Hey guys, I allowed a player to cast Shatter inside a Wall of Force dome from the outside. The wording in Shatter that got me was 'erupts from a point'. Now I'm doubting myself and just wanted some opinions. Not a big deal either way, just curious.
Total cover requires concealment, but the Wall of Force is invisible. I think maybe I was thinking concealment needed sight blockage, but now I remember in 5e there really isn't a definition of concealment...so total cover probably did apply.
I also looked at the 'Clear Path to the Target' requirement from the general spell rules. That requirement is 'cant see' AND 'obstruction'. Obstruction was obviously there from the wall. 'Can't see' was not since the wall is invisible, so the AND fails by the rules of basic logic and there was a clear path to the target.
Once again RAW cover is foiled by: transparency. 🙄
Wall of force is intended to provide total cover, but DMs aren't wrong for interpreting poorly written RAW differently.
When in doubt, go with the ruling that makes sense to the characters in the world rather than the "technically not against the rules if you read it this way" ruling, and stay consistent. If PCs can cast spells through cover as long as they can see, then the enemies can too. Beware of scrying.
If you place the point of origin for an area of effect such as Shatter outside an hemispherical dome Wall of Force, it should not affect creatures inside it because there's an obstruction between them and the point of origin, just like if they were behind total cover, whether they can see it or not to me wouldn't matter.
Hey guys, I allowed a player to cast Shatter inside a Wall of Force dome from the outside. The wording in Shatter that got me was 'erupts from a point'. Now I'm doubting myself and just wanted some opinions. Not a big deal either way, just curious.
Total cover requires concealment, but the Wall of Force is invisible. I think maybe I was thinking concealment needed sight blockage, but now I remember in 5e there really isn't a definition of concealment...so total cover probably did apply.
I also looked at the 'Clear Path to the Target' requirement from the general spell rules. That requirement is 'cant see' AND 'obstruction'. Obstruction was obviously there from the wall. 'Can't see' was not since the wall is invisible, so the AND fails by the rules of basic logic and there was a clear path to the target.
Sun Soul Monk Searing Sunburst is one example of many in the rules where WOTC assumes that transparent total cover is total cover. 5E would benefit from actual RAW saying that, but the fact remains if you don't play with transparent total cover as total cover, more rules break down than get better, so most of us play that way. Alternatively, you can try to homebrew the situation, but that can get exhausting - 5E's rules do not give you the tools to easily distinguish shooting a target through a pane of glass, a wall of force, a bead curtain, and a paper wall (they're all simply 'cover'), nor the tools to distinguish varying spells if you want e.g. a "gas" to behave differently from a "liquid" (for AOEs), so you'll need to put a lot of work in if you want to be even halfway consistent.
DxJxC, thanks that sounds like great DMing advice.
Plaguescarred, I meant the caster was on one side and the point of origin was inside. I agree the effect being physical (sonic) wouldn't pass through the wall.
quindraco, thanks I see now I was misreading the 'can't see' from the clear path text. Indeed it is unrelated to the definition of clear path which is only based on total cover.
I now think the caster could have placed the origin inside, but from the clear path text, the effect would have been moved to the near side of the wall.
You can't place an area of effect at a point behind an obstruction whether you can see or not, as you don't have a clear path to it. When you can't see it, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction. When you can see it, it comes into being where you place it in clear path.
Right, you can place it there, it just comes into being elsewhere.
No you can't place it there. To target something (creatures, objects, or a point of origin ) you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover or similar obstruction.
If that's true then I suppose I am confused at the following:
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
Why mention 'if you place it there' is such things are impossible? Thanks.
They say that because if you can't see you might not know the point of origin targeted is invalid and will then come into being as close as it can be. But usually most effects require a point you can see.
Right, you can place it there, it just comes into being elsewhere.
No you can't place it there. To target something (creatures, objects, or a point of origin ) you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover or similar obstruction.
Which is exactly why there are rules for if you attempt to do so unknowingly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys, I allowed a player to cast Shatter inside a Wall of Force dome from the outside. The wording in Shatter that got me was 'erupts from a point'. Now I'm doubting myself and just wanted some opinions. Not a big deal either way, just curious.
Total cover requires concealment, but the Wall of Force is invisible. I think maybe I was thinking concealment needed sight blockage, but now I remember in 5e there really isn't a definition of concealment...so total cover probably did apply.
I also looked at the 'Clear Path to the Target' requirement from the general spell rules. That requirement is 'cant see' AND 'obstruction'. Obstruction was obviously there from the wall. 'Can't see' was not since the wall is invisible, so the AND fails by the rules of basic logic and there was a clear path to the target.
Once again RAW cover is foiled by: transparency. 🙄
Wall of force is intended to provide total cover, but DMs aren't wrong for interpreting poorly written RAW differently.
When in doubt, go with the ruling that makes sense to the characters in the world rather than the "technically not against the rules if you read it this way" ruling, and stay consistent. If PCs can cast spells through cover as long as they can see, then the enemies can too. Beware of scrying.
If you place the point of origin for an area of effect such as Shatter outside an hemispherical dome Wall of Force, it should not affect creatures inside it because there's an obstruction between them and the point of origin, just like if they were behind total cover, whether they can see it or not to me wouldn't matter.
The clear path to the target rules do not mention seeing.
Sun Soul Monk Searing Sunburst is one example of many in the rules where WOTC assumes that transparent total cover is total cover. 5E would benefit from actual RAW saying that, but the fact remains if you don't play with transparent total cover as total cover, more rules break down than get better, so most of us play that way. Alternatively, you can try to homebrew the situation, but that can get exhausting - 5E's rules do not give you the tools to easily distinguish shooting a target through a pane of glass, a wall of force, a bead curtain, and a paper wall (they're all simply 'cover'), nor the tools to distinguish varying spells if you want e.g. a "gas" to behave differently from a "liquid" (for AOEs), so you'll need to put a lot of work in if you want to be even halfway consistent.
DxJxC, thanks that sounds like great DMing advice.
Plaguescarred, I meant the caster was on one side and the point of origin was inside. I agree the effect being physical (sonic) wouldn't pass through the wall.
quindraco, thanks I see now I was misreading the 'can't see' from the clear path text. Indeed it is unrelated to the definition of clear path which is only based on total cover.
I now think the caster could have placed the origin inside, but from the clear path text, the effect would have been moved to the near side of the wall.
You can't place an area of effect at a point behind an obstruction whether you can see or not, as you don't have a clear path to it. When you can't see it, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction. When you can see it, it comes into being where you place it in clear path.
Right, you can place it there, it just comes into being elsewhere.
Only if the spell description says it does that, otherwise the spell has no effect since the intended target/origin isn't valid.
No you can't place it there. To target something (creatures, objects, or a point of origin ) you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover or similar obstruction.
If that's true then I suppose I am confused at the following:
Why mention 'if you place it there' is such things are impossible? Thanks.
They say that because if you can't see you might not know the point of origin targeted is invalid and will then come into being as close as it can be. But usually most effects require a point you can see.
Makes sense, thanks again.
I'd have ruled it as GMInfinity describes based on my interpretation of the RAW.
Which is exactly why there are rules for if you attempt to do so unknowingly.