Fair enough but do not claim one DM's decision on what counts as an obstacle is binding on all. I freely admit that it is not clarified.
I will claim it as much as i want. The DM decides what count as an obstacle, as well as anything else that goes in his game and if you think this is not clear in D&D, i suggest you go read more on it. ☺
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.
I suspect most DMs will let a wall of thin paper grant cover, because if the wall doesn't grant cover, the rest of the rules start to break down. Exactly which rules break down depend on which rules you have in play, and how much cover we're talking about:
The rules for cover assume that if you miss due to the cover, you hit the cover instead - that's why the DMG p272 explicitly has optional rules for bothering to check if this is the case. In fact, the entire purpose of those optional rules is for handling destructible cover, like a thin paper wall presumably is. These rules dissolve into nothingness if fragile cover is instead ignored.
The rules for total cover blocking spellcasting, which are the ones germane to this thread, absolutely assume a paper wall stops e.g. a fireball - the "projectile" you can envision these spells as emitting for this purpose is intended to be stopped by any physical, solid, opaque matter (again, I am deliberately avoiding weird corner cases where the rules become interpretive, so I am e.g. explicitly avoiding discussing issues like glass). If you let spells "puncture" fragile cover, spellcasters are suddenly radically more powerful than intended, which may have an unbalancing effect on your world, depending on many factors, like the prevalence of fragile cover and the prevalence of spellcasting. A high fantasy campaign set in a world based on feudal Japan is going to notice if suddenly a spellcaster's spells can essentially just go through most buildings.
Fair enough but do not claim one DM's decision on what counts as an obstacle is binding on all. I freely admit that it is not clarified.
I will claim it as much as i want. The DM decides what count as an obstacle, as well as anything else that goes in his game and if you think this is not clear in D&D, i suggest you go read more on it. ☺
Since you did not understand what I said, I will state it in a clearer manner: Do not claim one DM's decision on what counts as an obstacle is binding on all DMs.
Of course any given DM's decision is binding on all in their campaign. Just not on others' campaigns.
Where did i say a DM ruling was binding all DMs??? I even said ''in his game'' (bold emphasis mine) I think you're the one who doesn't understand what i'm saying here
The rules for cover assume that if you miss due to the cover, you hit the cover instead - that's why the DMG p272 explicitly has optional rules for bothering to check if this is the case. In fact, the entire purpose of those optional rules is for handling destructible cover, like a thin paper wall presumably is. These rules dissolve into nothingness if fragile cover is instead ignored.
I dont think a wall of thin paper would block an arrow or a sword, not enought of an obstacle for it to do so. If a DM judges that it is an obstacle, then sure but that would be a strange call IMHO.
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.
Both of you are treating the word 'obstacle' as something that physically blocks, such as a wall.
The term is not actually defined at all in the cover rules.
From the Oxford dictionary:
obstacle
noun
a thing that blocks one's way or prevents or hinders progress.
"the major obstacle to achieving that goal is money"
Obviously the example does not apply, at least not directly, but it does indirectly in that it makes it clear that it need not be something that literally physically blocks. More importantly, an obstacle can merely hinder.
Transparent soft cover (the transparent paper screen) would not hinder in any material way. However an opaque screen could well hinder, despite only being a thin paper screen that an arrow can easily penetrate. However it it was a solid transparent screen (the example of a wall of force was used earlier), then it would hinder by way of being a solid barrier. It would not be hindering in the same way but that does not mean one is an obstacle and the other isn't.
And yes, a DM can rule either way for any given situation based on their view of the facts, but you two are arguing that the DM must rule a certain way in this specific situation, that any other ruling isn't RAW. I disagree. There is a barrier between the caster and target. Even though there is no barrier between the hand and target, the caster is hindered in their ability to clearly aim the hand.
Please define "both of you"? All I did was post the Cover rule from the SRD in response to the argument regarding what "cover" is.
Cover is anything that obscures or blocks a target either physically or from sight. This would include a bush just as much as it would include a wall.
The chill touch spell description doesn’t say the hand itself makes the ranged attack. It does state that on a successful hit the hand clings to the target.
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.
Thanks for the clarification! I was very confidently incorrect there.
There is no need for a line of sight to cast Chill Touch as you don't need to see the target to cast it. But as for any spellcasting, you need a clear path to the target, which is somethign else, relating to (total) cover.
Unless noted otherwise, you can always target a creature you can't see with a spell, wether it is invisible or in a heavily obscured space or that the caster is blinded. But wether or not you can see a creature, you can never target it behind total cover.
Unless noted otherwise, a character can always attack a space in which he think a hidden creature is. As a DM that use grid play, i ask the player exactly where it attacks and only determine an auto-miss if the space is unuccopied. If it attack an occupied space, it should have a chance to hit.
There is no need for a line of sight to cast Chill Touch as you don't need to see the target to cast it. But as for any spellcasting, you need a clear path to the target, which is somethign else, relating to (total) cover.
