The most valid argument against this process of thought (besides the fact that the description makes the spell seemingly more complicated than what should be the intent), is that the Point of Origin rules are under the Areas of Effect section, and can therefore be argued to be general rules within that category of spells only.
JC weighted in and the RAW is cover is intended for ANY ranged spell attack so there we are from a RAW perspective....
DMs can do what you want but I think is a little odd personally to also allow the cantrip to ignore cover...it already has two great riders (No heal and Undead disadvantage attack) and a third would make it a bit too much in my opinion
In the quote you provided JC simply states that ranged spell attacks are subject to cover. This simply means that the cover rules apply. After all if a creature is behind Total Cover you have no LoS and therefore cannot target the square of the enemy.
....and they would get cover bonus to AC
+2 for half cover +5 for 3/4 cover
Yes they would get the appropriate cover bonus to AC if there was an obstacle between the PoO and the target. In the case we're discussing, beautifully illustrated above, there is none.
Point of origin is you....that is the intent JC is stating. Othewise you are saying the hand is attacking the creature and thus would make the attack at DIS as its within 5ft
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range
Our target is a point in space. The condition of the target is that it needs to contain a creature within range.
A Clear Path to the Target
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction
Seeing as we can see the point, the point of origin successfully comes into being where we intended.
Cover A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
The point of origin is not on the opposite side of cover
Okay, just keep basing your argument off of a rule (“if there is cover between you and creature cover applies”) that doesn’t exist. You’re making it perfectly clear that you are either unable or unwilling to read the PHB, and don’t particularly care what the book ACTUALLY says about cover. Might as well just start always giving EVERYTHING a cover bonus all the time, because if cover can do one thing that the PHB doesn’t say, why can’t it do more! Attacking in darkness? Cover bonus, why not. Attacking on a Tuesday? Cover bonus!
Gimme a break and read the actual @&$!ing cover section, and point out to me where it says that cover applies when between “you” and a target. I’ll wait, but it doesn’t exist. Cover checks where the ATTACK OR EFFECT originated, end of story.
If you want to accept what cover actually says, but disagree whether the attack originated from your square A (a beam or projectile traveling to target) or the poo space B (the created hand attacking), fine. You’ve got a crappy counter-plain-language fight ahead of you, but IF the caster’s square A was the origin, then yes, cover between A and B would provide bonuses. But that’s a preposterous counter-textual reading of the spell description, which clearly describes a B-B line of effect for the attack, so you’re not terribly persuasive arguing that.
Chicken, please tell me where in the text of Chill Touch does it say that the hand makes the attack? Please, just tell me. You keep acting like that language is there but it just isn't (as i detailed in post 81). You are getting frustrated with others for not reading the cover rules, but you yourself are not reading the actual spell description, which decidedly does not tell you the hand makes the attack (unlike spells like Bigby's where the hand is, explicitly, making the attack). Every other instance I can find in the rules where a conjured object or creature is able to make an attack, the rules 1) say it can, and 2) tell you how to adjudicate it. Chill Touch does neither, so the Occam's Razor approach to the spell is to say that the hand is not making the attack. Anything else is twisting existing text or adding non-existent text to the rules of the spell.
In fact, I'd settle for you to find one instance of another spell or effect where a conjured object or creature could presumably be tied to an attack that it makes apart from the caster, where that attack is 1) not allowed explicitly, and 2) not provided with text highlighting how to adjudicate said attack. If you can find one, just one other instance, I'll reconsider my stance.
Echo Knight is the one example I can think of and Mercer himself said that he would rule an echo making a ranged attack within 5ft of an enemy would have disadvantage...
Then you are making a ranged attack from a point of origin from within 5ft of a hostile creature so you have DIS on the attack.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
The hand is not you. The hand is an inanimate object. If the hand were you, then it would also get opportunity attacks if an enemy moved 5 feet away from it. But it doesn't get opportunity attacks, because they are reserved for creatures/monsters/PCs etc. just like the mechanic describing disadvantage on ranged attack rolls in melee combat.
