Keep in mind that the game designers have tried several different approaches over the years, and 5e has been the most successful by far. There may be a better solution out there, but it's likely a case of "It's the worst system, except for all the others."
A smattering of ambiguity in the rules isn't going to end the world, and excessive precision definitely will cause problems. They only need to be clear enough to get the DM and players around a table. From there, the DM can interpret it however makes sense in the moment. As long as the participants are mature, it represents barely more than a blip.
What Memnosyne said. 4e tried codifying everything because WotC wanted to run D&D games online to compete with World of Warcraft and the result was, unsurprisingly, a really complicated set of rules that felt like a video game.
D&D is played by humans and the rules are enforced by humans so the rules should be legible to humans, not lawyers or computers. No two groups play the game exactly alike and the game's designers encourage that so not only is 100% unambiguous rules an impossible goal to hit, the return on investment is poor. At the end of the day what matters is that everyone had fun and you told a cool story.
@Memnosyne I dont disagree that excessive precision causes problems. The question is, what amount is excessive? and is the problem precision, or clarity?
For me, the issue with Total Cover and A Clear Path is one of clarity, not precision. Total Cover is ambiguous about whether something which physically obstructs, but does not prevent sight, is Total Cover to all things or only the physical. That lack of clarity appears to be the root cause of this and other discussions/arguments.
A Clear Path exacerbates this issue by giving contradiction when using an AOE spell, as I state in a prior comment.
Further, "They only need to be clear enough to get the DM and players around a table." is incorrect, as they need to be clear enough to keep the DM and players interested in their product, and not competition (whether that be another system or simply homebrew).
The cover rules definitely needed more clarity but "A Clear Path to the Target" section is straightforward. Your character can't always know if there's an obstacle in the way of the point you're trying to target. The second paragraph explains what happens if you unknowingly try to place a point behind total cover. It doesn't contradict the first sentence in any way; you're still not going to be able to place the point at the location you were trying to target.
As for Wall of Force itself, there is an issue I haven't seen mentioned here, which I thought might be quite interesting: Can you actually use Disintegrate on it?
Wall of Force says: "An invisible wall of force..." "A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly..."
[...]
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
Again, please, please try to remember the principles of the game before nitpicking things like this, and in particular "specific beats general". Yes, there are tons of rules what say you should not be able to target a wall of force, but when the spell specificallytells you: "The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force." this is so specific that of course disintegrate can target a wall of force although the more general rule in the first sentence tells you that you you should see the target.
Honestly, if you want to ruleslawyer, please be fair to the designers and apply ALL the rules of the game before criticising them... And search is your friend, a 3 seconds google search turned up this, much quicker than you typing all that post, although it's good that you included all the references. :D
I don't get you.
On one hand you are arguing to the death that RAW Sacred Flame can't target someone behind a cover because the spell description says it's about saving throw and not targeting...(post 109)
and on the other hand you turn a complete 180 with wall of force and disintegrate.
So here is my summary for you: just like Sacred Flame spell means that you can't target something behind a cover because it's about saving throw, the same rule applies to Wall of Force and Disintegrate - the WoF is mentioned in Disintegrate description because it's not an object so it is mentioned that it can be destroyed. But it doesn't mention that it can be targeted while invisible.
Like Sacred Flame, just because something can be a target (as in, is in the target pool) doesn't mean it can be targeted (being able to do so - in the case of SF it's the full cover, in the case of WoF it's the invisibility).
Wouldn't that be consistent with your line of thinking?
And here you go again, a bit of WotC bashing. Honestly guys, can you try and be a bit consistent ? If you don't like it, don't play the game, but can we start having bans for for that kind of attitude which brings nothing to the table? And if you really like the game, maybe make it feel a bit in your posts, sheesh...
But if people could stop whining about supposedly "bad writing" when they can't publish anything themselves and when millions of people like it more than previous editions which were indeed tighter but ruined the game, it really would be nice. I know that this is the internet, but a bit of respect and humility never hurt anyone. I know it's the internet, but how can you honestly justify playing the game and even saying to your friends that you do if it's really that steaming pile of ....
Especially since the AIM of the game, its STATED INTENT was to use standard english to make it accessible rather than gamer jargon ruined the previous editions in half the time 5e has even existed, when its STATED PURPOSE is for people to use the rules only as guidelines because THEY ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARY TO PLAY THE GAME AND PLAY IT WELL.
And ESPECIALLY in this case, when the game is absolutely airtight. Really.
The section about cover is clear, it's about physical obstruction (walls, trees, creatures). And it does not depend on the type of attack. Ever. Just read the section from beginning to end, properly. It just tells you if you have cover from something based on the geometry of PHYSICAL obstacles. It does not, never had depended on what the something is. It's simple, it's clear, and it's all of 5 paragraphs long.
Then the rules on spellcasting are, again, absolutely airtight. You cannot target someone on the other side of cover, the only exception are SOME spells which can include the cover in an AoE. And then, you have some spells (and only some) which specifically (as promised in the rules above) that they can do just that.
It's simple, logical, perfectly written. There is no inconsistency, ever, whether with the rules themselves or the intent of the game, they way the rules were promised to be written, nothing.
And ON TOP OF THAT, you have the chief designer himself who explains to you the intent behind this all, consistently, without fail, and taking examples to explain to you that it's all consistent. And who even tells you that an obvious example of the above is that even a hold person spell, when honestly it's hard to envision something less physical than this in the whole game, does not work when cast through a transparent window BECAUSE IT iS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES ABOVE, BECAUSE COVER IS PHYSICAL AND BLOCKS EVERYTHING INCLUDING MAGIC, unless, of course (and again as explained above) that magic is specific and not affected, either by being an AoE that goes around corners (fireball) or targeting something outside of cover (misty step), etc..
And then you have wall of force which is like glass but indestructible, and there are still people pretending that it does not stop some things because it only says "physical" ? And still trying to pretend that the above is not consistent ?
So fine, you don't like it, you want your magic to be metaphysical and want to include pages and pages of precisions about the porousness of each material compared to each type of spell and energy in the game, fine if that's the way you want to pass the time. But don't come and pretend that the above is not airtight and that it's badly written, when you just want the game to be something else than it is and forget half the written rules when making an argument. You might wish it otherwise but in the game as designed, all magic is blocked by physical obstacle.
And I notice, at the top of the hypocrisy, that despite all their criticism, no one has ever dared to claim that, in their game, you can cast fear at a normal wall and expect to have the effect apply on the other side of that normal wall. It should, really, you know, if magic is not physical, why would a NORMAL wall stop it? You don't even play the game that way, you are not even consistent in your claims, but would write literally hundreds of post to claim that the rules are badly written and inconsistent ?
So honestly, please go and read the rules, all of them. Apply them as intended rather than in your twisted version of it when it's reduced to a combat wargame, it's OK if you like it but the constant whining about the writing and the partial reading of rules while ignoring all those who don't satisfy your very personal view of what the game should be are growing extremely tiresome for those of us who happen to really liked the game, actually do play it rather than dream about it (and this despite a few flaws, no one said it was perfect), and who just try to help other people have fun by playing the game in its intended spirit rather than in a nitpicking powergaming ruleslawyering type of play. Please enjoy that kind of game if you like it, it's fine, but not even reading the rules and still accusing them of not being what you want them to be is just pathetic.
This is a rules and mechanics forum, RAW is discussed here.
Your claims that rules are not needed or can be changed at any time when the DM deems it fit is right - but it's not about making a decision at a table but about arguing - for sport mostly - about the state of RAW.
The argument that you need to write something yourself to get the right to criticize someone else's writing is, with all due respect, childish. If no one was permitted to criticize any kind of work before showing their own mastery in the field, we wouldn't have film critics, book critics, hell, you wouldn't even be allowed to say that this building's design sucks. "I didn't see you designing your own then!" I mean, seriously?
5e is, in my opinion, a good system. I use it. But I make no claims about it being perfect. RAW interactions between many spells and environment is lacking. And a simple provision to the spellcasting section of the book could've taken care of that. If anything, the meta that says that the spell only does what it says and nothing less and more feels extremely limiting and leads to stupid situations that frankly, no intelligent person should have to explain at the table.
On one hand you are arguing to the death that RAW Sacred Flame can't target someone behind a cover because the spell description says it's about saving throw and not targeting...(post 109)
Indeed.
and on the other hand you turn a complete 180 with wall of force and disintegrate.
I'm not sure why it's a complete 180. I just read the rules, here they are:
Sacred Flame: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw" Why would it apply to anything else than saving throws with that specific wording ?
Disintegrate: ""A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range. The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force." As a target can be a creation of magical force, such as the one created by a wall of force, and it's specifically written, why shouldn't I be able to target it ?
So here is my summary for you: just like Sacred Flame spell means that you can't target something behind a cover because it's about saving throw, the same rule applies to Wall of Force and Disintegrate - the WoF is mentioned in Disintegrate description because it's not an object so it is mentioned that it can be destroyed. But it doesn't mention that it can be targeted while invisible.
Please, please, please, please, apply ALL the rules, and in particular this one: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins"
That's all you need to find out why you don't "get me".
The general rule applies to sacred flame because the specific rule only modifies the saving throw, not the general rule on cover. I would of course apply the specific rule for Sacred Flame and not give bonuses to the saving throw, but nothing in the specific rule applies to targeting or not targeting through cover !
The specific rule on Disintegrate clearly shows that "The target can be [...] the wall created by wall of force.", it's more specific than "that you can see" so of course it applies.
Like Sacred Flame, just because something can be a target (as in, is in the target pool) doesn't mean it can be targeted (being able to do so - in the case of SF it's the full cover, in the case of WoF it's the invisibility).
Wouldn't that be consistent with your line of thinking?
No, it's not, the Sacred Flame specific rule is only about the saving throw, not about cover in general. As I mentioned in this post, if the Sacred Flame had said "The target gains no benefit from cover", then I would certainly have allowed the targeting, because as it had no cover at all, the total cover rules preventing targeting would have been invalidated. But the fact that it mentions "... for this saving throw" clearly shows that cover DOES function, just to a lesser degree, if he has a save, then it has no bonus of cover, but if it just cannot be targeted and does not have a save, then that's it.
It does not mention that the rules of spellcasting are superseded. It mentions that the wall created by Wall of Force is in the target pool, nothing more. Just like a creature or an object is. These are target pools. But if a creature is invisible, you can't target it with disintegarate, can you? Even if it says "the target can be a creature", right?
