Greetings fellow adventurers! Today I come seeking guidance on the rules as written for the Wall of Force spell.
Now, in the description, it says that nothing can physically pass through the wall, and that it prevents people from going though it via the ethereal plane. But on a recent episode of Critical Role, Caleb was able to cast Dispel Magic on a glyph and Jester was able to Dimension Door to a room both on the other side of the wall.
So, and here's the question that's been keeping me up for about a week, does this mean that magic can pass through Wall of Force?
I know the Globe of Invulnerability spell is capable of blocking out all spell effects but does nothing to stop somebody from simply walking up to you and hacking you to bits with a sword or axe. So is Wall of Force the opposite, with nothing physical able to cross it but leaves the other side vulnerable to magic?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts! And may the chests you find be always laden with loot, and bereft of any tongues or teeth!
This is a topic pretty often fought about on these forums. You're more than likely gonna get 2 sides that are based around 2 contrasting views of magic: Whether or not the magic's source is its destination, or the caster.
With something like firebolt, its easy. the bolt streaks through the air towards the wall aaaaaand *thud* doesn't go through. It gets more complicated with something like sacred flame which says the flame "descends on the target". The main argument you're going to see is:
1) Sacred flames effects are generated on the other side of the wall, therefore do not pass through the wall
or
2) The magic that created sacred flame had to pass through the wall to generate the flame so it would be blocked.
The same argument basis will be for dimension door as well:
1) Dimension door removes you and places you on the other side of the wall successfully (you didn't pass through)
or
2) the "magical effect" had to pass through the wall to get you there and thus would not work
As a DM, I would usually side with argument "1" in my games, but as a player, I'd be perfectly fine with either as, in my opinion, they are both valid interpretations.
Idk if I typed this response fast enough to get in before the others though because there has been similar threads on this topic that have BLOWN up with people very passionately defending their side lol
Greetings fellow adventurers! Today I come seeking guidance on the rules as written for the Wall of Force spell.
Now, in the description, it says that nothing can physically pass through the wall, and that it prevents people from going though it via the ethereal plane. But on a recent episode of Critical Role, Caleb was able to cast Dispel Magic on a glyph and Jester was able to Dimension Door to a room both on the other side of the wall.
So, and here's the question that's been keeping me up for about a week, does this mean that magic can pass through Wall of Force?
I know the Globe of Invulnerability spell is capable of blocking out all spell effects but does nothing to stop somebody from simply walking up to you and hacking you to bits with a sword or axe. So is Wall of Force the opposite, with nothing physical able to cross it but leaves the other side vulnerable to magic?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts! And may the chests you find be always laden with loot, and bereft of any tongues or teeth!
Your question is poking a beehive of poorly worded rules. I'll nip this in the bud right now by providing the main offender:
PHB196: "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."
Quick notes: "concealed" is not a game term and the PHB does not define it. You will have very serious rules problems if you rule that transparent total cover isn't total cover, because you will be declaring that a blowgun can just shoot through a glass window and the target gets +5 AC but is otherwise completely shootable. You will also have very serious rules problems if you rule that transparent total cover actually stops attackers from declaring attacks to begin with, as it gives them a way to detect the cover by declaring attacks until physics says they can take the shot. I recommend ruling that transparent total cover is total cover, but an attacker can declare the attack, it just stops at the wall.
Dimension Door goes through all walls, not just Wall of Force (its target is the caster, who hasn't got a wall between... themselves). You shouldn't draw conclusions from it to all other spells. Dispel Magic, on the other hand, has to draw a line of effect to the target, so the cover rules apply. Walls of Force are transparent. Cue house rules. My recommendation is what I said it was: transparent cover means you can declare the spell, but it "hits" the wall by accident. Since Wall of Force is explicitly immune to Dispel Magic, nothing happens.
...The fact that the wall blocks all physical passage means that anything behind it has total cover...
