Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
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
Oh definitely. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
RAW/RAI?
Rules as written, rules as intended.
Thanks!
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.
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
Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.
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.
The humble cone of cold:
Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it
consider: wall of force mimic
Invisible mimic? Who are you? Gygax?!
I don't get it. Can you explain?
Edit (literally 10 seconds after submitting my comment): is the problem that a literal reading of this would suggest that even if more than one creature is caught in the cone, only one takes the damage?
On a tangenty note, this is one of the reasons I find board games and TTRPGs super fun: DnD 5e has a lot of these kinds of problems (which is why there's so many sage advice clarifications), but even in more precisely written games, the interplay between Rules as Written (RAW) and Rules as Intended (RAI) is super interesting, because we have no direct way of accessing RAI. Even when the games designers chip in with clarifications, as with Sage Advice, all that does is give us more RAW to interpret. All we can do is guess at the RAI, which sometimes means actively ignoring the RAW.
It's also cool to see how that tension manifests from the game design angle. I have a couple of friends who have either made board games, or written TTRPG books. Whether you're the reader or the writer, the one constant is that words are slippery and unreliable, so there will always be a gap between RAW and RAI
The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage.
That would also mean Fireball only does damage to creatures, and everything else is just ignited and only if they're flammable? Worst game ever.
Edit: Wait a minute. Player Handbook, Chapter 8
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.
Am I missing something here? Why isn't Prismatic Wall affected? Are walls not objects?
DMG, page 246 mentions walls specifically:
Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
Common sense, my worst nemesis 😔
I'm going to preface this by saying I am 100% in favor of using common sense, and I have always allowed players to damage objects with spells as long as it makes sense. For example, I probably wouldn't let a player "inflict wounds" on a locked door, but I would happily let them "thunderous smite" it.
But in the spirit of this thread, if we're applying a rigidly narrow interpretation of the rules as written, a spell only does what its description says it does. Cone of Cold does not say it damages objects. It says it damages creatures that fail a saving throw.
Yes, Chapter 8 says "Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells" - and indeed they can, if they use a suitable spell such as Fire Bolt or Shatter which can damage objects according to its spell description.
Again, that's Rules Lawyer Jesse Pinkman talking, and does not represent my own beliefs or opinions.
Who would win, Gravity Fissure vs small porcelain vase
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
To be pedantic, the issue is actually caused by precise wording. The wording is so precise it limits it too much. The wording is too precise, and inaccurate.
I'd argue you can 'see' the wall if you place something on it, like:
By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.
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.
Or just interpret it as line of sight.
I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.
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
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.
"Specific overrides general" is RAW though, and the spell description of Wall of Force calls out that exact spell interaction as a way to destroy it.
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
That’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.
And then you'll figure out how to cast a 12th level spell to steal the power of a god. Mystra learned her lesson the hard way.
But if you want to play RAW, go ahead. Oh, you died and you want to be brought back to life? Sorry, the spell targets a "creature that died in the last minute", and now that you're dead, you're an object.
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.
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?
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.
And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
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.
What? That's so silly.
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
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".
