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

Greenstone.Walker · Jan 16, 2017

jaelis said:
Are you imagining the rule is that if you are looking at something through glass then you can't target it with a spell? That is not the case.

Yes, that is the conclusion I'm drawing from this thread. Whether or not you can see something has no bearing on whether it has cover. If you are looking at something through glass then you can't target it with a spell, because it has total cover from you.

The spectacles example is silly, but that is because the rules are loose. I think "cover" and "line of sight" and "you can see", and the interaction between them, need to be specified better in the rules.

jaelis · Jan 16, 2017

Greenstone.Walker said:
Yes, that is the conclusion I'm drawing from this thread. Whether or not you can see something has no bearing on whether it has cover. If you are looking at something through glass then you can't target it with a spell, because it has total cover from you.

You are drawing the wrong conclusion then.

The spectacles example is silly, but that is because the rules are loose.

The rules are loose, but not so loose as you are imagining. Nothing I see in the cover rules would make me think that looking a creature through spectacles grants it cover. You get cover when you are blocked by an obstacle. Spectacles are not an obstacle.

Do you think the rules say that if you are blindfolded, no one can attack you because the blindfold is in the way?

Greenstone.Walker · Jan 16, 2017

jaelis said:
Do you think the rules say that if you are blindfolded, no one can attack you because the blindfold is in the way?

No, but I do say if you are blindfolded then you can't cast most spells.

jaelis · Jan 16, 2017

Greenstone.Walker said:
No, but I do say if you are blindfolded then you can't cast most spells.

That is true because most spells require you to see the target. But that doesn't mean the blindfold is providing cover. If it did then you would be able to claim the same cover.

Greenstone.Walker · Jan 16, 2017

I think my point is getting lost. What I am trying to say is, I think the game should completely separate the terms "line of sight" and "cover".

Rules are written, someone behind a pane of glass has total cover, because they are behind an obstacle. Total cover means that there is not a clear path to the target. This means that a caster cannot target that person with any spell (Basic Rules, page 80).

I think this is silly. A sheet of glass should not protect against charm and vicious mockery and the like.

My fix would be to define "cover" as something that is substantial enough that it can stop projectiles. The game mechanic for this is Armor Class. Half cover, +2 AC; three quarter cover, +5 AC; full cover; attack rolls always miss. If something involves an attack roll then cover applies. If it doesn't, then cover is irrelevant.

I would define "line of sight" as "can you see the target". If you can, then you can affect it. If you can't, then you can't.

So, a pane of glass stops fire bolt but not sacred flame or charm person. A rice-paper wall stops sacred flame and charm but not fire bolt (though since you are effectively attacking an invisible target, disadvantage applies to the attack roll). A stone wall stops all of the above.

Wall of force provides full cover but does not block line of sight.

Oofta · Jan 16, 2017

Greenstone.Walker said:
I think my point is getting lost. What I am trying to say is, I think the game should completely separate the terms "line of sight" and "cover".

Rules are written, someone behind a pane of glass has total cover, because they are behind an obstacle. Total cover means that there is not a clear path to the target. This means that a caster cannot target that person with any spell (Basic Rules, page 80).

I think this is silly. A sheet of glass should not protect against charm and vicious mockery and the like.

My fix would be to define "cover" as something that is substantial enough that it can stop projectiles. The game mechanic for this is Armor Class. Half cover, +2 AC; three quarter cover, +5 AC; full cover; attack rolls always miss. If something involves an attack roll then cover applies. If it doesn't, then cover is irrelevant.

I would define "line of sight" as "can you see the target". If you can, then you can affect it. If you can't, then you can't.

So, a pane of glass stops fire bolt but not sacred flame or charm person. A rice-paper wall stops sacred flame and charm but not fire bolt (though since you are effectively attacking an invisible target, disadvantage applies to the attack roll). A stone wall stops all of the above.

Wall of force provides full cover but does not block line of sight.

I think the rules are pretty straight forward. To target something, you must have a clear path to it

That's it. There's nothing about not being able to see or not see, if you are blind you can still cast fireball. Well, your party members might care when you accidentally send the spell into the wall adjacent to the party, but nothing stops it.

There is no "line of sight". There is no "if you can see it you can cast a spell". Just "a clear path".

So yes, standing behind a window stops a spell, eyeglasses do not unless perhaps the giant Thrym left his specs lying around.

MNblockhead · Jan 17, 2017

I agree with Oofta that as he explains it, the rules are straight forward. There are enough Sage Advice answers that supports this straight-forward interpretation. It is easy to implement and probably helps with game balance.

All that said, it still bothers me that you can't charm a person through a glass window. I mean we are talking about magic and if that is how magic works in the D&D official universe, then that is how it works. I really only matters with Adventurer's Guild games as in home games, GM's can make their own home rules.

I try to keep RAW--even in my home-brew campaigns--because rules make the game and I'll follow the rule that to target something, you must have an unobstructed path to it.

While initially, a bit disappointing, it does raise some interesting tactics and defense options I wouldn't have thought of before. I could see money lenders operating from behind a pane of glass to protect against charm person and compulsion. It is kinda nice that there are low/no-magic protections to magic.

UnknownDyson · Jan 17, 2017

I think he is making light of the ridiculousness associated with not being able to target something at range that you can clearly see. Wall of Force should be a seventh or eighth level spell if used as many in this thread rule.

I think I'm going to create a sorcerer that wears a full body mirror suit with the express purpose of making other spell casters impotent. Those mirrors are the windows to his soul so he can't be targeted. Should be pretty fun.

Oofta · Jan 17, 2017

UnknownDyson said:
I think he is making light of the ridiculousness associated with not being able to target something at range that you can clearly see. Wall of Force should be a seventh or eighth level spell if used as many in this thread rule.

I neither agree nor disagree with the rule. I'm just pointing out what the rule is. Don't like it? Change the rule for your game.

UnknownDyson said:
I think I'm going to create a sorcerer that wears a full boy mirror suit with the express purpose of making other spell casters impotent. Those mirrors are the windows to his soul so he can't be targeted. Should be pretty fun.

Of course I would also rule that someone wearing this

could still be the target of a spell because magic isn't that finicky about a person and the outfit they are wearing. If it was it would be hard to cast a spell with range of touch on anybody wearing a long sleeve shirt and pants.

Savage Wombat · Jan 17, 2017

I vaguely feel that there's a difference between Wall of Force, which blocks energy and attacks that pass through it, and globe of invulnerability, which specifically neutralizes spells altogether.

The easy solution is just to buy a +3/4 Indirect advantage on your spells, and then they teleport around the obstruction.

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

Greenstone.Walker

Adventurer

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Greenstone.Walker

Adventurer

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Greenstone.Walker

Adventurer

Oofta

Legend

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site

UnknownDyson

Explorer

Oofta

Legend

Savage Wombat

Hero

Similar Threads