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.

Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That's how seeing things works

Do you see your own eyes? Like without a mirror

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.

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.

By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.

How about blind or very sight-impaired characters? Could they “see” the wall as they “see” everything, by touching 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.

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?

"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.

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

This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.

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 didn't actually know it was or wasn't Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.

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

Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.

Actually that's us seeing light.

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

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.