• Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    I suppose you could cast see invisibility or true seeing first? But… yeah if I’m GMing you can just target the invisible wall, fuck that. Same goes for how RAW it’s nearly impossible to destroy the red layer of a prismatic wall because every spell that deals cold damage explicitly only targets creatures

    • Carl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.networkOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • jounniy@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

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