(assuming the adamantine is transparent per your original post)
It is an obstacle, for anything that might physically hit it, and for any spells whose targets are behind it.
It would not be an obstacle for light, because light would pass through it.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and things that are based on sight, because you can see through it. (caveat is that the target of the illusion spell (typically self or a point in space) would not be able to be originally cast on the far side of the adamantine.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and ghosts, nor for ethereal creatures, because they have abilities that allow them to pass through solid objects (and illusions are unaffected by physical objects)
(assuming the adamantine is transparent per your original post)
It is an obstacle, for anything that might physically hit it, and for any spells whose targets are behind it.
It would not be an obstacle for light, because light would pass through it.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and things that are based on sight, because you can see through it. (caveat is that the target of the illusion spell (typically self or a point in space) would not be able to be originally cast on the far side of the adamantine.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and ghosts, nor for ethereal creatures, because they have abilities that allow them to pass through solid objects (and illusions are unaffected by physical objects)
If you’re treating the wall of force the same way you’d treat the adamantine wall, then my only objection is that l don’t accept that things can sometimes grant cover and sometimes not; but that’s a different topic, and it’s one that I’m happy to agree to disagree on.
What I want to know is whether or not CC can explain, in context of the cover rules that I quoted, why a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t, without the argument depending on the premise that a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t.
You don't accept that a tree trunk can grant cover vs. Creature A's attack, but not against Creature B's attack, because they're standing in two different squares? Things "sometimes grant cover" not just all the time... every time. Every use of cover is conditional.
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.
This is exactly my point, indeed. There is no provision in the rules for elements to be obstacles / obstructions to specific things. Otherwise, you will have to explain how some material will be permeable to fear waves, but not mental waves and to illusionary waves but not charming waves, etc.
The rules are simple, if there is a physical obstruction, there is cover, and if there is cover, the spells do not work. Simple and easy to adjudicate without inventing new concepts of "obstruction to xxx" where "xxx" can be any type of energy of power in the game.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
You don't accept that a tree trunk can grant cover vs. Creature A's attack, but not against Creature B's attack, because they're standing in two different squares? Things "sometimes grant cover" not just all the time... every time. Every use of cover is conditional.
That’s a different situation, and I’m pretty sure iconarising and I both understood the context in which we were speaking, and I’ll freely admit to using shorthand that relies on that mutual understanding. If they’re similarly confused, however, I’d be happy to more fully explain my position to them.
(assuming the adamantine is transparent per your original post)
It is an obstacle, for anything that might physically hit it, and for any spells whose targets are behind it.
It would not be an obstacle for light, because light would pass through it.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and things that are based on sight, because you can see through it. (caveat is that the target of the illusion spell (typically self or a point in space) would not be able to be originally cast on the far side of the adamantine.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and ghosts, nor for ethereal creatures, because they have abilities that allow them to pass through solid objects (and illusions are unaffected by physical objects)
If you’re treating the wall of force the same way you’d treat the adamantine wall, then my only objection is that l don’t accept that things can sometimes grant cover and sometimes not; but that’s a different topic, and it’s one that I’m happy to agree to disagree on.
What I want to know is whether or not CC can explain, in context of the cover rules that I quoted, why a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t, without the argument depending on the premise that a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t.
I can see the thing through a wall of force and it can see me as a scary dragon or whatever.....and they are saying that visual information is a huge part of this game as a common language used is "that you can see".
You cannot be counterspelled during greater invisibility as the spell states you have to be seen to be able to counter the spell.
Where this gets wonky is that they attempted (but failed) to use natural language to make things "Simple" when it does the opposite and we have 4 pages full of people not understanding how an invisible wall works. Ultimately its not something people will all agree on how it should work and instead you should talk with your group to see how you all want it to work.
I personally think that if a spell requires sight for targeting and doesn't have another described or mechanical line of effect to its target (which basically includes fireball, touch spells, and melee/ranged spell attack spells), it should be able to target a creature/object/space behind transparent cover. I know that is not RAW though, so I didn't include it in my ruling for this spell and won't defend that here.
But if I were to make changes to the game, that would be one of them.
You don't accept that a tree trunk can grant cover vs. Creature A's attack, but not against Creature B's attack, because they're standing in two different squares? Things "sometimes grant cover" not just all the time... every time. Every use of cover is conditional.
That’s a different situation, and I’m pretty sure iconarising and I both understood the context in which we were speaking, and I’ll freely admit to using shorthand that relies on that mutual understanding. If they’re similarly confused, however, I’d be happy to more fully explain my position to them.
