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.
Keep in mind that Crawford's rationale for Sacred Flame ignoring total cover is "it comes down from the sky". My OotA Cleric must have burned enough holes in the firmament by now to permanently illuminate the Underdark. 😏
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"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.
Excellent point!
The problem I see with this interpretation by Crawford is that the RAW of Sacred Flame only mentions cover with respect to the saving throw and not targeting. They may have intended it to be castable at targets beyond total cover, but in this case it doesn't seem to match up with what they actually codified; the spell doesn't seem to permit targeting beyond total cover.
Contrast Sacred Flame with Message, which states:
“You can cast this spell through solid objects if you are familiar with the target and know it is beyond the barrier.”
Part of the problem is that much of the "total cover blocks all spells", etc, is found in Crawford's commentaries, not spelled out in the rulebooks themselves. Those commentaries also seem to contradict each other at points, and to contradict the RAW at other points.
If a 6th edition is published it would be nice to see some of these clarifications brought into the actual rulebooks.
I think it's fair to say that Wall of Force was poorly written. RAW-wise: either interpretation is pretty much grasping at straws anyway. In such cases, I typically make my decision based on:
How similar spells work (like Tiny Hut or Forcecage)
How it worked throughout D&D's history (like in 3.5e)
What the designers say
What Stackexchange says
I feel pretty comfortable on how to rule in my own games (but of course, I don't have a vested interest in how other DM's rule).
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.
Most people wouldn't consider a sheet of paper an obstacle, and being seen isn't a requirement for targeting unless a specific spell says so. It's also pretty sensible for a DM to rule that if you're close enough to the paper that your silhouette matches the size of your body, they are in fact seeing you.
The rules are designed for the situations that will come up over and over again in normal gameplay. The DM is there for the contrived examples. The rules can't cover every possible corner case. Rule sets that try to end up overly complicated and still don't cover every possible scenario.
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.
If a spell says the target needs to be seen or heard, that's an additional restriction on top of the usual rule that you can't target something behind total cover. A general rule always applies until you're told it doesn't.
Keep in mind that Crawford's rationale for Sacred Flame ignoring total cover is "it comes down from the sky". My OotA Cleric must have burned enough holes in the firmament by now to permanently illuminate the Underdark. 😏
To be fair, his point was really that the spell effect isn't shooting out from the caster. The bit about it coming down from the sky was just a nice bit of imagery he added. The spell doesn't say how high up it comes from.
The problem I see with this interpretation by Crawford is that the RAW of Sacred Flame only mentions cover with respect to the saving throw and not targeting.
That's fair. But the spell also doesn't say "the target doesn't gain a bonus to their Dexterity saving throw from cover against this spell" or "the target gains no benefit from half cover or three-quarters cover." The last sentence of the spell is imprecise enough that Crawford's reading of it is still valid, even if it's not the only valid reading. Being unable to be targeted is the benefit that total cover provides.
Contrast Sacred Flame with Message, which states: “You can cast this spell through solid objects if you are familiar with the target and know it is beyond the barrier.”
If you want to get really nitpicky, what other spells say have no relevance on how others spells work. There's also spells like Dimension Door which allow you to teleport through solid barriers but don't say it in precisely those words.
Part of the problem is that much of the "total cover blocks all spells", etc, is found in Crawford's commentaries, not spelled out in the rulebooks themselves.
The rules point it out twice: in the Cover rules and the Spellcasting rules.
Total Cover
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.
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.
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.
The rules clearly say you can't target something behind total cover, and additionally an area of effect can't go through total cover. And the cover rules are obviously talking about solid things getting in the way, not visual concealment. So this really isn't that complicated. A Wall of Force is a borderline indestructible solid obstacle with a very straightforward shape; it therefore provides cover, and you can't cast spells through it.
Just keep doing what you're doing, MattV. Rules serve us. We don't serve the rules.
