It also means you're contradicting the RAW, because you've declared Resilient Sphere not to provide total cover
It doesn't need to provide total cover, because the spell explicitly says nothing can get through it. That's better than total cover
I think you've gotten lost in your own argument here
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)
Some spells do not require a clear path to the target.
This is false if by target you mean the initial target at cast time, unless you also only mean spells that explicitly say so, but you don't (see below). So it's false for the spells you appear to be referring to.
Teleportation type spells are a prime example
Teleportation spells that do not require a clear path to the target can and do exist, but most of them require a clear path to the target. One of the most popular examples is misty step.
, 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.
All of them do, because that's what the rules say.
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.
b) is just false. A spell need not refer to "line of sight" or even "sight" in order to require a clear path to the target. a) is pathologically true: because all spells have a target, any claim you make about the set of spells without a target is intrinsically true, as you are describing the empty set.
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.
No you can't. Find Familiaralso has a target. Both Mage Hand and Find Familiar target the point in space where the summoned thing initially appears, and you need a clear path to said point in space.
because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
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)
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.
The target subsection states in the first sentence that a typical spell requires that you pick a target. This suggests that not all spells require targets and Mage Hand specifies no target until it is used to manipulate an object in some fashion. It appears where the caster desires, including in occupied spaces and behind objects, like behind a person or a wall. This is why the hand can apparate behind Wall of Force despite having no clear path.
because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
There is a known discrepancy in the cover rules that half-cover mentions cover that 'blocks' a creature, whereas total cover uses 'concealed.' It is problematic because the rules don't really say what constitutes blocks vs concealed - or whether concealed means specifically concealed from vision or is just being used as a synonym for blocks. I think that there is no true consensus on this amongst the forum members who have discussed it in other threads that I've read.
because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
There is a known discrepancy in the cover rules that half-cover mentions cover that 'blocks' a creature, whereas total cover uses 'concealed.' It is problematic because the rules don't really say what constitutes blocks vs concealed - or whether concealed means specifically concealed from vision or is just being used as a synonym for blocks. I think that there is no true consensus on this amongst the forum members who have discussed it in other threads that I've read.
There's no discrepancy though, unless you go looking for one
"Blocks" and "conceals" refer to two different things, and partial cover (AC and Dex save bonus) and total cover (can't be targeted at all, but no impact on saves otherwise) have two completely different effects
I mean, if the "glass windows provide total cover" logic leads to conclusions like quindraco's above about invisibility, I'm genuinely shocked anyone gives it any credence at all
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)
because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
How many examples would you like? Are two enough? I'll give you the two I already provided in this thread, and if you want more, I'll provide more.
Other spells that supply transparent total cover, such as Wall of Force, Wall of Ice (unless your DM has ruled that spell's ice must be cloudy, which isn't in the spell's text), and Invisibility cast on a creature carrying said total cover (such as an ogre howdah) or being said total cover (such as a giant toad that has swallowed the target creature) will also be bypassed.
The above two stack, of course: under such a regime, someone inside a transparent sphere (e.g. glass) which has been swallowed by an invisible creature with swallow (e.g. a giant toad) can be shot with a blowgun, and on a hit, the needle does not hit, let alone potentially damage, the sphere or the toad - the target inside the sphere is simply hit by the needle.
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
Nope. If something provides total cover then it blocks spell effects like sickening radiance and casting spells inside the wall of force from outside (except Sacred Flame (lol!) because it specifically says it ignores the effect of cover).
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
You can still get the combination to work but the sickening radiance has to be cast before wall of force which makes it a bit tougher since targets often move out of sickening radiance.
because the rest of the rules are written assuming that transparent total cover exists
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
How many examples would you like? Are two enough? I'll give you the two I already provided in this thread, and if you want more, I'll provide more.
At its most extreme, a Warlock with Ghostly Gaze can shoot said blowgun through at least 95 feet of pure adamantine.
Umm no. Not providing total cover means that ranged weapons can make an attack roll. Nothing more. It does not prevent the object in the way from preventing the ranged attack from reaching the target since there is still an obstacle in the way. Just because you can see through the obstacle doesn't mean that it isn't there. The discussion is not about whether the obstacle exists or not if we call it "total cover" but rather whether the obstacle provides total cover which prevents even targeting something behind the obstacle or casting a spell at it.
As an example, can a ranger fire their bow at a target standing behind a wall of force or a window? To me, the answer is clearly yes. They can see the target, they know where it is, they can fire their bow if they want to. However, nothing about seeing the target, stops the wall of force from being an obstacle and preventing anything material from passing through. If the wall of force is total cover then the ranger isn't even allowed to fire their bow. Similarly, if a window is in the way, if it is not total cover, it is a DM judgement call as to what effect if any it has on the ranged attack. However, if it is considered total cover then a ranged attack can not even be made.
Note that wall of force (unlike forcecage) does not mention whether it blocks magic spells or not. The only way wall of force can block magic is if the DM decides that a wall of force provides total cover. The spell itself only states that nothing can physically pass through it. (Personally, I don't think of spells as physical unless their description says so but other DMs might have different interpretations).
So in this case, the definition of total cover only affects whether an attack is allowed or not, not whether it would be successful or not. Whether it is considered total cover or not, the obstacle is still in the way.
Other spells that supply transparent total cover, such as Wall of Force, Wall of Ice (unless your DM has ruled that spell's ice must be cloudy, which isn't in the spell's text), and Invisibility cast on a creature carrying said total cover (such as an ogre howdah) or being said total cover (such as a giant toad that has swallowed the target creature) will also be bypassed.
The above two stack, of course: under such a regime, someone inside a transparent sphere (e.g. glass) which has been swallowed by an invisible creature with swallow (e.g. a giant toad) can be shot with a blowgun, and on a hit, the needle does not hit, let alone potentially damage, the sphere or the toad - the target inside the sphere is simply hit by the needle.
Ummm no again. The RAW for resilient sphere does not say it provides total cover. Resilient Sphere says the following:
"A sphere of shimmering force encloses a creature or object of Large size or smaller within range. An unwilling creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is enclosed for the duration.
Nothing—not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects—can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there. The sphere is immune to all damage, and a creature or object inside can’t be damaged by attacks or effects originating from outside, nor can a creature inside the sphere damage anything outside it.
The sphere is weightless and just large enough to contain the creature or object inside. An enclosed creature can use its action to push against the sphere’s walls and thus roll the sphere at up to half the creature’s speed. Similarly, the globe can be picked up and moved by other creatures.
A disintegrate spell targeting the globe destroys it without harming anything inside it."
The description says pretty much everything else EXCEPT that it provides total cover.
Also, you again seem to miss the point. Calling something "total cover" or not - does not remove any obstacles between an attack and the target. The Resilient Sphere says that nothing can happen to the creature inside either physical, energy or spell - even though they can be seen. It also does not refer to that state as total cover.
I really don't understand your comment about invisibility either. Being invisible doesn't remove the obstacle in the way. A creature inside a resilient sphere, swallowed by an invisible toad still can't be seen and because of the toad's specific capabilities is considered to have total cover when swallowed in addition to the specific effects of the resilient sphere.
You could target a weapon attack or a spell at a creature inside a resilient sphere - it just would not do anything when you roll the attack since the sphere is an obstacle that specifically blocks all effects. The only difference that calling something total cover or not makes is whether the attack roll or spell can be attempted not that it will be successful. Success depends on the nature of the obstacle itself not on whether a DM calls it total cover or not.
P.S. So as in all the previous discussions, it comes down to a DM decision as to whether transparent obstacles provide total cover (in terms of targeting attacks and spells) or not. Deciding something is total cover or not does NOT remove the obstacle. Deciding a wall of force isn't total cover does not allow ranged weapon attacks to be made through it because the wall is still an obstacle that prevents anything physical from passing through. However, if a wall of force is not total cover then it would allow some spells to be cast through it since the wall description does not specifically block magic. Any ability of a wall of force to block magical effects comes solely from the DM deciding whether it provides total cover or not - the spell description does not provide that ability and the spell description for wall of force does not say it provides total cover.
Invisible wall or creature provide cover to others but dont otherwise obscure them to potentially hide behind. A Lightfoot Halfling shouldn't benefit from Naturally Stealthy in this circumstance for exemple.
If something is an obstacle providing total cover, you can't attack through it wether you can see through or not.
EDIT i imagine obstacle enought fragile not to block attacks may not be considered to provide total cover if DM wish so.
