this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
343 points (96.5% liked)

RPGMemes

14531 readers
474 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Personally I used to love it, if the DM did that it inspired players to play; usually whoever had theage would say something like I can't destroy what I can't see and the the fun starts... Someone throws flour from their pack at it (or dirt, oil, something to make the invisible object visable in another way).

I haven't played in over 20 years so I'm sure it's changed a lot but that kind of stuff was fun to me.

[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I understand where you are coming from, but it think there are plenty of opportunities for improvisation and creative solutions without the need to start splitting hairs about specific wording.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What a weird technicality to get caught up on. Disintegrate destroys wall of force. RAI over RAW any day. It makes absolutely no sense that you can't shoot a disintegrate wherever you want. If you're so worried about the wall being invisible, then target something behind the wall. It's a ray, and it hits the wall, and both spells explicitly say the wall is destroyed. Disintegrate also explicitly can target walls of force, even though it has the "target you can see" caveat. If a player tries to use the explicit counter to wall of force against it and you catch them on a technicality, you're harming the collaborative story.

Don't exploit poor wording when the intent of both spells is clear. No one wants a DM rules lawyer.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›