So I had just gone through a long forum on this topic but the answer still alludes me. It seems to cast a spell, there must be a clear path to the target. This leads me to believe that because wall of force grants total cover, then it can't pass through. However counterspell only states that they need to see the target. So does that mean that counterspell works or not?
RAW, no. Counterspell targets the creature casting the spell. The spellcasting rules say you you can't target a creature behind total cover. A creature fully behind a Wall of Force has total cover.
RAW, yes. Counter spell is made as he casts it, not after. so the Wall of Force doesn’t exist yet. Therefore, if you counter spell, the spell won’t work, as normal.
RAW, yes. Counter spell is made as he casts it, not after. so the Wall of Force doesn’t exist yet. Therefore, if you counter spell, the spell won’t work, as normal.
You can counter the wall, but not any spells after the wall is up.
Specific beats general, but counterspell says that you have to see the spell being cast, not that you only have to see the spell being cast, so that's irrelevant.
I think you can do it, but it's really just a matter of your DM's opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
My gut feeling is that you can't Counterspell through a Wall of Force. You can't cast most other sells through a Wall of Force either. You can certainly Counterspell a Wall of Force spell while it I being cast.
So if there is a Wall of Force between you and an enemy caster you can't Counterspell his spells. he can't target you with his spells either, but he could target an ally of yours who was on the same side of the Wall of Force with him. Think of one example when you might very much want to Counterspell a spell that wasn't targeted at you. The enemy caster is about to fry your buddy with a Lightning Bolt.
Seems to me that it depends on whether one interprets Wall of Force as providing cover.
If it does provide cover then, like InquisitiveCoder said, it would prevent targeting with spells, including Counterspell. The RAW fairly explicitly states: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover".
If the DM rules that the wall doesn't provide cover, then targeting would not be prevented, and Counterspell could be cast through it as normal.
Wall of Force says nothing about providing cover of any kind. The only statement it makes in that general direction is the first sentence of the last paragraph. "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." But we're not talking about a physical object, we're talking about a magical effect. To be frank, we're not even talking about a bolt or projectile at all, either. Counterspell does not have that kind of specificity in it's description, either, but it does have the cast time of "instantaneous". This would suggest it's more like Magic Missile, in that it simply occurs. There is no travel time, there is no moving from origin to destination. It just happens.
If both of these suppositions are correct, then there is no reason whatsoever to expect that Wall of Force would prevent Counterspell from working on the other side of the wall. Or any spell, really, that doesn't have a travel time or isn't a projectile.
Wall of Force says nothing about providing cover of any kind. The only statement it makes in that general direction is the first sentence of the last paragraph. "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." But we're not talking about a physical object, we're talking about a magical effect.
If you can't physically pass through it, it's an obstacle, and therefore provides cover. The only difference between a regular wall and a wall of force is that the latter is a spell effect. That's not relevant to the cover rules.
To be frank, we're not even talking about a bolt or projectile at all, either. Counterspell does not have that kind of specificity in it's description, either, but it does have the cast time of "instantaneous".This would suggest it's more like Magic Missile, in that it simply occurs. There is no travel time, there is no moving from origin to destination. It just happens.
None of this is relevant to the targeting rules for spells.
Wording on the spell counterspell doesnt actually mention a target, so IMO cover doesn't apply
It absolutely does. It’s in the very first sentence of the spell description (emphasis on the target mine): “You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.”
You can DEFINITELY counter a spell the casting of Wall of Force. Counter goes off before the spell does. If the spell goes off before the counter, you need a Dispel Magic, not a counter.
But once a Wall of Force is up, I would not let someone counter other spells cast by someone on the inside of it.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Honestly this is one of the bigger questions I have with the cover rules. Because the Wall of Force is invisible, there is still clear line of sight, but because it (could be) considered cover, you can't target a creature due to the cover rules. It may not be RAW, but I tend to rule on a spell-by-spell basis; if the spell has an attack roll, or is a line, cone, or other AoE spell, I definitely would have it stop at the Wall of Force per the targeting rules, but then for spells that don't seem to have a "line", AoE, or attack roll associated with it, I tend to base "cover" on whether you can or cannot see the target, per most of those spells descriptions (I obviously would include other requirements in the consideration if they are included in the spell). So I would probably allow a counterspell into a wall of force as it is one of those types of spells that only requires sight, and doesn't seem to include a "line" or AoE in its description that could be stopped by the wall. That may not be RAW, but it makes sense to me and can be consistently applied.
Its a gray area though, or at least a circumstance where the RAW for cover doesn't necessarily make sense. Because for most spells, I can meet the spell requirements (sight, usually), but the spell would fail due to "cover" rules. A better definition of "cover" might help here that can better include situations where the "cover" does not block sight.
There's no "could be".. it is full cover. Cover is a physical obstruction, not a visual one. Visual would be obscurement, and WoF does not obscure anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
RAW, no. Counterspell targets the creature casting the spell. The spellcasting rules say you you can't target a creature behind total cover. A creature fully behind a Wall of Force has total cover.
There's no "could be".. it is full cover. Cover is a physical obstruction, not a visual one. Visual would be obscurement, and WoF does not obscure anything.
RAW, no. Counterspell targets the creature casting the spell. The spellcasting rules say you you can't target a creature behind total cover. A creature fully behind a Wall of Force has total cover.
There's no "could be".. it is full cover. Cover is a physical obstruction, not a visual one. Visual would be obscurement, and WoF does not obscure anything.