Maybe we should quote your post then? That the "intent is clear but was not captured by RAW"?
What a crap show this ran into. House ruling, to make the wall's effect make sense, might be better. Cover in general, with some highly specific examples, too. A pane of glass is described several times here as cover. By RaW, it appears many folks would not allow someone standing in a picture window to be targeted, which is, to be honest, as silly as we get with rule interpretation. If I draw a bow and you are standing behind a pane of glass, you can be absolutely certain I CAN target you. I can SEE you, which is how targeting is performed. No when I release, I may well have a harder time HITTING you, as my projectile now has a pane of glass to pass through en route (and arrows do NOT like hitting anything before their target....things get weird quick) however I am able to target you and fire.
Spells, IMO (and at my table) will work in this fashion. Fireball or anything that shoots at you, will be interfered with by the glass (or WoF as described) Spells that directly attack your mind can still take effect, of spells that simply blossom from a point selected. If it's an actual WALL, something that rains down directly on you (beam of light from the heavens) will likely hit as well.
The debate on this has turned from a logical, sensible discussion on what the spell and it's effects are, to nitpicking the wording from various sections of RaW to try and make a ruling. With RaW wording (quoted about 50 times already here) being a little less than detailed and, in some cases making ZERO sense, this is yet another case of a DM having to rule on a case-by-case basis what will occur when a WoF is generated and attacks (spell or otherwise) start flying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
@TubaDanCross @JeremyECrawford could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Jeremy Crawford Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204). [Amending another tweet] #DnD
All of these examples still involve directly targeting a creature behind the wall, which it is plain is not allowed, at least per RAI. I still argue that none of these examples provide directions on spells whose direct targets are not behind the wall, but whose effects affect an area inside the wall and do not need to physically pass the wall to affect a creature.
On more recent comments: I would also argue that criticism of anything does not necessarily means that the critic hates or mildly dislikes the thing. Roger Ebert was an excellent film critic, who loved cinema. To my knowledge he never made a film or wrote a script. He was also completely unafraid to criticize films he liked, and eviscerate films he didn't. People can love D&D, respect the work of its creators, think 5e is an excellent system, and still criticize aspects of it. Now there are some whos criticism does come from a place of disdain/dislike/etc, but I would never assume anyone of being that without further study or evidence, and I don't really see any of the criticism here as being "over the line" into needless bashing.
The rules for total cover spans 2 sentences. The rules for how game effects interact with the WoF span 4 sentences, only two of which deal with what can't pass through. The spell is certainly more vague than the instructions of other wall spells (wind wall has multiple sentences that get into the minutia of what can't pass and what happens when it tries. prismatic wall details specific restrictions for each layer. [spell]wall of water[spell] details multiple specific and general interactions with the wall. I can go on). it is fair to say that the description of WoF is more vague than those spells, and thusly is more open to interpretation.
Saying that WoF and the rules for cover are vague and could be more clear does not mean that I hate 5e, or that I'm bashing or disrespecting JC for writing it this way. I'm not a writer or game designer, and I know that what skills I have in those arenas are less proficient at than some, but I am a (reasonably smart, IMO) consumer, and I believe I do have the right to offer criticism in a respectful way. Similarly, JC is not an architect (I am), and I would hope if he were to walk into one of my buildings that he would recognize his own limitations in that profession, but I would still expect that he might offer criticism in a respectful way.
Keep in mind that the game designers have tried several different approaches over the years, and 5e has been the most successful by far. There may be a better solution out there, but it's likely a case of "It's the worst system, except for all the others."
Really, thanks for this, I'm getting so tired of people trying to find flaws in the rules, just for self-gratification, because in the end, I am pretty sure that they don't ask themselves the question, when someone casts a spell, whether the wall and the tree are somehow porous to that kind of magic.
A smattering of ambiguity in the rules isn't going to end the world, and excessive precision definitely will cause problems. They only need to be clear enough to get the DM and players around a table. From there, the DM can interpret it however makes sense in the moment. As long as the participants are mature, it represents barely more than a blip.
Exactly, And this is presented right at the start of the rules, nitpickers just want to nitpick about bits of sentences right and left without even reading the whole rules.
Or you know they are poorly written.
Plenty of examples of that. Doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water but the edition is RIFE with badly written rules and that's very very very clear.
We wouldn't need Sage Advice at all if they were written well. You wouldn't need an 1.5 hour podcast to explain cover.
I honestly don't think there is a way to cover cover (cute little doublage there) without having a 300 page section on it. Comparison, to give some sense of "RL Physics" applied.
Pane of glass. RaW indicates cover. Can't TARGET through it. AoE might work around it, depending on design (indicates in the fireball example, if it detonates beside, the AoE part would wash over the person) assuming just a flat pane of glass, maybe even 6 inches thick, to offer some physical protection stood in front of you. Now realistically, "targeting" someone would be pointing the bow their way, pointing a finger maybe, for a spell, lining up the sights of a gun, etc. All those can be done through a clear pane of glass. (skip the illusion and mirror and displacement crap, too, I am talking about targeting what you see, NOT if it's real, or really where I see it, etc) I CAN target it. Now, can my attack REACH it? All sorts of weirdness on that, debate as we will, table rules will apply. Biggest headache I would see as a DM on the WoF used as a sphere might be spike growth or stuff that affect terrain area, if the sphere went under the terrain to keep the entrapped one standing on the ground)
Thick wool blanket hanging off a line. RaW indicates cover, can't TARGET through it, which this time, makes more sense. You can't SEE through it, so you can't really target through it. At the same time, there's no limit on making an AoE attack that would encompass the area behind the blanket (so long as the target doesn't need to be a creature) Most projectiles (physical) would easily pass through, the bulk of damaging spells would pass through. My "line in the sand" for it is my interpretation (or the player's if they make a case) that the spell effect doesn't need a path to follow physically to hit the target. Most targeted spells do, but there are a handful that just affect the target, Fear being an example.
