Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • 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 (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. RPGMemes
  3. This definetly seem very intentional…

This definetly seem very intentional…

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved RPGMemes
rpgmemes
113 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.
  • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
    This post did not contain any content.
    mimicjar@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
    mimicjar@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
    mimicjar@lemmy.world
    wrote last edited by
    #6

    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?

    J J A 3 Replies Last reply
    9
    • Carl [he/him]C This user is from outside of this forum
      Carl [he/him]C This user is from outside of this forum
      Carl [he/him]
      wrote last edited by carl@hexbear.net
      #7

      I’ve never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn’t come up very often and because it’s easy for players to understand that they’ll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.

      S W J 3 Replies Last reply
      17
      • 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 jounniy@ttrpg.network
        #8

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

        T Øπ3ŕO 2 Replies Last reply
        19
        • 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?

          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 jounniy@ttrpg.network
          #9

          No. If we assume that you have to target the wall it would at the very least stop after destroying the wall.

          But by RAW, 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 completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible.

          Furthermore, if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you still expend the spellslot but there will be no effect. So you’d actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing.

          I would not recommend doing it this way, but that’s what the rules say.

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          18
          • C cort@lemmy.world

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

            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 jounniy@ttrpg.network
            #10

            It’s technically still invisible. But as there is no clear rule for that I’d say it’s up to interpretation.

            1 Reply Last reply
            2
            • B spacelick

              So you need Detect Magic running?

              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 jounniy@ttrpg.network
              #11

              Yes. See invisibility should work as well. Both are quite annoying to activate when in a fight though.

              Edit: TIL that detect magic may not work, because the object has to be visible.

              B 1 Reply Last reply
              5
              • J jounniy@ttrpg.network

                Yes. See invisibility should work as well. Both are quite annoying to activate when in a fight though.

                Edit: TIL that detect magic may not work, because the object has to be visible.

                B This user is from outside of this forum
                B This user is from outside of this forum
                spacelick
                wrote last edited by
                #12

                Definitely. If one is trying to be prepared, See Invisibility lasts an hour but takes a lvl 2 slot while Detect Magic lasts 10 minutes and only takes a lvl 1 slot, so there’s tradeoffs for sure.

                One of the things I like about my firbolg twilight cleric is having the detect magic racial ability, too.

                1 Reply Last reply
                3
                • Carl [he/him]C Carl [he/him]

                  I’ve never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn’t come up very often and because it’s easy for players to understand that they’ll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.

                  S This user is from outside of this forum
                  S This user is from outside of this forum
                  Skua
                  wrote last edited by skua@kbin.earth
                  #13

                  Most of the time I think it’s because the spell calls for a saving throw and there isn’t a mechanic for what a wall’s Con save ought to be. That’s not a unsolvable problem by any means, but I assume that’s why the restrictions exist

                  But yeah, going with the flow at the table is much more fun. We can bodge a solution here. Roll it as a spellcasting attack for now

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  10
                  • J jounniy@ttrpg.network
                    This post did not contain any content.
                    gutek8134@lemmy.worldG This user is from outside of this forum
                    gutek8134@lemmy.worldG This user is from outside of this forum
                    gutek8134@lemmy.world
                    wrote last edited by gutek8134@lemmy.world
                    #14

                    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
                    🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K L J S 4 Replies Last reply
                    22
                    • Carl [he/him]C Carl [he/him]

                      I’ve never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn’t come up very often and because it’s easy for players to understand that they’ll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.

                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      Wildmimic
                      wrote last edited by
                      #15

                      I think spells that target the spirit of a target shouldn’t be able to be fired blind - that’s what i would let it depend on. A cold ray doesn’t need a visible target, but everything mind affecting that is not AoE will need it.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      11
                      • J jounniy@ttrpg.network

                        No. If we assume that you have to target the wall it would at the very least stop after destroying the wall.

                        But by RAW, 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 completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible.

                        Furthermore, if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you still expend the spellslot but there will be no effect. So you’d actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing.

                        I would not recommend doing it this way, but that’s what the rules say.

                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        maniclucky@lemmy.world
                        wrote last edited by
                        #16

                        And this is why my group is ok saying “that rule is profoundly dumb” and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.

                        Aielman15A S J 3 Replies Last reply
                        9
                        • gutek8134@lemmy.worldG gutek8134@lemmy.world

                          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
                          🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K This user is from outside of this forum
                          🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K This user is from outside of this forum
                          🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
                          wrote last edited by
                          #17
                          • Detect magic.
                          gutek8134@lemmy.worldG cjoll4@lemmy.worldC 2 Replies Last reply
                          4
                          • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
                            • Detect magic.
                            gutek8134@lemmy.worldG This user is from outside of this forum
                            gutek8134@lemmy.worldG This user is from outside of this forum
                            gutek8134@lemmy.world
                            wrote last edited by
                            #18

                            I’ve specifically focused on means that don’t require a spell slot to use. Left familiar as an exception because people like to have them anyway and it can be ritual cast.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            2
                            • J jounniy@ttrpg.network

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

                              T This user is from outside of this forum
                              T This user is from outside of this forum
                              threelonmusketeers
                              wrote last edited by
                              #19

                              RAW/RAI?

                              R 1 Reply Last reply
                              10
                              • T threelonmusketeers

                                RAW/RAI?

                                R This user is from outside of this forum
                                R This user is from outside of this forum
                                RicoBerto
                                wrote last edited by
                                #20

                                Rules as written, rules as intended.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                21
                                • S This user is from outside of this forum
                                  S This user is from outside of this forum
                                  shinkantrain@lemmy.ml
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #21

                                  The humble cone of cold:

                                  cjoll4@lemmy.worldC 1 Reply Last reply
                                  14
                                  • S shinkantrain@lemmy.ml

                                    The humble cone of cold:

                                    cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    cjoll4@lemmy.world
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #22

                                    S A 2 Replies Last reply
                                    35
                                    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 K 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
                                      • Detect magic.
                                      cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                      cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                      cjoll4@lemmy.world
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #23

                                      Nope

                                      B 1 Reply Last reply
                                      14
                                      • B spacelick

                                        So you need Detect Magic running?

                                        cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        cjoll4@lemmy.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        cjoll4@lemmy.world
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #24

                                        Nope

                                        B J MaxM 3 Replies Last reply
                                        9
                                        • M maniclucky@lemmy.world

                                          And this is why my group is ok saying “that rule is profoundly dumb” and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.

                                          Aielman15A This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Aielman15A This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Aielman15
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #25

                                          Crawford also rules that See Invisibility doesn’t remove the advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls because it doesn’t say so in the spell’s effect, so… Yeah, I always ignore what he says.

                                          A 1 Reply Last reply
                                          14

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


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post