This definetly seem very intentional… : rpgmemes

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone -1 points 5 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 73 points 1 week ago (5 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 6 days ago) (2 children)

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

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell "definitely". More than once. 🤌🏼

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

RAW/RAI?

[–] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rules as written, rules as intended.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The humble cone of cold:

[–] 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)

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 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 (4 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)

load more comments (2 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 (8 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.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I guess you're talking about 2024 rules? Because old 5e rules are different and don't have this flaw.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 6 days ago

It actually still does, because while disintegrate in 2014 specifically mentions the wall of force, it also specifically mentions how you have to be able to see the target.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (3 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?

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] 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 (5 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.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I'm aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definitely 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 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 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)

RPGMemes