I think comparing the 2 versions of cover, one you can see through and could technically target through, the other you could pretty easily penetrate, but can't see anything through so wouldn't be able to actually target it. A situation where rules lawyers and DMs can and apparently do and will, go to war over quite often.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
All of these examples still involve directly targeting a creature behind the wall, which it is plain is not allowed, at least per RAI. I still argue that none of these examples provide directions on spells whose direct targets are not behind the wall, but whose effects affect an area inside the wall and do not need to physically pass the wall to affect a creature.
And again, if you agree that even hold person (difficult to find a spell that is less physical) does not pass through the wall, why would an AoE spell that you think is not physical not be blocked as well ? This is the part of your logic that I find difficult to follow.
The hold person example shows that (and again, this is not only clearly the intent but the way RAW is worded) magic is blocked by physical barriers. Why would the effects from spells not be blocked because they are emanating from a point in space in front of the wall rather than from the caster himself ?
I would rule that hold person doesn't work because it directly targets a creature through the wall... "Choose a humanoid that you can see within range". If a spell existed that caused the same effect the same way, but didn't require you to directly target a creature (something like a "mass paralysis" spell or something that targets a point or self as the center of an AoE...btw why doesn't that exist already?) I would rule it would pass the wall (unless something in the effect's description described it as physical) if the targeted location was on the near side of the WoF.
My reasoning is that i interpret from the rules two kinds of targets regarding total cover: Direct, and Indirect. Direct targets are addressed both in the cover rules and in the spellcasting rules pretty plainly (and in spells are usually called out pretty clearly: "a creature you see within range | a point within range | etc.. Indirect targets are addressed pretty much only in the "some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect" phrase of the Total Cover rules (I'm calling it targeting because they use "target" in the phrase, and "indirect" to differentiate from the "direct target" mentioned just before this in the phrase).
Spells can have traditional AoEs (your cones, spheres, lines, cubes, etc) as well as "effective" AoEs like "sight" and "radius" (which is a sphere without being called such directly). Some spells tell you how they bypass cover, but other spells (typically those that provide cover) tell you how their cover is applied. That's why I keep mentioning the other wall spells; they tell you what effects they block and how, sometimes very specifically). As a DM I'm interpreting WoF's description that "nothing can pass the wall physically" as defining the limits of its ability to provide total cover, and that "non-physical" effects as exceeding that limit and being able to bypass the wall.
So to me, some spells can reach the target (avoid or override the cover provided by WoF) by including them in the Area of Effect, even if said targets can't be a "direct target" of the spell. The limiting factor then becomes whether the specific effect would be required to "physically" pass the wall to affect the target. I would rule that a Fireball, as an explosion, is a physical effect and would not pass the wall (though it could go around the edge per its own description). I would rule that an Illusion, whose effects on a target are internal and only rely (usually) on sight, would pass the wall, since no physical transmission is required. So would (in my interpretation) psychic effects (limited to only those that don't directly target their victims), other effects based on sight only, and effects that manipulate forces that aren't themselves physical (like time or gravity). Light is tricky, since the wall is described as invisible (which in D&D parlance usually means fully transparent). Logically, light should pass the wall, but light and darkness spells might be considered physical since they involve photons (or the absence thereof)
On more recent comments: I would also argue that criticism of anything does not necessarily means that the critic hates or mildly dislikes the thing. Roger Ebert was an excellent film critic, who loved cinema. To my knowledge he never made a film or wrote a script. He was also completely unafraid to criticize films he liked, and eviscerate films he didn't. People can love D&D, respect the work of its creators, think 5e is an excellent system, and still criticize aspects of it. Now there are some whos criticism does come from a place of disdain/dislike/etc, but I would never assume anyone of being that without further study or evidence, and I don't really see any of the criticism here as being "over the line" into needless bashing.
How about words like "lazy writing", and I'm not even looking into the usual words from people like Yurei? Honestly, this from people who have probably never written something useful to the community, calling what has taken years of effort and interaction with the community "lazy" is just disrespectful for the work done and the result obtained. This, for me, is "over the line".
Yeah, that would be closing in on disrespectful...I haven't noticed, but I'm usually skimming on mobile so I might of missed some of that in this thread. I definitely have seen it in other threads though.
The rules for total cover spans 2 sentences. The rules for how game effects interact with the WoF span 4 sentences, only two of which deal with what can't pass through. The spell is certainly more vague than the instructions of other wall spells (wind wall has multiple sentences that get into the minutia of what can't pass and what happens when it tries. prismatic wall details specific restrictions for each layer. [spell]wall of water[spell] details multiple specific and general interactions with the wall. I can go on). it is fair to say that the description of WoF is more vague than those spells, and thusly is more open to interpretation.
