D&D 5E Spells, Targetting, and Glass Windows

[Reynard]

The glass window Sage Advice explanation never felt right to me. Like, I understand it. I get why they draw the line they draw but it seems counterintuitive.

I just don't understand why spells don't have an entry that just tells you.

Targeting: line of sight and line of effect
or
Targeting: line of sight
or
Targeting: any targeting sense
etc...

Clear, concise rules always make a game better.

 

[Voadam]

I just don't understand why spells don't have an entry that just tells you.

Targeting: line of sight and line of effect
or
Targeting: line of sight
or
Targeting: any targeting sense
etc...

Clear, concise rules always make a game better.

My understanding is the targeting entry sets up a general rule of line of effect required and barriers that provide total cover block line of effect at the barrier.

Individual spells could specify an exception for line of sight or whatever but unless they do no charming through a closed window.

Teleporting seems to target yourself though not the destination.

That seems fairly clear and clear cut unless there is another rule that complicates things.

 

[Reynard]

My understanding is the targeting entry sets up a general rule of line of effect required and barriers that provide total cover block line of effect at the barrier.

Individual spells could specify an exception for line of sight or whatever but unless they do no charming through a closed window.

Teleporting seems to target yourself though not the destination.

That seems fairly clear and clear cut unless there is another rule that complicates things.

Everything is an exception. Half the spells say "a target you can see" and the rest don't. It's sloppy.

 

[Oofta]

Everything is an exception. Half the spells say "a target you can see" and the rest don't. It's sloppy.

The default already qualifies that you have to have line of effect. Concealment does not block line of effect, cover does. So to block line of effect you need something solid between you and the target. There are spells that can target something hidden by something like magical darkness, you don't need to see the target.

I don't see how that's sloppy. Some spells just work differently.

 

[Deset Gled]

I just don't understand why spells don't have an entry that just tells you.

Targeting: line of sight and line of effect
or
Targeting: line of sight
or
Targeting: any targeting sense
etc...

Clear, concise rules always make a game better.

Because then people complain about complexity. Or how they hate simulationism. Or how it doesn't fit their narrative.

As the OP mentioned, 3.x had rules for line of effect vs line of sight. And emanations vs spread. And lots other similar details that 5e ignores. And it's the kind of crunch that I absolutely crave. I would love to go back to that level of detail. Especially now that I could use a VTT to keep track of all the bonuses and such.

But that's just not the game 5e is made to be. And considering how many people seem to think 5e is too complex and argue for even lighter rules systems, I get the impression that most of the TTRPG community is moving away from this direction. So it goes, so it goes.

In any case, you can easily go back to the 3.5e SRD and use those versions of the spells as guidance for how to rule in 5e.

 

[cbwjm]

Were it me I'd say it depends on the spell.

Where nothing physical travels from the caster to the target as part of the spell e.g. Hold Person or Shatter I'd allow it to work. Where something physical is involved, however, such as with Fireball and its little bead of guano, the spell wrecks on the window.

I'm the same, you can charm person someone through a window, a fire bolt hits the window (which might break it).

 

[TiQuinn]

I just don't understand why spells don't have an entry that just tells you.

Targeting: line of sight and line of effect
or
Targeting: line of sight
or
Targeting: any targeting sense
etc...

Clear, concise rules always make a game better.

For me, it’s the idea that a window blocks something like a lightning bolt. That is the least dramatic thing I can think of. Mechanically, I get it. But in my mind’s eye, it’s just dumb. I’m the master of my domain, wielder of the Flame of Arnor, but I am foiled by a pane of glass.

 

[GMMichael]

For me, it’s the idea that a window blocks something like a lightning bolt. That is the least dramatic thing I can think of. Mechanically, I get it. But in my mind’s eye, it’s just dumb. I’m the master of my domain, wielder of the Flame of Arnor, but I am foiled by a pane of glass.

It gets even worse when you're confronted by a paper wall.

@Reynard it doesn't tell you details because: rulings, not rules.

We're talking about magic, folks. I'm pretty sure it can go through (around?) questionable barriers. If you're sending something, like a magic missile that's designed to break things, maybe it stops at a window. Maybe it goes straight through. Depends on the missile, I guess.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd rule on a case by case basis. Fireball's pea-sized shot would probably detonate on a window. Unless there were gaps, couldn't misty step through. Scorching Ray would probably sizzle through. Magic missile might impact the glass and stop there. Lighting bolt would blow through.

 

[Hriston]

I ruled that the window was a barrier and meant total cover which blocked targeting the creatures or areas past the barrier but that misty step targeted the caster and they could teleport past the barrier.

Is this how you would interpret the 5e targetting rules or something different?

I agree about misty step, but disagree that a transparent window constitutes total cover.

Is anything else RAW applicable?

Yes, bold text added:

Total Cover​

A target with total cover can't 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.​

A transparent window does not conceal a target behind it.