Please explain to me how Major Image is physically passing through Wall of Force. Because that's all Wall of Force blocks. It is not an obstacle to non-physical things, RAW. So either all spells must physically travel, or the clear path rule does not work like you say. Those are the only alternatives.
You are still confusing the process of the casting of the Major Image spell with the properties and functionalities of the Major Image spell effectafter that spell effect has originated. The spellcasting process of the spell has nothing to do with how the effect of the spell functions.
As already mentioned, it might be possible to move the Major Image through the Wall of Force after the spell has already been cast on your own side of the wall. That is a completely separate concept from what happens if you try to select a location on the other side of the wall to be the place where your Major Image spell effect will originate when you cast it. The latter is forbidden by the Clear Path rule.
TarodNet has already correctly answered your question about how the AoE spell effect of the Light spell interacts with a glass barrier. Magic is weird sometimes.
Edit: Total Cover: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." An invisible object provides no concealment, ergo, no total cover.
That quote regarding Total Cover is from the 2014 rules. It no longer exists in the 2024 rules for obvious reasons. Cover has nothing to do with keeping things hidden -- it's just a physical obstacle that prevents targeting. Use of the word "concealed" was removed since the meaning here would be inconsistent with how it is being used in the new 2024 Hide action rules and in the new 2024 version of the Invisible condition.
And I would say an AMF provides total cover against magic spells, because it stops magic (ie, it is impassable by magic), and thus if it's in a straight line between the caster and the target, there is an obstacle which blocks the magic. (It does not block physical things). Being an obstacle depends on the thing which is trying to pass through the space.
I'm sure that this will lead to further arguments, but mechanically, the Magic Missile spell does not work like that. The spell effect actually originates AT the target's location, just like every other spell that has a distance Range.
Please explain to me how Major Image is physically passing through Wall of Force. Because that's all Wall of Force blocks. It is not an obstacle to non-physical things, RAW. So either all spells must physically travel, or the clear path rule does not work like you say. Those are the only alternatives.
You are still confusing the process of the casting of the Major Image spell with the properties and functionalities of the Major Image spell effectafter that spell effect has originated. The spellcasting process of the spell has nothing to do with how the effect of the spell functions.
As already mentioned, it might be possible to move the Major Image through the Wall of Force after the spell has already been cast on your own side of the wall. That is a completely separate concept from what happens if you try to select a location on the other side of the wall to be the place where your Major Image spell effect will originate when you cast it. The latter is forbidden by the Clear Path rule.
TarodNet has already correctly answered your question about how the AoE spell effect of the Light spell interacts with a glass barrier. Magic is weird sometimes.
Edit: Total Cover: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." An invisible object provides no concealment, ergo, no total cover.
That quote regarding Total Cover is from the 2014 rules. It no longer exists in the 2024 rules for obvious reasons. Cover has nothing to do with keeping things hidden -- it's just a physical obstacle that prevents targeting. Use of the word "concealed" was removed since the meaning here would be inconsistent with how it is being used in the new 2024 Hide action rules and in the new 2024 version of the Invisible condition.
And I would say an AMF provides total cover against magic spells, because it stops magic (ie, it is impassable by magic), and thus if it's in a straight line between the caster and the target, there is an obstacle which blocks the magic. (It does not block physical things). Being an obstacle depends on the thing which is trying to pass through the space.
I'm sure that this will lead to further arguments, but mechanically, the Magic Missile spell does not work like that. The spell effect actually originates AT the target's location, just like every other spell that has a distance Range.
In what way is a wall of force an obstacle to a Major Image spell? Please describe how blocking physical passage impedes having a path for a spell in a way that doesn't involve the spell having a physical reality which travels the path.
The clear path rules imply spells travel between the caster and the target in a straight line, so Magic Missile absolutely works like that.
I can not find a definition of what makes something total cover in 2024. The examples are all things you can't see through. Wall of Force never says it provides Total Cover. So any RAW case for it blocking a spell is kinda lacking.
In what way is a wall of force an obstacle to a Major Image spell? Please describe how blocking physical passage impedes having a path for a spell in a way that doesn't involve the spell having a physical reality which travels the path.
The Clear Path rule applies to every single spell in the entire game. It does not matter what the spell is.
Think of it like this:
You plan to cast Fire Bolt at a creature. That spell does not require the spellcaster to see the target. You ask the DM "Hey DM, what's the deal with that creature?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell at it". The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that creature's entire body is behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, he's totally behind it. He has Total Cover. He cannot be targeted." And that's it. That's the end of the discussion. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The creature has Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
The same thing is true if you are planning to cast a spell such that it originates at a particular point in space, such as Major Image. "Hey DM, you see that spot on the map right there?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell such that it originates at that point in space. Can I do that?" The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that space is located entirely behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, that space is inaccessible to you. It has Total Cover. It cannot be targeted." And again, that's it. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The point in space is behind Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
The clear path rules imply spells travel between the caster and the target in a straight line, so Magic Missile absolutely works like that.
This statement is conflating a few concepts in an incorrect manner. First, the Clear Path rule does not state or imply that anything related to the spell is traveling before the spell effect originates. It intentionally leaves this part of the process unexplained so that setting-specific lore such as the Weave in the Forgotten Realms setting can fill in those blanks. Secondly, even if it did work as you've stated, that would have nothing at all to do with how the Magic Missile spell effect actually works after it originates.
Lastly, the Magic Missile spell description states that the spell has a distance Range. The effect is described as darts that are created (somewhere, which is unspecified -- perhaps the player can flavor this however they want) which strike a creature of your choice within Range. Mechanically, we follow the general rules for the Range of a spell which states that the Range determines where the spell effect originates. Therefore, the spell effect originates at the target creature's location. After the spell effect has originated into existence, it does what the spell description says that it does.
I can not find a definition of what makes something total cover in 2024. The examples are all things you can't see through. Wall of Force never says it provides Total Cover. So any RAW case for it blocking a spell is kinda lacking.
Total Cover doesn't really "block" a spell, per se. It just makes it so that the intended target is untargetable due to the Clear Path rule.
Total Cover rules for 2024 have already been quoted. They include:
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it. A target behind Total Cover can't be targeted directly.
A creature has Total Cover or it doesn't. It's based upon relative positioning of creatures within an environment. It's not dependent on anything else. You don't have Cover against this but not against that or whatever. You just have it, or you don't.
In what way is a wall of force an obstacle to a Major Image spell? Please describe how blocking physical passage impedes having a path for a spell in a way that doesn't involve the spell having a physical reality which travels the path.
The Clear Path rule applies to every single spell in the entire game. It does not matter what the spell is.
Think of it like this:
You plan to cast Fire Bolt at a creature. That spell does not require the spellcaster to see the target. You ask the DM "Hey DM, what's the deal with that creature?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell at it". The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that creature's entire body is behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, he's totally behind it. He has Total Cover. He cannot be targeted." And that's it. That's the end of the discussion. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The creature has Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
The same thing is true if you are planning to cast a spell such that it originates at a particular point in space, such as Major Image. "Hey DM, you see that spot on the map right there?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell such that it originates at that point in space. Can I do that?" The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that space is located entirely behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, that space is inaccessible to you. It has Total Cover. It cannot be targeted." And again, that's it. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The point in space is behind Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
The clear path rules imply spells travel between the caster and the target in a straight line, so Magic Missile absolutely works like that.
This statement is conflating a few concepts in an incorrect manner. First, the Clear Path rule does not state or imply that anything related to the spell is traveling before the spell effect originates. It intentionally leaves this part of the process unexplained so that setting-specific lore such as the Weave in the Forgotten Realms setting can fill in those blanks. Secondly, even if it did work as you've stated, that would have nothing at all to do with how the Magic Missile spell effect actually works after it originates.
