D&D 5E Wall of Force and Mind Blast

[Werebat]

The Alhoon in Volo's can cast both Globe of Invulnerability and Wall of Force. It also has a mind blast ability.

We had a fight last night with three Alhoon. One cast Globe of Invulnerability, another cast Wall of Force as a hemisphere, slightly inside the Globe of Invulnerability. Then the third (all three were inside both the Globe and the WoF) used its Mind Blast on the party, whose members were all outside the Globe and the WoF.

Is this kosher? The big question would seem to be whether or not Mind Blast can work through a Wall of Force.

 

[cbwjm]

I just had a read of wall of force and nothing seems to prevent mental effects from bypassing the wall so I'd say it works.

The signature of champions.

 

[Caliban]

Areas of Effect

Spells such as Burning Hands and Cone of Cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.

A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.

A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.

A mind flayers Mind Blast "magically emits psychic energy in a 60' cone". There is nothing about it ignoring cover.

Does the Wall of Force provide total cover? It would in the hemisphere formation.

So the question is - does the Mind Flayer's mind blast act enough like a spell that it would be blocked by total cover?

Note: Psychic Damage has no special rules about ignoring cover. (See the PHB, page 196 Damage Types "Damage types have no rules of their own"). Any such rule would need to be in Mind Blast description.

Personally, I think the Wall of Force blocks the Mind Blast, but I could see a DM ruling that it does not based on narrative elements rather than RAW.

(I do let Sacred Flame target creatures through the Wall of Force because "targets gain no benefit from cover" for their saving throw against the spell - slightly iffy, but matches the flavor text of the spell "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range".)

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd allow it, since it makes these Alhoons nearly invulnerable bad-asses that the party will feel good about when finally destroyed! (Source: Rule as Fun ☺)

There's nothing wrong with having an enemy the party must initially flee from, assuming they later load up on the right spells to defeat this strategy.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

Comes down to two rulings: Does WoF provide total cover full stop, or does it only block "physical" effects? And, does mind blast penetrate cover?

Crawford on twitter has said that yes, WoF should be considered total cover. Take that as you like.

For the second question, I don't have the book in front of me, but lacking any specific text I would use the targeting rules for spells that Caliban cited, since that's where area effects are explained.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I wonder if we could muddy the waters further by considering gaze attacks and transparent cover.

 

[jaelis]

I wonder if we could muddy the waters further by considering gaze attacks and transparent cover.

It's a question. And a short jump from there to light-based effects like sunbeam.

cf https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/25/does-wall-of-force-block-eyebite/
but I suspect Crawford would disagree.

 

[Werebat]

Wait -- if cover blocks gaze attacks, and gaze attacks can be foiled by closing your eyes (effectively providing cover to the eyes themselves, strongly implying that the gaze attacks target the eyes), then wouldn't spectacles protect you from gaze attacks?

 

[jaelis]

Wait -- if cover blocks gaze attacks, and gaze attacks can be foiled by closing your eyes (effectively providing cover to the eyes themselves, strongly implying that the gaze attacks target the eyes), then wouldn't spectacles protect you from gaze attacks?

That doesn't logically follow. It is possible that in order to be affected by a gaze attack, you need both a clear path (using the normal cover rules) AND the ability to see the source. Spectacles would not block that while a glass window or a blindfold would.

 

[Werebat]

That doesn't logically follow. It is possible that in order to be affected by a gaze attack, you need both a clear path (using the normal cover rules) AND the ability to see the source. Spectacles would not block that while a glass window or a blindfold would.

You can obviously see through spectacles, but how would you have a clear path to the eyes through them? Unless gaze attacks swerve around barriers en route to their target -- which would make them more like AoE attacks.