It needs to clearly say one way or another if you want to avoid misunderstanding/discussion.
Ideally, yes. In practice there's always going to be someone that misunderstands the text and there's practical reasons why the writers can't expound on every aspect of a rule in excruciating detail. There's word count limitations, there's an upper limit to how many words you can cram into one rule before human beings decide "too long; didn't read", and while not relevant to this example there's cases where the writers deliberately want to leave something a bit open to interpretation.
Also I'd argue if anything isn't clear enough here, it's the cover rules. Wall of Force is clear about what it does, but because the cover rules are so sparse it's not immediately obvious whether Wall of Force counts or not.
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body.
Spells: To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Seeing that "Nothing can physically pass through the wall", the wall of force is clearly an obstacle. And obstacles block magic as well as passage as per the cover rule.
I agree. The benefit of this spell (as opposed to a spell like globe of invulnerability ) is that it blocks physical intrusion. The drawback of the spell (as opposed to the previous example) is that the effect applies in both directions, unless a specific effect overrides it (like teleporting, or the "ignores cover" rule of a spell like sacred flame ).
This is a spell to stop combat or delay combat, it isn't one that really maintains combat (barring teleports or aforementioned spells that ignore cover)
wall of force blocks things that would need to pass through physically, but not anything else. That’s magic, my dude. That’s light. That’s smells, and sounds, and temperatures, and auras of fear.
...I’m just saying, it provides NO cover against things that are not physical. Vision, sound, (no physical) magic, odors, temperature, fear... it’s like the wall ain’t even there for all of that, it passes straight through.
Okay, I think what’s going on here, and I promise I don’t say this disapprovingly, is that you’re just ignorant of reality. Vision is reflected light. Light is an oscillation in a physical field. Sound is a vibration through a physical medium. Temperature is the movement of physical particles. Odors just straight up are physical particles. All of that is unambiguously, zero room for argument, physical.
Magic creates physical effects, like bolts of fire and cones of freezing air. An aura of fear probably isn’t physical, but the problem there is that we have a rule that specifically says spells can’t target past total cover. Actual walls should only block things from physical transfer as well, if not for this rule. Cover is defined as physical obstruction. Wall of Force defines itself as physical obstruction. As InquisitiveCoder says, QED.
If your argument is that Wall of Force isn’t cover because it says it blocks things from physically passing through it, when the only reason a wall blocks anything more is not because of wall rules but because of the cover rules, you are, and believe me when I say I leap at any chance to use the term correctly, begging the question.
I think a general challenge of spell rules that is exacerbated by spells like wall of force and other things, like windows, is that there is not a clear delineation in the between lines of effect, lines of sight/hearing/etc. required in spell descriptions. There isn't also a clear delineation between the cover granted by physical obstructions, like a wall of stone, and whether cover is granted by non-physical obstructions, like darkness, fog, and arguably wall of force
Lines of effect basically enforce the cover rules for spells, but a lot of spell descriptions by themselves aren't described as emanating in a line from the caster. So you get three types of spell descriptions:
Mechanical "lines" include mostly spells with line AoEs, touch spells, and ranged/melee spell attacks. These clearly emanate from the caster (at least mechanically)
Descriptive "lines" include spells like fireball that describe the spell as emanating from the caster, but mechanically aren't line spells, touch spells, or melee/ranged spell attacks.
Non-Descriptive spells don't include mechanics or descriptions of the line of effect, like dissonant whispers or reverse gravity. This includes a lot of non-line AoE spells and environmental spells, among others
Then you have lines of sight/hearing/etc. that are included in spell descriptions. Sight would use the same line of effect, but would penetrate translucent cover and stop at non-translucent effects that obscure (and might provide cover). it might also bounce off of reflective surfaces. Hearing might not require line of effect since sound can bounce off most surfaces to a greater or lesser degree. Other restrictions may or may not use the line of effect. Since these don't by themselves override the cover rules, I would argue that they should be seen as additional restrictions. Finally, I would say that the wall effectively provides cover, since physical objects can't pass through, but it would not stop AoEs that aren't physical, like reverse gravity, so long as the targeted point was on the near side of the wall. I could see an argument that the wall would not stop light either (since it is described as transparent. If you can see through it, then light has to be able to penetrate it) so spells like sickening radiance, sunbeam, moonbeam, or faerie fire could work to penetrate it, so long as the original targeted point was on the near side of the wall. That might not be strictly RAW, but it works with the spell description and it makes the spell less of a combat killer.
