D&D 5E Bless Spell and Total Cover / Line of Sight

[DND_Reborn]

But that's about seeing, not about having a path to the target. You can Bless an invisible ally as long as they're not behind total cover.

So, basically, their logic is magical energies can't penetrate barriers? I suppose I could buy that in certain situations (such as behind a wall, with no ready access within range), but it seems ludicrous for examples when someone is behind a glass window.

But even when an open path exists but is not a straight line (such as in the OP example)? Nah, I can't go with that one--even if others say it is a house-rule, I say just a difference in interpretation. After all, the text does not say a "straight" clear path.

Oh, sorry, I misread. So this is about range, and whether you can choose new targets if you initially pick one that turns out not to be valid. I don't see what it has to do with total cover?

No, it was an example of how being seen should be the real prerequisite to target pretty much anything other than AoE spells/effects. Total cover should prevent things from being seen, which would make the OP's situation obvious: you can't see your ally around the corner, you can't target him with Bless.

I am not thrilled about that either, TBH. I think the wording in Bless should say "chosen creature" instead of "target" to avoid confusion.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting... Then can you bless a target you can't see? What is the precise purpose of having a clear path to the target? I would think that would be so you can see the target, but since the Bless spell does not specify the target must be one you can see (as opposed to a spell such as Bane, which specifies you must be able to see the target), I would interpret the clear path to target to not be necessary.

You can bless a target you can't see, such as one that is invisible or hidden. Most spells specify that you must be able to see the target. That's the difference, as far as I can tell.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You can bless a target you can't see, such as one that is invisible or hidden. Most spells specify that you must be able to see the target. That's the difference, as far as I can tell.

Right, but if the spellcaster can't see a target because it is invisible, but chooses it anyway (which you think is allowed, and I am not arguing that), what happens if the DM informs the player that target actually isn't affected because it moved out of the 30' range? Since the character couldn't see the invisible target move, it didn't know.

Is that target "slot" wasted? Can the caster choose a new target within range?

It makes a lot more sense (something a lot of 5E is guilty of avoiding... ) that any targeted creature must be visible to the caster. Whether you want to rule total cover provided by a glass window prevents it or not, is debatable.

There are a lot of holes in 5E's rules, so most is just up the DM, even if it goes against RAW because it simply doesn't make sense to rule otherwise.

 

[Esker]

It makes a lot more sense (something a lot of 5E is guilty of avoiding... ) that any targeted creature must be visible to the caster. Whether you want to rule total cover provided by a glass window prevents it or not, is debatable.

But that's not the case for attacks; why is a buff spell different? Or are you saying that invisibility should make you untargetable by attacks too?

 

[DND_Reborn]

But that's not the case for attacks; why is a buff spell different? Or are you saying that invisibility should make you untargetable by attacks too?

Actually, it is true with attacks, but perhaps many tables overlook it or simply choose not to play that way?

Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB, p.194-195)

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.

See the underlined statement.

So, if you target an invisible enemy with, say Firebolt. I imagine many DMs just say, "Ok, your attack is with disadvantage, go ahead and roll." BUT that isn't the case. The DM should ask "Where are you casting at?" because if the space the caster is attacking, believing the invisible creature there, is NOT its actual location, the spell should "automatically miss."

A long time ago we had a fight with an Invisible Stalker, and this how the DM played it. It was frustrating because at the time we had no way of knowing where it was, and often were attacking spaces where it wasn't even there. If you know the location, then you certainly attack with disadvantage. If you are guessing, it might not even be there.

This is why AoE spells, and particularly spells such as Faerie Fire, are so good, because they negate the disadvantage on the attack roll or make it inconsequential.

 

[Esker]

So, if you target an invisible enemy with, say Firebolt. I imagine many DMs just say, "Ok, your attack is with disadvantage, go ahead and roll." BUT that isn't the case. The DM should ask "Where are you casting at?" because if the space the caster is attacking, believing the invisible creature there, is NOT its actual location, the spell should "automatically miss."

Yes, but you know the location of invisible creatures unless they have taken the hide action and rolled stealth above your passive perception (minus 5, since you're perceiving at disadvantage due to obscurement).

In the case of an ambush by an Invisible Stalker, they would presumably have taken the hide action before combat starts, and thus potentially gain surprise on some or all of the party, and the party would not know where they are, but only until they attack. After they attack, they reveal their location, and so can be targeted without guessing, but since they are still invisible, attacks have disadvantage against them.

They could hide again on their turn, but they do not have the ability to do this as a bonus action, so it would take their full action to become hidden again.

 

[jasper]

Hi Folks,
The spell bless states:
"You bless up to three creatures of your choice within range. Whenever a target makes an Attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw."

I was wondering, can the effects of the spell be bestowed upon creatures with total cover. The spell's parameters is simply 'within range'. For example, if the caster is in a corridor and 2 party members are out of sight around the corner of a room with total cover, could those two PCs have the bless effects bestowed upon them? Would the 'line of sight' rule be in effect or not for this. Any input / help on this would be appreciated. Thanks!!

Is your buddies within 30 feet of you. If Yes it works. Why? Because your gawd is being very nice to you even if you can't see your battle buddy.

 

[Esker]

Is your buddies within 30 feet of you. If Yes it works. Why? Because your gawd is being very nice to you even if you can't see your battle buddy.

You don't have to see them but they can't be behind total cover. See the quotes above from the PHB.

 

[jasper]

You don't have to see them but they can't be behind total cover. See the quotes above from the PHB.

See specific vs general. AKA at this point DM's call.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

Instead of "line of sight", it is probably more accurate that I should have indicated "line of effect". It seems like there's no real consensus of the minds on this though granted it is a 'corner case' in that it probably doesn't pop up all that often.