Unless noted otherwise, you can always target a creature you can't see with a spell, wether it is invisible or in a heavily obscured space or that the caster is blinded. But wether or not you can see a creature, you can never target it behind total cover.
If you cannot see the target, though, your attack is at disadvantage.
And if you have no idea exactly which space the target is in, the DM can rule you auto-miss. There is no 'I am certain someone is hiding in this room, therefore I can attack them' rule unless the room is small enough to simply make that true.
This is actually an issue with the rules being pretty vague on being unseen. The rules just say you get disadvantage when attacking an unseen opponent. They never suggest you are unable to make the attack at all just based on a target being unseen, even if they are hidden. The implication is that in combat, everyone generally knows where everyone else is from context clues like sound, movement in the air, etc.
The DM can rule whatever they want, but there is no rule making them do so (even though a DM can do some fun stuff by expanding the vision rules to work with the battle map).
There is no need for a line of sight to cast Chill Touch as you don't need to see the target to cast it. But as for any spellcasting, you need a clear path to the target, which is somethign else, relating to (total) cover.
Unless noted otherwise, you can always target a creature you can't see with a spell, wether it is invisible or in a heavily obscured space or that the caster is blinded. But wether or not you can see a creature, you can never target it behind total cover.
If you cannot see the target, though, your attack is at disadvantage.
And if you have no idea exactly which space the target is in, the DM can rule you auto-miss. There is no 'I am certain someone is hiding in this room, therefore I can attack them' rule unless the room is small enough to simply make that true.
This is actually an issue with the rules being pretty vague on being unseen. The rules just say you get disadvantage when attacking an unseen opponent. They never suggest you are unable to make the attack at all just based on a target being unseen, even if they are hidden. The implication is that in combat, everyone generally knows where everyone else is from context clues like sound, movement in the air, etc.
The DM can rule whatever they want, but there is no rule making them do so (even though a DM can do some fun stuff by expanding the vision rules to work with the battle map).
You only auto-miss a target if the creature also successfully hid from you or other circumstances in the area make it so that you cannot discern their position by other means (footprints, sounds, smells, etc...)
You know where a creature is if it is invisible or otherwise unseen (darkness) by default unless something would prevent you from otherwise (successful hide action, loud environment, it can fly so it doesn't leave footprints, etc...)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will claim it as much as i want. The DM decides what count as an obstacle, as well as anything else that goes in his game and if you think this is not clear in D&D, i suggest you go read more on it. ☺
I suspect most DMs will let a wall of thin paper grant cover, because if the wall doesn't grant cover, the rest of the rules start to break down. Exactly which rules break down depend on which rules you have in play, and how much cover we're talking about:
Where did i say a DM ruling was binding all DMs??? I even said ''in his game'' (bold emphasis mine) I think you're the one who doesn't understand what i'm saying here
I dont think a wall of thin paper would block an arrow or a sword, not enought of an obstacle for it to do so. If a DM judges that it is an obstacle, then sure but that would be a strange call IMHO.
Please define "both of you"? All I did was post the Cover rule from the SRD in response to the argument regarding what "cover" is.
Cover is anything that obscures or blocks a target either physically or from sight. This would include a bush just as much as it would include a wall.
The chill touch spell description doesn’t say the hand itself makes the ranged attack. It does state that on a successful hit the hand clings to the target.
All good, we are completely in agreement.
Thanks for the clarification! I was very confidently incorrect there.
There is no need for a line of sight to cast Chill Touch as you don't need to see the target to cast it. But as for any spellcasting, you need a clear path to the target, which is somethign else, relating to (total) cover.
Unless noted otherwise, you can always target a creature you can't see with a spell, wether it is invisible or in a heavily obscured space or that the caster is blinded. But wether or not you can see a creature, you can never target it behind total cover.
Unless noted otherwise, a character can always attack a space in which he think a hidden creature is. As a DM that use grid play, i ask the player exactly where it attacks and only determine an auto-miss if the space is unuccopied. If it attack an occupied space, it should have a chance to hit.
This is actually an issue with the rules being pretty vague on being unseen. The rules just say you get disadvantage when attacking an unseen opponent. They never suggest you are unable to make the attack at all just based on a target being unseen, even if they are hidden. The implication is that in combat, everyone generally knows where everyone else is from context clues like sound, movement in the air, etc.
The DM can rule whatever they want, but there is no rule making them do so (even though a DM can do some fun stuff by expanding the vision rules to work with the battle map).
You only auto-miss a target if the creature also successfully hid from you or other circumstances in the area make it so that you cannot discern their position by other means (footprints, sounds, smells, etc...)
You know where a creature is if it is invisible or otherwise unseen (darkness) by default unless something would prevent you from otherwise (successful hide action, loud environment, it can fly so it doesn't leave footprints, etc...)