"A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover, If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
In your quote you separate "behind total cover" and "If you place" with a comma. The PHB separates them with both a period and a new line. While it may seem to be a minor oversight, in terms of how the "instructions" should be handled, it is an important distinction.
Reading the quote you have it lends to the idea that all of the conditions are contingent on each other, creating a very confusing situation. You can't target something that's behind total cover and you can't target an AoE behind an obstruction which you can't see through. This lends to the interpretation that nothing can pass through the Wall of Force.
However, as I posted above, they are two distinctly separate lines. This makes them non-inclusive, line one dealing with targeted spells, and line two dealing with AoEs.
Sorry the period/comma was a typo on my part. The actual text is:
"A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
The first sentence says that in order to target something it can not be behind total cover.
The second clause refers ONLY to targeting a point that you can not see. If the path turns out to be obstructed then the point of origin of THE AREA OF EFFECT spell comes into being on the near side of the obstruction. The second clause ONLY addresses area of effect spells targeted at a location you can not see.
A wall of force does not provide concealment and so does not provide total cover. Therefore you can see and target something on the far side of a wall of force. Since you can see them the second sentence does not apply since it only applies to placing an area of effect at a point you can't see, not at one you can see. :)
It comes down to: "Does a Wall of Force provide total cover to something behind it?" ... which is the same question as a window or any other transparent obstruction. "Do any of these provide total cover to a target behind the solid yet transparent obstruction?" If it provides total cover then you can't target a spell on the other side.
he definition of total cover uses the word "concealed". Concealment means being unable to SEE.
"A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
Since a wall of force does not provide concealment - it doesn't actually fulfill the requirement to provide total cover.
See Sage Advice here. A solid obstacle provides cover. Transparency not withstanding. Visual concealment is not a requirement for total cover, a solid obstacle is.
I'd just comment that the Sage Advice compendium is here:
At the beginning of the sage advice compendium it says the following:
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de-signer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."
The links you cite are a quote from Mike Mearls on how he would play wall of force. The Sage Advice Compendium and published errata do not address this question at all so DMs are free to interpret RAW as they like. Sage Advice tweets are not rulings on how the game should be played.
The rules on total cover in the player's handbook require it to provide concealment and that has not been changed by errata. People are welcome to play it however they like since house rules are an intrinsic part of D&D but the statement "Visual concealment is not a requirement for total cover, a solid obstacle is." Is not stated anywhere in the rule books and is an interpretation.
Side track for a moment to clarify: I was addressing the absurd assertion by RegentCorreon that being behind an invisible/transparent object, magical or mundane, makes you immune to spells.
To your question: Yes, absolutely. Spells do what they say they do. If Wall of Force blocked magic, it would say so. It doesn't. Antimagic Field does.
If it doesn't block spells then this whole thread is pointless, I believe that assertion is inherently incorrect. The assertion implies that no spell is physical, since Wall of Force says nothing physical can pass through it.
Now now I didn't quite say that! Conjuration spells are a good example. A summoned creature isn't going to be able to pass through the wall of force once it has been summoned, but it could be summoned on the other side of the wall (or inside a dome). You mentioned Acid Splash (also Conjuration), and I agree with you. The spell produces a physical substance, and then you hurl it at a target. That can be blocked.
The effect of Fireball does not occur at the point of casting. It occurs at the point of origin.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You can cast Fireball through a closed window to any point in the interior that you can see. A creature huddled in the corner of the room behind a table might have cover from the explosion.
Unfortunately, for fireball, the spell specically travels from your finger to the specified point. Thus you can't cast it through a closed window. :/
Yes, you can. It is an AoE spell. The effect radiates from the point of origin. You select the point of origin. It can be behind an "obstruction" so long as you can see the point you want to designate as the origin. A glass window will not prevent this from happening.
Jeremy Crawford specifically feels otherwise. It may not have made it into the Sage Advice Compendium yet, and there for by the most pedantic standards may to be "official" but he has made it very clear that RAI is that a pane of glass will stop a Fireball spell. This is the exact situation he describes and states that as the fireball travels from the mage's finger to the point where it explodes it is blocked by the glass.
He and Mearls have also stated that the RAI of "total cover" is that "concealment" as used in the description of total cover is being on the other side of a solid obstruction, transparency not withstanding. It is pedantry in the extreme to parse that a transparent but solid obstacle does not provide total cover, but would provide partial cover.
Of course you are free to ignore any and all statements and interpretations by the designers until the appear in official print, you are also free to ignore published errata in favor which ever printing of a book you have. But don't e surprised if the wider community disagree with you.
I assume that those arguing that a transparent substance cannot ever provide total cover because it cannot provide "concealment" will also agree that in D&D 5e a torch or candle cannot be used to set anything on fire because the rules do not say that this is permitted. A tinderbox, a Gnomish firestarter, and certain spells are the only things in the rules described as being able to light other things on fire. See how silly the game gets when you are excessively pedantic with your interpretations of the rules?
Similarly I could carry an open paper bag full of gunpowder through the area of effect of a Fire Storm spell and it would not ignite, nor would the papers in my other hand. No matter how much damage I might take from the spell, the paper and gun powder would not ignite. This is defined by the spell description which states that its which are being worn or carried do not ignite.
Is there even a rule stating how much if any water I need to drink every day? Or food I need to eat? If not my character might never eat or drink anything at all.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I assume that those arguing that a transparent substance cannot ever provide total cover because it cannot provide "concealment" will also agree that in D&D 5e a torch or candle cannot be used to set anything on fire because the rules do not say that this is permitted. A tinderbox, a Gnomish firestarter, and certain spells are the only things in the rules described as being able to light other things on fire. See how silly the game gets when you are excessively pedantic with your interpretations of the rules?
Similarly I could carry an open paper bag full of gunpowder through the area of effect of a Fire Storm spell and it would not ignite, nor would the papers in my other hand. No matter how much damage I might take from the spell, the paper and gun powder would not ignite. This is defined by the spell description which states that its which are being worn or carried do not ignite.
Is there even a rule stating how much if any water I need to drink every day? Or food I need to eat? If not my character might never eat or drink anything at all.
If we were operating in our physical universe then we could say:
- A thin window does not provide total cover from a bullet since the bullet would pierce the glass. Same for a crossbow bolt for that matter. A thick piece of glass might provide total cover from some projectiles. An intermediate sized piece of glass might provide partial cover by deflecting the projectile.
- A window would not provide total cover against a directed energy weapon/laser or similar.
- We could say that a torch or candle can be used to light a fire.
However, we aren't operating in our universe. We are trying to interpret how magic interacts with physical objects in an imaginary universe and the only things we have to interpret this are the words in the rulebooks. Pedantry need not apply since the only definitions we have to work with are those in the books.
- can a torch or candle be used to light a fire. Likely true since many aspects of the D&D universe operate like ours and neither a torch or candle involves magic.
However, in our universe, a thin pane of glass is not sufficient to prevent an assassin from attacking with a crossbow bolt through the window. If a window in the D&D universe provides total cover then an assassin outside the thinest of windows is unable to fire their crossbow at a target behind the window because they have "total cover".
We then come to the question of magic. Targeting spells usually just requires the caster to be able to "see" the target. They also need a clear path to the target, not behind total cover and total cover is defined as requiring concealment. (I am just quoting what the books say .. not what you or I or anyone else might wish they said, so please don't shoot the messenger).
No where in the rules does it indicate that a spell without any form of manifestation travels as if it were a physical object from the point of casting to the point where the magic manifests. If you read the fluff, the weave is everywhere. Magical effects are produced by manipulation of the weave. There is no indication that this manipulation can't just occur wherever the magic manifests rather than requiring the magic to travel in a straight line between the caster and the point where the spell effect occurs. Some spell descriptions include a manifestation between caster and target and others do not. The NATURE of magic is not described in the rule books. Thus, unlike torches and candles, it is impossible to decide what is an appropriate behaviour for a magic spell. All we have is the text in the books. That isn't being pedantic, that is just reading what is written and not making up stuff in terms of how I think magic should work.
Personally, I don't care how it is interpreted, that is up to every player and DM to decide how it works at their table. Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls, you, me, everyone who DMs decides how they want it to work in their game. However, the rule book gives guidelines on how it could work and without updates to either the rulebooks or clarifications we are left with total cover requiring an obstacle that completely conceals the target. We don't have any input on exactly how a magic spell propagates from caster to target or whether it even propagates at all ... it could just appear at the target location without physically traversing the space in between.
If you can show me where the nature of magic is described in the rules and how it is a physical manifestation that needs to propagate and thus is blocked by physical obstacles, please point it out. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE ... which is the foundation of this argument. Spells are blocked by total cover and total cover is DEFINED to be completely concealed by an obstacle and CONCEALED is defined (in the dictionary in natural word usage) as being unable to be seen.
Thus why this topic comes up over and over again and is a source of much argument.
So if I have a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass and I stand so half of me is behind it and half of me isn't I get to claim half cover, if three quarters of me is behind the glass I get three-quarter cover, but if I step all the way behind the glass I have no cover? Seriously that is what people are trying to argue for. Standing fully behind a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass does not give you total cover because the glass does not "conceal" me. Since I can be seen through the glass I do not get cover. The thickness of the glass is immaterial to the argument that the lack of cover is because transparent glass does not "conceal" what is behind it.
