D&D 5E Wall of Force Reality Check (as used by DM not players)

[Uller]

You cannot target something that has total cover. If you try to place the point of origin at a location that is behind total cover, the point of origin becomes the near side of the total cover. A Wall of Force provides total cover. You can't target things inside it. If you try to place a Fire Elemental on the other side of a WoF it appears on your side.

From the SRD under the Targets section of Casting a Spell:
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.

 

[Dorgrin]

Well, if someone is standing behind a wall of force you could not hit them with an arrow, correct? The way I interpret it is that spells work the same way.

But without Sage Advice, I would definitely call this my ruling only. Simply put, I think it's the simpler interpretation is usually the best one. A wall of force would stop the spread of a fireball (unless it can spread around of course) so it should stop the fireball from being cast through it.

I'm ok with either ruling, i just don't think a wall being transparent stops it from being a wall that blocks.

Just want to clarify that I agree entirely with your ruling here, and that was what I was trying to convey. Apologies if I didn't make that clear . Fireball can't go through it, becuase it requires a streak to physically pass through the WoF. I was just contrasting to a physical, opaque wall that would stop a spell like sacred flame due to line of sight. Since it doesn't move from the caster to the target, I'd rule the WoF has no effect on it. But you're right, Sage Advice might further clarify things either way.

So, if there is unoccupied space behind a WoF, then I would say that you can teleport into it. When the rules state that "nothing physical can pass through it" teleportation isn't "passing through" anything. more like you blink out of existance in one spot while simultaneously blinking into existence into another spot, right?

I agree 100%

I think the writers didn't quite appreciate the extent to which we would all get hooked up on what can and can not "pass through" a WoF hehe.

You cannot target something that has total cover. If you try to place the point of origin at a location that is behind total cover, the point of origin becomes the near side of the total cover. A Wall of Force provides total cover. You can't target things inside it. If you try to place a Fire Elemental on the other side of a WoF it appears on your side.

A Wall of Force does not provide total cover. It makes it no harder to succeed on an attack roll, it just makes the physical manifestation of the attack hitting the target impossible. The WoF doesn't affect LoS, you can see the target. Provided that the spell does not require anything physical to pass through the wall, it'll function normally. A Fire Bolt wouldn't hit the target (though the attack roll might succeed), but a Flaming Sphere would work provided there was unoccupied space on the far side of the WoF. Similarly, Conjure Elemental would be fine, as it causes the elemental to appear at the point within range and nothing physical passes through the WoF. If it were a physical wall you could not see around, then that'd be a different matter. But the spell doesn't indicate anything about blocking sight.

Obvious

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

An EB can keep recasting the WoF every turn if it needs to. If it loses concentration, it just has to recast it on initiative count 20 the next round.

It can't use the same lair action two rounds in a row.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Just want to clarify that I agree entirely with your ruling here, and that was what I was trying to convey. Apologies if I didn't make that clear . Fireball can't go through it, becuase it requires a streak to physically pass through the WoF. I was just contrasting to a physical, opaque wall that would stop a spell like sacred flame due to line of sight. Since it doesn't move from the caster to the target, I'd rule the WoF has no effect on it. But you're right, Sage Advice might further clarify things either way.



I agree 100%

I think the writers didn't quite appreciate the extent to which we would all get hooked up on what can and can not "pass through" a WoF hehe.


A Wall of Force does not provide total cover. It makes it no harder to succeed on an attack roll, it just makes the physical manifestation of the attack hitting the target impossible. The WoF doesn't affect LoS, you can see the target. Provided that the spell does not require anything physical to pass through the wall, it'll function normally. A Fire Bolt wouldn't hit the target (though the attack roll might succeed), but a Flaming Sphere would work provided there was unoccupied space on the far side of the WoF. Similarly, Conjure Elemental would be fine, as it causes the elemental to appear at the point within range and nothing physical passes through the WoF. If it were a physical wall you could not see around, then that'd be a different matter. But the spell doesn't indicate anything about blocking sight.

Obvious

Why wouldn't a Wall of Force provide total cover? The rules say walls provide cover. If the Wall of Force is set up so that there isn't any space to shoot around or over it, it should provide total cover. Just because you can see the targets doesn't mean they don't have cover.

 

[Celtavian]

It provides total cover just like it has done in every edition of D&D as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Harzel]

FWIW, although it still does not seem unambiguous.
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/782010931630878720

 

[Celtavian]

FWIW, although it still does not seem unambiguous.
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/782010931630878720

If Mearls runs it that way, it's a major change that has never been the case with any version of Wall of Force I know of. Just because you can see through it doesn't mean it isn't total cover. Spells don't go in or out. That would be way too powerful for PCs. Then they cast the wall and nuke stuff outside of while completely protected? No way I go with that ruling. If Mearls made that ruling, he seriously imbalanced an already borderline overpowered powerful spell. PCs have more capability to cast through such a wall than monsters. The abuse would be extreme with that ruling.

 

[Uller]

Just want to clarify that I agree entirely with your ruling here, and that was what I was trying to convey. Apologies if I didn't make that clear . Fireball can't go through it, becuase it requires a streak to physically pass through the WoF. I was just contrasting to a physical, opaque wall that would stop a spell like sacred flame due to line of sight. Since it doesn't move from the caster to the target, I'd rule the WoF has no effect on it. But you're right, Sage Advice might further clarify things either way.



I agree 100%

I think the writers didn't quite appreciate the extent to which we would all get hooked up on what can and can not "pass through" a WoF hehe.


A Wall of Force does not provide total cover.

Of course it does. Providing a physical barrier is what cover is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

FWIW, Jeremy Crawford did say on twitter that Wall of Force provides total cover.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/targeting-spellsclear-path-can-i-target-across-wall-of-force/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/21...the-other-side-with-a-spell-like-hold-person/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/30/wall-of-force-is-invisible-so-it-doesnt-provide-cover-does-it/

 

[Oofta]

We've had this debate a few times around our table.

The pertinent text (page 80 basic rules)

Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets
to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description
tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a
point of origin for an area of effect
...

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.​

So I think one point of debate has always been you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.

Reading that the tendency is to insert an and into the phrase so that it reads you must have a clear path to it and it can’t be behind total cover., which is not what it says. All it says is that you must have a clear path to it. There is no distinction between spells that have a range, whether it's targeting a creature, object or point of origin.

So I'm going to reverse what I said last night (it was a long day) and say that my ruling is that if you could not possibly physically target the creature with an arrow because something is between you and the target, you cannot target it with a spell.

That way no spell can affect something behind a wall of force, and descriptive text (like fireball sending a streak of fire) doesn't affect how a spell works. No spells can pass through a wall of force period, it doesn't matter if you're doing a ranged spell attack with a scorching ray or a fireball.