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.
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.
But Sacred Flame doesn't say the target gains no benefit from cover to his saving throw. It says the target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.
So for this saving throw, the target gains no benefit from cover as described in half cover, three-quarters cover and total cover and which include among other things that you can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell.
At least that is the popular interpretation as you said, shared by Devs and to this date received no errata to better clarify wording.
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.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with you then.
It doesn't make sense that you can shoot an arrow but not Guiding Bolt, for example. Both are ranged attacks in this case, and if an arrow has a path to its destination, then the the spell should as well. Similarly, the monsters should also be able to target the characters with a spell or weapon, whether ranged or not.
Consider this: if I move within 5 feet of those monsters in that foliage scenario, are you saying I cannot cast Shocking Grasp on one of them?
In that scenario, you need to apply the Half Cover penalties, that's all: "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws"
Anything not total cover that block vision entirely, such as heavily obscured areas, doesn't prevent attacks or effects unless specifically saying it must be against a target that you can see.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with you then.
It doesn't make sense that you can shoot an arrow but not Guiding Bolt, for example. Both are ranged attacks in this case, and if an arrow has a path to its destination, then the the spell should as well. Similarly, the monsters should also be able to target the characters with a spell or weapon, whether ranged or not.
No, one of these is a weapon attack and one is a spell attack and these play by different rules. Not so much for the attack itself, but for the targeting. Shooting an arrow straight through a thin layer of foliage that provides half-cover is allowed since you are not required to have a clear path to your target in that case. For a weapon attack, the target just cannot be behind total cover. In the case of casting any spell, the spellcasting rules require that you have a clear path to the target of your spell.
Despite how Guiding Bolt might be flavored, there is an aspect of being able to cast the spell at all that requires you to target a creature -- this is separate from actually attacking that creature, which occurs during the spell's effect (after the creature has been targeted and the spell has been cast).
Consider this: if I move within 5 feet of those monsters in that foliage scenario, are you saying I cannot cast Shocking Grasp on one of them?
In that scenario, you need to apply the Half Cover penalties, that's all: "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws"
This would have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis by the DM to determine exactly what might or might not be blocking your clear path to the target. But in general, yes, if there is some reason why you cannot reach out and touch the creature with your Shocking Grasp because you don't have a clear path to your target then you cannot cast this spell on that creature, even if you could stab that creature with only a half-cover penalty.
Another interpretation might be that Touch range does not actually require a clear path, just like spells with a range of self should not require it -- since there is not actually any physical space between the spellcaster and the target of the spell that he touches. But even then, you still need to be able to touch your target. If you are 5 feet apart and there is a large brick wall between you then you cannot target that creature, even though he is within Touch range. Logically, I think that this concept should extend to any conceivable scenario where that target is not actually behind total cover, but you still cannot touch it for whatever reason.
It's understandable to feel that way, but that's not an accurate reading of the clear path rule:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
. . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Total cover is not meant to be an exhaustive list of one. The wording here is deliberately listing an example of one consequence of requiring a clear path. If only total cover matters for this rule, then the entire section would have been written more like this:
"
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below). A target of the spell cannot be behind total cover.
"
and that's it, with no mention of a "clear path" rule at all.
The clear path rule has a lot more in common with the rule and concept of Line of Sight than it does with Total Cover, which is a rule about physical obstacles that can provide defensive protection.
But Sacred Flame doesn't say the target gains no benefit from cover to his saving throw. It says the target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.
So for this saving throw, the target gains no benefit from cover as described in half cover, three-quarters cover and total cover and which include among other things that you can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell.
At least that is the popular interpretation as you said, shared by Devs and to this date received no errata to better clarify wording.
I have seen this argued both ways, and I don't think either is definitively wrong, per RAW. For me, in the potential conflict/ambiguity of RAW in this case, we can look to RAI (already mentioned above) for guidance on how to interpret RAW. In this case, I'm satisfied that allowing sacred flame to target without a clear path doesn't conflict with RAW and conforms to RAI. If I was playing a game and the DM interpreted RAW as no, I would be fine with that too.
