Saying the new AoE rules "override" the clear path rules might be a bit confusing. The target of an AoE, for the purposes of the Total Cover rules, is its point of origin. The clear path rules still apply for creatures affected by the AoE -- the path just has to originate from the point of origin of the AoE, not from the caster
People have just been claiming that the target of an AoE is the actual creature affected by the AoE. The emanation point of an AoE is not called a target and might not even be a target (as for a cube area effect, the emanation point is not even required to be in the area).
Then quote the actual rule(s) you think prevents a fireball from damaging things around a corner
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Irrelevant to this riveting discussion about area of effects and targets but I hadn't really done the math before but this feature when applied to almost all cantrips can get the wizard pretty close to warlock EB+AB damage. 5-10 the gap is bigger but it closes again at level 10(equal there), 11-16 warlock has a very small edge. AB you have to pick your specific cantrip, and the reason for a locks reduced casting is eldritch blast is just too powerful. Meanwhile an evoker is very very close at most levels. .
Back it 2014 it came later and only applied to save ones which were generally weaker cantrips.
Don't know why but it amuses me. So if a damaging cantrip is the only reason you are going warlock, probably not a good idea. Especially with 2024 martial damage.
Then quote the actual rule you think prevents a fireball from damaging things around a corner
"A clear path from the caster to the target". No clear path exists.
The simplest answer is that 'target' does not have a consistent meaning and for area effects the 'target' is the emission point -- but the emission point for an emanation is 'self', so by the argument potent cantrip cannot apply to emanations or area effects.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That's not even a complete sentence, much less the entire rule(s)
Okay, the full rule is
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
The monster has total cover, and therefore cannot be targeted.
And Total Cover says
Cover
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it. There are three degrees of cover, each of which provides a different benefit to a target: Half Cover (+2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws), Three-Quarters Cover (+5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws), and Total Cover (can’t be targeted directly). If behind more than one degree of cover, a target benefits only from the most protective degree. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
You aren't targeting it directly with a fireball. There's no conflict, and the creatures around the corner still take damage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
How it applies to potent cantrip with emanations, true strike etc will have to be explained by the Devs cast at a creature isn't some key word language we can look up.
As for fireball around corners.
1. general casting rule of needing a clear path to the target.
2. cover rules description. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
3. Sphere rules. A Sphere is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a point of origin outward in all directions. The effect that creates a Sphere specifies the distance it extends as the radius of the Sphere.
With those 3 together I say its clear it still goes around corners if the effect is originating there. So in that corridor example as long as the firbeball lands in the past the wall point it hits enemies the wizard can not see around the corner, if a straight line from where the fireball landed does not hit the target they are immune. .
You aren't targeting it directly with a fireball. There's no conflict, and the creatures around the corner still take damage
Doesn't matter. The spell targeting rule makes no exception for indirect targeting -- if it has total cover, it can't be targeted.
Oooooorr everything works the way most people expect because the specific area-of-effect rules override the general targetting rule, by adding more detail and specificity.
Just sayin'. The grass is greener and more sensible on this side of the fence.
Oooooorr everything works the way most people expect because the specific area-of-effect rules override the general targetting rule, by adding more detail and specificity.
This requires interpreting the emission point for an AoE be treated as the target of the attack. Which is probably in fact the intent, but is not what is stated, and if it is the intent, should apply everywhere.
Oooooorr everything works the way most people expect because the specific area-of-effect rules override the general targetting rule, by adding more detail and specificity.
This requires interpreting the emission point for an AoE be treated as the target of the attack.
Why? (and the term is "point of origin" but maybe you're trying to describe something else?)
You aren't targeting it directly with a fireball. There's no conflict, and the creatures around the corner still take damage
Doesn't matter. The spell targeting rule makes no exception for indirect targeting -- if it has total cover, it can't be targeted.
Yeah my dude, the rules absolutely do make that exception, because the definition of Total Cover that you are choosing to ignore explicitly allows indirect targeting
The definition of Clear Path says targets can't be behind Total Cover The definition of Total Cover says it only applies to direct targeting
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Question, is the crux of the issue of Potent Cantrip working with the Cantrips in question that it involves a weapon and its additional single digit damage modifier? I feel like if the subject was shocking grasp or thunderclap, no one would care if the feature did what it said it did if the attack either misses or the target makes the save. It's a cantrip. It feels reasonable to assume that the target of those cantrips, whom you are aiming for is not the weapon, but the object or creature, rather, the weapon is just a material component, and the attack is the somatic component. I feel like this discussion is getting way more complicated and heated than it has any reason to. It's, a cantrip.
Yeah my dude, the rules absolutely do make that exception, because the definition of Total Cover that you are choosing to ignore explicitly allows indirect targeting
The definition of Clear Path says targets can't be behind Total Cover The definition of Total Cover says it only applies to direct targeting
The definition of total cover says it prevents direct targeting, which is not the same thing. These are not restatements of the same rule, they are different rules (this is not the first time 5e has gotten into trouble by treating things that should be considered a single rule as two different rules), and thus the exemptions in the total cover rule do not apply to the clear path rule.
That's not even a complete sentence, much less the entire rule(s)
Okay, the full rule is
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
The monster has total cover, and therefore cannot be targeted.
Yes, but 2014 Fireball to has language saying it spreads around corners and this specificity overrules the general. But certainly in the case of Cone of Cold the "targets" are those in the area of the cone, and if a creature is behind Total Cover from the caster they are not targeted by the spell.
In terms of Potent cantrip, it should apply to BB/GFB/True Strike as they are cantrips that deal damage on a successful attack roll. However, IMO it is unclear whether the "cantrip's damage" includes the damage from the weapon attack. No amount of arguing is going to resolve it because it is not specified anywhere, we're going to have to wait for a designer to clarify the RAI, or just ask your DM what their interpretation is as there isn't going to be a general consensus.
That's not even a complete sentence, much less the entire rule(s)
Okay, the full rule is
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
The monster has total cover, and therefore cannot be targeted.
Yes, but 2014 Fireball to has language saying it spreads around corners and this specificity overrules the general. But certainly in the case of Cone of Cold the "targets" are those in the area of the cone, and if a creature is behind Total Cover from the caster they are not targeted by the spell.
In terms of Potent cantrip, it should apply to BB/GFB/True Strike as they are cantrips that deal damage on a successful attack roll. However, IMO it is unclear whether the "cantrip's damage" includes the damage from the weapon attack. No amount of arguing is going to resolve it because it is not specified anywhere, we're going to have to wait for a designer to clarify the RAI, or just ask your DM what their interpretation is as there isn't going to be a general consensus.
With fireball that is the difference, you could land the fireball on the "wrong" side of cover and it would still go around the corner and hit them though they would have a bonus to their reflex save. In 2024 you need a direct line of effect from where the fireball detonates to the target.
With fireball that is the difference, you could land the fireball on the "wrong" side of cover and it would still go around the corner and hit them though they would have a bonus to their reflex save. In 2024 you need a direct line of effect from where the fireball detonates to the target.
As written, you also need a direct line of effect from the caster to the target. Which is definitely not the intended behavior, but my point was less to discuss that anomaly as to say that close textual parsing of the rules isn't going to give you a reliable answer, because the rules just aren't tightly enough written.
With fireball that is the difference, you could land the fireball on the "wrong" side of cover and it would still go around the corner and hit them though they would have a bonus to their reflex save. In 2024 you need a direct line of effect from where the fireball detonates to the target.
As written, you also need a direct line of effect from the caster to the target. Which is definitely not the intended behavior, but my point was less to discuss that anomaly as to say that close textual parsing of the rules isn't going to give you a reliable answer, because the rules just aren't tightly enough written.
No, you do not. You are reading the rules wrong.
1. You need a direct line of effect to where the fireball detonates. A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
2. You need a direct line of effect form where it detonates to the target. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
3. A Sphere is an area of effectthat extends in straight lines from a point of origin outward in all directions. The effect that creates a Sphere specifies the distance it extends as the radius of the Sphere.
A Sphere’s point of origin is included in the Sphere’s area of effect.
These three together make it clear you need a direct line of effect from where it detonates, not where the caster is.
Its origin point is not the caster, it is the center of the sphere.The origin point is not on the opposite side of the cover.
1. You need a direct line of effect to where the fireball detonates. A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
1. You need a direct line of effect to where the fireball detonates. A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
The detonation point is not the target.
(replying to both of you, really)
The detonation point is the "point of origin," not a target.
As mentioned up-thread, that "clear path to the target" rule is overriden by the "areas of effect" rule ("The area determines what the spell targets" et al). Areas of effect do not require a clear path from the caster to the target(s). Instead, the glossary rules for areas of effect cover this.
The point of origin needs a clear path to the target(s): "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."
And the caster needs a clear path to the point of origin: "If the creator of an area of effect places it at an unseen point and an obstruction—such as a wall—is between the creator and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of the obstruction."
(That last part seems to be laboriously phrased, but I expect it's because areas of effect can come into being from things besides just spellcasting.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then quote the actual rule(s) you think prevents a fireball from damaging things around a corner
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Irrelevant to this riveting discussion about area of effects and targets but I hadn't really done the math before but this feature when applied to almost all cantrips can get the wizard pretty close to warlock EB+AB damage. 5-10 the gap is bigger but it closes again at level 10(equal there), 11-16 warlock has a very small edge. AB you have to pick your specific cantrip, and the reason for a locks reduced casting is eldritch blast is just too powerful. Meanwhile an evoker is very very close at most levels. .
Back it 2014 it came later and only applied to save ones which were generally weaker cantrips.
Don't know why but it amuses me. So if a damaging cantrip is the only reason you are going warlock, probably not a good idea. Especially with 2024 martial damage.