Lastly, the Magic Missile spell description states that the spell has a distance Range. The effect is described as darts that are created (somewhere, which is unspecified -- perhaps the player can flavor this however they want) which strike a creature of your choice within Range. Mechanically, we follow the general rules for the Range of a spell which states that the Range determines where the spell effect originates. Therefore, the spell effect originates at the target creature's location. After the spell effect has originated into existence, it does what the spell description says that it does.
I can not find a definition of what makes something total cover in 2024. The examples are all things you can't see through. Wall of Force never says it provides Total Cover. So any RAW case for it blocking a spell is kinda lacking.
Total Cover doesn't really "block" a spell, per se. It just makes it so that the intended target is untargetable due to the Clear Path rule.
Total Cover rules for 2024 have already been quoted. They include:
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it. A target behind Total Cover can't be targeted directly.
A creature has Total Cover or it doesn't. It's based upon relative positioning of creatures within an environment. It's not dependent on anything else. You don't have Cover against this but not against that or whatever. You just have it, or you don't.
None of that defines what covers means, much less total cover.
Light obviously passes through a wall of force, because its invisible. (That's what invisible means). If we had star wars-style blasters, the Wall of Force does not provide any cover from the blasters, because the blaster fires high energy light, which passes straight through an invisible object.
Wall of Force only says it blocks physical passage. If the spell is not physically passing the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force provides no cover. It's as if it isn't there.
Fireball? Physical. Magic Missile? Physical. Charm Person? Not physical. It makes no sense if you can't cast Major Image on the other side of a Wall of Force, but you can cast it on your side and then have it move through the Wall of Force.
Something is only an obstacle (and provide total cover) if it can interact with the thing which is traveling through it. (Or if it blocks line of sight, but that's covered by the 'can see' part).
The anti-magic field is an anti-magical object. It's not an obstacle to physical things - it provides no cover from an arrow. But it's an impassable object to magical things.
Wall of Force only says it blocks physical passage. If the spell is not physically passing the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force provides no cover. It's as if it isn't there.
This is incorrect and the way that this actually works has been explained several times now. The Wall of Force provides total cover, and the Clear Path rule does not allow spells to originate behind Total Cover. For more detailed explanations I refer you to previous posts.
Fireball? Physical. Magic Missile? Physical. Charm Person? Not physical. It makes no sense if you can't cast Major Image on the other side of a Wall of Force, but you can cast it on your side and then have it move through the Wall of Force.
Wall of Force only says it blocks physical passage. If the spell is not physically passing the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force provides no cover. It's as if it isn't there.
. . .
Something is only an obstacle (and provide total cover) if it can interact with the thing which is traveling through it. (Or if it blocks line of sight, but that's covered by the 'can see' part).
These statements are incorrect. That's not how Cover works.
None of that defines what covers means, much less total cover.
What do you mean? These things are pretty clearly defined, as previously quoted. Cover is a physical obstacle that provides a degree of protection to targets behind it, which makes the target generally more difficult to harm. What else is needed? It is what it is. If a creature has Total Cover with respect to another creature, then that creature gains the benefits of Total Cover. One of those benefits is that it cannot be directly targeted, including by any spells. The Clear Path rule is just a general rule for spellcasting that must be followed. It is what it is. It doesn't need to be explained further since the explanation might be setting specific. It is enough to know the mechanics of the rule and that the rule applies to every spell in the game. Put simply, it is a limitation that is placed upon spellcasting in this game.
The anti-magic field is an anti-magical object. It's not an obstacle to physical things - it provides no cover from an arrow. But it's an impassable object to magical things.
This isn't entirely true since a person could have a magical effect cast upon himself or onto an object that he is carrying and then he could walk into the Antimagic Field and then out the other side. While inside, the magical effect would be suppressed, but upon exiting the Field the effect would resume functioning as normal. I get what you are trying to say though.
I guess the point is -- if you can find some rules text that you can quote that states that something magical is actually traveling from the spellcaster to the point of origin of the spell that's being cast, then the Antimagic Field will likely disrupt this process as it passes through the Field. However, I really do not think that you will find anything in the rules which says that since that is not what is actually happening when you cast a spell.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
This definition requires these things to be obstacles, and to make the target more difficult to harm. If it's not an obstacle, and it doesn't make the target more difficult to harm, it doesn't provide cover.
So Wall of Force only blocks physical passage. Therefore, it is only an obstacle to physical things, and only makes the target more difficult to harm if the thing trying to bypass it is physical. If the thing to be blocked is not physical, it is no obstacle and therefore provides no cover. QED. Obstacle-ness is context-dependent on whether the interposing thing actually makes it more difficult to harm what is behind it.
(Edit: also note "can provide cover", not "do provide cover" or just "provide cover". ie, it is possible they provide cover, it's not guaranteed, but a DM's decision if the thing in question actually gets in the way of whatever the attack or effect is.)
So a star wars blaster or a Sunbeam spell (or Crown of Stars mote) all pass through a Wall of Force without issue. Wall of Force provides no cover from either, and is not an obstacle to either. (Required by 'invisible' - if you can't see it, it's not interacting with light, which means light travels straight through it.)
(And yes, strictly speaking, that means an invisible creature in the path of a sunbeam spell should take no damage, because the sunbeam can't interact with it).
Illusions have no physical substance. They pass right through a Wall of Force; it is no obstacle to the illusion.
At which point, either the spell itself is a physical thing traveling from the caster (and the Wall of Force is an obstacle and can block it), or it is not a physical thing (and the Wall of Force is not an obstacle and cannot interfere with Clear Path).
It's all right there in your definition of cover.
Similarly, a psychic attack like Raulothim's Psychic Lance goes right through Wall of Force, because it is not a physical object, but a mental attack. Wall of Force is no obstacle to it. (Heck, the whole point of naming a target is to hit a named creature behind a wall or other physical total cover, because a wall isn't a barrier to a psychic attack).
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
Point-of-origin / AoE clarification (what happens when you try to place an AoE point you can’t see or that’s behind an obstruction)
“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.” — A Clear Path / Point of Origin rules. This explains why you can’t simply place an AoE origin on the far side of a blocking wall. https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roll20
Community / rules discussion that parses this exact case Rulings and SRD/RPG.SE discussion walk through the same logic: spells whose effects must “travel” or target something behind total cover are prevented, while spells that create their effect at a visible point may originate on the far side only if the point is actually visible or not blocked by the rule conditions. See a detailed analysis here. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59734/can-spells-be-cast-through-a-wall-of-force?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Role-playing Games Stack Exchange+1
Wall of Force literally says “Spells and other magical effects can’t extend through the wall.” Also, the targeting rules say “you must have a clear path to [the target], so it can’t be behind total cover,” and total cover means a target “can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell.” So by RAW you can’t cast a spell that must extend through the wall to hit something behind it — Wall of Force provides the cover that blocks targeting. Sources: Wall of Force spell text; Clear Path / Total Cover rules.
By RAW, Wall of Force explicitly prevents spells and magical effects from extending through it, and the “clear path / total cover” targeting rule prevents you from affecting a target or point that’s behind total cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
So Wall of Force only blocks physical passage. Therefore, it is only an obstacle to physical things, and only makes the target more difficult to harm if the thing trying to bypass it is physical. If the thing to be blocked is not physical, it is no obstacle and therefore provides no cover. QED. Obstacle-ness is context-dependent on whether the interposing thing actually makes it more difficult to harm what is behind it.
Nope, that's not how Cover works in this game. An object that is an obstacle is an obstacle due to its own inherent properties. Walls, trees and creatures are obstacles, for example. These are objects that are large and sturdy enough to physically provide a degree of protection to targets behind it, which makes the target generally more difficult to harm.
What you are referring to is the possibility that a particular phenomenon might be capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Total Cover. That doesn't mean that the Total Cover doesn't exist -- it does. It just means that it is being ignored and/or bypassed. The mental attack that is allowed by the already existing Eyebite spell effect that was mentioned earlier might be an example of this. The ability to move an already existing Major Image spell effect through a Wall of Force might be another example. The Wall of Force DOES provide Total Cover in those cases. But these activities are ignoring and/or bypassing it.
However, when it comes to the Clear Path rule, there is simply no getting around it. The rule very explicitly disallows the casting of a spell "through" Total Cover. It simply cannot be done. It's a deliberate restriction and/or limitation placed upon 5e spellcasting.
(Edit: also note "can provide cover", not "do provide cover" or just "provide cover". ie, it is possible they provide cover, it's not guaranteed, but a DM's decision if the thing in question actually gets in the way of whatever the attack or effect is.)
This is just referring to the relative positions of the creatures that are involved. For example, if two creatures are standing on the same side of a Wall of Force then the Wall of Force is not currently providing any Cover. However, the Wall of Force can provide Cover -- if the creatures reposition themselves such that they are standing on opposite sides of the Wall of Force, then that Wall of Force does provide Total Cover.
So a star wars blaster or a Sunbeam spell (or Crown of Stars mote) all pass through a Wall of Force without issue. Wall of Force provides no cover from either, and is not an obstacle to either. (Required by 'invisible' - if you can't see it, it's not interacting with light, which means light travels straight through it.)
Whether or not the Crown of Stars spell effect or a Sunbeam spell effect is capable of breaching a Wall of Force is open to interpretation, depending on whether or not light is considered to have any physical properties. That would be a DM call.
But the statement that the Wall of Force provides no cover in those situations is false. The Wall of Force provides Total Cover. It's just that some of these effects are capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Total Cover.
(And yes, strictly speaking, that means an invisible creature in the path of a sunbeam spell should take no damage, because the sunbeam can't interact with it).
This sort of thing would have to be explicitly written. There is no rules support for the idea that invisible creatures and objects can't interact with light in this game. The Invisible Condition lists a series of mechanical consequences to having the condition. It may or may not line up exactly with our own preconceived notions of what it means to be invisible.
For example, (to open another can of worms) based on what is actually written in the Invisible Condition, there is one reasonable interpretation that you cannot even see through the Wall of Force. That's probably not the intended interpretation or the best interpretation, but you can get there based on what is actually written. Hint, the Invisible Condition doesn't actually say that you cannot be seen. But again, this is beyond the scope for this thread . . .
Illusions have no physical substance. They pass right through a Wall of Force; it is no obstacle to the illusion.
At which point, either the spell itself is a physical thing traveling from the caster (and the Wall of Force is an obstacle and can block it), or it is not a physical thing (and the Wall of Force is not an obstacle and cannot interfere with Clear Path).
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but this conclusion makes no sense. We have already established that an already existing Major Image spell effect can probably move through a Wall of Force without a problem. Again, that doesn't mean that the Wall of Force wasn't providing Total Cover -- it was. But this illusion is ignoring and/or bypassing it.
If instead you are talking about the process of casting the spell before the spell effect has originated, then we are back to the Clear Path rule. Because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover, no spells can be cast "through" it (in air-quotes). Full stop. There are no exceptions to the Clear Path rule that I am aware of.
Similarly, a psychic attack like Raulothim's Psychic Lance goes right through Wall of Force, because it is not a physical object, but a mental attack. Wall of Force is no obstacle to it. (Heck, the whole point of naming a target is to hit a named creature behind a wall or other physical total cover, because a wall isn't a barrier to a psychic attack).
Unlike your Crown of Stars and Sunbeam examples above which both had a Range of Self, unfortunately the Raulothim's Psychic Lance spell has a distance Range (120 feet). Because of this, the spell effect originates at the target creature's location. If that target creature is located behind a Wall of Force, it enjoys the benefits of Total Cover and therefore you cannot target that creature with that spell because of the Clear Path rule.
I'm just going to leave this as you're obviously wrong. RAW the Wall of Force only blocks physical things. The definition of Cover or Total Cover requires the intervening thing to be an obstacle to whatever it is, and it is patently not an obstacle in this case, so cannot provide Total Cover.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm." If it doesn't make the target more difficult to harm, it is not cover. That's a necessary conclusion from right there in the definition. So being cover depends on the nature of the thing that is trying to harm the creature. That is a straight-up RAW reading of the definition of cover.
To make the logic explicit:
-If it is cover, it makes the creature more difficult to harm.
-It does not make the creature more difficult to harm (the harm in question would pass straight through it without difficulty, for example)
-Conclusion: it is not cover (against that harm)
That's logic 101, modus tollens.
(Also, your interpretation of Raulothim's makes the text about naming the creature and it becoming the target meaningless, because the only thing that does is let you target a creature you don't have a clear path to, so it is necessarily saying you don't need a clear path (in the sense you claim) in that case. And that makes sense, because physical objects don't block a psychic attack.)
BTW, the light and darkness spells also provide evidence for this conception of 'cover', because they require an opaque cover to block their light/darkness from radiating. That means they radiate through transparent and translucent containers, which necessarily means that translucent and transparent objects are not obstacles for light/darkness. That's a pretty clear statement that 'cover' is determined by whether the object is actually an obstacle for the thing in question. (The container works, after all, because Total Cover prevents an AoE from affecting the other side from the source of the Total Cover). So Cover is not an absolute property, but a relative one, by strict RAW.
So that's two places which require Cover to be handled as a relative property for the text used to make any sense whatsoever.
The definition of Cover or Total Cover requires the intervening thing to be an obstacle to whatever it is,
No, the rules for Cover do not say anything like that.
The rules for Cover only require that the intervening thing is an obstacle that is large and sturdy enough to provide a degree of protection in order to make a target more difficult to harm (in general). As long as two creatures are located on either side of such an obstacle then there is Cover, regardless of what those creatures actually intend to do.
Once it's established that there is Total Cover, the Clear Path rule for spellcasting kicks in every single time that a spell is attempted to be cast. In such a situation, the target cannot be targeted by ANY spell, period. There are no exceptions.
During the spellcasting process after all of the spell components have been satisfied and before the spell effect originates, every spell in the entire game is exactly the same -- because the spell effect does not exist yet. They ALL must satisfy the requirements of the Clear Path rule.
(Also, your interpretation of Raulothim's makes the text about naming the creature and it becoming the target meaningless, because the only thing that does is let you target a creature you don't have a clear path to,
This is not true at all. The main way to cast the spell requires you to see the target. By naming the creature, you don't have to see it. So that creature could be Invisible, for example. Or it could be lurking in an area of Darkness. An area of Darkness does not provide any Cover, but it does sometimes cause a problem for some spellcasting because some spellcasting requires you to be able to see your target. The named creature might be located within a Fog Cloud. And so on.
BTW, the light and darkness spells also provide evidence for this conception of 'cover', because they require an opaque cover to block their light/darkness from radiating. That means they radiate through transparent and translucent containers, which necessarily means that translucent and transparent objects are not obstacles for light/darkness. That's a pretty clear statement that 'cover' is determined by whether the object is actually an obstacle for the thing in question. (The container works, after all, because Total Cover prevents an AoE from affecting the other side from the source of the Total Cover). So Cover is not an absolute property, but a relative one, by strict RAW.
First of all, technically, the object that is placed on top of the object that radiates a Light or Darkness spell effect does not actually have to be opaque (although opaque works just fine as noted in the spell description) in order to block the spell effect. That's because of this general rule for spellcasting:
If all straight lines extending from the point of origin to a location in the area of effect are blocked, that location isn’t included in the area of effect. To block a line, an obstruction must provide Total Cover.
