this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
350 points (96.5% liked)

RPGMemes

13936 readers
1104 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

I defer to Miracle Max on this one,

One minute after death it's quite a corpse yet, just a creature with no hit points or death saving throws.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What a weird technicality to get caught up on. Disintegrate destroys wall of force. RAI over RAW any day. It makes absolutely no sense that you can't shoot a disintegrate wherever you want. If you're so worried about the wall being invisible, then target something behind the wall. It's a ray, and it hits the wall, and both spells explicitly say the wall is destroyed. Disintegrate also explicitly can target walls of force, even though it has the "target you can see" caveat. If a player tries to use the explicit counter to wall of force against it and you catch them on a technicality, you're harming the collaborative story.

Don't exploit poor wording when the intent of both spells is clear. No one wants a DM rules lawyer.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I never said I wanted to exploit it. I just pointed it out because it was very funny to me.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 72 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I suppose you could cast see invisibility or true seeing first? But... yeah if I'm GMing you can just target the invisible wall, fuck that. Same goes for how RAW it's nearly impossible to destroy the red layer of a prismatic wall because every spell that deals cold damage explicitly only targets creatures

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago

Tired of pesky adventurers always seeing your tricks? Try applying Invisible metamagic to conjured Fog today!

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Oh definitely. I assume that RAI this is the intention.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

I'd argue you can 'see' the wall if you place something on it, like:

  • your hand
  • your frontline's hand (or some other body part)
  • a ghost's hand
  • flour, dust, tar, enemies' blood, coughing syrup, and other things that could stick to the surface
  • gecko, spider, and other creatures that wouldn't fall off; probably also your familiar; dhampir and a high level monk should work, too
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (8 children)

There's also blue in the sky. That's literally you seeing the air

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 17 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

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

Mfs gotta remember that magic is a person, and that person can get annoyed

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] borf@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So you need Detect Magic running?

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Or a bag of flour to throw around to make the wall visible

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›