Does Create Pit cause structural damage?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I had a player who saw a 30 ft. high balcony being held up by 6 wide pillars. He asked what would happen if he did Create Pit underneath one of the pillars. Would it fall through, weakening the structure, and could he proceed to create more pits beneath the other pillars and cause it all to collapse?

I could not find anything in the spell concerning objects. What if you did create pit underneath a tree, for example? Or the corner of someone's small cabin, would it tilt inside?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell needs to be cast upon a horizontal surface; that's your key word. If there's a pillar, tree, or other solid obstacle in the way, it wouldn't entirely be a horizontal surface but, rather, would be part horizontal and part vertical. That doesn't count so the spell would fizzle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damaging Objects

Unattended, Non magical Objects wrote:
Unattended Non-Magical Items: Non-magical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus).

So the object should fall in the hole and take falling damage. Now as far as structural support goes, there really aren't rules for that.

Speaking as an engineer however, there are likely to be more pillars than necessary to hold it up, and they will be sturdier than necessary. Should be a safety factor of 10 (10 times the expected load at peak traffic) for things that lives will depend on to hold up.

However, removing enough pillars will alter the way stress affects the bridge, so removing enough of them should cause it to collapse. It just won't be one, unless this is a really shoddy bridge.


Kazaan wrote:
The spell needs to be cast upon a horizontal surface; that's your key word. If there's a pillar, tree, or other solid obstacle in the way, it wouldn't entirely be a horizontal surface but, rather, would be part horizontal and part vertical. That doesn't count so the spell would fizzle.

I'd have to disagree, things sitting on top of the surface do not count as protrusions to the surface. A tree is not literally part of the ground anymore than if I dug a hole and buried my feet up to my ankles I would be.

Otherwise, any adventure that manages to bury their feet in a small hole in the ground would cause create pit to fail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say that RAI would be no, you can't cause structural damage with the spell. The spell creates an extra dimensional space. The actual surface it is cast on is not damaged or affected in any way. Likely, the "horizontal surface" wording was designed to make sure the spell was only cast on flat open surfaces.

You could not for example cast the spell right next to a wall to undercut the wall. How are pillars different from a wall? Aren't they really just a wall with holes in it. What if it was just a series of arches? Would structural be different from decorative?

I would not allow this spell to be cast anywhere but a flat open space to prevent these kind of issues.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
The spell needs to be cast upon a horizontal surface; that's your key word. If there's a pillar, tree, or other solid obstacle in the way, it wouldn't entirely be a horizontal surface but, rather, would be part horizontal and part vertical. That doesn't count so the spell would fizzle.

I'd have to disagree, things sitting on top of the surface do not count as protrusions to the surface. A tree is not literally part of the ground anymore than if I dug a hole and buried my feet up to my ankles I would be.

Otherwise, any adventure that manages to bury their feet in a small hole in the ground would cause create pit to fail.

A protrusion makes something that's normally horizontal not completely horizontal. I would personally rule that requiring a horizontal surface means just that; if the surface is not completely horizontal, the spell fizzles. I've even seen rulings that say you can't cast create pit in the area someone just cast stone call because it has just created difficult terrain and that is non-horizontal.

PRD -emphasis mine- wrote:

CREATE PIT

School conjuration (creation); Level sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (miniature shovel costing 10 gp)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect 10-ft.-by-10-ft. hole, 10 ft. deep/2 levels
Duration 1 round + 1 round/level
Saving Throw Reflex negates; Spell Resistance no
You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material. You can create the pit in the deck of a ship as easily as in a dungeon floor or the ground of a forest. Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space. In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it. Creatures subjected to an effect intended to push them into the pit (such as bull rush) do not get a saving throw to avoid falling in if they are affected by the pushing effect.

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal. The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25. When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My TL:DR version:

If a casting of create pit would cause structural damage, then that structure is part of the horizontal surface and the spell would fizzle because of the above reasons.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Create Pit is a two-dimensional boundary dropping free standing objects into an extra-dimensional hole. It does not sever existing objects that intersect this boundry.

Pillars, trees, and most similar features are not merely resting on a surface, they are either physically attached to a foundation or extend well below the surface.


The Human Diversion wrote:


A protrusion makes something that's normally horizontal not completely horizontal. I would personally rule that requiring a horizontal surface means just that; if the surface is not completely horizontal, the spell fizzles. I've even seen rulings that say you can't cast create pit in the area someone just cast stone call because it has just created difficult terrain and that is non-horizontal.

Then technically by that definition you can't cast it when things are sitting under the surface and thus can't cast create pit under a creature. We know this is both ridiculous and not true because the spell specifically mentions you casting it under a creature.

So what is the difference between casting it under a creature and under a rock? Or a tree for that matter? What percentage has to be under the ground for it to be part of the surface, because a tree is not and never will be literally part of the ground. And if so, does the spell automatically fail if a person buries themselves to that extent under it?

I think you can see how ridiculous this becomes, but that is what it implies if you say that things sitting on a surface are part of the surface for purpose of this spell. That means you may never under any circumstance cast it underneath of a creature standing on the surface. Blatantly untrue, simply by reading the spell

Edit: And to artanthos I extend my question? At what point do you have to be buried for the spell to fail? Because anyone who knows anything about trees will tell you that the percentage of of the tree that resides under the ground varies enormously between species of trees. Does this spell then work on some trees and not others? Where is the cutoff point?

