Wall of Force - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 El_Condoro Apr 20, 2015 4:21:15	The spell description says "Nothing can physically pass through the wall". Obviously, weapon attacks, missiles, and spells that have a physical component, such as lightning bolt and fireball could not pass through. My question is more to do with spells that have an effect such as the various charm-based spells and ones such as knock, which has a range of 60 ft. Can such spells be cast , through, into or from within the wall (if it was a hemispherical shape)? Could the target on the other side of the wall be held or charmed?
#2 SilentSin Apr 20, 2015 4:37:40	Yes, those spells are not physical so they can go through.
#3 RulesJD Apr 20, 2015 11:41:00	The answer is definitely....no'ish. "No" because the only clairifcation we have for this is a tweet from Mike Mearls, who is not the official rules arbiter. He says no: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/force-barrier/ "'ish" because MM is not the official respondant and the spell text itself is unclear. However, it does stop Etheral travel. But you can make the half-dome hover off the ground 1 inch which would then have a line of effect. For game balance purposes, I would recommend that NOTHING can pass through the barrier except extra-planar travel that is not to the Etheral realm. Otherwise, your level 7 Wizard is just going to slay everything that doesn't have Counterspell, Planar Travel, Disintegrate, or Anti-magic Field.
#4 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 11:46:00	I would say that a wall of force does not allow a clear path: A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
#5 mellored Apr 20, 2015 13:15:00	jaelis wrote:
#6 El_Condoro Apr 20, 2015 13:48:37	jaelis wrote:
#7 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 13:53:25	I'd say no: knock targets an object, so I'd say you need a clear path to that object.
#8 FrogReaver Apr 20, 2015 14:06:10	El_Condoro wrote:
#9 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 14:18:44	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #9) FrogReaver	jaelis wrote:
#11 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 14:23:07	A clear path for a spell. Which the rules say is what a spell needs. I guess you want to say that what constitutes a clear path depends on the spell. More power to you, but that sounds like a terrible way to interpret it to me.
(Reply to #11) FrogReaver	jaelis wrote:
#13 Orethalion Apr 20, 2015 16:02:38	I would allow it. Knock says to pick a target you can see within range, but there is nothing that is actually traveling from one point to another, like you have with lightning bolt and other spells. So, despite the fact that it targets an object and the targetting rules say no, I would still allow it.
(Reply to #13) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#15 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 16:07:24	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #15) FrogReaver	jaelis wrote:
#17 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 18:01:12	I don't know, I'm all for letting flavor be a guide, but as you said spells can be interpreted in a zillion different ways. So how could you come up with a consistent and sensible way to decide? Or should it just be random based on how the DM feels that day?
#18 Orethalion Apr 20, 2015 18:18:19	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #18) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #17) FrogReaver	jaelis wrote:
#21 Stormborn20 Apr 20, 2015 19:39:44	Light doesn't pass through the Wall of Force. The description is pretty clear on that point. A photon of light isn't a particle of energy. it is matter just as much as an electron. If you allow photons to pass through just because they are bosons, then you would effectively allow an electron through too; the electron could interact with an antineutrino near the wall, creating a W- that passes through the wall of force before decaying back into an electron neutrino pair on the otherside.
(Reply to #21) DarkSphinx	Stormborn20 wrote:
#23 jaelis Apr 20, 2015 20:38:28	Stormborn20 wrote:
(Reply to #22) Stormborn20	DarkSphinx wrote:
#25 RulesJD Apr 20, 2015 21:08:17	Stormborn20 wrote:
#26 Stormborn20 Apr 20, 2015 21:19:30	RulesJD wrote:
(Reply to #24) DarkSphinx	Stormborn20 wrote:
#28 mellored Apr 20, 2015 21:26:53	you can't see blackholes, but you can't see though blackholes either. anyways, i would not allow it anymore then casting though a plane of glass. as for magic, it's obviously altering the sub-atomic expression on the quantum field, otherwise known as the weave.
#29 DarkSphinx Apr 20, 2015 21:35:24	jaelis wrote:
#30 Orethalion Apr 20, 2015 21:47:19	FrogReaver wrote:
#31 Orethalion Apr 20, 2015 22:00:44	Stormborn20 wrote:
#32 Orethalion Apr 20, 2015 22:02:53	mellored wrote:
#33 lawrencehoy Apr 20, 2015 22:02:53	Stormborn20 wrote:
#34 El_Condoro Apr 21, 2015 0:47:52	Thanks for the replies. I think the bit I had overlooked is the "A clear path to the target" (PHB p. 204), which prohibits targeting something behind total cover. The knock spell clearly interprets locks etc. as 'targets' and the wall of force is as close to total cover as anyone is going to get, so I think I will not allow casting through the wall of force. It's still open to interpretation but this is what I will go with. My wizard has other ways to protect himself.
#35 jaelis Apr 21, 2015 5:07:36	FrogReaver wrote:
#36 mellored Apr 21, 2015 5:16:34	Orethalion wrote:
#37 jaelis Apr 21, 2015 5:51:03	mellored wrote:
#38 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 7:08:38	mellored wrote:
#39 Stormborn20 Apr 21, 2015 7:48:48	Orethalion wrote:
#40 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 8:37:23	Stormborn20 wrote:
#41 mellored Apr 21, 2015 8:52:22	Orethalion wrote:
#42 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 8:57:57	mellored wrote:
#43 Hamsterkill Apr 21, 2015 8:59:40	It's meant to be a force field, people. Those are generally see-through to some extent.
#44 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 9:06:46	Hamsterkill wrote:
#45 Stormborn20 Apr 21, 2015 9:15:59	Orethalion wrote:
#46 jaelis Apr 21, 2015 9:24:40	Where do the rules say that invisible means transparent? That might be the rule I'm missing.
#47 Stormborn20 Apr 21, 2015 9:32:26	jaelis wrote:
#48 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 9:39:12	Stormborn20 wrote:
#49 mellored Apr 21, 2015 9:41:03	jaelis wrote:
#50 Stormborn20 Apr 21, 2015 9:51:39	Orethalion wrote:
#51 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 10:05:51	Stormborn20 wrote:
#52 Hamsterkill Apr 21, 2015 10:08:48	Stormborn20 wrote:
#53 Stormborn20 Apr 21, 2015 10:06:30	Anyway, this doesn't seem like something to argue about. If you want to play with amended versions of wall of force, forcecage, etc. which make exceptions for what can pass through, then that seems fine to me. What goes on the list? Let's take the solid box version of Forcecage, since that is probably the most significant case. visble light? light of all frequencies? gravitation? air? sound? water? if I cast the light cantrip on my side, does the light shine through the box? what about light spells like sunburst?
#54 reddaemon Apr 21, 2015 10:09:08	This is really a question for your DM. Since it doesn't seem to clearly specify, it is open to DM interpretation. I would allow some spells to work but most spells probably wouldn't. For example I would allow Misty Step(it doesn't block teleportation or extraplanar travel except for the ethereal plane), but not Fireball (since it would blow up on the wall. As for the specific case of Knock, that's iffy I would probably change my mind on that one a lot. A general rule I would probably use would be if a spell says to choose a target or has a an area of effect that it would not work through the wall. But I can forsee myself making many exceptions. That seems like the most consistent way to run it while staying inline with the rules. There is no definitive RAW answer and bringing science into a fantasy game is always a bad idea.
#55 reddaemon Apr 21, 2015 10:23:38	Stormborn, the wall of force is invisible. Look up the definition of invisible. If there is anything about the wall that allows you to perceive that the wall is there, then it is by definition, not invisible. Regardless of any scientific arguments the rules clearly state that the wall is invisible so any conclusion you come to must continue to satisfy that requirement.
#56 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 10:58:14	reddaemon wrote:
#57 mellored Apr 21, 2015 11:05:56	reddaemon wrote:
#58 jaelis Apr 21, 2015 11:10:32	mellored wrote:
#59 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 11:10:51	mellored wrote:
#60 mellored Apr 21, 2015 11:44:08	jaelis wrote:
#61 OoftaMeg Apr 21, 2015 12:38:53	Who says the light passes through the wall? Depending on how invisibility works, the opposite side of the wall could absorb the light and make a replica of the light on the other side. The wall then blocks all physical effects including light (and magic) while simultaneously being invisible.
#82 Orethalion Apr 21, 2015 23:38:17	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #82) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #77) DarkSphinx	Orethalion wrote:
#85 lawrencehoy Apr 22, 2015 3:16:27	DarkSphinx wrote:
#86 lawrencehoy Apr 22, 2015 3:49:12	FrogReaver wrote:
#87 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 4:37:03	Stormborn20 wrote:
#88 Bloodscythe Apr 22, 2015 4:54:46	Does light "physically" pass through a wall? Technically speaking light is not matter since it has no mass. Since it's not matter, it isn't physical. It passes through objects or is absorbed by objects as energy/radiation, not matter. But that's irrelevant... the wall of force is invisible and you don't need a scientific explanation for it... it's MAGIC.
#89 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 7:08:45	jaelis wrote:
#90 CraggleRock Apr 22, 2015 7:12:35	Invisibility must, presumably, opperate on some form of physics that is an addition to or change of the physics in our world, else anything that becomes invisible and relies on eyesight would be instantly blind: the light no longer falling on the creatures retinae rendering it unable to see anything. But D&D doesn't run on the rules of physics at their base, but the rules of narrative to a large extent. We know what being a creature turned invisible means, not because we read a physics text book on how it works, but because we've read and watched the Invisible Man, and the Lord of the Rings and expect it to work in the same way. Griffin, Bilbo, and Frodo weren't rendered blind by becoming invisible, so we ignore that particular contraint for the sake of the story. You are free to change that in your home games, but as stated, that's a house rule, and I'd say you need to expect at some point to answer the question of how invisible people aren't subjected to the blind condition...
#91 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 7:21:28	DarkSphinx wrote:
#92 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 7:22:55	CraggleRock wrote:
#93 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 7:24:45	Stormborn20 wrote:
#94 mellored Apr 22, 2015 7:32:02	The only conclusion i can come up with is that light is magic.
#95 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 8:10:33	Stormborn20 wrote:
#96 Hamsterkill Apr 22, 2015 9:46:15	Stormborn20 wrote:
#97 FrogReaver Apr 22, 2015 9:56:15	Nothing physical can pass through the wall. Physical has some meaning. Else they would have written NOTHING CAN PASS THROUGH THE WALL. So now that we have established there's at least one non-physical thing that can pass through the wall, what do you all propose that thing is?
#98 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 9:58:16	Well, it seems like we've all distilled this discussion down to disagreement over the meaning of a few key phrases. There really isn't a way to settle that dispute, so I guess I'm done here unless someone has something else to discuss.
#99 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 10:00:13	FrogReaver wrote:
#100 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 10:05:14	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #94) Bloodscythe	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #100) FrogReaver	Stormborn20 wrote:
#103 Hamsterkill Apr 22, 2015 10:21:16	Stormborn20 wrote:
#104 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 10:24:31	Hamsterkill wrote:
#105 Cooperjera Apr 22, 2015 10:24:53	I would like to bring this back to the original post. Although I don't have the PHB at hand I recall earlier in this thread that a spell must have a clear path to the target. This can be interpreted in a few ways. The two that I can think of are 1) The spell caster must have a clear line of sight to the target, and 2) The spell caster mush have an unobstructed sight to the target. Since we seem to agree that the wall of force is an obstruction that can be seen through it raises the question if a spell caster can affect a target past the wall with a spell such as Knock. It would seem intuitive that spells that originate from the caster (i.e. lightening bolt, Thunderwave, etc.) would not pass through the wall. The original poster made his conclusion that he will not allow his wizard to cast spells and affect objects beyond the wall of force because the path to the target is obstructed by the wall. Other DMs may allow the same spell, Knock, to be cast and affects target beyond the wall because there is a clear line of sight to the target. Your table may vary.
#106 Hamsterkill Apr 22, 2015 10:48:02	Stormborn20 wrote:
(Reply to #105) Bloodscythe	Cooperjera wrote:
#108 Stormborn20 Apr 22, 2015 11:09:59	Hamsterkill wrote:
#109 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 11:49:30	Bloodscythe wrote:
#110 Hamsterkill Apr 22, 2015 11:43:11	Stormborn20 wrote:
#111 ModusPonens Apr 22, 2015 11:51:51	This thread gave me cancer.
#112 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 11:54:02	ModusPonens wrote:
#113 jonathonhawke Apr 22, 2015 11:57:36	Bloodscythe wrote:
#114 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 11:59:00	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #109) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#116 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 14:16:56	So a radiant effect like sunbeam? Sound effect like thunderwave?
(Reply to #116) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#118 BenignFacist Apr 22, 2015 16:39:31	"The various planes of existence are realms of myth and mystery. They're not simply other worlds, but dimensions formed and governed by spiritual and elemental principles. The Outer Planes are realms of spirituality and thought. They are the spheres where celestials, fiends, and deities exist. The plane of Elysium, for example, isn't merely a place where good creatures dwell, and not even simply the place where spirits of good creatures go when they die. It is the plane of goodness, a spiritual realm where evil can't flourish. It is as much a state of of being and of mind as it is a physical location. The Inner Planes exemplify the physical essence and elemental nature of air, earth, fire, and water. The Elemental Plane of Fire, for example, embodies the essence of fire. The plane's entire substance is suffused with the fundamental nature of fire: energy, passion, transformation, and destruction. Even objects of solid brass or basalt seem to dance with flame, in a visible and palpable manifestation of the vibrancy of of fire's dominion. In this context, the Material Plane is the nexus where all these philosophical and elemental forces collide in the jumbled existence of mortal life and matter. The worlds of D&D exist within the Material Plane, making it the starting point for most campaigns and adventures. The rest of the multiverse is defined in relation to the Material Plane." (DMG. pg 43) I can't say for sure regarding anyone else, but when it comes to applying spiritual and/or philosophical forces to a campaign world, I tend to leave my armchair physics at the door. Especially where elements of existence can function in a way chosen by a god/god-like being. For example, the Dungeon Master. Any world/universe 'plane of existence' that is even slightly composed of, philosophical forces (probably invisible visible ones) and/or ' the elemental nature of air, earth, fire and water (I'd like to bottle me some of that passionate fire essence, perhaps in a Bottle of Force?) is going to be pretty tricky to justify within a 21st century scientific framework. Also: *Magic.* :: Moving away from our forum pissing contests and back to the OP: Now, I'm not one who's overly fussed with parsing the rules of this game when I have the game-given right to arbitrate as I deem fit. If push comes to shove I would do the following: First check if the spell has an Area of Effect. Then check to see our 'erupting' spell effect, expanding from its centre of origin along imaginary lines, has an unobstructed path to our target location. Then we check what can physically pass through a Wall of Force (as opposed to, philosophically?!). As only 'nothing' can pass through the wall, and as a spell effect is 'something', it cannot pass through the wall which means that our spell effect does not have an unobstructed path to our location. So, if our target location blocks the imaginary straight line along which our spell effect is expanding/extending, then we cannot include it in our area of effect. Instead our effect comes into being on the near side of the obstruction. However, if we insist on parsing a document written in natural language as if was a legal document, things can get really silly. For example: A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it cant be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you cant see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side o f that obstruction." (PHP. pg 204) Area of Effect A spells effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isnt included in the spells area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9." (PHP. pg 204) Cover Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. ... A target with total cover cant be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (PHB pg 196) The Webster dictionary defines the meaning of 'conceal' as: : to hide (something or someone) from sight : to keep (something) secret A spell that has an Area of Affect is limited to effecting targets based on unblocked, imaginary straight lines that expand/extend from the point of origin. While the text talks of 'erupting' spell effects it is our imaginary straight lines that are the measure of whether or not a location can be included in our spell's area of effect. To block one of these imaginary lines, " ..an obstruction must provide total cover.'' A wall, to my mind, can be an obstruction, depending on the context. A Wall of Force, may or may not be an obstruction. However, a Wall of Force it is definitely not visible, it being invisible. Therefore our Wall of Force cannot completely conceal a location (or creature at/in/on a location) . If it cannot completely conceal a location (or creature at/in/on a location) it cannot provide total cover. If it cannot provide total cover then it cannot block our imaginary lines. Which would imply that we can indeed target and include locations (or creature at/in/on a location) on the other side of a Wall of Force. However, since a spell without an area of effect also only requires our target to not be behind total cover - and as our invisible Wall of Force cannot provide total cover - said spell can also effect 'something' (there words, not mine) on the other side of a wall of force. So, seemingly a Wall of Force provide no defence against most (all?) of the spells in the PHB. Which all seems a little silly and a waste of time and energy and, if you've skimmed through the above text, be assured that the above reasoning is neither sound nor sensible. Personally I blame to the use of the word, 'conceal', a lack of common sense/exercising my game-given right to arbitrate as I deem fit and the inevitable interaction between the four laws of thermodynamics and those infernal (!) philosophical forces.
#119 jaelis Apr 22, 2015 14:30:11	BenignFacist wrote:
#120 OoftaMeg Apr 22, 2015 14:33:10	How does invisibility work in your world? Is it like those guys that do the "hole in the chest" halloween costumes where the image from one sideis replicated on the other? Does light simply not interact with an invisible object? Or is light bent around the object? Although force fields are very common in fantasy and sci-fi of all sorts, they don't really make a lot of logical sense so trying to determine how they work seems like a pointless exercise to me. I've always ruled that a wall of force blocks everything but normal, visible light. No magic, no sunbeam, no knock, no lightning bolt. But it's a completely arbitrary decision on my part based on nothing more than simplicity and personal preference.
(Reply to #119) FrogReaver	jaelis wrote:
#122 BenignFacist Apr 22, 2015 14:44:44	jaelis wrote:
#123 OoftaMeg Apr 22, 2015 14:59:42	Of course there's always the petrifying gaze from a medusa ("When a creature that can see the medusa's eyes starts it's turn within 30 feet...") as well. You can see the medusa through the wall of force, do you need to make a con save or be stoned? I would say no, because the gaze is a magical effect and having no magical effect penetrate the wall is simpler. Not saying that my answer is right, I just think the DM needs to make a call and be consistent.
#124 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 16:21:41	FrogReaver wrote:
#125 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 16:23:46	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #124) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#127 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 17:20:06	FrogReaver wrote:
#128 ArialBlack Apr 22, 2015 17:23:54	5E has much briefer and less detailed descriptions than, say, 3E, but the way spells are intended to work may or may not have changed. Because of the briefer language, this may create some uncertainty where there was none in previous editions. Reading those previous editions may very well aid you in adjudicationg things that may seem uncertain in 5E. For example, the spell wall of force appears in the 3.5 PHB on p298. The wall has certain qualities. Among other things:- * the wall is invisible * breath weapons and spells cannot pass through the wall in either direction * teleport and dimension door and similar magics can bypass the wall * it blocks ethereal, but notes that ethereal creatues can probably just go around/over/under the wall instead of going through it * gaze attacks can operate through the wall! Why? Why gaze attacks? The answer is that gaze attacks work by the eyes of the monster being seen. The section about gaze attacks includes rules for limited visibility, how if the monster is in darkness then gaze won't work (unless you have darkvision, in which case gaze attacks work as normal). The reason that wall of force does not foil gaze attacks is that, because the wall is invisible, the monster can still be seen through the wall. Therefore, when it says that the wall is 'invisible', it means that the wall is perfectly transparent. Therefore, light passes though it normally. This is entirely consistent with the way invisibility is treated in the rules; as 'perfectly transparent' as opposed to a black hole, locatable by its outline. You cannot locate the squares occupied by invisible creatures by mere sight. This would not be the case if invisible creatures blocked light from passing through. I am actually currently playing a 20th level warlock in 3.5, and she has the impenetrable barrier invocation. The barrier it creates is just like a wall of force, except that it is 'black and blocks sight of all kind'. Like gaze attacks, for instance! In 3.5 terms, a wall of force blocks line of effect, but does not block line of sight, while the (black) impenetrable barrier blocks both! That's D&D 3.5. What about 5E? Well, the 5E medusa's petrifying gaze requires that you must be able to see the creature's eyes, and it must be able to see you. If gaze attacks work through the wall of force, then you must be able to see through the wall. This matches all previous editions of the game, where 'invisible' means 'perfectly transparent'. How does this jibe with the phrase 'nothing can physically pass through the wall'? It must be that matter cannot pass through, neither can electricity or fire. But light, gravity, forces like that, must pass through normally. In 5E the wall can be made horizontal. If gravity could not pass through, then stepping over a horizontal wall of force would have you flying off into space? How much damage would that do? This would make a defensive spell the most powerful attack spell in the game! So 5E isn't 3E, and therefore 3E stuff is not RAW for 5E. But ask yourself this: did the 5E designers really choose to change the way ivisibility works from being perfectly transparent to being a black silhouette? Did they really choose to change the wall from being transparent before (allowing gaze attacks) to not allowing light through now? Gravity? If they didn't want to allow these forces through, deliberately changing how the spells operate, why would they insert the word 'physically'? Wouldn't they just have written 'nothing can pass through the wall'? What difference does the word 'physically' make when added to that sentence.
#129 OoftaMeg Apr 22, 2015 20:30:11	I'll be the first to admit that I rule the way I do for simplicity. If everything but light is blocked (including all supernatural effects) then I don't have to worry about whether or not something else penetrates.
#130 Orethalion Apr 22, 2015 21:26:28	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #126) Bloodscythe	FrogReaver wrote:
#132 Hamsterkill Apr 23, 2015 8:43:56	I would be careful calling the WoF "total cover" for anything. Total cover means you can't target through it, and, depending on how you rule the WoF's invisibility works, doesn't really make sense, narratively. If the WoF is simply transparent like a pane of unbreakable glass, and two people on opposite sides can still see each other, they should be able to taget each other. The wall will block arrows (and potentially magical effects at DM discretion), but that should't mean that you can't even fire them at the target. In fact, if the wall is structured like this, and an enemy is unaware of its presence, I would argue that they should target through and attempt to attack. If the WoF conceals what is behind it (for instance, by bending light around it), then it would practically make the player invisible to enemies on the other side, again not technically being "total cover".
#133 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 8:52:08	Hamsterkill wrote:
#134 Hamsterkill Apr 23, 2015 9:10:43	Orethalion wrote:
#135 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 9:57:51	Hamsterkill wrote:
#136 Hamsterkill Apr 23, 2015 10:23:31	Orethalion wrote:
#137 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 10:42:04	Hamsterkill wrote:
#138 Hamsterkill Apr 23, 2015 11:22:02	Orethalion wrote:
#139 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 11:30:57	Hamsterkill wrote:
#140 Stormborn20 Apr 23, 2015 11:32:35	Going with the consensus that the wall is transparent, then it could be put up before the enter, say, the throne room. You barge and aim your bow at the king. Does the DM say that you can't shoot for reasons unknown to you? I would say that you shoot the arrow, but it unexpectedly crashes into a wall of force that stops it.
#141 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 11:43:37	Stormborn20 wrote:
#142 Hamsterkill Apr 23, 2015 11:44:01	Orethalion wrote:
#143 Orethalion Apr 23, 2015 11:47:14	Hamsterkill wrote:
#144 lawrencehoy Apr 24, 2015 6:53:20	Orethalion wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

El_Condoro

Apr 20, 2015 4:21:15

The spell description says "Nothing can physically pass through the wall".

Obviously, weapon attacks, missiles, and spells that have a physical component, such as lightning bolt and fireball could not pass through. My question is more to do with spells that have an effect such as the various charm-based spells and ones such as knock, which has a range of 60 ft.

Can such spells be cast , through, into or from within the wall (if it was a hemispherical shape)? Could the target on the other side of the wall be held or charmed?

SilentSin

Apr 20, 2015 4:37:40

Yes, those spells are not physical so they can go through.

RulesJD

Apr 20, 2015 11:41:00

The answer is definitely....no'ish.

"No" because the only clairifcation we have for this is a tweet from Mike Mearls, who is not the official rules arbiter. He says no: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/force-barrier/

"'ish" because MM is not the official respondant and the spell text itself is unclear. However, it does stop Etheral travel. But you can make the half-dome hover off the ground 1 inch which would then have a line of effect.

For game balance purposes, I would recommend that NOTHING can pass through the barrier except extra-planar travel that is not to the Etheral realm. Otherwise, your level 7 Wizard is just going to slay everything that doesn't have Counterspell, Planar Travel, Disintegrate, or Anti-magic Field.

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 11:46:00

I would say that a wall of force does not allow a clear path:

A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.

mellored

Apr 20, 2015 13:15:00

jaelis wrote:

El_Condoro

Apr 20, 2015 13:48:37

jaelis wrote:

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 13:53:25

I'd say no: knock targets an object, so I'd say you need a clear path to that object.

FrogReaver

Apr 20, 2015 14:06:10

El_Condoro wrote:

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 14:18:44

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #9)

FrogReaver

jaelis wrote:

#11

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 14:23:07

A clear path for a spell. Which the rules say is what a spell needs.

I guess you want to say that what constitutes a clear path depends on the spell. More power to you, but that sounds like a terrible way to interpret it to me.

(Reply to #11)

FrogReaver

jaelis wrote:

#13

Orethalion

Apr 20, 2015 16:02:38

I would allow it. Knock says to pick a target you can see within range, but there is nothing that is actually traveling from one point to another, like you have with lightning bolt and other spells. So, despite the fact that it targets an object and the targetting rules say no, I would still allow it.

(Reply to #13)

FrogReaver

Orethalion wrote:

#15

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 16:07:24

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #15)

FrogReaver

jaelis wrote:

#17

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 18:01:12

I don't know, I'm all for letting flavor be a guide, but as you said spells can be interpreted in a zillion different ways. So how could you come up with a consistent and sensible way to decide?

Or should it just be random based on how the DM feels that day?

#18

Orethalion

Apr 20, 2015 18:18:19

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #18)

FrogReaver

Orethalion wrote:

(Reply to #17)

FrogReaver

jaelis wrote:

#21

Stormborn20

Apr 20, 2015 19:39:44

Light doesn't pass through the Wall of Force. The description is pretty clear on that point.

A photon of light isn't a particle of energy. it is matter just as much as an electron. If you allow photons to pass through just because they are bosons, then you would effectively allow an electron through too; the electron could interact with an antineutrino near the wall, creating a W- that passes through the wall of force before decaying back into an electron neutrino pair on the otherside.

(Reply to #21)

DarkSphinx

Stormborn20 wrote:

#23

jaelis

Apr 20, 2015 20:38:28

Stormborn20 wrote:

(Reply to #22)

Stormborn20

DarkSphinx wrote:

#25

RulesJD

Apr 20, 2015 21:08:17

Stormborn20 wrote:

#26

Stormborn20

Apr 20, 2015 21:19:30

RulesJD wrote:

(Reply to #24)

DarkSphinx

Stormborn20 wrote:

#28

mellored

Apr 20, 2015 21:26:53

you can't see blackholes, but you can't see though blackholes either.
anyways, i would not allow it anymore then casting though a plane of glass.
as for magic, it's obviously altering the sub-atomic expression on the quantum field, otherwise known as the weave.

#29

DarkSphinx

Apr 20, 2015 21:35:24

jaelis wrote:

#30

Orethalion

Apr 20, 2015 21:47:19

FrogReaver wrote:

#31

Orethalion

Apr 20, 2015 22:00:44

Stormborn20 wrote:

#32

Orethalion

Apr 20, 2015 22:02:53

mellored wrote:

#33

lawrencehoy

Apr 20, 2015 22:02:53

Stormborn20 wrote:

#34

El_Condoro

Apr 21, 2015 0:47:52

Thanks for the replies. I think the bit I had overlooked is the "A clear path to the target" (PHB p. 204), which prohibits targeting something behind total cover. The knock spell clearly interprets locks etc. as 'targets' and the wall of force is as close to total cover as anyone is going to get, so I think I will not allow casting through the wall of force. It's still open to interpretation but this is what I will go with. My wizard has other ways to protect himself.

#35

jaelis

Apr 21, 2015 5:07:36

FrogReaver wrote:

#36

mellored

Apr 21, 2015 5:16:34

Orethalion wrote:

#37

jaelis

Apr 21, 2015 5:51:03

mellored wrote:

#38

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 7:08:38

mellored wrote:

#39

Stormborn20

Apr 21, 2015 7:48:48

Orethalion wrote:

#40

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 8:37:23

Stormborn20 wrote:

#41

mellored

Apr 21, 2015 8:52:22

Orethalion wrote:

#42

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 8:57:57

mellored wrote:

#43

Hamsterkill

Apr 21, 2015 8:59:40

It's meant to be a force field, people. Those are generally see-through to some extent.

#44

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 9:06:46

Hamsterkill wrote:

#45

Stormborn20

Apr 21, 2015 9:15:59

Orethalion wrote:

#46

jaelis

Apr 21, 2015 9:24:40

Where do the rules say that invisible means transparent? That might be the rule I'm missing.

#47

Stormborn20

Apr 21, 2015 9:32:26

jaelis wrote:

#48

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 9:39:12

Stormborn20 wrote:

#49

mellored

Apr 21, 2015 9:41:03

jaelis wrote:

#50

Stormborn20

Apr 21, 2015 9:51:39

Orethalion wrote:

#51

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 10:05:51

Stormborn20 wrote:

#52

Hamsterkill

Apr 21, 2015 10:08:48

Stormborn20 wrote:

#53

Stormborn20

Apr 21, 2015 10:06:30

Anyway, this doesn't seem like something to argue about. If you want to play with amended versions of wall of force, forcecage, etc. which make exceptions for what can pass through, then that seems fine to me.

What goes on the list? Let's take the solid box version of Forcecage, since that is probably the most significant case.

visble light?
light of all frequencies?
gravitation?

air?

sound?

water?
if I cast the light cantrip on my side, does the light shine through the box?
what about light spells like sunburst?

#54

reddaemon

Apr 21, 2015 10:09:08

This is really a question for your DM. Since it doesn't seem to clearly specify, it is open to DM interpretation. I would allow some spells to work but most spells probably wouldn't. For example I would allow Misty Step(it doesn't block teleportation or extraplanar travel except for the ethereal plane), but not Fireball (since it would blow up on the wall. As for the specific case of Knock, that's iffy I would probably change my mind on that one a lot. A general rule I would probably use would be if a spell says to choose a target or has a an area of effect that it would not work through the wall. But I can forsee myself making many exceptions. That seems like the most consistent way to run it while staying inline with the rules. There is no definitive RAW answer and bringing science into a fantasy game is always a bad idea.

#55

reddaemon

Apr 21, 2015 10:23:38

Stormborn, the wall of force is invisible. Look up the definition of invisible. If there is anything about the wall that allows you to perceive that the wall is there, then it is by definition, not invisible. Regardless of any scientific arguments the rules clearly state that the wall is invisible so any conclusion you come to must continue to satisfy that requirement.

#56

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 10:58:14

reddaemon wrote:

#57

mellored

Apr 21, 2015 11:05:56

reddaemon wrote:

#58

jaelis

Apr 21, 2015 11:10:32

mellored wrote:

#59

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 11:10:51

mellored wrote:

#60

mellored

Apr 21, 2015 11:44:08

jaelis wrote:

#61

OoftaMeg

Apr 21, 2015 12:38:53

Who says the light passes through the wall? Depending on how invisibility works, the opposite side of the wall could absorb the light and make a replica of the light on the other side.

The wall then blocks all physical effects including light (and magic) while simultaneously being invisible.

#82

Orethalion

Apr 21, 2015 23:38:17

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #82)

FrogReaver

Orethalion wrote:

(Reply to #77)

DarkSphinx

Orethalion wrote:

#85

lawrencehoy

Apr 22, 2015 3:16:27

DarkSphinx wrote:

#86

lawrencehoy

Apr 22, 2015 3:49:12

FrogReaver wrote:

#87

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 4:37:03

Stormborn20 wrote:

#88

Bloodscythe

Apr 22, 2015 4:54:46

Does light "physically" pass through a wall? Technically speaking light is not matter since it has no mass. Since it's not matter, it isn't physical. It passes through objects or is absorbed by objects as energy/radiation, not matter.

But that's irrelevant... the wall of force is invisible and you don't need a scientific explanation for it... it's MAGIC.

#89

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 7:08:45

jaelis wrote:

#90

CraggleRock

Apr 22, 2015 7:12:35

Invisibility must, presumably, opperate on some form of physics that is an addition to or change of the physics in our world, else anything that becomes invisible and relies on eyesight would be instantly blind: the light no longer falling on the creatures retinae rendering it unable to see anything. But D&D doesn't run on the rules of physics at their base, but the rules of narrative to a large extent. We know what being a creature turned invisible means, not because we read a physics text book on how it works, but because we've read and watched the Invisible Man, and the Lord of the Rings and expect it to work in the same way. Griffin, Bilbo, and Frodo weren't rendered blind by becoming invisible, so we ignore that particular contraint for the sake of the story.

You are free to change that in your home games, but as stated, that's a house rule, and I'd say you need to expect at some point to answer the question of how invisible people aren't subjected to the blind condition...

#91

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 7:21:28

DarkSphinx wrote:

#92

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 7:22:55

CraggleRock wrote:

#93

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 7:24:45

Stormborn20 wrote:

#94

mellored

Apr 22, 2015 7:32:02

The only conclusion i can come up with is that light is magic.

#95

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 8:10:33

Stormborn20 wrote:

#96

Hamsterkill

Apr 22, 2015 9:46:15

Stormborn20 wrote:

#97

FrogReaver

Apr 22, 2015 9:56:15

Nothing physical can pass through the wall.

Physical has some meaning. Else they would have written NOTHING CAN PASS THROUGH THE WALL. So now that we have established there's at least one non-physical thing that can pass through the wall, what do you all propose that thing is?

#98

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 9:58:16

Well, it seems like we've all distilled this discussion down to disagreement over the meaning of a few key phrases. There really isn't a way to settle that dispute, so I guess I'm done here unless someone has something else to discuss.

#99

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 10:00:13

FrogReaver wrote:

#100

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 10:05:14

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #94)

Bloodscythe

mellored wrote:

(Reply to #100)

FrogReaver

Stormborn20 wrote:

#103

Hamsterkill

Apr 22, 2015 10:21:16

Stormborn20 wrote:

#104

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 10:24:31

Hamsterkill wrote:

#105

Cooperjera

Apr 22, 2015 10:24:53

I would like to bring this back to the original post. Although I don't have the PHB at hand I recall earlier in this thread that a spell must have a clear path to the target. This can be interpreted in a few ways. The two that I can think of are 1) The spell caster must have a clear line of sight to the target, and 2) The spell caster mush have an unobstructed sight to the target. Since we seem to agree that the wall of force is an obstruction that can be seen through it raises the question if a spell caster can affect a target past the wall with a spell such as Knock. It would seem intuitive that spells that originate from the caster (i.e. lightening bolt, Thunderwave, etc.) would not pass through the wall.

The original poster made his conclusion that he will not allow his wizard to cast spells and affect objects beyond the wall of force because the path to the target is obstructed by the wall. Other DMs may allow the same spell, Knock, to be cast and affects target beyond the wall because there is a clear line of sight to the target. Your table may vary.

#106

Hamsterkill

Apr 22, 2015 10:48:02

Stormborn20 wrote:

(Reply to #105)

Bloodscythe

Cooperjera wrote:

#108

Stormborn20

Apr 22, 2015 11:09:59

Hamsterkill wrote:

#109

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 11:49:30

Bloodscythe wrote:

#110

Hamsterkill

Apr 22, 2015 11:43:11

Stormborn20 wrote:

#111

ModusPonens

Apr 22, 2015 11:51:51

This thread gave me cancer.

#112

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 11:54:02

ModusPonens wrote:

#113

jonathonhawke

Apr 22, 2015 11:57:36

Bloodscythe wrote:

#114

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 11:59:00

jaelis wrote:

(Reply to #109)

Bloodscythe

jaelis wrote:

#116

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 14:16:56

So a radiant effect like sunbeam? Sound effect like thunderwave?

(Reply to #116)

Bloodscythe

jaelis wrote:

#118

BenignFacist

Apr 22, 2015 16:39:31

"The various planes of existence are realms of myth and mystery. They're not simply other worlds, but dimensions formed and governed by spiritual and elemental principles.

The Outer Planes are realms of spirituality and thought. They are the spheres where celestials, fiends, and deities exist. The plane of Elysium, for example, isn't merely a place where good creatures dwell, and not even simply the place where spirits of good creatures go when they die. It is the plane of goodness, a spiritual realm where evil can't flourish. It is as much a state of of being and of mind as it is a physical location.

The Inner Planes exemplify the physical essence and elemental nature of air, earth, fire, and water. The Elemental Plane of Fire, for example, embodies the essence of fire. The plane's entire substance is suffused with the fundamental nature of fire: energy, passion, transformation, and destruction. Even objects of solid brass or basalt seem to dance with flame, in a visible and palpable manifestation of the vibrancy of of fire's dominion.

In this context, the Material Plane is the nexus where all these philosophical and elemental forces collide in the jumbled existence of mortal life and matter. The worlds of D&D exist within the Material Plane, making it the starting point for most campaigns and adventures. The rest of the multiverse is defined in relation to the Material Plane." (DMG. pg 43)

I can't say for sure regarding anyone else, but when it comes to applying spiritual and/or philosophical forces to a campaign world, I tend to leave my armchair physics at the door. Especially where elements of existence can function in a way chosen by a god/god-like being. For example, the Dungeon Master. Any world/universe 'plane of existence' that is even slightly composed of, philosophical forces (probably invisible visible ones) and/or ' the elemental nature of air, earth, fire and water (I'd like to bottle me some of that passionate fire essence, perhaps in a Bottle of Force?) is going to be pretty tricky to justify within a 21st century scientific framework.

Also: Magic.

Moving away from our forum pissing contests and back to the OP:

Now, I'm not one who's overly fussed with parsing the rules of this game when I have the game-given right to arbitrate as I deem fit. If push comes to shove I would do the following:

First check if the spell has an Area of Effect. Then check to see our 'erupting' spell effect, expanding from its centre of origin along imaginary lines, has an unobstructed path to our target location. Then we check what can physically pass through a Wall of Force (as opposed to, philosophically?!). As only 'nothing' can pass through the wall, and as a spell effect is 'something', it cannot pass through the wall which means that our spell effect does not have an unobstructed path to our location.

So, if our target location blocks the imaginary straight line along which our spell effect is expanding/extending, then we cannot include it in our area of effect. Instead our effect comes into being on the near side of the obstruction.

However, if we insist on parsing a document written in natural language as if was a legal document, things can get really silly. For example:

A Clear Path to the Target

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it cant be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you cant see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side o f that obstruction." (PHP. pg 204)

Area of Effect

A spells effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isnt included in the spells area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9." (PHP. pg 204)

Cover

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
...
A target with total cover cant be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (PHB pg 196)

The Webster dictionary defines the meaning of 'conceal' as:

: to hide (something or someone) from sight
: to keep (something) secret

A spell that has an Area of Affect is limited to effecting targets based on unblocked, imaginary straight lines that expand/extend from the point of origin. While the text talks of 'erupting' spell effects it is our imaginary straight lines that are the measure of whether or not a location can be included in our spell's area of effect. To block one of these imaginary lines, " ..an obstruction must provide total cover.''

A wall, to my mind, can be an obstruction, depending on the context. A Wall of Force, may or may not be an obstruction. However, a Wall of Force it is definitely not visible, it being invisible. Therefore our Wall of Force cannot completely conceal a location (or creature at/in/on a location) . If it cannot completely conceal a location (or creature at/in/on a location) it cannot provide total cover. If it cannot provide total cover then it cannot block our imaginary lines.

Which would imply that we can indeed target and include locations (or creature at/in/on a location) on the other side of a Wall of Force.

However, since a spell without an area of effect also only requires our target to not be behind total cover - and as our invisible Wall of Force cannot provide total cover - said spell can also effect 'something' (there words, not mine) on the other side of a wall of force.

So, seemingly a Wall of Force provide no defence against most (all?) of the spells in the PHB.

Which all seems a little silly and a waste of time and energy and, if you've skimmed through the above text, be assured that the above reasoning is neither sound nor sensible. Personally I blame to the use of the word, 'conceal', a lack of common sense/exercising my game-given right to arbitrate as I deem fit and the inevitable interaction between the four laws of thermodynamics and those infernal (!) philosophical forces.

#119

jaelis

Apr 22, 2015 14:30:11

BenignFacist wrote:

#120

OoftaMeg

Apr 22, 2015 14:33:10

How does invisibility work in your world? Is it like those guys that do the "hole in the chest" halloween costumes where the image from one sideis replicated on the other? Does light simply not interact with an invisible object? Or is light bent around the object?

Although force fields are very common in fantasy and sci-fi of all sorts, they don't really make a lot of logical sense so trying to determine how they work seems like a pointless exercise to me.

I've always ruled that a wall of force blocks everything but normal, visible light. No magic, no sunbeam, no knock, no lightning bolt. But it's a completely arbitrary decision on my part based on nothing more than simplicity and personal preference.

(Reply to #119)

FrogReaver

jaelis wrote:

#122

BenignFacist

Apr 22, 2015 14:44:44

jaelis wrote:

#123

OoftaMeg

Apr 22, 2015 14:59:42

Of course there's always the petrifying gaze from a medusa ("When a creature that can see the medusa's eyes starts it's turn within 30 feet...") as well. You can see the medusa through the wall of force, do you need to make a con save or be stoned?

I would say no, because the gaze is a magical effect and having no magical effect penetrate the wall is simpler. Not saying that my answer is right, I just think the DM needs to make a call and be consistent.

#124

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 16:21:41

FrogReaver wrote:

#125

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 16:23:46

OoftaMeg wrote:

(Reply to #124)

FrogReaver

Orethalion wrote:

#127

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 17:20:06

FrogReaver wrote:

#128

ArialBlack

Apr 22, 2015 17:23:54

5E has much briefer and less detailed descriptions than, say, 3E, but the way spells are intended to work may or may not have changed. Because of the briefer language, this may create some uncertainty where there was none in previous editions. Reading those previous editions may very well aid you in adjudicationg things that may seem uncertain in 5E.

For example, the spell wall of force appears in the 3.5 PHB on p298. The wall has certain qualities. Among other things:-

* the wall is invisible

* breath weapons and spells cannot pass through the wall in either direction

* teleport and dimension door and similar magics can bypass the wall

* it blocks ethereal, but notes that ethereal creatues can probably just go around/over/under the wall instead of going through it

* gaze attacks can operate through the wall!

Why? Why gaze attacks?

The answer is that gaze attacks work by the eyes of the monster being seen. The section about gaze attacks includes rules for limited visibility, how if the monster is in darkness then gaze won't work (unless you have darkvision, in which case gaze attacks work as normal).

The reason that wall of force does not foil gaze attacks is that, because the wall is invisible, the monster can still be seen through the wall. Therefore, when it says that the wall is 'invisible', it means that the wall is perfectly transparent. Therefore, light passes though it normally.

This is entirely consistent with the way invisibility is treated in the rules; as 'perfectly transparent' as opposed to a black hole, locatable by its outline. You cannot locate the squares occupied by invisible creatures by mere sight. This would not be the case if invisible creatures blocked light from passing through.

I am actually currently playing a 20th level warlock in 3.5, and she has the impenetrable barrier invocation. The barrier it creates is just like a wall of force, except that it is 'black and blocks sight of all kind'. Like gaze attacks, for instance! In 3.5 terms, a wall of force blocks line of effect, but does not block line of sight, while the (black) impenetrable barrier blocks both!

That's D&D 3.5. What about 5E?

Well, the 5E medusa's petrifying gaze requires that you must be able to see the creature's eyes, and it must be able to see you. If gaze attacks work through the wall of force, then you must be able to see through the wall. This matches all previous editions of the game, where 'invisible' means 'perfectly transparent'.

How does this jibe with the phrase 'nothing can physically pass through the wall'? It must be that matter cannot pass through, neither can electricity or fire. But light, gravity, forces like that, must pass through normally.

In 5E the wall can be made horizontal. If gravity could not pass through, then stepping over a horizontal wall of force would have you flying off into space? How much damage would that do? This would make a defensive spell the most powerful attack spell in the game!

So 5E isn't 3E, and therefore 3E stuff is not RAW for 5E. But ask yourself this: did the 5E designers really choose to change the way ivisibility works from being perfectly transparent to being a black silhouette? Did they really choose to change the wall from being transparent before (allowing gaze attacks) to not allowing light through now? Gravity?

If they didn't want to allow these forces through, deliberately changing how the spells operate, why would they insert the word 'physically'? Wouldn't they just have written 'nothing can pass through the wall'? What difference does the word 'physically' make when added to that sentence.

#129

OoftaMeg

Apr 22, 2015 20:30:11

I'll be the first to admit that I rule the way I do for simplicity. If everything but light is blocked (including all supernatural effects) then I don't have to worry about whether or not something else penetrates.

#130

Orethalion

Apr 22, 2015 21:26:28

OoftaMeg wrote:

(Reply to #126)

Bloodscythe

FrogReaver wrote:

#132

Hamsterkill

Apr 23, 2015 8:43:56

I would be careful calling the WoF "total cover" for anything. Total cover means you can't target through it, and, depending on how you rule the WoF's invisibility works, doesn't really make sense, narratively.

If the WoF is simply transparent like a pane of unbreakable glass, and two people on opposite sides can still see each other, they should be able to taget each other. The wall will block arrows (and potentially magical effects at DM discretion), but that should't mean that you can't even fire them at the target. In fact, if the wall is structured like this, and an enemy is unaware of its presence, I would argue that they *should* target through and attempt to attack.

If the WoF conceals what is behind it (for instance, by bending light around it), then it would practically make the player invisible to enemies on the other side, again not technically being "total cover".

#133

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 8:52:08

Hamsterkill wrote:

#134

Hamsterkill

Apr 23, 2015 9:10:43

Orethalion wrote:

#135

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 9:57:51

Hamsterkill wrote:

#136

Hamsterkill

Apr 23, 2015 10:23:31

Orethalion wrote:

#137

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 10:42:04

Hamsterkill wrote:

#138

Hamsterkill

Apr 23, 2015 11:22:02

Orethalion wrote:

#139

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 11:30:57

Hamsterkill wrote:

#140

Stormborn20

Apr 23, 2015 11:32:35

Going with the consensus that the wall is transparent, then it could be put up before the enter, say, the throne room. You barge and aim your bow at the king. Does the DM say that you can't shoot for reasons unknown to you? I would say that you shoot the arrow, but it unexpectedly crashes into a wall of force that stops it.

#141

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 11:43:37

Stormborn20 wrote:

#142

Hamsterkill

Apr 23, 2015 11:44:01

Orethalion wrote:

#143

Orethalion

Apr 23, 2015 11:47:14

Hamsterkill wrote:

#144

lawrencehoy

Apr 24, 2015 6:53:20

Orethalion wrote: