I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
My thinking is that if the glass does allow for the beams, why wouldn't a super-intelligent beholder not just set it up so they are behind thick glass? Also, consider a large magnifying glass over their central eye, or a beholder-sized Eye of the Eagle, etc.
Some effects require 'line of sight' and are stopped by any physical object, others require seeing.
The eye rays specifies 'sees':
Eye Rays.
The beholder shoots three of the following magical eye rays at random (reroll duplicates), choosing one to three targets it can see within 120 feet of it:
As such, the eye rays go through glass.
But there is no such line in the anti magic cone. That is more of a DM intrepertation. I would personally rule that a stone wall, door, or glass would stop the anti-magic cone. But if you think the anti-magic cone goes through a stone wall, then it should definitely go through a glass wall.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
It is. I'm curious whether there's an understanding within the development team that glass just isn't a thing in the worlds of D&D. Like they think it's ahistorical or something. I'll be updating this comment with any references I find to glass windows in official books.
Edit 1: Crystal window in ToA. Transparent, but maybe the crystal is here to imply that glass is not used this way? This window is anomalous?
Edit 2: Apparatus of Kwalish. Transparent window blocks water from flooding the machine.
Edit 3: Flail snails leave behind a "nearly transparent" glass-like substance that's used to make windows.
Final edit: There are a few references to stained-glass windows, which I think we can agree it would be reasonable to treat as blocking line of sight. The vast majority of windows don't specify if they have glass or a glass-like substance in them. I think it's possible that the team simply thought you'd never actually encounter glass, but if that was true, then they did a bad job sticking to it. I don't think the evidence really supports this theory though. So I have no idea why things ended up this messy.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
It is. I'm curious whether there's an understanding within the development team that glass just isn't a thing in the worlds of D&D. Like they think it's ahistorical or something. I'll be updating this comment with any references I find to glass windows in official books.
Edit 1: Crystal window in ToA. Transparent, but maybe the crystal is here to imply that glass is not used this way? This window is anomalous?
Edit 2: Apparatus of Kwalish. Transparent window blocks water from flooding the machine.
Edit 3: Flail snails leave behind a "nearly transparent" glass-like substance that's used to make windows.
Final edit: There are a few references to stained-glass windows, which I think we can agree it would be reasonable to treat as blocking line of sight. The vast majority of windows don't specify if they have glass or a glass-like substance in them. I think it's possible that the team simply thought you'd never actually encounter glass, but if that was true, then they did a bad job sticking to it. I don't think the evidence really supports this theory though. So I have no idea why things ended up this messy.
To your point, glass may be expensive since it's expensive to buy a telescope / looking glass, but there are definitely magnifying glasses (glass), glasses for drinking, glass lenses, glass lighthouse windows and lenses, glass potion bottles that break / shatter on impact, etc.
I would personally ignore a standard piece of thin untempered glass for most interactions. Against a projectile, I might consider increasing the target AC to account for a small amount of deflection.
Edit: Interesting note... lead was used to improve the clarity and workability of glass. Lead would account for up to 40% of the glass by weight. As a thin sheet of lead will block some magic, that could be an in-game justification for glass interfering with spells.
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
Hi, I'm a person who would because:
Jeremy Crawford has said that a solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide Total Cover; specifically including a closed window.
This ruling is stupid. You have full sight of the target, you know what you're trying to do. It's already a Bad Play (tm) because you're alerting EVERYONE around you without precautions prior.
I've just ruled in my games that since Glass is AC 13 and default is 10 for most things, any attack going through glass has to beat that 13 and damage is reduced by 5. After that, game on. You broke through the glass, altered people and the target took less damage because of it.
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
Hi, I'm a person who would because:
Jeremy Crawford has said that a solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide Total Cover; specifically including a closed window.
This ruling is stupid. You have full sight of the target, you know what you're trying to do. It's already a Bad Play (tm) because you're alerting EVERYONE around you without precautions prior.
I've just ruled in my games that since Glass is AC 13 and default is 10 for most things, any attack going through glass has to beat that 13 and damage is reduced by 5. After that, game on. You broke through the glass, altered people and the target took less damage because of it.
I think this is fair - you could presumably break through a barrier, no matter what it is, and then it would no longer provide cover.
Any barrier should be breakable with enough effort. Glass is fragile enough not to need much.
I do agree that it counts as total cover for things that are stopped by cover, but many spells are NOT stopped by cover. If the effect specifies 'see' then all you need to do is see them, and cover does not matter at ALL. If their a to hit or a Dex roll, then cover stops it.
But being behind a 10 ft stone wall that does not have a roof obviously cannot stop a 20 ft radius Stinking Cloud. Similarly, a Sacred Flame spell will not be stopped by a glass wall 10 ft tall, because you can see them and the flame descends from above.
I do agree that it counts as total cover for things that are stopped by cover, but many spells are NOT stopped by cover.
Sort of true.
If the effect specifies 'see' then all you need to do is see them, and cover does not matter at ALL.
I'm sorry to say this is where you're wrong. To quote the PHB: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."
But being behind a 10 ft stone wall that does not have a roof obviously cannot stop a 20 ft radius Stinking Cloud.
That's because Stinking Cloud, to quote the spell, "spreads around corners." There are 11 spells that behave this way. There are a lot more that don't.
Similarly, a Sacred Flame spell will not be stopped by a glass wall 10 ft tall, because you can see them and the flame descends from above.
Sacred Flame against a target behind glass doesn't function RAW. There's a common interpretation that it's *intended* to break the normal rules for targeting, based on this line: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." But RAW, that's not what that line does -- it just removes the benefit for the saving throw, which would be the +2 that nobody ever remembers to apply anyway.
Welcome to this conversation that's been going on for actual years. If you'd like to really dive into it, this thread probably isn't the place, but there are plenty of others dedicated to exactly that.
More specifically on this thread's subject though - a beholder has an eye beam that shoots at a creature and automatically hits. So if it hits a pane of glass, it does not go through the glass? Or does it affect the glass and then once the glass is broken / disintegrated / etc. it goes through with no problem? How long does that take?
More specifically on this thread's subject though - a beholder has an eye beam that shoots at a creature and automatically hits. So if it hits a pane of glass, it does not go through the glass? Or does it affect the glass and then once the glass is broken / disintegrated / etc. it goes through with no problem? How long does that take?
There's simply no rules guidance on this. One might judge that these rays are pretty similar to spells, and decide that they have to follow the rules for spellcasting. Or one might judge that they aren't spells, so they don't.
One thing is certain: they're not attack rolls. Partial cover doesn't affect any of them except the ones that use Dexterity saving throws. Full cover is a different story.
For myself, I would rule that they pass harmlessly through glass and hit their target, because I see them as laser beams. I want my players to be able to intuit how things work mechanically, from how I describe them narratively, and if I say "it shines a beam" they're going to assume that goes through glass like ordinary light, and I want them to be correct. I would also have the rays bounce off mirrors, but that's a whole other can of worms. It would require some serious on-the-spot adjudication because making formal rules for it sounds nightmarish.
More specifically on this thread's subject though - a beholder has an eye beam that shoots at a creature and automatically hits. So if it hits a pane of glass, it does not go through the glass? Or does it affect the glass and then once the glass is broken / disintegrated / etc. it goes through with no problem? How long does that take?
My thing with stuff like this is strength of monster vs strength of material being used since RAW, there is no way to do that in this specific scenario.
Beholder - Legendary D&D mosnter in folklore, literally on the cover of books, is used for boss fights
Glass - Mundane, can be made by commoners regularly, provides very little actual protection against damage
To me, it just breaks. I do like rule of cool as an option, but this is one of those things that if it were being attempted it just screams of people trying to get around the balance of combat with something cheap and easily available.
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
My thinking is that if the glass does allow for the beams, why wouldn't a super-intelligent beholder not just set it up so they are behind thick glass? Also, consider a large magnifying glass over their central eye, or a beholder-sized Eye of the Eagle, etc.
If there's one thing I think everyone in this thread will agree with, it's that more beholders should have giant magical monocles
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)
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
My thinking is that if the glass does allow for the beams, why wouldn't a super-intelligent beholder not just set it up so they are behind thick glass? Also, consider a large magnifying glass over their central eye, or a beholder-sized Eye of the Eagle, etc.
If there's one thing I think everyone in this thread will agree with, it's that more beholders should have giant magical monocles
This would be something up to each DM. Personally I usually work on if it is a hit roll, it can be blocked by barriers (even glass) as armour/cover would protect. Thus physical barriers would also (the glass would likely take the hit instead). A savings throw I typically go with a barrier wont block (heavily influenced by description usually).
The eyes stalks typically say a beam so I would likely rule different for each beam, based on its effect, often giving advantage to a savings throw if I felt the glass would influence the targeting. EG: telekinesis/charm/fear/slow: non-damage going through the glass unhindered (basically invisible beams) enervation/sleep/death/paralysis: damage/cripples so I would give the save advantage as it feels like they would have some visual aspect such as a beam or bolt which the glass could disrupt petrification/disintegrate: would effect objects (or are near to deadly) so would be initially blocked and the glass itself affected.
This would be something up to each DM. Personally I usually work on if it is a hit roll, it can be blocked by barriers (even glass) as armour/cover would protect. Thus physical barriers would also (the glass would likely take the hit instead). A savings throw I typically go with a barrier wont block (heavily influenced by description usually).
The eyes stalks typically say a beam so I would likely rule different for each beam, based on its effect, often giving advantage to a savings throw if I felt the glass would influence the targeting. EG: telekinesis/charm/fear/slow: non-damage going through the glass unhindered (basically invisible beams) enervation/sleep/death/paralysis: damage/cripples so I would give the save advantage as it feels like they would have some visual aspect such as a beam or bolt which the glass could disrupt petrification/disintegrate: would effect objects (or are near to deadly) so would be initially blocked and the glass itself affected.
Interesting, especially in the case of the petrification ray - it turns the glass to stone, I assume? Does that mean it is no longer transparent or it is now super strong?
This would be something up to each DM. Personally I usually work on if it is a hit roll, it can be blocked by barriers (even glass) as armour/cover would protect. Thus physical barriers would also (the glass would likely take the hit instead). A savings throw I typically go with a barrier wont block (heavily influenced by description usually).
The eyes stalks typically say a beam so I would likely rule different for each beam, based on its effect, often giving advantage to a savings throw if I felt the glass would influence the targeting. EG: telekinesis/charm/fear/slow: non-damage going through the glass unhindered (basically invisible beams) enervation/sleep/death/paralysis: damage/cripples so I would give the save advantage as it feels like they would have some visual aspect such as a beam or bolt which the glass could disrupt petrification/disintegrate: would effect objects (or are near to deadly) so would be initially blocked and the glass itself affected.
Interesting, especially in the case of the petrification ray - it turns the glass to stone, I assume? Does that mean it is no longer transparent or it is now super strong?
Petrifaction ray only works on creatures. Telekinesis and disintegrate are the only ones that do anything to objects.
Do a beholder's eye beams work through glass?
I would rule no, since they involve beams which means they would be stopped by the object (glass) being in the way. A couple of the beams would affect the glass (disintegrate, telekinetic), opening it up for subsequent beams. But generally, I'd go with the glass stopping the eye rays.
That said, glass is just, ugh. It's one of the stickiest subjects in this edition. I expect some other people would rule the other way.
My thinking is that if the glass does allow for the beams, why wouldn't a super-intelligent beholder not just set it up so they are behind thick glass? Also, consider a large magnifying glass over their central eye, or a beholder-sized Eye of the Eagle, etc.
Some effects require 'line of sight' and are stopped by any physical object, others require seeing.
The eye rays specifies 'sees':
As such, the eye rays go through glass.
But there is no such line in the anti magic cone. That is more of a DM intrepertation. I would personally rule that a stone wall, door, or glass would stop the anti-magic cone. But if you think the anti-magic cone goes through a stone wall, then it should definitely go through a glass wall.
It is. I'm curious whether there's an understanding within the development team that glass just isn't a thing in the worlds of D&D. Like they think it's ahistorical or something. I'll be updating this comment with any references I find to glass windows in official books.
Edit 1: Crystal window in ToA. Transparent, but maybe the crystal is here to imply that glass is not used this way? This window is anomalous?
Edit 2: Apparatus of Kwalish. Transparent window blocks water from flooding the machine.
Edit 3: Flail snails leave behind a "nearly transparent" glass-like substance that's used to make windows.
Edit 4: The basic rules mention "smashing a window." I don't see why you'd smash a window that doesn't have glass in it.
Final edit: There are a few references to stained-glass windows, which I think we can agree it would be reasonable to treat as blocking line of sight. The vast majority of windows don't specify if they have glass or a glass-like substance in them. I think it's possible that the team simply thought you'd never actually encounter glass, but if that was true, then they did a bad job sticking to it. I don't think the evidence really supports this theory though. So I have no idea why things ended up this messy.
To your point, glass may be expensive since it's expensive to buy a telescope / looking glass, but there are definitely magnifying glasses (glass), glasses for drinking, glass lenses, glass lighthouse windows and lenses, glass potion bottles that break / shatter on impact, etc.
Jeremy Crawford has said that a solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide Total Cover; specifically including a closed window.
A creature who has total cover can not be directly targeted by a spell or attack.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/is-a-glass-window-considered-a-total-cover/amp/
I would personally ignore a standard piece of thin untempered glass for most interactions. Against a projectile, I might consider increasing the target AC to account for a small amount of deflection.
Edit: Interesting note... lead was used to improve the clarity and workability of glass. Lead would account for up to 40% of the glass by weight. As a thin sheet of lead will block some magic, that could be an in-game justification for glass interfering with spells.
Hi, I'm a person who would because:
This ruling is stupid. You have full sight of the target, you know what you're trying to do. It's already a Bad Play (tm) because you're alerting EVERYONE around you without precautions prior.
I've just ruled in my games that since Glass is AC 13 and default is 10 for most things, any attack going through glass has to beat that 13 and damage is reduced by 5. After that, game on. You broke through the glass, altered people and the target took less damage because of it.
I think this is fair - you could presumably break through a barrier, no matter what it is, and then it would no longer provide cover.
Any barrier should be breakable with enough effort. Glass is fragile enough not to need much.
I do agree that it counts as total cover for things that are stopped by cover, but many spells are NOT stopped by cover. If the effect specifies 'see' then all you need to do is see them, and cover does not matter at ALL. If their a to hit or a Dex roll, then cover stops it.
But being behind a 10 ft stone wall that does not have a roof obviously cannot stop a 20 ft radius Stinking Cloud. Similarly, a Sacred Flame spell will not be stopped by a glass wall 10 ft tall, because you can see them and the flame descends from above.
Sort of true.
I'm sorry to say this is where you're wrong. To quote the PHB: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."
That's because Stinking Cloud, to quote the spell, "spreads around corners." There are 11 spells that behave this way. There are a lot more that don't.
Sacred Flame against a target behind glass doesn't function RAW. There's a common interpretation that it's *intended* to break the normal rules for targeting, based on this line: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." But RAW, that's not what that line does -- it just removes the benefit for the saving throw, which would be the +2 that nobody ever remembers to apply anyway.
Welcome to this conversation that's been going on for actual years. If you'd like to really dive into it, this thread probably isn't the place, but there are plenty of others dedicated to exactly that.
More specifically on this thread's subject though - a beholder has an eye beam that shoots at a creature and automatically hits. So if it hits a pane of glass, it does not go through the glass? Or does it affect the glass and then once the glass is broken / disintegrated / etc. it goes through with no problem? How long does that take?
There's simply no rules guidance on this. One might judge that these rays are pretty similar to spells, and decide that they have to follow the rules for spellcasting. Or one might judge that they aren't spells, so they don't.
One thing is certain: they're not attack rolls. Partial cover doesn't affect any of them except the ones that use Dexterity saving throws. Full cover is a different story.
For myself, I would rule that they pass harmlessly through glass and hit their target, because I see them as laser beams. I want my players to be able to intuit how things work mechanically, from how I describe them narratively, and if I say "it shines a beam" they're going to assume that goes through glass like ordinary light, and I want them to be correct. I would also have the rays bounce off mirrors, but that's a whole other can of worms. It would require some serious on-the-spot adjudication because making formal rules for it sounds nightmarish.
My thing with stuff like this is strength of monster vs strength of material being used since RAW, there is no way to do that in this specific scenario.
Beholder - Legendary D&D mosnter in folklore, literally on the cover of books, is used for boss fights
Glass - Mundane, can be made by commoners regularly, provides very little actual protection against damage
To me, it just breaks. I do like rule of cool as an option, but this is one of those things that if it were being attempted it just screams of people trying to get around the balance of combat with something cheap and easily available.
If there's one thing I think everyone in this thread will agree with, it's that more beholders should have giant magical monocles
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)
Already done, my friend. Already done.
This would be something up to each DM.
Personally I usually work on if it is a hit roll, it can be blocked by barriers (even glass) as armour/cover would protect. Thus physical barriers would also (the glass would likely take the hit instead).
A savings throw I typically go with a barrier wont block (heavily influenced by description usually).
The eyes stalks typically say a beam so I would likely rule different for each beam, based on its effect, often giving advantage to a savings throw if I felt the glass would influence the targeting.
EG:
telekinesis/charm/fear/slow: non-damage going through the glass unhindered (basically invisible beams)
enervation/sleep/death/paralysis: damage/cripples so I would give the save advantage as it feels like they would have some visual aspect such as a beam or bolt which the glass could disrupt
petrification/disintegrate: would effect objects (or are near to deadly) so would be initially blocked and the glass itself affected.
- Loswaith
Interesting, especially in the case of the petrification ray - it turns the glass to stone, I assume? Does that mean it is no longer transparent or it is now super strong?
Petrifaction ray only works on creatures. Telekinesis and disintegrate are the only ones that do anything to objects.
Interesting - so it hits a creature and the creature is turned to stone after two rounds and a failure, etc. But their belongings stay the same?