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.
Ah, I see the relevant part of the discussion now. Whether or not Sacred Flame bypasses Total Cover.
While not SageAdvice, it looks like Jeremy Crawford clarified this on DragonTalk to confirm that Sacred Flame bypasses Total Cover.
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
I have listened to the podcast (and even have a (bad) transcription available), and I agree that this is what JC says, but in this case I will say that (as sometimes happens), he did not read his rules again. The RAW does NOT say "The target gains no benefit from cover", it says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw", and there is no saving throw if it cannot be targeted. And after that, the explantation that "it comes from above" is silly because if it's a hemispherical dome or a sphere, coming from above, the side or wherever would not happen anyway.
So while I acknowledge that the intent might have been "The target gains no benefit from cover", in this case there is no alignment with the RAW which is clearly: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw"
And another reason for this to be silly is that the cantrip has obviously been created as a low level version of flame strike: "A vertical column of divine fire roars down from the heavens in a location you specify."
But Flame Strike is clearly affected by Wall of Force, whether it's to target a point of origin, or prevent the AoE from spreading.
So I know that it contradicts the intent from the podcast, but I will keep my sacred flame in line with the RAW in my campaigns, and consistent with Flame Strike.
But the dude who did the RAW says it's RAW so you doing homebrew... Which is cool.
I think it’s fair people will rule this several ways. A reminder that any Jeremy Crawford public statement is not RAW (as per WOTC), but I think most DMs will definitely contest this one and decide at their own table how it works. Whether you think it’s RAW or not isn’t really the issue, because this will go another 100 pages before that gets settled. Hahaha
I think it’s fair people will rule this several ways. A reminder that any Jeremy Crawford public statement is not RAW (as per WOTC), but I think most DMs will definitely contest this one and decide at their own table how it works. Whether you think it’s RAW or not isn’t really the issue, because this will go another 100 pages before that gets settled. Hahaha
Yeah that's fair...I also said that a while back as well.
Lyxen, Maybe CC and I are arguing different versions of the same thing, but I see no reason why a spell whose target is on the near side of the wall of force can have an effect that passes the wall, if that effect doesn't have to "physically" cross the wall to do so (that being the only restriction WoF provides). This fits with the following (emphasis added by me):
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.
Note that the rule doesn't say how a spell's AoE might bypass cover, so we would look to the spells description to determine how a spell might do so. a spell like fireball describes how it can bypass cover (spreading around corners). I (and I think CC) are arguing that WoF describes how other spells can bypass the cover provided by it (by not physically passing through it).
In your hold person example mentioned, the target of the spell is on the other side of the window. Its interaction with WoF would be the same; the wall prevents the spell from targeting the creature on the other side. That is a typical reaction with cover, and universal to all spells that focus their magic on a target.
In the misty step example, the target is "self" The effect would allow the target to cross the barrier, because the effect does not involve physically crossing the spell, and relies on sight/range only, which WoF does not explicity block. I think most everyone here agrees that this is a valid (and common) way of defeating the spell.
Now, looking at other spells that can target creatures or spaces on the near side, we have to judge whether those effects generated 1) extend beyond the "direct" target, 2) are "physical" or not. The first is pretty easy: fear targets "self" directly but has an effect in a 30 foot cone extending beyond. Now the second: A DM can validly describe the effect of the cone as psychological (not physical) and based on sight (which WoF doesn't block). So it is perfectly valid to say that this is an instance where the spell "reaches such a target by including it in an area of effect" because the area of effect is not in this case physical and is not blocked by the wall.
Other illusion spells can work similarly. They can be targeted on the near side of the WoF, and their effects are sight based only. So the creature behind the wall, as long as it can still see the illusion, can be fooled (and therefore affected) by it. Also, because illusions do not interact with anything physically, it could be valid that an illusion could pass through the wall.
Finally, there are effects that are on the line of physicality or that can be arguably not blocked due to other wording. Light based spells (damaging or not), gravity spells, etc are not necessarily physically passing the wall, they are changing the forces that work around the other objects and effects in the spell (gravity) or are feasibly passing due to the walls invisible (and therefore transparent) nature. The validity of these spells passing is very much up to the DM, in how they determine whether a spell effect is "physically" passing the wall to affect targets on the other side.
I would add that these examples illustrate (in some ways) the differences between the wall made by WoF and other, mundane walls and obstacles. 1) mundane walls typically block sight (windows excepted), and 2) mundane walls are destructible by normal means, and 3) WoF has specific restrictions/descriptions given in the Spell Description that potentially limit its effectiveness in blocking non-physical transmission. (Although this is more similar than you might think, especially with illusions passing through them)
Lyxen, Maybe CC and I are arguing different versions of the same thing, but I see no reason why a spell whose target is on the near side of the wall of force can have an effect that passes the wall, if that effect doesn't have to "physically" cross the wall to do so (that being the only restriction WoF provides). This fits with the following (emphasis added by me):
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.
Note that the rule doesn't say how a spell's AoE might bypass cover, so we would look to the spells description to determine how a spell might do so. a spell like fireball describes how it can bypass cover (spreading around corners). I (and I think CC) are arguing that WoF describes how other spells can bypass the cover provided by it (by not physically passing through it).
That is a purely unsupported interpretation on you part.
So is the wall providing total cover, at least from the description of the spell...and the rules for total cover, which I have previously said (I think on the last page) are so vague as to almost always require DM interpretation, and whose common english description don't really work with WoF (as it the wall doesn't "conceal" anything inside of it by standard definitions)
In your hold person example mentioned, the target of the spell is on the other side of the window. Its interaction with WoF would be the same; the wall prevents the spell from targeting the creature on the other side. That is a typical reaction with cover, and universal to all spells that focus their magic on a target.
And notice that it is totally independent of the type of spell, its effect, its energy, etc.
I agree with you, for direct targeting, as per the cover rules (which I accept applies to all physical effects and direct spell targeting with WoF, despite my prior argument that the rules don't really line up with the description of the spell)
In the misty step example, the target is "self" The effect would allow the target to cross the barrier, because the effect does not involve physically crossing the spell, and relies on sight/range only, which WoF does not explicity block. I think most everyone here agrees that this is a valid (and common) way of defeating the spell.
And I have written this specifically already three pages ago, here.
You don't have to respond specifically to something we both agree on. I was including you in my "most everyone agrees" statement above
Now, looking at other spells that can target creatures or spaces on the near side, we have to judge whether those effects generated 1) extend beyond the "direct" target, 2) are "physical" or not. The first is pretty easy: fear targets "self" directly but has an effect in a 30 foot cone extending beyond. Now the second: A DM can validly describe the effect of the cone as psychological (not physical) and based on sight (which WoF doesn't block). So it is perfectly valid to say that this is an instance where the spell "reaches such a target by including it in an area of effect" because the area of effect is not in this case physical and is not blocked by the wall.
There is zero reason in the RAW to do this. The RAW explicitly and very clearly states:
A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin.
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.
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
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.
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.
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.
The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
As a result of all that, cover is provided by obstacles, out of which clearly walls, trees and creatures are whatever the spell being cast.
On top of this, just listen to the podcast, I have given you enough examples, you need a clear line, and this does not depend on the type of obstacle and the type of attack.
At this stage, you have to provide at least one example that supports your pov, otherwise it remains pure speculation unsupported by anything in any rulebook, module or any other discussion on the web that I could find.
Podcasts are not RAW, and I don't have the means at the moment to access or listen to it. The examples provided do not share most characteristics with WoF (they are opaque, mundane, and destructible). My argument is based on the fact that the description of WoF clearly sets up a situation where it is not an obstacle, nor conceals, for all effects, only some effects. If you disagree with this premise, that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but my ruling can be consistently applied and is in the spirit of the wording of WoF. If you want me to provide rulings based on this for specific spells or effects, I will gladly do so (as I did for SagaTympana on another page) I would welcome someone tweeting JC for some clarification (even if not RAW) on spells like fear and other illusion spells and WoF. (I don't maintain a twitter account). If there is info in the podcast that specifically deals with this sort of interaction, someone needs to cite and quote/summarize it.
Other illusion spells can work similarly. They can be targeted on the near side of the WoF, and their effects are sight based only. So the creature behind the wall, as long as it can still see the illusion, can be fooled (and therefore affected) by it. Also, because illusions do not interact with anything physically, it could be valid that an illusion could pass through the wall.
You can imagine all the things you want in your head, but the game never, ever makes any difference for the type of spell and the type of cover, only the percentage covered matters for bonuses to AC and saves. But total cover is just that, total cover, and again the game never say "total cover against this" or "total cover against that". Just total cover.
Do you realise that if you continuer to argue that spells are not physical, you are basically defending that my illusion could just walk through a normal wall ? You have never answered this, and it's the one major flaw in your position, again, are you even playing that way ? Can you have illusions wallk through solid walls ? Can you cast psychic spells through solid walls ? Honestly !
Illusions pass through solid objects (and vice versa) all the time! This is a common phrase from many illusion spells "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." Saying an illusion spell can pass through a solid object (walls or otherwise) requires no more interpretation of the spell rules than anything we are discussing here. The only reasons that illusions don't typically walk through walls is that most walls are opaque, and controlling the image is difficult if you can't see it (there is no restriction on most of these spells for sight though). Transparent walls like windows and WoF don't provide a barrier to sight, so controlling an illusion to move through a WoF or window is not difficult to do, and nothing in those spells prevents it. (See, I can do all bold text too! You are basically shouting at me, it's not really needed)
Finally, there are effects that are on the line of physicality or that can be arguably not blocked due to other wording. Light based spells (damaging or not), gravity spells, etc are not necessarily physically passing the wall, they are changing the forces that work around the other objects and effects in the spell (gravity) or are feasibly passing due to the walls invisible (and therefore transparent) nature. The validity of these spells passing is very much up to the DM, in how they determine whether a spell effect is "physically" passing the wall to affect targets on the other side.
Everything is up to the DM, but nothing in anything ever published supports this apart from your imagination.
And as DM, my imagination rules...not sure why this is a problem. I'm admitting (and have previously), that this part may not be strictly RAW. But it is a ruling I can defend logically with the wording of the spell, and consistently apply, and plan to do so.
