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.
Yes. Which is why I feel that Line of Effect is a general purpose term that can be overridden by more specific rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Obviously people inside buildings would have some protection. Once you start talking about objects (and buildings), the game explicitly leaves it to the GM. If you are talking about effects that are going to destroy buildings then obviously the GM has a few decisions to make.
In this particular case the Storm of Vengence forms in the air, so line of effect is likely pretty good. Line of effect from the Druid to central spot in the air, line of effect from that spot to the spell victims. Targetting is not required for some of the effects, but for other options it is. Obviously if you want to include or exclude a target then you have to be able to perceive then.
Yes if the Druid is trapped behind a wall of force they are not going to be able to get the spell to work as wanted. Otherwise they are likely fine.
It is not a problem, of any significance at all.
|
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.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.
Sure, I guess clairvoyance got a huge boost in power as it can allow you to ignore the line of effect rules (which it specifically states it gets around) and cast fireball up to 500ft away. If all I need is to be able to see...I can snipe peeps inside a building with fireball?
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.
That is my bad, I missed that entirely. Yep, then it works just like a fireball would.
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?
Storm of Vengeance is a burst spell. The line of effect is drawn from the center of the burst (after the initial casting of course). If a spellcaster is moronic enough to target the center of it low enough that it does not clear a wall, then yes it is definitely working as intended. It has a 360ft radius!
Once it is cast, the line of effect is from, again, the center of the burst. So, if the spell's caster can see the target, and the target has a line of effect from the center of the burst, they can be targeted/affected by the effects of the spell.
Sure, I guess clairvoyance got a huge boost in power as it can allow you to ignore the line of effect rules (which it specifically states it gets around) and cast fireball up to 500ft away. If all I need is to be able to see...I can snipe peeps inside a building with fireball?
I mentioned previously that I would rule the need for direct visual line of effect, rather than an indirect ability to see a location such as what clairvoyance or mirrors give.
So precise tremorsense would let you snipe those peeps. Clairvoyance wouldn't.
As for storm of vengeance, yeah I was expecting to use the 800 foot range as a ground distance that you could cast the spell from. Casting it in the air wasn't something I was considering because I don't want to sit there doing trig to determine how far away the ground-projected center of the spell could be from the caster. And maybe have to send a survey team out to the location to decide what the minimum angle the caster could cast at in order to clear all of the obstacles.
------
Anyway, I think we have hashed this out as far as we can. The two ambiguities that I am seeing are still:
* The definition of what is a 'physical effect'. A) Anything that causes physical damage or moves a physical object. B) Anything that exists in the physical world including elemental or energy damage.
* Whether the visual targeting rule for casting spells is an addition to or a replacement of the line of effect rule. Meaning: is there some sort of metaphysical link between the caster and the target location of the spell that can be blocked by a solid but transparent object, or if vision is all that is needed in order to successfully target the spell.
Once those two rulings are made (either in errata or by the players of a particular game) then the rest of the game mechanics fall into place fairly nicely.
There are some edge cases for particular spells that people should be aware of when deciding on how their rulings on these points should go. Such as being able to use a non-standard precise sense to cast spells on the other side of solid walls and closed doors, or causing wall of force to negate the effects of spells without even requiring a counteract check.
Without a hard and fact definition of "physical effects," it's definitely difficult to come up with an answer. I'm really hung up on that term, as other areas of RAW specifically call out whether or not a spell blocks energy damage/attacks. I'm leaning on the opinion that a Wall of Force will not block energy attacks/damage.
However, I'm not 100% sold on that. I'd say I'm 51%-49% in favor of Wall of Force not being able to block energy attacks/damage.
I'm also hesitant because it's unclear whether or not Wall of Force acts as some sort of barrier, and what type of barrier it is representing. "Force" is clearly, RAW, and energy type. Things made of energy still have matter, i.e. "physicality;" an Unseen Servant is completely made of force, but can manipulate objects.
But it's also clear that energy damage is different from physical damage, in that there are resistances to physical damage and energy damage.
Most telling is another spell, Chromatic Wall, which specifically says it blocks energy.
Maybe Resilient Sphere can shed light.
Maybe. It says that it blocks anything. That would include line of sight from any senses, line of effect, and all forms of damage including mental. I don't think either of us would allow spells to be cast inside the sphere from a caster outside of it.
Also compare to Force Cage, which explicitly says that spells do pass through it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I agree you have to make an assumption about what a physical effect is.
That was a point I made way back two days ago in this thread.
Teleportation and Light effects are allowed through Wall of Force. But others? Maybe. Its up to your GM.
Yes it would be nice is their was some consistancy here between Force spells. But there just isn't. Its left to the GM which quite frankly is disappointing. The game system should tell us the answer.
Personally I will be allowing just Teleportation and Light effects through Force effects as a general rule, because its the best guidance we have.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe Resilient Sphere can shed light.Maybe. It says that it blocks anything. That would include line of sight from any senses, line of effect, and all forms of damage including mental. I don't think either of us would allow spells to be cast inside the sphere from a caster outside of it.
Also compare to Force Cage, which explicitly says that spells do pass through it.
Do note that Force Cage is "...made of bands of force, each a half inch thick and a half inch apart...". And it also says "A creature capable of passing through the space between the bars (typically a Tiny creature) can leave...". Maybe when it says "Spells and breath weapons can pass through the cage uninhibited." it is because it is "...made of bands of force, each a half inch thick and a half inch apart..." which is very much in line with the wording in line of effect.
And very much in line with how any non-wall barrier would work in regards to spells and other effects passing through. Non-wall referring to the "...a half inch apart...". Wall of Force, not having gaps, would just be a solid barrier. I conclude this because it has hardness and hit points, kinda like every other solid barrier does. Every other solid barrier wall also is able to stop elemental effects from crossing through the wall, so I assume Wall of Force can as well. If it can't pass through a stone wall, why could it pass through a Wall of Force?
Maybe Resilient Sphere can shed light.
Ah. Interesting to note the sphere does take damage, so this "force" at least is similar to a solid!
Plus...mind blown... would a wall of force block a magic missile!?
|
Ah. Interesting to note the sphere does take damage, so this "force" at least is similar to a solid!
Plus...mind blown... would a wall of force block a magic missile!?
Yes - A Wall of Force blocks Magic Missiles.
In this respect - you might be interested in Magic Missile is blocked by the shield spell.
You raise a magical shield of force. This counts as using the Raise a Shield action, giving you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, but it doesn't require a hand to use.
While the spell is in effect, you can use the Shield Block reaction with your magic shield. The shield has Hardness 5. After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can't cast it again for 10 minutes. Unlike a normal Shield Block, you can use the spell's reaction against the magic missile spell.
Here are a few more examples of blocking energy damage using a physical barrier (in this case these are not magical):
Ray of Frost (cold) is blocked (partially) by an ordinary shield by increasing the AC to hit.
Acid Arrow (acvid) is blocked (partially) by an ordinary buckler by increasing the AC to hit.
Fireball (Fire) is blocked (partially) by a Full Plate - via the bullwark special ability which increases reflex saves against such attacks.
I could go on. 2e has only a single AC. This means any magic attack that has to overcome AC does benefit from a shield/buckler or any other armor by making it harder to hit you. This is very different to 1e where we had touch armor class for these spells.
But even in first edition Force was added to touch armor - like mage armor.
|
|
Actually, I don't think a wall of force would block a magic missile, but not why you think. Because of the rules of line of effect, if you can target (i.e. a line of effect can be drawn and you have line of sight), then I'd assume that the missiles would just go around the wall of force, as I understand magic missile to be able to do.
Actually, I don't think a wall of force would block a magic missile, but not why you think. Because of the rules of line of effect, if you can target (i.e. a line of effect can be drawn and you have line of sight), then I'd assume that the missiles would just go around the wall of force, as I understand magic missile to be able to do.
There has to be a gap, but if that is your interpretation of magic missile I guess its fine. Line of Effect does not explicitly say straight line - though that is the common usage of the term. It also does allow you past some obstacles, again in language that is not precise.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not muddy the waters even more.
Line
Source Core Rulebook pg. 457 2.0
A line shoots forth from you in a straight line in a direction of your choosing. The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps. Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide. For example, the lightning bolt spell’s area is a 60-foot line that’s 5 feet wide.
There is a definition of a line and it is straight. It even shows how a line is used on a grid.
Saying a line of effect can be bend would need evidence and not lack of it when other lines are handled as straight.
Especially as common use also mainly is straight.
Yes - A Wall of Force blocks Magic Missiles.
Got a rules cite for this? I can't find anything specific. The Shield spell specifically states "magic missile," so why wouldn't Wall of Force do so?
Actually, I don't think a wall of force would block a magic missile, but not why you think. Because of the rules of line of effect, if you can target (i.e. a line of effect can be drawn and you have line of sight), then I'd assume that the missiles would just go around the wall of force, as I understand magic missile to be able to do.There has to be a gap, but if that is your interpretation of magic missile I guess its fine. Line of Effect does not explicitly say straight line - though that is the common usage of the term. It also does allow you past some obstacles, again in language that is not precise.
If a line of effect doesn't need to be a straight line, then the rule has absolutely no meaning at all. Aside from a completely closed structure, I can always create a meandering path of arbitrarily long distance between any two points. So everything has line of effect to practically everything else.
And considering that both cover rules and ranged attacks use line of effect also, that would mean that we could shoot arrows around trees and such shenanigans like that.
------
As for Magic Missile being blocked by Wall of Force, it depends on how things are ruled.
If you are going with the ruling that you need a metaphysical line of effect to your target, then you couldn't even cast the spell at the target behind the wall of force.
If instead you are allowed to cast the spell at the target on the other side of the wall, then we get to the point where the 'physical effect' part comes in.
If it is ruled that Magic Missile is not a physical effect, then the Wall of Force would not block Magic Missile. Unless a special case was given to it based on precedent set by the Shield cantrip.
If it is ruled that Magic Missile is a physical effect, then the wall of force would block it (and probably take the damage from the spell, but that actually isn't specified either).
|
|
If a line of effect doesn't need to be a straight line, then the rule has absolutely no meaning at all...
I agree completely.
Which leads to why it is irrelevant if Magic Missile is blocked by Wall of Force. If you can draw a line of effect, then Magic Missile is fine. If you cannot, then you cannot target. It is not that it is specifically blocking Magic Missile. It is blocking almost any spell by blocking line of effect.
....which... maybe gets to breithaupyclan's point (apologies for it taking this long).
It is questionable whether line of effect is a physical thing and therefore blocked by Wall of Force. Which I think is no and yes respectively. I don't think that line of effect is necessarily a physical thing. However, whether or not it is, is irrelevant because I think that Wall of Force is considered a solid physical barrier and as such is called out to block line of effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.And how has it always been? How do you read the wording? Or better, maybe there is some input from the gamedesigners somewhere?
I read the wording as physical effects which include energy, poison, and anything manifesting a physical effect treats wall of force like a wall. Not interpreting it this way leads to all types of strangeness like you're seeing in this thread where somehow a ghost can't pass through or an arrow or sword, but somehow energy can pass through like a fireball. Physical effects is pretty clear, was clear in the old edition, and includes everything manifesting as physical in the world as in material. I don't expect the designers to write 10 pages explaining physical effects within the game world because some people want to pretend they don't know what a physical effect is in the context of wall of force which has not changed across many editions of the game.
Line of effect is blocked because a wall of force is just a wall that is clear. But it is still very much a wall when adjudicating line of effect.
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.And how has it always been? How do you read the wording? Or better, maybe there is some input from the gamedesigners somewhere?I read the wording as physical effects which include energy, poison, and anything manifesting a physical effect treats wall of force like a wall. Not interpreting it this way leads to all types of strangeness like you're seeing in this thread where somehow a ghost can't pass through or an arrow or sword, but somehow energy can pass through like a fireball. Physical effects is pretty clear, was clear in the old edition, and includes everything manifesting as physical in the world as in material. I don't expect the designers to write 10 pages explaining physical effects within the game world because some people want to pretend they don't know what a physical effect is in the context of wall of force which has not changed across many editions of the game.
Line of effect is blocked because a wall of force is just a wall that is clear. But it is still very much a wall when adjudicating line of effect.
Funny, because the game actually gives two different definitions of physical damage and energy damage, so you're wrong there. Plus, the go out of their way in other spells to put in physical AND energy damage. And, by the way, this is PF 2, not PF 1, so using PF as an argument if irrelevant, as this is a new system. Your lack of evidence renders your argument unconvincing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...claiming that 'damage' is the same thing as 'effect(s)' is similarly loose.
I just see no evidence or implication that would lead me to believe that I should treat the substantiality of a wall of force any different than a simple stone wall with different hardness and hp stats (other than the stated effect versus incorporeality).
Funny, because the game actually gives two different definitions of physical damage and energy damage, so you're wrong there. Plus, the go out of their way in other spells to put in physical AND energy damage. And, by the way, this is PF 2, not PF 1, so using PF as an argument if irrelevant, as this is a new system. Your lack of evidence renders your argument unconvincing.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.And how has it always been? How do you read the wording? Or better, maybe there is some input from the gamedesigners somewhere?I read the wording as physical effects which include energy, poison, and anything manifesting a physical effect treats wall of force like a wall. Not interpreting it this way leads to all types of strangeness like you're seeing in this thread where somehow a ghost can't pass through or an arrow or sword, but somehow energy can pass through like a fireball. Physical effects is pretty clear, was clear in the old edition, and includes everything manifesting as physical in the world as in material. I don't expect the designers to write 10 pages explaining physical effects within the game world because some people want to pretend they don't know what a physical effect is in the context of wall of force which has not changed across many editions of the game.
Line of effect is blocked because a wall of force is just a wall that is clear. But it is still very much a wall when adjudicating line of effect.
It's not an argument. I know that the game designers had no intent on changing wall of force. This type of ridiculousness where they have to explain what physical effect means is a bunch of rubbish.
Wall of force has used the term physical effect or something similar for ages. It has always applied to energy anything that is deemed physical in the world. It has always blocked line of effect.
I pretty much 100% guarantee that if it gets an errata, it will fit my interpretation and not yours.
But you go ahead and try to rewrite decades of rules history defining what a wall of force is because you want to be different. I don't care. No one who I play will play it any differently.
You know what force is, you know what it was in 3E, 2E, and since its first creation. It really hasn't changed much other than to add Hardness and give you a chance to break it using physical effects meaning physical and energy damage. I imagine you even want them to write that poison goes right through it or damages it even though that would make no sense.
Your interpretation is unconvincing. I feel bad that Paizo designers who created an already overly large book of rules would have to spend time writing up each spell or ability to such a degree that it would take pages for a single spell to ensure they cover all possible options so certain players can't spend their time arguing with a DM what a physical effect is or something similarly ridiculous like arguing you can grapple while not using a hand to touch the person.
That's life with certain players. If your DM allows it, have at it. I'd never allow that in my games.
If a line of effect doesn't need to be a straight line, then the rule has absolutely no meaning at all...
I agree completely.
Which leads to why it is irrelevant if Magic Missile is blocked by Wall of Force. If you can draw a line of effect, then Magic Missile is fine. If you cannot, then you cannot target. It is not that it is specifically blocking Magic Missile. It is blocking almost any spell by blocking line of effect.
....which... maybe gets to breithaupyclan's point
At its core, yeah.
A 19th level Sorcerer casting Ray of Frost (auto-heightened to 10th level) at an enemy Wizard that is trying to protect themselves:
* A 4th level Globe of Invulnerability would get popped like a soap bubble because it allows a counteract check. And because of the difference in level, my Sorcerer would overcome the spell by rolling a failure on the counteract roll.
* A 10th level Globe of Invulnerability would still allow the counteract check and it would only count as a 9th level spell for purposes of the counteract check. So my sorcerer still succeeds when rolling a fail.
* 8th level Antimagic Field wouldn't work at all since the heightened cantrip would be cast at a higher level.
* Casting Antimagic Field at 9th level still wouldn't block the cantrip. You would have to heighten Antimagic Field to 10th level in order to block the spell.
But
* 6th level Wall of Force shuts down my Sorcerer entirely. I can't target the Wizard because it is on the other side of the wall. I can't target the wall because it is not a creature. So without any valid targets, I can't even cast the spell to do damage to the wall.
Some other spell interactions to look at:
* Dimensional Assault and Dimension Door should work fine because they don't actually have a target line.
* Blink Charge is a bit questionable (which is strange because of how similar it is to Dimensional Assault). It has a target of 1 creature. So maybe you couldn't target a creature on the other side of the wall. But it says in the text that you can target any creature you can see. So...? Specific beats general, I guess?
* And Unexpected Transposition wouldn't work at all on targets on the other side of the wall. It has no special exception about being able to target a creature just by being able to see it. So full line of effect would be needed.
And again, I am not trying to argue one side of this or the other at this point. I am just wanting to make sure that everyone is aware of the consequences of their rulings that they are using.
|
|
*sigh*
Your examples are rooted in silliness.
Yes, the 19th level sorcerer is shutdown by a barrier that is a plane that is at max 50ft x 20ft. But not because the spell is better than the others you presented, but because this hypothetical sorcerer seems so fantastically intellectually inept that they can't figure out how to get around a single plane wall. This hypothetical sorcerer has much greater adversaries than a wall of force. Their greatest clearly being either themselves or their player.
ALL of the spells in the second section have the teleportation trait, therefore ALL can go through a wall of force because the spell specifically says they can.
Edit: As for not being able to target the wall, I think you are technically correct. However, a vast majority of spells in 2e have the target of creature. I am wondering if it was intentional to not be able to be used on walls and such. I know as a GM myself, I would not disallow the targeting of walls (depending on the spell I suppose).
*sigh*
Your examples are rooted in silliness.Yes, the 19th level sorcerer is shutdown by a barrier that is a plane that is at max 50ft x 20ft. But not because the spell is better than the others you presented, but because this hypothetical sorcerer seems so fantastically intellectually inept that they can't figure out how to get around a single plane wall. This hypothetical sorcerer has much greater adversaries than a wall of force. Their greatest clearly being either themselves or their player.
Not trying to be silly. Just noting the meta that the ruling produces. If you want to temporarily block incoming spells, don't reach for Antimagic Field or Globe of Invulnerability. That would be a waste of a high level spell slot. Wall of Stone or Wall of Force would do a much better job.
ALL of the spells in the second section have the teleportation trait, therefore ALL can go through a wall of force because the spell specifically says they can.
The teleportation effect could go through the wall. But the targeting wouldn't. If you require a metaphysical line of effect (not just a visual one) to the target of a spell, then you couldn't target a creature on the other side of the wall with Unexpected Transposition. The wall would block the targeting - not the teleportation.
And to be fair, Wall of Stone would as well.
Edit: As for not being able to target the wall, I think you are technically correct. However, a vast majority of spells in 2e have the target of creature. I am wondering if it was intentional to not be able to be used on walls and such. I know as a GM myself, I would not disallow the targeting of walls (depending on the spell I suppose).
Allowing targeting the walls with a spell attack roll wouldn't be hard either since the ones with HP also have a listed AC. Cone, burst, and emanation could include the wall in its area. Line could have a point on your side of the wall picked to aim the line with.
|
|
Ah, it seems that maybe I read it differently. If it allows teleportation effects to pass through the wall, then I assumed it didn't block line of effect from those effects. I see no reason not to make said assumption as still blocking line of effect for those would defeat the purpose of allowing them through.
I find your stance on wall of force's OPness (my interpretation of your words) silly. It cannot bend. It is a single plane so if you can find a way to walk around it, it is next to useless. Wall of stone and wall of ice allow for non-single plane forms.
If you have the disintegrate spell, you can get rid of it without even having to roll a check.
If you have teleportation, it is essentially not there.
If you cast visual trait spells, it is essentially not there.
The wall of force blocks the user just as much as their enemy.
Anti-magic field is an emanation, you can't walk around it. Globe of invulnerability is a globe, you cannot walk around it.
Globe of invulnerability does not prevent those inside from casting spells on those outside.
Yes, wall of force is a battlefield control spell. It does battlefield control. That is it's entire purpose. The same purpose as other wall spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find your stance on wall of force's OPness (my interpretation of your words) silly. It cannot bend. It is a single plane so if you can find a way to walk around it, it is next to useless. Wall of stone and wall of ice allow for non-single plane forms.
Fireball has a 500 foot range. If being cast at that range, it is going to take more than a few rounds of movement to walk around to the other side of the wall.
And even when not being used at that range, it still blocks incoming spells for at least one round.
Ah, it seems that maybe I read it differently. If it allows teleportation effects to pass through the wall, then I assumed it didn't block line of effect from those effects. I see no reason not to make said assumption as still blocking line of effect for those would defeat the purpose of allowing them through.
I think it is a mistake in your argument to allow any spell targeting through the wall - even for teleportation effects.
Because that idea is actually the basis for my ruling.
If a teleportation spell is allowed to target something on the other side of the wall, then targeting a spell must not be a physical effect. If it was a physical effect, then the wall would block it even though the wall is transparent.
If a teleportation spell can be targeted through the wall, then how about Daze - a purely mental effect?
How about Light cast with Reach Spell to give it a 30 foot range? That is a light effect, so the transparent wall shouldn't block that either.
And if I can target a rock with Light and a creature for a teleportation effect on the other side of the wall, how about Telekinetic Projectile? Target a rock with TP and a creature with TP, both on the other side of the wall. That should work fine, yes?
How about an area then? Why not target Ice Storm on the other side of the wall? Why not Fireball? Nothing is physically going through the wall with any of these. Other than the targeting.
So if you want to draw the line at 'all targeting of spells cannot go through a wall of force', that makes sense and is consistent. But once you start putting in exceptions, now you need to clearly define what those exceptions are and how to determine when they apply.
Otherwise your ruling feel capricious and unfair. It is just on-a-whim some spells get blocked and others don't and the players won't know which until they try to cast something through the wall. Evil Eye? Malicious Shadow? Daze? Ray of Enfeeblement? Spiritual Guardian moving around the wall instead of through it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tale of the undefeatable champion
The Imp Ruas Wri was proud of his clever schemes.
Outside the Castle was a large sign:
Adventurers - Beat my champion in a fight and you can gain gold and silver.
Rules:
1) You pay an entrance fee. If you win - the same amount will be paid back double to you. If you lose - your fee is forfeit.
2) You have up to 10 minutes time
3) Any weapon or magic allowed
4) You can spend as much time as you want to prepare - but you only can try once
A group of adventurers came along. Looking for cheap money they decided to give it a try.
Amiri was first. She paid 1000 gold, no preperations needed for her she thought. Which champion was there whom she couldn't fight?
She entered the castle. What she saw looked pitiful. An old peasant was sitting on a chair in a glass house. An imp sat on another chair close by.
Poor guy - Amisi thought as she charged. She deliberately decided to deal non-lethal damage - that poor peasant could be beheaded with a single swipe.
Alas - when she tried - some red glowing runes showed up in an evil looking language. And no matter how hard she tried to strike - she just couldn't target the poor peasant.
She went out when her 10 minutes where over. I lost - powerful magics protect the champion. I couldn't land a single blow she told her comrades.
Ezren thought - Magic - that is easy. He cast Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Protection from Fire and Protection from Evil before paying 2000 gold and walking in.
Seeing the runes he cast Dispel Magic - but no matter how often he cast it - it seemed never to be strong enough. He used Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile and in the end even the strongest Fireball spell he had prepared.
All he achieved was some minor burn marks on the chair - spelling out - "RavingDork was here". Actually, he was sure that writing wasn't because of his fireball - but must have appeared when his Area Dispel Magic removed a minor illusion hiding the blemish in the wood.
Defeated - Ezren went out. True Evil there is at work he told his comrades? I have never seen such a weak champion – but evil protects him from all my magics.
Upon hearing this - Kyra went in. She paid her 4000 gold to win back what her comrades had lost and went in.
Seeing the Abyssal Runes she tried to exorcise them - using her legendary knowledge of Religion. She tried to channel positive energy, Smite Evil, nothing seemed to work. Defeated she went out.
It is impossible - you just can't get to the champion. He is locked behind impenetrable protections.
Hearing this Merisel thought that couldn't be a problem. Taking her best Thieves Tools and paying 8000 gold - she went in.
Using her unparalleled perception she looked for secret openings, a lock to open - something to use her legendary Thievery Skills. But there just was nothing - 4 glass walls and a roof on top. The whole contraption was so pathetically small - there wasn't even space for someone else in there.
Defeated - the adventurer group left - having been tricked out of a large sum of money.
Half an hour later - Rincewind - the worst Wizard ever - happened to come to the same place. Ruas Wri was in a good mood. Seeing that the poor Wizard hardly could afford anything he offered to change the rules. All his money and 1 year of servitude against the money of the adventuring group from earlier.
Tempted - Rincewind paid his 2 silver pieces and 5 copper and entered. But seeing the challenge he knew immediately - that was beyond his capability.
But he didn't want to give up fully without a fight. So he cast his most powerful spell he had remembered that day - illusionary object - and turned the tiny glass house into an outhouse - including a pretend door and a heart.
He was just about to leave and give in to his defeat when a miracle happened. The poor, unarmoured and weapon less peasant inside the glass house had spent all the three silver pieces given by Ruas Wri to get drinks in the local pub.
Having been late in the morning he had rushed to the castle - not able to empty his bladder ahead of time. For hours now he had been inside - fighting. And the illusion of the outhouse was just too much. He gave up, he accepted defeat. He knew he would lose his soul - but he fingered the teleportation ring given to him and got out.
His bladder defeated by too much drink and an illusion.
Ruas Wri appeared next to Rincewind. I don’t know how – but you have defeated my champion. Here is the reward. He handed over a large bag of gold – just as he heard crashing glass inside the courtyard.
The house keeper was making his round. I haven’t seen this outhouse before – but it seems in a bad state. There is a lose plank. He took out a hammer and a nail – only to hear a crashing sound of broken glass. The outhouse was still standing there – the plank still lose. Not knowing what had happened but instinctively sensing it was bad, he quickly disappeared.
|
|
Line of side isn't being used randomly. Here is a complete list from the CRB of entries (apart of the definition) that use the term Line of Sight (LOS for short).
Recognize Spell LoS needed
Spell detecting something visual as trigger LoS needed
Auditory detection LoS not needed
Clairaudience outside LoS or LoE allowed
Clairvoyance outside LoS or LoE allowed
Collective Transposition LoS needed
Abundant Step LoS needed
Dimensional Step LoS needed
Vigilant Eye LoS needed during creation
Seek LoS needed
What do they have in common?
LoS is needed / mentioned for actions like recognize spell or seek. This makes pretty much a lot of sense. Actually - LoS for Seek surprises me, as it means you can use it to seek someone hidden/invisible but you can't use seek to find the location of someone in darkness if you have no dark vision.
Also interesting is Collective Transposition. That one - by RAW - might work beyond a Wall of Force. Not sure it is RAI if both are on the other side to be allowed (lack of Line of Effect).
|
|
Am I missing something where wall of force specifically calling out effects with the visual or teleportation traits would not block those effect's line of effect? Is it just me that finds that logical?
If teleportation, then why not X?
Because it doesn't have the teleportation or visual trait? Or are you being intentionally dense? Teleportation and visual are traits.
I feel like I'm being gaslighted here.
|
|
Fireball has a 500 foot range. If being cast at that range, it is going to take more than a few rounds of movement to walk around to the other side of the wall.And even when not being used at that range, it still blocks incoming spells for at least one round.
And?
Yes. Turns out, like almost every other wall spell, it serves the purpose of battlefield control?
|
|
Am I missing something where wall of force specifically calling out effects with the visual or teleportation traits would not block those effect's line of effect? Is it just me that finds that logical?
You miss the comparison to First edition.
Take Dimension Door:
1e: You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot within range.
[snip]
If you arrive in a place that is already occupied by a solid body, you and each creature traveling with you take 1d6 points of damage and are shunted to a random open space on a suitable surface within 100 feet of the intended location.
2e: Opening a door that bypasses normal space, you instantly transport yourself and any items you're wearing and holding from your current space to a clear space within range you can see.
In 1e you could dimension door ANYWHERE. Bypassing Wall of Force, normal walls, etc. This seemed not to have been RAI and seems to have bypassed too many obstacles - so now line of sight was added to the place where you can teleport to.
Teleport always bypassed physical objects - it still does - but more limited now as it restricts where you can go to what you can see.
Edit: So it is a matter of perspective. Before you could say - Dimension Door me 10 feet West - going through a wall and avoiding any traps, locks or alarms that might be waiting for you at the door.
Now they only allow it, if you have line of sight to the place you want to go.
Edit2: An example what Paizo wanted (in my view) to achieve with this change. 1e - there is this castle. We want to get to the BBEG / the treasure. The castle is 200 x 200 feet. We are at the South Entrance. Expect guards in the next room. Why not dimension door 180 feet North - bypass everything and appear straight where we want to end up.
Yes - the BBEG who builds his castle out of permanent walls of force still would suffer that problem - but he doesn't deserve better if he lives in a glass castle.
You don’t target something on the other side with teleport.
You target yourself on the same side.
Then you ask - Scotty - beam me to x.
X can be on the other side as long as you can see it.
I'm not talking about Teleport. I am looking at Unexpected Transposition which is a different teleportation effect spell.
And it has a Target: 1 creature other than the triggering enemy.
So if the enemy that you want to target is on the other side of a Wall of Force from you, can you target that creature?
Am I missing something where wall of force specifically calling out effects with the visual or teleportation traits would not block those effect's line of effect? Is it just me that finds that logical?
If teleportation, then why not X?
Because it doesn't have the teleportation or visual trait? Or are you being intentionally dense? Teleportation and visual are traits.I feel like I'm being gaslighted here.
This is going back to the beginning. The rules citation people are using to forbid casting Fireball on the other side of a Wall of Force is because targeting a spell requires line of effect (a full physical line of effect rather than the visual-only line of effect that I was arguing for). The fireball itself is not passing through the wall.
But now you are wanting targeting of a spell to only require a physical line of effect for some spells but not others. With no clear reasoning why.
Am I missing something where wall of force specifically calling out effects with the visual or teleportation traits would not block those effect's line of effect? Is it just me that finds that logical?
If teleportation, then why not X?
Because it doesn't have the teleportation or visual trait? Or are you being intentionally dense? Teleportation and visual are traits.I feel like I'm being gaslighted here.
This is going back to the beginning. The rules citation people are using to forbid casting Fireball on the other side of a Wall of Force is because targeting a spell requires line of effect (a full physical line of effect rather than the visual-only line of effect that I was arguing for). The fireball itself is not passing through the wall.
But now you are wanting targeting of a spell to only require a physical line of effect for some spells but not others. With no clear reasoning why.
Because Wall of Force specifically calls out an exception for Teleportation and Visual "effects". Of course they use the term "effects" not "Line of Effect" so if you really want to split hairs there is space. But that is about as defined as this section of rules gets.
Am I missing something where wall of force specifically calling out effects with the visual or teleportation traits would not block those effect's line of effect? Is it just me that finds that logical?
If teleportation, then why not X?
Because it doesn't have the teleportation or visual trait? Or are you being intentionally dense? Teleportation and visual are traits.I feel like I'm being gaslighted here.
And gaslighting is really hard to do on these forums since the conversation history is readily available.
For example, here is you very strenuously arguing that all spells need a full unblocked line of effect between the caster and the target. A physical line of effect since, as you double quoted, visibility doesn't matter for line of effect.
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.
This is going back to the beginning. The rules citation people are using to forbid casting Fireball on the other side of a Wall of Force is because targeting a spell requires line of effect (a full physical line of effect rather than the visual-only line of effect that I was arguing for). The fireball itself is not passing through the wall.
But now you are wanting targeting of a spell to only require a physical line of effect for some spells but not others. With no clear reasoning why.
Because Wall of Force specifically calls out an exception for Teleportation and Visual "effects". Of course they use the term "effects" not "Line of Effect" so if you really want to split hairs there is space. But that is about as defined as this section of rules gets.
But targeting a spell is not a teleportation effect. And I argued quite a bit that targeting a spell should be a visual effect and you jumped all over me saying that it is clearly not just a visual effect.
If targeting a Fireball is not a visual effect, then why is targeting Unexpected Transposition?
The rules for Line of Effect and Targeting a Spell make no distinction between traits of the spell being targeted.
This is going back to the beginning. The rules citation people are using to forbid casting Fireball on the other side of a Wall of Force is because targeting a spell requires line of effect (a full physical line of effect rather than the visual-only line of effect that I was arguing for). The fireball itself is not passing through the wall.
But now you are wanting targeting of a spell to only require a physical line of effect for some spells but not others. With no clear reasoning why.
Because Wall of Force specifically calls out an exception for Teleportation and Visual "effects". Of course they use the term "effects" not "Line of Effect" so if you really want to split hairs there is space. But that is about as defined as this section of rules gets.
But targeting a spell is not a teleportation effect. And I argued quite a bit that targeting a spell should be a visual effect and you jumped all over me saying that it is clearly not just a visual effect.
If targeting a Fireball is not a visual effect, then why is targeting Unexpected Transposition?
The rules for Line of Effect and Targeting a Spell make no distinction between traits of the spell being targeted.
You are getting lost again. Targeting being visual or not, is not the point.
Line of Effect is. Line of Effect is required between the caster, the center of the spell (if its an area), and the targets.
Line of effect is blocked by a physical barrier ie a wall.
That is why there is an exception in Wall of Force to allow certain types of spells (visual/teleport) to work through the wall.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After presenting wall of force with the rules on line of sight and line of effect to two other people I know, and they did not seem confused, I am done. I double checked to make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding something. They read it exactly as I do. Good luck to you all.
You are getting lost again. Targeting being visual or not, is not the point.
Line of Effect is. Line of Effect is required between the caster, the center of the spell (if its an area), and the targets.
Line of effect is blocked by a physical barrier ie a wall.
That is why there is an exception in Wall of Force to allow certain types of spells (visual/teleport) to work through the wall.
It feels like you are wanting a dual line of effect to the target of the spell. One a visual effect for the initial targeting, and a second a separate spell-typed line of effect to actually create the effect at that point or affecting that target creature.
The problem I see with that is that while it works when it works, it doesn't work when it doesn't work.
... Which is a really confusing sentence. Let me explain a bit more fully.
This idea works when you have both visual line of effect and spell-type line of effect. Which is the typical case when Wall of Force isn't in play at all. Also when the wall of force isn't blocking the spell-type line of effect such as the teleportation effect of Unexpected Transposition. This ruling also still works in cases where you don't have either visual line of effect or spell-type line of effect.
What causes a problem is when you have the visual line of effect but not the spell-type line of effect. The scenario for casting Fireball, Daze, Malicious Shadow, etc to the other side of the wall of force.
The rules don't give any guidance on what to do at that point. It doesn't appear to be something that was considered when writing the rules. You have a valid target and can cast the spell. But you can't reach the area where the target is. So...?
There is a rule about choosing a target that isn't valid - but in this case the target is a valid target for the spell. It is just in an area that is not accessible. But to extrapolate from that, it would just cause that the spell fails with no effect. And I am not sure if it would still cost the spell slot, focus point, innate spell usage, etc or not. Along with the casting actions. Do those get spent too for no effect? (One of those 'hah, gotcha. I'm such a clever GM aren't I' things?)
For ray (or ray-like) spells that cause damage, it could be ruled that the damage is applied to the wall. Doesn't work so well for things like Ray of Enfeeblement or Daze that wouldn't affect the wall. At that point we are back to spending the spell resources for no effect.
How about a burst area spell? Does the burst get centered on the side of the wall where the line of effect hits it? Or does the burst still get centered on the targeted point, but only the section of the area that is on the near side of the wall actually have any spell effect happen there? Which may be a zero size area if the spell is centered far enough on the other side of the wall that its radius doesn't cross back across the wall.
But for all of these cases, it feels like they are all houserules. I, at least, don't see anywhere in the rules that gives clear answers for this scenario with this ruling on line of effect and spell targeting.
After presenting wall of force with the rules on line of sight and line of effect to two other people I know, and they did not seem confused, I am done. I double checked to make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding something. They read it exactly as I do. Good luck to you all.
Success then. That means that you have refined your logic and arguments and method of explaining it so that you can come to a consensus at your table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are getting lost again. Targeting being visual or not, is not the point.
Line of Effect is. Line of Effect is required between the caster, the center of the spell (if its an area), and the targets.
Line of effect is blocked by a physical barrier ie a wall.
That is why there is an exception in Wall of Force to allow certain types of spells (visual/teleport) to work through the wall.
It feels like you are wanting a dual line of effect to the target of the spell. One a visual effect for the initial targeting, and a second a separate spell-typed line of effect to actually create the effect at that point or affecting that target creature.
That is a really awful way of saying it no wonder you are confused.
You have to have a line of effect to cast the spell, without physical obstacles in the way.
You have to be able to percieve the target(s).
They are not both effects. Stop abusing the terminology.
They are separate requirements
Curiouser and curiouser:
- Wall of force and a glass wall directly behind it will still block at least all teleportation effects: there's nothing written on the glass wall that allows teleportation effects and now 'straight physical' line of effect is definitely blocked.
Yes a glass window or a thick curtain block line of effect. It really is up to the GM to decided what happens when you start talking about objects and barriers though. Remember the long discussions about what happens to objects inside area of effects. You are starting that up again.
Wall of force still forbids even targeting with simple ranged attacks like a bow. Because ranged attacks use the same line of effect rules. And yes, it's a total cover by the quote that was used to back 'straight physical' interpretation: "If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don’t have line of effect (page 457) and typically can’t target it at all." So if there's some esoteric reason which prevents targeting spells through a glass window, well, it works on bows too.
Yes.
But I'd probably bend the rule a bit as a GM for a barrier as transparent and fragile as a pane of glass. But that is just me trying to apply common sense as I see it.
What is not mentioned here, though, even Wall of Force is potentially destructible (though hardness 30 is a lot even for high-level effects, I guess). And when the wall is in an area of some damaging effect it definitely affects it. So if your Fireballs are strong enough, you'll get through eventually. Also I guess GMs will allow targeting Walls with weapons. But most spells still target only creatures and there could be a problem.
Its just up to the GM to provide a ruling. The barrier can be all the way from not hindering the blast, through totally stopping it, to adding extra damage from the broken shards of glass.
That is a really awful way of saying it no wonder you are confused.It feels like you are wanting a dual line of effect to the target of the spell. One a visual effect for the initial targeting, and a second a separate spell-typed line of effect to actually create the effect at that point or affecting that target creature.
I know that euphemisms confuse me. Is this an accurate description of what you are arguing for?
You have to have a line of effect to cast the spell, without physical obstacles in the way.
You have to be able to percieve the target(s).They are not both effects. Stop abusing the terminology.
They are separate requirements
Sounds like.
One check for ability to see the target. Use hidden or concealed flat checks if the player wants to cast without full visibility of the target.
Separate check for spell-typed line of effect to the target. Would allow spells with teleportation effects or visual effects. Would block spells with physical effects - whatever those are defined as.
Personally I think it causes as much ambiguity and GM adjudication as it fixes. Which I listed some of in my previous posting, so I am not going to repeat in this one.
With vision-only line of effect for targeting, the only GM adjudication needed is whether the spell in question has a physical effect that is trying to go through the wall. Ray spells would. Ranged form of Produce Flame would. Daze probably wouldn't. Single target form of Electric Arc might. Double target form of Electric Arc wouldn't (as long as both targets are on the opposite side of the wall). Burst spells almost certainly wouldn't.
There is also the perceived problem that this ruling allows more spells to be cast on the opposite side of the wall than you are expecting - but that isn't actually an ambiguity or problem with the rules. Adjusting expectations fixes that, so that is just a matter of game preferences.
|
|
You don’t target something on the other side with teleport.
You target yourself on the same side.
Then you ask - Scotty - beam me to x.
X can be on the other side as long as you can see it.
I'm not talking about Teleport. I am looking at Unexpected Transposition which is a different teleportation effect spell.
And it has a Target: 1 creature other than the triggering enemy.
So if the enemy that you want to target is on the other side of a Wall of Force from you, can you target that creature?
One target on the other side seems to cause problems.
I had to look it up. Unexpected Transpostion does not !! have extra text like Dimension Door, Abundant Step, Dimensional Step, Shadow Jump or Terrain Transposition which ALL !! mention that you can teleport to a place you can see.
So
a) Only Teleport Spell not mentioning of line of sight
b) Only Teleport not targeting yourself
So no - it wouldn't work if the person you want to swap with is on the other side. Especially as you can swap him against his will !! So you can't force someone from the other side of the wall of force to your side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don’t target something on the other side with teleport.
You target yourself on the same side.
Then you ask - Scotty - beam me to x.
X can be on the other side as long as you can see it.
I'm not talking about Teleport. I am looking at Unexpected Transposition which is a different teleportation effect spell.
And it has a Target: 1 creature other than the triggering enemy.
So if the enemy that you want to target is on the other side of a Wall of Force from you, can you target that creature?
One target on the other side seems to cause problems.
I had to look it up. Unexpected Transpostion does not !! have extra text like Dimension Door, Abundant Step, Dimensional Step, Shadow Jump or Terrain Transposition which ALL !! mention that you can teleport to a place you can see.
So
a) Only Teleport Spell not mentioning of line of sight
b) Only Teleport not targeting yourselfSo no - it wouldn't work if the person you want to swap with is on the other side. Especially as you can swap him against his will !! So you can't force someone from the other side of the wall of force to your side.
Of course it works!!
Yes you have to target someone on the other side of a wall of Force. But Wall of Force does not block targeting. You can still see them. So that is not a problem.
What could be blocked is Line of Effect to the target. But Wall of Force has a specific carve out for Teleport and Visual Effects. Like this spell. So it just works.