Does anything have to physically pass through the wall? If not, then no problem.
Yeah thats the rub then....PF2e clearly addresses it as stuff with a "Visual" trait will.
Actually they did not. They say that it blocks physical effects, but these are not defined. It then gives two counterexamples, but because there is still no definition of physical, you can't know if they are the only ones, sorry.
As previously stated they did as basically doing any action has an effect. Moving is a physical effect. This is a 101 level reading of the rules and highlights how if you do not read even the most basic rules you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
WoF is definitely worth the spell slot necessary to use it. I'd recommend it 9/10 times an any character considering picking it up (10th one accidentally trapped his barbarian friend in the hemisphere with a goristro)
As for a party going up against it? It's outright terrifying! My players felt kinda hopeless until the cleric asked what they could do in that situation (he then cast sacred flame, breaking the caster's concentration). It's definitely one of those that can lead to a TPK if things go horribly wrong or the party has no outs to it.
Does anything have to physically pass through the wall? If not, then no problem.
Yeah thats the rub then....PF2e clearly addresses it as stuff with a "Visual" trait will.
Actually they did not. They say that it blocks physical effects, but these are not defined. It then gives two counterexamples, but because there is still no definition of physical, you can't know if they are the only ones, sorry.
As previously stated they did as basically doing any action has an effect. Moving is a physical effect. This is a 101 level reading of the rules and highlights how if you do not read even the most basic rules you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
And you did not even know about this yourself, so please, don't talk to me about fundamental misunderstanding. You were not even capable of sending me to the "effects" page, I had to find it on my own, and I don't even know the game. So please, stop, OK ?
And it does not even answer the question, which is "which spells are physical" ? I'm still waiting, and once more your are dissembling as you don't know the answer.
The way the spell is worded you do not need to know....it blocks physical effects. It allows teleportation. It allows things with the visual trait.
Anything else is blocked. It is abundantly clear [REDACTED]
One definition of physical would mean that light couldn’t pass through it. If that was true, then you can’t see through the wall and most of the issues disappear. I guess we expect our force fields to be transparent like Star Trek shields but stop phaser fire.
One definition of physical would mean that light couldn’t pass through it. If that was true, then you can’t see through the wall and most of the issues disappear. I guess we expect our force fields to be transparent like Star Trek shields but stop phaser fire.
I mentioned that a bunch of pages ago, and that’s definitely what I stick to at my table. Invisible != transparent. But the “conversation” has long since moved past that and devolved into the usual endless argument about whether or not 5e has clear writing.
Does anything have to physically pass through the wall? If not, then no problem.
Yeah thats the rub then....PF2e clearly addresses it as stuff with a "Visual" trait will.
Actually they did not. They say that it blocks physical effects, but these are not defined. It then gives two counterexamples, but because there is still no definition of physical, you can't know if they are the only ones, sorry.
As previously stated they did as basically doing any action has an effect. Moving is a physical effect. This is a 101 level reading of the rules and highlights how if you do not read even the most basic rules you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
And you did not even know about this yourself, so please, don't talk to me about fundamental misunderstanding. You were not even capable of sending me to the "effects" page, I had to find it on my own, and I don't even know the game. So please, stop, OK ?
And it does not even answer the question, which is "which spells are physical" ? I'm still waiting, and once more your are dissembling as you don't know the answer.
The way the spell is worded you do not need to know....it blocks physical effects. It allows teleportation. It allows things with the visual trait.
Anything else is blocked. It is abundantly clear [REDACTED]
This depends, actually. To be fair I can't immediately think of examples where it WOULDN'T work based on this (maybe Arcane Gate?), but SAC confirms that the importance is in the target. If the TARGET of the teleportation was a point you can see, for example, you would not be able to target a point through a Wall of Force. HOWEVER, if the target is for example yourself, and then you just need to see the destination, it would work. This is an important distinction even if subtle.
Examples:
Misty Step: Target is yourself, so therefore you are not targeting a point or person on the other side of the WoF. As such, since you can see the point and you are targeting yourself, you can use it through WoF.
Dimension Door: I think they could have done better one this one (or, actually, better on Wall of Force), but essentially the claim on SAC is that the first paragraph of DD overrides the general rule of "can't target through wall of force.
Made up TP spell for example's sake: If the spell's targeting said "Target a point you can see within 100 feet. You are then teleported to that point with all of your belongings." Well, the SAC ruling on RAW would mean that you could not do this through WoF.
That said, I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread, but it is very clear from SAC that, in RAW, WoF does NOT block line of sight/light from passing through it like some people have suggested. However, much to those people's credit you also CANNOT target creatures, objects, points, or anything else through WoF even if you can see them.
Of course this is all RAW, so what people do at their own table is always up to them. I personally went with "can see through wall" and "can target through wall" up until now, but reading the SAC columns on it (and there were a few) I am leaning towards accepting that.
As previously stated they did as basically doing any action has an effect. Moving is a physical effect. This is a 101 level reading of the rules and highlights how if you do not read even the most basic rules you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
WoF is definitely worth the spell slot necessary to use it. I'd recommend it 9/10 times an any character considering picking it up (10th one accidentally trapped his barbarian friend in the hemisphere with a goristro)
As for a party going up against it? It's outright terrifying! My players felt kinda hopeless until the cleric asked what they could do in that situation (he then cast sacred flame, breaking the caster's concentration). It's definitely one of those that can lead to a TPK if things go horribly wrong or the party has no outs to it.
The way the spell is worded you do not need to know....it blocks physical effects. It allows teleportation. It allows things with the visual trait.
Anything else is blocked. It is abundantly clear [REDACTED]
One definition of physical would mean that light couldn’t pass through it. If that was true, then you can’t see through the wall and most of the issues disappear. I guess we expect our force fields to be transparent like Star Trek shields but stop phaser fire.
I mentioned that a bunch of pages ago, and that’s definitely what I stick to at my table. Invisible != transparent. But the “conversation” has long since moved past that and devolved into the usual endless argument about whether or not 5e has clear writing.
This depends, actually. To be fair I can't immediately think of examples where it WOULDN'T work based on this (maybe Arcane Gate?), but SAC confirms that the importance is in the target. If the TARGET of the teleportation was a point you can see, for example, you would not be able to target a point through a Wall of Force. HOWEVER, if the target is for example yourself, and then you just need to see the destination, it would work. This is an important distinction even if subtle.
Examples:
That said, I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread, but it is very clear from SAC that, in RAW, WoF does NOT block line of sight/light from passing through it like some people have suggested. However, much to those people's credit you also CANNOT target creatures, objects, points, or anything else through WoF even if you can see them.
Of course this is all RAW, so what people do at their own table is always up to them. I personally went with "can see through wall" and "can target through wall" up until now, but reading the SAC columns on it (and there were a few) I am leaning towards accepting that.