I think a rule just needs to tell me what something does. It does not need to be so ironclad that there is no way under any circumstances to call it into question.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
It's correct that these are all separate rules as I've pointed out a few times now. Obscured Areas, Clear Path, Line of Sight, and Cover are 4 different rules which describe and explain 4 different game concepts. The Clear Path rule is not the rule for Cover. These are two different things.
I felt that it was worth mentioning that there is some similarity between the concepts of Clear Path and Line of Sight since these are both basically rules that require that you can draw a straight, uninterrupted line between two things. However, the list of particular objects and effects which block Line of Sight might be different than the list of particular objects and effects which interrupt your Clear Path for spellcasting targeting. Both of these lists might be different than the list of objects which can sufficiently qualify as "obstacles" to provide defensive cover.
In all 4 cases for each of these 4 separate rules, the list of objects and effects that are given as examples within the description of those rules are not exhaustive -- they are just examples. Ultimately, it is up to the DM to determine whether or not a particular object or effect in their game qualifies for the Obscured Areas rule and/or the Clear Path rule and/or the Line of Sight rule and/or the Total Cover rule.
Yes, this is an example of a feature in the environment which creates a Heavily Obscured area and it blocks the Clear Path since the monsters are located fully behind the thickets, but it explicitly only blocks Line of Sight in one direction (since the goblins within this area can see and attack out of it) and it does not provide Total Cover. In fact, in this case, the adventure explicitly states that the monsters get half-cover, but when they shoot at the PCs "through" or "out of" the thickets, no such penalty is mentioned -- this "one-sidedness" is also different than how a lot of people make rulings about Cover.
The point of this example is to illustrate that it is possible for a feature of the environment to block the clear path without actually providing Total Cover. In my opinion, a very thin glass barrier is another example of this. I would rule that such glass does not qualify as enough of an "obstacle" for Total Cover for defensive purposes, but it clearly would block your Clear Path for spellcasting.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
Whether it is transparent or not is not irrelevant.
If you can see through it, it cant be total cover. Because total cover isn't just an obstacle. It is an obstacle that conceals the target. A pane of transparent glass doesn't conceal anything.
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, this is an example of a feature in the environment which creates a Heavily Obscured area and it blocks the Clear Path since the monsters are located fully behind the thickets, but it explicitly only blocks Line of Sight in one direction (since the goblins within this area can see and attack out of it) and it does not provide Total Cover. In fact, in this case, the adventure explicitly states that the monsters get half-cover, but when they shoot at the PCs "through" or "out of" the thickets, no such penalty is mentioned -- this "one-sidedness" is also different than how a lot of people make rulings about Cover.
The point of this example is to illustrate that it is possible for a feature of the environment to block the clear path without actually providing Total Cover. In my opinion, a very thin glass barrier is another example of this. I would rule that such glass does not qualify as enough of an "obstacle" for Total Cover for defensive purposes, but it clearly would block your Clear Path for spellcasting.
This encounter doesn't make any reference to heavily obscured area specifically. The only rule element referenced is half cover .
I felt that it was worth mentioning that there is some similarity between the concepts of Clear Path and Line of Sight since these are both basically rules that require that you can draw a straight, uninterrupted line between two things.
In grid play, these two are distinct seperate things in the DMG and are not traced exactly the same though;
Line of Sight
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
Cover
To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.
On hexes, use the same procedure as a grid, drawing lines between the corners of the hexagons. The target has half cover if up to three lines are blocked by an obstacle, and three-quarters cover if four or more lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
Whether it is transparent or not is not irrelevant.
If you can see through it, it cant be total cover. Because total cover isn't just an obstacle. It is an obstacle that conceals the target. A pane of transparent glass doesn't conceal anything.
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
To me concealed in this case is synonym to covered, not hidden.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
Whether it is transparent or not is not irrelevant.
If you can see through it, it cant be total cover. Because total cover isn't just an obstacle. It is an obstacle that conceals the target. A pane of transparent glass doesn't conceal anything.
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
To me concealed in this case is synonym to covered, not hidden.
The book has a whole bit talking about concealment and what being concealed means.
Edit: I REALLY hope this is one of those areas they fixed in the 2024 books.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
It's correct that these are all separate rules as I've pointed out a few times now. Obscured Areas, Clear Path, Line of Sight, and Cover are 4 different rules which describe and explain 4 different game concepts. The Clear Path rule is not the rule for Cover. These are two different things.
I felt that it was worth mentioning that there is some similarity between the concepts of Clear Path and Line of Sight since these are both basically rules that require that you can draw a straight, uninterrupted line between two things. However, the list of particular objects and effects which block Line of Sight might be different than the list of particular objects and effects which interrupt your Clear Path for spellcasting targeting. Both of these lists might be different than the list of objects which can sufficiently qualify as "obstacles" to provide defensive cover.
In all 4 cases for each of these 4 separate rules, the list of objects and effects that are given as examples within the description of those rules are not exhaustive -- they are just examples. Ultimately, it is up to the DM to determine whether or not a particular object or effect in their game qualifies for the Obscured Areas rule and/or the Clear Path rule and/or the Line of Sight rule and/or the Total Cover rule.
Yes, this is an example of a feature in the environment which creates a Heavily Obscured area and it blocks the Clear Path since the monsters are located fully behind the thickets, but it explicitly only blocks Line of Sight in one direction (since the goblins within this area can see and attack out of it) and it does not provide Total Cover. In fact, in this case, the adventure explicitly states that the monsters get half-cover, but when they shoot at the PCs "through" or "out of" the thickets, no such penalty is mentioned -- this "one-sidedness" is also different than how a lot of people make rulings about Cover.
The point of this example is to illustrate that it is possible for a feature of the environment to block the clear path without actually providing Total Cover. In my opinion, a very thin glass barrier is another example of this. I would rule that such glass does not qualify as enough of an "obstacle" for Total Cover for defensive purposes, but it clearly would block your Clear Path for spellcasting.
A strict application of the vision rules is always going to result in unintuitive results like this.
Technically speaking, if you applied RAW vision rules, you can see OUT of heavy obscured areas just fine. It is only when trying to see something IN them that you have problems. Regardless where you are.
And, that includes darkness, fog, and foliage, etc. Somehow these things, despite what your intuition about how it should work... somehow all have identical mechanics, raw.
So if you're standing in the middle of a fogbank, you can see anything outside of said fogbank just fine. Somehow. Same for standing in a large shrubbery. But anyone trying to see you inside these areas can't because the area is obscured, and you're in the area.
Our intuition rejects this most the time because that's not how actual irl vision works, and it is WILD that the basic rules can't even get something so fundamental as vision right. But, they say what they say.
Ironically, these obscured areas do make some sense when you are dealing with light. Just not when in fog or foliage or etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Consider this: if I move within 5 feet of those monsters in that foliage scenario, are you saying I cannot cast Shocking Grasp on one of them?
In that scenario, you need to apply the Half Cover penalties, that's all: "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws"
This would have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis by the DM to determine exactly what might or might not be blocking your clear path to the target. But in general, yes, if there is some reason why you cannot reach out and touch the creature with your Shocking Grasp because you don't have a clear path to your target then you cannot cast this spell on that creature, even if you could stab that creature with only a half-cover penalty.
RAW, the DM doesn't need to adjudicate anything, because the answer to my question is in the books: "yes, you can cast Shocking Grasp because the monsters are not behind total cover".
It's understandable to feel that way, but that's not an accurate reading of the clear path rule:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
. . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Total cover is not meant to be an exhaustive list of one. The wording here is deliberately listing an example of one consequence of requiring a clear path. If only total cover matters for this rule, then the entire section would have been written more like this:
"
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below). A target of the spell cannot be behind total cover.
"
and that's it, with no mention of a "clear path" rule at all.
[...]
Your idea is dangerous because, if you do that, you minimize the importance of the entire rule. This rule has its own dedicated paragraph.
A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
And no, the sentence "so it can't be behind total cover" is neither just an example nor one of many cases; it is the only case to consider: total cover.
Anyway, no problem, @up2ng. We understand the rules differently.
If you ignore the fact that heavily obscured areas block vision entirely you will have different result than what RAW says.
See that's the rub. Even if you think that means you can't see through an area of heavy obscurement to the other side of it that isn't obscured... that equally goes against our intuition for how vision actually works.
Because that means you can't see stars in the night. Because the area of heavy obscurement blocks all sight. Right?
The fact the rules for vision treats darkness, fog, and foliage identically always results in bizarre results, no matter how you rule it. Unless you deviate from the rules and treat them differently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you ignore the fact that heavily obscured areas block vision entirely you will have different result than what RAW says.
See that's the rub. Even if you think that means you can't see through an area of heavy obscurement to the other side of it that isn't obscured... that equally goes against our intuition for how vision actually works.
Because that means you can't see stars in the night. Because the area of heavy obscurement blocks all sight. Right?
The fact the rules for vision treats darkness, fog, and foliage identically always results in bizarre results, no matter how you rule it. Unless you deviate from the rules and treat them differently.
While not official ruling, for those interested the Devs have also confirmed this in the past on X
@DerynDraconis Is a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell?
@JeremyECrawford A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD
Here are some additional answers addressing how total cover and clear path must be considered together as a whole. I'd like to add them here:
@Dan_Dillon_1 Targeting spells/clear path: "Unoccupied space you can see" Does this imply targeting? Conjure fey across Wall of Force? @JeremyECrawford Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't cast it at someone or something behind total cover.
@DnDSphinx your Dragon Talk podcast on targeting--very cool. Question: Do creatures block a 'clear path' for fireball? @JeremyECrawford Creatures don't provide total cover. @Cybren why not @JeremyECrawford Take a look at the rules on cover (PH, 196). A creature provides half cover. @Cybren wouldn't this be contingent on relative sizes of covering/covered? @JeremyECrawford Notice that the rule doesn't mention creature size. A creature's space isn't completely filled (space between limbs etc).
If you can see through it, it cant be total cover. Because total cover isn't just an obstacle. It is an obstacle that conceals the target. A pane of transparent glass doesn't conceal anything.
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
I also don't view the term "concealed" in this way in this context -- I believe that it has more to do with providing physical protection than providing a way to be unseen.
However, in my opinion, the term "obstacle" is important as it is used in several places throughout all of the rules for cover, and I believe that it is ultimately up to the DM to decide which objects qualify as a physical obstacle on a case-by-case basis.
For example, if a monster simply walks around with a large sheet draped over him so that it covers his entire body, I would not rule that this provides the creature with any cover -- but it does break Line of Sight in both directions and it would also interrupt the Clear Path in both directions as well, as annoying as that is. It probably creates a heavily obscured area underneath of it as well.
This encounter doesn't make any reference to heavily obscured area specifically. The only rule element referenced is half cover .
It's possible that I don't have all of the details of this encounter from the LMoP adventure exactly correct. Perhaps these thickets are only Lightly Obscured or not obscured at all. The adventure does make it very clear, however, that the goblins cannot be seen from the west, and something causes that. Perhaps it's just a Line of Sight issue.
Regardless of the exact manner in which the adventure intends for all of these rules to be applied, let's please not lose sight of the entire reason why this example was brought up: It's an illustration that it is possible that there can exist a feature in the environment that interrupts a Clear Path to a target even if that target is not behind total cover. That was the main point. Discussing the details of that encounter any deeper just begins to stray off-topic here.
