Q271 wall of force stuffs

[Dmdork]

Q271 Wall of Force is between my wizard and the target. Can I target him with spells that say "that you can see"? Ex. Mental Prison.
Magic Missle sounds like it would go off cuz I can 'see' my target but the wall would like block the missiles? Open to interpretation...we're talking about line of sight, but not line of effect, not even sure 5e uses that terminology

[mephiztopheleze]

Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: Wall of Force will block a line-of-effect spell that connects with it, like a Scorching Ray for example. If the spell merely requires you to see the target, then yes it'll probably work just fine.

[Dalebert]

In the general spellcasting rules, it is pointed out that all spells require a clear path to the target. Now the word "clear" is in contention. If you're talking about an object being clear, that means you can see through it. If you talk about a path being clear, the word is referring to whether physical obstacles are blocking the path, e.g a wall or a fallen tree, for instance. This interpretation of the word "clear" in this context has been confirmed by Jeremy Crawford. That is how he intended it--no physical barriers (Wall of Force is a physical barrier) can be completely blocking you from the target(s) of the spell.

So the answer in the general case is "no", with a few exceptions. You cannot cast spells at the target unless they specifically say they ignore cover, e.g. Sacred Flame.

P.S. Thank you for making a separate thread. It was very courteous of you. This thread is about to get looooong.

[OvisCaedo]

You're likely to get some differing answers, because this is actually a pretty heavily debated topic. I've seen people argue back and forth on it quite a few times before.

[Merudo]

Q271 Wall of Force is between my wizard and the target. Can I target him with spells that say "that you can see"? Ex. Mental Prison.
Magic Missle sounds like it would go off cuz I can 'see' my target but the wall would like block the missiles? Open to interpretation...we're talking about line of sight, but not line of effect, not even sure 5e uses that terminology

From the Target section of the PHB (p.204):

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

Only spells that explicitly ignore cover can target a creature through the Wall of Force.

[Theodoxus]

This came up in my game this week. Player cast Wall of Force in a 10' cube around an umberhulk. Then wanted to cast Hunger of Hadar inside the cube. I ruled that the summoning wouldn't be able to penetrate the wall. Though I'd of been ok had he not topped off the cube. Or even had the four walls slightly lean in, making an uncapped pyramid, so that the umberhulk would have had a really hard time climbing up the walls, but there would have been small gaps at the base that would be too small for the umberhulk to squeeze through, but large enough to no provide total cover.

[Dmdork]

What about casting misty step and teleporting to the other side of the wall?

[Chronos]

It's in the nature of teleportation that it can go through barriers. If you don't need to go through barriers, you can just walk instead. If you want to block teleportation, you need something that says so specifically, like Forcecage or Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum.

[Keravath]

What about casting misty step and teleporting to the other side of the wall?

Sure. The wall doesn't block spells and you can see where you are going.

The argument over the effects of wall of force comes down to "does it provide total cover" and "does the 'clear path' to the target refer to a clear physical path, a clear visual path, both or neither"?

It can be argued almost endlessly so as a DM just pick whichever interpretation works best for your table.

Also, keep in mind that when stating that transparent objects provide total cover then even a thin glass window prevents targeting something on the other side. In addition, some spells describe a physical or visible effect extending from the caster to the target and others do not. Wall of force specifically does not block magic spells which forcecage and other force based spells do specify.

Jeremy Crawford's tweets are also no longer considered official rulings so they offer some insight in some cases but no real guidance. In some cases, his take on a rule had more to do with how he might run it as a DM at the time he read the question than with any interpretation of how the rules were actually written.

Anyway, there is substantial disagreement on what should or should not be allowed to pass through a wall of force, along with arguments surrounding whether something transparent can provide total cover. :)

Nasty kettle of fish best avoided by making whatever ruling works best for you and your table.

[Dalebert]

Player cast Wall of Force in a 10' cube around an umberhulk.

You can't make a cube with it. You have two choices: a sphere or a wall with all the panels in the same plane. You can leave gaps in the wall.

Also, keep in mind that when stating that transparent objects provide total cover then even a thin glass window prevents targeting something on the other side.

Correct. Though it would be a completely reasonable ruling that a damaging spell would easily destroy the glass and then continue past it. Something like suggestion, on the other hand...

Crawford's tweets are also no longer considered official rulings so they offer some insight in some cases but no real guidance.

They're not official RAW but guidance is exactly what they provide. In this case, since the word "clear" can be ambiguous, he clarified their INTENT, i.e. that it was in line with the meaning of the word when you're taking about a "clear path". It means a path clear of OBSTACLES.

[Keravath]

They're not official RAW but guidance is exactly what they provide. In this case, since the word "clear" can be ambiguous, he clarified their INTENT, i.e. that it was in line with the meaning of the word when you're taking about a "clear path". It means a path clear of OBSTACLES.

:)

Obstacles to what? A wall of force is an obstacle to something physically trying to cross the wall. However, the wall of force is NOT an obstacle to vision and it is NOT an obstacle to magic. So when you say "path clear of OBSTACLES". You aren't being nearly as clear as you think you are. No where does it say that a spell requires a clear PHYSICAL path. Does it need a path clear of VISUAL obstacles? Does it require a path clear of MAGICAL obstacles? Or does it require a path clear of PHYSICAL obstacles? JCs tweet indicated how he would play it. It did not necessarily indicate that is what the rules say or what was intended. That is the role of the Sage Advice compendium which is silent on this question.

Which is why I say there is lots of room for argument and if the OP is the DM he is best off choosing whatever works best for his table.

[Dalebert]

No where does it say that a spell requires a clear PHYSICAL path.

In the section of general spellcasting rules about a clear path to the target.

Or does it require a path clear of PHYSICAL obstacles?

It says the target can't be behind total cover. If it's impossible to hit it with an arrow, you can't target it with a spell (generally). What is a clear path? It's A path you can actually walk because it's free of physical obstacles. JCs tweet is clarification of intent but it's not needed to interpret the RAW.

Furthermore, the spell gets insanely broken if you don't interpret it that way. A caster can put it around themselves and ignore melee characters completely while being nearly 100% effective. And it becomes an auto-win against any powerful non-caster creature because you can render it harmless while you cantrip it to death.