Finally, the Sage Advice Compendium IS official rules and clarifications. This document only contains a small fraction of the responses from JC on twitter. I would like to see some additional clarifications (like whether Wall of Force provides Total Cover) added to it. The latest version of the compendium made JCs sage advice responses not official.
...
Nuh uh, they're official "rulings", not rules. The hierarchy from "opinion" to "rule" goes roughly like:
Rulings you would make as a player
Rulings JC makes in his tweets
Rulings that have been compiled and rewritten as SAC
Optional rules presented in rule supplements and other publications which your DM has not yet chosen to adopt (Xanathar's, etc)
Rulings/House Rules your DM has chosen to run their game, and optional rules from supplements that they've adopted
Rules printed in the three-and-a-half core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM, and Basic Rules)
This is the problem with RAW interpretations, the books and even Crawford can't account for every scenario. However the DM needs to use common sense and make a ruling to see if it makes sense for the world/table. Case in point the spell Scrying by RAW every time you cast scrying it should fail since you do not have line of effect. Is that what you would tell your players sorry by RAW this spell doesn't function you lose your spell slot.
Scrying targets yourself, then the effect reaches over the whole plane. The rules about total cover / clear path are related only to spell targeting, not every spell effect in existence.
read the spell it says the target makes a wisdom saving throw
Scrying targets yourself, then the effect reaches over the whole plane. The rules about total cover / clear path are related only to spell targeting, not every spell effect in existence.
read the spell it says the target makes a wisdom saving throw
It's not the only spell to get a bit free and loose with the word "target".
The range of the spell is "Self". Spellcasting rules confirm that "the target of a spell must be within the spell's range", so you are the only valid creature in range to be the "target of the spell".
I admit that you could write a whole essay about how inconsistent the rules are on this topic, but I think the default is that when choosing the target(s) within the spell's range, you cannot target through total cover. Any further targeting doesn't have that same condition. Seems pretty shoddy, but there we are...
I was using this as an example that running RAW just doesn't work in 5e. Its meant to be a rules light system as such rulings are made largely by DM discretion/fiat. Its what makes the system so much fun as it promotes the philosophy of "why say no when you can try is so much more fun" .
What I will say is you should rule what promotes the most fun at the table but this should also be tempered by consistency. If you want a rulebook where every possible game situation is covered you better get a bigger book shelf/case.
Finally, the Sage Advice Compendium IS official rules and clarifications. This document only contains a small fraction of the responses from JC on twitter. I would like to see some additional clarifications (like whether Wall of Force provides Total Cover) added to it. The latest version of the compendium made JCs sage advice responses not official.
...
Nuh uh, they're official "rulings", not rules. The hierarchy from "opinion" to "rule" goes roughly like:
Rulings you would make as a player
Rulings JC makes in his tweets
Rulings that have been compiled and rewritten as SAC
Optional rules presented in rule supplements and other publications which your DM has not yet chosen to adopt (Xanathar's, etc)
Rulings/House Rules your DM has chosen to run their game, and optional rules from supplements that they've adopted
Rules printed in the three-and-a-half core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM, and Basic Rules)
We've been through this one enough that I'll concede you are mostly right. But importantly, 5 and 6 are swapped: what the DM says in your game goes for your game, no matter what anything else says, and the only way around that is to find a new game or convince the DM to say something else.
3 and 4 are both official statements from the company that brought you the game, so as far as I'm concerned, they weigh heavily into what I'd rule as a DM. They are how it is "supposed to work." The more I've read the attempt at natural language rules and the arguments on this forum, the more that taking 3 or 4 seems to be good enough for me rather than arguing the minutia of sentences that weren't originally written with any.
line of sight- line of effect. Concealment vs cover.
When your head sticks up from above a brick wall, your body gets cover, but u dont get concealment - i know where u r and where to get to, to attack u. Transparent glass doesnt grant u concealment. It grants u cover (lets say for the sake of argument the glass is bulletproof). I can aim at u directly and shoot at u. I wont hit u, but i see u. If u r behind a glass pane and i cast a magic missile, it requires the target to be visible. Its visible, so the missile will find a way. If u r inside a glass box, it wont find a way. Contrast it with the effect of the invisibility.
U can cast wall of force as a pane, or a box and its transparent, as opposed to the wall of stone, for instance, thats opaque.
Biggest issue is the description, stating "nothing can PHISICALLY pass through". Simplest division between what can u cast through it is whether u "select a target u see", or theres an effect requiring u to connect with - a missile, ray or tentacle. That would let u cast ice storm, summon barlgura and pick a target for blight beyond of the dome, as well as teleport out, but wont let lightning bolts, scorching rays, or possibly ennervation through. In general, ask yourself what exactly passed through the wall. If the answer is "nothing" - u r in the clear.
But if u wanna discuss whether "a ray of light", like disintegrate, or scorching ray is "physical", ull have to create a full list of spells allowed to pass the barrier. For example, u could cast flame strike and stop the flames, but not the "radiant" damage from hitting yourself.
When so many ppl can see the same issue thats not specified, its clear u should consider it. Furthermore, the guy on twitter wrote "nothing can pass through it", which is incorrect - the book says "nothing can physically pass through" - its precisely specified, so it must be there to differenciate effects.
Where does it state that Wall of Force provides total cover? It does not say so in the spell description.
Doesn't have to. It's a large, thick, wall that prevents anything passing through. It provides total cover the same as any other wall would. Cover is about a physical barrier, not sight, so seeing through the wall means nothing, it remains an impenetrable physical barrier and thus satisfied the rulings of total cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
For a wall of force, "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." (PHB 285). Sound is a physical phenomenon. Sound is a form of energy that propagates through a physical medium that has mass such as air, water, etc. Light is physical as well, but since the spell specifies that the wall is invisible we have to assume it is transparent and that therefore light can pass through it. Otherwise, the rule is self-contradictory. One idea is that light passes through because it doesn't need to propagate through a medium that has mass. We should then interpret "physical" as applying to anything with mass. This would make the wall of force spell much weaker because many spells that are described as "energy" would then be able to pass through it unless it is a kind of energy that has to propagate through a medium with mass. The other way to interpret it is that no form of energy or matter can pass through the wall except light. This latter interpretation is the one I favor.
According to the rules about cover, "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle" (PHB 196). Since the wall of force is transparent, it doesn't conceal anything and does not provide any cover. The spell description also mentions nothing about cover (PHB 285). It works by preventing anything from physically passing through it. So, there is a clear path to the target through a wall of force, meaning that any spell that just requires you to be able to see the target should work through the wall of force.
Ray of frost is interesting: it is described as "a frigid beam of blue-white light." On the interpretation I'm advocating, this should be able to pass through the wall of force. This is different than, say, ray of sickness. That spell says "a ray of sickening greenish energy lashes out..." This is a kind of energy, but it does not say it is light, so it would not be able to pass through the wall of force. The green color of the energy is coincidental and does not mean the energy itself is electromagnetic energy along the visible spectrum. The Ray of frost explicitly says it is "light." Prismatic spray would be able to penetrate the wall of force because it also is explicitly described as "light."
Considering the half- and three-quarters-cover rules, concealment means blocking of line of effect. Each uses a synonym for "block" and doesn't use consistent language at all. Concealed, in this case, pretty clearly just means blocked. That's just a style choice the authors made, or at least there is a very strong argument to be made for that case.
For a wall of force, "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." (PHB 285). Sound is a physical phenomenon. Sound is a form of energy that propagates through a physical medium that has mass such as air, water, etc. Light is physical as well, but since the spell specifies that the wall is invisible we have to assume it is transparent and that therefore light can pass through it. Otherwise, the rule is self-contradictory. One idea is that light passes through because it doesn't need to propagate through a medium that has mass. We should then interpret "physical" as applying to anything with mass. This would make the wall of force spell much weaker because many spells that are described as "energy" would then be able to pass through it unless it is a kind of energy that has to propagate through a medium with mass. The other way to interpret it is that no form of energy or matter can pass through the wall except light. This latter interpretation is the one I favor.
You're talking about damage types? The only damage types that could even potentially propagate with very nearly 0 mass (ignoring magic as much as possible) are Psychic, Force, Radiant, and Necrotic, all of which are so deeply magical that we can't really reason about them, and Fire (which you could carry with photons). But the idea that a Wall of Force cares about damage types is absurd. I agree with you, it should block anything total cover can block.
According to the rules about cover, "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle" (PHB 196). Since the wall of force is transparent, it doesn't conceal anything and does not provide any cover. The spell description also mentions nothing about cover (PHB 285). It works by preventing anything from physically passing through it. So, there is a clear path to the target through a wall of force, meaning that any spell that just requires you to be able to see the target should work through the wall of force.
This is a long-solved problem in 5E: transparent total cover is total cover (you can't render a steel wall invisible and thereby shoot arrows through it). "Concealed" is simply WOTC using the wrong term; like with the rules for darkness, by community consensus, we all agree to ignore WOTC's RAW in favor of rules that are actually playable.
Ray of frost is interesting: it is described as "a frigid beam of blue-white light." On the interpretation I'm advocating, this should be able to pass through the wall of force. This is different than, say, ray of sickness. That spell says "a ray of sickening greenish energy lashes out..." This is a kind of energy, but it does not say it is light, so it would not be able to pass through the wall of force. The green color of the energy is coincidental and does not mean the energy itself is electromagnetic energy along the visible spectrum. The Ray of frost explicitly says it is "light." Prismatic spray would be able to penetrate the wall of force because it also is explicitly described as "light."
Ray of Frost is a spell, so it can't target through total cover, which Wall of Force provides in the same way a sheet of glass does.
In the spell description it's states "Nothing can physically pass through it" and sound is technically physical because it's a vibration that moves air molecules a specific way to make a given signal, so as for talking and magic that would need to be heard or travel that doesnt just manifest in a place of choosing or sight based I'd say no as a personal dm choice, but anything that does form based on sight or a spell that happen telepathically etc that's fine, but that's only my opinion
Ray of Frost is a spell, so it can't target through total cover, which Wall of Force provides in the same way a sheet of glass does.
Just pointing out that by that reasoning a wall of force, a sheet of glass, and a piece of plastic wrap all provide total cover.
Also, keep in mind, that total cover prevents the targeting of physical attacks just as much as it does spell attacks. As a result, a sheet of glass and plastic wrap provide total cover for spells then they also provide total cover and prevent the targeting of ranged attacks with weapons like a heavy crossbow which logically should be unaffected by transparent plastic wrap and likely minimally affected by a thin sheet of glass.
On the other hand, wall of force contains the specific description that nothing can physically pass through it but the definition of "total cover" that is being used here only requires something between the attacker and the target and it doesn't matter whether the blockage is transparent or not. The term concealed is used to mean "in the way" whether transparent or not and thus interpreted to provide total cover irrespective of the properties of the barrier.
Neither windows nor plastic wrap prevent something from physically passing through them. However, they are both transparent objects between the attacker and the target and by the interpretation of "concealed" cited above both would provide total cover and prevent targeting either physical or spell attacks through them.
---
Do you allow a character to shoot their heavy crossbow through a transparent drape, thin window, or other obstruction at a target that they can clearly see on the other side? RAW, if these provide total cover then you can't target a creature on the other side of it with a ranged weapon even if you can see it. Despite the fact that the heavy crossbow bolt designed to pierce through heavy armor would easily pass through either a transparent drape or thin window?
So, which definition of "total cover" do you choose to use for physical attacks? Are you using the same as spell attacks?
"A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell" - total cover applies equally to physical and spell attacks.
------
The point here is that applying an interpretation of "total cover" that gets the result you want for Wall of Force may have unrealistic consequences when applied to both physical and spell attacks for the full range of possible transparent obstructions.
The Devs discussed targeting during one of their DragonTalk Podcast saying spells couldn't be cast through a total cover and physical obstruction such as a glass window. (32:00)
Ray of Frost is a spell, so it can't target through total cover, which Wall of Force provides in the same way a sheet of glass does.
Just pointing out that by that reasoning a wall of force, a sheet of glass, and a piece of plastic wrap all provide total cover.
This is correct.
Also, keep in mind, that total cover prevents the targeting of physical attacks just as much as it does spell attacks.
This is also correct.
As a result, a sheet of glass and plastic wrap provide total cover for spells then they also provide total cover and prevent the targeting of ranged attacks with weapons like a heavy crossbow which logically should be unaffected by transparent plastic wrap and likely minimally affected by a thin sheet of glass.
The first half of this sentence is correct. As to the second half about being "unaffected", the DMG both has rules for attacking an object and rules for handling when an attack should hit intervening cover that can be hit, so we have mechanics for affecting the intervening cover in general. In the specific case of total cover, the DMG rules don't allow for hitting it by accident, as you can't even attempt an attack on a target behind total cover. Note that, as always for this forum, I am telling you what the RAW states; it is not challenging to homebrew the RAW in a way that more intuitively matches the real world, but that is generally beyond the scope of this forum.
Note that under the aforementioned rules for interacting with objects, plastic wrap is immune to psychic damage and so even if it hit by e.g. a Soulknife's psychic blade will take no damage and remain pristine. It is likewise immune to poison damage.
More on not being able to target below.
On the other hand, wall of force contains the specific description that nothing can physically pass through it but the definition of "total cover" that is being used here only requires something between the attacker and the target and it doesn't matter whether the blockage is transparent or not. The term concealed is used to mean "in the way" whether transparent or not and thus interpreted to provide total cover irrespective of the properties of the barrier.
This is entirely correct except that the size and position of the blockage/barrier will matter in general; its other properties, such as AC, HP, damage immunities, and so on, will not.
Neither windows nor plastic wrap prevent something from physically passing through them. However, they are both transparent objects between the attacker and the target and by the interpretation of "concealed" cited above both would provide total cover and prevent targeting either physical or spell attacks through them.
This is correct. Note that because they prevent targeting, they do not make the desired target harder to hit (the attacker can't even roll to hit) or harder to damage (as there's no way to reach the damage roll), and, in fact, it is not the case that you can attempt the shot and then check to see what happens to the glass or plastic (as I mentioned above). This is why the physical properties of the barrier don't matter. You can't even make the attack, so it doesn't matter what would happen if your attack hit the barrier - the attack can't be made.
-Do you allow a character to shoot their heavy crossbow through a transparent drape, thin window, or other obstruction at a target that they can clearly see on the other side? RAW, if these provide total cover then you can't target a creature on the other side of it with a ranged weapon even if you can see it. Despite the fact that the heavy crossbow bolt designed to pierce through heavy armor would easily pass through either a transparent drape or thin window?
No, the RAW prevents it.
So, which definition of "total cover" do you choose to use for physical attacks?
It's not material how I rule at my table. This forum is about the RAW, which has only one definition of total cover.
Are you using the same as spell attacks?
The only definition of total cover in the rules does not distinguish between spell and weapon attacks. "Physical" attacks are not defined anywhere and have no rules meaning.
"A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell" - total cover applies equally to physical and spell attacks.
And not just spell attacks, either. Many spells don't incorporate spell attacks but do incorporate targeting. For example, charm person.
The point here is that applying an interpretation of "total cover" that gets the result you want for Wall of Force
This has nothing to do with what I want.
may have unrealistic consequences when applied to both physical and spell attacks for the full range of possible transparent obstructions.
The RAW is very seldom realistic. Have you read the RAW on how darkness works? Or light fog? Or healing from an injury? Or fighting while injured?
The RAW is very seldom realistic. Have you read the RAW on how darkness works? Or light fog? Or healing from an injury? Or fighting while injured?
Thanks for the comprehensive answer - it was consistent all the way through and consistent with interpreting "concealed" in the total cover rule as just being behind something, even something flimsy and transparent, which would prevent targeting both weapon attacks and spells.
Also, I think you've likely been on the forums long enough to know my contributions to the interminable discussions on the lighting rules that need a rewrite.
As for injuries and fighting while injured - the only RAW I've found are the optional rules in the DMG - which don't look terrible at first glance for a simplistic system. If folks want this level of detail, they should probably look at homebrewing something.
Nuh uh, they're official "rulings", not rules. The hierarchy from "opinion" to "rule" goes roughly like:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
read the spell it says the target makes a wisdom saving throw
It's not the only spell to get a bit free and loose with the word "target".
The range of the spell is "Self". Spellcasting rules confirm that "the target of a spell must be within the spell's range", so you are the only valid creature in range to be the "target of the spell".
I admit that you could write a whole essay about how inconsistent the rules are on this topic, but I think the default is that when choosing the target(s) within the spell's range, you cannot target through total cover. Any further targeting doesn't have that same condition. Seems pretty shoddy, but there we are...
I was using this as an example that running RAW just doesn't work in 5e. Its meant to be a rules light system as such rulings are made largely by DM discretion/fiat. Its what makes the system so much fun as it promotes the philosophy of "why say no when you can try is so much more fun" .
What I will say is you should rule what promotes the most fun at the table but this should also be tempered by consistency. If you want a rulebook where every possible game situation is covered you better get a bigger book shelf/case.
We've been through this one enough that I'll concede you are mostly right. But importantly, 5 and 6 are swapped: what the DM says in your game goes for your game, no matter what anything else says, and the only way around that is to find a new game or convince the DM to say something else.
3 and 4 are both official statements from the company that brought you the game, so as far as I'm concerned, they weigh heavily into what I'd rule as a DM. They are how it is "supposed to work." The more I've read the attempt at natural language rules and the arguments on this forum, the more that taking 3 or 4 seems to be good enough for me rather than arguing the minutia of sentences that weren't originally written with any.
Perfect analise from TexasDevin!
line of sight- line of effect. Concealment vs cover.
When your head sticks up from above a brick wall, your body gets cover, but u dont get concealment - i know where u r and where to get to, to attack u. Transparent glass doesnt grant u concealment. It grants u cover (lets say for the sake of argument the glass is bulletproof). I can aim at u directly and shoot at u. I wont hit u, but i see u. If u r behind a glass pane and i cast a magic missile, it requires the target to be visible. Its visible, so the missile will find a way. If u r inside a glass box, it wont find a way. Contrast it with the effect of the invisibility.
U can cast wall of force as a pane, or a box and its transparent, as opposed to the wall of stone, for instance, thats opaque.
Biggest issue is the description, stating "nothing can PHISICALLY pass through". Simplest division between what can u cast through it is whether u "select a target u see", or theres an effect requiring u to connect with - a missile, ray or tentacle. That would let u cast ice storm, summon barlgura and pick a target for blight beyond of the dome, as well as teleport out, but wont let lightning bolts, scorching rays, or possibly ennervation through. In general, ask yourself what exactly passed through the wall. If the answer is "nothing" - u r in the clear.
But if u wanna discuss whether "a ray of light", like disintegrate, or scorching ray is "physical", ull have to create a full list of spells allowed to pass the barrier. For example, u could cast flame strike and stop the flames, but not the "radiant" damage from hitting yourself.
When so many ppl can see the same issue thats not specified, its clear u should consider it. Furthermore, the guy on twitter wrote "nothing can pass through it", which is incorrect - the book says "nothing can physically pass through" - its precisely specified, so it must be there to differenciate effects.
Where does it state that Wall of Force provides total cover? It does not say so in the spell description.
Doesn't have to. It's a large, thick, wall that prevents anything passing through. It provides total cover the same as any other wall would. Cover is about a physical barrier, not sight, so seeing through the wall means nothing, it remains an impenetrable physical barrier and thus satisfied the rulings of total cover.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Considering the half- and three-quarters-cover rules, concealment means blocking of line of effect. Each uses a synonym for "block" and doesn't use consistent language at all. Concealed, in this case, pretty clearly just means blocked. That's just a style choice the authors made, or at least there is a very strong argument to be made for that case.
You're talking about damage types? The only damage types that could even potentially propagate with very nearly 0 mass (ignoring magic as much as possible) are Psychic, Force, Radiant, and Necrotic, all of which are so deeply magical that we can't really reason about them, and Fire (which you could carry with photons). But the idea that a Wall of Force cares about damage types is absurd. I agree with you, it should block anything total cover can block.
This is a long-solved problem in 5E: transparent total cover is total cover (you can't render a steel wall invisible and thereby shoot arrows through it). "Concealed" is simply WOTC using the wrong term; like with the rules for darkness, by community consensus, we all agree to ignore WOTC's RAW in favor of rules that are actually playable.
Ray of Frost is a spell, so it can't target through total cover, which Wall of Force provides in the same way a sheet of glass does.
In the spell description it's states "Nothing can physically pass through it" and sound is technically physical because it's a vibration that moves air molecules a specific way to make a given signal, so as for talking and magic that would need to be heard or travel that doesnt just manifest in a place of choosing or sight based I'd say no as a personal dm choice, but anything that does form based on sight or a spell that happen telepathically etc that's fine, but that's only my opinion
Thanks for the clarification on "concealed." That makes a lot of sense for the rules about cover from projectiles, rays, etc.
Just pointing out that by that reasoning a wall of force, a sheet of glass, and a piece of plastic wrap all provide total cover.