Of course, the relatively small objects that are suggested by the Darkness spell such as a bowl or a helm would typically not be large enough or substantial enough to be considered capable of providing Total Cover, so in those cases, the object must indeed be opaque as required by the spell description.
To be clear, the opaque object suggested in the Darkness spell isn't actually providing any sort of Cover. So, I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.
Also, it seems like you keep wanting to bring up some idea that certain things are not obstacles for certain other things such as glass not being an obstacle for light and certain other things not being obstacles for Star Wars blasters or whatever. I'm not sure what you think that has to do with the process of spellcasting.
Again: During the spellcasting process after all of the spell components have been satisfied and before the spell effect originates, every spell in the entire game is exactly the same -- because the spell effect does not exist yet. They ALL must satisfy the requirements of the Clear Path rule. There are no exceptions.
Show me how my logic is wrong, or you're not engaging. As long as both my premises are true, my conclusion is logically required (and irrefutable). (Alternately, show me where the Wall of Force says it counts as cover against magic spells, when it explicitly only blocks physical things).
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
-If it is cover, it makes the creature more difficult to harm.
-It does not make the creature more difficult to harm (the harm in question would pass straight through it without difficulty, for example)
Show me how my logic is wrong, or you're not engaging. As long as both my premises are true, my conclusion is logically required (and irrefutable). (Alternately, show me where the Wall of Force says it counts as cover against magic spells, when it explicitly only blocks physical things).
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
-If it is cover, it makes the creature more difficult to harm.
-It does not make the creature more difficult to harm (the harm in question would pass straight through it without difficulty, for example)
-Conclusion: it is not cover (against that harm)
modus tollens.
The rules for Cover don't work like that.
There is no such thing as "counts as cover against [whatever]". There is Cover or there is not. Cover is represented by physical obstacles that are large enough and sturdy enough to provide a degree of protection to a creature, making it more difficult to harm that creature. That's just in general. It's not "against this" or "against that". A physical barrier generally makes it more difficult to harm a creature.
In scenarios where there is Cover, there might be some phenomena that is capable of ignoring and/or bypassing that Cover. That doesn't mean that the Cover isn't there, just that it isn't effective in that scenario. As discussed previously, the mental attack that is allowed by the Eyebite spell and the actual movement of a preexisting Major Image spell effect through a Wall of Force are two possible examples of phenomena that might bypass the Total Cover that is provided by the Wall of Force. The Total Cover is there, it's just being bypassed by these things.
The actual casting of a spell is never capable of ignoring or bypassing Total Cover, by rule. The Clear Path rule prevents this from happening.
Show me how my logic is wrong, or you're not engaging. As long as both my premises are true, my conclusion is logically required (and irrefutable). (Alternately, show me where the Wall of Force says it counts as cover against magic spells, when it explicitly only blocks physical things).
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
-If it is cover, it makes the creature more difficult to harm.
-It does not make the creature more difficult to harm (the harm in question would pass straight through it without difficulty, for example)
-Conclusion: it is not cover (against that harm)
modus tollens.
The rules for Cover don't work like that.
There is no such thing as "counts as cover against [whatever]". There is Cover or there is not. Cover is represented by physical obstacles that are large enough and sturdy enough to provide a degree of protection to a creature, making it more difficult to harm that creature. That's just in general. It's not "against this" or "against that". A physical barrier generally makes it more difficult to harm a creature.
In scenarios where there is Cover, there might be some phenomena that is capable of ignoring and/or bypassing that Cover. That doesn't mean that the Cover isn't there, just that it isn't effective in that scenario. As discussed previously, the mental attack that is allowed by the Eyebite spell and the actual movement of a preexisting Major Image spell effect through a Wall of Force are two possible examples of phenomena that might bypass the Total Cover that is provided by the Wall of Force. The Total Cover is there, it's just being bypassed by these things.
The actual casting of a spell is never capable of ignoring or bypassing Total Cover, by rule. The Clear Path rule prevents this from happening.
Look, that's not at all how things work. The only game definition of obstacle is that it makes a creature behind it more difficult to harm, which means its on you to prove, in any given instance, it makes the creature more difficult to harm. They give common examples that would usually be cover against a wide variety of things. But that doesn't mean they're cover against all things. And if they're not cover, they can't provide total cover.
Wall of Force literally says it blocks physical things. It is treated as not there for non-physical things.
So unless you'd like to maintain spells have a physical reality between the caster and the target (which seems tenable only for a subset of spells, like magic missile and fireball, but untenable for many other spells), then the Wall of Force is basically non-existent for those non-physical things. And as effectively non-existent, it cannot provide cover.
I mean, straight up, a tree is not cover against charm person, because it doesn't do anything to make it more difficult for a charm person to 'harm' you. (If the tree is blocking line of sight, well, they can't even cast charm person in the first place, but that's due to needing to see the target. If you can see the target, the tree does nothing. So by the definition in the rules, the tree is not an obstacle, and does not provide cover against Charm Person).
You're still not engaging with my logic. Does the possible object make the creature more difficult to harm in the given situation? If it does not, RAW, it is not cover, because cover must make the creature more difficult to harm. The RAW logically requires this, because of how they defined cover. You have to prove that the obstacle does make the creature more difficult to harm against the relevant effect. (The other premise is impossible to dispute, it's right there in the rules).
If there was a psychic wall which was impervious to psychic attacks, it would be cover against psychic attacks (and if fully blocking any line between the originator of the psychic attack and the target, total cover). But it would not be any sort of cover against an arrow or a fireball, because those things aren't psychic, and it does not make the creature more difficult to harm.
So consider the case where you're at the end of a wall of force, and there's a clear space around it. If you fire an arrow, the Wall of Force can provide 1/2 of 3/4 cover, giving a bonus to AC. If you cast a fireball, it can grant a bonus to the dex save. Thus, it is 'cover' against an arrow or a fireball. But it doesn't help against a charm person, so it's not cover against charm person. And if it's not cover, it can't be Total Cover.
Look, that's not at all how things work. The only game definition of obstacle is that it makes a creature behind it more difficult to harm, which means its on you to prove, in any given instance, it makes the creature more difficult to harm. They give common examples that would usually be cover against a wide variety of things. But that doesn't mean they're cover against all things. And if they're not cover, they can't provide total cover.
Unfortunately, all of this is false. The rules simply do not say any of that. The rules as written state exactly the things that I've just described in my previous post.
The fact that it makes a creature generally more difficult to harm is a property of the obstacle itself. It's not decided depending on the situation. You decide first whether or not there is Cover, and then you adjudicate whatever situation arises. Not the other way around.
Player: Ok Mr. DM, I am located here, and that creature is located over there. Does that creature have any Cover?
DM: (looks at the battle map) . . . Yes, that creature has Half Cover.
Notice that the DM doesn't need to know what the Player is planning on doing. The fact that there is Cover is just a fact of the current environment and the relative positions of the creatures within that environment. Nothing else factors into it.
I mean, straight up, a tree is not cover against charm person, because it doesn't do anything to make it more difficult for a charm person to 'harm' you. (If the tree is blocking line of sight, well, they can't even cast charm person in the first place, but that's due to needing to see the target. If you can see the target, the tree does nothing. So by the definition in the rules, the tree is not an obstacle, and does not provide cover against Charm Person).
False.
If the tree is large enough to fully cover the creature that is located behind it, then it provides Total Cover. Assuming that this tree is invisible (so that you can see the creature that is located behind it), you still CANNOT target this creature with a Charm Person spell (or any other spell in the entire game) because you do not have a Clear Path to that target.
If instead this is a smaller tree and only covers three-quarters of the creature that is located behind it, then that tree "only" provides Three-Quarters Cover. In that case, you would be able to target that creature with your Charm Person spell because there is a Clear Path to that target.
