A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
This definetly seem very intentional…
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.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
-
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.
-
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 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. I would not recommend doing it this way, but that’s what the rules say.
-
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* Detect magic.
-
* Detect magic.
-
Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.RAW/RAI?
-
RAW/RAI?
-
The humble cone of cold:
-
The humble cone of cold:
-
* Detect magic.
-
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.
-
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
-
Oh that's just bullshit
-
This post did not contain any content.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
