Listen mate, I answered your question, and I will answer your question, again. No, I would not rule it as workable. Now, if you could stop such insulting comments, it would be pleasant for the both of us.
Please stop spamming the thread, you've repeated yourself four times already.
You can't cast Sickening Radiance and Misty Step in the same turn. If you cast a leveled spell using your action, you can't cast a spell as a bonus action that turn.
You could have an ally vortex warp you out of the AOE before your turn comes around, though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Listen mate, I answered your question, and I will answer your question, again. No, I would not rule it as workable. Now, if you could stop such insulting comments, it would be pleasant for the both of us.
Please stop spamming the thread, you've repeated yourself four times already.
It's not spamming to respond to responses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
If you DM want's to rule it as such then sure, can't/won't argue with that. But as of RAW, just having a blanket over you doesn't make you immune to an aoes effects.
If it's RAW, can you show me?
It's hard to show the absence of something. Nothing in the rules says that a blanket doesn't block AoEs. But by the same token, the rules don't say that blankets DO block it. the rules are silent on the matter. So no appeal to RAW is a good appeal, the question just needs to go to your DM to see if they think it's reasonable. If after hearing your argument they want to allow this interaction then great, if not then that's their prerogative. I would be willing to bet most DMs, including myself, would say it doesn't work.
It's hard to show the absence of something. Nothing in the rules says that a blanket doesn't block AoEs. But by the same token, the rules don't say that blankets DO block it. the rules are silent on the matter. So no appeal to RAW is a good appeal, the question just needs to go to your DM to see if they think it's reasonable. If after hearing your argument they want to allow this interaction then great, if not then that's their prerogative. I would be willing to bet most DMs, including myself, would say it doesn't work.
Right, it's ridiculous to claim that something is true from RAW, but then only because the books don't not say that.
However, the cover rules answer both points you mention quite handily.
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.
Hard disagree that the total cover rules do anything here, setting aside whether a blanket would or would not provide total cover. Sickening radiance doesn't target a creature, it effects an area. Total cover only prevents you from being targeted directly, and in fact in the second part of the first sentence you just quoted does explicitly say total cover doesn't prevent some spells from reaching a target. Sickening radiance would qualify for one of those spells.
Hard disagree that the total cover rules do anything here, setting aside whether a blanket would or would not provide total cover. Sickening radiance doesn't target a creature, it effects an area. Total cover only prevents you from being targeted directly, and in fact in the second part of the first sentence you just quoted does explicitly say total cover doesn't prevent some spells from reaching a target. Sickening radiance would qualify for one of those spells.
It depends on the cover, as different AOE spells work differently. As was mentioned earlier, the spell explicitly goes around corners, but this means it doesn't pass through solid objects. Being in a solid house, or sealed in a box, would keep you out of the spell's AOE. Being under (or maybe wrapped up in) heavy blanket is just my extreme version of this same principle.
If somebody cast fireball right next to the person shaped blanket on the floor do you think the explosion would somehow be warded off because of it? Total cover means walls, houses, carts, a ship, thick bushes which completely conceal you. Not lying on the floor with a little woollen blankie over you. This is just like people who pull the blanket over their head at night because they think if they can’t see the closet monster then it can’t see them.
However, the cover rules answer both points you mention quite handily.
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.
Would you count a blanket as total cover from: Cone of Cold, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, or a fighter with a longsword? Not many GMs are going to agree to that idea and consequently wouldn't count a blanket as total cover for Sickening Radiance, either, since the description is that it's killing you basically through magic radiation poisoning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If somebody cast fireball right next to the person shaped blanket on the floor do you think the explosion would somehow be warded off because of it? Total cover means walls, houses, carts, a ship, thick bushes which completely conceal you. Not lying on the floor with a little woollen blankie over you. This is just like people who pull the blanket over their head at night because they think if they can’t see the closet monster then it can’t see them.
That's a good question! A blanket would undoubtedly be destroyed by a fireball, just like how despite providing total cover mechanically, it wouldn't actually stop swords or arrows despite them not directly targeting the person underneath. I'm actually surprised you brought up bushes as an example, as they would be worse at protecting anyone from arrows or fireballs than a wall of cloth (I would argue that counts as 3/4 cover, even if they still can't see you). You know what they say, if the closet monster can't see you, then it can't target you directly with attacks or spells.
But consider the same question with some magical fireproof blanket. If it's unharmed by the fireball, then logically the person underneath is also unharmed. And if a totally mundane blanket isn't damaged by Sickening Radiance, someone underneath should follow the same rule, wouldn't they? Not getting into how the two spells spread differently, that is.
Hard disagree that the total cover rules do anything here, setting aside whether a blanket would or would not provide total cover. Sickening radiance doesn't target a creature, it effects an area. Total cover only prevents you from being targeted directly, and in fact in the second part of the first sentence you just quoted does explicitly say total cover doesn't prevent some spells from reaching a target. Sickening radiance would qualify for one of those spells.
It depends on the cover, as different AOE spells work differently. As was mentioned earlier, the spell explicitly goes around corners, but this means it doesn't pass through solid objects. Being in a solid house, or sealed in a box, would keep you out of the spell's AOE. Being under (or maybe wrapped up in) heavy blanket is just my extreme version of this same principle.
In fact, the non-interaction between Total Cover and Sickening Radiance has nothing to do with the type of cover. Let me take it one step at a time and see if this makes sense to you why:
Total cover states the following "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly"
So it does something IF AND ONLY IF the spell I question targets the creature directly. Take a spell like Command for example which states "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range." The target is the creature.
So what does Sickening Radiance target? "centered on a point you choose within range." A point. Not a creature. Total cover doesn't interact with the spell because the creature in cover is not being targeted.
You can argue that your blanket blocks it and doesn't let the Radiance in so you should be protected but that isn't based on Total Cover and isn't based on any other Rule. It's just based on if your DM follows your logic and agrees that it's ok to work that way at their table.
In fact, the non-interaction between Total Cover and Sickening Radiance has nothing to do with the type of cover.
Thank you, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain. But some people keep bringing up fireballs or arrows when they function completely differently, which is the only reason cover came into the discussion at all. The only rule I'm using to justify this is "A spell does what it says it does" and we all know how shaky that rule can be!
In fact, the non-interaction between Total Cover and Sickening Radiance has nothing to do with the type of cover.
Thank you, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain. But some people keep bringing up fireballs or arrows when they function completely differently, which is the only reason cover came into the discussion at all. The only rule I'm using to justify this is "A spell does what it says it does" and we all know how shaky that rule can be!
People keep bringing up fireballs and arrows because something either counts as cover for every type of attack or doesn't count as cover. A blanket isn't cover against any other type of attack, at best it could provide concealment... if you hung it up and hid behind it without touching it, but all that would do would mean that you couldn't be targeted by spells and effects that require the target to be seen.
And really, a blanket is not sufficient to block out sunlight, there's no way it's going to stop magical death light.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
People keep bringing up fireballs and arrows because something either counts as cover for every type of attack or doesn't count as cover. A blanket isn't cover against any other type of attack, at best it could provide concealment... if you hung it up and hid behind it without touching it, but all that would do would mean that you couldn't be targeted by spells and effects that require the target to be seen.
And really, a blanket is not sufficient to block out sunlight, there's no way it's going to stop magical death light.
Going by RAW, total cover seems appropriate, but I don't see why it matters. Nothing stopping you from attacking it, and it doesn't provide any supernatural protection from sensible modes of damage. Actually, do please fill me in, what IS the difference between full cover and concealment in this case? They seem pretty much identical to me.
And hey, another important point! Would you rule that glass would keep out Sickening Radiance? It's a magical light that spreads around corners, disobeying normal laws of optics already. I think a good argument could be made both ways.
Cover requires the thing between you and the attacker to be an "obstacle" such as a wall, a tree, an arrow slit, a portcullis, another creature, etc. There is no rule for what defines an obstacle, so that is up to DM discretion. However, from the examples given in the rules, an obstacle should be able to sufficiently thick/dense/solid enough to be able to block a physical attack that is traveling in a (mostly) straight line like an arrow or sword swing. In other words, an obstacle is a physical barrier. So I doubt very many DMs will rules that a blanket is sufficient to be considered an obstacle that can provide total cover. Half cover, maybe.
"Concealment" is not a game term in this edition. There is "obscured" which include effects such as foliage, light, or fog that affects a creature's ability to see something or someone. Just because something is obscured (cannot be seen), does not mean it has cover (a physical barrier).
Something you could use instead would be a tower shield (or something similar), which doesn't exist in the base rules, but can be homebrewed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Please stop spamming the thread, you've repeated yourself four times already.
You could have an ally vortex warp you out of the AOE before your turn comes around, though
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's not spamming to respond to responses.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
It's hard to show the absence of something. Nothing in the rules says that a blanket doesn't block AoEs. But by the same token, the rules don't say that blankets DO block it. the rules are silent on the matter. So no appeal to RAW is a good appeal, the question just needs to go to your DM to see if they think it's reasonable. If after hearing your argument they want to allow this interaction then great, if not then that's their prerogative. I would be willing to bet most DMs, including myself, would say it doesn't work.
Right, it's ridiculous to claim that something is true from RAW, but then only because the books don't not say that.
However, the cover rules answer both points you mention quite handily.
Hard disagree that the total cover rules do anything here, setting aside whether a blanket would or would not provide total cover. Sickening radiance doesn't target a creature, it effects an area. Total cover only prevents you from being targeted directly, and in fact in the second part of the first sentence you just quoted does explicitly say total cover doesn't prevent some spells from reaching a target. Sickening radiance would qualify for one of those spells.
It depends on the cover, as different AOE spells work differently. As was mentioned earlier, the spell explicitly goes around corners, but this means it doesn't pass through solid objects. Being in a solid house, or sealed in a box, would keep you out of the spell's AOE. Being under (or maybe wrapped up in) heavy blanket is just my extreme version of this same principle.
If somebody cast fireball right next to the person shaped blanket on the floor do you think the explosion would somehow be warded off because of it? Total cover means walls, houses, carts, a ship, thick bushes which completely conceal you. Not lying on the floor with a little woollen blankie over you. This is just like people who pull the blanket over their head at night because they think if they can’t see the closet monster then it can’t see them.
The rules fail to define an obstacle.
Would you count a blanket as total cover from: Cone of Cold, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, or a fighter with a longsword? Not many GMs are going to agree to that idea and consequently wouldn't count a blanket as total cover for Sickening Radiance, either, since the description is that it's killing you basically through magic radiation poisoning.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's a good question! A blanket would undoubtedly be destroyed by a fireball, just like how despite providing total cover mechanically, it wouldn't actually stop swords or arrows despite them not directly targeting the person underneath. I'm actually surprised you brought up bushes as an example, as they would be worse at protecting anyone from arrows or fireballs than a wall of cloth (I would argue that counts as 3/4 cover, even if they still can't see you). You know what they say, if the closet monster can't see you, then it can't target you directly with attacks or spells.
But consider the same question with some magical fireproof blanket. If it's unharmed by the fireball, then logically the person underneath is also unharmed. And if a totally mundane blanket isn't damaged by Sickening Radiance, someone underneath should follow the same rule, wouldn't they? Not getting into how the two spells spread differently, that is.
In fact, the non-interaction between Total Cover and Sickening Radiance has nothing to do with the type of cover. Let me take it one step at a time and see if this makes sense to you why:
Total cover states the following "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly"
So it does something IF AND ONLY IF the spell I question targets the creature directly. Take a spell like Command for example which states "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range." The target is the creature.
So what does Sickening Radiance target? "centered on a point you choose within range." A point. Not a creature. Total cover doesn't interact with the spell because the creature in cover is not being targeted.
You can argue that your blanket blocks it and doesn't let the Radiance in so you should be protected but that isn't based on Total Cover and isn't based on any other Rule. It's just based on if your DM follows your logic and agrees that it's ok to work that way at their table.
Thank you, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain. But some people keep bringing up fireballs or arrows when they function completely differently, which is the only reason cover came into the discussion at all. The only rule I'm using to justify this is "A spell does what it says it does" and we all know how shaky that rule can be!
People keep bringing up fireballs and arrows because something either counts as cover for every type of attack or doesn't count as cover. A blanket isn't cover against any other type of attack, at best it could provide concealment... if you hung it up and hid behind it without touching it, but all that would do would mean that you couldn't be targeted by spells and effects that require the target to be seen.
And really, a blanket is not sufficient to block out sunlight, there's no way it's going to stop magical death light.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Going by RAW, total cover seems appropriate, but I don't see why it matters. Nothing stopping you from attacking it, and it doesn't provide any supernatural protection from sensible modes of damage. Actually, do please fill me in, what IS the difference between full cover and concealment in this case? They seem pretty much identical to me.
And hey, another important point! Would you rule that glass would keep out Sickening Radiance? It's a magical light that spreads around corners, disobeying normal laws of optics already. I think a good argument could be made both ways.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorCover requires the thing between you and the attacker to be an "obstacle" such as a wall, a tree, an arrow slit, a portcullis, another creature, etc. There is no rule for what defines an obstacle, so that is up to DM discretion. However, from the examples given in the rules, an obstacle should be able to sufficiently thick/dense/solid enough to be able to block a physical attack that is traveling in a (mostly) straight line like an arrow or sword swing. In other words, an obstacle is a physical barrier. So I doubt very many DMs will rules that a blanket is sufficient to be considered an obstacle that can provide total cover. Half cover, maybe.
"Concealment" is not a game term in this edition. There is "obscured" which include effects such as foliage, light, or fog that affects a creature's ability to see something or someone. Just because something is obscured (cannot be seen), does not mean it has cover (a physical barrier).
Something you could use instead would be a tower shield (or something similar), which doesn't exist in the base rules, but can be homebrewed.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources