top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 78 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    Oh definitely. I assume that RAI this is the intention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 26 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

    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
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (12 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So you need Detect Magic running?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (5 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?

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (7 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 7 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    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".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›