I'm not understanding this part? I'm not questioning your ruling or anything, but if the following are true:
1) wall of force is invisible
2) Wall of force blocks physical passage
3) blocking physical passage = total cover
and 4) total cover means no targeting
Wouldn't a locked glass door stop a wizard from targeting someone with lets say..... a charm person spell?
Locked glass door:
1) transparent
2) blocks physical passage. Therefore....
3) provides total cover
and 4) blocks spell targeting.
seems kinda strange that a window can block charm person.... If this is true, I don't think it'll change how I rule it, but it would be interesting to know if others would
Yea - transparrent total cover is a rules quagmire. Come up with a personal ruling that makes sense for you and move on. And also be fully prepared for others DM's to have decided other ways.
And CR isn't exactly the best when it comes to playing RAW anyway.
Another thing to note is that CR often uses the rule of cool. They aren't too finicky about RAW and often Matt will just pick whatever seems right at the time.
This is something all DMs should do anyways. I would not allow someone to shoot a blowgun through a window but I would allow them to throw a rock through it. Sooo... it's about knowing all (or most) of the rules and using them to guide you on how you think things should work in your game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Yea - transparrent total cover is a rules quagmire. Come up with a personal ruling that makes sense for you and move on. And also be fully prepared for others DM's to have decided other ways.
This sums it up nicely.
But I agree with Lyxen. Cover is cover even if you can see through it.
As for dispelling magic on the other side, I would not allow it because you need to target the glyph, so cover should affect that. But I don't know the circumstances in CR. Were there special circumstances that would have bypassed cover ?
I can't see why Dispel Magic would be an issue tbh. It reads "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.". It doesn't even mention a need to see it so that's even less restrictive than Misty Step (that we all agree works through a WoF). So should be fine IMO.
As for dispelling magic on the other side, I would not allow it because you need to target the glyph, so cover should affect that. But I don't know the circumstances in CR. Were there special circumstances that would have bypassed cover ?
I can't see why Dispel Magic would be an issue tbh. It reads "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.". It doesn't even mention a need to see it so that's even less restrictive than Misty Step (that we all agree works through a WoF). So should be fine IMO.
The reason is the general rule found in the targets section of the spellcasting chapter: You need line of effect to target something for a spell. Dimension door doesn't require that you target the destination (it tells you that you need only see, visualize, or roughly describe the destination in the spell), so you don't need line of effect to it. On the other hand, dispel magic asks you to target a creature, object, or magical effect, so you do need line of effect to target them. A layer of saran wrap between you and the magical effect? It's safe from dispel magic until your ranger puts a hole in it for you.
Edit: the extra text in dimension door is there to relax the targeting requirement, not strengthen it. The fact that you can simply see the destination means that you don't need line of effect, which would prevent you from normally targeting that area with a spell.
As for dispelling magic on the other side, I would not allow it because you need to target the glyph, so cover should affect that. But I don't know the circumstances in CR. Were there special circumstances that would have bypassed cover ?
I can't see why Dispel Magic would be an issue tbh. It reads "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.". It doesn't even mention a need to see it so that's even less restrictive than Misty Step (that we all agree works through a WoF). So should be fine IMO.
The reason is the general rule found in the targets section of the spellcasting chapter: You need line of effect to target something for a spell. Dimension door doesn't require that you target the destination (it tells you that you need only see, visualize, or roughly describe the destination in the spell), so you don't need line of effect to it, whereas dispel magic asks you to target a creature, object, or magical effect.
Edit: the extra text in dimension door is there to relax the targeting requirement, not strengthen it. The fact that you can simply see the destination means that you don't need line of effect, which would prevent you from normally targeting that area with a spell.
I could see a difference between Misty Step and Dispel Magic as one has Range=Self and the other one doesn't (and thus maybe I was hasty with my "shold be fine" statement above).
Whether a Wall of Force blocks the targeting of spells is a decision up to the individual DM in their game.
RAW - there is a wonderful argument with two very entrenched sides both of which claim their side as the one true interpretation. It is pretty irritating to be honest.
In your examples, Dimension Door has a range of 500' and only requires that you can see, visualize or describe as your destination. It is not a self range spell so some might argue that it could not be used to cross a wall of force. On the other hand, the spell also specifies that you can transport another creature if they are within 5' of you. The spell does not specify whether you have to see this other creature or whether they can be affected by the spell if behind total cover. So, if someone tried to cast dimension door and teleport themselves and a target who was within 5' on the other side of a wall of force - you would likely get different rulings depending on who you asked as to whether the other creature could be moved by the spell or not.
In terms of dispel magic - the camp that considers a wall of force total cover would say no, it can not target a spot on the other side of a wall of force while other folks that do not consider a wall of force to be total cover against spell casting (rather than physical effects) would have a different ruling.
If the rules stated that all spells had a physical effect then wall of force would block spells - but the rules don't say that. If the rules used something other than "concealed" to describe total cover then again there might be less room for argument. As it is, it is up to the individual DM and how they want to rule it in their game.
I could see a difference between Misty Step and Dispel Magic as one has Range=Self and the other one doesn't (and thus maybe I was hasty with my "shold be fine" statement above).
Unfortunately, we know that spell ranges are deeply inconsistent - Sword Burst, Thunderclap, and Word of Radiance are functionally the same spell with very minor differences, but Word of Radiance has a distinct range from the other two. That said, upon closer inspection of the wording, I am forced to conclude you are right: Dimension Door and Dispel Magic have substantially similar wording, including that Dispel Magic doesn't require you to see your target. I suspect that what they wanted was for Dimension Door to be Range Self, so that it could teleport you through walls like Misty Step, and then someone dropped an important ball, and now we have a spell that RAW should be blocked by walls, as it appears to (per page 202 of the PHB) target the space you teleport to, rather than yourself. How... unfortunate.
I could see a difference between Misty Step and Dispel Magic as one has Range=Self and the other one doesn't (and thus maybe I was hasty with my "shold be fine" statement above).
Look at the words again. Dimension door says "it can be a place you can see, one that you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating a distance and a direction..." Are you saying that dispel magic also has this wording or just that you can't see what difference that direct statement makes to how you might select the destination of the teleport vs the general rule requiring line of effect?
Matt made a decision because they are playing the game and not talking about it and any room for the discussion is on theory and rules forums, not at the table.
He made a ruling that if a spell does not originate from the spellcaster (ie. it does not travel from the spellcaster), and you can see the point of origin, it can work.
It is semi consistent with RAI apparently, given the explanation JC gave for his ruling that Sacred Flame would work in his opinion.
I think it's relatively safe to assume that if asked about spherical Wall of Force, JC would've said that Sacred Flame is blocked.
And that's why I said "semi" - it's not exactly the same circumstance but the common ground is that neither SF nor Dispel Magic originate from the spellcaster (ie. there is no ray that travels from your fingers to the point of origin).
I myself am fine with that ruling, perfectly fine with Sacred Flame to the point where I would extend this ruling to Flame Strike as well because the principle is basically the same and any spell that erupts from under as well.
RAW rules are not great for descriptions for this. As a quick note, we homebrewed our Wall of Force to say nothing can physically go in and out and magic spells can not go through it, period. Only spells that offer a form of teleportation can go through them. (Misty Step, DD, Thunder Step, etc)
But then Dimension Door shows up with even worse wording. Giving it a range of 500ft is bad, so we homebrewed it to be like Misty Step; it targets Self and then has additional effects that are not hampered by anything like line-to-target. Not sure why DD doesn’t function like big boi Misty Step but why make anything simple?
