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

[ECMO3]

You need to read the sage advice. Being able to “see your target” means “must have a line of sight”.

I'm not familiar with the Sage Advice ruling you are referencing, but that is not my interpretation of the 5.5E rules. To target something with a spell you need a "clear path" to the target per the PHB, but AFAIK you do not need "line of sight" to the target, further the clear path requirement is really only in relation to the "target" of the spell, and the "target" of 5.5E Misty Step is Self, not the destination.

Finally, Wall Of Force does not restrict Line of Sight in 5.5E rules because it is invisible.

Line of Sight is discussed in the 5.5E DMG section on miniatures, but it only talks about Line of Sight with respect to things that "block vision" and they are specific about this:

Line of Sight​

To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.

The 2024 PHB and Basic rules do not mention Line of Sight at all AFAIK and because 5.5E Wall of Force is invisible, it is not "an object or effect that blocks vision" and therefore does not block "line of sight".

Full cover, such as a glass window, or a wall of force, block line of sight, so, as far as spells are concerned, you cannot “see” through them. For the same reason you cannot normally use a mirror reflection or remote viewing device to target your spells.

Yes if the "target" is behind those things you can not use the spell because there is no "clear path" to the "target", but the target of Misty Step is self, not the area you are looking at, so you can use it to do all of these things provided the destination you are looking at is within range.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

In the 5.5E rules Cover has nothing to do with Line of Sight. They are two different things and one does not reference or influence the other at all.

The Line of Sight section in the DMG does not mention Cover and Cover in the PHB combat section, PHB spell section, PHB glossary and DMG do not mention Line of Sight.

I posted Line of Sight verbiage above, Total Cover is simply "an object that covers the whole target"

Taking what the DMG and PHB say on these:

A stone wall provides cover and stops Line of Sight

Wall of Force or a Window, using similar criteria provides Cover but does not stop Line of Sight

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't affect the astral and teleport magic doesn't use the ethereal.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, it’s easy to see why - the rule that you can’t see through invisible full cover isn’t exactly intuitive!

Sage advice is 5.0 sage advice only partially updated to 5.5 and it was wrong for some rules even in 5.0.

Misty step and teleportation should just work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Cover and requirement to see something are not the same.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cover and requirement to see something are not the same.

Not the same thing, but the one - full cover - explicitly prevents the other - seeing. This is in the rules, which don't make any distinction between transparent and opaque full cover.

There are, of course, other things that might interfere with seeing a target, full cover is only one of them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not the same thing, but the one - full cover - explicitly prevents the other - seeing. This is in the rules, which don't make any distinction between transparent and opaque full cover.

There are, of course, other things that might interfere with seeing a target, full cover is only one of them.

Ok. But you can look through something invisble or transparent going by the normal english word.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok. But you can look through something invisble or transparent going by the normal english word.

Strictly speaking RAW 5.5 only seems to work.

BUT yeah rules lawyer I can see Paul's point.

Lvl 4 gane invention domain cleric and wold magic sorcerer both took conjuration adept.

Cloud of daggers is conjuration.

 

[ECMO3]

Not the same thing, but the one - full cover - explicitly prevents the other - seeing.

This is not true in the 5.5E rules. The rules on Line of Sight don't mention cover at all and the rules on Cover don't mention being able to see through or not see through it at all. These are two completely different things in the 5.5E rules and nowhere in 5.5E does it say that cover blocks sight or that you can not see through cover.

Also, the method in the DMG for using lines to determine Cover and Line of Sight between two squares on a grid are different. Line of sight is determined using one line from one corner of one square to any part of the other square (side, center, anywhere). Cover is determined by measuring a line from one corner of one square to all 4 corners of the other square.

This is in the rules, which don't make any distinction between transparent and opaque full cover.

They absolutely do make a very specific distinction between seeing and having cover. These two things in different sections of the rules. Saying Cover and Line of Sight are the same thing in 5.5E is like saying Weapons and Spells are the same thing; they very much are NOT the same thing.

Line Of Sight is one paragraph on page 45 of the DMG, and that paragraph does not mention cover at all. This is the only place Line of Sight is mentioned at all AFAIK. Cover is detailed at least 4 different places in the PHB and the DMG and the sections on cover do not mention Line of Sight or seeing the target at all.

A Window or a Stone wall, or an invisible creature, all provide cover, but you can see through two of those and not the third. All three of those things can provide cover, but only the Stone Wall can break Line of Sight. That the rules don't explicitly say you can see through transparent cover is meaningless, because that is the definition of transparent. The rules also don't say you can see through air, but you can!

The rules on cover don't mention transparent or opaque cover because sight is meaningless for cover. The rules on Line of sight do mention things blocking vision, because that is what matters for Line of Sight. For example the rules on Line of Sight mention fog specifically, and it is because Fog breaks line of sight, but it obviously provides no cover at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is not true in the 5.5E rules. The rules on Line of Sight don't mention cover at all and the rules on Cover don't mention being able to see through or not see through it at all. These are two completely different things in the 5.5E rules.

Also, the method in the DMG for using lines to determine Cover and Line of Sight between two squares on a grid are different in 5.5E. Line of sight is determined using one line from one corner of one square to any part of the other square (side, center, anywhere). Cover is determined by measuring a line from one corner of one square to all 4 corners of the other square.



They absolutely do make a very specific distinction, covering these two things in different sections of the rules. Saying Cover and Line of Sight are the same thing in 5.5E is like saying Weapons and Spells are the same thing; they very much are NOT the same thing.

Line Of Sight is one Paragraph on page 45 of the DMG, and that paragraph does not mention cover at all. This is the only place Line of Sight is mentioned at all AFAIK. Cover is detailed at least 4 different places in the PHB and the DMG and the sections on cover do not mention Line of Sight or seeing the target at all.

This. Paul's using 5.0 stuff.

I reread 5.5 several times over. Same conclusion as you.