this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
169 points (96.2% liked)

RPGMemes

13849 readers
1214 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 38 points 7 hours 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 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

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

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 54 minutes ago

If you can target an invisible wall, it introduces a lot of ways for things to go wrong. The spell caster is taking elements on faith and making assumptions, and those can be subverted...

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 14 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 5 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 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 hours ago

Rules as written, rules as intended.

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

I've never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn't come up very often and because it's easy for players to understand that they'll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 14 minutes ago

I actually think it’s a fair restriction for spells that require sight. It imposes a somewhat interesting limit on casters, especially since a lot of spells still do something on a miss.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 7 points 4 hours ago

I think spells that target the spirit of a target shouldn't be able to be fired blind - that's what i would let it depend on. A cold ray doesn't need a visible target, but everything mind affecting that is not AoE will need it.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Most of the time I think it's because the spell calls for a saving throw and there isn't a mechanic for what a wall's Con save ought to be. That's not a unsolvable problem by any means, but I assume that's why the restrictions exist

But yeah, going with the flow at the table is much more fun. We can bodge a solution here. Roll it as a spellcasting attack for now

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 13 minutes ago

Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.