-
By RAW, you can not target a point/effect/NPC beyond Wall of Force/inside a dome with any magic. Period. End of discussion. All spells require line to target. Notice spells like Misty Step and Scrying target Self and then have a range built into their descriptions *after* you cast it that ignored line to target (hence my hatred or DD wording and our changing of it). Regardless of how anyone envisions any spell, all spells require line to target. Note I am not saying line of sight.
Incidentally, why does Telekinesis not have a Range of Self and then 60ft in text? Just bothers me considering it’s first sentence.
RAW rules are not great for descriptions for this. As a quick note, we homebrewed our Wall of Force to say nothing can physically go in and out and magic spells can not go through it, period. Only spells that offer a form of teleportation can go through them. (Misty Step, DD, Thunder Step, etc)
But then Dimension Door shows up with even worse wording. Giving it a range of 500ft is bad, so we homebrewed it to be like Misty Step; it targets Self and then has additional effects that are not hampered by anything like line-to-target. Not sure why DD doesn’t function like big boi Misty Step but why make anything simple?
-
By RAW, you can not target a point/effect/NPC beyond Wall of Force/inside a dome with any magic. Period. End of discussion. All spells require line to target. Notice spells like Misty Step and Scrying target Self and then have a range built into their descriptions *after* you cast it that ignored line to target (hence my hatred or DD wording and our changing of it). Regardless of how anyone envisions any spell, all spells require line to target. Note I am not saying line of sight.
Incidentally, why does Telekinesis not have a Range of Self and then 60ft in text? Just bothers me considering it’s first sentence.
This all ignores the text of DD which indicates that line of effect is not needed.
Yes, I just hate that the text has to say that when Misty Step, Scrying, etc don’t. I see no reason why they included a range of 500ft and didn’t do the same thing for other teleports and weird at-distance things.
As I said, DD just should have a range of Self and then have the extra info. It’s a minor but somewhat important change. By the same logic, Telekinesis can easily go through Wall of Force despite having a range of 60ft.
Greetings fellow adventurers! Today I come seeking guidance on the rules as written for the Wall of Force spell.
Now, in the description, it says that nothing can physically pass through the wall, and that it prevents people from going though it via the ethereal plane. But on a recent episode of Critical Role, Caleb was able to cast Dispel Magic on a glyph and Jester was able to Dimension Door to a room both on the other side of the wall.
So, and here's the question that's been keeping me up for about a week, does this mean that magic can pass through Wall of Force?
I know the Globe of Invulnerability spell is capable of blocking out all spell effects but does nothing to stop somebody from simply walking up to you and hacking you to bits with a sword or axe. So is Wall of Force the opposite, with nothing physical able to cross it but leaves the other side vulnerable to magic?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts! And may the chests you find be always laden with loot, and bereft of any tongues or teeth!
I'm gonna warn you in advance lol
This is a topic pretty often fought about on these forums. You're more than likely gonna get 2 sides that are based around 2 contrasting views of magic: Whether or not the magic's source is its destination, or the caster.
With something like firebolt, its easy. the bolt streaks through the air towards the wall aaaaaand *thud* doesn't go through.
It gets more complicated with something like sacred flame which says the flame "descends on the target". The main argument you're going to see is:
1) Sacred flames effects are generated on the other side of the wall, therefore do not pass through the wall
or
2) The magic that created sacred flame had to pass through the wall to generate the flame so it would be blocked.
The same argument basis will be for dimension door as well:
1) Dimension door removes you and places you on the other side of the wall successfully (you didn't pass through)
or
2) the "magical effect" had to pass through the wall to get you there and thus would not work
As a DM, I would usually side with argument "1" in my games, but as a player, I'd be perfectly fine with either as, in my opinion, they are both valid interpretations.
Idk if I typed this response fast enough to get in before the others though because there has been similar threads on this topic that have BLOWN up with people very passionately defending their side lol
Your question is poking a beehive of poorly worded rules. I'll nip this in the bud right now by providing the main offender:
PHB196: "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."
