363
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Skua@kbin.earth 75 points 1 week ago

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

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[-] Carl@hexbear.net 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 12 points 1 week ago

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

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 week ago

Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 11 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago
[-] cjoll4@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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
[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

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

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.

[-] hikaru755@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

There's also blue in the sky. That's literally you seeing the air

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago

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

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 17 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] borf@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 week ago

So you need Detect Magic running?

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Or a bag of flour to throw around to make the wall visible

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Just Last Crusade it and throw some dirt on the wall.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cjoll4@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago
[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 week ago

Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] borf@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 week 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.

[-] Archpawn@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week 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.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] jounniy@ttrpg.network 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago

What? That's so silly.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
363 points (96.7% liked)

RPGMemes

13952 readers
1107 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS