D&D 5E Wall of Force and spells

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Oh I know, I was just saying blind anyone isn't really well supported by the rules.

I think the rules have good support to model how ineffective blind characters would be in combat.

 

[James Gasik]

I think the rules have good support to model how ineffective blind characters would be in combat.

Well sure, if this was a tabletop reality game or something...

 

[Maxperson]

Sound is caused by variations in pressure that cause vibrations in your eardrum. This is a physical effect and stopped by Wall of Force.

So I would not allow command.

Dissonant Whispers is a bit more ambiguous since you "whisper" it and one person in range can "hear" it. That makes it debatable whether or not this is sound, since someone at range could not "hear" a whisper in the middle of a battle and people closer would be able to "hear" it if it was sound.

I'm not arguing that it's purely sound, since it is a whisper that does magically reach the target, so it is debatable whether it's traveling via sound or magic, but...

1. As @Oofta points out, Dissonant Whispers does target and nothing can be targeted behind the wall as you cannot target something with a spell that has total cover.
2. If someone else were standing right next to the caster on a still, quiet day, they would not hear the whisper.

"You whisper a discordant melody that only one creature of your choice within range can hear, wracking it with terrible pain."

Nobody else can hear it.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't read through all the posts so maybe someone pointed this out but the spell description specifically says that,

'Nothing can physically pass through the wall'.

I'm actually now more convinced than ever that non-physical spells can pass through. I feel that this can be read as an example of the 'specific over the general'. The spell description is describing an exception to the general rule by stipulating that the wall only bars the physical and not other spells that might need direct line of effect - like charm person, for example. For non-physical spells, they are not considered to have full cover.

That overlooks this from the combat section.

PHB 196

"A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect."

You simply cannot target someone behind a wall of force with any spell, regardless of whether the spell effect is physical or non-physical. Unless of course the spell has an explicit statement that is specific beats general and would allow it, such as Dream which explicitly allows the target to be anywhere on the plane, which would include behind total cover.

 

[Stalker0]

Just noting that targeting with a spell does NOT require sight innately, as I think some people here assume. Many spells do add “that you can see” into their spell description, but if that is not there you can target while blind

 

[Stalker0]

That overlooks this from the combat section.

PHB 196

"A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect."

You simply cannot target someone behind a wall of force with any spell, regardless of whether the spell effect is physical or non-physical. Unless of course the spell has an explicit statement that is specific beats general and would allow it, such as Dream which explicitly allows the target to be anywhere on the plane, which would include behind total cover.

The dnd beyond version of dream doesn’t have a target entry, making this even more explicit that total cover doesn’t matter

 

[Maxperson]

A blind caster except Cleric or Warlock can get the spell darkvision which would allow them to see out to 60 feet as long as they were not in bright light. A blind character can also get the devil's sight invocation which would let them see in darkness, they could pair this with the darkness spell pretty effectively.

This seems like a blind spot(hur hur!) in the rules. I'm reasonably certain that the intent behind those spells and abilities was to convert a portion of what the character could see in normal conditions to darkvision. I seriously doubt the designers were like, "Let's make this spell that can also allow blind PCs and NPCs to see with darkvision."

As a rulings over rules situation, I personally would not allow that to work in my game. That said, I WOULD allow the creation of a new spell that could work to temporarily grant sight.

 

[Maxperson]

Blindsight within 10' is cool, but I wouldn't call such a character "gimped a little", considering that anyone can become hidden from such a character by moving more than 10' away. They'd certainly be ambushed constantly by ranged attackers, and they'd need a sighted character to tell them where distant enemies are.

It would take more than moving farther than 10 feet away to become hidden. To be hidden you must be both unseen and unheard. Simply moving out of range just makes you unseen, not unheard.

 

[Maxperson]

RAW they would need to take the hide action to be hidden and anyone who attacks has their location revealed (unless they have the Skulker Feat). If they moved 10 feet away they would be unseen and fully obscured, which is still bad of course, but the fighter would know where they were if they were attacking him.

By RAW they just need to be both unseen and unheard to be hidden, though if someone moved 30 feet away and cast silence, they'd be hidden with no attached DC, so I'd have to cobble together some ruling to cover that hole in the hiding rules.

PHB page 195

"If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

 

[Maxperson]

A blind Wizard or Warlock with Find Familiar can summon a Bat and see through its senses. They can't really cast spells like that though because it ends at the begining of their turn.

Order of the Scribes subclass would work well for this. They can cast through the book.