D&D 5E Wall of Force

[DM-Rocco]

I would like to point out (as I did in another thread), the Clear Path says nothing about being a straight line...

View attachment 118558

So, C can see his target, T, since the Wall of Force is invisible. T is within range of Charm Person (30 feet). And there is a "Clear Path" which goes around the Wall of Force that is shorter than the range of the spell (the green lines would be maybe 20 feet long).

Verdict: T must save versus the Charm Person spell.

Okay, I could see that if you didn't engulf the target in a sphere. But even if this would work, accounting for the extra spaces to get "in range" going around the wall, since the Wall of Force is invisible if you didn't know the wall was cast, you would go for a straight line and thus hit the invisible wall correct?

 

[DM-Rocco]

I find it useful to go back to the 3e concept of "line of effect" in cases like these. Wall of Force blocks line of effect, so unless spells don't require that (i.e. Sending, Telepathy, etc.), Wall of Force blocks it. I admire the simplifications of 5e and grew to dislike the over fiddlyness of 3e, but sometimes the 5e devs dig themselves into a hole with their 'natural language.'

I might have to revisit that.

I don't think this was mentioned yet, but the Sacred Flame cantrip can be cast through total cover as long as you can see the target. "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Jeremy Crawford talked about spell targeting in an official podcast about three years ago. Start listening at 36:30 for the part about Sacred Flame. He says that Sacred Flame is an exception to the "clear path to the target" rule. The intent of the spell is that the cleric is calling down radiant flame from above, so it can't be blocked by cover. He gives the specific example of casting it through a window. I didn't re-listen to the whole Sage Advice section, but there might be other information relevant to this discussion.

I did start before I posted this by listening to that podcast. He doesn't really get into it as much as you think.

A basic principle of adjudication is reasonable restraint. A Firebolt spell is clearly more akin to a flaming crossbow bolt than say the phase shifting Romulan disrupter you were describing before. Giving Firebolt a set of non relevant powers that are not logically inferable or deductible might be rhetorically prudent, but does not yield sound results, and is not imaginatively restrained.

A Firebolt could burn through stone, depending on hardness, hp, etc, but even if you ruled Firebolt was more akin to a plasma lance, a plasma lance does not behave as a PSRD (Phase Shifting Romulan Disrupter). Logic and the ‘real world’ provide a guide.

Take Magic Missile and X-ray vision. X-ray vision may let you see through walls, which would allow one to target Magic Missile, possibly through a stone wall. Since gravity is a type of force, and can ‘pass‘ through walls, allowing this rare combination to work, makes a certain logical sense.

Once one starts applying physical, tangible characteristics to ephemeral effects like Charm Person, the questions become larger than the answers.

Many people play Fantasy RPGs and NOT Sci-Fi RPGs due to not wanting to deal with hard science considerations, let alone Hard Science plus Metaphysical calculations in rulings for a RPG.

Bacon Bits, your post above seems to be a category error, like asking what the weight of the idea of the color yellow is.

What is the weight of a Charm Person spell?

If I can calculate how much a Soul weighs, and the terminal velocity of a Charm Person spell, then something has either gone horribly wrong in my D&D game, or I am about to win a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal.

Why is Charm Person, using your terminology ‘smart’ enough to target someone in full plate?
The visor holes, the chain mail in the armpits?

There is no empirically reasonable reason why a pane of glass or a table offering full cover, stops spell targeting, but not a shell of steel surrounding one, ala plate mail other than “them’s the rules”.

If a pane of glass stops Charm Person from targeting someone, because the spell is ‘dumb’, then a halfling with full cover from a crowded room, or a table is not targetable by RAW.

@Oofta, would you let Charm Person work if cast by a person from across a crowded room, soo crowded that full cover applies?


I doubt most people think they are playing in a D&D world, where having glass panes in your windows makes you safer from certain magical attacks, then not having glass in your windows?


This certainly does not seem to be the case for D&D designer Mike Mearls.

The ruling also takes the magic, the wonder out of spellcasting. A hemispherical Wall of Force can prohibit Dominate Person from achieving spell lock, but if sound is not included under “blocking physical effect” in W.o.F....then an amazing Charisma (Persausion) check can potentially convince the Wall of Force caster to “turn off the wall”, when Dominate Person can not target them.

Is this really, how most people envision the D&D universe works?

What ever happened to the Sympathetic Magic Tradition, from history? Before Einstein’s ‘‘Spooky Action at a distance”, the paradigm’s foundation was laid from centuries of believing that a representation was sufficient to affect the source object with magic.....
....................Not glass window panes are lesser globes of invulnerability.

See, I understand your lingo

That is what Crawford's rationale leads to - an absurd result - and Mike Mearls' did not. But Crawford's rationale was wrong because Total Cover has nothing to do with stopping damage. It only stops targeting of attacks and spells.

