• No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    20 hours 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

    • Archpawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      38 minutes 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.

    • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours 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.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        “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.

        • Archpawn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          36 minutes 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.

        • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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.

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            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.

            • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              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.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I guess you’re talking about 2024 rules? Because old 5e rules are different and don’t have this flaw.