Just a randome one I noticed when I was pondering whether you could hide from fireball in a barrel - does fireball require line of sight?
The spell just says " a point within range", so feasibly if the caster knew roughly where, say, the guards quarters or the kings bedchamber was, they could simply pick that point and, if it's within range, cast fireball.
Similarly, if the party discover a shack in the woods, they could cast fireball at a point within the shack without actually looking in?
If someone were hiding in a barrel, then they could cast fireball inside the barrel, and it would only set fire to the barrel, and not explode it (fireball is not a forceful explosion, and it spreads around corners, it doesn't open things).
And as an additional, could a caster which has been swallowed cast fireball outside of the swallower, to deal damage without being hit by it themselves?
Just a randome one I noticed when I was pondering whether you could hide from fireball in a barrel - does fireball require line of sight?
The spell just says " a point within range", so feasibly if the caster knew roughly where, say, the guards quarters or the kings bedchamber was, they could simply pick that point and, if it's within range, cast fireball.
Spells that require line of sight to the target says so, and Fireball doesn't.
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.
So all your examples would get a "No", because you can't place the point in space where you wanted to.
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
I wonder how many wizards found out the hard way that they could not fire through windows...
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
The spark travels from your finger to the point of explosion, so you need a line of effect from you to the destination. If a shack is closed up without an opening for the spell to travel through, I don't believe you can cast the fireball into it, though you could cast the fireball up against the building, so its radius passes through into it.
If you've been swallowed, similarly, you'd only be able to cast the fireball in the stomach with you, because it's a solid barrier between you and everywhere else.
Just a randome one I noticed when I was pondering whether you could hide from fireball in a barrel - does fireball require line of sight?
The spell just says " a point within range", so feasibly if the caster knew roughly where, say, the guards quarters or the kings bedchamber was, they could simply pick that point and, if it's within range, cast fireball.
Spells that require line of sight to the target says so, and Fireball doesn't.
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.
So all your examples would get a "No", because you can't place the point in space where you wanted to.
If you read the second line of your citation:
"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 example given here explicitly says you CAN target a point with total cover ... a point you can't see that is behind an obstruction like a wall IS total cover. However, the spell requires line of effect to reach that point and if it doesn't have it then the spell point of origin becomes the location where it hit the obstruction. So you can place the point ... it just may not take effect at that point when the spell is resolved.
Making the statement that you can't target a point behind total cover means that the DM has to tell the character that a point they want to target is behind total cover even if the character is unaware of the obstruction. Examples like a stone wall hidden in a fog cloud or the wall of force between the intended target point and the caster. So .. a character CAN target a point behind total cover, however, when the spell is resolved, line of effect restricts the point of origin for the spell to the point where it strikes the obstruction.
P.S. Fireball goes around corners and through openings ... however, if there is a building with no gaps in the walls, with windows and doors closed then the fireball would not be able to affect the interior of the building.
Fireball is a prime example of why they need to better explain total cover and transparent objects and clean up the flavor text. It says a bright steak flashes to a point you choose. But it doesn’t say anything about if that streak can only go in a straight line. It kind of implies a straight line, but doesn’t say a straight line, and rules don’t imply, so it seems like it can curve around things. If I’m looking in a closed window, but there’s an open door around the corner, can the streak just curve around, through the doorway and circle back to the point I can see through the window? And how big is the streak? Can it fit through a keyhole? How small a space generally can it go through? I realize those are kind of silly examples, and will rarely come up, and I know that’s what DM rulings are for, but boy do I find that sloppy. I think they really need to separate the flavor text from the rules text.
The spark travels from your finger to the point of explosion, so you need a line of effect from you to the destination. If a shack is closed up without an opening for the spell to travel through, I don't believe you can cast the fireball into it, though you could cast the fireball up against the building, so its radius passes through into it.
You could also ready the [Tooltip Not Found] action for a fireball into the shack through the closed door and release it when the door is opened by an enemy inside or potentially by an ally on their turn. It's also a nice way to stop the enemy wizard inside from counterspelling you.
Sounds like if you clarified that magic has t otravel in a straight line, then it could be a cool metamagic option to be able to cast spells around corners for 1-2 sorcery points.
Fireball is a prime example of why they need to better explain total cover and transparent objects and clean up the flavor text. It says a bright steak flashes to a point you choose. But it doesn’t say anything about if that streak can only go in a straight line. It kind of implies a straight line, but doesn’t say a straight line, and rules don’t imply, so it seems like it can curve around things. If I’m looking in a closed window, but there’s an open door around the corner, can the streak just curve around, through the doorway and circle back to the point I can see through the window? And how big is the streak? Can it fit through a keyhole? How small a space generally can it go through? I realize those are kind of silly examples, and will rarely come up, and I know that’s what DM rulings are for, but boy do I find that sloppy. I think they really need to separate the flavor text from the rules text.
further to your point:
I can look and see through the keyhole, but the door provides total cover. The point is in range, I can see it, but does my streak just go boom in my face at the keyhole?
Fireball is a prime example of why they need to better explain total cover and transparent objects and clean up the flavor text. It says a bright steak flashes to a point you choose. But it doesn’t say anything about if that streak can only go in a straight line. It kind of implies a straight line, but doesn’t say a straight line, and rules don’t imply, so it seems like it can curve around things. If I’m looking in a closed window, but there’s an open door around the corner, can the streak just curve around, through the doorway and circle back to the point I can see through the window? And how big is the streak? Can it fit through a keyhole? How small a space generally can it go through? I realize those are kind of silly examples, and will rarely come up, and I know that’s what DM rulings are for, but boy do I find that sloppy. I think they really need to separate the flavor text from the rules text.
further to your point:
I can look and see through the keyhole, but the door provides total cover. The point is in range, I can see it, but does my streak just go boom in my face at the keyhole?
If there is a hole in the door (even a small one) does it actually provide total cover if the attack involved can fit through the hole?
At some point, there needs to be a ruling issued for a given situation on whether total cover is provided by something that superficially would appear to do so, but upon closer inspection, may not. Hey, there's a little hole in the door due to a knot in the board. The gaps between the planks of the door let a little bit of light through. Isn't that enough? I can see through the keyhole. I'll cast my spell through the keyhole.
At some point, there needs to be a ruling issued for a given situation on whether total cover is provided by something that superficially would appear to do so, but upon closer inspection, may not. Hey, there's a little hole in the door due to a knot in the board. The gaps between the planks of the door let a little bit of light through. Isn't that enough? I can see through the keyhole. I'll cast my spell through the keyhole.
Are you suggesting that Fireball can be cast through an open keyhole to strike its intended target?
RAW, fireball streaks from your fingers to the point and then goes off. Provided you can point your finger through the keyhole to the point without hitting the edges of the keyhole, then it should work.
This sort of thing is something I would allow as a DM, but would also something I would not let go without side effects - someone leaning against the door at the last second, blocking the keyhole. Or mages using magic to prevent spells from making it through the keyhole, if it suited.
At some point, there needs to be a ruling issued for a given situation on whether total cover is provided by something that superficially would appear to do so, but upon closer inspection, may not. Hey, there's a little hole in the door due to a knot in the board. The gaps between the planks of the door let a little bit of light through. Isn't that enough? I can see through the keyhole. I'll cast my spell through the keyhole.
Are you suggesting that Fireball can be cast through an open keyhole to strike its intended target?
RAW, if there's an uninterrupted path from the caster to the point that goes through the open keyhole, then yes. In practice, I'm not inclined to say there is such a path, at least not at my table.
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
I wonder how many wizards found out the hard way that they could not fire through windows...
There was a Grimtooths Trap that did something similar using a mirror in an angled dungeon passage. The wizard thinks they are fireballing the end of the passage 100ft away but the fireball goes off 10ft in front of them. Even worse, the wizard teleports to "100ft that direction" only to appear in solid rock and die. As far as the party knows, the wizard disappeares and just never reappears.
