A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
This definetly seem very intentional…
-
This post did not contain any content.D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in the (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage of 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".
-
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.
-
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
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.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 must be 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.
-
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 castThat’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.
-
D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in the (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage of 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".Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.
-
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 must be 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.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.
-
Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
-
Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.You are not bound to engage with the topic. For most here I assume it’s just goofing around.
-
That’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.And then you'll figure out how to cast a 12th level spell to steal the power of a god. Mystra learned her lesson the hard way. But if you want to play RAW, go ahead. Oh, you died and you want to be brought back to life? Sorry, the spell targets a "creature that died in the last minute", and now that you're dead, you're an object.
-
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 insteadIf 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.
-
"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.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.
-
This post did not contain any content.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.
-
Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.Usually not when actually playing, though sometimes it can be. For example, by RAU, if you cast Imprisonment (Slumber) on an elf, they'll be immune to the part that makes them sleep, but still get immunity to aging and hunger. It's not OP for a ninth-level spell, and it has interesting worldbuilding implications, so you can just run with it.
-
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?If they don't have total cover, they're hit. Nothing says that disintegrate needs line of sight. If they do have total cover, they can't be targeted.
-
Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
-
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.
