I know this is an old thread but I had a conversation about this just last night: (out of game, my character doesn't even have the spell yet... rule number 1 not considered herein)
Why does everyone insist that the spell says "see". Even on the Fireball entry here on D&D Beyond, there is no "see" anywhere in the spell. And the "bright streak" makes no mention of a "straight" line. It doesn't even say "line."
The only other general ruling that could apply would be the "clear path" rule. Which if you read it, states specifically that you can place an area of effect at a point you can't see. It goes on to say that if there is an obstruction in that space you can't see, the point of origin begins there... that's all.
This means you really don't have to be able to "see" to place the point of origin for a spell like this.
Unless there is some other RAW that could be applied here... is there?
And for RAI, I can stand on one side of a wall and throw a rock at a coordinate I choose on the other side of the wall without being able to see it. What's so complicated about that? A trebuchet can lob a barrel of burning oil over a castle wall. Why would something named Fire "ball" not be able to arch over a simple obstacle? Clearly, if there's a barrier over on the other side that I can't see, the rock will hit that thing instead of going where I tried to throw it... I wouldn't attempt to apply this logic to a spell that's more specific in wording; but fireball reads like a very simple spell. Why make it more complicated, or restrictive, than it needs to be.
Note that with Fireball though you do not need a clear line between the targeted point and other squares in the area of effect since Fireball " . . . spreads around corners."
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature. Atleast if you play on a grid, and don't consider height. If you can't connect a line from the corner of your square to a corner of the target's square without touching an obstacle, you don't have a clear path to the target as the target has full cover. You generally can't target something behind full cover. You can if course argue that not all obstacles completely fill a 5-foot square, but the rules for line of sight on a grid don't seem to care.
With all that said, I fear that I am missing something obvious as everyone in the thread seems to agree on the opposite >_>
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
The rules tell us that creatures grant half cover.
Fangeye, you're right. And that is what I was refering to in mentioning the Clear Path rule. One thing that I enjoying disputing about most similar interpretations is that it doesn't say Straight Path, it just Says Clear Path. For instance, if I assemble a bunch of pipes, and run some water through them, there's obviously a clear path running through the pipes, the only thing required there is positive flow, provided either by gravity or a pump. Obviously we cant be shooting fireballs down winding pathways with no clear objective though.
The wording on the Clear Path rule saying...
" 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."
...doesn't absolutely require that the path be straight does it, it also doesn't require that this be considered purely in 2 dimensions, as is on a top down view of a grid? In this case, image that our wizard is standing 5 feet away from a 20 foot tall wall, and tries to lob a fireball to a spot he knows geometrically to be 5 feet on the other side of that wall. Would you rule against this? And why? Does magic have to be constrained to Straight Lines only? Other spells being more specific in their wording would certainly be ruled differently. But I don't see any wording in any of this that should constrain the use of fireball like that.
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
The rules tell us that creatures grant half cover.
Ah I see. Personally I've always considered the examples in the cover rules to simply be examples, not rules. I don't consider a large bookshelf to only provide halfcover either despite large furnitures being mentioned as examples of obstacles providing half cover.
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
The rules tell us that creatures grant half cover.
Ah I see. Personally I've always considered the examples in the cover rules to simply be examples, not rules. I don't consider a large bookshelf to only provide halfcover either despite large furnitures being mentioned as examples of obstacles providing half cover.
Well, the rules also tell us that total cover comes from being completely concealed, and that is not usually the case when a creature is behind another, even if one is a different size than another. And as for bookcases, it depends on if it has a back, how full it is with books, and how it is arranged in relation to the observer and the observed. But most other large furniture, like couches, desk, tables, dressers, and the like, would probably only cover about half of a medium humanoid from the perspective of another medium humanoid.
Fangeye, you're right. And that is what I was refering to in mentioning the Clear Path rule. One thing that I enjoying disputing about most similar interpretations is that it doesn't say Straight Path, it just Says Clear Path. For instance, if I assemble a bunch of pipes, and run some water through them, there's obviously a clear path running through the pipes, the only thing required there is positive flow, provided either by gravity or a pump. Obviously we cant be shooting fireballs down winding pathways with no clear objective though.