Total Cover is only granted when the target is "completely concealed" by an obstacle. Unless the window is dirty, there is no way a pane of glass "completely conceals" anything. Crawford's rationale was silly.

If you don't think it's silly, then please, stand behind a 1" pane of glass and see if someone can shoot you with a gun through the glass. If Crawford is right, you're safe from harm because you have total cover.

I'll explain more after a quote.



PHB page 196. "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."

So no, total cover has nothing to do with stopping objects. Concealment is the issue. And while the term didn't get defined in 5E, it's a common word that means "hidden from sight."

Further, we can't duck behind the "clear path" argument because that's the same thing. P203: "To target something you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

The "so" clause explains that "clear path" means your target must be visible to you, not concealed. Nothing in any spell section suggests in any way, shape, or form that spells have a physical form that can be blocked by panes of glass. If a spell manifests a physical effect, like the ball of fire from a fireball, it will say so. If it can be blocked by something, such as a detect spell, it will say so. Otherwise, targeted spells are only limited by what you can see.

So a wall of force or a pane of glass, by definition, don't conceal anything. You aren't hidden. You're visible. Ergo, you don't have total cover.

Now, that's not to say a barrier won't still stop the effect, but that's not the same as total cover or targeting. An arrow will pass through a window if it does enough damage, same as our bullet. However, by specific design, absolutely no physical effect can pass through a wall of force. They removed the old language of all spells and replaced it with physical effects. Some spells say they do, others don't.

Finally, if you're asking would a window stop a fireball, I'd rule yes. Why? Because the physical effect of the fireball streaking to its target cannot cause damage. What would happen is, as per spell targeting with area effects, that the fireball would go off once blocked. The same would apply if an illusionist made you think goblins were charging across a big room when in reality it was close quarters. Your fireball would explode in your face.

I think it would help if the spell said something to the effect of, "while the wall is invisible, the wall provides total cover," or something like that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Okay, I could see that if you didn't engulf the target in a sphere. But even if this would work, accounting for the extra spaces to get "in range" going around the wall, since the Wall of Force is invisible if you didn't know the wall was cast, you would go for a straight line and thus hit the invisible wall correct?

You don't "go" for anything. If you want to cast the spell, you cast it. The DM determines given the location of the wall and distance to "wrap around the edge" is less than the spell's range. If it isn't the magic couldn't find a path to the target within range. If the DM determines the target is within the range given the non-linear path, then make your saving throw.

Personally, I am really just rules lawyering the fact that the Clear Path argument doesn't say it has to be a straight path.

 

[Uller]

Maybe I missed it in the thread but did anyone look at the description of Dimension Door?

You teleport yourself from your current location to any other spot within range. You arrive at exactly the spot desired. It can be a place you can see, one you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle, 300 feet.”

The general rule is you must have a clear path to the target (line of effect) and be able to see the target. DD has specific rules that override this. So yes. You can teleport through wall of force by RAW.

 

[Uller]

A fire ball would not pass the wall of force, magic missile would be blocked as well. But charm person, blight, cloudkill, a summoned elemental, a sacred flame and any other related spells would pass.

By RAW, why would charm person pass but magic missile not? Both use the same wording for targetting creatures.

If there is a physical barrier between the caster and the target the spell cannot work unless there is something in its description that specifically overrides this rule (full disclosure, I allow spells like charm person to work if the target can be seen by the caster dispite physical barriers. It is just more fun...but by RAW? I don't believe so

 

[Greenfield]

In earlier editions the phrase was "line of effect", but the meaning is the same as "Clear path".

And when I read such text as "stops all spells", I tend to take it at face value.

In 3.5, which I'm more familiar with, some spells specifically said that they went through effects like Wall of Force. Gaze attacks,for example.

Technically speaking Wall of Force should stop sound as well, so even if Charm spells worked, your target couldn't hear the command/suggestion/request.

 

[MNblockhead]

Sorry to thread necro, and I can't believe I'm going down this rabbit hole again. I generally rule per Jeremy Crawford's ruling and explanations, but I'm still unclear on some points:

If the party uses the option to make a hemisphere to protect them, is there floor? Can something dig under the wall of force in that situation?

Similarly, if you make a WOF in the shape of a sphere, can you have half of it under ground and half above, or is the ground a single physical thing that has to be pushed out, so that the sphere is rolling around on top of the ground or creates a crater.

If the wall of force was protecting a party on the ground and then there was a tremor/earthquake would it effect the party inside (I would say yes).

If a rift opened up under the WOF, would the WOF and the party fall so that the party would take falling damage? If it is resting on the surface I would say yes. But after one time of that the wizard will be sure to have it free floating just a bit above the ground. But that only protects if the hemisphere has a floor.

Lastly, would you allow a wizard to cast wall of force, protecting a party of 4 medium to small PCs AND then cast teleportation circle? Or would you rule that there is no room to properly cast it? It requires a 10 ft diameter circle. Same as the area of a WOF's hemisphere base. Moreover, if the hemisphere has a base, then I guess this would not work. Unless the floor of a WOF's hemisphere counts as "the ground."

 

[Oofta]

How I would rule:

Sorry to thread necro, and I can't believe I'm going down this rabbit hole again. I generally rule per Jeremy Crawford's ruling and explanations, but I'm still unclear on some points:

If the party uses the option to make a hemisphere to protect them, is there floor? Can something dig under the wall of force in that situation?

There is no spoon ... um ... there is no floor. In order for there to be a flat bottom of the sphere it would have to be a solid sphere and nothing could be inside.

Similarly, if you make a WOF in the shape of a sphere, can you have half of it under ground and half above, or is the ground a single physical thing that has to be pushed out, so that the sphere is rolling around on top of the ground or creates a crater.

You do not have to create the sphere on the ground. If a creature intersects the sphere, they go to one side or the other. So you could create a sphere that's barely touching the ground. This edition doesn't specify how it interacts with solid object though so It's kind of a tossup. It does go into the ethereal plane as well as the material so I would say it can exist "inside" another object so yes half could be underground.

However, I would say no to hamster balling. Even though it doesn't say it, I view a wall as immobile. If it's not, it's not much of a wall. If you put a wall between you and the bad guys can they just push it out of the way?

If the wall of force was protecting a party on the ground and then there was a tremor/earthquake would it effect the party inside (I would say yes).

Is this a sphere or hemisphere? To be consistent, a sphere would block effects, a hemisphere would not.

If a rift opened up under the WOF, would the WOF and the party fall so that the party would take falling damage? If it is resting on the surface I would say yes. But after one time of that the wizard will be sure to have it free floating just a bit above the ground. But that only protects if the hemisphere has a floor.

A rift? Or a fissure from the earthquake spell? If the latter (or a sphere) see the answer above. If the former it depends on the origin of the rift. You normally need line of effect for spells which the hemisphere would block.

Lastly, would you allow a wizard to cast wall of force, protecting a party of 4 medium to small PCs AND then cast teleportation circle? Or would you rule that there is no room to properly cast it? It requires a 10 ft diameter circle. Same as the area of a WOF's hemisphere base. Moreover, if the hemisphere has a base, then I guess this would not work. Unless the floor of a WOF's hemisphere counts as "the ground."

Yes. The wall of force has thickness of 1/4 inch but I'm not going to get so picky that I'm going to worry about it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

EDIT: just realized this was a necro

The wall doesn't move. It's anchored in both the ethereal and the material plane. The rest of the party would fall if the ground opened up under them, unless it was a sphere. Then they'd be stuck in the bottom of the ball.

I'd allow them to cast teleportation circle while inside.

 

[MNblockhead]

Thanks.

As a follow up, if you allow the most recent UA psionics rules in your game would you allow psionics to target someone through a wall of force, a window, etc.? I looks almost as if they are designed to get around many of the protections against magic and physical attacks. From UA2020_PsionicOptions p. 2:

Is Psi a Form of Magic?​

Psi is a supernatural power that emanates from the mind. Like other forms of supernatural power in D&D, it can be used to create magical phenomena, yet it can create other sorts of phenomena as well. In the game’s rules, only certain supernatural effects are classified as magical: magic items, spells, spell attacks, powers fueled by spell slots, and any other effect that the rules explicitly call magical. This distinction is rarely relevant in play, typically coming up only when something like an antimagic field shows up.
​

From a storytelling standpoint, some supernatural effects in D&D weave their power into a formalized form—a spell, for instance—that other effects can disrupt. In contrast, there are other supernatural effects that are so wild, formless, or subtle that it is difficult or impossible to disrupt them. In this article, some of the psionic powers create what the rules consider to be magic and some don’t.​

Now, most of the psionic talents are tied to melee attacks, etc. that a WoF prevents. But I'm wondering if any of you would treat any of the "new spells with a psionic theme" is different from normal magical or physical attacks and allow targeting of creatures behind a WoF or do you think the general rule of total covering prevents targeting of any attack / spell should also apply to psionic spells?

I like the idea of treating psionic "spells" as different. The party may want to have someone with defensive psychic powers if going up against bad guys with psychic powers. I wouldn't want to overdo it in my game, but if mind flayers, gith, far-realm abberations, etc. feature in the game, I think this is all fair play and players will need to come up with new tactics for such foes. It isn't that I want to nerf wall of force, etc., but buy allowing it to be used so effectivitly most of the time, it is that much more scary and challenging when the party comes across new threats that can bypass their go to defenses.

​