So, in order for Disintegrate to affect the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force must be the target of the spell. In the case of targeting something on the other side of the Wall of Force, this is simply impossible due to that being a violation of the Clear Path rule. You simply would not be able to cast the spell in that manner. But even if that were possible for some reason, the spell would have no effect on the Wall of Force since that wasn't the target of the spell. There is no way to accidentally Disintegrate a Wall of Force.
The rules of the Wall of force just say "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however." it didnt say "aimed at the wall", just that the spell destroys the wall if somehow enters in contact with it, so the spell only requires to touch the wall, not being aimed at it, so in a "i cant see the wall so i can try to aim at something in the other side of it" situation, if a player dont know there is a wall of force and call for a spell ont he other side of it, the dm SHOULDNT and WONT say "you cant" just because there is a wall of force, that would be metagaming from the DM side the players, and the characters, dont know there is a invisible wall, so why wouldnt they try to aim something there?
as says in the Invalid Targets. "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended." meaning that you can actively try to aim something at the other side of the wall, knowing or not knowing that there is an invisible wall, because the spell will be casted even if the creature has total cover (a.k.a. invalid target), but the spell keeps being casted since the slot is used, meaning the spell would hit the wall and as of Wall of force description, it just needs to touch the wall, not being aim at it
Also, as mentioned: "The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force." meaning it has a "specific" rule beating the general rule of not being able of target it jsut because you cant see it
Also, as mentioned: "The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force." meaning it has a "specific" rule beating the general rule of not being able of target it jsut because you cant see it
First, as already explained, this part of what you're saying is just not correct. As written, the spell establishes that a creation of magical force is a valid category of phenomena to target with the spell, but the rest of the rules that are dictated by the spell itself, such as being able to see the target, must be followed.
The rules of the Wall of force just say "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however." it didnt say "aimed at the wall", just that the spell destroys the wall if somehow enters in contact with it, so the spell only requires to touch the wall, not being aimed at it, so in a "i cant see the wall so i can try to aim at something in the other side of it" situation, if a player dont know there is a wall of force and call for a spell ont he other side of it, the dm SHOULDNT and WONT say "you cant" just because there is a wall of force, that would be metagaming from the DM side the players, and the characters, dont know there is a invisible wall, so why wouldnt they try to aim something there?
as says in the Invalid Targets. "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended." meaning that you can actively try to aim something at the other side of the wall, knowing or not knowing that there is an invisible wall, because the spell will be casted even if the creature has total cover (a.k.a. invalid target), but the spell keeps being casted since the slot is used, meaning the spell would hit the wall and as of Wall of force description, it just needs to touch the wall, not being aim at it
Mechanically, spellcasting doesn't actually work like you are describing above.
When a spellcaster casts a spell, the magic from the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to a target location along a clear path, and then the spell effect originates at that location. This is regardless of any flavor that a particular spell might describe such as "You launch a green ray" or "You create three glowing darts" or "You hurl a mote of fire" or anything of that sort. This sort of flavor text has no mechanical effect until the magic from the spell actually reaches its target location (including until it reaches the "point of origin" in the case of AoE spells).
There are at least 4 or 5 rules which explicitly support what I've explained here about spellcasting, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader for now.
----------
But you do bring up an interesting discussion about what is actually the best way for a DM to handle this situation where the players do not actually know about the wall and are legitimately trying to target something on the other side of it that they can see. It's a topic that almost deserves its own thread, but we can hash it out here . . .
In my opinion, the "Invalid Targets" rule does not actually apply to this situation. It states:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target
But in this case, we never actually targeted anything.
This above rule is mainly for when you do successfully target something (like a creature) and that target is immune to the effect.
For example, suppose that a player insists that his character attempts to cast the Magic Missile spell at an object like a rock. In my opinion, that spell simply cannot be cast in that manner. The spell description specifies that the target of the spell must be a creature. I would not apply the Invalid Targets rule to that situation either.
In other words, the targeting process is part of the requirement for casting the spell in the first place. Yes, the description for what constitutes a valid target for that spell will be described in the spell's effect block instead of in some other entry within the spell description, but the spell must have a destination for where the spell effect will originate, otherwise the spell cannot be cast. For example, if all creatures are simply out of range, you wouldn't force the spellcaster to cast Magic Missile at himself "because the spell has already been cast" or something, right? The spellcaster chooses the target as part of the procedure for casting the spell and if no target is chosen then the spell is not cast. By the Clear Path rule, a target behind total cover cannot be chosen.
When it comes to Area of Effect spells, there is a slightly different rule that can be situationally applied:
If the creator of an area of effect places it at an unseen point and an obstruction—such as a wall—is between the creator and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of the obstruction.
However, in this case, Disintegrate is not an AoE spell. It's a spell which must be cast at a target to be affected by the spell's magic. However, even if it were an AoE spell, this rule simply places the resulting AoE on the near side of the wall, right up against it but not going into or through it, just like what happens when any other wall is nearby the origin point for an AoE spell. The Wall still would not be destroyed in that case. But again, we're talking about a targeting spell here anyway. To destroy the wall, the spell must target the wall.
In addition, the above rule is only for situations where you cannot see the intended point of origin. In this case, we actually can see through the wall, so this above rule doesn't apply in such situations either, even if we were discussing an AoE spell.
So, the only other targeting rule for spellcasting which still applies to our situation in this thread is the Clear Path rule. That rule just makes it impossible to target something behind total cover. Again, in my opinion, without actually targeting something, the spell simply is not cast.
In my opinion, the best way for a DM to handle such a situation would be very similar to when a character attempts to cast a spell while standing in an antimagic field or perhaps similar to when a character attempts to target something that is within an antimagic field. From the Antimagic Field spell:
An aura of antimagic surrounds you in 10-foot Emanation. No one can cast spells, take Magic actions, or create other magical effects inside the aura, and those things can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it.
This above situation is similar to what we have in the OP by virtue of just not being allowed to target the thing that you are trying to target. Here it simply says that "[spells] can't target . . . anything inside it". In such a situation, I do not think that it's correct to allow the spellcaster to "try" to cast their spell, waste their action economy and spell slot on that spell and then say that it didn't work. Instead, the spellcaster simply "can't" do this, by rule. There is a virtually unlimited number of creative descriptions that a DM might come up with to describe what a spellcaster might feel or experience while attempting to cast their spell, but in the end, the spell was not cast, and the action was not used.
And in our case, of course, this also means that the Wall was not destroyed.
I think the RAW argument for not being able to target the wall without see invisibility or the like is actually pretty strong. I have no problem, however, saying that it's a stupid rule and would change it at my table to be able to try and aim at the creature on the other side and have it hit and destroy the WoF instead.
Interestingly, they did get rid of language from the 2014 rules where it talked about what happens when you target something behind total cover right after saying you can't target things behind total cover...
[...] Interestingly, they did get rid of language from the 2014 rules where it talked about what happens when you target something behind total cover right after saying you can't target things behind total cover...
Well, the rule is still in the 2024 PHB.
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
Area of Effect [...] If the creator of an area of effect places it at an unseen point and an obstruction—such as a wall—is between the creator and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of the obstruction.
But you do bring up an interesting discussion about what is actually the best way for a DM to handle this situation where the players do not actually know about the wall and are legitimately trying to target something on the other side of it that they can see. It's a topic that almost deserves its own thread, but we can hash it out here . . .In my opinion, the "Invalid Targets" rule does not actually apply to this situation. It states:
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target
But in this case, we never actually targeted anything
This then came with the proble for the DM of: what if i put a wall of force or the pc's do it and the oponent cast something without knowing is there? It would be like this: player: i cast firebolt there DM: well... no player: what do you mean no? DM: you cant cast it Player: why? is says "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or an object within range" so i clearly CAN cast it there DM: well, you cant... because no
So, without recoursing to metagaming, there is no way a dm can say the player taht there is a wall of force in between or that an npc wouldnt try to cast something too, they would TRY to cast something, and if you say that they CANT even try, it means no spellslot is used up because THEY CANT AIM at something on the other side of the wall,even if for their own POV is possible to see a target, even when WE, or mostly, THE DM, knows that is behind total cover, meaning it should be possible and 100% legal to aim at something even if that would fail, so for rules of clear path, it means the spell that need a straight line as stated in "A Clear Path to the Target" would also be casted in a straight line to the target, but since as RAW tehre is no actual Rule for it when that happens, this is one of those special cases stated in rule 1 of the DMG: the DM decides because there is no rules for it This because as said in this thread, there is a rules for AoE against cover, but not against selected targtets that becomes invalid target without the player knowing, which tecnically fall under that same statement, since THE PLAYER is the one who doesnt know that the target is invalid, the DM knows, but the player doesnt, is the same as casting a charm spell in a creature inmune to charms, is invalid, this case is the same, the player doesnt know that the target cant be aimed, because there's an INVISIBLE wall giving total cover, so how the heck the player will know that there is an invisible wall there if not by casting something that then hits the wall in the first place?
Is like in movies when they throw a missile to a target and then the missile crash into the invisible barrier protecting the target and then they know there is a barrier around it
literally casting magic missile or any other spell aimed at the target is the same, the player/character doesnt know it cant, as a DM it would be 10000% logical to say: "you cast the spell, but it crash/explodes midair into something you cant see and the explosion/effect seen is like colliding in a wall, it seems to be in full cover behind an invisible barrier" in which case, casting dissintegrate in the same way would result in the spell crashing into the wall and then dissintegrating the wall, since the wall itself didnt mention that it needs to be aimed by the spell only affected by it "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly"
I would caution against arguing super RAW for that very last part. If you do, you can apparently destroy the wall by casting disintegrate at anything (within the vicinity? Anywhere in this plane of existence??), since there is no language in that clause that says it has to be hit by the spell. Yes, it's obviously RAI, but I would argue so is the "being able to cast at something you think you have a clear path to".
. . . but since as RAW tehre is no actual Rule for it when that happens, this is one of those special cases stated in rule 1 of the DMG: the DM decides because there is no rules for it
That's not correct. There already is a rule for this in place. The rule is that it cannot be done:
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
It doesn't matter at all if the spellcaster knows whether or not this potential target is behind total cover. This rule applies regardless.
Consider the alternate scenario that I presented earlier: How would you run the game if one of the PCs attempted to target something that is located within an antimagic field that neither the PC nor the player knows is there?
I reject the notion that "without recoursing to metagaming, there is no way a dm can say . . .". Of course there are ways for a DM to handle this. It just takes a bit of creativity. Perhaps consider something like this:
Player: I cast firebolt there.
DM: You pick out your target and begin the process of casting the spell. But something is wrong. You don't feel the usual connection to The Weave that is necessary to cause your spell to originate at your chosen location. It feels as though that location is out of reach somehow, even though it appears to be within range. It's somehow inaccessible to you. For some reason, you are unable to cast your spell at that target. You recognize this instantly without wasting any time. You haven't used your spell slot, and you still have your action. Do you wish to do something else instead?
You know, just whatever explanation you feel would make sense for what that character experiences in your world when he initiates the attempt.
So you recurred to metagame and say the player that there is a wall of force, basically, not directly but basically said "you cant because no" which is what i said, that unless you do that, there is no way to do so, because in your explanation, the player will argue further mechanical explanation that then YOU, the DM, will have to explain MECHANICALLY why the player cant do that or otherwise the player will call BS on not being able to do something it clearly can because it doesnt know there is a wall in between, thats my point there, and i have seen this happen so many times, i am not just making assumptions, i have witness thise same scenario in different ways, like a DM saying he cant cure an ally or something and the player argue that is not possible and thats because an inisible beholder was behind and the character was in a non-magic zone, but the dm cant describe such thing in the imagnarium, or bette said: it can describe that, just as you did, but then mechanically the players will call BS on the dm because it would feel like he is jsut against them and that can create fights irl (i have seen fights started by thescenario of a wall of force not being revealed and the dm denying spells just as you did)
But there are other SPECIFIC rule saying that you can cast the spell and if the target is invalid if YOU, the caster, dont know it, it becomse an INVALID TARGET, and the spell miss and the spellslot is used It may be "your opinion" that the rule of invalid targets dont apply, but thats not RAW, it does apply because the target becomes aninvalid target, and the player and the character doesnt know that fact, same as when casting a charming spell in a non charmeable target, the player and the character dont know they cant do that, so the spell IS CASTED but fails in achieve its goal, and the spellslot is used, and there is even a reference that THAT can happen, because most charm spells have that quote of "this spells fails if the target is inmune to being charmed", meaning a spell can be casted and wasted because the target becomes an invalid target AFTER casting the spell, so if we start that "from the character's perspective" the target behind the wall is Valid, but after casting it is when it notes that is an invalid target, thats what leads to discover the wall by the clues, just as in your example
DM: You pick out your target and begin the process of casting the spell. But something is wrong. the magic didnt reach the target, it ends midair, didnt reach its destination... You don't feel the usual connection to The Weave that is necessary to cause your spell to end its travel at your chosen location. It feels as though that location is out of reach somehow, even though it appears to be within range. It's somehow inaccessible to you from certain point, like something is blocking its path magically. For this reason, you are unable to reach with your spells thattarget beyond that point. You recognize this instantly after casting your spell. You have used your spell slot, and you already used your action. Do you wish to do something else instead?
Also, by the logic of total cover, as a free action a player/npc can just have a curtain sheet that at the end of the turn pull up with its hands and then they "cant see the target behind the curtain sheets" and cant aim at him, which curiously also works against security cameras based on movement (mythbusters proved)
So you recurred to metagame and say the player that there is a wall of force, basically, not directly but basically said "you cant because no" which is what i said, that unless you do that, there is no way to do so, because in your explanation, the player will argue further mechanical explanation that then YOU, the DM, will have to explain MECHANICALLY why the player cant do that or otherwise the player will call BS on not being able to do something it clearly can because it doesnt know there is a wall in between, thats my point there, and i have seen this happen so many times, i am not just making assumptions, i have witness thise same scenario in different ways, like a DM saying he cant cure an ally or something and the player argue that is not possible and thats because an inisible beholder was behind and the character was in a non-magic zone, but the dm cant describe such thing in the imagnarium, or bette said: it can describe that, just as you did, but then mechanically the players will call BS on the dm because it would feel like he is jsut against them and that can create fights irl (i have seen fights started by thescenario of a wall of force not being revealed and the dm denying spells just as you did)
No. What I've described above is not metagaming. It's normal gameplay. It's the DM's job to describe the consequences of creature actions.
the game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them . . .
The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. . . .
The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. . . . Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1 . . .
This pattern holds during every game session
My earlier example was one way in which a DM might narrate the results of an adventurer initiating the process of casting a spell that he cannot cast. He is describing what the character experiences. This is normal gameplay.
Also, the real-life fights that you describe simply should not happen. The DM is in charge of the game and makes the final decisions when it comes to the rules. Although the DM and the Players are cooperating with each other to tell the story of these adventurers, the Players need to understand and respect the role of the DM as the final decision maker in these matters. This is essential for running a smooth game and everyone involved in the game should be agreeing to this at session 0. Sure, it's fine for a Player to politely bring up a rule if he thinks that a DM might have overlooked something, but once the DM has the information that he needs and then makes an informed decision, that's final. The game is structured that way on purpose to facilitate ongoing progress of the game without it grinding to a halt in endless rules discussions.
So, "what does a DM do"?
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules.
and also:
Guide the Story. You narrate much of the action during play, describing locations and creatures that the adventurers face. The players decide what their characters do as they navigate hazards and choose what to explore. Then you use a combination of imagination and the game’s rules to determine the results of the adventurers’ decisions.
Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun.
Also, by the logic of total cover, as a free action a player/npc can just have a curtain sheet that at the end of the turn pull up with its hands and then they "cant see the target behind the curtain sheets" and cant aim at him, which curiously also works against security cameras based on movement (mythbusters proved)
Yes, the rules for Cover have some problematic corner cases depending on how you choose to interpret the rules. They certainly did in 2014. The 2024 rules fixed some of those problems but it's still not perfect.
The best interpretation is the one that recognizes that the 2024 rules explicitly specify that an object provides cover only when it is an "obstacle".
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm.
Or, from the rules Glossary, we can use this interpretation:
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it.
Essentially, it is up to the DM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis whether or not something should be considered to be "an obstacle" and/or whether or not it "provides a degree of protection". I would rule that hiding behind a sheet does not fit the above criteria and therefore no benefit for Cover is given in that situation.
Whether or not something like this causes the creature to be "Unseen" is another matter for another discussion and the decision for the best way to rule that is probably situational.
As for the rest of your post, I simply do not have the same interpretation of the Invalid Target rule as you do. However, if a poll were created for how to interpret and use that rule, I am guessing that we would see many varied opinions about that.
To me, the initial rules for targeting take precedence. Meaning:
Targets
A typical spell requires the caster to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
. . .
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Taken together, if we use the example of a PC attempting to cast Magic Missile on the locked door to try to break it down, in my opinion we should not rule that this is a spell that is cast at an Invalid Target. Instead, we should rule that the spellcaster simply cannot do that. The reason is because the Magic Missile spell description makes it clear that the spell targets creatures and the rule for spell targeting says that the spell description says what the spell targets.
In other words, the Magic Missile spell description establishes the rules for how to cast that spell. It defines a Range. It defines spell components. Likewise, it determines what can be targeted. You simply cannot target an object with the spell, just like you cannot target something that is outside of the Range. If you are gagged or are otherwise not able to be verbal for whatever reason, then you also cannot cast the spell in that case. These are all prerequisites that are determined by the spell's description.
Now, once the prerequisites are met and a creature is chosen as the target, then it might be possible for the particular creature that was chosen to be an Invalid Target once the spell has already been cast. This occurs "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it". In this case, targeting has occurred within the bounds established by the spell description, the other various prerequisites for casting the spell have been met, and the action to cast the spell has been taken. It's just that the target that was legally chosen can't be affected by the spell.
In the case of the Magic Missile spell, a creature that is protected by the Shield spell is an "Invalid Target" for the Magic Missile spell. Meaning, it IS a target. The creature IS targeted. It just cannot be affected by the spell:
Shield:
Reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack roll or targeted by the Magic Missile spell
Whereas, in the case of attempting to cast Magic Missile at a locked door -- that door was never actually targeted in the first place because you simply can't do that. The rules established by the spell description for the Magic Missile spell itself require that the target of the spell is a creature when the spell is cast. If you don't target a creature, then nothing is targeted, and the spell is not cast.
At some point we might see a Sage Advice entry on this topic if there isn't one already. Again, I'm sure that lots of people will have lots of interpretations about how to use the Invalid Targets rule. The interpretation that I've described is the one that makes sense and is how the rules are written.
Again, I'm sure that lots of people will have lots of interpretations about how to use the Invalid Targets rule. The interpretation that I've described is the one that makes sense and is how the rules are written.
What you describe is the equivalent of
i have a gun i shoot my gun at a dude There is bullet proof glass in between
So my gun decided by itself to dont shoot because i cant hit the dude im aiming to shoot, so why bother shooting even when i, the owner of the gun, decided to shoot anyway, because there is a glass bullet proof that i cant see and i dont know is there and my non-sentient gun decided that by itself
Another example is if a creature Ready an Action to run into a corridor to take cover if it sees an enemy casting a spell next turn, an enemy cast dissintegrate on that creature this triggers the 1st creature reaction and he moves into the corridor, becoming an invalid target since is now in total cover the spell was casted since the reaction was triggered when the spell was casted (using the spellslot already), but the spell fails since cannot reach its target now, and a dm should rule that the corridor is hitted by the dissintegrate trying to reach the target and leave a hole on it since that's the spell description for objects hitted by the spell change the corridor for wall of force there, the wall is hitted by dissintegrate, ergo, is destroyed completely
So you recurred to metagame and say the player that there is a wall of force, basically, not directly but basically said "you cant because no" which is what i said, that unless you do that, there is no way to do so, because in your explanation, the player will argue further mechanical explanation that then YOU, the DM, will have to explain MECHANICALLY why the player cant do that or otherwise the player will call BS on not being able to do something it clearly can because it doesnt know there is a wall in between, thats my point there, and i have seen this happen so many times, i am not just making assumptions, i have witness thise same scenario in different ways, like a DM saying he cant cure an ally or something and the player argue that is not possible and thats because an inisible beholder was behind and the character was in a non-magic zone, but the dm cant describe such thing in the imagnarium, or bette said: it can describe that, just as you did, but then mechanically the players will call BS on the dm because it would feel like he is jsut against them and that can create fights irl (i have seen fights started by thescenario of a wall of force not being revealed and the dm denying spells just as you did)
No. What I've described above is not metagaming. It's normal gameplay. It's the DM's job to describe the consequences of creature actions.
the game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them . . .
The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. . . .
The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. . . . Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1 . . .
This pattern holds during every game session
My earlier example was one way in which a DM might narrate the results of an adventurer initiating the process of casting a spell that he cannot cast. He is describing what the character experiences. This is normal gameplay.
Also, the real-life fights that you describe simply should not happen. The DM is in charge of the game and makes the final decisions when it comes to the rules. Although the DM and the Players are cooperating with each other to tell the story of these adventurers, the Players need to understand and respect the role of the DM as the final decision maker in these matters. This is essential for running a smooth game and everyone involved in the game should be agreeing to this at session 0. Sure, it's fine for a Player to politely bring up a rule if he thinks that a DM might have overlooked something, but once the DM has the information that he needs and then makes an informed decision, that's final. The game is structured that way on purpose to facilitate ongoing progress of the game without it grinding to a halt in endless rules discussions.
So, "what does a DM do"?
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules.
and also:
Guide the Story. You narrate much of the action during play, describing locations and creatures that the adventurers face. The players decide what their characters do as they navigate hazards and choose what to explore. Then you use a combination of imagination and the game’s rules to determine the results of the adventurers’ decisions.
Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun.
Also, by the logic of total cover, as a free action a player/npc can just have a curtain sheet that at the end of the turn pull up with its hands and then they "cant see the target behind the curtain sheets" and cant aim at him, which curiously also works against security cameras based on movement (mythbusters proved)
Yes, the rules for Cover have some problematic corner cases depending on how you choose to interpret the rules. They certainly did in 2014. The 2024 rules fixed some of those problems but it's still not perfect.
The best interpretation is the one that recognizes that the 2024 rules explicitly specify that an object provides cover only when it is an "obstacle".
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm.
Or, from the rules Glossary, we can use this interpretation:
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it.
Essentially, it is up to the DM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis whether or not something should be considered to be "an obstacle" and/or whether or not it "provides a degree of protection". I would rule that hiding behind a sheet does not fit the above criteria and therefore no benefit for Cover is given in that situation.
Whether or not something like this causes the creature to be "Unseen" is another matter for another discussion and the decision for the best way to rule that is probably situational.
As for the rest of your post, I simply do not have the same interpretation of the Invalid Target rule as you do. However, if a poll were created for how to interpret and use that rule, I am guessing that we would see many varied opinions about that.
To me, the initial rules for targeting take precedence. Meaning:
Targets
A typical spell requires the caster to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
. . .
Invalid Targets. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Taken together, if we use the example of a PC attempting to cast Magic Missile on the locked door to try to break it down, in my opinion we should not rule that this is a spell that is cast at an Invalid Target. Instead, we should rule that the spellcaster simply cannot do that. The reason is because the Magic Missile spell description makes it clear that the spell targets creatures and the rule for spell targeting says that the spell description says what the spell targets.
In other words, the Magic Missile spell description establishes the rules for how to cast that spell. It defines a Range. It defines spell components. Likewise, it determines what can be targeted. You simply cannot target an object with the spell, just like you cannot target something that is outside of the Range. If you are gagged or are otherwise not able to be verbal for whatever reason, then you also cannot cast the spell in that case. These are all prerequisites that are determined by the spell's description.
Now, once the prerequisites are met and a creature is chosen as the target, then it might be possible for the particular creature that was chosen to be an Invalid Target once the spell has already been cast. This occurs "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it". In this case, targeting has occurred within the bounds established by the spell description, the other various prerequisites for casting the spell have been met, and the action to cast the spell has been taken. It's just that the target that was legally chosen can't be affected by the spell.
In the case of the Magic Missile spell, a creature that is protected by the Shield spell is an "Invalid Target" for the Magic Missile spell. Meaning, it IS a target. The creature IS targeted. It just cannot be affected by the spell:
Shield:
Reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack roll or targeted by the Magic Missile spell
Whereas, in the case of attempting to cast Magic Missile at a locked door -- that door was never actually targeted in the first place because you simply can't do that. The rules established by the spell description for the Magic Missile spell itself require that the target of the spell is a creature when the spell is cast. If you don't target a creature, then nothing is targeted, and the spell is not cast.
At some point we might see a Sage Advice entry on this topic if there isn't one already. Again, I'm sure that lots of people will have lots of interpretations about how to use the Invalid Targets rule. The interpretation that I've described is the one that makes sense and is how the rules are written.
I don't think this is an appropriate reading of the Invalid Target rule. With this reading, my sorcerer can go through a dungeon attempting to cast magic missile on literally every inanimate object without fear of losing their spell slots. Then, when they do finally, successfully, cast it, they've found a mimic. It simply makes way more sense to read it as "a thing you thought you could target but actually can't".
In this situation, the sorcerer should lose a spell slot whether or not they were able to actually target the door in front of them. If nothing happens, great, it was just a door and I wasted a spell slot. I probably won't do that again unless I am quite certain that next door is actually a mimic.
I don't think this is an appropriate reading of the Invalid Target rule. With this reading, my sorcerer can go through a dungeon attempting to cast magic missile on literally every inanimate object without fear of losing their spell slots. Then, when they do finally, successfully, cast it, they've found a mimic. It simply makes way more sense to read it as "a thing you thought you could target but actually can't".
In this situation, the sorcerer should lose a spell slot whether or not they were able to actually target the door in front of them. If nothing happens, great, it was just a door and I wasted a spell slot. I probably won't do that again unless I am quite certain that next door is actually a mimic.
Basically my example of the gun The fact that there is a bulletproof glass that i cant see doesnt mean that my non-sentient gun just "decided" by itself to not shoot even when i am obviously shooting, the bullets will be used regardless of being "not useful" except for knowing that there is a bulletproof glass
also:
Invalid Spell Targets (XGE p85)
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
which means YOU CAN attempt to target something that is usually not a valid target, in this case, dissintegrate to a creature or object behind a wall of force, and by doing that, you do cast and "shoot" the spell towards that creature, except is not affected because there something in-between the spellcaster and the target, since the description of the rule says "the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target)" meaning the DM should allow the spell to be casted, used, and the Dissintegrate being used on the nearest point to the target, provocking the spell to touch the Wall of force and destroying it
And remember that anything not overwritten in 2024 rules can be used, so this addendum remains as RAW
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rules of the Wall of force just say "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however." it didnt say "aimed at the wall", just that the spell destroys the wall if somehow enters in contact with it, so the spell only requires to touch the wall, not being aimed at it, so in a "i cant see the wall so i can try to aim at something in the other side of it" situation, if a player dont know there is a wall of force and call for a spell ont he other side of it, the dm SHOULDNT and WONT say "you cant" just because there is a wall of force, that would be metagaming from the DM side
the players, and the characters, dont know there is a invisible wall, so why wouldnt they try to aim something there?
as says in the Invalid Targets. "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by it, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended."
meaning that you can actively try to aim something at the other side of the wall, knowing or not knowing that there is an invisible wall, because the spell will be casted even if the creature has total cover (a.k.a. invalid target), but the spell keeps being casted since the slot is used, meaning the spell would hit the wall and as of Wall of force description, it just needs to touch the wall, not being aim at it
Also, as mentioned:
"The target can be a creature, a nonmagical object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by Wall of Force." meaning it has a "specific" rule beating the general rule of not being able of target it jsut because you cant see it
First, as already explained, this part of what you're saying is just not correct. As written, the spell establishes that a creation of magical force is a valid category of phenomena to target with the spell, but the rest of the rules that are dictated by the spell itself, such as being able to see the target, must be followed.
Mechanically, spellcasting doesn't actually work like you are describing above.
When a spellcaster casts a spell, the magic from the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to a target location along a clear path, and then the spell effect originates at that location. This is regardless of any flavor that a particular spell might describe such as "You launch a green ray" or "You create three glowing darts" or "You hurl a mote of fire" or anything of that sort. This sort of flavor text has no mechanical effect until the magic from the spell actually reaches its target location (including until it reaches the "point of origin" in the case of AoE spells).
There are at least 4 or 5 rules which explicitly support what I've explained here about spellcasting, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader for now.
----------
But you do bring up an interesting discussion about what is actually the best way for a DM to handle this situation where the players do not actually know about the wall and are legitimately trying to target something on the other side of it that they can see. It's a topic that almost deserves its own thread, but we can hash it out here . . .
In my opinion, the "Invalid Targets" rule does not actually apply to this situation. It states:
But in this case, we never actually targeted anything.
This above rule is mainly for when you do successfully target something (like a creature) and that target is immune to the effect.
For example, suppose that a player insists that his character attempts to cast the Magic Missile spell at an object like a rock. In my opinion, that spell simply cannot be cast in that manner. The spell description specifies that the target of the spell must be a creature. I would not apply the Invalid Targets rule to that situation either.
In other words, the targeting process is part of the requirement for casting the spell in the first place. Yes, the description for what constitutes a valid target for that spell will be described in the spell's effect block instead of in some other entry within the spell description, but the spell must have a destination for where the spell effect will originate, otherwise the spell cannot be cast. For example, if all creatures are simply out of range, you wouldn't force the spellcaster to cast Magic Missile at himself "because the spell has already been cast" or something, right? The spellcaster chooses the target as part of the procedure for casting the spell and if no target is chosen then the spell is not cast. By the Clear Path rule, a target behind total cover cannot be chosen.
When it comes to Area of Effect spells, there is a slightly different rule that can be situationally applied:
However, in this case, Disintegrate is not an AoE spell. It's a spell which must be cast at a target to be affected by the spell's magic. However, even if it were an AoE spell, this rule simply places the resulting AoE on the near side of the wall, right up against it but not going into or through it, just like what happens when any other wall is nearby the origin point for an AoE spell. The Wall still would not be destroyed in that case. But again, we're talking about a targeting spell here anyway. To destroy the wall, the spell must target the wall.
In addition, the above rule is only for situations where you cannot see the intended point of origin. In this case, we actually can see through the wall, so this above rule doesn't apply in such situations either, even if we were discussing an AoE spell.
So, the only other targeting rule for spellcasting which still applies to our situation in this thread is the Clear Path rule. That rule just makes it impossible to target something behind total cover. Again, in my opinion, without actually targeting something, the spell simply is not cast.
In my opinion, the best way for a DM to handle such a situation would be very similar to when a character attempts to cast a spell while standing in an antimagic field or perhaps similar to when a character attempts to target something that is within an antimagic field. From the Antimagic Field spell:
This above situation is similar to what we have in the OP by virtue of just not being allowed to target the thing that you are trying to target. Here it simply says that "[spells] can't target . . . anything inside it". In such a situation, I do not think that it's correct to allow the spellcaster to "try" to cast their spell, waste their action economy and spell slot on that spell and then say that it didn't work. Instead, the spellcaster simply "can't" do this, by rule. There is a virtually unlimited number of creative descriptions that a DM might come up with to describe what a spellcaster might feel or experience while attempting to cast their spell, but in the end, the spell was not cast, and the action was not used.
And in our case, of course, this also means that the Wall was not destroyed.
I think the RAW argument for not being able to target the wall without see invisibility or the like is actually pretty strong. I have no problem, however, saying that it's a stupid rule and would change it at my table to be able to try and aim at the creature on the other side and have it hit and destroy the WoF instead.
Interestingly, they did get rid of language from the 2014 rules where it talked about what happens when you target something behind total cover right after saying you can't target things behind total cover...
Well, the rule is still in the 2024 PHB.
EDIT: for clarity.
This then came with the proble for the DM of: what if i put a wall of force or the pc's do it and the oponent cast something without knowing is there?
It would be like this:
player: i cast firebolt there
DM: well... no
player: what do you mean no?
DM: you cant cast it
Player: why? is says "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or an object within range" so i clearly CAN cast it there
DM: well, you cant... because no
So, without recoursing to metagaming, there is no way a dm can say the player taht there is a wall of force in between or that an npc wouldnt try to cast something too, they would TRY to cast something, and if you say that they CANT even try, it means no spellslot is used up because THEY CANT AIM at something on the other side of the wall,even if for their own POV is possible to see a target, even when WE, or mostly, THE DM, knows that is behind total cover, meaning it should be possible and 100% legal to aim at something even if that would fail, so for rules of clear path, it means the spell that need a straight line as stated in "A Clear Path to the Target" would also be casted in a straight line to the target, but since as RAW tehre is no actual Rule for it when that happens, this is one of those special cases stated in rule 1 of the DMG: the DM decides because there is no rules for it
This because as said in this thread, there is a rules for AoE against cover, but not against selected targtets that becomes invalid target without the player knowing, which tecnically fall under that same statement, since THE PLAYER is the one who doesnt know that the target is invalid, the DM knows, but the player doesnt, is the same as casting a charm spell in a creature inmune to charms, is invalid, this case is the same, the player doesnt know that the target cant be aimed, because there's an INVISIBLE wall giving total cover, so how the heck the player will know that there is an invisible wall there if not by casting something that then hits the wall in the first place?
Is like in movies when they throw a missile to a target and then the missile crash into the invisible barrier protecting the target and then they know there is a barrier around it
literally casting magic missile or any other spell aimed at the target is the same, the player/character doesnt know it cant, as a DM it would be 10000% logical to say: "you cast the spell, but it crash/explodes midair into something you cant see and the explosion/effect seen is like colliding in a wall, it seems to be in full cover behind an invisible barrier"
in which case, casting dissintegrate in the same way would result in the spell crashing into the wall and then dissintegrating the wall, since the wall itself didnt mention that it needs to be aimed by the spell only affected by it "A Disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly"
I would caution against arguing super RAW for that very last part. If you do, you can apparently destroy the wall by casting disintegrate at anything (within the vicinity? Anywhere in this plane of existence??), since there is no language in that clause that says it has to be hit by the spell. Yes, it's obviously RAI, but I would argue so is the "being able to cast at something you think you have a clear path to".
That's not correct. There already is a rule for this in place. The rule is that it cannot be done:
It doesn't matter at all if the spellcaster knows whether or not this potential target is behind total cover. This rule applies regardless.
Consider the alternate scenario that I presented earlier: How would you run the game if one of the PCs attempted to target something that is located within an antimagic field that neither the PC nor the player knows is there?
I reject the notion that "without recoursing to metagaming, there is no way a dm can say . . .". Of course there are ways for a DM to handle this. It just takes a bit of creativity. Perhaps consider something like this:
Player: I cast firebolt there.
DM: You pick out your target and begin the process of casting the spell. But something is wrong. You don't feel the usual connection to The Weave that is necessary to cause your spell to originate at your chosen location. It feels as though that location is out of reach somehow, even though it appears to be within range. It's somehow inaccessible to you. For some reason, you are unable to cast your spell at that target. You recognize this instantly without wasting any time. You haven't used your spell slot, and you still have your action. Do you wish to do something else instead?
You know, just whatever explanation you feel would make sense for what that character experiences in your world when he initiates the attempt.
So you recurred to metagame and say the player that there is a wall of force, basically, not directly but basically said "you cant because no" which is what i said, that unless you do that, there is no way to do so, because in your explanation, the player will argue further mechanical explanation that then YOU, the DM, will have to explain MECHANICALLY why the player cant do that or otherwise the player will call BS on not being able to do something it clearly can because it doesnt know there is a wall in between, thats my point there, and i have seen this happen so many times, i am not just making assumptions, i have witness thise same scenario in different ways, like a DM saying he cant cure an ally or something and the player argue that is not possible and thats because an inisible beholder was behind and the character was in a non-magic zone, but the dm cant describe such thing in the imagnarium, or bette said: it can describe that, just as you did, but then mechanically the players will call BS on the dm because it would feel like he is jsut against them and that can create fights irl (i have seen fights started by thescenario of a wall of force not being revealed and the dm denying spells just as you did)
But there are other SPECIFIC rule saying that you can cast the spell and if the target is invalid if YOU, the caster, dont know it, it becomse an INVALID TARGET, and the spell miss and the spellslot is used
It may be "your opinion" that the rule of invalid targets dont apply, but thats not RAW, it does apply because the target becomes an invalid target, and the player and the character doesnt know that fact, same as when casting a charming spell in a non charmeable target, the player and the character dont know they cant do that, so the spell IS CASTED but fails in achieve its goal, and the spellslot is used, and there is even a reference that THAT can happen, because most charm spells have that quote of "this spells fails if the target is inmune to being charmed", meaning a spell can be casted and wasted because the target becomes an invalid target AFTER casting the spell, so if we start that "from the character's perspective" the target behind the wall is Valid, but after casting it is when it notes that is an invalid target, thats what leads to discover the wall by the clues, just as in your example
DM: You pick out your target and begin the process of casting the spell. But something is wrong. the magic didnt reach the target, it ends midair, didnt reach its destination... You don't feel the usual connection to The Weave that is necessary to cause your spell to end its travel at your chosen location. It feels as though that location is out of reach somehow, even though it appears to be within range. It's somehow inaccessible to you from certain point, like something is blocking its path magically. For this reason, you are unable to reach with your spells that target beyond that point. You recognize this instantly after casting your spell. You have used your spell slot, and you already used your action. Do you wish to do something else instead?
Also, by the logic of total cover, as a free action a player/npc can just have a curtain sheet that at the end of the turn pull up with its hands and then they "cant see the target behind the curtain sheets" and cant aim at him, which curiously also works against security cameras based on movement (mythbusters proved)
No. What I've described above is not metagaming. It's normal gameplay. It's the DM's job to describe the consequences of creature actions.
My earlier example was one way in which a DM might narrate the results of an adventurer initiating the process of casting a spell that he cannot cast. He is describing what the character experiences. This is normal gameplay.
Also, the real-life fights that you describe simply should not happen. The DM is in charge of the game and makes the final decisions when it comes to the rules. Although the DM and the Players are cooperating with each other to tell the story of these adventurers, the Players need to understand and respect the role of the DM as the final decision maker in these matters. This is essential for running a smooth game and everyone involved in the game should be agreeing to this at session 0. Sure, it's fine for a Player to politely bring up a rule if he thinks that a DM might have overlooked something, but once the DM has the information that he needs and then makes an informed decision, that's final. The game is structured that way on purpose to facilitate ongoing progress of the game without it grinding to a halt in endless rules discussions.
So, "what does a DM do"?
and also:
Yes, the rules for Cover have some problematic corner cases depending on how you choose to interpret the rules. They certainly did in 2014. The 2024 rules fixed some of those problems but it's still not perfect.
The best interpretation is the one that recognizes that the 2024 rules explicitly specify that an object provides cover only when it is an "obstacle".
Or, from the rules Glossary, we can use this interpretation:
Essentially, it is up to the DM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis whether or not something should be considered to be "an obstacle" and/or whether or not it "provides a degree of protection". I would rule that hiding behind a sheet does not fit the above criteria and therefore no benefit for Cover is given in that situation.
Whether or not something like this causes the creature to be "Unseen" is another matter for another discussion and the decision for the best way to rule that is probably situational.
As for the rest of your post, I simply do not have the same interpretation of the Invalid Target rule as you do. However, if a poll were created for how to interpret and use that rule, I am guessing that we would see many varied opinions about that.
To me, the initial rules for targeting take precedence. Meaning:
Taken together, if we use the example of a PC attempting to cast Magic Missile on the locked door to try to break it down, in my opinion we should not rule that this is a spell that is cast at an Invalid Target. Instead, we should rule that the spellcaster simply cannot do that. The reason is because the Magic Missile spell description makes it clear that the spell targets creatures and the rule for spell targeting says that the spell description says what the spell targets.
In other words, the Magic Missile spell description establishes the rules for how to cast that spell. It defines a Range. It defines spell components. Likewise, it determines what can be targeted. You simply cannot target an object with the spell, just like you cannot target something that is outside of the Range. If you are gagged or are otherwise not able to be verbal for whatever reason, then you also cannot cast the spell in that case. These are all prerequisites that are determined by the spell's description.
Now, once the prerequisites are met and a creature is chosen as the target, then it might be possible for the particular creature that was chosen to be an Invalid Target once the spell has already been cast. This occurs "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by it". In this case, targeting has occurred within the bounds established by the spell description, the other various prerequisites for casting the spell have been met, and the action to cast the spell has been taken. It's just that the target that was legally chosen can't be affected by the spell.
In the case of the Magic Missile spell, a creature that is protected by the Shield spell is an "Invalid Target" for the Magic Missile spell. Meaning, it IS a target. The creature IS targeted. It just cannot be affected by the spell:
Shield:
Whereas, in the case of attempting to cast Magic Missile at a locked door -- that door was never actually targeted in the first place because you simply can't do that. The rules established by the spell description for the Magic Missile spell itself require that the target of the spell is a creature when the spell is cast. If you don't target a creature, then nothing is targeted, and the spell is not cast.
At some point we might see a Sage Advice entry on this topic if there isn't one already. Again, I'm sure that lots of people will have lots of interpretations about how to use the Invalid Targets rule. The interpretation that I've described is the one that makes sense and is how the rules are written.
Again, I'm sure that lots of people will have lots of interpretations about how to use the Invalid Targets rule. The interpretation that I've described is the one that makes sense and is how the rules are written.
What you describe is the equivalent of
i have a gun
i shoot my gun at a dude
There is bullet proof glass in between
So my gun decided by itself to dont shoot because i cant hit the dude im aiming to shoot, so why bother shooting even when i, the owner of the gun, decided to shoot anyway, because there is a glass bullet proof that i cant see and i dont know is there and my non-sentient gun decided that by itself
Another example is if a creature Ready an Action to run into a corridor to take cover if it sees an enemy casting a spell
next turn, an enemy cast dissintegrate on that creature
this triggers the 1st creature reaction and he moves into the corridor, becoming an invalid target since is now in total cover
the spell was casted since the reaction was triggered when the spell was casted (using the spellslot already), but the spell fails since cannot reach its target now, and a dm should rule that the corridor is hitted by the dissintegrate trying to reach the target and leave a hole on it since that's the spell description for objects hitted by the spell
change the corridor for wall of force there, the wall is hitted by dissintegrate, ergo, is destroyed completely
I don't think this is an appropriate reading of the Invalid Target rule. With this reading, my sorcerer can go through a dungeon attempting to cast magic missile on literally every inanimate object without fear of losing their spell slots. Then, when they do finally, successfully, cast it, they've found a mimic. It simply makes way more sense to read it as "a thing you thought you could target but actually can't".
In this situation, the sorcerer should lose a spell slot whether or not they were able to actually target the door in front of them. If nothing happens, great, it was just a door and I wasted a spell slot. I probably won't do that again unless I am quite certain that next door is actually a mimic.
Basically my example of the gun
The fact that there is a bulletproof glass that i cant see doesnt mean that my non-sentient gun just "decided" by itself to not shoot even when i am obviously shooting, the bullets will be used regardless of being "not useful" except for knowing that there is a bulletproof glass
also:
which means YOU CAN attempt to target something that is usually not a valid target, in this case, dissintegrate to a creature or object behind a wall of force, and by doing that, you do cast and "shoot" the spell towards that creature, except is not affected because there something in-between the spellcaster and the target, since the description of the rule says "the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target)" meaning the DM should allow the spell to be casted, used, and the Dissintegrate being used on the nearest point to the target, provocking the spell to touch the Wall of force and destroying it
And remember that anything not overwritten in 2024 rules can be used, so this addendum remains as RAW