I'm hoping that I'm posting this in the correct space. I didn't see any topic exactly like mine, so I hope this is fine.
My dilemma is this: A player was encased in a Wall of Force. Player had a rune knight fighter. One of their runes allowed a target that the fighter could see to be charm or incapacitate. The table couldn't figure out if it would work and DM ruled that it didn't. Fair enough. But would it work? I have the understanding that Wall of Force blocks anything physical from passing through it, as spell says. From Sage Advice, I understand that it provides anyone or anything outside of the wall/sphere/box total cover. However, the box is translucent. There are a couple of Sage Advices about spells that could work like mage hand and Eyebite that work with sight on a spot. But there's also other SA that counters similar situations.
I doubt any higher-ups would see this message, but I wanted to get an opinion.
You probably want to repost this in "Rules & Game Mechanics," but I'll offer what I have. From what I understand, Wall of Force blocks point to point magic, but spells that just effect a space beyond will not be impeded. So Charm Person would work. The wall is also not transparent but invisible, so cleaner than the cleanest window and not subject to glare or reflections of any kind. Most kinds of transport magic would work for "going through it," including Misty Step, Dimension Door, and Teleport.
By targeting, I believe Crawford means using an attack roll. Even if he meant "creatures you can see", that would put him in direct contradiction with Mearle, so I wouldn't consider it binding.
I'd say that the condition is "you can see [them]", and since you can see them, then it works. There is no implication that seeing them through an object blocks it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
I'm hoping that I'm posting this in the correct space. I didn't see any topic exactly like mine, so I hope this is fine.
My dilemma is this: A player was encased in a Wall of Force. Player had a rune knight fighter. One of their runes allowed a target that the fighter could see to be charm or incapacitate. The table couldn't figure out if it would work and DM ruled that it didn't. Fair enough. But would it work? I have the understanding that Wall of Force blocks anything physical from passing through it, as spell says. From Sage Advice, I understand that it provides anyone or anything outside of the wall/sphere/box total cover. However, the box is translucent. There are a couple of Sage Advices about spells that could work like mage hand and Eyebite that work with sight on a spot. But there's also other SA that counters similar situations.
I doubt any higher-ups would see this message, but I wanted to get an opinion.
As a general rule, Wall of Force behaves identically to a sheet of indestructible glass (one of the exceptions to this is that it exists both on the Ethereal Plane and on the Plane where it was actually cast). You can treat it like glass for most purposes, including this one.
Spells further have the Clear Path that reinforces what the Total Cover rule tells us. It also tells us what happens if you target something with an Area of Effect that is benefitting from cover you can't see. It tells us the point of origin for the Size becomes the side of the obstruction closest to the caster: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget
Now an eagle eyed reader of the Total Cover rule may have noticed that it only refers to attacks and spells. Unfortunately for us the Stone Rune is neither, it is a magical effect, so if Total Cover even applies is unclear. The only requirement specified by the Stone Rune is that the player see their target so that is the only thing we can say for certain.
Jeremy Crawford did talk about the targeting rules in a Dragon Talk back in 2017: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 and from minutes 31 to 39 he talks about the Clear Path rule and talks about a scenario with transparent cover. However this is in the context of spells as the Clear Path rule is specific to targeting spells.
Fireball explicitly says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range ..." so it would not go through, any more than lightning bolt or a number of other spells. It's a wall. The fireball would not go through the wall unless there was an open corner for it to blast around. And the wall would interrupt the flight.
One of the few things 3e did well was to provide vocabulary for this problem. You have line of sight through a wall of force. You do not have line of effect.
I'm hoping that I'm posting this in the correct space. I didn't see any topic exactly like mine, so I hope this is fine.
My dilemma is this: A player was encased in a Wall of Force. Player had a rune knight fighter. One of their runes allowed a target that the fighter could see to be charm or incapacitate. The table couldn't figure out if it would work and DM ruled that it didn't. Fair enough. But would it work? I have the understanding that Wall of Force blocks anything physical from passing through it, as spell says. From Sage Advice, I understand that it provides anyone or anything outside of the wall/sphere/box total cover. However, the box is translucent. There are a couple of Sage Advices about spells that could work like mage hand and Eyebite that work with sight on a spot. But there's also other SA that counters similar situations.
I doubt any higher-ups would see this message, but I wanted to get an opinion.
As a general rule, Wall of Force behaves identically to a sheet of indestructible glass (one of the exceptions to this is that it exists both on the Ethereal Plane and on the Plane where it was actually cast). You can treat it like glass for most purposes, including this one.
Based on the reply here: (whether Wall of Force provides total cover and prevents targeting attacks and spells)
A wall of force provides total cover and would block targeting of attacks and spells.
"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."
However, transparent total cover would not prevent abilities that are neither attacks nor spells as long as you can see the target through the barrier.
The PHB defines an attack as:
"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack"
The rune knight ability would appear to be neither an attack nor a spell (in game terms) and thus could work through a wall of force. (depends on DM decision as always).
P.S. Just to be complete, some folks are in the camp that Wall of Force does not provide total cover and so wouldn't block the Rune Knight ability in any case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm hoping that I'm posting this in the correct space. I didn't see any topic exactly like mine, so I hope this is fine.
My dilemma is this: A player was encased in a Wall of Force. Player had a rune knight fighter. One of their runes allowed a target that the fighter could see to be charm or incapacitate. The table couldn't figure out if it would work and DM ruled that it didn't. Fair enough. But would it work? I have the understanding that Wall of Force blocks anything physical from passing through it, as spell says. From Sage Advice, I understand that it provides anyone or anything outside of the wall/sphere/box total cover. However, the box is translucent. There are a couple of Sage Advices about spells that could work like mage hand and Eyebite that work with sight on a spot. But there's also other SA that counters similar situations.
I doubt any higher-ups would see this message, but I wanted to get an opinion.
You probably want to repost this in "Rules & Game Mechanics," but I'll offer what I have. From what I understand, Wall of Force blocks point to point magic, but spells that just effect a space beyond will not be impeded. So Charm Person would work. The wall is also not transparent but invisible, so cleaner than the cleanest window and not subject to glare or reflections of any kind. Most kinds of transport magic would work for "going through it," including Misty Step, Dimension Door, and Teleport.
By targeting, I believe Crawford means using an attack roll. Even if he meant "creatures you can see", that would put him in direct contradiction with Mearle, so I wouldn't consider it binding.
I'd say that the condition is "you can see [them]", and since you can see them, then it works. There is no implication that seeing them through an object blocks it.
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
|The free Basic Rules.|
|Some free short adventures| and |some more here too.| |Here is a series of encounters, some of which link together form a mini-adventure|.
You've played a few games and now want to buy materials? |Here's my guide on what to buy next|.
As a general rule, Wall of Force behaves identically to a sheet of indestructible glass (one of the exceptions to this is that it exists both on the Ethereal Plane and on the Plane where it was actually cast). You can treat it like glass for most purposes, including this one.
The targeting rules actually get really wonky if you look at them too closely.
The Total Cover rule tells us that a creature benefitting from total cover cannot be directly targeted by an attack or spell: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#TotalCover
Spells further have the Clear Path that reinforces what the Total Cover rule tells us. It also tells us what happens if you target something with an Area of Effect that is benefitting from cover you can't see. It tells us the point of origin for the Size becomes the side of the obstruction closest to the caster: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget
Now an eagle eyed reader of the Total Cover rule may have noticed that it only refers to attacks and spells. Unfortunately for us the Stone Rune is neither, it is a magical effect, so if Total Cover even applies is unclear. The only requirement specified by the Stone Rune is that the player see their target so that is the only thing we can say for certain.
Jeremy Crawford did talk about the targeting rules in a Dragon Talk back in 2017: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 and from minutes 31 to 39 he talks about the Clear Path rule and talks about a scenario with transparent cover. However this is in the context of spells as the Clear Path rule is specific to targeting spells.
Fireball explicitly says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range ..." so it would not go through, any more than lightning bolt or a number of other spells. It's a wall. The fireball would not go through the wall unless there was an open corner for it to blast around. And the wall would interrupt the flight.
One of the few things 3e did well was to provide vocabulary for this problem. You have line of sight through a wall of force. You do not have line of effect.
Based on the reply here: (whether Wall of Force provides total cover and prevents targeting attacks and spells)
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/39274-wall-of-force-and-spells?comment=97
A wall of force provides total cover and would block targeting of attacks and spells.
"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."
However, transparent total cover would not prevent abilities that are neither attacks nor spells as long as you can see the target through the barrier.
The PHB defines an attack as:
"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack"
The rune knight ability would appear to be neither an attack nor a spell (in game terms) and thus could work through a wall of force. (depends on DM decision as always).
P.S. Just to be complete, some folks are in the camp that Wall of Force does not provide total cover and so wouldn't block the Rune Knight ability in any case.