9

The description of sacred flame reads (emphasis added):

Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw. (Player's Handbook, page 272)

Meanwhile, the opening paragraph describing cover reads (emphasis added):

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. (Player's Handbook, page 196)

Given that the first sentence of the description of sacred flame already explains that the effect originates above the target (as opposed to traveling from the caster to the target, which one might presume to be the default), why is it necessary to explicitly state that the spell ignores cover? So far I haven't found any other spell in the Player's Handbook that uses similar language.

Eddymage
  • 28,645
  • 3
  • 76
  • 150
AgentAquarius
  • 2,009
  • 2
  • 15
  • 28

4 Answers4

18

Partial cover grants a bonus to Dexterity saving throws, which Sacred Flames ignores.

An often forgotten section of the rules (emphasis mine):

Half 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.

Three-Quarters Cover

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.

Which means that a creature partly hidden by a table, which the DM rules to be granting half-cover, would have a +2 bonus to its Dexterity saving throw against Acid Splash, but not against Sacred Flame. This is an advantage of that spell and a mechanization of the flavor text "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature". You are right that no other spell has this particularity, though the feat Spell Sniper adds this benefit to all your ranged spell attacks, but not spells that require a saving throw.

Do note that you cannot target a creature with full cover, both because of the "that you can see within range" clause and because of spells requiring a clear path to the target, though there is some controversy for this.

Alex Millette
  • 5,761
  • 7
  • 28
  • 51
  • 8
    Sacred flame actually can target a creature behind full cover, so long as the caster can see the creature and it is within range. This is per jeremy crawford. – Ford Davis Dec 05 '23 at 16:35
  • 6
    @FordDavis Jeremy Crawford’s rulings are not official rulings. – Thomas Markov Dec 05 '23 at 17:29
  • 6
    @ThomasMarkov maybe not, but that's not some cooky houserule but follows from a pretty straightforward reading of what the spell says it does. – Cubic Dec 05 '23 at 18:48
  • I think theres “controversy” only in the sense that both answers to the linked question are good, but the top & bountied one is RAW, while the other one is about RAI. And by RAW it does not work, while by RAI according to JC it should. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Dec 06 '23 at 00:32
  • 2
    @FordDavis the problem with that is that a creature behind full cover cannot be seen by definition: "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." – Kryomaani Dec 06 '23 at 02:53
  • 1
    @Kryomaani: Consider a case of a creature hiding under a table, but caster far enough away (or crouched down) to see them. They have total cover from above, the direction Sacred Flame comes from (if it starts at the ceiling of the room rather than the underside of the table). They don't have total cover from the caster. Sacred flame "descending on" the target creature would hypothetically (if cover mattered) introduce a distinction between its point of origin vs. the clear-path-to-target from the caster to the target. (Or from the caster to a point above them?) – Peter Cordes Dec 06 '23 at 07:17
  • @Kryomaani I believe the example Crawford referred to in the ruling was if you are looking through a closed window and see a creature you could cast sacred flame on them. They explicitly said sacred flame ignores full cover. – Ford Davis Dec 06 '23 at 13:48
  • 1
    @Kryomaani: Concealed just means physically. It doesn't mean sight. A glass window provides full cover, as does a Wall of Force. But you can still see through them. Casting would normally be blocked in these scenarios, but Sacred Flame can still be cast. – Kyle Dec 06 '23 at 14:02
  • 1
    @Kyle What do you mean with "physically out of sight"? The common English meaning for "conceal" is to hide out of sight and no English-speaker would call a clear pane of glass as "concealing" something. Concealment as a concept is intrinsically linked to vision and in D&D 5e words have their natural English meaning unless specified otherwise. RAW, The creature behind a glass could however benefit from half or three-quarters cover as the wording on those does not require concealment, only cover. – Kryomaani Dec 06 '23 at 19:12
  • @Kryomaani I didn't say "physically out of sight." Why are you quoting something I never said? You can complain all you want, but the writers of the game have stated directly that a character behind a pane of glass has full cover, because they are, like the name says, "fully covered" by the glass. Are you telling me that you would let a character shoot an arrow through a Wall of Force just because they can see through it? – Kyle Dec 11 '23 at 18:07
  • @Kyle you said "Concealed just means physically". Concealed is synonymous with "out of sight". "the writers of the game have stated directly that a character behind a pane of glass has full cover" Could you point me to where they said this, it would be extremely helpful for making sense of the situation? "Are you telling me that you would let a character shoot an arrow through a Wall of Force" No, because Wall of Force specifically says "Nothing can physically pass through the wall.", not that it grants cover. – Kryomaani Dec 12 '23 at 11:04
9

Although 5e does not have a clear-cut distinction between flavor text and mechanics, "descends on a creature" sounds more like flavor text than mechanics, since "descends" does not have any specific meaning in the game. Even if we do interpret it as having mechanical importance, nothing about descending necessitates it ignores cover in all situations. Nowhere does it say the flame descends from directly above the creature; I can easily imagine a player arguing the flame descends at an angle and would be blocked by a tall obstacle, or that it descends from the sky and is blocked by a roof. I'm not saying those would be valid arguments, but that line is helpfully included to remove any and all ambiguity.

Matt
  • 353
  • 2
  • 1
    I note that the question itself, by stating "sacred flame already explains that the effect originates above the target", showcases the need for this clarification, because it implies that the direction of origin of the flame is important in determining cover (e.g., from a roof). So, without that clarification, those arguments might very well be valid. – Bielna Dec 05 '23 at 14:56
  • Or if the character is under a table, they'd have a good argument for a cover bonus, or even total cover from the direction of the flame. So the mechanical clarification is crucial in that case. – Peter Cordes Dec 06 '23 at 07:12
6

Cover can extend above a creature. Such as in the case of wall of force or force cage. Ignoring cover means sacred flame can extend through such objects.

Ford Davis
  • 169
  • 6
1

The issue I've seen no one bring up is (a) you don't roll attack to see if you make the AC threshold) (b) it hits automatically unless the targets resists it by rolling the saving throw, so an AC bonus from cover means nothing.

Combat rules are the rules unless the spell, ability or weapon states different.

KorvinStarmast
  • 143,146
  • 34
  • 471
  • 760
WiQiD gamer WiQiDgamer
  • 11
  • 1