If there was a psychic wall which was impervious to psychic attacks, it would be cover against psychic attacks
A psychic wall does not provide any Cover. As such, it does not interfere with the Clear Path for spellcasting. In this way, it behaves similarly to an Antimagic Field.
So consider the case where you're at the end of a wall of force, and there's a clear space around it. If you fire an arrow, the Wall of Force can provide 1/2 of 3/4 cover, giving a bonus to AC. If you cast a fireball, it can grant a bonus to the dex save. Thus, it is 'cover' against an arrow or a fireball. But it doesn't help against a charm person, so it's not cover against charm person. And if it's not cover, it can't be Total Cover.
In this case, the Wall of Force provides Half Cover or Three-Quarters Cover depending on the relative positioning of the two creatures involved.
In this case, either creature can successfully cast Charm Person on the other creature. The Cover is still there, but the process of casting a spell (ANY spell in the game) bypasses any Cover that is not Total Cover. There is always a Clear Path to the target unless there is Total Cover.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
Into logic: If there is an obstacle, then it makes the target more difficult to harm. X then Y.
But what if Not Y? The target is not more difficult to harm? X then Y => Not Y then Not X. There is not an obstacle.
The game definition of obstacle is based on making the target more difficult to harm. It must be dependent on what the harm is, so you can determine if harming the creature is made more difficult. The logic is valid and those premises are sound. Nothing you've said has addressed any of that logical structure. Ergo, you don't actually have a valid argument.
And the word "can" in the definition of cover ensures my interpretation is valid, because those walls, trees, and etc.. might not provide cover. If just the presence of a physical object in between was a guarantee of cover, it would say "will", not "can".
And the word "can" in the definition of cover ensures my interpretation is valid, because those walls, trees, and etc.. might not provide cover. If just the presence of a physical object in between was a guarantee of cover, it would say "will", not "can".
The reason for the word "can" here is because it depends upon the relative positions of the creatures. There is not actually Cover unless a creature is behind it:
A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
An obstacle that is capable of providing Cover DOES provide Cover if an attack or other effect originates on the opposite of it. The fact that this Cover is provided is NOT dependent on WHAT that attack or other effect actually is, or whether or not that attack or other effect is capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Cover.
Your "logic" has been directly addressed repeatedly. It does not align with the rules as written.
The rules as written have been quoted and explained many many times now.
In this game, within the context of what we are talking about here, the term "obstacle" always refers to a physical obstacle, and these things are obstacles by virtue of their own physical nature and for no other reason.
Besides the rules for cover, the term "obstacle" is used in this same context in many places sprinkled throughout the rules:
Spell Description: Control Water:
Redirect Flow. You cause flowing water in the area to move in a direction you choose, even if the water has to flow over obstacles, up walls, or in other unlikely directions.
Spell Description: Project Image:
The copy can appear at any location within range that you have seen before, regardless of intervening obstacles.
Spell Description: Tenser's Floating Disk:
If you move more than 100 feet from the disk (typically because it can’t move around an obstacle to follow you), the spell ends.
Basic Rules: DM Toolbox: Rolling Stone Trap:
On its turn, the stone moves 60 feet in one direction, changing course if redirected by an obstacle.
Rules Glossary: Long Jump
At your DM’s option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump’s distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit the obstacle.
Rules Glossary: Teleportation:
If the destination space of your teleportation is occupied by another creature or blocked by a solid obstacle, you instead appear in the nearest unoccupied space of your choice.
It's pretty obvious what is meant by the term "obstacle" when it is used in this context throughout the game.
I never knew this before, but the spell Project Image is actually an example of a spell that is capable of bypassing Total Cover during the spellcasting process.
The reason why is because the text within the spell description explicitly creates a Specific Vs General Exception to the Clear Path general rule of spellcasting.
The spell has a Range of 500 miles (which already means that there can't be a Clear Path to some parts of the Range), and it explicitly states within the spell description that:
The copy can appear at any location within range that you have seen before, regardless of intervening obstacles.
I found this detail to be interesting given what has been discussed so far in this thread.
All your examples are physical things being redirected by other physical things. Yes, a physical thing blocks a physical thing.
Show me an example of a non-physical thing treating a physical thing as a obstacle.
Also, if you're right, Sending doesn't work as described. It never says it ignores intervening obstacles, but if it doesn't, it can't actually deliver a message anywhere on the plane. (If you're on an Earth-sized globe, for example, the planet itself becomes an "obstacle" after ~5km). Clearly sending ignores 'obstacles' to work as described. And why might it do that? Oh yeah, because its not physical and so those things aren't obstacles. (And you almost never have a clear path to other planes). I'm sure that's not the only blindingly obvious example.
Edit:
Spells that definitely don't work as described if you need a clear path and physical things count as obstacles: Sending, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, Dimension Door
Spells that probably don't work properly if you need a clear path and physical things count as obstacles: Tsunami, Storm of Vengeance, Hallucinatory Terrain, Mirage Arcana, Control Water. Many of these have long ranges (1 mile), and affect large areas. If you have to have no obstructions to any part of the area, they're going to be unusable. but even requiring no obstructions to one part of the area is going to be hard for spells with a range of 1 mile. (Control Water is an interesting one, because a 100' cube of water, even if you include the visible surface, is going to itself be an obstacle to much of the water affected. There's no line of effect to most of the target).
(What's the point in differentiating between 'a space you can see' and 'a space within range' (without requiring you can see it). Spaces are generally not invisible.)
Also an amusing sidenote: Wall of Force simply says it blocks physical things. Forcecage, on the other hand, blocks spells when created as a box (rather than a cage). "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area." That suggests that Wall of Force doesn't block spells, because Forcecage says it does, and Wall of Force does not say it does. If the Clear Path rules were sufficient to block spells from being cast through a Wall of Force, Forcecage wouldn't need that text.
You are still confusing the process of the casting of the Major Image spell with the properties and functionalities of the Major Image spell effect after that spell effect has originated. The spellcasting process of the spell has nothing to do with how the effect of the spell functions.
As already mentioned, it might be possible to move the Major Image through the Wall of Force after the spell has already been cast on your own side of the wall. That is a completely separate concept from what happens if you try to select a location on the other side of the wall to be the place where your Major Image spell effect will originate when you cast it. The latter is forbidden by the Clear Path rule.
TarodNet has already correctly answered your question about how the AoE spell effect of the Light spell interacts with a glass barrier. Magic is weird sometimes.
That quote regarding Total Cover is from the 2014 rules. It no longer exists in the 2024 rules for obvious reasons. Cover has nothing to do with keeping things hidden -- it's just a physical obstacle that prevents targeting. Use of the word "concealed" was removed since the meaning here would be inconsistent with how it is being used in the new 2024 Hide action rules and in the new 2024 version of the Invisible condition.
I'm sure that this will lead to further arguments, but mechanically, the Magic Missile spell does not work like that. The spell effect actually originates AT the target's location, just like every other spell that has a distance Range.
In what way is a wall of force an obstacle to a Major Image spell? Please describe how blocking physical passage impedes having a path for a spell in a way that doesn't involve the spell having a physical reality which travels the path.
The clear path rules imply spells travel between the caster and the target in a straight line, so Magic Missile absolutely works like that.
I can not find a definition of what makes something total cover in 2024. The examples are all things you can't see through. Wall of Force never says it provides Total Cover. So any RAW case for it blocking a spell is kinda lacking.
The Clear Path rule applies to every single spell in the entire game. It does not matter what the spell is.
Think of it like this:
You plan to cast Fire Bolt at a creature. That spell does not require the spellcaster to see the target. You ask the DM "Hey DM, what's the deal with that creature?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell at it". The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that creature's entire body is behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, he's totally behind it. He has Total Cover. He cannot be targeted." And that's it. That's the end of the discussion. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The creature has Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
The same thing is true if you are planning to cast a spell such that it originates at a particular point in space, such as Major Image. "Hey DM, you see that spot on the map right there?" you ask, pointing at the battle map. "I was thinking of casting a spell such that it originates at that point in space. Can I do that?" The DM takes a look. He says "Oh, that space is located entirely behind that wall there. You see that wall? Yeah, that space is inaccessible to you. It has Total Cover. It cannot be targeted." And again, that's it. Note that you never actually told him which particular spell you were planning to cast. It does not matter. The point in space is behind Total Cover, therefore, by rule, it cannot be targeted by your spell.
This statement is conflating a few concepts in an incorrect manner. First, the Clear Path rule does not state or imply that anything related to the spell is traveling before the spell effect originates. It intentionally leaves this part of the process unexplained so that setting-specific lore such as the Weave in the Forgotten Realms setting can fill in those blanks. Secondly, even if it did work as you've stated, that would have nothing at all to do with how the Magic Missile spell effect actually works after it originates.
Lastly, the Magic Missile spell description states that the spell has a distance Range. The effect is described as darts that are created (somewhere, which is unspecified -- perhaps the player can flavor this however they want) which strike a creature of your choice within Range. Mechanically, we follow the general rules for the Range of a spell which states that the Range determines where the spell effect originates. Therefore, the spell effect originates at the target creature's location. After the spell effect has originated into existence, it does what the spell description says that it does.
Total Cover doesn't really "block" a spell, per se. It just makes it so that the intended target is untargetable due to the Clear Path rule.
Total Cover rules for 2024 have already been quoted. They include:
A creature has Total Cover or it doesn't. It's based upon relative positioning of creatures within an environment. It's not dependent on anything else. You don't have Cover against this but not against that or whatever. You just have it, or you don't.
None of that defines what covers means, much less total cover.
Light obviously passes through a wall of force, because its invisible. (That's what invisible means). If we had star wars-style blasters, the Wall of Force does not provide any cover from the blasters, because the blaster fires high energy light, which passes straight through an invisible object.
Wall of Force only says it blocks physical passage. If the spell is not physically passing the Wall of Force, the Wall of Force provides no cover. It's as if it isn't there.
Fireball? Physical. Magic Missile? Physical. Charm Person? Not physical. It makes no sense if you can't cast Major Image on the other side of a Wall of Force, but you can cast it on your side and then have it move through the Wall of Force.
Something is only an obstacle (and provide total cover) if it can interact with the thing which is traveling through it. (Or if it blocks line of sight, but that's covered by the 'can see' part).
The anti-magic field is an anti-magical object. It's not an obstacle to physical things - it provides no cover from an arrow. But it's an impassable object to magical things.
This is incorrect and the way that this actually works has been explained several times now. The Wall of Force provides total cover, and the Clear Path rule does not allow spells to originate behind Total Cover. For more detailed explanations I refer you to previous posts.
Same explanation. See above.
These statements are incorrect. That's not how Cover works.
What do you mean? These things are pretty clearly defined, as previously quoted. Cover is a physical obstacle that provides a degree of protection to targets behind it, which makes the target generally more difficult to harm. What else is needed? It is what it is. If a creature has Total Cover with respect to another creature, then that creature gains the benefits of Total Cover. One of those benefits is that it cannot be directly targeted, including by any spells. The Clear Path rule is just a general rule for spellcasting that must be followed. It is what it is. It doesn't need to be explained further since the explanation might be setting specific. It is enough to know the mechanics of the rule and that the rule applies to every spell in the game. Put simply, it is a limitation that is placed upon spellcasting in this game.
This isn't entirely true since a person could have a magical effect cast upon himself or onto an object that he is carrying and then he could walk into the Antimagic Field and then out the other side. While inside, the magical effect would be suppressed, but upon exiting the Field the effect would resume functioning as normal. I get what you are trying to say though.
I guess the point is -- if you can find some rules text that you can quote that states that something magical is actually traveling from the spellcaster to the point of origin of the spell that's being cast, then the Antimagic Field will likely disrupt this process as it passes through the Field. However, I really do not think that you will find anything in the rules which says that since that is not what is actually happening when you cast a spell.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
This definition requires these things to be obstacles, and to make the target more difficult to harm. If it's not an obstacle, and it doesn't make the target more difficult to harm, it doesn't provide cover.
So Wall of Force only blocks physical passage. Therefore, it is only an obstacle to physical things, and only makes the target more difficult to harm if the thing trying to bypass it is physical. If the thing to be blocked is not physical, it is no obstacle and therefore provides no cover. QED. Obstacle-ness is context-dependent on whether the interposing thing actually makes it more difficult to harm what is behind it.
(Edit: also note "can provide cover", not "do provide cover" or just "provide cover". ie, it is possible they provide cover, it's not guaranteed, but a DM's decision if the thing in question actually gets in the way of whatever the attack or effect is.)
So a star wars blaster or a Sunbeam spell (or Crown of Stars mote) all pass through a Wall of Force without issue. Wall of Force provides no cover from either, and is not an obstacle to either. (Required by 'invisible' - if you can't see it, it's not interacting with light, which means light travels straight through it.)
(And yes, strictly speaking, that means an invisible creature in the path of a sunbeam spell should take no damage, because the sunbeam can't interact with it).
Illusions have no physical substance. They pass right through a Wall of Force; it is no obstacle to the illusion.
At which point, either the spell itself is a physical thing traveling from the caster (and the Wall of Force is an obstacle and can block it), or it is not a physical thing (and the Wall of Force is not an obstacle and cannot interfere with Clear Path).
It's all right there in your definition of cover.
Similarly, a psychic attack like Raulothim's Psychic Lance goes right through Wall of Force, because it is not a physical object, but a mental attack. Wall of Force is no obstacle to it. (Heck, the whole point of naming a target is to hit a named creature behind a wall or other physical total cover, because a wall isn't a barrier to a psychic attack).
Oh hi guys! You're arguing this too? Cool
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
Wall of Force — explicit text
Clear Path to the Target (targeting rule)
Total Cover — what it does (Basic Rules / PHB wording)
Point-of-origin / AoE clarification (what happens when you try to place an AoE point you can’t see or that’s behind an obstruction)
Community / rules discussion that parses this exact case
Rulings and SRD/RPG.SE discussion walk through the same logic: spells whose effects must “travel” or target something behind total cover are prevented, while spells that create their effect at a visible point may originate on the far side only if the point is actually visible or not blocked by the rule conditions. See a detailed analysis here. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59734/can-spells-be-cast-through-a-wall-of-force?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Role-playing Games Stack Exchange+1
Wall of Force literally says “Spells and other magical effects can’t extend through the wall.” Also, the targeting rules say “you must have a clear path to [the target], so it can’t be behind total cover,” and total cover means a target “can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell.” So by RAW you can’t cast a spell that must extend through the wall to hit something behind it — Wall of Force provides the cover that blocks targeting. Sources: Wall of Force spell text; Clear Path / Total Cover rules.
By RAW, Wall of Force explicitly prevents spells and magical effects from extending through it, and the “clear path / total cover” targeting rule prevents you from affecting a target or point that’s behind total cover.
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
Nope, that's not how Cover works in this game. An object that is an obstacle is an obstacle due to its own inherent properties. Walls, trees and creatures are obstacles, for example. These are objects that are large and sturdy enough to physically provide a degree of protection to targets behind it, which makes the target generally more difficult to harm.
What you are referring to is the possibility that a particular phenomenon might be capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Total Cover. That doesn't mean that the Total Cover doesn't exist -- it does. It just means that it is being ignored and/or bypassed. The mental attack that is allowed by the already existing Eyebite spell effect that was mentioned earlier might be an example of this. The ability to move an already existing Major Image spell effect through a Wall of Force might be another example. The Wall of Force DOES provide Total Cover in those cases. But these activities are ignoring and/or bypassing it.
However, when it comes to the Clear Path rule, there is simply no getting around it. The rule very explicitly disallows the casting of a spell "through" Total Cover. It simply cannot be done. It's a deliberate restriction and/or limitation placed upon 5e spellcasting.
This is just referring to the relative positions of the creatures that are involved. For example, if two creatures are standing on the same side of a Wall of Force then the Wall of Force is not currently providing any Cover. However, the Wall of Force can provide Cover -- if the creatures reposition themselves such that they are standing on opposite sides of the Wall of Force, then that Wall of Force does provide Total Cover.
Whether or not the Crown of Stars spell effect or a Sunbeam spell effect is capable of breaching a Wall of Force is open to interpretation, depending on whether or not light is considered to have any physical properties. That would be a DM call.
But the statement that the Wall of Force provides no cover in those situations is false. The Wall of Force provides Total Cover. It's just that some of these effects are capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Total Cover.
This sort of thing would have to be explicitly written. There is no rules support for the idea that invisible creatures and objects can't interact with light in this game. The Invisible Condition lists a series of mechanical consequences to having the condition. It may or may not line up exactly with our own preconceived notions of what it means to be invisible.
For example, (to open another can of worms) based on what is actually written in the Invisible Condition, there is one reasonable interpretation that you cannot even see through the Wall of Force. That's probably not the intended interpretation or the best interpretation, but you can get there based on what is actually written. Hint, the Invisible Condition doesn't actually say that you cannot be seen. But again, this is beyond the scope for this thread . . .
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but this conclusion makes no sense. We have already established that an already existing Major Image spell effect can probably move through a Wall of Force without a problem. Again, that doesn't mean that the Wall of Force wasn't providing Total Cover -- it was. But this illusion is ignoring and/or bypassing it.
If instead you are talking about the process of casting the spell before the spell effect has originated, then we are back to the Clear Path rule. Because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover, no spells can be cast "through" it (in air-quotes). Full stop. There are no exceptions to the Clear Path rule that I am aware of.
Unlike your Crown of Stars and Sunbeam examples above which both had a Range of Self, unfortunately the Raulothim's Psychic Lance spell has a distance Range (120 feet). Because of this, the spell effect originates at the target creature's location. If that target creature is located behind a Wall of Force, it enjoys the benefits of Total Cover and therefore you cannot target that creature with that spell because of the Clear Path rule.
I do not see this detail anywhere in the spell description for Wall of Force, but I agree with everything else that you've said.
I'm just going to leave this as you're obviously wrong. RAW the Wall of Force only blocks physical things. The definition of Cover or Total Cover requires the intervening thing to be an obstacle to whatever it is, and it is patently not an obstacle in this case, so cannot provide Total Cover.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm." If it doesn't make the target more difficult to harm, it is not cover. That's a necessary conclusion from right there in the definition. So being cover depends on the nature of the thing that is trying to harm the creature. That is a straight-up RAW reading of the definition of cover.
To make the logic explicit:
-If it is cover, it makes the creature more difficult to harm.
-It does not make the creature more difficult to harm (the harm in question would pass straight through it without difficulty, for example)
-Conclusion: it is not cover (against that harm)
That's logic 101, modus tollens.
(Also, your interpretation of Raulothim's makes the text about naming the creature and it becoming the target meaningless, because the only thing that does is let you target a creature you don't have a clear path to, so it is necessarily saying you don't need a clear path (in the sense you claim) in that case. And that makes sense, because physical objects don't block a psychic attack.)
BTW, the light and darkness spells also provide evidence for this conception of 'cover', because they require an opaque cover to block their light/darkness from radiating. That means they radiate through transparent and translucent containers, which necessarily means that translucent and transparent objects are not obstacles for light/darkness. That's a pretty clear statement that 'cover' is determined by whether the object is actually an obstacle for the thing in question. (The container works, after all, because Total Cover prevents an AoE from affecting the other side from the source of the Total Cover). So Cover is not an absolute property, but a relative one, by strict RAW.
So that's two places which require Cover to be handled as a relative property for the text used to make any sense whatsoever.
No, the rules for Cover do not say anything like that.
The rules for Cover only require that the intervening thing is an obstacle that is large and sturdy enough to provide a degree of protection in order to make a target more difficult to harm (in general). As long as two creatures are located on either side of such an obstacle then there is Cover, regardless of what those creatures actually intend to do.
Once it's established that there is Total Cover, the Clear Path rule for spellcasting kicks in every single time that a spell is attempted to be cast. In such a situation, the target cannot be targeted by ANY spell, period. There are no exceptions.
During the spellcasting process after all of the spell components have been satisfied and before the spell effect originates, every spell in the entire game is exactly the same -- because the spell effect does not exist yet. They ALL must satisfy the requirements of the Clear Path rule.
That's false.
This is not true at all. The main way to cast the spell requires you to see the target. By naming the creature, you don't have to see it. So that creature could be Invisible, for example. Or it could be lurking in an area of Darkness. An area of Darkness does not provide any Cover, but it does sometimes cause a problem for some spellcasting because some spellcasting requires you to be able to see your target. The named creature might be located within a Fog Cloud. And so on.
First of all, technically, the object that is placed on top of the object that radiates a Light or Darkness spell effect does not actually have to be opaque (although opaque works just fine as noted in the spell description) in order to block the spell effect. That's because of this general rule for spellcasting:
Of course, the relatively small objects that are suggested by the Darkness spell such as a bowl or a helm would typically not be large enough or substantial enough to be considered capable of providing Total Cover, so in those cases, the object must indeed be opaque as required by the spell description.
To be clear, the opaque object suggested in the Darkness spell isn't actually providing any sort of Cover. So, I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.
Also, it seems like you keep wanting to bring up some idea that certain things are not obstacles for certain other things such as glass not being an obstacle for light and certain other things not being obstacles for Star Wars blasters or whatever. I'm not sure what you think that has to do with the process of spellcasting.
Again: During the spellcasting process after all of the spell components have been satisfied and before the spell effect originates, every spell in the entire game is exactly the same -- because the spell effect does not exist yet. They ALL must satisfy the requirements of the Clear Path rule. There are no exceptions.
Show me how my logic is wrong, or you're not engaging. As long as both my premises are true, my conclusion is logically required (and irrefutable). (Alternately, show me where the Wall of Force says it counts as cover against magic spells, when it explicitly only blocks physical things).
The rules for Cover don't work like that.
There is no such thing as "counts as cover against [whatever]". There is Cover or there is not. Cover is represented by physical obstacles that are large enough and sturdy enough to provide a degree of protection to a creature, making it more difficult to harm that creature. That's just in general. It's not "against this" or "against that". A physical barrier generally makes it more difficult to harm a creature.
In scenarios where there is Cover, there might be some phenomena that is capable of ignoring and/or bypassing that Cover. That doesn't mean that the Cover isn't there, just that it isn't effective in that scenario. As discussed previously, the mental attack that is allowed by the Eyebite spell and the actual movement of a preexisting Major Image spell effect through a Wall of Force are two possible examples of phenomena that might bypass the Total Cover that is provided by the Wall of Force. The Total Cover is there, it's just being bypassed by these things.
The actual casting of a spell is never capable of ignoring or bypassing Total Cover, by rule. The Clear Path rule prevents this from happening.
Look, that's not at all how things work. The only game definition of obstacle is that it makes a creature behind it more difficult to harm, which means its on you to prove, in any given instance, it makes the creature more difficult to harm. They give common examples that would usually be cover against a wide variety of things. But that doesn't mean they're cover against all things. And if they're not cover, they can't provide total cover.
