The Wall Of Force Question: Raw and Rulings.

[WaroftheCrans]

There are a couple of threads where Wall of Force has come up, and a lot of speculation in other areas of the internet, but I haven't seen this debate here. Namely, the question of the cover provided by Wall of Force, and the cover vs concealment debate. The goal here is to establish it by RAW, and if that's not possible, provide a series of reasonable rulings. I've looked through the RAW and the official sage advice compendium, and I've not found anything that makes this question clear.

The two big questions: What cover does Wall of Force provide, if any? And what effects and spells can pass through a Wall of Force?

For clarity, I do not care about the unofficial rulings of JC's twitter, or that of any other WotC staff. His opinions don't matter any more than any other D&D player, as they are no longer official. I'll link his opinions and that of Mike Mearls so that no one else feels a need to later. It also should show that they haven't been consistent, contrary to what another poster said in a different thread.

JC on cover from wall of force (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/30/wall-of-force-is-invisible-so-it-doesnt-provide-cover-does-it/)
Mearls saying the opposite (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/782010931630878720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E909430479853584384&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F1 1%2F09%2Fyou-dont-allow-spells-that-target-through-the-wall-of-force-but-description-only-specify-things-cant-move-through%2F)
Mearls on Eyebite through WoF (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/25/does-wall-of-force-block-eyebite/)
Mearls saying that WoF doesn't block spells (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/10/would-a-spell-like-mage-hand-work-through-a-wall-of-force/)
Full Mearls thread on targeting through WoF (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/07/wall-force-barrier/)

As to the actual RAW of the relevant passages:


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. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.


Wall of Force 5th level evocation magic.
Duration: Concentration, 10 minutes.
An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range. The wall appears in any orientation you choose, as a horizontal or vertical barrier or at an angle. It can be free floating or resting on a solid surface. You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel. In any form, the wall is 1/4 inch thick. It lasts for the duration. If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side).

Nothing can physically pass through the wall. It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.

Currently I'm forced to assume that Wall of Force does not provide cover, as RAW seems pretty clear to me that its not concealing the target.

[WaroftheCrans]

I will be updating this post as the discussion goes on, this is essentially reserving the spot.

Spells that can affect creatures in wall of force regardless of cover outcome:
Sacred flame
Prismatic Spray
Sickening radiance

Spells that might pass through the wall:
Fireball

Spells that are ambiguous at best:
Magic Missile

Spells that work without cover:
Frostbite

[JackPhoenix]

Cover has nothing to do with visibility, it cares if there's a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is that physical obstacle, even though it is transparent. Invisible (somehow) stone wall is also transparent, yet provides cover. Fog Cloud blocks sight, but provides no cover.

None of the spells you've listed goes through WoF. Fireball's AoE can go around, if the edge of the WoF is inside its area, though.

[WaroftheCrans]

Cover has nothing to do with visibility, it cares if there's a physical obstacle. Wall of Force is that physical obstacle, even though it is transparent. Invisible (somehow) stone wall is also transparent, yet provides cover. Fog Cloud blocks sight, but provides no cover.
Can you provide a source for that? By the raw, it does matter whether you they are concealed or not, and the spells require line of sight.


None of the spells you've listed goes through WoF. Fireball's AoE can go around, if the edge of the WoF is inside its area, though.

Prismatic Spray?
Light (not at all physical), that targets yourself, and projects outward in a 60 foot cone?
How could that not work?

[Desamir]

This seems like an issue with the RAW. The whole section on cover reads as follows (bold is mine):


Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.

There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.

A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.

A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.

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. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

Notice that the passage imprecisely uses three different terms to mean the same thing: "blocks," "is covered by," and "conceals." If we take this RAW literally, it would mean that a creature behind a Wall of Force has half-cover or three-quarters cover, but not total cover. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, obviously. My ruling as a DM would be that Wall of Force and other transparent physical barriers provide total cover.

[ThePolarBear]

There are a couple of threads where Wall of Force has come up, and a lot of speculation in other areas of the internet, but I haven't seen this debate here. Namely, the question of the cover provided by Wall of Force, and the cover vs concealment debate.

Just for this:

"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
[...]
A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body.
[...]
A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle.
[...]
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."

Cover is dependant on a series of things. None of this is the ability of a character to see a target. All the highlighted verbs refer to an "attack or other effect", not to an "attacker or source of an attack of other effect". Concealed here can't possibly have the meaning of being "impossible to see" strictly speaking because attacks and other effects do not have a sense of sight to begin with; it has to have a different, more lateral meaning of "it is shielded from", "are prevented from finding a way to" or similar.

[JackPhoenix]

Can you provide a source for that? By the raw, it does matter whether you they are concealed or not, and the spells require line of sight.

The spells also require target to not have total cover:
"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."

"Concealed" is not mechanical term related to visibility, at least not in 5e. "Obscurement" is used for that. Obscurement and cover are two different things, obstacles can provide either (smoke or darkness provide (heavy) obscurement, but not cover, glass window, invisible creature or WoF provides cover, but not obscurement), or both (a brick wall offers both cover and obscurement).


Prismatic Spray?
Light (not at all physical), that targets yourself, and projects outward in a 60 foot cone?
How could that not work?

Because there's a total cover between the point of origin of the AoE and whatever's on the other side of the WoF:
"Areas of Effect
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect 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. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.
A spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the 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."

Edit: with some really strained logic, one could argue that Sacred Flame can ignore total cover, as "don't have to make Dex save at all" is a benefit total cover gives to someone who would be targetted by the spell.

[Keravath]

There have been several long and involved threads on this topic in this forum. There is no clear answer in RAW though some folks have very strong positions on one side of the debate or the other.

Quotes:

Under the cover rules in PHB:

"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. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." p196

"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." p 204

Unfortunately, that is about it.

1) One side argues that a creature behind a wall of force does not have total cover because it is not concealed per the definition of total cover since it can easily be seen and many spells only require you to be able to see the target in order to hit them. In addition, wall of force only mentions blocking physical objects and does not mention spells.

A Wall of Force is transparent but prevents physical passage of any objects but clearly not light or necessarily energy. Note also, Wall of Force does not say it prevents spells from passing through it while this is a a specific cited feature of certain forms of Forcecage (though that is a bit of a red herring).

2) The other side argues that in order to target something you must have a clear path to it since that is in the general spell targeting rules. A wall of force blocks a clear path to the target and so you can't cast a spell at something behind a wall of force.

However, the rule for a clear path also explicitly states "you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover", and it isn't clear that a Wall of Force actually provides total cover since it is transparent. Some folks say that Wall of Force does and that the cover rules didn't really mean concealed but rather physically blocked or something else. Other folks say that doesn't really matter since Wall of Force obviously blocks the path between objects on opposite sides of it. This is true for physical objects but Wall of Force is silent on the topic of spells.

----------

In any case, since the definition of a "clear path to the target" FOR SPELLS is not defined and the meaning of "concealed" in the definition of Total Cover can be read by some to mean behind something which physical objects can't pass through but vision can - there is enough room for a DM to rule Wall of Force as either providing Total Cover or not as they wish.

Either way the topic usually generates a lot of fairly useless debate since both answers can be supported depending on how a DM chooses to read the RAW.


-----------

P.S. How I personally interpret it ... which is just one DMs opinion.

Personally, when running my own game, I lean toward Wall of Force not providing total cover from spells because it is transparent.

However, I would also take the flavor text of spells into account in resolving the interactions. Spells which physically traverse the space between caster and target could be blocked by the wall as per the clear path to the target rules whereas a spell that manifests directly on the target with no physical manifestation between the caster and the target would not be blocked by the wall. So a Wall of Force might block Firebolt but not Chill Touch as an example.

[WaroftheCrans]

This seems like an issue with the RAW. The whole section on cover reads as follows (bold is mine):

SNIP


Notice that the passage imprecisely uses three different terms to mean the same thing: "blocks," "is covered by," and "conceals." If we take this RAW literally, it would mean that a creature behind a Wall of Force has half-cover or three-quarters cover, but not total cover. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, obviously. My ruling as a DM would be that Wall of Force and other transparent physical barriers provide total cover.

Here, if we assume the three different terms to mean the same thing, and take their natural definitions, it can only mean that it's hidden. While "to block" and "to cover" can both mean to physically protect, they can also mean to hide. Conceal can only mean to hide something. Therefore, the common meaning of the three must be to hide.

The writers at Wizard of the Coast gave us three different terms, which only have one common meaning. Unless there's something that specifies otherwise in RAW, the natural assumption is that common meaning indicates the function.

[JackPhoenix]

Here, if we assume the three different terms to mean the same thing, and take their natural definitions, it can only mean that it's hidden. While "to block" and "to cover" can both mean to physically protect, they can also mean to hide. Conceal can only mean to hide something. Therefore, the common meaning of the three must be to hide.

The writers at Wizard of the Coast gave us three different terms, which only have one common meaning. Unless there's something that specifies otherwise in RAW, the natural assumption is that common meaning indicates the function.

By this logic, lack of light or thick smoke can block swords and arrows, as it provides heavy obscurement, and if you can't see something, it's got total cover.

That's not how things work. There are different rules for cover and visibility for a reason.

[Keravath]

Here, if we assume the three different terms to mean the same thing, and take their natural definitions, it can only mean that it's hidden. While "to block" and "to cover" can both mean to physically protect, they can also mean to hide. Conceal can only mean to hide something. Therefore, the common meaning of the three must be to hide.

The writers at Wizard of the Coast gave us three different terms, which only have one common meaning. Unless there's something that specifies otherwise in RAW, the natural assumption is that common meaning indicates the function.

I'd also add that the rules are intended to be interpreted. Something that provides total cover for a physical attack might or might not provide total cover for a spell and vice versa, its up to the DM in this case.

Does a thin sheet of paper provide total cover?
Does a thin sheet of transparent vellum or plastic wrap provide total cover?
Does a thin window provide total cover? (thin glass breaks so easily it likely wouldn't even deflect a crossbow bolt)
Does a thick window provide total cover?
Does the wall of a tent provide total cover?
Does a grill or grate with holes that are so small you can't see through them provide total cover?
Does a sheet of tin foil provide total cover? (physical attacks would punch right through it - spell attacks requiring sight would be blocked but presumably any attack like firebolt would also be blocked?)

I'm not starting an argument but each of these would need a ruling by the DM based on how they think it should work since RAW really doesn't address what cover or concealment in the context of 1/2, 3/4 and total cover really mean. This is why the topic has no clear answer and just gets argued back and forth by the folks in the opposing camps. I haven't seen this discussion go anywhere in the past 3 years or so I have followed 5e forums.

[Damon_Tor]

Question for those arguing that Wall of Force does not prevent targeting: let's say I've been eaten by a big creature, a purple worm for example, and I'm in its stomach. I cast invisibility on the worm. Is it your contention that I can now freely target creatures outside the worm?

[WaroftheCrans]

First:

By this logic, lack of light or thick smoke can block swords and arrows, as it provides heavy obscurement, and if you can't see something, it's got total cover.

That's not how things work. There are different rules for cover and visibility for a reason.
This is just a fallacy. The RAW on cover clearly stipulates obstacle and provide examples of physical obstacles, and you need to do some mental gymnastics to interpret lack of light or thick smoke as one such physical obstacle. I appreciate not being Strawman'd.

I suppose this is just a matter of poor writing, as no one seems to share my viewpoint. Sometime I wish 5e had been written by programmers, because it boggles my mind that they say everything uses "Natural definitions" and then use the opposite. I'm going to cease arguing about the cover, because now in my mind its thoroughly into the area of "rulings" vs RAW.

I disagree that prismatic spray and sickening radiance don't work. Sickening Radiance does not target an object or a creature, and is an area of effect, that can bypass the total cover. Since it's not a physical area of effect, I would disagree with the statement that it lacks a clear path.
The general of both the AoE text and of total cover seem to contradict each other, but this might be a misinterpretation.

Note: Sacred Flame works by the specific beats general clause, and this at least was confirmed to be both RAI and RAW.

[WaroftheCrans]

One of the reasons why I personally believe it does not stop spells, is that, if it did, the only reason to use forcecage over wall of force would be if you knew the creature inside was capable of teleportation.
Barriers of magical force typically specify if spells can pass through. Leomund's Tiny Hut specifies. Forcecage specifies. Wall of Force does not.
For those of you who believe it must logically provide total cover, think of it in regards to Produce Flames not setting fire to flammable objects.

As to Damon_Tor's point, I didn't know that purple wyrms specified that things only can't pass through physically. /s

A friend of mine used to say that the only time someone uses a fallacy is when they don't have a proper argument.

[Desamir]

One of the reasons why I personally believe it does not stop spells, is that, if it did, the only reason to use forcecage over wall of force would be if you knew the creature inside was capable of teleportation.

Forcecage notably doesn't require concentration.

[WaroftheCrans]

Forcecage notably doesn't require concentration.

That was quite an oversight by me. Still, I maintain the rest of that post, specifically how the others state spells can't pass through.

[Damon_Tor]

As to Damon_Tor's point, I didn't know that purple wyrms specified that things only can't pass through physically. /s

Neither does a Wall of Force. There's a key word you're inserting that isn't found in the spell description: "only"

That's where you're parsing the spell wrong. You see "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." and you think "therefore things can pass through it non-physically" but that doesn't follow logically. If I say "I don't drink apple juice" it does not imply that there are other kinds of juice I do drink. It's entirely possible I drink no kind of juice at all, all we know is whether or not I drink Apple Juice.