And sometimes, a simple sentence is much clearer. From the cover section, it's obvious that a physical barrier blocks everything, magic or not magic. Because WoF blocks everything physical, just one word suffices to refer to the rest of the book.
This is intelligent design, and what makes the game playable. And I'm pretty sure that you will agree that it's much harder to design thinks like this than to vomit thousands of pages of rules for each subcase and realise (as the designers found out in 3e an d4e) that it does not make the game enjoyable...
I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they currently are, but their vagueness does lead sometimes to differences of opinion as to how to apply them (such as our conversation). Ultimately, unless we play at the same table (unlikely, I'm 99.99% sure we are on different continents), our differences here will never become a real-life issue in a game. At the end of the day, I think players can have fun with most interpretations, so long as they can be applied fairly and consistently.
Saying that WoF and the rules for cover are vague and could be more clear does not mean that I hate 5e, or that I'm bashing or disrespecting JC for writing it this way. I'm not a writer or game designer, and I know that what skills I have in those arenas are less proficient at than some, but I am a (reasonably smart, IMO) consumer, and I believe I do have the right to offer criticism in a respectful way. Similarly, JC is not an architect (I am), and I would hope if he were to walk into one of my buildings that he would recognize his own limitations in that profession, but I would still expect that he might offer criticism in a respectful way.
My previous rant was certainly not directed at you, and I believe that our exchanges have been more than polite, so my apologies if you think it was for you. But I hope, as an architect, that you see what I mean when you get uninformed criticism from people who have no idea of the kind of constraints and objectives that you have in your design.
I certainly do...architecture work is weird in that it mixes things that are mostly subjective (aesthetics, design) with things that are mostly objective (Structures (physics), Legal requirements, Budgets). You have to have a thicker skin to handle unfounded criticism, and I'm sure JC has dealt with unfounded and uninformed criticism in the past.
Yeah, yeah, I'm waiting to see you publish something that is even 0.0001% as successful, just to see how internet tears you apart, it would be fun. But at least I'll respect you for having produced something. :p
Also, about Sage Advice, there are some people who want explanations and examples, because it's a complex game and complex situations, and they just want a bit more help understanding the possibilities. There is no way everyone would be satisfied with a single edition anyway, with the vast openness of the game. So yes, complements like Sage Advice and podcast are add ons.
But you know, even though the original D&D was much, much more poorly written and with much less consistency, I managed to decipher it despite me being 14 years old and not even english literate, and have fun for years with my friends. I wonder how the entitled players of today would have behaved with rules which were 100 times worse. But at least we took them the way they were intend to instead of constantly criticising them.
So many fallicies as usual.
Just because I haven't written a book on DnD doesn't mean I don't have the right to (rightfully) criticize their works.
Also you can enjoy something and still have criticisms of the work. In fact if you care about something you should try to make it better by pointing out were it can do better.
And there is 100% examples of lazy behaviors. The fact the same errors appear again and again along with poor wording is examples.
I love 5e a lot and I think that being honest about what's wrong with it is the best way to make it better.
Obviously the community has pushed for things and we got what we wanted because we weren't afraid to say PHB Beastmaster is ******* garbage.
They fixed it and now it's better.
You can't just say everything is good and still expect things to get better.
They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
It's extremely low effort. It's just basically v. Human with darkvision. It's simple because it already existed.
They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
It's extremely low effort. It's just basically v. Human with darkvision. It's simple because it already existed.
And yet it seems to be very popular.
Why bother with tea, when it's just hot water with dead leaves in it?
They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
It's extremely low effort. It's just basically v. Human with darkvision. It's simple because it already existed.
And yet it seems to be very popular.
Why bother with tea, when it's just hot water with dead leaves in it?
As someone with approximately 10 different kinds of dead leaves in their cabinets at the moment, I believe the custom lineage rules are a great blend of flexibility, ease of use, and game balance. Sometimes "simple" can be a compliment if nothing else needs to be added.
but other spells (typically those that provide cover) tell you how their cover is applied. That's why I keep mentioning the other wall spells; they tell you what effects they block and how, sometimes very specifically). As a DM I'm interpreting WoF's description that "nothing can pass the wall physically" as defining the limits of its ability to provide total cover, and that "non-physical" effects as exceeding that limit and being able to bypass the wall.
Honestly, all these spell provide cover physically because it's the only type of cover in the game. And if the other spells explain the limits of this physical cover it's because it's less than perfect physically. WoF provides perfect physical cover by an indestructible shield of force, why would you need more precision ?
Because it isn't as precise as you claim.
Spells like Lightning Bolt or Chromatic Orb obviously can't target someone on the other side of a WoF because even if you can see them, and they can see you, you can't target them through the wall.
Fear is a bit more problematic since it has both a range of self and an AoE and a description that says "You project a phantasmal image". Do I project the image on myself and thus all anyone need to be affected is to see me or do I project something into those affected? The former should work fine while the latter shouldn't. Personally I wouldn't expect it to work with a WoF but I can see the argument tbh.
The really interesting ones are those that doesn't even use an AoE for their effect. Stuff like illusions (that you have repeatedly said wouldn't work) or Friends or Locate Creature. I mean if Misty Step works (which everyone seems to agree on) then why wouldn't other spells with a range of Self do?
