@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford If a spell doesn't have words "target" or say "a point in space you can see" does it need line of sight?
— d20pfsrd.com (@d20pfsrd) June 27, 2016
You need to be able to see the target of your spell only if the spell's description says so. #DnD https://t.co/djWmsQjXJR
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 27, 2016
@d20pfsrd @JeremyECrawford believe that is correct – will typically specific a point or target you can see if LOS needed
— (((Mike Mearls))) (@mikemearls) June 27, 2016
@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford I'm unclear what you're saying Mike?
— d20pfsrd.com (@d20pfsrd) June 27, 2016
@d20pfsrd @JeremyECrawford whoah, auto correct… spell will include phrase like "point or target you can see" to specify LOS is needed
— (((Mike Mearls))) (@mikemearls) June 27, 2016
@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford what about line of effect, like making minor illusion of footsteps around a corner beyond line of effect?
— d20pfsrd.com (@d20pfsrd) June 27, 2016
@d20pfsrd @JeremyECrawford it'll be specified by language such as "you have a clear path to the target" or something similar
— (((Mike Mearls))) (@mikemearls) June 28, 2016
See "A Clear Path to the Target" (PH, 204) for whether your spell can target something behind total cover #DnD https://t.co/tQJKC5CuaR
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 27, 2016
@AardvarkBlue Came up last night – allowed Dissonant Whispers against a target inside a Darkness spell.
That's the spell working as intended— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) June 27, 2016
@samiam8910So an Ancient Dragon with Destructive Wave has the potential to wreck more than a Medium cleric doing the same? (Awesome) That's correct.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) July 12, 2016