Haven't checked up on echo knights, but Matthew Mercer is just a GM and has nothing to do with RAW. He also often makes wrong rulings according to RAW (so do we all). Love the show though
Then you are making a ranged attack from a point of origin from within 5ft of a hostile creature so you have DIS on the attack.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
The hand is not you. The hand is an inanimate object. If the hand were you, then it would also get opportunity attacks if an enemy moved 5 feet away from it. But it doesn't get opportunity attacks, because they are reserved for creatures/monsters/PCs etc. just like the mechanic describing disadvantage on ranged attack rolls in melee combat.
Haven't checked up on echo knights, but Matthew Mercer is just a GM and has nothing to do with RAW. He also often makes wrong rulings according to RAW (so do we all). Love the show though
Yes this supports the fact that you are the point of origin and not the hand so exactly.
Lol, I’m done. Y’all continue to conflate “you” (your character, in space A, who is making the attack) and the hand (the point of origin for the attack, in space B). The bizarre unwritten rules you are creating (that ranged attacks against close targets have disadvantage, that cover is checked to “you” rather than the point of origin) have far reaching consequences, not only for chill touch, but many other spells and abilities as well. No fireball spreading around a right angle hallway that you the caster don’t have line of sight around but the spell poo does have line of effect around, that would be one blatantly obvious consequence. A force ballista not being able to attack targets while you’re hiding behind a wall, and suffering disadvantage against targets close to it, that’s another.
Disclaimer: I didn't read all 6 pages, but the last few posts suggest this point wasn't brought up (or it was just ignored),
The spell says to make a ranged spell attack, therefore you treat it as a ranged spell attack and all the rules associated with it.
If it was intended to be a melee attack, it would say so. The spell description would say something along the lines of:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a melee spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
Just like every other spell attack that happens with a melee range effect, even if the spell originates from a distance.
Disclaimer: I didn't read all 6 pages, but the last few posts suggest this point wasn't brought up (or it was just ignored),
The spell says to make a ranged spell attack, therefore you treat it as a ranged spell attack and all the rules associated with it.
If it was intended to be a melee attack, it would say so. The spell description would say something along the lines of:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a melee spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
Just like every other spell attack that happens with a melee range effect, even if the spell originates from a distance.
See, this is where this thread should have begun and ended, but some posters started saying that the hand itself was the point of origin for the attack (even though nothing in the text says that) and whether that meant the attack avoided cover since it would then originate from the space of the target...but I digress.
This is a simple little spell, and should be read like one. You make a ranged spell attack, the attack takes the form of a creepy hand, cover applies as normal.
Disclaimer: I didn't read all 6 pages, but the last few posts suggest this point wasn't brought up (or it was just ignored),
The spell says to make a ranged spell attack, therefore you treat it as a ranged spell attack and all the rules associated with it.
If it was intended to be a melee attack, it would say so. The spell description would say something along the lines of:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a melee spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
Just like every other spell attack that happens with a melee range effect, even if the spell originates from a distance.
You're absolutely right, but also your point doesn't matter to the original question, because melee spell attacks don't ignore cover, either. It's not like thorn whip ignores cover.
Disclaimer: I didn't read all 6 pages, but the last few posts suggest this point wasn't brought up (or it was just ignored),
The spell says to make a ranged spell attack, therefore you treat it as a ranged spell attack and all the rules associated with it.
If it was intended to be a melee attack, it would say so. The spell description would say something along the lines of:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a melee spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
Just like every other spell attack that happens with a melee range effect, even if the spell originates from a distance.
You're absolutely right, but also your point doesn't matter to the original question, because melee spell attacks don't ignore cover, either. It's not like thorn whip ignores cover.
The wording that would work with the original question regarding cover would be "...The hand makes a melee spell attack (using your game statistics) against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave..." which would ignore cover as the attack is definitively being originated by the hand at that point
That's a different sort of situation though. "in the same space" would imply a barrier at that 5 ft "border" between one space and the next would not impede a creature making a melee attack if the attack is made in the "same space" as the target.
If the hand was generated in a space next to the target, then yes... cover may be a concern.
However, the original point of the question was if cover affected the spell as a range (from the spellcaster) vs melee(from the hand) determination. My point is that: it's treated as a ranged attack because the spell says ranged attack and does not say melee attack.
To the point of Thorn Whip itself, you use melee attack rules because that's what the skill says to use. Meaning, no disadvantage if the spell is cast within 5 feet of the target, as well as any other special-rule situations that might make a difference between melee and ranged attacks (ie. if a skill activated on "the next melee attack made against a creature", thorn whip would trigger it). If the existing cover would be enough to effect a regular melee attack, then it would be enough to effect Thorn Whip as well.
A general reminder as well that the "range" of a spell is independent to the attack (and only deals with line of sight/effect conditions if required).
Honestly, for all the exasperation in these forums, it's always interesting to see the deep dives into the rules.
For me, I'm not satisfied the actual text of Chill Touch creates a new point of origin. I think the text of Spiritual Weapon makes a great comparison.
Chill Touch: "Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave." Period.
Spiritual Weapon: "When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon." (emphasis mine) It's explicitly stated.
I think that combined with the fact that it's *ranged* spell attack makes it clear (enough) both in intent and in the actual words.
I honestly don't blame the people here for making the entirely reasonable jump that the hand should be the point of origin. Within the provided context (look! a hand appears next to your target! [an attack occurs.] Look! It's preventing the target from gaining hp because it's "still" grasping it) it's pretty clear that it *should* be the new point of origin. Sounds like a likely victim of perhaps starting that way and then they edited it, backing off from that mechanic (due to being overpowered for a cantrip? not sure).
Ok, for those who point out the general rule about needing a direct line of sight to the enemy, I would bring up another odd cantrip when it comes to targeting:
Vicious Mockery
You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 1d4 psychic damage and have disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn.
If the bard can see their target through something like Ghostly Gaze or a mirror, even though the target is behind total cover, doesn't this spell still hit the target?
With this spell, its even pretty clear that the spell is traveling as a sound wave between the caster and target, but as written, it should be able to circumvent full cover.
So I am not sure why Chill Touch with even less strict targeting conditions (a space in range with a creature) cannot. It would be one of at least 2 cantrips that can do that.
Ok, for those who point out the general rule about needing a direct line of sight to the enemy, I would bring up another odd cantrip when it comes to targeting:
Vicious Mockery
You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you), it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 1d4 psychic damage and have disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn.
If the bard can see their target through something like Ghostly Gaze or a mirror, even though the target is behind total cover, doesn't this spell still hit the target?
With this spell, its even pretty clear that the spell is traveling as a sound wave between the caster and target, but as written, it should be able to circumvent full cover.
So I am not sure why Chill Touch with even less strict targeting conditions (a space in range with a creature) cannot. It would be one of at least 2 cantrips that can do that.
You can't target something behind full cover period even if you can see it.
If you are looking through a window and see an Orc you can't shoot it with Eldritch Blast as it has full cover even if you can see it.
JC went over this once at great length in a Podcast and he stated that full cover (regardless of transparency) is full cover.
So you would have to ask: Does the creature have full cover from the caster? Ghostly Gaze is basically creating a window so no you could not target them. A mirror would depend on where the creature was in relation...if they were able to see the creature but if you drew a line from the caster to the creature and there was full cover in the way you cannot target them.
Its an odd bit of circumstance in 5e that makes a lot of frankly stupid shit make sense as they relied on poor wording and wonky mechanics and encouraged a DM to interpret themselves.
So really the only cantrip that should forgo full cover would be Sacred Flame as the creature "does not gain the benefit of cover".
If the clear path rule is hard coded, then we would need to assume that Sacred Flame doesn't forgo full cover, but that the target merely doesn't benefit from any lesser level of cover for the saving throw.