Yup.^^^
I guess I’m not really disagreeing, I just think it’s odd that a spell effect reliant on sight and no obvious trajectory based effect would be stopped by the wall the same way as the “streak of light” from a fireball or the beam of an Eldritch Blast would. It also makes the Wall in some ways more powerful than the 6th level spell Globe of Invulnerability which only stops spells of 5th level or lower, whereas WoF can stop a 9th level spell. (of course, you can cast spells out from the GoI area, but still). That’s more an opinion on how the rule is written rather than interpreting the RAW, and I know my ruling above is definitely a houserule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I had just gone through a long forum on this topic but the answer still alludes me. It seems to cast a spell, there must be a clear path to the target. This leads me to believe that because wall of force grants total cover, then it can't pass through. However counterspell only states that they need to see the target. So does that mean that counterspell works or not?
The rules are murky enough on this that it’s up to your DM. Some will allow it and some won’t.
Professional computer geek
RAW, no. Counterspell targets the creature casting the spell. The spellcasting rules say you you can't target a creature behind total cover. A creature fully behind a Wall of Force has total cover.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
RAW, yes. Counter spell is made as he casts it, not after. so the Wall of Force doesn’t exist yet. Therefore, if you counter spell, the spell won’t work, as normal.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
You can counter the wall, but not any spells after the wall is up.
Was that not the question?
If it wasn’t, I’m sorry, I misunderstood. But you can counterspell the wall.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Specific beats general, but counterspell says that you have to see the spell being cast, not that you only have to see the spell being cast, so that's irrelevant.
I think you can do it, but it's really just a matter of your DM's opinion.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
My gut feeling is that you can't Counterspell through a Wall of Force. You can't cast most other sells through a Wall of Force either. You can certainly Counterspell a Wall of Force spell while it I being cast.
So if there is a Wall of Force between you and an enemy caster you can't Counterspell his spells. he can't target you with his spells either, but he could target an ally of yours who was on the same side of the Wall of Force with him. Think of one example when you might very much want to Counterspell a spell that wasn't targeted at you. The enemy caster is about to fry your buddy with a Lightning Bolt.
Seems to me that it depends on whether one interprets Wall of Force as providing cover.
If it does provide cover then, like InquisitiveCoder said, it would prevent targeting with spells, including Counterspell. The RAW fairly explicitly states: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover".
If the DM rules that the wall doesn't provide cover, then targeting would not be prevented, and Counterspell could be cast through it as normal.
Wall of Force says nothing about providing cover of any kind. The only statement it makes in that general direction is the first sentence of the last paragraph. "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." But we're not talking about a physical object, we're talking about a magical effect. To be frank, we're not even talking about a bolt or projectile at all, either. Counterspell does not have that kind of specificity in it's description, either, but it does have the cast time of "instantaneous". This would suggest it's more like Magic Missile, in that it simply occurs. There is no travel time, there is no moving from origin to destination. It just happens.
If both of these suppositions are correct, then there is no reason whatsoever to expect that Wall of Force would prevent Counterspell from working on the other side of the wall. Or any spell, really, that doesn't have a travel time or isn't a projectile.
If you can't physically pass through it, it's an obstacle, and therefore provides cover. The only difference between a regular wall and a wall of force is that the latter is a spell effect. That's not relevant to the cover rules.
None of this is relevant to the targeting rules for spells.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If your DM allows it, abuse it, if not dont.
Wording on the spell counterspell doesnt actually mention a target, so IMO cover doesn't apply
It absolutely does. It’s in the very first sentence of the spell description (emphasis on the target mine): “You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.”
You can DEFINITELY counter a spell the casting of Wall of Force. Counter goes off before the spell does. If the spell goes off before the counter, you need a Dispel Magic, not a counter.
But once a Wall of Force is up, I would not let someone counter other spells cast by someone on the inside of it.
Because it doesn't need to? That's a general rule for all spellcasting. There is always a target: a creature, object, area, self, etc.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Honestly this is one of the bigger questions I have with the cover rules. Because the Wall of Force is invisible, there is still clear line of sight, but because it (could be) considered cover, you can't target a creature due to the cover rules. It may not be RAW, but I tend to rule on a spell-by-spell basis; if the spell has an attack roll, or is a line, cone, or other AoE spell, I definitely would have it stop at the Wall of Force per the targeting rules, but then for spells that don't seem to have a "line", AoE, or attack roll associated with it, I tend to base "cover" on whether you can or cannot see the target, per most of those spells descriptions (I obviously would include other requirements in the consideration if they are included in the spell). So I would probably allow a counterspell into a wall of force as it is one of those types of spells that only requires sight, and doesn't seem to include a "line" or AoE in its description that could be stopped by the wall. That may not be RAW, but it makes sense to me and can be consistently applied.
Its a gray area though, or at least a circumstance where the RAW for cover doesn't necessarily make sense. Because for most spells, I can meet the spell requirements (sight, usually), but the spell would fail due to "cover" rules. A better definition of "cover" might help here that can better include situations where the "cover" does not block sight.
There's no "could be".. it is full cover. Cover is a physical obstruction, not a visual one. Visual would be obscurement, and WoF does not obscure anything.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yup.^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I guess I’m not really disagreeing, I just think it’s odd that a spell effect reliant on sight and no obvious trajectory based effect would be stopped by the wall the same way as the “streak of light” from a fireball or the beam of an Eldritch Blast would. It also makes the Wall in some ways more powerful than the 6th level spell Globe of Invulnerability which only stops spells of 5th level or lower, whereas WoF can stop a 9th level spell. (of course, you can cast spells out from the GoI area, but still). That’s more an opinion on how the rule is written rather than interpreting the RAW, and I know my ruling above is definitely a houserule.