A Clear Path to the Target

[Millstone85]

Well, time to ask about the basics again.
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.Can I place an AoE (say, hunger of Hadar) at a point that I can't see despite an absence of physical obstacle, such as inside a room filled with smoke?

What about placing it at a point that I can see but am physically blocked from, such as on the other side of a pane of glass?

[Cybren]

Is it behind total cover?

[Erys]

Well, time to ask about the basics again.Can I place an AoE (say, hunger of Hadar) at a point that I can't see despite an absence of physical obstacle, such as inside a room filled with smoke?

What about placing it at a point that I can see but am physically blocked from, such as on the other side of a pane of glass?

No.

You need a clear, visible, non-obstructed path to your destination.

Ergo you cannot cast through a closed glass window, nor target something that is fully obscured.

[Millstone85]

You need a clear, visible, non-obstructed path to your destination.In that case, I would have written the example quite differently.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see or an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being at the nearest visible and non-obstructed point.Edit: So wait... Does that mean a creature concealed by darkness or invisibility can not be the target of a spell, including through ranged spell attacks such as with eldritch blast, unless the caster has an appropriate special sense or finds some other workaround?
Edit 2: Or would the case a spell like eldritch blast follow the rules for unseen attackers and targets, because this wouldn't be about the target of a spell but the target of an attack made with a spell?

[Millstone85]

Can I get more people's opinions on this?

I initially interpreted the rule as being only about cover, as defined earlier in the PHB.
If the target must also be one you can see, that's precised in the description of a particular spell.
So, by default, the target of a spell could be a point, creature or object inside a dark or smoky area, but not on the other side of a transparent wall.

But "clear" can mean both "free of obstacles" and "not obscured".
And page 204 mentions a target you can't see, although it is also on the other side of an obstacle.

And then there is the implication for spells like eldritch blast.
Can you loose an arrow in the darkness but not a beam of force?


Is it behind total cover?For the sake of this discussion, let's only talk about total cover and/or heavy obscurement.

[Jaqrabbit]

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.

I read the first piece of this to mean that you can put a spell effect at any point which is not behind total cover from your position. Obscurement (heavy or light) is not total cover. Darkness is not total cover. If there's no total cover, you can try to put a spell (or an arrow) there whether you can see it or not (of course, if you can't see the spot, there might not be a monster there...).

The second block I read as a clarification for what happens when you're firing blind. If there is a cloud of fog around a large boulder, you can try to throw a fireball at any part of that cloud. If the part of the cloud you try to hit is on the other side of the boulder, the fireball hits the boulder instead. If you couldn't cast at any point in the cloud, the text would have to read "...the point of origin comes into being at the nearest point in that line you can see." It doesn't. It says very clearly that only the physical obstruction (not the visual impediment) stops the spell.

Now... A clear window? A wall of glass? I feel like any spell effect that doesn't specify "a point you can see" or similar language hits the glass first, either destroying it or passing through it, depending on the nature of the spell. Does a fireball explode at the point where it hits the glass? Sure, why not? But then that's its point of origin, and the AE still affects things on the other side. How about Scorching Ray? Does it cut through the glass to hit the thing on the other side? Does the glass soak up the whole spell? Does just the first ray, or just part of the first ray, get absorbed by the glass? It strains verisimilitude a bit to suggest that a Magic Missile that can kill an ogre is entirely absorbed by shattering a pane of glass, but I think we're in DM ruling territory here.

[furby076]

Now... A clear window? A wall of glass? I feel like any spell effect that doesn't specify "a point you can see" or similar language hits the glass first, either destroying it or passing through it, depending on the nature of the spell. Does a fireball explode at the point where it hits the glass? Sure, why not? But then that's its point of origin, and the AE still affects things on the other side. How about Scorching Ray? Does it cut through the glass to hit the thing on the other side? Does the glass soak up the whole spell? Does just the first ray, or just part of the first ray, get absorbed by the glass? It strains verisimilitude a bit to suggest that a Magic Missile that can kill an ogre is entirely absorbed by shattering a pane of glass, but I think we're in DM ruling territory here.

Maybe not DM territory. You are thinking Overkill. Glass has 5 hp, scorching ray does 40, so should it break through, like a bullet, and keep going until range or hits something? Well, lets say instead of glass you have a 5 hp wizard. You hit him with scorching ray that does 40. Do you say the ray keeps on going? No. The mages body absorbs all the damage (and dies very hard). Same goes for any other target.

As for shooting into darkness. If you have to pick a point of origin (e.g. fireball), how do you pick a point of origin if you can't see it? Fireball, and pretty much every other spell, doesn't say "pick how many feet you want your spell to shoot out to". Spells are based on picking a target (or spot ). I'd say no to those for spells as rai easy, and off the top of my head raw

[Zalabim]

Fireball actually did say pick how many feet out you want the fireball to fly before exploding, before. There's still a few spells that describe "aiming" them that way, like Dimension Door.

[Millstone85]

The second block I read as a clarification for what happens when you're firing blind. If there is a cloud of fog around a large boulder, you can try to throw a fireball at any part of that cloud. If the part of the cloud you try to hit is on the other side of the boulder, the fireball hits the boulder instead.I am very biased here but I like your explanation.


It strains verisimilitude a bit to suggest that a Magic Missile that can kill an ogre is entirely absorbed by shattering a pane of glass, but I think we're in DM ruling territory here.What strains verisimilitude even more is that, per RAW, magic missile can not cause any damage to an object, only to a creature. Okay, it makes sense in some interpretations of what force damage is, but still.

[Hrugner]

It seems like the intent is that you can direct your spell to any point you like, but it impacts any "full cover" and either activates or fizzles.

As a DM: I'd probably rule that any obstacle that could be pushed through without requiring an attack action wouldn't count as full cover. Things like unlatched doors, normal windows, paper, cloth and the like should be ignorable for most spells and blown open or destroyed. Although, creating a feat that specifically did this wouldn't be a bad solution either.

[Foxhound438]

while usually a RAW junkie, in this type of case I'm personally more a fan of the method of simply knowing where you're placing your AOE. for targeted spells like hold person, not so much, but for randomly hucking a fireball into a fog cloud, that's fine by me.

That's not official rules OK, but as they say, rule 0. kind of an "ask your dm" situation if you really want to do it.

[IShouldntBehere]

The way i see it, there are two components here:

Targeting & Traversal.

The first being able to see where it is you're aiming, the second the shot making it there. You could for example easily throw a rock through a window at someone, but not a tomato. Simlarly if you had a magic spell that "marked" a target you can see for a giant bird to drop a rock on them from the sky you could target with the spell, if they had a roof over their head the rock still wouldn't connect but if they didn't it would.

Window Scenario:
So the first question.. can you see your target through a window? Yes.
Second question can the spell in question affect them not that you've acquired the target? Depends on the spell.

In the case of Hunger of Hadar it describes a portal opening at the target point, seemingly nothing traverses between your position in and the target. I'd say it could hit something on the other side of a window and would not affect the window in doing so.

In the case of a ray spell or something else it might be partially or fully absorbs/deflected by the window depending on how that spell interacts with objects & glass (acid spells would have trouble penetrating, energy fire/cold/lighting less so, and conjured projectiles almost none).


Smoke Scenario:
You can't see your target, so anything that requires that is right out. If your spell is some kind of projectile or something like that I'd make allow the player to take a totally blind shot into the smoke with some kind of random element to if it connects or not (hint: it probably won't).

EDIT: The RAW seem pretty clearly "No. Not all in those cases" but RAW is written generally, as general abstraction. It's best taken more as guideline than dogma.

[Millstone85]

At this point, I have reconvinced myself that the "clear path" rule is only about full cover and not any sort of obscurement.


while usually a RAW junkie, in this type of case I'm personally more a fan of the method of simply knowing where you're placing your AOE. for targeted spells like hold person, not so much, but for randomly hucking a fireball into a fog cloud, that's fine by me.

That's not official rules OK, but as they say, rule 0. kind of an "ask your dm" situation if you really want to do it.So yeah, I think this is in fact OK by RAW.
The target of hold person is "a humanoid that you can see", so it wouldn't work against an enemy inside a fog cloud regardless of whether or not the "clear path" rule deals with visibility.
But it doesn't, in my opinion, so you can of course huck the "bright streak" of fireball into a fog cloud.


As a DM: I'd probably rule that any obstacle that could be pushed through without requiring an attack action wouldn't count as full cover. Things like unlatched doors, normal windows, paper, cloth and the like should be ignorable for most spells and blown open or destroyed.
In the case of Hunger of Hadar it describes a portal opening at the target point, seemingly nothing traverses between your position in and the target. I'd say it could hit something on the other side of a window and would not affect the window in doing so.

In the case of a ray spell or something else it might be partially or fully absorbs/deflected by the window depending on how that spell interacts with objects & glass (acid spells would have trouble penetrating, energy fire/cold/lighting less so, and conjured projectiles almost none).Alright, plenty of room for fluff to take control.

I really need to figure out with my DM how the "force" of spells like magic missile or eldritch blast interacts with objects.

[IShouldntBehere]

Alright, plenty of room for fluff to take control.

I really need to figure out with my DM how the "force" of spells like magic missile or eldritch blast interacts with objects.

Not all effects of a similar damage type are equal! Honestly I see these two effects as rather very different.

Magic Missile sends out magic darts that home on the target and impart their energy on impact. When I think of when I've seen magic missile type effects in video games or the like when they hit something they kind of "pop" and cause damage on impact that way.

Eldritch Blast is well a blast, it's a kind of magic-y kamehameha.


In the case of magic missile I'd assume you'd acquire your target through a window and they'd home normally, the first magic missile would impact with the window. Imparting it's force to the window, shattering and disappearing. The other magic missiles would now pass through what is a former widow.

The Eldritch Blast would probably punch right through without effort at all since it's more of a constant stream than the discrete "packets" of energy in magic missile.

Similarly fireball is usually described as firing a stream or pellet of energy that explodes at the target point, that carrier beam/bullet would probably impact the window and explode centering the effect on the window. Like magic missile it's a discrete packet of magic that has an effect when it impacts and the window is an impact point between you and the intended impact point so it goes off early.

A scorching ray in contrast would probably melt a perfect little hole through the window, only being slightly absorbed either hitting for full effect or maybe just facing a minor penalty on the damage roll like -1 per beam.

[Tanarii]

At this point, I have reconvinced myself that the "clear path" rule is only about full cover and not any sort of obscurement.For sure. The first part is the rule.

The second part just explains what happens if you try to target the far side of a blocking object due to not knowing that it's there, because you can't see the target area. This would require using a ranged point-of-origin spell that doesn't require seeing the target, of course. Like Shatter.

Of course, it really should have been worded to make it clear that any time you try to target the far side of a blocking object the effect comes into play on the near side. Not just if it happens because you can't see there's a blocking object.

Edit: I intentionally used shatter as an example because unlike fireball it doesn't traverse from the caster to the point of origin.

[Dalebert]

Some spells require you see your target or the point of origin of an effect. Not all do. The spell will say.

As an example, it's perfectly RAW to pick a point inside a fog cloud for a fireball without knowing what's there,i.e. "a point you choose within range". If it turns out there's an object in the path you can't see, your fireball will go off closer.

Another example--you can shoot a Firebolt at disadvantage at creatures inside a fog cloud that you can't see. The spell doesn't require you to pick a target you can see.

As a counter example, Hold Person says to pick a "humanoid you can see". Thus creating heavy obscurement makes you untargetable for it unless the caster has a way to see you like blindsight.

If you start reading through various spells, you'll notice the language is very specific. It's intended that some spells require line of sight and some don't but all require line of effect (not behind total cover) unless the spell specifies otherwise because that's the default general rule for all spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

Edit: So wait... Does that mean a creature concealed by darkness or invisibility can not be the target of a spell, including through ranged spell attacks such as with eldritch blast, unless the caster has an appropriate special sense or finds some other workaround?

Bingo.


At this point, I have reconvinced myself that the "clear path" rule is only about full cover and not any sort of obscurement.

1) PHB 204: To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
2) PHB 204: 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.
3) PHB 204: A spell's description specifies its area of effect .... Every area of effect spell has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. ... If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9.
4) Fireball, PHB 241: A bright streak of light flashes from your finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

IF the caster attempted to target a space on the other side of a window with a Fireball, the streak would hit the window and the area of effect would start on the near side per #3 as a Window, fully blocking anything on the other side per Chapter 9's description of cover, would provide total cover.

Hunger of Hadar would suffer from the same issue, in that it simply could not reach the area without breaching the total cover (open a window, break a hole in it, etcetera).


I really need to figure out with my DM how the "force" of spells like magic missile or eldritch blast interacts with objects.

Targets, PHB 204: 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 (described below).

Magic Missile, PHB 257: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
Eldritch Blast, PHB 237: A beam of crackling energy streaks towards a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target.

Answer: The rules are clear, they do not interact at all with objects. Neither spell is capable of targeting objects. Either there is a valid target, or there is not. If there is not, the spell simply can not be cast.