this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
128 points (98.5% liked)

RPGMemes

13849 readers
1381 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 27 points 5 hours ago (3 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

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 2 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 5 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 34 minutes ago

Rules as written, rules as intended.

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 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.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 5 points 3 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 5 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 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
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)
[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago
[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I've specifically focused on means that don't require a spell slot to use. Left familiar as an exception because people like to have them anyway and it can be ritual cast.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 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 11 points 4 hours 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 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.

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

[–] maniclucky@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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