But you didn't confirm it. Multiple people have continuously pointed at your mistakes, and you blow the people off rather than addressing those correct arguments.
But Fangeye, the rules for Cover specifically say that a target can benefit from cover [...] when an attack originates from the other side of that cover. And the Total Cover rule goes even further to say that something in Total Cover can't be directly targeted by an attack. You've just told me I can target an attack against something that's standing on the other side of a wall? Thanks, but, come on now...
To anyone else reading this, please consider that there are no arbiters here. None of us - Myself Included - should be considered a source of authority on any rules or mechanics. The text is your authority, as You read it. These forums, D&D in general, has no faith good or bad, it's not a religion or a cult, there are no temple gates that need keeping, there are no priests that need vestiges, Gygax and Arneson will Not sit in judgement over any of us; unless you're at a table then the DM is all of those things for you...
So don't take it too hard, or to heart, when one of these nice folks wants to tell you you're wrong, or that you've done something in bad faith, or that you've failed, or that they know you intentions: because they don't.
I totally missed the fact that Sacred Flame specifically says it ignores cover so I need to do a better job double checking my facts before posting XD. But this podcast is a great find!
Sacred Flamedoesn't say it ignores cover, which is important because it's absolutely routine for the spell to come up in discussions of cover, and in particular for it to be misinterpreted.
Sacred Flame says (emphasis mine) "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Sacred Flame does not ignore cover in exactly the same way that reachdoes work on opportunity attacks: the rules do what they say they do, no more, no less.
Vis a vis the other discussion I spotted in this thread about the text saying "descends": your DM is free to interpret the spell as coming down from above and therefore to determine cover or not relative to above the target rather than relative to the caster, but that's a wildly different claim from claiming that it ignores cover entirely. Ignoring covering entirely would let the spell hit a Tiny creature inside a Tiny glass coffin. That's patently against the RAW.
But Fangeye, the rules for Cover specifically say that a target can benefit from cover [...] when an attack originates from the other side of that cover. And the Total Cover rule goes even further to say that something in Total Cover can't be directly targeted by an attack. You've just told me I can target an attack against something that's standing on the other side of a wall? Thanks, but, come on now...
To anyone else reading this, please consider that there are no arbiters here. None of us - Myself Included - should be considered a source of authority on any rules or mechanics. The text is your authority, as You read it. These forums, D&D in general, has no faith good or bad, it's not a religion or a cult, there are no temple gates that need keeping, there are no priests that need vestiges, Gygax and Arneson will Not sit in judgement over any of us; unless you're at a table then the DM is all of those things for you...
So don't take it too hard, or to heart, when one of these nice folks wants to tell you you're wrong, or that you've done something in bad faith, or that you've failed, or that they know you intentions: because they don't.
I missed this in the Total Cover rule and you are right. While it is not described as illegal in the Making an Attack rule, I was incorrect to say that you can target something with a weapon attack behind Total Cover. I believe in the podcast JC only ever talked about Sacred Flame being able to target something on the other side of a window. The weapon attack case is interesting because as far as I am aware there isn't anything like the Clear Path rule that addresses how to handle the situation where there is an obstruction the player is unaware of.
I totally missed the fact that Sacred Flame specifically says it ignores cover so I need to do a better job double checking my facts before posting XD. But this podcast is a great find!
Sacred Flamedoesn't say it ignores cover, which is important because it's absolutely routine for the spell to come up in discussions of cover, and in particular for it to be misinterpreted.
Sacred Flame says (emphasis mine) "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Sacred Flame does not ignore cover in exactly the same way that reachdoes work on opportunity attacks: the rules do what they say they do, no more, no less.
Vis a vis the other discussion I spotted in this thread about the text saying "descends": your DM is free to interpret the spell as coming down from above and therefore to determine cover or not relative to above the target rather than relative to the caster, but that's a wildly different claim from claiming that it ignores cover entirely. Ignoring covering entirely would let the spell hit a Tiny creature inside a Tiny glass coffin. That's patently against the RAW.
Indeed, what I wrote was not a direct quote of the spell's text. Rather I summarized the relevant point that I had missed when describing something I found confusing in my previous post.
Later in that post, when I wrote about using Sacred Flame to target something the caster can see despite Total Cover, I tried to make it clear that the source was JC. Statements from JC are not necessarily RAW or even RAI. However, the statements JC made that I was summarizing were from the Sage Advice section of a Dragon Talk podcast on January 19th, 2017. While it is old it does directly address the Clear Path rule and I linked to the podcast and stated the relevant timestamps in the post of mine you quoted. Since this is part of Sage Advice I personally would treat it as a RAI source.
But you didn't confirm it. Multiple people have continuously pointed at your mistakes, and you blow the people off rather than addressing those correct arguments.
But Fangeye, the rules for Cover specifically say that a target can benefit from cover [...] when an attack originates from the other side of that cover. And the Total Cover rule goes even further to say that something in Total Cover can't be directly targeted by an attack. You've just told me I can target an attack against something that's standing on the other side of a wall? Thanks, but, come on now...
To anyone else reading this, please consider that there are no arbiters here. None of us - Myself Included - should be considered a source of authority on any rules or mechanics. The text is your authority, as You read it. These forums, D&D in general, has no faith good or bad, it's not a religion or a cult, there are no temple gates that need keeping, there are no priests that need vestiges, Gygax and Arneson will Not sit in judgement over any of us; unless you're at a table then the DM is all of those things for you...
So don't take it too hard, or to heart, when one of these nice folks wants to tell you you're wrong, or that you've done something in bad faith, or that you've failed, or that they know you intentions: because they don't.
Sacred Flame doesn't say it ignores cover, which is important because it's absolutely routine for the spell to come up in discussions of cover, and in particular for it to be misinterpreted.
Sacred Flame says (emphasis mine) "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Sacred Flame does not ignore cover in exactly the same way that reach does work on opportunity attacks: the rules do what they say they do, no more, no less.
Vis a vis the other discussion I spotted in this thread about the text saying "descends": your DM is free to interpret the spell as coming down from above and therefore to determine cover or not relative to above the target rather than relative to the caster, but that's a wildly different claim from claiming that it ignores cover entirely. Ignoring covering entirely would let the spell hit a Tiny creature inside a Tiny glass coffin. That's patently against the RAW.
These are some really good points!
I missed this in the Total Cover rule and you are right. While it is not described as illegal in the Making an Attack rule, I was incorrect to say that you can target something with a weapon attack behind Total Cover. I believe in the podcast JC only ever talked about Sacred Flame being able to target something on the other side of a window. The weapon attack case is interesting because as far as I am aware there isn't anything like the Clear Path rule that addresses how to handle the situation where there is an obstruction the player is unaware of.
Speaking of Sacred Flame:
Indeed, what I wrote was not a direct quote of the spell's text. Rather I summarized the relevant point that I had missed when describing something I found confusing in my previous post.
Later in that post, when I wrote about using Sacred Flame to target something the caster can see despite Total Cover, I tried to make it clear that the source was JC. Statements from JC are not necessarily RAW or even RAI. However, the statements JC made that I was summarizing were from the Sage Advice section of a Dragon Talk podcast on January 19th, 2017. While it is old it does directly address the Clear Path rule and I linked to the podcast and stated the relevant timestamps in the post of mine you quoted. Since this is part of Sage Advice I personally would treat it as a RAI source.