Clairvoyance and targeted spell casting

[clem]

A number of spells have the specifier of "target that you can see" or "location that you can see". Provided that all the other prerequisites of the spell are satisfied, does clairvoyance allow you to cast these spells around corners or past closed doors?

For example, a wizard sees a sealed stone door. She casts clairvoyance to see what lies beyond the door. She can now see an unoccupied location within 30 ft her, so she should be able to Misty Step past the door. Likewise, if there's an enemy beyond the door she should be able to cast Mind Spike on that creature.

Is this by the book?

[Segev]

Is this by the book?

Seems so to me. It requires you see it, not that you be physically present.

[MaxWilson]

A number of spells have the specifier of "target that you can see" or "location that you can see". Provided that all the other prerequisites of the spell are satisfied, does clairvoyance allow you to cast these spells around corners or past closed doors?

For example, a wizard sees a sealed stone door. She casts clairvoyance to see what lies beyond the door. She can now see an unoccupied location within 30 ft her, so she should be able to Misty Step past the door. Likewise, if there's an enemy beyond the door she should be able to cast Mind Spike on that creature.

Is this by the book?

Technically, no, because total cover blocks spellcasting.


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.

However, taking that rule literally would mean that Clairvoyance cannot be cast around corners either, and yet that is explicitly mentioned in the spell text as an intended use-case. So my judgment call as a DM would be that sometimes you rules for total cover ought to be ignored, and if you're casting a spell that's clearly intended to work on targets despite total cover (e.g. Dream, Clairvoyance), I will ignore that rule and just make the spell work the way you expect.

So, it's not by the book, but it's by what the book should have been.

[Merudo]

Sacred Flame would definitely work. I don't think other spells would, though.

[Tanarii]

However, taking that rule literally would mean that Clairvoyance cannot be cast around corners either, and yet that is explicitly mentioned in the spell text as an intended use-case.
Clairvoyance doesn't target anything, so that's not an issue.

But yeah, to target something you need a clear path to the target. That includes the point of origin for area affect spells, which come into effect on the near side of obstructions.
(The PHB ref is: Magic chapter, Targets, A Clear Path to the Target.)

[Xetheral]

The targeting rules are also complicated by WOTC's sloppy use of the word "target" in spell descriptions. The best example is Fireball, where RAI apparently requires reading the word "target" to mean "creature in the blast radius" rather than as a reference to the targeting rules.

[Tanarii]

The targeting rules are also complicated by WOTC's sloppy use of the word "target" in spell descriptions. The best example is Fireball, where RAI apparently requires reading the word "target" to mean "creature in the blast radius" rather than as a reference to the targeting rules.
That's an AoE though, so the general rules apply. Need clear line of effect (but not sight) to the point of origin, and whether a specific target can be effected follows the AoE rules from the point of origin.

I agree they're fairly sloppy with the terminology.

[Xetheral]

That's an AoE though, so the general rules apply. Need clear line of effect (but not sight) to the point of origin, and whether a specific target can be effected follows the AoE rules from the point of origin.

I agree they're fairly sloppy with the terminology.

The conflict between the use of the word "target" in the text of Fireball with the use of the word "target" in the general rules is the problem. If one assumes "target" has a consistent definition in both, you get either of two ridiculous interpretations:

(Reading the "or" in the first paragraph of the targetting rules on PHB 204 as exclusive) The (only) "target" of an AoE is the point of origin. Fireball says that a "target" takes damage, so only the point of origin takes damage. (Reading the "or" in the first paragraph of the targetting rules on PHB 204 as inclusive) Both the point of origin and creatures in the blast radius are "targets" of the spell. Unfortunately, the Clear Path rules prevent a creature without a clear path to the caster from being a "target". (The AoE rules permit an AoE to affect everything with a clear path to the point of origin, but do not classify everything so affected as a "target".) Under this interpretation, Fireball can't deal damage to anything without a clear path to the caster (although it can still force such creatures to make inconsequential saving throws, and can ignite such objects). Under this interpretation it is also ambiguous whether or not the caster is forced to select all eligible "targets" to take damage, or whether the targeting rules on PHB 204 inherently permit the the caster to pick and choose.
Fortunately, the RAI clear, so both of these interpretations can be dismissed as absurd. Necessarily, that means the writers used "target" to mean two different things in the context of resolving Fireball, which is why I consider it the poster child for sloppy use of the word "target".

[Tanarii]

Yeah I looked at both and I agree they're clearly using "targets" in one place to mean point of origin for the spell in the targeting rules, and to mean things taking damage from the AoE in the spell itself.

[Merudo]

The conflict between the use of the word "target" in the text of Fireball with the use of the word "target" in the general rules is the problem. If one assumes "target" has a consistent definition in both, you get either of two ridiculous interpretations:

(Reading the "or" in the first paragraph of the targetting rules on PHB 204 as exclusive) The (only) "target" of an AoE is the point of origin. Fireball says that a "target" takes damage, so only the point of origin takes damage. (Reading the "or" in the first paragraph of the targetting rules on PHB 204 as inclusive) Both the point of origin and creatures in the blast radius are "targets" of the spell. Unfortunately, the Clear Path rules prevent a creature without a clear path to the caster from being a "target". (The AoE rules permit an AoE to affect everything with a clear path to the point of origin, but do not classify everything so affected as a "target".) Under this interpretation, Fireball can't deal damage to anything without a clear path to the caster (although it can still force such creatures to make inconsequential saving throws, and can ignite such objects). Under this interpretation it is also ambiguous whether or not the caster is forced to select all eligible "targets" to take damage, or whether the targeting rules on PHB 204 inherently permit the the caster to pick and choose.
Fortunately, the RAI clear, so both of these interpretations can be dismissed as absurd. Necessarily, that means the writers used "target" to mean two different things in the context of resolving Fireball, which is why I consider it the poster child for sloppy use of the word "target".

Fireball is unique though - the spell description says that "The fire spreads around corners." My read is that the Clear Path rules don't apply to Fireball.

[FreddyNoNose]

A number of spells have the specifier of "target that you can see" or "location that you can see". Provided that all the other prerequisites of the spell are satisfied, does clairvoyance allow you to cast these spells around corners or past closed doors?

For example, a wizard sees a sealed stone door. She casts clairvoyance to see what lies beyond the door. She can now see an unoccupied location within 30 ft her, so she should be able to Misty Step past the door. Likewise, if there's an enemy beyond the door she should be able to cast Mind Spike on that creature.

Is this by the book?

no..................