A strict application of the vision rules is always going to result in unintuitive results like this.
Technically speaking, if you applied RAW vision rules, you can see OUT of heavy obscured areas just fine. It is only when trying to see something IN them that you have problems. Regardless where you are.
And, that includes darkness, fog, and foliage, etc. Somehow these things, despite what your intuition about how it should work... somehow all have identical mechanics, raw.
So if you're standing in the middle of a fogbank, you can see anything outside of said fogbank just fine. Somehow. Same for standing in a large shrubbery. But anyone trying to see you inside these areas can't because the area is obscured, and you're in the area.
Our intuition rejects this most the time because that's not how actual irl vision works, and it is WILD that the basic rules can't even get something so fundamental as vision right. But, they say what they say.
Ironically, these obscured areas do make some sense when you are dealing with light. Just not when in fog or foliage or etc.
This is all absolutely correct and it's amazing how many people argued with me on this when I have made this exact same point in the past. This IS the rule for Heavily Obscured Areas.
However, the thing that we also need to remember is that there is more than one rule. In addition to the rule for Heavily Obscured Areas there is also a rule about Line of Sight. This is how the game actually differentiates between Heavily Obscured Areas that are created by Darkness from the Heavily Obscured Areas that are caused by environments such as fog and foliage. In the rule for Line of Sight, darkness is not actually listed as an example. That's because darkness does not and should not actually block Line of Sight, even though it can create a Heavily Obscured Area.
If you ignore the fact that heavily obscured areas block vision entirely you will have different result than what RAW says.
No. The entire rule for Heavily Obscured Areas makes it clear that the statement about blocking vision entirely only applies when trying to see something in that area. If we only read a portion of a rule we might end up with the wrong meaning.
RAW, the DM doesn't need to adjudicate anything, because the answer to my question is in the books: "yes, you can cast Shocking Grasp because the monsters are not behind total cover".
This statement makes no sense. The books do not say anything like this when it comes to the Shocking Grasp spell.
Depending on exactly what is in your way, the DM must adjudicate whether or not it creates an Obscured Area, and/or whether it interrupts your Clear Path, and/or whether it blocks your Line of Sight, and/or whether it provides Total Cover. Unless the environmental feature in question happens to be one of the examples listed in one of these rules, there is no other way to determine these things other than DM adjudication.
A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
And no, the sentence "so it can't be behind total cover" is neither just an example nor one of many cases; it is the only case to consider: total cover.
That interpretation is straight-up wrong. That's simply not what it says.
We need to pay attention to the wording of how the entire rule is written rather than just trying to key in on only one or two key words that seem like they might be important -- otherwise, we can easily miss what the rule actually says.
The rule says this:
"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."
Some other ways that this could be written while maintaining the same meaning:
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Therefore, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Because of this, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. As a consequence of this, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. For example, the target can't be behind total cover.
What this rule does NOT say:
-- Unless the target is behind total cover it can be targeted.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Only total cover interrupts your clear path to the target.
-- You can target something as long as it's not behind total cover.
Just take a step back and review how the rule is worded. In this case this is very important in order to arrive at the correct interpretation.
Here are some additional answers addressing how total cover and clear path must be considered together as a whole. I'd like to add them here:
@Dan_Dillon_1 Targeting spells/clear path: "Unoccupied space you can see" Does this imply targeting? Conjure fey across Wall of Force? @JeremyECrawford Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't cast it at someone or something behind total cover.
You continue to miss the correct logic here. Just because a rule makes it clear that you can't cast a spell at someone or something behind total cover (as confirmed by JC) does NOT mean that total cover is the ONLY thing that can interrupt your clear path for spell targeting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Got some interesting propositions there.
I thought the clear comment was funny though.
"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
But Sacred Flame doesn't say the target gains no benefit from cover to his saving throw. It says the target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.
So for this saving throw, the target gains no benefit from cover as described in half cover, three-quarters cover and total cover and which include among other things that you can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell.
At least that is the popular interpretation as you said, shared by Devs and to this date received no errata to better clarify wording.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with you then.
It doesn't make sense that you can shoot an arrow but not Guiding Bolt, for example. Both are ranged attacks in this case, and if an arrow has a path to its destination, then the the spell should as well. Similarly, the monsters should also be able to target the characters with a spell or weapon, whether ranged or not.
Consider this: if I move within 5 feet of those monsters in that foliage scenario, are you saying I cannot cast Shocking Grasp on one of them?
In that scenario, you need to apply the Half Cover penalties, that's all: "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws"
Basically, for me, a Clear Path to the Target and Cover rules are intimately related.
Anything not total cover that block vision entirely, such as heavily obscured areas, doesn't prevent attacks or effects unless specifically saying it must be against a target that you can see.
No, one of these is a weapon attack and one is a spell attack and these play by different rules. Not so much for the attack itself, but for the targeting. Shooting an arrow straight through a thin layer of foliage that provides half-cover is allowed since you are not required to have a clear path to your target in that case. For a weapon attack, the target just cannot be behind total cover. In the case of casting any spell, the spellcasting rules require that you have a clear path to the target of your spell.
Despite how Guiding Bolt might be flavored, there is an aspect of being able to cast the spell at all that requires you to target a creature -- this is separate from actually attacking that creature, which occurs during the spell's effect (after the creature has been targeted and the spell has been cast).
This would have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis by the DM to determine exactly what might or might not be blocking your clear path to the target. But in general, yes, if there is some reason why you cannot reach out and touch the creature with your Shocking Grasp because you don't have a clear path to your target then you cannot cast this spell on that creature, even if you could stab that creature with only a half-cover penalty.
Another interpretation might be that Touch range does not actually require a clear path, just like spells with a range of self should not require it -- since there is not actually any physical space between the spellcaster and the target of the spell that he touches. But even then, you still need to be able to touch your target. If you are 5 feet apart and there is a large brick wall between you then you cannot target that creature, even though he is within Touch range. Logically, I think that this concept should extend to any conceivable scenario where that target is not actually behind total cover, but you still cannot touch it for whatever reason.
It's understandable to feel that way, but that's not an accurate reading of the clear path rule:
Total cover is not meant to be an exhaustive list of one. The wording here is deliberately listing an example of one consequence of requiring a clear path. If only total cover matters for this rule, then the entire section would have been written more like this:
"
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below). A target of the spell cannot be behind total cover.
"
and that's it, with no mention of a "clear path" rule at all.
The clear path rule has a lot more in common with the rule and concept of Line of Sight than it does with Total Cover, which is a rule about physical obstacles that can provide defensive protection.
I have seen this argued both ways, and I don't think either is definitively wrong, per RAW. For me, in the potential conflict/ambiguity of RAW in this case, we can look to RAI (already mentioned above) for guidance on how to interpret RAW. In this case, I'm satisfied that allowing sacred flame to target without a clear path doesn't conflict with RAW and conforms to RAI. If I was playing a game and the DM interpreted RAW as no, I would be fine with that too.
I think a rule just needs to tell me what something does. It does not need to be so ironclad that there is no way under any circumstances to call it into question.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A Clear Path to the Target has nothing to do with light of sight, it's about obstruction, which directly refers to total cover. Wether it is transparent or opaque is irrelevant. Other things can also prevent targeting creatures with spells and attacks indeed, such as a Wall of Force for example.
The Goblin Arrows - Lost Mine of Phandelver encounter with thickets that grant half cover doesn't say it prevent targeting with spells or attacks, it even specifically say they attack through.
It's correct that these are all separate rules as I've pointed out a few times now. Obscured Areas, Clear Path, Line of Sight, and Cover are 4 different rules which describe and explain 4 different game concepts. The Clear Path rule is not the rule for Cover. These are two different things.
I felt that it was worth mentioning that there is some similarity between the concepts of Clear Path and Line of Sight since these are both basically rules that require that you can draw a straight, uninterrupted line between two things. However, the list of particular objects and effects which block Line of Sight might be different than the list of particular objects and effects which interrupt your Clear Path for spellcasting targeting. Both of these lists might be different than the list of objects which can sufficiently qualify as "obstacles" to provide defensive cover.
In all 4 cases for each of these 4 separate rules, the list of objects and effects that are given as examples within the description of those rules are not exhaustive -- they are just examples. Ultimately, it is up to the DM to determine whether or not a particular object or effect in their game qualifies for the Obscured Areas rule and/or the Clear Path rule and/or the Line of Sight rule and/or the Total Cover rule.
Yes, this is an example of a feature in the environment which creates a Heavily Obscured area and it blocks the Clear Path since the monsters are located fully behind the thickets, but it explicitly only blocks Line of Sight in one direction (since the goblins within this area can see and attack out of it) and it does not provide Total Cover. In fact, in this case, the adventure explicitly states that the monsters get half-cover, but when they shoot at the PCs "through" or "out of" the thickets, no such penalty is mentioned -- this "one-sidedness" is also different than how a lot of people make rulings about Cover.
The point of this example is to illustrate that it is possible for a feature of the environment to block the clear path without actually providing Total Cover. In my opinion, a very thin glass barrier is another example of this. I would rule that such glass does not qualify as enough of an "obstacle" for Total Cover for defensive purposes, but it clearly would block your Clear Path for spellcasting.
Whether it is transparent or not is not irrelevant.
If you can see through it, it cant be total cover. Because total cover isn't just an obstacle. It is an obstacle that conceals the target. A pane of transparent glass doesn't conceal anything.
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This encounter doesn't make any reference to heavily obscured area specifically. The only rule element referenced is half cover .
In grid play, these two are distinct seperate things in the DMG and are not traced exactly the same though;
To me concealed in this case is synonym to covered, not hidden.
While not official ruling, for those interested the Devs have also confirmed this in the past on X
The book has a whole bit talking about concealment and what being concealed means.
Edit: I REALLY hope this is one of those areas they fixed in the 2024 books.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A strict application of the vision rules is always going to result in unintuitive results like this.
Technically speaking, if you applied RAW vision rules, you can see OUT of heavy obscured areas just fine. It is only when trying to see something IN them that you have problems. Regardless where you are.
And, that includes darkness, fog, and foliage, etc. Somehow these things, despite what your intuition about how it should work... somehow all have identical mechanics, raw.
So if you're standing in the middle of a fogbank, you can see anything outside of said fogbank just fine. Somehow. Same for standing in a large shrubbery. But anyone trying to see you inside these areas can't because the area is obscured, and you're in the area.
Our intuition rejects this most the time because that's not how actual irl vision works, and it is WILD that the basic rules can't even get something so fundamental as vision right. But, they say what they say.
Ironically, these obscured areas do make some sense when you are dealing with light. Just not when in fog or foliage or etc.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you ignore the fact that heavily obscured areas block vision entirely you will have different result than what RAW says.
RAW, the DM doesn't need to adjudicate anything, because the answer to my question is in the books: "yes, you can cast Shocking Grasp because the monsters are not behind total cover".
Your idea is dangerous because, if you do that, you minimize the importance of the entire rule. This rule has its own dedicated paragraph.
And no, the sentence "so it can't be behind total cover" is neither just an example nor one of many cases; it is the only case to consider: total cover.
Anyway, no problem, @up2ng. We understand the rules differently.
See that's the rub. Even if you think that means you can't see through an area of heavy obscurement to the other side of it that isn't obscured... that equally goes against our intuition for how vision actually works.
