D&D 5E Wall of Force

[anthr]

An ordinary window block the same stuff as a Wall of Force does.
But this only changes the question to what spells can you cast through a window.
You can't cast a Fireball through a window (you can cast it at the window though).
You can cast Charm Person through a window

 

[Oofta]

An ordinary window block the same stuff as a Wall of Force does.
But this only changes the question to what spells can you cast through a window.
You can't cast a Fireball through a window (you can cast it at the window though).
You can cast Charm Person through a window

According to your ruling, yes. But you're basing that on the fluff of the spell, not because of what the book says. You always need a clear path to the target*. If I can hit the target with an arrow (assuming range, etc) I can target it with a spell.

Rule the way you want, I simply disagree.

*EDIT: unless clarified in the spell that it goes through solid objects such as Message of course.

 

[HarbingerX]

I'd picture it as a barrier made of a clear solid, like plexiglass. If the spell would hit that, then it would hit wall of force.

 

[RogueJK]

The rules in 5E don't repeat themselves. Therefore, the chill touch spell still needs to meet the requirements of a targeted spell which includes "To target something, you must have a clear path to it".

I also think it's too much work to have to read through the spell description fluff to determine whether it works or not. For example, I always thought of chill touch as a ghostly ray much like a low power disintegration.

So personally I would have a hard time being consistent basing rulings on fluff. I don't want to have to read through the description of every spell to see if it works.

...

You always need a clear path to the target. If I can hit the target with an arrow (assuming range, etc) I can target it with a spell.

Do you rule the same way on spells like Message or Sending?

They both target other creatures, therefore to target that creature you must have a clear path to it. Period. No need to read the description of those spells, right?

However, if you do read the description, neither one requires either line of sight or a clear path. You can cast either one on targets that you can't see, or that are behind intervening barriers, or that are even over great distances in the case of Sending.

Spell descriptions matter.

 

[anthr]

According to your ruling, yes. But you're basing that on the fluff of the spell, not because of what the book says. You always need a clear path to the target. If I can hit the target with an arrow (assuming range, etc) I can target it with a spell.

Rule the way you want, I simply disagree.

How would you treat Clairvoyance?

 

[Oofta]

Do you rule the same way on spells like Message or Sending?

They both target other creatures, therefore to target that creature you must have a clear path to it, right? No need to read the description of those spells.

However, if you read the description, neither one requires either line of sight or a clear path. You can cast either one on targets that you can't see, or that are behind intervening barriers, or that are even over great distances in the case of Sending.

Spell descriptions matter.

Message specifically states that you can cast through solid objects. A wall of force is a solid object, therefore you could message someone on the other side of the wall.

Chill touch does not specifically spell out an override to the general rule, it just adds the an additional qualification that need to see the target in addition to general rules.

 

[RogueJK]

My point was that requires reading the description, not just taking a rigid stance that any spell that targets another creature always requires a clear path...

 

[Oofta]

My point was that requires reading the description, not just taking a black/white stance that any spell that targets another creature always requires a clear path...

Which is fine, for those few spells that break the rules. But those are the exceptions to the rule and there are what, two spells that do that?

 

[RogueJK]

There are others, such as Clairvoyance or Telepathy.

And there are various other spells that also allow you to target an area that you're familiar with or can envision, without having line or sight or a clear path, such as Dimension Door or Project Image.

Spell descriptions matters. And because descriptions matter, you should read descriptions. And since you're reading descriptions anyway, it's rather simple to use those descriptions to decide whether a certain spell requires both line of sight and a clear path, it only requires one, or it doesn't require either.

(Digital tools help with this, so you don't have to constantly be flipping through a book. Instead, you or the player wanting to cast the spell can simply click on the spell name and pull up the description, or quickly search the database for the spell description, or use the Find tool in their PDF to rapidly access the spell description.)

 

[Oofta]

There are others, such as Clairvoyance or Telepathy.

And there are various other spells that also allow you to target an area that you're familiar with, without having line or sight or a clear path, such as Dimension Door or Project Image.

Spell descriptions matters. And because descriptions matter, you should read descriptions. And since you're reading descriptions, it's rather simple to use those descriptions to differentiate between spells that require both line of sight and a clear path, those that only require one, and those that require neither.

The spells you mention have an explicit, specific overrides to the general rule. The fact that they specifically spell out that they go through solid objects kind of proves my point. IMHO there's a big difference between the spell stating that it specifically works differently than the general rule and having to read through every spell to see that one has a "streak of light coming from your pointing finger" and another has a hand appearing.

Again, Dimension Door has a target of self.

In any case, I've stated why I rule the way I rule. I think it's consistent with the rules not to mention easy and simple. Feel free to run it differently.