Nope. If something provides total cover then it blocks spell effects like sickening radiance and casting spells inside the wall of force from outside (except Sacred Flame (lol!) because it specifically says it ignores the effect of cover).
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
You can still get the combination to work but the sickening radiance has to be cast before wall of force which makes it a bit tougher since targets often move out of sickening radiance.
OK then, I stand corrected, that's an actual instance in the rules where they used "total cover" to refer to something being physically blocked rather than concealed
I'm still not sure, as a DM, that I'd rule a merely transparent barrier like a glass window could stop a spell called sickening RADIANCE, though. There are other reasons why a wall of force might nerf that combo without bringing total cover into it
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 seems like a big mess to me. But I'll pitch in with my thoughts.
As a read it I can understand why some effects would be blocked by a window (Firebolt), but other effects don't make any sense to me.
For example, Sending and Telepathy require a target. The range is unlimited, so it's irrelevant. RAW and taking into account JC's ruling both spells would be utterly useless, since someone inside a house would be untargetable.
It seems to me that Hold Person should work through a window, while Disintegrate NOT. Also a fireball is a bead that travels to the target location... so it would be blocked too. However I see no reason why the materialization of a creature in a given spot should be blocked by a window. Since summoning and teleporting are both conjuration effects it only makes sense to me. Efects that "Radiate" like a sickening radiance would be up to DM interpretation. For example, the spell Darkness is blocked by a window. However, I'm not quite sure about something like Spirit Guardians. Asuming the effect radiates from the caster probably a window would block it.
About the total cover. It seems like a stupid discussion. The wording might be unclear, but as I see it the intention was to reflect that a solid object that blocks line of sight constitutes total cover. Thus making the cut-off point relative to 3/4 cover where you can still see the opponent even if just a little. So IMO whether you can see an target through an invisible total cover or not is not what the rule was trying to address, but the fact that you needed to specify at which point 3/4 cover was no more and total cover enters into effect.
So then again, I think any reasonable DM would rule that you can use a Ballista to impale an opponent through the window. Sure, the window might soften the blow a little, but it should not make it impossible to target. What's more, it creates impossible situations where smug BBEG pre-battle has set a Force Wall to bait the adventurers and they WOULD NOT be able to target him. That's silly.
Some spells do not require a clear path to the target.
This is false if by target you mean the initial target at cast time, unless you also only mean spells that explicitly say so, but you don't (see below). So it's false for the spells you appear to be referring to.
Teleportation type spells are a prime example
Teleportation spells that do not require a clear path to the target can and do exist, but most of them require a clear path to the target. One of the most popular examples is misty step.
, 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.
All of them do, because that's what the rules say.
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.
b) is just false. A spell need not refer to "line of sight" or even "sight" in order to require a clear path to the target. a) is pathologically true: because all spells have a target, any claim you make about the set of spells without a target is intrinsically true, as you are describing the empty set.
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.
No you can't. Find Familiaralso has a target. Both Mage Hand and Find Familiar target the point in space where the summoned thing initially appears, and you need a clear path to said point in space.
You are outright wrong about a lot of things. Or rather, house ruling on a whole bunch of stuff. I could simply repeat all the things you claimed I did wrong, but instead will concentrate on the spell Find Familiar because it makes it obvious how much you are house ruling.
The key points to note from the spell is that a) it has a Duration: Instant, b) the spell simply gains you the service of a spirit.
You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.
c) One can claim that the spell does not even make the familiar appear, it does so of it's own accord. Why? Because:
d) Years after you cast the spell you can dismiss it to a pocket dimension WITHOUT casting any spell and also cause it to re-appear without casting the spell.
When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again. As an action, you can temporarily dismiss the familiar to a pocket dimension. Alternatively, you can dismiss it forever. As an action while it is temporarily dismissed, you can cause it to reappear in any unoccupied
You only need to re-cast the spell to re-establish the link if the familiar dies. Once you have a familiar, even though the spell is 'instant' and is no longer dispel able, you have gained two different magical actions - 1) dismiss and 2) re-appear.
You have come to a that is NOT supported by RAW and decided to ignore what the spells actually say. The actual rules about target is "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The key line is not 'typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets'. Typical does not mean all, nor does it even mean most. It is quite possible for most spells to be atypical. After all most D&D players are atypical. Typical simply means of all the available options, this one is most common. For example, the typical Vermont car is a Ford F series. While that is the most common car in Vermont, less than 50% of Vermonters have a Ford - F series.
The important word there is not 'typical', but instead the part I bolded, and now paraphrase: The spell's description tells you the target. If the spell does NOT describe a target, it does not have one. You have reversed this case, insisting that spells that do not target something must explicitly say so, basede entirely on the single word 'typical', which does not mean what you think it means.
Finally, even if one insists that Find Familiar has a 'target', despite no mention of that in the spell, the target would be the celestial spirit that forms your familiar. It is the thing you are casting the spell at, even though the spell does not describe it as the target. The location it appears (which quite clearly is a function of the relationship and NOT the spell as you can vanish and re-appear it without re-casting the spell) is a side effect of the spell just as a fireball can ignore a forest fire despite it not mentioning "forest" as the target of the spell.
You have misread the rules tremendously, in a quite restrictive way, taking common aspects of spells and turning them into rules that do not exist.
It seems to me that Hold Person should work through a window, while Disintegrate NOT. Also a fireball is a bead that travels to the target location... so it would be blocked too. However I see no reason why the materialization of a creature in a given spot should be blocked by a window. Since summoning and teleporting are both conjuration effects it only makes sense to me. Efects that "Radiate" like a sickening radiance would be up to DM interpretation. For example, the spell Darkness is blocked by a window. However, I'm not quite sure about something like Spirit Guardians. Asuming the effect radiates from the caster probably a window would block it.
About the total cover. It seems like a stupid discussion. The wording might be unclear, but as I see it the intention was to reflect that a solid object that blocks line of sight constitutes total cover. Thus making the cut-off point relative to 3/4 cover where you can still see the opponent even if just a little. So IMO whether you can see an target through an invisible total cover or not is not what the rule was trying to address, but the fact that you needed to specify at which point 3/4 cover was no more and total cover enters into effect.
Total cover is the term used in the rules to determine whether a spell can be cast at a target or not. If a creature has total cover then it can't be targeted by a spell like Chill Touch or Hold Person or any other spell since their line of effect is blocked by total cover.
The rules in the cover section seem to indicate the fraction of the person behind the obstacle and the effect it has on being able to target/hit them. With both 1/2 and 3/4 cover it is clear that there is an obstacle partially obstructing the ability to attack the creature making it harder to hit them but you can still see them. Total cover becomes ambiguous since it uses the word concealed. Is it still total cover if you can see through it? (Some say yes, some say no - which is perfectly ok)
Why does this matter? An obstacle you can see through but which is sturdy enough will block physical attacks. However, ONLY an obstacle which is also considered to be total cover will block the targeting of spells and attacks since you can't target spells at a location or target behind total cover due to the first line of the targeting rules. The DM needs to decide whether the obstacle is capable of blocking all magic spells, some magic spells or no magic spells. If the DM decides that the obstacle is total cover then it blocks all spells by definition. If it isn't then the DM needs to decide on a case by case basis as you were describing with Hold Person and Fireball.
Either decision is fine. I play it a specific way and others will play it differently, that is the nature of the game. RAW could be considered ambiguous depending on how a person feels about the word "conceal" in the context of the definition of total cover.
Some of the examples appear to go to absurd lengths to come up with a strawman argument that isn't there when from a rules perspective defining total cover does not remove an obstacle, it only limits the ability of the obstacle to prevent targeting something behind that cover. Declaring something as total cover prevents a creature directly targeting a creature behind the total cover with a spell or weapon attack. If it is not considered total cover then a spell or weapon attack can be targeted at the creature behind the obstacle but it is up to the DM to evaluate the effect of the obstacle on the attack.
In the wall of force example, if it is total cover then an archer can't fire an arrow at a target behind it since it isn't a valid target while if a wall of force is not total cover the archer can target the creature behind the wall and watch their arrow bounce off the wall. Similarly, if a wall of force is total cover then a spellcaster can't cast chill touch at a target on the other side of the wall while if a wall of force is not considered total cover then the DM decides whether chill touch can be cast at a target on the other side of a wall of force, in this case the spell description creates a hand in the location with the target within range of the spell, if the wall of force does not block magic (and the spell text does not say that it does - it only blocks everything physical) then the spellcaster could possibly cast chill touch against a target on the other side of a wall of force. It all depends on how the specific DM wants to play it.
Total cover is the term used in the rules to determine whether a spell can be cast at a target or not. If a creature has total cover then it can't be targeted by a spell like Chill Touch or Hold Person or any other spell since their line of effect is blocked by total cover.
The thing here is that line of effect is a term that applies to effects that generate from a point and then spread from it in a given direction, angle or radius. Hold Person doesn't have a line of effect. It is a directed spell. It needs a target you can see.
As I stated initially if you want to go 100% RAW you will have to explain how on earth does Telepathy go through anything, but Hold Person doesn't. Both effects are of similar nature. The former requieres a known target creature, while the latter requires a creature you can see. If you wanted to stop Hold Person you'd be forced to stop Telepathy too.
My point about total cover was to point out why the wording is what it is and try to discern the intent. As far as I can see the idea is pretty clear. If you cant see an opponent you can't target it with an attack or spell that requires LoS. And only when you can't see the opponent the cover is upgraded from 3/4 to full. But that is to avoid language like "The whole body is blocked by the cover and no part of the body is reachable by tracing a line from the attacking creature to the receiving creature". Since LoS pretty much covers every case EXCEPT in the case of a see-through cover.
As far as magic goes. IMO it is 100% DM decided. Things that appear in the space or work "directly" should go work. Things that should travel or expand through that space should not.
It says on the spells description that you choose a point within 30 feet and it doesn’t say you can’t put it on the other side of a window. You can’t have thieves tools appear on the other side though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
It says on the spells description that you choose a point within 30 feet and it doesn’t say you can’t put it on the other side of a window. You can’t have thieves tools appear on the other side though.
Yep, in my situation, it is more about unlocking the door from the inside but casting Mage Hand through the window as its starting point.
Now, in the other example I mentioned with the Arcane Trickster, page 2, using the Hand to slip under the door I can see it carrying-- all be it many trips back and forth-- lock picks. Now the discussion that has been good would be can Mage Hand pick the lock without the capacity of actually seeing said lock. It's possible that Ledgermain gives that capacity in tandem with the spell all be it as the DM I would be hard-pressed to believe it would be able to pick the lock unseen but I have not read, or have skipped over, rules that say the action is unpreventable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't need to provide total cover, because the spell explicitly says nothing can get through it. That's better than total cover
I think you've gotten lost in your own argument here
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 false if by target you mean the initial target at cast time, unless you also only mean spells that explicitly say so, but you don't (see below). So it's false for the spells you appear to be referring to.
Teleportation spells that do not require a clear path to the target can and do exist, but most of them require a clear path to the target. One of the most popular examples is misty step.
All of them do, because that's what the rules say.
b) is just false. A spell need not refer to "line of sight" or even "sight" in order to require a clear path to the target. a) is pathologically true: because all spells have a target, any claim you make about the set of spells without a target is intrinsically true, as you are describing the empty set.
Mage Hand has a target. See below for details.
No you can't. Find Familiar also has a target. Both Mage Hand and Find Familiar target the point in space where the summoned thing initially appears, and you need a clear path to said point in space.
You'll need to provide some evidence for this statement in the actual rules, because per the actual definition of total cover, "transparent total cover" is an oxymoron
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)
The target subsection states in the first sentence that a typical spell requires that you pick a target. This suggests that not all spells require targets and Mage Hand specifies no target until it is used to manipulate an object in some fashion. It appears where the caster desires, including in occupied spaces and behind objects, like behind a person or a wall. This is why the hand can apparate behind Wall of Force despite having no clear path.
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
There is a known discrepancy in the cover rules that half-cover mentions cover that 'blocks' a creature, whereas total cover uses 'concealed.' It is problematic because the rules don't really say what constitutes blocks vs concealed - or whether concealed means specifically concealed from vision or is just being used as a synonym for blocks. I think that there is no true consensus on this amongst the forum members who have discussed it in other threads that I've read.
There's no discrepancy though, unless you go looking for one
"Blocks" and "conceals" refer to two different things, and partial cover (AC and Dex save bonus) and total cover (can't be targeted at all, but no impact on saves otherwise) have two completely different effects
I mean, if the "glass windows provide total cover" logic leads to conclusions like quindraco's above about invisibility, I'm genuinely shocked anyone gives it any credence at all
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)
How many examples would you like? Are two enough? I'll give you the two I already provided in this thread, and if you want more, I'll provide more.
