Title pretty self explanatory. I'm curious what the limits are for performing counterspell and i guess to that extension, what counts as "you can see" within a spells casting. Spells like psychic lance allow you to bypass line of sight if you know a creatures name, but only if you know the targets name. So basically, can a wall of force prevent a counterspell? How about a pane of glass? If yes, does the thickness matter, or is it just being able to see the caster? I always interpreted counterspell (in my minds eye) to be like slapping the spell as it was cast, or like a direct line from the counterspeller to the original spellcaster. Best to check in with your DM... but i wanna know other opinions.
Nope, The spells does not even require you to see the target.. only know the caster is casting. "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." wall of force does not prevent you from perceiving the caster, so it will not stop you casting it as Counter spell only requires you to be aware of the casting and has Somatic components only.
That being said it would stop spells like fire ball, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"
Sight aside, unless a spell says otherwise, you cannot target a creature behind total cover with a spell.
If you rule that Wall of Force provides total cover, then you cannot cast counterspell on someone on the opposite side of one. If you don’t rule that Wall of Force provides total cover, then you can, but that will likely lead to some other degenerate interactions.
If you rule that Wall of Force provides total cover, then you cannot cast counterspell on someone on the opposite side of one.
Ah, good call. This is the correct answer.
Counterspell pretty clearly attempts to target a creature that you can see within range:
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Range: 60 feet
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.
But whether or not you can see a creature and the related issue of heavily obscured areas is a separate concept from cover. Typically we assume that full cover also creates a heavily obscured area, but the battlefield environment created by the Wall of Force is an exception. Because the wall is invisible we can assume that it's translucent and therefore we can see creatures on the other side of it (so they cannot be Hidden, for example).
So in this case we can see the target and we can assume that it's within range but there is still the issue of cover. In the description for the Wall of Force we have this:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
and here are some rules cover:
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover . . .
Total Cover
A target with total covercan'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.
and here are some basic rules for spellcasting:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets . . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
The description of the Wall of Force shows that it clearly satisfies the requirements for qualifying as an obstacle that completely conceals the target, providing it with total cover and therefore it cannot be targeted by Counterspell.
Wall of force is invisible, therefore you can see the target, you can hear them too. That is more then you need to counter. The spell is not "Passing through" anything to counter.. it has no "travel path". the spell is not PHYSICAL either..
I agree. Wall of Force clearly outlines that it only prevents something from physically crossing it. Compare Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere which explicitly states that spells cannot cross the barrier. Spells that simply cause an effect at the endpoint should be able to cross a Wall of Force. Only ones that produce some kind of projectile should be stopped.
No, that's not the rule. The general spellcasting rules in Chapter 10 are very clear about this. Counterspell targets a creature but that creature cannot be behind total cover. Here it is again for reference:
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets . . .
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
I mean sure. if wall of force gave you " total cover ".. but nowhere does it say it does.. object is not completely concealed as you can see them...
An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range. The wall appears in any orientation you choose, as a horizontal or vertical barrier or at an angle. It can be free floating or resting on a solid surface. You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel. In any form, the wall is 1/4 inch thick. It lasts for the duration. If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side).
Nothing can physically pass through the wall. It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.
The point being that Wall of Force is not total cover, because you can see through it. That's why it has a separate section specifically stating that it stops anything physical from passing through it.
Interesting, though I still say this seems to clash with how in one instance we have a spell that is very clear that it blocks magic from passing through it, and another spell that lacks that language.
Interesting, though I still say this seems to clash with how in one instance we have a spell that is very clear that it blocks magic from passing through it, and another spell that lacks that language.
Yea the rules for transparent cover are quite a mess. It is very clear that the intention of the designers is that a physical barrier is meant to stop line of effect for spells. And that goes for both a opaque barrier such as a wall or door and for transparent barriers such as windows or (spell) force effects. Spells with range (self) and a visual requirement, such as Misty Step, still work as usual though.
This is something I really wish they clear up in the new edition.
Right. The game has some rules regarding heavily obscured areas in Chapter 8 which have a lot to do with whether or not you can see into the area. It also defines a separate concept of cover in Chapter 9 which only has to do with barriers and obstacles. In many cases certain terrain will provide both a heavily obscured area and total cover. But sometimes you can have heavily obscured areas that provide little or no cover. And now with the Wall of Force we have an example that provides total cover but is not a heavily obscured area. In my opinion, the main implication of that is that the creature on the other side of the Wall of Force cannot Hide as per the rules for Hiding. But the benefits of total cover should still apply.
I do agree that hopefully all of this gets cleaned up in future versions. I agree that it's oddly inconsistent to see lower level spells such as the 3rd level Tiny Hut and the 4th level Resilient Sphere that you mentioned go through the trouble to specify that they block spells and spell effects while the 5th level spell Wall of Force doesn't specifically mention this in the description. (Resilient Sphere: "Nothing--not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects--can pass through" and Tiny Hut: "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it." . . . so even the wording between those two spells is inconsistent) There's not a great explanation for these inconsistencies other than sloppiness.
Interestingly, I was reading through the Comments section for the Wall of Force spell and several people have come up with the tactic of creating a horizontal wall 1 inch above the ground in the squares of their enemies and then choosing to push those enemies downwards, completely crushing them under the wall. I cannot think of any RAW reason why that shouldn't be allowed and it makes the spell completely broken.
Actually, would you all rule that you simply cannot push the creature in that direction since there is something in the way? Similar to attempting to use a shove action to push a creature away from you who is already right up against a wall? (I'm making the assumption that you'd rule you simply cannot do this and/or the shove has no effect?)
Using Wall of Force to "crush" your enemies would only work after it has been cast in that instance, as the spell states.. " If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side)." Once that happens, if you you are able to maneuver them into the wall it is a solid object to be crushed against. its still invisible but it will hurt..
I agree that wall of force needs to add some text, or they just add a line to counter spell that says that "energy flows form you to the target to disrupt the spell being cast".. in which case sure. a window or similar clear barrier would indeed block it.
Interestingly, I was reading through the Comments section for the Wall of Force spell and several people have come up with the tactic of creating a horizontal wall 1 inch above the ground in the squares of their enemies and then choosing to push those enemies downwards, completely crushing them under the wall. I cannot think of any RAW reason why that shouldn't be allowed and it makes the spell completely broken.
I'd say that any half competent DM would squash that idea instantly. It is one of many places where the designers only considered the most common/standard usage of a spell/other effect and thus the wording can possibly be argued to do something that is broken. But that doesn't mean that it should be allowed. It is clearly intended as a control/defensive spell, not as an attacking "ha ha, I instakill 200 medium sized creatures" kind of spell. Arguing you should be allowed to do that isn't being smart, it is being ridiculous.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Title pretty self explanatory. I'm curious what the limits are for performing counterspell and i guess to that extension, what counts as "you can see" within a spells casting. Spells like psychic lance allow you to bypass line of sight if you know a creatures name, but only if you know the targets name. So basically, can a wall of force prevent a counterspell? How about a pane of glass? If yes, does the thickness matter, or is it just being able to see the caster? I always interpreted counterspell (in my minds eye) to be like slapping the spell as it was cast, or like a direct line from the counterspeller to the original spellcaster. Best to check in with your DM... but i wanna know other opinions.
Nope, The spells does not even require you to see the target.. only know the caster is casting. "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." wall of force does not prevent you from perceiving the caster, so it will not stop you casting it as Counter spell only requires you to be aware of the casting and has Somatic components only.
That being said it would stop spells like fire ball, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"
Counterspell requires you to see the caster. It has a casting time of 1 reaction *
* which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell
Sight aside, unless a spell says otherwise, you cannot target a creature behind total cover with a spell.
If you rule that Wall of Force provides total cover, then you cannot cast counterspell on someone on the opposite side of one. If you don’t rule that Wall of Force provides total cover, then you can, but that will likely lead to some other degenerate interactions.
Ah, good call. This is the correct answer.
Counterspell pretty clearly attempts to target a creature that you can see within range:
But whether or not you can see a creature and the related issue of heavily obscured areas is a separate concept from cover. Typically we assume that full cover also creates a heavily obscured area, but the battlefield environment created by the Wall of Force is an exception. Because the wall is invisible we can assume that it's translucent and therefore we can see creatures on the other side of it (so they cannot be Hidden, for example).
So in this case we can see the target and we can assume that it's within range but there is still the issue of cover. In the description for the Wall of Force we have this:
and here are some rules cover:
and here are some basic rules for spellcasting:
The description of the Wall of Force shows that it clearly satisfies the requirements for qualifying as an obstacle that completely conceals the target, providing it with total cover and therefore it cannot be targeted by Counterspell.
I'd rule that you can't target a creature behind a Wall of Force with Counterspell having no clear path to it, which i qualify as total cover.
Wall of force is invisible, therefore you can see the target, you can hear them too. That is more then you need to counter. The spell is not "Passing through" anything to counter.. it has no "travel path". the spell is not PHYSICAL either..
I agree. Wall of Force clearly outlines that it only prevents something from physically crossing it. Compare Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere which explicitly states that spells cannot cross the barrier. Spells that simply cause an effect at the endpoint should be able to cross a Wall of Force. Only ones that produce some kind of projectile should be stopped.
No, that's not the rule. The general spellcasting rules in Chapter 10 are very clear about this. Counterspell targets a creature but that creature cannot be behind total cover. Here it is again for reference:
I mean sure. if wall of force gave you " total cover ".. but nowhere does it say it does.. object is not completely concealed as you can see them...
An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range. The wall appears in any orientation you choose, as a horizontal or vertical barrier or at an angle. It can be free floating or resting on a solid surface. You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel. In any form, the wall is 1/4 inch thick. It lasts for the duration. If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side).
Nothing can physically pass through the wall. It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.
The point being that Wall of Force is not total cover, because you can see through it. That's why it has a separate section specifically stating that it stops anything physical from passing through it.
again, right anything PHYSICAL... the spell isn't.. air passes threw it easy aswell...
Total cover provided by an obstacle has nothing to do with wether you can see through or not. The dev said a closed window counts for exemple.
As SagaTympana said, it all depend if the DM rule Wall of Force counting as total cover or not.
For those interested, a Wall of Force count as a source of total cover according to the dev;
Targeting spells/clear path, can I target across Wall of Force? (sageadvice.eu)
Can any of these spells help me escape a Wall of Force? (sageadvice.eu)
Interesting, though I still say this seems to clash with how in one instance we have a spell that is very clear that it blocks magic from passing through it, and another spell that lacks that language.
Yea the rules for transparent cover are quite a mess. It is very clear that the intention of the designers is that a physical barrier is meant to stop line of effect for spells. And that goes for both a opaque barrier such as a wall or door and for transparent barriers such as windows or (spell) force effects. Spells with range (self) and a visual requirement, such as Misty Step, still work as usual though.
This is something I really wish they clear up in the new edition.
Right. The game has some rules regarding heavily obscured areas in Chapter 8 which have a lot to do with whether or not you can see into the area. It also defines a separate concept of cover in Chapter 9 which only has to do with barriers and obstacles. In many cases certain terrain will provide both a heavily obscured area and total cover. But sometimes you can have heavily obscured areas that provide little or no cover. And now with the Wall of Force we have an example that provides total cover but is not a heavily obscured area. In my opinion, the main implication of that is that the creature on the other side of the Wall of Force cannot Hide as per the rules for Hiding. But the benefits of total cover should still apply.
I do agree that hopefully all of this gets cleaned up in future versions. I agree that it's oddly inconsistent to see lower level spells such as the 3rd level Tiny Hut and the 4th level Resilient Sphere that you mentioned go through the trouble to specify that they block spells and spell effects while the 5th level spell Wall of Force doesn't specifically mention this in the description. (Resilient Sphere: "Nothing--not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects--can pass through" and Tiny Hut: "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it." . . . so even the wording between those two spells is inconsistent) There's not a great explanation for these inconsistencies other than sloppiness.
Interestingly, I was reading through the Comments section for the Wall of Force spell and several people have come up with the tactic of creating a horizontal wall 1 inch above the ground in the squares of their enemies and then choosing to push those enemies downwards, completely crushing them under the wall. I cannot think of any RAW reason why that shouldn't be allowed and it makes the spell completely broken.
Actually, would you all rule that you simply cannot push the creature in that direction since there is something in the way? Similar to attempting to use a shove action to push a creature away from you who is already right up against a wall? (I'm making the assumption that you'd rule you simply cannot do this and/or the shove has no effect?)
Using Wall of Force to "crush" your enemies would only work after it has been cast in that instance, as the spell states.. " If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side)." Once that happens, if you you are able to maneuver them into the wall it is a solid object to be crushed against. its still invisible but it will hurt..
I agree that wall of force needs to add some text, or they just add a line to counter spell that says that "energy flows form you to the target to disrupt the spell being cast".. in which case sure. a window or similar clear barrier would indeed block it.
I'd say that any half competent DM would squash that idea instantly.
It is one of many places where the designers only considered the most common/standard usage of a spell/other effect and thus the wording can possibly be argued to do something that is broken. But that doesn't mean that it should be allowed. It is clearly intended as a control/defensive spell, not as an attacking "ha ha, I instakill 200 medium sized creatures" kind of spell. Arguing you should be allowed to do that isn't being smart, it is being ridiculous.