on a dragon slayer longsword such that it is no longer +1 and no longer does extra damage against dragons?
34603
The Slow spell (PHB 277) requires concentration and states the following:     Regardless of the creature's abilities or magic items, it can't make   more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn.   Suppose a PC or monster who could normally make more than one attack is affected by the Slow spell, takes the Attack action, and hits the spell's caster, who then fails their concentration check, causing the Slow spell to end.  Does the attacker then get to take their remaining attack(s) because the slow spell is no longer in effect, or do they still only get 1 because the Slow spell was in effect at the time they took the Attack action?
56989
The rules on spellcasting contain the following section:   To target something [with a spell], you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.  This section is not really clear to me. Should this mean that only non-transparent objects are  a problem in targeting, or that you have to have line of sight and line of effect as well? Also, can you prevent a wizard from casting spells by blinding her?
37069
I had to make a call today and I'm wondering how this scenario should've gone down   The map was a U-shaped hallway; the party was on the lower left of the U, with the enemies on the upper right. The wizard has an owl familiar who could see an enemy caster, with the wizard seeing through the familiar's eyes, and the wizard was further back.   The enemy caster cast a fireball.  The player claims that since he was looking through the owl's eyes from his turn, he should technically have line of sight for a counterspell.   Could counterspell be cast in this case, even though there was a wall between him and the caster, and he was physically not able to cast towards the enemy caster?  Was I wrong in said judgement?