In this case, it's a fucking wall. Just ignore the saving throw and roll for damage. It's not going to dodge your attack or anything like that. For blind firing, yeah. You need to do something else. Maybe roll to see if/what they hit, then the target makes the saving throw if it makes sense.

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.

That's what seeing is. Light. You can't actually directly observe the atoms that make something up. You can see the light that is reflected/emitted from that object.

>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.

To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.

If I was doing it that way (which would be fine in my opinion) I'd want to do the same for other attacks like the fighter swinging a flametongue sword at whichever layer it is that needs fire damage. I just suggested the attack roll version because it brings it into line with other approaches

consider: wall of force mimic

I would say that's a lack of accuracy, not precision. If it was less precise than it's work on more things, and be less focused on one particular thing. If it's more accurate than it is better at describing all targets. Precision: Is your grouping tight. Accuracy: Are you aiming at the target. Precision without accuracy is you very narrowly describe what it does, but you miss the desired target (the player being able to use the spell in a reasonable way).

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

Magic may be a fickle bitch, but she likes pedants more than wild mages. ‍️

Invisible mimic? Who are you? *Gygax?!*

In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell "definitely". More than once. 🤌

D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in the (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage of 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".

Perception check

Steels my resolve in pushing my group past 5e

Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.

In order for the *specific* circumstance called out by the disintegrate spell description to be possible it *requires* a violation of the general case, yes. That is literally the point of the "specific overrides general" rule. One of two things must be true for disintegrate to be able to destroy a wall of force: 1: The Wall is targetable by disintegrate. 2: Objects on the far side of the wall must be targetable by disintegrate and the wall gets in the way. For "specific overrides general" to hold a DM *must* rule that one of these is the case, otherwise the *extremely specific* interaction called out in the disintegrate spell description is impossible. Of course as DM you can rule that this is not the case and disintegrate does not destroy a wall of force, such is the prerogative of a DM, but I am firmly of the opinion that such a ruling is not RAW.

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.