I've used my innate druid powers to morph into an analysis pitbull at this point: conceptually I can agree and disagree with a lot that has been said in this thread; but I want to keep thrashing the WotC writers work around in my frothy maw until their lack of proficiency in technical writing is laid bare for all to see! I do however understand that the source texts are Not technical literature... and I do still enjoy reading them...
It can be a verb too: to run through a public place naked drawing as much attention to yourself as possible! That's basically what the fireball is doing right; it's got all it's bits out and just Has to be the center of attention? To really accomplish the Goal of a good streak, the fireball should zig-zag and serpentine a bit until it gets noticed by security! Shooting stars streak through the sky, are they flying in a straight line? It may look that way to us, but any good Arcanist would know that nothing is truly straight, or flat, (except Earth...! jk) If I don't do a good job cleaning my windows they get streaks, those are never straight and that's always super annoying... I'd prefer my window streaks to be straight! But you've brought up something that should be considered here: a circle is also a line, and if viewed from (infinitely many) certain angles it can be seen as a Straight line segment. So are we immersed, viewing the battle field as our characters would; or are we 3rd person omniscient, as silly gods, that can't tell when something is curved towards them because they assume all lesser being to inhabit a 2D world?
To re-address the Clear path rule: the first sentence precludes the possibilities discussed in the rest of the rule. If it has total cover it can't be a valid target, period. You want the clear path? You can't handle the clear path! Fangeye I really do like the example you've set up, and it does argue against the contradiction I've just pointed out: the caster may not know the target has total cover, and "attempts" to target something that can't be actually be targeted... in a case like that I'd say sure, the fireball flies pretty much straight towards where the caster thinks it should go and blows up in their face because they were careless in choosing their path of travel(because the path is not defined by the spell itself). And yes, the area of effect would follow the spreading around corners rules that we all know and love so maybe the target gets burned too.
As for the curved path Spherical Wall situation: the clear path rule doesn't specify shortest distance after encountering an obstacle or even that "between you and that point" is along the shortest path, or straight path back to the caster: if the path is curved, and distance along the curve determines "between", the fireball detonates at the point where the casters intended path and the wall intersect. In my minds eye I see this looking really cool, the invisible sphere of force with it's floating BBEG nucleus, outlined and backlit by a casters utterly useless attempt to penetrate the villains defenses... think exploding hair light on a movie set! Personally I would restrict overly complicated paths of effect... no figure eight and up the who who now! But I have no RAW for this kind of restriction.
If y'all will allow me I'd like to bring in an example that doesn't use fireball, and touch on Flame Strike, as I think it has some similarities and could expose a few interesting points. If we adhere to the Clear Path = Straight Path doctrine: your caster could spend all day sitting on top of a five foot wall, committing the landscape all around to memory, doing his best Bob Ross routine rolling nat 20s on a happy little painting, because he wants to remember this happy moment, and share it with the friends he makes along the way... he jumps down to one side, and because he's chaotic, decides to cast Flame Strike on a particularly pretty spot some 50 feet on the other side of that wall (that's His happy memory, and you can't have it). But that spot has total cover now that the caster is standing on the ground, and it cannot be a valid target, but it was an intended target, so instead, we trace a line representing the shortest distance between the intended target and the caster (regardless of path of effect) and now the Flame Strike roars down (from the sky?) upon the near side of the five foot wall as it's central point of origin. The caster lays burnt and smoking upon the ground contemplating his... lack of cognitive development in Object Permanence...? Or is it that magic itself has no object permanence; the ether has no teeth either? Raccoon runs into holla log... raccoon runs out holla log... wut we know bout raccoon?
New Point
So here's another nugget to chew on (maybe it's real gold!) [Tooltip Not Found] The "Cover" rule tells us that "...A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover." Spells like Fireball and Flame Strike tell us that we can choose a point, not that the caster is the point of origin for the effect. And that the "bright streak" only "blossoms" once it gets to that point. The center of the sphere is the point of origin, the source of the effect! So cover should be determined based on a relation to that point of origin, and not on where the caster is standing.
Other spells that count as attacks, that have attack rolls, would require that the caster be considered as the point of origin right?
If I take this little nugget and consider that cover is assigned with respect to the point of origin chosen and not the caster (in this case), this changes the whole situation. Now the caster can simply choose a point of origin in space, define whatever path of travel the streak takes from caster to the intended point of origin (unless clearly specified in the case of some other spell) and we go from there, thoroughly expecting for invisible barriers and hastily erected glass walls being along the curved path to thwart our casters plans once again; because the DM knows what we're doing and will be upset with us for 3D drifting our bright streak around the battlefield...
What do you guys think of that? Still game to debate? Please and thank you! GLHF! Spas Machen! Tiene que dar vueltas!
I can't get the rule tooltip to work (I got it right for the spells?), Here's the link to the section in Combat on Cover
I think of a fireball effect like the explosion of a grenade.
You have to get the center of the explosion beyond the wall to get the area effect to cover the backside of the wall.
No it does not fly around corners or dodge opponents in the path of flight, but opponents do not take up the whole space they occupy. They move and thus do not totally block a line of sight. So if the castor can see a line of sight to even just a part of the target through a crowd then at that instant he can cast the spell and it can get to the target.
If you know the target or even think the target is behind a wall or hiding around a corner you can target an area close to the intended target.. The area must be in sight and past the intervening obstruction so that when it explodes the effect covers the back of the obstruction. The explosion does not creep around corners so if you draw a straight line from the center of the explosion to the target you can not have an intervening obstruction.
Or you can calculate the shotgun effect but lets just say that after running the numbers the caster has no way of not being covered in the blast effect if cast down a 5ftx5ftx8ft tunnel. The volume of the blast constrained into the tunnel makes it a death trap for the caster. The caster can only cast fireball 30 5ft squares and the back blast area is about 82 5ft squares. Good thing thats not in the rules.
TheGnome, I agree and also like to think of it like a grenade, that can easily be tossed over walls with the full expectation that, if there's not a roof or some other horizontal barrier that the caster can't see over that wall, the "streak" that flew out of the casters fingers, will land on the ground where the caster expected it to, and explode there.
If I were at your table I'd totally be down to play it like a line of sight spell, Rule number 1 is always valid. But RAW Fireball does not require that you "see" a target while many others require it specifically, ie Magic Missile. As I've discussed with others gracious enough to try and edify me on this thread that the absence of the "see" requirement allows for casting Fireball (and other spells) into things like Fog or Darkness.
The (admittedly, convoluted) point I'm attempting to make here is that: without the "see" requirement, and considering the specific language in the Cover section on determining cover based on origination of effect, combined with the concept that the effect of a fireball originates at a point chosen by the caster, and not that it originates at the caster themselves (because the "streak" is the flavor, the fire is the effect), means that targets (points in space) do not have cover based on their physical position with respect to the caster and a wall that lies on the shortest straight line between them. The targets would only have cover with respect to their physical position with respect to the point of origin for the fire.
TBH I'd probably also say (for my table at least), unless you're on the astral plane, fireball probably shouldn't fly around corners (again, I agree with you on that point)... we're not in that horrible bend the bullet movie here! But arching over a wall seems super reasonable in the face of the RAW points I've assembled here, at least to me. Care to refute again Mr. TheGnome?
And also, maybe it was a typo but RAW Fireball fire does spread around corners.
The (admittedly, convoluted) point I'm attempting to make here is that: without the "see" requirement, and considering the specific language in the Cover section on determining cover based on origination of effect, combined with the concept that the effect of a fireball originates at a point chosen by the caster, and not that it originates at the caster themselves (because the "streak" is the flavor, the fire is the effect), means that targets (points in space) do not have cover based on their physical position with respect to the caster and a wall that lies on the shortest straight line between them. The targets would only have cover with respect to their physical position with respect to the point of origin for the fire.
Oh! Okay, I see where your confusion is.
The origin of the spell fireball is the caster, and it is the caster's position that determines whether or not the initial target of the spell (a point in space) has total cover.
The point in space, which is the target of the spell, serves as the origin for the area of effect. With respect to that origin point, we then get into the whole "spreads around corners" thing, which is a topic I'm not really interested in wading into.
For the initial casting of the spell, the target (the point in space that will serve as the origin for the AoE) cannot be behind total cover, and if you try to cast it at a point that is, the AoE comes into being on your side of that cover, per the rules.
So, I'm still missing at least one RAW elements to really buy into your point. I'd like to quote from another contributor to this thread, back on post #3 before presenting something else that I've dug out of the RAW...
...Whether it was a "red streak" or "appears out of nowhere" or a "flying flaming skull" is all pointless fluff. Likewise, the fire could be any colour, or manifest like a swarm of fiery snakes rather than a real cloud of fire. This is just flavouring for making the spell their own - it doesn't change how the spell actually works (target point, it goes boom, etc).
...
I agree with this part of Cyb3rM1nd's point in that I don't see any RAW reason to treat the "streak" as the "effect" of the spell for the purpose of determining Cover. To support that here's this:
Area of Effect tells us that when a spell has an Area of Effect, that "spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin...." which in the case of Fireball, the effect is the fire that damages the stuff in the AoE, and the point of origin is just what the caster chose. I could easily interpret this to mean that anything else in the spells text is not to be considered as "effect," but is more in line with Cyb3rM1nd's point: the "streak" is the just the flavor of the spell. Unless there's something you can point me to that would clarify these Tasty elements as also being "effect."
Furthermore: the Cover section has a fairly clear "or" statement with two cases; but it's not an "and or" statement. The two distinct "cases" being: an "attack", "or" an "effect originates." Seeing that Fireball is not an attack (it doesn't require an attack role), the "effect originates" case is what should be applied; and we should ignore the "attack" case for fireball. (Sorry for the lapse into logical argumentation here, my Wittgenstein is showing, lol).
The "effect originates" case would take me back to determining cover based on the point in space chosen for the "effect" of fireball, and not on determining cover for the flavor of the spell base on where the caster is standing, because we should ignore the "attack" case. How bout them apples chip?
But I do allow it to be detonated early. Long before the 150 foot mark in the air or space.
For example instead of throwing it over a wall like a grenade lets cast it 5 ft above the 10ft wall and 5ft beyond it for an air burst. Thus catching anyone on the other side of the wall. Its a small difference but in my example the cast does not have to bend in any direction.
Now an interesting thing could be a homebrew variant call it the "fuzzball" that only flies as far as your throw range but does bounce like a grenade. To make it even more fun and interesting make it go off at the end of the round no matter when you threw it. Like a 6 second grenade. Toss that thing out there sputtering and hissing and watch the mayhem.
If you simply dropped it off a cliff it would fall 580 feet in 6 seconds before detonating unless it landed before then.
I am not sure how much I have left to say about this topic but here is some more food for thought:
Zeazar: "As for the curved path Spherical Wall situation: the clear path rule doesn't specify shortest distance after encountering an obstacle or even that "between you and that point" is along the shortest path, or straight path back to the caster: if the path is curved, and distance along the curve determines "between", the fireball detonates at the point where the casters intended path and the wall intersect."
If we trace back along the caster's intended path to the desired Point of Origin to decide if an obstruction is between the caster and the targeted location we run into another problem. This does correctly find the intersection of the desired path and the obstacle, however the near side of that obstruction to the caster is inside the spherical Wall of Force. So to arrive at how we would intuitively expect this situation to play out we need to redefine the words "between" and "near" to mean something other than how they are normally used. So because of these issues, as well as the issues created with the one provided counter example, I would not consider curved paths when determining if there is a clear path to the target.
As for the Cover rule's reference to where an effect originates I do not believe it is necessarily referencing the Point of Origin of an Area of Effect. This position would mean that the one counter example provided for what defines a clear path is flat out wrong. If we only consider the Point of Origin when determining cover to decide if a targeted space is valid or not, then every space is always valid. The Point of Origin and the targeted space are the same point and there is no distance between them for cover to exist in.
However, treating the caster as solely where the effect originates from is not free of issues either. Consider the situation where there is half cover between the caster and an enemy and the caster chooses a Point of Origin for their Fireball that is on the enemies side of the cover. In this case if we only consider the caster's location when determining the effect of cover then the enemy gets a bonus to their dex save, even though there is no cover between the Point of Origin and the enemy.
So for an AoE like Fireball I would follow a three step process:
Check for cover between the caster and their targeted space. If there is Total Cover and the obstruction is visible to the caster have them pick a new location(their character would know the first location is invalid). If the obstruction is not visible then I would use the Clear Path rules to identify a new Point of Origin.
Using the Point of Origin determine the affected squares using the Areas of Effect rules (spreading around corners not withstanding).
Have any affected creatures make the appropriate save and determine if their is cover between them and the Point of Origin of the effect as needed.
Even my approach to addressing this is not free of issue. Consider the spells Acid Splash and Sacred Flame. Neither of these spells are area of effects so we only need to consider cover between the caster and the creature. These spells are essentially identical in their targeting mechanics but it doesn't feel like they should be treated identically from a narrative perspective.
"..****y when..." - I think I found the best piece of this puzzle. And I do hope you all know that I appreciate your thoughts and patience: "never give up, never surrender!" (I know I know, wrong kind of nerd out)
Lets take a close look at one of the sentences in the Cover rules once more: "...A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover. ..." The key point that should jump out at us in this is that "only when" bit, and that it means we should pay attention to when we have an effect .
Sometimes it's easy to boil a battle, or even a turn, down to instantaneous moments and wrap things up for easy packaging. But lets go through the sequence for casting Fireball in a battle:
Caster reaches into their pouch and spreads some bat doody mixed with sulfur on their fingers. (smells great, but no "effect" yet)
Caster says some serious but silly sounding words out loud. (super funny, but no "effect" yet)
Caster points their finger, somewhere. (three fingers and a thumb pointed back at him, yikes, but no "effect" yet)
"A bright streak flashes from [the casters] finger". (you might call it a special effect cause it looks cool, but no "effect" yet, nothing has been affected.)
The streak travels, in some fashion, to a point the caster chose. (man that was fast, but still no "effect")
"[it] blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." (Now we get an "effect")...
It's at this point that the "only when" becomes clear: right then, and not before then, there is a potential effect on some creatures or objects that has "originated" at the point of origin. This is where, and importantly, when, we should apply the rules for cover.
You might be tempted to say that as the caster has fouled their fingers with the bat droppings, there's nothing stopping that "effect," and so we should go ahead and apply the cover rules then: but what about counterspell? Would you say that Counterspell wouldn't work during step 4 from what I described above? I would say that the caster is still " in the process of casting" all the way up until the streak has blossomed, right? Maybe even later depending on your table. You might even allow it after damage has been dealt; in the heat of the moment! And if it gets countered, there would never be an "effect" and therefore no need to apply the cover rules.
So I submit for your gracious approval the "Only When" clause as a RAW citation supporting that cover should only be considered after the streak has reached the chosen "target." Which should be precedent to support that a Clear Path does not need to be a Straight Path.
I look forward to any future refutation of this reply. Blah Blah, yakety smakety, have a great day!
Are you trying to come up with an understanding of the rules here or just justify a misunderstanding of them? I think you've failed at either. Casting a spell has different mechanics than narration, and the mechanics are not 6 discrete steps where you can make some argument that two out of context words mean that only one counterintuitive place (where cover could never matter) is the only place where cover could come into play.
This is word games, and it doesn't provide any understanding of cover or line of effect.
Area of Effect tells us that when a spell has an Area of Effect, that "spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin...." which in the case of Fireball, the effect is the fire that damages the stuff in the AoE, and the point of origin is just what the caster chose. I could easily interpret this to mean that anything else in the spells text is not to be considered as "effect," but is more in line with Cyb3rM1nd's point: the "streak" is the just the flavor of the spell. Unless there's something you can point me to that would clarify these Tasty elements as also being "effect."
Yeah, the AoE is the effect. That's not relevant. Needing a clear path to the target is not about the AoE, it's about the initial targeting. That's where your confusion lies. The caster has to target a point in space within range. That point is the target, and that point cannot be behind total cover, because that's what the rules on selecting a target for a spell say. Can the AoE overcome total cover when the effect expands in a straight line from its origin? It expands around corners, so maybe! But that comes after choosing the target for the spell. You're jumping over the first step.
Furthermore: the Cover section has a fairly clear "or" statement with two cases; but it's not an "and or" statement. The two distinct "cases" being: an "attack", "or" an "effect originates." Seeing that Fireball is not an attack (it doesn't require an attack role), the "effect originates" case is what should be applied; and we should ignore the "attack" case for fireball. (Sorry for the lapse into logical argumentation here, my Wittgenstein is showing, lol).
I'm genuinely not sure what point you're trying to make here. The cover section you link to isn't really relevant. The rule we're looking at is for spellcasting. The target "can't be behind total cover." This is before we even get to the spell's effect. Again, you're skipping a step.
The "effect originates" case would take me back to determining cover based on the point in space chosen for the "effect" of fireball, and not on determining cover for the flavor of the spell base on where the caster is standing, because we should ignore the "attack" case. How bout them apples chip?
Again, not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't understand how attacks are at all relevant to the discussion, but to drive the point home a third time, we're not talking about whether or not a creature has cover from the effect of the spell. We're talking about whether or not the point in space has cover from the caster, because that needs to be determined before we can look at the effect.
Are you trying to come up with an understanding of the rules here or just justify a misunderstanding of them? I think you've failed at either. Casting a spell has different mechanics than narration, and the mechanics are not 6 discrete steps where you can make some argument that two out of context words mean that only one counterintuitive place (where cover could never matter) is the only place where cover could come into play.
This is word games, and it doesn't provide any understanding of cover or line of effect.
So, what are the mechanics? Are we not playing a game of narration? What is this line of effect that you mention: I cant find that anywhere in the rules: can you be more specific? Can you guide me to the words in the rules so that I can find a better understanding, please and thank you?
[REDACTED]
To answer your question Wolf: I'm looking for a well formulated rules as written reason that a point in space needs to be on some straight path to be a valid target for spells like fireball (but not just fireball, try applying any of this to Flame Strike). Fangeye came close to doing that for me in mentioning that the Clear Path rule ends in saying that something in total cover, can't be a target. That made sense, and checked all the boxes for me, until I read the rules on Cover. Those rules say "a target can benefit from cover only when an attack or an effect originates on the opposite side of that cover." The fact that WotC made the clear Rhetorical Choice to add the words only and when to that rule, makes it important to understand when things happen, otherwise they would have just said "if" instead of "only when." If you own the PHB, you paid for those two words; they might be important. Sure, this is a fine print detail. But Saga, you yourself said that the nitty gritty matters, right?
Saga, to address your first point. You're right, needing a clear path to the target is not about the AoE, it's not about the effect. Establishing that something can, at a specific point in time, benefit from cover, is about when the effect happens. The targeting is not the effect. The targeting is also not an attack. So how can something benefit from cover is there is no attack and no effect?
Your next point Saga: the rules for spellcasting use the rules for Cover: Total Cover is a subsection of Cover. That's why I've referenced them. And you're right, I'm not talking about whether or not a creature has cover. I am indeed talking about whether or not a "point" has cover, as that is generally what's targeted by spells like fireball(but not just fireball). More importantly I'm talking about when a point can benefit from cover. That was the real purpose in narrating the timeline for how a spell might be cast. Was my description so wrong. Is it described anywhere in the rules? The casting time for Fireball is 1 action, honest question here: does targeting happen during casting, or does it happen during duration? Something specific on that point could sway me on the issue. I'd say targeting happens during casting... your thoughts?
I brought up the "or" - "and or" distinction to make another point. You implied that for casting fireball there is the cover that the point(target) gets when the caster is choosing it, and after that there is the cover that things get when the explosion happens (I don't want to go into that either, it's gross). So, kinda like what I did in six steps, you've put together in just two distinct phases of the spell with two distinct cases for cover:
the first phase of targeting (that step that I'm not trying to skip)
then the next phase is the explosion, which you've said, is the actual effect of the spell.
The fact that the Cover rules say "or" means that you shouldn't do both, if it said "and or" you would do both. Sure, another fine print point here. But it's either an attack, or an effect, not both: in this case it's an effect, and the difference between the two cases is what's relevant to the discussion and takes us back to the first paragraph of the rules for Cover. The effect has nothing to do with the targeting, and this is a good thing, the effect is the only part of the spell that would invoke the rules for Cover (only,when). It's not an attack when you're targeting (fireball is not an attack), so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time, and it's not an effect when you're targeting so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time. The rules for Cover are, covered here (tee he)... no attack no cover, no effect no cover. It's just targeting.
As contrast and comparison, if a Ranger were to nock an arrow and aim, they've just targeted(so no reason to apply benefit from cover), but when they loose that arrow, there's obviously an attack happening, therefore the point of dirt behind the wall that he wants to hit would have total cover and the arrow would bounce off the wall comically... but this isn't the case for casting fireball or spells like it. The bright streak moving to a point is neither an attack, or an effect, so there is no reason to apply benefit from cover, which means the only things it can't reach would be inside fully magical spheres of force or whatever.
I'm not the only one on this thread that thinks fireball can target regardless of cover. I really wish Cyb3rM1nd would jump in and back me up here... Saga, I do appreciate that you read the full posts and try to address thing specifically, this helps me a lot. And wolf, I guess you get points for participation...lol. While I was writing this I noticed that Fangeye had chimed in after my last posting. I can feel the doubt spreading out a bit. I didn't come here to spread my filthy misunderstanding... sorry Fangeye. But for defining between and near, in my years helping math students I know from experience that near and between can be pretty flexible in their meanings...
My next post will contain the biggest wrench in these works that I've read so far, and guess what: It's from Jeremy Crawfords Sage advice...
Notes: Please remain respectful in your posts. Thank you
So apparently Mr Crawford said that sacred flame, because it comes "down from above the person", can target someone "even if they're behind total cover." So you don't have to see them, and there is not straight path required.
I find that kinda weird cause the text for Sacred Flame says that you have to see them? And it targets a creature, specifically, not a point like fireball? What's he talking about?
Does this mean that Flame Strike can target behind total cover? It also "roars down from the heavens."
Thanks for playing everyone. I'll keep reading to respect your replies to my nonsense but if the Sage Advice Game Designer is that inconsistent with the rules for clear path for that spell I probably shouldn't be arguing any points, we can all just make it up as we go right... GLHF
So apparently Mr Crawford said that sacred flame, because it comes "down from above the person", can target someone "even if they're behind total cover." So you don't have to see them, and there is not straight path required.
I find that kinda weird cause the text for Sacred Flame says that you have to see them? And it targets a creature, specifically, not a point like fireball? What's he talking about?
Does this mean that Flame Strike can target behind total cover? It also "roars down from the heavens."
Thanks for playing everyone. I'll keep reading to respect your replies to my nonsense but if the Sage Advice Game Designer is that inconsistent with the rules for clear path for that spell I probably shouldn't be arguing any points, we can all just make it up as we go right... GLHF
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!
I listened from 31 minutes to 39 minutes and in it they discussed the Clear Path rule, how they conceptualize a Line of Sight and a Clear Path differently, and then more specifically how Sacred Flame is an example of a specific rule exception to the Clear Path rule. I would encourage anyone curious to listen to it.
To summarize though the interviewer asked JC what the difference was between a Line of Sight and a Clear Path. JC responded by saying that Line of Sight is concerned with if you can see the target and a Clear Path is concerned with if there is a physical obstruction between you and the target. The example they used was a window, you can see through it but it would physically block something trying to pass through it.
JC then goes on to describe a situation where a caster is in a tower with a perfectly clear window and the caster sees an enemy outside. The caster doesn't realize the window is there and casts Fireball at the enemy. Now because the window gives the enemy Total Cover the Fireball's point of origin is on the near side of the window inside the tower. Then JC goes on to explain that if the caster tried Sacred Flame instead it would hit the enemy. The caster can see the creature on the other side of the window and because Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." JC explains that this includes Total Cover and as a result does not need a Clear Path to the target.
They don't ever get into if the Clear Path must be straight but they also never say anything to suggest that it can be curved. JC did frequently talked about whether or not something was between you and the target without any further clarification. Maybe it would be helpful to consider the following question: If you and your friend are outside and your friend is standing under a tree, is the tree between you and your friend?
As for targeting creatures rather than a point, this is totally fine. With regard to spells there are three categories of targets: creatures, objects, and points of origin and a spell may allow for one or more category of targets. As already noted Sacred Flame targets creatures, Knock targets objects, Fireball targets a point of origin, and Fire Bolt can target a creature or an object.
As for Flame Strike while it does have similar flavor text to Sacred Flame it lacks the ability to ignore cover that Sacred Flame has. In the interview JC briefly mentioned something about spells needing to form a connection with the target as why Total Cover blocks spells. It sounded like something he might have discussed earlier in the podcast. To me it seems like a weak narrative justification for the mechanic, but for me good flavor for the mechanic is just nice to have, not required.
So apparently Mr Crawford said that sacred flame, because it comes "down from above the person", can target someone "even if they're behind total cover." So you don't have to see them, and there is not straight path required.
I find that kinda weird cause the text for Sacred Flame says that you have to see them? And it targets a creature, specifically, not a point like fireball? What's he talking about?
Does this mean that Flame Strike can target behind total cover? It also "roars down from the heavens."
Thanks for playing everyone. I'll keep reading to respect your replies to my nonsense but if the Sage Advice Game Designer is that inconsistent with the rules for clear path for that spell I probably shouldn't be arguing any points, we can all just make it up as we go right... GLHF
Getting back to basics here for a bit, it is important to understand the difference between general rules and specific rules. The general rules are rules that apply to all instances of the game, to the extent described in the individual rule. You can think of this as the default setting the game follows. An example of a general rule is the rules for targeting below. This rule applies to all instances of targeting. So, in general, you can't target something that is behind total cover, as per the rule for targeting (also addressed in the general rules for cover).
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.
Now specific rules, are rules that add something to or otherwise deviate from the general rules in specific circumstances or specific instances. Sacred Flame is a prime example containing a specific rule. Generally, you can't target something or someone behind full cover. However, the description of Sacred Flame specifically tells us that this is not true for this spell in particular. Specific rules are often (if not always) exceptions to the general rules, and when a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule always trumps the general rule. Specific beats general. Specific rules can hide many places but are often found in spell descriptions, class features, and racial features. The general rules are what you find in the sourcebooks when the rules address general game mechanics.
The general rule for targeting quoted above tells us that a target can't be behind total cover. This means that, if you're standing on one side of a closed window looking at a location you want to target with a Fireball on the other side of the window, the game tells us that your desired target is not a valid choice (you have to choose another target or stop what you're doing). Now if you close your eyes (or you stand in a Fog Cloud or are otherwise deprived of your ability to see), you don't know whether your target is valid or not as there may or may not be a wall between you and your target, granting it full cover. The DM of course knows this, but it would be gamebreaking if he told you what was inside the area which your character can't see. Instead, the game allows you to cast your spell and tells you your target was invalid by having the fireball detonate when it reaches the obstacle that grants full cover to your intended target.
As for whether or not a line can be curved when determining line of sight and cover, the illustrations used to describe the cover rules seem to suggest that straight lines are what we are supposed to be using. Also if we could use curved lines to determine line of sight and cover, the rules on the topic would be completely and utterly redundant. And as a side note, if I recall my geometry classes correctly, a line is a geometrical shape that is (or assumed to be) straight. A line that is not straight is called a curved line. However, while English definitions are relevant to D&D rules, in this case the whole game would fall apart if you went with a definition that allowed curved lines to determine line of sight and cover, so it seems safe to say that is not the case.
Are you trying to come up with an understanding of the rules here or just justify a misunderstanding of them? I think you've failed at either. Casting a spell has different mechanics than narration, and the mechanics are not 6 discrete steps where you can make some argument that two out of context words mean that only one counterintuitive place (where cover could never matter) is the only place where cover could come into play.
This is word games, and it doesn't provide any understanding of cover or line of effect.
So, what are the mechanics? Are we not playing a game of narration? What is this line of effect that you mention: I cant find that anywhere in the rules: can you be more specific? Can you guide me to the words in the rules so that I can find a better understanding, please and thank you?
Or did you just pop into the thread to tell me I'm a failure? Thanks Wolf-Dad. (cue the sad trombone).
To answer your question Wolf: I'm looking for a well formulated rules as written reason that a point in space needs to be on some straight path to be a valid target for spells like fireball (but not just fireball, try applying any of this to Flame Strike). Fangeye came close to doing that for me in mentioning that the Clear Path rule ends in saying that something in total cover, can't be a target. That made sense, and checked all the boxes for me, until I read the rules on Cover. Those rules say "a target can benefit from cover only when an attack or an effect originates on the opposite side of that cover." The fact that WotC made the clear Rhetorical Choice to add the words only and when to that rule, makes it important to understand when things happen, otherwise they would have just said "if" instead of "only when." If you own the PHB, you paid for those two words; they might be important. Sure, this is a fine print detail. But Saga, you yourself said that the nitty gritty matters, right?
Saga, to address your first point. You're right, needing a clear path to the target is not about the AoE, it's not about the effect. Establishing that something can, at a specific point in time, benefit from cover, is about when the effect happens. The targeting is not the effect. The targeting is also not an attack. So how can something benefit from cover is there is no attack and no effect?
Your next point Saga: the rules for spellcasting use the rules for Cover: Total Cover is a subsection of Cover. That's why I've referenced them. And you're right, I'm not talking about whether or not a creature has cover. I am indeed talking about whether or not a "point" has cover, as that is generally what's targeted by spells like fireball(but not just fireball). More importantly I'm talking about when a point can benefit from cover. That was the real purpose in narrating the timeline for how a spell might be cast. Was my description so wrong. Is it described anywhere in the rules? The casting time for Fireball is 1 action, honest question here: does targeting happen during casting, or does it happen during duration? Something specific on that point could sway me on the issue. I'd say targeting happens during casting... your thoughts?
I brought up the "or" - "and or" distinction to make another point. You implied that for casting fireball there is the cover that the point(target) gets when the caster is choosing it, and after that there is the cover that things get when the explosion happens (I don't want to go into that either, it's gross). So, kinda like what I did in six steps, you've put together in just two distinct phases of the spell with two distinct cases for cover:
the first phase of targeting (that step that I'm not trying to skip)
then the next phase is the explosion, which you've said, is the actual effect of the spell.
The fact that the Cover rules say "or" means that you shouldn't do both, if it said "and or" you would do both. Sure, another fine print point here. But it's either an attack, or an effect, not both: in this case it's an effect, and the difference between the two cases is what's relevant to the discussion and takes us back to the first paragraph of the rules for Cover. The effect has nothing to do with the targeting, and this is a good thing, the effect is the only part of the spell that would invoke the rules for Cover (only,when). It's not an attack when you're targeting (fireball is not an attack), so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time, and it's not an effect when you're targeting so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time. The rules for Cover are, covered here (tee he)... no attack no cover, no effect no cover. It's just targeting.
As contrast and comparison, if a Ranger were to nock an arrow and aim, they've just targeted(so no reason to apply benefit from cover), but when they loose that arrow, there's obviously an attack happening, therefore the point of dirt behind the wall that he wants to hit would have total cover and the arrow would bounce off the wall comically... but this isn't the case for casting fireball or spells like it. The bright streak moving to a point is neither an attack, or an effect, so there is no reason to apply benefit from cover, which means the only things it can't reach would be inside fully magical spheres of force or whatever.
I'm not the only one on this thread that thinks fireball can target regardless of cover. I really wish Cyb3rM1nd would jump in and back me up here... Saga, I do appreciate that you read the full posts and try to address thing specifically, this helps me a lot. And wolf, I guess you get points for participation...lol. While I was writing this I noticed that Fangeye had chimed in after my last posting. I can feel the doubt spreading out a bit. I didn't come here to spread my filthy misunderstanding... sorry Fangeye. But for defining between and near, in my years helping math students I know from experience that near and between can be pretty flexible in their meanings...
My next post will contain the biggest wrench in these works that I've read so far, and guess what: It's from Jeremy Crawfords Sage advice...
I wrote a post earlier that really didn't say what I wanted to express.
Finding a justification for a bad ruling is different than trying to understand the rules. Ignoring mechanics and taking words out of context aren't the endeavors of someone trying to understand the rules.
If you really don't understand the mechanics of casting a spell, then trying to understand any rules that rely on them, such as line of effect rules, will be fruitless.
Wolf, I apologize if I offended you. I honestly tried to make it clear I was joking. Maybe I didn't succeed. The whole "thanks Wolf-Dad" line seemed pretty funny to me in the context of the failure bit...
And I will stick to my promise to not continue the dead horse beatings, because it's obvious now there is no moral to improve: the books and their words don't have to make sense to all of us in the same way, and that includes the people that wrote them, cough cough, thanks Mr Crawford.
I will reply with this about words and context: every word in a sentence can and should be used to establish context. And if some words are given less emphasis, or ignored entirely, this is the same problem as using those same words out of context. Me pulling those words out and using them sprinkled around Mein Targeting Manifesto was not an attempt to disregard the rest of the words in that sentence; but it was an attempt to emphasize that I think those two words are missing in the general interpretation on this topic.
Take this sentence for example: I get to play D&D only when my group has time. Now take away the two words only and when: I get to play D&D [ ... ] my group has time. That second version is very different isn't it? It could mean that I get to play D&D all day every day... which sadly is not the case. Or it could be a sign that I'm very pushy with my group and I don't consider that they have lives and plans and stuff... which, do they really? jk Maybe, if you try the same experiment with the second sentence of the first paragraph in the rules for Cover, you'll see the point I failed to make.
And yeah, I get the irony of taking the point I was trying to make, completely out of the context of the rules I was trying to discuss...
Wolf I am glad you thought it was a "Nice try." Thanks Wolf-Dad.
PS some of the stuff in this post was a direct reply to some things WolfoftheBees said in the post that... didn't say what he wanted to express. That's why some of the puns in this post wont make sense now that Wolf deleted his first draft... I won't hate them for it though...
You don't need to justify to us your incorrect readings. Just use them in your own game. With that being said, your statements continue to use words from the rules without saying anything correct about the rules. That's why I dropped into this thread: because its worth pointing out that rules analysis should start with the rules and not with just few enough words to get the answer you want.
The sentence in the cover rule has an easy to understand meaning: cover applies only when the cover actually interposes between the attacker and the target. As in, cover doesn't matter whenever it isn't between the source of the effect and the target. It's, in the words of Gilderoy Lockheart, "Pretty Obvious."
It is frustrating to see bad ideas from wishy-washy "the rules say whatever I want them to" readings in the rules and mechanics forums.
You haven't offended me; I just want it to be clear that you're not interested in understanding what the rules are telling you, your interested in representing them in a way to get your outcome. Post #48 shows that.
You haven't offended me; I just want it to be clear that you're not interested in understanding what the rules are telling you, your interested in representing them in a way to get your outcome. Post #48 shows that.
I am afraid I must agree with this statement. Since post #48 the argument for allowing curved paths do not appear like they are being made in good faith.
The Clear Path rule uses the Cover rules in its very definition. We must consider cover when selecting the target of a spell because the Clear Path rule tells us we must.
SagaTympans and WolfOfTheBees have explained why there is not a conflict between the Cover rules and the Clear Path rule.
I'll own that post #48 was both the outcome I came to and the outcome I wanted; but only after starting at a place of real, and eager inquisitiveness. Anyone that reads the posts leading up to that should be able to see that clearly. Yes, I had a theory about how fireball worked; and yes after some discussion and and suggested reading I managed to confirmed that theory with a logical and fully cited structure. Do I need an excuse for using a theory and test approach? Does understanding them and getting a specific outcome have to be mutually exclusive. I'd say no.
You're still here making points about me as a person, and not the rules and mechanics that we were discussing. Does that say something about your interests?
That's ok. I'll be that guy. WolfOfTheBees - you've won.
It can be a verb too: to run through a public place naked drawing as much attention to yourself as possible! That's basically what the fireball is doing right; it's got all it's bits out and just Has to be the center of attention? To really accomplish the Goal of a good streak, the fireball should zig-zag and serpentine a bit until it gets noticed by security! Shooting stars streak through the sky, are they flying in a straight line? It may look that way to us, but any good Arcanist would know that nothing is truly straight, or flat, (except Earth...! jk) If I don't do a good job cleaning my windows they get streaks, those are never straight and that's always super annoying... I'd prefer my window streaks to be straight! But you've brought up something that should be considered here: a circle is also a line, and if viewed from (infinitely many) certain angles it can be seen as a Straight line segment. So are we immersed, viewing the battle field as our characters would; or are we 3rd person omniscient, as silly gods, that can't tell when something is curved towards them because they assume all lesser being to inhabit a 2D world?
To re-address the Clear path rule: the first sentence precludes the possibilities discussed in the rest of the rule. If it has total cover it can't be a valid target, period. You want the clear path? You can't handle the clear path! Fangeye I really do like the example you've set up, and it does argue against the contradiction I've just pointed out: the caster may not know the target has total cover, and "attempts" to target something that can't be actually be targeted... in a case like that I'd say sure, the fireball flies pretty much straight towards where the caster thinks it should go and blows up in their face because they were careless in choosing their path of travel(because the path is not defined by the spell itself). And yes, the area of effect would follow the spreading around corners rules that we all know and love so maybe the target gets burned too.
As for the curved path Spherical Wall situation: the clear path rule doesn't specify shortest distance after encountering an obstacle or even that "between you and that point" is along the shortest path, or straight path back to the caster: if the path is curved, and distance along the curve determines "between", the fireball detonates at the point where the casters intended path and the wall intersect. In my minds eye I see this looking really cool, the invisible sphere of force with it's floating BBEG nucleus, outlined and backlit by a casters utterly useless attempt to penetrate the villains defenses... think exploding hair light on a movie set! Personally I would restrict overly complicated paths of effect... no figure eight and up the who who now! But I have no RAW for this kind of restriction.
If y'all will allow me I'd like to bring in an example that doesn't use fireball, and touch on Flame Strike, as I think it has some similarities and could expose a few interesting points. If we adhere to the Clear Path = Straight Path doctrine: your caster could spend all day sitting on top of a five foot wall, committing the landscape all around to memory, doing his best Bob Ross routine rolling nat 20s on a happy little painting, because he wants to remember this happy moment, and share it with the friends he makes along the way... he jumps down to one side, and because he's chaotic, decides to cast Flame Strike on a particularly pretty spot some 50 feet on the other side of that wall (that's His happy memory, and you can't have it). But that spot has total cover now that the caster is standing on the ground, and it cannot be a valid target, but it was an intended target, so instead, we trace a line representing the shortest distance between the intended target and the caster (regardless of path of effect) and now the Flame Strike roars down (from the sky?) upon the near side of the five foot wall as it's central point of origin. The caster lays burnt and smoking upon the ground contemplating his... lack of cognitive development in Object Permanence...? Or is it that magic itself has no object permanence; the ether has no teeth either? Raccoon runs into holla log... raccoon runs out holla log... wut we know bout raccoon?
New Point
So here's another nugget to chew on (maybe it's real gold!) [Tooltip Not Found]
The "Cover" rule tells us that "...A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover." Spells like Fireball and Flame Strike tell us that we can choose a point, not that the caster is the point of origin for the effect. And that the "bright streak" only "blossoms" once it gets to that point. The center of the sphere is the point of origin, the source of the effect! So cover should be determined based on a relation to that point of origin, and not on where the caster is standing.
Other spells that count as attacks, that have attack rolls, would require that the caster be considered as the point of origin right?
If I take this little nugget and consider that cover is assigned with respect to the point of origin chosen and not the caster (in this case), this changes the whole situation. Now the caster can simply choose a point of origin in space, define whatever path of travel the streak takes from caster to the intended point of origin (unless clearly specified in the case of some other spell) and we go from there, thoroughly expecting for invisible barriers and hastily erected glass walls being along the curved path to thwart our casters plans once again; because the DM knows what we're doing and will be upset with us for 3D drifting our bright streak around the battlefield...
What do you guys think of that? Still game to debate? Please and thank you! GLHF! Spas Machen! Tiene que dar vueltas!
I can't get the rule tooltip to work (I got it right for the spells?), Here's the link to the section in Combat on Cover
I think of a fireball effect like the explosion of a grenade.
You have to get the center of the explosion beyond the wall to get the area effect to cover the backside of the wall.
No it does not fly around corners or dodge opponents in the path of flight, but opponents do not take up the whole space they occupy. They move and thus do not totally block a line of sight. So if the castor can see a line of sight to even just a part of the target through a crowd then at that instant he can cast the spell and it can get to the target.
If you know the target or even think the target is behind a wall or hiding around a corner you can target an area close to the intended target.. The area must be in sight and past the intervening obstruction so that when it explodes the effect covers the back of the obstruction. The explosion does not creep around corners so if you draw a straight line from the center of the explosion to the target you can not have an intervening obstruction.
Or you can calculate the shotgun effect but lets just say that after running the numbers the caster has no way of not being covered in the blast effect if cast down a 5ftx5ftx8ft tunnel. The volume of the blast constrained into the tunnel makes it a death trap for the caster. The caster can only cast fireball 30 5ft squares and the back blast area is about 82 5ft squares. Good thing thats not in the rules.
TheGnome, I agree and also like to think of it like a grenade, that can easily be tossed over walls with the full expectation that, if there's not a roof or some other horizontal barrier that the caster can't see over that wall, the "streak" that flew out of the casters fingers, will land on the ground where the caster expected it to, and explode there.
If I were at your table I'd totally be down to play it like a line of sight spell, Rule number 1 is always valid. But RAW Fireball does not require that you "see" a target while many others require it specifically, ie Magic Missile. As I've discussed with others gracious enough to try and edify me on this thread that the absence of the "see" requirement allows for casting Fireball (and other spells) into things like Fog or Darkness.
The (admittedly, convoluted) point I'm attempting to make here is that: without the "see" requirement, and considering the specific language in the Cover section on determining cover based on origination of effect, combined with the concept that the effect of a fireball originates at a point chosen by the caster, and not that it originates at the caster themselves (because the "streak" is the flavor, the fire is the effect), means that targets (points in space) do not have cover based on their physical position with respect to the caster and a wall that lies on the shortest straight line between them. The targets would only have cover with respect to their physical position with respect to the point of origin for the fire.
TBH I'd probably also say (for my table at least), unless you're on the astral plane, fireball probably shouldn't fly around corners (again, I agree with you on that point)... we're not in that horrible bend the bullet movie here! But arching over a wall seems super reasonable in the face of the RAW points I've assembled here, at least to me. Care to refute again Mr. TheGnome?
And also, maybe it was a typo but RAW Fireball fire does spread around corners.
Oh! Okay, I see where your confusion is.
The origin of the spell fireball is the caster, and it is the caster's position that determines whether or not the initial target of the spell (a point in space) has total cover.
The point in space, which is the target of the spell, serves as the origin for the area of effect. With respect to that origin point, we then get into the whole "spreads around corners" thing, which is a topic I'm not really interested in wading into.
For the initial casting of the spell, the target (the point in space that will serve as the origin for the AoE) cannot be behind total cover, and if you try to cast it at a point that is, the AoE comes into being on your side of that cover, per the rules.
I agree with this part of Cyb3rM1nd's point in that I don't see any RAW reason to treat the "streak" as the "effect" of the spell for the purpose of determining Cover. To support that here's this:
Area of Effect tells us that when a spell has an Area of Effect, that "spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin...." which in the case of Fireball, the effect is the fire that damages the stuff in the AoE, and the point of origin is just what the caster chose. I could easily interpret this to mean that anything else in the spells text is not to be considered as "effect," but is more in line with Cyb3rM1nd's point: the "streak" is the just the flavor of the spell. Unless there's something you can point me to that would clarify these Tasty elements as also being "effect."
Furthermore: the Cover section has a fairly clear "or" statement with two cases; but it's not an "and or" statement. The two distinct "cases" being: an "attack", "or" an "effect originates." Seeing that Fireball is not an attack (it doesn't require an attack role), the "effect originates" case is what should be applied; and we should ignore the "attack" case for fireball. (Sorry for the lapse into logical argumentation here, my Wittgenstein is showing, lol).
The "effect originates" case would take me back to determining cover based on the point in space chosen for the "effect" of fireball, and not on determining cover for the flavor of the spell base on where the caster is standing, because we should ignore the "attack" case.
How bout them apples chip?
Zeazar
I do not allow it to be thrown over something.
But I do allow it to be detonated early. Long before the 150 foot mark in the air or space.
For example instead of throwing it over a wall like a grenade lets cast it 5 ft above the 10ft wall and 5ft beyond it for an air burst. Thus catching anyone on the other side of the wall. Its a small difference but in my example the cast does not have to bend in any direction.
Now an interesting thing could be a homebrew variant call it the "fuzzball" that only flies as far as your throw range but does bounce like a grenade. To make it even more fun and interesting make it go off at the end of the round no matter when you threw it. Like a 6 second grenade. Toss that thing out there sputtering and hissing and watch the mayhem.
If you simply dropped it off a cliff it would fall 580 feet in 6 seconds before detonating unless it landed before then.
I am not sure how much I have left to say about this topic but here is some more food for thought:
Zeazar: "As for the curved path Spherical Wall situation: the clear path rule doesn't specify shortest distance after encountering an obstacle or even that "between you and that point" is along the shortest path, or straight path back to the caster: if the path is curved, and distance along the curve determines "between", the fireball detonates at the point where the casters intended path and the wall intersect."
If we trace back along the caster's intended path to the desired Point of Origin to decide if an obstruction is between the caster and the targeted location we run into another problem. This does correctly find the intersection of the desired path and the obstacle, however the near side of that obstruction to the caster is inside the spherical Wall of Force. So to arrive at how we would intuitively expect this situation to play out we need to redefine the words "between" and "near" to mean something other than how they are normally used. So because of these issues, as well as the issues created with the one provided counter example, I would not consider curved paths when determining if there is a clear path to the target.
As for the Cover rule's reference to where an effect originates I do not believe it is necessarily referencing the Point of Origin of an Area of Effect. This position would mean that the one counter example provided for what defines a clear path is flat out wrong. If we only consider the Point of Origin when determining cover to decide if a targeted space is valid or not, then every space is always valid. The Point of Origin and the targeted space are the same point and there is no distance between them for cover to exist in.
However, treating the caster as solely where the effect originates from is not free of issues either. Consider the situation where there is half cover between the caster and an enemy and the caster chooses a Point of Origin for their Fireball that is on the enemies side of the cover. In this case if we only consider the caster's location when determining the effect of cover then the enemy gets a bonus to their dex save, even though there is no cover between the Point of Origin and the enemy.
So for an AoE like Fireball I would follow a three step process:
Even my approach to addressing this is not free of issue. Consider the spells Acid Splash and Sacred Flame. Neither of these spells are area of effects so we only need to consider cover between the caster and the creature. These spells are essentially identical in their targeting mechanics but it doesn't feel like they should be treated identically from a narrative perspective.
"..****y when..." - I think I found the best piece of this puzzle. And I do hope you all know that I appreciate your thoughts and patience: "never give up, never surrender!" (I know I know, wrong kind of nerd out)
Lets take a close look at one of the sentences in the Cover rules once more: "...A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover. ..." The key point that should jump out at us in this is that "only when" bit, and that it means we should pay attention to when we have an effect .
Sometimes it's easy to boil a battle, or even a turn, down to instantaneous moments and wrap things up for easy packaging. But lets go through the sequence for casting Fireball in a battle:
It's at this point that the "only when" becomes clear: right then, and not before then, there is a potential effect on some creatures or objects that has "originated" at the point of origin. This is where, and importantly, when, we should apply the rules for cover.
You might be tempted to say that as the caster has fouled their fingers with the bat droppings, there's nothing stopping that "effect," and so we should go ahead and apply the cover rules then: but what about counterspell? Would you say that Counterspell wouldn't work during step 4 from what I described above? I would say that the caster is still " in the process of casting" all the way up until the streak has blossomed, right? Maybe even later depending on your table. You might even allow it after damage has been dealt; in the heat of the moment! And if it gets countered, there would never be an "effect" and therefore no need to apply the cover rules.
So I submit for your gracious approval the "Only When" clause as a RAW citation supporting that cover should only be considered after the streak has reached the chosen "target." Which should be precedent to support that a Clear Path does not need to be a Straight Path.
I look forward to any future refutation of this reply. Blah Blah, yakety smakety, have a great day!
Are you trying to come up with an understanding of the rules here or just justify a misunderstanding of them? I think you've failed at either. Casting a spell has different mechanics than narration, and the mechanics are not 6 discrete steps where you can make some argument that two out of context words mean that only one counterintuitive place (where cover could never matter) is the only place where cover could come into play.
This is word games, and it doesn't provide any understanding of cover or line of effect.
Yeah, the AoE is the effect. That's not relevant. Needing a clear path to the target is not about the AoE, it's about the initial targeting. That's where your confusion lies. The caster has to target a point in space within range. That point is the target, and that point cannot be behind total cover, because that's what the rules on selecting a target for a spell say. Can the AoE overcome total cover when the effect expands in a straight line from its origin? It expands around corners, so maybe! But that comes after choosing the target for the spell. You're jumping over the first step.
I'm genuinely not sure what point you're trying to make here. The cover section you link to isn't really relevant. The rule we're looking at is for spellcasting. The target "can't be behind total cover." This is before we even get to the spell's effect. Again, you're skipping a step.
Again, not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't understand how attacks are at all relevant to the discussion, but to drive the point home a third time, we're not talking about whether or not a creature has cover from the effect of the spell. We're talking about whether or not the point in space has cover from the caster, because that needs to be determined before we can look at the effect.
So, what are the mechanics? Are we not playing a game of narration? What is this line of effect that you mention: I cant find that anywhere in the rules: can you be more specific? Can you guide me to the words in the rules so that I can find a better understanding, please and thank you?
[REDACTED]
To answer your question Wolf: I'm looking for a well formulated rules as written reason that a point in space needs to be on some straight path to be a valid target for spells like fireball (but not just fireball, try applying any of this to Flame Strike). Fangeye came close to doing that for me in mentioning that the Clear Path rule ends in saying that something in total cover, can't be a target. That made sense, and checked all the boxes for me, until I read the rules on Cover. Those rules say "a target can benefit from cover only when an attack or an effect originates on the opposite side of that cover." The fact that WotC made the clear Rhetorical Choice to add the words only and when to that rule, makes it important to understand when things happen, otherwise they would have just said "if" instead of "only when." If you own the PHB, you paid for those two words; they might be important. Sure, this is a fine print detail. But Saga, you yourself said that the nitty gritty matters, right?
Saga, to address your first point. You're right, needing a clear path to the target is not about the AoE, it's not about the effect. Establishing that something can, at a specific point in time, benefit from cover, is about when the effect happens. The targeting is not the effect. The targeting is also not an attack. So how can something benefit from cover is there is no attack and no effect?
Your next point Saga: the rules for spellcasting use the rules for Cover: Total Cover is a subsection of Cover. That's why I've referenced them. And you're right, I'm not talking about whether or not a creature has cover. I am indeed talking about whether or not a "point" has cover, as that is generally what's targeted by spells like fireball(but not just fireball). More importantly I'm talking about when a point can benefit from cover. That was the real purpose in narrating the timeline for how a spell might be cast. Was my description so wrong. Is it described anywhere in the rules? The casting time for Fireball is 1 action, honest question here: does targeting happen during casting, or does it happen during duration? Something specific on that point could sway me on the issue. I'd say targeting happens during casting... your thoughts?
I brought up the "or" - "and or" distinction to make another point. You implied that for casting fireball there is the cover that the point(target) gets when the caster is choosing it, and after that there is the cover that things get when the explosion happens (I don't want to go into that either, it's gross). So, kinda like what I did in six steps, you've put together in just two distinct phases of the spell with two distinct cases for cover:
The fact that the Cover rules say "or" means that you shouldn't do both, if it said "and or" you would do both. Sure, another fine print point here. But it's either an attack, or an effect, not both: in this case it's an effect, and the difference between the two cases is what's relevant to the discussion and takes us back to the first paragraph of the rules for Cover. The effect has nothing to do with the targeting, and this is a good thing, the effect is the only part of the spell that would invoke the rules for Cover (only,when). It's not an attack when you're targeting (fireball is not an attack), so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time, and it's not an effect when you're targeting so Cover doesn't apply at that point in time. The rules for Cover are, covered here (tee he)... no attack no cover, no effect no cover. It's just targeting.
As contrast and comparison, if a Ranger were to nock an arrow and aim, they've just targeted(so no reason to apply benefit from cover), but when they loose that arrow, there's obviously an attack happening, therefore the point of dirt behind the wall that he wants to hit would have total cover and the arrow would bounce off the wall comically... but this isn't the case for casting fireball or spells like it. The bright streak moving to a point is neither an attack, or an effect, so there is no reason to apply benefit from cover, which means the only things it can't reach would be inside fully magical spheres of force or whatever.
I'm not the only one on this thread that thinks fireball can target regardless of cover. I really wish Cyb3rM1nd would jump in and back me up here... Saga, I do appreciate that you read the full posts and try to address thing specifically, this helps me a lot. And wolf, I guess you get points for participation...lol. While I was writing this I noticed that Fangeye had chimed in after my last posting. I can feel the doubt spreading out a bit. I didn't come here to spread my filthy misunderstanding... sorry Fangeye. But for defining between and near, in my years helping math students I know from experience that near and between can be pretty flexible in their meanings...
My next post will contain the biggest wrench in these works that I've read so far, and guess what: It's from Jeremy Crawfords Sage advice...
Can Sacred Flame target someone that is behind total cover?
So apparently Mr Crawford said that sacred flame, because it comes "down from above the person", can target someone "even if they're behind total cover." So you don't have to see them, and there is not straight path required.
I find that kinda weird cause the text for Sacred Flame says that you have to see them? And it targets a creature, specifically, not a point like fireball? What's he talking about?
Does this mean that Flame Strike can target behind total cover? It also "roars down from the heavens."
Thanks for playing everyone. I'll keep reading to respect your replies to my nonsense but if the Sage Advice Game Designer is that inconsistent with the rules for clear path for that spell I probably shouldn't be arguing any points, we can all just make it up as we go right... GLHF
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!
Here is the relevant podcast from the link for those that are curious: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3
I listened from 31 minutes to 39 minutes and in it they discussed the Clear Path rule, how they conceptualize a Line of Sight and a Clear Path differently, and then more specifically how Sacred Flame is an example of a specific rule exception to the Clear Path rule. I would encourage anyone curious to listen to it.
To summarize though the interviewer asked JC what the difference was between a Line of Sight and a Clear Path. JC responded by saying that Line of Sight is concerned with if you can see the target and a Clear Path is concerned with if there is a physical obstruction between you and the target. The example they used was a window, you can see through it but it would physically block something trying to pass through it.
JC then goes on to describe a situation where a caster is in a tower with a perfectly clear window and the caster sees an enemy outside. The caster doesn't realize the window is there and casts Fireball at the enemy. Now because the window gives the enemy Total Cover the Fireball's point of origin is on the near side of the window inside the tower. Then JC goes on to explain that if the caster tried Sacred Flame instead it would hit the enemy. The caster can see the creature on the other side of the window and because Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." JC explains that this includes Total Cover and as a result does not need a Clear Path to the target.
They don't ever get into if the Clear Path must be straight but they also never say anything to suggest that it can be curved. JC did frequently talked about whether or not something was between you and the target without any further clarification. Maybe it would be helpful to consider the following question: If you and your friend are outside and your friend is standing under a tree, is the tree between you and your friend?
As for targeting creatures rather than a point, this is totally fine. With regard to spells there are three categories of targets: creatures, objects, and points of origin and a spell may allow for one or more category of targets. As already noted Sacred Flame targets creatures, Knock targets objects, Fireball targets a point of origin, and Fire Bolt can target a creature or an object.
As for Flame Strike while it does have similar flavor text to Sacred Flame it lacks the ability to ignore cover that Sacred Flame has. In the interview JC briefly mentioned something about spells needing to form a connection with the target as why Total Cover blocks spells. It sounded like something he might have discussed earlier in the podcast. To me it seems like a weak narrative justification for the mechanic, but for me good flavor for the mechanic is just nice to have, not required.
Getting back to basics here for a bit, it is important to understand the difference between general rules and specific rules. The general rules are rules that apply to all instances of the game, to the extent described in the individual rule. You can think of this as the default setting the game follows. An example of a general rule is the rules for targeting below. This rule applies to all instances of targeting. So, in general, you can't target something that is behind total cover, as per the rule for targeting (also addressed in the general rules for cover).
Now specific rules, are rules that add something to or otherwise deviate from the general rules in specific circumstances or specific instances. Sacred Flame is a prime example containing a specific rule. Generally, you can't target something or someone behind full cover. However, the description of Sacred Flame specifically tells us that this is not true for this spell in particular. Specific rules are often (if not always) exceptions to the general rules, and when a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule always trumps the general rule. Specific beats general. Specific rules can hide many places but are often found in spell descriptions, class features, and racial features. The general rules are what you find in the sourcebooks when the rules address general game mechanics.
The general rule for targeting quoted above tells us that a target can't be behind total cover. This means that, if you're standing on one side of a closed window looking at a location you want to target with a Fireball on the other side of the window, the game tells us that your desired target is not a valid choice (you have to choose another target or stop what you're doing). Now if you close your eyes (or you stand in a Fog Cloud or are otherwise deprived of your ability to see), you don't know whether your target is valid or not as there may or may not be a wall between you and your target, granting it full cover. The DM of course knows this, but it would be gamebreaking if he told you what was inside the area which your character can't see. Instead, the game allows you to cast your spell and tells you your target was invalid by having the fireball detonate when it reaches the obstacle that grants full cover to your intended target.
As for whether or not a line can be curved when determining line of sight and cover, the illustrations used to describe the cover rules seem to suggest that straight lines are what we are supposed to be using. Also if we could use curved lines to determine line of sight and cover, the rules on the topic would be completely and utterly redundant. And as a side note, if I recall my geometry classes correctly, a line is a geometrical shape that is (or assumed to be) straight. A line that is not straight is called a curved line. However, while English definitions are relevant to D&D rules, in this case the whole game would fall apart if you went with a definition that allowed curved lines to determine line of sight and cover, so it seems safe to say that is not the case.
I wrote a post earlier that really didn't say what I wanted to express.
Finding a justification for a bad ruling is different than trying to understand the rules. Ignoring mechanics and taking words out of context aren't the endeavors of someone trying to understand the rules.
If you really don't understand the mechanics of casting a spell, then trying to understand any rules that rely on them, such as line of effect rules, will be fruitless.
Wolf, I apologize if I offended you. I honestly tried to make it clear I was joking. Maybe I didn't succeed. The whole "thanks Wolf-Dad" line seemed pretty funny to me in the context of the failure bit...
And I will stick to my promise to not continue the dead horse beatings, because it's obvious now there is no moral to improve: the books and their words don't have to make sense to all of us in the same way, and that includes the people that wrote them, cough cough, thanks Mr Crawford.
I will reply with this about words and context: every word in a sentence can and should be used to establish context. And if some words are given less emphasis, or ignored entirely, this is the same problem as using those same words out of context. Me pulling those words out and using them sprinkled around Mein Targeting Manifesto was not an attempt to disregard the rest of the words in that sentence; but it was an attempt to emphasize that I think those two words are missing in the general interpretation on this topic.
Take this sentence for example: I get to play D&D only when my group has time. Now take away the two words only and when: I get to play D&D [ ... ] my group has time. That second version is very different isn't it? It could mean that I get to play D&D all day every day... which sadly is not the case. Or it could be a sign that I'm very pushy with my group and I don't consider that they have lives and plans and stuff... which, do they really? jk Maybe, if you try the same experiment with the second sentence of the first paragraph in the rules for Cover, you'll see the point I failed to make.
And yeah, I get the irony of taking the point I was trying to make, completely out of the context of the rules I was trying to discuss...
Wolf I am glad you thought it was a "Nice try." Thanks Wolf-Dad.
PS some of the stuff in this post was a direct reply to some things WolfoftheBees said in the post that... didn't say what he wanted to express. That's why some of the puns in this post wont make sense now that Wolf deleted his first draft... I won't hate them for it though...
You don't need to justify to us your incorrect readings. Just use them in your own game. With that being said, your statements continue to use words from the rules without saying anything correct about the rules. That's why I dropped into this thread: because its worth pointing out that rules analysis should start with the rules and not with just few enough words to get the answer you want.
The sentence in the cover rule has an easy to understand meaning: cover applies only when the cover actually interposes between the attacker and the target. As in, cover doesn't matter whenever it isn't between the source of the effect and the target. It's, in the words of Gilderoy Lockheart, "Pretty Obvious."
It is frustrating to see bad ideas from wishy-washy "the rules say whatever I want them to" readings in the rules and mechanics forums.
You haven't offended me; I just want it to be clear that you're not interested in understanding what the rules are telling you, your interested in representing them in a way to get your outcome. Post #48 shows that.
I am afraid I must agree with this statement. Since post #48 the argument for allowing curved paths do not appear like they are being made in good faith.
The Clear Path rule uses the Cover rules in its very definition. We must consider cover when selecting the target of a spell because the Clear Path rule tells us we must.
SagaTympans and WolfOfTheBees have explained why there is not a conflict between the Cover rules and the Clear Path rule.
Weapon attacks do not need to consider cover when selecting their target because the Making an Attack rules do not require it: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MakinganAttack
I'll own that post #48 was both the outcome I came to and the outcome I wanted; but only after starting at a place of real, and eager inquisitiveness. Anyone that reads the posts leading up to that should be able to see that clearly. Yes, I had a theory about how fireball worked; and yes after some discussion and and suggested reading I managed to confirmed that theory with a logical and fully cited structure. Do I need an excuse for using a theory and test approach? Does understanding them and getting a specific outcome have to be mutually exclusive. I'd say no.
You're still here making points about me as a person, and not the rules and mechanics that we were discussing. Does that say something about your interests?
That's ok. I'll be that guy. WolfOfTheBees - you've won.