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?) 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, 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, 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.