The wording on the Clear Path rule saying...
" 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."
...doesn't absolutely require that the path be straight does it, it also doesn't require that this be considered purely in 2 dimensions, as is on a top down view of a grid? In this case, image that our wizard is standing 5 feet away from a 20 foot tall wall, and tries to lob a fireball to a spot he knows geometrically to be 5 feet on the other side of that wall. Would you rule against this? And why? Does magic have to be constrained to Straight Lines only? Other spells being more specific in their wording would certainly be ruled differently. But I don't see any wording in any of this that should constrain the use of fireball like that.
You are correct in that the Clear Path rule does not explicitly state that the path must be straight. Straight lines aren't explicitly required until the rules are describing how you determine which squares are affected by an AoE.
That being said, the Clear Path rule provides one example of of a target that is not considered to have a clear path to it. The example they give is a target with total cover. This is why the Clear Path rule is generally interpreted to mean straight lines.
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
The rules tell us that creatures grant half cover.
Ah I see. Personally I've always considered the examples in the cover rules to simply be examples, not rules. I don't consider a large bookshelf to only provide halfcover either despite large furnitures being mentioned as examples of obstacles providing half cover.
Well, the rules also tell us that total cover comes from being completely concealed, and that is not usually the case when a creature is behind another, even if one is a different size than another. And as for bookcases, it depends on if it has a back, how full it is with books, and how it is arranged in relation to the observer and the observed. But most other large furniture, like couches, desk, tables, dressers, and the like, would probably only cover about half of a medium humanoid from the perspective of another medium humanoid.
Narratively speaking you are of course correct. However, the rules for cover using a grid do not seem to care about the physical density of the obstacle, but is simply concerned with line of sight as a mechanic (as opposed to a realistic narrative description).
Regarding furniture, my point was simply that the listed examples are merely that: examples. As you say, the degree of cover granted by a bookcase "depends on if it has a back, how full it is with books, and how it is arranged in relation to the observer and the observed". A large, densely packed bookcase could easily provide full cover, just as a Sprite's small bookcase might serve as difficult terrain at best. The bookcase doesn't simply grant half cover by virtue of being a piece of furniture, a broad category listed as an example. The degree of cover depends on other factors, its size seemingly being key among them in the rules for cover on a grid.
Fangeye, I appreciate your approach to refuting my point. And I'm almost ready to concede the point on the basis of the Total Cover thingy. However, there's a quote from Jeremy Crawford on a Sage advice that says you don't have to see the point of origin for a fireball...
If you don't need to see the point of origin, why does cover matter at all? I've asked Jeremy on the Twitters, and maybe I'll get a reply (not gonna hold my breath though).
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
That is incorrect, unless the creature providing cover is larger than the creature being covered.
If you can't connect a line from the corner of your square to a corner of the target's square without touching an obstacle, you don't have a clear path to the target as the target has full cover.
The rules don't say "without touching an obstacle." The wording actually used is "blocked by an obstacle." If you and I are facing each other, in adjacent grid square, and I'm trying to shoot at WolfOfTheBees who has inexplicably taken cover directly behind you, I can reach both of his right-side grid corners from either of my left-side grid corners without being blocked by you, and the same is true if we swap sides. That means he has half-cover.
Fangeye, I appreciate your approach to refuting my point. And I'm almost ready to concede the point on the basis of the Total Cover thingy. However, there's a quote from Jeremy Crawford on a Sage advice that says you don't have to see the point of origin for a fireball...
If you don't need to see the point of origin, why does cover matter at all? I've asked Jeremy on the Twitters, and maybe I'll get a reply (not gonna hold my breath though).
To answer this question, that you don't need to see the point of origin only means you can still cast fireball with your eyes closed or into a cloud of darkness. Cover matters because the "clear path to the target" clause is about how an effect travels, not about what you can see. I myself have spoken imprecisely in this very thread, relying on everyone participating understanding what everyone else means even when they're sloppy with their verbiage. But that sloppiness doesn't impact the nitty-gritty of the rules, which is that sight and cover are different things, and being able to ignore one does not mean you can ignore the other.
Saga, I'm glad you brought up how the effect travels. How does it travel?
The spell only kinda describes how it travels:
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range" direct quote
WotC is kinda sloppy on that in my opinion, especially on spells like this one. It doesn't say "...[straight] to a point...". Does that omission leave it up to interpretation? Obviously yes, because some people interpret it to mean it flies in an absolutely straight line. Do you interpret this to mean it flies like a projectile? What kind of projectile? Like a bullet? Like an arrow? Or like a ball? When I see [...]ball, I want to treat it like a [...]ball: as in, it could follow a naturally curved trajectory on its way to some location, up and over Some obstacles, like a 20 foot wall... on it's way to some Point of Origin , that I can't see, that is behind total cover...
PS some people see my written words and assume I'm angry or something. I'm actually enjoying this conversation and appreciate anyone willing to bring good points to the table, Raw or Rai or otherwise. Thanks
Saga describes how I understand the rules very well. With total cover there is an obstacle completely blocking any straight path between the space I occupy and the space my target occupies. When something is in darkness, invisible, or otherwise unseen then it is Heavily Obscured. The distinction is with heavy obscurement there isn't necessarily anything physical between you and the target, but with cover there absolutely is.
As for the specific path a Fireball travels I personally treat it as I would a mundane projectile like an arrow or a bolt and it travels in a straight line for the purposes of the mechanics. This may not suite some tables and I would recommend finding what is fun for your table. The way I see it, what is important is being consistent and predictable so that way players are not surprised or confused when they can't do something or by the consequences of what they do.
Aerial burst could work also. The spell only says that you target an area, not a physical object.
Using the spell this way gets rid of most if not all cover restrictions. You can hit the bad guy hiding behind something or around a corner. He could be in total cover behind a 10 foot wall. Just target the area 5 feet over the wall and 5 feet behind it.
As long as nothing is in the way like a glass window or glass wall.
Aerial burst could work also. The spell only says that you target an area, not a physical object.
Using the spell this way gets rid of most if not all cover restrictions. You can hit the bad guy hiding behind something or around a corner. He could be in total cover behind a 10 foot wall. Just target the area 5 feet over the wall and 5 feet behind it.
As long as nothing is in the way like a glass window or wall.
With Fireball in particular you don't even need to target a point in space on the other side of the wall. Because Fireball spreads around corners, you just need the top of the wall to be within the radius of the targeted point for the effect to spill over and effect squares on the other side.
Fangeye: So, your treatment of the "path of effect" for a Fireball is based on a personal preference, and not on something you've read in a WotC source book?
If there's no RAW treatment for the path of effect of a Fireball, in the spell text or otherwise, that means there's no RAW reason to treat it as a straight line. Therefore there's no RAW reason it can't follow a curved path the the target. Which means there's no RAW reason to give anything cover when it comes to casting Fireball. Right, purely RAW reasons? That goes for the NPCs casting fireball as well... (evil grin widens).
I do agree about finding out what's fun. And that it's important to be consistent. That's why I was here asking before I go back to the table with any of this. Thanks Fangeye! And Saga. Keep it coming if you have more points that could potentially convince me that a magic fireball can't be lobbed over a simple barrier...
In general I try to play close to RAW as possible. As I said earlier the Clear Path to the Target rule tells us that a targeted space or creature with Total Cover from the caster is not a valid target. This is the exact phrasing: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."
This does not say the clear path must be a straight line, however if we allow curved paths then in almost all situations where a target has total cover it is possible to find a clear path. To me this makes the one counter example the rules provide unjustified and nonsensical. So for me to understand the rule and how it works I assume the writers were intending straight paths.
Lets consider the following situation: An enemy ambushes the party at night and is hiding behind a 5ft high wall from the Human Wizard. For clarity we will call the side of the wall with the caster Side A and the side with the enemy Side B. It is dark so the Wizard cannot see and is effectively Blinded. The Wizard casts Fireball at the enemy unaware of the wall between them. Per the Clear Path rule because there is an obstruction between the chosen point of origin for the Fireball and the caster we need to determine the new point of origin, and that is on Side A.
So the Fireball detonates on Side A, is the enemy safe? According to the Areas of Effect rules we must be able to trace a straight line from an AoE's point of origin to a square to affect that square, and if no such line exists the square is unaffected. So it seems like the enemy is in the clear. However Fireball tells us "The fire spreads around corners." This language is common to many spells, such as Cloudkill, Fog Cloud, Incendiary Cloud, and Stinking Cloud. From this I infer these spells do not follow the general Areas of Effect rules. So instead I consider a square to be affected if it is within the described area of the spell and a straight unobstructed line exists between the square and either the point of origin or another affected square. This last sentence isn't from any rules but is entirely how I interpret them and is a way to produce the "spreading around corners" effect.
If you allow a Fireball to travel a curved path then consider how you would handle the following situation: An enemy is inside a spherical Wall of Force. The Wizard casts Fireball at the enemy and has the Fireball curve around the Wall of Force before trying to reach its intended target so that the Fireball impacts on the far side of the Wall of Force. Where does the Fireball detonate?
The Clear Path rule tells us "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." So we trace the line between the chosen point of origin and the caster, and the new point of origin becomes outside the Wall of Force on the side nearest to the caster. This doesn't seem right as that is no where near the point where the Fireball impacted the Wall of Force. To me the logical place for the Fireball to detonate is at the point of impact with the obstruction, but this is not consistent with the written rules as it is not on the line between the caster and the chosen point of origin.
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature.
That is incorrect, unless the creature providing cover is larger than the creature being covered.
So you also believe that a creature can grant more/less cover than half cover? I.e. that creatures don't grant half cover by virtue of being creatures, but that it largely depends on their size?
If you can't connect a line from the corner of your square to a corner of the target's square without touching an obstacle, you don't have a clear path to the target as the target has full cover.
The rules don't say "without touching an obstacle." The wording actually used is "blocked by an obstacle." If you and I are facing each other, in adjacent grid square, and I'm trying to shoot at WolfOfTheBees who has inexplicably taken cover directly behind you, I can reach both of his right-side grid corners from either of my left-side grid corners without being blocked by you, and the same is true if we swap sides. That means he has half-cover.
Hmm, that is indeed how it is phrased in the cover rules. I have always thought that a big bookcase/boulder/tree taking up a whole square directly between two medium sized creatures granted total cover to both from the perspective of the other. The same with a Gelatinous Cube. I didn't think you could target a creature directly behind the Gelatinous Cube if you were standing on the opposite side.
If we look at the rules for line of sight, the rules here do mention that, in order to have line of sight, you need at least one imaginary line to not pass through or touch another object that blocks vision (as opposed to "be blocked by an obstacle"). If a target hid directly behind a 5-foot square stone pillar that took up the entirety of its space, would:
You have line of sight to the target?
Would the target only have half cover, as opposed to full cover?
Would Q2 even matter if the answer to Q1 is "no"?
Afterthought: I guess it all comes down to whether or not the edge and side of a square is considered part of the square, no?
Relevant rules quotes below.
Cover
To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
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.
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.
Line of Sight
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range" direct quote
WotC is kinda sloppy on that in my opinion, especially on spells like this one. It doesn't say "...[straight] to a point...".
A streak is a straight line. 😝
Granted it's not the simplest choice of words, and it could definitely be clarified like you say, but it says what you need to know, and the targeting rules are a lot clearer; the general rule is that the spell needs to explicitly override the normal targeting rules, otherwise you use them.
I know this is an old thread but I had a conversation about this just last night: (out of game, my character doesn't even have the spell yet... rule number 1 not considered herein)
Why does everyone insist that the spell says "see". Even on the Fireball entry here on D&D Beyond, there is no "see" anywhere in the spell. And the "bright streak" makes no mention of a "straight" line. It doesn't even say "line."
The only other general ruling that could apply would be the "clear path" rule. Which if you read it, states specifically that you can place an area of effect at a point you can't see. It goes on to say that if there is an obstruction in that space you can't see, the point of origin begins there... that's all.
This means you really don't have to be able to "see" to place the point of origin for a spell like this.
Unless there is some other RAW that could be applied here... is there?
And for RAI, I can stand on one side of a wall and throw a rock at a coordinate I choose on the other side of the wall without being able to see it. What's so complicated about that? A trebuchet can lob a barrel of burning oil over a castle wall. Why would something named Fire "ball" not be able to arch over a simple obstacle? Clearly, if there's a barrier over on the other side that I can't see, the rock will hit that thing instead of going where I tried to throw it... I wouldn't attempt to apply this logic to a spell that's more specific in wording; but fireball reads like a very simple spell. Why make it more complicated, or restrictive, than it needs to be.
It is true that with Fireball you do not need to see the point in space you target with the spell. However, you do need a clear line to the targets point in space per the general spell targeting rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget
Note that with Fireball though you do not need a clear line between the targeted point and other squares in the area of effect since Fireball " . . . spreads around corners."
I don't agree with any of the inputs I see in this thread regarding the targeting and cover rules. A single creature (or any other obstacle) right in front of you grants full cover to all targets directly behind said creature. Atleast if you play on a grid, and don't consider height. If you can't connect a line from the corner of your square to a corner of the target's square without touching an obstacle, you don't have a clear path to the target as the target has full cover. You generally can't target something behind full cover. You can if course argue that not all obstacles completely fill a 5-foot square, but the rules for line of sight on a grid don't seem to care.
With all that said, I fear that I am missing something obvious as everyone in the thread seems to agree on the opposite >_>
The rules tell us that creatures grant half cover.
Fangeye, you're right. And that is what I was refering to in mentioning the Clear Path rule. One thing that I enjoying disputing about most similar interpretations is that it doesn't say Straight Path, it just Says Clear Path. For instance, if I assemble a bunch of pipes, and run some water through them, there's obviously a clear path running through the pipes, the only thing required there is positive flow, provided either by gravity or a pump. Obviously we cant be shooting fireballs down winding pathways with no clear objective though.
The wording on the Clear Path rule saying...
" 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."
...doesn't absolutely require that the path be straight does it, it also doesn't require that this be considered purely in 2 dimensions, as is on a top down view of a grid? In this case, image that our wizard is standing 5 feet away from a 20 foot tall wall, and tries to lob a fireball to a spot he knows geometrically to be 5 feet on the other side of that wall. Would you rule against this? And why? Does magic have to be constrained to Straight Lines only? Other spells being more specific in their wording would certainly be ruled differently. But I don't see any wording in any of this that should constrain the use of fireball like that.
Ah I see. Personally I've always considered the examples in the cover rules to simply be examples, not rules. I don't consider a large bookshelf to only provide halfcover either despite large furnitures being mentioned as examples of obstacles providing half cover.
Well, the rules also tell us that total cover comes from being completely concealed, and that is not usually the case when a creature is behind another, even if one is a different size than another. And as for bookcases, it depends on if it has a back, how full it is with books, and how it is arranged in relation to the observer and the observed. But most other large furniture, like couches, desk, tables, dressers, and the like, would probably only cover about half of a medium humanoid from the perspective of another medium humanoid.
You are correct in that the Clear Path rule does not explicitly state that the path must be straight. Straight lines aren't explicitly required until the rules are describing how you determine which squares are affected by an AoE.
That being said, the Clear Path rule provides one example of of a target that is not considered to have a clear path to it. The example they give is a target with total cover. This is why the Clear Path rule is generally interpreted to mean straight lines.
Narratively speaking you are of course correct. However, the rules for cover using a grid do not seem to care about the physical density of the obstacle, but is simply concerned with line of sight as a mechanic (as opposed to a realistic narrative description).