Also, keep in mind, that total cover prevents the targeting of physical attacks just as much as it does spell attacks. As a result, a sheet of glass and plastic wrap provide total cover for spells then they also provide total cover and prevent the targeting of ranged attacks with weapons like a heavy crossbow which logically should be unaffected by transparent plastic wrap and likely minimally affected by a thin sheet of glass.
On the other hand, wall of force contains the specific description that nothing can physically pass through it but the definition of "total cover" that is being used here only requires something between the attacker and the target and it doesn't matter whether the blockage is transparent or not. The term concealed is used to mean "in the way" whether transparent or not and thus interpreted to provide total cover irrespective of the properties of the barrier.
Neither windows nor plastic wrap prevent something from physically passing through them. However, they are both transparent objects between the attacker and the target and by the interpretation of "concealed" cited above both would provide total cover and prevent targeting either physical or spell attacks through them.
---
Do you allow a character to shoot their heavy crossbow through a transparent drape, thin window, or other obstruction at a target that they can clearly see on the other side? RAW, if these provide total cover then you can't target a creature on the other side of it with a ranged weapon even if you can see it. Despite the fact that the heavy crossbow bolt designed to pierce through heavy armor would easily pass through either a transparent drape or thin window?
So, which definition of "total cover" do you choose to use for physical attacks? Are you using the same as spell attacks?
"A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell" - total cover applies equally to physical and spell attacks.
------
The point here is that applying an interpretation of "total cover" that gets the result you want for Wall of Force may have unrealistic consequences when applied to both physical and spell attacks for the full range of possible transparent obstructions.
The Devs discussed targeting during one of their DragonTalk Podcast saying spells couldn't be cast through a total cover and physical obstruction such as a glass window. (32:00)
This is correct.
This is also correct.
The first half of this sentence is correct. As to the second half about being "unaffected", the DMG both has rules for attacking an object and rules for handling when an attack should hit intervening cover that can be hit, so we have mechanics for affecting the intervening cover in general. In the specific case of total cover, the DMG rules don't allow for hitting it by accident, as you can't even attempt an attack on a target behind total cover. Note that, as always for this forum, I am telling you what the RAW states; it is not challenging to homebrew the RAW in a way that more intuitively matches the real world, but that is generally beyond the scope of this forum.
Note that under the aforementioned rules for interacting with objects, plastic wrap is immune to psychic damage and so even if it hit by e.g. a Soulknife's psychic blade will take no damage and remain pristine. It is likewise immune to poison damage.
More on not being able to target below.
This is entirely correct except that the size and position of the blockage/barrier will matter in general; its other properties, such as AC, HP, damage immunities, and so on, will not.
This is correct. Note that because they prevent targeting, they do not make the desired target harder to hit (the attacker can't even roll to hit) or harder to damage (as there's no way to reach the damage roll), and, in fact, it is not the case that you can attempt the shot and then check to see what happens to the glass or plastic (as I mentioned above). This is why the physical properties of the barrier don't matter. You can't even make the attack, so it doesn't matter what would happen if your attack hit the barrier - the attack can't be made.
No, the RAW prevents it.
It's not material how I rule at my table. This forum is about the RAW, which has only one definition of total cover.
The only definition of total cover in the rules does not distinguish between spell and weapon attacks. "Physical" attacks are not defined anywhere and have no rules meaning.
And not just spell attacks, either. Many spells don't incorporate spell attacks but do incorporate targeting. For example, charm person.
This has nothing to do with what I want.
The RAW is very seldom realistic. Have you read the RAW on how darkness works? Or light fog? Or healing from an injury? Or fighting while injured?
Thanks for the comprehensive answer - it was consistent all the way through and consistent with interpreting "concealed" in the total cover rule as just being behind something, even something flimsy and transparent, which would prevent targeting both weapon attacks and spells.
Also, I think you've likely been on the forums long enough to know my contributions to the interminable discussions on the lighting rules that need a rewrite.
As for injuries and fighting while injured - the only RAW I've found are the optional rules in the DMG - which don't look terrible at first glance for a simplistic system. If folks want this level of detail, they should probably look at homebrewing something.
Wall of force extends to the ethereal plane and blocks all teleporting it's right in the spell text.
This is indeed in the spell text.
This is not.
"Not all those who wander are lost"