Line of Effect always necessary?

[YeOldeGrandma]

Line of Effect is described in PH1 as an unblocked path without a solid obstacle. Line of effect is, as I understand it, required for basically every D&D-power, from a normal attack to Healing Word etc.

Do you think the rules should be applied this way? I had a discussion with one of my (wizard) players today, who thought it silly that his Scorching Burst could not be targeted at a square behind a window. As I understood it he meant that the burst originated on the other side of the window, and thus did not need to pass through the obstacle at all. It got me thinking, because for Healing Word the same thing should apply - it does seem a bit silly that you can't heal someone on the other side of a window.

Also, one could argue that a magic missile/arrow/melee attack simply smashes the window on its way to the target. This argument is particularly strong if one considers a charge attack (should you be allowed to charge through a window?).

[Kurald Galain]

it does seem a bit silly that you can't heal someone on the other side of a window.

It also seems a bit silly that Inspiring Word works on someone who's unconscious or deaf. But it does anyway.

[YeOldeGrandma]

It also seems a bit silly that Inspiring Word works on someone who's unconscious or deaf. But it does anyway.

Point.

[NecroRebel]

Do you think the rules should be applied this way? I had a discussion with one of my (wizard) players today, who thought it silly that his Scorching Burst could not be targeted at a square behind a window. As I understood it he meant that the burst originated on the other side of the window, and thus did not need to pass through the obstacle at all.

In earlier editions, the classic Fireball spell is described as launching a small glowing bead that then explodes when it reaches its target or hits something. Do you know how the wizard's spells work? If they always require a projectile, which the rules sort of imply, it makes sense that a solid object in the way would block them.

Also, one could argue that a magic missile/arrow/melee attack simply smashes the window on its way to the target.

And this is one of those things that the rules don't cover but that can be adjudicated by the DM. I'd probably give an attack through a glass window a -5 penalty to damage and -2 attack (a projectile can be deflected by going through the window), if it doesn't deal at least 5 damage it just bounces off the window, and if it does deal 5 or more damage it shatters the window on the way through.

This argument is particularly strong if one considers a charge attack (should you be allowed to charge through a window?).

Again, this isn't something the rules cover. I'd probably allow a charge through a sufficiently-large window, but would require a strength check to break through. For that matter, I'd allow a charge to go through a solid steel wall if someone wanted, though they'd of course have to beat a much higher DC on the strength check. It's not in the rules to do stuff like that, but it's cool, so it should be allowed.

[YeOldeGrandma]

In earlier editions, the classic Fireball spell is described as launching a small glowing bead that then explodes when it reaches its target or hits something. Do you know how the wizard's spells work? If they always require a projectile, which the rules sort of imply, it makes sense that a solid object in the way would block them.



And this is one of those things that the rules don't cover but that can be adjudicated by the DM. I'd probably give an attack through a glass window a -5 penalty to damage and -2 attack (a projectile can be deflected by going through the window), if it doesn't deal at least 5 damage it just bounces off the window, and if it does deal 5 or more damage it shatters the window on the way through.



Again, this isn't something the rules cover. I'd probably allow a charge through a sufficiently-large window, but would require a strength check to break through. For that matter, I'd allow a charge to go through a solid steel wall if someone wanted, though they'd of course have to beat a much higher DC on the strength check. It's not in the rules to do stuff like that, but it's cool, so it should be allowed.

Good. My thoughts on the matter were similar, so it seems I'm pretty much on point regarding the rules and the possible interpretations of them.

[MoutonRustique]

I can't dig now - but I'm pretty sure there's something with regards to "items that grant cover that are destroyed by the effect and thus no longer grant cover" somewhere in the DMG...

But, on the whole, yes, this is a good kind of thing for your DM to adjudicate - try and remember the ruling so you can help make the game coherent going forward.

Personally, a glass window that can be shattered by a small rock doesn't break line-of-effect for pretty much anything other than very, very "gentle" attacks - i.e. poison and paper airplanes.

Perhaps it would grant superior cover for the first attack of something small like a dagger...

Meh, I'd have a 2 min discussion with my group in how they want to play this - give ourselves 4-5 expected examples of things and then jot it down in my "rulings" section.
Examples required (IMO - these can be used to extrapolate pretty much anything) :
1 - small physical projectile
2 - large physical projectile
3 - pure energy effect
4 - non-energy-based effect
5 - mental attack

[kieza]

And this is one of those things that the rules don't cover but that can be adjudicated by the DM. I'd probably give an attack through a glass window a -5 penalty to damage and -2 attack (a projectile can be deflected by going through the window), if it doesn't deal at least 5 damage it just bounces off the window, and if it does deal 5 or more damage it shatters the window on the way through.

I kind of like this, but I'd use an Arcana check instead. If they succeed the check, then the projectile punches through the glass and explodes where they wanted it to. If they fail, then it exploded on impact and the burst is centered on the point where it hit.

[Laserlight]

Line of Effect is described in PH1 as an unblocked path without a solid obstacle. Line of effect is, as I understand it, required for basically every D&D-power, from a normal attack to Healing Word etc.

Do you think the rules should be applied this way? I had a discussion with one of my (wizard) players today, who thought it silly that his Scorching Burst could not be targeted at a square behind a window. As I understood it he meant that the burst originated on the other side of the window, and thus did not need to pass through the obstacle at all. It got me thinking, because for Healing Word the same thing should apply - it does seem a bit silly that you can't heal someone on the other side of a window.

Also, one could argue that a magic missile/arrow/melee attack simply smashes the window on its way to the target. This argument is particularly strong if one considers a charge attack (should you be allowed to charge through a window?).

Well, this is why we have DMs.
And why DMs should ask themselves "What if the window is paper-thin glass? What if it's a foot thick block of quartz? How about sixty feet of clear tropical water? If all you need to do is see through it, what happens if it's a portal rather than a window? What if you get something that lets you see through rock?"

I would stick with "you still have to have LoE" although I'd be willing to negotiate on whether a thin-enough pane of glass is "a solid obstacle" or not.

[NecroRebel]

Personally, a glass window that can be shattered by a small rock doesn't break line-of-effect for pretty much anything other than very, very "gentle" attacks - i.e. poison and paper airplanes

It's actually fairly difficult to break a window. Sure, you can throw a brick through one, but the brick won't go anywhere near as far on the other side as it would if the glass wasn't there, and won't hit nearly as hard, either. This is why I would give a damage penalty.

If you threw something the mass of a bullet with your bare hands, you probably couldn't break a window. You might chip the glass, but it likely wouldn't shatter. A sling (not a slingshot, a real sling) could, but with those you can get low bullet speeds if used right.

[MoutonRustique]

It's actually fairly difficult to break a window. Sure, you can throw a brick through one, but the brick won't go anywhere near as far on the other side as it would if the glass wasn't there, and won't hit nearly as hard, either. This is why I would give a damage penalty.

If you threw something the mass of a bullet with your bare hands, you probably couldn't break a window. You might chip the glass, but it likely wouldn't shatter. A sling (not a slingshot, a real sling) could, but with those you can get low bullet speeds if used right.

Hence the need to have a small discussion about expectations.

When I'm playing 4e, the characters involved are powerful warriors and pretty much everything that is significant enough to warrant being an attack that deals damage is lot more impressive than a regular thrown rock. In this context, a pane of low-quality glass held without mastic in a wooden frame isn't going to be a significant obstacle.

But, yeah, it could go the other way : the glass-workers weren't good enough to produce glass of high-enough quality to be "allowed" to be thin - hence the windows are actually pretty thick glass. And they usually set them in grooves in the window frame. This window is a true obstacle, one that can be overcome by a directed effort from a serious attack, but should not be underestimated.
Window = line of sight, no line of effect. Give the window hp and resist appropriate to perhaps 1/2 a door?

There's all kinds of possible rulings which will make sense to the group and respect the "in-world physics"/"plot-based physics".

The main thing to keep in mind when ruling on these kinds of thing is this :

Common sense doesn't exist! - it is neither common nor, very often, sense* (*meaning true).

There are oodles of presumptions to almost any call. Assuming that all those are shared is a recipe for argument.

my 2cp.