Quick notes: "concealed" is not a game term and the PHB does not define it. You will have very serious rules problems if you rule that transparent total cover isn't total cover, because you will be declaring that a blowgun can just shoot through a glass window and the target gets +5 AC but is otherwise completely shootable. You will also have very serious rules problems if you rule that transparent total cover actually stops attackers from declaring attacks to begin with, as it gives them a way to detect the cover by declaring attacks until physics says they can take the shot. I recommend ruling that transparent total cover is total cover, but an attacker can declare the attack, it just stops at the wall.
Dimension Door goes through all walls, not just Wall of Force (its target is the caster, who hasn't got a wall between... themselves). You shouldn't draw conclusions from it to all other spells. Dispel Magic, on the other hand, has to draw a line of effect to the target, so the cover rules apply. Walls of Force are transparent. Cue house rules. My recommendation is what I said it was: transparent cover means you can declare the spell, but it "hits" the wall by accident. Since Wall of Force is explicitly immune to Dispel Magic, nothing happens.
I'm not understanding this part? I'm not questioning your ruling or anything, but if the following are true:
1) wall of force is invisible
2) Wall of force blocks physical passage
3) blocking physical passage = total cover
and 4) total cover means no targeting
Wouldn't a locked glass door stop a wizard from targeting someone with lets say..... a charm person spell?
Locked glass door:
1) transparent
2) blocks physical passage. Therefore....
3) provides total cover
and 4) blocks spell targeting.
seems kinda strange that a window can block charm person.... If this is true, I don't think it'll change how I rule it, but it would be interesting to know if others would
Yea - transparrent total cover is a rules quagmire. Come up with a personal ruling that makes sense for you and move on. And also be fully prepared for others DM's to have decided other ways.
And CR isn't exactly the best when it comes to playing RAW anyway.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Another thing to note is that CR often uses the rule of cool. They aren't too finicky about RAW and often Matt will just pick whatever seems right at the time.
This is something all DMs should do anyways. I would not allow someone to shoot a blowgun through a window but I would allow them to throw a rock through it. Sooo... it's about knowing all (or most) of the rules and using them to guide you on how you think things should work in your game.
This sums it up nicely.
But I agree with Lyxen. Cover is cover even if you can see through it.
I can't see why Dispel Magic would be an issue tbh. It reads "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.". It doesn't even mention a need to see it so that's even less restrictive than Misty Step (that we all agree works through a WoF). So should be fine IMO.
The reason is the general rule found in the targets section of the spellcasting chapter: You need line of effect to target something for a spell. Dimension door doesn't require that you target the destination (it tells you that you need only see, visualize, or roughly describe the destination in the spell), so you don't need line of effect to it. On the other hand, dispel magic asks you to target a creature, object, or magical effect, so you do need line of effect to target them. A layer of saran wrap between you and the magical effect? It's safe from dispel magic until your ranger puts a hole in it for you.
Edit: the extra text in dimension door is there to relax the targeting requirement, not strengthen it. The fact that you can simply see the destination means that you don't need line of effect, which would prevent you from normally targeting that area with a spell.
I could see a difference between Misty Step and Dispel Magic as one has Range=Self and the other one doesn't (and thus maybe I was hasty with my "shold be fine" statement above).
But Dimension Door and Dispel Magic uses the same language so if one is OK then so should the other be.
Whether a Wall of Force blocks the targeting of spells is a decision up to the individual DM in their game.
RAW - there is a wonderful argument with two very entrenched sides both of which claim their side as the one true interpretation. It is pretty irritating to be honest.
In your examples, Dimension Door has a range of 500' and only requires that you can see, visualize or describe as your destination. It is not a self range spell so some might argue that it could not be used to cross a wall of force. On the other hand, the spell also specifies that you can transport another creature if they are within 5' of you. The spell does not specify whether you have to see this other creature or whether they can be affected by the spell if behind total cover. So, if someone tried to cast dimension door and teleport themselves and a target who was within 5' on the other side of a wall of force - you would likely get different rulings depending on who you asked as to whether the other creature could be moved by the spell or not.
