That does bring up an interesting interaction, and I'd assume it's DM discretion as to how to deal with it:
If there is an invisible enemy in front of a target of a spell like disintegrate, do you have it hit the invisible enemy?
Disintegrate is not a spell attack roll, but a Dexterity saving throw for one target, so I'd say in this case it's more complicated to get to that situation.
But if it were a spell attack roll, RAW says the attack would target that specific creature, not affect others in the middle.
When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack.
First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
EDIT: Plaguescarred's next reply is definitely relevant as well!
That does bring up an interesting interaction, and I'd assume it's DM discretion as to how to deal with it:
If there is an invisible enemy in front of a target of a spell like disintegrate, do you have it hit the invisible enemy?
Another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target provide Half Cover so the target of Disintegrate would have +2 bonus to its Dexterity saving throw against it.
Both good points to bring up. I know I'd try to work out how it could hit the "cover" instead, especially if the invisible creature/object actually provides Total Cover like Wall of Force would.
The rules around cover don't really... cover... explaining what happens when that cover is invisible to the attacker.
Yes, this is certainly true! There can be no doubt that a Disintegrate spell destroys a Wall of Force instantly. All you have to do is target the Wall with that spell and that spell requires the spellcaster to see its target when doing so.
That can be solved by aiming at something beyond the wall, "you can see it" (like a rock or an enemy beyond the wall) and "you cant see the wall", so you can aim at that other "thing", the spell touches the wall before the of target and then dissintegrate the wall effectively, if that's how you wanna rule it, and as mentioned, since the spell already activated with the wall, the spell ends there The rules of the Wall of force just say "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however." it didnt say "aimed at the wall", just that the spell destroys the wall, so the spell only requires to touch the wall, not being aimed at it, so i think the intention is like throwing a rock to someone through a glass window and breaking the window and stopping the rock with it since it lose energy
That does bring up an interesting interaction, and I'd assume it's DM discretion as to how to deal with it:
If there is an invisible enemy in front of a target of a spell like disintegrate, do you have it hit the invisible enemy?
I'm surprised that no one else has corrected this line of thinking yet. This isn't how targeting works when it comes to spellcasting. Of critical importance is this rule:
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
Unless explicitly stated in the spell description, spells only affect their targets. For example, in the case of Disintegrate, we have this wording:
You launch a green ray at a target you can see within range. The target can be . . .
This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller nonmagical object or a creation of magical force. If such a target is Huge or larger, this spell disintegrates a 10-foot-Cube portion of it.
So, in order for Disintegrate to affect the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force must be the target of the spell. In the case of targeting something on the other side of the Wall of Force, this is simply impossible due to that being a violation of the Clear Path rule. You simply would not be able to cast the spell in that manner. But even if that were possible for some reason, the spell would have no effect on the Wall of Force since that wasn't the target of the spell. There is no way to accidentally Disintegrate a Wall of Force.
When you need that much text to explain why an effect specifically described in both spells’ descriptions cannot actually happen, you’re moving past good faith RAW and into pedantic rules lawyering. We are expressly told the interaction is possible, ergo specific beats general and you can cast Disintegrate and destroy a Wall of Force. Technical details of targeting and visibility are irrelevant.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
As opposed to the moment you hand wave away that "I can't hit a wall I know is there with a beam attack because it's transparent even though the beam explicitly says it can hit the wall" is a completely illogical point both in and out of universe?
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
As opposed to the moment you hand wave away that "I can't hit a wall I know is there with a beam attack because it's transparent even though the beam explicitly says it can hit the wall" is a completely illogical point both in and out of universe?
Now substitute "wall" for "creature", or literally anything else
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
As opposed to the moment you hand wave away that "I can't hit a wall I know is there with a beam attack because it's transparent even though the beam explicitly says it can hit the wall" is a completely illogical point both in and out of universe?
Now substitute "wall" for "creature", or literally anything else
Except it's not anything else. It's a 100 sq ft wall. You cannot possibly articulate a reason why "it's transparent" makes it unable to be hit by a green ray of magic beyond "a uselessly narrow and pedantic reading of RAW that ignores the obvious greenlight spelled out in two different spell descriptions".
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
As opposed to the moment you hand wave away that "I can't hit a wall I know is there with a beam attack because it's transparent even though the beam explicitly says it can hit the wall" is a completely illogical point both in and out of universe?
Now substitute "wall" for "creature", or literally anything else
Except it's not anything else. It's a 100 sq ft wall. You cannot possibly articulate a reason why "it's transparent" makes it unable to be hit by a green ray of magic beyond "a uselessly narrow and pedantic reading of RAW that ignores the obvious greenlight spelled out in two different spell descriptions".
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Let's say you're running a game
Player A tries to lighting bolt the evil wizard. You describe the lightning bolt as splashing uselessly off an invisible barrier.
Player B says. "A wall of force! I prepared just the thing! I disintegrate it!"
Are you actually going to say "No, you can't, because you can't see the wall"?
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Let's say you're running a game
Player A tries to lighting bolt the evil wizard. You describe the lightning bolt as splashing uselessly off an invisible barrier.
Player B says. "A wall of force! I prepared just the thing! I disintegrate it!"
Are you actually going to say "No, you can't, because you can't see the wall"?
As I said earlier in the thread, the RAI is probably that it should work, but in your scenario it should work against any giant, stationary invisible thing -- not just a wall of force
The RAW is extremely clear though. "A target you can see" isn't something you can just hand-wave away, and neither spell actually carves out a specific exception for ignoring it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Completely unrelated, but this does remind me that sorcerers should be able to do a whole lot more with metamagic than they currently can. Imagine an option that lets you move or tweak a stationary effect you're concentrating on...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Let's say you're running a game
Player A tries to lighting bolt the evil wizard. You describe the lightning bolt as splashing uselessly off an invisible barrier.
Player B says. "A wall of force! I prepared just the thing! I disintegrate it!"
Are you actually going to say "No, you can't, because you can't see the wall"?
As I said earlier in the thread, the RAI is probably that it should work, but in your scenario it should work against any giant, stationary invisible thing -- not just a wall of force
The RAW is extremely clear though. "A target you can see" isn't something you can just hand-wave away, and neither spell actually carves out a specific exception for ignoring it
Is it clear? Can you target it with a disintegrate spell?
You launch a green ray at a target you can see within range. The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force.
This whole argument is "a target you can see" is controlling, when the next sentence literally says you can target a wall of force. Why is that second sentence not controlling? Would it be better to write it "at a target you can see or a creation of magical force whose location you are aware of within range. This target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force..." (Because if you don't include the wall of force in the type list, somebody will try arguing that it can't be affected because it isn't a creature or object.)
You are taking the most restrictive reading possible, a reading you yourself admit you wouldn't use at the table, and arguing that it is what the rules definitely say. It is entirely possible (and certainly intended) to read the whole thing as "a target you can see, and also walls of force and the like". If you do, there are zero problems.
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Let's say you're running a game
Player A tries to lighting bolt the evil wizard. You describe the lightning bolt as splashing uselessly off an invisible barrier.
Player B says. "A wall of force! I prepared just the thing! I disintegrate it!"
Are you actually going to say "No, you can't, because you can't see the wall"?
As I said earlier in the thread, the RAI is probably that it should work, but in your scenario it should work against any giant, stationary invisible thing -- not just a wall of force
The RAW is extremely clear though. "A target you can see" isn't something you can just hand-wave away, and neither spell actually carves out a specific exception for ignoring it
Is it clear? Can you target it with a disintegrate spell?
You launch a green ray at a target you can see within range. The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force.
This whole argument is "a target you can see" is controlling, when the next sentence literally says you can target a wall of force. Why is that second sentence not controlling?
The wall of force is provided only as an example of "a creation of magical force", a term that doesn't have a preset definition in the rules, unlike 'creature'. It's not the only 'creation of magical force' possible -- leomund's tiny hut, bigby's hand, etc. -- and it's treated no differently in that sentence that a creature or a non-magical object
You can target a wall of force, sure -- the same way you can target anything else the spell says you can target
Any other interpretation of that second sentence is adding things that aren't there, sorry. The spell absolutely does not say "oh, but you don't need to see a wall of force to target it"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are taking the most restrictive reading possible, a reading you yourself admit you wouldn't use at the table
I admitted no such thing, my dude. I said allowing it to be used on a wall of force without being able to see the wall was probably RAI
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are taking the most restrictive reading possible, a reading you yourself admit you wouldn't use at the table
I admitted no such thing, my dude. I said allowing it to be used on a wall of force without being able to see the wall was probably RAI
I agree that this interaction clearly doesn't work this way according to the RAW, but I'm actually beginning to change my mind about whether this above interaction is even intended to work so easily. I now think it's perfectly reasonable to accept that the author intentionally made this a two-step process to defeat such high-level spells like Forcecage and Wall of Force. First, find a way to be able to see the target, then cast Disintegrate on it.
