Am I saying a mundane laser rifle would be able to fire through the wall? No, and I’m actually very confused why you would think so.
It’s not a Jeremy Crawford ruling that says total cover blocks spell targeting, it’s the line in the actual PHB that has been quoted over and over.
I fully agree that the bandit’s mother isn’t a target of the spell, but you’re contradicting yourself by thinking it’s different from being teleported onto a pressure plate.
Mom sad, because bandit died, because spell is logically equivalent to pressure plate was depressed, because person appeared on it, because spell. The point is that these indirect effects are direct effects of other things that are not the spell. Your logic here can produce a chain of “targets” as long as you want, which is completely non-productive.
If you’re interested in a more formal investigation of the topic, I’d very sincerely recommend reading Aristotle’s discussion of the “four causes.” It’s more about “why is this thing here” than “why did this thing happen,” but it’s 100% applicable to the latter if you’re thoughtful about it. Teleology is pretty rad.
It’s not transparent, it’s invisible. Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
I don’t care about closed glass windows. They’re not relevant to this thread.
Who says the effect is non-mechanical? And who says the mom isn’t there? Maybe she’s standing right next to the bandit, and their death imposes the frightened. It doesn’t matter. It’s not a direct effect of the spell. If you can’t understand the difference between a summoned creature and the ground you summon it atop of, well...
You’re not actually understanding my logic, and that’s maybe my fault; I’m not a teacher, after all. Again, read up on some teleology, I promise it’ll help clarify a lot of what I’m saying.
Any given spell's target(s) are the creatures/objects/areas affected by the spell. As it has been stated multiple times, the teleportation spells that we know of target only the caster because only the caster is affected by it. The spell does not effect terrain, and is simply a destination, as you already know.
This is not the case for spells which explicitly affect the area(s) and whatever creatures/objects may be in there. Sunbeam has explicit effects for creatures within the area; they are also targets of the spell. Wall of Force prevents the spell from passing beyond its border.
Here is the text for sunburst :
"Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60-foot radius centered on a point you choose within range. Each creature in that light must make a Constitution saving throw."
Here is the text for Wall of Force:
"An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range"
Invisible MEANS by definition that light passes through it. Sunburst specifically emits light in a 60' radius.
Since a wall of force doesn't block light, I don't see why it would provide any sort of cover at all against Sunburst.
Personally, I run Wall of Force on a case by case basis. It provides total cover against physical attacks or any attacks that have to physically traverse the space between the caster and target. However, unless stated in the spell description, I don't treat spells as physical. The caster will typically require an unobstructed view of the target (as stated in the PHB since total cover MUST provide concealment and an invisible wall does not provide that).
However, just calling a wall of force total cover is MUCH easier from a DM perspective. It makes it very easy to make rulings about how spells and the wall of force interact so I can easily see why it might be unofficial RAI (as opposed to RAW). I don't think the statement about wall of force and total cover made it into the Sage Advice Compendium which is actually official rules clarifications.
It is not opaque. If it was opaque, it would be visible. Only the wall is invisible. The interior is visible. The exterior is visible from inside the wall.
I don't really see how that's relevant to anything. I'm just going to quote myself: Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
A direct effect of shooting an arrow is that the arrow flies through the air and lands somewhere, usually point first. The result of a teleport is the target is sent somewhere, landing there. Either way, something at the other end has pressure applied to it as a direct result. I used a pressure plate, or pressure on the ground itself, even without a pressure plate rather than some remote effect. If you want an even more direct effect, the person teleported displaces air.
You're so close to getting it. The person teleported displaces the air, not the spell. The purpose of the spell is not to displace air, it's to translocate its target.
I understand your teleology argument. You are trying to separate cause and effect. to say that the spell only says it does (a) therefore it only does (a) and anything else is unrelated, mere 'subsequent events' and thus removed from direct causation, whereas I am saying that in order to achieve (a), there are other reasonably directly attributable effects, that there are events that are sufficiently predictable as to consider them directly related. Most notably, you have to designate a destination, which is a lot more than you do with the sunbeam spell, with which one only specifies a direction.
No, that's not it at all. If it were just cause and effect, then it would be physics, not philosophy. We're talking about reasons. The purpose of a spell is to have some effect on its target. Coincidental knock-off effects that occur as a result of that initial effect are not caused by the spell; that's not what the spell is for. What Sigred and I are saying is that meaning of "target" is "something directly affected by the spell."
Teleology is relevant in establishing what "directly affected by" means. The spell text defines what the direct effect are. For Teleport, the direct effect is the translocation of the caster and up to eight other creatures. The spell text doesn't talk at all about pressure plates or displaced air, therefore those things are not the "targets" of the spell, because they're unrelated to Aristotle's "final cause," the purpose of the spell.
It is not opaque. If it was opaque, it would be visible. Only the wall is invisible. The interior is visible. The exterior is visible from inside the wall.
I don't really see how that's relevant to anything. I'm just going to quote myself: Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
Its the physics vs magic thing. We perceive photons of light in the visible spectrum. Sunlight, daylight, moonlight. We see things due to the light reflected from them unless they are a source of light themselves. So if a wall of force is invisible this MEANS, by definition, that the light from one side of the wall is passing through the wall to the other side. Creatures use a variety of types of sight (darkvision vs regular vision), a wall of force blocks none of them because it is invisible. This MEANS that the wall of force must transmit light or it is NOT invisible.
You can have a visible spectrum laser beam. It is no different from a very focused torch using just one wavelength. If light of any sort passes the wall then a laser beam would pass through. So would sunlight ... so would the light from a torch, lantern, light cantrip ... or the light from daylight, sunbeam or sunburst ... all of which are very clearly described as light.
To be consistent if light can pass through a wall of force because it is invisible and that is exactly what invisible means then so can the effects of these spells since they are only light (perhaps magically created but just light none the less).
Anyway, if you want to say that photons of light can not pass through the wall then the wall is by definition opaque which is the source of the issue. Logically you can't have it both ways which is why magic and physics don't often mix well.
A DM could rule that a wall of force projects an image of what is behind it to any creature viewing it. The wall is then "effectively" invisible since no one can see it ... while still actually blocking a view of the real creature. Of course that isn't what is stated in the spell and amounts to a house rule but some magical explanation like that could be utilized by a DM who wants a wall of force to be total cover.
It is not opaque. If it was opaque, it would be visible. Only the wall is invisible. The interior is visible. The exterior is visible from inside the wall.
I don't really see how that's relevant to anything. I'm just going to quote myself: Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
Its the physics vs magic thing. We perceive photons of light in the visible spectrum. Sunlight, daylight, moonlight. We see things due to the light reflected from them unless they are a source of light themselves. So if a wall of force is invisible this MEANS, by definition, that the light from one side of the wall is passing through the wall to the other side. Creatures use a variety of types of sight (darkvision vs regular vision), a wall of force blocks none of them because it is invisible. This MEANS that the wall of force must transmit light or it is NOT invisible.
You can have a visible spectrum laser beam. It is no different from a very focused torch using just one wavelength. If light of any sort passes the wall then a laser beam would pass through. So would sunlight ... so would the light from a torch, lantern, light cantrip ... or the light from daylight, sunbeam or sunburst ... all of which are very clearly described as light.
To be consistent if light can pass through a wall of force because it is invisible and that is exactly what invisible means then so can the effects of these spells since they are only light (perhaps magically created but just light none the less).
Anyway, if you want to say that photons of light can not pass through the wall then the wall is by definition opaque which is the source of the issue. Logically you can't have it both ways which is why magic and physics don't often mix well.
A DM could rule that a wall of force projects an image of what is behind it to any creature viewing it. The wall is then "effectively" invisible since no one can see it ... while still actually blocking a view of the real creature. Of course that isn't what is stated in the spell and amounts to a house rule but some magical explanation like that could be utilized by a DM who wants a wall of force to be total cover.
Or here me out: Because the effects of the spells are both magical, we need not answer this question through science unless of course the world you are in Magic=Science.
Sure the light given off by a spell such as Sunbeam passes through, but the wall of force is a magical wall, what is to say that while the light from Sunbeam passes through but the damage done is stopped by the Wall itself. The wall is made of magic, so would it not stop magical effects created by other spells? This is D&D we cannot sit there and say "Well becuase photons of light exist and the wall is invisible, then all effects of a spell pass through the wall so long as the source is photons." First of where does is say that Sunbeam creates photon? The spells does radiant damage, that is a damage type not attached to light itself but from a typically divine source.
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric's flame strike spell or an angel's smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
that description can help us to detach this idea that our science and laws of nature are not always applied when it comes to D&D, so we really should stop trying to justifiy things using worldly physics.
If we look at the D&D definition of Force:
Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile andspiritual weapon.
Force is magical energy, so it is not that far off from saying the purpose of WoF is to prevent magic from going through. If a magical spell that produces light can have it's damage pass through then why would a firebolt not? After all it is just light and heat, not a "physical" object. But I think many would say a Firebolt does not pass through the wall.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that radiant damage is actually nuclear radiation, (or radiation in the form of magical particles that don't exist in our world) it is just often also accompanied by light.
In the instance of Wall of Force vs Sunbeam and similar, my thought is that the RAI is that the Wall is "smart" enough to block the magical effects of other spells without also blocking the light associated with them. However.... RAW does not address this in any way. In fact, the RAW creates this pocket of ambiguity, since it calls itself invisible, but is also capable of stopping light, thereby not being invisible.
But it would be really, really easy to fix this and bring RAW back in line with RAI. Change "...the wall is invisible..." to "...the wall is transparent...". That creates all the leeway required for reasonable individuals to hand-wave the difference. Only a die-hard rules lawyer would have a problem accepting that, in which case the DM can simply tell them to get over it.
But it would be really, really easy to fix this and bring RAW back in line with RAI. Change "...the wall is invisible..." to "...the wall is transparent...". That creates all the leeway required for reasonable individuals to hand-wave the difference. Only a die-hard rules lawyer would have a problem accepting that, in which case the DM can simply tell them to get over it.
Technically, it is invisible as a game mechanic. A spell like disintegrate can target it, obviously. But attacks against “invisible” targets are at disadvantage..... Obviously that doesn’t matter for Disintegrate, but it can matter for other reasons.
In the instance of Wall of Force vs Sunbeam and similar, my thought is that the RAI is that the Wall is "smart" enough to block the magical effects of other spells without also blocking the light associated with them. However.... RAW does not address this in any way. In fact, the RAW creates this pocket of ambiguity, since it calls itself invisible, but is also capable of stopping light, thereby not being invisible.
But it would be really, really easy to fix this and bring RAW back in line with RAI. Change "...the wall is invisible..." to "...the wall is transparent...". That creates all the leeway required for reasonable individuals to hand-wave the difference. Only a die-hard rules lawyer would have a problem accepting that, in which case the DM can simply tell them to get over it.
There’s no ambiguity there. All invisible means is that it’s impossible to detect by sight. That doesn’t require it to allow any light to pass through it. It’s literally magic.
So if the “no targeting through cover” rule is so absolute, I suppose y’all leave your windows open every night in case someone needs to get ahold of you with Sending, right? Message may write its own specific exception, but Sending sure doesn’t...
Gimme a break. This is one rule which clearly cannot possibly mean what it says it means, despite being wholly unambiguous. only shame and the impossibility of untangling it has prevented the necessary errata, there’s no shortage of spells that must be able to target through cover to have their intended effect. Spells can and do target despite cover all the damn time.
In the instance of Wall of Force vs Sunbeam and similar, my thought is that the RAI is that the Wall is "smart" enough to block the magical effects of other spells without also blocking the light associated with them. However.... RAW does not address this in any way. In fact, the RAW creates this pocket of ambiguity, since it calls itself invisible, but is also capable of stopping light, thereby not being invisible.
But it would be really, really easy to fix this and bring RAW back in line with RAI. Change "...the wall is invisible..." to "...the wall is transparent...". That creates all the leeway required for reasonable individuals to hand-wave the difference. Only a die-hard rules lawyer would have a problem accepting that, in which case the DM can simply tell them to get over it.
There’s no ambiguity there. All invisible means is that it’s impossible to detect by sight. That doesn’t require it to allow any light to pass through it. It’s literally magic.
Yeah just like in just about every sci fi movie and show that has force fields, deflector shields, or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
So if the “no targeting through cover” rule is so absolute, I suppose y’all leave your windows open every night in case someone needs to get ahold of you with Sending, right? Message may write its own specific exception, but Sending sure doesn’t...
Gimme a break. This is one rule which clearly cannot possibly mean what it says it means, despite being wholly unambiguous. only shame and the impossibility of untangling it has prevented the necessary errata, there’s no shortage of spells that must be able to target through cover to have their intended effect. Spells can and do target despite cover all the damn time.
Message requires you to target a creature within 120ft, so a wall of force will prevent it (since it provides total cover).
Sending does not require you to point at a creature in any way, so it will get through a wall of force (since total cover is irrelevant to the targeting of the sending spell).
So if the “no targeting through cover” rule is so absolute, I suppose y’all leave your windows open every night in case someone needs to get ahold of you with Sending, right? Message may write its own specific exception, but Sending sure doesn’t...
Gimme a break. This is one rule which clearly cannot possibly mean what it says it means, despite being wholly unambiguous. only shame and the impossibility of untangling it has prevented the necessary errata, there’s no shortage of spells that must be able to target through cover to have their intended effect. Spells can and do target despite cover all the damn time.
Sure, but it sorta does need untangled: we're discussing a rule in the PHB that limits where you can place spell effects. I'd say that it is reasonable enough RAI that sending apparently doesn't need line of effect because of the sentence at the end, and that is good enough for me. Lots of other spells like fireball also don't give any indication how they should work but would seemingly be expected to follow the rule. Obviously this creates a problem though: there is a situation where two spells without much text differentiating them apparently work differently? For what reason? My assumption about RAI? (Edit: I'd say this is enough to use at a particular table, so end of discussion for my table.)
Also, even leaving a window open probably isn't enough to provide line of effect, because things like corners can provide cover which would apparently stop most spells. I take that to mean that line of effect (for spells that require it) apparently need straight lines of effect.
But the other option of completely ignoring the "clear path to the target" rule is problematic simply from the point of view that they spent the time to write that rule and include it in the target section, and it has words that have meaning in the rule, and it seemingly does work for many spells. I'd rather make exceptions to it for spells that seem like they could reasonably be expected to work differently (which is probably a small list) than throw out the rule and allow you to place your fireball on the other side of a stone wall.
Edit 2: I know that there are people on this forum who say that every exception needs to tell you that it is an exception. They are wrong. They haven't looked at rules and exceptions that actually exist in the game. In 5e, exceptions to rules exist that are not always called out as such and are sufficiently proved to be exceptions simply by not conforming to the general rules. The fighter's two weapon fighting style is an example of such.
This is a reasonable take, and what I’m getting at. Not that all spells can be targeted through cover, but rather, SOME certainly can, and some of THOSE do so despite not explicitly saying they do, relying instead on context. And once we’re asked to fill in the blanks with RAI and context without RAW to guide us... we’re out on a limb, and left to argue about whether Counterspell through a window pane is more like Sending or more like Fireball. Errata or more terms are needed, to draw these boundaries consistently.
Sure, but it sorta does need untangled: we're discussing a rule in the PHB that limits where you can place spell effects. I'd say that it is reasonable enough RAI that sending apparently doesn't need line of effect because of the sentence at the end, and that is good enough for me. Lots of other spells like fireball also don't give any indication how they should work but would seemingly be expected to follow the rule. Obviously this creates a problem though: there is a situation where two spells without much text differentiating them apparently work differently? For what reason? My assumption about RAI? (Edit: I'd say this is enough to use at a particular table, so end of discussion for my table.)
Also, even leaving a window open probably isn't enough to provide line of effect, because things like corners can provide cover which would apparently stop most spells. I take that to mean that line of effect (for spells that require it) apparently need straight lines of effect.
But the other option of completely ignoring the "clear path to the target" rule is problematic simply from the point of view that they spent the time to write that rule and include it in the target section, and it has words that have meaning in the rule, and it seemingly does work for many spells. I'd rather make exceptions to it for spells that seem like they could reasonably be expected to work differently (which is probably a small list) than throw out the rule and allow you to place your fireball on the other side of a stone wall.
Edit 2: I know that there are people on this forum who say that every exception needs to tell you that it is an exception. They are wrong. They haven't looked at rules and exceptions that actually exist in the game. In 5e, exceptions to rules exist that are not always called out as such and are sufficiently proved to be exceptions simply by not conforming to the general rules. The fighter's two weapon fighting style is an example of such.
Ahhh. It’s so nice to lurk in a rules debate and not watch it devolve into namecalling and asshattery. Like a breath of fresh air.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Kotath, did you tweet JC yet? Was there an answer?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Am I saying a mundane laser rifle would be able to fire through the wall? No, and I’m actually very confused why you would think so.
It’s not a Jeremy Crawford ruling that says total cover blocks spell targeting, it’s the line in the actual PHB that has been quoted over and over.
I fully agree that the bandit’s mother isn’t a target of the spell, but you’re contradicting yourself by thinking it’s different from being teleported onto a pressure plate.
Mom sad, because bandit died, because spell is logically equivalent to pressure plate was depressed, because person appeared on it, because spell. The point is that these indirect effects are direct effects of other things that are not the spell. Your logic here can produce a chain of “targets” as long as you want, which is completely non-productive.
If you’re interested in a more formal investigation of the topic, I’d very sincerely recommend reading Aristotle’s discussion of the “four causes.” It’s more about “why is this thing here” than “why did this thing happen,” but it’s 100% applicable to the latter if you’re thoughtful about it. Teleology is pretty rad.
Is that blocked by WoF?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It’s not transparent, it’s invisible. Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
I don’t care about closed glass windows. They’re not relevant to this thread.
Who says the effect is non-mechanical? And who says the mom isn’t there? Maybe she’s standing right next to the bandit, and their death imposes the frightened. It doesn’t matter. It’s not a direct effect of the spell. If you can’t understand the difference between a summoned creature and the ground you summon it atop of, well...
You’re not actually understanding my logic, and that’s maybe my fault; I’m not a teacher, after all. Again, read up on some teleology, I promise it’ll help clarify a lot of what I’m saying.
Here is the text for sunburst :
"Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60-foot radius centered on a point you choose within range. Each creature in that light must make a Constitution saving throw."
Here is the text for Wall of Force:
"An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range"
Invisible MEANS by definition that light passes through it. Sunburst specifically emits light in a 60' radius.
Since a wall of force doesn't block light, I don't see why it would provide any sort of cover at all against Sunburst.
Personally, I run Wall of Force on a case by case basis. It provides total cover against physical attacks or any attacks that have to physically traverse the space between the caster and target. However, unless stated in the spell description, I don't treat spells as physical. The caster will typically require an unobstructed view of the target (as stated in the PHB since total cover MUST provide concealment and an invisible wall does not provide that).
However, just calling a wall of force total cover is MUCH easier from a DM perspective. It makes it very easy to make rulings about how spells and the wall of force interact so I can easily see why it might be unofficial RAI (as opposed to RAW). I don't think the statement about wall of force and total cover made it into the Sage Advice Compendium which is actually official rules clarifications.
I don't really see how that's relevant to anything. I'm just going to quote myself: Preventing a laser beam from passing through doesn’t block sight. Therefore, a laser beam is stopped by the “nothing can physically pass through the wall” and does not fall under the “invisible” exception.
You're so close to getting it. The person teleported displaces the air, not the spell. The purpose of the spell is not to displace air, it's to translocate its target.
No, that's not it at all. If it were just cause and effect, then it would be physics, not philosophy. We're talking about reasons. The purpose of a spell is to have some effect on its target. Coincidental knock-off effects that occur as a result of that initial effect are not caused by the spell; that's not what the spell is for. What Sigred and I are saying is that meaning of "target" is "something directly affected by the spell."
Teleology is relevant in establishing what "directly affected by" means. The spell text defines what the direct effect are. For Teleport, the direct effect is the translocation of the caster and up to eight other creatures. The spell text doesn't talk at all about pressure plates or displaced air, therefore those things are not the "targets" of the spell, because they're unrelated to Aristotle's "final cause," the purpose of the spell.
Its the physics vs magic thing. We perceive photons of light in the visible spectrum. Sunlight, daylight, moonlight. We see things due to the light reflected from them unless they are a source of light themselves. So if a wall of force is invisible this MEANS, by definition, that the light from one side of the wall is passing through the wall to the other side. Creatures use a variety of types of sight (darkvision vs regular vision), a wall of force blocks none of them because it is invisible. This MEANS that the wall of force must transmit light or it is NOT invisible.
You can have a visible spectrum laser beam. It is no different from a very focused torch using just one wavelength. If light of any sort passes the wall then a laser beam would pass through. So would sunlight ... so would the light from a torch, lantern, light cantrip ... or the light from daylight, sunbeam or sunburst ... all of which are very clearly described as light.
To be consistent if light can pass through a wall of force because it is invisible and that is exactly what invisible means then so can the effects of these spells since they are only light (perhaps magically created but just light none the less).
Anyway, if you want to say that photons of light can not pass through the wall then the wall is by definition opaque which is the source of the issue. Logically you can't have it both ways which is why magic and physics don't often mix well.
A DM could rule that a wall of force projects an image of what is behind it to any creature viewing it. The wall is then "effectively" invisible since no one can see it ... while still actually blocking a view of the real creature. Of course that isn't what is stated in the spell and amounts to a house rule but some magical explanation like that could be utilized by a DM who wants a wall of force to be total cover.
Or here me out: Because the effects of the spells are both magical, we need not answer this question through science unless of course the world you are in Magic=Science.
Sure the light given off by a spell such as Sunbeam passes through, but the wall of force is a magical wall, what is to say that while the light from Sunbeam passes through but the damage done is stopped by the Wall itself. The wall is made of magic, so would it not stop magical effects created by other spells? This is D&D we cannot sit there and say "Well becuase photons of light exist and the wall is invisible, then all effects of a spell pass through the wall so long as the source is photons." First of where does is say that Sunbeam creates photon? The spells does radiant damage, that is a damage type not attached to light itself but from a typically divine source.
that description can help us to detach this idea that our science and laws of nature are not always applied when it comes to D&D, so we really should stop trying to justifiy things using worldly physics.
If we look at the D&D definition of Force:
Force is magical energy, so it is not that far off from saying the purpose of WoF is to prevent magic from going through. If a magical spell that produces light can have it's damage pass through then why would a firebolt not? After all it is just light and heat, not a "physical" object. But I think many would say a Firebolt does not pass through the wall.
In the spell text:
Light equals photons... (unless not in your world)
Personally, I'm of the opinion that radiant damage is actually nuclear radiation, (or radiation in the form of magical particles that don't exist in our world) it is just often also accompanied by light.
