deleted by creator
Oh definitely. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell “definitely”. More than once. 🤌🏼
Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
I thought it was funny, to be fair 🤣
I actually think it’s funny too.
The humble cone of cold:
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
To be pedantic, the issue is actually caused by precise wording. The wording is so precise it limits it too much. The wording is too precise, and inaccurate.
To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.
I would say that’s a lack of accuracy, not precision. If it was less precise than it’s work on more things, and be less focused on one particular thing. If it’s more accurate than it is better at describing all targets.
Precision: Is your grouping tight.
Accuracy: Are you aiming at the target.
Precision without accuracy is you very narrowly describe what it does, but you miss the desired target (the player being able to use the spell in a reasonable way).
Fair.
Tired of pesky adventurers always seeing your tricks? Try applying Invisible metamagic to conjured Fog today!
Removed by mod
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
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.
“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.
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 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.
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, true. It had slipped my mind that see invisibility allowed you to see things that were innately invisible and not just things magically made invisible.
Well now I just look foolish!
Perception check
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.
Steels my resolve in pushing my group past 5e
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”.
Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.
What a weird technicality to get caught up on. Disintegrate destroys wall of force. RAI over RAW any day. It makes absolutely no sense that you can’t shoot a disintegrate wherever you want. If you’re so worried about the wall being invisible, then target something behind the wall. It’s a ray, and it hits the wall, and both spells explicitly say the wall is destroyed. Disintegrate also explicitly can target walls of force, even though it has the “target you can see” caveat. If a player tries to use the explicit counter to wall of force against it and you catch them on a technicality, you’re harming the collaborative story.
Don’t exploit poor wording when the intent of both spells is clear. No one wants a DM rules lawyer.
I never said I wanted to exploit it. I just pointed it out because it was very funny to me.
