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.
Son of a bitch, that’s a good argument.
There’s also blue in the sky. That’s literally you seeing the air
Actually that’s us seeing light.
Edit: specifically, the light wavelength that remains at passing through the atmosphere. We’re but seeing the air still, we’re just seeing the color that makes it through to us. Saying that’s the air itself would be like saying you see the cities filtration system by looking at the clean water that comes from a faucet.
A better example of actually seeing air would be to freeze it, and seeing the literal frozen air.
Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That’s how seeing things works
Do you see your own eyes? Like without a mirror
No. Why is that relevant?
I was extremely baked when I asked that but I think it was a question about how some light will reflect off your eye into your eye therefore you’re seeing your own eyes.
Responding to your edit:
You’ve got it the wrong way around. What you see at sunset, the reds and yellows, that’s the sunlight being filtered because those wavelengths make it through stronger. Your argument would hold there, if we do not count seeing filtered light as “seeing” the filtering material. (Although even that I’d question - if you hold a colored piece of glass against a light source so it’s entirely backlit, would you say you’re not seeing it?)
But the blue sky is not that. It is the air molecules being illuminated by light coming from somewhere else, and bouncing that light back into your eyes, with a bias towards blue wavelengths. If that does not count as “seeing” air, then you also can’t actually “see” fog, it’s the same mechanism.
everything you see is light
How about blind or very sight-impaired characters? Could they “see” the wall as they “see” everything, by touching/perceiving it? That’s as well as they can see anything.
Is seeing the same as visualizing? Because the cloud’s shapes and height clearly give you an idea where a mass of air with certain common characteristics is, where it starts, and where it ends.
It would be kind of neat that you would have to learn to see what can’t be seen to destroy something like force wall, because that would mean the blind would actually be better casters.
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.
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 cast
Mfs gotta remember that magic is a person, and that person can get annoyed
Magic may be a fickle bitch, but she likes pedants more than wild mages. 🤷🏼♂️
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 mean that outlook, while it’s cool for your campaign, it would make raising the dead (to fight for you) pretty difficult as I thought most animate dead type spells required a dead creature to animate and wouldnt work with an object, otherwise people would just make small effigies to animate instead of summoning the dead in battle.
Animate Dead targets a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small Humanoid. Create Undead targets corpses of Medium or Small Humanoids. Danse Macabre targets Small or Medium corpses. And you could technically use Animate Object, which targets objects, or True Polymorph, which can target either. Finger of Death and Negative Energy Flood both target a creature, but they just bring back the target as undead if the attack kills them.
But if you really get into it, the game has way too many assumptions to be played RAW. There’s no rule that you can’t walk through walls. There’s no rule that when you’re reduced to zero hitpoints you become an object or get transported to an afterlife dimension or otherwise can’t take actions (assuming you die instantly and don’t become Unconscious). Some weapons require two hands, and nobody can use them because none of the races are described as having hands. Thri-kreen have four arms, but no mention of hands at the end of them. You also need one hand to wield one-handed weapons, but this doesn’t come up because no weapons are described as one-handed. And sometimes the rules contradict. There’s a rule that in the case of a contradiction, the more specific rule applies, but that just adds yet another contradicting rule.
No I don’t want to play RAW. I just don’t want in game solutions to out of game problems. Just (and I know that this will seem extremely absurd, but hear me out!) talk to your players about it like a normal person and make it clear before you start to play.
I mean it’s tongue-in-cheek, and it’s never really been a problem at my table. Just a fun way to remind casters not to argue about specific wording interpretations in spells, and take them as their most obvious meaning
Now, if a caster comes up with something clever, they can make an Intelligence (Persuasion) check to see if Mystra will allow something. Just don’t tell Mystra how her own body works
Okay. But do you actually allow any use of the spell that’s not as originally intended? Because some things are technical applications of the rules which rely on rules working as intended but still in very specific way without breaking the game at all.
Sure. The line is somewhere between “I cast minor illusion to make an image of a cabinet, and hide inside of it” and “I cast Shape Water to freeze that guy’s blood.” In the former case, the spell never says I can’t hide inside the illusory object. Clever, useful, not game-breaking. In the latter case, the spell says a creature can’t be inside the water, but it never says the water can’t be inside the creature! Bad, shame, you lose all your spell slots until the next long rest
The last one is actually covered by it I’d say, because (as by rules of spell targeting) you cannot see the blood and furthermore (as confirmed by “Water breathing” not working in wine) spells that affect water really only affect water and that’s it.
I know you mean it as a joke, but in my experience, punishing a player for trying to find out what you will and won’t allow them to do is a good way to get players that don’t want to be creative. Just tell them that you will not allow it. (Also… poor Mystra for having to waste that much divine power on someone trying to use spells in a way it can’t be used in anyway.)
If everyone at your table is habilitated fun, then… well, have fun, but I’d advise against it.
Finding loopholes is one thing, focusing on finding them so that you can “erm actually” a god is another. A wizard is bound to wonder if lungs count as an open container. A wizard who asserts that they are and doesn’t take no for an answer is gonna get his spell slots sapped for a bit
That one does not work RAW either way, because lungs are not an open container.
But I never said I wanted to actually exploit this in a game. You can’t really exploit this one even if you want to, because it’s bound to be extremely specific. I just wanted to point out the weirdness.
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.
So you need Detect Magic running?
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 no clear rule for that I’d say it’s up to interpretation.
Nope
Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.
Entirely unrelated, but I love how this makes it seem like magical items emit radiation that gets blocked by objects and gets detected by the geiger counter spell that is detect magic.
Ope great catch
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.
That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I’m aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definitely 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 people simply decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.
I didn’t actually know it was or wasn’t Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.
He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.
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.
Line of effect vs line of sight
What is the effect of disintegrate? It’s it a force/object that travels from the caster to the target? Or does the effect happen at the object.
does the spell require an attack roll? That could also be a clue
A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range.
And no attack roll. Which is why I would rule the wall at the very least is destroyed, possibly continuing on.
Can’t target the wall itself but the spell absolutley hits the wall if it’s a ray
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.
I defer to Miracle Max on this one,
One minute after death it’s quite a corpse yet, just a creature with no hit points or death saving throws.
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.
Personally I used to love it, if the DM did that it inspired players to play; usually whoever had theage would say something like I can’t destroy what I can’t see and the the fun starts… Someone throws flour from their pack at it (or dirt, oil, something to make the invisible object visable in another way).
I haven’t played in over 20 years so I’m sure it’s changed a lot but that kind of stuff was fun to me.
I understand where you are coming from, but it think there are plenty of opportunities for improvisation and creative solutions without the need to start splitting hairs about specific wording.
I feel that people not following the wording kills a lot if the experience, obviously the DM is god and makes final calls but, some stuff kills it. I remember playing with one guy that wanted every fight to be epic but he didn’t really understand the wording in the monster manual so he would constantly throw huge battles at us and underpower them or just play them weird (like dragons that aren’t smart despite their int score). Before ever seeing level 15 our characters could have taken out God’s with the gear and crap he had given us.
Fun memories though so I guess it really doesn’t matter, it’s all about how you like to play.
Are you saying the example in this meme is good way to follow the word of the rules?