Yes, it's a different situation, but it stands for the fact that a creature does not simply "have cover" or "not have cover" as a binary creature state that ignores context, like you and Coder have been arguing. The whole "physical blockage -> cover, and cover-> blocks non physical spells" chain of reasoning is like saying "has cover vs. square 1-> "has cover," "has cover"-> can't be targeted, so can't be targeted vs. square 2".
Throwing around a physical object, creature, or effect X? Check WOF... okay, WOF blocks physical, so "has cover vs. X."
Throwing around a nonphysical effect or spell Y? Check WOF... nope, nothing about that, so no invitation for "has cover vs. Y"
This is exactly the same sort of analysis you would do to determine cover based on physical positioning. "Effect through this line X? Yup, WOF intersects there, so "has cover vs. X". "Effect through that line Y? Nope, WOF doesn't intersect there, so no invitation for "has cover vs. Y"
Cover is not a condition a creature has or does not have. It is a description of a contextual interaction between a body and an effect or origin. WOF is irrelevant for contexts that do not involve physical transmission, it's just not part of that context, and provides no cover.
You don't accept that a tree trunk can grant cover vs. Creature A's attack, but not against Creature B's attack, because they're standing in two different squares? Things "sometimes grant cover" not just all the time... every time. Every use of cover is conditional.
That’s a different situation, and I’m pretty sure iconarising and I both understood the context in which we were speaking, and I’ll freely admit to using shorthand that relies on that mutual understanding. If they’re similarly confused, however, I’d be happy to more fully explain my position to them.
No I'm pretty certain I understand your position. You are saying that you don't believe that cover is conditional on anything other than positioning (basically something, if it blocks a straight line between two individuals, is always cover for one or both of them at that point and time). In 99% of cases I would actually agree with you. In this particular case I don't, because my interpretation of WoF says that the wall introduces a descriptor on what it can affect ("things" that physically would otherwise pass through it) that excludes certain other "things" (those that can pass without physical means, and due to other wording, light and vision).
Let me know if I don't actually understand your position.
A solid wall provides both total cover and concealment. These are two separate game terms.
When only one of these terms applies to a wall, it needs to be considered separately.
"Concealment" technically doesn't exist as a term in 5e.
True, and obviously there is disagreement whether WoF specifically provides total cover against all things, or only some things, based on the spell description.
There is no such thing, in the rules, that provide cover only against some things and not others. They either provide cover or they do not. After that, you have to be behind them to get cover, it's not necessarily multi-directional, but it does not depend on the type of attack.
Sure there are. A 6 foot wall might provide cover against tiny-medium creatures, but might only provide three quarters against a large, probably would only provide half or three-quarter cover against a huge creature, and probably little or no cover against a gargantuan one. Cover is contextual, not only for position, but also for what is coming from that position.
A solid wall provides both total cover and concealment. These are two separate game terms.
When only one of these terms applies to a wall, it needs to be considered separately.
"Concealment" technically doesn't exist as a term in 5e.
True, and obviously there is disagreement whether WoF specifically provides total cover against all things, or only some things, based on the spell description.
There is no such thing, in the rules, that provide cover only against some things and not others. They either provide cover or they do not. After that, you have to be behind them to get cover, it's not necessarily multi-directional, but it does not depend on the type of attack.
The cover rules are so woefully vague that I can't see a way to make this a definitive statement. The cover rules and examples only provide physical, mundane, and opaque examples, and total cover provides none, and no description other than "concealed". WoF is magical, invisible (itself, which most likely means transparent, or else it is getting real dark and blind-y for anyone inside the dome version), and only prevents physical transmission through itself (no restriction on non-physical transmission). Besides, WoF actually doesn't meet the requirements of the definition of "concealed", as the creatures in the wall are not hidden, invisible, or "kept from sight". By what is given in the RAW and standard english, WoF does not provide total cover at all.
So I see no reason why, given the limitations on what the wall prevents, that the wall would provide cover against game or spell effects that do not require physical transmission to pass through the wall. Psychological Effects are not physical. If I make myself look like your worst nightmare, and you can see me. It shouldn't matter if you are behind glass or a magical barrier. The fear is not physical, and the magic is centered on me. Illusions are not physical. If I make an illusion on my side of the wall, and you see it from your side, the confusion is not physical, the magic is centered on the illusion. And because illusions don't interact with physical obstructions, it could be argued that one that can move could in fact pass through the wall, as it isn't interacting with the wall (or anything else) physically. If I reverse gravity targeting a point on my side of the wall, the AoE would potentially affect someone on the other side. Gravity is not a physical thing itself (it is a force that moves objects physically, you would fall upward and stop at the top of the dome) but as a force it does not "pass" through the wall itself at all.