Wall of Force literally says it blocks physical things. It is treated as not there for non-physical things.
So unless you'd like to maintain spells have a physical reality between the caster and the target (which seems tenable only for a subset of spells, like magic missile and fireball, but untenable for many other spells), then the Wall of Force is basically non-existent for those non-physical things. And as effectively non-existent, it cannot provide cover.
I mean, straight up, a tree is not cover against charm person, because it doesn't do anything to make it more difficult for a charm person to 'harm' you. (If the tree is blocking line of sight, well, they can't even cast charm person in the first place, but that's due to needing to see the target. If you can see the target, the tree does nothing. So by the definition in the rules, the tree is not an obstacle, and does not provide cover against Charm Person).
You're still not engaging with my logic. Does the possible object make the creature more difficult to harm in the given situation? If it does not, RAW, it is not cover, because cover must make the creature more difficult to harm. The RAW logically requires this, because of how they defined cover. You have to prove that the obstacle does make the creature more difficult to harm against the relevant effect. (The other premise is impossible to dispute, it's right there in the rules).
If there was a psychic wall which was impervious to psychic attacks, it would be cover against psychic attacks (and if fully blocking any line between the originator of the psychic attack and the target, total cover). But it would not be any sort of cover against an arrow or a fireball, because those things aren't psychic, and it does not make the creature more difficult to harm.
So consider the case where you're at the end of a wall of force, and there's a clear space around it. If you fire an arrow, the Wall of Force can provide 1/2 of 3/4 cover, giving a bonus to AC. If you cast a fireball, it can grant a bonus to the dex save. Thus, it is 'cover' against an arrow or a fireball. But it doesn't help against a charm person, so it's not cover against charm person. And if it's not cover, it can't be Total Cover.
Unfortunately, all of this is false. The rules simply do not say any of that. The rules as written state exactly the things that I've just described in my previous post.
The fact that it makes a creature generally more difficult to harm is a property of the obstacle itself. It's not decided depending on the situation. You decide first whether or not there is Cover, and then you adjudicate whatever situation arises. Not the other way around.
Player: Ok Mr. DM, I am located here, and that creature is located over there. Does that creature have any Cover?
DM: (looks at the battle map) . . . Yes, that creature has Half Cover.
Notice that the DM doesn't need to know what the Player is planning on doing. The fact that there is Cover is just a fact of the current environment and the relative positions of the creatures within that environment. Nothing else factors into it.
That's correct. It literally does say that. Therefore, it provides Total Cover.
Spells do not exist prior to the origination of their spell effects.
False.
If the tree is large enough to fully cover the creature that is located behind it, then it provides Total Cover. Assuming that this tree is invisible (so that you can see the creature that is located behind it), you still CANNOT target this creature with a Charm Person spell (or any other spell in the entire game) because you do not have a Clear Path to that target.
If instead this is a smaller tree and only covers three-quarters of the creature that is located behind it, then that tree "only" provides Three-Quarters Cover. In that case, you would be able to target that creature with your Charm Person spell because there is a Clear Path to that target.
I am. Your logic is wrong. The rules for this topic have been quoted and explained several times now.
A psychic wall does not provide any Cover. As such, it does not interfere with the Clear Path for spellcasting. In this way, it behaves similarly to an Antimagic Field.
In this case, the Wall of Force provides Half Cover or Three-Quarters Cover depending on the relative positioning of the two creatures involved.
In this case, either creature can successfully cast Charm Person on the other creature. The Cover is still there, but the process of casting a spell (ANY spell in the game) bypasses any Cover that is not Total Cover. There is always a Clear Path to the target unless there is Total Cover.
Cover: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm."
Into logic: If there is an obstacle, then it makes the target more difficult to harm. X then Y.
But what if Not Y? The target is not more difficult to harm? X then Y => Not Y then Not X. There is not an obstacle.
The game definition of obstacle is based on making the target more difficult to harm. It must be dependent on what the harm is, so you can determine if harming the creature is made more difficult. The logic is valid and those premises are sound. Nothing you've said has addressed any of that logical structure. Ergo, you don't actually have a valid argument.
And the word "can" in the definition of cover ensures my interpretation is valid, because those walls, trees, and etc.. might not provide cover. If just the presence of a physical object in between was a guarantee of cover, it would say "will", not "can".
The reason for the word "can" here is because it depends upon the relative positions of the creatures. There is not actually Cover unless a creature is behind it:
An obstacle that is capable of providing Cover DOES provide Cover if an attack or other effect originates on the opposite of it. The fact that this Cover is provided is NOT dependent on WHAT that attack or other effect actually is, or whether or not that attack or other effect is capable of ignoring and/or bypassing Cover.
Your "logic" has been directly addressed repeatedly. It does not align with the rules as written.
The rules as written have been quoted and explained many many times now.
In this game, within the context of what we are talking about here, the term "obstacle" always refers to a physical obstacle, and these things are obstacles by virtue of their own physical nature and for no other reason.
Besides the rules for cover, the term "obstacle" is used in this same context in many places sprinkled throughout the rules:
Spell Description: Control Water:
Spell Description: Project Image:
Spell Description: Tenser's Floating Disk:
Basic Rules: DM Toolbox: Rolling Stone Trap:
Rules Glossary: Long Jump
Rules Glossary: Teleportation:
It's pretty obvious what is meant by the term "obstacle" when it is used in this context throughout the game.
As an aside, but related to this discussion:
I never knew this before, but the spell Project Image is actually an example of a spell that is capable of bypassing Total Cover during the spellcasting process.
The reason why is because the text within the spell description explicitly creates a Specific Vs General Exception to the Clear Path general rule of spellcasting.
The spell has a Range of 500 miles (which already means that there can't be a Clear Path to some parts of the Range), and it explicitly states within the spell description that:
I found this detail to be interesting given what has been discussed so far in this thread.
All your examples are physical things being redirected by other physical things. Yes, a physical thing blocks a physical thing.
Show me an example of a non-physical thing treating a physical thing as a obstacle.
Also, if you're right, Sending doesn't work as described. It never says it ignores intervening obstacles, but if it doesn't, it can't actually deliver a message anywhere on the plane. (If you're on an Earth-sized globe, for example, the planet itself becomes an "obstacle" after ~5km). Clearly sending ignores 'obstacles' to work as described. And why might it do that? Oh yeah, because its not physical and so those things aren't obstacles. (And you almost never have a clear path to other planes). I'm sure that's not the only blindingly obvious example.
Edit:
Spells that definitely don't work as described if you need a clear path and physical things count as obstacles: Sending, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, Dimension Door
Spells that probably don't work properly if you need a clear path and physical things count as obstacles: Tsunami, Storm of Vengeance, Hallucinatory Terrain, Mirage Arcana, Control Water. Many of these have long ranges (1 mile), and affect large areas. If you have to have no obstructions to any part of the area, they're going to be unusable. but even requiring no obstructions to one part of the area is going to be hard for spells with a range of 1 mile. (Control Water is an interesting one, because a 100' cube of water, even if you include the visible surface, is going to itself be an obstacle to much of the water affected. There's no line of effect to most of the target).
(What's the point in differentiating between 'a space you can see' and 'a space within range' (without requiring you can see it). Spaces are generally not invisible.)
Also an amusing sidenote: Wall of Force simply says it blocks physical things. Forcecage, on the other hand, blocks spells when created as a box (rather than a cage). "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area." That suggests that Wall of Force doesn't block spells, because Forcecage says it does, and Wall of Force does not say it does. If the Clear Path rules were sufficient to block spells from being cast through a Wall of Force, Forcecage wouldn't need that text.