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?
In the scenario where the hand, which appears behind the cover in the target's space, appears in a portion of that space blocked by the cover.
The hand cannot appear behind total cover, and will therefore always be in line of sight of the caster when cast
If someone's argument is that the attack originates from the hand, then the hand absolutely could appear behind total cover. (I personally believe the spell attack comes from the caster and the other nonsense is just flavor)
There's nothing in the spell that specifies a "creature you can see" or anything like that.
If someone's argument is that the attack originates from the hand, then the hand absolutely could appear behind total cover. (I personally believe the spell attack comes from the caster and the other nonsense is just flavor)
There's nothing in the spell that specifies a "creature you can see" or anything like that.
There must be line of sight between the caster and the target, the target being "the space of a creature within range".
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.
Look at Shocking Grasp which says “Make a melee spell attack” and Chill touch which says “Make a ranged spell attack”. Note that Chill touch could have said “Make a melee spell attack from the hand”, but does not. Similar text with Spiritual Weapon. The designers are pretty clear with intent. Ranged attacks and cover from LOS of caster etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Kotath, your argument for a “soft cover” houserule is really derailing things. If you think that’s an important system, to simulate armor bonuses from difficulty being seen, fine... but (1) it’s not RAW, and (2) it’s really really not relevant to anything we were discussing about Chill Touch. Frustrating.
There is no such thing as a space shared by a creature that doesn’t have enough of the creature to attack. 5E is very explicit that size/space is an abstraction, but at the end of the day, a creature is available to be attacked in any of the spaces it occupies on the battlefield (regardless of where the narrative might try to place its individual body parts). You summon the hand in a space you can see. You’re attacking the creature in that space, which you can see. There is no scenario where Chill Touch ever attacks a space you can’t see.
Kotath, your argument for a “soft cover” houserule is really derailing things. If you think that’s an important system, to simulate armor bonuses from difficulty being seen, fine... but (1) it’s not RAW, and (2) it’s really really not relevant to anything we were discussing about Chill Touch. Frustrating.
There is no such thing as a space shared by a creature that doesn’t have enough of the creature to attack. 5E is very explicit that size/space is an abstraction, but at the end of the day, a creature is available to be attacked in any of the spaces it occupies on the battlefield (regardless of where the narrative might try to place its individual body parts). You summon the hand in a space you can see. You’re attacking the creature in that space, which you can see. There is no scenario where Chill Touch ever attacks a space you can’t see.
Neither you nor anyone else has done anything other than unilaterally declare that cover means hard cover. You are the ones getting obscurement and cover confused, not I. Seeing part of a target clearly enough to target (successful perception check defeating obscurement) is a separate thing from treating a partially visible target as completely visible when trying to strike it.
Nothing in the cover rules says anything about actually striking the cover nor any consequences to that. Nothing says hard or solid cover.
Disagreeing does not make your interpretation RAW and mine a 'houserule.'
Declaring points you do not understand irrelevant likewise does not make them so.
If 100% of the target is 'available to be attacked" then even your more restrictive interpretation of the cover rules breaks RAW, since clearly they simulates not all of the target being available to hit. What we disagree on is why and how the target is harder to be hit when behind cover.
To explore your idea of soft cover, you would say that a large piece of very thin parchment (a screen of some sort) would act as "soft cover" as an arrow would be able to easily strike through it, yes?
In the case that the DM deems that the paper screen is not an obstacle, the creature hiding half its mass behind it would not gain any benefits of cover from the screen. If the DM deems the arrow wouldn't strike through the screen, the screen is an obstacle and the cover rules apply. Now, if the screen was paper thin (not an obstacle) and transparent the creature would still not gain cover as the paper screen is still not considered an obstacle. And finally, if the arrow cannot strike through the screen but the screen is transparent, the creature would gain all the benefits of cover as the screen is considered an obstacle. Cover does not rely on line of sight.
You’re attacking the creature in that space, which you can see. There is no scenario where Chill Touch ever attacks a space you can’t see.
Missed responding to this earlier. It is not 'a space which you can see.' It is 'a space which you can partially see.' If there was someone or something small enough to hide completely behind the wall, would you be able to see them and target them simply because you can see the portion of the space not blocked by the wall, even though no part of them is visible in that space?
