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

[Voadam]

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


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.

Thanks, that is an arguable RAW reading and seems to be a relevant context to consider.

To me the PH rules discussion on cover (page 196) even though it mentions concealment once in the total cover description seems on the whole to focus on obstacles to the target in explaining cover. The single concealment reference if taken as a limiting element would prevent a wall of bullet proof glass from providing cover which seems nonsensical. If that reference is taken as not a defining limiting element but as a loose description it makes more sense to me conceptually.

COVER
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
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.

 

[Hriston]

I could have been clearer. And to be fair, it’s possible that being aware of Crawford discussion of RAI influenced how I interpreted the “context” I was referring to.

What discussion is that, though? The tweet you posted is a straight up rules-clarification question. Crawford's response says nothing about intent. He just gets the rules (according to me) wrong. I also listened to the discussion you posted about having a clear path to the target. The part at the end where Crawford says it's "the game working as intended" is in reference to stacking exceptions, not a closed window counting as total cover which he presents as a clarification of the actual rule and which, again, he gets wrong and even misremembers the rule for points of origin coming into being on the near side of an obstruction, forgetting the requirement that it has been placed at a point you can't see. He's basically trying to rewrite the rules in that tweet and that interview, but makes no reference to the intent of the actual rules.

 

[Hriston]

Thanks, that is an arguable RAW reading and seems to be a relevant context to consider.

To me the PH rules discussion on cover (page 196) even though it mentions concealment once in the total cover description seems on the whole to focus on obstacles to the target in explaining cover. The single concealment reference if taken as a limiting element would prevent a wall of bullet proof glass from providing cover which seems nonsensical. If that reference is taken as not a defining limiting element but as a loose description it makes more sense to me conceptually.

COVER
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
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.

First, I don't think the rules of D&D are made to handle the existence of a mundane wall of bulletproof glass. Anything like that (i.e. something magical) is going to have its own rules attached to it that spell out any exceptions it has from the normal rules for the ways objects interact with one another. Second, you're correct that the rules for cover are mostly concerned with obstacles. What the mentioning of concealment tells us is that there's an assumption that an obstacle is opaque due to being physically substantial as in the examples given (i.e. "Walls, trees, creatures") and that something so flimsy as to be transparent (i.e. a pane of window glass) cannot be considered an obstacle with reference to cover.

 

[briggart]

What discussion is that, though? The tweet you posted is a straight up rules-clarification question. Crawford's response says nothing about intent. He just gets the rules (according to me) wrong. I also listened to the discussion you posted about having a clear path to the target. The part at the end where Crawford says it's "the game working as intended" is in reference to stacking exceptions, not a closed window counting as total cover which he presents as a clarification of the actual rule and which, again, he gets wrong and even misremembers the rule for points of origin coming into being on the near side of an obstruction, forgetting the requirement that it has been placed at a point you can't see. He's basically trying to rewrite the rules in that tweet and that interview, but makes no reference to the intent of the actual rules.

I linked the podcast directly when he started talking about the glass window, but a bit before that (around time mark 32:00) he reaffirms that you can't target something behind total cover, and total cover works as people would expect, i.e. you are behind something big that completely "conceals" you. However, he then goes on to explain that "clear" in the "clear path to the target" requirement is to be interpreted as in "free of obstacles", not as "you can see them", which to me is a clarification of the RAI among different RAW interpretations.

When I try to put everything together, I'm stuck in a loop:

• Clear path means that the target can't be behind total cover
• Total cover implies concealment
• "Clear" only means free of obstacle, but doesn't require being able to see the target.

Only way out I can find is if Crawford takes "concealed" as meaning that there is a physical barrier that completely covers the target, regardless of whether the barrier is transparent. I have always taken "concealed" as meaning "hidden from sight", but he also added that he has a lot of appreciation for people who are not native English speakers and how some rules are obfuscated by the subtleties of the language, so I called it a day.

 

[James Gasik]

I think the term "concealment" cannot be taken as literally "obscured" but as an example of what typically provides cover- ie, how much of the target is blocked by the cover (as normally, cover would conceal you). Otherwise you have non-sensical situations like an invisible wall not providing total cover because you can still see the target on the other side.

Cover has to be relative to the attack- a paper wall won't provide cover to a firearm, but a cinder block wall can, despite the fact in both cases an object is blocking the target.

Spells that require you to "see" the target is not bypassing cover- it's an additional requirement. The DM may rule that a particular substance cannot provide cover to non-physical spells, but it's worth noting that when cover does not apply to a spell is specifically stated in spell writeups (see sacred flame for an example), implying that the default is that cover is a consideration for all spells. Spells that don't have attack rolls or involve reflex saves don't mechanically interact with half or 3/4 cover of course, but if you are considered to have total cover, it should affect all spells.

But what about teleportation, you might ask? Compare and contrast misty step and dimension door. Misty Step states that you must see the target destination, Dimension Door specifically notes that you can "teleport blind" and has repercussions for appearing inside a solid object. Misty Step does not.

If one imagines a transparent wall 31' feet thick that somehow allows you to see clearly through it, what do you suppose would happen if you used Misty Step? You either have to include a ruling that you take damage, or that the spell simply fails, despite nothing in the spell's text implying this would be the case. On the other hand, if Misty Step is affected by total cover, then there would be no need for this extra text because the feat is simply impossible. And this text is lacking in the spell, but present in Dimension Door, despite the fact that Misty Step is a lower level spell, and it would make a lot more sense to have rules like this established earlier than later.

And yes, sure, Dimension Door is found earlier in the book than Misty Step, so it could be an oversight, but if so, it's a pretty damning one, since I think most players will encounter the latter before the former when looking up spells.

 

[Hriston]

I linked the podcast directly when he started talking about the glass window, but a bit before that (around time mark 32:00) he reaffirms that you can't target something behind total cover, and total cover works as people would expect, i.e. you are behind something big that completely "conceals" you. However, he then goes on to explain that "clear" in the "clear path to the target" requirement is to be interpreted as in "free of obstacles", not as "you can see them", which to me is a clarification of the RAI among different RAW interpretations.

Right, you don't have to be able to see the target. It could be dark, for example, even though there's a clear path.

When I try to put everything together, I'm stuck in a loop:

• Clear path means that the target can't be behind total cover
• Total cover implies concealment
• "Clear" only means free of obstacle, but doesn't require being able to see the target.

Only way out I can find is if Crawford takes "concealed" as meaning that there is a physical barrier that completely covers the target, regardless of whether the barrier is transparent. I have always taken "concealed" as meaning "hidden from sight", but he also added that he has a lot of appreciation for people who are not native English speakers and how some rules are obfuscated by the subtleties of the language, so I called it a day.

Yes, I think calling it a day is the correct response to that podcast. He's just incorrect on a number of points I've already gone over, but there's really no contradiction in your three bullet points. A clear path requires the target not to be completely concealed by an obstacle, but it could be concealed in other ways, such as darkness, so there's no requirement to be able to see the target.

I don't think JC offered an interpretation that took the word concealed into account. I think he forgot it existed. Concealed means kept secret or hidden. It has no other meaning. You can't conceal something in a transparent glass case. That's just complete nonsense.

 

[Baron Opal II]

In my game last night the party was exploring a tech dungeon with a bunch of abandoned damaged labs with dangerous stuff unleashed inside, but also possible loot and notes the party might want. Each lab was air sealed but had windows so you could see inside and sometimes controls on the outside to run experiments inside.

The question comes up with what can a spellcaster do through a glass window? Line of sight but a transparent barrier between them and things inside.

For me, physical objects block spells, regardless of whether or not they are transparent. This does mean the object is affected by them. A target is safe from hold person. A target is technically safe from a fireball or lighting bolt, but the spell then affects the barrier. The wooden wall and glass window are likely obliterated by the spell, and the target takes -10 damage or something. Maybe more from falling debris since the roof is now missing a support wall.

Teleportation spells and effects do not move through physical space but bypass it. You need to know where you are going, but as long as you don't appear in the middle of something you're good. Naturally, if you can see where you are going (through a window) you can avoid that complication.

Mental spells bypass physical barriers as well, but you need to know that something is there. So, you could theoretically charm person through a window, but you would need to have some means of communication to utilize it. ESP could detect a mind through a wall to subsequently charm, followed by a message to actually communicate your wishes to the target. Better to send someone with a strong Charisma at that point unless subterfuge is key.

Summoning spells call the entity to you, where you then make your demand. No point in trying to have it appear on the other side of a barrier.

That how I've ruled in the past.

 

[Voadam]

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.

COVER
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.
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.

Thinking about this a little more, if you go with targetting is only blocked by total cover and total cover only occurs if complete concealment by an obstacle you get an odd situation because you can have an obstruction without the obstruction providing concealment.

In a lighted situation under this interpretation the window does not conceal and so does not provide total cover so you can cast shatter through to start on the other side of the window.

Turn out the lights however and a bard trying to ranged shatter into the dark past the window casts the spell to come into existence past the window but the spell point of origin explicitly comes into existence on the near side of the obstruction.

You would have to interpret a closed window as not an obstruction to avoid that discrepancy.

 

[billd91]

Sometimes a thread is just so pointless that you...