But then why make a distinction between spells that say "within range" and "that you can see within range" if there needs to be a unobstructed "straight" line from you to the point that you target?
My best guess is, they were written by different members of the design team and the wording was never standardized. I don't think it means much.
But then why make a distinction between spells that say "within range" and "that you can see within range" if there needs to be a unobstructed "straight" line from you to the point that you target?
My best guess is, they were written by different members of the design team and the wording was never standardized. I don't think it means much.
An unobstructed straight line from the caster to the target does not require seeing the target, does it? You can target an invisible creature within range and line of effect if sight isn't required.
Some spells still require you to see targets, whereas others don't. Faerie fire would be of questionable value if you had to be able to see the creatures it affects.
Pretty sure the target of Faerie Fire is the cube you place. You'd need to be able to see that. If there was total cover between you and where you want to place the 20ft cube, you'd not be able to.
The spell effect itself can't see anything, so trying to ask whether or not the spell effect can or can't see targets is sorta odd. Bit of a red herring imo. The targets of AOE are rarely going to require that you can see them, since they're getting targeted by the aoe spell effect not by the original casting of the spell by you. If a rare AOE spell did, it'd say as much specifically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only spell I can think of that you can cast through total cover is sacred flame, and even with that one you need to be able to see the target.
Sacred Flame has no rules letting you cast through total cover - people do it anyway due to a JC tweet, but the fact is that Sacred Flame has a rule in it functionally letting it ignore half and 3/4 cover, and it has no rule at all letting it ignore total cover.
The only spells that seem like they can be cast through total cover aren't actually cast through total cover, but their effects go through it. I gave one example already - Misty Step. There's no spell in the game that casts through total cover.
Some spells still require you to see targets, whereas others don't. Faerie fire would be of questionable value if you had to be able to see the creatures it affects.
Pretty sure the target of Faerie Fire is the cube you place. You'd need to be able to see that. If there was total cover between you and where you want to place the 20ft cube, you'd not be able to.
The spell effect itself can't see anything, so trying to ask whether or not the spell effect can or can't see targets is sorta odd. Bit of a red herring imo. The targets of AOE are rarely going to require that you can see them, since they're getting targeted by the aoe spell effect not by the original casting of the spell by you. If a rare AOE spell did, it'd say as much specifically.
This whole response is a bit of a red herring.
I am not talking about the nuances of the terminology of "targets" as used in various places in the rules. I am using natural language to explain a concept. The second sentence of my post that you botched the understanding of is entirely correct (The first sentence is fine too, if you use context to realize I'm talking about affected creatures rather than some specific definition of "targets" -- which by the way includes affected creatures -- I thought we went through that already). You need line of effect to cast the spell in a specific area, and line of effect for that area to expand to its full volume and affect creatures within. You do not need to see either the point you cast the spell or the creatures in its volume for that to be true. Vision is not a requirement of that spell, whereas it is for some others. Line of effect is required for spells unless indicated.
Some spells still require you to see targets, whereas others don't. Faerie fire would be of questionable value if you had to be able to see the creatures it affects.
Pretty sure the target of Faerie Fire is the cube you place. You'd need to be able to see that. If there was total cover between you and where you want to place the 20ft cube, you'd not be able to.
The spell effect itself can't see anything, so trying to ask whether or not the spell effect can or can't see targets is sorta odd. Bit of a red herring imo. The targets of AOE are rarely going to require that you can see them, since they're getting targeted by the aoe spell effect not by the original casting of the spell by you. If a rare AOE spell did, it'd say as much specifically.
Faerie Fire targets a point of origin for a cube, not a cube.
You don't need to be able to see the point of origin.
You can't target the point of origin through total cover.
When the cube spreads out from the point of origin - i.e. you've already successfully cast the spell on your target, and now it's resolving - any space with total cover between it and the point of origin is not within the spell's area.
A) If a spell says you target "a point (or creature) within range", there must be a clear path to the target, but you do not have to see them/it. That means that the point (or creature) could be in darkness or fog, or invisible, or you could be blind, and you could still target it.
B) If a spell says you target "a point (or creature) you can see within range", then there is the added required of sight, which means that if you are blind, you can't target any creature/point, and if a creature is invisible, or it (or a point) is in darkness/fog, you cannot target that point/creature.
There is a key difference between line of sight and line of effect that would include/exclude these special circumstances based on the wording. None of it is going to allow you to target behind total cover though, as that would block line of effect, which is required for both circumstances and only circumvented by a very small number of spells (Sacred Flame [RAI per JC] is one). Once the target is established though, a number of spells can bypass direct lines of effect for their effects, and have been mentioned in this thread (such as Misty Step, and any spell that spreads around corners.
Some spells still require you to see targets, whereas others don't. Faerie fire would be of questionable value if you had to be able to see the creatures it affects.
Pretty sure the target of Faerie Fire is the cube you place. You'd need to be able to see that. If there was total cover between you and where you want to place the 20ft cube, you'd not be able to.
The spell effect itself can't see anything, so trying to ask whether or not the spell effect can or can't see targets is sorta odd. Bit of a red herring imo. The targets of AOE are rarely going to require that you can see them, since they're getting targeted by the aoe spell effect not by the original casting of the spell by you. If a rare AOE spell did, it'd say as much specifically.
Faerie Fire targets a point of origin for a cube, not a cube.
You don't need to be able to see the point of origin.
You can't target the point of origin through total cover.
When the cube spreads out from the point of origin - i.e. you've already successfully cast the spell on your target, and now it's resolving - any space with total cover between it and the point of origin is not within the spell's area.
1. Much better said, yes this. You don't need to see the creatures affected by faerie fire because they're not the initial target of the spell. The cube's point of origin is (Which cannot be behind total cover).
2. Is this true for Faerie Fire? I'd normally have said yes automatically if we were talking about a more typical default AOE spell but the specific wording of Faerie Fire left me uncertain enough to make that claim. Faerie Fire is weird in that it creates an AOE that creates other AOEs. And, since it specifically targets objects then it would, typically, even target the object serving as the source of the total cover. So the cover itself would become affected and thus would radiate dim light, potentially beyond the area originally blocked. So, in a sense, some of the spell's secondary area effect would creep around potential total cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I guess what I said for Faerie Fire needs additional explanation.
So, the spell has multiple effects. It is more steps than your standard AOE. How so? Well, it creates an AOE that then creates more AOEs.
So the order is:
You target the point of origin when you cast the spell. This target must not be behind total cover from you.
A 20ft cube area of effect is then created from that point of origin. The effect here is multiple:
Each object in the cube is outlined in light.
Each creature in the cube must save or be outlined in light.
Total cover between the point of origin and the creature or object would block this effect.
Outlined objects and creatures are now under additional effects:
They cannot be invisible.
Attack rolls against them are at advantage (if they're seen)
They shed a 10ft radius of dim light (a secondary AOE effect)
This secondary aoe, the 10ft radius dim light, is subject to being blocked by total cover as normal. However, because it is being shed by creatures and objects throughout the cube, the total cover from the point of origin, in step 2.3 above, isn't necessarily blocking it at the same angle it would block the point of origin.
So, insofar as you consider the dim light part of the spell effect, total cover from the point of origin may not stop it. If you've ever used a VTT with dynamic lighting and a few dozen 10ft radius objects from this spell you know exactly what I'm talking about. A giant rock in the battlefield might offer a creature total cover from the point of origin but they'll suddenly find themselves in dim light anyway as everything around them starts glowing, even if they don't start glowing themselves.
Edit/TLDR: The dim light is one of the effects of the spell. An effect which often, in practice, wraps around the total cover that was blocking the original point of origin, because each affected creature/object is now their own point of origin for this secondary effect.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
First thanks for clarifying my question, I was thinking of a creature being behind total cover as being invisible, but they are 2 separately explained concepts in dnd 5e and thus can't be likened the way I was doing in my head.
