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.

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

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.

Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.

I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.

Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.

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

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.

The ever-reliable bardic frag grenade

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

I don't get it. Can you explain?

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

The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage

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

What? That's so silly.

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

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