The last one is actually covered by it I’d say, because (as by rules of spell targeting) you cannot see the blood and furthermore (as confirmed by “Water breathing” not working in wine) spells that affect water really only affect water and that’s it.

I know you mean it as a joke, but in my experience, punishing a player for trying to find out what you will and won’t allow them to do is a good way to get players that don’t want to be creative. Just tell them that you will not allow it. (Also… poor Mystra for having to waste that much divine power on someone trying to use spells in a way it can’t be used in anyway.)

If everyone at your table is habilitated fun, then… well, have fun, but I’d advise against it.

I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.

I know it’s a joke, but I’d say “mostly dead” is just when you roll death saves.

That one does not work RAW either way, because lungs are not an open container.

But I never said I wanted to actually exploit this in a game. You can’t really exploit this one even if you want to, because it’s bound to be extremely specific. I just wanted to point out the weirdness.

Okay. But do you actually allow any use of the spell that’s not as originally intended? Because some things are technical applications of the rules which rely on rules working as intended but still in very specific way without breaking the game at all.

I never said I wanted to exploit it. I just pointed it out because it was very funny to me.

As hilarious as that is, are you sure that being immune to the form of imprisonment doesn’t just make the spell fail?

No I don’t want to play RAW. I just don’t want in game solutions to out of game problems. Just (and I know that this will seem extremely absurd, but hear me out!) talk to your players about it like a normal person and make it clear before you start to play.

You are not bound to engage with the topic. For most here I assume it’s just goofing around.

Fair.

No it doesn’t need to. As there are methods to see invisible creatures or objects, you could very well rule that you need to make use of one of those effects to use this part of the spells capabilities.

Exactly. Same line of stupidity imo.

That’s a weird way of saying that she does not like Wizards. Because if you study something enough, you are bound to find loopholes.

To be very pendantic, it’s the other way around: The wording as very precise at describing both spells, but quite vague at describing their interaction. That’s what leads to the problem.

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.)

He actually has some totally based rulings too. Those just don’t stand out amongst the profoundly dumb ones.

Happy to be of service. Arguing over RAU (Rules As Unintended) is very fun at times.

It actually still does, because while disintegrate in 2014 specifically mentions the wall of force, it also specifically mentions how you have to be able to see the target.

The wording simply says “a disintegrate spell”. It does not say what it has to be cast on or wether it continues to travel towards the real target afterwards. But the implication clearly is that you have to hit the wall. Thus, RAW, even with specific overriding general, you cannot target the wall because it is invisible (nothing in its spell description states otherwise) and you can’t target space behind the wall, as it is behind cover.

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.