A friend of mine used to say that the only time someone uses a fallacy is when they don't have a proper argument.

A friend of mine said the same thing about sarcasm.

[WaroftheCrans]

Unlike a fallacy, sarcasm can work in a proper argument. Funny how that works, isn't it?

As to the spell text, the word "physical" limits the expression from "Nothing can pass through the wall." A reasonable person would take the logical step, and assume that, without the specification, the statement isn't true.

If nothing can pass through the wall, as you claim, why do they include the word "physically?"

[Dark.Revenant]

Something I've always wondered is if you can cast Scatter to teleport people who are behind a Wall of Force to the other side of that Wall of Force. You can certainly see your targets and the intended destination, and Wall of Force does not block teleportation, so it seems like the natural intent of the spell is to be able to work under such circumstances.

Rules As Written, however, Wall of Force *is* total cover and therefore blocks *all* creature/object targeting that does not explicitly ignore cover, including all spells to my knowledge with the sole exception of Sacred Flame.

[Damon_Tor]

As to the spell text, the word "physical" limits the expression from "Nothing can pass through the wall." A reasonable person would take the logical step, and assume that, without the specification, the statement isn't true.

If nothing can pass through the wall, as you claim, why do they include the word "physically?"

Because elsewhere in the same paragraph they also note that creatures can't pass through it on the etherial plane either. In other words, "physical" is being used in a planar sense.

[greenstone]

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.


[PHB, Chapter 10, Casting a Spell, Targets]

What I take from that section: There is something physical moving from caster to target. If there wasn't something physical moving from caster to target then you wouldn't need a clear path.

Wall of force blocks all physical things.

Therefore wall of force blocks spellcasting when the target is on the other side from the caster.

[Tanarii]

Cover blocks the target. It doesn't require blocking visibility.

Obscuring blocks visibility. It doesn't require block the target.

Spells require a clear path to the target unless they say otherwise, as do AoE spells from the point of origin to the target. Some spells require being able to see the target if they say so.

Wall of force provides cover and blocks a path to the target for spells, but not visibility.

It's pretty straight forward.

[Telok]

But wall of force doesn't create a blocking object. It creates an invisible/transparent force that prevents physical things from passing through. Aren't almost all spell effects not physical objects?

You can argue the fireball bead, but isn't the resultant fireball a spell effect and not a physical object? How about a lightning bolt? Certainly the dominate spell has no physical presence that the wall would block.

[cZak]

Cover blocks the target. It doesn't require blocking visibility.

Obscuring blocks visibility. It doesn't require block the target.

Spells require a clear path to the target unless they say otherwise, as do AoE spells from the point of origin to the target. Some spells require being able to see the target if they say so.

Wall of force provides cover and blocks a path to the target for spells, but not visibility.

It's pretty straight forward.

The bead of a Fireball or the Bolt of Lightning creates a physical effect that travels from the caster to the target.
A Wall of Force prevents this

But effects that originate where the caster desires (Sacred flame, Wall of Fire) could(?) target inside the Wall..?

[Damon_Tor]

But wall of force doesn't create a blocking object. It creates an invisible/transparent force that prevents physical things from passing through. Aren't almost all spell effects not physical objects?

It explicitly creates a wall: "An Invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range." Walls explicitly provide cover "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat" Total cover prevents targeting: "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell" A=B, B=C, ergo A=C.

Apart from the text being clear, ruling the other way creates a severe imbalance with an already very powerful spell; it would allow you to safely nuke down anything you like from behind the near-total safety of your forcefield while the martial members of your party sit there with their hands in their pockets wondering when you'll be finished with the personal adventure you're on. Wall of Force as written is a great way to buy time or to split a difficult encounter into two more manageable encounters, this interpretation turns it into a way to totally trivialize encounters.

[Kornaki]

After reading this thread, and having not even known about the debate beforehand, I think that wall of force does block spells, and it's easier to parse this mentally if you think that every spell that is cast has some sort of something that needs to pass through space from the caster to the target, which wall of force blocks.

[Telok]

It explicitly creates a wall: "An Invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range." Walls explicitly provide cover "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat" Total cover prevents targeting: "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell" A=B, B=C, ergo A=C

See, wall of force doesn't say it provides cover, it says physical things can't pass through. In addition your chain of reasoning says that wall spells provide cover, including wall of fire and wall of thorns. Plus if the wall provides cover you can't use any effect or spell that doesn't explicitly bypass the line of effect rules.

