D&D 5E (2024) Poll: How good are the new Arcana Unleashed Adept Feats?

[Maxperson]

The key point is full cover prevents your from "seeing" a target, and Wall of Force explicitly provides full cover.

It's also explicitly invisible and specific beats general. You can in fact see where you are going, there is no target, and there is nothing blocking your way since Misty Step doesn't go through the wall of force.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to throw it in there....

Misty Step does say "teleport" you, which usually skips barriers...

Not totally RAW, but it can explain why people thing they can "step" to a place they can see.

Except that it is RAW. RAW(the general rule) for full cover is that it blocks sight. Why? Because you are behind a tree, boulder, stone wall, etc. that you can't see through. RAW(Specific wall of force rule) is that it is invisible, allowing visibility through it. Misty Step doesn't target or travel through obstructions, and only requires that you be able to see where you are landing.

Wall of Force cannot stop Misty Step and whoever wrote that Sage Advice should be fired if it wasn't Crawford as he's gone already.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's also explicitly invisible and specific beats general. You can in fact see where you are going, there is no target, and there is nothing blocking your way since Misty Step doesn't go through the wall of force.

According to the guys who wrote the game, specifically full cover beats specifically invisible. It’s intended to block spells, otherwise it’s not a lot of good.

“Invisible” is fluff, it doesn’t do anything mechanically. There is no rule that says “you can see though invisible objects”.

 

[Maxperson]

According to the guys who wrote the game, specifically full cover beats specifically invisible. It’s intended to block spells, otherwise it’s not a lot of good.

“Invisible” is fluff, it doesn’t do anything mechanically. There is no rule that says “you can see though invisible objects”.

That same guy said a spell that lets you see invisible things if they were visible, doesn't let you see things that are invisible as if they were visible. And other really, really, dumb rulings.

He is as wrong about this one as he was about all the others. If it makes you feel better to follow his stupid rulings and engage in adversarial DMing by having all your NPCs take disintegrate in the arms race against wall of force, go for it. I will be following the actual rules and ignoring that guy's "sage" advice.

Edit: You don't need a rule that says you can see through invisible objects. Go out and ask 100 people if you can see through invisible things and see how many say no. Natural language and all that jazz.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That same guy said a spell that lets you see invisible things if they were visible, doesn't let you see things that are invisible as if they were visible. And other really, really, dumb rulings.

He is as wrong about this one as he was about all the others. If it makes you feel better to follow his stupid rulings and engage in adversarial DMing by having all your NPCs take disintegrate in the arms race against wall of force, go for it. I will be following the actual rules and ignoring that guy's "sage" advice.

Edit: You don't need a rule that says you can see through invisible objects. Go out and ask 100 people if you can see through invisible things and see how many say no. Natural language and all that jazz.

If you do that then the spell is useless, since it doesn’t block anything. Basically, you are ruling that if you cast invisibility on a cover object, it no longer provides any cover. Make the castle invisible and it becomes useless.

And technically, “invisible” does not mean “transparent”. Stealth makes you invisible, but you still block line of sight to anything behind you.

The problem is actually caused by the poor wording of spells. When they say “you can see” they actually mean “have a line of sight”. I assume the idea of sight lines was considered too technical.

 

[Maxperson]

If you do that then the spell is useless, since it doesn’t block anything. Basically, you are ruling that if you cast invisibility on a cover object, it no longer provides any cover. Make the castle invisible and it becomes useless.

Um, no. It still stops things from physically going through it. No fireballs, no magic missiles, no lightning bolts, etc. It becomes a good spell, but not a broken one. It's only broken if you play it wrong and make it stronger than it's written.

And technically, “invisible” does not mean “transparent”. Stealth makes you invisible, but you still block line of sight to anything behind you.

Are you seriously going to make an argument that a transparent wall of force blocks sight, because someone behind a rock still has an opaque body?

C'mon man. Argue something that makes sense.

The problem is actually caused by the poor wording of spells. When they say “you can see” they actually mean “have a line of sight”. I assume the idea of sight lines was considered too technical.

In the case of wall of force v. misty step, both "see" and "have line of sight" are the same thing, as you don't go through the wall to teleport. "Line of sight" is just two points. Where you stand and where you end up. There is no other "line" drawn in-between like you do with lightning bolts.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Force seems to exist across dimensions in D&D, which is why it affects ethereal beings. Id rule you cant misty step past it.
I'm fine with not letting a 2nd level bonus action spell that everyone and their dog takes not beat a 5th level spell.

 

[SkidAce]

According to the guys who wrote the game, specifically full cover beats specifically invisible. It’s intended to block spells, otherwise it’s not a lot of good.

“Invisible” is fluff, it doesn’t do anything mechanically. There is no rule that says “you can see though invisible objects”.

Edit: Deleted question.

 

[Silam]

Whether a DM chooses to rule according to JC’s opinion, or according to a strict reading of the RAW, or according to any other opinion of their own, I am fine with it. It all conforms to the philosophy that the DM has the last word, which I adhere to.

Personally, when DM-ing, I like to err on the side of the RAW, and by the RAW, I consider that all Sage Advice is 2014 editorial content. Therefore, any piece of 2024 rules supercedes overlapping pieces of 2014 rules (including SA).

That is the whole point of putting out a new edition… to smooth out rough edges and in particular to clarify anything which players have reported as being ambiguous. By definition, any question which was answered by SA was something the company acknowledged to be ambiguous. Therefore, when putting together the 2024 content (which JC participated in, before leaving / getting left, however that happened), was supposed to integrate and reconsider all of those SAs.

Whether the 2024 text conforms to the SA ruling, or reaffirms the 2014 RAW text, or goes in a completely different third direction, does not matter… in all cases, the 2024 text supercedes 2014 and the 2014 era Sage Advices.

 

[Zardnaar]

Misty Step has no target. You just teleport to a spot you can see. The path to target portion also only applies to something that obstructs the path between you and the target. Mistry Step has no path. You aren't going through the wall like a lightning bolt would, you are bypassing it completely.

That Sage Advice is bupkis.

Rereading the spell it seems it would go through.

You just have to see and specific beats general.