Would the electrical attack of the Arcane Living Rune be able to bypass the Wall of Force?
It would appear so, as the Wall of Force only blocks "physical" damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG, how had I not noticed that? Or anybody else in these years?
That would be such a major change to a key spell.
Hopefully Paizo means it in the physical/tangible sense which would include energy effects, breath weapons, etc. (though I suppose not mental effects?!) and not in the physical/damage-type sense of blunt/slashing/piercing and movement.
Otherwise why specify that visual effects penetrate it?
It may seem weakened by the change, but if the group builds around it that interpretation's much stronger (in a shenanigan's way): set up Wall of Force when facing enemies w/ exclusively physical attacks (quite common) then party switches to energy attacks.
It'd be uncommon to have a party where every member can do that, yet imagine the consternation of baddies w/ energy attacks doing this against the party! Example, Shining Child + friends.
The wall doesn't block Physical damage (capital 'P'), it blocks 'physical effects', which would include most energy damage on a plain text reading, which is why no one has tried arguing that you can Lightning Bolt through it before.
The introduction of more Mental damage spells with the forthcoming book might produce an interesting combination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, is energy damage a "physical effect?". I can't find that anywhere. Otherwise the definition is ambiguous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, is energy damage a "physical effect?". I can't find that anywhere. Otherwise the definition is ambiguous.
Yeah, it's at best undefined, at worst just purely physical.
I agree the Wall of Force blocks energy effects (and would GM it that way), yet to me a plain text reading separates those from physical effects. Energy & physical are distinct at normal scales and in normal conversation outside of science, pseudoscience, and philosophy. Even someone with RPG experience might read it that way, i.e. a player from the Hero System where physical and energy form the major divisions in damage types (also mental).Speaking of mental, where does it fall in all this?
Could someone put up a Wall of Force and freely bombard their enemies w/ mental attacks?
And light effects, since the wall makes a point of being invisible and letting through gaze attacks. Can lasers or a Lantern Archon's light rays bypass the wall?
(And here I thought I'd been devious making a Medusa boss that cast Wall of Force when there are so many other combos available. Or not?)
Mental is an interesting case against a Wall of Force. It would come down to whether the GM rules that a barrier that blocks physical effects is enough to block Line of Effect for mental damage effects.
As for lasers and the Lantern Archon, I would say that it does block them. It allows visual effects to pass through specifically, but both the example attacks are not Visual traited effects and do produce physical effects, so it would block Line of Effect for them.
There are actually a lot of spells that can be used on the other side of a Wall of Force even if you do rule that it blocks energy effects. The wall doesn't block line of sight or line of effect. So most Burst area effects or single target spells should work.
Daze
Spiritual Weapon
Fireball
Malicious Shadow
for example. None of those targeting effects are blocked by the wall. And since none of the effects of the spells themselves cross the wall, they should work fine.
So ruling that Lightning Bolt doesn't go through the wall almost seems arbitrarily punishing.
Oh, and before I get jumped on for saying that Wall of Force doesn't block line of effect - I am talking about line of effect for targeting spells. Which only requires that you can see the target.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.
I'm quite happy for a spiritual weapon to be cast on the other side of a wall of force. I don't think I'd allow it to move through one though.
Lightning bolt, fireball, acid splash, puff of poison all have a physical element to the spells. So I do think they are blocked as well. But yes phantasmal killer and dimension door working through a wall of force, that seems right.
|
A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.
The burst is only where you point to. I don't see why a wall of force would get in the way.
Acid splash is questionable because of the wording used.
You exhale a shimmering cloud of toxic breath at an enemy's face. The target takes poison damage equal to your spellcasting modifier and 2 persistent poison damage, depending on its Fortitude save.
The spell specifically says that it originates from you, so it could not pass through a wall of force.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.The burst is only where you point to. I don't see why a wall of force would get in the way.
Acid splash is questionable because of the wording used.
You exhale a shimmering cloud of toxic breath at an enemy's face. The target takes poison damage equal to your spellcasting modifier and 2 persistent poison damage, depending on its Fortitude save.The spell specifically says that it originates from you, so it could not pass through a wall of force.
I'm still thinking of the old D&D fireball that travelled from your hand and detonated if it hit anything on the way to the target....
Anyway interesting that it is different now.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's start with Line of Effect:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 457 2.0
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target. For example, if there’s a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that’s within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn’t need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.
Now have a look at Wall of Force
Spell 6
EvocationForce
Source Core Rulebook pg. 382 2.0
Traditions arcane, occult
Deities Casandalee, Grundinnar, Isis, Nethys
Cast Three Actions material, somatic, verbal
Range 30 feet
Duration 1 minute
You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet long and up to 20 feet high. The wall has no discernible thickness. You must create the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost. The wall has AC 10, Hardness 30, and 60 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage. The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it's made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible).Wall of force is immune to counteracting effects of its level or lower, but the wall is automatically destroyed by a disintegrate spell of any level or by contact with a rod of cancellation or sphere of annihilation.
The wording is slightly different: "solid physical barrier" vs "blocks physical effects from passing through" - but honestly - something that blocks physical effects to me counts as a physical barrier.
That leaves the last step:
Under targeting we find:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 304 2.0
You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell. More information on line of effect can be found on page 457.
So a Wall of Force can block a Fireball in two different ways.
A) it blocks the part of the burst that is on the other side of the wall.
B) it blocks you casting the centre of the burst on the other side of the wall
You can't even use something like Chain Lightning to cast around by having line of effect to the first target as it explicitly says you need line of sight effect to all of them.
The best you can do is - make the wall not too high, step far enough back and cast the fireball in the air above the targets at 15 feet height at a point which isn't blocked by the wall.
I'm quite happy for a spiritual weapon to be cast on the other side of a wall of force. I don't think I'd allow it to move through one though.
I would probably agree with that. Though there are arguments that its movement could be considered a teleportation effect. It doesn't really specify.
It doesn't have a movement speed either. So unless you somehow sealed off a corridor with the wall of force, the spiritual weapon could move around or over the wall. Probably even diffuse through a narrow gap in a rough corridor that the wall couldn't seal against correctly.
So a Wall of Force can block a Fireball in two different ways.
A) it blocks the part of the burst that is on the other side of the wall.
B) it blocks you casting the centre of the burst on the other side of the wall
A) I'll give you a definite 'maybe' on that one. Depends on if you rule the fire as a physical effect or if energy damage is different than physical damage.
B) So what, exactly, is 'obstructing' my ability to see and visually target a point on the other side of the wall?
I don't see any rule saying that magic effects are caused by a physical effect that travels in a straight line from the caster to the designated target.
Remember, the second paragraph of Line of Effect (which you even quoted above) starts with:
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.
So you only need line of effect from the point of origin of a burst spell to your desired enemy. Not from you.
You can't even use something like Chain Lightning to cast around by having line of effect to the first target as it explicitly says you need line of sight to all of them.
Chain Lightning does say that you need line of effect to all of the targets. So if you are ruling under point A) that Wall of Force blocks energy damage, then you wouldn't have line of effect to targets on the other side.
If Chain Lightning only required line of sight, then you wouldn't have a case. Wall of Force explicitly does not block line of sight. So if the enemies line up conveniently going around the wall, you could absolutely hit all of them with Chain Lightning.
|
|
Very interesting Thod, thank you. So, if you cast wall of force and leave a gap to the ceiling or floor, you're good to cast things like fireball from one side with the point of origin on the other.
Also, wall of force blocks ghosts. I am failing to see why people are under the impression that elemental and such effects would somehow go through a wall of force.
Also, wall of force blocks ghosts. I am failing to see why people are under the impression that elemental and such effects would somehow go through a wall of force.
Because Physical Damage and Elemental Damage are defined terms in the game. And the Wall of Force only says that it blocks the physical effects.
That is the argument at least.
And of course, to rule it the other way, point out that while Physical Damage is defined, 'Physical Effect' is not. And since magical effects of spells exist in the physical world, then those effects are physical effects even if they do Elemental Damage and should therefore be blocked by the Wall of Force.
Interesting. I guess I have to change my view on all this. I'm coming around to Thod's view.
Wall of Force clearly blocks physical effects, incorporeal and ethereal (effects) but allows teleportation and visual effects. All because it is a Force effect - but the definition of force says almost nothing.
Its a handy list but when you look at the possible range of effect types - compared to say for example from this list of Damage Types, you realise there is a lot which is just not defined. Effect and damage aren't the same thing.
The Line of Effect rule require a line from the caster to the target or the center of the spell effect, then a line from there to everywhere the area of the spell might reach. It allows for the spell to get through significant gaps.
Importantly, line of effect is blocked by a solid physical barrier. A wall of force is definitely that. Which means Wall of force blocks all spells - because unless they say otherwise all spells require a line of effect - except for the effects mentioned.
Which are teleportation and visual. Which are traits that you can look up.
Teleportation
Abundant Step, Dimensional Assault, Dimensional Steps, Efficient Apport, Empty Body, Shadow Jump, Snare Hopping, Terrain Transposition
Create Demiplane, Teleportation Circle, Word of Recall, Blink, Blink Charge, Collective Transposition, Dimension Door, Ethereal Jaunt, Gate, Magic Mailbox, Maze, Maze of Locked Doors, Plane Shift, Return Beacon, Shadow Walk, Teleport, Thoughtful Gift, Tree Stride, Unexpected Transposition
Visual.
Blinding Beauty, Captivating Adoration, Dazzling Flash, Ephemeral Hazards, Face in the Crowd, Ghostly Transcription, Horrific Visage, House of Imaginary Walls, Lift Nature's Caul, Sepulchral Mask, Shadow Illusion, Splash of Art, Trickster's Twin, Warped Terrain, Befitting Attire, Blur, Chromatic Image, Cloak of Colors, Color Spray, Drop Dead, Entrancing Eyes, Exchange Image, Hypnotic Pattern, Illusory Creature, Illusory Disguise, Illusory Object, Illusory Scene, Item Facade, Lose the Path, Magic Mouth, Mask of Terror, Mirror Image, Mirror Malefactors, Ocular Overload, Oneiric Mire, Overwhelming Presence, Phantom Crowd, Phantom Prison, Portrait of the Artist, Scintillating Pattern, Secret Page, Shadow Army, Shadow Projectile, Thicket of Knives, Unspeakable Shadow, Veil, Vibrant Pattern, Visions of Danger
There are Light spells which by the description of wall of force being invisible probably still work:
Angelic Wings, Asterism, Dazzling Flash, Life-Giving Form, Light of Revelation, Moonbeam, Moonlight Bridge, Positive Luminance, Spray of Stars, Sun Blade, Touch of the Moon, Zenith Star, Chromatic Armor, Chromatic Ray, Cloak of Light, Continual Flame, Dancing Lights, Faerie Fire, Inner Radiance Torrent, Light, Moonburst, Moonlight Ray, Prismatic Shield, Prismatic Sphere, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall, Radiant Field, Reaper's Lantern, Searing Light, Sunburst, Wall of Radiance
These are mostly mental illusions, light and shadow efects. So I guess it seems reasonable that they can get through a Wall of Force.
The problem is that there are many other types of effects that are just not mentioned. For example illusions and mental effects without a light or teleport component should probably still work. eg Phantasmal Killer doesn't really exist except in ones mind. I'm happy to argue it doesn't have a physical effect.
All the various energy effects and traits. Maybe most of them have a physical component. It depends where you draw the line.
So I'm reluctant to rely purely on those traits to define effect. There is going to be a few GM calls here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish we could get a solid definition of "physical effect." This would solve the issue immediately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish we could get a solid definition of "physical effect." This would solve the issue immediately.
It would at least help.
-------
The other problem is that Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are in a bit of conflict.
Line of Effect says that you need 'an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability'. It also says 'Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect'.
So from just this, as Gortle points out, you would need line of effect from caster to the origin point of the burst spells.
But then Spell Targeting says that all you need for targeting is 'The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.'
So all I need to cast a burst spell is a precise sense line of effect to the desired target origin point. And 'precise sense line of effect' is usually called 'line of sight'. Which is not blocked or obstructed by Wall of Force.
------
So I am going with the ruling that the rule in Line of Effect that says that visibility doesn't matter is a general rule about line of effect. Used for things like arrows and other projectiles as well as spell effects. The specific case of targeting a spell does have visibility as being important because it is a visual (or other precise sense) line of effect that you need.
With that ruling, if I was blind and had precise tremorsense, I could cast a fireball on the other side of a stone wall. I have an unobstructed precise sense to the target origin point and line of effect from that origin point to the desired area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish we could get a solid definition of "physical effect." This would solve the issue immediately.It would at least help.
-------
The other problem is that Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are in a bit of conflict.
Line of Effect says that you need 'an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability'. It also says 'Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect'.
So from just this, as Gortle points out, you would need line of effect from caster to the origin point of the burst spells.
But then Spell Targeting says that all you need for targeting is 'The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.'
So all I need to cast a burst spell is a precise sense line of effect to the desired target origin point. And 'precise sense line of effect' is usually called 'line of sight'. Which is not blocked or obstructed by Wall of Force.
------
So I am going with the ruling that the rule in Line of Effect that says that visibility doesn't matter is a general rule about line of effect. Used for things like arrows and other projectiles as well as spell effects. The specific case of targeting a spell does have visibility as being important because it is a visual (or other precise sense) line of effect that you need.
With that ruling, if I was blind and had precise tremorsense, I could cast a fireball on the other side of a stone wall. I have an unobstructed precise sense to the target origin point and line of effect from that origin point to the desired area.
For starters you don't target the creatures in a fireball - they get affected because they are in the area. In fact there are not many spells that target creatures in an area.
Further line of effect, is still blocked by solid physical barriers. For a fireball both to the centre of the area, and from there to the victims.I'm not seeing any conflict in the rules here.
a) you need line of effect to the target,
or if it is an area spell
b) you need line of effect to the origin point of the area, AND from that point to the victims.
a physical barrier stops both of these two.
c) Targeting is stopped by visibility or more specifically by lack of a precise sense. But the GM is allowed to give you a guess at targetting with an imprecise sense.
Wall of Force stops line of effect. So a) and b) only. It doesn't stop c).
However there is a carve out in Wall of Force for Visual, Teleportation, and the really imprecise - non physical effects.
The problem is if I cast a spell say Slow - I'm still stopped by a). Even though c) is not a problem. The question is, is Slow a physical effect? Totally unspecified. A summon - is there a teleportation component? A fireball - its just energy isn't it? GMs are going to be all over the shop here, because the rules have left them naked.
Further line of effect, is still blocked by solid physical barriers. For a fireball both to the centre of the area, and from there to the victims.
I'm not seeing any conflict in the rules here.
a) you need line of effect to the target,
or if it is an area spell
Targeting a burst spell is a visual-only effect. The caster only needs a line of effect to the center of the burst for vision only. A Wall of Force is not a solid barrier to a visual effect such as targeting a burst spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Targeting a burst spell is a visual-only effect. The caster only needs a line of effect to the center of the burst for vision only. A Wall of Force is not a solid barrier to a visual effect such as targeting a burst spell.Further line of effect, is still blocked by solid physical barriers. For a fireball both to the centre of the area, and from there to the victims.
I'm not seeing any conflict in the rules here.
a) you need line of effect to the target,
or if it is an area spell
That is what we differ on.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect
This is the CASTER required to have a line of effect to the origin point of an effect’s area. This is not the victim of the spell, this is the caster.
It is in addition to In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.
Two conditions. Not one. For areas both are required.
That is what we differ on.
That is indeed where we differ in the logic.
I'm aware of the rules for line of effect. But it is a general rule. The specific rule for visual line of effect being all that is needed for targeting a burst spell should take precedence.
That is what we differ on.That is indeed where we differ in the logic.
I'm aware of the rules for line of effect. But it is a general rule. The specific rule for visual line of effect being all that is needed for targeting a burst spell should take precedence.
Then where is that rule? I'm not seeing a conflict. Or an exclusion?
That is what we differ on.That is indeed where we differ in the logic.
I'm aware of the rules for line of effect. But it is a general rule. The specific rule for visual line of effect being all that is needed for targeting a burst spell should take precedence.
Then where is that rule? I'm not seeing a conflict. Or an exclusion?
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.
With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which says precisely zero about Line of Effect.
There is no conflict.
All the Line of Effect restrictions are still in play.
You need Line of Effect to the center of the burst - which might even be your own square, in which case its trivial. Then Line of Effect from where ever that is to the target.
Or some for some spells an area is not relevant, so just a Line of Effect to the target from the caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.
Along that line of reasoning but a little simpler: Would you allow casting of Fireball through a closed (glass) window (and thus disregard line of effect)?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.
Here is your likely misconception.
You need to be able to see it AND have line of effect.
The part about seeing a target it because dim light or otherwise imprecise sense does incur a DC5 or DC11 flat check - which isn't needed if you can see the target with a precise sense.
There was a discussion a while ago which Ravingdork started. It was about targetting when you use a magical sensor / eye. The sensor does give you precise sense. I still can't cast a fireball in the next room just because I installed some form of magical sensor there. Line of effect is still needed in addition.
UbertronX nicely gives the example of a glass window. A wall of force more or less is a shatter resistance wall of glass that is magically reinforced and doesn't even allow ethereal creatures through.
Teleport effects work because you cast it on one side and it beams you across to the target.
Visual works if you create a visual on your side and someone on the other side is harmed by it. You can use the light cantrip to blind a Duergar on the other side (Light Blindness). What you can't do is to cast light on the other side of the wall to blind him/her. In this case no magic needed - a hooded lantern or torch would work the same way.
But you can't throw the torch through the wall to reach a Duergar 30 feet away with bright light.
A mirror on a stick would allow you to see around a corner. You would have precise sense of what is around the corner.
A mirror on a stick doesn't allow you to cast around a corner from the safety of total cover - because you lack line of effect.
With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.Along that line of reasoning but a little simpler: Would you allow casting of Fireball through a closed (glass) window (and thus disregard line of effect)?
The fireball isn't going through the glass or the wall of force. It is being cast on the other side from where the caster is.
Consider those stupid claw machine things. The ones where you can pay $15 in quarters to try and win a $2 stuffed toy. Are you saying I should be unable to target the claw because it isn't possible for me to reach through the glass case? Granted, my ability to successfully target is at a stunning 0%, but that is irrelevant. Targeting doesn't require a roll. Only visibility.
As for using a mirror to cast around a corner, you still don't have a direct line of sight (or visual line of effect if you want to use that terminology instead). I would probably allow a perception check at a penalty, but not spell targeting. The scrying sensor similarly. The problem from a narrative and description point of view is that while you can see what you can see, you have trouble accurately determining where what you see is in relation to you.
Similarly, using a familiar's senses in order to get darkvision and be able to see where an enemy is - works fine. Using the familiar's darkvision to target an arrow Strike would let you target the correct square, since you know where it is. But you would still have the flat check for concealment. Because you aren't the one with darkvision that is able to see the enemy precisely.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fireball isn't going through the glass or the wall of force. It is being cast on the other side from where the caster is.With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.Along that line of reasoning but a little simpler: Would you allow casting of Fireball through a closed (glass) window (and thus disregard line of effect)?
I am not arguing that the Fireball has to move from you through the window. I am arguing that your line of effect stops at the window and you therefore can not create the Fireball in the next room.
The Line of Effect rules and the Targets rules are not in conflict with each other. The Targets rules simply pose additional restrictions to the governing Line of Effect rules in case you need to designate targets.
a) You want to create any effect? Go get line of effect.
b) You want to directly target something with a spell? Get in range and have means to percieve your target(s).
b) does not invalidate or contradict a), however b) still also needs to fulfill a).
You can Burning Hands an enemy in range in a dark room just fine as long as you have line of effect. On the contrary you will need to pass a DC 11 flat check if you use a targeted spell, e.g. Acid Arrow, even if you have the range and line of effect. Normal, direct targeting is only possible when you can fully perceive your enemy in addition to having the range and line of effect.
Man, I love these forums! So many different ways to look at issues and discuss them without hating on each other! :)
I do lean towards energy damage as not being "physical." Mainly because there are rules for physical damage, i.e. damage resistance to physical damage. Plus, energy damage ignores armor, which is physical.
I also think Wall of Force doesn't block line of sight/line of effect for mental spells.
The fireball isn't going through the glass or the wall of force. It is being cast on the other side from where the caster is.I am not arguing that the Fireball has to move from you through the window. I am arguing that your line of effect stops at the window
Why? What is obstructing it? Targeting is explicitly a visual-only effect.
But I feel like we are going in circles. I don't understand why you insist on having physical line of effect to the target point of a burst spell instead of only visual line of effect.
Maybe a different spell than fireball: How about Ice Storm. I has the same idea. A burst area targeted within a range.
You create a gray storm cloud that pelts creatures with an icy deluge. When you Cast the Spell, a burst of magical hail deals 2d8 bludgeoning damage and 2d8 cold damage to each creature in the area below the cloud (basic Reflex save). Snow and sleet continue to rain down in the area for the remainder of the spell's duration, making the area difficult terrain, causing creatures in the storm to be concealed, and making creatures outside the storm concealed from those inside the storm. Any creature that ends its turn in the storm takes 4 cold damage. If you Cast this Spell outdoors, you can create two non-overlapping clouds instead of one.
But this one has the flavor of the physical effect coming down from the sky. So does the wall of force block this?
What about Storm of Vengeance. If you center the burst on your side of the wall of force, does that mean that the area on the other side of the wall of force is not affected? How about if the wall of force was placed after the initial casting of Storm of Vengeance? Are you able to center the Storm of Vengeance on the opposite side of the wall of force? How about the Lightning effect of the storm - can that target creatures on the opposite side of the wall of force from you?
It just seems really silly to say that I am not able to visibly target something through an effect that doesn't block vision.
And finally, I don't feel that it is right to treat Wall of Force as though it is a wall shaped version of Globe of Invulnerability that has the additional bonus of not needing to succeed at a counteract check.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be caught up in the concept that is has to make sense. It does not. Line of sight and line of effect are two separate things. Line of effect requires an unblocked path. That you can see through the thing blocking the path is irrelevant. Rules do not have any obligation to make conceptual sense. It is merely nice when they do.
As for elemental effects like the fire from a fireball going through a wall of force, I, again, imagine a wall of force as a see-through stone wall (with different hardness and hit points)(...and can block incorporeal). It helps me conceptualize what "physical effects" means. Would the blast of a fireball be able to go through a stone wall? Probably not. Thus, it cannot go through a wall of force.
You seem to be caught up in the concept that is has to make sense. It does not. Line of sight and line of effect are two separate things. Line of effect requires an unblocked path. That you can see through the thing blocking the path is irrelevant. Rules do not have any obligation to make conceptual sense. It is merely nice when they do.
Yeah. When I read through Line of Effect and Line of Sight they become mechanically identical for a vision-only effect. If you don't agree with that, can you point out what part is different?
And you might consider rewording your argument. What it sounds like to me is 'My ruling doesn't make sense, but we should all follow it anyway even though there is an alternative ruling that is available.' I'm expecting that this is not what you are actually trying to say.
As for elemental effects like the fire from a fireball going through a wall of force, I, again, imagine a wall of force as a see-through stone wall (with different hardness and hit points)(...and can block incorporeal). It helps me conceptualize what "physical effects" means. Would the blast of a fireball be able to go through a stone wall? Probably not. Thus, it cannot go through a wall of force.
Yes, on this point I can absolutely see the reasoning for running the ruling in either direction. Because 'physical effect' really isn't defined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. When I read through Line of Effect and Line of Sight they become mechanically identical for a vision-only effect.
No. Line of Effect requires a physical unblocked path, if you are talking about visibility you have already missed the point. Line of Effect explicitly says visibility doesn't matter. Why would vision effects matter to this? Besides which this discussion is not limited to vision effects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be caught up in the concept that is has to make sense. It does not. Line of sight and line of effect are two separate things. Line of effect requires an unblocked path. That you can see through the thing blocking the path is irrelevant. Rules do not have any obligation to make conceptual sense. It is merely nice when they do.Yeah. When I read through Line of Effect and Line of Sight they become mechanically identical for a vision-only effect. If you don't agree with that, can you point out what part is different?
I will point out the line "...Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect...". Yes, you can see the target on the other side of the invisible solid physical barrier. You absolutely can. 100%. However "...need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability...". "You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier." Again, "...Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect...".
Again, conceptually, I get that it doesn't really make sense. If I can see the specific target/location/whatnot, why can I not have a spell effect happen there? And the answer is...because the rules say so. It is not a satisfying answer by any means. But the rules explicitly say so.
And you might consider rewording your argument. What it sounds like to me is 'My ruling doesn't make sense, but we should all follow it anyway even though there is an alternative ruling that is available.' I'm expecting that this is not what you are actually trying to say.
Here is my reword to make my point clear: You are wrong. This is not a grey area or interpretation situation. You are just wrong. I get why, as I stated above. It makes sense to me that one should be able to target something they can clearly see. However the rules clearly say otherwise.
I love me some grey area. For example, that it could be interpreted that the blast of a fireball could go through a wall of force irritates my soul. That is not how I understand how it should work. However, I do acknowledge that it is unclear.
But I feel like we are going in circles. I don't understand why you insist on having physical line of effect to the target point of a burst spell instead of only visual line of effect.
The difference in understanding lies in the fact the rules for Line of Effect are in place for any type of effect and that in addition to them the rules for Targets apply to those kind of effects which rely on your ability to perceive direct targets. They are not separate rules for separate instances, they build upon each other.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category.
The grid intersection where you can place an AoE spell is not a 'Target' in the sense of the game rules. For example Acid Arrow has a Targets entry, while Fireball hasn't.
The only unclear thing for me here is: must path of effect be straight (or do fireballs round corners)? In the picture here https://i.postimg.cc/bYBfyFkF/path-scheme.png does fireball starting at the purple star affect green star? Or could a mage at the purple star cast some burst from the green star provided the solid teal wall is transparent or invisible?
If you read about the line of effect, in "unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability" and further there's nothing about this path being straight. Also 'gaps' and 'not totally solid' barriers hint at possibility for the path not being straight.
The restriction is only on a path and it explicitly allows for the path to have some obstacles like a grate in the way. So my interpretation would be to allow it. But note that you still have to be able to target it via a precise sense for the Line of Sight rule
Yeah. When I read through Line of Effect and Line of Sight they become mechanically identical for a vision-only effect.No. Line of Effect requires a physical unblocked path, if you are talking about visibility you have already missed the point. Line of Effect explicitly says visibility doesn't matter. Why would vision effects matter to this? Besides which this discussion is not limited to vision effects.
Yup. Line of Effect says an unblocked path. And line of effect is a general rule that applies to a lot of things. Spells, ranged attacks, even melee attacks.
And the more specific rule on spell targeting says that you only need vision to the target point of a burst.
Hence the ambiguity in the rules. Ubertron_X is saying that the specific targeting rule is adding restrictions to the general rule. I disagree and say that the specific rule is replacing the general rule.
@Grand Archive Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich
I note that you missed the word 'usually' in your quoting.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
How important that word is, I am not sure. But it is one of the reasons that I feel that this rule for line of effect is a more general rule than the specific area targeting rule.
I also notice that no one is taking on the challenge of giving a ruling on the other targeting cases that I mentioned: Ice Storm and Storm of Vengeance.
Here is my reword to make my point clear: You are wrong. This is not a grey area or interpretation situation. You are just wrong. I get why, as I stated above. It makes sense to me that one should be able to target something they can clearly see. However the rules clearly say otherwise.
I love me some grey area. For example, that it could be interpreted that the blast of a fireball could go through a wall of force irritates my soul. That is not how I understand how it should work. However, I do acknowledge that it is unclear.
Excellent. I like that a lot better. ;-)
My counter to that is that I don't think that Wall of Force should be negating spells. That is the job of counterspell and Globe of Invulnerability and other such things that say that they block or negate spells. Wall of Force doesn't actually say that it does that.
And at that point it is just a difference in preference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is 'negating' spells the same way a regular, nonmagical wall or door does. Or I guess a glass window. So...not strange?
As for the 'usually', I imagine that applies to spells like teleport, discern location, or other spells that could not function as intended if following the rest of the text of line of effect.
Quite obviously ice storm and storm of vengeance would interact the same way as the chosen to represent the case, fireball. I can see a slight difference with ice storm as it is not a burst and therefore could be argued you would need line of effect to the entire area.
Getting to the argument about the grid intersection not being a target... I quote again, "...need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability...". You are right-ish, but that doesn't matter in the least.
|
|
I also found this little gem.
Cover is relative, so you might simultaneously have cover against one creature and not another. Cover applies only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don't have line of effect and typically can't target it at all.
I was not aware that Line of Effect or wall of force had changed. I will run it as I always have. Wording seems the same to me.
It is 'negating' spells the same way a regular, nonmagical wall or door does. Or I guess a glass window. So...not strange?
As for the 'usually', I imagine that applies to spells like teleport, discern location, or other spells that could not function as intended if following the rest of the text of line of effect.
Seems kinda arbitrary that some spells get a free pass and others don't. And for no discernible reason. At least not one that you have stated. There isn't a trait that it is keyed off of for example.
Quite obviously ice storm and storm of vengeance would interact the same way as the chosen to represent the case, fireball. I can see a slight difference with ice storm as it is not a burst and therefore could be argued you would need line of effect to the entire area.
Uh... Ice Storm is a burst spell.
So the best way to handle an enemy Druid casting Storm of Vengeance is to move to the 80 foot long, 5 foot wide swath of unaffected terrain caused by the one standing wall of a ruined barn. For some reason the wind, and acid rain, and lightning strikes, and hail, and the sound of the thunderclaps won't affect anything in that area. Actually, that piece of wall would cause two swaths of unaffected area. One going away from the center of the storm, and one going away from the caster.
And it will do practically nothing when cast in a small village since almost nothing will have line of effect to both the caster and the targeted center of the storm.
So Storm of Vengeance is purely for white-room damage output calculation theorycrafting encounters.
Very obviously working as intended. Are you sure that this one shouldn't get one of your free passes too?