The entire question comes down to a DM decision on whether a transparent obstruction provides total cover or not.
All spells require a line of effect to their target point.
"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."
The classic example is casting a fireball through a fog cloud. If the spell hits an obstruction between the intended target point and the casting location the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
However, the requirement is that to target something, even a point you can't see (as with fireball or mage hand), you must have a clear path to it. The example explains what happens to an AoE spell but the same would happen for any spell targeted on a point you can't see. The point of origin would come into effect on the near side of the obstruction.
The problem arises with whether a transparent object provides total cover or not. If the transparent object provides total cover then you can't target anything behind it and you can't cast spells on the other side of it. On the other hand, if a transparent object is not total cover then you can both target something on the other side and cast spells through it.
Here are the rules on cover:
-----
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
Three-Quarters Cover
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
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.
-----
The key line is "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
People tend to read this in one of two ways:
a) Concealed in the sense that the obstacle is fully between the target and the observer/attacker. No matter what the obstacle might be if it is fully blocking a line drawn from the attacker to the target then the attacker has total cover. As a result, a window would provide total cover and would block the casting of spells on the other side of it. (Wall of force is another example - if the wall is fully between the target and attacker it blocks the line drawn between the two and so would be considered total cover).
b) Concealed in the sense that the obstacle must block both the direct line between the target and attacker AND it must block the vision between the two (concealed is used in this context as being not visible). In this case an obstacle that can't be seen through and covers the line of effect from attacker to target would block line of effect for spells and attacks BUT a transparent object would not do so.
Either of these could be a valid interpretation of the use of the word "conceal" in the context of total cover.
The main reason this is relevant is because for all other forms of cover, the line of effect and thus line of sight is not totally blocked. You can still see a part of the creature no matter what the obstacle if it isn't total cover. However, using the word concealed in the context of total cover could mean that blocking vision in addition to line of effect is a requirement for total cover.
Rule it whichever way makes sense for you in your games. I know DMs who run it both ways and honestly either works. Interpretation comes down to whether the DM believes that "completely concealed by an obstacle" means it must block line of sight in addition to line of effect or not.
In the one case, windows and wall of force provide total cover and in the other they do not. In the one case, a thin sheer drape that you can see through provides total cover so you can't target a creature on the other side with either weapons or spells (even if you can see the target clearly and the transparent drape would not actually provide much of an obstacle to an attack) and in the other case it does not. In both cases, an opaque drape would provide total cover even if made of a very light material because you can't see through it.
TL;DR ... It all comes down to how the DM prefers to interpret "completely concealed by an obstacle"
TL;DR ... It all comes down to how the DM prefers to interpret "completely concealed by an obstacle"
Concealed literally means "can't be seen" or "hidden". There is no definition of the word that is along the lines of "behind something else but still visible"
There really isn't anything to interpret
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Mage Hand appears to be similarly worded to Dimension Door. It apparates where the caster chooses within range and does not specify that they need to see it or need a clear path to it. The rule you seem to be referencing Clear Path to the Target, is for spells with area of effect, which are described below in Areas of Effect. None of these areas of effect seem to apply to Mage Hand.
To provide a little bit more information, Mike Mearls has stated that spells like mage hand can be cast behind objects, such as Wall of Force. Take it as you will, but in his opinion, you do not need an uninterrupted path for spells like Mage Hand.
The rule you seem to be referencing Clear Path to the Target, is for spells with area of effect, which are described below in Areas of Effect. None of these areas of effect seem to apply to Mage Hand.
That's incorrect. "A clear path to the target" is in the "Targets" subsection and that is rules that apply to all spells.
Mage Hand appears to be similarly worded to Dimension Door. It apparates where the caster chooses within range and does not specify that they need to see it or need a clear path to it. The rule you seem to be referencing Clear Path to the Target, is for spells with area of effect, which are described below in Areas of Effect. None of these areas of effect seem to apply to Mage Hand.
It is odd that you chose to compare such different spells and came to the conclusion that they work the same. Mage hand says you choose a point within range, whereas dimension door has an entire extra 40 word sentence describing the place that you can select for it.
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.
In order for this rule to be excepted by a spell, you would need something stating otherwise in such a spell. A sentence like:
It can be a place you can see, one you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as "200 feet straight downward" or "upward to the northwest at a 45- degree angle, 300 feet."
The only question in this thread is what constitutes total cover? Does a single pane window? If so, then line of effect is broken. If not, then the spell can be cast.
I'm just going to throw this out for a reference as it relates to David42 question of total cover. I know some people do not always trust JC when he responds on Twitter but well...here it is.
I'm just going to throw this out for a reference as it relates to David42 question of total cover. I know some people do not always trust JC when he responds on Twitter but well...here it is.
Question: "@JeremyECrawfordIs a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell?"
Answer: "A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD"
And that's absurd
Total cover requires concealment. It's the entirely of the definition of total cover -- there's only two sentences to the section, and the first describes the effect of having it
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.
Total cover = you can't see it behind an obstacle. If you can see it, by definition, it's not total cover
It's arguably JC's most head-scratching SA. It's a one-sentence rule, and he blew it. It doesn't even make sense logically. You really can't throw a rock at someone you can see through a window, JC?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is an interesting thread to have bumped, but I agree. The spell Mage Hand states that the hand appears at a point the caster chooses within range (30ft). It does not say that you need uninterrupted line of sight or that you even need to see where it appears. It simply appears at any point of the caster's choosing. This can be behind a door if there is space to allow it to appear.
Funny you should mention this as I had a player using an Arcane Trickster use Mage Hand and move it under the space between door and floor with the intention to unlock the door. What I allowed was a series of dex checks to see if it finds the door nob/lock, she did and the door was unlocked. The initial debate was how does an AT use legerdemain ability to picklock if there is not some form of tactical feeling to gauge they've set the right picks to tumblers and that same feeling should be used on the door. Since there is truly no mention in the spell of any form of feeling I felt it came down to DM decision.
This was another moment where I kept the game going and research later. The opinions were mixed but it was a good discussion nonetheless.
I'm just going to throw this out for a reference as it relates to David42 question of total cover. I know some people do not always trust JC when he responds on Twitter but well...here it is.
Question: "@JeremyECrawfordIs a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell?"
Answer: "A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD"
And that's absurd
Total cover requires concealment. It's the entirely of the definition of total cover -- there's only two sentences to the section, and the first describes the effect of having it
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.
Total cover = you can't see it behind an obstacle. If you can see it, by definition, it's not total cover
It's arguably JC's most head-scratching SA. It's a one-sentence rule, and he blew it. It doesn't even make sense logically. You really can't throw a rock at someone you can see through a window, JC?
If I was to come up with 'plausible' reasoning, (obviously now RAW to support it.) could be the rock momentum could be lessened by breaking through the window or redirected by the shattered glass.
Heck, glass even has an AC of 13 which could be used to see if your thrown was hard enough to breakthrough. (Now that would be annoying if you 'missed'.) Even then the HP for what I'm calling a medium fragile window has 4 hit points and rock would be an improvised weapon so there is no guarantee the window would break.
"I'm pretty sure that all conjuration summoning spells still require line of effect to the target location"
If they dont specify in the spell that they do, by area of effect description or that you must be able to see a spot to target, they dont. Mage Hand states it appears in a spot the caster choses, and they can CHOSE a spot within the range that they cannot see, it could be used on the other side of an object, in the same way you can dimension door to an unseen area.
Ravnodaus I think you are confusing spectral and no corporeal. Something CAN be spectral and still be corporeal, as spectral is a visual description and does not implicitly mean that thing is intangible like a Specter. Spectral would simply imply ghostly in appearance, not that its not a solid object, which it would HAVE to be to interact/lift/touch anything it would be used on.
"I'm pretty sure that all conjuration summoning spells still require line of effect to the target location"
If they dont specify in the spell that they do, by area of effect description or that you must be able to see a spot to target, they dont. Mage Hand states it appears in a spot the caster choses, and they can CHOSE a spot within the range that they cannot see, it could be used on the other side of an object, in the same way you can dimension door to an unseen area.
I think you've confused line of sight with line of effect, You do need line of effect unless a spell specifies otherwise. See my post just 3 above yours (#30)
This is an interesting thread to have bumped, but I agree. The spell Mage Hand states that the hand appears at a point the caster chooses within range (30ft). It does not say that you need uninterrupted line of sight or that you even need to see where it appears. It simply appears at any point of the caster's choosing. This can be behind a door if there is space to allow it to appear.
Funny you should mention this as I had a player using an Arcane Trickster use Mage Hand and move it under the space between door and floor with the intention to unlock the door. What I allowed was a series of dex checks to see if it finds the door nob/lock, she did and the door was unlocked. The initial debate was how does an AT use legerdemain ability to picklock if there is not some form of tactical feeling to gauge they've set the right picks to tumblers and that same feeling should be used on the door. Since there is truly no mention in the spell of any form of feeling I felt it came down to DM decision.
This was another moment where I kept the game going and research later. The opinions were mixed but it was a good discussion nonetheless.
I think that's fine. Arcane Tricksters should have more latitude in how to use mage hand than other casters, since it is one of their subclass features
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If I was to come up with 'plausible' reasoning, (obviously now RAW to support it.) could be the rock momentum could be lessened by breaking through the window or redirected by the shattered glass.
Heck, glass even has an AC of 13 which could be used to see if your thrown was hard enough to breakthrough. (Now that would be annoying if you 'missed'.) Even then the HP for what I'm calling a medium fragile window has 4 hit points and rock would be an improvised weapon so there is no guarantee the window would break.
Right, but per JC's "RAW", you can't even make the attempt. Momentum being reduced or whatever is irrelevant
Per that Sage Advice, you'd have to throw a rock specifically at the glass first to break it, then target something in the room with a second rock. According to JC it is actually impossible to throw a rock through a glass window and hit a thing beyond it, which is... I mean, common sense has to kick in at some point
As a DM, if you want to give the glass enough HP to make it questionable whether the rock goes through or bounces off, then sure. If you want to give the target inside a higher AC for partial cover, absolutely. But impossible to even target? It's silly
I also just realized that if a glass pane provides total cover and is considered a "solid obstacle", then launching a 5 pound brick with catapult would cause the brick to just stop dead when it made contact with the glass, which, again... silly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is an interesting thread to have bumped, but I agree. The spell Mage Hand states that the hand appears at a point the caster chooses within range (30ft). It does not say that you need uninterrupted line of sight or that you even need to see where it appears. It simply appears at any point of the caster's choosing. This can be behind a door if there is space to allow it to appear.
Funny you should mention this as I had a player using an Arcane Trickster use Mage Hand and move it under the space between door and floor with the intention to unlock the door. What I allowed was a series of dex checks to see if it finds the door nob/lock, she did and the door was unlocked. The initial debate was how does an AT use legerdemain ability to picklock if there is not some form of tactical feeling to gauge they've set the right picks to tumblers and that same feeling should be used on the door. Since there is truly no mention in the spell of any form of feeling I felt it came down to DM decision.
This was another moment where I kept the game going and research later. The opinions were mixed but it was a good discussion nonetheless.
I agree with your interpretation. The description of mage hand legerdemain specifies the tasks that an arcane trickster can do at range - pick locks, disarm traps, pick pockets (put something in or take something out) even when the hand is invisible. RAW, the description does not say a "lock you can see", there is no line of sight requirement.
----
Mage Hand Legerdemain
Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:
You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.
You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature.
You can use thieves’ tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature’s Wisdom (Perception) check.
In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand.
---
How are these tasks even possible if the rogue can't see the lock (which they won't be able to do from 30' away and which the spell does not require anyway) and can't see the hand? There are two ways a DM can justify it "Because Magic ..." ... the rules say what the mage hand can do - it doesn't say how OR the DM can come up with a logical explanation that might work - in this case the hand provides some feedback which would explain how the rogue could perform a task that would be impossible without some sort of feedback.
Having some explanation of how it works allows the DM to extrapolate when the players try to do something cool or different with it - like send the hand under a door to pick a lock on the inside (this is absolutely permitted RAW by the description of the mage hand spell and mage hand legerdemain) - mage hand can also be used to open most doors and again there is no requirement in the spell that you have to be able to see what it is doing.
From mage hand: "You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it."
RAW, none of that requires the caster to be able to see the actions that the hand is taking. DMs effectively house rule it that way though in many cases.
Anyway, the mage hand spell requires a lot of adjudication on the part of the DM since "how" it works isn't spelled out - only what it can do - and no where in that description is there a requirement for the caster to be able to see the hand performing whatever action is desired.
I'm just going to throw this out for a reference as it relates to David42 question of total cover. I know some people do not always trust JC when he responds on Twitter but well...here it is.
Question: "@JeremyECrawfordIs a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell?"
Answer: "A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD"
And that's absurd
Total cover requires concealment. It's the entirely of the definition of total cover -- there's only two sentences to the section, and the first describes the effect of having it
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.
Total cover = you can't see it behind an obstacle. If you can see it, by definition, it's not total cover
It's arguably JC's most head-scratching SA. It's a one-sentence rule, and he blew it. It doesn't even make sense logically. You really can't throw a rock at someone you can see through a window, JC?
If I was to come up with 'plausible' reasoning, (obviously now RAW to support it.) could be the rock momentum could be lessened by breaking through the window or redirected by the shattered glass.
Heck, glass even has an AC of 13 which could be used to see if your thrown was hard enough to breakthrough. (Now that would be annoying if you 'missed'.) Even then the HP for what I'm calling a medium fragile window has 4 hit points and rock would be an improvised weapon so there is no guarantee the window would break.
Keep in mind that the same reasoning applies to a sheet of transparent paper covering a window. You can't attack them with a spell or weapon attack because they have "total cover" depending on the definition the DM goes with - even though most weapon attacks would experience little or no decrease in accuracy flying through a paper covering. (though I guess it is arguable in that case that a DM might not consider the paper or even a window an obstacle - unfortunately 'obstacle' isn't defined and all obstacle means is something in the way - it doesn't really specify that the obstacle has to be substantial)
Similarly, a thin glass pane will do little to a heavy cross bow bolt fired through it. Depending on thickness, it might deflect the bolt and if really thick slow it down but if the DM considers the window to be total cover, the character isn't even allowed to shoot at a target through the window because they have total cover.
Anyway, DM call on how they run it but I generally won't give total cover due to a window though depending on the nature of the attack and spell description it may have some effect.
TL;DR ... It all comes down to how the DM prefers to interpret "completely concealed by an obstacle"
Concealed literally means "can't be seen" or "hidden". There is no definition of the word that is along the lines of "behind something else but still visible"
There really isn't anything to interpret
Having had this discussion several times, I can guarantee that there are folks who interpret "concealed" to mean "blocked whether they can be seen or not" as opposed to "blocked and unable to be seen". This is used to justify windows and wall of force being considered total cover for spell casting and attacks.
Personally, I tend to go with the "concealed" requiring both a physical blockage and a blockage of line of sight. There needs to be an obstacle and it needs to block vision. However, that is not a universal opinion and if folks want to interpret it differently at their table then that is fine.
One reason that DMs may want to consider a wall of force to be total cover is that it prevents "exploits" like the situation where a couple of low level casters (~9) can kill dragons and other high level threats (if the threats don't have misty step or dimension door). Cast a wall of force around the creature - cast a sickening radiance inside the spherical wall of force - wait for the creature to die either through hit point loss or exhaustion - 6 failed saves and they are dead - and they have to roll 100 times before both spells end.
People keep talking about a clear path to the target and trying to explain it. This represents a misunderstanding of the argument.
Some spells do not require a clear path to the target. Teleportation type spells are a prime example, but not the only one. No sane person is going to claim you can't teleport if you do not have a clear path to the target.
Typically spells that require a clear path to the target must a) have a target and b) reference line of sight. If it doesn't have a target, you do not need a clear path.
Mage hands reads without the words line of sight and has no target perse.
Note, you can do the same thing with summon familiar. You can summon it behind a door and mentally look through it's eyes.
One reason that DMs may want to consider a wall of force to be total cover is that it prevents "exploits" like the situation where a couple of low level casters (~9) can kill dragons and other high level threats (if the threats don't have misty step or dimension door).
Wall of Force explicitly says nothing physical can pass through it though. You don't need to rule it provides total cover. In fact, that ruling doesn't even stop the combo you suggested, since sickening radiance covers a much larger area than the sphere version of the wall. Target a point just outside the sphere, and anything inside it is still within the AoE
The whole discussion seems like attempts to jury-rig rationales for that Sage Advice
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Personally, I tend to go with the "concealed" requiring both a physical blockage and a blockage of line of sight. There needs to be an obstacle and it needs to block vision.
This means at your tables ranged weapon attacks aren't stopped by arbitrarily tough transparent total cover, such as clear glass, ice, diamond, force, and so on. One example consequence is that anyone can shoot through any obstacle if they can render the obstacle invisible. Another is that the Warlock invocation Ghostly Gaze lets the Warlock shoot through absolutely anything. Many other consequences abound, because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists, and it is... unlikely you genuinely desire all or even most of these consequences at your table.
It also means you're contradicting the RAW, because you've declared Resilient Sphere not to provide total cover, despite the linked rule explicitly stating that it does (if you turn off the SAC being RAW by not including it in your allowed source material, your problems increase; for example, the SAC contains the only RAW definition anywhere of "ranged weapon attack").
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The entire question comes down to a DM decision on whether a transparent obstruction provides total cover or not.
All spells require a line of effect to their target point.
"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."
The classic example is casting a fireball through a fog cloud. If the spell hits an obstruction between the intended target point and the casting location the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
However, the requirement is that to target something, even a point you can't see (as with fireball or mage hand), you must have a clear path to it. The example explains what happens to an AoE spell but the same would happen for any spell targeted on a point you can't see. The point of origin would come into effect on the near side of the obstruction.
The problem arises with whether a transparent object provides total cover or not. If the transparent object provides total cover then you can't target anything behind it and you can't cast spells on the other side of it. On the other hand, if a transparent object is not total cover then you can both target something on the other side and cast spells through it.
Here are the rules on cover:
-----
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2![]()
bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
Three-Quarters Cover
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5![]()
bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
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.
-----
The key line is "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
People tend to read this in one of two ways:
a) Concealed in the sense that the obstacle is fully between the target and the observer/attacker. No matter what the obstacle might be if it is fully blocking a line drawn from the attacker to the target then the attacker has total cover. As a result, a window would provide total cover and would block the casting of spells on the other side of it. (Wall of force is another example - if the wall is fully between the target and attacker it blocks the line drawn between the two and so would be considered total cover).
b) Concealed in the sense that the obstacle must block both the direct line between the target and attacker AND it must block the vision between the two (concealed is used in this context as being not visible). In this case an obstacle that can't be seen through and covers the line of effect from attacker to target would block line of effect for spells and attacks BUT a transparent object would not do so.
Either of these could be a valid interpretation of the use of the word "conceal" in the context of total cover.
The main reason this is relevant is because for all other forms of cover, the line of effect and thus line of sight is not totally blocked. You can still see a part of the creature no matter what the obstacle if it isn't total cover. However, using the word concealed in the context of total cover could mean that blocking vision in addition to line of effect is a requirement for total cover.
Rule it whichever way makes sense for you in your games. I know DMs who run it both ways and honestly either works. Interpretation comes down to whether the DM believes that "completely concealed by an obstacle" means it must block line of sight in addition to line of effect or not.
In the one case, windows and wall of force provide total cover and in the other they do not. In the one case, a thin sheer drape that you can see through provides total cover so you can't target a creature on the other side with either weapons or spells (even if you can see the target clearly and the transparent drape would not actually provide much of an obstacle to an attack) and in the other case it does not. In both cases, an opaque drape would provide total cover even if made of a very light material because you can't see through it.
TL;DR ... It all comes down to how the DM prefers to interpret "completely concealed by an obstacle"
Concealed literally means "can't be seen" or "hidden". There is no definition of the word that is along the lines of "behind something else but still visible"
There really isn't anything to interpret
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hello David42,
Mage Hand appears to be similarly worded to Dimension Door. It apparates where the caster chooses within range and does not specify that they need to see it or need a clear path to it. The rule you seem to be referencing Clear Path to the Target, is for spells with area of effect, which are described below in Areas of Effect. None of these areas of effect seem to apply to Mage Hand.
To provide a little bit more information, Mike Mearls has stated that spells like mage hand can be cast behind objects, such as Wall of Force. Take it as you will, but in his opinion, you do not need an uninterrupted path for spells like Mage Hand.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's incorrect. "A clear path to the target" is in the "Targets" subsection and that is rules that apply to all spells.
It is odd that you chose to compare such different spells and came to the conclusion that they work the same. Mage hand says you choose a point within range, whereas dimension door has an entire extra 40 word sentence describing the place that you can select for it.
