They are lazy.... Custom lineages shows that. Took an intern 15 minutes to write that up.
That's a pretty laughable conclusion.
The people responsible for these types of mechanics are immersed in D&D in both their personal and professional lives. Even at their laziest, they have decades of design forward experience backing up their intuitions.
Not everyone will like what they do, and sometimes they'll get it wrong, but "simplicity" does not equate to "laziness". Simple is what good ideas look like in hindsight by those who didn't get there first.
It's extremely low effort. It's just basically v. Human with darkvision. It's simple because it already existed.
And yet it seems to be very popular.
Why bother with tea, when it's just hot water with dead leaves in it?
If it's walmart tea but repacked and marketed as a rare variety then yeah your metaphor makes sense....
Also the logical fallacy that just because something is popular makes it good.... It doesn't.
Overall it's like 2 paragraphs long and it's pretty lame attempt at "custom" races. Like they couldn't even bother to talk about actual racial features.
Slapped together in 15 minutes and put to press... It's hilarious people think it's "elegant" because that would assume they actually put thought into it at all.
"Good" is subjective. For a designer designing content for an audience, popularity is an undeniably important metric. If they pump out literal trash, but the world loves it, then they are objectively successful in providing supply for a demand. This creates an opportunity to discover why said "trash" was in high demand and distill it into something better. Innovation is almost always incremental, just look at the phone market.
And remember, at least half of D&D is roleplay and imagination. The value of Custom Lineages is less the mechanics, and more the official permission to break the mold. It could be mechanically identical to the Variant Human and still achieve that end.
It is the simplest possible ruleset to give inhibited players infinite creative freedom in character creation.
How impermeable to attacks does a transparent barrier need to be before it stops providing total cover?
Folks claim wall of force provides total cover to targeting. You can't target a creature on the other side of total cover with a physical OR spell attack.
Does a foot thick glass window provide total cover?
Does a typical 1/4" thick pane of glass provide total cover?
Does a thin and fragile 1/32" pane of glass provide total cover?
Does a transparent silk drape provide total cover?
Does transparent plastic wrap provide total cover?
Each of these places a barrier between the attacker and possible target. If the attacker is using a bow then we can fairly easily judge which of these barriers would prevent an arrow from being targeted or reaching their target. To be honest, none of these actually prevent targeting an arrow since you can aim at the creature you can see (though if a wall of force does provide total cover then you could not in fact aim at the target you could see "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell". So perhaps visual concealment IS a factor in total cover?). However, these all provide varying levels of safety from a physical attack. I don't think most DMs would allow plastic wrap or a thin diaphanous transparent drape to provide total cover for a physical attack.
However, the rules give NO indication of whether spells have a physical manifestation or not. Can a spell penetrate through any form of obstruction that you can see through or none? This ambiguity is what seems to lead to the various camps on what provides total cover for spells. One camp would consider ANY physical blockage transparent or not as sufficient to preventing a spell from being targeted while others consider being able to see the target and the spell description to be the deciding factor.
One camp feels that the wording of total cover that requires concealment is an error in the PHB that has just never been subject to errata or correction while others read the rule as written. "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." Or some folks interpret concealed to mean behind the obstacle and concealed has nothing to do with visibility in this context.
The bottom line is that until WoC or the Sage Advice Compendium decides to clarify what they want to consider total cover - then how every individual DM decides to play and interpret total cover is entirely a ruling up to that individual DM and is in no way incorrect or wrong no matter which of the interpretations they choose to use.
The bottom line is that until WoC or the Sage Advice Compendium decides to clarify what they want to consider total cover - then how every individual DM decides to play and interpret total cover is entirely a ruling up to that individual DM and is in no way incorrect or wrong no matter which of the interpretations they choose to use.
This is, once more, a very partial and oriented reading of the rules in the hope of not being forced to admit that the RAW is actually perfectly clear. Even without the "conceal" fallacy above, the cover section of the rules is perfectly clear especially when completed with the sentence from spellcasting: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." Here you go, without even the benefit of the doubt of the word "conceal", using the "clear path"
Only one more comment. We would not have an 8 page thread (and many similar threads) on this topic if "RAW was perfectly clear". Some folks agree with your interpretation. Some do not. Some folks read the same words differently from you do. Denigrating comments as "strawman", "only my interpretation makes sense", "please read all the material" (believe me I have - I just simply disagree with your viewpoint on this issue and do not find RAW to be as clear as you prefer to believe), "in the hope of not being forced to admit that RAW is actually perfectly clear" ... the one thing that seems clear to me from reading this thread is that there are MANY people for whom RAW is NOT perfectly clear on this topic. Otherwise the discussion with so many different people involved would not exist since everyone would agree.
Many of the folks, like me, have probably just given up the discussion since it is simply a waste of time when folks have such entrenched positions on what RAW says. Personally, I am happy enough playing or running it either way and any DM can choose the same. I do not like folks adamantly claiming that RAW says it must be played this way when I, and many others, certainly appear to find the wording lacking in clarity.
P.S. Lyxen, you have expressed many opinions I agree with on these forums but when you disagree, the discussion tends to get far more antagonistic, confrontational, and just one step short of directly insulting than necessary. I understand that dealing with folks who don't agree with you can be frustrating but please understand that they aren't doing it on purpose, they see the same words and have a different reading and interpretation, and that is ok.
The bottom line is that until WoC or the Sage Advice Compendium decides to clarify what they want to consider total cover - then how every individual DM decides to play and interpret total cover is entirely a ruling up to that individual DM and is in no way incorrect or wrong no matter which of the interpretations they choose to use.
This is, once more, a very partial and oriented reading of the rules in the hope of not being forced to admit that the RAW is actually perfectly clear. Even without the "conceal" fallacy above, the cover section of the rules is perfectly clear especially when completed with the sentence from spellcasting: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." Here you go, without even the benefit of the doubt of the word "conceal", using the "clear path"
Only one more comment. We would not have an 8 page thread (and many similar threads) on this topic if "RAW was perfectly clear". Some folks agree with your interpretation. Some do not. Some folks read the same words differently from you do. Denigrating comments as "strawman", "only my interpretation makes sense", "please read all the material" (believe me I have - I just simply disagree with your viewpoint on this issue and do not find RAW to be as clear as you prefer to believe), "in the hope of not being forced to admit that RAW is actually perfectly clear" ... the one thing that seems clear to me from reading this thread is that there are MANY people for whom RAW is NOT perfectly clear on this topic. Otherwise the discussion with so many different people involved would not exist since everyone would agree.
Many of the folks, like me, have probably just given up the discussion since it is simply a waste of time when folks have such entrenched positions on what RAW says. Personally, I am happy enough playing or running it either way and any DM can choose the same. I do not like folks adamantly claiming that RAW says it must be played this way when I, and many others, certainly appear to find the wording lacking in clarity.
P.S. Lyxen, you have expressed many opinions I agree with on these forums but when you disagree, the discussion tends to get far more antagonistic, confrontational, and just one step short of directly insulting than necessary. I understand that dealing with folks who don't agree with you can be frustrating but please understand that they aren't doing it on purpose, they see the same words and have a different reading and interpretation, and that is ok.
This exactly....
The fact we have so many threads like this for these edge cases makes only ONE thing pretty clear....the rules are not clear.
RPGstackexchange is so full of bizarre cult-like gatekeeping, it is literally impossible to have a meaningful discussion over there... but if that's your jam, and you enjoy having it dictated to you whether or not you're allowed to post or respond to something by shadowy nerd overlords, then you do you man :p
I think that the exchange of viewpoints on this thread was pretty fun and interesting (until the last three pages got bogged down with essay-length quotations and personal attacks). Often, these disagreements on rules boil down to two camps, but there's been three or four different well-reasoned perspectives that have come out of this one. Has been some great food for thought. It's made me question how I'll deal with glass, illusions, rooms divided by sheets and tapestries, force bubbles and walls, etc.
But at this point... unsubscribing, the horse is sufficiently tenderized :)
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
The cover section is ONLY about physical cover and does not depend on the type of attack, just the geometry.
Wall of force provides totally impervious physical cover.
You don't need more than this. It's consistent with the whole of the 5e rules, with every previous edition of the game about WoF, etc.
