Sacred Flame doesn't say the target simply gains no benefit from cover. The wording is that the target gains no benefit from cover for its saving throw. Sacred Flame won't ignore total cover.
As a general rule, the only way to ignore total cover is for a spell's primary target to not be behind total cover, as that's the only time the rule comes up. That's why Misty Step functionally ignores cover - its primary target is Self, and you can't be behind total cover relative to yourself. Then its secondary target is where you go, and the rule about total cover autoblocking spells doesn't apply. Dimension Door doesn't ignore total cover because it's range 500, not range Self - if it were range Self, it would ignore total cover, and if Misty Step were range 30, it would not ignore total cover.
This applies everywhere. Vicious Mockery won't ignore total cover, but if it was reworded to be Range Self and the spell text let you target anyone you could see within 60 feet - basically the same wording as on Misty Step - and then the target had to make the save if they could hear you, the rule about total cover blocking the spell wouldn't come up, and it would work just fine.
If you want another Misty Step example (ignoring total cover due to targeting the caster), see Scrying. If you want another Dimension Door example (can't ignore total cover even though the rules text sure sounds like it can), see Dispel Magic.
On a balance note, this is why you can Misty Step through a familiar's eyes; in general, any spell you let ignore total cover provided the caster can see the target will be castable through a familiar by, at a minimum, having a Sorcerer Quicken it, so they can Action see through the familiar's eyes and Bonus Action cast the spell.
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
Sacred Flame doesn't say the target simply gains no benefit from cover. The wording is that the target gains no benefit from cover for its saving throw. Sacred Flame won't ignore total cover.
As a general rule, the only way to ignore total cover is for a spell's primary target to not be behind total cover, as that's the only time the rule comes up. That's why Misty Step functionally ignores cover - its primary target is Self, and you can't be behind total cover relative to yourself. Then its secondary target is where you go, and the rule about total cover autoblocking spells doesn't apply. Dimension Door doesn't ignore total cover because it's range 500, not range Self - if it were range Self, it would ignore total cover, and if Misty Step were range 30, it would not ignore total cover.
This applies everywhere. Vicious Mockery won't ignore total cover, but if it was reworded to be Range Self and the spell text let you target anyone you could see within 60 feet - basically the same wording as on Misty Step - and then the target had to make the save if they could hear you, the rule about total cover blocking the spell wouldn't come up, and it would work just fine.
If you want another Misty Step example (ignoring total cover due to targeting the caster), see Scrying. If you want another Dimension Door example (can't ignore total cover even though the rules text sure sounds like it can), see Dispel Magic.
On a balance note, this is why you can Misty Step through a familiar's eyes; in general, any spell you let ignore total cover provided the caster can see the target will be castable through a familiar by, at a minimum, having a Sorcerer Quicken it, so they can Action see through the familiar's eyes and Bonus Action cast the spell.
Even if Sacred Flame didn't mention the saving throw (which insinuates that this effect only applies post-targeting), the fact that the last sentence only applies to a "target" should clearly mean that it doesn't affect total cover as a creature behind total cover is an illegaltarget for this spell. According to Jeremy Crawford, illegal targeting results in the spell more or less fizzling without ever coming into being (at his table). The rules about illegal targeting are still unclear and not properly developed at this time.
I totally agree with the logic behind everything you say here, but unfortunately, Jeremy Crawford does not (despite his own take on illegal targeting). According to him, Sacred Flamedoes ignore total cover (min 28). Additionally, he also explains how the first paragraph of Dimension Door is an exception to the general targeting rules.
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
The attack roll is only made with disadvantage if you (the character) is threatened by a creature within 5 feet of you. The hand does not feel threatened. It likely doesn't feel anything.
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
The attack roll is only made with disadvantage if you (the character) is threatened by a creature within 5 feet of you. The hand does not feel threatened. It likely doesn't feel anything.
Technically a ranged attack is made at Disadvantage if there is a hostile creature within 5ft that is not incapacitated and can see the attacker. There's nothing in there about feeling threatened.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
The attack roll is only made with disadvantage if you (the character) is threatened by a creature within 5 feet of you. The hand does not feel threatened. It likely doesn't feel anything.
Technically a ranged attack is made at Disadvantage if there is a hostile creature within 5ft that is not incapacitated and can see the attacker. There's nothing in there about feeling threatened.
True, I don't know where I had the word "threatened" from.
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
The attack roll is only made with disadvantage if you (the character) is threatened by a creature within 5 feet of you. The hand does not feel threatened. It likely doesn't feel anything.
Im still not convinced the hand is the point of origin for the ranged attack. The text of the spell says, explicitly:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn. Until then, the hand clings to the target.
Nothing in the text indicate the hand "makes" the attack, either as attacker or as point of origin. In fact, grammatically, there is no way for the verb "make" in this context to mean a third party or entity separate from the caster, which the hand would be. The sentence with the ranged spell attack is written in second person, and the only valid subject is "you" (implied in this case, but valid per common english and grammar). Spells and game effects that create 3rd party objects or creatures that then make attacks specifically call out those objects/creatures as making the attack. A spell version of this would be Bigby's Hand, and a game effect version would be the artificer's eldritch turret.
I've said it before, the first and second sentences do not read as being a single line of thought. Grammatically, they describe two separate events, The caster creating a hand, and the caster making a ranged spell attack to "assail (the target) with the chill of the grave".
It's obvious the RAI is that the spell is affected by cover, and the above makes sense from that perspective grammatically. It does not reconcile the text regarding the creation of the hand and the attack made, but mechanically and grammatically these are two separate effects as written. You could easily have re-written the spell to reconcile the two effects together either way, either to make the spell avoid cover "...The hand makes a ranged( or melee more likely) spell attack..", or to not "you conjure a skeletal hand and launch it towards the space of a creature in range..."
A point of origin does not make an attack, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a point of origin. When you pick a poo for your fireball, that space (or the bead of fire you’re throwing there) doesn’t cast a spell, you do. Doesn’t mean that space isn’t the poo though.
Also, when you throw a Fire Bolt, there’s no language about the bolt making an attack, but do you really doubt that the bolt is the attack vs. an undescribed other force? I don’t see anything in chill touch that would suggest that the hand is not the attack. if the only defense against chill touch being the poo of an attack is unrealistic expectations about spell description language that other spells aren’t held to, then it becomes ever more clear that folks are making arguments that start from a desired conclusion, not just taking the language as it comes in the spell.
Also, when you throw a Fire Bolt, there’s no language about the bolt making an attack, but do you really doubt that the bolt is the attack vs. an undescribed other force? I don’t see anything in chill touch that would suggest that the hand is not the attack. if the only defense against chill touch being the poo of an attack is unrealistic expectations about spell description language that other spells aren’t held to, then it becomes ever more clear that folks are making arguments that start from a desired conclusion, not just taking the language as it comes in the spell.
That is literally how debate works. This is not science. we aren't testing a hypothesis, we are engaging in debate and discussion. It is not a logical flaw to have a point of view and then defend it. It literally can't work any other way, unless you are typing stream of consciousness.
Now. Points of origin for ranged and melee attacks are by default the creature or object making that attack ("When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack").. the term itself is not used as such in the descriptions for melee and ranged attacks because it is assumed by the game as the default. When a specific example overrides this, the game says so explicitly: look at the Artificer's eldritch turret. You activate it as a bonus action, and this is one of its possible effects:
Make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon, at one creature or object within 120 feet of it. On a hit, the target takes 2d8 force damage, and if the target is a creature, it is pushed up to 5 feet away from the cannon.
See how this works? the rule specifically calls out the origin as different from the creature activating the effect. Now lets look at a spell, from bigby's hand:
Clenched Fist. The hand strikes one creature or object within 5 feet of it. Make a melee spell attack for the hand using your game statistics. On a hit, the target takes 4d8 force damage.
See how this works? the rule specifically calls out the origin of the attack as the hand, not the caster.
So why then, given the lack of this specificity, do you continue to assume that the hand makes the attack in chill touch? Spells only do what they say they do, and the spell only says you create a hand, and that you make a ranged spell attack. It in no way specifically overrides the default point of origin.
Also, for Fire Bolt, you make the attack, the bolt is the attack, but the bolt doesn't get to defeat partial cover because it exists in the space of the target when it hits the target. Likewise, for Chill touch, you make the attack, the hand is the attack, but the hand doesn't get to defeat partial cover because it exists in the space of the target when it hits the target.
