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
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
168 points (96.2% liked)
RPGMemes
13849 readers
1214 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
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...
The humble cone of cold:
Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it
Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
RAW/RAI?
Rules as written, rules as intended.
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.
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.
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.
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'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
I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.
By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.
- Detect magic.
Nope
Technically it only refers to visible creatures. Objects doesnt have the adjective visible.
Unlikely, but a particularly bull headed person could read this as though detect magic could identify invisible objects.
I'm kinda surprised how vague many of the DnD rules are written.
Didn't they have a rules lawyer at hand when writing these?
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.
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.
Ironically here, Crawford actually thinks that the text of disintegrate does in fact permit you to target a wall of force that you can't see. I don't quite understand how he thinks it says that, but it does at least confirm the intention
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.