277
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago

What would happen if the disintegrate spell targeted a creature or object but a wall of force existed between them? I'm guessing it would just destroy the wall and then continue onward to the target?

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Line of effect vs line of sight

What is the effect of disintegrate? It's it a force/object that travels from the caster to the target? Or does the effect happen at the object.

does the spell require an attack roll? That could also be a clue

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range.

And no attack roll. Which is why I would rule the wall at the very least is destroyed, possibly continuing on.

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 19 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

No. If we assume that you have to target the wall it would at the very least stop after destroying the wall.

But by RAW, you can’t even cast it on something behind the wall, because you cannot target something (or someone) with a spell if they are behind total cover. Total cover is created by being completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible.

Furthermore, if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you still expend the spellslot but there will be no effect. So you'd actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing.

I would not recommend doing it this way, but that’s what the rules say.

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago

Crawford also rules that See Invisibility doesn't remove the advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls because it doesn't say so in the spell's effect, so... Yeah, I always ignore what he says.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 14 hours ago

What? That's so silly.

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I'm aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definetly intended to be able to just cast disintegrate on the wall.

Some rules are intended in a certain way and just handled poorly. The above case is (I personally think) one of them. Others are actually intended to work a certain way because of designing aspects (like verbal components having to be said at a normal volume) but people simply decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I didn't actually know it was or wasn't Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 hours ago

He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 15 hours ago

Ironically here, Crawford actually thinks that the text of disintegrate does in fact permit you to target a wall of force that you can't see. I don't quite understand how he thinks it says that, but it does at least confirm the intention

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 7 points 14 hours ago

Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said "the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you're right that that's not what the spell descriptions say", then I'd be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying.

Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren't willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 hours ago

I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say "See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.", so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
277 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

13849 readers
955 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS