RAW? Anything that stipulates "....that you can see..." should still work, I guess.
In my own games, I'd apply logic. For example, if the spell doesn't seem require a clear path, then it's fine. If it does, then it depends on how flimsy the glass is versus the power of the spell. If we're being crunchy, I might penalise the damage of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I guess the real question is, What spells COULDN'T you cast through glass?
Anything that requires you to touch the target, but other than that, I think everything else would work.
Just a thought...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty. Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers; Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas. Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
To target something, you must have a clear path to it
"
Attacking through glass, however, will depend on how the DM interprets the rules for cover. If a DM declares that the glass provides only half cover or three-quarters cover then you can attack through it. You also might be able to attack the glass itself to break it and then you can cast your spell through the opening.
Technically, total cover is provided as long as there is a physical barrier regardless of whether you can see through it and most spells are blocked by total cover.
This is one of those "the devs didn't think this through" things. They kinda forgot glass existed. So, RAW is kinda stupid here. The rules are based around typical dungeon and blasty spells. Non-physical spells being blocked by any object - even PAPER - is nonsensical.
Normal common sense logic would have your bolt of lightning or whatever be able to blast through 'fragile cover' and still hit the target, anything physical or with enough oomph should go through the glass. A window would, according to the DMG, have about 3 hit points and AC of 13. If the spell ignored AC or the attack roll was greater than 13 I'd let the spell go through, breaking the glass, and deduct the 3 hp from the spell's damage. I'd also ignore the total cover rule for spells that have no physical substance like minor illusion or whatever.
A few spells, mostly teleportation stuff and Sacred Flame (which specifically states it ignores cover), there's also Detect Thoughts and Raum's Psychic Lance, which can ignore cover too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Most spell should not be cast without A Clear Path to the Target such as glass granting total cover. A notable exception is Sacred Flame which specifically gains no benefit from cover.
Any thickness of glass constitutes “total cover.” So any spell that is blocked by total cover should work and any spell that is blocked by total cover would not.
Normal common sense logic would have your bolt of lightning or whatever be able to blast through 'fragile cover' and still hit the target, anything physical or with enough oomph should go through the glass.
. . .
I'd also ignore the total cover rule for spells that have no physical substance like minor illusion or whatever.
The clear path rule from the PHB Chapter 10 is a separate game concept and a different rule than the rules for Cover from the PHB Chapter 9. The clear path rule does reference total cover as an example, but it's a different idea.
The clear path rule has to do with spell targeting, not physically blocking the spell's effect. When you cast a spell, the spell has to actually "travel" from the spellcaster to the target before the effect is "unleashed" there -- at the target's location. Regardless of how the spell effect might be flavored, if a spell is unable to target the creature, object or point in space that you are attempting to target, then the spell cannot be cast on that target. The lightning bolt spell is not a good example here since that spell actually has a range of self, so it can never fail due to the clear path rule.
But this is also why you shouldn't ignore the clear path rule for spells which create physically unsubstantial effects such as minor illusion. It's not a question of if the effect itself is physically blocked -- it's a targeting issue. For example, if you are located outside of a locked room, you cannot create your minor illusion inside of that room. The reason is because you simply cannot target any points in space that are located inside of that room from where you are standing.
Most spell should not be cast without A Clear Path to the Target such as glass granting total cover. A notable exception is Sacred Flame which specifically gains no benefit from cover.
This is not actually true. Sacred Flame must still have a clear path to the target. The text in the Sacred Flame spell says this:
The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.
This is in reference to some specific rules for Cover such as:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.
and
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.
The rule for total cover doesn't make any reference to providing any benefits to Dexterity saving throws because spells cannot target anything that's behind total cover in the first place.
Just be sure to put a big enough soap bubble around yourself, and you'll be immune to almost all spell targeting, right?
This is true. It's a targeting issue, not a "how strong is the barrier" issue.
One of the most popular published 5e adventures sets up an environment in one location where monsters are fully behind a layer of foliage such that they cannot be seen, but the foliage is described as providing half-cover to those monsters in terms of protection, and the monsters are allowed to attack "through" that foliage as if they can see through it and without the Cover penalties in the other direction. Although the wording of a lot of the rules for Obscured Areas and Line of Sight and Clear Path and Cover make it seem like such a setup should not be possible, there is precedent that the game was designed and intended to have these rules interact with each other in ways like this.
In this above scenario, the PCs would not be able to cast spells on those monsters since there is no clear path to them for targeting, even though they are not behind total cover in terms of protection. I think that the "soap bubble" scenario is similar to that.
A few spells, mostly teleportation stuff and Sacred Flame (which specifically states it ignores cover), there's also Detect Thoughts and Raum's Psychic Lance, which can ignore cover too.
Detect Thoughts is another spell that has a range of self and so will never fail due to the clear path rule.
In the case of Raulothim's Psychic Lance, it's unclear if the clear path rule is actually overridden or not -- I would rule that it still applies:
you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it.
Remember, the Clear Path rule is not the same rule as the Line of Sight rule or the various general rules which dictate whether or not you can see something. The Clear Path rule has to do with spell targeting, and this above spell text does not necessarily override that requirement -- it might just eliminate the need to see the target, which is a separate concept.
In the case of spells such as Teleport, remember that the destination of the teleportation is not actually the target of the spell. Teleport actually targets yourself and up to 8 willing creatures that you can see within a range of 10 feet. If for some reason you do not have a clear path to one or more of these creatures then those creatures cannot be targeted.
Obviously the Devs must view A Clear Path to the Target as a benefit of total cover Jeremy Crawford during a Sage Advice Podcast (36:20) said sacred flame is one of the few spells that allows you to target somebody even if they're behind total cover if you can see it.
Yeah, he was incorrect on that. The wording for Sacred Flame is clearly providing a specific rule for how the target's saving throw is calculated, nothing more.
Total Cover: 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.
Total Cover: 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.
A pane of clear glass doesn't conceal the stuff behind it.
Total Cover: 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.
Sure but total cover affects the targeting of spells, it has no stated effect on saving throws. Don't get me wrong, I know that it is a popular interpretation of the spell and that Crawford has said multiple times that Sacred Flame works even against a target that has total cover. If that is their intention it would be helpful if they made an errata to the spell.
[...] One of the most popular published 5e adventures sets up an environment in one location where monsters are fully behind a layer of foliage such that they cannot be seen, but the foliage is described as providing half-cover to those monsters in terms of protection, and the monsters are allowed to attack "through" that foliage as if they can see through it and without the Cover penalties in the other direction. Although the wording of a lot of the rules for Obscured Areas and Line of Sight and Clear Path and Cover make it seem like such a setup should not be possible, there is precedent that the game was designed and intended to have these rules interact with each other in ways like this.
In this above scenario, the PCs would not be able to cast spells on those monsters since there is no clear path to them for targeting, even though they are not behind total cover in terms of protection. I think that the "soap bubble" scenario is similar to that. [...]
Maybe I'm not understanding the example, but why can't the PCs target the monsters or a point in that area? Assuming the spell does not need line of sight because, as you explained, the monsters cannot be seen.
You mentioned there is not total cover, and the rule "A Clear Path to the Target" states (emphasis mine):
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Obviously the Devs must view A Clear Path to the Target as a benefit of total cover Jeremy Crawford during a Sage Advice Podcast (36:20) said sacred flame is one of the few spells that allows you to target somebody even if they're behind total cover if you can see it.
We have some highlights from this Reddit post. I will copy&paste the relevant part here:
5e has a slimmer definition of 'target' when compared to 4e. Target means, in game, what it means in english. ("If the rules do not specifically add or change the meaning in a significant way, the word means what it means in regular idiomatic English"). So target means: someone or something is chosen to be affected by the ability.
You always need a clear path to target a creature with a spell. A creature behind total cover cannot be targeted. But, you don't necessarily need to be able to see them, just that the travel path is clear such as a thick fog (unless the spell specifies that you need you see the target). The example of a glass window is brought up: no you cannot target something through glass, even if you can see them; the glass provides total cover.
There are spells that create exceptions to the above: such as Sacred Flame, which specifies that it gains no benefit from cover for the saving throw(such as from half, or 3/4 cover), but also that total cover does not protect them. So in example, Sacred Flame CAN target someone through a clear window, but not through a thick fog.
I don't know if I agree with that Reddit post. Speaking specifically for 5e, there are two kinds of implied targets for a spell, even though both types are simply referred to as "target." There is the "casting target" (put in quotes since it is a descriptive term rather than a defined term), which is indicated by the rules for a spell's range, as well as the rule about a clear path to the target. And then there is the "spell effect target", which refers to any creature or object that is attacked by, makes a saving throw due to, or is affected in some way by the effect of a spell that has been cast (see fireball).
Maybe I'm not understanding the example, but why can't the PCs target the monsters or a point in that area? Assuming the spell does not need line of sight because, as you explained, the monsters cannot be seen.
You mentioned there is not total cover, and the rule "A Clear Path to the Target" states (emphasis mine):
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
The clear path rule is not limited only to obstacles and effects that provide total cover. This is given as one example, not as an exhaustive list. The clear path rule requires a clear path to the target, which cannot be interrupted by anything such as, but not limited to, obstacles and effects that provide total cover.
In the adventure that I mentioned, monsters are located completely behind a thin layer of foliage such that no portion of the monster can be seen, but the adventure explicitly declares that this foliage only provides half-cover to these monsters. So, in this case, there is no clear path to the target even though the target is not behind total cover. Therefore, you can shoot at these monsters with a longbow, but you cannot target them with any spells.
The point is that the clear path rule is its own rule and its own concept that is separate from the rules for Obscured areas, and for Line of Sight, and for Cover. All 4 of these rules have similarities and use a lot of similar wording, yet they are all different and they all have their own purpose. The purpose of the clear path rule is specifically related to being able to target something with a spell. It's as if you are required to "mark" your target with a laser pointer, which "tells" your spell where the target is prior to the spell actually being cast. If you are unable to see the little red dot from your laser pointer on your target then you cannot target that person, place or thing.
This differentiation is important because there might exist all sorts of objects and effects in the environment that the DM declares do not actually provide total cover, since they are not "sturdy" enough to be considered "obstacles" (this is one potential interpretation of the rules for Cover). Items such as flags or banners or underwear hanging on a clothesline, or effects such as fog or a hail storm -- such things might not provide cover even if a creature could position themselves behind such things. But some of these things might still interrupt the clear path to the target for the purposes of spellcasting. A very thin pane of glass might be one such object according to some DMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the presumption that the glass was clear, what could you attack or affect through a glass barrier?
Window thickness? Probably break the glass and still hit.
What about a foot thick? Or more?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
RAW? Anything that stipulates "....that you can see..." should still work, I guess.
In my own games, I'd apply logic. For example, if the spell doesn't seem require a clear path, then it's fine. If it does, then it depends on how flimsy the glass is versus the power of the spell. If we're being crunchy, I might penalise the damage of the spell.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Greetings Wysperra,
I guess the real question is, What spells COULDN'T you cast through glass?
Anything that requires you to touch the target, but other than that, I think everything else would work.
Just a thought...
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty.
Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers;
Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas.
Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
Spells cannot be cast through glass:
"
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it
"
Attacking through glass, however, will depend on how the DM interprets the rules for cover. If a DM declares that the glass provides only half cover or three-quarters cover then you can attack through it. You also might be able to attack the glass itself to break it and then you can cast your spell through the opening.
Technically, total cover is provided as long as there is a physical barrier regardless of whether you can see through it and most spells are blocked by total cover.
This is one of those "the devs didn't think this through" things. They kinda forgot glass existed. So, RAW is kinda stupid here. The rules are based around typical dungeon and blasty spells. Non-physical spells being blocked by any object - even PAPER - is nonsensical.
Normal common sense logic would have your bolt of lightning or whatever be able to blast through 'fragile cover' and still hit the target, anything physical or with enough oomph should go through the glass. A window would, according to the DMG, have about 3 hit points and AC of 13. If the spell ignored AC or the attack roll was greater than 13 I'd let the spell go through, breaking the glass, and deduct the 3 hp from the spell's damage. I'd also ignore the total cover rule for spells that have no physical substance like minor illusion or whatever.
A few spells, mostly teleportation stuff and Sacred Flame (which specifically states it ignores cover), there's also Detect Thoughts and Raum's Psychic Lance, which can ignore cover too.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Most spell should not be cast without A Clear Path to the Target such as glass granting total cover. A notable exception is Sacred Flame which specifically gains no benefit from cover.
Any thickness of glass constitutes “total cover.” So any spell that is blocked by total cover should work and any spell that is blocked by total cover would not.
Just be sure to put a big enough soap bubble around yourself, and you'll be immune to almost all spell targeting, right?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The clear path rule from the PHB Chapter 10 is a separate game concept and a different rule than the rules for Cover from the PHB Chapter 9. The clear path rule does reference total cover as an example, but it's a different idea.
The clear path rule has to do with spell targeting, not physically blocking the spell's effect. When you cast a spell, the spell has to actually "travel" from the spellcaster to the target before the effect is "unleashed" there -- at the target's location. Regardless of how the spell effect might be flavored, if a spell is unable to target the creature, object or point in space that you are attempting to target, then the spell cannot be cast on that target. The lightning bolt spell is not a good example here since that spell actually has a range of self, so it can never fail due to the clear path rule.
But this is also why you shouldn't ignore the clear path rule for spells which create physically unsubstantial effects such as minor illusion. It's not a question of if the effect itself is physically blocked -- it's a targeting issue. For example, if you are located outside of a locked room, you cannot create your minor illusion inside of that room. The reason is because you simply cannot target any points in space that are located inside of that room from where you are standing.
This is not actually true. Sacred Flame must still have a clear path to the target. The text in the Sacred Flame spell says this:
This is in reference to some specific rules for Cover such as:
and
The rule for total cover doesn't make any reference to providing any benefits to Dexterity saving throws because spells cannot target anything that's behind total cover in the first place.
This is true. It's a targeting issue, not a "how strong is the barrier" issue.
One of the most popular published 5e adventures sets up an environment in one location where monsters are fully behind a layer of foliage such that they cannot be seen, but the foliage is described as providing half-cover to those monsters in terms of protection, and the monsters are allowed to attack "through" that foliage as if they can see through it and without the Cover penalties in the other direction. Although the wording of a lot of the rules for Obscured Areas and Line of Sight and Clear Path and Cover make it seem like such a setup should not be possible, there is precedent that the game was designed and intended to have these rules interact with each other in ways like this.
In this above scenario, the PCs would not be able to cast spells on those monsters since there is no clear path to them for targeting, even though they are not behind total cover in terms of protection. I think that the "soap bubble" scenario is similar to that.
Detect Thoughts is another spell that has a range of self and so will never fail due to the clear path rule.
In the case of Raulothim's Psychic Lance, it's unclear if the clear path rule is actually overridden or not -- I would rule that it still applies:
Remember, the Clear Path rule is not the same rule as the Line of Sight rule or the various general rules which dictate whether or not you can see something. The Clear Path rule has to do with spell targeting, and this above spell text does not necessarily override that requirement -- it might just eliminate the need to see the target, which is a separate concept.
In the case of spells such as Teleport, remember that the destination of the teleportation is not actually the target of the spell. Teleport actually targets yourself and up to 8 willing creatures that you can see within a range of 10 feet. If for some reason you do not have a clear path to one or more of these creatures then those creatures cannot be targeted.
Obviously the Devs must view A Clear Path to the Target as a benefit of total cover Jeremy Crawford during a Sage Advice Podcast (36:20) said sacred flame is one of the few spells that allows you to target somebody even if they're behind total cover if you can see it.
Yeah, he was incorrect on that. The wording for Sacred Flame is clearly providing a specific rule for how the target's saving throw is calculated, nothing more.
The benefit of cover include total cover:
But glass is clear.
I'm probably laughing.
A pane of clear glass doesn't conceal the stuff behind it.
I'm probably laughing.
Sure but total cover affects the targeting of spells, it has no stated effect on saving throws. Don't get me wrong, I know that it is a popular interpretation of the spell and that Crawford has said multiple times that Sacred Flame works even against a target that has total cover. If that is their intention it would be helpful if they made an errata to the spell.
In this context, "clear path" does not mean a path that is see-through; it means a path that is physically uninterrupted.
Maybe I'm not understanding the example, but why can't the PCs target the monsters or a point in that area? Assuming the spell does not need line of sight because, as you explained, the monsters cannot be seen.
You mentioned there is not total cover, and the rule "A Clear Path to the Target" states (emphasis mine):
We have some highlights from this Reddit post. I will copy&paste the relevant part here:
I don't know if I agree with that Reddit post. Speaking specifically for 5e, there are two kinds of implied targets for a spell, even though both types are simply referred to as "target." There is the "casting target" (put in quotes since it is a descriptive term rather than a defined term), which is indicated by the rules for a spell's range, as well as the rule about a clear path to the target. And then there is the "spell effect target", which refers to any creature or object that is attacked by, makes a saving throw due to, or is affected in some way by the effect of a spell that has been cast (see fireball).
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The clear path rule is not limited only to obstacles and effects that provide total cover. This is given as one example, not as an exhaustive list. The clear path rule requires a clear path to the target, which cannot be interrupted by anything such as, but not limited to, obstacles and effects that provide total cover.
In the adventure that I mentioned, monsters are located completely behind a thin layer of foliage such that no portion of the monster can be seen, but the adventure explicitly declares that this foliage only provides half-cover to these monsters. So, in this case, there is no clear path to the target even though the target is not behind total cover. Therefore, you can shoot at these monsters with a longbow, but you cannot target them with any spells.
The point is that the clear path rule is its own rule and its own concept that is separate from the rules for Obscured areas, and for Line of Sight, and for Cover. All 4 of these rules have similarities and use a lot of similar wording, yet they are all different and they all have their own purpose. The purpose of the clear path rule is specifically related to being able to target something with a spell. It's as if you are required to "mark" your target with a laser pointer, which "tells" your spell where the target is prior to the spell actually being cast. If you are unable to see the little red dot from your laser pointer on your target then you cannot target that person, place or thing.
This differentiation is important because there might exist all sorts of objects and effects in the environment that the DM declares do not actually provide total cover, since they are not "sturdy" enough to be considered "obstacles" (this is one potential interpretation of the rules for Cover). Items such as flags or banners or underwear hanging on a clothesline, or effects such as fog or a hail storm -- such things might not provide cover even if a creature could position themselves behind such things. But some of these things might still interrupt the clear path to the target for the purposes of spellcasting. A very thin pane of glass might be one such object according to some DMs.