Wall of Force: "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
If both of these provide total cover then the statement in forcecage that it blocks any spells cast into or out of the area is redundant. Wall of Force specifically doesn't have that wording. It just says that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" whatever that means since, in my opinion at least, spells aren't generally "physical". So, wall of force blocking spells comes back to deciding if a wall of force provides total cover and then invoking the spell targeting rules requiring a "clear path" to the target.
I thought the whole point of wall of force was to prevent incoming arrows and people charging up to you while allowing spells to pass through--the inverse of globe of invulnerability. I always attributed the fact that WoF doesn't say it blocks spells as being because it isn't intended to block spells, rather than a mistake of wording in the spell's description. Is that not how most people read the spell?
That is a surprisingly contentious question :)
The total cover rules state: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
1) One group considers "concealed" the same as any obstacle coming between the attacker and their target.
Both the half and three-quarter cover rules use the word obstacle. "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body." It doesn't matter for the half and three-quarter cover rules whether that obstacle is transparent or not.
Extending that to total cover - an obstacle that completely blocks (conceals) the target provides total cover - whether that obstacle is transparent or not. Thus a window or wall of force provide total cover to the creatures behind it even though they are transparent.
2) The other camp reads the rule for total cover and interprets "concealed" to be more than just physically blocked. Concealed in common usage usually implies not just a physical block but also a visual one.
In this case, neither a wall of force or a window would prevent the casting of spells that only require sight of the target and which do not have a physical component which travels from the caster to the target. (Fireball may still be blocked by a wall of force due to the spell description "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." depending on whether the DM rules the bright streak to be a physical manifestation that would be blocked by the wall of force or just a visual one that can pass through a wall of force).
---
Most of the folks I play with locally do not consider a Wall of Force to provide total cover because you can see through it. Others, including, I believe, some tweets by JC, consider a Wall of Force to provide total cover so spells can not be targeted through it. So, it is a rule that will find some variation by table.
Wall of Force: "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
If both of these provide total cover then the statement in forcecage that it blocks any spells cast into or out of the area is redundant. Wall of Force specifically doesn't have that wording. It just says that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" whatever that means since, in my opinion at least, spells aren't generally "physical". So, wall of force blocking spells comes back to deciding if a wall of force provides total cover and then invoking the spell targeting rules requiring a "clear path" to the target.
I thought the whole point of wall of force was to prevent incoming arrows and people charging up to you while allowing spells to pass through--the inverse of globe of invulnerability. I always attributed the fact that WoF doesn't say it blocks spells as being because it isn't intended to block spells, rather than a mistake of wording in the spell's description. Is that not how most people read the spell?
EDIT: Apparently this question is a lot more controversial than I realized.
There's a line in Wall of Force's description, "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." That means any spell that travels from you to the target (like Lightning Bolt or Fireball) would be stopped by the wall, though any spell that has an instantaneous effect at the target without traveling through the wall from your position (like Sacred Flame) would not be hindered by the wall. I don't see why this would be controversial, as it seems pretty clear to me.
RAW, if there's an uninterrupted path from the caster to the point that goes through the open keyhole, then yes. In practice, I'm not inclined to say there is such a path, at least not at my table.
RAW, there are three type of cover: 1/2, 3/4, and full. If you're willing to declare that the keyhole is 3/4 cover, they can send a fireball through it.
When talking about spells like fireball that target a point, I think half and 3/4 cover are functionally meaningless. After all, a point in space doesn't have AC or make saving throws. The point either has total cover or no cover. You can either cast a spell through a keyhole to a point on the other side, or you can't.
When talking about spells like fireball that target a point, I think half and 3/4 cover are functionally meaningless. After all, a point in space doesn't have AC or make saving throws. The point either has total cover or no cover. You can either cast a spell through a keyhole to a point on the other side, or you can't.
There is no difference in the line of effect rules between fireball and fire bolt. If you can cast one spell through the keyhole, you can cast the other.
I'm not sure why you brought up half and 3/4 cover. They have no bearing on a spell's line of effect. Total cover and no cover are all that matter. Either the fireball can reach its target or it cannot.
I'm not sure why you brought up half and 3/4 cover. They have no bearing on a spell's line of effect. Total cover and no cover are all that matter. Either the fireball can reach its target or it cannot.
I bring them up because there are only three types of cover: half, 3/4, and total, and spell line of effect specifies "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." Thus, if you can cast spells through a door, it must be no more than 3/4 cover (and you can also shoot arrows through it).
ok, well now that I have done some research on it, I see where this can easily derail the thread and that isn't what I mean to do.
It's not your fault. Wall of force is a spell that always creates controversy since it seems to say one thing, but the designers on twitter and other channels have clarified that the intention is another. According to Jeremy Crawford and others, the spell prevents you from being targeted by another spell since you are in full cover. And unofficially, since the rules don't say so, apparently if you're behind anything, whether or not it blocks vision, you're considered to be in full cover. Which leads to some pretty ridiculous situations like not being able to target someone behind a silken curtain with a spell. Or underwater. Or behind glass. It could even be argued that if I cloak myself I couldn't be the target of a spell. Nonsense.
I bring them up because there are only three types of cover: half, 3/4, and total, and spell line of effect specifies "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." Thus, if you can cast spells through a door, it must be no more than 3/4 cover (and you can also shoot arrows through it).
And to expand on this, if we decide the keyhole provides anything less than total cover, the fireball AOE would go right through that keyhole even if the spell went off on the outside of the door due to its spreading nature. I think you are I are fundamentally in agreement that a keyhole in a door probably is not going to be a good enough path to the target through which a fireball can travel.
I bring them up because there are only three types of cover: half, 3/4, and total, and spell line of effect specifies "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." Thus, if you can cast spells through a door, it must be no more than 3/4 cover (and you can also shoot arrows through it).
And to expand on this, if we decide the keyhole provides anything less than total cover, the fireball AOE would go right through that keyhole even if the spell went off on the outside of the door due to its spreading nature. I think you are I are fundamentally in agreement that a keyhole in a door probably is not going to be a good enough path to the target through which a fireball can travel.
I am trying to remember if there were keyholes on any of the doors in any firefighter kind of movie, or movie with explosions or fires like Back Draft, that show any flames or anything going through a keyhole. As that would be a basis for a counterargument (of which I don't have or want to provide). I also was of the mind the "through the keyhole" would not work.
That is a surprisingly contentious question :)
The total cover rules state: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
1) One group considers "concealed" the same as any obstacle coming between the attacker and their target.
Both the half and three-quarter cover rules use the word obstacle. "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body." It doesn't matter for the half and three-quarter cover rules whether that obstacle is transparent or not.
Extending that to total cover - an obstacle that completely blocks (conceals) the target provides total cover - whether that obstacle is transparent or not. Thus a window or wall of force provide total cover to the creatures behind it even though they are transparent.
2) The other camp reads the rule for total cover and interprets "concealed" to be more than just physically blocked. Concealed in common usage usually implies not just a physical block but also a visual one.
In this case, neither a wall of force or a window would prevent the casting of spells that only require sight of the target and which do not have a physical component which travels from the caster to the target. (Fireball may still be blocked by a wall of force due to the spell description "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." depending on whether the DM rules the bright streak to be a physical manifestation that would be blocked by the wall of force or just a visual one that can pass through a wall of force).
---
Most of the folks I play with locally do not consider a Wall of Force to provide total cover because you can see through it. Others, including, I believe, some tweets by JC, consider a Wall of Force to provide total cover so spells can not be targeted through it. So, it is a rule that will find some variation by table.
ok, well now that I have done some research on it, I see where this can easily derail the thread and that isn't what I mean to do.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There's a line in Wall of Force's description, "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." That means any spell that travels from you to the target (like Lightning Bolt or Fireball) would be stopped by the wall, though any spell that has an instantaneous effect at the target without traveling through the wall from your position (like Sacred Flame) would not be hindered by the wall. I don't see why this would be controversial, as it seems pretty clear to me.
RAW, there are three type of cover: 1/2, 3/4, and full. If you're willing to declare that the keyhole is 3/4 cover, they can send a fireball through it.
When talking about spells like fireball that target a point, I think half and 3/4 cover are functionally meaningless. After all, a point in space doesn't have AC or make saving throws. The point either has total cover or no cover. You can either cast a spell through a keyhole to a point on the other side, or you can't.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is no difference in the line of effect rules between fireball and fire bolt. If you can cast one spell through the keyhole, you can cast the other.
I'm not sure why you brought up half and 3/4 cover. They have no bearing on a spell's line of effect. Total cover and no cover are all that matter. Either the fireball can reach its target or it cannot.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I bring them up because there are only three types of cover: half, 3/4, and total, and spell line of effect specifies "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." Thus, if you can cast spells through a door, it must be no more than 3/4 cover (and you can also shoot arrows through it).
It's not your fault. Wall of force is a spell that always creates controversy since it seems to say one thing, but the designers on twitter and other channels have clarified that the intention is another. According to Jeremy Crawford and others, the spell prevents you from being targeted by another spell since you are in full cover. And unofficially, since the rules don't say so, apparently if you're behind anything, whether or not it blocks vision, you're considered to be in full cover. Which leads to some pretty ridiculous situations like not being able to target someone behind a silken curtain with a spell. Or underwater. Or behind glass. It could even be argued that if I cloak myself I couldn't be the target of a spell. Nonsense.
And to expand on this, if we decide the keyhole provides anything less than total cover, the fireball AOE would go right through that keyhole even if the spell went off on the outside of the door due to its spreading nature. I think you are I are fundamentally in agreement that a keyhole in a door probably is not going to be a good enough path to the target through which a fireball can travel.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I am trying to remember if there were keyholes on any of the doors in any firefighter kind of movie, or movie with explosions or fires like Back Draft, that show any flames or anything going through a keyhole. As that would be a basis for a counterargument (of which I don't have or want to provide). I also was of the mind the "through the keyhole" would not work.
Blank
Maybe if you are in the castle of a giant and there is a giant door with a giant keyhole meant for giant keys.
Ok, I got nothing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"