Pretending that a chill touch is a projectile that travels from the caster towards the target (the way Fire Bolt does), bumping into cover along that path, is a direct contradiction of literally the first sentence of the spell, which tells you the hand appears in a space. That’s what I can’t get over, and why ”starting from a conclusion” instead of letting the language guide your conclusions leads to bad arguments. If you weren’t already so invested in chill touch being blocked by half and three quarter cover, you might be able to accept that literally the first sentence of the spell describes why it doesn’t work that way.
Chill Touch is not immune to cover: meaning, the space you place it in can’t be behind total cover. Once the poo is placed in that space, Chill Touch is still not immune to cover, but is very very unlikely to encounter any, with the target and poo in the same shared space. When a spell tells you it creates a hand, makes an attack, and that attack hitting results in the hand grabbing the target, the simplest explanation is that the hand is the attack... even if it doesn’t say “make an attack with the hand.” Most spells DONT belabor that a created effect is delivering the attack, because it’s obvious. Fire Bolt, Acid Arrow, etc...Reading that there’s a second magical projectile which is the “chill of the grave” separate from the hand feels very tenuous, and confusing enough that I’d expect MORE language to show up clarifying that they’re separate forces in separate poo’s doing separate things. That reading just... turns it into a bizarrely complicated two-part spell, and I don’t see any plain language support for that being RAI over the far simpler interpretation that a hand is created which is used to attack, delivering “chill of the grave.”
That hand never passed through cover, it came into existence in the space of the target, and the cover rules are explicit that they check between poo and target, not between character and target when character is not the poo. This is the SIMPLER and RAW-er way to read this spell, without bringing in unwritten new cover rules, or imagining secondary projectiles.
Pretending that a chill touch is a projectile that travels from the caster towards the target (the way Fire Bolt does), bumping into cover along that path, is a direct contradiction of literally the first sentence of the spell, which tells you the hand appears in a space. That’s what I can’t get over, and why ”starting from a conclusion” instead of letting the language guide your conclusions leads to bad arguments. If you weren’t already so invested in chill touch being blocked by half and three quarter cover, you might be able to accept that literally the first sentence of the spell describes why it doesn’t work that way.
Chill Touch is not immune to cover: meaning, the space you place it in can’t be behind total cover. Once the poo is placed in that space, Chill Touch is still not immune to cover, but is very very unlikely to encounter any, with the target and poo in the same shared space. When a spell tells you it creates a hand, makes an attack, and that attack hitting results in the hand grabbing the target, the simplest explanation is that the hand is the attack... even if it doesn’t say “make an attack with the hand.” Most spells DONT belabor that a created effect is delivering the attack, because it’s obvious. Fire Bolt, Acid Arrow, etc...Reading that there’s a second magical projectile which is the “chill of the grave” separate from the hand feels very tenuous, and confusing enough that I’d expect MORE language to show up clarifying that they’re separate forces in separate poo’s doing separate things. That reading just... turns it into a bizarrely complicated two-part spell, and I don’t see any plain language support for that being RAI over the far simpler interpretation that a hand is created which is used to attack, delivering “chill of the grave.”
That hand never passed through cover, it came into existence in the space of the target, and the cover rules are explicit that they check between poo and target, not between character and target when character is not the poo. This is the SIMPLER and RAW-er way to read this spell, without bringing in unwritten new cover rules, or imagining secondary projectiles.
There does not need to be a projectile. The source of the magic is the caster. The caster is targeting the spell. It is the caster's stats that are relevant for the attack. The caster is the attacker. As you yourself say, the hand is not sentient.
Nothing in the cover rules say anything about projectiles.
The caster cannot see the entire target. The target is at least partially 'covered' from the caster's sight. Therefore the target is harder to target. It does not matter that the hand is on the other side of the cover given the caster cannot see the other side of the cover to guide the hand there.
I agree, for the hand to "ignore" cover is to say it has some ability itself to target separately from the caster. Just as you can't change the direction of a fire bolt once thrown, you can't change the aim of the hand once cast, no matter if the hand was "launched" or simply conjured in location (if it could change the casters aim/ability to target, the spell would indicate the attack being made by the hand).
The caster cannot see the entire target. The target is at least partially 'covered' from the caster's sight. Therefore the target is harder to target. It does not matter that the hand is on the other side of the cover given the caster cannot see the other side of the cover to guide the hand there.
wait... are you bringing light/heavy OBSCUREMENT into this now? Thats new!
The caster CAN see the target (rememember, we’re talking about half or three quarter cover at most, not total cover, because the space needed legal line of effect to place the hand). I’m not sure there’s any support for assuming half/three quarter cover grants light or heavy obscurement. If it does, only heavy is relevant to an attack roll... and would be imposing disadvantage, not cover bonuses. But it can’t be heavy, because that would block vision, meaning you couldn’t “see” that space in the first place, which would exceed and contradict what we know about half and three cover quarter in the first place.
Half and three quarter Cover has nothing to do with “seeing” your target, that’s obscurement. Cover only does what it says it does, and it says nothing about effecting a characters ability to see what’s going on behind half or three quarter cover to guide spells. It’s a physical barrier, relevant for trying to pass effects THROUGH it from one side to the other, not guide effects that are already past it.
The caster cannot see the entire target. The target is at least partially 'covered' from the caster's sight. Therefore the target is harder to target. It does not matter that the hand is on the other side of the cover given the caster cannot see the other side of the cover to guide the hand there.
wait... are you bringing light/heavy OBSCUREMENT into this now? Holy moving goalposts, Batman!
Kotath is not. The reason cover increases AC is because there is less of a target to target. Aiming is part of making a ranged attack, and cover affects that. If there are fewer places to conjure the hand, then you are less likely to successfully do so in a place that "hits" the target
The caster CAN see the target (rememember, we’re talking about half or three quarter cover at most, not total cover, because the space needed legal line of effect to place the hand). I’m not sure there’s any support for assuming half/three quarter cover grants light or heavy obscurement. If it does, only heavy is relevant to an attack roll... and would be imposing disadvantage, not cover bonuses. But it can’t be heavy, because that would block vision, meaning you couldn’t “see” that space in the first place, which would exceed and contradict what we know about half and three cover quarter in the first place.
Remember, creatures don't fill their space (with one notable exception). You are conjuring the hand in a creatures space, but not necessarily on the creature itself. Whether it comes into being attached to the creature (ie you hit with the attack roll) is based at least in part on your aim (the rolled result). If you summon it in the wrong space, you miss, as the hand cannot move on its own. Just as a launched firebolt can't change course after it is fired, the hand can't change it's location once conjured. Basically, the hand can be a point of origin, but nothing in the spell allows it to move once conjured, so the range of it's effect is 0 (you can't even say its "touch" since that implies the hand can move and has a reach). If you disagree, back up your argument by stating where it says the hand is capable of independent movement at all once summoned.
The type of spell you seem to want this to be is a saving throw spell. That would target the creature specifically, and would not be reliant on your aim (rather, success would be based on the targets ability to avoid/withstand the spell), and as a result would only need a single line of effect to be successfully cast at a creature. This is not that type of spell, because it requires a ranged attack roll instead of a saving throw.
Half and three quarter Cover has nothing to do with “seeing” your target, that’s obscurement. Cover only does what it says it does, and it says nothing about effecting a characters ability to see what’s going on behind half or three quarter cover to guide spells. It’s a physical barrier, relevant for trying to pass effects THROUGH it from one side to the other, not guide effects that are already past it.
Conjuring the hand in a creatures space does not guarantee a hit. having less of that space to target the point where the hand appears only decreases the chance of a hit. That is why cover rules apply. to say otherwise is to allow the hand itself to guide its attack, which this spell does not say it does (as I've mentioned multiple times, providing examples of how the game says that, each of which you have conveniently ignored to continue your erroneous thread of thought here)
A space is the smallest meaningful unit that 5E recognizes in combat. If a space is behind no cover, half cover, or three quarters cover... the hand can be created there. If it’s behind total cover, it cannot.
Once created, a hand is a hand is a hand. It certainly is subject to any remaining rules that might interfere with its attack (such as you mention, if there’s some kind of cover in that space between the hand and your target somehow), and it’s hit is not guaranteed (there’s still an attack roll), but what you’re describing (half cover between the caster and this space with hand and enemy somehow limiting the casters vision of that square) is NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PHB. You’re inventing new unwritten functions of cover, and borrowing language from obscurement while doing so.
Im on my phone and can’t format good (dndbeyond, please implement formatting box for mobile!) but EVERYTHING cover does is found at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Cover and also this part of Chapter 10: “To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.“ and “A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.”
Neither section describes ... whatever it is you’re describing.
A space is the smallest meaningful unit that 5E recognizes in combat. If a space is behind no cover, half cover, or three quarters cover... the hand can be created there. If it’s behind total cover, it cannot.
Once created, a hand is a hand is a hand. It certainly is subject to any remaining rules that might interfere with its attack (such as you mention, if there’s some kind of cover in that space between the hand and your target somehow), and it’s hit is not guaranteed (there’s still an attack roll), but what you’re describing (half cover between the caster and this space with hand and enemy somehow limiting the casters vision of that square) is NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PHB. You’re inventing new unwritten functions of cover, and borrowing language from obscurement while doing so.
Im on my phone and can’t format good (dndbeyond, please implement formatting box for mobile!) but EVERYTHING cover does is found at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Cover and also this part of Chapter 10: “To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.“
Neither section describes ... whatever it is you’re describing.
You are targeting the creature, but the hand appears in the creatures space, not automatically on the creature. If a creature doesn't fill it's space (and aside from gelatinous cubes, nothing does), then there is a range of possible locations the hand can appear that is not on the creature. The hand cannot move, so if it appears in the space, but not on the creature (ie, you aimed at the wrong point to conjure the hand), you miss.
For your point of view to be valid, 1) the hand would have to be able to move after it is conjured. or 2) the attack roll would have to take place after the hand is conjured. #1 cannot be true because the spell doesn't allow the hand to move (it would have to say so), and if #2 is true, then every ranged attack roll spell is aimed after it is launched (seriously, fire bolt says you hurl the mote before it says you make the attack roll, Eldritch Blast says the bolt launches before the attack roll is made, so does Ray of Frost, Produce Flame, Acid Arrow, etc). If you really want that to be the case, then fine, but the more reasonable and accurate way to look at these spells is the first sentence of every ranged attack roll describes the action you make while the second describes the mechanics of aiming and the results, and the sentences after that describe the effects after a hit.
Oh, and while I was looking, I found another example that backs me up. the spell storm sphere allows you to make a ranged spell attack originating from the center of the sphere. you know how I know that the origin of the attack is the center of the sphere? because the spell explicitly tells me that. Until you can prove to me that Chill Touch tells you the origin of the ranged spell attack is the hand, you cannot convince me you are anything other than wrong here.
A space is the smallest meaningful unit that 5E recognizes in combat. If a space is behind no cover, half cover, or three quarters cover... the hand can be created there. If it’s behind total cover, it cannot.
Once created, a hand is a hand is a hand. It certainly is subject to any remaining rules that might interfere with its attack (such as you mention, if there’s some kind of cover in that space between the hand and your target somehow), and it’s hit is not guaranteed (there’s still an attack roll), but what you’re describing (half cover between the caster and this space with hand and enemy somehow limiting the casters vision of that square) is NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PHB. You’re inventing new unwritten functions of cover, and borrowing language from obscurement while doing so.
Im on my phone and can’t format good (dndbeyond, please implement formatting box for mobile!) but EVERYTHING cover does is found at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Cover and also this part of Chapter 10: “To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.“ and “A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.”
Neither section describes ... whatever it is you’re describing.
Also, as an actually friendly piece of advice, turning your phone landscape will make a formatting box appear on mobile. Its still clunky, but it's there (at least on iPhone...can't speak for other phones).
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.
Sacred Flame doesn't say the target simply gains no benefit from cover. The wording is that the target gains no benefit from cover for its saving throw. Sacred Flame won't ignore total cover.
As a general rule, the only way to ignore total cover is for a spell's primary target to not be behind total cover, as that's the only time the rule comes up. That's why Misty Step functionally ignores cover - its primary target is Self, and you can't be behind total cover relative to yourself. Then its secondary target is where you go, and the rule about total cover autoblocking spells doesn't apply. Dimension Door doesn't ignore total cover because it's range 500, not range Self - if it were range Self, it would ignore total cover, and if Misty Step were range 30, it would not ignore total cover.
This applies everywhere. Vicious Mockery won't ignore total cover, but if it was reworded to be Range Self and the spell text let you target anyone you could see within 60 feet - basically the same wording as on Misty Step - and then the target had to make the save if they could hear you, the rule about total cover blocking the spell wouldn't come up, and it would work just fine.
If you want another Misty Step example (ignoring total cover due to targeting the caster), see Scrying. If you want another Dimension Door example (can't ignore total cover even though the rules text sure sounds like it can), see Dispel Magic.
On a balance note, this is why you can Misty Step through a familiar's eyes; in general, any spell you let ignore total cover provided the caster can see the target will be castable through a familiar by, at a minimum, having a Sorcerer Quicken it, so they can Action see through the familiar's eyes and Bonus Action cast the spell.
^ this is good analysis.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If the point of origin becomes the hand, and the hand is making the ranged spell attack against an adjacent target, then the attack would be at disadvantage, so the whole argument is pointless. A small AC bonus due to cover or a larger effective bonus from disadvantage.
Even if Sacred Flame didn't mention the saving throw (which insinuates that this effect only applies post-targeting), the fact that the last sentence only applies to a "target" should clearly mean that it doesn't affect total cover as a creature behind total cover is an illegal target for this spell. According to Jeremy Crawford, illegal targeting results in the spell more or less fizzling without ever coming into being (at his table). The rules about illegal targeting are still unclear and not properly developed at this time.
I totally agree with the logic behind everything you say here, but unfortunately, Jeremy Crawford does not (despite his own take on illegal targeting). According to him, Sacred Flame does ignore total cover (min 28). Additionally, he also explains how the first paragraph of Dimension Door is an exception to the general targeting rules.
The attack roll is only made with disadvantage if you (the character) is threatened by a creature within 5 feet of you. The hand does not feel threatened. It likely doesn't feel anything.
Technically a ranged attack is made at Disadvantage if there is a hostile creature within 5ft that is not incapacitated and can see the attacker. There's nothing in there about feeling threatened.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
True, I don't know where I had the word "threatened" from.
Im still not convinced the hand is the point of origin for the ranged attack. The text of the spell says, explicitly:
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn. Until then, the hand clings to the target.
Nothing in the text indicate the hand "makes" the attack, either as attacker or as point of origin. In fact, grammatically, there is no way for the verb "make" in this context to mean a third party or entity separate from the caster, which the hand would be. The sentence with the ranged spell attack is written in second person, and the only valid subject is "you" (implied in this case, but valid per common english and grammar). Spells and game effects that create 3rd party objects or creatures that then make attacks specifically call out those objects/creatures as making the attack. A spell version of this would be Bigby's Hand, and a game effect version would be the artificer's eldritch turret.
I've said it before, the first and second sentences do not read as being a single line of thought. Grammatically, they describe two separate events, The caster creating a hand, and the caster making a ranged spell attack to "assail (the target) with the chill of the grave".
It's obvious the RAI is that the spell is affected by cover, and the above makes sense from that perspective grammatically. It does not reconcile the text regarding the creation of the hand and the attack made, but mechanically and grammatically these are two separate effects as written. You could easily have re-written the spell to reconcile the two effects together either way, either to make the spell avoid cover "...The hand makes a ranged( or melee more likely) spell attack..", or to not "you conjure a skeletal hand and launch it towards the space of a creature in range..."
A point of origin does not make an attack, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a point of origin. When you pick a poo for your fireball, that space (or the bead of fire you’re throwing there) doesn’t cast a spell, you do. Doesn’t mean that space isn’t the poo though.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Also, when you throw a Fire Bolt, there’s no language about the bolt making an attack, but do you really doubt that the bolt is the attack vs. an undescribed other force? I don’t see anything in chill touch that would suggest that the hand is not the attack. if the only defense against chill touch being the poo of an attack is unrealistic expectations about spell description language that other spells aren’t held to, then it becomes ever more clear that folks are making arguments that start from a desired conclusion, not just taking the language as it comes in the spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is literally how debate works. This is not science. we aren't testing a hypothesis, we are engaging in debate and discussion. It is not a logical flaw to have a point of view and then defend it. It literally can't work any other way, unless you are typing stream of consciousness.
