Hmmm... the argument that the spell doesn’t place the hand THEN attack, but that placing the hand IS the attack (it either shows up grabbing the target, or misses) is one I hadn’t really considered. That would make it seem even more like it should have been a Dex save that ignores cover, just like Sacred Flame... and I don’t think it’s really enough to make me change my mind on that space being the poo of the effect.
Cover provides bonuses when it gets in the way of (or entirely blocks) things trying to pass through that cover. Nothing passes through any spaces with Chill Touch, regardless of how many steps you think the attack has, it’s all taking place in a single space that is already on the far side of half of threequarter cover. Nothing you’ve said has changed my fundamental conviction that cover is about effects passing through cover, and nothing about chill touch passes through anything.
The original line of effect does, and that is what is tied to the ranged attack roll in this case. If this were a saving throw spell, like Sacred Flame, I'd agree with you; Saving throw spells only need one single line of effect to work, since aiming is removed from the equation (it's effectively auto-aimed, and the effectiveness comes from the targets ability to resist or dodge instead of the skill of the caster at aiming). Because this is a ranged attack spell, that line of effect is tied to the attack roll, just like any other ranged attack spell. The fact that that line is invisible and not accompanied with some sort of physical effect (motes of fire, streaks of force, rays of frost, etc) is immaterial to the mechanic of the line of effect being aimed by skill by the caster, originating from the caster, and subject to cover.
it is an odd duck in that the line of effect is not represented visually by some sort of energy or effect, but it does logically align with the ranged attack rules this way.
It’s not just that there is no visible effect that travels that tells me that this is not a projectile attack... it is also the lack of any sort of language about anything streaking or hurling or projecting or firing etc... spells and effects that cause some thing to travel through space from point a to point B have language that testifies to that. pick any spell you choose to, when something is traveling through space, the spell tells you so. And conversely, spells and effects that cause something to “appear” in a space out of nowhere have language that testifies to that. Guess which one chill touch is?
The aiming involved is aiming from the hand (in space B) to its target (in space B). Cover rules don’t effect that, even if it’s taking place on the far side of some partial cover that is between B and character space A. Cover explicitly only interferes with effects attempting to travel THROUGH cover, not with anything else like aiming controlling etc. an effect which both starts and finishes already on the far side.
It’s not just that there is no visible effect that travels that tells me that this is not a projectile attack... it is also the lack of any sort of language about anything streaking or hurling or projecting or firing etc... spells and effects that cause some thing to travel through space from point a to point B have language that testifies to that. pick any spell you choose to, when something is traveling through space, the spell tells you so. And conversely, spells and effects that cause something to “appear” in a space out of nowhere have language that testifies to that. Guess which one chill touch is?
The aiming involved is aiming from the hand (in space B) to its target (in space B). Cover rules don’t effect that, even if it’s taking place on the far side of some partial cover that is between B and character space A. Cover explicitly only interferes with effects attempting to travel THROUGH cover, not with anything else like aiming controlling etc. an effect which both starts and finishes already on the far side.
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 attackor other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
Cover blocks attacks, not just effects. As I've already stated, the point of origin for the attack is the caster unless the rules explicitly tell you otherwise (previously mentioned versions of this include eldritch turrets, Bigby's Hand, and Storm Sphere). The line of effect is the attack for ranged attack roll spells, and that line being invisible or not referenced by a visual or physical object is immaterial to that fact. failing to meet the AC could mean that the line of effect was improperly aimed, or it hit the creature but the spell couldn't find purchase due to armor or a shield, etc. But the fact of the matter is this is a ranged attack spell, not a saving throw spell, so treating the aiming of the spell as if you would a saving throw spell (which is "auto-aimed") is inaccurate
Saving throw spells are no more or less auto aimed then attack roll spells. Whatever implication you’re drawing from the fact that Chill Touch is a ranged attack rather than a reflex save or a melee attack, that implication is mostly unsupported, because those designations just come down to designer fiat.
