D&D General "that you can see", "line of sight", glass, mirrors, ~clairvoyance, blindsight, and anything else.

[greg kaye]

Oh Grimlocks are a naturally blind race in D&D, ...

I'd suspected that they were a more sore sorlock.

 

[Hriston]

Which is a golden approach to any interpretation of rules as intended. What we have is rules as written (optional as that is) but we do our best with our reasoned takes.

Keep in mind that I was engaging with a hypothetical proposition. I.e. “Had they wanted it to work such that...” I certainly don’t think it was the actual intent of the spell targeting rules for a pane of transparent glass to prevent targeting, but someone could run it that way if they chose for their game.

When considering the view of an obstacle as "a thing that is capable of blocking or hindering ...", considerations might also be given to the forms of impedance that might potentially affect the likes of healing word, feeblemind and, the potentially homing to target, magic missile.

The rules for cover give examples of obstacles that are capable of providing cover: walls, furniture, creatures, tree trunks, etc. They are all fairly substantial solid objects that could potentially block a blow from a weapon or similar force. I’m not sure what value there is in considering “forms of impedance” that could affect spells separately from that since spells aren’t actual measurable phenomena with any known qualities. Such “considerations” are just somebody making something up.

If you can see the target and there isn't an obstacle of a form that is considered to be "capable of blocking or hindering" the effect, what do you do?

I don’t think I understand the question. If the target can be seen and isn’t behind total cover, then I should think the spell goes off as intended.

However, another valid question would be whether it would break mechanics to be able to cast the likes of feeblemind etc. despite a presence of a physical, intermediary obstacle.

My question would be why spells should be privileged above weapons in this way. There already seems to be a perceived power imbalance between spell casting and martial characters, and I think giving casters such an ability would have the effect of widening that gap.

 

[James Gasik]

My answer would be that the ability of Wall of Force to protect you from weapon attacks and magic creates more of an imbalance than if the spell did one or the other. Fighters aren't casting Wall of Force to protect them from Wizards, Wizards are casting it to protect them from Fighters (and everything else).

Put another way, globe of invulnerability is a 6th level spell, antimagic field is an 8th level spell. Wall of Force is 5th. If the fact that each spell has it's own limitations and mechanics is fine with you, so be it. After all, resilient sphere definitely blocks most everything and is only level 4!

But you can just as easily look at it another way and wonder if these effects are really balanced against one another. Especially since the character who would most benefit from something like antimagic field would, ironically, be someone who didn't rely on magic.

This is, of course,, orthogonal to the point of this thread, which is how the spell works by the rules, not how it should (or should not), but it's worth to consider when making rulings for one's own games.

 

[Oofta]

My answer would be that the ability of Wall of Force to protect you from weapon attacks and magic creates more of an imbalance than if the spell did one or the other. Fighters aren't casting Wall of Force to protect them from Wizards, Wizards are casting it to protect them from Fighters (and everything else).

Put another way, globe of invulnerability is a 6th level spell, antimagic field is an 8th level spell. Wall of Force is 5th. If the fact that each spell has it's own limitations and mechanics is fine with you, so be it. After all, resilient sphere definitely blocks most everything and is only level 4!

But you can just as easily look at it another way and wonder if these effects are really balanced against one another. Especially since the character who would most benefit from something like antimagic field would, ironically, be someone who didn't rely on magic.

This is, of course,, orthogonal to the point of this thread, which is how the spell works by the rules, not how it should (or should not), but it's worth to consider when making rulings for one's own games.

I completely disagree, wall of force has blocked spells in every edition. With globe of invulnerability, the caster can still caster spells out of the globe. A wall doesn't stop magic like an antimagic zone if someone can get past the wall, or take it down.

It's apples and oranges. There's no difference between what can be targeted by a ranged spell or a ranged weapon attack.

 

[greg kaye]

I don’t think I understand the question. If the target can be seen and isn’t behind total cover, then I should think the spell goes off as intended.

We'd covered wider issues than this.
You'd said:

This relies on an understanding of how the word obstacle is being used, part of which seems to be "a thing that is capable of blocking or hindering attacks". If it can't do that, it isn't really an obstacle, is it?

to which I responded.

When considering the view of an obstacle as "a thing that is capable of blocking or hindering ...", considerations might also be given to the forms of impedance that might potentially affect the likes of healing word, feeblemind and, the potentially homing to target, magic missile.

If you can see the target and there isn't an obstacle of a form that is considered to be "capable of blocking or hindering" the effect, what do you do?

A DM might consider, for instance, whether even a thick sheet of glass would impede the radiant energy of guiding bolt or whether an immediately intervening sheet of wood might impede the (the potentially sonically delivered) magic of healing word if, by some means, the target of the spell can still be seen.

My choice of the word impedance was really used in the context of dispel magic for which: "The spell 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." In this case the effect would be detection and, in this case, 1 foot of stone is considered capable of blocking this effect.