Someone, I thought it was you, pointed out earlier in this thread that "obstacle" is not really a defined game term, which means what qualifies as an obstacle and therefore grants cover has to be up to the GM. There's nothing in the rules text for Wall of Force declaring that it provides any cover at all, nor that it counts as an obstacle. I'm also dead curious how a GM would implement this strict interpretation of the rules; I'm forced to conclude it gives attackers a foolproof way to determine when a wall of force is in the way. "I shoot an arrow at the mage!" "You can't target the mage you can clearly see, he's in total cover." "Brilliant. I begin moving sideways, re-attempting my attack on the mage every step. Let me know exactly when I'm allowed to shoot." Hey presto, you can find the edge of the wall.
The only way I can think of out of that rules paradox is declaring that the wall doesn't provide "total cover", per se, and then having it stop things from passing through it. Which immediately opens up the question of deciding what it does and doesn't stop.
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
The cover section is ONLY about physical cover and does not depend on the type of attack, just the geometry.
Wall of force provides totally impervious physical cover.
Won't do a full rebuttal here, but this is probably the crux of our difference of opinion:
1) The cover section never specifies that it is "only" about physical cover or that cover is "only" physical, it just only lists physical, and mundane, objects as examples. The only requirements for cover is whether the thing providing so is an "obstacle" and if the effect/attack/spell emanates from the other side of it. It also doesn't specify whether cover depends only on the geometry, and doesn't explain what it means when it says an AoE can possibly bypass cover. The whole section is vague enough to allow for edge cases (of which I'd consider wall spells to be) to follow the rules for cover but not follow the typical assumptions of what cover is or how it works.
2) WoF says "nothing can physically pass through the wall" It never says the wall itself is physical, never says that the wall is impervious, and in a game with magic that can project lifelike illusions, throw fire, manipulate gravity, stop time, and teleport, determining whether something passes "physically" through the air (and any obstacles in-between) is kind of a difficult task.
Vagueness is not a sin, but it does lead to differing opinions and interpretations; you could say thats a feature, not a bug in most cases, but it does lend to 9 page discussions when edge cases arise that test the boundaries of the rules.
I have a different interpretation, some people don't like to be proven wrong, bring exactly zero argument to the table and parrot endlessly "but the rules are not clear" just because they feel entitled to criticise something that they don't even try to understand. This is what makes threads like this needlessly long.
You can compare this to other sites like this one, in which the discussions are short and to the point because contributors are actually, you know, contributing, and don't suffer fools. And, unsurprisingly, because the rules are clear and there is, on top of this, tons of intent available, that they reach exactly the same conclusion as I do.
Lol. Did you actually read the stack exchange thread you cited? The first two cite unofficial rulings from Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. The third entry takes your position with 13 votes and the 4th entry is the position taken by the other folks here that you so vehemently disagree with and it has 10 votes. The only difference between the Stack Exchange article and here is that folks there don't get to go on with the conversation though there are clear signs of ongoing disagreement in the comments below each entry.
Thinking that the article you linked is an example of "they reached exactly the same conclusion as I do" is an example of selective reading at best.
If anything, the only thing the article you cited does is substantiate that there is significant disagreement about how the rules on total cover should be interpreted in regards to the Wall of Force spell.
The spell says “nothing can physically pass through the wall”, it never even mentions cover. So whether the spell provides cover (and exactly what it provides cover for) is a DM decision not a property of the spell.
And nine pages later, you still have failed to provide evidence of ONE edge cases that contradicts the rules. I think that is enough demonstration that the rule do not leave any vagueness.
Lyxen, I've provided mountains of evidence, from RAW text "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" to numerous examples that deviate from the typical examples cited in the text, in SAC, and in JC tweets. Spells like major image can fool people in a WoF, unless you are saying the wall blocks sight (the only requirement to be fooled by the illusion is to see it). I've offered illusions spells like this multiple times. I've even defined what I think non-physical means (sight, psychological, teleporting), and offered examples of those (including fear, [spell]weird[spell], etc).
