D&D 5E Wall of Force and spells

[Oofta]

Ah you are 100% correct sir! Looks like I got hit by Internet Shenanigans!

The spell I found online absolutely has a target entry, but checking my PH it does not. So the spell block I was referencing was just plain wrong.

I now apologize for this tangent, my notes about Scrying were completely in error.

It happens. No wonder I was so confused.

 

[Lanefan]

Just because light waves happen to go through it does not mean it is a clear path. Transparent does not negate it being an obstacle, full cover has nothing to do with what you can or cannot see.

If you read the sentence carefully, all the obstruction clauses only apply to places you can't see.

 

[Lanefan]

The range of scry is clearly self because that's what it states in the RANGE/AREA with is all that matters. The descriptive text doesn't change that. There's no conflict.

View attachment 286603

The confusion is because the word "[the or a] target" appears numerous times in the spell write-up, and "target" has a specific meaning in 5e and carries built-in limitations. If in each case here the words "[the or a] target" were replaced with "that creature", the confusion goes away.

 

[Oofta]

If you read the sentence carefully, all the obstruction clauses only apply to places you can't see.

So if you had an old school of X-Ray vision you could cast any spell you want through a brick wall?

I don't need an example that something that is impenetrable to anything but one small spectrum of light is an object.

 

[Lanefan]

So if you had an old school of X-Ray vision you could cast any spell you want through a brick wall?

Taking the 5e wording exactly as written, yes...provided nothing physical travels from caster to target as part of the casting or effect. So Fireball, Acid Arrow, etc. no; Hold Person, Dispel Magic, etc. yes.

You can see a point within the spell's range, you can cast there.

Whether this is the intended result or not is irrelevant. If not being able to cast through glass is the intent then the written wording needs to make that clear (sorry for the pun). It wouldn't take much.

 

[Oofta]

Taking the 5e wording exactly as written, yes...provided nothing physical travels from caster to target as part of the casting or effect. So Fireball, Acid Arrow, etc. no; Hold Person, Dispel Magic, etc. yes.

You can see a point within the spell's range, you can cast there.

Whether this is the intended result or not is irrelevant. If not being able to cast through glass is the intent then the written wording needs to make that clear (sorry for the pun). It wouldn't take much.

We disagree. A wall of force acts as a solid object, just one that happens to be transparent to visible light. It's the way it's always worked in any game I've ever played.

 

[Raiztt]

We disagree. A wall of force acts as a solid object, just one that happens to be transparent to visible light. It's the way it's always worked in any game I've ever played.

By the rules, you cannot even target someone behind a pane of crystal clear glass with a spell that has no physical effects that would need to move past or through the glass. It's the rule - it's nonsensical to me - but it's pretty clearly stated in the rules.

I personally don't adhere to this rule.

 

[James Gasik]

There's no particular reason a solid object blocks magic just because. The composition and thickness of the object might matter; a classic example of this is Detect Magic, which "can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt". Curiously, "Walls of Force" aren't any of those!

The rules tell us that not being able to see a target prevents you from targeting them. They tell us that total cover can block targeting. But it's up to the DM to decide what can actually obstruct magic.

A good example I hit upon very early is water*. The surface tension of ordinary water is no joke, and being a liquid, it's definitely more solid than air. But you can cast spells through and into water (though some spells are altered, like fire spells), even when normal weapons tend to be slowed or made less effective by the stuff.

*In the Forge of Fury 5e conversion, there's this fun line (page 58): "She (the dragon) begins combat at a range of 20 to 30 feet, raising only her head and part of her neck above the water (granting her three-quarters cover)..."

 

[Gadget]

Psychic Lance would not work, as the target still has full cover between the cater and itself. The real things I'm unsure of are Hypnotic Pattern and Fear. In previous Editions, I don't think fear was an Illusion spell and even in this edition it projects a phantasm (only in the targets' minds) so it is not a Holographic image like other illusion spells. I think most of us would consider it mind-affecting.

 

[Raiztt]

Psychic Lance would not work, as the target still has full cover between the cater and itself. The real things I'm unsure of are Hypnotic Pattern and Fear. In previous Editions, I don't think fear was an Illusion spell and even in this edition it projects a phantasm (only in the targets' minds) so it is not a Holographic image like other illusion spells. I think most of us would consider it mind-affecting.

As per the rules, you cannot target someone with a spell if they have total cover - full stop - whether you can see them perfectly fine or not.

The question then becomes 'what counts as cover'.