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

[Dax Doomslayer]

Yeah, that is the way I'm going with it. Usually though, the rule would need to state something to override the general rule and it doesn't state anything like 'within hearing range' or 'sight range'...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, for the record, I'm aware Crawford said that a Target behind glass closed window is considered total cover from a spell since there's no "clear unobstructed path between the caster and target." and thus many spells wouldn't work. But I don't agree with that. If I see someone behind a glass window in range, I should be able to cast scorching Ray (or chromatic orb, or any other spell that targets a creature). I understand if the DM wants the window to affect it, but saying the spell won't work at all doesn't sit with me well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, each DM can of course use whatever rules they want, but I don't think the RAW leaves a lot of room for interpretation...

You can Bless someone you can't see (they might be invisible, or heavily obscured, or you blinded), just as you can attack someone you can't see (at disadvantage in that case). As long as there is a path between you.

That's cool, I think it leaves room--even if not a lot.

Consider you have four allies nearby, but one is invisible. and you believe it is within the 30-foot range. You select it as one of the targets, but the DM informs you that allies has since moved out of the range. Now, that "target" option is wasted, two allies you can see are Blessed, and the third you can see isn't. Or, given a kind DM, they allow you to switch to the other ally you can see.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

I mean, each DM can of course use whatever rules they want, but I don't think the RAW leaves a lot of room for interpretation...

You can Bless someone you can't see (they might be invisible, or heavily obscured, or you blinded), just as you can attack someone you can't see (at disadvantage in that case). As long as there is a path between you.

This here was my discussion point with my group. It's such a "corner case" that I just went with it and allowed it. However, I am curious what the answer is by RAW so I figured I'd ask here...

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I think this is one of those situations where "target" means more than one thing. The ally may be a target for an AOE spell, but they are not a Target like they would be for a non-AOE spell that requires line of sight, so I would allow this because Magic. You cast the spell and can sense all of your valid targets who are within the AOE range and then select the ones who receive it.

 

[Esker]

That's cool, I think it leaves room--even if not a lot.

Consider you have four allies nearby, but one is invisible. and you believe it is within the 30-foot range. You select it as one of the targets, but the DM informs you that allies has since moved out of the range. Now, that "target" option is wasted, two allies you can see are Blessed, and the third you can see isn't. Or, given a kind DM, they allow you to switch to the other ally you can see.

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.

 

[Esker]

That's cool, I think it leaves room--even if not a lot.

Consider you have four allies nearby, but one is invisible. and you believe it is within the 30-foot range. You select it as one of the targets, but the DM informs you that allies has since moved out of the range. Now, that "target" option is wasted, two allies you can see are Blessed, and the third you can see isn't. Or, given a kind DM, they allow you to switch to the other ally you can see.

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?

 

[Harzel]

I think this is one of those situations where "target" means more than one thing. The ally may be a target for an AOE spell, but they are not a Target like they would be for a non-AOE spell that requires line of sight

The issue of whether something is an AoE spell in 5e is a little muddled. There are
1) spells that affect a single target;
2) spells that affect a fixed number (>1) of targets;
3) spells that affect all creatures within range that you choose; and
4) spells that affect all creatures in range, period.

Spells in (1) are clearly not AoEs, and spells in (4) clearly are. But what of (2) and (3)?

My take is that spells in (3) are AoEs, but spells in (2) are not. Spells in (2) are just multiple target spells; sure, the spell has a range, but almost all spells do. And if you take a spell such as Banishment, which is a single target spell at its lowest level, but can be upcast to affect multiple targets, it would be weird (to me) to say that it became an AoE just because it was upcast to affect multiple targets.

so I would allow this because Magic.

All the above said, I don't think it makes any difference in the RAW treatment of Bless. Even if you decide you want to call it an AoE, RAW still says AoEs don't circumvent total cover (unless the spell says it does, as in, for instance, Fireball). You still need an "unblocked straight line" from the spell's point of origin to the target.

You cast the spell and can sense all of your valid targets who are within the AOE range and then select the ones who receive it.

Yes, I would run it this way, too, but those behind total cover would not be (sensed as) valid targets.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The issue of whether something is an AoE spell in 5e is a little muddled. There are
1) spells that affect a single target;
2) spells that affect a fixed number (>1) of targets;
3) spells that affect all creatures within range that you choose; and
4) spells that affect all creatures in range, period.

Spells in (1) are clearly not AoEs, and spells in (4) clearly are. But what of (2) and (3)?

My take is that spells in (3) are AoEs, but spells in (2) are not. Spells in (2) are just multiple target spells; sure, the spell has a range, but almost all spells do. And if you take a spell such as Banishment, which is a single target spell at its lowest level, but can be upcast to affect multiple targets, it would be weird (to me) to say that it became an AoE just because it was upcast to affect multiple targets.



All the above said, I don't think it makes any difference in the RAW treatment of Bless. Even if you decide you want to call it an AoE, RAW still says AoEs don't circumvent total cover (unless the spell says it does, as in, for instance, Fireball). You still need an "unblocked straight line" from the spell's point of origin to the target.



Yes, I would run it this way, too, but those behind total cover would not be (sensed as) valid targets.

Yeah, Bless is one that can get weird. It has a range of 30 feet, so any valid character within 30 feet of the caster, in any direction, can be chosen. And because it does not say line of sight in the spell description, I feel that, say, if a caster has an ally standing in front of them and one behind them, or one to either side, both allies are valid for the spell without the caster having to do some sort of contortions to see them both.

 

[Harzel]

Yeah, Bless is one that can get weird. It has a range of 30 feet, so any valid character within 30 feet of the caster, in any direction, can be chosen. And because it does not say line of sight in the spell description, I feel that, say, if a caster has an ally standing in front of them and one behind them, or one to either side, both allies are valid for the spell without the caster having to do some sort of contortions to see them both.

I agree that Bless does not require the caster to be able to see the targets. However, if it did say something like that, the usual phrasing is "creature(s) that you can see within range". (Bane is an example of a spell with multiple targets that the caster has to be able to see.) I've never seen it suggested anywhere that "creature(s) that you can see" should be interpreted as "creature(s) that you are looking at", so even then, I don't think any contortions are necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean with respect to Bless getting weird. There are a number of spells that can target a fixed number (>1) of creatures, and a bunch more that can if upcast. Am I missing your meaning?