Personally, I wish martials were stronger and/or casters were weaker and, in this way, we might find balanced as well as interesting interpretations regarding the targeting of spells.

 

[Oofta]

We'd covered wider issues than this.
You'd said:

to which I responded.

A DM might consider, for instance, whether even a thick sheet of glass would impede the radiant energy of guiding bolt or whether an immediately intervening sheet of wood might impede the (the potentially sonically delivered) magic of healing word if, by some means, the target of the spell can still be seen.

My choice of the word impedance was really used in the context of dispel magic for which: "The spell 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." In this case the effect would be detection and, in this case, 1 foot of stone is considered capable of blocking this effect.

Personally, I wish martials were stronger and/or casters were weaker and, in this way, we might find balanced as well as interesting interpretations regarding the targeting of spells.

Can you show somewhere that it states that ranged spells work any differently than ranged weapon attacks?

 

[James Gasik]

Well, to be fair, what Wall of Force said in 2e was "it is totally unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic." Then it mentions how disintegrate destroys it, as does a Rod of Cancellation or a Sphere of Annihilation. And how it can be bypassed by dimension door, teleport and similar effects. The language about extending into the Ethereal Plane was added in 3e, where Mordenkainen's Disjunction was added to the list of effects that could destroy it. It then also went on to say that most Ethereal creatures could easily get around the wall by moving through walls and ceilings (this version of the spell had to be a flat vertical plane). Interestingly, the 3e version stated that gaze attacks worked through it.

And not every edition, Oofta, here's the 4e version:

"You conjure a wall that consists of contiguous squares filled with arcane force. It can be up to 8 squares long and up to 4 squares high. The wall lasts until the end of your next turn. Any creature that starts its turn adjacent to the wall takes 2d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage and is pushed an amount of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier (save prevents push). If a creature moves into the wall’s space or starts its turn there, the creature takes 4d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage and is pushed an amount of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier (save prevents push). Entering a square occupied by the wall costs 3 extra squares of movement. The wall blocks line of sight."

 

[Oofta]

Well, to be fair, what Wall of Force said in 2e was "it is totally unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic." Then it mentions how disintegrate destroys it, as does a Rod of Cancellation or a Sphere of Annihilation. And how it can be bypassed by dimension door, teleport and similar effects. The language about extending into the Ethereal Plane was added in 3e, where Mordenkainen's Disjunction was added to the list of effects that could destroy it. It then also went on to say that most Ethereal creatures could easily get around the wall by moving through walls and ceilings (this version of the spell had to be a flat vertical plane). Interestingly, the 3e version stated that gaze attacks worked through it.

And not every edition, Oofta, here's the 4e version:

"You conjure a wall that consists of contiguous squares filled with arcane force. It can be up to 8 squares long and up to 4 squares high. The wall lasts until the end of your next turn. Any creature that starts its turn adjacent to the wall takes 2d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage and is pushed an amount of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier (save prevents push). If a creature moves into the wall’s space or starts its turn there, the creature takes 4d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage and is pushed an amount of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier (save prevents push). Entering a square occupied by the wall costs 3 extra squares of movement. The wall blocks line of sight."

Dimension door and teleport can still get through a wall of force as long as the targets being teleported are clear of any obstacles. As far as 4e, I don't remember anyone ever using it so you are pedantically correct.

But I still see no wording that makes the range of a spell any less restricted than a ranged weapon attack.

When I house rule I make it clear that I am doing so. Want to change the rule? No problem. Just say it's your house rule.

 

[greg kaye]

Can you show somewhere that it states that ranged spells work any differently than ranged weapon attacks?

Ranged weapons are typically listed as deal piercing or bludgeoning damage.
Spells like guiding bolt deal a variety of damage types like radiant.
Spells like healing word are associated with the transmission of sound.
Spells like feeble mind have an effect that somehow attacks the mind.
Magic Missile might potentially be interpreted to have a homing function.

 

[Oofta]

Ranged weapons are typically listed as deal piercing or bludgeoning damage.
Spells like guiding bolt deal a variety of damage types like radiant.
Spells like healing word are associated with the transmission of sound.
Spells like feeble mind have an effect that somehow attacks the mind.
Magic Missile might potentially be interpreted to have a homing function.

I'm not talking effect, I'm talking what you can target.

Personally, I'd allow some spells to pierce some cover. A stone thrown by a catapult is going to go right through a window, a lightning bolt or fireball is going to ignore a thin sheet or lightweight tapestry.

But a magic missile only targets creatures and can't affect an inanimate object. It would only take a tiny gap for the missiles, but there still has to be a gap.

For all this argument, this is something that, while I'm sure it's probably come up, I don't remember when other than when Acerack trapped our cleric in a hemispherical dome. Which, yes, since no one in the party had disintegrate or any way to teleport them out, took them out of the fight.