Now. Points of origin for ranged and melee attacks are by default the creature or object making that attack ("When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack").. the term itself is not used as such in the descriptions for melee and ranged attacks because it is assumed by the game as the default. When a specific example overrides this, the game says so explicitly: look at the Artificer's eldritch turret. You activate it as a bonus action, and this is one of its possible effects:
Make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon, at one creature or object within 120 feet of it. On a hit, the target takes 2d8 force damage, and if the target is a creature, it is pushed up to 5 feet away from the cannon.
See how this works? the rule specifically calls out the origin as different from the creature activating the effect. Now lets look at a spell, from bigby's hand:
Clenched Fist. The hand strikes one creature or object within 5 feet of it. Make a melee spell attack for the hand using your game statistics. On a hit, the target takes 4d8 force damage.
See how this works? the rule specifically calls out the origin of the attack as the hand, not the caster.
So why then, given the lack of this specificity, do you continue to assume that the hand makes the attack in chill touch? Spells only do what they say they do, and the spell only says you create a hand, and that you make a ranged spell attack. It in no way specifically overrides the default point of origin.
Also, for Fire Bolt, you make the attack, the bolt is the attack, but the bolt doesn't get to defeat partial cover because it exists in the space of the target when it hits the target. Likewise, for Chill touch, you make the attack, the hand is the attack, but the hand doesn't get to defeat partial cover because it exists in the space of the target when it hits the target.
Pretending that a chill touch is a projectile that travels from the caster towards the target (the way Fire Bolt does), bumping into cover along that path, is a direct contradiction of literally the first sentence of the spell, which tells you the hand appears in a space. That’s what I can’t get over, and why ”starting from a conclusion” instead of letting the language guide your conclusions leads to bad arguments. If you weren’t already so invested in chill touch being blocked by half and three quarter cover, you might be able to accept that literally the first sentence of the spell describes why it doesn’t work that way.
Chill Touch is not immune to cover: meaning, the space you place it in can’t be behind total cover. Once the poo is placed in that space, Chill Touch is still not immune to cover, but is very very unlikely to encounter any, with the target and poo in the same shared space. When a spell tells you it creates a hand, makes an attack, and that attack hitting results in the hand grabbing the target, the simplest explanation is that the hand is the attack... even if it doesn’t say “make an attack with the hand.” Most spells DONT belabor that a created effect is delivering the attack, because it’s obvious. Fire Bolt, Acid Arrow, etc...Reading that there’s a second magical projectile which is the “chill of the grave” separate from the hand feels very tenuous, and confusing enough that I’d expect MORE language to show up clarifying that they’re separate forces in separate poo’s doing separate things. That reading just... turns it into a bizarrely complicated two-part spell, and I don’t see any plain language support for that being RAI over the far simpler interpretation that a hand is created which is used to attack, delivering “chill of the grave.”
That hand never passed through cover, it came into existence in the space of the target, and the cover rules are explicit that they check between poo and target, not between character and target when character is not the poo. This is the SIMPLER and RAW-er way to read this spell, without bringing in unwritten new cover rules, or imagining secondary projectiles.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree, for the hand to "ignore" cover is to say it has some ability itself to target separately from the caster. Just as you can't change the direction of a fire bolt once thrown, you can't change the aim of the hand once cast, no matter if the hand was "launched" or simply conjured in location (if it could change the casters aim/ability to target, the spell would indicate the attack being made by the hand).
Just have to keep reminding myself that Chill Touch came from the same team that made True Strike, and lower my expectations of things making sense.
wait... are you bringing light/heavy OBSCUREMENT into this now? Thats new!
The caster CAN see the target (rememember, we’re talking about half or three quarter cover at most, not total cover, because the space needed legal line of effect to place the hand). I’m not sure there’s any support for assuming half/three quarter cover grants light or heavy obscurement. If it does, only heavy is relevant to an attack roll... and would be imposing disadvantage, not cover bonuses. But it can’t be heavy, because that would block vision, meaning you couldn’t “see” that space in the first place, which would exceed and contradict what we know about half and three cover quarter in the first place.
Half and three quarter Cover has nothing to do with “seeing” your target, that’s obscurement. Cover only does what it says it does, and it says nothing about effecting a characters ability to see what’s going on behind half or three quarter cover to guide spells. It’s a physical barrier, relevant for trying to pass effects THROUGH it from one side to the other, not guide effects that are already past it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Kotath is not. The reason cover increases AC is because there is less of a target to target. Aiming is part of making a ranged attack, and cover affects that. If there are fewer places to conjure the hand, then you are less likely to successfully do so in a place that "hits" the target
Remember, creatures don't fill their space (with one notable exception). You are conjuring the hand in a creatures space, but not necessarily on the creature itself. Whether it comes into being attached to the creature (ie you hit with the attack roll) is based at least in part on your aim (the rolled result). If you summon it in the wrong space, you miss, as the hand cannot move on its own. Just as a launched firebolt can't change course after it is fired, the hand can't change it's location once conjured. Basically, the hand can be a point of origin, but nothing in the spell allows it to move once conjured, so the range of it's effect is 0 (you can't even say its "touch" since that implies the hand can move and has a reach). If you disagree, back up your argument by stating where it says the hand is capable of independent movement at all once summoned.
The type of spell you seem to want this to be is a saving throw spell. That would target the creature specifically, and would not be reliant on your aim (rather, success would be based on the targets ability to avoid/withstand the spell), and as a result would only need a single line of effect to be successfully cast at a creature. This is not that type of spell, because it requires a ranged attack roll instead of a saving throw.
Conjuring the hand in a creatures space does not guarantee a hit. having less of that space to target the point where the hand appears only decreases the chance of a hit. That is why cover rules apply. to say otherwise is to allow the hand itself to guide its attack, which this spell does not say it does (as I've mentioned multiple times, providing examples of how the game says that, each of which you have conveniently ignored to continue your erroneous thread of thought here)
A space is the smallest meaningful unit that 5E recognizes in combat. If a space is behind no cover, half cover, or three quarters cover... the hand can be created there. If it’s behind total cover, it cannot.
Once created, a hand is a hand is a hand. It certainly is subject to any remaining rules that might interfere with its attack (such as you mention, if there’s some kind of cover in that space between the hand and your target somehow), and it’s hit is not guaranteed (there’s still an attack roll), but what you’re describing (half cover between the caster and this space with hand and enemy somehow limiting the casters vision of that square) is NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PHB. You’re inventing new unwritten functions of cover, and borrowing language from obscurement while doing so.
Im on my phone and can’t format good (dndbeyond, please implement formatting box for mobile!) but EVERYTHING cover does is found at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Cover and also this part of Chapter 10: “To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.“ and “A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.”
Neither section describes ... whatever it is you’re describing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are targeting the creature, but the hand appears in the creatures space, not automatically on the creature. If a creature doesn't fill it's space (and aside from gelatinous cubes, nothing does), then there is a range of possible locations the hand can appear that is not on the creature. The hand cannot move, so if it appears in the space, but not on the creature (ie, you aimed at the wrong point to conjure the hand), you miss.
For your point of view to be valid, 1) the hand would have to be able to move after it is conjured. or 2) the attack roll would have to take place after the hand is conjured. #1 cannot be true because the spell doesn't allow the hand to move (it would have to say so), and if #2 is true, then every ranged attack roll spell is aimed after it is launched (seriously, fire bolt says you hurl the mote before it says you make the attack roll, Eldritch Blast says the bolt launches before the attack roll is made, so does Ray of Frost, Produce Flame, Acid Arrow, etc). If you really want that to be the case, then fine, but the more reasonable and accurate way to look at these spells is the first sentence of every ranged attack roll describes the action you make while the second describes the mechanics of aiming and the results, and the sentences after that describe the effects after a hit.
Oh, and while I was looking, I found another example that backs me up. the spell storm sphere allows you to make a ranged spell attack originating from the center of the sphere. you know how I know that the origin of the attack is the center of the sphere? because the spell explicitly tells me that. Until you can prove to me that Chill Touch tells you the origin of the ranged spell attack is the hand, you cannot convince me you are anything other than wrong here.
Also, as an actually friendly piece of advice, turning your phone landscape will make a formatting box appear on mobile. Its still clunky, but it's there (at least on iPhone...can't speak for other phones).
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.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.