In terms of dispel magic - the camp that considers a wall of force total cover would say no, it can not target a spot on the other side of a wall of force while other folks that do not consider a wall of force to be total cover against spell casting (rather than physical effects) would have a different ruling.
If the rules stated that all spells had a physical effect then wall of force would block spells - but the rules don't say that. If the rules used something other than "concealed" to describe total cover then again there might be less room for argument. As it is, it is up to the individual DM and how they want to rule it in their game.
Unfortunately, we know that spell ranges are deeply inconsistent - Sword Burst, Thunderclap, and Word of Radiance are functionally the same spell with very minor differences, but Word of Radiance has a distinct range from the other two. That said, upon closer inspection of the wording, I am forced to conclude you are right: Dimension Door and Dispel Magic have substantially similar wording, including that Dispel Magic doesn't require you to see your target. I suspect that what they wanted was for Dimension Door to be Range Self, so that it could teleport you through walls like Misty Step, and then someone dropped an important ball, and now we have a spell that RAW should be blocked by walls, as it appears to (per page 202 of the PHB) target the space you teleport to, rather than yourself. How... unfortunate.
Look at the words again. Dimension door says "it can be a place you can see, one that you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating a distance and a direction..." Are you saying that dispel magic also has this wording or just that you can't see what difference that direct statement makes to how you might select the destination of the teleport vs the general rule requiring line of effect?
Matt made a decision because they are playing the game and not talking about it and any room for the discussion is on theory and rules forums, not at the table.
He made a ruling that if a spell does not originate from the spellcaster (ie. it does not travel from the spellcaster), and you can see the point of origin, it can work.
It is semi consistent with RAI apparently, given the explanation JC gave for his ruling that Sacred Flame would work in his opinion.
I think it's relatively safe to assume that if asked about spherical Wall of Force, JC would've said that Sacred Flame is blocked.
And that's why I said "semi" - it's not exactly the same circumstance but the common ground is that neither SF nor Dispel Magic originate from the spellcaster (ie. there is no ray that travels from your fingers to the point of origin).
I myself am fine with that ruling, perfectly fine with Sacred Flame to the point where I would extend this ruling to Flame Strike as well because the principle is basically the same and any spell that erupts from under as well.
RAW rules are not great for descriptions for this. As a quick note, we homebrewed our Wall of Force to say nothing can physically go in and out and magic spells can not go through it, period. Only spells that offer a form of teleportation can go through them. (Misty Step, DD, Thunder Step, etc)
But then Dimension Door shows up with even worse wording. Giving it a range of 500ft is bad, so we homebrewed it to be like Misty Step; it targets Self and then has additional effects that are not hampered by anything like line-to-target. Not sure why DD doesn’t function like big boi Misty Step but why make anything simple?
-
By RAW, you can not target a point/effect/NPC beyond Wall of Force/inside a dome with any magic. Period. End of discussion. All spells require line to target. Notice spells like Misty Step and Scrying target Self and then have a range built into their descriptions *after* you cast it that ignored line to target (hence my hatred or DD wording and our changing of it). Regardless of how anyone envisions any spell, all spells require line to target. Note I am not saying line of sight.
Incidentally, why does Telekinesis not have a Range of Self and then 60ft in text? Just bothers me considering it’s first sentence.
This all ignores the text of DD which indicates that line of effect is not needed.
Yes, I just hate that the text has to say that when Misty Step, Scrying, etc don’t. I see no reason why they included a range of 500ft and didn’t do the same thing for other teleports and weird at-distance things.
As I said, DD just should have a range of Self and then have the extra info. It’s a minor but somewhat important change. By the same logic, Telekinesis can easily go through Wall of Force despite having a range of 60ft.
I can agree with that.