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 are 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.

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.

Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.

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.

Oh gosh that’s wild. Whoops.

You are not bound to engage with the topic. For most here I assume it’s just goofing around.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought it was funny, to be fair

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!

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

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.

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.

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.