I too think that allowing things like many spell effects through because they aren't physical things is silly powerful. But the spell says physical. Although do note that the vast majority of effects don't indicate if they are physical or have a physical manifestation. So all DMs have to decide for themselves what effects are or are not allowed through.

[Tanarii]

If the basis of your argument is that preventing physical things from passing through technically isn't the same thing as cover (which is defined by being blocked by an obstacle) ... well I guess have fun playing in your technically correct games. Which Hermes proved is the best kind of correct.

[Damon_Tor]

If the basis of your argument is that preventing physical things from passing through technically isn't the same thing as cover (which is defined by being blocked by an obstacle)

No, it's defined as being blocked by a "wall, tree, creature or other obstacle." The inclusion of the "wall" there is relevant.

[Aimeryan]

I suppose this is just a matter of poor writing, as no one seems to share my viewpoint. Sometime I wish 5e had been written by programmers, because it boggles my mind that they say everything uses "Natural definitions" and then use the opposite. I'm going to cease arguing about the cover, because now in my mind its thoroughly into the area of "rulings" vs RAW.

Not going to bother chime in on the topic itself (Keravath is already stating my thoughts on WOF, thanks!), and I will probably stop reading here. However, the above quote pretty much sums up a lot of my feelings with 5e. When they said they wanted 5e to be 'simple' I feel they went with meaning 'succinct' rather than 'unambiguous'.

I really hope for the next edition they focus on being less ambiguous. It may be that they should have an abridged version for people who really don't care about standards and just want to get on with playing, and an unabridged version for people who want to agree on what is meant to be the case and can work with the same set of tools as each other.

I feel these are two different market niches and 5e caters more for the former than for the latter, while 3.5e catered more for the latter than the former. Neither is objectively better, I just hope next edition they cater for both.

[Segev]

I will likely rule on a case by case basis, heavily leaning on what spells say they do. Magic missiles and fireball have things that streak from the caster to the target. The wall of force is a solid impediment, so would stop them. Though magic missiles will go around it if needs be and possible; it would only block them if it were filling the path entirely, whereas the straight line path of the little burning bead for fireball would necessitate aiming it around the wall of force.

Sacred flame would work, even though I'm pretty sure the technical RAW would say it doesn't, because to me, the fact that it denies cover benefits and the creature is visible would make it being able to hit seem to be RAI to me, and thus I would rule in favor.

Chill touch is a problematic one for a number of reasons. The description is of something materializing in the target's space, then the caster makes an attack roll with it. The reason this creates problems for me is that, technically, under the rules, we already have this spell revealing the caster's position if he's hiding, whereas things that force saves do not. Which also means poison spray, which forces a save but creates a puff of poison that jets from caster to target, doesn't reveal where the puff of poison came from, even though chill touch, which doesn't come from the caster's location at all, does.

I could potentially resolve these, but I bring them up for the sake of pointing out that it's not always just wall of force that raises these questions, and some things that are problems with it are problems in general.

[NaughtyTiger]

Chill touch is a problematic one for a number of reasons. The description is of something materializing in the target's space, then the caster makes an attack roll with it. The reason this creates problems for me is that, technically, under the rules, we already have this spell revealing the caster's position if he's hiding, whereas things that force saves do not. Which also means poison spray, which forces a save but creates a puff of poison that jets from caster to target, doesn't reveal where the puff of poison came from, even though chill touch, which doesn't come from the caster's location at all, does.
.
this seems more like an issue with the unseen attacker rules (which don't make any sense to me) than chill touch explicitly.

[Segev]

this seems more like an issue with the unseen attacker rules (which don't make any sense to me) than chill touch explicitly.

Exactly. That was what I was trying to get at, so well-caught and well-said.

They relate rather oddly but directly to the same issue with wall of force: the unseen attacker rules are trying to model the ease/difficulty of spotting where an attack is coming from, based on the fact it does/does not "come from" where the attacker is. The wall of force question is arising because of an issue with whether a spell whose effect does not visibly "emit" from the caster is passing through the wall of force or not, before we even get to whether it can pass through it or not. To ask if it can, we must first ask whether it even needs to. Or if it truly just "happens" at the target destination.

[JackPhoenix]

Chill touch is a problematic one for a number of reasons. The description is of something materializing in the target's space, then the caster makes an attack roll with it. The reason this creates problems for me is that, technically, under the rules, we already have this spell revealing the caster's position if he's hiding, whereas things that force saves do not. Which also means poison spray, which forces a save but creates a puff of poison that jets from caster to target, doesn't reveal where the puff of poison came from, even though chill touch, which doesn't come from the caster's location at all, does.

Casting the spell, however, reveals the caster's location, unless the spell doesn't have V component.

[Benny89]

I don't uderstand the debate here. WoF says it block physical things. Teleportation, manifastation, conjuration anything at point in your view doesn not pass anything physically there. It simply materialize thing/effect there. WoF does not say anything about blocking spells.

The rules of cover are GENERAL rules. The spell descriptions are SPECIFIC. Specific beats general. The rules of cover also does not consider invisible walls, just full material objects blocking path and view.

Forcecage on the other hand says that you can't cast spells INTO IT!!

"blocking any Spells cast into or out of the area."

That means that authors exactly knew that you can cast things inside "wall/sphere" spells that don't obstruct your view.

Hence why they added that you can't do that for Forcecage. They didn't add that for Wall of Force.

Therefore you can cast spells like Hold Person, Spiritual Weapon, conjure animals, Toll The Dead, Sickening Radiance etc. INTO AREA of Wall of Force because spells doesn't say you can't. It's that simple.

Bigby's Hand says:

"You create a Large hand of shimmering, translucent force in an unoccupied space that you can see within range"

I can definitely see unoccupied space inside Wall of Force because it doesn't block my vision. Therefore I can cast it inside.

Forcecage says:

"blocking any Spells cast into or out of the area."

Therefore I can't cast Bigby's Hand inside Forcecage because even though I see space - spell denies any casting into it. Specific beats general.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't uderstand the debate here. WoF says it block physical things. Teleportation, manifastation, conjuration anything at point in your view doesn not pass anything physically there. It simply materialize thing/effect there. WoF does not say anything about blocking spells.

The issue is targeting.

A spell like Misty Step with a range of "Self" can absolutely teleport you through a Wall of Force, because you are targeting nothing through the wall, you are yourself the target. You can also cast Misty Step even if you can only see the space via divination as long as it's within range, so for example you could fly your familiar into the next room (which is behind a stone wall) use your action to see through his eyes, and Misty Step into that room. The stone wall doesn't "block" the spell.

The problem with Bigby's Hand and many spells like it is that the space you choose for the conjured object to appear in is the target of the spell, and you cannot target through full cover. So you couldn't sneak a familiar into an enemy fortress, look through his eyes, and summon a Bigby's Hand to start wrecking the the place up with 30 feet solid stone between you. For the same reason, you can't do this through a Wall of Force.

[Benny89]

The issue is targeting.

A spell like Misty Step with a range of "Self" can absolutely teleport you through a Wall of Force, because you are targeting nothing through the wall, you are yourself the target. You can also cast Misty Step even if you can only see the space via divination as long as it's within range, so for example you could fly your familiar into the next room (which is behind a stone wall) use your action to see through his eyes, and Misty Step into that room. The stone wall doesn't "block" the spell.

The problem with Bigby's Hand and many spells like it is that the space you choose for the conjured object to appear in is the target of the spell, and you cannot target through full cover. So you couldn't sneak a familiar into an enemy fortress, look through his eyes, and summon a Bigby's Hand to start wrecking the the place up with 30 feet solid stone between you. For the same reason, you can't do this through a Wall of Force.

Wall of Force does not provide full cover.

You can target because you can see place in space where you want effect to appear. Wall of Force does not block magic in anyway.

You cannot target through full cover because full cover rules consider cover to BLOCK YOUR VISION and everyone else. Wall of Force logically does not block vision - therefore you can cast spells that target space through it cause you can see everything inside WoF.

There is a reason why Forcecage has added sentense about blocking spells casted INTO it and Wall of Force does not. Because one blocks magic and other one just physical objects.

I still don't see why it's so difficult.


Here is full cover definition from PHB:

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

You are not fully concealed by Wall of Force nor is anything inside it. Because it's invisible wall and everyone can see everything inside it. Therefore WoF spell details and says that it blocks only physical objects, because it doesn't give full cover because nothing inside it is fully concealed.

[Segev]

Wall of Force says nothing it provides full cover. Nor Full Cover rules says anything about walls that are invisible.

You can target because you can see place in space where you want effect to appear. Wall of Force does not block magic in anyway.

You cannot target through full cover because full cover rules consider cover to BLOCK YOUR VISION. Wall of Force logically does not block vision - therefore you can cast spells that target space through it cause you can see spells.

There is a reason why Forcecage has added sentense about blocking spells casted INTO it and Wall of Force does not. Because one blocks magic and other one just physical objects.

I still don't see why it's so difficult.


Here is full cover from PHB:

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

You are not fully concealed by Wall of Force nor is anything inside it. Because it's invisible wall and everyone can see everything inside it. Therefore WoF spell details and says that it blocks only physical objects, because it doesn't give full cover because nothing inside it is fully concealed.

So, then, if a wall of force blocks physical objects, but not magic, does it block poison spray, acid splash, magic missile, burning hands, fireball, cloud of daggers and/or ice knife? You may answer differently for each spell; I am just curious if and how you make a distinction.

[Benny89]

So, then, if a wall of force blocks physical objects, but not magic, does it block poison spray, acid splash, magic missile, burning hands, fireball, cloud of daggers and/or ice knife? You may answer differently for each spell; I am just curious if and how you make a distinction.

Ok so here we have to go into what is "physical objects". For me physical is something that manifest as something visible that interacts with other physical objcets. Therefore I consider magic misslies, cone of cold of flames from you hands a physical objcets. Bigby's Hand/Spiritual Weapon is also a physical object but this spell does not have to get through WoF to get to it's point of origin.

Imo here is where DM needs to use his brain little more and not just try to find answer in RAW because there is not clear definition of "physical object" and there is no "magical object" at all across whole 5e. For example is "shadow blade" a physcial or magical object? Are Conjure Animals physcial or magical objects? There is no such thing in 5e, at all. Nada. Each DM needs to apply his own definition here. I try to just go by logic.

So how I rule it at my table:

poison spray - "you project a puff of noxious gas from your palm" - it's physical "object" (gas) that fires from you, therefore WoF will block it.

acid splash - "You hurl a bubble of acid" - same, it's physical bubble that hits target - WoF will block it. It's physical object.

magic missile - obviously WoF will block them as missiles fly from you to target. Physical objects.

burning hands - "thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips" - same, physical flames shoots from you hands - block by WoF.

fireball - "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose" - same, its physical projectile that goes bum when it hits it's point/target. Blocks.

cloud of daggers - "You fill the air with spinning daggers in a cube 5 feet on each side, centered on a point you choose within range" - you manifest daggers at point you chose, therefore you can cast it inside WoF since nothing physical needs to get through WoF.

Hope that helps.

[Damon_Tor]

You are not fully concealed by Wall of Force nor is anything inside it. Because it's invisible wall and everyone can see everything inside it. Therefore WoF spell details and says that it blocks only physical objects, because it doesn't give full cover because nothing inside it is fully concealed.

"Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one."

We've covered all of this in the thread already.

[Telok]

"Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one."

We've covered all of this in the thread already.

Does WoF say it provides cover? I thought it was an effect that prevents physical passage. It certainly dorsn't say that WoF is an object.

[Damon_Tor]

Does WoF say it provides cover? I thought it was an effect that prevents physical passage. It certainly dorsn't say that WoF is an object.

"an object is a discrete, inanimate item"

Wall of Force qualifies.

[Benny89]

"Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one."

We've covered all of this in the thread already.

Again, specific beats general. Genral cover rules don't apply to WoF because WoF says that it only blocks physical objects, while Forccage says it blocks spells.

Specific beats general, otherwise WoF would also get same sentence about blocking spells as Forcecage did.

Also if you interpretations was correct - Forcecage wouldn't need extra sentence about blocking spells, but it got one because at default both WoF and Forcecage don't block spells. They needed to add extra sentence for that.

[Damon_Tor]

WoF says that it only blocks physical objects

Incorrect. You are imagining the word "only". It's not there. Please read the thread, you are making the exact same points.


Specific beats general, otherwise WoF would also get same sentence about blocking spells as Forcecage did.

Forcecage blocks spells above and beyond the functions of total cover, including spells that do not require targeting. Also, at the caster's option it can be made into a "cage" format, with explicit gaps, that does not provide total cover. The no-spells provision prevents abuse of the spell in that instance, but there is no non-cover option for Wall of Force.

[Aimeryan]

The RAW on whether Wall Of Force blocks spells is divisive. Wall Of Force blocks physical, only - and that is where the RAW stops:


Nothing can physically pass through the wall.


Note that this is different to Forcecage's text:


A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area.


So, it depends on how your DM rules magic works in relation to physicality - here are some potential options:


All magic is physical. No magic in any form gets through the wall. Since teleport spells travel via other planes (usually Astral), they bypass the wall rather than go through it.
All spells are physical once enacted, however, the magic to fuel the spell is not. This allows for spells to be created past the WOF (like Spiritual Weapon, and likely most spells), however, any spell created before the wall and then tries to travel through it will be stopped (like Fireball).
Some magic schools are physical, some are not. This allows for certain types of spells (like Illusions, say) to be cast through the WOF, but others (like Evocation, say) to not.
Magic is not physical, however, specific spells may of course utilise physical elements. Spells and magic in general can travel through the wall, however, a spell may act on something physical and that will be blocked (like Catapult), naturally.



The talk of Total Cover is not pertinent to WOF, since it does not qualify:


A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

The two parts it fails on:


It does not conceal; WOF is invisible.
It is not an obstacle, unless it is (see above about physicality of magic, in which case it is largely moot, anyway).


RAI may differ, of course. As I mentioned before in this thread, 5e is hardly lacking in cases where the presumed (or indeed, stated) RAI fails to match the RAW - which is something I hope dearly they do better on for 6e.

[WaroftheCrans]

Just for comparison, lets look at the other spells and items that have barriers of force. There might be more, but these are the ones that I'm aware of.

Only breathable air can pass through the sphere's wall. No Attack or other effect can.

Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it. Spells and other magical effects can’t extend through the dome or be cast through it.

Nothing—not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects—can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there. The sphere is immune to all damage, and a creature or object inside can't be damaged by attacks or effects originating from outside, nor can a creature inside the sphere damage anything outside it.

Cube of Force Faces and Charges:

2 — 2 — Nonliving matter can't pass through the barrier. Walls, floors, and ceilings can pass through at your discretion.
3 — 3 — Living matter can 't pass through the barrier.
4 — 4 — Spell Effects can 't pass through the barrier.

Note how even after all matter (anything physical) can't pass through, it's an additional charge to render spell effects not to pass through.

A prison in the shape of a cage can be up to 20 feet on a side and is made from 1/2-inch diameter bars spaced 1/2 inch apart.

A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any spells cast into or out from the area.
There's a pretty clear trend here. They specify separately whether things can pass through physically, and whether spells and their effects can pass through.
Also, to Damon_Tor. Forcecage allows spells to be cast through when it's a cage, that's RAW and RAI, not abuse. The purpose of the cage is to trap in the meaty enemies, and blast them to death.

Also consider that for all 5 instances where spell effects are mentioned, the creature would greater cover than is provided by Wall of Force.

[BurgerBeast]

It seems to me that whether Wall of Force specifically provides cover, by RAW, is irrelevant because the spell description says that nothing can physically pass through it. So, for example, in the case of spell with an attack roll, -5 penalty or not, the projectile is never passing through.

Fireball? Doesn't matter. The bead and the fireball itself will not pass through the wall.

Magic missile? Doesn't matter. The caster can see the target so he’s “targetable.” Cover has no effect on an auto-hit spell, so calling it cover or not cover is irrelevant. But the missiles cannot pass through the wall. That’s in the spell description.

There is probably some real lack of clarity around some save-effects. I must confess I haven’t read up on these in great detail, but if there is consensus that hold person works, then you run into trouble with spells like sacred flame because I’m not sure their origin is specified. I could see all sorts of headcanon for that: (1) it’s a ray of holy light originating from the caster, (2) it’s a ray of holy light originating from the heavens above (3) it originates at the target. Ask your DM the details in his world. — Even the fact that the description says specifically that the targets gains no benefit from cover is irrelevant, in my opinion. The question is where does the effect originate, and must it pass through the wall?

[Telok]

Interesting thought: illusions aren't physical and some do psychic damage, so they should be able to pass through. In fact since psychic damage isn't physical (I think, probably got left undefined) it shouldn'tvhave any issues.

Hm. Are force effects defined as being physical things outside of some specific spell descriptions?

[Democratus]

Since photons have mass, they are physical objects. That mean would mean that light can't pass through.

And yet it's transparent. Allowing light to pass through.

The wall is a contradiction. It creates a singularity that destroys the universe.

Problem solved. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Since photons have mass, they are physical objects. That mean would mean that light can't pass through.

And yet it's transparent. Allowing light to pass through.

The wall is a contradiction. It creates a singularity that destroys the universe.

Problem solved. :smallbiggrin:

Technically, photons do NOT have mass. They have momentum without mass. It is a unique property of photons, as far as I'm aware; I don't think we've discovered any other particals that move at exactly c.

[Democratus]

Technically, photons do NOT have mass. They have momentum without mass. It is a unique property of photons, as far as I'm aware; I don't think we've discovered any other particals that move at exactly c.

Science to the rescue! :smallbiggrin: