The total cover rules sound fine most of the time but act so weirdly in these niche scenarios.
Both the fact that a spell can be cast through a tiny crack under a door but not be cast across/around cover even with a visual on the target is confusing.
I would always accept that an enclosing dome or wall of force that reaches the walls and ceilings gives total cover but I think otherwise I’d have to do it case by case.
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.
I don't think this is clear cut. Counterspell does not specify targeting. Interrupting a creature might be interpreted as targeting that creature or targeting self and causing an effect from self to that creature (put that might only need a path, not a straight line so that would only be clear for hemisphere). Without adding interpretation it does not really have more clarity than Teleport would have. Clear target language is not in the spell, and it is not an AoE where the targeting comes from the AoE rules, neither does it Attack where the targeting comes from the (Spell) Attack.
I think both yes and no are valid answers until Sage Advice or an argument I did not see yet.
Fireball is prevented by the AoE Rules. But yeah, I also believe there to be a lack of clear targeting in Counterspell and therefore yes being a reasonable answer to the question -- just as taking the interrpting a creature text as targeting text (in which case it would be very bad rules writing, just should say interrupting target creature then).
This is a 3 and a half year old thread, so thanks for replying directly to me, but i have no idea what I said back then or whether i still think the same way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The total cover rules sound fine most of the time but act so weirdly in these niche scenarios.
Both the fact that a spell can be cast through a tiny crack under a door but not be cast across/around cover even with a visual on the target is confusing.
I would always accept that an enclosing dome or wall of force that reaches the walls and ceilings gives total cover but I think otherwise I’d have to do it case by case.
But counterspell would fail if there were a curtain. Would sending? Would fireball? How thick does a glass wall have to be before it provides cover?
I don't think this is clear cut. Counterspell does not specify targeting. Interrupting a creature might be interpreted as targeting that creature or targeting self and causing an effect from self to that creature (put that might only need a path, not a straight line so that would only be clear for hemisphere). Without adding interpretation it does not really have more clarity than Teleport would have. Clear target language is not in the spell, and it is not an AoE where the targeting comes from the AoE rules, neither does it Attack where the targeting comes from the (Spell) Attack.
I think both yes and no are valid answers until Sage Advice or an argument I did not see yet.
Fireball is prevented by the AoE Rules. But yeah, I also believe there to be a lack of clear targeting in Counterspell and therefore yes being a reasonable answer to the question -- just as taking the interrpting a creature text as targeting text (in which case it would be very bad rules writing, just should say interrupting target creature then).
This is a 3 and a half year old thread, so thanks for replying directly to me, but i have no idea what I said back then or whether i still think the same way.