This definetly seem very intentional… : rpgmemes

[+] Skua@kbin.earth 78 points 7 months ago (6 children)

[deleted]

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

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

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

RAW/RAI?

[–] RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Rules as written, rules as intended.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

Thanks!

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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 7 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The humble cone of cold:

[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (2 children)

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Oh that's just bullshit. I'm gonna pretend I didn't read it

[–] tgirlschierke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

consider: wall of force mimic

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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 😔

[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago

Who would win, Gravity Fissure vs small porcelain vase

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

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

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (3 children)

By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

How about blind or very sight-impaired characters? Could they “see” the wall as they “see” everything, by touching/perceiving it? That’s as well as they can see anything.

Is seeing the same as visualizing? Because the cloud’s shapes and height clearly give you an idea where a mass of air with certain common characteristics is, where it starts, and where it ends.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 7 months ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I would go line of fire logic.

You theoretically can not target the wall, but you can target something on the outerside and will then hit the wall instead

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 17 points 7 months ago (3 children)

As I have said in another comment, that is RAW not what would happen:

"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 behind completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible."

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

It’s very much not RAI I'd say and I would likely handle exactly like you described, but the RAW was so wonky that I wanted to make the meme when I found out about it.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

"Specific overrides general" is RAW though, and the spell description of Wall of Force calls out that exact spell interaction as a way to destroy it.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

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

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

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

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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?

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] maniclucky@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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

[–] Aielman15@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago

What? That's so silly.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

D&D's invisibility rules are goofy. At least in 5e (2014 edition, groan) you always get advantage if you're invisible and attacking someone. Even if they can see you. The invisibility condition is worded like "you get advantage on attacks" instead of "Since you're hidden, remember you get advantage on attacks".

load more comments (1 replies)

RPGMemes