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
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.
Tired of pesky adventurers always seeing your tricks? Try applying Invisible metamagic to conjured Fog today!
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...
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'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.
So you need Detect Magic running?
Or a bag of flour to throw around to make the wall visible
Just Last Crusade it and throw some dirt on the wall.
It’s technically still invisible. But as there is no clear rule for that I'd say it’s up to interpretation.
Nope
Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.
Ope great catch
Entirely unrelated, but I love how this makes it seem like magical items emit radiation that gets blocked by objects and gets detected by the geiger counter spell that is detect magic.
Yes. See invisibility should work as well. Both are quite annoying to activate when in a fight though.
Edit: TIL that detect magic may not work, because the object has to be visible.
Definitely. If one is trying to be prepared, See Invisibility lasts an hour but takes a lvl 2 slot while Detect Magic lasts 10 minutes and only takes a lvl 1 slot, so there's tradeoffs for sure.
One of the things I like about my firbolg twilight cleric is having the detect magic racial ability, too.
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.
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.
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.
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
Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said "the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you're right that that's not what the spell descriptions say", then I'd be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying.
Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren't willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created
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".
I defer to Miracle Max on this one,
One minute after death it's quite a corpse yet, just a creature with no hit points or death saving throws.
