D&D 5E Wall of Force

[toucanbuzz]

So I researched my position a bit more, and the unofficial Sage Advice is contradictory. Conclusion: you'll need to go with what works for your game. This question didn't make the official 2020 Sage Advice errata.

Mike Mearls treats the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If you can see through it, you can target through it.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2017: Does a Wall of Force block Eyebite? No, provided caster can see target through it. Target within range that you can see must make a save against your chosen effect. This sounds identical to Charm Person.
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2016: Does not mess with targeting that requires line of sight (operates like a pane of glass).
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2018: Can you cast spells like Mage Hand (which manifest at a spot within range) beyond a Wall of Force? Yes, so long as you can cast it to a spot you can see.

Jeremy Crawford claims the Wall of Force provides total cover, even if invisible. Ergo, the rules on total cover say spells cannot target creatures with total cover. This is the "clear path" argument. He would allow teleportation because it requires only you see your destination. BUT, there is nothing in the Wall of Force description that says it provides total cover, so I don't know where he got this from.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Wall of Force provides total cover, even if that cover is invisible. However, some spells specifically say you only need to see your destination (e.g. Misty Step) for it to work.
• Per his tweets, referenced above, he considers it a targeting issue.
• Ergo, you couldn't target a creature, even if you could see the creature, with Hold Person because the PHB (p204) says spells cannot target creatures behind total cover.
• A pane of glass wouldn't matter. He says a closed window would provide total cover for targeting purposes, even if you could see the target.

Crawford's position, even if without textual support, matches the 3rd edition Wall of Force, which specifically said "spells cannot pass through the wall" though teleportation spells like dimension door bypass the wall (so they don't go through it). The AD&D version was nearly the same: no spells could pass through. Notably, though, the D&D 5E version chose not to use this language and instead changed it to "nothing physical."

Ultimately, the Sage Advice 2019 release didn't address this question. I think the choice to reject the 3rd edition and AD&D version that the Wall blocks ALL spells must be given meaning.

Further, there is no textual support for Crawford's unofficial stance that an invisible wall prevents targeting or that a pane of glass prevents targeting. His entire stance is based off transparent objects providing "total cover," as if all spells were like arrows. But, arrows are physical, must travel from A to B to be effective. Spells don't work that way.

Personally, I'd rely on spell descriptions to make the call and treat the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If a physical effect originates from you, like fireball or scorching ray, then it smacks against the wall, no effect. But if I can see it, I can target it. If the effect manifests at the point I say it manifests, then the Wall doesn't stop it.

 

[Oofta]

So I researched my position a bit more, and the unofficial Sage Advice is contradictory. Conclusion: you'll need to go with what works for your game. This question didn't make the official 2020 Sage Advice errata.

Mike Mearls treats the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If you can see through it, you can target through it.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2017: Does a Wall of Force block Eyebite? No, provided caster can see target through it. Target within range that you can see must make a save against your chosen effect. This sounds identical to Charm Person.
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2016: Does not mess with targeting that requires line of sight (operates like a pane of glass).
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2018: Can you cast spells like Mage Hand (which manifest at a spot within range) beyond a Wall of Force? Yes, so long as you can cast it to a spot you can see.

Jeremy Crawford claims the Wall of Force provides total cover, even if invisible. Ergo, the rules on total cover say spells cannot target creatures with total cover. This is the "clear path" argument. He would allow teleportation because it requires only you see your destination. BUT, there is nothing in the Wall of Force description that says it provides total cover, so I don't know where he got this from.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Wall of Force provides total cover, even if that cover is invisible. However, some spells specifically say you only need to see your destination (e.g. Misty Step) for it to work.
• Per his tweets, referenced above, he considers it a targeting issue.
• Ergo, you couldn't target a creature, even if you could see the creature, with Hold Person because the PHB (p204) says spells cannot target creatures behind total cover.
• A pane of glass wouldn't matter. He says a closed window would provide total cover for targeting purposes, even if you could see the target.

Crawford's position, even if without textual support, matches the 3rd edition Wall of Force, which specifically said "spells cannot pass through the wall" though teleportation spells like dimension door bypass the wall (so they don't go through it). The AD&D version was nearly the same: no spells could pass through. Notably, though, the D&D 5E version chose not to use this language and instead changed it to "nothing physical."

Ultimately, the Sage Advice 2019 release didn't address this question. I think the choice to reject the 3rd edition and AD&D version that the Wall blocks ALL spells must be given meaning.

Further, there is no textual support for Crawford's unofficial stance that an invisible wall prevents targeting or that a pane of glass prevents targeting. His entire stance is based off transparent objects providing "total cover," as if all spells were like arrows. But, arrows are physical, must travel from A to B to be effective. Spells don't work that way.

Personally, I'd rely on spell descriptions to make the call and treat the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If a physical effect originates from you, like fireball or scorching ray, then it smacks against the wall, no effect. But if I can see I can target, I can target it. If the effect manifests at the point I say it manifests, then the Wall doesn't stop it.

Mearls is not an official source of rules clarification. I don't really pay attention to tweets so until it gets into a sage advice column I take it with a grain of salt.

Having said that, I agree with Crawford, the rule is quite simple. You have to have a clear line to your target unless the spell specifically states otherwise.

 

[DM-Rocco]

So I researched my position a bit more, and the unofficial Sage Advice is contradictory. Conclusion: you'll need to go with what works for your game. This question didn't make the official 2020 Sage Advice errata.

Mike Mearls treats the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If you can see through it, you can target through it.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2017: Does a Wall of Force block Eyebite? No, provided caster can see target through it. Target within range that you can see must make a save against your chosen effect. This sounds identical to Charm Person.
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2016: Does not mess with targeting that requires line of sight (operates like a pane of glass).
• Mike Mearls Sage Advice 2018: Can you cast spells like Mage Hand (which manifest at a spot within range) beyond a Wall of Force? Yes, so long as you can cast it to a spot you can see.

Jeremy Crawford claims the Wall of Force provides total cover, even if invisible. Ergo, the rules on total cover say spells cannot target creatures with total cover. This is the "clear path" argument. He would allow teleportation because it requires only you see your destination. BUT, there is nothing in the Wall of Force description that says it provides total cover, so I don't know where he got this from.

(references here)

Spoiler

• Wall of Force provides total cover, even if that cover is invisible. However, some spells specifically say you only need to see your destination (e.g. Misty Step) for it to work.
• Per his tweets, referenced above, he considers it a targeting issue.
• Ergo, you couldn't target a creature, even if you could see the creature, with Hold Person because the PHB (p204) says spells cannot target creatures behind total cover.
• A pane of glass wouldn't matter. He says a closed window would provide total cover for targeting purposes, even if you could see the target.

Crawford's position, even if without textual support, matches the 3rd edition Wall of Force, which specifically said "spells cannot pass through the wall" though teleportation spells like dimension door bypass the wall (so they don't go through it). The AD&D version was nearly the same: no spells could pass through. Notably, though, the D&D 5E version chose not to use this language and instead changed it to "nothing physical."

Ultimately, the Sage Advice 2019 release didn't address this question. I think the choice to reject the 3rd edition and AD&D version that the Wall blocks ALL spells must be given meaning.

Further, there is no textual support for Crawford's unofficial stance that an invisible wall prevents targeting or that a pane of glass prevents targeting. His entire stance is based off transparent objects providing "total cover," as if all spells were like arrows. But, arrows are physical, must travel from A to B to be effective. Spells don't work that way.

Personally, I'd rely on spell descriptions to make the call and treat the Wall of Force like a pane of glass. If a physical effect originates from you, like fireball or scorching ray, then it smacks against the wall, no effect. But if I can see it, I can target it. If the effect manifests at the point I say it manifests, then the Wall doesn't stop it.

Well, I never agreed with the whole, a pane of glass can block a spell" argument. I could see the fireball hitting the pane of glass and then going off, but really, unless it is plexy glass designed to hold hump back whales at bay then I don't by that a pane of glass would prevent the spell.

Thanks for looking that up though, it is helpful.

 

[dave2008]

The spells you mention have an explicit, specific overrides to the general rule. The fact that they specifically spell out that they go through solid objects kind of proves my point. IMHO there's a big difference between the spell stating that it specifically works differently than the general rule and having to read through every spell to see that one has a "streak of light coming from your pointing finger" and another has a hand appearing.

Again, Dimension Door has a target of self.

In any case, I've stated why I rule the way I rule. I think it's consistent with the rules not to mention easy and simple. Feel free to run it differently.

Oofta, you've convinced me. I think your argument makes the most sense and that is how I will be ruling in the future. Thank you!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would like to point out (as I did in another thread), the Clear Path says nothing about being a straight line...

So, C can see his target, T, since the Wall of Force is invisible. T is within range of Charm Person (30 feet). And there is a "Clear Path" which goes around the Wall of Force that is shorter than the range of the spell (the green lines would be maybe 20 feet long).

Verdict: T must save versus the Charm Person spell.

 

[Gadget]

I find it useful to go back to the 3e concept of "line of effect" in cases like these. Wall of Force blocks line of effect, so unless spells don't require that (i.e. Sending, Telepathy, etc.), Wall of Force blocks it. I admire the simplifications of 5e and grew to dislike the over fiddlyness of 3e, but sometimes the 5e devs dig themselves into a hole with their 'natural language.'

 

[Bacon Bits]

I would like to point out (as I did in another thread), the Clear Path says nothing about being a straight line...

It kind of does. It says, "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." [Reference] Interestingly, there's no definition at all for half or 3/4 cover, only a description of what the effects are. The only rule for helping to adjudicate total cover is, "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." However, that seems to be an additional caveat for cover, not a requirement, because cover is a physical obstruction: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm."

Unless you're going to argue that you can make the same shot with a bow -- which also has no strict straight line requirement RAW and instead relies on general targeting rules and DM judgement -- then I don't buy it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I find it useful to go back to the 3e concept of "line of effect" in cases like these. Wall of Force blocks line of effect, so unless spells don't require that (i.e. Sending, Telepathy, etc.), Wall of Force blocks it. I admire the simplifications of 5e and grew to dislike the over fiddlyness of 3e, but sometimes the 5e devs dig themselves into a hole with their 'natural language.'

No, they just dig a hole by assuming what they're talking about was adequately described elsewhere.

However, given that it's 2020 and the game was released in 2014 and nobody can honestly say they have actually had a major game problem with this rule because it seems like we've only just noticed it, I don't really think it's an indication of a problem in the game's design.

 

[Oofta]

I find it useful to go back to the 3e concept of "line of effect" in cases like these. Wall of Force blocks line of effect, so unless spells don't require that (i.e. Sending, Telepathy, etc.), Wall of Force blocks it. I admire the simplifications of 5e and grew to dislike the over fiddlyness of 3e, but sometimes the 5e devs dig themselves into a hole with their 'natural language.'

I tend to agree ... but there's a fine line between gamer-speak and understandable easy to grasp language.

For example, once I realized that Misty Step had a target of self, I think this rule is pretty simple. Obviously there's not a consensus on what is clear enough.

But there never was consensus even back in 3.5, there's always someone who wanted to interpret a rule differently or who disagreed even with very specific technical language. The more you try to lock things down, the more people expect the language to cover every nuance. It's kind of a never-ending rabbit hole.

 

[Helldritch]

The clear path and line of sight are two things.

Would you allow a caster to cast a Fire ball in front of him without seeing where it will go? I would let the fire ball go in a straight line (and verifying where the caster was oriented at and if he moved in the darkness and yaddi yadda...). As soon as the fire ball hits an obstacle boom!

Same thing with scorching ray. No line of sight but a clear path? Then attack with disadvantage if the only thing blocking sight is a darkness spell.

What about choose an area spells? Cloudkill targets an area that you can see. Would you prevent that spell too? Wall of force followed by summoned creatures or cloud(whatever type you want in here) has always been a tactic of D&D since the beginning. And what about prismatic wall?

Spell description matters a lot.

But your point of view has some merits. It maybe RAW but is it RAI?