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
Well wall of force is terribly poorly explained. The intent is that you can't target a target that is inside the force wall (or inside out). For example, you could not cast hold monster to a target protected by wall of force since it is supposed to be in full cover. But in the spell at no point does it tell you to provide full cover, and unofficially the designers have stated on twitter that "concealed by an obstacle" doesn't have to involve sight. Well, that according to real physics would be very debatable. So, for example, you couldn't cast eldritch blast on a target that's swimming underwater, which doesn't make sense. Or behind a window, etc...
Wall of force should clearly state that a point behind the wall cannot be targeted (either way). Because as it is explained now, that does not seem clear to me. And if you don't go to twitter to see what Jeremy Crawford or other developers say, it's very difficult to intuitively conclude that someone is in full cover behind wall of force (for example to be targeted by charm person. It is clear that an eldritch blast will not go through the wall).
That, or else clearly state what "concealed by an obstacle" means.
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
Well wall of force is terribly poorly explained. The intent is that you can't target a target that is inside the force wall (or inside out). For example, you could not cast hold monster to a target protected by wall of force since it is supposed to be in full cover. But in the spell at no point does it tell you to provide full cover, and unofficially the designers have stated on twitter that "concealed by an obstacle" doesn't have to involve sight. Well, that according to real physics would be very debatable. So, for example, you couldn't cast eldritch blast on a target that's swimming underwater, which doesn't make sense. Or behind a window, etc...
Wall of force should clearly state that a point behind the wall cannot be targeted (either way). Because as it is explained now, that does not seem clear to me. And if you don't go to twitter to see what Jeremy Crawford or other developers say, it's very difficult to intuitively conclude that someone is in full cover behind wall of force (for example to be targeted by charm person. It is clear that an eldritch blast will not go through the wall).
That, or else clearly state what "concealed by an obstacle" means.
I completely agree with you that the total cover rules and spell wordings all really require clarifications.
Consider these quotes:
Forcecage: "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area."
Wall of Force: "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
If both of these provide total cover then the statement in forcecage that it blocks any spells cast into or out of the area is redundant. Wall of Force specifically doesn't have that wording. It just says that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" whatever that means since, in my opinion at least, spells aren't generally "physical". So, wall of force blocking spells comes back to deciding if a wall of force provides total cover and then invoking the spell targeting rules requiring a "clear path" to the target.
However, "clear path" is not required for targeting some spells. The PHB says:
"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 first sentence says that to target something you must have a clear path to it so it can't be behind total cover. The second says that if you target a spell at a point that you "can't see which is behind an obstruction" (which is the definition of Total Cover) then it comes into effect on the near side of the obstruction. So, you can at least target spells that are area of effects which target points at a target behind total cover, which contradicts the first sentence which prevents targeting something behind total cover. Maybe a case of specific beats general ... but it could have been better worded.
Anyway, it comes down to how a DM wants to run their specific game. RAW isn't sufficiently clear or this discussion wouldn't come up every few months.
I think it’s “clear path” that gets me. You can easily have a clear path that’s not a straight line. That wall of force is 10’ high. If you’re outside, up and over is a very clear path. But then the rules generally get weird in the vertical dimension. Even without it, can the thing jog around corners like a rat in a maze as long as it stays within range?
Granted this hasn’t really come up for me in game, it’s just the kind of thing that gets really confusing if it were to.
Wall of Force: "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
If both of these provide total cover then the statement in forcecage that it blocks any spells cast into or out of the area is redundant. Wall of Force specifically doesn't have that wording. It just says that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" whatever that means since, in my opinion at least, spells aren't generally "physical". So, wall of force blocking spells comes back to deciding if a wall of force provides total cover and then invoking the spell targeting rules requiring a "clear path" to the target.
I thought the whole point of wall of force was to prevent incoming arrows and people charging up to you while allowing spells to pass through--the inverse of globe of invulnerability. I always attributed the fact that WoF doesn't say it blocks spells as being because it isn't intended to block spells, rather than a mistake of wording in the spell's description. Is that not how most people read the spell?
EDIT: Apparently this question is a lot more controversial than I realized.
Just a randome one I noticed when I was pondering whether you could hide from fireball in a barrel - does fireball require line of sight?
The spell just says " a point within range", so feasibly if the caster knew roughly where, say, the guards quarters or the kings bedchamber was, they could simply pick that point and, if it's within range, cast fireball.
Similarly, if the party discover a shack in the woods, they could cast fireball at a point within the shack without actually looking in?
If someone were hiding in a barrel, then they could cast fireball inside the barrel, and it would only set fire to the barrel, and not explode it (fireball is not a forceful explosion, and it spreads around corners, it doesn't open things).
And as an additional, could a caster which has been swallowed cast fireball outside of the swallower, to deal damage without being hit by it themselves?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Spells that require line of sight to the target says so, and Fireball doesn't.
However all spells require line of effect, or as the rules call it "a clear path to the target".
So all your examples would get a "No", because you can't place the point in space where you wanted to.
Ooh, brilliant!
Counterpoint, if there is an invisible wall of force in front of the wizard, and they can see the enemy 60ft. away in a big tempting crowd, then if they are lured into casting fireball, the fireball forms on the invisible barrier, potentially wiping out the wizard?
I wonder how many wizards found out the hard way that they could not fire through windows...
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Yes.
The spark travels from your finger to the point of explosion, so you need a line of effect from you to the destination. If a shack is closed up without an opening for the spell to travel through, I don't believe you can cast the fireball into it, though you could cast the fireball up against the building, so its radius passes through into it.
If you've been swallowed, similarly, you'd only be able to cast the fireball in the stomach with you, because it's a solid barrier between you and everywhere else.
If you read the second line of your citation:
"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 example given here explicitly says you CAN target a point with total cover ... a point you can't see that is behind an obstruction like a wall IS total cover. However, the spell requires line of effect to reach that point and if it doesn't have it then the spell point of origin becomes the location where it hit the obstruction. So you can place the point ... it just may not take effect at that point when the spell is resolved.
Making the statement that you can't target a point behind total cover means that the DM has to tell the character that a point they want to target is behind total cover even if the character is unaware of the obstruction. Examples like a stone wall hidden in a fog cloud or the wall of force between the intended target point and the caster. So .. a character CAN target a point behind total cover, however, when the spell is resolved, line of effect restricts the point of origin for the spell to the point where it strikes the obstruction.
P.S. Fireball goes around corners and through openings ... however, if there is a building with no gaps in the walls, with windows and doors closed then the fireball would not be able to affect the interior of the building.
Fireball is a prime example of why they need to better explain total cover and transparent objects and clean up the flavor text.
It says a bright steak flashes to a point you choose. But it doesn’t say anything about if that streak can only go in a straight line. It kind of implies a straight line, but doesn’t say a straight line, and rules don’t imply, so it seems like it can curve around things. If I’m looking in a closed window, but there’s an open door around the corner, can the streak just curve around, through the doorway and circle back to the point I can see through the window? And how big is the streak? Can it fit through a keyhole? How small a space generally can it go through? I realize those are kind of silly examples, and will rarely come up, and I know that’s what DM rulings are for, but boy do I find that sloppy.
I think they really need to separate the flavor text from the rules text.
You could also ready the [Tooltip Not Found] action for a fireball into the shack through the closed door and release it when the door is opened by an enemy inside or potentially by an ally on their turn. It's also a nice way to stop the enemy wizard inside from counterspelling you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sounds like if you clarified that magic has t otravel in a straight line, then it could be a cool metamagic option to be able to cast spells around corners for 1-2 sorcery points.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
further to your point:
I can look and see through the keyhole, but the door provides total cover. The point is in range, I can see it, but does my streak just go boom in my face at the keyhole?
Blank
If there is a hole in the door (even a small one) does it actually provide total cover if the attack involved can fit through the hole?
At some point, there needs to be a ruling issued for a given situation on whether total cover is provided by something that superficially would appear to do so, but upon closer inspection, may not. Hey, there's a little hole in the door due to a knot in the board. The gaps between the planks of the door let a little bit of light through. Isn't that enough? I can see through the keyhole. I'll cast my spell through the keyhole.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Are you suggesting that Fireball can be cast through an open keyhole to strike its intended target?
RAW, fireball streaks from your fingers to the point and then goes off. Provided you can point your finger through the keyhole to the point without hitting the edges of the keyhole, then it should work.
This sort of thing is something I would allow as a DM, but would also something I would not let go without side effects - someone leaning against the door at the last second, blocking the keyhole. Or mages using magic to prevent spells from making it through the keyhole, if it suited.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
RAW, if there's an uninterrupted path from the caster to the point that goes through the open keyhole, then yes. In practice, I'm not inclined to say there is such a path, at least not at my table.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There was a Grimtooths Trap that did something similar using a mirror in an angled dungeon passage. The wizard thinks they are fireballing the end of the passage 100ft away but the fireball goes off 10ft in front of them. Even worse, the wizard teleports to "100ft that direction" only to appear in solid rock and die. As far as the party knows, the wizard disappeares and just never reappears.
Well wall of force is terribly poorly explained. The intent is that you can't target a target that is inside the force wall (or inside out). For example, you could not cast hold monster to a target protected by wall of force since it is supposed to be in full cover. But in the spell at no point does it tell you to provide full cover, and unofficially the designers have stated on twitter that "concealed by an obstacle" doesn't have to involve sight. Well, that according to real physics would be very debatable. So, for example, you couldn't cast eldritch blast on a target that's swimming underwater, which doesn't make sense. Or behind a window, etc...
Wall of force should clearly state that a point behind the wall cannot be targeted (either way). Because as it is explained now, that does not seem clear to me. And if you don't go to twitter to see what Jeremy Crawford or other developers say, it's very difficult to intuitively conclude that someone is in full cover behind wall of force (for example to be targeted by charm person. It is clear that an eldritch blast will not go through the wall).
That, or else clearly state what "concealed by an obstacle" means.
I completely agree with you that the total cover rules and spell wordings all really require clarifications.
Consider these quotes:
Forcecage: "A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area."
Wall of Force: "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
If both of these provide total cover then the statement in forcecage that it blocks any spells cast into or out of the area is redundant. Wall of Force specifically doesn't have that wording. It just says that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" whatever that means since, in my opinion at least, spells aren't generally "physical". So, wall of force blocking spells comes back to deciding if a wall of force provides total cover and then invoking the spell targeting rules requiring a "clear path" to the target.
However, "clear path" is not required for targeting some spells. The PHB says:
"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 first sentence says that to target something you must have a clear path to it so it can't be behind total cover. The second says that if you target a spell at a point that you "can't see which is behind an obstruction" (which is the definition of Total Cover) then it comes into effect on the near side of the obstruction. So, you can at least target spells that are area of effects which target points at a target behind total cover, which contradicts the first sentence which prevents targeting something behind total cover. Maybe a case of specific beats general ... but it could have been better worded.
Anyway, it comes down to how a DM wants to run their specific game. RAW isn't sufficiently clear or this discussion wouldn't come up every few months.
I think it’s “clear path” that gets me. You can easily have a clear path that’s not a straight line. That wall of force is 10’ high. If you’re outside, up and over is a very clear path. But then the rules generally get weird in the vertical dimension. Even without it, can the thing jog around corners like a rat in a maze as long as it stays within range?
Granted this hasn’t really come up for me in game, it’s just the kind of thing that gets really confusing if it were to.
I thought the whole point of wall of force was to prevent incoming arrows and people charging up to you while allowing spells to pass through--the inverse of globe of invulnerability. I always attributed the fact that WoF doesn't say it blocks spells as being because it isn't intended to block spells, rather than a mistake of wording in the spell's description. Is that not how most people read the spell?
EDIT: Apparently this question is a lot more controversial than I realized.
"Not all those who wander are lost"