Wall of Force and Disintegrate conundrum

[Keravath]

Hi All,

Looking for some input on a situation that may come up and I am trying to figure out how to rule on it in advance. I run the game as close to RAW as is reasonable so I'd prefer a solution based on RAW - I know that I can ultimately decide it any way I like.

Wall of Force:
"An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range."

1) Wall of force is invisible.
2) Do you have to be able to SEE where you place the wall (for example can it be cast in darkness or a fog cloud?)

RAW all it says is place the wall at a point you CHOOSE within range. No requirement that you be able to see it. Neither darkness nor fog cloud provide total cover which would block line of effect for the spell.

Can you cast a Wall of Force while in a fog cloud or darkness?

Disintegrate:

"A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range. The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force."

Disintegrate requires you to target something that you can see. A wall of force is invisible, you can't see it, so it is not a valid target for disintegrate.Except disintegrate specifically lists a creation of magical force (using wall of force as an example) as a valid target even though you can't see it. Does this mean that when Disintegrate is targeted at magical force constructs like wall of force you don't actually need to be able to see it? (or does the caster need to have see invisible running in order to use Disintegrate on a Wall of Force?)

Specific situation - Can you use Disintegrate to remove a wall of force when the caster is inside a fog cloud since they can't SEE a wall of force anyway since it is invisible - I don't see what effect being in a fog cloud would have on casting distintegrate against a wall of force you can't see anyway - even though Disintegrate specifies a target that you can see.

P.S. Sage Advice compendium doesn't seem to have anything relevant.

[Quietus]

You might just have to apply See Invisibility first, so you can see the wall to disintegrate it. Though I'd also be okay with someone targeting a point behind the wall and destroying the wall incidentally by blasting Disintegrate through it.

[Democratus]

The spell specifically states that you can use it against a Wall of Force.

Since specific (wall of force) overrides general (target you can see) you should be able to use Disintegrate against a Wall of Force with no issues.

[Keravath]

The spell specifically states that you can use it against a Wall of Force.

Since specific (wall of force) overrides general (target you can see) you should be able to use Disintegrate against a Wall of Force with no issues.

I'm not sure that this would be the case.

The second sentence says "The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force."

If the second sentence means that you don't need to see the wall of force for it to be a valid target then it should also mean that you shouldn't need to see the creature or the object for them to be valid targets either. Yes, a wall of force is a valid target for the spell - but the wording doesn't seem to grant any special ability to be able to see such a wall or other invisible force construct.

[Segev]

I would personally rule you can aim where you know it is, if you can see the location, but there is definitely room to suggest you need something like Blindfighting, Blindsight, Truesight, or _see invisibility_ to do so.

[Dark.Revenant]

Yes, RAW, you must be able to see the Wall of Force to target it. If you didn't pack See Invisibility, you're out of luck. Shucks.

Of course, basically no DMs will run RAW in this instance...

[Telok]

The spell specifically states that you can use it against a Wall of Force.

Since specific (wall of force) overrides general (target you can see) you should be able to use Disintegrate against a Wall of Force with no issues.

Well that depends, right? Obviously Disentegrate work on magic force things like Wall of Force, but does that waive the targeting requirement? Does the spell say the ray affects the first thing it touches instead of the target? Can you see the wall with See Invis? Does the wall use common English invisibility like "carbon monoxide is an invisible gas", or the game mechanic of "visible thing made invisible by magic"? Does See Invis make visible atmospheric gasses, wind, or gravity? Can you target things on the other side of a transparent barrier that you don't have line of effect to? Rulings not rules, right?

[CapnWildefyr]

I don't think the question is whether or not you can target a wall of force with disintegrate, because the disintegrate spell says you can. If you know it's there, worst case you can target it by shooting at something past it, as has been pointed out. Something has to make you suspect its presence, like your barbarian friend's blood dripping slowly down the wall after he face-planted on it during a charge.

The "target you can see within range" phrase is also specific, but let's face it, what the heck else do you use to bring down a wall of force? And in the WOF spell description it specifically states "A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. "

If you can only target a WOF if you're using true sight or similar, that's harsh. I mean, this is not stated in the spell description, but if an enemy is invisible, that's usually just disadvantage for mostly every other attack form, right? Not a complete ban on attacking that enemy. If the wall is designed to be only 4 ft high, or anything else other than huge and easy to hit, imposing disadvantage (which is not RAW in the spell description) might be in order.

EDIT: This is kinda a discussion about the meaning of the word "see." In the sense of "see" meaning to literally perceive with your eyes, you can't target WOF with disintegrate. But here "see" is there to imply line of sight -- the ray is thin and straight. You can't disintegrate things around a corner. The ray does not bend. (or maybe only in the presence of a black hole?:smallbiggrin:) You can't end a WOF behind a brick wall, because the WOF has cover. (You would make a hole in the brick wall instead.)

EDIT2: Boy, really getting picky -- can see vs vs do see. "Can" implies line of sight, "do" implies detecting invisibility.

[Quietus]

If you can only target a WOF if you're using true sight or similar, that's harsh. I mean, this is not stated in the spell description, but if an enemy is invisible, that's usually just disadvantage for mostly every other attack form, right? Not a complete ban on attacking that enemy. If the wall is designed to be only 4 ft high, or anything else other than huge and easy to hit, imposing disadvantage (which is not RAW in the spell description) might be in order.

You're allowed to attack an invisible target, certainly. However, you can't target them with spells that require you to see them, such as Magic Missile, or Disintegrate.

[CapnWildefyr]

You're allowed to attack an invisible target, certainly. However, you can't target them with spells that require you to see them, such as Magic Missile, or Disintegrate.

But it can also be legitimately read that "can see" only implies the possibility to see it, not that it IS seen. To hopefully clarify this point, the spell does not say "to a target you see within range." RAW does not say 'in a straight line' either, but I believe it is strongly implied. Think about the flip side of this. If there is a mirror angled so I can see down a left turn in a hall, can I target something around the corner using disintegrate, or does my spell disintegrate the mirror instead? What if there were two equal size walls of force, and you are using true seeing. Can you target only the second wall of force by bending your ray around the first one? (Interesting thought....) But instead of worrying about curvy rays, I read it as being all about a straight-line spell, finger to target.

[J-H]

This DM says: If you know the Wall of Force is there, and you can see where you think it is (ie, not obscured by Fog Cloud or something), then you can target it with Disintegrate. You're shooting at the broad side of a barn. Common sense trumps.

[Xetheral]

Note that you cannot target anything behind a Wall of Force with Disintegrate... any creature or object behind a Wall of Force has full cover, and thus is an invalid target. Here's the relevant rule:


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.


So unless the DM rules that Wall of Force can be directly targeted by Distingegrate, despite being invisible, there is no way to indirectly affect the wall by trying to target something behind it.

[Battlebooze]

Logic has to come into play at some point, if someone throws some flour/dirt/blood/holy-water/acid against the Wall of Force, then you would know exactly where the Wall is.

How about someone running up to the wall and pushing against it?

What happens if you try to Disintegrate a normal wall behind the Wall of Force?

Edit. ( I see someone just answered me, but this opens up a new can of worms, creating a full cover, but visible state for the universe behind the wall.)

[Battlebooze]

This DM says: If you know the Wall of Force is there, and you can see where you think it is (ie, not obscured by Fog Cloud or something), then you can target it with Disintegrate. You're shooting at the broad side of a barn. Common sense trumps.

While I agree with you, I'd also say the underlined statement is very optimistic concerning rule discusions about D&D. :)

[msfnc]

... any creature or object behind a Wall of Force has full cover,

Is there a citation for this? I don't see it in the spell description. I see that nothing can pass through, but no indication that it protects creatures from being targeted by anything, nor providing cover, full or otherwise. The wall is immune to damage, that's all. No cover, no obscurement.

[Segev]

Is there a citation for this? I don't see it in the spell description. I see that nothing can pass through, but no indication that it protects creatures from being targeted by anything, nor providing cover, full or otherwise. The wall is immune to damage, that's all. No cover, no obscurement.

Please correct me if I'm parsing your statement wrong, but are you asserting that, despite the fact nothing can go through it, you can hit targets on the other side of the wall because it provides no cover?

[Aett_Thorn]

Please correct me if I'm parsing your statement wrong, but are you asserting that, despite the fact nothing can go through it, you can hit targets on the other side of the wall because it provides no cover?

I don’t think that it would provide cover in game terms, no. Clearly, the ending EFFECTS would be the same, but it does not grant that state, or it would say so. An invisible wall should allow you to target things on the other side, attack normally, and then completely block the effects.

Otherwise, yes, we do get the outcome that without using a second spell, you can’t target either the wall or anything on the other side of it to be able to get rid of it.

Edit: the text from the cover section - “ A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.” the wall doesn’t conceal anything behind it, right?

[Hannibal78]

You can find Sage Advice video on youtube, where J. C. is telling, you cannot target any valid target behind the WoF cuz it's full cover. Even if the WoF is invisible. (This is how they kept WoF magic halt capability from previous edition).

[msfnc]

Please correct me if I'm parsing your statement wrong, but are you asserting that, despite the fact nothing can go through it, you can hit targets on the other side of the wall because it provides no cover?

Not that you can hit a target, but that you can target a creature or object on the other side. I can aim my longbow shot at Joe the Fighter, on the other side of the wall of force. My arrow will not reach my target, it will stop at the wall of force. Likewise, I can aim my disintegration ray at Joe, and it will not hit him, because it will hit the wall of force. He is visible, not obscured, and therefore targetable.

[Battlebooze]

As per the spell description in Wall of Force: 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. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane.

Nowhere does it say that Wall of Force blocks targeting or provides total cover. It just says nothing can physically pass through the wall. Total cover is :A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle. Wall of Force doesn't conceal anything at all.

So, for example, as per the description of the spell Black Tentacles: Squirming, ebony tentacles fill a 20-foot square on ground that you can see within range. For the duration, these tentacles turn the ground in the area into difficult terrain. You could cast that on the other side of a Wall of Force without a restriction.

[Xetheral]

Is there a citation for this? I don't see it in the spell description. I see that nothing can pass through, but no indication that it protects creatures from being targeted by anything, nor providing cover, full or otherwise. The wall is immune to damage, that's all. No cover, no obscurement.

This quote on PHB 204 lets us infer that if there is no clear path to the target, it has full cover:


To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.

This rule implies (based on conversational implicature, rather than the material conditional) that "having a clear path" and "not being behind total cover" are equivalent. I think it is evident from the context of the rule that "clear" is being used to mean "unobstructed" rather than "transparent". Ergo, since Wall of Force is an obstruction, it prevents having a clear path, and thus provides total cover.

Transparent obstructions providing cover has also been confirmed by Crawford in this tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725193970196701184), where he says: "Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one." Note that this tweet was specifically in reply to a question asking whether Wall of Force provides cover, so it is directly on point.

[Battlebooze]

If Wall of Force provides Total Cover for things behind it, why wouldn't it say that in the spell description? All it says is that nothing can physically pass through the wall. Light certainly can pass through it.

Does a Wall of Force save you from looking into a Medusa's gaze? It shouldn't. And it doesn't block magic, as you should be able to teleport from one side to the other. Misty Step right through that Wall.

[Xetheral]

If Wall of Force provides Total Cover for things behind it, why wouldn't it say that in the spell description? All it says is that nothing can physically pass through the wall. Light certainly can pass through it.

Does a Wall of Force save you from looking into a Medusa's gaze? It shouldn't. And it doesn't block magic, as you should be able to teleport from one side to the other. Misty Step right through that Wall.

Because the spell description already says that nothing physical can penetrate it--saying it provides cover would be redundant. Consider that Wall of Stone also doesn't say it provides cover--it's enough that it creates an obstruction.

And you totally can Misty Step across a Wall of Force. Wall of Force only blocks targeting, and Misty Step targets the caster, not the destination.

Whether a Medusa's gaze works across a Wall of Force would be a DM call--nothing in the description of the ability requires a target, which suggests to me that it should work just fine, but a DM could rule that the ability implicitly targets the creatures it affects, and thus would be blocked.

(Unfortunately, the fuzziness of 5e targeting rules makes for a lot of edge cases in terms of what is and is not blocked by a Wall of Force.)

[msfnc]

This quote on PHB 204 lets us infer that if there is no clear path to the target, it has full cover:



This rule implies (based on conversational implicature, rather than the material conditional) that "having a clear path" and "not being behind total cover" are equivalent. I think it is evident from the context of the rule that "clear" is being used to mean "unobstructed" rather than "transparent". Ergo, since Wall of Force is an obstruction, it prevents having a clear path, and thus provides total cover.

Transparent obstructions providing cover has also been confirmed by Crawford in this tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/725193970196701184), where he says: "Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one." Note that this tweet was specifically in reply to a question asking whether Wall of Force provides cover, so it is directly on point.

I'd counter your point with this quote from PHB: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (emphasis mine).
The invisible Wall of Force doesn't conceal anything, completely or otherwise. I will once again have to disagree with Mr. Crawford and also a kind stranger on the Internet.

Imagine a scenario where an enemy monster is unaware of the presence of a Wall of Force (maybe he was late to the battle?). He can see the PCs, his quarry, standing there in range of his mighty bow. Can he not even aim at them? There's no visual obstruction, nor any reason he would stay his hand. He'd point and shoot.

[Xetheral]

I'd counter your point with this quote from PHB: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (emphasis mine).
The invisible Wall of Force doesn't conceal anything, completely or otherwise. I will once again have to disagree with Mr. Crawford and also a kind stranger on the Internet.

Imagine a scenario where an enemy monster is unaware of the presence of a Wall of Force (maybe he was late to the battle?). He can see the PCs, his quarry, standing there in range of his mighty bow. Can he not even aim at them? There's no visual obstruction, nor any reason he would stay his hand. He'd point and shoot.

I would argue that "concealed" in that rule is being used with a non-standard definition to mean the obstacle blocks all straight paths to the target. There are several reasons to think so. First, the key phrase isn't just "concealed", it's "concealed by an obstacle". If the visual concealment was the important part, why does it matter that it has to be an obstacle? Second, the common usage of "cover" implies using a physical obstacle for protection, and has nothing to do with visibility. In real life, taking cover behind a thick-but-transparent piece of plexiglass makes perfectly good sense--we wouldn't say that the plexiglass doesn't provide cover merely because it can be seen through. Finally, in the context of the rules, it appears that the physical protection of an obstacle is what the cover rules are trying to model--there are already separate rules for visual obscurement.

As for your scenario, with a physical attack, trying to target an invalid target behind full cover presumably just has the weapon hit the cover. Trying to target an invalid target with a spell is a known hole in the rules that the DM has to fill. XGTE includes an optional rule that the DM can choose to use in such circumstances: the spell fails (so in the case of Distingegrate, no green ray is created) and the spell slot is expended.

[Battlebooze]

Because the spell description already says that nothing physical can penetrate it--saying it provides cover would be redundant. Consider that Wall of Stone also doesn't say it provides cover--it's enough that it creates an obstruction.

And you totally can Misty Step across a Wall of Force. Wall of Force only blocks targeting, and Misty Step targets the caster, not the destination.

Whether a Medusa's gaze works across a Wall of Force would be a DM call--nothing in the description of the ability requires a target, which suggests to me that it should work just fine, but a DM could rule that the ability implicitly targets the creatures it affects, and thus would be blocked.

(Unfortunately, the fuzziness of 5e targeting rules makes for a lot of edge cases in terms of what is and is not blocked by a Wall of Force.)


Wall of Stone is not an invisible wall, it blocks sight, as stone usually does. Wall of Force is invisible, so no, it would not be redundant at all to say it provides total cover.

I would be fine if it said that, but it doesn't say that, and there lies the confusion. Honestly, they should have just said Wall of Force blocked sight, it would be more useful that way anyway.

(edit, clarified point)

[CapnWildefyr]

Because the spell description already says that nothing physical can penetrate it--saying it provides cover would be redundant. Consider that Wall of Stone also doesn't say it provides cover--it's enough that it creates an obstruction.

And you totally can Misty Step across a Wall of Force. Wall of Force only blocks targeting, and Misty Step targets the caster, not the destination.

Whether a Medusa's gaze works across a Wall of Force would be a DM call--nothing in the description of the ability requires a target, which suggests to me that it should work just fine, but a DM could rule that the ability implicitly targets the creatures it affects, and thus would be blocked.

(Unfortunately, the fuzziness of 5e targeting rules makes for a lot of edge cases in terms of what is and is not blocked by a Wall of Force.)

This made me go back to the spell description for WOF. Which is (copied from DND Beyond):


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.

Nowhere in there does it mention stopping magic. Nowhere does it mention spell targeting. Now, some spells would fail because the magic has a physical presence that must travel to a target -- rays, magic missiles, etc. Can't send those spells through a WoF.

Therefore, RAW has to be: you can target things on the other side of the wall, and cast other spells through it as long as the DM deems that the spell does not have to go through the wall in a physical sense. (I don't think you can get away from DM interpretation there.)

On a side note, a spell to see invisibility might not help here, anyway -- so you need to be able to target WoF somehow with disintegrate. This is interpretation, but in popular fiction (from Star Trek/Wars to Forbidden Planet to whatever) a WoF is just naturally invisible. It's not obscured by magic, it just does not reflect light. Light passes through it naturally. If you see a WoF "as if it were visible," (quote from See Invisibility), it would look the same. So if you can't target it, you could never dispel it.

[da newt]

"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."

APPEAR - verb
1.
come into sight; become visible or noticeable, typically without visible agent or apparent cause.
"smoke appeared on the horizon"

That's right, the spell specifically says that an INVISIBLE wall APPEARS. Really?

As with many other examples, the wording of spells, rules etc are contradictory and full of holes. Hopefully fixing this will be a primary goal of the next edition.


As for the RAW answer to the question: The spell DISINTEGRATE very specifically says the target can be "a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by WALL OF FORCE." - Therefor, WOF is a valid target even though you cannot see it.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would argue that "concealed" in that rule is being used with a non-standard definition to mean the obstacle blocks all straight paths to the target. There are several reasons to think so. First, the key phrase isn't just "concealed", it's "concealed by an obstacle". If the visual concealment was the important part, why does it matter that it has to be an obstacle? Second, the common usage of "cover" implies using a physical obstacle for protection, and has nothing to do with visibility. In real life, taking cover behind a thick-but-transparent piece of plexiglass makes perfectly good sense--we wouldn't say that the plexiglass doesn't provide cover merely because it can be seen through. Finally, in the context of the rules, it appears that the physical protection of an obstacle is what the cover rules are trying to model--there are already separate rules for visual obscurement.

As for your scenario, with a physical attack, trying to target an invalid target behind full cover presumably just has the weapon hit the cover. Trying to target an invalid target with a spell is a known hole in the rules that the DM has to fill. XGTE includes an optional rule that the DM can choose to use in such circumstances: the spell fails (so in the case of Distingegrate, no green ray is created) and the spell slot is expended.

The Devs I believed tried to go with fairly standard definitions of words, and if they were not using that standard definition, they provide clear (or at least attempts at clear) rules to provide for their exceptions. So using a non-standard definition of "concealed" seems like a weird choice.

If somebody in real life is hiding behind a clear plexiglass divider, they might be behind cover, but I could still target them with a nerf gun. I might not be able to HIT them, but I can still target them. I get that in the case of WOF, the spell effect or missile attack would not go through the wall, but I can still clearly see them to target them.

Maybe by RAW you are correct, but this seems incredibly stupid in practice. I can Misty Step to the other side of the wall, and I can use a spell like Hold Person on somebody on the other side, but I can't even target them with my bow, despite being able to clearly see them? Just seems very odd.

[Segev]

I think we are forgetting that this is 5e. "Rulings, not rules" is the watchphrase, and whether you can aim at something on the far side of a wall of force is best left to the judgment of what makes sense to the DM. Obviously, you can see anything that's not hidden by some other means that is on the far side of a wall of force. It seems to block line of effect, but whether that prevents you from attempting to target something and simply having anything "aimed through" stopped by the wall, or prevents you from even trying to "aim through" it, is another question.

[Avonar]

If something has total cover, it can't be targeted. But Wall of Force is invisble. So what happens if you don't know there's a WOF? Do you go to target something, only to be told you can't target it for some reason? No, I'd say Wall of Force doesn't provide cover but certainly blocks any form of projectile.

For this reason, I see no reason why you can't shoot a disintegrate to something beyond the wall which will then hit the wall instead.

[Segev]

If something has total cover, it can't be targeted. But Wall of Force is invisble. So what happens if you don't know there's a WOF? Do you go to target something, only to be told you can't target it for some reason? No, I'd say Wall of Force doesn't provide cover but certainly blocks any form of projectile.

For this reason, I see no reason why you can't shoot a disintegrate to something beyond the wall which will then hit the wall instead.

Seems reasonable to me.

[msfnc]

If something has total cover, it can't be targeted. But Wall of Force is invisble. So what happens if you don't know there's a WOF? Do you go to target something, only to be told you can't target it for some reason? No, I'd say Wall of Force doesn't provide cover but certainly blocks any form of projectile.

For this reason, I see no reason why you can't shoot a disintegrate to something beyond the wall which will then hit the wall instead.

This. Exactly this.

[Telok]

You know... It doesn't say you have to disentegrate the wall. You can argue/rule that any disentegrate spell poofs the wall. Weird.

This was all so much simpler when disentegrate was a ray with an attack roll.

[Xetheral]

Nowhere in there does it mention stopping magic. Nowhere does it mention spell targeting. Now, some spells would fail because the magic has a physical presence that must travel to a target -- rays, magic missiles, etc. Can't send those spells through a WoF.

Therefore, RAW has to be: you can target things on the other side of the wall, and cast other spells through it as long as the DM deems that the spell does not have to go through the wall in a physical sense. (I don't think you can get away from DM interpretation there.)

It's a physical obstacle and physical obstacles provide cover. The spell targeting rules explicitly require a clear (i.e. unobstructed) path to the target and Wall of Force definitely obstructs a clear path. I don't see how you can reach the opposite conclusion. True, the description of the spell doesn't reiterate the basic spell targeting rules, but why would you expect it to?


The Devs I believed tried to go with fairly standard definitions of words, and if they were not using that standard definition, they provide clear (or at least attempts at clear) rules to provide for their exceptions. So using a non-standard definition of "concealed" seems like a weird choice.

If somebody in real life is hiding behind a clear plexiglass divider, they might be behind cover, but I could still target them with a nerf gun. I might not be able to HIT them, but I can still target them. I get that in the case of WOF, the spell effect or missile attack would not go through the wall, but I can still clearly see them to target them.

Maybe by RAW you are correct, but this seems incredibly stupid in practice. I can Misty Step to the other side of the wall, and I can use a spell like Hold Person on somebody on the other side, but I can't even target them with my bow, despite being able to clearly see them? Just seems very odd.

I agree that an interpretation requiring a non-standard definition would ordinarily be disfavored. Here, however, in addition to the contextual hints that "concealed" is being used to mean "covered" (in the colloquial sense, not the game-rule sense) we have the developer confirming that cover (in the game-rule sense) is based on physical obstruction and has nothing to do with visual obstruction. Ergo, the word "concealed" wasn't used in it's standard sense, which is purely visual.

Note that Hold Person explicitly requires a target, so contrary to your assertion, it can't be cast through a Wall of Force. And as a DM I would totally let you shoot an arrow in any direction you want. For rules purposes, anything behind the Wall of Force can't be targeted, so you can't invoke the Attack mechanics, but that doesn't mean your character can't point a bow in the direction of someone (knowingly or unknowingly) behind a Wall of Force and loose an arrow. It just doesn't need the Attack mechanics to resolve because there's a literal wall in the way, making the outcome a foregone conclusion.

Spells requiring a target are different, as without a target they don't do anything. If you were in the vacuum of space (in a spacesuit, to enable verbal components) with nothing else in range you couldn't just fire a Disintegrate in a random direction, because you can't successfully cast the spell in the first place without a target. (Note that this is different from 3.5 where the effect of Disintegrate was to create a magical ray that had to be aimed and could miss.) If you tried to do it anyway, what happens is up to the DM, but personally I would use the optional rule in XGTE that the spell fails and the slot is consumed.

To me, common sense supports my approach. It doesn't make sense to me that a spell that would be blocked by a rock wall due to the physical obstruction can somehow freely pass the physical obstruction created by the Wall of Force.

[Democratus]

The description says "nothing can physically pass through the wall".

Does this mean non-physical things can pass through?

Is the ray of a disintegration spell physical? A lightning bolt?

[Xetheral]

If something has total cover, it can't be targeted. But Wall of Force is invisble. So what happens if you don't know there's a WOF? Do you go to target something, only to be told you can't target it for some reason? No, I'd say Wall of Force doesn't provide cover but certainly blocks any form of projectile.

For this reason, I see no reason why you can't shoot a disintegrate to something beyond the wall which will then hit the wall instead.

(Emphasis added.) The bolded part doesn't make any sense to me. How can something block any form of projectile yet not provide cover? What does "cover" mean to you?

As for what happens if you try to target an invalid target, that's a known hole in the rules, which is why an optional rule was provided in XGTE to address that scenario: the spell fails, and the slot is wasted. Here's a tweet (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/07/i-want-ready-a-spell-what-happens-if-a-target-is-invalid/) from Crawford saying exactly the same thing. (It's in the context of a question about the Ready action, but the answer is quite general.)

[Avonar]

(Emphasis added.) The bolded part doesn't make any sense to me. How can something block any form of projectile yet not provide cover? What does "cover" mean to you?

As for what happens if you try to target an invalid target, that's a known hole in the rules, which is why an optional rule was provided in XGTE to address that scenario: the spell fails, and the slot is wasted. Here's a tweet (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/07/i-want-ready-a-spell-what-happens-if-a-target-is-invalid/) from Crawford saying exactly the same thing. (It's in the context of a question about the Ready action, but the answer is quite general.)

I take cover to simply mean something you can't see. An invisble wall doesn't conceal anything. Per my above example, you try and fire bolt something that's behind a wall of force. You don't know there's a wall of force. What happens? Does the spell just fail, or does it hit the wall?

Wall of Force says nothing about cover. The covers taking about something being concealed, which to me strongly implies vision, which makes sense. You can't target a thing if you cannot see it. You can't shoot at a person behind the door because you can't see them, but you can shoot at the door. I see this being exactly the same.

[Xetheral]

I take cover to simply mean something you can't see. An invisble wall doesn't conceal anything. Per my above example, you try and fire bolt something that's behind a wall of force. You don't know there's a wall of force. What happens? Does the spell just fail, or does it hit the wall?

Wall of Force says nothing about cover. The covers taking about something being concealed, which to me strongly implies vision, which makes sense. You can't target a thing if you cannot see it. You can't shoot at a person behind the door because you can't see them, but you can shoot at the door. I see this being exactly the same.

Then we are interpreting cover entirely differently. To me, obscurement is the game mechanic that covers what you can and cannot see. Cover deals purely with physical obstruction, despite the designer's unfortunate choice of the word "concealed" in the definition of full cover. In support of my interpretation, consider the cover rules in their entirety:


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.

Note that with the exception of the anomalous use of the word "concealed" in the definition of total cover, each of the levels of cover focus on the degree of protection provided by an obstacle. Examples include (emphasis added): "...can provide cover during combat, marking a target more difficult to harm" (rather than cover making the target more difficult to see); "only the most protective degree of cover applies" (focusing on the protective quality of cover, rather than blocking vision); "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body" (using "blocks" for half cover instead of "concealed"); and "A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle" (using "covered" for three-quarters cover instead of "concealed"). Based on the language, it is very definite that half-cover and three-quarters cover are caused by physical obstruction, rather than being visual. It would be very anomalous if total cover was instead purely a visual phenomenon, despite ostensibly being a progression of degrees of cover.

[CapnWildefyr]

It's a physical obstacle and physical obstacles provide cover. The spell targeting rules explicitly require a clear (i.e. unobstructed) path to the target and Wall of Force definitely obstructs a clear path. I don't see how you can reach the opposite conclusion. True, the description of the spell doesn't reiterate the basic spell targeting rules, but why would you expect it to?


The spell does not say it provides cover, in the sense you mean. It blocks things physically passing through it, yes, but that is not quite the same thing as providing obscurement from targeting. The spell in 3.5 used to say it blocked all magical effects from passing through it. In 5e, it no longer says that. It literally cannot obstruct anything it does not stop, and it no longer stops magic, so how can it provide cover for targeting a spell? (I agree with you that spells that create physical manifestations which have to pass through the WoF -- like fireball -- would be blocked, but they can be cast. But lightning bolt - right through, it's all energy. Magic missile? If the missiles can go around/over the wall without traveling more than 120 ft, why would they not hit?) Now, I understand there may be JC tweets and such, but I've always read in these forums, 'tweets are not official.'

But still, for the OP question, in my PHB, Disintegrate specifically says that you can target a WoF. Specific beats general.

[Segev]

"Specific beats general" isn't a useful standard when you're saying "it doesn't include this word, therefore it specifically isn't doing that." That's not really how it works.

That said, I think "rulings, not rules" really needs to be applied here.

But let's also consider a simple glass window. If there were an open window in a wall, big enough for a Medium creature to squeeze through fairly comfortably, would you permit somebody to target another creature on the far side of that wall that he can see through the window? I hope so; the creature has, at best, half cover (probably no cover) from the wall.

What if the window is closed, but is a very clear glass?



As another thought experiment, let's say you have a pane of glass in the middle of a field. Nothing on either side of it; you can easily walk around. Can you target a creature on the far side of the glass?

What if it's a wall of force instead of glass?

[msfnc]

From PHB:

"1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll."

emphasis mine. At my table, if a creature or object is visible, it can be targeted. If there's a barrier to the attack reaching that target, said barrier is affected by the attack in whatever manner is appropriate. There's simply no way I'm ever going to tell a player, "You see the evil wizard on the other side of the chamber, but you cannot fling your axe at him because of invisible reasons." I will let him fling his axe, his axe will stop mid-air and fall to the ground, short of its intended target.

[Democratus]

We know that light can pass through a Wall of Force.

Would a Wall of Force stop the sun from melting a Vampire?

If not, would it stop the Sunbeam spell? Would it block the spread of a Darkness or Light spell?

[da newt]

Interestingly the PHB section on COVER never once mentions if you can SEE the target or part of a target or anything to do with sight at all. The closest it gets is using the word CONCEAL in the description of FULL COVER - certainly that implies sight, but it might just be a sloppy word choice.

If you cannot see a target, you attack w/ DISADV from unseen. If you have no path of attack / if the target has full COVER, you cannot attack it.

Some spells do require LOS to target.

[Xetheral]

The spell does not say it provides cover, in the sense you mean. It blocks things physically passing through it, yes, but that is not quite the same thing as providing obscurement from targeting. The spell in 3.5 used to say it blocked all magical effects from passing through it. In 5e, it no longer says that. It literally cannot obstruct anything it does not stop, and it no longer stops magic, so how can it provide cover for targeting a spell? (I agree with you that spells that create physical manifestations which have to pass through the WoF -- like fireball -- would be blocked, but they can be cast. But lightning bolt - right through, it's all energy. Magic missile? If the missiles can go around/over the wall without traveling more than 120 ft, why would they not hit?) Now, I understand there may be JC tweets and such, but I've always read in these forums, 'tweets are not official.'

(Bold emphasis added.) Cover isn't the same thing as "providing obscurement from targeting" either. Cover is a physical obstruction, whereas obscurement is its own thing in the rules. (For evidence supporting my claim that cover is a physical obstruction rather than a visual one, please see my recent posts in this thread.)

Wall of Force doesn't have any special language blocking magic, but it still blocks tatgeted magic just as well any other physical obstruction. Targeted spells require a "clear path to the target" (PHB 204) and an impenetrable physical barrier between the caster and the target certainly prevents having the required clear path.

Let's consider Hold Person. The spell has two (relevant) requirements: first, there must be a clear path to the target; second, you must be able to see the target. For a target behind a Wall of Stone, there is neither the required clear path nor is the caster able to see the target, so the spell can't be cast successfully. For a target in darkness that cannot be seen, the spell also can't be cast, even though there is the required clear path. For a target behind a Wall of Force, there is no clear path, so the spell can't be cast, even though the caster can see the target.

Under 5e rules Hold Person and Disintegrate have the same two (relevant) requirements, so Disintegrate similarly can't be cast against a target in darkness, or behind either a Wall of Stone or a Wall of Force. Of course, the Wall of Stone itself is a valid target for Disintegrate if the caster can see it and has a clear path to it. Similarly, Wall of Force is a valid target for Disintegrate if the caster can see it and has a clear path to it.

[Keravath]

Spells requiring a target are different, as without a target they don't do anything. If you were in the vacuum of space (in a spacesuit, to enable verbal components) with nothing else in range you couldn't just fire a Disintegrate in a random direction, because you can't successfully cast the spell in the first place without a target. (Note that this is different from 3.5 where the effect of Disintegrate was to create a magical ray that had to be aimed and could miss.) If you tried to do it anyway, what happens is up to the DM, but personally I would use the optional rule in XGTE that the spell fails and the slot is consumed.

To me, common sense supports my approach. It doesn't make sense to me that a spell that would be blocked by a rock wall due to the physical obstruction can somehow freely pass the physical obstruction created by the Wall of Force.

Getting back to the original question :)

Disintegrate requires a target. The spell description says that valid targets are creatures, objects and force constructs (like a wall of force). The first sentence of disintegrate requires a target that you can see and the second sentence specifies what those valid targets are.

You can't see a wall of force. Although it is a valid target for the spell, nothing seems to remove the requirement that you be able to see the wall of force in order to target it.

However, if you can't see a wall of force and you can't target something on the far side of it, then how do you target a wall of force with a disintegrate spell?

Or do you just rule that you don't need to be able to see a wall of force in order to cast disintegrate on it? In which case does this bypass obscurement? If you don't need to see an invisible wall of force in order to target it with disintegrate then you should be able to target the wall of force even if you are in a fog cloud or darkness and can't see since you couldn't see the wall of force anyway.

[Xetheral]

Getting back to the original question :)

Disintegrate requires a target. The spell description says that valid targets are creatures, objects and force constructs (like a wall of force). The first sentence of disintegrate requires a target that you can see and the second sentence specifies what those valid targets are.

You can't see a wall of force. Although it is a valid target for the spell, nothing seems to remove the requirement that you be able to see the wall of force in order to target it.

However, if you can't see a wall of force and you can't target something on the far side of it, then how do you target a wall of force with a disintegrate spell?

Or do you just rule that you don't need to be able to see a wall of force in order to cast disintegrate on it? In which case does this bypass obscurement? If you don't need to see an invisible wall of force in order to target it with disintegrate then you should be able to target the wall of force even if you are in a fog cloud or darkness and can't see since you couldn't see the wall of force anyway.

I would argue that one needs to be able to see the Wall of Force to be able to target it with Disintegrate. Just as a blind caster can't cast Disintegrate on anything, and a sighted caster can't cast Disintegrate on invisible creatures, a sighted caster can't cast Disintegrate on invisible force constructs. See Invisibility would definitely work. Depending on DM ruling, marking the wall with blood or paint might also let you "see" the wall, but that will vary from table to table.

[msfnc]

Sigh. I told myself to just be done with this, and then I went and mentioned it to someone else, and now I have :::shudder::: points to make. SE immediately brought up Sacred Flame: 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.

So his scenario is this: two enemy combatants in range. One is completely obscured behind a boulder, the other is visible on the other side of a Wall of Force. Enemy one has cover, but is not visible and therefore not a valid target of the spell. Enemy two is visible, therefore targetable.

I hope this doesn't complicate the issue any further, but for me it really drives home the difference between "cover" and "concealment".

[CapnWildefyr]

I would argue that one needs to be able to see the Wall of Force to be able to target it with Disintegrate. Just as a blind caster can't cast Disintegrate on anything, and a sighted caster can't cast Disintegrate on invisible creatures, a sighted caster can't cast Disintegrate on invisible force constructs. See Invisibility would definitely work. Depending on DM ruling, marking the wall with blood or paint might also let you "see" the wall, but that will vary from table to table.

But WoF is not invisible because magic is obscuring it from sight. It simply does not reflect any light, like a perfect pane of clear and clean and non-reflective glass viewed straight-on. See Invisibility won't work, because you are seeing it as it is. Detect magic lets you "sense" magic, but you can only see an aura around visible things using it. Even true sight only lets you "see things as they actually are," and in this case WoF is see-through - you are already seeing it as it really is. That's why you have to let the specific rule about targeting WoF with Disintegrate apply. Otherwise you could never get rid of one. Think of it this way -- what exactly does a WoF look like, that See Invisibility would work? What color is it?

BTW I agree with what you're saying for basically every other spell-target combo out there, just not this one because of the explicit wording.

[Segev]

But WoF is not invisible because magic is obscuring it from sight. It simply does not reflect any light, like a perfect pane of clear and clean and non-reflective glass viewed straight-on. See Invisibility won't work, because you are seeing it as it is.

And invisible stalkers are "naturally invisible," but still can be seen with see invisibility, even though "invisible" is how they "actually are." If you are going to get pedantic to this level, then wall of force expressly calls out that it is invisible, so see invisible would let you see it. It doesn't say anything about whether the invisible thing is magically invisible or naturally invisible: it lets you see invisible things.

[Xetheral]

Sigh. I told myself to just be done with this, and then I went and mentioned it to someone else, and now I have :::shudder::: points to make. SE immediately brought up Sacred Flame: 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.

So his scenario is this: two enemy combatants in range. One is completely obscured behind a boulder, the other is visible on the other side of a Wall of Force. Enemy one has cover, but is not visible and therefore not a valid target of the spell. Enemy two is visible, therefore targetable.

I hope this doesn't complicate the issue any further, but for me it really drives home the difference between "cover" and "concealment".

I agree: Sacred Flame would work across a Wall of Force because its description makes an exception to the normal rule that you can't target anything behind full cover. (Honestly the wording is slightly ambiguous as to whether the spell bypasses cover completely or just avoids giving a cover bonus to the saving throw, but Crawford has confirmed in a podcast that Sacred Flame is intended to bypass full cover.)


But WoF is not invisible because magic is obscuring it from sight. It simply does not reflect any light, like a perfect pane of clear and clean and non-reflective glass viewed straight-on. See Invisibility won't work, because you are seeing it as it is. Detect magic lets you "sense" magic, but you can only see an aura around visible things using it. Even true sight only lets you "see things as they actually are," and in this case WoF is see-through - you are already seeing it as it really is. That's why you have to let the specific rule about targeting WoF with Disintegrate apply. Otherwise you could never get rid of one. Think of it this way -- what exactly does a WoF look like, that See Invisibility would work? What color is it?

BTW I agree with what you're saying for basically every other spell-target combo out there, just not this one because of the explicit wording.

See Invisibilty says: "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent." Since Wall of Force says it is invisible, See Invisibility would instead make the Wall of Force visible. How the Wall of Force became invisible isn't relevant.

[Hannibal78]

J.C. like to remind, Invisibility in 5e a Condition. See Invisibility give you the option to see that condition regardless of the source of the invisibility.

[PhantomSoul]

From PHB:

"1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll."

emphasis mine. At my table, if a creature or object is visible, it can be targeted. If there's a barrier to the attack reaching that target, said barrier is affected by the attack in whatever manner is appropriate. There's simply no way I'm ever going to tell a player, "You see the evil wizard on the other side of the chamber, but you cannot fling your axe at him because of invisible reasons." I will let him fling his axe, his axe will stop mid-air and fall to the ground, short of its intended target.

That's how my groups have played too; cover ([lack of] line of effect / clear path) is different from line of sight.

The section on Targeting even says you hit the intervening obstruction on your side of the obstruction if there's cover (talking about the point of origin of point-targeting spells).

[Telok]

See Invisibilty says: "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent." Since Wall of Force says it is invisible, See Invisibility would instead make the Wall of Force visible. How the Wall of Force became invisible isn't relevant.

But isn't the wall a force effect? That's not an object any more than acceleration due to gravity is an object. If it were a object you couldn't argue that lightning bolts go through it.

[Xetheral]

But isn't the wall a force effect? That's not an object any more than acceleration due to gravity is an object. If it were a object you couldn't argue that lightning bolts go through it.

I would argue that the wall created by Wall of Force is absolutely an object. I also certainly don't think that lightning bolts go through it--the wall explicitly blocks everything physical, and a lightning bolt is a physical electrical discharge (plus the resulting physical effects, such as the plasma channel).

Note that Disintegrate refers to the wall created by Wall of Force as a "creation of magical force", not a "force effect" (although in the D&D context those phrases might be synonymous). I don't interpret the spell as merely creating a vector field, so your comparison to the acceleration created by gravity seems inapt. Note that Reverse Gravity, which does effectively create a vector field, doesn't refer to magical force at all.

[MrStabby]

If something has total cover, it can't be targeted. But Wall of Force is invisble. So what happens if you don't know there's a WOF? Do you go to target something, only to be told you can't target it for some reason? No, I'd say Wall of Force doesn't provide cover but certainly blocks any form of projectile.

For this reason, I see no reason why you can't shoot a disintegrate to something beyond the wall which will then hit the wall instead.

Well you know the wall of force is there unless it takes the hide action.

[Telok]

I would argue that the wall created by Wall of Force is absolutely an object. I also certainly don't think that lightning bolts go through it--the wall explicitly blocks everything physical, and a lightning bolt is a physical electrical discharge (plus the resulting physical effects, such as the plasma channel).

Note that Disintegrate refers to the wall created by Wall of Force as a "creation of magical force", not a "force effect" (although in the D&D context those phrases might be synonymous). I don't interpret the spell as merely creating a vector field, so your comparison to the acceleration created by gravity seems inapt. Note that Reverse Gravity, which does effectively create a vector field, doesn't refer to magical force at all.

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that the way the story should go is: A PC thumps head first into an invisible barrier, pokes around a bit, says "It a Wall of Force!", busts out the ol' Disintegrate, and keeps on trucking. The issue at hand is that the stuff written down in the books don't seem to support that and/or failed to check the actual spellcasting rules before writing the spells.

As for "a lightning bolt is a physical electrical discharge", that's just whack. You'd start caring about conductivity, water, and copper wires wrapped around big iron cylinders being used to disarm the fighters and hose the archers. Mind, I don't say it hasn't been done before (AD&D DMG), but it's not the 5e way.

[Xetheral]

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that the way the story should go is: A PC thumps head first into an invisible barrier, pokes around a bit, says "It a Wall of Force!", busts out the ol' Disintegrate, and keeps on trucking. The issue at hand is that the stuff written down in the books don't seem to support that and/or failed to check the actual spellcasting rules before writing the spells.

I disagree. Disintegrate in this edition requires a target you can see (and to which there is a clear path). You can't Disintegrate invisible creatures without a method of seeing them, so why should you be able to Disintegrate an invisible object without a method of seeing it?


As for "a lightning bolt is a physical electrical discharge", that's just whack. You'd start caring about conductivity, water, and copper wires wrapped around big iron cylinders being used to disarm the fighters and hose the archers. Mind, I don't say it hasn't been done before (AD&D DMG), but it's not the 5e way.

Ok, so maybe electricity works differently in your game world, but whatever lightning is made of in your world, the lightning bolt still occupies physical space and has to physically travel from the caster along a 100' long line. That's what "Range: Self (100-foot line)" means. But nothing (except light, since the wall is invisible) can physically pass through the wall. So it really doesn't matter what lightning is made of in your world, a Lightning Bolt still can't physically pass through a Wall of Force.

Purely mental effects that don't require targets (or whose targets are on the near side of the wall) would be able to "pass through" the wall (to extent that location or movement is even meaningful for the effect in question). Non-physical (and non-ethereal) movement also works so long as the targets are on the near side, so Misty Step and Dimension Door work to teleport to the far side of the wall. Illusions should be able to be created on the far side of the wall (so long as they don't require a target), but once they occupy a physical location it is unclear whether movable illusions like Major Image would be able to be moved through the wall--the illusion itself isn't physical, but the movement is. (I'd probably allow it, but I haven't considered it much.) Some illusions arguably exist only in the target's mind, such as the illusion created by Phantasmal Force, could (appear to) pass through the wall, since it's purely in the mind of the target. (On the other hand, the spell talks about the illusion having a physical location separate from the creature--depending on how the DM resolves the apparent contradictions in the spell description may affect its interaction with Wall of Force.) Creatures can probably be summoned on the other side of the wall, unless the spell targets a specific location. And of course any spell that explictly ignores cover also works, like Sacred Flame.

Lightning Bolt isn't like any of these things, and the spell explicitly says that the lightning "blasts out from you in a direction you choose", so it's definitely moving physically. I don't see why you would think that the lightning can somehow move through a Wall of Force. Maybe we are using different definitions of "physical movement"? To me, physical movement is when something has a physical location, and that location changes by passing through all the locations on a continuous path between the start and end point. How are you defining it?

[Telok]

I disagree. Disintegrate in this edition requires...

Ok, so maybe electricity works differently in your game world, but whatever lightning is...

You missed the point. I'm not saying how things should or do work. It's just that here are more blanks in the rules caused by certain interpretations.

The obvious intention of Wall of Force vs. Disentegrate is that people can disentigrate the wall. The rules of magic & Distentegrate make that not-RAW, or at least quite debatable.

Your thing on lightning and electricity is at risk of wandering into unintended consequences. Physical vs. energy vs. force vs. magical effect (and assorted combinations thereof) is quite a rabbit hole to go down. 5e ignores all physics when dealing with magic, they don't want to deal with things like how being underwater affects electricity, sonic, fire, acid, etc. spells. Change that assumption and you either go with constantly changing how spells work through lots of spot rulings, or you try to create a consistent framework covering all these spell effects in different situations.

[Valmark]

Hi All,

Looking for some input on a situation that may come up and I am trying to figure out how to rule on it in advance. I run the game as close to RAW as is reasonable so I'd prefer a solution based on RAW - I know that I can ultimately decide it any way I like.

Wall of Force:
"An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range."

1) Wall of force is invisible.
2) Do you have to be able to SEE where you place the wall (for example can it be cast in darkness or a fog cloud?)

RAW all it says is place the wall at a point you CHOOSE within range. No requirement that you be able to see it. Neither darkness nor fog cloud provide total cover which would block line of effect for the spell.

Can you cast a Wall of Force while in a fog cloud or darkness?

Disintegrate:

"A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range. The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force."

Disintegrate requires you to target something that you can see. A wall of force is invisible, you can't see it, so it is not a valid target for disintegrate.Except disintegrate specifically lists a creation of magical force (using wall of force as an example) as a valid target even though you can't see it. Does this mean that when Disintegrate is targeted at magical force constructs like wall of force you don't actually need to be able to see it? (or does the caster need to have see invisible running in order to use Disintegrate on a Wall of Force?)

Specific situation - Can you use Disintegrate to remove a wall of force when the caster is inside a fog cloud since they can't SEE a wall of force anyway since it is invisible - I don't see what effect being in a fog cloud would have on casting distintegrate against a wall of force you can't see anyway - even though Disintegrate specifies a target that you can see.

P.S. Sage Advice compendium doesn't seem to have anything relevant.

Regarding Wall of Force, yes you can. Homewever you'll have to see with the DM wether you can target the exact space- being able to target something you can't see doesn't mean that you'll be able to get the position right. It's not an issue if you just need to calculate the distance from you, but it could be an issue if there's something like an obstacle in the middle.

As far as Disintegrate goes, you need to pop something like See Invisibility (you'd need more then that to see through the fog cloud example) to make it a valid target, otherwise the spell won't have any effect.
That said, it's up to the DM to determine wether Disintegrate needs to pass phisically through a Wall of Force- there is no text on that, so they might as well rule that it doesn't stop a Disintegrate.

EDIT: Also, the rule on invalid targets is an optional rule. DMs are free to ignore that (like any other, but even more so) which is what I'd do, personally. Just keep that in mind.

[Xetheral]

You missed the point. I'm not saying how things should or do work. It's just that here are more blanks in the rules caused by certain interpretations.

The obvious intention of Wall of Force vs. Disentegrate is that people can disentigrate the wall. The rules of magic & Distentegrate make that not-RAW, or at least quite debatable.

I'm confused. I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that one can't use Disintegrate to destroy a Wall of Force. The only debates seems to be (a) whether or not an extra step is required to be able to see the wall before you can target it, and (b) whether or not you can Disintegrate the wall without targeting it by targeting something behind it. Everyone seems to agree, however, that Distingegrate can destroy the wall--it's just a question of how one goes about it.


Your thing on lightning and electricity is at risk of wandering into unintended consequences. Physical vs. energy vs. force vs. magical effect (and assorted combinations thereof) is quite a rabbit hole to go down. 5e ignores all physics when dealing with magic, they don't want to deal with things like how being underwater affects electricity, sonic, fire, acid, etc. spells. Change that assumption and you either go with constantly changing how spells work through lots of spot rulings, or you try to create a consistent framework covering all these spell effects in different situations.

Regardless of one's assumptions and the degree to which one considers physics, to be able to rule on what is stopped by a Wall of Force, the DM is going to need to make a ruling on what it means to "physically pass through" the Wall of Force, since that is what is forbidden. Deciding to completely ignore physics doesn't avoid the need to make that ruling.

After reading back I realize my explanations of my approach were not articulated well, so for clarity, my ruling on what it means to "physically pass through" the wall does not depend on real-world physics. I rule that anything that has a physical location, and moves by following a continuous path through space, cannot pass through the wall, except for light. That means that spells like Lightning Bolt (Range: Self (100-foot line)) that start at the caster and then move away are all blocked by the wall. In the case of Lightning Bolt I would describe it at my table as the electrical discharge being unable to penetrate the wall, but my ruling does not depend on my description of Lightning Bolt as an electrical discharge.

If there were a Magical Bolt spell that did untyped damage with a Range of Self (100-foot line) and was described as pure magical energy, I would still rule that it was unable to penetrate the wall, because the magical energy has a physical location that explicitly starts at the caster and physically moves in a continuous line, and Wall of Force says that "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."