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
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
329 points (96.6% liked)
RPGMemes
13856 readers
561 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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
By that logic you can see air because there's clouds in the sky.
Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Or just interpret it as line of sight.
I’d argue that RAW the wall is still invisible. You now just have the means to pinpoint it's location.
- Detect magic.
Nope
Technically it only refers to visible creatures. Objects doesnt have the adjective visible.
Unlikely, but a particularly bull headed person could read this as though detect magic could identify invisible objects.
I'm kinda surprised how vague many of the DnD rules are written.
Didn't they have a rules lawyer at hand when writing these?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
This is a supremely silly thread and I am enjoying it greatly. Thanks for catalysing these cool discussions OP.
Steels my resolve in pushing my group past 5e
Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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?
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.
And this is why my group is ok saying "that rule is profoundly dumb" and ignoring it while suspecting Crawford of being involved.
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.
What? That's so silly.
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.
I didn't actually know it was or wasn't Crawford, just that such a terrible ruling is very much his brand.
He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.
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
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
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.)
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
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)