Wall of force extends to the ethereal plane and blocks all teleporting it's right in the spell text.
Wall of force does not block teleporting. You might be thinking of Force Cage which says "If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar Travel to leave The Cage, it must first make a Charisma saving throw. On a success, the creature can use that magic to exit The Cage". Wall of Force however is a weaker spell than Force Cage, and does not have that text.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, there are two camps:
One camp that would rule Wall of Force as obstructing a clear path to the target and so most magic cannot be targeted past the wall of force, even though it's transparent. (An exception maybe being the cantrip toll the dead)
Another camp would rule that if you have the magic item "ring of x-ray vision (dmg pg 193)" you could cast fireball on folks behind a closed, wooden door. You could see through the wooden door, so it would be a physical obstruction, but not a visual one. No concealment = no total cover.
Be right back, creating a high level sorcerer assassin with a ring of x-ray vision, subtle spell meta magic, and power word:kill. He would be able to assassinate important political figures without entering the room!
The key problem seems to be that is is poorly explained, which spells originate from the caster and have to travel through 'real space' to the target, and which spells manifest their effects at the target, or if the effects originate from the caster and travel through the ethereal plane (or similar). We also don't always know if the effects travel in a straight line, or can go around obstacles.
Depending on which of these methods, obstacles between the caster and target interfere differently.
If you want to clear that up, you'll need to examine all your spells with your DM and note down how they behave.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, there are two camps:
One camp that would rule Wall of Force as obstructing a clear path to the target and so most magic cannot be targeted past the wall of force, even though it's transparent. (An exception maybe being the cantrip toll the dead)
Another camp would rule that if you have the magic item "ring of x-ray vision (dmg pg 193)" you could cast fireball on folks behind a closed, wooden door. You could see through the wooden door, so it would be a physical obstruction, but not a visual one. No concealment = no total cover.
Be right back, creating a high level sorcerer assassin with a ring of x-ray vision, subtle spell meta magic, and power word:kill. He would be able to assassinate important political figures without entering the room!
You DO know there is a reason why lead foil is more valuable that gold to the rich don't you? And rings of X-ray vision would be just one of the reasons, assuming you could even find one :)
Other than that, you are mostly correct, one camp thinks that windows, wall of force, and other solid transparent objects do not necessarily provide total cover and prevent targeting all spells and attacks while the other camp does.
Would a thin window stop a heavy cross bow bolt or prevent targeting something on the other side? Not in my opinion, however, since transparent solid objects provide total cover, the heavy crossbow can't even be targeted at something in the room in the first place.
By the way, the one cantrip you are referring to is Sacred Flame, not Toll the Dead. Sacred Flame contains the text: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." I think this is supposed to refer to the dexterity saving throw bonuses usually supplied by half and 3/4 cover but could also be interpreted as ignoring total cover where the target is visible since the cover has no effect on the saving throw.
Finally, it is always a DM call in terms of how they run the game but as written, walls and other non-transparent solid objects ARE already total cover. The DM would have to decide whether in their game gaining the ability to see through the object would change it from being total cover or not. The wall itself still blocks vision, the character has a special ability that allows them to see through things but the DM would decide whether that would change the cover properties of the object. No matter which interpretation of "total cover" the DM likes to use for windows and Wall of Force ... they could still decide otherwise for a Ring of X-ray vision.
The key problem seems to be that is is poorly explained, which spells originate from the caster and have to travel through 'real space' to the target, and which spells manifest their effects at the target,
PHB p204 says "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover". Teleportation spells avoid this because they target the caster, not the destination. Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that "Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)".
Would a thin window stop a heavy cross bow bolt or prevent targeting something on the other side?
...
The DM would have to decide whether in their game gaining the ability to see through the object would change it from being total cover or not.
The "thin window" question is a strawman argument: and you'd have to break the window to hit anything on the other side.
The writer's themselves have clarified that "Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one" as well as "a barrier that stops physical objects stops spells", and they've reiterated multiple times that Wall of Force stops spells.
The above issues were discussed earlier in this thread, as well as here and here.
First, I think that it's important to note that the rules for cover and the rules for visual obscurity are separate from each other. There are four levels of cover and there are three levels of obscurity. It is possible to create a scenario where any of the 12 possible combinations are in play. For example, a heavily obscured area behind half cover. Or, a lightly obscured area behind total cover. And so on and so forth for all twelve.
Next, a common misconception is that you need "line of sight" to target something with a spell. This implies, well, sight for one thing. But, there is no such requirement. Instead, the general spellcasting rules require "a clear path to [the target], so it can't be behind total cover". Hopefully the consequences of this distinction is obvious.
Lastly, the rules for Cover in 5e are poorly devised and should be house ruled. In terms of the rules as written, the only factor that differentiates between no cover, half cover, three-quarters cover and total cover is the percentage of the body that is "behind" / "blocked by" / "covered by" / "concealed by" an obstacle.
These above definitions for cover are insufficient to adequately describe the protection that might be given by a pane of glass, a thick window drape or a thin layer of foliage, among other things. It should be totally reasonable for a DM to decree that such obstacles provide protection equivalent to half cover or three-quarters cover situationally, regardless of the percentage of the body that is fully exposed, despite what the rules for cover might say. Otherwise, the only options that a DM has with respect to the pane of glass is whether or not to consider that glass "an obstacle". If it is an obstacle, it is total cover. If it is not an obstacle, it provides no cover. By RAW, those are the options, which is obviously inadequate in some situations.
Expanding on this, if a DM were to decide that a pane of glass provides half cover or three-quarters cover, in my opinion you SHOULD be able to target a foe on the other side with a spell. The rules for cover DO explicitly state that only in the case of total cover is one unable to target such a foe with an attack or a spell. As for a Wall of Force, in my opinion this pretty clearly provides total cover and therefore spells cannot target through such a wall. Whether or not you can see through the wall does not matter at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wall of force does not block teleporting. You might be thinking of Force Cage which says "If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar Travel to leave The Cage, it must first make a Charisma saving throw. On a success, the creature can use that magic to exit The Cage". Wall of Force however is a weaker spell than Force Cage, and does not have that text.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, there are two camps:
One camp that would rule Wall of Force as obstructing a clear path to the target and so most magic cannot be targeted past the wall of force, even though it's transparent. (An exception maybe being the cantrip toll the dead)
Another camp would rule that if you have the magic item "ring of x-ray vision (dmg pg 193)" you could cast fireball on folks behind a closed, wooden door. You could see through the wooden door, so it would be a physical obstruction, but not a visual one. No concealment = no total cover.
Be right back, creating a high level sorcerer assassin with a ring of x-ray vision, subtle spell meta magic, and power word:kill. He would be able to assassinate important political figures without entering the room!
The key problem seems to be that is is poorly explained, which spells originate from the caster and have to travel through 'real space' to the target, and which spells manifest their effects at the target, or if the effects originate from the caster and travel through the ethereal plane (or similar). We also don't always know if the effects travel in a straight line, or can go around obstacles.
Depending on which of these methods, obstacles between the caster and target interfere differently.
If you want to clear that up, you'll need to examine all your spells with your DM and note down how they behave.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
You DO know there is a reason why lead foil is more valuable that gold to the rich don't you? And rings of X-ray vision would be just one of the reasons, assuming you could even find one :)
Other than that, you are mostly correct, one camp thinks that windows, wall of force, and other solid transparent objects do not necessarily provide total cover and prevent targeting all spells and attacks while the other camp does.
Would a thin window stop a heavy cross bow bolt or prevent targeting something on the other side? Not in my opinion, however, since transparent solid objects provide total cover, the heavy crossbow can't even be targeted at something in the room in the first place.
By the way, the one cantrip you are referring to is Sacred Flame, not Toll the Dead. Sacred Flame contains the text: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." I think this is supposed to refer to the dexterity saving throw bonuses usually supplied by half and 3/4 cover but could also be interpreted as ignoring total cover where the target is visible since the cover has no effect on the saving throw.
Finally, it is always a DM call in terms of how they run the game but as written, walls and other non-transparent solid objects ARE already total cover. The DM would have to decide whether in their game gaining the ability to see through the object would change it from being total cover or not. The wall itself still blocks vision, the character has a special ability that allows them to see through things but the DM would decide whether that would change the cover properties of the object. No matter which interpretation of "total cover" the DM likes to use for windows and Wall of Force ... they could still decide otherwise for a Ring of X-ray vision.
PHB p204 says "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover". Teleportation spells avoid this because they target the caster, not the destination. Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that "Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)".
The "thin window" question is a strawman argument: and you'd have to break the window to hit anything on the other side.
The writer's themselves have clarified that "Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one" as well as "a barrier that stops physical objects stops spells", and they've reiterated multiple times that Wall of Force stops spells.
The above issues were discussed earlier in this thread, as well as here and here.
First, I think that it's important to note that the rules for cover and the rules for visual obscurity are separate from each other. There are four levels of cover and there are three levels of obscurity. It is possible to create a scenario where any of the 12 possible combinations are in play. For example, a heavily obscured area behind half cover. Or, a lightly obscured area behind total cover. And so on and so forth for all twelve.
Next, a common misconception is that you need "line of sight" to target something with a spell. This implies, well, sight for one thing. But, there is no such requirement. Instead, the general spellcasting rules require "a clear path to [the target], so it can't be behind total cover". Hopefully the consequences of this distinction is obvious.
Lastly, the rules for Cover in 5e are poorly devised and should be house ruled. In terms of the rules as written, the only factor that differentiates between no cover, half cover, three-quarters cover and total cover is the percentage of the body that is "behind" / "blocked by" / "covered by" / "concealed by" an obstacle.
These above definitions for cover are insufficient to adequately describe the protection that might be given by a pane of glass, a thick window drape or a thin layer of foliage, among other things. It should be totally reasonable for a DM to decree that such obstacles provide protection equivalent to half cover or three-quarters cover situationally, regardless of the percentage of the body that is fully exposed, despite what the rules for cover might say. Otherwise, the only options that a DM has with respect to the pane of glass is whether or not to consider that glass "an obstacle". If it is an obstacle, it is total cover. If it is not an obstacle, it provides no cover. By RAW, those are the options, which is obviously inadequate in some situations.
Expanding on this, if a DM were to decide that a pane of glass provides half cover or three-quarters cover, in my opinion you SHOULD be able to target a foe on the other side with a spell. The rules for cover DO explicitly state that only in the case of total cover is one unable to target such a foe with an attack or a spell. As for a Wall of Force, in my opinion this pretty clearly provides total cover and therefore spells cannot target through such a wall. Whether or not you can see through the wall does not matter at all.