"A clear path from the caster to the target". No clear path exists.
The simplest answer is that 'target' does not have a consistent meaning and for area effects the 'target' is the emission point -- but the emission point for an emanation is 'self', so by the argument potent cantrip cannot apply to emanations or area effects.
That's not even a complete sentence, much less the entire rule(s)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Okay, the full rule is
The monster has total cover, and therefore cannot be targeted.
And Total Cover says
You aren't targeting it directly with a fireball. There's no conflict, and the creatures around the corner still take damage
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
How it applies to potent cantrip with emanations, true strike etc will have to be explained by the Devs cast at a creature isn't some key word language we can look up.
As for fireball around corners.
1. general casting rule of needing a clear path to the target.
2. cover rules description. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
3. Sphere rules. A Sphere is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a point of origin outward in all directions. The effect that creates a Sphere specifies the distance it extends as the radius of the Sphere.
With those 3 together I say its clear it still goes around corners if the effect is originating there. So in that corridor example as long as the firbeball lands in the past the wall point it hits enemies the wizard can not see around the corner, if a straight line from where the fireball landed does not hit the target they are immune. .
Doesn't matter. The spell targeting rule makes no exception for indirect targeting -- if it has total cover, it can't be targeted.
Oooooorr everything works the way most people expect because the specific area-of-effect rules override the general targetting rule, by adding more detail and specificity.
Just sayin'. The grass is greener and more sensible on this side of the fence.
This requires interpreting the emission point for an AoE be treated as the target of the attack. Which is probably in fact the intent, but is not what is stated, and if it is the intent, should apply everywhere.
Why? (and the term is "point of origin" but maybe you're trying to describe something else?)
Yeah my dude, the rules absolutely do make that exception, because the definition of Total Cover that you are choosing to ignore explicitly allows indirect targeting
The definition of Clear Path says targets can't be behind Total Cover
The definition of Total Cover says it only applies to direct targeting
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Question, is the crux of the issue of Potent Cantrip working with the Cantrips in question that it involves a weapon and its additional single digit damage modifier? I feel like if the subject was shocking grasp or thunderclap, no one would care if the feature did what it said it did if the attack either misses or the target makes the save. It's a cantrip. It feels reasonable to assume that the target of those cantrips, whom you are aiming for is not the weapon, but the object or creature, rather, the weapon is just a material component, and the attack is the somatic component. I feel like this discussion is getting way more complicated and heated than it has any reason to. It's, a cantrip.
The definition of total cover says it prevents direct targeting, which is not the same thing. These are not restatements of the same rule, they are different rules (this is not the first time 5e has gotten into trouble by treating things that should be considered a single rule as two different rules), and thus the exemptions in the total cover rule do not apply to the clear path rule.
Yes, but 2014 Fireball to has language saying it spreads around corners and this specificity overrules the general. But certainly in the case of Cone of Cold the "targets" are those in the area of the cone, and if a creature is behind Total Cover from the caster they are not targeted by the spell.
In terms of Potent cantrip, it should apply to BB/GFB/True Strike as they are cantrips that deal damage on a successful attack roll. However, IMO it is unclear whether the "cantrip's damage" includes the damage from the weapon attack. No amount of arguing is going to resolve it because it is not specified anywhere, we're going to have to wait for a designer to clarify the RAI, or just ask your DM what their interpretation is as there isn't going to be a general consensus.
With fireball that is the difference, you could land the fireball on the "wrong" side of cover and it would still go around the corner and hit them though they would have a bonus to their reflex save. In 2024 you need a direct line of effect from where the fireball detonates to the target.
And I agree on the cantrip side.
As written, you also need a direct line of effect from the caster to the target. Which is definitely not the intended behavior, but my point was less to discuss that anomaly as to say that close textual parsing of the rules isn't going to give you a reliable answer, because the rules just aren't tightly enough written.
No, you do not. You are reading the rules wrong.
1. You need a direct line of effect to where the fireball detonates. A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
2. You need a direct line of effect form where it detonates to the target. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
3. A Sphere is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a point of origin outward in all directions. The effect that creates a Sphere specifies the distance it extends as the radius of the Sphere.
A Sphere’s point of origin is included in the Sphere’s area of effect.
These three together make it clear you need a direct line of effect from where it detonates, not where the caster is.
Its origin point is not the caster, it is the center of the sphere.The origin point is not on the opposite side of the cover.
The detonation point is not the target.
(replying to both of you, really)
The detonation point is the "point of origin," not a target.
As mentioned up-thread, that "clear path to the target" rule is overriden by the "areas of effect" rule ("The area determines what the spell targets" et al). Areas of effect do not require a clear path from the caster to the target(s). Instead, the glossary rules for areas of effect cover this.
(That last part seems to be laboriously phrased, but I expect it's because areas of effect can come into being from things besides just spellcasting.)