It would be kind of neat that you would have to learn to see what can’t be seen to destroy something like force wall, because that would mean the blind would actually be better casters.

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

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.

It actually still does, because while disintegrate in 2014 specifically mentions the wall of force, it also specifically mentions how you have to be able to see the target.

Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.

It’s the Rock-Solo.

That depends on interpretation of the sentence structure. It could mean “any visible [creatures and objects]” or “any [visible creatures] and objects”.

He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.

I know that this may be a bit of a gap, but it’s a general problem of our society nowadays: Admitting a mistake is unpopular and can be used by others to say “See: even you acknowledged that you were wrong there.”, so people only rarely do it. (Especially politicians, stars and corporations/corporate representatives.)

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.

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.

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 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.

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

consider: wall of force mimic

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).

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

Magic may be a fickle bitch, but she likes pedants more than wild mages. ‍️

Invisible mimic? Who are you? Gygax?!