Of the freely available 2024 spells, the ones that seem to create a magical force are:
Forcecage, Imprisonment (Burial), Shield, Spiritual Weapon, Tenser's Floating Disk, Unseen Servant and Wall of Force
Some of these creations are invisible by default and some of them are not.
Now, the part that I think is even more likely to be an oversight by the authors is something that I brought up earlier in the thread. Of the freely available 2024 spells, the ones that seem to provide a method for seeing something that is Invisible are:
Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, Shining Smite, Starry Wisp and True Seeing.
There is also the Blindsight and Truesight senses (although Truesight has the same potential issue as described below).
Here is the potential issue: The Faerie Fire, See Invisibility and Starry Wisp spells (and effectively the True Seeing spell as well) all explicitly affect "creatures" and "objects". It is not at all clear that a creation of magical force qualifies as either a creature or an object. The spell description for the Disintegrate spell seems to categorize it separately. The game defines an "object" as:
What Is an Object?
For the purpose of the rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone. It isn’t a building or a vehicle, which are composed of many objects.
Or from the Glossary:
Object
An object is a nonliving, distinct thing. Composite things, like buildings, comprise more than one object. See also “Breaking Objects.”
Phenomena such as magical force, aura, shimmering magical energy, magical energy, pack of spectral and intangible animals, intangible spirit, nature spirits, phantom watchdog, spectral sword, illusory phantasm, shimmering and multicolored plane of light, and even certain mundane things like "water" or "wind" . . . for the most part these things do not technically meet the definition of a creature or of an object. So, spells that affect "creatures" and "objects" will not have any effect on such things.
Under this interpretation, attempting to Disintegrate a Wall of Force becomes much more difficult than the process of casting See Invisibility followed by casting Disintegrate. It's probably not the intent for this interaction to be that difficult to execute.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Disintegrate is not a spell attack roll, but a Dexterity saving throw for one target, so I'd say in this case it's more complicated to get to that situation.
But if it were a spell attack roll, RAW says the attack would target that specific creature, not affect others in the middle.
We had this optional rule in the 2014 DMG:
EDIT: Plaguescarred's next reply is definitely relevant as well!
Another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target provide Half Cover so the target of Disintegrate would have +2 bonus to its Dexterity saving throw against it.
Both good points to bring up. I know I'd try to work out how it could hit the "cover" instead, especially if the invisible creature/object actually provides Total Cover like Wall of Force would.
The rules around cover don't really... cover... explaining what happens when that cover is invisible to the attacker.
Covers are obstacle offering protection regardless wether Invisible or not. I'd describe it as deflecting an attack or effect in some way.
and also:
I'm surprised that no one else has corrected this line of thinking yet. This isn't how targeting works when it comes to spellcasting. Of critical importance is this rule:
Unless explicitly stated in the spell description, spells only affect their targets. For example, in the case of Disintegrate, we have this wording:
So, in order for Disintegrate to affect the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force must be the target of the spell. In the case of targeting something on the other side of the Wall of Force, this is simply impossible due to that being a violation of the Clear Path rule. You simply would not be able to cast the spell in that manner. But even if that were possible for some reason, the spell would have no effect on the Wall of Force since that wasn't the target of the spell. There is no way to accidentally Disintegrate a Wall of Force.
When you need that much text to explain why an effect specifically described in both spells’ descriptions cannot actually happen, you’re moving past good faith RAW and into pedantic rules lawyering. We are expressly told the interaction is possible, ergo specific beats general and you can cast Disintegrate and destroy a Wall of Force. Technical details of targeting and visibility are irrelevant.
We are told that if you can target the wall, disintegrate will destroy it. That's all we're told
Umm, absolutely not
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Right, because it makes more sense that they'd specifically tell us about an interaction that is impossible to accomplish?
It's not impossible. A first-level spell can do it
The moment you hand-wave away something as fundamental as visibility rules as "semantics" or "technical details", you have lost the plot
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As opposed to the moment you hand wave away that "I can't hit a wall I know is there with a beam attack because it's transparent even though the beam explicitly says it can hit the wall" is a completely illogical point both in and out of universe?