My argument for light effects passing through is less RAW, but I believe it is still based on the language in the spell. Basically, the only way to say all of this is negated is if the wall actually conceals those behind it from sight and prevents light (and vision) from penetrating it. In a dome, that means that anyone in it is in the dark and blinded unless they have their own light source, and they can't see out. Given that the wall also doesn't say it heavily obscures, and invisibility used in the game does not incur blindness or immunity to spells with light, this is doubtful.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
Since this comment wasn't addresed:
Misty Step has a range of 'Self', so the limitation of "...an unoccupied space you can see" is a condition of the effect, not the target.
There is no such thing, in the rules, that provide cover only against some things and not others. They either provide cover or they do not. After that, you have to be behind them to get cover, it's not necessarily multi-directional, but it does not depend on the type of attack.
Sure there are. A 6 foot wall might provide cover against tiny-medium creatures, but might only provide three quarters against a large, probably would only provide half or three-quarter cover against a huge creature, and probably little or no cover against a gargantuan one. Cover is contextual, not only for position, but also for what is coming from that position.
This has nothing to do with the porosity of the material to some attacks and not others, it's just the percentage of the creature covered, which is simply and clearly taken into account by the cover rules.
Sure it does. Objects only provide "cover" (of some degree) if they present an "obstacle". If I am behind an object which would function as an obstacle to a 6 foot person, but not a 60 foot person, I only have cover as to one of those two people. If I am behind an object which functions as an obstacle to one type of effect, but is no obstacle to another type of effect, I only have cover as to one of those two effects. A transparent wall of glass, for example, might be an obstacle as to a splash of acid coming in my direction (physically can't pass through the wall), but provide no obstacle to a beam of radiant light damage (that shines right through the glass).
This is not inserting a whole bunch of new terms and analysis into a section which does not contain them. Cover talks about "obstacle" being signifigant to whether or not something provides cover. It doesn't definite whether an object is or is not an obstacle as some sort of binary property, but instead invites you to identify if something is an "obstacle" based on the scene, relation of creatures, shape of effects, and I'd argue, type of effects; maybe that's an oversight, maybe they trusted readers to understand that obstacles are contextual and had too much faith in us, who is to say. But it doesn't say "force is an obstacle to everything" or "anything that block physical passage is an obstacle to nonphysical effects" or anything like that. Those aren't entirely unreasonable takes, but they're no more (and I would argue, quite a bit less ) supported than the exercise of contextual comparison of Wall of Force vs. Wall of Stone and Wind Wall to see what it most closely resembles (I'd say, Wind Wall, since those two Wall spells enumerate what they do block, instead of implying that they block everything).
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
Three-Quarters Cover
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.
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.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
Since this comment wasn't addresed:
Misty Step has a range of 'Self', so the limitation of "...an unoccupied space you can see" is a condition of the effect, not the target.
But you can't "see" through cover according them....
My point is that visibility is important when discussing cover.
You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of Force so something is obviously different between the two of them.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
Since this comment wasn't addresed:
Misty Step has a range of 'Self', so the limitation of "...an unoccupied space you can see" is a condition of the effect, not the target.
But you can't "see" through cover according them....
My point is that visibility is important when discussing cover.
You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of Force so something is obviously different between the two of them.
Huh.... I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Maybe I missed it.
Visibility is obviously important when discussing cover, but I'm not seeing where that's contested. A door with a window, keyhole, or large crack could be teleported through just as easily as a Wall of Force. Teleportation spells operate differently than most, as they don't pass through the intermediate space.
A spell that requires a line of effect and also a "target you can see" is restricted by both. As with this SageAdvice relating to casting Hold Person through a pane of glass.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
Since this comment wasn't addresed:
Misty Step has a range of 'Self', so the limitation of "...an unoccupied space you can see" is a condition of the effect, not the target.
But you can't "see" through cover according them....
My point is that visibility is important when discussing cover.
You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of Force so something is obviously different between the two of them.
Huh.... I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Maybe I missed it.
Visibility is obviously important when discussing cover, but I'm not seeing where that's contested. A door with a window, keyhole, or large crack could be teleported through just as easily as a Wall of Force. Teleportation spells operate differently than most, as they don't pass through the intermediate space.
A spell that requires a line of effect and also a "target you can see" is restricted by both. As with this SageAdvice relating to casting Hold Person through a pane of glass.
Exactly... So that's why Sacred Flame works.