You can of course homebrew a world in which magic is not physical but purely metaphysical or even stranger than this, but you would have to rework a lot of D&D rules to support this.
Oh, and the reason that Misty Step and the rest allow you to get to the other side of a wall of force is because there is no obstruction to the target, because the target is "self". Other spells like forcecage have supplementary effects for teleportation and such, because they are more nasty and their magic take into account more situations, that's all.
This is the most important statement from a mechanical perspective. Its also why, oddly enough, Sacred Flame works on something in a Wall of Force. Its the only magic I can think of that targets another creature that would work on a Wall of Force.
Anything that targeted self (or a point in space) and doesn't create a physical effect in its AoE (or doesn't have an AoE) could feasibly affect someone in a WoF...spells like fear and other illusion spells would fit this category. You could also argue that if an illusion is able to move, you could cast it outside the wall and have it move inside (since physical objects don't affect illusions).
You can of course homebrew a world in which magic is not physical but purely metaphysical or even stranger than this, but you would have to rework a lot of D&D rules to support this.
Oh, and the reason that Misty Step and the rest allow you to get to the other side of a wall of force is because there is no obstruction to the target, because the target is "self". Other spells like forcecage have supplementary effects for teleportation and such, because they are more nasty and their magic take into account more situations, that's all.
This is the most important statement from a mechanical perspective. Its also why, oddly enough, Sacred Flame works on something in a Wall of Force. Its the only magic I can think of that targets another creature that would work on a Wall of Force.
Are you sure about this ? It still has a range of 60 ft. to the target, so I would not allow it (although I can totally see that you would be invocating the god's displeasure on a target instead of it shooting from you towards it, but then you have to be careful about flame strike as well, so it creates lots of problems down the line).
The spell description of sacred flame says the target "gains no benefit from cover" from this spell. Since it is a saving throw spell and has a sight requirement, the only reason this phrase would matter at all would be if it was intended to pass through transparent barriers like windows or a WoF.
Also the radiance "descends" but the spell doesn't say from where... it could descend very easily from directly above the targets head :)
hmmm. I’m not convinced that a thing that only blocks one type of matter/force/magic creates a binary Total Cover for all things. Do walls provide total cover against attacks by a ghost with Warlock Ghostly Gaze? Or would we say you don’t have cover with respect to the ghost, but do for everything else?
hmmm. I’m not convinced that a thing that only blocks one type of matter/force/magic creates a binary Total Cover for all things. Do walls provide total cover against attacks by a ghost with Warlock Ghostly Gaze? Or would we say you don’t have cover with respect to the ghost, but do for everything else?
the creature would still have cover from spell effects that can't target objects behind cover....but you could arguably say a spell that ignores cover, like sacred flame would work through the wall since the creature could see the target through the wall.
You could also feasibly affect a creature with Ghostly Gaze with the fear or other illusions if it could see you cast it (or the casting point) from behind the wall, so it works both ways
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
Anything that targeted self (or a point in space) and doesn't create a physical effect in its AoE (or doesn't have an AoE) could feasibly affect someone in a WoF...spells like fear and other illusion spells would fit this category. You could also argue that if an illusion is able to move, you could cast it outside the wall and have it move inside (since physical objects don't affect illusions).
This makes sense as the target is Self and not the creature.
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
I’m with you here. The text of sacred flame says the target gets no benefit from cover for the saving throw, not “for purposes of spell targeting rules.”
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
Definitely RAW and RAI per Crawford at least (See podcast link above)
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
I honestly never noticed the bonuses from cover applied to DEX saving throws too... Still, if the writers RAI was for SF to not work behind total cover they should have specifically limited the benefit to 1/2 and 3/4 cover, not just "cover". RAW, it's certainly valid to say that "i can't be targeted by spells" is a benefit of total cover, so if that is ignored (due to the spell wording) then the only limitation of SF is sight.
I need to make a note to start adjudicating cover with DEX saves...can't believe I never noticed that before...
Anything that targeted self (or a point in space) and doesn't create a physical effect in its AoE (or doesn't have an AoE) could feasibly affect someone in a WoF...spells like fear and other illusion spells would fit this category. You could also argue that if an illusion is able to move, you could cast it outside the wall and have it move inside (since physical objects don't affect illusions).
Fear would not work for someone behind a wall of force, the rules are 100% clear: The target is behind an obstruction and has total cover, so this applies: "If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
So anything behind the wall of force is not included in the area of effect of fear.