I would add that these examples illustrate (in some ways) the differences between the wall made by WoF and other, mundane walls and obstacles. 1) mundane walls typically block sight (windows excepted), and 2) mundane walls are destructible by normal means, and 3) WoF has specific restrictions/descriptions given in the Spell Description that potentially limit its effectiveness in blocking non-physical transmission. (Although this is more similar than you might think, especially with illusions passing through them)
And again, illusions don't pass through walls ever in any book published. Neither to psychic spells. Again, although I can understand your logic, it is totally unsupported by anything ever published.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. Find me a rule that says they can't, anywhere, and I'll change my mind on the illusions part. It is not the role of the books (and I'm assuming you mean sourcebooks, not novels, since they are moot to a RAW or RAI conversation). Psychic spells, like all spells, would not be able to directly target behind a WoF, but a secondary spell effect that causes psychic damage might, depending on what causes it. For example, dissonant whispers would fail, because the target would be behind the wall. weird, maddening darkness, and [spell]synaptic static[/spell} are the only psychic damage spells that directly target a point in space, not a creature, so those effects could feasibly pass a WoF and affect a creature on the other side, so long as the point in space directly targeted is not on the other side. Psychic damage is conceivably caused by psychological (not physical) effects, so as long as the direct target of the spell is not on the far side, the effect radiating from that point can penetrate as they aren't physical
And notice that it is totally independent of the type of spell, its effect, its energy, etc.
I agree with you, for direct targeting, as per the cover rules (which I accept applies to all physical effects and direct spell targeting with WoF, despite my prior argument that the rules don't really line up with the description of the spell)
At least it's something but then why would you insist that if cover (and therefore a WoF) works against direct targeting, it would not work with area targeting as they are using the same rule ? Why would a wall stop a direct targeting illusion spell and not an indirect targeting illusion spell ? It makes even less sense.
First, thanks for DM'ing me the podcast transcript. Second, because of this:
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.
If a spell can penetrate/bypass total cover to reach a target (note that they used the "t" word here too) via an area of effect, then it can target that creature, just indirectly. The famous example is a fireball spreading around a corner. I'll tweak it a bit to be more similar to WoF. Target A is standing behind a pane of indestructible glass that grants him total cover (generally). I aim fireball at target A. Rather than hitting target A, the spell detonates on the near side of the window. But the explosion then "turns the corner" around the pane and the AoE strikes Target A. Target A has been successfully, and indirectly targeted by the spells effect, but not by the spell's casting (which directly targeted the pane of glass).
My argument is that the description of WoF sets restrictions on what types of effects and objects that it is an obstacle to (which is not something defined by mundane walls, but is by other wall spells, like wind wall and IMO, this spell). WoF is not an obstacle to effects that don't have to pass the wall physically to pass the wall. That includes teleportation, vision, and psychological effects, and possibly others. If I cast fear on myself, I'm directly targeting myself; the AoE then bypasses the wall to indirectly target creatures behind the wall because the effect of the AoE is either visual or psychological, but certainly not physical.
like Fireball telling us what situations it bypasses cover, WoF tells us what can bypass the cover it provides.
There is zero reason in the RAW to do this. The RAW explicitly and very clearly states:
A cone extends in a direction you choose from its point of origin.
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.
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
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.
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.
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.
The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
As a result of all that, cover is provided by obstacles, out of which clearly walls, trees and creatures are whatever the spell being cast.
On top of this, just listen to the podcast, I have given you enough examples, you need a clear line, and this does not depend on the type of obstacle and the type of attack.
At this stage, you have to provide at least one example that supports your pov, otherwise it remains pure speculation unsupported by anything in any rulebook, module or any other discussion on the web that I could find.
Podcasts are not RAW, and I don't have the means at the moment to access or listen to it. The examples provided do not share most characteristics with WoF (they are opaque, mundane, and destructible). My argument is based on the fact that the description of WoF clearly sets up a situation where it is not an obstacle, nor conceals, for all effects, only some effects. If you disagree with this premise, that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but my ruling can be consistently applied and is in the spirit of the wording of WoF. If you want me to provide rulings based on this for specific spells or effects, I will gladly do so (as I did for SagaTympana on another page) I would welcome someone tweeting JC for some clarification (even if not RAW) on spells like fear and other illusion spells and WoF. (I don't maintain a twitter account). If there is info in the podcast that specifically deals with this sort of interaction, someone needs to cite and quote/summarize it.
I have given you the gist of it, and in particular this: "Do I always need a clear path to a target of a spell? And the answer is yes, you do the. Creature or an object cannot be targeted by a spell if it is behind total cover and total cover. It's the things you'd expect your behind a wall. You're behind big Redwood tree that completely conceals you."
And especially THIS: "You can see through a closed glass window. And I can even see the the creature object I want to target. Can I cast the spell at them? The answer is no, because that pane of glass is providing total cover."
This is the exact same thing as a WoF, tha pane of glass blocks physical access just as a WoF does, only a WoF is, on top of it, indestructible.
Honestly, it's all there, and all perfectly aligned with the RAW. I have sent you the integral version of the podcast in a private message, the quality is not great, but it's easy to follow, see above.
The podcast only deals with situations where they try to directly target a creature or point behind the window. They don't address indirect targeting via AoE mentioned in the rules for total cover at all (at least from the transcript)
Illusions pass through solid objects (and vice versa) all the time! This is a common phrase from many illusion spells "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." Saying an illusion spell can pass through a solid object (walls or otherwise) requires no more interpretation of the spell rules than anything we are discussing here. The only reasons that illusions don't typically walk through walls is that most walls are opaque, and controlling the image is difficult if you can't see it (there is no restriction on most of these spells for sight though). Transparent walls like windows and WoF don't provide a barrier to sight, so controlling an illusion to move through a WoF or window is not difficult to do, and nothing in those spells prevents it. (See, I can do all bold text too! You are basically shouting at me, it's not really needed)
But it is, since you still have not answered the question: do you allow your players to cast illusions through a wall ? to cast a psychic spell through a wall ?
I don't allow them to directly cast any spell through, but I definitely allow them to move a movable illusion into and through walls, with the caveat that 1) it might break the illusion depending on what it is of and 2) if they can't see the illusion, they can't control the illusion in response to anything they can't see (so they could create an illusion of a ghost and send it through a wall (wouldn't break the illusion since ghosts are known to do that) to scare a creature on the other side, but it might try scaring a creature while facing away from it, if they can't see where the creature they are facing is).
Finally, there are effects that are on the line of physicality or that can be arguably not blocked due to other wording. Light based spells (damaging or not), gravity spells, etc are not necessarily physically passing the wall, they are changing the forces that work around the other objects and effects in the spell (gravity) or are feasibly passing due to the walls invisible (and therefore transparent) nature. The validity of these spells passing is very much up to the DM, in how they determine whether a spell effect is "physically" passing the wall to affect targets on the other side.
Everything is up to the DM, but nothing in anything ever published supports this apart from your imagination.
And as DM, my imagination rules...not sure why this is a problem. I'm admitting (and have previously), that this part may not be strictly RAW. But it is a ruling I can defend logically with the wording of the spell, and consistently apply, and plan to do so.
And as I've said, I'm fine with that, my warning is that this introduces a lot of complication to the game, since you then need to go over every spell and every material to determine the combinations which are "porous".
Not Really...WoF and windows are the only typical instances of a clear obstruction, and spell interactions with them can be adjudicated as they come up, so long as they are consistently applied from that point forward. The porosity of the "wall" only matters when the wall specifically calls out how porous it is (like a lot of the wall spells do)
And again, illusions don't pass through walls ever in any book published. Neither to psychic spells. Again, although I can understand your logic, it is totally unsupported by anything ever published.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. Find me a rule that says they can't, anywhere, and I'll change my mind on the illusions part.
It's all there in all the rules that I have given you. You can't cast a spell through a wall, whatever its nature, since it is an obstacle, and that is not dependent on the nature of the spell.
I'm not casting the spell through the wall though (or advocating that the spell can be cast through the wall)...the spell has been cast elsewhere. Its the effects of the spell after casting that need adjudication during their duration, not the casting.
It is not the role of the books (and I'm assuming you mean sourcebooks, not novels, since they are moot to a RAW or RAI conversation). Psychic spells, like all spells, would not be able to directly target behind a WoF, but a secondary spell effect that causes psychic damage might, depending on what causes it.
And again, the rules are absolutely clear, a spell's area of effect does not extend through cover, and walls, trees, people, anything physical (again, consistent with the podcast "If you read the rule it then it illuminated that it's really referring to physical obstruction" and the ruling on windows there) provide cover, they are in all the examples.
Except that the rules for cover, as I quoted above, specifically allow that in certain cases.
For example, dissonant whispers would fail, because the target would be behind the wall. weird, maddening darkness, and [spell]synaptic static[/spell} are the only psychic damage spells that directly target a point in space, not a creature, so those effects could feasibly pass a WoF and affect a creature on the other side, so long as the point in space directly targeted is not on the other side. Psychic damage is conceivably caused by psychological (not physical) effects, so as long as the direct target of the spell is not on the far side, the effect radiating from that point can penetrate as they aren't physical
That is not how the RAW works. Walls provide cover. It's plainly written in the rules, and independently of any effect that you are trying to achieve, it's in the cover section of the rule which makes no assumption whatsoever about the attack that you are making. So if you are totally behind a wall, you have total cover. This is a basic status.
So you cannot be directly targeted, that's one rule, but the other one is that, unless specifically stated (for example in fireball), an area of effect does not extend behind total cover. So weird would be blocked (it starts from a point in space), but maddening darkness, which is specifically indicated as going around corners, might extend to the other side of a wall (including a wall of force). Note that, in any case, if the target is inside a spherical wall of force, there is no corner to go around and the area behind the wall would not be affected by either.
The wording is slightly different from previous editions, but for all intents and purpose, this is totally consistent and has always been.
Walls don't provide cover. Obstacles provide cover. A wall is oftentimes an obstacle to effects, so oftentimes provides cover against them. But there are walls that clearly are obstacles to some effects and not to others (wind wall, prismatic wall, etc) so to say that WoF is an either fully cover or not is not in keeping with the precedent of wall spells.
I think it’s fair people will rule this several ways. A reminder that any Jeremy Crawford public statement is not RAW (as per WOTC), but I think most DMs will definitely contest this one and decide at their own table how it works. Whether you think it’s RAW or not isn’t really the issue, because this will go another 100 pages before that gets settled. Hahaha
Yeah that's fair...I also said that a while back as well.
Mostly just work with your DM to see what works.
Totally. At the end of the day, the majority of these very nuanced pieces are going to be very quickly ruled by your DM early on. I usually take arguments like this and throw a line into my campaign wiki to make sure everyone knows going in what my perspective is and cuts down on all the confusion later.
But it is, since you still have not answered the question: do you allow your players to cast illusions through a wall ?to cast a psychic spell through a wall ?
But that isn't really the question though. The question is; can an illusion be seen through a wall? Normally the answer would be a clear no but if the wall/obstruction is see-through (like a WoF or a window) why wouldn't it?
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
This was addressed somewhere... maybe in a different thread.
RAW, the caster would probably need See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, or a magic item like the Lantern of Revealing. Since it can be resolved with a level 1 spell, it's not that big of a hurdle.
I would also accept physically touching the wall and dusting it with flour.
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
This reminds me a discussion about how Cone of Cold can't get through one of the layers of Prismatic Wall because it can only target creatures from it's description. A 60 foot cone of freezing magic doesn't interact in any way with environment by RAW.
I swear, taking literal reading of RAW this TTRPG feels like a video game with engine limitations from 1997. "Can't target that, system error". Can't shoot a ray of disintegrate ahead of you where the wall is because the wall can't be targeted. I guess the ray either doesn't appear or hits the wall but does nothing? Common...
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
This was addressed somewhere... maybe in a different thread.
RAW, the caster would probably need See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, or a magic item like the Lantern of Revealing. Since it can be resolved with a level 1 spell, it's not that big of a hurdle.
I would also accept physically touching the wall and dusting it with flour.
And I would accept shooting the ray straight ahead where the wall is ;-)
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
This was addressed somewhere... maybe in a different thread.
RAW, the caster would probably need See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, or a magic item like the Lantern of Revealing. Since it can be resolved with a level 1 spell, it's not that big of a hurdle.
I would also accept physically touching the wall and dusting it with flour.
And I would accept shooting the ray straight ahead where the wall is ;-)
I would as well, as a matter of gameplay, as opposed to RAW.
Also, the implication that some spells like Eldritch Blast should only effect "creatures" seems pretty silly to me, but others, like Fire Bolt explicitly note objects. I prefer to think that this is only because Fire Bolt has an object specific rider, but alas.
As for Wall of Force and Total Cover, if we are to listen to the definitions of words, I think that Wall of Force would only qualify as Total Cover when it comes to the passage of physical things, but not when it comes to things in which nothing physically travels.
As stated above, Wall of Force is invisible, so it cannot be seen, and as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, it explicitly says "Nothing can physically path through the wall." The fact that the word physically was included, along with the descriptor of Invisible, means that something can pass through, likely light itself.
In addition, within the Cover rules, as has been stated here before, the word 'obstacle' is used repeatedly. An obstacle is an impediment, something that slows or stops progress, not necessarily of the physical kind.
The interesting thing is, something invisible is not an obstacle to light, even if it is an obstacle to air or other things.
Additionally, as to target is 'to choose or select' in all generally used meaning, and that simply requires the ability to choose and the ability to sense, an invisible wall would not prevent the ability to target.
Accordingly, because the wall could not prevent targeting, it cannot be Total Cover when it comes to light.
Which means any spell which relies only upon sight and no physical effects would work through the Wall of Force according to the meaning of words and the rules, though not on the Wall, as I covered in my previous comment.
I swear, taking literal reading of RAW this TTRPG feels like a video game with engine limitations from 1997. "Can't target that, system error".
@Lathlaer, it is so problematic because it appears to have been written by at least 1 person who put effort into learning what words mean, and at least 1 person who seemingly couldn't be bothered. Given how many of Crawford's "answers" are contradictory, bizarre, or completely ignore what words mean...
As for Wall of Force and Total Cover, if we are to listen to the definitions of words, I think that Wall of Force would only qualify as Total Cover when it comes to the passage of physical things, but not when it comes to things in which nothing physically travels.
As stated above, Wall of Force is invisible, so it cannot be seen, and as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, it explicitly says "Nothing can physically path through the wall." The fact that the word physically was included, along with the descriptor of Invisible, means that something can pass through, likely light itself.
In addition, within the Cover rules, as has been stated here before, the word 'obstacle' is used repeatedly. An obstacle is an impediment, something that slows or stops progress, not necessarily of the physical kind.
The interesting thing is, something invisible is not an obstacle to light, even if it is an obstacle to air or other things.
Additionally, as to target is 'to choose or select' in all generally used meaning, and that simply requires the ability to choose and the ability to sense, an invisible wall would not prevent the ability to target.
Accordingly, because the wall could not prevent targeting, it cannot be Total Cover when it comes to light.
Which means any spell which relies only upon sight and no physical effects would work through the Wall of Force according to the meaning of words and the rules, though not on the Wall, as I covered in my previous comment.
One note on targeting: To target a spell, there has to be a clear line of effect between caster and target. That is a separate requirement from lines of sight, hearing, etc. Even if the wall is invisible, it does form a barrier of line of effect regarding targeting a spell, regardless of whether the spell effects are physical or not.
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.
The debate between myself and Lyxen that has unfortunately splayed out over multiple pages (and very long posts, sorry), isn't whether the spell can or can't directly target through the wall (we both agree it can't), it's whether a spell effect can indirectly target through the wall, as mentioned in the rules for cover
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.
My argument is that these types of spell effects (and others that don't have AoEs but whose effects expand beyond their targets), if non-physical, can in fact pass through the wall. This would include teleportation, psychological, and visual observation of effects (like illusions). I also argue (though it is more of a gray area I admit) that light effects also pass through the wall since the wall does not impede vision (and therefore light) due to its invisibility
It's just a great example of the failure of the natural language choice they made.
Pretty much every grey area gets discussed to death because the "natural language" approach is garbage.
Most of the time the table makes a call and just goes with it.
Some of the time there is an argument and neither side really wins because the wording is intentionally vague for flexibility... But really it's just lazy writing.
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.
The first line is interesting, because it still derives from Total Cover. Further, a clear path denotes travel, but there are spells that require sight and not travel. Beyond that, what about a clear path of sight?
The second line is very interesting, because technically it conflicts with the rules on Total Cover. After all, it is speaking of placing the area where you cannot see, and having that area occur on your side of cover. This requires you to be targeting a point on the other side of Total Cover, which the Total Cover rules say you cannot do.
Honestly, this is why there is a drastic need to revise the rules on targeting, cover, and obscurement/concealment, as they are simply poorly written.
Not to mention the issue of Specific Beats General. Do the specific rules of Wall of Force or Disintegrate beat the general rules of Total Cover? Do the specific targeting rules of spells beat the general rules of Total Cover overall? After all, we know some must (Dream for instance).
@OptimusGrimus Indeed. The idea to use "natural language" for a rules document was a terrible one, especially given that consumers still need to be informed of exactly which definitions are used for words, and each word must have only 1 definition to avoid confusion.
Not to mention the spells where words are used very wrongly (if interested, I will need to find them again, it has been a while).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah, I see the relevant part of the discussion now. Whether or not Sacred Flame bypasses Total Cover.
While not SageAdvice, it looks like Jeremy Crawford clarified this on DragonTalk to confirm that Sacred Flame bypasses Total Cover.
But the dude who did the RAW says it's RAW so you doing homebrew... Which is cool.
Lyxen u should probably take that talk to the homebrew forum because the RAW has been stated.
Homebrew how you like though.
I think it’s fair people will rule this several ways. A reminder that any Jeremy Crawford public statement is not RAW (as per WOTC), but I think most DMs will definitely contest this one and decide at their own table how it works. Whether you think it’s RAW or not isn’t really the issue, because this will go another 100 pages before that gets settled. Hahaha
Yeah that's fair...I also said that a while back as well.
Mostly just work with your DM to see what works.
Lyxen, Maybe CC and I are arguing different versions of the same thing, but I see no reason why a spell whose target is on the near side of the wall of force can have an effect that passes the wall, if that effect doesn't have to "physically" cross the wall to do so (that being the only restriction WoF provides). This fits with the following (emphasis added by me):
Note that the rule doesn't say how a spell's AoE might bypass cover, so we would look to the spells description to determine how a spell might do so. a spell like fireball describes how it can bypass cover (spreading around corners). I (and I think CC) are arguing that WoF describes how other spells can bypass the cover provided by it (by not physically passing through it).
In your hold person example mentioned, the target of the spell is on the other side of the window. Its interaction with WoF would be the same; the wall prevents the spell from targeting the creature on the other side. That is a typical reaction with cover, and universal to all spells that focus their magic on a target.
In the misty step example, the target is "self" The effect would allow the target to cross the barrier, because the effect does not involve physically crossing the spell, and relies on sight/range only, which WoF does not explicity block. I think most everyone here agrees that this is a valid (and common) way of defeating the spell.
Now, looking at other spells that can target creatures or spaces on the near side, we have to judge whether those effects generated 1) extend beyond the "direct" target, 2) are "physical" or not. The first is pretty easy: fear targets "self" directly but has an effect in a 30 foot cone extending beyond. Now the second: A DM can validly describe the effect of the cone as psychological (not physical) and based on sight (which WoF doesn't block). So it is perfectly valid to say that this is an instance where the spell "reaches such a target by including it in an area of effect" because the area of effect is not in this case physical and is not blocked by the wall.
Other illusion spells can work similarly. They can be targeted on the near side of the WoF, and their effects are sight based only. So the creature behind the wall, as long as it can still see the illusion, can be fooled (and therefore affected) by it. Also, because illusions do not interact with anything physically, it could be valid that an illusion could pass through the wall.
Finally, there are effects that are on the line of physicality or that can be arguably not blocked due to other wording. Light based spells (damaging or not), gravity spells, etc are not necessarily physically passing the wall, they are changing the forces that work around the other objects and effects in the spell (gravity) or are feasibly passing due to the walls invisible (and therefore transparent) nature. The validity of these spells passing is very much up to the DM, in how they determine whether a spell effect is "physically" passing the wall to affect targets on the other side.
I would add that these examples illustrate (in some ways) the differences between the wall made by WoF and other, mundane walls and obstacles. 1) mundane walls typically block sight (windows excepted), and 2) mundane walls are destructible by normal means, and 3) WoF has specific restrictions/descriptions given in the Spell Description that potentially limit its effectiveness in blocking non-physical transmission. (Although this is more similar than you might think, especially with illusions passing through them)
So is the wall providing total cover, at least from the description of the spell...and the rules for total cover, which I have previously said (I think on the last page) are so vague as to almost always require DM interpretation, and whose common english description don't really work with WoF (as it the wall doesn't "conceal" anything inside of it by standard definitions)
I agree with you, for direct targeting, as per the cover rules (which I accept applies to all physical effects and direct spell targeting with WoF, despite my prior argument that the rules don't really line up with the description of the spell)
You don't have to respond specifically to something we both agree on. I was including you in my "most everyone agrees" statement above
Podcasts are not RAW, and I don't have the means at the moment to access or listen to it. The examples provided do not share most characteristics with WoF (they are opaque, mundane, and destructible). My argument is based on the fact that the description of WoF clearly sets up a situation where it is not an obstacle, nor conceals, for all effects, only some effects. If you disagree with this premise, that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but my ruling can be consistently applied and is in the spirit of the wording of WoF. If you want me to provide rulings based on this for specific spells or effects, I will gladly do so (as I did for SagaTympana on another page) I would welcome someone tweeting JC for some clarification (even if not RAW) on spells like fear and other illusion spells and WoF. (I don't maintain a twitter account). If there is info in the podcast that specifically deals with this sort of interaction, someone needs to cite and quote/summarize it.
Illusions pass through solid objects (and vice versa) all the time! This is a common phrase from many illusion spells "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." Saying an illusion spell can pass through a solid object (walls or otherwise) requires no more interpretation of the spell rules than anything we are discussing here. The only reasons that illusions don't typically walk through walls is that most walls are opaque, and controlling the image is difficult if you can't see it (there is no restriction on most of these spells for sight though). Transparent walls like windows and WoF don't provide a barrier to sight, so controlling an illusion to move through a WoF or window is not difficult to do, and nothing in those spells prevents it. (See, I can do all bold text too! You are basically shouting at me, it's not really needed)
And as DM, my imagination rules...not sure why this is a problem. I'm admitting (and have previously), that this part may not be strictly RAW. But it is a ruling I can defend logically with the wording of the spell, and consistently apply, and plan to do so.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. Find me a rule that says they can't, anywhere, and I'll change my mind on the illusions part. It is not the role of the books (and I'm assuming you mean sourcebooks, not novels, since they are moot to a RAW or RAI conversation). Psychic spells, like all spells, would not be able to directly target behind a WoF, but a secondary spell effect that causes psychic damage might, depending on what causes it. For example, dissonant whispers would fail, because the target would be behind the wall. weird, maddening darkness, and [spell]synaptic static[/spell} are the only psychic damage spells that directly target a point in space, not a creature, so those effects could feasibly pass a WoF and affect a creature on the other side, so long as the point in space directly targeted is not on the other side. Psychic damage is conceivably caused by psychological (not physical) effects, so as long as the direct target of the spell is not on the far side, the effect radiating from that point can penetrate as they aren't physical
First, thanks for DM'ing me the podcast transcript. Second, because of this:
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.
If a spell can penetrate/bypass total cover to reach a target (note that they used the "t" word here too) via an area of effect, then it can target that creature, just indirectly. The famous example is a fireball spreading around a corner. I'll tweak it a bit to be more similar to WoF. Target A is standing behind a pane of indestructible glass that grants him total cover (generally). I aim fireball at target A. Rather than hitting target A, the spell detonates on the near side of the window. But the explosion then "turns the corner" around the pane and the AoE strikes Target A. Target A has been successfully, and indirectly targeted by the spells effect, but not by the spell's casting (which directly targeted the pane of glass).
My argument is that the description of WoF sets restrictions on what types of effects and objects that it is an obstacle to (which is not something defined by mundane walls, but is by other wall spells, like wind wall and IMO, this spell). WoF is not an obstacle to effects that don't have to pass the wall physically to pass the wall. That includes teleportation, vision, and psychological effects, and possibly others. If I cast fear on myself, I'm directly targeting myself; the AoE then bypasses the wall to indirectly target creatures behind the wall because the effect of the AoE is either visual or psychological, but certainly not physical.
like Fireball telling us what situations it bypasses cover, WoF tells us what can bypass the cover it provides.
The podcast only deals with situations where they try to directly target a creature or point behind the window. They don't address indirect targeting via AoE mentioned in the rules for total cover at all (at least from the transcript)
I don't allow them to directly cast any spell through, but I definitely allow them to move a movable illusion into and through walls, with the caveat that 1) it might break the illusion depending on what it is of and 2) if they can't see the illusion, they can't control the illusion in response to anything they can't see (so they could create an illusion of a ghost and send it through a wall (wouldn't break the illusion since ghosts are known to do that) to scare a creature on the other side, but it might try scaring a creature while facing away from it, if they can't see where the creature they are facing is).
Not Really...WoF and windows are the only typical instances of a clear obstruction, and spell interactions with them can be adjudicated as they come up, so long as they are consistently applied from that point forward. The porosity of the "wall" only matters when the wall specifically calls out how porous it is (like a lot of the wall spells do)
I'm not casting the spell through the wall though (or advocating that the spell can be cast through the wall)...the spell has been cast elsewhere. Its the effects of the spell after casting that need adjudication during their duration, not the casting.
Except that the rules for cover, as I quoted above, specifically allow that in certain cases.
Walls don't provide cover. Obstacles provide cover. A wall is oftentimes an obstacle to effects, so oftentimes provides cover against them. But there are walls that clearly are obstacles to some effects and not to others (wind wall, prismatic wall, etc) so to say that WoF is an either fully cover or not is not in keeping with the precedent of wall spells.
Totally. At the end of the day, the majority of these very nuanced pieces are going to be very quickly ruled by your DM early on. I usually take arguments like this and throw a line into my campaign wiki to make sure everyone knows going in what my perspective is and cuts down on all the confusion later.
But that isn't really the question though. The question is; can an illusion be seen through a wall? Normally the answer would be a clear no but if the wall/obstruction is see-through (like a WoF or a window) why wouldn't it?
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..."
The Invisible condition says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.""
Heavily obscured says: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Blinded says "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."
Disintegrate says: "A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
According to the rules, it looks like the Wall of Force is impossible to see for most creatures (isnt there a class feature or spell that allows seeing things which are invisible?), which poses a problem with Disintegrate requiring a target you can see. After all, If you cannot target through Wall of Force with a spell, and you cannot see the Wall of Force itself (thus not being able to target it itself), how can you attack it?
The only options would be targeting the Wall, or targeting what is behind it, but both appear impossible according to Sage Advice.
This was addressed somewhere... maybe in a different thread.
RAW, the caster would probably need See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, or a magic item like the Lantern of Revealing. Since it can be resolved with a level 1 spell, it's not that big of a hurdle.
I would also accept physically touching the wall and dusting it with flour.
This reminds me a discussion about how Cone of Cold can't get through one of the layers of Prismatic Wall because it can only target creatures from it's description. A 60 foot cone of freezing magic doesn't interact in any way with environment by RAW.
I swear, taking literal reading of RAW this TTRPG feels like a video game with engine limitations from 1997. "Can't target that, system error". Can't shoot a ray of disintegrate ahead of you where the wall is because the wall can't be targeted. I guess the ray either doesn't appear or hits the wall but does nothing? Common...
And I would accept shooting the ray straight ahead where the wall is ;-)
I would as well, as a matter of gameplay, as opposed to RAW.
Also, the implication that some spells like Eldritch Blast should only effect "creatures" seems pretty silly to me, but others, like Fire Bolt explicitly note objects. I prefer to think that this is only because Fire Bolt has an object specific rider, but alas.
As for Wall of Force and Total Cover, if we are to listen to the definitions of words, I think that Wall of Force would only qualify as Total Cover when it comes to the passage of physical things, but not when it comes to things in which nothing physically travels.
As stated above, Wall of Force is invisible, so it cannot be seen, and as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, it explicitly says "Nothing can physically path through the wall." The fact that the word physically was included, along with the descriptor of Invisible, means that something can pass through, likely light itself.
In addition, within the Cover rules, as has been stated here before, the word 'obstacle' is used repeatedly. An obstacle is an impediment, something that slows or stops progress, not necessarily of the physical kind.
The interesting thing is, something invisible is not an obstacle to light, even if it is an obstacle to air or other things.
Additionally, as to target is 'to choose or select' in all generally used meaning, and that simply requires the ability to choose and the ability to sense, an invisible wall would not prevent the ability to target.
Accordingly, because the wall could not prevent targeting, it cannot be Total Cover when it comes to light.
Which means any spell which relies only upon sight and no physical effects would work through the Wall of Force according to the meaning of words and the rules, though not on the Wall, as I covered in my previous comment.
@Lathlaer, it is so problematic because it appears to have been written by at least 1 person who put effort into learning what words mean, and at least 1 person who seemingly couldn't be bothered. Given how many of Crawford's "answers" are contradictory, bizarre, or completely ignore what words mean...
One note on targeting: To target a spell, there has to be a clear line of effect between caster and target. That is a separate requirement from lines of sight, hearing, etc. Even if the wall is invisible, it does form a barrier of line of effect regarding targeting a spell, regardless of whether the spell effects are physical or not.
The debate between myself and Lyxen that has unfortunately splayed out over multiple pages (and very long posts, sorry), isn't whether the spell can or can't directly target through the wall (we both agree it can't), it's whether a spell effect can indirectly target through the wall, as mentioned in the rules for cover
My argument is that these types of spell effects (and others that don't have AoEs but whose effects expand beyond their targets), if non-physical, can in fact pass through the wall. This would include teleportation, psychological, and visual observation of effects (like illusions). I also argue (though it is more of a gray area I admit) that light effects also pass through the wall since the wall does not impede vision (and therefore light) due to its invisibility
It's just a great example of the failure of the natural language choice they made.
Pretty much every grey area gets discussed to death because the "natural language" approach is garbage.
Most of the time the table makes a call and just goes with it.
Some of the time there is an argument and neither side really wins because the wording is intentionally vague for flexibility... But really it's just lazy writing.
@iconarising
The first line is interesting, because it still derives from Total Cover. Further, a clear path denotes travel, but there are spells that require sight and not travel. Beyond that, what about a clear path of sight?
The second line is very interesting, because technically it conflicts with the rules on Total Cover. After all, it is speaking of placing the area where you cannot see, and having that area occur on your side of cover. This requires you to be targeting a point on the other side of Total Cover, which the Total Cover rules say you cannot do.
Honestly, this is why there is a drastic need to revise the rules on targeting, cover, and obscurement/concealment, as they are simply poorly written.
Not to mention the issue of Specific Beats General. Do the specific rules of Wall of Force or Disintegrate beat the general rules of Total Cover? Do the specific targeting rules of spells beat the general rules of Total Cover overall? After all, we know some must (Dream for instance).
@OptimusGrimus Indeed. The idea to use "natural language" for a rules document was a terrible one, especially given that consumers still need to be informed of exactly which definitions are used for words, and each word must have only 1 definition to avoid confusion.
Not to mention the spells where words are used very wrongly (if interested, I will need to find them again, it has been a while).