Also, dimension door can't reach completion. JC has said something to the effect that the first paragraph describes an exemption to the clear path rule, but it never explicitly says "this voids the clear path rule." So like Chill Touch or Vicious Mockery, it doesn't have an explicit exemption in its targeting parameters, so if it's cast targeted beyond a wall it will automatically fail.
I agree that it could be a lot clearer though. 5e is such a simple system that Im not sure why they would leave some things so vague.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Based on the fact:
The attack is coming from you
Cover is between you and target
Cover applies
Our target is a point in space.
The condition of the target is that it needs to contain a creature within range.
Seeing as we can see the point, the point of origin successfully comes into being where we intended.
The point of origin is not on the opposite side of cover
Then you are making a ranged attack from a point of origin from within 5ft of a hostile creature so you have DIS on the attack.
Chicken, please tell me where in the text of Chill Touch does it say that the hand makes the attack? Please, just tell me. You keep acting like that language is there but it just isn't (as i detailed in post 81). You are getting frustrated with others for not reading the cover rules, but you yourself are not reading the actual spell description, which decidedly does not tell you the hand makes the attack (unlike spells like Bigby's where the hand is, explicitly, making the attack). Every other instance I can find in the rules where a conjured object or creature is able to make an attack, the rules 1) say it can, and 2) tell you how to adjudicate it. Chill Touch does neither, so the Occam's Razor approach to the spell is to say that the hand is not making the attack. Anything else is twisting existing text or adding non-existent text to the rules of the spell.
In fact, I'd settle for you to find one instance of another spell or effect where a conjured object or creature could presumably be tied to an attack that it makes apart from the caster, where that attack is 1) not allowed explicitly, and 2) not provided with text highlighting how to adjudicate said attack. If you can find one, just one other instance, I'll reconsider my stance.
Echo Knight is the one example I can think of and Mercer himself said that he would rule an echo making a ranged attack within 5ft of an enemy would have disadvantage...
The hand is not you. The hand is an inanimate object. If the hand were you, then it would also get opportunity attacks if an enemy moved 5 feet away from it. But it doesn't get opportunity attacks, because they are reserved for creatures/monsters/PCs etc. just like the mechanic describing disadvantage on ranged attack rolls in melee combat.
Haven't checked up on echo knights, but Matthew Mercer is just a GM and has nothing to do with RAW. He also often makes wrong rulings according to RAW (so do we all). Love the show though
You are rolling the ranged attack so the hand is you in this case.
Yes this supports the fact that you are the point of origin and not the hand so exactly.
So you would also allow the hand to make opportunity attacks? Spiritual Weapon as well?
Lol, I’m done. Y’all continue to conflate “you” (your character, in space A, who is making the attack) and the hand (the point of origin for the attack, in space B). The bizarre unwritten rules you are creating (that ranged attacks against close targets have disadvantage, that cover is checked to “you” rather than the point of origin) have far reaching consequences, not only for chill touch, but many other spells and abilities as well. No fireball spreading around a right angle hallway that you the caster don’t have line of sight around but the spell poo does have line of effect around, that would be one blatantly obvious consequence. A force ballista not being able to attack targets while you’re hiding behind a wall, and suffering disadvantage against targets close to it, that’s another.
[REDACTED]
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are making a melee attack with weapon so no it doesn't apply.
Its not a creature but its you making the roll.
Disclaimer: I didn't read all 6 pages, but the last few posts suggest this point wasn't brought up (or it was just ignored),
The spell says to make a ranged spell attack, therefore you treat it as a ranged spell attack and all the rules associated with it.
If it was intended to be a melee attack, it would say so. The spell description would say something along the lines of:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a melee spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
Just like every other spell attack that happens with a melee range effect, even if the spell originates from a distance.
See, this is where this thread should have begun and ended, but some posters started saying that the hand itself was the point of origin for the attack (even though nothing in the text says that) and whether that meant the attack avoided cover since it would then originate from the space of the target...but I digress.
This is a simple little spell, and should be read like one. You make a ranged spell attack, the attack takes the form of a creepy hand, cover applies as normal.