In the instance of Wall of Force vs Sunbeam and similar, my thought is that the RAI is that the Wall is "smart" enough to block the magical effects of other spells without also blocking the light associated with them. However.... RAW does not address this in any way. In fact, the RAW creates this pocket of ambiguity, since it calls itself invisible, but is also capable of stopping light, thereby not being invisible.
But it would be really, really easy to fix this and bring RAW back in line with RAI. Change "...the wall is invisible..." to "...the wall is transparent...". That creates all the leeway required for reasonable individuals to hand-wave the difference. Only a die-hard rules lawyer would have a problem accepting that, in which case the DM can simply tell them to get over it.
Technically, it is invisible as a game mechanic. A spell like disintegrate can target it, obviously. But attacks against “invisible” targets are at disadvantage..... Obviously that doesn’t matter for Disintegrate, but it can matter for other reasons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There’s no ambiguity there. All invisible means is that it’s impossible to detect by sight. That doesn’t require it to allow any light to pass through it. It’s literally magic.
So if the “no targeting through cover” rule is so absolute, I suppose y’all leave your windows open every night in case someone needs to get ahold of you with Sending, right? Message may write its own specific exception, but Sending sure doesn’t...
Gimme a break. This is one rule which clearly cannot possibly mean what it says it means, despite being wholly unambiguous. only shame and the impossibility of untangling it has prevented the necessary errata, there’s no shortage of spells that must be able to target through cover to have their intended effect. Spells can and do target despite cover all the damn time.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah just like in just about every sci fi movie and show that has force fields, deflector shields, or whatever.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Message requires you to target a creature within 120ft, so a wall of force will prevent it (since it provides total cover).
Sending does not require you to point at a creature in any way, so it will get through a wall of force (since total cover is irrelevant to the targeting of the sending spell).
Sure, but it sorta does need untangled: we're discussing a rule in the PHB that limits where you can place spell effects. I'd say that it is reasonable enough RAI that sending apparently doesn't need line of effect because of the sentence at the end, and that is good enough for me. Lots of other spells like fireball also don't give any indication how they should work but would seemingly be expected to follow the rule. Obviously this creates a problem though: there is a situation where two spells without much text differentiating them apparently work differently? For what reason? My assumption about RAI? (Edit: I'd say this is enough to use at a particular table, so end of discussion for my table.)
Also, even leaving a window open probably isn't enough to provide line of effect, because things like corners can provide cover which would apparently stop most spells. I take that to mean that line of effect (for spells that require it) apparently need straight lines of effect.
But the other option of completely ignoring the "clear path to the target" rule is problematic simply from the point of view that they spent the time to write that rule and include it in the target section, and it has words that have meaning in the rule, and it seemingly does work for many spells. I'd rather make exceptions to it for spells that seem like they could reasonably be expected to work differently (which is probably a small list) than throw out the rule and allow you to place your fireball on the other side of a stone wall.
Edit 2: I know that there are people on this forum who say that every exception needs to tell you that it is an exception. They are wrong. They haven't looked at rules and exceptions that actually exist in the game. In 5e, exceptions to rules exist that are not always called out as such and are sufficiently proved to be exceptions simply by not conforming to the general rules. The fighter's two weapon fighting style is an example of such.
This is a reasonable take, and what I’m getting at. Not that all spells can be targeted through cover, but rather, SOME certainly can, and some of THOSE do so despite not explicitly saying they do, relying instead on context. And once we’re asked to fill in the blanks with RAI and context without RAW to guide us... we’re out on a limb, and left to argue about whether Counterspell through a window pane is more like Sending or more like Fireball. Errata or more terms are needed, to draw these boundaries consistently.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Really every spell should have a “Target: xyz” line in the header like they do for cast time, duration, etc.
By the way, the target of sending is the message, not the recipient, so that’s why you don’t need to leave your windows open ;) (this might be a joke)