Now substitute "wall" for "creature", or literally anything else
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Except it's not anything else. It's a 100 sq ft wall. You cannot possibly articulate a reason why "it's transparent" makes it unable to be hit by a green ray of magic beyond "a uselessly narrow and pedantic reading of RAW that ignores the obvious greenlight spelled out in two different spell descriptions".
Sure I can. Because calling it merely "transparent" is exactly the kind of semantic dodge you're decrying -- the spell says the wall has the invisible condition
If you're going to ignore that the wall of force is invisible, why aren't you ignoring the invisible condition on anything else disintegrate can target too?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Let's say you're running a game
Player A tries to lighting bolt the evil wizard. You describe the lightning bolt as splashing uselessly off an invisible barrier.
Player B says. "A wall of force! I prepared just the thing! I disintegrate it!"
Are you actually going to say "No, you can't, because you can't see the wall"?
As I said earlier in the thread, the RAI is probably that it should work, but in your scenario it should work against any giant, stationary invisible thing -- not just a wall of force
The RAW is extremely clear though. "A target you can see" isn't something you can just hand-wave away, and neither spell actually carves out a specific exception for ignoring it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Completely unrelated, but this does remind me that sorcerers should be able to do a whole lot more with metamagic than they currently can. Imagine an option that lets you move or tweak a stationary effect you're concentrating on...
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Is it clear? Can you target it with a disintegrate spell?
This whole argument is "a target you can see" is controlling, when the next sentence literally says you can target a wall of force. Why is that second sentence not controlling? Would it be better to write it "at a target you can see or a creation of magical force whose location you are aware of within range. This target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force..." (Because if you don't include the wall of force in the type list, somebody will try arguing that it can't be affected because it isn't a creature or object.)
You are taking the most restrictive reading possible, a reading you yourself admit you wouldn't use at the table, and arguing that it is what the rules definitely say. It is entirely possible (and certainly intended) to read the whole thing as "a target you can see, and also walls of force and the like". If you do, there are zero problems.
The wall of force is provided only as an example of "a creation of magical force", a term that doesn't have a preset definition in the rules, unlike 'creature'. It's not the only 'creation of magical force' possible -- leomund's tiny hut, bigby's hand, etc. -- and it's treated no differently in that sentence that a creature or a non-magical object
You can target a wall of force, sure -- the same way you can target anything else the spell says you can target
Any other interpretation of that second sentence is adding things that aren't there, sorry. The spell absolutely does not say "oh, but you don't need to see a wall of force to target it"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I admitted no such thing, my dude. I said allowing it to be used on a wall of force without being able to see the wall was probably RAI
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree that this interaction clearly doesn't work this way according to the RAW, but I'm actually beginning to change my mind about whether this above interaction is even intended to work so easily. I now think it's perfectly reasonable to accept that the author intentionally made this a two-step process to defeat such high-level spells like Forcecage and Wall of Force. First, find a way to be able to see the target, then cast Disintegrate on it.
Of the freely available 2024 spells, the ones that seem to create a magical force are:
Forcecage, Imprisonment (Burial), Shield, Spiritual Weapon, Tenser's Floating Disk, Unseen Servant and Wall of Force
Some of these creations are invisible by default and some of them are not.
Now, the part that I think is even more likely to be an oversight by the authors is something that I brought up earlier in the thread. Of the freely available 2024 spells, the ones that seem to provide a method for seeing something that is Invisible are:
Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, Shining Smite, Starry Wisp and True Seeing.
There is also the Blindsight and Truesight senses (although Truesight has the same potential issue as described below).
Here is the potential issue: The Faerie Fire, See Invisibility and Starry Wisp spells (and effectively the True Seeing spell as well) all explicitly affect "creatures" and "objects". It is not at all clear that a creation of magical force qualifies as either a creature or an object. The spell description for the Disintegrate spell seems to categorize it separately. The game defines an "object" as:
Or from the Glossary:
Phenomena such as magical force, aura, shimmering magical energy, magical energy, pack of spectral and intangible animals, intangible spirit, nature spirits, phantom watchdog, spectral sword, illusory phantasm, shimmering and multicolored plane of light, and even certain mundane things like "water" or "wind" . . . for the most part these things do not technically meet the definition of a creature or of an object. So, spells that affect "creatures" and "objects" will not have any effect on such things.
Under this interpretation, attempting to Disintegrate a Wall of Force becomes much more difficult than the process of casting See Invisibility followed by casting Disintegrate. It's probably not the intent for this interaction to be that difficult to execute.