although I don’t think that you and I are ever going to see eye to eye on this, It does sound like our disagreement mostly comes down to where we think the point of origin of the spell effect is. I will grant that if the point of origin of chill touch’s spell Attack is the caster, then yes half and three-quarter cover would grant the target a cover bonus. I think that the spell description makes it clear that the caster is not the point of origin of the attack, notwithstanding the failure of the spell to define the hand as the point of origin. You disagree and think that because there is no specific language saying that the hand is a point of origin for the affect the caster remains the point of origin by default.
all of the other nonsense about Cover having other impacts on targeting and such, i’m hoping that we can put all of that aside as not being supported in the players handbook. The one and only reasonable point of disagreement that I see in this is where the point of origin is. If the point of origin is the caster, you are correct. If the point of origin is the space in which the hand is created, then I am correct. Can we agree on that?
Saving throw spells are no more or less auto aimed then attack roll spells. Whatever implication you’re drawing from the fact that Chill Touch is a ranged attack rather than a reflex save or a melee attack, that implication is mostly unsupported, because those designations just come down to designer fiat.
Saving Throw spells are "auto-aimed" in that I don't need to roll a check or attack roll to target and affect a creature with one. If I cast hold person on a creature, there is no roll to hit the creature, and the number of potential lines of effect only has to be one; partial cover doesn't apply. Effectively, targeting the creature with a saving throw spell does not require any skill to aim: The Fireball always goes where I want it to, and the Hold Person always forces the creature targeted to make the save (im ignoring total cover in this statement as it stops all this, including the situation we are debating). The effectiveness of those spells (whether save for 1/2 or save/suck) is based on the targets response to the spell, not my skill in aiming it.
Attack Rolls have to be aimed and skill on the part of the caster/attacker is required to actually hit, thus the chance (d20) and modifier associated with an attack roll. Nothing the target can do in the moment (save for certain reactions like Parry or Shield) can affect the spell hitting them, it's all on my skill as caster to hit them
Saying that the attack/save/type for any given spell is arbitrary is to basically say the rules are arbitrary, which isn't the case. If the spell requires a save or an attack you have to start from there and follow the rules for that type of spell or attack, and using the rules for a different type doesn't follow.
although I don’t think that you and I are ever going to see eye to eye on this, It does sound like our disagreement mostly comes down to where we think the point of origin of the spell effect is. I will grant that if the point of origin of chill touch’s spell Attack is the caster, then yes half and three-quarter cover would grant the target a cover bonus. I think that the spell description makes it clear that the caster is not the point of origin of the attack, notwithstanding the failure of the spell to define the hand as the point of origin. You disagree and think that because there is no specific language saying that the hand is a point of origin for the affect the caster remains the point of origin by default.
all of the other nonsense about Cover having other impacts on targeting and such, i’m hoping that we can put all of that aside as not being supported in the players handbook. The one and only reasonable point of disagreement that I see in this is where the point of origin is. If the point of origin is the caster, you are correct. If the point of origin is the space in which the hand is created, then I am correct. Can we agree on that?
Functionally, yes, that is my primary point of disagreement with you. A spell should identify when the point of origin for and effect is not the caster, doubly so if it is a ranged attack where that is the default per the way the rules are written. That so many spells do already (functionally all AoE's and the examples of special ranged attacks I've already mentioned) is the evidence I have for my position. But I'm ok to leave it at that for now
Also I think a factor is that I am used to much older definitions of cover, which you do not seem familiar with at all and therefore do not seem to acknowledge at all.
Lol what? You’re arguing about Cover based on something OTHER than the 5E Cover rules? For that matter, 4E and 3.5 Cover also were about line of effect between effect origin and target, not the caster’s ability to see/aim from somewhere else on the field, so not sure how much “older” I need to go to understand and acknowledge where you’re coming from...
Saving Throw spells are "auto-aimed" in that I don't need to roll a check or attack roll to target and affect a creature with one. If I cast hold person on a creature, there is no roll to hit the creature, and the number of potential lines of effect only has to be one; partial cover doesn't apply. Effectively, targeting the creature with a saving throw spell does not require any skill to aim: The Fireball always goes where I want it to, and the Hold Person always forces the creature targeted to make the save (im ignoring total cover in this statement as it stops all this, including the situation we are debating). The effectiveness of those spells (whether save for 1/2 or save/suck) is based on the targets response to the spell, not my skill in aiming it.
Attack Rolls have to be aimed and skill on the part of the caster/attacker is required to actually hit, thus the chance (d20) and modifier associated with an attack roll. Nothing the target can do in the moment (save for certain reactions like Parry or Shield) can affect the spell hitting them, it's all on my skill as caster to hit them
save based spells check the casters proficiency and ability score against the targets proficiency and ability score plus some random value, not unlike how an attack checks the attackers proficiency and ability score plus some random value against the targets armor and ability score. Seeing one or the other as involving less active engagement or skill from the attacker to aim or focus or the defender to avoid or resist is... just completely unsupported, not sure where you got that idea.
But that’s a tangent we don’t need to go down. I’m willing to walk away from this with a “disagreement over point of origin” being the root issue we can’t reconcile.
My definition of cover is a definition of the TERM. Can you please point out to me exactly where it says ANYWHERE in the 5e cover rules that only hard cover, i.e. solid barriers, counts as cover?
It says obstacle and enumerate various solid ones.
Cover: Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
My definition of cover is a definition of the TERM. Can you please point out to me exactly where it says ANYWHERE in the 5e cover rules that only hard cover, i.e. solid barriers, counts as cover?
It says obstacle and enumerate various solid ones.
Cover: Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
Trees and creatures are not necessarily solid. Trees include the lighter branches and leaves. Creatures include gaseous creatures that a normal shot might simply pass through and thinner creatures that a powerful enough shot might pass through still hitting someone or something else behind them. Vines or other foliage can be obstacles without being hard cover, especially on uneven terrain. If you cannot see the ground, you can literally run blindly off a cliff. This is a real danger for hikers.
Are you really arguing that trees and creature are not solid??? There are certainly not gaseous or liquid, thus they are solid indeed! How hard or soft an obstacle is is irrelevant, if DM state that an obstacle provides cover, it provides cover. Even a dense gas or liquid obstacle could be cover for exemple a waterfall, a oozy substance etc... Basically cover is anything that can impede on an attack success.
My definition of cover is a definition of the TERM. Can you please point out to me exactly where it says ANYWHERE in the 5e cover rules that only hard cover, i.e. solid barriers, counts as cover?
It says obstacle and enumerate various solid ones.
Cover: Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
Trees and creatures are not necessarily solid. Trees include the lighter branches and leaves. Creatures include gaseous creatures that a normal shot might simply pass through and thinner creatures that a powerful enough shot might pass through still hitting someone or something else behind them. Vines or other foliage can be obstacles without being hard cover, especially on uneven terrain. If you cannot see the ground, you can literally run blindly off a cliff. This is a real danger for hikers.
Are you really arguing that trees and creature are not solid??? There are certainly not gaseous or liquid, thus they are solid indeed! How hard or soft an obstacle is is irrelevant, if DM state that an obstacle provides cover, it provides cover. Even a dense gas or liquid obstacle could be cover for exemple a waterfall, a oozy substance etc... Basically cover is anything that can impede on an attack success.
A thin layer of paper is technically solid too. Someone hiding in the branches could be behind 100% soft cover.
And I agree that cover is cover. You are agreeing with me.
Yes a thin layer of paper is solid, so are branches. If a DM determine they represent enought of an obstacle to impede on an attack, they will grant cover. If not they wont! Same for any gaseous or liquid state. What matter is if it represent an obstacle or not. Not the state itself so looking for solid in cover is irrelevant the key word is "obstacle"
Ah, there’s your mistake then. Not being able to see your target is obscurement, not cover, different rule mate. Otherwise, darkness and fog would be cover, which they ain’t. Also, cover wouldn’t belabor being directional between a poo and target, if it was about perception. It’s about physically blocking somethings passage, not the ability of an actor to see.
My definition of cover is a definition of the TERM. Can you please point out to me exactly where it says ANYWHERE in the 5e cover rules that only hard cover, i.e. solid barriers, counts as cover?
It says obstacle and enumerate various solid ones.
Cover: Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
Trees and creatures are not necessarily solid. Trees include the lighter branches and leaves. Creatures include gaseous creatures that a normal shot might simply pass through and thinner creatures that a powerful enough shot might pass through still hitting someone or something else behind them. Vines or other foliage can be obstacles without being hard cover, especially on uneven terrain. If you cannot see the ground, you can literally run blindly off a cliff. This is a real danger for hikers.
Are you really arguing that trees and creature are not solid??? There are certainly not gaseous or liquid, thus they are solid indeed! How hard or soft an obstacle is is irrelevant, if DM state that an obstacle provides cover, it provides cover. Even a dense gas or liquid obstacle could be cover for exemple a waterfall, a oozy substance etc... Basically cover is anything that can impede on an attack success.
A thin layer of paper is technically solid too. Someone hiding in the branches could be behind 100% soft cover.
And I agree that cover is cover. You are agreeing with me.
Yes a thin layer of paper is solid, so are branches. If a DM determine they represent enought of an obstacle to impede on an attack, they will grant cover. If not they wont! Same for any gaseous or liquid state. What matter is if it represent an obstacle or not. Not the state itself so looking for solid in cover is irrelevant the key word is "obstacle"
Right. And I am arguing that not being able to fully see a target is an obstacle, on the basis that you cannot see that portion of the target to guide a strike against it. This interpretation is not inconsistent with RAW. At no point does it say anything about the cover literally blocking any given shot physically.
You're mixing cover and obscurement. What you can see and what you can attack are two different things. Obscurement relates to visual impairment and cover to physical impairment.
According to you, as long as you see even the slightest hair, you can hit the creature as if it is fully visible, barring anything that would literally prevent the shot from connecting. This despite the fact nothing in the cover rules actually says anything about physically blocking anything.
Yes there is no greater penalty in attacking a target (partially) behind a brick wall and a invisible wall of force. The target would have cover to an extent equal to its coverage, be it half, three-quarter or full.
I was mentioning brick wall in general to mean a wall that block vision. Wether a wall block vision or not doesn't impact on your ability to hit a target behind it. The wall either block the target entirely and you can't attack it, or it does not and you can attack it while it has half or three-quarter cover, depending on the ammount of coverage it benefit from the wall.
All your verbiage about soft and hard cover is not really supported in the rules and add more confusion than anything. If what you are trying to say with "Soft cover causing problems " is that a target that is only lightly obscured has no impact on attack roll, only on perception check, then yeah it is how they intended the rules on vision and obscurement but i really dont see the link between this and the Chll Touch spell?
They are generally mutually exclusive too, a low stone wall that provides half-cover does not render creatures lightly obscured the other side as they still have a portion of them being clearly visible and the difference between cover and obscurement is thus basically the following;
Cover prevails even if only a portion exist, meaning if half yourself is not in cover, the penalty is still there.
Obscurement prevails only if a completly obscured, meaning if half yourself is not obscured, the penalty is not there as you're still visible.
Wether the caster see the hand or not makes no difference. If the target is in a heavily obscured area, then the caster effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see it. But that doesn't have any relation as to wether the target can benefit from cover or not. It all comes down to wether one interpret the attack originate from the caster (possible cover) or from the hand (no possible cover).
I was mentioning brick wall in general to mean a wall that block vision. Wether a wall block vision or not doesn't impact on your ability to hit a target behind it. The wall either block the target entirely and you can't attack it, or it does not and you can attack it while it has half or three-quarter cover, depending on the ammount of coverage it benefit from the wall.
All your verbiage about soft and hard cover is not really supported in the rules and add more confusion than anything. If what you are trying to say with "Soft cover causing problems " is that a target that is only lightly obscured has no impact on attack roll, only on perception check, then yeah it is how they intended the rules on vision and obscurement but i really dont see the link between this and the Chll Touch spell?
You are using two examples of hard cover, one that blocks vision and one that does not, to try to prove that the rules do not apply to soft cover. But that argument has nothing to do with something like a paper wall, or heavy foliage, where the person's body is only 50% visible but a well placed attack could theoretically penetrate the paper wall, or foliage.
This is a separate concept from concealment and obscurement. Someone being lightly or heavily obscured affects your ability to see them at all. The target 50% behind the paper screen would likely still be seen, since the potion of them visible is completely visible. However if that did not affect targeting, one would be able to head shot constantly and hard cover would make no difference. You would always simply aim for the part you can see, the part cover free.
All of this is relevant to Chill Touch because, despite the hand being behind the cover, it is still guided by the caster and the caster cannot see the entire target. They cannot even necessarily see the hand itself. Thus it is harder for them to point the hand in the right direction to hit the target.
In what scenario can the caster of Chill Touch not see the hand?
I was mentioning brick wall in general to mean a wall that block vision. Wether a wall block vision or not doesn't impact on your ability to hit a target behind it. The wall either block the target entirely and you can't attack it, or it does not and you can attack it while it has half or three-quarter cover, depending on the ammount of coverage it benefit from the wall.
All your verbiage about soft and hard cover is not really supported in the rules and add more confusion than anything. If what you are trying to say with "Soft cover causing problems " is that a target that is only lightly obscured has no impact on attack roll, only on perception check, then yeah it is how they intended the rules on vision and obscurement but i really dont see the link between this and the Chll Touch spell?
You are using two examples of hard cover, one that blocks vision and one that does not, to try to prove that the rules do not apply to soft cover. But that argument has nothing to do with something like a paper wall, or heavy foliage, where the person's body is only 50% visible but a well placed attack could theoretically penetrate the paper wall, or foliage.
This is a separate concept from concealment and obscurement. Someone being lightly or heavily obscured affects your ability to see them at all. The target 50% behind the paper screen would likely still be seen, since the potion of them visible is completely visible. However if that did not affect targeting, one would be able to head shot constantly and hard cover would make no difference. You would always simply aim for the part you can see, the part cover free.
All of this is relevant to Chill Touch because, despite the hand being behind the cover, it is still guided by the caster and the caster cannot see the entire target. They cannot even necessarily see the hand itself. Thus it is harder for them to point the hand in the right direction to hit the target.
In what scenario can the caster of Chill Touch not see the hand?
By line of sight, they would always be able to see the hand at the moment of its appearance, but they would not be able to see all the target (this is assuming you believe the point of origin for the attack is the hand and the hand can move after it is conjured, neither of which i believe is true by RAW, though I'm not getting into that argument again...). Assuming you were guiding the hand, if you could only see 1/4 of the target (due to 3/4 cover), then your ability to "guide" the attack is diminished as you are either attacking a much smaller visible portion of the target, or you are attacking the portion covered from you and the hand would be moving out of your sight.
The original line of effect does, and that is what is tied to the ranged attack roll in this case. If this were a saving throw spell, like Sacred Flame, I'd agree with you; Saving throw spells only need one single line of effect to work, since aiming is removed from the equation (it's effectively auto-aimed, and the effectiveness comes from the targets ability to resist or dodge instead of the skill of the caster at aiming). Because this is a ranged attack spell, that line of effect is tied to the attack roll, just like any other ranged attack spell. The fact that that line is invisible and not accompanied with some sort of physical effect (motes of fire, streaks of force, rays of frost, etc) is immaterial to the mechanic of the line of effect being aimed by skill by the caster, originating from the caster, and subject to cover.
it is an odd duck in that the line of effect is not represented visually by some sort of energy or effect, but it does logically align with the ranged attack rules this way.
It’s not just that there is no visible effect that travels that tells me that this is not a projectile attack... it is also the lack of any sort of language about anything streaking or hurling or projecting or firing etc... spells and effects that cause some thing to travel through space from point a to point B have language that testifies to that. pick any spell you choose to, when something is traveling through space, the spell tells you so. And conversely, spells and effects that cause something to “appear” in a space out of nowhere have language that testifies to that. Guess which one chill touch is?
The aiming involved is aiming from the hand (in space B) to its target (in space B). Cover rules don’t effect that, even if it’s taking place on the far side of some partial cover that is between B and character space A. Cover explicitly only interferes with effects attempting to travel THROUGH cover, not with anything else like aiming controlling etc. an effect which both starts and finishes already on the far side.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
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.
Cover blocks attacks, not just effects. As I've already stated, the point of origin for the attack is the caster unless the rules explicitly tell you otherwise (previously mentioned versions of this include eldritch turrets, Bigby's Hand, and Storm Sphere). The line of effect is the attack for ranged attack roll spells, and that line being invisible or not referenced by a visual or physical object is immaterial to that fact. failing to meet the AC could mean that the line of effect was improperly aimed, or it hit the creature but the spell couldn't find purchase due to armor or a shield, etc. But the fact of the matter is this is a ranged attack spell, not a saving throw spell, so treating the aiming of the spell as if you would a saving throw spell (which is "auto-aimed") is inaccurate
Saving throw spells are no more or less auto aimed then attack roll spells. Whatever implication you’re drawing from the fact that Chill Touch is a ranged attack rather than a reflex save or a melee attack, that implication is mostly unsupported, because those designations just come down to designer fiat.
although I don’t think that you and I are ever going to see eye to eye on this, It does sound like our disagreement mostly comes down to where we think the point of origin of the spell effect is. I will grant that if the point of origin of chill touch’s spell Attack is the caster, then yes half and three-quarter cover would grant the target a cover bonus. I think that the spell description makes it clear that the caster is not the point of origin of the attack, notwithstanding the failure of the spell to define the hand as the point of origin. You disagree and think that because there is no specific language saying that the hand is a point of origin for the affect the caster remains the point of origin by default.
all of the other nonsense about Cover having other impacts on targeting and such, i’m hoping that we can put all of that aside as not being supported in the players handbook. The one and only reasonable point of disagreement that I see in this is where the point of origin is. If the point of origin is the caster, you are correct. If the point of origin is the space in which the hand is created, then I am correct. Can we agree on that?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Saving Throw spells are "auto-aimed" in that I don't need to roll a check or attack roll to target and affect a creature with one. If I cast hold person on a creature, there is no roll to hit the creature, and the number of potential lines of effect only has to be one; partial cover doesn't apply. Effectively, targeting the creature with a saving throw spell does not require any skill to aim: The Fireball always goes where I want it to, and the Hold Person always forces the creature targeted to make the save (im ignoring total cover in this statement as it stops all this, including the situation we are debating). The effectiveness of those spells (whether save for 1/2 or save/suck) is based on the targets response to the spell, not my skill in aiming it.
Attack Rolls have to be aimed and skill on the part of the caster/attacker is required to actually hit, thus the chance (d20) and modifier associated with an attack roll. Nothing the target can do in the moment (save for certain reactions like Parry or Shield) can affect the spell hitting them, it's all on my skill as caster to hit them
Saying that the attack/save/type for any given spell is arbitrary is to basically say the rules are arbitrary, which isn't the case. If the spell requires a save or an attack you have to start from there and follow the rules for that type of spell or attack, and using the rules for a different type doesn't follow.
Functionally, yes, that is my primary point of disagreement with you. A spell should identify when the point of origin for and effect is not the caster, doubly so if it is a ranged attack where that is the default per the way the rules are written. That so many spells do already (functionally all AoE's and the examples of special ranged attacks I've already mentioned) is the evidence I have for my position. But I'm ok to leave it at that for now
Lol what? You’re arguing about Cover based on something OTHER than the 5E Cover rules? For that matter, 4E and 3.5 Cover also were about line of effect between effect origin and target, not the caster’s ability to see/aim from somewhere else on the field, so not sure how much “older” I need to go to understand and acknowledge where you’re coming from...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
save based spells check the casters proficiency and ability score against the targets proficiency and ability score plus some random value, not unlike how an attack checks the attackers proficiency and ability score plus some random value against the targets armor and ability score. Seeing one or the other as involving less active engagement or skill from the attacker to aim or focus or the defender to avoid or resist is... just completely unsupported, not sure where you got that idea.
But that’s a tangent we don’t need to go down. I’m willing to walk away from this with a “disagreement over point of origin” being the root issue we can’t reconcile.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It says obstacle and enumerate various solid ones.
Cover: Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
Are you really arguing that trees and creature are not solid??? There are certainly not gaseous or liquid, thus they are solid indeed! How hard or soft an obstacle is is irrelevant, if DM state that an obstacle provides cover, it provides cover. Even a dense gas or liquid obstacle could be cover for exemple a waterfall, a oozy substance etc... Basically cover is anything that can impede on an attack success.
Yes a thin layer of paper is solid, so are branches. If a DM determine they represent enought of an obstacle to impede on an attack, they will grant cover. If not they wont! Same for any gaseous or liquid state. What matter is if it represent an obstacle or not. Not the state itself so looking for solid in cover is irrelevant the key word is "obstacle"
Cover is contextual, sure, just has to be a meaningful obstacle to the effect/attack passing it. Don’t see what that has to do with anything.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah, there’s your mistake then. Not being able to see your target is obscurement, not cover, different rule mate. Otherwise, darkness and fog would be cover, which they ain’t. Also, cover wouldn’t belabor being directional between a poo and target, if it was about perception. It’s about physically blocking somethings passage, not the ability of an actor to see.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're mixing cover and obscurement. What you can see and what you can attack are two different things. Obscurement relates to visual impairment and cover to physical impairment.
Yes there is no greater penalty in attacking a target (partially) behind a brick wall and a invisible wall of force. The target would have cover to an extent equal to its coverage, be it half, three-quarter or full.
I was mentioning brick wall in general to mean a wall that block vision. Wether a wall block vision or not doesn't impact on your ability to hit a target behind it. The wall either block the target entirely and you can't attack it, or it does not and you can attack it while it has half or three-quarter cover, depending on the ammount of coverage it benefit from the wall.
All your verbiage about soft and hard cover is not really supported in the rules and add more confusion than anything. If what you are trying to say with "Soft cover causing problems " is that a target that is only lightly obscured has no impact on attack roll, only on perception check, then yeah it is how they intended the rules on vision and obscurement but i really dont see the link between this and the Chll Touch spell?
They are generally mutually exclusive too, a low stone wall that provides half-cover does not render creatures lightly obscured the other side as they still have a portion of them being clearly visible and the difference between cover and obscurement is thus basically the following;
Cover prevails even if only a portion exist, meaning if half yourself is not in cover, the penalty is still there.
Obscurement prevails only if a completly obscured, meaning if half yourself is not obscured, the penalty is not there as you're still visible.
Wether the caster see the hand or not makes no difference. If the target is in a heavily obscured area, then the caster effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see it. But that doesn't have any relation as to wether the target can benefit from cover or not. It all comes down to wether one interpret the attack originate from the caster (possible cover) or from the hand (no possible cover).
In what scenario can the caster of Chill Touch not see the hand?
By line of sight, they would always be able to see the hand at the moment of its appearance, but they would not be able to see all the target (this is assuming you believe the point of origin for the attack is the hand and the hand can move after it is conjured, neither of which i believe is true by RAW, though I'm not getting into that argument again...). Assuming you were guiding the hand, if you could only see 1/4 of the target (due to 3/4 cover), then your ability to "guide" the attack is diminished as you are either attacking a much smaller visible portion of the target, or you are attacking the portion covered from you and the hand would be moving out of your sight.
I would rule that the hand can't appear behind cover, in exactly the same way you can't hit a target behind cover with an arrow or bolt.