Can a caster of Dispel Magic just target a specific spell on a creature? [duplicate]

Dispel Magic says (emphasis mine):

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level 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.

At high level play, I’ve found that players often have long-term buff spells in effect (i.e. Heroes Feast, Mindblank, etc.), which are a major factor in them being able to survive.

If one of these characters is affected by a save or suck kind of spell (i.e. Mental Prison, Irresistable Dance, etc.), the need to remove that spell becomes imperative.

With this in mind, can a caster of Dispel Magic target only a negative spell under the assumption that it is a discrete ‘magical effect’ subject to removal? Or must they target the ‘creature’ and risk removing all spells, both positive and negative?

For reference, we see a potentially unique ‘magical effect’ in this question about Yeenoghu’s flail. This effect is similar to a spell in its function (target is affected by the Confusion spell if they fail the save), but has clear differences from a spell because the spell would require Yeenoghu’s concentration and have a different duration. Conversely, this answer suggests that a ‘magical effect’ only applies to things that wholly separated from the creature.

Are monsters with Sunlight Sensitivity supposed to have disadvantage when attacking or perceiving a target that is in direct sunlight?

Certain subterranean-dwelling monsters, such as drow and duergar, have the Sunlight Sensitivity trait, which is consistently worded as follows:

While in sunlight, the [monster] has disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

Of course, drow and duergar are also playable races for PCs. These playable races have an identically-named Sunlight Sensitivity trait, but its wording is different:

You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

This is a significant difference. A drow PC attacking a target that stands in sunlight has disadvantage where a drow monster would not. One can imagine a drow PC traveling with a group of his monster drow kinsfolk and ending up the butt of jokes (or worse): "Poor Drew, for some reason he just can’t hit the broad side of a barn when we’re up on the surface. The rest of us, we just find some shade to snipe from and we’re set. Even that doesn’t seem to help Drew. I don’t know what his problem is."

Am I missing something? Has this difference been either explained or errata’d somewhere?

With Blind Fighting style from Tasha’s Cauldron Of Everything, can you cast spells that require a target you can see?

Blind Fighting, as phrased in Tasha’s Cauldron Of Everything, contains additional wording beyond the description of mere Blindsight. The entry for Blind Fighting reads:

You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you.

Using the optional Class Features for the Fighter class which are presented in TCoE, this Blind Fighting fighting style offers not only 10ft of Blindsight, but the wording above, which by my reading at least heavily implies that you should be able to cast spells which target a space, object, or creature "you can see", within the 10ft range of this ability.

You can explicitly "see an invisible creature", but does "you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover" mean that you can cast sighted spells on targets within that 10ft range?

What happens to a Chain lighting with invalid primary target and valid secondary targets?

This question asks what happens when a single-target spell has an invalid target. (A target that is not legitimately permissible, not a target that is weak from illness or injury).

The answer appears to be: that depends on whether one wishes to implement an older Sage Advice segment of a Dragon Talk podcast, or the more recent but optional written rules in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.

Assume for this question that I prefer XGtE.

The rule for resolving invalid spell targets states (XGtE 85-86):

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.

Now consider the chain lightning spell, in which

You create a bolt of lightning that arcs toward a target of your choice that you can see within range. Three bolts then leap from that target to as many as three other targets, each of which must be within 30 feet of the first target. A target can be a creature or an object and can be targeted by only one of the bolts.

Suppose my primary target for the spell is invalid, because it is not a creature or an object. If an example must be given, suppose it is an illusion. However, each of the three secondary targets of the spell are valid, being either creatures or objects.

Do I spend the spell slot with nothing happening at all, or does the slot get spent, the chain lightning impact the illusion but do nothing to it and then leap to the three valid targets with the full effects given in the spell description?

Note: I am assuming that an illusion is not an object, based largely on my interpretation that an illusion is not an "item" and on the text of the 14th-level School of Illusion wizard feature, Illusory Reality. I am open to frame challenges that demonstrate that illusions are, in fact, objects, but such answers will be better if they then either provide a more appropriate example of something that is not a creature or an object, or demonstrate that the question is moot since everything is at least either a creature or an object.

How many creatures can you target with Balm of Peace?

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduces the Peace Domain for the Cleric; which at level 2 gains the Balm of Peace Channel Divinity option

You can use your Channel Divinity to make your very presence a soothing balm. As an action, you can move up to your speed, without provoking opportunity attacks, and when you move within 5 feet of any other creature during this action, you can restore a number of hit points to that creature equal to 2d6 + your Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1 hit point). A creature can receive this healing only once whenever you take this action.

How many creatures can this target within the movement? If I move through the entire party can I heal them all? Or does this only refer to a single creature?

It reads to me that I can target as many as I can reach with my movement, especially given the last line, but the any other creature, and that creature lines give me pause for thought.

Can Favored Foe from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything target more than one creature at the same time?

The new Ranger ability, Favored Foe, says:

When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can call on your mystical bond with nature to mark the target as your favored enemy for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell).

The first time on each of your turns that you hit the favored enemy and deal damage to it, including when you mark it, you can increase that damage by 1d4.

You can use this feature to mark a favored enemy a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

Since the ability says that you mark the creature when you hit it and that you can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier. I am wondering if you could target two creatures in the same turn, since you have Extra Attack at 5th level, to maximize the damage you can deal in a turn.

The scenario I imagine is the following, you attack creature A and mark it, then with your extra attack you attack creature B and mark it. On your next turn, you again attack creature A & B so you can use the "The first time on each of your turns that you hit the favoured enemy" clause of Favoured Foe ability to deal the extra damage since both creatures got hit only once on its turn.

Would this work?

Can blank target and range spells be considered valid for the teamwork feat share spells?

In a past question I asked if there was a way to cast personal spells on other creatures, and a solution was given. It requires the teamwork feats bonded mind and shared spells, further enhanced by the spell Coordinated Effort.

So the hard part was finished or so I thought. I was expecting a plethora of wonderful buff spells that are mediocre or situational to a caster, but a wonderful boon to martial and others. Searching d20 with "Target You" and "Range personal". This was further complicated by the fact that not all spells have the right information. Take Bless and Detect Evil which both are missing range and target. Are these valid spells?

So the question is, spells whose description include you/the caster and without range/target allowed?

There is a similar question I asked but was specifically about the normal familiar share spells ability.

What happens when you use the Telekinetic shove from Tasha’s when flying directly above your target?

The feat says that "the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward or away from you."

Case 1: The Push

"But they can’t move 5 feet downward from you if they are standing on the ground," you say.

"Ah," I say. "But they can move 5 feet downward from you if they become Prone."

I would contend that this actually fits the RAW as a satisfaction of the requirement "the target must…be moved 5 feet…away from you" as going Prone is a valid form of 5 feet of movement (albeit one that doesn’t usually consume any of your Speed). But I can see someone arguing against this reading. Either way, it’s a niche enough usage that I think many DMs might choose to allow it.

Extra benefit: If you have the movement available, you could fly down and attack with advantage.

Case 2: The Pull

This is just funny. Let’s say you’re flying 15 feet off the ground (10 feet above your target). You pull the target 5 feet up with your bonus action, then hit them with an attack. I can’t think of a RAW reason this would confer advantage, unless maybe through flanking (if you have an ally who is in one of the 9 squares below your target). But I might rule it granted advantage regardless, because the target would have a hard time defending in midair.

Extra benefit: When the target falls back down, they might re-trigger certain persistent AoE spells or environmental hazards.

Thoughts? Particularly on the application of RAW to force going Prone in Case 1, or to create flanking conditions (or some other form of advantage, if you can think of one) in Case 2?