this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
351 points (96.6% liked)

RPGMemes

13872 readers
554 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carl@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 11 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The ever-reliable bardic frag grenade

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 days ago

It’s the Rock-Solo.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 2 days ago

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

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 3 points 3 days ago

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.