Regarding furniture, my point was simply that the listed examples are merely that: examples. As you say, the degree of cover granted by a bookcase "depends on if it has a back, how full it is with books, and how it is arranged in relation to the observer and the observed". A large, densely packed bookcase could easily provide full cover, just as a Sprite's small bookcase might serve as difficult terrain at best. The bookcase doesn't simply grant half cover by virtue of being a piece of furniture, a broad category listed as an example. The degree of cover depends on other factors, its size seemingly being key among them in the rules for cover on a grid.
Fangeye, I appreciate your approach to refuting my point. And I'm almost ready to concede the point on the basis of the Total Cover thingy. However, there's a quote from Jeremy Crawford on a Sage advice that says you don't have to see the point of origin for a fireball...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/fireball-point-of-origin/
If you don't need to see the point of origin, why does cover matter at all? I've asked Jeremy on the Twitters, and maybe I'll get a reply (not gonna hold my breath though).
That is incorrect, unless the creature providing cover is larger than the creature being covered.
The rules don't say "without touching an obstacle." The wording actually used is "blocked by an obstacle." If you and I are facing each other, in adjacent grid square, and I'm trying to shoot at WolfOfTheBees who has inexplicably taken cover directly behind you, I can reach both of his right-side grid corners from either of my left-side grid corners without being blocked by you, and the same is true if we swap sides. That means he has half-cover.
To answer this question, that you don't need to see the point of origin only means you can still cast fireball with your eyes closed or into a cloud of darkness. Cover matters because the "clear path to the target" clause is about how an effect travels, not about what you can see. I myself have spoken imprecisely in this very thread, relying on everyone participating understanding what everyone else means even when they're sloppy with their verbiage. But that sloppiness doesn't impact the nitty-gritty of the rules, which is that sight and cover are different things, and being able to ignore one does not mean you can ignore the other.
Saga, I'm glad you brought up how the effect travels. How does it travel?
The spell only kinda describes how it travels:
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range" direct quote
WotC is kinda sloppy on that in my opinion, especially on spells like this one. It doesn't say "...[straight] to a point...". Does that omission leave it up to interpretation? Obviously yes, because some people interpret it to mean it flies in an absolutely straight line. Do you interpret this to mean it flies like a projectile? What kind of projectile? Like a bullet? Like an arrow? Or like a ball? When I see [...]ball, I want to treat it like a [...]ball: as in, it could follow a naturally curved trajectory on its way to some location, up and over Some obstacles, like a 20 foot wall... on it's way to some Point of Origin , that I can't see, that is behind total cover...
PS some people see my written words and assume I'm angry or something. I'm actually enjoying this conversation and appreciate anyone willing to bring good points to the table, Raw or Rai or otherwise. Thanks
Saga describes how I understand the rules very well. With total cover there is an obstacle completely blocking any straight path between the space I occupy and the space my target occupies. When something is in darkness, invisible, or otherwise unseen then it is Heavily Obscured. The distinction is with heavy obscurement there isn't necessarily anything physical between you and the target, but with cover there absolutely is.
For reference here are the rules regarding Cover and Light and Visibility:
Cover: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Cover
Light and Visibility: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/adventuring#VisionandLight
As for the specific path a Fireball travels I personally treat it as I would a mundane projectile like an arrow or a bolt and it travels in a straight line for the purposes of the mechanics. This may not suite some tables and I would recommend finding what is fun for your table. The way I see it, what is important is being consistent and predictable so that way players are not surprised or confused when they can't do something or by the consequences of what they do.
Aerial burst could work also. The spell only says that you target an area, not a physical object.
Using the spell this way gets rid of most if not all cover restrictions. You can hit the bad guy hiding behind something or around a corner. He could be in total cover behind a 10 foot wall. Just target the area 5 feet over the wall and 5 feet behind it.
As long as nothing is in the way like a glass window or glass wall.
With Fireball in particular you don't even need to target a point in space on the other side of the wall. Because Fireball spreads around corners, you just need the top of the wall to be within the radius of the targeted point for the effect to spill over and effect squares on the other side.
Fangeye: So, your treatment of the "path of effect" for a Fireball is based on a personal preference, and not on something you've read in a WotC source book?
If there's no RAW treatment for the path of effect of a Fireball, in the spell text or otherwise, that means there's no RAW reason to treat it as a straight line. Therefore there's no RAW reason it can't follow a curved path the the target. Which means there's no RAW reason to give anything cover when it comes to casting Fireball. Right, purely RAW reasons? That goes for the NPCs casting fireball as well... (evil grin widens).
I do agree about finding out what's fun. And that it's important to be consistent. That's why I was here asking before I go back to the table with any of this. Thanks Fangeye! And Saga. Keep it coming if you have more points that could potentially convince me that a magic fireball can't be lobbed over a simple barrier...
In general I try to play close to RAW as possible. As I said earlier the Clear Path to the Target rule tells us that a targeted space or creature with Total Cover from the caster is not a valid target. This is the exact phrasing: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."
This does not say the clear path must be a straight line, however if we allow curved paths then in almost all situations where a target has total cover it is possible to find a clear path. To me this makes the one counter example the rules provide unjustified and nonsensical. So for me to understand the rule and how it works I assume the writers were intending straight paths.
Lets consider the following situation: An enemy ambushes the party at night and is hiding behind a 5ft high wall from the Human Wizard. For clarity we will call the side of the wall with the caster Side A and the side with the enemy Side B. It is dark so the Wizard cannot see and is effectively Blinded. The Wizard casts Fireball at the enemy unaware of the wall between them. Per the Clear Path rule because there is an obstruction between the chosen point of origin for the Fireball and the caster we need to determine the new point of origin, and that is on Side A.
So the Fireball detonates on Side A, is the enemy safe? According to the Areas of Effect rules we must be able to trace a straight line from an AoE's point of origin to a square to affect that square, and if no such line exists the square is unaffected. So it seems like the enemy is in the clear. However Fireball tells us "The fire spreads around corners." This language is common to many spells, such as Cloudkill, Fog Cloud, Incendiary Cloud, and Stinking Cloud. From this I infer these spells do not follow the general Areas of Effect rules. So instead I consider a square to be affected if it is within the described area of the spell and a straight unobstructed line exists between the square and either the point of origin or another affected square. This last sentence isn't from any rules but is entirely how I interpret them and is a way to produce the "spreading around corners" effect.
If you allow a Fireball to travel a curved path then consider how you would handle the following situation: An enemy is inside a spherical Wall of Force. The Wizard casts Fireball at the enemy and has the Fireball curve around the Wall of Force before trying to reach its intended target so that the Fireball impacts on the far side of the Wall of Force. Where does the Fireball detonate?
The Clear Path rule tells us "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." So we trace the line between the chosen point of origin and the caster, and the new point of origin becomes outside the Wall of Force on the side nearest to the caster. This doesn't seem right as that is no where near the point where the Fireball impacted the Wall of Force. To me the logical place for the Fireball to detonate is at the point of impact with the obstruction, but this is not consistent with the written rules as it is not on the line between the caster and the chosen point of origin.
So you also believe that a creature can grant more/less cover than half cover? I.e. that creatures don't grant half cover by virtue of being creatures, but that it largely depends on their size?
Hmm, that is indeed how it is phrased in the cover rules. I have always thought that a big bookcase/boulder/tree taking up a whole square directly between two medium sized creatures granted total cover to both from the perspective of the other. The same with a Gelatinous Cube. I didn't think you could target a creature directly behind the Gelatinous Cube if you were standing on the opposite side.
If we look at the rules for line of sight, the rules here do mention that, in order to have line of sight, you need at least one imaginary line to not pass through or touch another object that blocks vision (as opposed to "be blocked by an obstacle"). If a target hid directly behind a 5-foot square stone pillar that took up the entirety of its space, would:
Afterthought: I guess it all comes down to whether or not the edge and side of a square is considered part of the square, no?
Relevant rules quotes below.
A streak is a straight line. 😝
Granted it's not the simplest choice of words, and it could definitely be clarified like you say, but it says what you need to know, and the targeting rules are a lot clearer; the general rule is that the spell needs to explicitly override the normal targeting rules, otherwise you use them.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.