this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
347 points (96.5% liked)

RPGMemes

13936 readers
1295 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

I defer to Miracle Max on this one,

One minute after death it's quite a corpse yet, just a creature with no hit points or death saving throws.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What a weird technicality to get caught up on. Disintegrate destroys wall of force. RAI over RAW any day. It makes absolutely no sense that you can't shoot a disintegrate wherever you want. If you're so worried about the wall being invisible, then target something behind the wall. It's a ray, and it hits the wall, and both spells explicitly say the wall is destroyed. Disintegrate also explicitly can target walls of force, even though it has the "target you can see" caveat. If a player tries to use the explicit counter to wall of force against it and you catch them on a technicality, you're harming the collaborative story.

Don't exploit poor wording when the intent of both spells is clear. No one wants a DM rules lawyer.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I never said I wanted to exploit it. I just pointed it out because it was very funny to me.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 73 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rules as written, rules as intended.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

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
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

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

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (8 children)

There's also blue in the sky. That's literally you seeing the air

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How about blind or very sight-impaired characters? Could they “see” the wall as they “see” everything, by touching/perceiving it? That’s as well as they can see anything.

Is seeing the same as visualizing? Because the cloud’s shapes and height clearly give you an idea where a mass of air with certain common characteristics is, where it starts, and where it ends.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 17 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

In my campaigns, Mystra does not take kindly to pedants or loophole researchers. A spell does what Mystra allows it to do, and you cast what Mystra allows you to cast

Mfs gotta remember that magic is a person, and that person can get annoyed

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

There are two fun things you can do with D&D. You can be pointlessly pedantic with the rules, and you can play. As long as you don't do both at once you're good.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 13 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 week ago

What? That's so silly.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in 5e (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage if you're invisible and attacking someone. Even if they can see you. The invisibility condition is worded like "you get advantage on attacks" instead of "Since you're hidden, remember you get advantage on attacks".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›