You're absolutely right, but also your point doesn't matter to the original question, because melee spell attacks don't ignore cover, either. It's not like thorn whip ignores cover.
The wording that would work with the original question regarding cover would be "...The hand makes a melee spell attack (using your game statistics) against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave..." which would ignore cover as the attack is definitively being originated by the hand at that point
That's a different sort of situation though. "in the same space" would imply a barrier at that 5 ft "border" between one space and the next would not impede a creature making a melee attack if the attack is made in the "same space" as the target.
If the hand was generated in a space next to the target, then yes... cover may be a concern.
However, the original point of the question was if cover affected the spell as a range (from the spellcaster) vs melee(from the hand) determination. My point is that: it's treated as a ranged attack because the spell says ranged attack and does not say melee attack.
To the point of Thorn Whip itself, you use melee attack rules because that's what the skill says to use. Meaning, no disadvantage if the spell is cast within 5 feet of the target, as well as any other special-rule situations that might make a difference between melee and ranged attacks (ie. if a skill activated on "the next melee attack made against a creature", thorn whip would trigger it). If the existing cover would be enough to effect a regular melee attack, then it would be enough to effect Thorn Whip as well.
A general reminder as well that the "range" of a spell is independent to the attack (and only deals with line of sight/effect conditions if required).
Honestly, for all the exasperation in these forums, it's always interesting to see the deep dives into the rules.
For me, I'm not satisfied the actual text of Chill Touch creates a new point of origin. I think the text of Spiritual Weapon makes a great comparison.
Chill Touch: "Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave." Period.
Spiritual Weapon: "When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon." (emphasis mine) It's explicitly stated.
I think that combined with the fact that it's *ranged* spell attack makes it clear (enough) both in intent and in the actual words.
I honestly don't blame the people here for making the entirely reasonable jump that the hand should be the point of origin. Within the provided context (look! a hand appears next to your target! [an attack occurs.] Look! It's preventing the target from gaining hp because it's "still" grasping it) it's pretty clear that it *should* be the new point of origin. Sounds like a likely victim of perhaps starting that way and then they edited it, backing off from that mechanic (due to being overpowered for a cantrip? not sure).
Ok, for those who point out the general rule about needing a direct line of sight to the enemy, I would bring up another odd cantrip when it comes to targeting:
If the bard can see their target through something like Ghostly Gaze or a mirror, even though the target is behind total cover, doesn't this spell still hit the target?
With this spell, its even pretty clear that the spell is traveling as a sound wave between the caster and target, but as written, it should be able to circumvent full cover.
So I am not sure why Chill Touch with even less strict targeting conditions (a space in range with a creature) cannot. It would be one of at least 2 cantrips that can do that.
You can't target something behind full cover period even if you can see it.
If you are looking through a window and see an Orc you can't shoot it with Eldritch Blast as it has full cover even if you can see it.
JC went over this once at great length in a Podcast and he stated that full cover (regardless of transparency) is full cover.
So you would have to ask: Does the creature have full cover from the caster? Ghostly Gaze is basically creating a window so no you could not target them. A mirror would depend on where the creature was in relation...if they were able to see the creature but if you drew a line from the caster to the creature and there was full cover in the way you cannot target them.
Its an odd bit of circumstance in 5e that makes a lot of frankly stupid shit make sense as they relied on poor wording and wonky mechanics and encouraged a DM to interpret themselves.
So really the only cantrip that should forgo full cover would be Sacred Flame as the creature "does not gain the benefit of cover".
If the clear path rule is hard coded, then we would need to assume that Sacred Flame doesn't forgo full cover, but that the target merely doesn't benefit from any lesser level of cover for the saving throw.
Also, dimension door can't reach completion. JC has said something to the effect that the first paragraph describes an exemption to the clear path rule, but it never explicitly says "this voids the clear path rule." So like Chill Touch or Vicious Mockery, it doesn't have an explicit exemption in its targeting parameters, so if it's cast targeted beyond a wall it will automatically fail.
I agree that it could be a lot clearer though. 5e is such a simple system that Im not sure why they would leave some things so vague.