Yes, you would be able to target them because a 5-foot space is the smallest unit the ruleset recognizes when deciding whether or not something is a legal target. If you can target the space, you can target the creature in the space. Of course, your argument does make sense if you do not use a grid (then the creature can either be targeted or not, full stop, 100% DM fiat). However, seeing as the mechanical rules are largely build around the usage of a grid, this should be the standard we refer to when we discuss the rules of the game in detail as we do in this thread.
You’re attacking the creature in that space, which you can see. There is no scenario where Chill Touch ever attacks a space you can’t see.
Missed responding to this earlier. It is not 'a space which you can see.' It is 'a space which you can partially see.' If there was someone or something small enough to hide completely behind the wall, would you be able to see them and target them simply because you can see the portion of the space not blocked by the wall, even though no part of them is visible in that space?
Yes, you would be able to target them because a 5-foot space is the smallest unit the ruleset recognizes when deciding whether or not something is a legal target. If you can target the space, you can target the creature in the space. Of course, your argument does make sense if you do not use a grid (then the creature can either be targeted or not, full stop, 100% DM fiat). However, seeing as the mechanical rules are largely build around the usage of a grid, this should be the standard we refer to when we discuss the rules of the game in detail as we do in this thread.
So then there is no such thing as partial cover, since there is either full cover or no cover? Cover cannot only block part of a space? You two are taking the parts of the rules that support your points and dismissing anything contrary. If nothing else, you seem to feel that small or tiny creatures are actually medium creatures, since, you argue, they cannot be smaller than 5'
Furthermore you are treating the game as if it is purely mechanical without any DM to make just judgement calls.
You are mixing up the rules for targeting and the rules for cover. They are not the same.
And yes, as I stated, we are looking at the rules from a mechanical rules perspective, as this is a thread in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
@kotah your allusion to inexistant quality of cover in soft or hard not only derail this, but seems to add more confusion from your part than anything else.
COVER
If a target is not at alll behind a wall or other obstacle, it has no cover and can be targeted.
If a target is portionally behind a wall or other obstacle, it has half cover and can be targeted.
If a target is almost completly behind a wall or other obstacle, it has three-quarter cover and can be targeted.
if a target is completely behind a wall or other obstacle, it has total cover and cannot be targeted.
OBSCUREMENT
If a target is not at alll in an obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a lightly obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a heavily obscured space, it is not visible and can be targeted unless noted otherwise.
First the caster must have a clear path to the target space otherwise it cannot cast the spell there. If he does, the space in which the the Chill Touch hand appear can be up to heavily obscured, and therefore the caster which makes the attack roll can possibly suffer from the penalty of the Blinded condition when making the attack If the attack he makes originate from him, the caster can also possibly suffer from penalty due to cover. If the attack originate from the hand, there cannot be any cover penalty as the hand appear in the same space as the target and thus cannot have any obstacle in between them.
Second, obscurement determines whether you can target at all. Hence it is separate from the cover rules which govern how well you can target.
No, this is false.
Total cover prevents targeting. Neither other degrees of cover nor obscuration prevent targeting across the board.
Heavily obscured and only heavily obscured prevents a target from being seen, which may prevent a spell from validly working against a target - many spells require the caster to see the target. This does not, in general, prevent targeting.
Heavily obscured, half cover, and three-quarters cover all make landing an attack harder - in all three cases you can target, but landing a hit is harder than normal. The mechanics of that difficulty vary - heavily obscured will generally mean disadvantage to hit, while half cover is functionally -2 to hit (actually +2 to target AC, which is mathematically identical) and three-quarters cover is functionally -5 to hit.
Lightly obscured has no interaction with targeting or landing an attack.
Second, obscurement determines whether you can target at all. Hence it is separate from the cover rules which govern how well you can target.
No, this is false.
Total cover prevents targeting. Neither other degrees of cover nor obscuration prevent targeting across the board.
Heavily obscured and only heavily obscured prevents a target from being seen, which may prevent a spell from validly working against a target - many spells require the caster to see the target. This does not, in general, prevent targeting.
Heavily obscured, half cover, and three-quarters cover all make landing an attack harder - in all three cases you can target, but landing a hit is harder than normal. The mechanics of that difficulty vary - heavily obscured will generally mean disadvantage to hit, while half cover is functionally -2 to hit (actually +2 to target AC, which is mathematically identical) and three-quarters cover is functionally -5 to hit.
Lightly obscured has no interaction with targeting or landing an attack.
Yeah the weirdest examples of this:
You can't cast firebolt at a creature through a closed window.
You can't target anything through Wall of Force even if it is a purely visual effect (which is silly IMO)
@kotah your allusion to inexistant quality of cover in soft or hard not only derail this, but seems to add more confusion from your part than anything else.
COVER
If a target is not at alll behind a wall or other obstacle, it has no cover and can be targeted.
If a target is portionally behind a wall or other obstacle, it has half cover and can be targeted.
If a target is almost completly behind a wall or other obstacle, it has three-quarter cover and can be targeted.
if a target is completely behind a wall or other obstacle, it has total cover and cannot be targeted.
OBSCUREMENT
If a target is not at alll in an obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a lightly obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a heavily obscured space, it is not visible and can be targeted unless noted otherwise.
First the caster must have a clear path to the target space otherwise it cannot cast the spell there. If he does, the space in which the the Chill Touch hand appear can be up to heavily obscured, and therefore the caster which makes the attack roll can possibly suffer from the penalty of the Blinded condition when making the attack If the attack he makes originate from him, the caster can also possibly suffer from penalty due to cover. If the attack originate from the hand, there cannot be any cover penalty as the hand appear in the same space as the target and thus cannot have any obstacle in between them.
Mostly right but ignoring key points.
First of all the cover rules do not say 'wall or other obstacle.' It does not define the obstacle at all. It says nothing about how the obstacle hinders the attack.
Second, obscurement determines whether you can target at all. Hence it is separate from the cover rules which govern how well you can target.
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
@kotah your allusion to inexistant quality of cover in soft or hard not only derail this, but seems to add more confusion from your part than anything else.
COVER
If a target is not at alll behind a wall or other obstacle, it has no cover and can be targeted.
If a target is portionally behind a wall or other obstacle, it has half cover and can be targeted.
If a target is almost completly behind a wall or other obstacle, it has three-quarter cover and can be targeted.
if a target is completely behind a wall or other obstacle, it has total cover and cannot be targeted.
OBSCUREMENT
If a target is not at alll in an obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a lightly obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a heavily obscured space, it is not visible and can be targeted unless noted otherwise.
First the caster must have a clear path to the target space otherwise it cannot cast the spell there. If he does, the space in which the the Chill Touch hand appear can be up to heavily obscured, and therefore the caster which makes the attack roll can possibly suffer from the penalty of the Blinded condition when making the attack If the attack he makes originate from him, the caster can also possibly suffer from penalty due to cover. If the attack originate from the hand, there cannot be any cover penalty as the hand appear in the same space as the target and thus cannot have any obstacle in between them.
Mostly right but ignoring key points.
First of all the cover rules do not say 'wall or other obstacle.' It does not define the obstacle at all. It says nothing about how the obstacle hinders the attack.
Second, obscurement determines whether you can target at all. Hence it is separate from the cover rules which govern how well you can target.
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
Unless the spell/feature states "A creature you can see" ....for example Counterspell: *Reaction - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
Unless the spell/feature states "A creature you can see" ....for example Counterspell: *Reaction - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Otherwise you are correct.
Bold emphasis mine. I said unless noted otherwise so i am not sure why you tought i was incorrect in the first place ☺
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
Unless the spell/feature states "A creature you can see" ....for example Counterspell: *Reaction - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Otherwise you are correct.
Bold emphasis mine. I said unless noted otherwise so i am not sure why you tought i was incorrect in the first place ☺
@kotah your allusion to inexistant quality of cover in soft or hard not only derail this, but seems to add more confusion from your part than anything else.
COVER
If a target is not at alll behind a wall or other obstacle, it has no cover and can be targeted.
If a target is portionally behind a wall or other obstacle, it has half cover and can be targeted.
If a target is almost completly behind a wall or other obstacle, it has three-quarter cover and can be targeted.
if a target is completely behind a wall or other obstacle, it has total cover and cannot be targeted.
OBSCUREMENT
If a target is not at alll in an obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a lightly obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a heavily obscured space, it is not visible and can be targeted unless noted otherwise.
First the caster must have a clear path to the target space otherwise it cannot cast the spell there. If he does, the space in which the the Chill Touch hand appear can be up to heavily obscured, and therefore the caster which makes the attack roll can possibly suffer from the penalty of the Blinded condition when making the attack If the attack he makes originate from him, the caster can also possibly suffer from penalty due to cover. If the attack originate from the hand, there cannot be any cover penalty as the hand appear in the same space as the target and thus cannot have any obstacle in between them.
Mostly right but ignoring key points.