Because that means you can't see stars in the night. Because the area of heavy obscurement blocks all sight. Right?
The fact the rules for vision treats darkness, fog, and foliage identically always results in bizarre results, no matter how you rule it. Unless you deviate from the rules and treat them differently.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We had a similar discussion here some days ago😅 If a Creature is Heavily Obscured, Do Advantage and Disadvantage on Attacks Cancel Out?
Here are some additional answers addressing how total cover and clear path must be considered together as a whole. I'd like to add them here:
I also don't view the term "concealed" in this way in this context -- I believe that it has more to do with providing physical protection than providing a way to be unseen.
However, in my opinion, the term "obstacle" is important as it is used in several places throughout all of the rules for cover, and I believe that it is ultimately up to the DM to decide which objects qualify as a physical obstacle on a case-by-case basis.
For example, if a monster simply walks around with a large sheet draped over him so that it covers his entire body, I would not rule that this provides the creature with any cover -- but it does break Line of Sight in both directions and it would also interrupt the Clear Path in both directions as well, as annoying as that is. It probably creates a heavily obscured area underneath of it as well.
It's possible that I don't have all of the details of this encounter from the LMoP adventure exactly correct. Perhaps these thickets are only Lightly Obscured or not obscured at all. The adventure does make it very clear, however, that the goblins cannot be seen from the west, and something causes that. Perhaps it's just a Line of Sight issue.
Regardless of the exact manner in which the adventure intends for all of these rules to be applied, let's please not lose sight of the entire reason why this example was brought up: It's an illustration that it is possible that there can exist a feature in the environment that interrupts a Clear Path to a target even if that target is not behind total cover. That was the main point. Discussing the details of that encounter any deeper just begins to stray off-topic here.
This is all absolutely correct and it's amazing how many people argued with me on this when I have made this exact same point in the past. This IS the rule for Heavily Obscured Areas.
However, the thing that we also need to remember is that there is more than one rule. In addition to the rule for Heavily Obscured Areas there is also a rule about Line of Sight. This is how the game actually differentiates between Heavily Obscured Areas that are created by Darkness from the Heavily Obscured Areas that are caused by environments such as fog and foliage. In the rule for Line of Sight, darkness is not actually listed as an example. That's because darkness does not and should not actually block Line of Sight, even though it can create a Heavily Obscured Area.
No. The entire rule for Heavily Obscured Areas makes it clear that the statement about blocking vision entirely only applies when trying to see something in that area. If we only read a portion of a rule we might end up with the wrong meaning.
This statement makes no sense. The books do not say anything like this when it comes to the Shocking Grasp spell.
Depending on exactly what is in your way, the DM must adjudicate whether or not it creates an Obscured Area, and/or whether it interrupts your Clear Path, and/or whether it blocks your Line of Sight, and/or whether it provides Total Cover. Unless the environmental feature in question happens to be one of the examples listed in one of these rules, there is no other way to determine these things other than DM adjudication.
That interpretation is straight-up wrong. That's simply not what it says.
We need to pay attention to the wording of how the entire rule is written rather than just trying to key in on only one or two key words that seem like they might be important -- otherwise, we can easily miss what the rule actually says.
The rule says this:
"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."
Some other ways that this could be written while maintaining the same meaning:
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Therefore, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Because of this, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. As a consequence of this, the target can't be behind total cover.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. For example, the target can't be behind total cover.
What this rule does NOT say:
-- Unless the target is behind total cover it can be targeted.
-- To target something, you must have a clear path to it. Only total cover interrupts your clear path to the target.
-- You can target something as long as it's not behind total cover.
Just take a step back and review how the rule is worded. In this case this is very important in order to arrive at the correct interpretation.
You continue to miss the correct logic here. Just because a rule makes it clear that you can't cast a spell at someone or something behind total cover (as confirmed by JC) does NOT mean that total cover is the ONLY thing that can interrupt your clear path for spell targeting.