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.
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
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
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.
The humble cone of cold:
Oh that’s just bullshit. I’m gonna pretend I didn’t read it
I don’t get it. Can you explain?
Edit (literally 10 seconds after submitting my comment): is the problem that a literal reading of this would suggest that even if more than one creature is caught in the cone, only one takes the damage?
On a tangenty note, this is one of the reasons I find board games and TTRPGs super fun: DnD 5e has a lot of these kinds of problems (which is why there’s so many sage advice clarifications), but even in more precisely written games, the interplay between Rules as Written (RAW) and Rules as Intended (RAI) is super interesting, because we have no direct way of accessing RAI. Even when the games designers chip in with clarifications, as with Sage Advice, all that does is give us more RAW to interpret. All we can do is guess at the RAI, which sometimes means actively ignoring the RAW.
It’s also cool to see how that tension manifests from the game design angle. I have a couple of friends who have either made board games, or written TTRPG books. Whether you’re the reader or the writer, the one constant is that words are slippery and unreliable, so there will always be a gap between RAW and RAI
The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage.
That would also mean Fireball only does damage to creatures, and everything else is just ignited and only if they’re flammable? Worst game ever.
Edit: Wait a minute. Player Handbook, Chapter 8
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.
Am I missing something here? Why isn’t Prismatic Wall affected? Are walls not objects?
DMG, page 246 mentions walls specifically:
Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
Common sense, my worst nemesis 😔
I’m going to preface this by saying I am 100% in favor of using common sense, and I have always allowed players to damage objects with spells as long as it makes sense. For example, I probably wouldn’t let a player “inflict wounds” on a locked door, but I would happily let them “thunderous smite” it.
But in the spirit of this thread, if we’re applying a rigidly narrow interpretation of the rules as written, a spell only does what its description says it does. Cone of Cold does not say it damages objects. It says it damages creatures that fail a saving throw.
Yes, Chapter 8 says “Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells” - and indeed they can, if they use a suitable spell such as Fire Bolt or Shatter which can damage objects according to its spell description.
Again, that’s Rules Lawyer Jesse Pinkman talking, and does not represent my own beliefs or opinions.
Who would win, Gravity Fissure vs small porcelain vase
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…
Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
RAW/RAI?
Rules as written, rules as intended.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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
Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.
The ever-reliable bardic frag grenade
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
By that logic you can see air because there’s clouds in the sky.
There’s also blue in the sky. That’s literally you seeing the air
Actually that’s us seeing light.
Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That’s how seeing things works
Son of a bitch, that’s a good argument.
Or just interpret it as line of sight.
I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it’s location.
- Detect magic.
Nope
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.
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?
I’ve specifically focused on means that don’t require a spell slot to use. Left familiar as an exception because people like to have them anyway and it can be ritual cast.
So you need Detect Magic running?
Nope
Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.
Ope great catch
Or a bag of flour to throw around to make the wall visible
Just Last Crusade it and throw some dirt on the wall.
It’s technically still invisible. But as there is not clear rule for that I’d say it’s up to interpretation.
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.
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.
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?
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.
And this is why my group is ok saying “that rule is profoundly dumb” and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
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.
What? That’s so silly.
That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I’m aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definetly intended to be able to just cast disintegrate on the wall.
Some rules are intended in a certain way and just handled poorly. The above case is (I personally think) one of them. Others are actually intended to work a certain way because of designing aspects (like verbal components having to be said at a normal volume) but simply people decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.
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
Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said “the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you’re right that that’s not what the spell descriptions say”, then I’d be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying.
Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren’t willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created
