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

Hriston said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

briggart said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Voadam said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hriston said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.