Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 6997966" data-attributes="member: 6801845">We've had this debate a few times around our table.  The pertinent text (page 80 basic rules)Targets A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect ... A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.So I think one point of debate has always been  you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.Reading that the tendency is to insert an and into the phrase so that it reads you must have a clear path to it and it can’t be behind total cover., which is not what it says.  All it says is that you must have a clear path to it.  There is no distinction between spells that have a range, whether it's targeting a creature, object or point of origin.So I'm going to reverse what I said last night (it was a long day) and say that my ruling is that if you could not possibly physically target the creature with an arrow because something is between you and the target, you cannot target it with a spell.That way no spell can affect something behind a wall of force, and descriptive text (like fireball sending a streak of fire) doesn't affect how a spell works.  No spells can pass through a wall of force period, it doesn't matter if you're doing a ranged spell attack with a scorching ray or a fireball.</blockquote>

Verification