Ghostly Gaze and Sacred Flame

[Chronos]

A friend pointed this out to me. There's a warlock invocation from Xanathar's, Ghostly Gaze, that basically gives you X-ray vision. So you can, for instance, see into a sealed, locked room from outside. Now, normally this wouldn't be too overpowered, because even if you can see into the room, everything inside still has full cover from you, so you can't do anything to them.

But the core rules have the Sacred Flame cantrip, which explicitly ignores cover. And it's not even too hard to get both: A celestial warlock, or any warlock with Pact of the Tome, can get both without even multiclassing, or you can get the cantrip or the invocation from a feat, or whatever.

So what's to stop a warlock from just gazing into a room and spamming Sacred Flame on whomever they see inside? Sure, it's just cantrip damage, but 10 rounds of cantrip damage is a lot, when the target can't even respond.

[Mastikator]

Sure, if they in a sealed room with a steel door, locked and they don't have a key, you could do up to 20d8 damage to a creature. But that's a bit of a ludicrous scenario. Why don't they have the key? How did they get into the sealed locked room if they don't have a key?
If they can unlock the door, but you barricaded the door, can't they break it open?

[Amnestic]

This is incorrect. Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw," not that it "ignores cover". The two are different.

You have no line of effect to the target, because they have Total Cover therefore you can't target them even if you can see them (just as you couldn't target someone with it through a pane of solid, transparent glass). There's no saving throw at all, so Sacred Flame has no benefit at all compared to any other cantrip you'd choose.

[Zhorn]

This is incorrect. Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw," not that it "ignores cover". The two are different.
It is an interesting situation.
Total cover rules do specify the target cannot be targeted directly by spells, so on that front i say you have a lot of ground with your stance.
Though in the scenario that warlock has clear vision of the target with no visual obscurement, and the spell being used does not project from the caster, but just requires you to be able to see the target and the spell has "flame-like radiance descend on the target".

More inclined to treat this similarly to other spells that are cast at a creature as though hitting a point in space rather than a projection from the caster to the target.
Example: scrying isn't blocked by total cover, sending isn't either

[Amnestic]

Example: scrying isn't blocked by total cover, sending isn't either

Scrying and Sending both have specifics about their exemptions in their text which mark them as special for targeting purposes. Sacred Flame is no different to Toll the Dead, Acid Splash, or any of the other save-based cantrips in how it targets something.

Though the idea that the flame 'descends' and is therefore blocked by roofs (much like Call Lightning is), making it useless in dungeons, is an interesting one. Probably not quite what's intended though.

[Zhorn]

Scrying and Sending both have specifics about their exemptions in their text which mark them as special for targeting purposes.
Respectfully disagree; neither Scrying nor Sending explicitly call out the exception to the general anti-targeting rule in Total Cover.
It is worth noting that the Total Cover rules do call out some spells can still reach Total Cover targets via area of effect; which none of out examples are.
This isn't going to be a "one true interpretation rule" but a "how reasonable will your DM be on the leniency of targeting" type scenario.

Sacred Flame is no different to Toll the Dead, Acid Splash, or any of the other save-based cantrips in how it targets something.
There is a difference in the narrative delivery via flavor text.
Sacred Flame isn't point-to-point, it only descends on the target. You raise a point about the roof issue, but that will become an argument for your table in determinging how high above the target the flame appear before descending.
Acid splash is called out as point-to-point as the caster hurls a bubble of acid at the target(s)
Toll the dead is pointing at the target you can see, but similar to Sacred Flame the spell effect occurs at the location.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is incorrect. Sacred Flame says "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw," not that it "ignores cover". The two are different.
But all the caster needs to be able to do is see the target. Using a mirror around the corner is but one example.

Though the idea that the flame 'descends' and is therefore blocked by roofs (much like Call Lightning is), making it useless in dungeons, is an interesting one. Probably not quite what's intended though. Incorrect. Zhorn has the right of it.

Sure, if they in a sealed room with a steel door, locked and they don't have a key, you could do up to 20d8 damage to a creature. But that's a bit of a ludicrous scenario. Why don't they have the key? How did they get into the sealed locked room if they don't have a key?
If they can unlock the door, but you barricaded the door, can't they break it open?
Good question, although I think that a room made from Wall of Stone sections (which got placed around the target) might fit this use case.

[Amnestic]

But all the caster needs to be able to do is see the target.

Absolutely incorrect.


To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting

The idea that targeting an individual around a corner is fine but targeting a point around a corner isn't doable is farcical, and the same concept applies whether the target is around a corner or contained within a box: you can't do it, otherwise one could simply cast spells in and out of a Forcecage, or through a Wall of Force, because you can see through it. Seeing through Total Cover doesn't allow you to target through it, and Sacred Flame doesn't have any exception for Total Cover, just that it negates any saving throw benefit of Cover.

[Psyren]

I agree with Amnestic's reading; Sacred Flame's ability to bypass cover only applies to its saving throw, not its ability to be targeted in the first place.

[JNAProductions]

I agree with Amnestic's reading; Sacred Flame's ability to bypass cover only applies to its saving throw, not its ability to be targeted in the first place.

Adding my voice to this reading.

[Chronos]

OK, I can go with Sacred Flame still needing a clear line to target. It's not necessarily the clearest reading of the spell, but it's clear-ish, and it definitely fixes this exploit.

And the room wouldn't need to be barricaded for the exploit to be viable: Remember, the victim wouldn't know what was going on. Their first thought is probably going to be that the flames are from someone hiding in the room with them. And even if they figure out that they're coming from outside, there are a lot of points that are outside of any given room, not all of them immediately accessible from that room.

[Mastikator]

OK, I can go with Sacred Flame still needing a clear line to target. It's not necessarily the clearest reading of the spell, but it's clear-ish, and it definitely fixes this exploit.

And the room wouldn't need to be barricaded for the exploit to be viable: Remember, the victim wouldn't know what was going on. Their first thought is probably going to be that the flames are from someone hiding in the room with them. And even if they figure out that they're coming from outside, there are a lot of points that are outside of any given room, not all of them immediately accessible from that room.

The victim knows they are taking damage. If a creature takes damage from an unknown source they don't just sit in place, they run. They run even if running isn't helping because they might not have ran far enough. If they are trapped in a location they will try to break out by any means necessary.

[Kane0]

If be fine with this working. Ghostly gaze is limited use, and sacred flame would be a refreshing change for a warlock to spam instead of Eldritch blast.

Edit: And of course the damage is spread out over time so the targets could still do things in response to being injured unless they are literally sealed in, at which point they werent a threat anyways and you're basically playing with your food.

[KorvinStarmast]

If be fine with this working. Ghostly gaze is limited use, and sacred flame would be a refreshing change for a warlock to spam instead of Eldritch blast.

Edit: And of course the damage is spread out over time so the targets could still do things in response to being injured unless they are literally sealed in, at which point they werent a threat anyways and you're basically playing with your food. Thank you for not jumping on the player-hating band wagon.

[JNAProductions]

Thank you for not jumping on the player-hating band wagon.

Following the rules is not hating players.

[KorvinStarmast]

Following the rules is not hating players. Being wrong doesn't make you right.

[JNAProductions]

Being wrong doesn't make you right.

Can you cite a rule that says Sacred Flame ignores Line of Effect?
If not, it follows the rules that every other spell does.

And "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw," does not remove the need for Line of Effect. It removes the Dexterity save bonus for half and 3/4ths cover.

[KorvinStarmast]

All you need to do is see the target. The sacred flame comes down on them. It's just that simple.

If you can't see them, you can't hit them with the spell. That's the limitation.

[JNAProductions]

All you need to do is see the target. The sacred flame comes down on them. It's just that simple.

If you can't see them, you can't hit them with the spell. That's the limitation.

Please cite the rule that lets Sacred Flame ignore Line of Effect.

If a DM ruled that Sacred Flame worked like this, I wouldn't much care-it's a very niche scenario-but that doesn't make it the actual rules.

[Dr.Samurai]

I LOVE the idea of hitting someone with Sacred Flame from outside a room with the door shut.

Bonus points if you hit them with telepathy like "I am Pelor, and you have displeased me, now I shall SMITE YOU!" and then BAM Sacred Flame!

[Amnestic]

Thank you for not jumping on the player-hating band wagon.

Any ruling in a game can be used by a DM as much as by a player. Do the party want to start getting blasted through walls by spells without any real chance of retaliation? Probably not, since dungeon defenders are almost certainly gonna have an easier time of setting that up than dungeon invaders (the players).

It's player-positive to not allow this.

[KorvinStarmast]

No. You are still wrong at a very basic level.

The line of effect is "from somewhere above the target" (distance undefined, and it does not need to be, could be an inch, could be 5 feet, could be 30 feet, all it needs to be is "above") "to the target" and then the target is hit by some radiant thing coming down on it.
Try not being so grid-bound. Use your imagination.

If you can't see the target you can't bring it down.

Full cover? Without a way to get around full cover you can't see it so you can't use it.
3/4 cover? You can see it and you can bring it down.

You are overcomplicating this. Willfully, I might add.

The proposal in the OP gets around not being able to see it due to full cover.
And beyond that, sacred flame is not a very strong damage spell. Been using it since 2014.
It's just not that strong.

[JNAProductions]

No. You are still wrong.
The line of effect is somewhere above the target (distance undefined, and it does not need to be) and then the target is hit by some radiant thing coming down on it.

If you can't see the target you can't bring it down.

Full cover? without a way to get around full cover you can't see it so you can't use it.
3/4 cover? You can see it and you can bring it down.

You are overcomplicating this. Willfully, I might add. And it is anti player to do so.

So if an enemy has their head right up against a ceiling, can I cast Sacred Flame on them? There's no above them other than the ceiling, so there'd be no Line of Effect.
And, again, please cite the rules that say this. I do believe that the flavor text is important, but it doesn't override general game rules without specifically overriding them. And the general rule is you need Line of Effect to a target to affect them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the meaning behind cover and targeting is assuming that something is going from you directly to the target (straight line path). So if something is providing total cover from that, you can't do it.

But Sacred Flame specifically descends down from above, and therefore someone doesn't gain the benefits of cover on the saving throw. This would suggest it's not a straight line directly from caster to target.

However, it does specify on the saving throw, and this is total cover, which doesn't provide a bonus on saving throws because it assumes you can't be targeted in the first place.

So... I still think it's a fun idea :smallcool:.

[KorvinStarmast]

So if an enemy has their head right up against a ceiling, can I cast Sacred Flame on them? There's no above them other than the ceiling, so there'd be no Line of Effect. No, the spell does not specify the head as the landing place of the spell, so you are again wrong, as it can come down and hit their shoulder, back, wing, whatever ... Mister Barracks Room Lawyer.

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.

I remember something Dave Arneson once said about rules lawyers being the enemy.

He's still right.

[Dr.Samurai]

Let's think about it this way:

Warlock is in a large room. Target is in the same room but behind a very large crate that provides TOTAL COVER. The warlock uses Ghostly Gaze to see through the crate and have line of sight on the target behind it.

Can the warlock use Sacred Flame on the target?

[JNAProductions]

If you want to follow the flavor text above the rules, you have to follow it for good and ill.
You don’t get to benefit from it when convenient but ignore it or twist it when it’s not.

Edit: and please do not insult me by calling me anti-player.
A DM is not anti-player because they don’t rule what the players want in all cases.

[Amnestic]

Let's think about it this way:

Warlock is in a large room. Target is in the same room but behind a very large crate that provides TOTAL COVER. The warlock uses Ghostly Gaze to see through the crate and have line of sight on the target behind it.

Can the warlock use Sacred Flame on the target?

No, because they're behind Total Cover, and Sacred Flame has no more benefit against total cover that any other spell that targets individuals or points does - whether it be Hold Monster, Sickening Radiance, or anything else.

Sacred Flame is explicit: Targets gain no benefits on saving throws from cover. Total Cover offers no benefits on saving throws, so the clause is irrelevant to the situation. That is the spell, as written. If you want to rule that people who can see through walls can cast through walls then that's certainly your prerogative as a DM, however I would caution anyone who did so, because the implications of such a ruling stretch beyond Ghostly Gaze and Sacred Flame.

Can a wizard (or a warlock with the appropriate infinite-cast invocation) with Arcane Eye cast through it? Can you do so through a Familiar's eyes? Or a Scrying spell? They can, with this ruling.

If my lich down in the basement of the dungeon has an arcane eye positioned two floors up, can he drop any spells that target points on the party willy nilly so long as they're within the appropriate feet radius of the caster? Certainly seems like it. Would you, as a player, find that a satisfactory and enjoyable thing to engage with?

I can say definitively: I would not. I would find it tiresome as a player to be hit by it from NPCs, and I'm sure I would find it tiresome as a player to sit around as the warlock plinks people with Sacred Flame over and over again because it's the 'safest' way to dungeon.




I remember something Dave Arneson once said about rules lawyers being the enemy.


Attempting to twist the rules to your own benefit is the worst kind of 'rules lawyering', and that's exactly what this 'exploit' seeks to do. Work off an incorrect reading of Sacred Flame to make the game less fun for everyone. That's what I'd call "anti-player".

[JNAProductions]

Note Amnestic-seeing through a familiar usually takes an action, if I recall correctly, so you couldn’t cantrip through them. Action economy and all that.

[Amnestic]

Note Amnestic-seeing through a familiar usually takes an action, if I recall correctly, so you couldn’t cantrip through them. Action economy and all that.

It does, but there's Quicken and other such tools for bonus action spells, if needed. Arcane Eye and Scrying are the more consistent ones, but Familiars are also available far earlier and more inexpensively.

[JonBeowulf]

Let's think about it this way:

Warlock is in a large room. Target is in the same room but behind a very large crate that provides TOTAL COVER. The warlock uses Ghostly Gaze to see through the crate and have line of sight on the target behind it.

Can the warlock use Sacred Flame on the target?

Sure. The same way a creature with darkvision can target someone in total darkness (not Darkness). If the spell description says, "a target you can see" then all you gotta do is be able to see the target. SF comes from above, so Line of Effect has nothing to do with the position of the caster. (Begin argument about ceiling height, etc.) Acid Splash also targets something you can see, but it originates from the caster so Line of Effect has everything to do with the position of the caster.

That's how I'd call it... until the other players made it known they were getting bored due to creatures always running away because getting SFd out of nowhere is frightening.

[Justin Sane]

Note to self: on future worldbuilding, add glass panes on most shopkeepers stalls as cheap anti-magic protection (since "can be seen" != "can be targeted"), and stop worrying how merchants deal with charms/Suggestions/etc.

[Amnestic]

Note to self: on future worldbuilding, add glass panes on most shopkeepers stalls as cheap anti-magic protection (since "can be seen" != "can be targeted"), and stop worrying how merchants deal with charms/Suggestions/etc.

Glass probably isn't that cheap, but yeah, it would block spells, just like Wall of Force - an invisible wall - does.

[Zhorn]

Glass probably isn't that cheap
valid point with medieval assumptions, though entirely irrelevant as a world-building / setting-dependant detail with magic, santa elves, animated fantasia mops, etc :smallbiggrin:

[Amnestic]

Trying to deduce anything about an economy in D&D is an exercise in madness, however we do know that a glass bottle (2lbs) costs 2gp - large panes likely cost more, and are easily breakable, either deliberately or otherwise.

While not prohibitively expensive for some merchants, panes of glass on every stall sounds like an unlikely expense for most merchants to make, but your mileage may vary. Certainly more upscale stores will likely employ glass to safeguard their employees/goods - just like we have today, in fact.

[Kane0]

Can a wizard (or a warlock with the appropriate infinite-cast invocation) with Arcane Eye cast through it? Can you do so through a Familiar's eyes? Or a Scrying spell? They can, with this ruling.

If my lich down in the basement of the dungeon has an arcane eye positioned two floors up, can he drop any spells that target points on the party willy nilly so long as they're within the appropriate feet radius of the caster? Certainly seems like it. Would you, as a player, find that a satisfactory and enjoyable thing to engage with?


UA packet 5 Gaze of Two Minds basically allowed this sort of tactic, and was rightly called out for it. Packet 7 adjusted to a 60' range on top of the consistent bonus action requirement.

[Chronos]

While (if this worked) it would also work with Scrying or Clairvoyance, those would be a lot harder to set up, due to the range limit on Sacred Flame and the casting times of those two spells. If you're 60' from the villain's inner sanctum, and spend 10 minutes casting a spell, either you're going to get interrupted, or you've done a lot of work setting it up so you won't.

[Psyren]

Note to self: on future worldbuilding, add glass panes on most shopkeepers stalls as cheap anti-magic protection (since "can be seen" != "can be targeted"), and stop worrying how merchants deal with charms/Suggestions/etc.

A glass box or dome would indeed grant total cover without breaking line of sight, just like Otiluke's Resilient Sphere does. But it's not a perfect defense - some spells don't need to be targeted.

[Mastikator]

While (if this worked) it would also work with Scrying or Clairvoyance, those would be a lot harder to set up, due to the range limit on Sacred Flame and the casting times of those two spells. If you're 60' from the villain's inner sanctum, and spend 10 minutes casting a spell, either you're going to get interrupted, or you've done a lot of work setting it up so you won't.

Not to mention that the DM could always have set up Mystic Sanctum on the villains innermost lair which automatically nope's any scry-and-die tactics.

[JackPhoenix]

Trying to deduce anything about an economy in D&D is an exercise in madness, however we do know that a glass bottle (2lbs) costs 2gp - large panes likely cost more, and are easily breakable, either deliberately or otherwise.

Bottles also don't have to made out of clear glass, so they are considerably cheaper and easier to make than windows. And I wouldn't use D&D equipment table as an example for anything related to economy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Note to self: on future worldbuilding, add glass panes on most shopkeepers stalls as cheap anti-magic protection (since "can be seen" != "can be targeted"), and stop worrying how merchants deal with charms/Suggestions/etc.
Anachronisms for one hundred, Alex.

[JackPhoenix]

Anachronisms for one hundred, Alex.

Not really. Despite any similarities, D&D is not set in medieval Europe, and the developement would account for the existence of magic. If glass panes can stop mind control, people worried about mind control would start using them.

[Zhorn]

We have spells and effects that call out their magic as being unable to penetrate specific materials of specific thicknesses or greater.
From that it's fair to deduce that if a spell does not specify it is blocked by a material barrier, then there is reason to believe it should be able to be cast through it as long as the other conditions are met.
The key condition being able to see the target.

Then on the barrier side we have some obstructing forces call out that they are able to be seen through, but block physical and/or magical effects from passing through them.

This isn't going to be a perfect ruling 100% of the time, but it's at the very least a ruling attempted to be extrapolated from this edition's text rather than just saying 'glass blocks spells'

[Psyren]

We have spells and effects that call out their magic as being unable to penetrate specific materials of specific thicknesses or greater.
From that it's fair to deduce that if a spell does not specify it is blocked by a material barrier, then there is reason to believe it should be able to be cast through it as long as the other conditions are met.
The key condition being able to see the target.

Then on the barrier side we have some obstructing forces call out that they are able to be seen through, but block physical and/or magical effects from passing through them.

This isn't going to be a perfect ruling 100% of the time, but it's at the very least a ruling attempted to be extrapolated from this edition's text rather than just saying 'glass blocks spells'

So does glass not provide any cover in your view? Does a resilient sphere or wall of force provide cover?

[Unoriginal]

Note to self: on future worldbuilding, add glass panes on most shopkeepers stalls as cheap anti-magic protection (since "can be seen" != "can be targeted"), and stop worrying how merchants deal with charms/Suggestions/etc.


Trying to deduce anything about an economy in D&D is an exercise in madness, however we do know that a glass bottle (2lbs) costs 2gp - large panes likely cost more, and are easily breakable, either deliberately or otherwise.

While not prohibitively expensive for some merchants, panes of glass on every stall sounds like an unlikely expense for most merchants to make, but your mileage may vary. Certainly more upscale stores will likely employ glass to safeguard their employees/goods - just like we have today, in fact.

As a cheaper alternative, merchants who are worried about being targeted by spells or similar effects could use a paper or even cloth screen (although it would also likely block sight as well).

Which could create an interesting lowscale-upscale contrast, with the rich people being able to afford see-through protections.


Anachronisms for one hundred, Alex.


Not really. Despite any similarities, D&D is not set in medieval Europe

Yeah, D&D can be said to be inherently anachronistic because it is not actually any time period.

[Mastikator]

Dunno about you guys but in my campaign setting glass panels grow on glass trees, they mature into perfect squares exactly 3 by 3 feet and exactly 1/2 inch thick. The 1 gp cost is mostly hazard pay for whoever harvests them before they fall :smallamused:

[Zhorn]

So does glass not provide any cover in your view? Does a resilient sphere or wall of force provide cover?
I literally answered those in the text you quoted.
The text for resilient sphere and wall of force call out what cannot pass through them.

If glass blocks all spells; what's the page reference that says glass blocks all spells?
I'll happily apologise and cede that ground if you have a 5e book refence for that, but until then it just seems like an inconsistent house ruling to me.

If the spells we talk about only require seeing the target within range
and the do not behave as a point-to-point projection from the caster to the target (Ã* la firebolt)
Then being able to see the target should be sufficient, whether we're looking through glass or using other magics to peer through walls x-ray style, respecting the preventative abilities spelled out by effects that actually specify they block spells.

If glass as a non-magical provider of cover prevents spells like sacred flame, then it should also block sending (sending, message, and scrying amongst others would all be nerfed to near uselessness). That would be dumb, and no one would argue that.

Now if the question wasn't about sacred flame, but instead making a ranged attack with a weapon or functionally equivalent object (throwing a rock), we still could attack in the direction of who we intended to target, but rule that the physical obstruction IS providing cover in that the attack roll hits the glass instead (using the AC and HP derived from the tables on DMG p246), which is the same we could do for range spell attacks (Ã* la firebolt)

[Psyren]

I literally answered those in the text you quoted.
The text for resilient sphere and wall of force call out what cannot pass through them.

But Wall of Force doesn't spell out that it blocks spells, just that "nothing can physically pass through the wall." So for non-physical spells, you have to defer to the cover rules with it just as you would with a glass box or dome.


If glass blocks all spells; what's the page reference that says glass blocks all spells?
I'll happily apologise and cede that ground if you have a 5e book refence for that, but until then it just seems like an inconsistent house ruling to me.

Is solid glass an "obstacle?" If so, it grants cover (PHB 196.) If a solid pane of glass is not an obstacle, I'll happily apologise and cede that ground if you have a 5e book reference for that, but until then it just seems like an inconsistent house ruling to me.

[Dr.Samurai]

Is it an obstacle? I don't know.

It's not for car thieves. It's not for bullets. It's not for stones. Unless specifically built to do those things.

So can magic go through a pane of glass as easily as an elbow, bullet, or stone?

[JNAProductions]

Is it an obstacle? I don't know.

It's not for car thieves. It's not for bullets. It's not for stones. Unless specifically built to do those things.

So can magic go through a pane of glass as easily as an elbow, bullet, or stone?

None of those can go through without breaking the glass.

I wouldn’t mind Sacred Flame or other spells breaking through a pane of glass-it’s not a durable obstacle. But that’s not the same as ignoring it entirely.

[Dr.Samurai]

None of those can go through without breaking the glass.

I wouldn’t mind Sacred Flame or other spells breaking through a pane of glass-it’s not a durable obstacle. But that’s not the same as ignoring it entirely.
Understood.

But can something said to be "providing cover" if the projectile goes right through it and strikes you? If there's a gunman and someone says "go find cover" you're not going to stand behind a glass door, even though it is a physical "obstacle" in between you and the gunman.

That said, I think this exercise is not super helpful anyways because how often will a spellcaster being trying to shoot magic through a sheet of paper or glass or something else?

I think the underlying question is "does some magic work like physical projectiles that interacts with physical objects or does the reality of an object being in the way totally prevent the magic from taking place"?

I like this interaction with Sacred Flame and if a target doesn't benefit from Cover on their saving throw because the attack is indirect, I think it should strike them even if they're behind a giant crate. But I don't really play with spells all that much so I don't know what the ramifications are for a ruling like that.

[Psyren]

Is it an obstacle? I don't know.

It's not for car thieves. It's not for bullets. It's not for stones. Unless specifically built to do those things.

So can magic go through a pane of glass as easily as an elbow, bullet, or stone?

By this logic nothing can be an obstacle. Axes are specifically built to get through trees, moles are specifically built* to get through the ground, a pickaxe is specifically built to get through stone, drills are specifically built to get through concrete and bricks etc. The existence of those things does not stop an obstacle from being an obstacle.

*evolved

[Amnestic]

I'm gonna make magic bounce off of objects like light off a mirror, but also force all spellcasting player characters who try it have to deal with working out angles and distance.

Yeah you can ricochet it, but you better be prepared for doing MATHS.

Also there's a chance for failure depending on the material bouncing off - glass is easy, guaranteed. Treated, grainy wood? Roll for swirling. Stone? Roll for dispersal.

And Tymora help you if you happen to try it with an actual tree! Anyone's guess where it'll end up.

[Dr.Samurai]

Psyren, you're not using the same logic I am.

@Amnestic and others: I think going by the rules is the simplest and most straight forward route to take. Total cover means you can't cast through it, full stop.

But I don't think there's an issue with people playing it in a more granular way. It does increase the power and utility of spells though. Given that some spells specifically target objects (meaning other spells can't target objects), and spells generally can't target through full cover, it would seem to indicate you can't cast spells physically through cover; a firebolt isn't going to smash through a crate.

So this does seem like a big boost to spells and added complexity if line of sight trumps line of effect.

Thankfully my raging barbarian with GWM, adamantine Longsword of Sharpness, and Brutal Critical smashes every object into smithereens so no worries on my end :smallamused:.

[Psyren]

If your logic is not "something's status as an obstacle is dubious if something exists that can be specifically built to penetrate it" then I'm open to hearing what it is instead, but that's how I read the bullet/stone/thief analogies for glass.

[JackPhoenix]

It's magic, you can't use real world physics to determine how it works.

Can you throw a brick through glass window? Usually.
Can you throw a brick through glass window using Catapult spell? No, both the window and the brick will likely be destroyed on contact by 3d8 damage.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Psyren: The line you bolded was to head off "actually there is glass made that can withstand bullets". I am saying that, especially in the case of bullets, ordinary materials like glass, wood, metal, etc. does not provide sufficient cover and the bullets can and will still hit you from the other side of that cover.

So if people think magic should be treated in a similar way, since sometimes you're creating destructive projectiles, I can understand the reasoning.

However, as I said in my previous post it does seem like quite a power boost and adds complexity (to Amnestic's point). Because you're going to have to arbitrate what materials can be penetrated and how each time. Which doesn't seem worth it, off the cuff at least.

[MachineWraith]

I know Sage Advice isn't RAW or whatever, but this (https://www.sageadvice.eu/wall-of-force-is-invisible-so-it-doesnt-provide-cover-does-it/) states that cover is not a purely visual phenomenon and thus you still would not be able to target a creature through a wall just because you can see them through it. There is no specific verbiage in Sacred Flame to suggest that it doesn't follow the normal rules for targeting, only that targets don't get the Dex-save bonus from cover (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#Cover) against it. It doesn't really matter where the "flame-like radiance" comes from, because it must descend on a target, and you cannot target that creature. That bit is fluff, anyway, and does not alter how the spell works.

Also, I gotta say, trying to use little tidbits in a spell description to get to do something you normally can't do and then accusing other people of being rules lawyers is pretty silly.

[Psyren]

@Psyren: The line you bolded was to head off "actually there is glass made that can withstand bullets". I am saying that, especially in the case of bullets, ordinary materials like glass, wood, metal, etc. does not provide sufficient cover and the bullets can and will still hit you from the other side of that cover.

So if people think magic should be treated in a similar way, since sometimes you're creating destructive projectiles, I can understand the reasoning.

However, as I said in my previous post it does seem like quite a power boost and adds complexity (to Amnestic's point). Because you're going to have to arbitrate what materials can be penetrated and how each time. Which doesn't seem worth it, off the cuff at least.

I understand what you're saying and I think we agree on the last part. Yes, the thickness/sufficiency of the cover matters for a lot of projectiles, the issue is that Sacred Flame isn't one.

[Kane0]

It's magic, you can't use real world physics to determine how it works.


But you can apply rules, like portals only working on flat, white moon-rock surfaces.

[sithlordnergal]

Sacred Flame is blocked by the full cover rules just as much as any other spell. There are no exceptions within spell itself, like there are with Scying. The whole "It comes down from above" doesn't actually matter since its fluff that can be changed. Its not a mechanical effect of the spell.

[Mastikator]

Sacred Flame is blocked by the full cover rules just as much as any other spell. There are no exceptions within spell itself, like there are with Scying. The whole "It comes down from above" doesn't actually matter since its fluff that can be changed. Its not a mechanical effect of the spell.

"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." (PHB chapter 10, Targets, A Clear Path to the Target)
To target something, you must

"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (PHB chapter 9, Cover, Total Cover)

If you see through obstacles, or have an ability to see from a different angle then the target is not concealed.

Comes back to the window question, if someone is behind a window and you can see them do they have total cover. Can you target them? Can you loose an arrow at them? Do arrows go through windows (yes). How much cover does a window pane grant? What about an invisible rock? What about a wall of force?
Concealed means hidden, not blocked.

[Kane0]

This is probably why Ghostly Gaze won't make it into D&DOne.

[JackPhoenix]

"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." (PHB chapter 10, Targets, A Clear Path to the Target)
To target something, you must

"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (PHB chapter 9, Cover, Total Cover)

If you see through obstacles, or have an ability to see from a different angle then the target is not concealed.

Comes back to the window question, if someone is behind a window and you can see them do they have total cover. Can you target them? Can you loose an arrow at them? Do arrows go through windows (yes). How much cover does a window pane grant? What about an invisible rock? What about a wall of force?
Concealed means hidden, not blocked.

You're confusing cover and obscurement. Cover has nothing to do with visibility.

[sithlordnergal]

"To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover." (PHB chapter 10, Targets, A Clear Path to the Target)
To target something, you must

"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (PHB chapter 9, Cover, Total Cover)

If you see through obstacles, or have an ability to see from a different angle then the target is not concealed.

Comes back to the window question, if someone is behind a window and you can see them do they have total cover. Can you target them? Can you loose an arrow at them? Do arrows go through windows (yes). How much cover does a window pane grant? What about an invisible rock? What about a wall of force?
Concealed means hidden, not blocked.

It does come down to the Window question. You cannot target them if they are fully blocked by a window pane, just like you can't target them if they're fully encased with a wall of force. You could try to target them with a martial weapon or a spell, but it would fail. The arrow would hit the window, the spell would simply fail. You need a clear path, and if you don't have a clear path you can't do it.

Being able to see a target does not equal a clear path. Otherwise you'd be able to target and hit someone within a Wall of Force with spells and martial weapons.

[Mastikator]

You're confusing cover and obscurement. Cover has nothing to do with visibility.

I'm quoting the rules verbatim. If it is confused then take that up with the PHB, not me.

[Chronos]

Sure, most glass isn't bulletproof glass, and you can smash through it with, say, a hammer... but have you ever actually tried to smash, say, a car window with a hammer? There's a blooper reel out there somewhere of a news reporter in a junkyard, trying to show just how easy it is for a thief to smash a car window, and it takes like eight takes before he's able to hammer through the window.

[MachineWraith]

I'm quoting the rules verbatim. If it is confused then take that up with the PHB, not me.

Yeah, people have taken it up with the PHB, hence the many times it's been asked before. The generally agreed upon answer is that no, you can't target something that you can see but is behind an obstruction. This is supported by the Sage Advice response (https://www.sageadvice.eu/wall-of-force-is-invisible-so-it-doesnt-provide-cover-does-it/). This suggests that the problem is simply the wording in the PHB, and that the RAI support the idea that you cannot target something you can see to which you do not have line of effect.

[Mastikator]

Yeah, people have taken it up with the PHB, hence the many times it's been asked before. The generally agreed upon answer is that no, you can't target something that you can see but is behind an obstruction. This is supported by the Sage Advice response (https://www.sageadvice.eu/wall-of-force-is-invisible-so-it-doesnt-provide-cover-does-it/). This suggests that the problem is simply the wording in the PHB, and that the RAI support the idea that you cannot target something you can see to which you do not have line of effect.

If RAI is more complicated in play and require players and DM to metagame than RAW then I'd side with RAW every time.


Player: I loose an arrow at the lich. (behind wall of force that the player doesn't know about)
DM: Okay, no need to make a dice roll, the arrow bounces off an invisible wall.
Player: huh
DM: Lich's turn, he drops his concentration then casts power word kill, how many hitpoints do you have?
Player: 19...
DM: your character dies instantly.

Player: I loose an arrow at the lich (behind a window the player is not aware of).
DM: Go ahead and roll.
Player: I rolled an 18.
DM: Okay so the arrow shatters the glass window and is just barely deflected. You miss.
Player: I have action surge! I attack again, I rolled a 17.
DM: Yeah that hits, roll damage.
Player: 8 piercing damage!
DM: Ok, the lich takes no damage and then it's his turn, he casts Power Word Kill.
Player: why are you like this?

Player: I use Ghostly Gaze and cast sacred flame on the lich, he takes 2 radiant damage if he fails his dexterity saving throw of 14. (the lich is behind a stone wall that is otherwise not transparent)
DM: Okay, the lich fails its saving throw. Its his turn now, he casts power word kill.
Player: Wait can he see me?
DM: oh right, he walks around the wall, and uses dash to make it all the way through.
Player: I uh.... can we just skip to the part where the lich kills me with power word kill?
DM: I homebrewed the lich so he doesn't have such a boring spell.
Player: Okay then I cast sacred flame again, he takes 6 radiant damage if he fails.
DM: he fails, his turn, he casts meteorswarm, make a DC 20 dexterity saving throw or take 60 bludgeoning and fire damage
Player: I hate you


Player: I loose an arrow at the lich. (behind a wall of force that the player is not aware of)
DM: sorry you can't target him.
Player: Why? Can't I see him.
DM: Yes but he's behind total cover.
Player: oh, he has a wall of force? Do I still have my action since I couldn't have targeted the lich?
DM: Yes I suppose.
Player: Okay knowing that he can't target me either with the wall of force, I ready an action, the trigger is "when the lich is a viable target" I will loose an arrow at him.
DM: Lich's turn, he drops his wall of force...
Player: I attack him!!!
DM: .... go ahead and make your roll
Player: Natural 20, with sneak attack, eldritch smite and battlemaster maneuvers plus the undead slaying arrow that is ... 136 damage!
DM: yeah he's dead.

Player: I loose and arrow at the lich (behind a glass panel the player is not aware of).
DM: sorry you can't teget him.
Why: Can't I see him?
DM: He's behind total cover.
Player: oh, he's behind a wall of force? Do I still have my action since I couldn't have targeted the lich?
DM: Yes I suppose.
Player: Okay knowing that he can't target me either with the wall of force, I ready an action, the trigger is "when the lich is a viable target" I will loose an arrow at him.
DM: The lich casts meteor swarm right at the window, shattering the window and bringing down the whole building, you are within range of the area of effect...
Player: :smallannoyed:

Player: I use Ghostly Gaze and cast sacred flame on the lich, he takes 2 radiant damage if he fails his dexterity saving throw of 14. (the lich is behind a stone wall that is otherwise not transparent)
DM: You can't target him when he's behind a wall.
Player: But sacred flame says it ignores cover!?
DM: No it says it ignores cover for the dex saving throw, you can't target him.
Player: But why?
DM: Because that would've been fun, and that is something I can not allow to happen.
Player: :smallsigh:
DM: The lich casts meteor swarm.

[Amnestic]

DM: Because that would've been fun, and that is something I can not allow to happen.



Here's another few hypotheticals since we're having fun with them.


Player: Okay, that was a pretty tough fight, but I'm glad we made it through.
DM: How much health do you have?
Player: 19
DM: You die.
Player: ??
DM: The Lich had an Arcane Eye watching you, and from two floors down it casts Power Word Kill. You die.
Player: Sure am glad that spellcasters can cast through walls as long as they can see, and are given a bunch of ways to do that!
DM: Also it now cast Cloudkill so the rest of you need to start making saves.


Or


Player: Okay, I ping the Lich through the wall with Sacred Flame.
DM: Dex save success.
Player: Okay, I ping the Lich through the wall with Sacred Flame.
DM: Dex save success.
Player: Okay, I ping the Lich through the wall with Sacred Flame.
DM: Dex save fail.
Player: Cool, 4 radiant damage! I ping the Lich through the wall with Sacred Flame.
Player 2, 3, and 4: When do we get to play again?

[No brains]

I'm generally on the side of Sacred Flame bypassing line of effect entirely because that helps my brain process the fiction of how the spell is supposed to work.

For a while, it was a Cleric's only attack cantrip. Clerics are servants of deities, who have a certain level of omniscience/ presence. Therefore, it's appropriate that a tangible expression of that deities' wrath has some of those traits. I feel it adds a certain level of "You better watch out." to the world.

It also eases the grinding of my mind-gears as I try to figure out where the line would be in edge cases where degrees of cover may be unclear. Why can a spell hurt a single creature behind cover, without affecting the cover itself, regardless of whether the cover makes that creature 10 or 25% harder to hit, but not 100% harder to hit? I'm glad I can relax just a little into the unexplainable and not have to figure out the position and the velocity of each photon in Sacred Flame.

I also have some contempt for the rules of cover as they stand. If a gargantuan creature looks out from behind a house, it has +5 ac from cover despite the fact that its head might present a human-sized target. Creatures only ever give +2 ac, even if they are so large as to eclipse another target entirely. Flimsy materials might provide cover because some cantrips can't affect objects of any kind. Fireballs can solve mazes within their area of effect, going around a crazy amount of corners, but the opaque tentacle-filled sphere of Hunger of Hadar can't. Cover doesn't even matter on spells that don't have attack rolls or reflex saves, even if cover would keep a goblin from seeing a Hypnotic Pattern. There used to be a rule that a 1-foot diameter hole was needed for line of effect- meaning that an 11-inch hole blocks LoE entirely- but that seems to have been left behind in an earlier edition.

This is tempered by my views on DMing. PCs will not want to interact with a Saw trap where they're locked in a room getting Flamed by someone with X-ray vision (or if they would earlier editions are also better for Saw traps). If a BBEG has to make a dramatic exit but they can't make it more than 60 feet down their escape hatch, the PCs deserve a radiant doorknob to hit the bad guy on the way out. If I can't design an encounter where tierD8 damage won't work as a margin of error, that is on me. But if I can design an encounter where a reflective ceiling lets both sides of a fight track each other behind cover and let the PCs think out the best ways to use that to their advantage, that could be fun.

[Psyren]

I also have some contempt for the rules of cover as they stand. If a gargantuan creature looks out from behind a house, it has +5 ac from cover despite the fact that its head might present a human-sized target.

Just because the part of it that's visible is much bigger than that of a smaller creature doesn't mean it should benefit less from cover though. At the end of the day that +5 is added to its standard AC; if that number is high, it's because they have thick skin etc that means even if you're aiming at the broad side of a barn, there might be only specific parts of them that are actually vulnerable. If that's the case, what matters is how hard those parts are to hit, not the entire creature.

[JackPhoenix]

If RAI is more complicated in play and require players and DM to metagame than RAW then I'd side with RAW every time.

More examples following your dubious logic:


Player: I cast Fog Cloud centered on myself and end my turn.
DM: Alright, the enemy archers start shooting at your position.
Player: No, they can't target me, they can't see me, that means I have total cover, because cover is based on visual concealment! Mastikator said so!

Player: I use Ghostly Gaze.
DM: Alright, you can now see where the enemy is behind 20' thick stone wall.
Player: I take out my longbow and start shooting at him.
DM: What? He's still behind 20' thick stone wall, he's got total cover, you can't shoot him.
Player: No, I can see him, that means I can shoot him normally, because cover is only based on visual concealment. Mastikar said so!


Cover doesn't even matter on spells that don't have attack rolls or reflex saves, even if cover would keep a goblin from seeing a Hypnotic Pattern.

It absolutely does. If there's a source of (total) cover between the goblin and the center of the Hypnotic Pattern's AoE (in addition to the possibility of a cover between the caster and the point where he wants to center the AoE), the goblin is unaffected. Non-total cover only gives bonuses to AC and Dex saves, but total cover blocks everything that doesn't specifically ignore it.

[Psyren]

Fog Cloud is obscurement, not cover. Different set of rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This thread reminded me to update the text in my fork to specify "partial" cover. Just to avoid this kind of uncertainty.

[Brookshw]

It does come down to the Window question. You cannot target them if they are fully blocked by a window pane, just like you can't target them if they're fully encased with a wall of force. You could try to target them with a martial weapon or a spell, but it would fail. The arrow would hit the window, the spell would simply fail. You need a clear path, and if you don't have a clear path you can't do it.

Being able to see a target does not equal a clear path. Otherwise you'd be able to target and hit someone within a Wall of Force with spells and martial weapons.

Reminds me of how catapults couldn't shoot over picket fences in 3e. Ripe ground for some DM exceptions depending on circumstances.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah.

If this came up in-game, I'd expect the DM to make a ruling one way or the other, and then just be done with it, revisiting only if there was some issue arising later from the ruling.

And while I've made clear how I would handle it, handling it a different way isn't wrong. It might not be the RAW of it, but considering the sheer amount of Gestalt I run, which isn't even a vague thing from Wizards of the Coast...

[Mastikator]

More examples following your dubious logic:

This needs clarification. In your first scenario the DM is targeting the player's position, not the player, so the enemy archer makes attack rolls with disadvantage.
In the second scenario the arrow would hit the wall like it hit the window or wall of force. In my dubious logic the player didn't even roll attack when there was a wall of force. In my dubious logic being able to target is not the same as having a chance of hitting, I take the trajectory of the attack into consideration. But since you don't use dubious logic I can see why you missed that.

I think Amnestic's examples where more hard hitting of how it could lead to boring outcomes. (it's similar to OP's example, which I already criticized, but that's pages back so I don't fault either of you for getting my position wrong)

[Kane0]

I think a slightly more viable use would be getting yourself in full cover and moving with your party with it somehow.

Problem is its an action to start, 30' range and only lasts a minute using your concentration.

Maybe an apparatus of kwalish or something? But even then why waste your actions using a cantrip...

[Zhorn]

Maybe an apparatus of kwalish or something? But even then why waste your actions using a cantrip...As the passenger. Kwalish can carry two medium creatures, so one piloting, and the other tag-along acting as gunner.

[Muad'dib]

Dunno about you guys but in my campaign setting glass panels grow on glass trees, they mature into perfect squares exactly 3 by 3 feet and exactly 1/2 inch thick. The 1 gp cost is mostly hazard pay for whoever harvests them before they fall :smallamused:
How strong are the limbs of that tree?! Those panes will weigh at least 100 pounds.