You can see the guy you want to flame but cover prevents it.
Except...the spell says the target gets no benefit from cover.
So you can flame away.
That's why visibility is important. It's just another thing to consider with cover and spells.
(assuming the adamantine is transparent per your original post)
It is an obstacle, for anything that might physically hit it, and for any spells whose targets are behind it.
It would not be an obstacle for light, because light would pass through it.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and things that are based on sight, because you can see through it. (caveat is that the target of the illusion spell (typically self or a point in space) would not be able to be originally cast on the far side of the adamantine.
It would not be an obstacle for illusions and ghosts, nor for ethereal creatures, because they have abilities that allow them to pass through solid objects (and illusions are unaffected by physical objects)
If you’re treating the wall of force the same way you’d treat the adamantine wall, then my only objection is that l don’t accept that things can sometimes grant cover and sometimes not; but that’s a different topic, and it’s one that I’m happy to agree to disagree on.
What I want to know is whether or not CC can explain, in context of the cover rules that I quoted, why a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t, without the argument depending on the premise that a normal wall is cover and a wall of force isn’t.
You don't accept that a tree trunk can grant cover vs. Creature A's attack, but not against Creature B's attack, because they're standing in two different squares? Things "sometimes grant cover" not just all the time... every time. Every use of cover is conditional.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Then Misty Step does not work as you block that spell....you need things like "Obstruction" as it has other aspects in the game. You have to be able to see a creature to target it with certain spells and you need to be able to see a space to teleport there with Misty Step. If you are saying transparency does not factor into your barrier then so be it but be aware you are limiting other things.
That’s a different situation, and I’m pretty sure iconarising and I both understood the context in which we were speaking, and I’ll freely admit to using shorthand that relies on that mutual understanding. If they’re similarly confused, however, I’d be happy to more fully explain my position to them.
I can see the thing through a wall of force and it can see me as a scary dragon or whatever.....and they are saying that visual information is a huge part of this game as a common language used is "that you can see".
You cannot be counterspelled during greater invisibility as the spell states you have to be seen to be able to counter the spell.
Where this gets wonky is that they attempted (but failed) to use natural language to make things "Simple" when it does the opposite and we have 4 pages full of people not understanding how an invisible wall works. Ultimately its not something people will all agree on how it should work and instead you should talk with your group to see how you all want it to work.
I personally think that if a spell requires sight for targeting and doesn't have another described or mechanical line of effect to its target (which basically includes fireball, touch spells, and melee/ranged spell attack spells), it should be able to target a creature/object/space behind transparent cover. I know that is not RAW though, so I didn't include it in my ruling for this spell and won't defend that here.
But if I were to make changes to the game, that would be one of them.
Yes, it's a different situation, but it stands for the fact that a creature does not simply "have cover" or "not have cover" as a binary creature state that ignores context, like you and Coder have been arguing. The whole "physical blockage -> cover, and cover-> blocks non physical spells" chain of reasoning is like saying "has cover vs. square 1-> "has cover," "has cover"-> can't be targeted, so can't be targeted vs. square 2".
Throwing around a physical object, creature, or effect X? Check WOF... okay, WOF blocks physical, so "has cover vs. X."
Throwing around a nonphysical effect or spell Y? Check WOF... nope, nothing about that, so no invitation for "has cover vs. Y"
This is exactly the same sort of analysis you would do to determine cover based on physical positioning. "Effect through this line X? Yup, WOF intersects there, so "has cover vs. X". "Effect through that line Y? Nope, WOF doesn't intersect there, so no invitation for "has cover vs. Y"
Cover is not a condition a creature has or does not have. It is a description of a contextual interaction between a body and an effect or origin. WOF is irrelevant for contexts that do not involve physical transmission, it's just not part of that context, and provides no cover.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No I'm pretty certain I understand your position. You are saying that you don't believe that cover is conditional on anything other than positioning (basically something, if it blocks a straight line between two individuals, is always cover for one or both of them at that point and time). In 99% of cases I would actually agree with you. In this particular case I don't, because my interpretation of WoF says that the wall introduces a descriptor on what it can affect ("things" that physically would otherwise pass through it) that excludes certain other "things" (those that can pass without physical means, and due to other wording, light and vision).
Let me know if I don't actually understand your position.
full film of clear cling wrap will protect you from most spells! Wizards hate him!
A solid wall provides both total cover and concealment. These are two separate game terms.
When only one of these terms applies to a wall, it needs to be considered separately.
"Concealment" technically doesn't exist as a term in 5e.