If transparent total cover doesn't exist:
Nope. If something provides total cover then it blocks spell effects like sickening radiance and casting spells inside the wall of force from outside (except Sacred Flame (lol!) because it specifically says it ignores the effect of cover).
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
You can still get the combination to work but the sickening radiance has to be cast before wall of force which makes it a bit tougher since targets often move out of sickening radiance.
Total Cover to me refers to concealed as in the proportion it covers the target, not wether it necessarily hides it or not.
In this contexte its synonym to covered https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/concealed
The metal mesh in your microwave door provides you total cover from the harmful microwaves, but you can still see through it.
Umm no. Not providing total cover means that ranged weapons can make an attack roll. Nothing more. It does not prevent the object in the way from preventing the ranged attack from reaching the target since there is still an obstacle in the way. Just because you can see through the obstacle doesn't mean that it isn't there. The discussion is not about whether the obstacle exists or not if we call it "total cover" but rather whether the obstacle provides total cover which prevents even targeting something behind the obstacle or casting a spell at it.
As an example, can a ranger fire their bow at a target standing behind a wall of force or a window? To me, the answer is clearly yes. They can see the target, they know where it is, they can fire their bow if they want to. However, nothing about seeing the target, stops the wall of force from being an obstacle and preventing anything material from passing through. If the wall of force is total cover then the ranger isn't even allowed to fire their bow. Similarly, if a window is in the way, if it is not total cover, it is a DM judgement call as to what effect if any it has on the ranged attack. However, if it is considered total cover then a ranged attack can not even be made.
Note that wall of force (unlike forcecage) does not mention whether it blocks magic spells or not. The only way wall of force can block magic is if the DM decides that a wall of force provides total cover. The spell itself only states that nothing can physically pass through it. (Personally, I don't think of spells as physical unless their description says so but other DMs might have different interpretations).
So in this case, the definition of total cover only affects whether an attack is allowed or not, not whether it would be successful or not. Whether it is considered total cover or not, the obstacle is still in the way.
Ummm no again. The RAW for resilient sphere does not say it provides total cover. Resilient Sphere says the following:
"A sphere of shimmering force encloses a creature or object of Large size or smaller within range. An unwilling creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is enclosed for the duration.
Nothing—not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects—can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there. The sphere is immune to all damage, and a creature or object inside can’t be damaged by attacks or effects originating from outside, nor can a creature inside the sphere damage anything outside it.
The sphere is weightless and just large enough to contain the creature or object inside. An enclosed creature can use its action to push against the sphere’s walls and thus roll the sphere at up to half the creature’s speed. Similarly, the globe can be picked up and moved by other creatures.
A disintegrate spell targeting the globe destroys it without harming anything inside it."
The description says pretty much everything else EXCEPT that it provides total cover.
Also, you again seem to miss the point. Calling something "total cover" or not - does not remove any obstacles between an attack and the target. The Resilient Sphere says that nothing can happen to the creature inside either physical, energy or spell - even though they can be seen. It also does not refer to that state as total cover.
I really don't understand your comment about invisibility either. Being invisible doesn't remove the obstacle in the way. A creature inside a resilient sphere, swallowed by an invisible toad still can't be seen and because of the toad's specific capabilities is considered to have total cover when swallowed in addition to the specific effects of the resilient sphere.
You could target a weapon attack or a spell at a creature inside a resilient sphere - it just would not do anything when you roll the attack since the sphere is an obstacle that specifically blocks all effects. The only difference that calling something total cover or not makes is whether the attack roll or spell can be attempted not that it will be successful. Success depends on the nature of the obstacle itself not on whether a DM calls it total cover or not.
P.S. So as in all the previous discussions, it comes down to a DM decision as to whether transparent obstacles provide total cover (in terms of targeting attacks and spells) or not. Deciding something is total cover or not does NOT remove the obstacle. Deciding a wall of force isn't total cover does not allow ranged weapon attacks to be made through it because the wall is still an obstacle that prevents anything physical from passing through. However, if a wall of force is not total cover then it would allow some spells to be cast through it since the wall description does not specifically block magic. Any ability of a wall of force to block magical effects comes solely from the DM deciding whether it provides total cover or not - the spell description does not provide that ability and the spell description for wall of force does not say it provides total cover.
