Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. This definetly seem very intentional…
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

This definetly seem very intentional…

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
rpgmemes
55 Posts 26 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S This user is from outside of this forum
    S This user is from outside of this forum
    shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
    wrote last edited by
    #21
    The humble cone of cold:
    ? 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
      The humble cone of cold:
      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Guest
      wrote last edited by
      #22
      ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e0a346c3-1ae0-4ceb-8e40-35195403a135.png)
      S ? 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
        * Detect magic.
        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Guest
        wrote last edited by
        #23
        Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2178cdae-428b-4844-a001-6391a13713ee.png)
        ? 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • ? Guest
          So you need Detect Magic running?
          ? Offline
          ? Offline
          Guest
          wrote last edited by
          #24
          Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e83c00b0-7101-48af-af89-927e2d185551.png)
          ? J 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • ? Guest
            And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
            Aielman15A This user is from outside of this forum
            Aielman15A This user is from outside of this forum
            Aielman15
            wrote last edited by
            #25
            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.
            ? 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ? Guest
              Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e83c00b0-7101-48af-af89-927e2d185551.png)
              ? Offline
              ? Offline
              Guest
              wrote last edited by
              #26
              Ope great catch
              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ? Guest
                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
                ? Offline
                ? Offline
                Guest
                wrote last edited by
                #27
                By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
                ? ? 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • ? Guest
                  By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
                  ? Offline
                  ? Offline
                  Guest
                  wrote last edited by
                  #28
                  Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • ? Guest
                    ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e0a346c3-1ae0-4ceb-8e40-35195403a135.png)
                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                    shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                    wrote last edited by
                    #29
                    Oh that's just bullshit
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ? Guest
                      Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2178cdae-428b-4844-a001-6391a13713ee.png)
                      ? Offline
                      ? Offline
                      Guest
                      wrote last edited by
                      #30
                      Technically it only refers to visible creatures. Objects doesnt have the adjective visible. Unlikely, but a particularly bull headed person could read this as though detect magic could identify invisible objects.
                      ? 1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      0
                      • ? Offline
                        ? Offline
                        Guest
                        wrote last edited by
                        #31
                        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...
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                          This post did not contain any content.
                          N This user is from outside of this forum
                          N This user is from outside of this forum
                          no_money_just_change@feddit.org
                          wrote last edited by
                          #32
                          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
                          J 1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          0
                          • ? Guest
                            Technically it only refers to visible creatures. Objects doesnt have the adjective visible. Unlikely, but a particularly bull headed person could read this as though detect magic could identify invisible objects.
                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #33
                            I'm kinda surprised how vague many of the DnD rules are written. Didn't they have a rules lawyer at hand when writing these?
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            0
                            • N no_money_just_change@feddit.org
                              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
                              J This user is from outside of this forum
                              J This user is from outside of this forum
                              jounniy@ttrpg.network
                              wrote last edited by
                              #34
                              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.
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J This user is from outside of this forum
                                J This user is from outside of this forum
                                jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                wrote last edited by
                                #35
                                Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
                                1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                0
                                • ? Guest
                                  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.
                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #36
                                  I actually think it’s a fair restriction for spells that require sight. It imposes a somewhat interesting limit on casters, especially since a lot of spells still do something on a miss.
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J This user is from outside of this forum
                                    J This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #37
                                    Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.
                                    ? 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • ? Guest
                                      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
                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #38
                                      I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      1
                                      0
                                      • ? Guest
                                        Nope ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e83c00b0-7101-48af-af89-927e2d185551.png)
                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        jounniy@ttrpg.network
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #39
                                        Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.
                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        1
                                        0
                                        • ? Guest
                                          And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
                                          ? Offline
                                          ? Offline
                                          Guest
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #40
                                          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
                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • 1
                                          • 2
                                          • 3
                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups