This is a hard one to answer since Paizo hasn't clarified hardness.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have line of effect, so no.
ource Core Rulebook pg. 457 4.0
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.
To clarify, wall of force would block fireball and burning hands both of which create fire (an energy type) to deal damage. While divine lance isn't physical in the since of being a physical object, the descriptive part of wall of force can be misleading in this case because it blocks everything that can't go through physical objects (and also blocks ethereal and incorporeal things as well because it's made of force and force extends into other planes).
Fireball wouldn't be blocked because the Fireball simply originates in a square of your choosing, it doesn't travel through the wall, so it shouldn't be blocked by the wall. This was a change made from the 1E version, which traveled from your square to the target area.
And the Wall of Force is invisible, so it doesn't block line of sight, which is basically all you need for Fireball to work.
Now, the explosion wouldn't travel past the wall, but you could put up a Wall of Force and then originate Fireballs on the other side without issue.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fireball wouldn't be blocked because the Fireball simply originates in a square of your choosing, it doesn't travel through the wall, so it shouldn't be blocked by the wall. This was a change made from the 1E version, which traveled from your square to the target area.
And the Wall of Force is invisible, so it doesn't block line of sight, which is basically all you need for Fireball to work.
Now, the explosion wouldn't travel past the wall, but you could put up a Wall of Force and then originate Fireballs on the other side without issue.
This is false.
Spells don't state when theybneed line of effect. All effects (including spells) need lineof effect unless they say they don't.
Fireball has no exception written, to allow you to not need line of effect to the origin of the burst.
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.
BOTH line of effect from the caster to the center of the fireball AND line of effect from the center of the fireball to a creature are needed for that creature to get burned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fireball wouldn't be blocked because the Fireball simply originates in a square of your choosing
This is directly contradicted by the rules for Line of Effect.
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.
And the Wall of Force is invisible, so it doesn't block line of sight, which is basically all you need for Fireball to work.
This is directly contradicted by the rules for Line of Effect.
Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid.
The Wall of Force specifically calls out Teleportation and Visual as things that pass through. If you were curious, Fireball does not have either trait.
Even though the spell says that it just appears?
A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. There are plenty of spells that have a description "this happens in that location" without saying "a magical thing flies from you to location X, where thing happens."
It doesn't imply that they don't need line of effect.
We have discussed this at length previously.
To summarize:
The ruling that line of effect is needed for all spells and that Wall of Force blocks line of effect is generally considered the correct interpretation.
There is a bit of wiggle room because of the wording of Spell Targeting saying that you only need to be able to see the target of the spell (which may include the origin point of a burst spell).
There are also some strange cases that strict RAW causes regarding things like shooting a pistol at a target on the other side of a thin pane of glass. That would be prevented because you don't have line of effect with the pistol to the other side of the glass pane.
We have discussed this at length previously.
To summarize:
The ruling that line of effect is needed for all spells and that Wall of Force blocks line of effect is generally considered the correct interpretation.
There is a bit of wiggle room because of the wording of Spell Targeting saying that you only need to be able to see the target of the spell (which may include the origin point of a burst spell).
There are also some strange cases that strict RAW causes regarding things like shooting a pistol at a target on the other side of a thin pane of glass. That would be prevented because you don't have line of effect with the pistol to the other side of the glass pane.
Depends on if the glass pane is attended or not. If unattended and covers the whole creature, yes, the attack would affect the glass first and by RAW do nothing to the creature (though I personally would houserule otherwise, depending on circumstance). If attended, it's a held object and doesn't provide any sort of terrain benefits to the character, since it likely doesn't have rules similar to Tower Shields.
Otherwise, fine, I will concede to the RAW, even though IMO it doesn't make sense in the case of Fireball.
As far as shooting through a glass pane, I’d treat it similarly to a tower shield. +3 to AC for being a solid object, you benefit from its hardness. Since it’s not strapped to you, you don’t share damage, but any past what destroys the glass hits you. Add some splash if you’re within ten feet due to glass shards.
The concept is that your magic needed to start a fireball cannot pass through the Wall of Force so you cannot use it through it. Only visual effects that starts from casters that can pass through the Wall of Force and can hit targets in the other side.
Imagine it as an armored glass that allows visible light to pass through, but not infrared (glasses in general are opaque to infrared light), and infrared in this case would be magic (force).
As for alignment effects, I really don't know how it behaves. Considering them as physical seems a bit far-fetched here.
Anyway, I don't doubt that soon they will see something else (like force) with the Holy/Unholy trait and the interpretation will change again.
Can Divine Lance strike through a wall of force?
"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)."
"You unleash a beam of divine energy. Choose an alignment your deity has (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful)."
Unless a beam of any sort counts as a physic thing, it might. It's not really physical, nor is it incorporeal, nor is it ethereal.
I let it work, but I'm not sure it was the right call. Thanks in advance.
Physical effects aren't especially well defined. Physical damage and Energy damage are - and poison/alignment/mental damage are not either of those. It is always tricky when a spell uses fresh terminology.
Line of effect from the caster to the origin of the spell effect, and from there to the affected target, is stated as being blocked by a solid physical barrier.
AFAICT this is the best answer for wall of force. This is what it is talking about. So I agree with the other posters. Divine Lance is blocked.
But that still leaves visual and teleportation effects listed below. It is a lot.
Befitting Attire, Blur, Chromatic Image, Cloak of Colors, Color Spray, Drop Dead, Entrancing Eyes, Exchange Image, Far Sight, Hypnotic Pattern, Illusory Creature, Illusory Disguise, Illusory Object, Illusory Scene, Illusory Shroud, Instant Parade, 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, Rallying Banner, Scintillating Pattern, Secret Page, Shadow Army, Shadow Projectile, Thicket of Knives, Unspeakable Shadow, Veil, Vibrant Pattern, Visions of Danger
Blink, Blink Charge, Collective Transposition, Dimension Door, Ethereal Jaunt, Gate, Magic Mailbox, Maze, Maze of Locked Doors, Momentary Recovery, Plane Shift, Rally Point, Return Beacon, Shadow Walk, Teleport, Thoughtful Gift, Tree Stride, Unexpected Transposition
The concept is that your magic needed to start a fireball cannot pass through the Wall of Force so you cannot use it through it. Only visual effects that starts from casters that can pass through the Wall of Force and can hit targets in the other side.
Imagine it as an armored glass that allows visible light to pass through, but not infrared (glasses in general are opaque to infrared light), and infrared in this case would be magic (force).
As for alignment effects, I really don't know how it behaves. Considering them as physical seems a bit far-fetched here.
Anyway, I don't doubt that soon they will see something else (like force) with the Holy/Unholy trait and the interpretation will change again.
Well, by RAW, it's neither teleportation nor visual, and it has a physical manifestation, so it's physical and by proxy it won't work.
That changes if you instead use Mental spells, though, like Phantasmal Killer, since there is no physical effect to it.
Man, this spell just got insanely more powerful when actually adhering to RAW.
The concept is that your magic needed to start a fireball cannot pass through the Wall of Force so you cannot use it through it. Only visual effects that starts from casters that can pass through the Wall of Force and can hit targets in the other side.
Imagine it as an armored glass that allows visible light to pass through, but not infrared (glasses in general are opaque to infrared light), and infrared in this case would be magic (force).
As for alignment effects, I really don't know how it behaves. Considering them as physical seems a bit far-fetched here.
Anyway, I don't doubt that soon they will see something else (like force) with the Holy/Unholy trait and the interpretation will change again.
I mean, firmest application of RAW, physicality doesn't matter at all. Nor does the quality of the barrier: a mundane glass window, or even a fence with holes in it that's sufficiently tall enough, also block line of effect explicitly. Actually the latter two are superior to Wall of Force because they don't have a unique exception for visual and teleportation abilities.
That changes if you instead use Mental spells, though, like Phantasmal Killer, since there is no physical effect to it.
I'd say that's a little ambiguous, actually. Phantasmal Killer is neither visual nor teleportation. So arguably it's subject to normal LoE rules (though also arguably it's not a physical effect which wall of force also explicitly calls out).
I suppose that technically, Wall of Force doesn't really override or change any of the LoE rules, since it still remains a "solid physical barrier," and it stating that it "blocks physical effects" is a redundancy, not a specific change (because it doesn't say it doesn't block other effects as part of it).
Man, so many people sleeping on this spell (myself included) to be a complete "F you" to enemy spellcasters.
I don't think mental effects in general work against a target on the other side of the barrier on the same principle as I said about the fireball. Your magic, in its pure state, needs to reach the target to do the mental effect, but there is a barrier preventing this.
A line of effect can have different levels of obstruction for different types of effects. A Wall of Water completely obstructs the line of effect for a bludgeoning projectile like a sling bullet, but doesn't obstruct the line of effect for energy damage like electric arc.
Wall of Force doesn't block line of effect for dimension door, but does block line of effect for lightning bolt.
So again, I mention that there is a bit of ambiguity in the rules because targeting a spell is a visual effect - and visual effects are not blocked by a Wall of Force.
So the ruling question is: Does Fireball need a fire-type line of effect from the caster to the origin point, or a visual-type line of effect from the caster to the origin point?
And I am not seeing anything in the rules that explicitly says which it should be. The spell line of effect rule doesn't specify the type. Not even to say that it is the same type as the spell. The closest mention of type for line of effect needed is in targeting - where it says that you have to be able to see the target.
I am not seeing anything in the rules that explicitly says which it should be.
Then reread my previous post. I linked the relevant rule.
or even a fence with holes in it that's sufficiently tall enough
Line of Effect does give us guidance on this part.
Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid.
Plenty of room for GM interpretation of course, but I would be careful about hiding behind a fence.
I suppose that technically, Wall of Force doesn't really override or change any of the LoE rules, since it still remains a "solid physical barrier," and it stating that it "blocks physical effects" is a redundancy, not a specific change (because it doesn't say it doesn't block other effects as part of it).
Man, so many people sleeping on this spell (myself included) to be a complete "F you" to enemy spellcasters.
I mean, it's not much different from any other (solid) wall spell.
Unless wall of force is permeable to non-physical things (I don't think that's a supported interpretation but the wording of the spell calls it into question). I basically treat it as a infinitely thin wall made of bricks/stone that is completely smooth, transparent, and having a hardness of 30. With that as my basis, it makes everything else pretty clear how it should function (in my mind).
Only teleportation effects can pass through it (which makes sense as teleportation relies on ignoring line of effect in the first place) and visual effects can "work through it" in the sense that you can't create a visual effect on the other side, but if I cast illusory object on my side of the wall, you would see it. And if instead I cast hypnotic pattern (which actually has an effect on a creature who sees it) it would work just fine, assuming they were within range.
Although to be honest it's a little weird, because as a GM I'm not letting you cast it to the other side of the wall (you don't have line of effect). Visual things work because they can be seen through the wall. But a lot of the visual effect spells seem to create an area, that should honestly be blocked by the wall in my opinion. But I can't actually find an example of a spell that creates an effect at a location and those within a distance are affected. I think they did away with writing spells in that way and instead made them specific areas of effects...which should block line of effect in my opinion. But if a player tried to use it I would give them the leeway since this is a pretty specific combination to set up and most are pretty limited in area anyways, it wouldn't be easy to get someone in it.
Wow.. you guys went way off the rails on fireball.. what about Divine Lance?
I'm still not sure if it was the right call.
You don't have line of effect, so no.
It does feel like a cantrip shouldn't penetrate a 4th level spell.
Let me ask you guys this - would you have let any other ray thru? Scortching ray, certainly not. Enervation or Ray of Enfeeblement? Well, how is a ray of negative energy different from a ray of good from the divine lance?
Disintegrate, well, that one is spelled out.
I will say, it does seem like it could be a game breaking to allow these things thru.
It honestly has nothing to do with spell level at all.
As I said earlier, imagine you have a solid non-magical wall made out of stone or something. Now imagine that wall is infinitely thin. Now imagine that wall is transparent. Now imagine that wall has hardness 30 (like twice the hardness of normal stone). Now imagine that wall somehow extends through the material plane into the ethereal plane (so it block ethereal and and incorporeal stuff). That's what wall of force does.
If a normal wall would block something, wall of force should too.
Basically nothing gets through, except teleportation and visual effects that can be seen through it. I wouldn't run it that you can target or have the spell pass through the wall but the effect can be seen, so if the spell relies on whatever effect it creates being seen it will still work.
And I finally thought of a visual effect that makes sense to pass through the wall of force. When I went looking through spell what I found were things that created an area of effect and affected you if you stood in it. I wouldn't allow those to function through the wall, as the area of effect would be blocked by the wall.
But a Medusa's gaze is an example that should work just fine.
Blindness has the "Incapacitation" trait. It's a 3rd level spell being used on a 12th level character by a 7th level priest flunky. As a result the original save of 27 should have been a critical success.
"An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated by the spell as one degree of success better, or the result of any check the spellcaster made to incapacitate them as one degree of success worse. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits."
Blindness has the "Incapacitation" trait.
Did you want to be over here? Thread About Blindness
|
General:
*All spells require both line-of-sight and line-of-effect.
*Wall of Force blocks line-of-effect
Therefore, by default, Wall of Force blocks all spells.
Specific:
*Some spells say that they do not require line-of-sight and/or line-of-effect
*Wall of Force calls out "Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects"
Therefore, specific spells or effects that are called out or say that they do not require the general requirements can go through a Wall of Force.
So..
Unless a spell either specifically states that it does not require line-of-effect, or is one of those whose effects are specifically called out in Wall of Force, Wall of Force blocks the spell.
The only thing that unclear to me is the "visual effects" part.
I'm certain something like Meduza's gaze is intended to work through wall of force.
What I'm less certain about it something like hypnotic pattern. Hypnotic pattern creates an area that you need to be in for the spell to have an effect.
In my mind, you couldn't cast it into a square block by the wall of force. You could cast it on the same side of the wall as you are though. But does the area it creates (assuming you cast right next to the wall) extend through the wall? To me it doesn't make sense that it does. But I'm unsure if this is an instance where it's actually creating an area of effect, or if they've used area of effect as a convenient way to talk about how far this visual object that's sitting in one spot affects someone.
A lot of the things with the visual trait seem to be areas of effect, and logically I wouldn't ultimately let them work because wall of force would block the area from extending (much how it would block a fireballs explosion) to the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, that's how that would work. With any other type of barrier that's the case.
But then Wall of Force has an exception that explicitly allows visual effects to pass through.
Fireball's not a visual effect, so it does get blocked.
The only thing that unclear to me is the "visual effects" part.
I'm certain something like Meduza's gaze is intended to work through wall of force.
It does work see
Petrifying Gaze (arcane, aura, transmutation, visual) 30 feet.it has the visual trait.
So does Hypnotic Pattern.
Check for the trait. That is all.
If you what to do something and interpretive then go for it. But the base rules here are complete and easy to understand.
The only thing that unclear to me is the "visual effects" part.
I'm certain something like Meduza's gaze is intended to work through wall of force.
It does work see
Petrifying Gaze (arcane, aura, transmutation, visual) 30 feet.
it has the visual trait.So does Hypnotic Pattern.
Check for the trait. That is all.
If you what to do something and interpretive then go for it. But the base rules here are complete and easy to understand.
I guess my problem is the way some spells are written, that even with the visual trait it doesn't make sense to let them work through wall of force.
I go back to the two things I've already brought up. Petrifying gaze makes sense to work because the enemy only needs to make eye contact (essentially) and so because wall of force is transparent it makes sense to work.
Hypnotic gaze creates an area of effect that you have to stand in. Wall of force actually (attempts) to provide clarifying information that in my opinion makes it more unclear. It says visual effects function because the wall is invisible (transparent). However that implies it still blocks line of effect (at least to me). Otherwise being invisible isn't relevant. That means it should block spell like hypnotic gaze from passing through, and also block the area it should occupy from extending through. Meaning basically hypnotic gaze doesn't work. If they wanted hypnotic gaze to function through wall of force because it has the visual tag, they honestly shouldn't have added the part about it being due to the wall being invisible.
Anything that function off of being seen only should be perfectly functional through wall of force. But many spells get the visual tag that are area of effects, requiring you stand in the area and that doesn't jibe with the reasoning that visual spells work only because you can see through the wall. That's my conundrum.
Perhaps I'm better off pretending they didn't add "because it's invisible" or perhaps they really intended something different than what they've written (because tags get applied too liberally or mean slightly different things). Because while it's true hypnotic gaze depends on being able to see the lights in the area of effect, it's unclear if wall of force is really meant to allow you to cast through the wall or not impede anything with the visual trait at all.
It's not that I don't understand "visual trait implies it's not blocked" it's that that logic doesn't actually make sense (to me) based on the reasoning included in the spell.
Hypnotic gaze creates an area of effect that you have to stand in. Wall of force actually (attempts) to provide clarifying information that in my opinion makes it more unclear. It says visual effects function because the wall is invisible (transparent). However that implies it still blocks line of effect (at least to me). Otherwise being invisible isn't relevant. That means it should block spell like hypnotic gaze from passing through, and also block the area it should occupy from extending through
I will agree the transparent justification raises questions. Is there a general rule for transparent objects blocking line of effect except for visual effects? This specific example works, the Wall of Force is very clear (hah!) that Visual and Teleportation get through. But it is also lending support to the existence of a general rule. Rather, it is citing common sense logic in a subject that defies all intuitive reality.
Hypnotic gaze creates an area of effect that you have to stand in. Wall of force actually (attempts) to provide clarifying information that in my opinion makes it more unclear. It says visual effects function because the wall is invisible (transparent). However that implies it still blocks line of effect (at least to me). Otherwise being invisible isn't relevant. That means it should block spell like hypnotic gaze from passing through, and also block the area it should occupy from extending throughI will agree the transparent justification raises questions. Is there a general rule for transparent objects blocking line of effect except for visual effects? This specific example works, the Wall of Force is very clear (hah!) that Visual and Teleportation get through. But it is also lending support to the existence of a general rule. Rather, it is citing common sense logic in a subject that defies all intuitive reality.
There is sort of a general rule, in that line of effect and line of sight are two different things.
You can have line of sight, without having line of effect. Anything transparent should qualify.
You can also have line of effect, without line of sight (most commonly a result of being blinded).
In general, everything needs line of effect to function. Wall of force calls out visual effects as an exception, but there is no specific rule that says "normally an invisible wall lets visual only effects through".
Honestly if they hadn't mentioned the invisible portion and just said visual (trait) things can pass through and don't have their line of effect blocked in would have been cleaner, if there intention was to allow any visual trait ability to function through WoF.
Alternatively, they could have said anything that only requires line of sight to function still does. But that doesn't have a convenient tag like visual. And would have an issue that normally all things require Line of Effect, so it would rely on specific abilities to call out requiring line of sight only (and I don't think abilities do that).