Invisible wall or creature provide cover to others but dont otherwise obscure them to potentially hide behind. A Lightfoot Halfling shouldn't benefit from Naturally Stealthy in this circumstance for exemple.
If something is an obstacle providing total cover, you can't attack through it wether you can see through or not.
EDIT i imagine obstacle enought fragile not to block attacks may not be considered to provide total cover if DM wish so.
OK then, I stand corrected, that's an actual instance in the rules where they used "total cover" to refer to something being physically blocked rather than concealed
I'm still not sure, as a DM, that I'd rule a merely transparent barrier like a glass window could stop a spell called sickening RADIANCE, though. There are other reasons why a wall of force might nerf that combo without bringing total cover into it
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 seems like a big mess to me. But I'll pitch in with my thoughts.
As a read it I can understand why some effects would be blocked by a window (Firebolt), but other effects don't make any sense to me.
For example, Sending and Telepathy require a target. The range is unlimited, so it's irrelevant. RAW and taking into account JC's ruling both spells would be utterly useless, since someone inside a house would be untargetable.
It seems to me that Hold Person should work through a window, while Disintegrate NOT. Also a fireball is a bead that travels to the target location... so it would be blocked too. However I see no reason why the materialization of a creature in a given spot should be blocked by a window. Since summoning and teleporting are both conjuration effects it only makes sense to me. Efects that "Radiate" like a sickening radiance would be up to DM interpretation. For example, the spell Darkness is blocked by a window. However, I'm not quite sure about something like Spirit Guardians. Asuming the effect radiates from the caster probably a window would block it.
About the total cover. It seems like a stupid discussion. The wording might be unclear, but as I see it the intention was to reflect that a solid object that blocks line of sight constitutes total cover. Thus making the cut-off point relative to 3/4 cover where you can still see the opponent even if just a little. So IMO whether you can see an target through an invisible total cover or not is not what the rule was trying to address, but the fact that you needed to specify at which point 3/4 cover was no more and total cover enters into effect.
So then again, I think any reasonable DM would rule that you can use a Ballista to impale an opponent through the window. Sure, the window might soften the blow a little, but it should not make it impossible to target. What's more, it creates impossible situations where smug BBEG pre-battle has set a Force Wall to bait the adventurers and they WOULD NOT be able to target him. That's silly.
You are outright wrong about a lot of things. Or rather, house ruling on a whole bunch of stuff. I could simply repeat all the things you claimed I did wrong, but instead will concentrate on the spell Find Familiar because it makes it obvious how much you are house ruling.
The key points to note from the spell is that a) it has a Duration: Instant, b) the spell simply gains you the service of a spirit.
c) One can claim that the spell does not even make the familiar appear, it does so of it's own accord. Why? Because:
d) Years after you cast the spell you can dismiss it to a pocket dimension WITHOUT casting any spell and also cause it to re-appear without casting the spell.
You only need to re-cast the spell to re-establish the link if the familiar dies. Once you have a familiar, even though the spell is 'instant' and is no longer dispel able, you have gained two different magical actions - 1) dismiss and 2) re-appear.
You have come to a that is NOT supported by RAW and decided to ignore what the spells actually say. The actual rules about target is "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The key line is not 'typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets'. Typical does not mean all, nor does it even mean most. It is quite possible for most spells to be atypical. After all most D&D players are atypical. Typical simply means of all the available options, this one is most common. For example, the typical Vermont car is a Ford F series. While that is the most common car in Vermont, less than 50% of Vermonters have a Ford - F series.
The important word there is not 'typical', but instead the part I bolded, and now paraphrase: The spell's description tells you the target. If the spell does NOT describe a target, it does not have one. You have reversed this case, insisting that spells that do not target something must explicitly say so, basede entirely on the single word 'typical', which does not mean what you think it means.
Finally, even if one insists that Find Familiar has a 'target', despite no mention of that in the spell, the target would be the celestial spirit that forms your familiar. It is the thing you are casting the spell at, even though the spell does not describe it as the target. The location it appears (which quite clearly is a function of the relationship and NOT the spell as you can vanish and re-appear it without re-casting the spell) is a side effect of the spell just as a fireball can ignore a forest fire despite it not mentioning "forest" as the target of the spell.
You have misread the rules tremendously, in a quite restrictive way, taking common aspects of spells and turning them into rules that do not exist.
Total cover is the term used in the rules to determine whether a spell can be cast at a target or not. If a creature has total cover then it can't be targeted by a spell like Chill Touch or Hold Person or any other spell since their line of effect is blocked by total cover.
The rules in the cover section seem to indicate the fraction of the person behind the obstacle and the effect it has on being able to target/hit them. With both 1/2 and 3/4 cover it is clear that there is an obstacle partially obstructing the ability to attack the creature making it harder to hit them but you can still see them. Total cover becomes ambiguous since it uses the word concealed. Is it still total cover if you can see through it? (Some say yes, some say no - which is perfectly ok)
Why does this matter? An obstacle you can see through but which is sturdy enough will block physical attacks. However, ONLY an obstacle which is also considered to be total cover will block the targeting of spells and attacks since you can't target spells at a location or target behind total cover due to the first line of the targeting rules. The DM needs to decide whether the obstacle is capable of blocking all magic spells, some magic spells or no magic spells. If the DM decides that the obstacle is total cover then it blocks all spells by definition. If it isn't then the DM needs to decide on a case by case basis as you were describing with Hold Person and Fireball.
Either decision is fine. I play it a specific way and others will play it differently, that is the nature of the game. RAW could be considered ambiguous depending on how a person feels about the word "conceal" in the context of the definition of total cover.
Some of the examples appear to go to absurd lengths to come up with a strawman argument that isn't there when from a rules perspective defining total cover does not remove an obstacle, it only limits the ability of the obstacle to prevent targeting something behind that cover. Declaring something as total cover prevents a creature directly targeting a creature behind the total cover with a spell or weapon attack. If it is not considered total cover then a spell or weapon attack can be targeted at the creature behind the obstacle but it is up to the DM to evaluate the effect of the obstacle on the attack.
In the wall of force example, if it is total cover then an archer can't fire an arrow at a target behind it since it isn't a valid target while if a wall of force is not total cover the archer can target the creature behind the wall and watch their arrow bounce off the wall. Similarly, if a wall of force is total cover then a spellcaster can't cast chill touch at a target on the other side of the wall while if a wall of force is not considered total cover then the DM decides whether chill touch can be cast at a target on the other side of a wall of force, in this case the spell description creates a hand in the location with the target within range of the spell, if the wall of force does not block magic (and the spell text does not say that it does - it only blocks everything physical) then the spellcaster could possibly cast chill touch against a target on the other side of a wall of force. It all depends on how the specific DM wants to play it.
The thing here is that line of effect is a term that applies to effects that generate from a point and then spread from it in a given direction, angle or radius. Hold Person doesn't have a line of effect. It is a directed spell. It needs a target you can see.
As I stated initially if you want to go 100% RAW you will have to explain how on earth does Telepathy go through anything, but Hold Person doesn't. Both effects are of similar nature. The former requieres a known target creature, while the latter requires a creature you can see. If you wanted to stop Hold Person you'd be forced to stop Telepathy too.
My point about total cover was to point out why the wording is what it is and try to discern the intent. As far as I can see the idea is pretty clear. If you cant see an opponent you can't target it with an attack or spell that requires LoS. And only when you can't see the opponent the cover is upgraded from 3/4 to full. But that is to avoid language like "The whole body is blocked by the cover and no part of the body is reachable by tracing a line from the attacking creature to the receiving creature". Since LoS pretty much covers every case EXCEPT in the case of a see-through cover.
As far as magic goes. IMO it is 100% DM decided. Things that appear in the space or work "directly" should go work. Things that should travel or expand through that space should not.
It says on the spells description that you choose a point within 30 feet and it doesn’t say you can’t put it on the other side of a window. You can’t have thieves tools appear on the other side though.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
Yep, in my situation, it is more about unlocking the door from the inside but casting Mage Hand through the window as its starting point.
Now, in the other example I mentioned with the Arcane Trickster, page 2, using the Hand to slip under the door I can see it carrying-- all be it many trips back and forth-- lock picks. Now the discussion that has been good would be can Mage Hand pick the lock without the capacity of actually seeing said lock. It's possible that Ledgermain gives that capacity in tandem with the spell all be it as the DM I would be hard-pressed to believe it would be able to pick the lock unseen but I have not read, or have skipped over, rules that say the action is unpreventable.