this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
355 points (96.6% liked)

RPGMemes

14083 readers
826 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 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 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Son of a bitch, that's a good argument.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

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.

everything you see is light

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Light bouncing off of air molecules, yes. That's how seeing things works

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you see your own eyes? Like without a mirror

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was extremely baked when I asked that but I think it was a question about how some light will reflect off your eye into your eye therefore you're seeing your own eyes.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I guess having floaters, or that weird effect of seeing your white blood cells in the capillaries on your retina would probably count haha

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

That's what seeing is. Light. You can't actually directly observe the atoms that make something up. You can see the light that is reflected/emitted from that object.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Responding to your edit:

You've got it the wrong way around. What you see at sunset, the reds and yellows, that's the sunlight being filtered because those wavelengths make it through stronger. Your argument would hold there, if we do not count seeing filtered light as "seeing" the filtering material. (Although even that I'd question - if you hold a colored piece of glass against a light source so it's entirely backlit, would you say you're not seeing it?)

But the blue sky is not that. It is the air molecules being illuminated by light coming from somewhere else, and bouncing that light back into your eyes, with a bias towards blue wavelengths. If that does not count as "seeing" air, then you also can't actually "see" fog, it's the same mechanism.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It would be kind of neat that you would have to learn to see what can't be seen to destroy something like force wall, because that would mean the blind would actually be better casters.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Or just interpret it as line of sight.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] baahb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

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?

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 weeks ago

That depends on interpretation of the sentence structure. It could mean "any visible [creatures and objects]" or "any [visible creatures] and objects".

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

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.