Now, I am still waiting to see if you can find even ONE example in the rules of an AoE spell that goes THROUGH a physical barrier. It is simply not the case. There are spells that mention that they can go around one if you cast it near the edge (because they go around corners), which is fine and in line with the cover and spellcasting rules. But that's all.
I'm guessing that at least part of the disconnect here is that you are demanding that the individual spells specify if/how they would get past cover while others just look at the general rules for Cover and see the line saying "although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect". The question then becomes does the "some" refer to all AoE spells equally or just the ones that have individual text about going around corners? I expect that you would say that the latter is true (and I'd probably agree) but it does seem like sloppy writing if that is indeed the case. There are a bit more than 500 spells in the game with somewhere around 30% of them being AoE spells of some kind and less than 5% of the "spreads around corners" variant. If you only mean a specific sub-set of the general sub-set you mention then you probably should take a bit more care when referring to it.
Keep in mind that the game designers have tried several different approaches over the years, and 5e has been the most successful by far. There may be a better solution out there, but it's likely a case of "It's the worst system, except for all the others."
A smattering of ambiguity in the rules isn't going to end the world, and excessive precision definitely will cause problems. They only need to be clear enough to get the DM and players around a table. From there, the DM can interpret it however makes sense in the moment. As long as the participants are mature, it represents barely more than a blip.
What Memnosyne said. 4e tried codifying everything because WotC wanted to run D&D games online to compete with World of Warcraft and the result was, unsurprisingly, a really complicated set of rules that felt like a video game.
D&D is played by humans and the rules are enforced by humans so the rules should be legible to humans, not lawyers or computers. No two groups play the game exactly alike and the game's designers encourage that so not only is 100% unambiguous rules an impossible goal to hit, the return on investment is poor. At the end of the day what matters is that everyone had fun and you told a cool story.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
@Memnosyne I dont disagree that excessive precision causes problems. The question is, what amount is excessive? and is the problem precision, or clarity?
For me, the issue with Total Cover and A Clear Path is one of clarity, not precision. Total Cover is ambiguous about whether something which physically obstructs, but does not prevent sight, is Total Cover to all things or only the physical. That lack of clarity appears to be the root cause of this and other discussions/arguments.
A Clear Path exacerbates this issue by giving contradiction when using an AOE spell, as I state in a prior comment.
Further, "They only need to be clear enough to get the DM and players around a table." is incorrect, as they need to be clear enough to keep the DM and players interested in their product, and not competition (whether that be another system or simply homebrew).
The cover rules definitely needed more clarity but "A Clear Path to the Target" section is straightforward. Your character can't always know if there's an obstacle in the way of the point you're trying to target. The second paragraph explains what happens if you unknowingly try to place a point behind total cover. It doesn't contradict the first sentence in any way; you're still not going to be able to place the point at the location you were trying to target.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I don't get you.
On one hand you are arguing to the death that RAW Sacred Flame can't target someone behind a cover because the spell description says it's about saving throw and not targeting...(post 109)
and on the other hand you turn a complete 180 with wall of force and disintegrate.
So here is my summary for you: just like Sacred Flame spell means that you can't target something behind a cover because it's about saving throw, the same rule applies to Wall of Force and Disintegrate - the WoF is mentioned in Disintegrate description because it's not an object so it is mentioned that it can be destroyed. But it doesn't mention that it can be targeted while invisible.
Like Sacred Flame, just because something can be a target (as in, is in the target pool) doesn't mean it can be targeted (being able to do so - in the case of SF it's the full cover, in the case of WoF it's the invisibility).
Wouldn't that be consistent with your line of thinking?
This is a rules and mechanics forum, RAW is discussed here.
Your claims that rules are not needed or can be changed at any time when the DM deems it fit is right - but it's not about making a decision at a table but about arguing - for sport mostly - about the state of RAW.
The argument that you need to write something yourself to get the right to criticize someone else's writing is, with all due respect, childish. If no one was permitted to criticize any kind of work before showing their own mastery in the field, we wouldn't have film critics, book critics, hell, you wouldn't even be allowed to say that this building's design sucks. "I didn't see you designing your own then!" I mean, seriously?
5e is, in my opinion, a good system. I use it. But I make no claims about it being perfect. RAW interactions between many spells and environment is lacking. And a simple provision to the spellcasting section of the book could've taken care of that. If anything, the meta that says that the spell only does what it says and nothing less and more feels extremely limiting and leads to stupid situations that frankly, no intelligent person should have to explain at the table.
It does not mention that the rules of spellcasting are superseded. It mentions that the wall created by Wall of Force is in the target pool, nothing more. Just like a creature or an object is. These are target pools. But if a creature is invisible, you can't target it with disintegarate, can you? Even if it says "the target can be a creature", right?
Maybe we should quote your post then? That the "intent is clear but was not captured by RAW"?
Let me ask this another way by an example since I see that the fact that WoF is naturally invisible seems to confuse the situation.
WoF is specifically mentioned in the spell description as a valid target for disintegrate.
A creature is mentioned as a valid pool of targets for disintegrate.
Would you allow for disintegrate to be cast on Invisible Stalker?
