More specifically, spells with a range function like there’s a projectile. Note that almost all teleport spells have a range of self, thus making landing point parameters a matter for the spell description rather than general rules.
Its the "cover versus concealment" issue that wotc cannot seem to get right.
D&D cover is in fact cover. The problem is just that hide assumes that cover is opaque, and is part of the general family of "D&D perception rules are garbage".
What on earth is a "clear path"? What's that supposed to mean? Clear for what? A path for what? Is a clear path a line that lets light and sound through? A clear path for the caster to move through? A clear path for the spell's effect? What if the spell doesn't have a projectile? How do you define the path of a Charm Person's effect?
A clear path is a path that does not have total cover, which means you can make an attack along that path.
So Total Cover is defined by not having a clear path, which means you can't target them, and a clear path is defined by not having Total Cover, which means you can target them... Thanks bro, this circular reasoning totally helps me understand what a "clear path" is :D
RAW, spells are treated as if they had a projectile unless the spell specifically states otherwise
If that's RAW, I'd like to know which rule you are referring to, here. Because I can't think of a rule which explicitly states that (or even implicitly for that matter).
So Total Cover is defined by not having a clear path, which means you can't target them, and a clear path is defined by not having Total Cover, which means you can target them... Thanks bro, this circular reasoning totally helps me understand what a "clear path" is :D
As you are explicitly allowed to target things you cannot see (unless the spell limits targets to things you can see), it should be evident that this is not about visibility. This tells us that "clear path" means "no solid object in the way".
As you are explicitly allowed to target things you cannot see (unless the spell limits targets to things you can see), it should be evident that this is not about visibility. This tells us that "clear path" means "no solid object in the way".
It depends what you mean by "this", because there are many cases to consider. Just because Total Cover would require concealment, it wouldn't necessarily mean that having concealment immediately gives you total cover. Just because a requirement is necessary, doesn't make it sufficient. So I wouldn't say that this is evident.
It depends what you mean by "this", because there are many cases to consider. Just because Total Cover would require concealment, it wouldn't necessarily mean that having concealment immediately gives you total cover. Just because a requirement is necessary, doesn't make it sufficient. So I wouldn't say that this is evident.
The assumption that cover is opaque is literally part of the "cover versus concealment" problem.
The only place that assumption is made is in the rules for hide. The rules for tactical maps clearly distinguish between line of sight (stopped by an object or effect that block vision) and cover (stopped by an obstacle).
Yeah, but that spell provides a much stronger protection than Wall of Force, as it explicitly blocks all magical effects. It's not just a transparent panel.
The assumption that cover is opaque is literally part of the "cover versus concealment" problem.
The only place that assumption is made is in the rules for hide. The rules for tactical maps clearly distinguish between line of sight (stopped by an object or effect that block vision) and cover (stopped by an obstacle).
I mean, ask people if darkness is opaque or not, and you get some messed up notions of how concealment works. there are others....
Yeah, but that spell provides a much stronger protection than Wall of Force, as it explicitly blocks all magical effects. It's not just a transparent panel.
so you can't target someone behind either a WOF or ORS because total cover wins.
you could aoe to the side of teh WOF and angle inward possibly.
You can misty step through WOF because that doesn't involving targeting, therefore ignores cover and only requires sight to your destination
but you cant misty step out of ORS because teleporting is a "magical effect"? which ORS blocks?
The concept of "targeting" isn't explicitly defined either... If you Misty Step to a location, that location is your target. And since that location has Total Cover behind a Wall of Force, you can't target it either...
Range/Area is more of an online database thing for convenience. In the books it's just Range and for a description of the Area of an AoE you have to read the spell description. The Range is a restriction regarding how far away from the spellcaster the effect can originate. The clear path is essentially how a spell "travels" FROM the spellcaster TO the place that the effect originates when it is cast. The term "target" is used in kind of an awkward manner in the clear path rule -- they are attempting to refer to the selection process of the place where the spell effect originates as "targeting" which is sort of a holdover from the 2014 rules. Most of the time this is the same as the target of the spell -- the main exception being AoE spells. The section on AoE spellcasting has its own description for what happens when you try to place the point of origin behind a barrier, but unfortunately this rule only refers to when you cannot see the location, which should be changed via errata but it probably won't be. There is a way to interpret the current wording such that a spell such as Fireball can be cast through a Wall of Force to originate on the other side of it, but that's certainly not the intent. The intent is meant to be a restriction such that there must be a clear path between the spellcaster and the place where the spell originates.
So Total Cover is defined by not having a clear path, which means you can't target them, and a clear path is defined by not having Total Cover, which means you can target them... Thanks bro, this circular reasoning totally helps me understand what a "clear path" is :D
No total cover is offered by "an object that covers the whole target", it's in the section about Cover.
The main issue with Wall of Force is that they still seems to hate actually using the terms they set while writing the rules. The spell description should have had an "provides total cover" added to it as that is a term that interacts with other rules, instead writing it as "nothing can physically pass through" means that a DM/player has to make his own determination for each and every rule it might interact with.
The concept of "targeting" isn't explicitly defined either... If you Misty Step to a location, that location is your target. And since that location has Total Cover behind a Wall of Force, you can't target it either...
Nope. Nope. Nope.
That cant be right. It is almost a trope that if you are stuck in a room, that if you can peak through the keyhole then you can misty step to anywhere you can see.
But you targeting anything on thr other side of the door, even attempting to shoot through the keyhole, would meet every definition of total cover.
But you targeting anything on thr other side of the door, even attempting to shoot through the keyhole, would meet every definition of total cover.
Then it's not about having a clear path anymore... Because if you can peek through a key hole, that means there is a clear path through it...
But it doesn’t matter for Misty Step because that spell has a range of “Self” and the description only gives “30 ft to a space you can see” as destination requirements. Thus the general rule of spell targeting is satisfied by the range of “Self”, and the specific language of the spell indicates that you only need LoS to the destination point, even if there’s a barrier like glass or a door that would block something like Fireball.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
More specifically, spells with a range function like there’s a projectile. Note that almost all teleport spells have a range of self, thus making landing point parameters a matter for the spell description rather than general rules.
Strikethrough (clear path)
Replace with (unobstructed path)
Its the "cover versus concealment" issue that wotc cannot seem to get right.
Cover is an obstruction. It blocks damage. It might be transparent aluminim and you can clearly see the target, but you cant damage it.
D&D cover is in fact cover. The problem is just that hide assumes that cover is opaque, and is part of the general family of "D&D perception rules are garbage".
So Total Cover is defined by not having a clear path, which means you can't target them, and a clear path is defined by not having Total Cover, which means you can target them... Thanks bro, this circular reasoning totally helps me understand what a "clear path" is :D
If that's RAW, I'd like to know which rule you are referring to, here. Because I can't think of a rule which explicitly states that (or even implicitly for that matter).
As you are explicitly allowed to target things you cannot see (unless the spell limits targets to things you can see), it should be evident that this is not about visibility. This tells us that "clear path" means "no solid object in the way".
It depends what you mean by "this", because there are many cases to consider. Just because Total Cover would require concealment, it wouldn't necessarily mean that having concealment immediately gives you total cover. Just because a requirement is necessary, doesn't make it sufficient. So I wouldn't say that this is evident.
Okay, then sage advice tells us that Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, which is not opaque, provides total cover.
The assumption that cover is opaque is literally part of the "cover versus concealment" problem.
The only place that assumption is made is in the rules for hide. The rules for tactical maps clearly distinguish between line of sight (stopped by an object or effect that block vision) and cover (stopped by an obstacle).
Yeah, but that spell provides a much stronger protection than Wall of Force, as it explicitly blocks all magical effects. It's not just a transparent panel.
I mean, ask people if darkness is opaque or not, and you get some messed up notions of how concealment works. there are others....
so you can't target someone behind either a WOF or ORS because total cover wins.
you could aoe to the side of teh WOF and angle inward possibly.
You can misty step through WOF because that doesn't involving targeting, therefore ignores cover and only requires sight to your destination
but you cant misty step out of ORS because teleporting is a "magical effect"? which ORS blocks?
The concept of "targeting" isn't explicitly defined either... If you Misty Step to a location, that location is your target. And since that location has Total Cover behind a Wall of Force, you can't target it either...
Target is explicitly defined for most abilities. The target of misty step is 'self'.
I read "Range/Area", not "Target".
Range/Area is more of an online database thing for convenience. In the books it's just Range and for a description of the Area of an AoE you have to read the spell description. The Range is a restriction regarding how far away from the spellcaster the effect can originate. The clear path is essentially how a spell "travels" FROM the spellcaster TO the place that the effect originates when it is cast. The term "target" is used in kind of an awkward manner in the clear path rule -- they are attempting to refer to the selection process of the place where the spell effect originates as "targeting" which is sort of a holdover from the 2014 rules. Most of the time this is the same as the target of the spell -- the main exception being AoE spells. The section on AoE spellcasting has its own description for what happens when you try to place the point of origin behind a barrier, but unfortunately this rule only refers to when you cannot see the location, which should be changed via errata but it probably won't be. There is a way to interpret the current wording such that a spell such as Fireball can be cast through a Wall of Force to originate on the other side of it, but that's certainly not the intent. The intent is meant to be a restriction such that there must be a clear path between the spellcaster and the place where the spell originates.
No total cover is offered by "an object that covers the whole target", it's in the section about Cover.
The main issue with Wall of Force is that they still seems to hate actually using the terms they set while writing the rules. The spell description should have had an "provides total cover" added to it as that is a term that interacts with other rules, instead writing it as "nothing can physically pass through" means that a DM/player has to make his own determination for each and every rule it might interact with.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
That cant be right. It is almost a trope that if you are stuck in a room, that if you can peak through the keyhole then you can misty step to anywhere you can see.
But you targeting anything on thr other side of the door, even attempting to shoot through the keyhole, would meet every definition of total cover.
Then it's not about having a clear path anymore... Because if you can peek through a key hole, that means there is a clear path through it...
But it doesn’t matter for Misty Step because that spell has a range of “Self” and the description only gives “30 ft to a space you can see” as destination requirements. Thus the general rule of spell targeting is satisfied by the range of “Self”, and the specific language of the spell indicates that you only need LoS to the destination point, even if there’s a barrier like glass or a door that would block something like Fireball.