True, and obviously there is disagreement whether WoF specifically provides total cover against all things, or only some things, based on the spell description.
Sure there are. A 6 foot wall might provide cover against tiny-medium creatures, but might only provide three quarters against a large, probably would only provide half or three-quarter cover against a huge creature, and probably little or no cover against a gargantuan one. Cover is contextual, not only for position, but also for what is coming from that position.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The cover rules are so woefully vague that I can't see a way to make this a definitive statement. The cover rules and examples only provide physical, mundane, and opaque examples, and total cover provides none, and no description other than "concealed". WoF is magical, invisible (itself, which most likely means transparent, or else it is getting real dark and blind-y for anyone inside the dome version), and only prevents physical transmission through itself (no restriction on non-physical transmission). Besides, WoF actually doesn't meet the requirements of the definition of "concealed", as the creatures in the wall are not hidden, invisible, or "kept from sight". By what is given in the RAW and standard english, WoF does not provide total cover at all.
So I see no reason why, given the limitations on what the wall prevents, that the wall would provide cover against game or spell effects that do not require physical transmission to pass through the wall. Psychological Effects are not physical. If I make myself look like your worst nightmare, and you can see me. It shouldn't matter if you are behind glass or a magical barrier. The fear is not physical, and the magic is centered on me. Illusions are not physical. If I make an illusion on my side of the wall, and you see it from your side, the confusion is not physical, the magic is centered on the illusion. And because illusions don't interact with physical obstructions, it could be argued that one that can move could in fact pass through the wall, as it isn't interacting with the wall (or anything else) physically. If I reverse gravity targeting a point on my side of the wall, the AoE would potentially affect someone on the other side. Gravity is not a physical thing itself (it is a force that moves objects physically, you would fall upward and stop at the top of the dome) but as a force it does not "pass" through the wall itself at all.
My argument for light effects passing through is less RAW, but I believe it is still based on the language in the spell. Basically, the only way to say all of this is negated is if the wall actually conceals those behind it from sight and prevents light (and vision) from penetrating it. In a dome, that means that anyone in it is in the dark and blinded unless they have their own light source, and they can't see out. Given that the wall also doesn't say it heavily obscures, and invisibility used in the game does not incur blindness or immunity to spells with light, this is doubtful.
Since this comment wasn't addresed:
Misty Step has a range of 'Self', so the limitation of "...an unoccupied space you can see" is a condition of the effect, not the target.
Sure it does. Objects only provide "cover" (of some degree) if they present an "obstacle". If I am behind an object which would function as an obstacle to a 6 foot person, but not a 60 foot person, I only have cover as to one of those two people. If I am behind an object which functions as an obstacle to one type of effect, but is no obstacle to another type of effect, I only have cover as to one of those two effects. A transparent wall of glass, for example, might be an obstacle as to a splash of acid coming in my direction (physically can't pass through the wall), but provide no obstacle to a beam of radiant light damage (that shines right through the glass).
This is not inserting a whole bunch of new terms and analysis into a section which does not contain them. Cover talks about "obstacle" being signifigant to whether or not something provides cover. It doesn't definite whether an object is or is not an obstacle as some sort of binary property, but instead invites you to identify if something is an "obstacle" based on the scene, relation of creatures, shape of effects, and I'd argue, type of effects; maybe that's an oversight, maybe they trusted readers to understand that obstacles are contextual and had too much faith in us, who is to say. But it doesn't say "force is an obstacle to everything" or "anything that block physical passage is an obstacle to nonphysical effects" or anything like that. Those aren't entirely unreasonable takes, but they're no more (and I would argue, quite a bit less ) supported than the exercise of contextual comparison of Wall of Force vs. Wall of Stone and Wind Wall to see what it most closely resembles (I'd say, Wind Wall, since those two Wall spells enumerate what they do block, instead of implying that they block everything).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But you can't "see" through cover according them....
My point is that visibility is important when discussing cover.
You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of Force so something is obviously different between the two of them.
Huh.... I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Maybe I missed it.
Visibility is obviously important when discussing cover, but I'm not seeing where that's contested. A door with a window, keyhole, or large crack could be teleported through just as easily as a Wall of Force. Teleportation spells operate differently than most, as they don't pass through the intermediate space.
A spell that requires a line of effect and also a "target you can see" is restricted by both. As with this SageAdvice relating to casting Hold Person through a pane of glass.
Exactly... So that's why Sacred Flame works.
You can see the guy you want to flame but cover prevents it.
Except...the spell says the target gets no benefit from cover.
So you can flame away.
That's why visibility is important. It's just another thing to consider with cover and spells.