What a crap show this ran into. House ruling, to make the wall's effect make sense, might be better. Cover in general, with some highly specific examples, too. A pane of glass is described several times here as cover. By RaW, it appears many folks would not allow someone standing in a picture window to be targeted, which is, to be honest, as silly as we get with rule interpretation. If I draw a bow and you are standing behind a pane of glass, you can be absolutely certain I CAN target you. I can SEE you, which is how targeting is performed. No when I release, I may well have a harder time HITTING you, as my projectile now has a pane of glass to pass through en route (and arrows do NOT like hitting anything before their target....things get weird quick) however I am able to target you and fire.
Spells, IMO (and at my table) will work in this fashion. Fireball or anything that shoots at you, will be interfered with by the glass (or WoF as described) Spells that directly attack your mind can still take effect, of spells that simply blossom from a point selected. If it's an actual WALL, something that rains down directly on you (beam of light from the heavens) will likely hit as well.
The debate on this has turned from a logical, sensible discussion on what the spell and it's effects are, to nitpicking the wording from various sections of RaW to try and make a ruling. With RaW wording (quoted about 50 times already here) being a little less than detailed and, in some cases making ZERO sense, this is yet another case of a DM having to rule on a case-by-case basis what will occur when a WoF is generated and attacks (spell or otherwise) start flying.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
All of these examples still involve directly targeting a creature behind the wall, which it is plain is not allowed, at least per RAI. I still argue that none of these examples provide directions on spells whose direct targets are not behind the wall, but whose effects affect an area inside the wall and do not need to physically pass the wall to affect a creature.
On more recent comments: I would also argue that criticism of anything does not necessarily means that the critic hates or mildly dislikes the thing. Roger Ebert was an excellent film critic, who loved cinema. To my knowledge he never made a film or wrote a script. He was also completely unafraid to criticize films he liked, and eviscerate films he didn't. People can love D&D, respect the work of its creators, think 5e is an excellent system, and still criticize aspects of it. Now there are some whos criticism does come from a place of disdain/dislike/etc, but I would never assume anyone of being that without further study or evidence, and I don't really see any of the criticism here as being "over the line" into needless bashing.
The rules for total cover spans 2 sentences. The rules for how game effects interact with the WoF span 4 sentences, only two of which deal with what can't pass through. The spell is certainly more vague than the instructions of other wall spells (wind wall has multiple sentences that get into the minutia of what can't pass and what happens when it tries. prismatic wall details specific restrictions for each layer. [spell]wall of water[spell] details multiple specific and general interactions with the wall. I can go on). it is fair to say that the description of WoF is more vague than those spells, and thusly is more open to interpretation.
Saying that WoF and the rules for cover are vague and could be more clear does not mean that I hate 5e, or that I'm bashing or disrespecting JC for writing it this way. I'm not a writer or game designer, and I know that what skills I have in those arenas are less proficient at than some, but I am a (reasonably smart, IMO) consumer, and I believe I do have the right to offer criticism in a respectful way. Similarly, JC is not an architect (I am), and I would hope if he were to walk into one of my buildings that he would recognize his own limitations in that profession, but I would still expect that he might offer criticism in a respectful way.
Or you know they are poorly written.
Plenty of examples of that. Doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water but the edition is RIFE with badly written rules and that's very very very clear.
We wouldn't need Sage Advice at all if they were written well. You wouldn't need an 1.5 hour podcast to explain cover.
It's bad and that's ok.
I honestly don't think there is a way to cover cover (cute little doublage there) without having a 300 page section on it. Comparison, to give some sense of "RL Physics" applied.
Pane of glass. RaW indicates cover. Can't TARGET through it. AoE might work around it, depending on design (indicates in the fireball example, if it detonates beside, the AoE part would wash over the person) assuming just a flat pane of glass, maybe even 6 inches thick, to offer some physical protection stood in front of you. Now realistically, "targeting" someone would be pointing the bow their way, pointing a finger maybe, for a spell, lining up the sights of a gun, etc. All those can be done through a clear pane of glass. (skip the illusion and mirror and displacement crap, too, I am talking about targeting what you see, NOT if it's real, or really where I see it, etc) I CAN target it. Now, can my attack REACH it? All sorts of weirdness on that, debate as we will, table rules will apply. Biggest headache I would see as a DM on the WoF used as a sphere might be spike growth or stuff that affect terrain area, if the sphere went under the terrain to keep the entrapped one standing on the ground)
Thick wool blanket hanging off a line. RaW indicates cover, can't TARGET through it, which this time, makes more sense. You can't SEE through it, so you can't really target through it. At the same time, there's no limit on making an AoE attack that would encompass the area behind the blanket (so long as the target doesn't need to be a creature) Most projectiles (physical) would easily pass through, the bulk of damaging spells would pass through. My "line in the sand" for it is my interpretation (or the player's if they make a case) that the spell effect doesn't need a path to follow physically to hit the target. Most targeted spells do, but there are a handful that just affect the target, Fear being an example.
I think comparing the 2 versions of cover, one you can see through and could technically target through, the other you could pretty easily penetrate, but can't see anything through so wouldn't be able to actually target it. A situation where rules lawyers and DMs can and apparently do and will, go to war over quite often.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would rule that hold person doesn't work because it directly targets a creature through the wall... "Choose a humanoid that you can see within range". If a spell existed that caused the same effect the same way, but didn't require you to directly target a creature (something like a "mass paralysis" spell or something that targets a point or self as the center of an AoE...btw why doesn't that exist already?) I would rule it would pass the wall (unless something in the effect's description described it as physical) if the targeted location was on the near side of the WoF.