You continue to talk right by me, offering the same lines in the rules that I also know, ignoring the sections i quote, and offering examples of spells that directly target creatures that you have placed behind the wall, when I have never defended that position. I in turn, have asked you multiple times to clarify your argument by providing an example from anywhere, RAW, SAC, a JC tweet, that illustrates what happens when a spell isn't cast through the wall, the effect extends through (via AoE or otherwise), and the effect isn't physical. You have never offered an example of this (I would think the fact that there isn't one or that it is hard to find would qualify this as an "edge" case, btw)
Since you seem to want to continue the argument page after page repeating the same things and talking through anyone who disagrees, let me try a different tactic. Please explain your stance on the following:
synaptic static cast to a point on the walls surface. Is its effect physical, and does the AoE bypass the wall (answer both questions)
locate object naming an object inside the spherical version of WoF when the spell is cast. can you locate the object?
mind spikes secondary effect, if the creature is then surrounded by a WoF after casting...can you still locate the creature?
major image. Are creatures behind the wall fooled by it? Can the image (which doesn't interact with the physical environment per its own description) cross the wall?
sunbeam. does the light line penetrate the wall? does the secondary sunlight creation on your hand? What about the light from a simple light spell?
And nine pages later, you still have failed to provide evidence of ONE edge cases that contradicts the rules. I think that is enough demonstration that the rule do not leave any vagueness.
Lyxen, I've provided mountains of evidence, from RAW text "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" to numerous examples that deviate from the typical examples cited in the text, in SAC, and in JC tweets. Spells like major image can fool people in a WoF, unless you are saying the wall blocks sight (the only requirement to be fooled by the illusion is to see it). I've offered illusions spells like this multiple times. I've even defined what I think non-physical means (sight, psychological, teleporting), and offered examples of those (including fear, [spell]weird[spell], etc).
You continue to talk right by me, offering the same lines in the rules that I also know, ignoring the sections i quote, and offering examples of spells that directly target creatures that you have placed behind the wall, when I have never defended that position. I in turn, have asked you multiple times to clarify your argument by providing an example from anywhere, RAW, SAC, a JC tweet, that illustrates what happens when a spell isn't cast through the wall, the effect extends through (via AoE or otherwise), and the effect isn't physical. You have never offered an example of this (I would think the fact that there isn't one or that it is hard to find would qualify this as an "edge" case, btw)
Since you seem to want to continue the argument page after page repeating the same things and talking through anyone who disagrees, let me try a different tactic. Please explain your stance on the following:
synaptic static cast to a point on the walls surface. Is its effect physical, and does the AoE bypass the wall (answer both questions)
locate object naming an object inside the spherical version of WoF when the spell is cast. can you locate the object?
mind spikes secondary effect, if the creature is then surrounded by a WoF after casting...can you still locate the creature?
major image. Are creatures behind the wall fooled by it? Can the image (which doesn't interact with the physical environment per its own description) cross the wall?
sunbeam. does the light line penetrate the wall? does the secondary sunlight creation on your hand? What about the light from a simple light spell?
What about sending? I can send though it?
What about a familiar? Can I boop it out if it's caught in a wall of Force?
This is a very strange spell indeed. It seems that it is still targeted, but not directly, and it works even on other plane, so it might come in by a completely indirect route through the astral plane. For me that one is more a question of interpreting that spell than specifically WoF...
What about a familiar? Can I boop it out if it's caught in a wall of Force?
It's an action that is not dependent at all of the casting parameters of the spell, so the limitations of casting do not apply. I would also allow the booping in, as there is no limitation as long as the space is unoccupied, it seems more akin to misty step and transdimensional, but I agree that it's debatable.
So already we have examples that do not fit the "Simple" narrative. Edge cases exist and would require discussion. What about a spiritual weapon that was caught behind the wall. Can you target a creature behind the wall the weapon? Is not "you" targeting the creature its the weapon but can you direct it while its behind the wall? You can't "See" the target per the strict ruling so you can't attack it....but you can somehow "see" the space outside of the wall for misty step?
Bigsby's Hand is another interesting one....since it doesn't say you need to be able to target the creature but you can "See" them you can have the fist trapped in the wall of force just pummel the crap out of someone. A normal wall you wouldn't be able to do that as you wouldn't know where to command the hand to go to attack.
It creates a need to describe how transparency of the wall does in fact have huge implications for how spells work.
It is important though....You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of force because you can see the space you wan to go to.
With spiritual weapon (not hammer btw) you would not be able to see a creature to move the weapon to it. So again transparency matters.
Bigbsy Hand is another example....you can't move to a creature if you can't see it without metagaming. The hand has no ability to sense the creatures so you would have to guess which way to move it.
The fact the wall is invisible has impacts on spells and how they function so you cannot simply ignore it as a component.
Yes the spiritual weapon will never strike with DIS due to vision as it has no vision. However, sight is required to move to a target....DM would be able to decide how that works. Just like with any spell that has a visual component the DM would get to decide how that works.
So overall it appears its not as clear cut and requires a fair amount of personal discretion to implement.....as several have alluded to in this thread.
The spell says “nothing can physically pass through the wall”, it never even mentions cover. So whether the spell provides cover (and exactly what it provides cover for) is a DM decision not a property of the spell.
Hoe about reading the rules on cover (published here many times), what constitutes cover, and the core sentences like "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." ?
If the DM thinks that the spell gives total cover to everything, that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation and in that case, everything that you have said is true.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
So any feature with the "Visual" trait will be available to pass through the wall.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
Did you even read my whole post ? For example, does it stop a sunburst? Come on, I'll be waiting.
I didn't need to as you answered your own question.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
Did you even read my whole post ? For example, does it stop a sunburst? Come on, I'll be waiting.
Edit: also, I find it funny because if I'm a simple creature, not incorporeal or ethereal, I can actually walk through the wall. I'm not a physical effect, so I can just walk right in, thanks to that "really tight writing", I think that is much more lazy that anything I can find in 5e, myself. :p
I am 100% certain that someone would never make that argument and if they did I would likely ask them to read the part about physical barrier...its a wall.
Don't be obtuse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If it's walmart tea but repacked and marketed as a rare variety then yeah your metaphor makes sense....
Also the logical fallacy that just because something is popular makes it good.... It doesn't.
Overall it's like 2 paragraphs long and it's pretty lame attempt at "custom" races. Like they couldn't even bother to talk about actual racial features.
Slapped together in 15 minutes and put to press... It's hilarious people think it's "elegant" because that would assume they actually put thought into it at all.
"Good" is subjective. For a designer designing content for an audience, popularity is an undeniably important metric. If they pump out literal trash, but the world loves it, then they are objectively successful in providing supply for a demand. This creates an opportunity to discover why said "trash" was in high demand and distill it into something better. Innovation is almost always incremental, just look at the phone market.
And remember, at least half of D&D is roleplay and imagination. The value of Custom Lineages is less the mechanics, and more the official permission to break the mold. It could be mechanically identical to the Variant Human and still achieve that end.
It is the simplest possible ruleset to give inhibited players infinite creative freedom in character creation.
Let's keep things on topic; this thread is about Wall of Force, not WotCs general design approach (which can only be speculated)
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
How impermeable to attacks does a transparent barrier need to be before it stops providing total cover?
Folks claim wall of force provides total cover to targeting. You can't target a creature on the other side of total cover with a physical OR spell attack.
Does a foot thick glass window provide total cover?
Does a typical 1/4" thick pane of glass provide total cover?
Does a thin and fragile 1/32" pane of glass provide total cover?
Does a transparent silk drape provide total cover?
Does transparent plastic wrap provide total cover?
Each of these places a barrier between the attacker and possible target. If the attacker is using a bow then we can fairly easily judge which of these barriers would prevent an arrow from being targeted or reaching their target. To be honest, none of these actually prevent targeting an arrow since you can aim at the creature you can see (though if a wall of force does provide total cover then you could not in fact aim at the target you could see "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell". So perhaps visual concealment IS a factor in total cover?). However, these all provide varying levels of safety from a physical attack. I don't think most DMs would allow plastic wrap or a thin diaphanous transparent drape to provide total cover for a physical attack.
However, the rules give NO indication of whether spells have a physical manifestation or not. Can a spell penetrate through any form of obstruction that you can see through or none? This ambiguity is what seems to lead to the various camps on what provides total cover for spells. One camp would consider ANY physical blockage transparent or not as sufficient to preventing a spell from being targeted while others consider being able to see the target and the spell description to be the deciding factor.
One camp feels that the wording of total cover that requires concealment is an error in the PHB that has just never been subject to errata or correction while others read the rule as written. "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." Or some folks interpret concealed to mean behind the obstacle and concealed has nothing to do with visibility in this context.
The bottom line is that until WoC or the Sage Advice Compendium decides to clarify what they want to consider total cover - then how every individual DM decides to play and interpret total cover is entirely a ruling up to that individual DM and is in no way incorrect or wrong no matter which of the interpretations they choose to use.
Only one more comment. We would not have an 8 page thread (and many similar threads) on this topic if "RAW was perfectly clear". Some folks agree with your interpretation. Some do not. Some folks read the same words differently from you do. Denigrating comments as "strawman", "only my interpretation makes sense", "please read all the material" (believe me I have - I just simply disagree with your viewpoint on this issue and do not find RAW to be as clear as you prefer to believe), "in the hope of not being forced to admit that RAW is actually perfectly clear" ... the one thing that seems clear to me from reading this thread is that there are MANY people for whom RAW is NOT perfectly clear on this topic. Otherwise the discussion with so many different people involved would not exist since everyone would agree.
Many of the folks, like me, have probably just given up the discussion since it is simply a waste of time when folks have such entrenched positions on what RAW says. Personally, I am happy enough playing or running it either way and any DM can choose the same. I do not like folks adamantly claiming that RAW says it must be played this way when I, and many others, certainly appear to find the wording lacking in clarity.
P.S. Lyxen, you have expressed many opinions I agree with on these forums but when you disagree, the discussion tends to get far more antagonistic, confrontational, and just one step short of directly insulting than necessary. I understand that dealing with folks who don't agree with you can be frustrating but please understand that they aren't doing it on purpose, they see the same words and have a different reading and interpretation, and that is ok.
This exactly....
The fact we have so many threads like this for these edge cases makes only ONE thing pretty clear....the rules are not clear.
RPGstackexchange is so full of bizarre cult-like gatekeeping, it is literally impossible to have a meaningful discussion over there... but if that's your jam, and you enjoy having it dictated to you whether or not you're allowed to post or respond to something by shadowy nerd overlords, then you do you man :p
I think that the exchange of viewpoints on this thread was pretty fun and interesting (until the last three pages got bogged down with essay-length quotations and personal attacks). Often, these disagreements on rules boil down to two camps, but there's been three or four different well-reasoned perspectives that have come out of this one. Has been some great food for thought. It's made me question how I'll deal with glass, illusions, rooms divided by sheets and tapestries, force bubbles and walls, etc.
But at this point... unsubscribing, the horse is sufficiently tenderized :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Someone, I thought it was you, pointed out earlier in this thread that "obstacle" is not really a defined game term, which means what qualifies as an obstacle and therefore grants cover has to be up to the GM. There's nothing in the rules text for Wall of Force declaring that it provides any cover at all, nor that it counts as an obstacle. I'm also dead curious how a GM would implement this strict interpretation of the rules; I'm forced to conclude it gives attackers a foolproof way to determine when a wall of force is in the way. "I shoot an arrow at the mage!" "You can't target the mage you can clearly see, he's in total cover." "Brilliant. I begin moving sideways, re-attempting my attack on the mage every step. Let me know exactly when I'm allowed to shoot." Hey presto, you can find the edge of the wall.
The only way I can think of out of that rules paradox is declaring that the wall doesn't provide "total cover", per se, and then having it stop things from passing through it. Which immediately opens up the question of deciding what it does and doesn't stop.
Won't do a full rebuttal here, but this is probably the crux of our difference of opinion:
1) The cover section never specifies that it is "only" about physical cover or that cover is "only" physical, it just only lists physical, and mundane, objects as examples. The only requirements for cover is whether the thing providing so is an "obstacle" and if the effect/attack/spell emanates from the other side of it. It also doesn't specify whether cover depends only on the geometry, and doesn't explain what it means when it says an AoE can possibly bypass cover. The whole section is vague enough to allow for edge cases (of which I'd consider wall spells to be) to follow the rules for cover but not follow the typical assumptions of what cover is or how it works.
2) WoF says "nothing can physically pass through the wall" It never says the wall itself is physical, never says that the wall is impervious, and in a game with magic that can project lifelike illusions, throw fire, manipulate gravity, stop time, and teleport, determining whether something passes "physically" through the air (and any obstacles in-between) is kind of a difficult task.
Vagueness is not a sin, but it does lead to differing opinions and interpretations; you could say thats a feature, not a bug in most cases, but it does lend to 9 page discussions when edge cases arise that test the boundaries of the rules.
Lol. Did you actually read the stack exchange thread you cited? The first two cite unofficial rulings from Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. The third entry takes your position with 13 votes and the 4th entry is the position taken by the other folks here that you so vehemently disagree with and it has 10 votes. The only difference between the Stack Exchange article and here is that folks there don't get to go on with the conversation though there are clear signs of ongoing disagreement in the comments below each entry.
Thinking that the article you linked is an example of "they reached exactly the same conclusion as I do" is an example of selective reading at best.
If anything, the only thing the article you cited does is substantiate that there is significant disagreement about how the rules on total cover should be interpreted in regards to the Wall of Force spell.
The spell says “nothing can physically pass through the wall”, it never even mentions cover. So whether the spell provides cover (and exactly what it provides cover for) is a DM decision not a property of the spell.
Lyxen, I've provided mountains of evidence, from RAW text "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" to numerous examples that deviate from the typical examples cited in the text, in SAC, and in JC tweets. Spells like major image can fool people in a WoF, unless you are saying the wall blocks sight (the only requirement to be fooled by the illusion is to see it). I've offered illusions spells like this multiple times. I've even defined what I think non-physical means (sight, psychological, teleporting), and offered examples of those (including fear, [spell]weird[spell], etc).
You continue to talk right by me, offering the same lines in the rules that I also know, ignoring the sections i quote, and offering examples of spells that directly target creatures that you have placed behind the wall, when I have never defended that position. I in turn, have asked you multiple times to clarify your argument by providing an example from anywhere, RAW, SAC, a JC tweet, that illustrates what happens when a spell isn't cast through the wall, the effect extends through (via AoE or otherwise), and the effect isn't physical. You have never offered an example of this (I would think the fact that there isn't one or that it is hard to find would qualify this as an "edge" case, btw)
Since you seem to want to continue the argument page after page repeating the same things and talking through anyone who disagrees, let me try a different tactic. Please explain your stance on the following:
synaptic static cast to a point on the walls surface. Is its effect physical, and does the AoE bypass the wall (answer both questions)
locate object naming an object inside the spherical version of WoF when the spell is cast. can you locate the object?
mind spikes secondary effect, if the creature is then surrounded by a WoF after casting...can you still locate the creature?
major image. Are creatures behind the wall fooled by it? Can the image (which doesn't interact with the physical environment per its own description) cross the wall?
sunbeam. does the light line penetrate the wall? does the secondary sunlight creation on your hand? What about the light from a simple light spell?
What about sending? I can send though it?
What about a familiar? Can I boop it out if it's caught in a wall of Force?
So already we have examples that do not fit the "Simple" narrative. Edge cases exist and would require discussion. What about a spiritual weapon that was caught behind the wall. Can you target a creature behind the wall the weapon? Is not "you" targeting the creature its the weapon but can you direct it while its behind the wall? You can't "See" the target per the strict ruling so you can't attack it....but you can somehow "see" the space outside of the wall for misty step?
Bigsby's Hand is another interesting one....since it doesn't say you need to be able to target the creature but you can "See" them you can have the fist trapped in the wall of force just pummel the crap out of someone. A normal wall you wouldn't be able to do that as you wouldn't know where to command the hand to go to attack.
It creates a need to describe how transparency of the wall does in fact have huge implications for how spells work.
It is important though....You can't misty step through a wall but you can through a wall of force because you can see the space you wan to go to.
With spiritual weapon (not hammer btw) you would not be able to see a creature to move the weapon to it. So again transparency matters.
Bigbsy Hand is another example....you can't move to a creature if you can't see it without metagaming. The hand has no ability to sense the creatures so you would have to guess which way to move it.
The fact the wall is invisible has impacts on spells and how they function so you cannot simply ignore it as a component.
Yes the spiritual weapon will never strike with DIS due to vision as it has no vision. However, sight is required to move to a target....DM would be able to decide how that works. Just like with any spell that has a visual component the DM would get to decide how that works.
So overall it appears its not as clear cut and requires a fair amount of personal discretion to implement.....as several have alluded to in this thread.
If the DM thinks that the spell gives total cover to everything, that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation and in that case, everything that you have said is true.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
So any feature with the "Visual" trait will be available to pass through the wall.
This is 100x more viable and clear cut lol
I didn't need to as you answered your own question.
Does it have the visual trait? https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=163
If no then no it doesnt....simple.
I am 100% certain that someone would never make that argument and if they did I would likely ask them to read the part about physical barrier...its a wall.
Don't be obtuse.