Mind spike + Sacred flame

[Lord8Ball]

Previous thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541949-Using-divination-to-be-able-to-target-aoe-spells-beyond-obstructions

In this thread, we found out that even if you have the sight component of casting a targeted spell met through divination the casting acts as a line from point of origin from the caster to the target; therefore, the wall, being a full cover, would block the spell's path. The only exception to this rule we found was sacred flame which ignored cover. I found out about a spell in Zanathar's Guide to Everything called Mind spike which would allow you to know the location of your target who failed to save as long as the concentration is active. Knowing the location of the target synergizes with sacred flame allowing you to fire off shots maybe even from stealth. In fact, any visual/location-based divination spell + sacred flame would allow you to attack the target no matter the cover. Though not optimal in most builds it is most viable with tome pact warlock/ sorcerers. Well, now that I am finished putting my thoughts out there I hope that you may find some fun uses for this strategy in the future. :smallbiggrin:

[tkuremento]

Page 204 PHB
"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover."

You literally cannot target to begin with. Also the aspect dealing with Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw" which refers to the rules of cover on page 196 PHB "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws." and "A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws."

Also note here it says "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." Just because you know where the target is or can see them doesn't mean it can be targeted.

[Lord8Ball]

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/55856/can-a-pc-use-a-mirror-or-other-sight-enhancer-to-use-sacred-flame-at-a-target-ar

Quote: from a forum poster
"Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw. (PHB 272)The specific rules of the spell are clear and explicit - "that you can see within range". No mention of the general targeting or clear path rules. Specific trumps general so yes you can.

Crawford calls this particular spell out in a podcast (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard.), explaining that it is an exception to the normal rules of targeting. For example, it can be cast through a pane of glass, where other spells cannot.

This is quite imaginative play but remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander; one day the PC should not be surprised to have a Sacred Flame (or something with the same targeting mechanic - hint - Magic Missile) coming back the other way."

[tkuremento]

Even if you do it like that, Mind Spike only lets you know the location. You still aren't seeing them, as Sacred Flame specifies "see".

[Lord8Ball]

Oh, right well that is an oversight. Thank you for bringing that up @tkuremento. I believe that spells such as clairvoyance or scrying could be used to make this strategy work. I am curious as to what kinds of builds or fun ideas people can use this strategy for. Such as casting sacred flame through a wall of force.

[Flashy]

Oh, right well that is an oversight. Thank you for bringing that up @tkuremento. I believe that spells such as clairvoyance or scrying could be used to make this strategy work. I am curious as to what kinds of builds or fun ideas people can use this strategy for. Such as casting sacred flame through a wall of force.

Given that both Clairvoyance and Scrying have 10 minute cast times I suspect you're going to be hard pressed to find a situation where this is going to be useful.

[Tanarii]

The specific rules of the spell are clear and explicit - "that you can see within range". No mention of the general targeting or clear path rules. Specific trumps general so yes you can.
Lots of spells target creatures you can see, without specifying line of effect or not being behind total cover. That's not an exception to the general rule that you cannot target something behind total cover.

[Lord8Ball]

"Crawford calls this particular spell out in a podcast (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/feat...scouts-midgard.), explaining that it is an exception to the normal rules of targeting. For example, it can be cast through a pane of glass, where other spells cannot." A pane of glass between you and a target is the full cover. If Crawfords ruling is valid on this spell then it works regardless of cover and contrary to base targeting rules as long as the target is being seen. Upon reviewing the spell lists once more Arcane eye seems to be the only spell that can make this strategy viable or possibly be seeing through your familiar's eyes. (edit) This brings up another interesting topic though not related to the opening. Can you use both arcane eye and the familiar's senses simultaneously?

[tkuremento]

For people who don't want to listen to the whole thing that is being linked, around the 36 minute mark he starts talking about Sacred Flame.

His reasoning also doesn't seem very sound. He suggests that the line "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw" includes negating total cover for the sake of targeting. The text clearly states for the saving throw and nothing more. If my understanding of the English language is correct then it doesn't let you target someone in total cover regardless.

[Dalebert]

His reasoning also doesn't seem very sound. He suggests that the line "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw" includes negating total cover for the sake of targeting. The text clearly states for the saving throw and nothing more. If my understanding of the English language is correct then it doesn't let you target someone in total cover regardless.

I agree with your interpretation and think JC made a mistake here. I usually agree with JC but sometimes he still seems clearly wrong. This is a ruling that I think he might actually come around to changing later. I think this also keeps a cantrip from being insanely powerful--putting up a solid forecage around a very powerful creature and having an hour to Sacred Flaming it to death while it's helpless. If there's ambiguity as there often is, I tend to interpret on the side of sanity.

[tkuremento]

I agree with your interpretation and think JC made a mistake here. I usually agree with JC but sometimes he still seems clearly wrong. This is a ruling that I think he might actually come around to changing later. I think this also keeps a cantrip from being insanely powerful--putting up a solid forecage around a very powerful creature and having an hour to Sacred Flaming it to death while it's helpless. If there's ambiguity as there often is, I tend to interpret on the side of sanity.

The part I find even more hilarious is if you listen to more of the podcast itself, he literally talks about how that if something isn't redefined then one assumes the English dictionary meaning. So again for the saving throw implies just the saving throw. He literally talked up how English matters and then ignores it.

[Tanarii]

The part I find even more hilarious is if you listen to more of the podcast itself, he literally talks about how that if something isn't redefined then one assumes the English dictionary meaning. So again for the saving throw implies just the saving throw. He literally talked up how English matters and then ignores it.That's an ideal he often ignores. It's pretty clear he's got the RPG-nerd's classic knee-jerk response to over-analyze / parse rules interactions just as much as the next of us.