First of all the cover rules do not say 'wall or other obstacle.' It does not define the obstacle at all. It says nothing about how the obstacle hinders the attack.
Second, obscurement determines whether you can target at all. Hence it is separate from the cover rules which govern how well you can target.
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
Again, a wall can be a paper wall. A tree includes its foliage. And you still have to know something is generally there to know even to take a blind shot. You still have to be shooting at least the right area. The 'Unless noted otherwise' covers those specific situations where absolute target acquisition is needed.
You interpret the game not on the actual game mechanics as defined by the rules, but on what makes most sense to you from a theater of the mind perspective. It's totally fine, it's just not RAW.
Kotath's statement about paper walls is 100% RAW, provided the wall is opaque (the cover rules get into interpretive weeds if you discuss transparent or translucent cover, which I don't think would be very productive to this conversation, so it's best to stick to discussing opaque cover). There are also potential weeds if you want to discuss liquid cover which I don't think are helpful.
For opaque, solid cover, thickness and durability of the cover don't matter. A 1 inch thick wall of stone is the same cover as a 6 inch thick one, and the wall can be wood instead of stone, and so on. A paper wall is ultimately just a probably thin wooden wall. RAW, if you're behind a fully opaque solid wall made of any material, it's total cover. It can be AC 11 or AC 19, it can be resistant to all damage or vulnerable to all damage, it can have a single hit point or fifty. It's all total cover.
Foliage gets into coverage weeds, but if it's indeed total coverage, it's total cover - you can make your wall out of leaves. That's not an issue. The practical issue with foliage is that usually it's hard getting 100% coverage from it.
Again, a wall can be a paper wall. A tree includes its foliage. And you still have to know something is generally there to know even to take a blind shot. You still have to be shooting at least the right area. The 'Unless noted otherwise' covers those specific situations where absolute target acquisition is needed.
No unless noted otherwise is a reference that specifically target ''a creature you can see'', Somethign Chill Touch doesnt have if you go back to the subject at hand.
The wall can be of any material, what matter is if the DM determine its an obstacle that grant cover or not. I doubt many DM would say a wall of thin paper grant cover, i dont know for you but personally, i wouldnt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The hand cannot appear behind total cover, and will therefore always be in line of sight of the caster when cast
If someone's argument is that the attack originates from the hand, then the hand absolutely could appear behind total cover. (I personally believe the spell attack comes from the caster and the other nonsense is just flavor)
There's nothing in the spell that specifies a "creature you can see" or anything like that.
There must be line of sight between the caster and the target, the target being "the space of a creature within range".
Look at Shocking Grasp which says “Make a melee spell attack” and Chill touch which says “Make a ranged spell attack”. Note that Chill touch could have said “Make a melee spell attack from the hand”, but does not. Similar text with Spiritual Weapon. The designers are pretty clear with intent. Ranged attacks and cover from LOS of caster etc.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Kotath, your argument for a “soft cover” houserule is really derailing things. If you think that’s an important system, to simulate armor bonuses from difficulty being seen, fine... but (1) it’s not RAW, and (2) it’s really really not relevant to anything we were discussing about Chill Touch. Frustrating.
There is no such thing as a space shared by a creature that doesn’t have enough of the creature to attack. 5E is very explicit that size/space is an abstraction, but at the end of the day, a creature is available to be attacked in any of the spaces it occupies on the battlefield (regardless of where the narrative might try to place its individual body parts). You summon the hand in a space you can see. You’re attacking the creature in that space, which you can see. There is no scenario where Chill Touch ever attacks a space you can’t see.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think it's pretty well defined, personally. Taken from the 5e SRD.
To explore your idea of soft cover, you would say that a large piece of very thin parchment (a screen of some sort) would act as "soft cover" as an arrow would be able to easily strike through it, yes?
In the case that the DM deems that the paper screen is not an obstacle, the creature hiding half its mass behind it would not gain any benefits of cover from the screen.
If the DM deems the arrow wouldn't strike through the screen, the screen is an obstacle and the cover rules apply.
Now, if the screen was paper thin (not an obstacle) and transparent the creature would still not gain cover as the paper screen is still not considered an obstacle.
And finally, if the arrow cannot strike through the screen but the screen is transparent, the creature would gain all the benefits of cover as the screen is considered an obstacle.
Cover does not rely on line of sight.
No, because they would have .... Total Cover!
Alright, unsubscribing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, you would be able to target them because a 5-foot space is the smallest unit the ruleset recognizes when deciding whether or not something is a legal target. If you can target the space, you can target the creature in the space. Of course, your argument does make sense if you do not use a grid (then the creature can either be targeted or not, full stop, 100% DM fiat). However, seeing as the mechanical rules are largely build around the usage of a grid, this should be the standard we refer to when we discuss the rules of the game in detail as we do in this thread.
You are mixing up the rules for targeting and the rules for cover. They are not the same.
And yes, as I stated, we are looking at the rules from a mechanical rules perspective, as this is a thread in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
@kotah your allusion to inexistant quality of cover in soft or hard not only derail this, but seems to add more confusion from your part than anything else.
COVER
If a target is not at alll behind a wall or other obstacle, it has no cover and can be targeted.
If a target is portionally behind a wall or other obstacle, it has half cover and can be targeted.
If a target is almost completly behind a wall or other obstacle, it has three-quarter cover and can be targeted.
if a target is completely behind a wall or other obstacle, it has total cover and cannot be targeted.
OBSCUREMENT
If a target is not at alll in an obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a lightly obscured space, it is visible and can be targeted.
If a target is in a heavily obscured space, it is not visible and can be targeted unless noted otherwise.
First the caster must have a clear path to the target space otherwise it cannot cast the spell there. If he does, the space in which the the Chill Touch hand appear can be up to heavily obscured, and therefore the caster which makes the attack roll can possibly suffer from the penalty of the Blinded condition when making the attack If the attack he makes originate from him, the caster can also possibly suffer from penalty due to cover. If the attack originate from the hand, there cannot be any cover penalty as the hand appear in the same space as the target and thus cannot have any obstacle in between them.
No, this is false.
Total cover prevents targeting. Neither other degrees of cover nor obscuration prevent targeting across the board.
Heavily obscured and only heavily obscured prevents a target from being seen, which may prevent a spell from validly working against a target - many spells require the caster to see the target. This does not, in general, prevent targeting.
Heavily obscured, half cover, and three-quarters cover all make landing an attack harder - in all three cases you can target, but landing a hit is harder than normal. The mechanics of that difficulty vary - heavily obscured will generally mean disadvantage to hit, while half cover is functionally -2 to hit (actually +2 to target AC, which is mathematically identical) and three-quarters cover is functionally -5 to hit.
Lightly obscured has no interaction with targeting or landing an attack.
Yeah the weirdest examples of this:
You can't cast firebolt at a creature through a closed window.
You can't target anything through Wall of Force even if it is a purely visual effect (which is silly IMO)
You got it all wrong buddy. You can always target something you cant see unless noted otherwise. Its just that you have disadvantage. As for cover, hee rules specifically use walls, trees etc as exemple.
Unless the spell/feature states "A creature you can see" ....for example Counterspell: *Reaction - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Otherwise you are correct.
Bold emphasis mine. I said unless noted otherwise so i am not sure why you tought i was incorrect in the first place ☺
Missed it! Sorry!
You interpret the game not on the actual game mechanics as defined by the rules, but on what makes most sense to you from a theater of the mind perspective. It's totally fine, it's just not RAW.
Kotath's statement about paper walls is 100% RAW, provided the wall is opaque (the cover rules get into interpretive weeds if you discuss transparent or translucent cover, which I don't think would be very productive to this conversation, so it's best to stick to discussing opaque cover). There are also potential weeds if you want to discuss liquid cover which I don't think are helpful.
For opaque, solid cover, thickness and durability of the cover don't matter. A 1 inch thick wall of stone is the same cover as a 6 inch thick one, and the wall can be wood instead of stone, and so on. A paper wall is ultimately just a probably thin wooden wall. RAW, if you're behind a fully opaque solid wall made of any material, it's total cover. It can be AC 11 or AC 19, it can be resistant to all damage or vulnerable to all damage, it can have a single hit point or fifty. It's all total cover.
Foliage gets into coverage weeds, but if it's indeed total coverage, it's total cover - you can make your wall out of leaves. That's not an issue. The practical issue with foliage is that usually it's hard getting 100% coverage from it.
No unless noted otherwise is a reference that specifically target ''a creature you can see'', Somethign Chill Touch doesnt have if you go back to the subject at hand.
The wall can be of any material, what matter is if the DM determine its an obstacle that grant cover or not. I doubt many DM would say a wall of thin paper grant cover, i dont know for you but personally, i wouldnt.