Eyebite would work though as it only requires sight:
One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by one of the following effects of your choice for the duration. On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to target another creature but can't target a creature again if it has succeeded on a saving throw against this casting of eyebite.
Panicked. The target is frightened of you. On each of its turns, the frightened creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest available route, unless there is nowhere to move. If the target moves to a place at least 60 feet away from you where it can no longer see you, this effect ends.
If the wall stops spells being targeted through, it also blocks line of effect for AOEs. While Total Cover section makes the distinction, and suggests AOE can spread through/around cover, the spellcasting section disagrees. It is the same limitation which controls both the spread of effect from point of origin, and placement of target point of origin, you must be on one side or the other of “is there cover at all?” to let magic pass through the wall.
“Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.”
vs.
“A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.”
vs.
“Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts... A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.”
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
I’m with you here. The text of sacred flame says the target gets no benefit from cover for the saving throw, not “for purposes of spell targeting rules.”
I agree too, the sacred flame sentence is really clear, it's just for a save bonus if you have less than total cover.
Fear is not a physical object or effect. The target is self. I can target myself with fear and because the AoE is not describing a physical effect, it passes through.
If sight passes through the wall, then the image i create around myself can be seen...if it can be seen, the effect of the spell can take hold.. Otherwise, you are saying sight doesn't pass through, the wall is no longer transparent, and the spell description of WoF is wrong. At least thats the way I see it.
RAW is hard to parse here, and this is not the first thread on the limits of WoF to have large disagreements. I would argue that WoF only provide total cover from physical objects and effects, not psychological ones like illusions, (nor light, due to the spell description).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why would we want to avoid discussion? Isn't that the purpose of these forums?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ideally, yes. In practice there's always going to be someone that misunderstands the text and there's practical reasons why the writers can't expound on every aspect of a rule in excruciating detail. There's word count limitations, there's an upper limit to how many words you can cram into one rule before human beings decide "too long; didn't read", and while not relevant to this example there's cases where the writers deliberately want to leave something a bit open to interpretation.
Also I'd argue if anything isn't clear enough here, it's the cover rules. Wall of Force is clear about what it does, but because the cover rules are so sparse it's not immediately obvious whether Wall of Force counts or not.
I agree. The benefit of this spell (as opposed to a spell like globe of invulnerability ) is that it blocks physical intrusion. The drawback of the spell (as opposed to the previous example) is that the effect applies in both directions, unless a specific effect overrides it (like teleporting, or the "ignores cover" rule of a spell like sacred flame ).
This is a spell to stop combat or delay combat, it isn't one that really maintains combat (barring teleports or aforementioned spells that ignore cover)
Okay, I think what’s going on here, and I promise I don’t say this disapprovingly, is that you’re just ignorant of reality. Vision is reflected light. Light is an oscillation in a physical field. Sound is a vibration through a physical medium. Temperature is the movement of physical particles. Odors just straight up are physical particles. All of that is unambiguously, zero room for argument, physical.
Magic creates physical effects, like bolts of fire and cones of freezing air. An aura of fear probably isn’t physical, but the problem there is that we have a rule that specifically says spells can’t target past total cover. Actual walls should only block things from physical transfer as well, if not for this rule. Cover is defined as physical obstruction. Wall of Force defines itself as physical obstruction. As InquisitiveCoder says, QED.
If your argument is that Wall of Force isn’t cover because it says it blocks things from physically passing through it, when the only reason a wall blocks anything more is not because of wall rules but because of the cover rules, you are, and believe me when I say I leap at any chance to use the term correctly, begging the question.
I think a general challenge of spell rules that is exacerbated by spells like wall of force and other things, like windows, is that there is not a clear delineation in the between lines of effect, lines of sight/hearing/etc. required in spell descriptions. There isn't also a clear delineation between the cover granted by physical obstructions, like a wall of stone, and whether cover is granted by non-physical obstructions, like darkness, fog, and arguably wall of force
Lines of effect basically enforce the cover rules for spells, but a lot of spell descriptions by themselves aren't described as emanating in a line from the caster. So you get three types of spell descriptions:
Then you have lines of sight/hearing/etc. that are included in spell descriptions. Sight would use the same line of effect, but would penetrate translucent cover and stop at non-translucent effects that obscure (and might provide cover). it might also bounce off of reflective surfaces. Hearing might not require line of effect since sound can bounce off most surfaces to a greater or lesser degree. Other restrictions may or may not use the line of effect. Since these don't by themselves override the cover rules, I would argue that they should be seen as additional restrictions. Finally, I would say that the wall effectively provides cover, since physical objects can't pass through, but it would not stop AoEs that aren't physical, like reverse gravity, so long as the targeted point was on the near side of the wall. I could see an argument that the wall would not stop light either (since it is described as transparent. If you can see through it, then light has to be able to penetrate it) so spells like sickening radiance, sunbeam, moonbeam, or faerie fire could work to penetrate it, so long as the original targeted point was on the near side of the wall. That might not be strictly RAW, but it works with the spell description and it makes the spell less of a combat killer.
This is the most important statement from a mechanical perspective. Its also why, oddly enough, Sacred Flame works on something in a Wall of Force. Its the only magic I can think of that targets another creature that would work on a Wall of Force.
Anything that targeted self (or a point in space) and doesn't create a physical effect in its AoE (or doesn't have an AoE) could feasibly affect someone in a WoF...spells like fear and other illusion spells would fit this category. You could also argue that if an illusion is able to move, you could cast it outside the wall and have it move inside (since physical objects don't affect illusions).
The spell description of sacred flame says the target "gains no benefit from cover" from this spell. Since it is a saving throw spell and has a sight requirement, the only reason this phrase would matter at all would be if it was intended to pass through transparent barriers like windows or a WoF.
Also the radiance "descends" but the spell doesn't say from where... it could descend very easily from directly above the targets head :)
hmmm. I’m not convinced that a thing that only blocks one type of matter/force/magic creates a binary Total Cover for all things. Do walls provide total cover against attacks by a ghost with Warlock Ghostly Gaze? Or would we say you don’t have cover with respect to the ghost, but do for everything else?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
JC did talk about Sacred Flame and Wall of Force this on a podcast: http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3
Its also weird because a window technically blocks a lot of spells too...but that's easier to deal with at least!
the creature would still have cover from spell effects that can't target objects behind cover....but you could arguably say a spell that ignores cover, like sacred flame would work through the wall since the creature could see the target through the wall.
You could also feasibly affect a creature with Ghostly Gaze with the fear or other illusions if it could see you cast it (or the casting point) from behind the wall, so it works both ways
I don’t think sacred flames cover clause allows it to be targeted through cover if you have vision... more, it means the victim receives no Dex save bonus from their half/three quarter cover when targeted legally. But, could see that that could be a RAI vs RAW split.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This makes sense as the target is Self and not the creature.
I’m with you here. The text of sacred flame says the target gets no benefit from cover for the saving throw, not “for purposes of spell targeting rules.”
Definitely RAW and RAI per Crawford at least (See podcast link above)
I honestly never noticed the bonuses from cover applied to DEX saving throws too... Still, if the writers RAI was for SF to not work behind total cover they should have specifically limited the benefit to 1/2 and 3/4 cover, not just "cover". RAW, it's certainly valid to say that "i can't be targeted by spells" is a benefit of total cover, so if that is ignored (due to the spell wording) then the only limitation of SF is sight.
I need to make a note to start adjudicating cover with DEX saves...can't believe I never noticed that before...
Eyebite would work though as it only requires sight:
One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by one of the following effects of your choice for the duration. On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to target another creature but can't target a creature again if it has succeeded on a saving throw against this casting of eyebite.
Panicked. The target is frightened of you. On each of its turns, the frightened creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest available route, unless there is nowhere to move. If the target moves to a place at least 60 feet away from you where it can no longer see you, this effect ends.
If the wall stops spells being targeted through, it also blocks line of effect for AOEs. While Total Cover section makes the distinction, and suggests AOE can spread through/around cover, the spellcasting section disagrees. It is the same limitation which controls both the spread of effect from point of origin, and placement of target point of origin, you must be on one side or the other of “is there cover at all?” to let magic pass through the wall.
“Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.”
vs.
“A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.”
vs.
“Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts... A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
JC disagrees....it works behind a Wall of Force.
Fear is not a physical object or effect. The target is self. I can target myself with fear and because the AoE is not describing a physical effect, it passes through.
If sight passes through the wall, then the image i create around myself can be seen...if it can be seen, the effect of the spell can take hold.. Otherwise, you are saying sight doesn't pass through, the wall is no longer transparent, and the spell description of WoF is wrong. At least thats the way I see it.
RAW is hard to parse here, and this is not the first thread on the limits of WoF to have large disagreements. I would argue that WoF only provide total cover from physical objects and effects, not psychological ones like illusions, (nor light, due to the spell description).