Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. This definetly seem very intentional…
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

This definetly seem very intentional…

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
rpgmemes
104 Posts 42 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Guest
    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.
    J This user is from outside of this forum
    J This user is from outside of this forum
    jounniy@ttrpg.network
    wrote last edited by
    #89
    No it doesn’t need to. As there are methods to see invisible creatures or objects, you could very well rule that you need to make use of one of those effects to use this part of the spells capabilities.
    ? 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Guest
      In a pedantic thread re: RAW, you misspell "definitely". More than once. 🤌🏼
      J This user is from outside of this forum
      J This user is from outside of this forum
      jounniy@ttrpg.network
      wrote last edited by
      #90
      Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
      ? 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ? Guest
        Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.
        J This user is from outside of this forum
        J This user is from outside of this forum
        jounniy@ttrpg.network
        wrote last edited by
        #91
        You are not bound to engage with the topic. For most here I assume it’s just goofing around.
        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
          That’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.
          A This user is from outside of this forum
          A This user is from outside of this forum
          archpawn@lemmy.world
          wrote last edited by
          #92
          And then you'll figure out how to cast a 12th level spell to steal the power of a god. Mystra learned her lesson the hard way. But if you want to play RAW, go ahead. Oh, you died and you want to be brought back to life? Sorry, the spell targets a "creature that died in the last minute", and now that you're dead, you're an object.
          ? 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • N no_money_just_change@feddit.org
            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
            A This user is from outside of this forum
            A This user is from outside of this forum
            archpawn@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #93
            If there's a line of effect between you and the target, no matter how circuitous it is, the target is hit. If there isn't one, it has total concealment and can't be targeted. If you're going to ignore RAW and play like a reasonable person, just let people target the wall.
            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ? Guest
              "Specific overrides general" *is* RAW though, and the spell description of Wall of Force calls out that exact spell interaction as a way to destroy it.
              A This user is from outside of this forum
              A This user is from outside of this forum
              archpawn@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #94
              It just says you can cast it on a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force. It does not say that you can do it without first casting See Invisibility. Though would that work? The wording in Disintegrate lists a creature or object separately, implying a Wall of Force is neither. Since See Invisibility only lets you see creatures and objects, it wouldn't let you see a Wall of Force.
              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                This post did not contain any content.
                A This user is from outside of this forum
                A This user is from outside of this forum
                archpawn@lemmy.world
                wrote last edited by
                #95
                There are two fun things you can do with D&D. You can be pointlessly pedantic with the rules, and you can play. As long as you don't do both at once you're good.
                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                  Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  archpawn@lemmy.world
                  wrote last edited by
                  #96
                  Usually not when actually playing, though sometimes it can be. For example, by RAU, if you cast Imprisonment (Slumber) on an elf, they'll be immune to the part that makes them sleep, but still get immunity to aging and hunger. It's not OP for a ninth-level spell, and it has interesting worldbuilding implications, so you can just run with it.
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • mimicjar@lemmy.worldM mimicjar@lemmy.world
                    What would happen if the disintegrate spell targeted a creature or object but a wall of force existed between them? I'm guessing it would just destroy the wall and then continue onward to the target?
                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    archpawn@lemmy.world
                    wrote last edited by
                    #97
                    If they don't have total cover, they're hit. Nothing says that disintegrate needs line of sight. If they do have total cover, they can't be targeted.
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    0
                    • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                      Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.
                      ? Offline
                      ? Offline
                      Guest
                      wrote last edited by
                      #98
                      I thought it was funny, to be fair 🤣
                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                        No it doesn’t need to. As there are methods to see invisible creatures or objects, you could very well rule that you need to make use of one of those effects to use this part of the spells capabilities.
                        ? Offline
                        ? Offline
                        Guest
                        wrote last edited by
                        #99
                        Oh, true. It had slipped my mind that see invisibility allowed you to see things that were innately invisible and not just things magically made invisible. Well now I just look foolish!
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • ? Offline
                          ? Offline
                          Guest
                          wrote last edited by
                          #100
                          Tired of pesky adventurers always seeing your tricks? Try applying Invisible metamagic to conjured Fog today!
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • ? Guest
                            Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.
                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #101
                            Personally I used to love it, if the DM did that it inspired players to play; usually whoever had theage would say something like I can't destroy what I can't see and the the fun starts... Someone throws flour from their pack at it (or dirt, oil, something to make the invisible object visable in another way). I haven't played in over 20 years so I'm sure it's changed a lot but that kind of stuff was fun to me.
                            ? 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • A archpawn@lemmy.world
                              And then you'll figure out how to cast a 12th level spell to steal the power of a god. Mystra learned her lesson the hard way. But if you want to play RAW, go ahead. Oh, you died and you want to be brought back to life? Sorry, the spell targets a "creature that died in the last minute", and now that you're dead, you're an object.
                              ? Offline
                              ? Offline
                              Guest
                              wrote last edited by
                              #102
                              I mean that outlook, while it's cool for your campaign, it would make raising the dead (to fight for you) pretty difficult as I thought most animate dead type spells required a dead creature to animate and wouldnt work with an object, otherwise people would just make small effigies to animate instead of summoning the dead in battle.
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • ? Guest
                                Personally I used to love it, if the DM did that it inspired players to play; usually whoever had theage would say something like I can't destroy what I can't see and the the fun starts... Someone throws flour from their pack at it (or dirt, oil, something to make the invisible object visable in another way). I haven't played in over 20 years so I'm sure it's changed a lot but that kind of stuff was fun to me.
                                ? Offline
                                ? Offline
                                Guest
                                wrote last edited by
                                #103
                                I understand where you are coming from, but it think there are plenty of opportunities for improvisation and creative solutions without the need to start splitting hairs about specific wording.
                                ? 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • ? Guest
                                  I understand where you are coming from, but it think there are plenty of opportunities for improvisation and creative solutions without the need to start splitting hairs about specific wording.
                                  ? Offline
                                  ? Offline
                                  Guest
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #104
                                  I feel that people not following the wording kills a lot if the experience, obviously the DM is god and makes final calls but, some stuff kills it. I remember playing with one guy that wanted every fight to be epic but he didn't really understand the wording in the monster manual so he would constantly throw huge battles at us and underpower them or just play them weird (like dragons that aren't smart despite their int score). Before ever seeing level 15 our characters could have taken out God's with the gear and crap he had given us. Fun memories though so I guess it really doesn't matter, it's all about how you like to play.
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0

                                  Reply
                                  • Reply as topic
                                  Log in to reply
                                  • Oldest to Newest
                                  • Newest to Oldest
                                  • Most Votes


                                  • 1
                                  • 2
                                  • 3
                                  • 4
                                  • 5
                                  • 6
                                  • Login

                                  • Don't have an account? Register

                                  • Login or register to search.
                                  Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  0
                                  • Categories
                                  • Recent
                                  • Tags
                                  • Popular
                                  • World
                                  • Users
                                  • Groups