Don't forget that in general, you need A Clear Path to the Target (BR, in case you need it):
In order for this rule to be excepted by a spell, you would need something stating otherwise in such a spell. A sentence like:
The only question in this thread is what constitutes total cover? Does a single pane window? If so, then line of effect is broken. If not, then the spell can be cast.
I'm just going to throw this out for a reference as it relates to David42 question of total cover. I know some people do not always trust JC when he responds on Twitter but well...here it is.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/is-a-glass-window-considered-a-total-cover/
Question: "@JeremyECrawford Is a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell?"
Answer: "A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD"
And that's absurd
Total cover requires concealment. It's the entirely of the definition of total cover -- there's only two sentences to the section, and the first describes the effect of having it
Total cover = you can't see it behind an obstacle. If you can see it, by definition, it's not total cover
It's arguably JC's most head-scratching SA. It's a one-sentence rule, and he blew it. It doesn't even make sense logically. You really can't throw a rock at someone you can see through a window, JC?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Funny you should mention this as I had a player using an Arcane Trickster use Mage Hand and move it under the space between door and floor with the intention to unlock the door. What I allowed was a series of dex checks to see if it finds the door nob/lock, she did and the door was unlocked. The initial debate was how does an AT use legerdemain ability to picklock if there is not some form of tactical feeling to gauge they've set the right picks to tumblers and that same feeling should be used on the door. Since there is truly no mention in the spell of any form of feeling I felt it came down to DM decision.
This was another moment where I kept the game going and research later. The opinions were mixed but it was a good discussion nonetheless.
If I was to come up with 'plausible' reasoning, (obviously now RAW to support it.) could be the rock momentum could be lessened by breaking through the window or redirected by the shattered glass.
Heck, glass even has an AC of 13 which could be used to see if your thrown was hard enough to breakthrough. (Now that would be annoying if you 'missed'.) Even then the HP for what I'm calling a medium fragile window has 4 hit points and rock would be an improvised weapon so there is no guarantee the window would break.
Zarramoth
If they dont specify in the spell that they do, by area of effect description or that you must be able to see a spot to target, they dont. Mage Hand states it appears in a spot the caster choses, and they can CHOSE a spot within the range that they cannot see, it could be used on the other side of an object, in the same way you can dimension door to an unseen area.
Ravnodaus I think you are confusing spectral and no corporeal. Something CAN be spectral and still be corporeal, as spectral is a visual description and does not implicitly mean that thing is intangible like a Specter. Spectral would simply imply ghostly in appearance, not that its not a solid object, which it would HAVE to be to interact/lift/touch anything it would be used on.
I think you've confused line of sight with line of effect, You do need line of effect unless a spell specifies otherwise. See my post just 3 above yours (#30)
I think that's fine. Arcane Tricksters should have more latitude in how to use mage hand than other casters, since it is one of their subclass features
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You need a clear path to the point of origin of a Mage Hand. That always been my understanding.
Right, but per JC's "RAW", you can't even make the attempt. Momentum being reduced or whatever is irrelevant
Per that Sage Advice, you'd have to throw a rock specifically at the glass first to break it, then target something in the room with a second rock. According to JC it is actually impossible to throw a rock through a glass window and hit a thing beyond it, which is... I mean, common sense has to kick in at some point
As a DM, if you want to give the glass enough HP to make it questionable whether the rock goes through or bounces off, then sure. If you want to give the target inside a higher AC for partial cover, absolutely. But impossible to even target? It's silly
I also just realized that if a glass pane provides total cover and is considered a "solid obstacle", then launching a 5 pound brick with catapult would cause the brick to just stop dead when it made contact with the glass, which, again... silly
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree with your interpretation. The description of mage hand legerdemain specifies the tasks that an arcane trickster can do at range - pick locks, disarm traps, pick pockets (put something in or take something out) even when the hand is invisible. RAW, the description does not say a "lock you can see", there is no line of sight requirement.
----
Mage Hand Legerdemain
Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature’s Wisdom (Perception) check.
In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand.
---
How are these tasks even possible if the rogue can't see the lock (which they won't be able to do from 30' away and which the spell does not require anyway) and can't see the hand? There are two ways a DM can justify it "Because Magic ..." ... the rules say what the mage hand can do - it doesn't say how OR the DM can come up with a logical explanation that might work - in this case the hand provides some feedback which would explain how the rogue could perform a task that would be impossible without some sort of feedback.
Having some explanation of how it works allows the DM to extrapolate when the players try to do something cool or different with it - like send the hand under a door to pick a lock on the inside (this is absolutely permitted RAW by the description of the mage hand spell and mage hand legerdemain) - mage hand can also be used to open most doors and again there is no requirement in the spell that you have to be able to see what it is doing.
From mage hand: "You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it."
RAW, none of that requires the caster to be able to see the actions that the hand is taking. DMs effectively house rule it that way though in many cases.
Anyway, the mage hand spell requires a lot of adjudication on the part of the DM since "how" it works isn't spelled out - only what it can do - and no where in that description is there a requirement for the caster to be able to see the hand performing whatever action is desired.
Keep in mind that the same reasoning applies to a sheet of transparent paper covering a window. You can't attack them with a spell or weapon attack because they have "total cover" depending on the definition the DM goes with - even though most weapon attacks would experience little or no decrease in accuracy flying through a paper covering. (though I guess it is arguable in that case that a DM might not consider the paper or even a window an obstacle - unfortunately 'obstacle' isn't defined and all obstacle means is something in the way - it doesn't really specify that the obstacle has to be substantial)
Similarly, a thin glass pane will do little to a heavy cross bow bolt fired through it. Depending on thickness, it might deflect the bolt and if really thick slow it down but if the DM considers the window to be total cover, the character isn't even allowed to shoot at a target through the window because they have total cover.
Anyway, DM call on how they run it but I generally won't give total cover due to a window though depending on the nature of the attack and spell description it may have some effect.
Having had this discussion several times, I can guarantee that there are folks who interpret "concealed" to mean "blocked whether they can be seen or not" as opposed to "blocked and unable to be seen". This is used to justify windows and wall of force being considered total cover for spell casting and attacks.
Personally, I tend to go with the "concealed" requiring both a physical blockage and a blockage of line of sight. There needs to be an obstacle and it needs to block vision. However, that is not a universal opinion and if folks want to interpret it differently at their table then that is fine.
One reason that DMs may want to consider a wall of force to be total cover is that it prevents "exploits" like the situation where a couple of low level casters (~9) can kill dragons and other high level threats (if the threats don't have misty step or dimension door). Cast a wall of force around the creature - cast a sickening radiance inside the spherical wall of force - wait for the creature to die either through hit point loss or exhaustion - 6 failed saves and they are dead - and they have to roll 100 times before both spells end.
People keep talking about a clear path to the target and trying to explain it. This represents a misunderstanding of the argument.
Some spells do not require a clear path to the target. Teleportation type spells are a prime example, but not the only one. No sane person is going to claim you can't teleport if you do not have a clear path to the target.
Typically spells that require a clear path to the target must a) have a target and b) reference line of sight. If it doesn't have a target, you do not need a clear path.
Mage hands reads without the words line of sight and has no target perse.
Note, you can do the same thing with summon familiar. You can summon it behind a door and mentally look through it's eyes.
Wall of Force explicitly says nothing physical can pass through it though. You don't need to rule it provides total cover. In fact, that ruling doesn't even stop the combo you suggested, since sickening radiance covers a much larger area than the sphere version of the wall. Target a point just outside the sphere, and anything inside it is still within the AoE
The whole discussion seems like attempts to jury-rig rationales for that Sage Advice
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This means at your tables ranged weapon attacks aren't stopped by arbitrarily tough transparent total cover, such as clear glass, ice, diamond, force, and so on. One example consequence is that anyone can shoot through any obstacle if they can render the obstacle invisible. Another is that the Warlock invocation Ghostly Gaze lets the Warlock shoot through absolutely anything. Many other consequences abound, because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists, and it is... unlikely you genuinely desire all or even most of these consequences at your table.
It also means you're contradicting the RAW, because you've declared Resilient Sphere not to provide total cover, despite the linked rule explicitly stating that it does (if you turn off the SAC being RAW by not including it in your allowed source material, your problems increase; for example, the SAC contains the only RAW definition anywhere of "ranged weapon attack").