163
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 2 points 54 minutes ago

I would go line of fire logic.

You theoretically can not target the wall, but you can target something on the outerside and will then hit the wall instead

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 18 minutes ago

As I have said in another comment, that is RAW not what would happen:

"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 behind completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible."

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

It’s very much not RAI I'd say and I would likely handle exactly like you described, but the RAW was so wonky that I wanted to make the meme when I found out about it.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 36 points 7 hours ago

I suppose you could cast see invisibility or true seeing first? But... yeah if I'm GMing you can just target the invisible wall, fuck that. Same goes for how RAW it's nearly impossible to destroy the red layer of a prismatic wall because every spell that deals cold damage explicitly only targets creatures

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago
[-] cjoll4@lemmy.world 14 points 1 hour ago
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 11 points 6 hours ago

Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.

[-] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 hours ago

Rules as written, rules as intended.

[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'd argue you can 'see' the wall if you place something on it, like:

  • your hand
  • your frontline's hand (or some other body part)
  • a ghost's hand
  • flour, dust, tar, enemies' blood, coughing syrup, and other things that could stick to the surface
  • gecko, spider, and other creatures that wouldn't fall off; probably also your familiar; dhampir and a high level monk should work, too
[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 12 minutes ago

I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 6 points 7 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?

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 9 minutes 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 5 points 3 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.

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 minutes 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 simply people decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 7 minutes 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

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour 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.

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

RPGMemes

13849 readers
1130 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS