Mixing
How does Wall of Force Grant Cover?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Which mechanic of Wall of Force gives cover to creatures on either side of the wall?
This is not a duplicate question as other wall of force questions assume that the wall grants cover as their answer, but I don't feel they properly explain how that conclusion is reached.
This question is not how does wall of force prevent gaze attacks or magic attacks. It is targeted at the popular assumption that wall of force grants cover. I do not understand it, so I need help with this clarification.
Warning: Lengthy Premise.
Wall of Force
- "Spells only do what they say they can do."
- In the spell description, it does not grant the "Cover" attribute to creatures on either side of the wall. Cover is not mentioned anywhere in the spell description.
- "[The wall] is immune to all damage and can’t be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however."
- As per 3, the wall is not immune to magic, nor does it say it has anti-magic properties similar to the anti-magic field spell.
- "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." Grants an effect similar to cover, but does not apply the cover attribute.
- The spell explicitly states that physical and astral projections cannot pass through the wall. By exclusion, anything else can.
- It does not block line of sight. The wall is invisible.
- Does not state the wall is tangible.
- "Force" is a damage type. Damage types are attributes, not substances. Cold / Fire / ice / Necrotic etc. as a damage type - in and of themselves are not physical forces.
- There are no examples of a damage type granting cover.
- Magic is not a physical effect and is not subject to the "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." descriptor.
I have tried to isolate and ask isolating questions to try and narrow down the issues I have with the popular ruling:
- The Invisible Barrier granting cover paradox. (On hold)
- Damage Types Granting Cover
- Is Magic Physical, Astral, or Other?
So my question stands: How does wall of force grant Cover to characters on either side of the wall? It grants a few attributes similar to cover, but does not explicitly grant that attribute.
*Personal note: I've got a thick skin, and I'm not trying to troll or start a fight, just make a point, and hopefully either illustrate or be corrected on my beliefs.
dnd-5e cover wall
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Which mechanic of Wall of Force gives cover to creatures on either side of the wall?
This is not a duplicate question as other wall of force questions assume that the wall grants cover as their answer, but I don't feel they properly explain how that conclusion is reached.
This question is not how does wall of force prevent gaze attacks or magic attacks. It is targeted at the popular assumption that wall of force grants cover. I do not understand it, so I need help with this clarification.
Warning: Lengthy Premise.
Wall of Force
- "Spells only do what they say they can do."
- In the spell description, it does not grant the "Cover" attribute to creatures on either side of the wall. Cover is not mentioned anywhere in the spell description.
- "[The wall] is immune to all damage and can’t be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however."
- As per 3, the wall is not immune to magic, nor does it say it has anti-magic properties similar to the anti-magic field spell.
- "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." Grants an effect similar to cover, but does not apply the cover attribute.
- The spell explicitly states that physical and astral projections cannot pass through the wall. By exclusion, anything else can.
- It does not block line of sight. The wall is invisible.
- Does not state the wall is tangible.
- "Force" is a damage type. Damage types are attributes, not substances. Cold / Fire / ice / Necrotic etc. as a damage type - in and of themselves are not physical forces.
- There are no examples of a damage type granting cover.
- Magic is not a physical effect and is not subject to the "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." descriptor.
I have tried to isolate and ask isolating questions to try and narrow down the issues I have with the popular ruling:
- The Invisible Barrier granting cover paradox. (On hold)
- Damage Types Granting Cover
- Is Magic Physical, Astral, or Other?
So my question stands: How does wall of force grant Cover to characters on either side of the wall? It grants a few attributes similar to cover, but does not explicitly grant that attribute.
*Personal note: I've got a thick skin, and I'm not trying to troll or start a fight, just make a point, and hopefully either illustrate or be corrected on my beliefs.
dnd-5e cover wall
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
4
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
2
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
1
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Which mechanic of Wall of Force gives cover to creatures on either side of the wall?
This is not a duplicate question as other wall of force questions assume that the wall grants cover as their answer, but I don't feel they properly explain how that conclusion is reached.
This question is not how does wall of force prevent gaze attacks or magic attacks. It is targeted at the popular assumption that wall of force grants cover. I do not understand it, so I need help with this clarification.
Warning: Lengthy Premise.
Wall of Force
- "Spells only do what they say they can do."
- In the spell description, it does not grant the "Cover" attribute to creatures on either side of the wall. Cover is not mentioned anywhere in the spell description.
- "[The wall] is immune to all damage and can’t be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however."
- As per 3, the wall is not immune to magic, nor does it say it has anti-magic properties similar to the anti-magic field spell.
- "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." Grants an effect similar to cover, but does not apply the cover attribute.
- The spell explicitly states that physical and astral projections cannot pass through the wall. By exclusion, anything else can.
- It does not block line of sight. The wall is invisible.
- Does not state the wall is tangible.
- "Force" is a damage type. Damage types are attributes, not substances. Cold / Fire / ice / Necrotic etc. as a damage type - in and of themselves are not physical forces.
- There are no examples of a damage type granting cover.
- Magic is not a physical effect and is not subject to the "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." descriptor.
I have tried to isolate and ask isolating questions to try and narrow down the issues I have with the popular ruling:
- The Invisible Barrier granting cover paradox. (On hold)
- Damage Types Granting Cover
- Is Magic Physical, Astral, or Other?
So my question stands: How does wall of force grant Cover to characters on either side of the wall? It grants a few attributes similar to cover, but does not explicitly grant that attribute.
*Personal note: I've got a thick skin, and I'm not trying to troll or start a fight, just make a point, and hopefully either illustrate or be corrected on my beliefs.
dnd-5e cover wall
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Which mechanic of Wall of Force gives cover to creatures on either side of the wall?
This is not a duplicate question as other wall of force questions assume that the wall grants cover as their answer, but I don't feel they properly explain how that conclusion is reached.
This question is not how does wall of force prevent gaze attacks or magic attacks. It is targeted at the popular assumption that wall of force grants cover. I do not understand it, so I need help with this clarification.
Warning: Lengthy Premise.
Wall of Force
- "Spells only do what they say they can do."
- In the spell description, it does not grant the "Cover" attribute to creatures on either side of the wall. Cover is not mentioned anywhere in the spell description.
- "[The wall] is immune to all damage and can’t be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however."
- As per 3, the wall is not immune to magic, nor does it say it has anti-magic properties similar to the anti-magic field spell.
- "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." Grants an effect similar to cover, but does not apply the cover attribute.
- The spell explicitly states that physical and astral projections cannot pass through the wall. By exclusion, anything else can.
- It does not block line of sight. The wall is invisible.
- Does not state the wall is tangible.
- "Force" is a damage type. Damage types are attributes, not substances. Cold / Fire / ice / Necrotic etc. as a damage type - in and of themselves are not physical forces.
- There are no examples of a damage type granting cover.
- Magic is not a physical effect and is not subject to the "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." descriptor.
I have tried to isolate and ask isolating questions to try and narrow down the issues I have with the popular ruling:
- The Invisible Barrier granting cover paradox. (On hold)
- Damage Types Granting Cover
- Is Magic Physical, Astral, or Other?
So my question stands: How does wall of force grant Cover to characters on either side of the wall? It grants a few attributes similar to cover, but does not explicitly grant that attribute.
*Personal note: I've got a thick skin, and I'm not trying to troll or start a fight, just make a point, and hopefully either illustrate or be corrected on my beliefs.
dnd-5e cover wall
dnd-5e cover wall
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 27 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
asked 1 hour ago
Play Patrice
956115
956115
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Play Patrice is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
4
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
2
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
1
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
4
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
2
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
1
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago
2
2
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
4
4
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
2
2
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
1
1
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
A wall of force grants cover by being an obstacle. A confirmed tweet from a game designer states this includes spells.
According to the cover rules in the Player's Handbook, p.196:
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...] A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body [...] A target has has three-quarters cover if about three quarters of it is covered by an obstacle [...] A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Is a wall of force an obstacle? In D&D 5th edition, words not defined in game rules are interpreted according to their standard English meaning.
Something that impedes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
The description of the wall of force states:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
Therefore, the wall of force is an obstacle, and being behind it relative to your opponent grants you cover.
If I understand your recent questions correctly, you hope to learn whether wall of force specifically blocks magic, on the hypothesis that magic is not "physical". The rule on casting spells against people behind obstacles appears in the Player's Handbook, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
While the cover rules say that total cover "completely concealed", a term which in earlier editions of D&D referred specifically to visibility and not cover, Crawford here appears to clarify that "concealed" is a synonym here for "covered". Note how the other two forms of cover say "blocks" and "covered", so it seems that they're using synonyms to avoid repetition.
Therefore, regardless of the "physicality" of magic, the official ruling on this issue is that wall of force provides total cover, and therefore blocks magic.
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's in the way it works.
I'm pulling heavily (well, entirely) from SevenSidedDie's answer here.
Nothing being able to pass through the wall makes it count as total cover, and that makes targets on the other side of it invalid spell targets. From "Targets" in the PHB's Spellcasting chapter, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Greenstone Walker's comment here is also relevant to understanding the issue of concealment vs cover:
It is possible to have total cover but no concealment. For example, being in the middle of a gelatinous cube.
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
A wall of force grants cover by being an obstacle. A confirmed tweet from a game designer states this includes spells.
According to the cover rules in the Player's Handbook, p.196:
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...] A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body [...] A target has has three-quarters cover if about three quarters of it is covered by an obstacle [...] A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Is a wall of force an obstacle? In D&D 5th edition, words not defined in game rules are interpreted according to their standard English meaning.
Something that impedes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
The description of the wall of force states:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
Therefore, the wall of force is an obstacle, and being behind it relative to your opponent grants you cover.
If I understand your recent questions correctly, you hope to learn whether wall of force specifically blocks magic, on the hypothesis that magic is not "physical". The rule on casting spells against people behind obstacles appears in the Player's Handbook, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
While the cover rules say that total cover "completely concealed", a term which in earlier editions of D&D referred specifically to visibility and not cover, Crawford here appears to clarify that "concealed" is a synonym here for "covered". Note how the other two forms of cover say "blocks" and "covered", so it seems that they're using synonyms to avoid repetition.
Therefore, regardless of the "physicality" of magic, the official ruling on this issue is that wall of force provides total cover, and therefore blocks magic.
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
A wall of force grants cover by being an obstacle. A confirmed tweet from a game designer states this includes spells.
According to the cover rules in the Player's Handbook, p.196:
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...] A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body [...] A target has has three-quarters cover if about three quarters of it is covered by an obstacle [...] A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Is a wall of force an obstacle? In D&D 5th edition, words not defined in game rules are interpreted according to their standard English meaning.
Something that impedes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
The description of the wall of force states:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
Therefore, the wall of force is an obstacle, and being behind it relative to your opponent grants you cover.
If I understand your recent questions correctly, you hope to learn whether wall of force specifically blocks magic, on the hypothesis that magic is not "physical". The rule on casting spells against people behind obstacles appears in the Player's Handbook, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
While the cover rules say that total cover "completely concealed", a term which in earlier editions of D&D referred specifically to visibility and not cover, Crawford here appears to clarify that "concealed" is a synonym here for "covered". Note how the other two forms of cover say "blocks" and "covered", so it seems that they're using synonyms to avoid repetition.
Therefore, regardless of the "physicality" of magic, the official ruling on this issue is that wall of force provides total cover, and therefore blocks magic.
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
A wall of force grants cover by being an obstacle. A confirmed tweet from a game designer states this includes spells.
According to the cover rules in the Player's Handbook, p.196:
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...] A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body [...] A target has has three-quarters cover if about three quarters of it is covered by an obstacle [...] A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Is a wall of force an obstacle? In D&D 5th edition, words not defined in game rules are interpreted according to their standard English meaning.
Something that impedes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
The description of the wall of force states:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
Therefore, the wall of force is an obstacle, and being behind it relative to your opponent grants you cover.
If I understand your recent questions correctly, you hope to learn whether wall of force specifically blocks magic, on the hypothesis that magic is not "physical". The rule on casting spells against people behind obstacles appears in the Player's Handbook, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
While the cover rules say that total cover "completely concealed", a term which in earlier editions of D&D referred specifically to visibility and not cover, Crawford here appears to clarify that "concealed" is a synonym here for "covered". Note how the other two forms of cover say "blocks" and "covered", so it seems that they're using synonyms to avoid repetition.
Therefore, regardless of the "physicality" of magic, the official ruling on this issue is that wall of force provides total cover, and therefore blocks magic.
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
A wall of force grants cover by being an obstacle. A confirmed tweet from a game designer states this includes spells.
According to the cover rules in the Player's Handbook, p.196:
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. [...] A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body [...] A target has has three-quarters cover if about three quarters of it is covered by an obstacle [...] A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Is a wall of force an obstacle? In D&D 5th edition, words not defined in game rules are interpreted according to their standard English meaning.
Something that impedes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
The description of the wall of force states:
Nothing can physically pass through the wall.
Therefore, the wall of force is an obstacle, and being behind it relative to your opponent grants you cover.
If I understand your recent questions correctly, you hope to learn whether wall of force specifically blocks magic, on the hypothesis that magic is not "physical". The rule on casting spells against people behind obstacles appears in the Player's Handbook, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
D&D 5e designer Jeremy Crawford, whose rulings are considered official, confirms in a tweet that wall of force provides total cover:
Q: could a wizard make a sphere around a creature using wall of force and then chill touch to damage them through the wall?
Crawford: Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't target someone behind total cover (PH, 204)
Also here, in specific reference to wall of force:
Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
While the cover rules say that total cover "completely concealed", a term which in earlier editions of D&D referred specifically to visibility and not cover, Crawford here appears to clarify that "concealed" is a synonym here for "covered". Note how the other two forms of cover say "blocks" and "covered", so it seems that they're using synonyms to avoid repetition.
Therefore, regardless of the "physicality" of magic, the official ruling on this issue is that wall of force provides total cover, and therefore blocks magic.
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
edited 6 mins ago
Play Patrice
956115
956115
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
answered 1 hour ago
Quadratic Wizard
20.3k367112
20.3k367112
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
39 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
@Quad, could you add a really short summary to the top of your answer. Something like, "It grants cover by being an obstacle, and grants total cover against magic through a tweeted ruling my JC?"
– Play Patrice
25 mins ago
1
1
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
I would recommend you post a modified version of this answer on this Q&A seeing as none of the answers cover it as exhaustively as you do. I'd give it a +1 for sure. I was thinking about doing it myself, but your answer already covers that ground beautifully so I think with a few small tweaks it will add a lot to that question.
– Rubiksmoose
22 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
Already +1'ed it and marked it as the answer . The tweeted ruling mentioned at the top would really help those that aren't into the TL/DR stuff. I Disagree (from a RAW perspective), but from the game designers intent, I accept it and will run with it at my table.
– Play Patrice
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's in the way it works.
I'm pulling heavily (well, entirely) from SevenSidedDie's answer here.
Nothing being able to pass through the wall makes it count as total cover, and that makes targets on the other side of it invalid spell targets. From "Targets" in the PHB's Spellcasting chapter, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Greenstone Walker's comment here is also relevant to understanding the issue of concealment vs cover:
It is possible to have total cover but no concealment. For example, being in the middle of a gelatinous cube.
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's in the way it works.
I'm pulling heavily (well, entirely) from SevenSidedDie's answer here.
Nothing being able to pass through the wall makes it count as total cover, and that makes targets on the other side of it invalid spell targets. From "Targets" in the PHB's Spellcasting chapter, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Greenstone Walker's comment here is also relevant to understanding the issue of concealment vs cover:
It is possible to have total cover but no concealment. For example, being in the middle of a gelatinous cube.
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It's in the way it works.
I'm pulling heavily (well, entirely) from SevenSidedDie's answer here.
Nothing being able to pass through the wall makes it count as total cover, and that makes targets on the other side of it invalid spell targets. From "Targets" in the PHB's Spellcasting chapter, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Greenstone Walker's comment here is also relevant to understanding the issue of concealment vs cover:
It is possible to have total cover but no concealment. For example, being in the middle of a gelatinous cube.
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
It's in the way it works.
I'm pulling heavily (well, entirely) from SevenSidedDie's answer here.
Nothing being able to pass through the wall makes it count as total cover, and that makes targets on the other side of it invalid spell targets. From "Targets" in the PHB's Spellcasting chapter, page 204:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Greenstone Walker's comment here is also relevant to understanding the issue of concealment vs cover:
It is possible to have total cover but no concealment. For example, being in the middle of a gelatinous cube.
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
answered 1 hour ago
NautArch
44.9k6162309
44.9k6162309
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
"Noting Being Able To pass through the wall..." But things CAN pass through the wall so long as it is not astral or physical.
– Play Patrice
1 hour ago
1
1
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
@PlayPatrice I think you're misreading the spell. Nothing can pass through the wall. What do you think can and why?
– NautArch
59 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Play Patrice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Play Patrice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Play Patrice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Play Patrice is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132265%2fhow-does-wall-of-force-grant-cover%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Related on Can Spell be cast through a wall of force?
– NautArch
1 hour ago
4
If this question is the core problem and basis for your other three questions then in the future please consider asking about your core problem first instead of “jumping through hoops†and asking about a bunch other things surrounding the problem. Questions here generally work best when they actually focus of the problem you’re having.
– Purple Monkey
57 mins ago
2
This is ridiculous; "Wall of Stone" doesn't explicitly mention cover either, do you question its ability to grant cover?
– mxyzplk♦
37 mins ago
1
I recommend that you remove your 'answers' to your question from the body and submit your own answer if that's the theory you believe. By adding this information in late as answers come in, you are making this more convoluted than it needs to be (and also assuming that answers are providing more than what they're actually saying.) You don't need to say "it's not a duplicate". If it is, then we'll vote on that (or not.) I again suggest removing your premise, and keep it out of your question. Your premise reads more like an answer than details to the question.
– NautArch
28 mins ago
And to restate what was said before in another comment, if you wanted to submit your own answer to a question you ask you can and are encouraged to do so by the site.
– Rubiksmoose
24 mins ago