Yeah I thought of that one as well. It’s one of those weird cases of imprecise wording.

I actually think it’s a fair restriction for spells that require sight. It imposes a somewhat interesting limit on casters, especially since a lot of spells still do something on a miss.

Funnily enough, Shatter actually has a very easy solution: Objects just take the damage and that’s it.

I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it’s location.

Oh dear I didn’t even know that. Well that makes it even more absurd.

Ironically here, Crawford actually thinks that the text of disintegrate does in fact permit you to target a wall of force that you can’t see. I don’t quite understand how he thinks it says that, but it does at least confirm the intention

That one has nothing to do with Crawford far as I’m aware. It’s just plain stupid interaction of several rules. You are definitely intended to be able to just cast disintegrate on the wall.

Some rules are intended in a certain way and just handled poorly. The above case is (I personally think) one of them. Others are actually intended to work a certain way because of designing aspects (like verbal components having to be said at a normal volume) but people simply decide to ditch them anyway, because they like something else better. Both are valid, but they are different.

The ever-reliable bardic frag grenade

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

I don’t get it. Can you explain?

Edit (literally 10 seconds after submitting my comment): is the problem that a literal reading of this would suggest that even if more than one creature is caught in the cone, only one takes the damage?

On a tangenty note, this is one of the reasons I find board games and TTRPGs super fun: DnD 5e has a lot of these kinds of problems (which is why there’s so many sage advice clarifications), but even in more precisely written games, the interplay between Rules as Written (RAW) and Rules as Intended (RAI) is super interesting, because we have no direct way of accessing RAI. Even when the games designers chip in with clarifications, as with Sage Advice, all that does is give us more RAW to interpret. All we can do is guess at the RAI, which sometimes means actively ignoring the RAW.

It’s also cool to see how that tension manifests from the game design angle. I have a couple of friends who have either made board games, or written TTRPG books. Whether you’re the reader or the writer, the one constant is that words are slippery and unreliable, so there will always be a gap between RAW and RAI

This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.

The problem is that the RAW implies only things considered creatures caught in the area take damage.

That would also mean Fireball only does damage to creatures, and everything else is just ignited and only if they’re flammable? Worst game ever.

Edit: Wait a minute. Player Handbook, Chapter 8

Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.

Am I missing something here? Why isn’t Prismatic Wall affected? Are walls not objects?

DMG, page 246 mentions walls specifically:

Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.

Common sense, my worst nemesis

Rulings like this annoy me. Like, if he had said “the spell is poorly written, because our intention is that a wall of force can be targeted by disintegrate, but you’re right that that’s not what the spell descriptions say”, then I’d be able to respect that a lot more than what you describe him saying.

Words are a slippery beast, and there will always be a gap between Rules as Intended and Rules as Written. Good game design can reduce that gap, but not if the designers aren’t willing to acknowledge the chasm they have created

What? That’s so silly.

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

Actually that’s us seeing light.

Edit: specifically, the light wavelength that remains at passing through the atmosphere. We’re but seeing the air still, we’re just seeing the color that makes it through to us. Saying that’s the air itself would be like saying you see the cities filtration system by looking at the clean water that comes from a faucet.

A better example of actually seeing air would be to freeze it, and seeing the literal frozen air.

Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That’s how seeing things works

I didn’t actually know it was or wasn’t Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.

I’m going to preface this by saying I am 100% in favor of using common sense, and I have always allowed players to damage objects with spells as long as it makes sense. For example, I probably wouldn’t let a player “inflict wounds” on a locked door, but I would happily let them “thunderous smite” it.

But in the spirit of this thread, if we’re applying a rigidly narrow interpretation of the rules as written, a spell only does what its description says it does. Cone of Cold does not say it damages objects. It says it damages creatures that fail a saving throw.

Yes, Chapter 8 says “Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells” - and indeed they can, if they use a suitable spell such as Fire Bolt or Shatter which can damage objects according to its spell description.

Again, that’s Rules Lawyer Jesse Pinkman talking, and does not represent my own beliefs or opinions.

Who would win, Gravity Fissure vs small porcelain vase