A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
This definetly seem very intentional…
-
This post did not contain any content.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".
-
The wording simply says "a disintegrate spell". It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.
-
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
The wording simply says "a disintegrate spell". It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.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.
