Thanks for your answers. I'll treat it as a spell that was cast on the creature that can be dispelled, but reactivated the next turn by the villain.
It is a regular invisibility, so I assume offensive casting would have ended the invisibility anyways. But now I have the option to disappear again when things get challenging.
Situation: the villain is wearing a ring of invisibility. My bard used "See Invisibility" and wants to dispel its invisibility by using the "Dispel Magic" spell, and then specifically this part: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target"
Would the dispel magic indeed end the villains invisibility? If so, can the villain reuse the ring the next turn to turn invisible again? And would that take a standard action?
Wouldn't it be better for the bard to target the ring for 1d4 rounds of suppression? But could he then somehow know that the effect is created by the ring, and not by the villain casting "Greater Invisibility"?
I started to use PowerPoint as a story telling device, and I think it really helps to build the mood. These presentations on a big screen TV together with the Syrinscape Soundset sets things up nicely.
It started when I found a really nice player journal on obsidianportal (https://riseoftherunelords-155.obsidianportal.com/) and collected all the art they used there.
But after this I started to copy and crop art from absolutely everywhere I could find them. They get rather lengthy so Chapter two is 183 art slides, but I think they are really fun to use during play.
Thanks for your analysis. I will work with the general guideline of "before combat" vs. "during combat".
I think it is correct that they didn't add Bear's Strength in this case, since it is an enhancement bonus that doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus of the greater extended weapon. But indeed, figuring all this out takes a lot of effort, and it easier to have a rule of thumb that one can follow, and accept a minor mistake here and there.