365
This definetly seem very intentional… (ttrpg.network)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 10 months ago (3 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago

    I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say "See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.", so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Line of effect vs line of sight

    What is the effect of disintegrate? It's it a force/object that travels from the caster to the target? Or does the effect happen at the object.

    does the spell require an attack roll? That could also be a clue

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •