1. Cover- Total Cover is where something is completely between you and another thing like a wall.
2. Concealed- You can be concealed behind total cover (wall) but you are not if the barrier is transparent (Wall of Force, Window)
You can have Total Cover and NOT have concealment. If a spell says you need to see a target/area only then you can cast it through a transparent total cover (Window, Wall of Force).
If the spell says you attack a creature within range you cannot with a transparent barrier because they have complete cover. If physical barriers stops a spell then it will not extend out.
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.
"The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw."
It can just as correctly be read as the entire saving throw itself, not just the bonus...JC seems to agree with that anyway. Total cover would affect the entire saving throw (whether or not it happens, as opposed to just the bonus given)
The line of effect rules for spell AOE/targeting are RAI applicable to all AOE/targeting. It’s a known gap of RAW, but shouldn’t be used to throw out targeting rules for a secondary effect of a spell which is not itself a spell, or other character/monster abilities, because then you’re left with NO rules.
I think the argument can be made that an effect can provide total cover against one thing, and not against another thing. wall of force provides total cover from physical objects and effects. I can understand that that might mean spell targeting. But regarding spell AoE's where the target is not on the far side of the wall, you have to determine if the effect is "physical" or not.
Psychological effects (such as from illusions) are not physical. Light (physical or no) could reasonably be assumed to pass through the wall (given that the wall is defined as "transparent" and the basic definition of that word is "allows light to pass through". So some spell effects should be able to pass through the wall, and the wall would not grant total cover against those effects (only the targeting of the initial spell).
We already have “effectively blinded” vs x but not everything, don’t know why “effectively has cover” vs x but not everything would be any harder to arbitrate. Porous walls like WOF and Prismatic Wall (depending on layers) demands it. Cover is already conditional vs. direction, why not also v. Substance?
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).
No, it's not the way to look at it RAW. Wall of force provides obstruction (From physical effects), therefore total cover will protect you from any spell (effects except those that are not physical). It's a simple as that.
Otherwise, you will have to allow fear to work through normal walls as well, since they are just physical.
Changed your statement to reflect only what Wall of Force actually blocks. It blocks targeting, but if the spell doesn't target a space behind the wall, that is moot.
After this discussion, I know how I plan to rule on this spell: wall of force counts as full cover against and therefore blocks:
Spell Targeting (based on spell description and range given in the spell format)
Sacred Flame is excepted because the spell ignores benefits of cover (per JC and my reading of that particular spell)
Physical Spell Effects made by AoEs
Light effects, though normally physical, are excepted because the spell description says the wall is transparent and that word literally means "light passes through"
It does not count as full cover against, and does not block:
Non-physical Spell Effects made by AoEs
If and only If the target of the spell was in front of the wall (from the caster's perspective) when the spell was cast
If a spell can be moved after casting, it can move into the WoF if the effect is non-physical
Light effects, see exception to physical effects above. They are treated as non-physical for the purposes of this spell
Normal walls DONT just block physical. Total Cover section tells us that. WOF (and all magic walls that enumerate their blockages) are less than normal walls. Only wall of Stone and wall of ice are true “walls.”
After this discussion, I know how I plan to rule on this spell: wall of force counts as full cover against and therefore blocks:
Spell Targeting (based on spell description and range given in the spell format)
Sacred Flame is excepted because the spell ignores benefits of cover (per JC and my reading of that particular spell)
Physical Spell Effects made by AoEs
Light effects, though normally physical, are excepted because the spell description says the wall is transparent and that word literally means "light passes through"
It does not count as full cover against, and does not block:
Non-physical Spell Effects made by AoEs
If and only If the target of the spell was in front of the wall (from the caster's perspective) when the spell was cast
If a spell can be moved after casting, it can move into the WoF if the effect is non-physical
Light effects, see exception to physical effects above. They are treated as non-physical for the purposes of this spell
I think the first part is RAW but the second is not maybe? It's obvious the rules do not have good coverage here.
Overall it likely just better to discuss as a DM with your players or vice versa and your approach seems fair enough as long as the group agrees.
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).
No, it's not the way to look at it RAW. Wall of force provides obstruction (From physical effects), therefore total cover will protect you from any spell (effects except those that are not physical). It's a simple as that.
Otherwise, you will have to allow fear to work through normal walls as well, since they are just physical.
Changed your statement to reflect only what Wall of Force actually blocks. It blocks targeting, but if the spell doesn't target a space behind the wall, that is moot.
And then, fear works through normal walls because they are just physical too. I'm not buying it, it's way too complicated and not in line either with the RAW or with the way WoF has always worked.
Technically it does work through normal walls by RAW (there is no specific limit on sight mentioned in the spell description). RAI, and how I would rule is that the creature must be able to see the caster to be affected by the spell. WoF does not affect sight, and the effect of the spell is psychological, not physical, so WoF would not provide cover against the effect. (while a real wall would)
Just want to point out that nowhere is a wall of force described as “transparent.” The actual word used is “invisible.” The intent is probably that it be transparent, but I’ve already explained the RAW difference there.
Normal walls DONT just block physical. Total Cover section tells us that. WOF (and all magic walls that enumerate their blockages) are less than normal walls. Only wall of Stone and wall of ice are true “walls.”
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
Thats why I said its how I would rule, not how the RAW rules...the rules are too unclear since the spell doesn't use any "normal" game terms in it's description. We have to apply them ourselves.
Honestly, as long as you can find a consistent way to rule on the spell. its fine. your players won't notice the difference (or if they do, you can claim the DM's right to interpretation). The key is consistency in how you rule.
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
and you’re substituting your own rationalizations as “the reason that” the rules say what they say, rather than citing textual examples and arguments. We all got our crosses to bear...
Normal walls DONT just block physical. Total Cover section tells us that. WOF (and all magic walls that enumerate their blockages) are less than normal walls. Only wall of Stone and wall of ice are true “walls.”
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
I think there is a valid point to be made that WoF is "not" a normal wall though, at least by common understanding. Walls of Stone and Ice have precedent in the real world, and we can apply that "normal" precedent to them when we understand them. WoF doesn't have a "natural" analogue, so we can only go off of the description. That description says nothing physical can pass through the wall. But there are things (magical and not) that aren't physical. The description doesn't say how the wall affects them, so we have to assume it doesn't affect them. Other rules add to that basic statement, but nothing contradicts the fact that WoF might not provide total cover (or any cover at all) against effects that aren't physical in nature.
Looking at it another way, you say that total cover applies to walls that are a physical obstacle. I'd agree with that. But thats not what WoF actually says. It says "nothing physical can pass through". That means your statement is 100% true, when applied to physical objects and effects. it can't be true (or at least can't be provably true) that it is a physical obstacle (or any kind of obstacle) to non-physical effects.
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
and you’re substituting your own rationalizations as “the reason that” the rules say what they say, rather than citing textual examples and arguments. We all got our crosses to bear...
Okay. Here’s what the text says about determining if something has total cover: “A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.” Now, a transparent adamantine wall doesn’t conceal jack, but you said you didn’t want to talk about that, so let’s assume it still provides total cover. Why? Because it’s an obstacle that “completely [blocks]” whatever is on the other side.
On what basis are you positing that something that nothing can physically pass through isn’t an obstacle?
Just want to point out that nowhere is a wall of force described as “transparent.” The actual word used is “invisible.” The intent is probably that it be transparent, but I’ve already explained the RAW difference there.
True. If you say that something is invisible because light bends around it, then you could reasonably exclude light effects from the WoF. You could also say then that the creature inside the WoF couldn't see out of it, and is in total darkness, because there is not light in there unless they provide it themselves.
But, invisible is also a game term, and that term doesn't exclude items/creatures affected by it from light effects (at least not from spells anyway), nor does it prevent them from seeing, so it is also reasonable to say that invisible is simply 100% transparency, in that the light still hits it, it just passes through.
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
and you’re substituting your own rationalizations as “the reason that” the rules say what they say, rather than citing textual examples and arguments. We all got our crosses to bear...
Okay. Here’s what the text says about determining if something has total cover: “A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.” Now, a transparent adamantine wall doesn’t conceal jack, but you said you didn’t want to talk about that, so let’s assume it still provides total cover. Why? Because it’s an obstacle that “completely [blocks]” whatever is on the other side.
On what basis are you positing that something that nothing can physically pass through isn’t an obstacle?
Because some things aren't physical, and thus don't necessarily physically pass through anything. Something that is an obstacle to things physically passing through is not necessarily an obstacle to things that aren't physical and thus don't have to physically pass through anything.
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
and you’re substituting your own rationalizations as “the reason that” the rules say what they say, rather than citing textual examples and arguments. We all got our crosses to bear...
Okay. Here’s what the text says about determining if something has total cover: “A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.” Now, a transparent adamantine wall doesn’t conceal jack, but you said you didn’t want to talk about that, so let’s assume it still provides total cover. Why? Because it’s an obstacle that “completely [blocks]” whatever is on the other side.
On what basis are you positing that something that nothing can physically pass through isn’t an obstacle?
Because some things aren't physical, and thus don't necessarily physically pass through anything. Something that is an obstacle to things physically passing through is not necessarily an obstacle to things that aren't physical and thus don't have to physically pass through anything.
Then on what basis is the adamantine an obstacle?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are two things to consider here:
1. Cover- Total Cover is where something is completely between you and another thing like a wall.
2. Concealed- You can be concealed behind total cover (wall) but you are not if the barrier is transparent (Wall of Force, Window)
You can have Total Cover and NOT have concealment. If a spell says you need to see a target/area only then you can cast it through a transparent total cover (Window, Wall of Force).
If the spell says you attack a creature within range you cannot with a transparent barrier because they have complete cover. If physical barriers stops a spell then it will not extend out.
"The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw."
It can just as correctly be read as the entire saving throw itself, not just the bonus...JC seems to agree with that anyway. Total cover would affect the entire saving throw (whether or not it happens, as opposed to just the bonus given)
The line of effect rules for spell AOE/targeting are RAI applicable to all AOE/targeting. It’s a known gap of RAW, but shouldn’t be used to throw out targeting rules for a secondary effect of a spell which is not itself a spell, or other character/monster abilities, because then you’re left with NO rules.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But I do agree icon. Fear goes through WOF, because there is NO cover (vs. magic). Not because fear effects can pass THROUGH cover.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think the argument can be made that an effect can provide total cover against one thing, and not against another thing. wall of force provides total cover from physical objects and effects. I can understand that that might mean spell targeting. But regarding spell AoE's where the target is not on the far side of the wall, you have to determine if the effect is "physical" or not.
Psychological effects (such as from illusions) are not physical. Light (physical or no) could reasonably be assumed to pass through the wall (given that the wall is defined as "transparent" and the basic definition of that word is "allows light to pass through". So some spell effects should be able to pass through the wall, and the wall would not grant total cover against those effects (only the targeting of the initial spell).
We already have “effectively blinded” vs x but not everything, don’t know why “effectively has cover” vs x but not everything would be any harder to arbitrate. Porous walls like WOF and Prismatic Wall (depending on layers) demands it. Cover is already conditional vs. direction, why not also v. Substance?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Changed your statement to reflect only what Wall of Force actually blocks. It blocks targeting, but if the spell doesn't target a space behind the wall, that is moot.
After this discussion, I know how I plan to rule on this spell: wall of force counts as full cover against and therefore blocks:
It does not count as full cover against, and does not block:
Normal walls DONT just block physical. Total Cover section tells us that. WOF (and all magic walls that enumerate their blockages) are less than normal walls. Only wall of Stone and wall of ice are true “walls.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think the first part is RAW but the second is not maybe? It's obvious the rules do not have good coverage here.
Overall it likely just better to discuss as a DM with your players or vice versa and your approach seems fair enough as long as the group agrees.
Technically it does work through normal walls by RAW (there is no specific limit on sight mentioned in the spell description). RAI, and how I would rule is that the creature must be able to see the caster to be affected by the spell. WoF does not affect sight, and the effect of the spell is psychological, not physical, so WoF would not provide cover against the effect. (while a real wall would)
But that is a ruling on the fear, not WoF.
Just want to point out that nowhere is a wall of force described as “transparent.” The actual word used is “invisible.” The intent is probably that it be transparent, but I’ve already explained the RAW difference there.
Again, you’re begging the question. The reason total cover rules apply to normal walls is that normal walls are a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is definitionally a physical obstacle. There is no textual basis for treating it differently from a normal wall.
Thats why I said its how I would rule, not how the RAW rules...the rules are too unclear since the spell doesn't use any "normal" game terms in it's description. We have to apply them ourselves.
Honestly, as long as you can find a consistent way to rule on the spell. its fine. your players won't notice the difference (or if they do, you can claim the DM's right to interpretation). The key is consistency in how you rule.
and you’re substituting your own rationalizations as “the reason that” the rules say what they say, rather than citing textual examples and arguments. We all got our crosses to bear...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think there is a valid point to be made that WoF is "not" a normal wall though, at least by common understanding. Walls of Stone and Ice have precedent in the real world, and we can apply that "normal" precedent to them when we understand them. WoF doesn't have a "natural" analogue, so we can only go off of the description. That description says nothing physical can pass through the wall. But there are things (magical and not) that aren't physical. The description doesn't say how the wall affects them, so we have to assume it doesn't affect them. Other rules add to that basic statement, but nothing contradicts the fact that WoF might not provide total cover (or any cover at all) against effects that aren't physical in nature.
Looking at it another way, you say that total cover applies to walls that are a physical obstacle. I'd agree with that. But thats not what WoF actually says. It says "nothing physical can pass through". That means your statement is 100% true, when applied to physical objects and effects. it can't be true (or at least can't be provably true) that it is a physical obstacle (or any kind of obstacle) to non-physical effects.
Okay. Here’s what the text says about determining if something has total cover: “A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.” Now, a transparent adamantine wall doesn’t conceal jack, but you said you didn’t want to talk about that, so let’s assume it still provides total cover. Why? Because it’s an obstacle that “completely [blocks]” whatever is on the other side.
On what basis are you positing that something that nothing can physically pass through isn’t an obstacle?
True. If you say that something is invisible because light bends around it, then you could reasonably exclude light effects from the WoF. You could also say then that the creature inside the WoF couldn't see out of it, and is in total darkness, because there is not light in there unless they provide it themselves.
But, invisible is also a game term, and that term doesn't exclude items/creatures affected by it from light effects (at least not from spells anyway), nor does it prevent them from seeing, so it is also reasonable to say that invisible is simply 100% transparency, in that the light still hits it, it just passes through.
Because some things aren't physical, and thus don't necessarily physically pass through anything. Something that is an obstacle to things physically passing through is not necessarily an obstacle to things that aren't physical and thus don't have to physically pass through anything.
Then on what basis is the adamantine an obstacle?