DMThac0: "Is transparent so it does not provide Cover."
David42: "A wall of force does not provide concealment and so does not provide total cover."
Quotes to show that, yes, this is exactly what people are saying. If you can see through something it cannot provide total cover.
You can attack someone on the other side of a door with any weapon you like!
Half cover and three-quarters cover only require the presence of an "obstacle", but full cover requires being "completely concealed by an obstacle". "Completely concealed" means you cannot see it at all. So, by definition, if you can see it through an obstacle it can't claim total cover. At most it can claim three-quarters cover. Yes, Virginia, this means that by RAW you can look through the keyhole of a door at someone and shoot at them with your longbow. At most they will have three-quarter cover, but because you can see them they cannot have full cover. There for you can shoot at them, cast spells at them, or whatever else you want to do, secure in the knowledge that this is playing by the rules. If you can see it, it does not have total cover and there can be "targeted directly by an attack or spell." You can swing your pole arm at the fellow on the other side of the door if he is within ten feet. At most he will have a +5 to AC from three-quarters cover, but you can swing at him because he does not have total cover. The fact that there is a solid door between you doesn't matter because that peep hole means he doesn't have total cover and is there for a valid target for a direct attack.
In fact in DMThac0's game you would attack the guy on the other side of that door freely . Same if he was standing on the other side of a glass wall. "It is transparent so it does not provide Cover." "Transparent (adj) (of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen." The peep hole renders the door definitionally transparent. Light passes through it so objects behind can be seen. Transparent objects do not provide cover. The door with a peep hole does not provide cover. QED
I would like to point out that what you quoted me saying is not the point I was making, the entirety of that section was meant to be read as a whole.
Wall of Force:
Is transparent so it does not provide Cover. You can target a creature "behind" the wall.
An obstacle between an attacker and their opponent creates Cover.
Is capable of stopping physical things from passing through it, but it is not an obstacle.
If you look at that carefully you will see that it contradicts itself, thus supporting what you're saying. If I am half behind a window I get half-cover, if I hide 3/4 behind a window I get 3/4 cover, and if I hide completely behind a window, I get no cover (your faulty logic example).
Wall of Force is an obstacle that can stop physical things, even though it is transparent. Obstacles provide Cover. Wall of Force should, by that logic, provide Cover. If you are fully behind Wall of Force, you have Total Cover.
The only part of this argument, since it has started, that I have conceeded is that an AoE, which has the ability to manifest at any point in space without a "from your hand/finger/body" rider, can be cast inside the Wall of Force. (Stinking Cloud vs Fireball)
An object behind a pane of glass could be said to be “completely concealed” in the sense that the area of its profile is totally overlapped by the glass from the perspective of the attacker. Regardless of the effectiveness of the concealment, it is complete.
Compare this with me hiding behind a perfect painting of myself: I am completely concealed by the painting, it's just not very effective concealment.
In both cases, it seems that the rules prohibit targeting something on the other side of the “cover”, whether that something is a creature or a point of origin for a spell's effect.
It does seem very odd to me that by RAW, disregarding clarifications and commentary by the design team, if I am standing behind a thin pane of glass I have no cover, but if I am standing between a bright light and a thin sheet of paper I have total cover and cannot be targeted because I cannot be seen.
If the intention was that Wall of Force, clear glass, etc should block targeting spells if they are between the caster and the target that should have been explicitly spelled out in the rules. As it is there are spells that say "if the target can be seen", spells that only require being heard, etc. Sometimes we are told that these are blocked by a pane of glass or Wall of Force, other times we are told they are not. Then there are the rules for Area of Effect spells. We are told that if an area behind total cover from a caster can be included in an AoE originating in a point not behind total cover from the caster it is valid. We are told that obstacles block AoE. We are not explicitly told what happens if you want the origin point of eg a Stinking Cloud to be behind a Wall of Force. Stinking Cloud says "see the origin point". Wall of Force commentary says it blocks spells. What about Light and Darkness spells? Do they pass through Wall of Force? For that matter if a glass window provides total cover does that mean that a Light spell won't shine through a window or other glass? After all an obstacle blocks AoE. So if clear glass is an obstacle, and Jeremy certainly seems to say that a clear glass window is where a Fireball spell is concerned, then if you cast Light on a pebble and put it inside a glass lantern you will get no light outside the lantern.
5e really should have been just a little bit more tightly written. There is an awful, awful to of interpret ion and RAI appearing in Jeremy and Mike's tweets, etc and some of it directly contradicts rules as published in the books.
Even if Force blocks magic effects, it still leaves open the question of what happens when the Wall of Force is not cast as a hemisphere or sphere. Could the effects of, say, Vicious Mockery travel through the air over and around the WoF?
Also the clarifications given say that you can teleport or Misty Step through a Wall of Force. Not sure if you could also use Monster Summoning to bring a monster inside a WoF. It might have been possible if the monster would fit. I know there was a clarification about Huge and Gargantuan size creatures not fitting within a WoF sphere, so they would appear on the outside. Don't remember if that was summoned creatures or trying to cast WoF around them. Either way the outcome was a WoF bubble wit the creature outside of it.
If it is assumed that Wall of Force or a window provides total cover, does it not follow that an AoE spell cannot have its origin point placed behind them?
My impression from the RAW is that spells with AoEs "target" their origin points, and if total cover prevents targeting, regardless of transparency, then it does seem like spells such as Stinking Cloud can't actually be dropped on the other side.
I'm not terribly fond of this interpretation, but I'm struggling to find loopholes or ways around it!
So if I have a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass and I stand so half of me is behind it and half of me isn't I get to claim half cover, if three quarters of me is behind the glass I get three-quarter cover, but if I step all the way behind the glass I have no cover? Seriously that is what people are trying to argue for. Standing fully behind a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass does not give you total cover because the glass does not "conceal" me. Since I can be seen through the glass I do not get cover. The thickness of the glass is immaterial to the argument that the lack of cover is because transparent glass does not "conceal" what is behind it.
DMThac0: "Is transparent so it does not provide Cover."
David42: "A wall of force does not provide concealment and so does not provide total cover."
Quotes to show that, yes, this is exactly what people are saying. If you can see through something it cannot provide total cover.
You can attack someone on the other side of a door with any weapon you like!
Half cover and three-quarters cover only require the presence of an "obstacle", but full cover requires being "completely concealed by an obstacle". "Completely concealed" means you cannot see it at all. So, by definition, if you can see it through an obstacle it can't claim total cover. At most it can claim three-quarters cover. Yes, Virginia, this means that by RAW you can look through the keyhole of a door at someone and shoot at them with your longbow. At most they will have three-quarter cover, but because you can see them they cannot have full cover. There for you can shoot at them, cast spells at them, or whatever else you want to do, secure in the knowledge that this is playing by the rules. If you can see it, it does not have total cover and there can be "targeted directly by an attack or spell." You can swing your pole arm at the fellow on the other side of the door if he is within ten feet. At most he will have a +5 to AC from three-quarters cover, but you can swing at him because he does not have total cover. The fact that there is a solid door between you doesn't matter because that peep hole means he doesn't have total cover and is there for a valid target for a direct attack.
In fact in DMThac0's game you would attack the guy on the other side of that door freely . Same if he was standing on the other side of a glass wall. "It is transparent so it does not provide Cover." "Transparent (adj) (of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen." The peep hole renders the door definitionally transparent. Light passes through it so objects behind can be seen. Transparent objects do not provide cover. The door with a peep hole does not provide cover. QED
I agree with you when you say later that the rules regarding this are not very tightly written or even particularly clear.
However, just to clarify something, there are physical, visual obstructions and ones which are both. Physical obstructions block physical attacks. I don't think any of us are logically arguing otherwise. A three foot thick wall of glass that blocks 1/2 the target would provide 1/2 cover against a physical attack (ranged or melee weapon attack), similarly for 3/4 and even total cover. A wall of force for example would provide complete cover against a physical attack since the spell specifically notes that nothing can physically pass through the wall.
The question that is being raised is what sort of cover does a transparent object provide vs spells. I think we all agree that non-transparent objects that cover 1/2, 3/4 or all of the target provide 1/2, 3/4 and total cover vs either physical attacks or spells. In the case of a wall of paper, this would simply be because you can't see the target and so can't target them. However, the DM could decide that a wall of paper would provide no cover against a fireball for example :) ... that is the role of the DM :).
As for transparent cover, it is possible that it could provide cover for targeted spells that pass through the space to the target like a firebolt but not provide cover for spells that just appear at the target like Chill Touch. Depending on how the DM interprets the type of kind of cover provided by transparent obstacles, it could have different effects on different spells depending on the spell descriptions.
As reference, the rules for 1/2 cover and 3/4 cover say:
"A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body."
"A target has three quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle."
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
None of these statements actually mention whether the obstacle needs to physically block/cover/conceal or if it needs to visually block/cover/conceal or both. ALL of the examples given are for opaque physical objects that would provide both physical and visual obstruction. The wording for total cover requires complete concealment which means both physically and visually. The other word uses aren't specific.
---------
On a related note, another approach is to look at the wording of the spells themselves.
Wall of Force is 5th level and the spell text says only "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." and one form of the spell is a 10' radius sphere.
On the other hand,
Forcecage is a 7th level spell and the spell text says "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area."
Forcecage produces a 10' cubical barrier of force which prevents any matter from passing through it. It is immobile and invisible just like wall of force. However, the forcecage description specifically states "blocking any spells cast into or out from the area". If Forcecage was expected to create total cover for creatures or objects inside it then this statement is completely unnecessary since total cover automatically prevents the casting of spells into or out of the area. We can always just say it is just flavour text but that is ignoring the concept that spells do what they say they do. Forcecage states that it blocks spellls, Wall of Force does NOT say it blocks spells. The interpretation that wall of force blocks spells relies on interpreting the rules on total cover such that wall of force causes total cover.
Whoever wrote the descriptions for Wall of Force and Forcecage presumably did not think they functioned exactly the same way or they would have written the text for the two spells the same way.
Either way, it is just another inconsistency in how the spells can be interpreted.
I’ve been looking at Sacred Flame too. “The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.” PHB p 272
I suppose it could be argued that if the target can’t be targeted then the saving throw never occurs so it doesn’t matter.
That's what I'm thinking. It really does seem like no matter whether the cover is transparent, so long as it is total cover then the target can't be targeted. There's nothing in the RAW I can find which makes any exceptions for transparent or invisible objects, thus it does seem like the saving throw would never need be made.
I am looking for loopholes in this as it's changing the way I've been ruling windows and such, but other than finagling the meaning of "concealed" I'm not having much luck. Regardless of transparency, everything behind the transparent object is completely concealed; there may be an image of everything being concealed, but it is concealed nonetheless.
"There are spells that create exceptions to this rule about needing a path clear of obstruction. One cantrip that I think many cleric players don't realize is breaking this rule is sacred flame. Sacred flame is one of the low level spells that, that has this text, 'the target gains no benefit from cover from this saving throw' ... that includes total cover... sacred flame can be cast on the other side of a wall of force"
This is a case of a specific rule beating a general rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry the period/comma was a typo on my part. The actual text is:
"A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
The first sentence says that in order to target something it can not be behind total cover.
The second clause refers ONLY to targeting a point that you can not see. If the path turns out to be obstructed then the point of origin of THE AREA OF EFFECT spell comes into being on the near side of the obstruction. The second clause ONLY addresses area of effect spells targeted at a location you can not see.
A wall of force does not provide concealment and so does not provide total cover. Therefore you can see and target something on the far side of a wall of force. Since you can see them the second sentence does not apply since it only applies to placing an area of effect at a point you can't see, not at one you can see. :)
I'd just comment that the Sage Advice compendium is here:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/sage-advice-compendium
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
At the beginning of the sage advice compendium it says the following:
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de-signer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."
The links you cite are a quote from Mike Mearls on how he would play wall of force. The Sage Advice Compendium and published errata do not address this question at all so DMs are free to interpret RAW as they like. Sage Advice tweets are not rulings on how the game should be played.
The rules on total cover in the player's handbook require it to provide concealment and that has not been changed by errata. People are welcome to play it however they like since house rules are an intrinsic part of D&D but the statement "Visual concealment is not a requirement for total cover, a solid obstacle is." Is not stated anywhere in the rule books and is an interpretation.
Wall of Force:
Is transparent so it does not provide Cover. You can target a creature "behind" the wall.
An obstacle between an attacker and their opponent creates Cover.
Is capable of stopping physical things from passing through it, but it is not an obstacle.
---
Does not allow anything physical to pass through it.
Magic is not physical so you can cast spells at a creature "behind" the wall.
Does not indicate that it stops magic, you can cast spells at a target "behind" the wall.
Magic can create physical manifestations, those manifestations cannot pass through the wall even though they're magic in nature.
---
It's no wonder the spell is so difficult to nail down.
Now now I didn't quite say that! Conjuration spells are a good example. A summoned creature isn't going to be able to pass through the wall of force once it has been summoned, but it could be summoned on the other side of the wall (or inside a dome). You mentioned Acid Splash (also Conjuration), and I agree with you. The spell produces a physical substance, and then you hurl it at a target. That can be blocked.
The effect of Fireball does not occur at the point of casting. It occurs at the point of origin.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Jeremy Crawford specifically feels otherwise. It may not have made it into the Sage Advice Compendium yet, and there for by the most pedantic standards may to be "official" but he has made it very clear that RAI is that a pane of glass will stop a Fireball spell. This is the exact situation he describes and states that as the fireball travels from the mage's finger to the point where it explodes it is blocked by the glass.
He and Mearls have also stated that the RAI of "total cover" is that "concealment" as used in the description of total cover is being on the other side of a solid obstruction, transparency not withstanding. It is pedantry in the extreme to parse that a transparent but solid obstacle does not provide total cover, but would provide partial cover.
Of course you are free to ignore any and all statements and interpretations by the designers until the appear in official print, you are also free to ignore published errata in favor which ever printing of a book you have. But don't e surprised if the wider community disagree with you.
I assume that those arguing that a transparent substance cannot ever provide total cover because it cannot provide "concealment" will also agree that in D&D 5e a torch or candle cannot be used to set anything on fire because the rules do not say that this is permitted. A tinderbox, a Gnomish firestarter, and certain spells are the only things in the rules described as being able to light other things on fire. See how silly the game gets when you are excessively pedantic with your interpretations of the rules?
Similarly I could carry an open paper bag full of gunpowder through the area of effect of a Fire Storm spell and it would not ignite, nor would the papers in my other hand. No matter how much damage I might take from the spell, the paper and gun powder would not ignite. This is defined by the spell description which states that its which are being worn or carried do not ignite.
Is there even a rule stating how much if any water I need to drink every day? Or food I need to eat? If not my character might never eat or drink anything at all.
Crawford and Mearls must own a glass factory.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If we were operating in our physical universe then we could say:
- A thin window does not provide total cover from a bullet since the bullet would pierce the glass. Same for a crossbow bolt for that matter. A thick piece of glass might provide total cover from some projectiles. An intermediate sized piece of glass might provide partial cover by deflecting the projectile.
- A window would not provide total cover against a directed energy weapon/laser or similar.
- We could say that a torch or candle can be used to light a fire.
However, we aren't operating in our universe. We are trying to interpret how magic interacts with physical objects in an imaginary universe and the only things we have to interpret this are the words in the rulebooks. Pedantry need not apply since the only definitions we have to work with are those in the books.
- can a torch or candle be used to light a fire. Likely true since many aspects of the D&D universe operate like ours and neither a torch or candle involves magic.
However, in our universe, a thin pane of glass is not sufficient to prevent an assassin from attacking with a crossbow bolt through the window. If a window in the D&D universe provides total cover then an assassin outside the thinest of windows is unable to fire their crossbow at a target behind the window because they have "total cover".
We then come to the question of magic. Targeting spells usually just requires the caster to be able to "see" the target. They also need a clear path to the target, not behind total cover and total cover is defined as requiring concealment. (I am just quoting what the books say .. not what you or I or anyone else might wish they said, so please don't shoot the messenger).
No where in the rules does it indicate that a spell without any form of manifestation travels as if it were a physical object from the point of casting to the point where the magic manifests. If you read the fluff, the weave is everywhere. Magical effects are produced by manipulation of the weave. There is no indication that this manipulation can't just occur wherever the magic manifests rather than requiring the magic to travel in a straight line between the caster and the point where the spell effect occurs. Some spell descriptions include a manifestation between caster and target and others do not. The NATURE of magic is not described in the rule books. Thus, unlike torches and candles, it is impossible to decide what is an appropriate behaviour for a magic spell. All we have is the text in the books. That isn't being pedantic, that is just reading what is written and not making up stuff in terms of how I think magic should work.
Personally, I don't care how it is interpreted, that is up to every player and DM to decide how it works at their table. Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls, you, me, everyone who DMs decides how they want it to work in their game. However, the rule book gives guidelines on how it could work and without updates to either the rulebooks or clarifications we are left with total cover requiring an obstacle that completely conceals the target. We don't have any input on exactly how a magic spell propagates from caster to target or whether it even propagates at all ... it could just appear at the target location without physically traversing the space in between.
If you can show me where the nature of magic is described in the rules and how it is a physical manifestation that needs to propagate and thus is blocked by physical obstacles, please point it out. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE ... which is the foundation of this argument. Spells are blocked by total cover and total cover is DEFINED to be completely concealed by an obstacle and CONCEALED is defined (in the dictionary in natural word usage) as being unable to be seen.
Thus why this topic comes up over and over again and is a source of much argument.
So if I have a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass and I stand so half of me is behind it and half of me isn't I get to claim half cover, if three quarters of me is behind the glass I get three-quarter cover, but if I step all the way behind the glass I have no cover? Seriously that is what people are trying to argue for. Standing fully behind a three foot thick piece of perfectly clear glass does not give you total cover because the glass does not "conceal" me. Since I can be seen through the glass I do not get cover. The thickness of the glass is immaterial to the argument that the lack of cover is because transparent glass does not "conceal" what is behind it.
DMThac0: "Is transparent so it does not provide Cover."
David42: "A wall of force does not provide concealment and so does not provide total cover."
Quotes to show that, yes, this is exactly what people are saying. If you can see through something it cannot provide total cover.
You can attack someone on the other side of a door with any weapon you like!
Half cover and three-quarters cover only require the presence of an "obstacle", but full cover requires being "completely concealed by an obstacle". "Completely concealed" means you cannot see it at all. So, by definition, if you can see it through an obstacle it can't claim total cover. At most it can claim three-quarters cover. Yes, Virginia, this means that by RAW you can look through the keyhole of a door at someone and shoot at them with your longbow. At most they will have three-quarter cover, but because you can see them they cannot have full cover. There for you can shoot at them, cast spells at them, or whatever else you want to do, secure in the knowledge that this is playing by the rules. If you can see it, it does not have total cover and there can be "targeted directly by an attack or spell." You can swing your pole arm at the fellow on the other side of the door if he is within ten feet. At most he will have a +5 to AC from three-quarters cover, but you can swing at him because he does not have total cover. The fact that there is a solid door between you doesn't matter because that peep hole means he doesn't have total cover and is there for a valid target for a direct attack.
In fact in DMThac0's game you would attack the guy on the other side of that door freely . Same if he was standing on the other side of a glass wall. "It is transparent so it does not provide Cover." "Transparent (adj) (of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen." The peep hole renders the door definitionally transparent. Light passes through it so objects behind can be seen. Transparent objects do not provide cover. The door with a peep hole does not provide cover. QED
I would like to point out that what you quoted me saying is not the point I was making, the entirety of that section was meant to be read as a whole.
If you look at that carefully you will see that it contradicts itself, thus supporting what you're saying. If I am half behind a window I get half-cover, if I hide 3/4 behind a window I get 3/4 cover, and if I hide completely behind a window, I get no cover (your faulty logic example).
Wall of Force is an obstacle that can stop physical things, even though it is transparent. Obstacles provide Cover. Wall of Force should, by that logic, provide Cover. If you are fully behind Wall of Force, you have Total Cover.
The only part of this argument, since it has started, that I have conceeded is that an AoE, which has the ability to manifest at any point in space without a "from your hand/finger/body" rider, can be cast inside the Wall of Force. (Stinking Cloud vs Fireball)
An object behind a pane of glass could be said to be “completely concealed” in the sense that the area of its profile is totally overlapped by the glass from the perspective of the attacker. Regardless of the effectiveness of the concealment, it is complete.
Compare this with me hiding behind a perfect painting of myself: I am completely concealed by the painting, it's just not very effective concealment.
In both cases, it seems that the rules prohibit targeting something on the other side of the “cover”, whether that something is a creature or a point of origin for a spell's effect.
It does seem very odd to me that by RAW, disregarding clarifications and commentary by the design team, if I am standing behind a thin pane of glass I have no cover, but if I am standing between a bright light and a thin sheet of paper I have total cover and cannot be targeted because I cannot be seen.
If the intention was that Wall of Force, clear glass, etc should block targeting spells if they are between the caster and the target that should have been explicitly spelled out in the rules. As it is there are spells that say "if the target can be seen", spells that only require being heard, etc. Sometimes we are told that these are blocked by a pane of glass or Wall of Force, other times we are told they are not. Then there are the rules for Area of Effect spells. We are told that if an area behind total cover from a caster can be included in an AoE originating in a point not behind total cover from the caster it is valid. We are told that obstacles block AoE. We are not explicitly told what happens if you want the origin point of eg a Stinking Cloud to be behind a Wall of Force. Stinking Cloud says "see the origin point". Wall of Force commentary says it blocks spells. What about Light and Darkness spells? Do they pass through Wall of Force? For that matter if a glass window provides total cover does that mean that a Light spell won't shine through a window or other glass? After all an obstacle blocks AoE. So if clear glass is an obstacle, and Jeremy certainly seems to say that a clear glass window is where a Fireball spell is concerned, then if you cast Light on a pebble and put it inside a glass lantern you will get no light outside the lantern.
5e really should have been just a little bit more tightly written. There is an awful, awful to of interpret ion and RAI appearing in Jeremy and Mike's tweets, etc and some of it directly contradicts rules as published in the books.
Didn't it say somewhere that Force type obstacles block magic effects and prevent creatures from the astral and etheral plane to pass?