Wall of force is one of those weird edge cases where the caster can see the target, but can't get to it. The normal rules for cover don't apply normally since the transparent wall of force is not concealing the target. Rather than making sweeping judgments about the nature of cover and targeting in order to satisfy this spell, it would make more sense to me if the spell had those special rules built into its own description. Then you could just say that the specific rule beats the general rule and the vast majority of situations would be unchanged by that ruling.
And who knows, maybe Jeremy will go back and "clarify" (reverse) his position on this later on like he did when he "clarified" his earlier statement on using the shield master feat to shove someone prone.
Just keep doing what you're doing, MattV. Rules serve us. We don't serve the rules.
Wall of force is one of those weird edge cases where the caster can see the target, but can't get to it. The normal rules for cover don't apply normally since the transparent wall of force is not concealing the target.
+1 I definitely admire your enthusiasm!
Just for clarification, though, are you stating that a Wall of Force does not provide total cover to things that are entirely behind it?
I did see that part as well as recognizing that it was written in English; but it is kind of you to go the extra mile in clarifying!
Perhaps I have made my own question unclear, and for that I apologize!
What I am curious about is the conclusion you draw by saying what you've now stated and repeated: “wall of force does not conceal... the target because you can still see the target”. What does this mean in your interpretation as far as total cover is concerned with Wall of Force? You say “The normal rules for cover don't apply normally”, but then you do not say what actually does apply or what your judgment as a DM might be.
Do you determine that this means an object behind a wall of force does or does not have total cover? Or perhaps some kind of house ruled in-between state?
Sorry to be long winded, I just don't want to misunderstand or worse misrepresent what you mean while continuing the conversation!
Since you asked my opinion, I'll give it to you. In my opinion, wall of force does provide total cover. Unlike most things that provide total cover, wall of force does not conceal the target, but it does obstruct the target, which accomplishes the same thing. Sacred flame gets through the wall because it disregards cover. The two requirements are that the caster can see the target and that the target is within range. If the target had total cover by way of hiding behind a door or a wall, then sacred flame would not work because the caster could not see the target to cast the spell. Sacred flame is made for these edge cases like using it through a pane of glass, or a wall of force, or a clear pool of water.
Some may say that the wording of sacred flame does not say that it disregards cover. That is certainly anyone's prerogative, but I feel the intent behind the spell has been clarified through sage advice to the point where I am satisfied to treat it as such.
I still say that Wall of Force blocks any spell that travels to to target creature or location, but a spell that appears at a specified target or location bypasses a Wall of Force just like teleportation would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Sacred Flame could certainly be dropped behind a linear Wall of Force. As the effect comes down from above it does not have to go through the Wall unless the Wall is cast in a dome shape.
TexasDevin, first thank you for obliging my inquiry! I didn't mean to pester, but was genuinely trying to understand what you meant. I actually agree with the outcome of your interpretation as far as how I handle the spell in play.
The only thing I do different is I don't interpret Wall of Force as providing any cover at all, much like a Wind Wall would not provide cover but still causes interaction when projectiles of various nature collide with the boundaries of its effects.
Thus it permits targeting for spells and attacks and the like, but anything that would move through it (besides visible light) gets blocked.
The only thing I do different is I don't interpret Wall of Force as providing any cover at all, much like a Wind Wall would not provide cover but still causes interaction when projectiles of various nature collide with the boundaries of its effects.
If you treat Wall of Force like Wall of Wind, may I assume you consider it to be a non-physical wall?
If that's the case I argue that Wall of Force must be physical considering spells like Mage Hand, Bigby's Hand, Tenser's Floating Disc, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are all force objects which have physical interactions with the world.
For other spells, I do aim for as much consistency as possible while sticking to whatever particular phrasing of the spells themselves.
Mage Hand is "spectral", so I interpret it as having neither mass nor physical presence beyond the pressures it exerts and the neato visual of a ghostly floating hand.