My reasoning is that i interpret from the rules two kinds of targets regarding total cover: Direct, and Indirect. Direct targets are addressed both in the cover rules and in the spellcasting rules pretty plainly (and in spells are usually called out pretty clearly: "a creature you see within range | a point within range | etc.. Indirect targets are addressed pretty much only in the "some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect" phrase of the Total Cover rules (I'm calling it targeting because they use "target" in the phrase, and "indirect" to differentiate from the "direct target" mentioned just before this in the phrase).
Spells can have traditional AoEs (your cones, spheres, lines, cubes, etc) as well as "effective" AoEs like "sight" and "radius" (which is a sphere without being called such directly). Some spells tell you how they bypass cover, but other spells (typically those that provide cover) tell you how their cover is applied. That's why I keep mentioning the other wall spells; they tell you what effects they block and how, sometimes very specifically). As a DM I'm interpreting WoF's description that "nothing can pass the wall physically" as defining the limits of its ability to provide total cover, and that "non-physical" effects as exceeding that limit and being able to bypass the wall.
So to me, some spells can reach the target (avoid or override the cover provided by WoF) by including them in the Area of Effect, even if said targets can't be a "direct target" of the spell. The limiting factor then becomes whether the specific effect would be required to "physically" pass the wall to affect the target. I would rule that a Fireball, as an explosion, is a physical effect and would not pass the wall (though it could go around the edge per its own description). I would rule that an Illusion, whose effects on a target are internal and only rely (usually) on sight, would pass the wall, since no physical transmission is required. So would (in my interpretation) psychic effects (limited to only those that don't directly target their victims), other effects based on sight only, and effects that manipulate forces that aren't themselves physical (like time or gravity). Light is tricky, since the wall is described as invisible (which in D&D parlance usually means fully transparent). Logically, light should pass the wall, but light and darkness spells might be considered physical since they involve photons (or the absence thereof)
Yeah, that would be closing in on disrespectful...I haven't noticed, but I'm usually skimming on mobile so I might of missed some of that in this thread. I definitely have seen it in other threads though.
I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they currently are, but their vagueness does lead sometimes to differences of opinion as to how to apply them (such as our conversation). Ultimately, unless we play at the same table (unlikely, I'm 99.99% sure we are on different continents), our differences here will never become a real-life issue in a game. At the end of the day, I think players can have fun with most interpretations, so long as they can be applied fairly and consistently.
I certainly do...architecture work is weird in that it mixes things that are mostly subjective (aesthetics, design) with things that are mostly objective (Structures (physics), Legal requirements, Budgets). You have to have a thicker skin to handle unfounded criticism, and I'm sure JC has dealt with unfounded and uninformed criticism in the past.
So many fallicies as usual.
Just because I haven't written a book on DnD doesn't mean I don't have the right to (rightfully) criticize their works.
Also you can enjoy something and still have criticisms of the work. In fact if you care about something you should try to make it better by pointing out were it can do better.
And there is 100% examples of lazy behaviors. The fact the same errors appear again and again along with poor wording is examples.
I love 5e a lot and I think that being honest about what's wrong with it is the best way to make it better.
Obviously the community has pushed for things and we got what we wanted because we weren't afraid to say PHB Beastmaster is ******* garbage.
They fixed it and now it's better.
You can't just say everything is good and still expect things to get better.
They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
It's extremely low effort. It's just basically v. Human with darkvision. It's simple because it already existed.
And yet it seems to be very popular.
Why bother with tea, when it's just hot water with dead leaves in it?
As someone with approximately 10 different kinds of dead leaves in their cabinets at the moment, I believe the custom lineage rules are a great blend of flexibility, ease of use, and game balance. Sometimes "simple" can be a compliment if nothing else needs to be added.
Because it isn't as precise as you claim.
Spells like Lightning Bolt or Chromatic Orb obviously can't target someone on the other side of a WoF because even if you can see them, and they can see you, you can't target them through the wall.
Fear is a bit more problematic since it has both a range of self and an AoE and a description that says "You project a phantasmal image". Do I project the image on myself and thus all anyone need to be affected is to see me or do I project something into those affected? The former should work fine while the latter shouldn't. Personally I wouldn't expect it to work with a WoF but I can see the argument tbh.
The really interesting ones are those that doesn't even use an AoE for their effect. Stuff like illusions (that you have repeatedly said wouldn't work) or Friends or Locate Creature.
I mean if Misty Step works (which everyone seems to agree on) then why wouldn't other spells with a range of Self do?
I'm guessing that at least part of the disconnect here is that you are demanding that the individual spells specify if/how they would get past cover while others just look at the general rules for Cover and see the line saying "although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect".
The question then becomes does the "some" refer to all AoE spells equally or just the ones that have individual text about going around corners? I expect that you would say that the latter is true (and I'd probably agree) but it does seem like sloppy writing if that is indeed the case. There are a bit more than 500 spells in the game with somewhere around 30% of them being AoE spells of some kind and less than 5% of the "spreads around corners" variant. If you only mean a specific sub-set of the general sub-set you mention then you probably should take a bit more care when referring to it.