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Even if Force blocks magic effects, it still leaves open the question of what happens when the Wall of Force is not cast as a hemisphere or sphere. Could the effects of, say, Vicious Mockery travel through the air over and around the WoF?
Also the clarifications given say that you can teleport or Misty Step through a Wall of Force. Not sure if you could also use Monster Summoning to bring a monster inside a WoF. It might have been possible if the monster would fit. I know there was a clarification about Huge and Gargantuan size creatures not fitting within a WoF sphere, so they would appear on the outside. Don't remember if that was summoned creatures or trying to cast WoF around them. Either way the outcome was a WoF bubble wit the creature outside of it.
If it is assumed that Wall of Force or a window provides total cover, does it not follow that an AoE spell cannot have its origin point placed behind them?
My impression from the RAW is that spells with AoEs "target" their origin points, and if total cover prevents targeting, regardless of transparency, then it does seem like spells such as Stinking Cloud can't actually be dropped on the other side.
I'm not terribly fond of this interpretation, but I'm struggling to find loopholes or ways around it!
I agree with you when you say later that the rules regarding this are not very tightly written or even particularly clear.
However, just to clarify something, there are physical, visual obstructions and ones which are both. Physical obstructions block physical attacks. I don't think any of us are logically arguing otherwise. A three foot thick wall of glass that blocks 1/2 the target would provide 1/2 cover against a physical attack (ranged or melee weapon attack), similarly for 3/4 and even total cover. A wall of force for example would provide complete cover against a physical attack since the spell specifically notes that nothing can physically pass through the wall.
The question that is being raised is what sort of cover does a transparent object provide vs spells. I think we all agree that non-transparent objects that cover 1/2, 3/4 or all of the target provide 1/2, 3/4 and total cover vs either physical attacks or spells. In the case of a wall of paper, this would simply be because you can't see the target and so can't target them. However, the DM could decide that a wall of paper would provide no cover against a fireball for example :) ... that is the role of the DM :).
As for transparent cover, it is possible that it could provide cover for targeted spells that pass through the space to the target like a firebolt but not provide cover for spells that just appear at the target like Chill Touch. Depending on how the DM interprets the type of kind of cover provided by transparent obstacles, it could have different effects on different spells depending on the spell descriptions.
As reference, the rules for 1/2 cover and 3/4 cover say:
"A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body."
"A target has three quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle."
"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
None of these statements actually mention whether the obstacle needs to physically block/cover/conceal or if it needs to visually block/cover/conceal or both. ALL of the examples given are for opaque physical objects that would provide both physical and visual obstruction. The wording for total cover requires complete concealment which means both physically and visually. The other word uses aren't specific.
---------
On a related note, another approach is to look at the wording of the spells themselves.
Wall of Force is 5th level and the spell text says only "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." and one form of the spell is a 10' radius sphere.
On the other hand,
Forcecage is a 7th level spell and the spell text says "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area."
Forcecage produces a 10' cubical barrier of force which prevents any matter from passing through it. It is immobile and invisible just like wall of force. However, the forcecage description specifically states "blocking any spells cast into or out from the area". If Forcecage was expected to create total cover for creatures or objects inside it then this statement is completely unnecessary since total cover automatically prevents the casting of spells into or out of the area. We can always just say it is just flavour text but that is ignoring the concept that spells do what they say they do. Forcecage states that it blocks spellls, Wall of Force does NOT say it blocks spells. The interpretation that wall of force blocks spells relies on interpreting the rules on total cover such that wall of force causes total cover.
Whoever wrote the descriptions for Wall of Force and Forcecage presumably did not think they functioned exactly the same way or they would have written the text for the two spells the same way.
Either way, it is just another inconsistency in how the spells can be interpreted.
Just light them up with sacred flame.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I’ve been looking at Sacred Flame too. “The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.” PHB p 272
I suppose it could be argued that if the target can’t be targeted then the saving throw never occurs so it doesn’t matter.
That's what I'm thinking. It really does seem like no matter whether the cover is transparent, so long as it is total cover then the target can't be targeted. There's nothing in the RAW I can find which makes any exceptions for transparent or invisible objects, thus it does seem like the saving throw would never need be made.
I am looking for loopholes in this as it's changing the way I've been ruling windows and such, but other than finagling the meaning of "concealed" I'm not having much luck. Regardless of transparency, everything behind the transparent object is completely concealed; there may be an image of everything being concealed, but it is concealed nonetheless.
I know some people put more stock in Jeremy Crawford's rulings than others, but in case you do...
This is a case of a specific rule beating a general rule.
"Not all those who wander are lost"