I indulged that line of thinking while i was considering the object. But in this case, it seems there is a clear path to the target. The item doesn't seem to create a barrier like that of a wall of force. If that were the case i would agree 100%, since it grants total cover to those on the other side (just like @JC said in one of his tweets).
But in this case is just talking about a barrier with an specific effect/use, i'm not sure it implies that it blocks the said clear path.
On the other hand, the item says: "through the barrier". And a spell that manifest on a target does not travel through that barrier, the effect just manifests on the other side/target. On the other hand, spells like scrying or clarivoyance create an spell effect that literally manifests through solid barriers. Which in some way support the statement that some magical effects emerge on some distant point, without traveling to that point.
In any case, i'm not sure about anything of what i just said. D&D 3.5 had that "line of effect" rule that was really clear, items or spells would just say "it blocks line of effect" and that's it.
I would be gratefull if you could give me feedback on this.
I indulged that line of thinking while i was considering the object. But in this case, it seems there is a clear path to the target.
No, there is not, since the item blocks the spell effect. Because it is blocking the spell effect between you and the target, obviously there is no clear path, because that path is specifically blocked, you see ?
On the other hand, the item says: "through the barrier". And a spell that manifest on a target does not travel through that barrier, the effect just manifests on the other side/target.
You can house rule this, but this is inconsistent with the clear path to the target.
Aditionally, i forgot, it specifically says "Spell effects", not just spells.
The effect of a spell is the creation/manifestation/consequences of the spell, not the spell itself. So even "if there is a mystical energy" traveling through the barrier, it's no the effect generated by that mystical energy.
(DMG160) Cube of force, 4th Face: "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier".
As i read it, it blocks just the effects of a spells, but not a spell that doesn't generate an effect that must travel through the barrier.
For example:
- It blocks the fire of a fireball, the proyectiles of the scorching ray, and so on...
- it doesn't block a dominate person cast into someone inside the barrier, or a hold person, and so on...
Am i correct?
You might be correct - the barrier explicitly blocks spell effects, so there's no question if a fireball goes off on one side of the barrier, someone on the other side is fine. That's fine. Scorching Ray is entering dangerous territory - I'll discuss that below - but also looks fine to me.
Thing is, the rules for spell targeting and cover absolutely collapse in the fact of transparent cover. Anyone telling you they know the one incontrovertibly true RAW on casting, say, hold person through a shut glass window is just plain wrong. That's for glass, let alone... whatever a cube of force emits, making the rules even stranger.
So, just like with glass, the answer for "can I target a spell through a cube of force's barrier, assuming face X?" is "ask your GM".
Now, supposing your GM rules the answer is "yes, go ahead", so e.g. Hold Person can be cast through the barrier, bear in mind that spell text seemingly intended as flavor but faithfully interpreted as rules (such as assuming scorching ray literally fires rays of fire rather than producing fire at the target's location without traversing the intervening space) can lead to weird consequences. For example, consider the spell Sacred Flame. The effect of that spell descends from an unknown point in space never described in any way in the spell. Will the Cube of Force block Sacred Flame? Well, that depends on how far up Sacred Flame descends from, and there's literally no text on that. I've never seen a GM actually worry about that - they usually hand-wave it as descending from 1 mm above the target - but it goes to show how dangerous this path is (and your GM might decide to nerf Sacred Flame by forcing it to start, say, 60 feet up, making the spell useless in most caves, let alone useless against your cubic barrier). Tread carefully, and make sure to work with your GM, not against them, to work out how various spells will interact with the cube.
If you want to make this issue even more complicated, consider that an Artificer Spell-Storing Item doesn't emit spells, it emits a spell's effects, which means you might end up with Hold Person penetrating the barrier in general, but bouncing off it when emitted by an SSI.
In this case, you have forgotten a definition in the rules: "The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." Everything in the description is the spell effect. If it's blocked, obviously the spell is blocked, it has no clear path to the target.
I know that some people consider it counterintuitive to the way they envision mental magic in particular, and I agree that you can do a different magic system where wall of force and cube of force only block what you would call "physical" spell effects. But then you are left with defining, spell by spell, what is physical and what is not.
Moreover, it is not even more logical, as long as you are designing force spells that even block ethereal travel, why shouldn't they block non physical magic as well ?
I'm gonnar rule as you say, since is the more practical aproach. But i'm still not convinced.
The barrier from the cube of force is not a wall of force as in the wall of force spell, it doesn't say so. It doesn't say it extend to the ethereal plane so it wouldn't prevent an ehtereal creature walking through it.
On the other hand, the 5th face of the cube of force: "Nothing can pass through the barrier". I do get that blocks the clear path to target, since it grants total cover.
Some other spell blocking features in the game are way more clear about what they do:
Prisamtic Wall, indigo layer: "While this layer is in place, spells can’t be cast through the wall".
Globe of invulneravility: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can’t affect creatures or objects within it".
That's very different to "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier". That's very deficient wording if they are trying to prevent spells from being cast across the barrier. Why not just say spells insted of spells effects. Just like 100% of the other spell blocking features of game.
Just curious ... what about spells like the following:
Sending : unlimited range
Clairvoyance : range 1 mile
Dimension Door : Range 500 feet
These spells do not specifically mention total cover - would you say that none of these work when targeted on a location or creature that is behind total cover? The spells are clearly intended to work on locations that may be behind total cover from the caster and yet there is no clear path to the target in most of the applications of these spells and the spells themselves do not state an exception from the general targeting rules that are often cited for total cover. Note that the range of none of these spells is self.
Can you dimension door to the other side of a wall of force? Can you dimension door into a cube of force? Can you cast a sending to someone inside a cube of force blocking spell effects? Can you cast sending to a creature on the other side of a wall of force? What about inside a forcecage? Can you cast Clairvoyance and place a sensor on the other side of a wall of force or inside a cube of force or forcecage?
I know what my rulings in these cases would be, they may not be RAW however since I don't think the general total cover rule and clear path to the target applies to any of these spells (despite the fact that the spells do not contain any explicit exemptions).
In this case, you have forgotten a definition in the rules: "The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." Everything in the description is the spell effect. If it's blocked, obviously the spell is blocked, it has no clear path to the target.
I know that some people consider it counterintuitive to the way they envision mental magic in particular, and I agree that you can do a different magic system where wall of force and cube of force only block what you would call "physical" spell effects. But then you are left with defining, spell by spell, what is physical and what is not.
Moreover, it is not even more logical, as long as you are designing force spells that even block ethereal travel, why shouldn't they block non physical magic as well ?
I'm gonnar rule as you say, since is the more practical aproach. But i'm still not convinced.
The barrier from the cube of force is not a wall of force as in the wall of force spell, it doesn't say so. It doesn't say it extend to the ethereal plane so it wouldn't prevent an ehtereal creature walking through it.
On the other hand, the 5th face of the cube of force: "Nothing can pass through the barrier". I do get that blocks the clear path to target, since it grants total cover.
Some other spell blocking features in the game are way more clear about what they do:
Prisamtic Wall, indigo layer: "While this layer is in place, spells can’t be cast through the wall".
Globe of invulneravility: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can’t affect creatures or objects within it".
That's very different to "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier". That's very deficient wording if they are trying to prevent spells from being cast across the barrier. Why not just say spells insted of spells effects. Just like 100% of the other spell blocking features of game.
If you haven't noticed, the 5e rules don't always used consistent (or clear) language.
Lyxen is right. The entire description of the spell is the spell effect. Spell effects can not pass through the barrier, so they can't take place on the other side.
In this case, you have forgotten a definition in the rules: "The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." Everything in the description is the spell effect. If it's blocked, obviously the spell is blocked, it has no clear path to the target.
I know that some people consider it counterintuitive to the way they envision mental magic in particular, and I agree that you can do a different magic system where wall of force and cube of force only block what you would call "physical" spell effects. But then you are left with defining, spell by spell, what is physical and what is not.
Moreover, it is not even more logical, as long as you are designing force spells that even block ethereal travel, why shouldn't they block non physical magic as well ?
I'm gonnar rule as you say, since is the more practical aproach. But i'm still not convinced.
The barrier from the cube of force is not a wall of force as in the wall of force spell, it doesn't say so. It doesn't say it extend to the ethereal plane so it wouldn't prevent an ehtereal creature walking through it.
On the other hand, the 5th face of the cube of force: "Nothing can pass through the barrier". I do get that blocks the clear path to target, since it grants total cover.
Some other spell blocking features in the game are way more clear about what they do:
Prisamtic Wall, indigo layer: "While this layer is in place, spells can’t be cast through the wall".
Globe of invulneravility: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can’t affect creatures or objects within it".
That's very different to "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier". That's very deficient wording if they are trying to prevent spells from being cast across the barrier. Why not just say spells insted of spells effects. Just like 100% of the other spell blocking features of game.
If you haven't noticed, the 5e rules don't always used consistent (or clear) language.
Lyxen is right. The entire description of the spell is the spell effect. Spell effects can not pass through the barrier, so they can't take place on the other side.
Why not? When you cast Hold Person, what are you claiming is passing through the barrier? Nothing in the text of Hold Person conveys anything traversing any space - effects simply occur at the space of the target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(DMG160) Cube of force, 4th Face: "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier".
As i read it, it blocks just the effects of a spells, but not a spell that doesn't generate an effect that must travel through the barrier.
For example:
- It blocks the fire of a fireball, the proyectiles of the scorching ray, and so on...
- it doesn't block a dominate person cast into someone inside the barrier, or a hold person, and so on...
Am i correct?
I indulged that line of thinking while i was considering the object. But in this case, it seems there is a clear path to the target. The item doesn't seem to create a barrier like that of a wall of force. If that were the case i would agree 100%, since it grants total cover to those on the other side (just like @JC said in one of his tweets).
But in this case is just talking about a barrier with an specific effect/use, i'm not sure it implies that it blocks the said clear path.
On the other hand, the item says: "through the barrier". And a spell that manifest on a target does not travel through that barrier, the effect just manifests on the other side/target. On the other hand, spells like scrying or clarivoyance create an spell effect that literally manifests through solid barriers. Which in some way support the statement that some magical effects emerge on some distant point, without traveling to that point.
In any case, i'm not sure about anything of what i just said. D&D 3.5 had that "line of effect" rule that was really clear, items or spells would just say "it blocks line of effect" and that's it.
I would be gratefull if you could give me feedback on this.
Aditionally, i forgot, it specifically says "Spell effects", not just spells.
The effect of a spell is the creation/manifestation/consequences of the spell, not the spell itself. So even "if there is a mystical energy" traveling through the barrier, it's no the effect generated by that mystical energy.
You might be correct - the barrier explicitly blocks spell effects, so there's no question if a fireball goes off on one side of the barrier, someone on the other side is fine. That's fine. Scorching Ray is entering dangerous territory - I'll discuss that below - but also looks fine to me.
Thing is, the rules for spell targeting and cover absolutely collapse in the fact of transparent cover. Anyone telling you they know the one incontrovertibly true RAW on casting, say, hold person through a shut glass window is just plain wrong. That's for glass, let alone... whatever a cube of force emits, making the rules even stranger.
So, just like with glass, the answer for "can I target a spell through a cube of force's barrier, assuming face X?" is "ask your GM".
Now, supposing your GM rules the answer is "yes, go ahead", so e.g. Hold Person can be cast through the barrier, bear in mind that spell text seemingly intended as flavor but faithfully interpreted as rules (such as assuming scorching ray literally fires rays of fire rather than producing fire at the target's location without traversing the intervening space) can lead to weird consequences. For example, consider the spell Sacred Flame. The effect of that spell descends from an unknown point in space never described in any way in the spell. Will the Cube of Force block Sacred Flame? Well, that depends on how far up Sacred Flame descends from, and there's literally no text on that. I've never seen a GM actually worry about that - they usually hand-wave it as descending from 1 mm above the target - but it goes to show how dangerous this path is (and your GM might decide to nerf Sacred Flame by forcing it to start, say, 60 feet up, making the spell useless in most caves, let alone useless against your cubic barrier). Tread carefully, and make sure to work with your GM, not against them, to work out how various spells will interact with the cube.
If you want to make this issue even more complicated, consider that an Artificer Spell-Storing Item doesn't emit spells, it emits a spell's effects, which means you might end up with Hold Person penetrating the barrier in general, but bouncing off it when emitted by an SSI.
I'm gonnar rule as you say, since is the more practical aproach. But i'm still not convinced.
The barrier from the cube of force is not a wall of force as in the wall of force spell, it doesn't say so. It doesn't say it extend to the ethereal plane so it wouldn't prevent an ehtereal creature walking through it.
On the other hand, the 5th face of the cube of force: "Nothing can pass through the barrier". I do get that blocks the clear path to target, since it grants total cover.
Some other spell blocking features in the game are way more clear about what they do:
Prisamtic Wall, indigo layer: "While this layer is in place, spells can’t be cast through the wall".
Globe of invulneravility: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can’t affect creatures or objects within it".
That's very different to "Spell effects can 't pass through the barrier". That's very deficient wording if they are trying to prevent spells from being cast across the barrier. Why not just say spells insted of spells effects. Just like 100% of the other spell blocking features of game.
Just curious ... what about spells like the following:
Sending : unlimited range
Clairvoyance : range 1 mile
Dimension Door : Range 500 feet
These spells do not specifically mention total cover - would you say that none of these work when targeted on a location or creature that is behind total cover? The spells are clearly intended to work on locations that may be behind total cover from the caster and yet there is no clear path to the target in most of the applications of these spells and the spells themselves do not state an exception from the general targeting rules that are often cited for total cover. Note that the range of none of these spells is self.
Can you dimension door to the other side of a wall of force? Can you dimension door into a cube of force? Can you cast a sending to someone inside a cube of force blocking spell effects? Can you cast sending to a creature on the other side of a wall of force? What about inside a forcecage? Can you cast Clairvoyance and place a sensor on the other side of a wall of force or inside a cube of force or forcecage?
I know what my rulings in these cases would be, they may not be RAW however since I don't think the general total cover rule and clear path to the target applies to any of these spells (despite the fact that the spells do not contain any explicit exemptions).
If you haven't noticed, the 5e rules don't always used consistent (or clear) language.
Lyxen is right. The entire description of the spell is the spell effect. Spell effects can not pass through the barrier, so they can't take place on the other side.
Why not? When you cast Hold Person, what are you claiming is passing through the barrier? Nothing in the text of Hold Person conveys anything traversing any space - effects simply occur at the space of the target.