Bigsby's hand is "shimmering translucent force" and Tenser's Disk is a "horizontal plane of force", so I apply them in very much the same fashion as Wall of Force: as massless boundaries of projected energy that cause no effect until something comes into contact with them. No cover, no obscuring, no targeting prevention; but if someone cleverly hides behind one, then the force applies on contact to any projectiles (e.g. Bigsby's Hand would be struck by a crossbow bolt or acid splash aimed at someone entirely behind it if the roll exceeds the Hand's AC).
One oddity does arise from Bigsby's Hand's "interposing hand" option which allows the hand to provide half cover. As I see it, however, that's an exceptional power that the spell adds to what is otherwise still a massless object, and its benefits are conferred only to the Hand's owner as opposed to generally all things behind it.
I hope this seems sensible, and as always, it's just my own interpretation; I am by no means saying it's the only way it should be!
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Q: Wall of Force is invisible...so it doesn't provide cover does it?
Crawford: Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
The reason wall of force blocks spells is that it, as an obstacle, it provides total cover to anyone fully behind it as per PHB p.196:
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Crawford's ruling confirms that "concealed" here is a synonym for "covered", not "invisible" as it meant in earlier editions of the game. And, as per PHB p.204, this prevents a caster from targeting you:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
I disagree with Crawford here...if the spell provided total cover it should have said so directly. It doesn’t even say it conceals....the only thing it says is that nothing physical passes through.
my interpretation then is that a creature behind the wall is not behind cover and can be targeted by any attack. But if the attack is physical or works in a physical manner (line spell, AoE cast outside the wall, etc), then the target is unaffected. That scales with a more “real world” understanding of the spell, where a PC should be surprised that their arrow or fire bolt stopped short of the target, doing nothing.
this places the interpretation not on whether a thing behind the wall can be targeted, but whether the attack can actually make it to the target.
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.
I just want to clarify that Jeremy Crawford's sage advice is not considered official in any way. They are typically an indication of how JC would run it in his games and, as can be seen, he has changed his mind a few times on various things over the years. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone who DMs continues to evolve how they see the world described by the rules interacting with their characters. Sometimes re-reading something (even if you were one of the ones who wrote it) can bring a different interpretation to light. Anyway, since JC was involved in the creation of the rule set, how he would play it probably has a bit more weight with some folks than other DMs but folks are free to disagree with him and run their games as they prefer, that is one of the features of D&D.
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.
"[NEW] Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, 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."
Given the large number of sage advice postings and the much smaller size of the Sage Advice Compendium, JCs tweets are often not a preview of SAC content.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Keep in mind that Crawford's rationale for Sacred Flame ignoring total cover is "it comes down from the sky". My OotA Cleric must have burned enough holes in the firmament by now to permanently illuminate the Underdark. 😏
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.
Excellent point!
The problem I see with this interpretation by Crawford is that the RAW of Sacred Flame only mentions cover with respect to the saving throw and not targeting. They may have intended it to be castable at targets beyond total cover, but in this case it doesn't seem to match up with what they actually codified; the spell doesn't seem to permit targeting beyond total cover.
Contrast Sacred Flame with Message, which states:
“You can cast this spell through solid objects if you are familiar with the target and know it is beyond the barrier.”
Part of the problem is that much of the "total cover blocks all spells", etc, is found in Crawford's commentaries, not spelled out in the rulebooks themselves. Those commentaries also seem to contradict each other at points, and to contradict the RAW at other points.
If a 6th edition is published it would be nice to see some of these clarifications brought into the actual rulebooks.
I think it's fair to say that Wall of Force was poorly written. RAW-wise: either interpretation is pretty much grasping at straws anyway. In such cases, I typically make my decision based on:
I feel pretty comfortable on how to rule in my own games (but of course, I don't have a vested interest in how other DM's rule).
Most people wouldn't consider a sheet of paper an obstacle, and being seen isn't a requirement for targeting unless a specific spell says so. It's also pretty sensible for a DM to rule that if you're close enough to the paper that your silhouette matches the size of your body, they are in fact seeing you.
The rules are designed for the situations that will come up over and over again in normal gameplay. The DM is there for the contrived examples. The rules can't cover every possible corner case. Rule sets that try to end up overly complicated and still don't cover every possible scenario.
If a spell says the target needs to be seen or heard, that's an additional restriction on top of the usual rule that you can't target something behind total cover. A general rule always applies until you're told it doesn't.
To be fair, his point was really that the spell effect isn't shooting out from the caster. The bit about it coming down from the sky was just a nice bit of imagery he added. The spell doesn't say how high up it comes from.
That's fair. But the spell also doesn't say "the target doesn't gain a bonus to their Dexterity saving throw from cover against this spell" or "the target gains no benefit from half cover or three-quarters cover." The last sentence of the spell is imprecise enough that Crawford's reading of it is still valid, even if it's not the only valid reading. Being unable to be targeted is the benefit that total cover provides.
If you want to get really nitpicky, what other spells say have no relevance on how others spells work. There's also spells like Dimension Door which allow you to teleport through solid barriers but don't say it in precisely those words.
The rules point it out twice: in the Cover rules and the Spellcasting rules.
The rules clearly say you can't target something behind total cover, and additionally an area of effect can't go through total cover. And the cover rules are obviously talking about solid things getting in the way, not visual concealment. So this really isn't that complicated. A Wall of Force is a borderline indestructible solid obstacle with a very straightforward shape; it therefore provides cover, and you can't cast spells through it.
Just keep doing what you're doing, MattV. Rules serve us. We don't serve the rules.
Wall of force is one of those weird edge cases where the caster can see the target, but can't get to it. The normal rules for cover don't apply normally since the transparent wall of force is not concealing the target. Rather than making sweeping judgments about the nature of cover and targeting in order to satisfy this spell, it would make more sense to me if the spell had those special rules built into its own description. Then you could just say that the specific rule beats the general rule and the vast majority of situations would be unchanged by that ruling.
And who knows, maybe Jeremy will go back and "clarify" (reverse) his position on this later on like he did when he "clarified" his earlier statement on using the shield master feat to shove someone prone.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
+1 I definitely admire your enthusiasm!
Just for clarification, though, are you stating that a Wall of Force does not provide total cover to things that are entirely behind it?
I said wall of force does not conceal (plain English) the target because you can still see the target.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I did see that part as well as recognizing that it was written in English; but it is kind of you to go the extra mile in clarifying!
Perhaps I have made my own question unclear, and for that I apologize!
What I am curious about is the conclusion you draw by saying what you've now stated and repeated: “wall of force does not conceal... the target because you can still see the target”. What does this mean in your interpretation as far as total cover is concerned with Wall of Force? You say “The normal rules for cover don't apply normally”, but then you do not say what actually does apply or what your judgment as a DM might be.
Do you determine that this means an object behind a wall of force does or does not have total cover? Or perhaps some kind of house ruled in-between state?
Sorry to be long winded, I just don't want to misunderstand or worse misrepresent what you mean while continuing the conversation!
Since you asked my opinion, I'll give it to you. In my opinion, wall of force does provide total cover. Unlike most things that provide total cover, wall of force does not conceal the target, but it does obstruct the target, which accomplishes the same thing. Sacred flame gets through the wall because it disregards cover. The two requirements are that the caster can see the target and that the target is within range. If the target had total cover by way of hiding behind a door or a wall, then sacred flame would not work because the caster could not see the target to cast the spell. Sacred flame is made for these edge cases like using it through a pane of glass, or a wall of force, or a clear pool of water.
Some may say that the wording of sacred flame does not say that it disregards cover. That is certainly anyone's prerogative, but I feel the intent behind the spell has been clarified through sage advice to the point where I am satisfied to treat it as such.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I still say that Wall of Force blocks any spell that travels to to target creature or location, but a spell that appears at a specified target or location bypasses a Wall of Force just like teleportation would.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Sacred Flame could certainly be dropped behind a linear Wall of Force. As the effect comes down from above it does not have to go through the Wall unless the Wall is cast in a dome shape.
TexasDevin, first thank you for obliging my inquiry! I didn't mean to pester, but was genuinely trying to understand what you meant. I actually agree with the outcome of your interpretation as far as how I handle the spell in play.
The only thing I do different is I don't interpret Wall of Force as providing any cover at all, much like a Wind Wall would not provide cover but still causes interaction when projectiles of various nature collide with the boundaries of its effects.
Thus it permits targeting for spells and attacks and the like, but anything that would move through it (besides visible light) gets blocked.
If you treat Wall of Force like Wall of Wind, may I assume you consider it to be a non-physical wall?
If that's the case I argue that Wall of Force must be physical considering spells like Mage Hand, Bigby's Hand, Tenser's Floating Disc, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are all force objects which have physical interactions with the world.
Exactly!
For other spells, I do aim for as much consistency as possible while sticking to whatever particular phrasing of the spells themselves.
Mage Hand is "spectral", so I interpret it as having neither mass nor physical presence beyond the pressures it exerts and the neato visual of a ghostly floating hand.
Bigsby's hand is "shimmering translucent force" and Tenser's Disk is a "horizontal plane of force", so I apply them in very much the same fashion as Wall of Force: as massless boundaries of projected energy that cause no effect until something comes into contact with them. No cover, no obscuring, no targeting prevention; but if someone cleverly hides behind one, then the force applies on contact to any projectiles (e.g. Bigsby's Hand would be struck by a crossbow bolt or acid splash aimed at someone entirely behind it if the roll exceeds the Hand's AC).
One oddity does arise from Bigsby's Hand's "interposing hand" option which allows the hand to provide half cover. As I see it, however, that's an exceptional power that the spell adds to what is otherwise still a massless object, and its benefits are conferred only to the Hand's owner as opposed to generally all things behind it.
I hope this seems sensible, and as always, it's just my own interpretation; I am by no means saying it's the only way it should be!
Although this is an old question, I discovered a relevant ruling while researching another question, and would like to add it here for completeness.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
The reason wall of force blocks spells is that it, as an obstacle, it provides total cover to anyone fully behind it as per PHB p.196:
Crawford's ruling confirms that "concealed" here is a synonym for "covered", not "invisible" as it meant in earlier editions of the game. And, as per PHB p.204, this prevents a caster from targeting you:
I disagree with Crawford here...if the spell provided total cover it should have said so directly. It doesn’t even say it conceals....the only thing it says is that nothing physical passes through.
my interpretation then is that a creature behind the wall is not behind cover and can be targeted by any attack. But if the attack is physical or works in a physical manner (line spell, AoE cast outside the wall, etc), then the target is unaffected. That scales with a more “real world” understanding of the spell, where a PC should be surprised that their arrow or fire bolt stopped short of the target, doing nothing.
this places the interpretation not on whether a thing behind the wall can be targeted, but whether the attack can actually make it to the target.
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.
I just want to clarify that Jeremy Crawford's sage advice is not considered official in any way. They are typically an indication of how JC would run it in his games and, as can be seen, he has changed his mind a few times on various things over the years. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone who DMs continues to evolve how they see the world described by the rules interacting with their characters. Sometimes re-reading something (even if you were one of the ones who wrote it) can bring a different interpretation to light. Anyway, since JC was involved in the creation of the rule set, how he would play it probably has a bit more weight with some folks than other DMs but folks are free to disagree with him and run their games as they prefer, that is one of the features of D&D.
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.
"[NEW] Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, 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."
Given the large number of sage advice postings and the much smaller size of the Sage Advice Compendium, JCs tweets are often not a preview of SAC content.
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.