Found something that may help with the AOE question this thread was initially made for, so, while looking into a different topic, I came across something that may help clear this up, feel free to read the whole section in the PHB this is just an exert that I think may help. So PHB Chapter 10 Spellcasting - Casting a Spell - Area's of Effect "A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
First thanks for clarifying my question, I was thinking of a creature being behind total cover as being invisible, but they are 2 separately explained concepts in dnd 5e and thus can't be likened the way I was doing in my head.
Bear in mind the rules for transparent total cover don't exist. The most commonly accepted interpretation is that transparent total cover is total cover, because the consequences are weirder if it isn't than if it is. A very strict RAW reading means that transparent total cover only provides 3/4 cover, and if you actually follow that, a significant number of other rules go pear-shaped, like how fireball works.
Something like a wall of force or a thick sheet of clear ice or a pane of glass (lol) provides cover in the sense that there is no direct line between you and the target, but it does not visually conceal the target from you. For that reason, it acts a little differently in a few specific situations (you can't attempt to hide if the enemy can see you, sacred flame can target through (around?) it, misty step can pass through it, etc.) In most cases, cover you can see through still acts like opaque cover for mechanical purposes. I don't know what this business is about transparent total cover actually being 3/4 cover, so I wouldn't dwell too much on that. Perhaps because of the sentence, "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle," but that doesn't mean a target has total cover only if completely concealed by it. I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth.
I think really the idea is that "covered" is used in three-quarters cover, whereas "concealed" is used in total cover. That reading in post #37 surmises that they're not used as synonyms and that to be "concealed" requires being concealed from vision specifically (but for some reason "covered" doesn't). Certainly, if imaginary straight lines emanating from the point of origin of a spell don't make it to you, you are concealed from that spell. The spell isn't using its eyes to look for you.
The only spell I can think of that you can cast through total cover is sacred flame, and even with that one you need to be able to see the target.
Sacred Flame has no rules letting you cast through total cover - people do it anyway due to a JC tweet, but the fact is that Sacred Flame has a rule in it functionally letting it ignore half and 3/4 cover, and it has no rule at all letting it ignore total cover.
The only spells that seem like they can be cast through total cover aren't actually cast through total cover, but their effects go through it. I gave one example already - Misty Step. There's no spell in the game that casts through total cover.
RAW, sacred flame states that cover is ignored for the saving throw.
"Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw."
This can be interpreted that even total cover offers no benefit for this saving throw, explicitly allowing the spell to affect creatures that you can see behind "total cover". You may not agree with that reading of the text but from a rules perspective there is nothing incorrect about it. Specific beating general in terms of the usual requirement to have a clear line of effect uninterrupted by total cover.
I'd like to have a second opinion about something I ruled last week while we were playing DMing Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.
In that module, there's a weather effect affecting the visibility, so that visibility is reduced to 60 feet due to the falling snow at some moment of the adventure.
During the session, a creature moved more than 60 feet away from a character, and that character wanted to cast Guiding Bolt against that enemy.
The snowfall is creating a heavily obscured area, but it's still possible to target the enemy since Guiding Bolt doesn't require to see the target to cast the spell, but my question is: with or without disadvantage? Both creatures (the enemy and the player) are blinded, right? So I suppose we make a normal attack roll in this situation.
At least, that it's my understanding if we follow the rules about blind condition and Advantage and Disadvantage.
I would rule the spellcaster has disadvantage on the attack roll since the caster cannot see the target. I see no problems with spell targeting, and I would not consider the attacker or the target to be blinded in this case, even though the target cannot see the attacker. Not being able to see the attacker does not impose any special penalty on the target in the absence of any conditions that modify this general rule. [EDIT: I was mistaken about this part] The rules for unseen attackers and targets handles it fine on its own.
EDIT: Situationally, if the DM wants to rule that the howling wind and falling snow makes the attacker unable to see or hear the target, then you could have the attacker guess the target's location and then roll the attack with disadvantage. At that point, treat the target as hidden at that moment. It's a DM's ruling on whether to apply a rule to a particular situation :)
Pretty much to keep people from casting spells through walls, I imagine.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My best guess is, they were written by different members of the design team and the wording was never standardized. I don't think it means much.
An unobstructed straight line from the caster to the target does not require seeing the target, does it? You can target an invisible creature within range and line of effect if sight isn't required.
Pretty sure the target of Faerie Fire is the cube you place. You'd need to be able to see that. If there was total cover between you and where you want to place the 20ft cube, you'd not be able to.
The spell effect itself can't see anything, so trying to ask whether or not the spell effect can or can't see targets is sorta odd. Bit of a red herring imo. The targets of AOE are rarely going to require that you can see them, since they're getting targeted by the aoe spell effect not by the original casting of the spell by you. If a rare AOE spell did, it'd say as much specifically.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only spell I can think of that you can cast through total cover is sacred flame, and even with that one you need to be able to see the target.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sacred Flame has no rules letting you cast through total cover - people do it anyway due to a JC tweet, but the fact is that Sacred Flame has a rule in it functionally letting it ignore half and 3/4 cover, and it has no rule at all letting it ignore total cover.
The only spells that seem like they can be cast through total cover aren't actually cast through total cover, but their effects go through it. I gave one example already - Misty Step. There's no spell in the game that casts through total cover.
This whole response is a bit of a red herring.
I am not talking about the nuances of the terminology of "targets" as used in various places in the rules. I am using natural language to explain a concept. The second sentence of my post that you botched the understanding of is entirely correct (The first sentence is fine too, if you use context to realize I'm talking about affected creatures rather than some specific definition of "targets" -- which by the way includes affected creatures -- I thought we went through that already). You need line of effect to cast the spell in a specific area, and line of effect for that area to expand to its full volume and affect creatures within. You do not need to see either the point you cast the spell or the creatures in its volume for that to be true. Vision is not a requirement of that spell, whereas it is for some others. Line of effect is required for spells unless indicated.
A) If a spell says you target "a point (or creature) within range", there must be a clear path to the target, but you do not have to see them/it. That means that the point (or creature) could be in darkness or fog, or invisible, or you could be blind, and you could still target it.
B) If a spell says you target "a point (or creature) you can see within range", then there is the added required of sight, which means that if you are blind, you can't target any creature/point, and if a creature is invisible, or it (or a point) is in darkness/fog, you cannot target that point/creature.
There is a key difference between line of sight and line of effect that would include/exclude these special circumstances based on the wording. None of it is going to allow you to target behind total cover though, as that would block line of effect, which is required for both circumstances and only circumvented by a very small number of spells (Sacred Flame [RAI per JC] is one). Once the target is established though, a number of spells can bypass direct lines of effect for their effects, and have been mentioned in this thread (such as Misty Step, and any spell that spreads around corners.
1. Much better said, yes this. You don't need to see the creatures affected by faerie fire because they're not the initial target of the spell. The cube's point of origin is (Which cannot be behind total cover).
2. Is this true for Faerie Fire? I'd normally have said yes automatically if we were talking about a more typical default AOE spell but the specific wording of Faerie Fire left me uncertain enough to make that claim. Faerie Fire is weird in that it creates an AOE that creates other AOEs. And, since it specifically targets objects then it would, typically, even target the object serving as the source of the total cover. So the cover itself would become affected and thus would radiate dim light, potentially beyond the area originally blocked. So, in a sense, some of the spell's secondary area effect would creep around potential total cover.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What are you even talking about? No. It is ok to be wrong. Just accept that once.
I guess what I said for Faerie Fire needs additional explanation.
So, the spell has multiple effects. It is more steps than your standard AOE. How so? Well, it creates an AOE that then creates more AOEs.
So the order is:
So, insofar as you consider the dim light part of the spell effect, total cover from the point of origin may not stop it. If you've ever used a VTT with dynamic lighting and a few dozen 10ft radius objects from this spell you know exactly what I'm talking about. A giant rock in the battlefield might offer a creature total cover from the point of origin but they'll suddenly find themselves in dim light anyway as everything around them starts glowing, even if they don't start glowing themselves.
Edit/TLDR: The dim light is one of the effects of the spell. An effect which often, in practice, wraps around the total cover that was blocking the original point of origin, because each affected creature/object is now their own point of origin for this secondary effect.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Shedding light is subject to its own rules which are different rules.
First thanks for clarifying my question, I was thinking of a creature being behind total cover as being invisible, but they are 2 separately explained concepts in dnd 5e and thus can't be likened the way I was doing in my head.
Found something that may help with the AOE question this thread was initially made for, so, while looking into a different topic, I came across something that may help clear this up, feel free to read the whole section in the PHB this is just an exert that I think may help.
So PHB Chapter 10 Spellcasting - Casting a Spell - Area's of Effect
"A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
Hope this helps. Thanks again.
Bear in mind the rules for transparent total cover don't exist. The most commonly accepted interpretation is that transparent total cover is total cover, because the consequences are weirder if it isn't than if it is. A very strict RAW reading means that transparent total cover only provides 3/4 cover, and if you actually follow that, a significant number of other rules go pear-shaped, like how fireball works.
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one. We didn't need JC to tell us that, but I thought he worded it well.
Something like a wall of force or a thick sheet of clear ice or a pane of glass (lol) provides cover in the sense that there is no direct line between you and the target, but it does not visually conceal the target from you. For that reason, it acts a little differently in a few specific situations (you can't attempt to hide if the enemy can see you, sacred flame can target through (around?) it, misty step can pass through it, etc.) In most cases, cover you can see through still acts like opaque cover for mechanical purposes. I don't know what this business is about transparent total cover actually being 3/4 cover, so I wouldn't dwell too much on that. Perhaps because of the sentence, "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle," but that doesn't mean a target has total cover only if completely concealed by it. I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think really the idea is that "covered" is used in three-quarters cover, whereas "concealed" is used in total cover. That reading in post #37 surmises that they're not used as synonyms and that to be "concealed" requires being concealed from vision specifically (but for some reason "covered" doesn't). Certainly, if imaginary straight lines emanating from the point of origin of a spell don't make it to you, you are concealed from that spell. The spell isn't using its eyes to look for you.
RAW, sacred flame states that cover is ignored for the saving throw.
"Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw."
This can be interpreted that even total cover offers no benefit for this saving throw, explicitly allowing the spell to affect creatures that you can see behind "total cover". You may not agree with that reading of the text but from a rules perspective there is nothing incorrect about it. Specific beating general in terms of the usual requirement to have a clear line of effect uninterrupted by total cover.
Perhaps there is a more appropriate post to ask my question (Making a ranged attack against a heavily obscured creature or Casting spells while blinded), but I'll try here since it's related to spells and visibility of targets.
I'd like to have a second opinion about something I ruled last week while we were playing DMing Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.
In that module, there's a weather effect affecting the visibility, so that visibility is reduced to 60 feet due to the falling snow at some moment of the adventure.
During the session, a creature moved more than 60 feet away from a character, and that character wanted to cast Guiding Bolt against that enemy.
The snowfall is creating a heavily obscured area, but it's still possible to target the enemy since Guiding Bolt doesn't require to see the target to cast the spell, but my question is: with or without disadvantage? Both creatures (the enemy and the player) are blinded, right? So I suppose we make a normal attack roll in this situation.
At least, that it's my understanding if we follow the rules about blind condition and Advantage and Disadvantage.
I would rule the spellcaster has disadvantage on the attack roll since the caster cannot see the target. I see no problems with spell targeting, and I would not consider the attacker or the target to be blinded in this case, even though the target cannot see the attacker.
Not being able to see the attacker does not impose any special penalty on the target in the absence of any conditions that modify this general rule.[EDIT: I was mistaken about this part] The rules for unseen attackers and targets handles it fine on its own.EDIT: Situationally, if the DM wants to rule that the howling wind and falling snow makes the attacker unable to see or hear the target, then you could have the attacker guess the target's location and then roll the attack with disadvantage. At that point, treat the target as hidden at that moment. It's a DM's ruling on whether to apply a rule to a particular situation :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"