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
[–] 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    "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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    It just says you can cast it on a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force. It does not say that you can do it without first casting See Invisibility.

    Though would that work? The wording in Disintegrate lists a creature or object separately, implying a Wall of Force is neither. Since See Invisibility only lets you see creatures and objects, it wouldn't let you see a Wall of Force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The wording simply says "a disintegrate spell". It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    In order for the specific circumstance called out by the disintegrate spell description to be possible it requires a violation of the general case, yes. That is literally the point of the "specific overrides general" rule.

    One of two things must be true for disintegrate to be able to destroy a wall of force:

    1: The Wall is targetable by disintegrate.

    2: Objects on the far side of the wall are targetable by disintegrate and the wall gets in the way.

    For "specific overrides general" to hold a DM must rule that one of these is the case, otherwise the extremely specific interaction called out in the disintegrate spell description is impossible.

    Of course as DM you can rule that this is not the case and disintegrate does not destroy a wall of force, such is the prerogative of a DM, but I am firmly of the opinion that such a ruling is not RAW.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    No it doesn’t need to. As there are methods to see invisible creatures or objects, you could very well rule that you need to make use of one of those effects to use this part of the spells capabilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Oh, true. It had slipped my mind that see invisibility allowed you to see things that were innately invisible and not just things magically made invisible.

    Well now I just look foolish!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    If there's a line of effect between you and the target, no matter how circuitous it is, the target is hit. If there isn't one, it has total concealment and can't be targeted. If you're going to ignore RAW and play like a reasonable person, just let people target the wall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent