A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
This definetly seem very intentional…
-
Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.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.
-
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>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 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.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.
-
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.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
-
Oh that's just bullshit
-
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.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).
-
This post did not contain any content.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
-
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
-
Oh definetly. I assume that RAI this is the intention.
-
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.
️