Can I spend a move action to dig a small hole with my hands and the entire area becomes incapable of having this spell cast on it?

Scarab Sages

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:


A protrusion makes something that's normally horizontal not completely horizontal. I would personally rule that requiring a horizontal surface means just that; if the surface is not completely horizontal, the spell fizzles. I've even seen rulings that say you can't cast create pit in the area someone just cast stone call because it has just created difficult terrain and that is non-horizontal.

Then technically by that definition you can't cast it when things are sitting under the surface and thus can't cast create pit under a creature. We know this is both ridiculous and not true because the spell specifically mentions you casting it under a creature.

So what is the difference between casting it under a creature and under a rock? Or a tree for that matter? What percentage has to be under the ground for it to be part of the surface, because a tree is not and never will be literally part of the ground. And if so, does the spell automatically fail if a person buries themselves to that extent under it?

I think you can see how ridiculous this becomes, but that is what it implies if you say that things sitting on a surface are part of the surface for purpose of this spell. That means you may never under any circumstance cast it underneath of a creature standing on the surface. Blatantly untrue, simply by reading the spell

Creatures are not typically physically attached to the surface upon which they are standing.


Artanthos wrote:
Creatures are not typically physically attached to the surface upon which they are standing.

Technically neither are trees. They're just buried enough to become difficult to move. And using that definition when a person is, once again, buried significantly enough, they are now one with the earth. They're not attached anymore than a person behind a mostly closed door is attached to the door because the door is resistant to you pulling them through the door frame.

Sovereign Court

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Then technically by that definition you can't cast it when things are sitting under the surface and thus can't cast create pit under a creature. We know this is both ridiculous and not true because the spell specifically mentions you casting it under a creature.

So what is the difference between casting it under a creature and under a rock? Or a tree for that matter? What percentage has to be under the ground for it to be part of the surface, because a tree is not and never will be literally part of the ground. And if so, does the spell automatically fail if a person buries themselves to that extent under it?

I think you can see how ridiculous this becomes, but that is what it implies if you say that things sitting on a surface are part of the surface for purpose of this spell. That means you may never under any circumstance cast it underneath of a creature standing on the surface. Blatantly untrue, simply by reading the spell

If something above the surface of a 10'x10' square is significant enough to be providing structure, then the 10'x10' square is not a suitable location to place the spell. That's my personal ruling. You're free to rule it any way you want, but just like my ruling you may or may not have people disagreeing.

If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a chair or dog or potted plant there, the spell would go off and they'd likely fall (although the dog would get a saving throw). If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a tree that is taking up enough of a 5' square to make that impassable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.

I use similar logic in maps of caves. If the majority of the 5' square is covered in rock, you'd have to squeeze to occupy that square. If they majority of any one of the 4 squares you want to cast Create Pit into is occupied by non-passable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.


The Human Diversion wrote:

If something above the surface of a 10'x10' square is significant enough to be providing structure, then the 10'x10' square is not a suitable location to place the spell. That's my personal ruling. You're free to rule it any way you want, but just like my ruling you may or may not have people disagreeing.

If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a chair or dog or potted plant there, the spell would go off and they'd likely fall (although the dog would get a saving throw). If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a tree that is taking up enough of a 5' square to make that impassable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.

I use similar logic in maps of caves. If the majority of the 5' square is covered in rock, you'd have to squeeze to occupy that square. If they majority of any one of the 4 squares you want to cast Create Pit into is occupied by non-passable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.

So technically small enough trees and pillars should still allow this to go off... I'm just going to facepalm and walk away.


What if the ground was littered with dense rubble? Or jagged crystals protruding? Or what if the surface has bushes? You can pass through such terrain (though it's difficult) and the spell says nothing about it not working on difficult horizontal terrain?

Scarab Sages

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Creatures are not typically physically attached to the surface upon which they are standing.
Technically neither are trees. They're just buried enough to become difficult to move. And using that definition when a person is, once again, buried significantly enough, they are now one with the earth. They're not attached anymore than a person behind a mostly closed door is attached to the door because the door is resistant to you pulling them through the door frame.

Read my above comments regarding trees.

The boundary created by Create Pit does not sever the tree from its roots. As the tree remains anchored to the ground, it is not going to move. This creates the circumstance where the pit is being cast on a non-horizontal surface, features of that surface extend both above and below the two dimensional plane of the boundary.

Sovereign Court

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So technically small enough trees and pillars should still allow this to go off... I'm just going to facepalm and walk away.

Is it passable? Then the spell goes off. Is it impassable? Then it's not a horizontal space.

I'm not sure why you consider that to be so logic-disrupting and face-palm worthy.

Barachiel Shina wrote:
What if the ground was littered with dense rubble? Or jagged crystals protruding? Or what if the surface has bushes? You can pass through such terrain (though it's difficult) and the spell says nothing about it not working on difficult horizontal terrain?

I made the point about Stone Call to point out the narrow rulings I've seen made in the past.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Creatures are not typically physically attached to the surface upon which they are standing.
Technically neither are trees. They're just buried enough to become difficult to move. And using that definition when a person is, once again, buried significantly enough, they are now one with the earth. They're not attached anymore than a person behind a mostly closed door is attached to the door because the door is resistant to you pulling them through the door frame.

And how far above or below the terrain the spell should go to appease your way of seeing things?

"Oh, a tree, I cast create pit to uproot it." Really?

Artanthos way of managing create pit is way better.
If an obstruction require something more than simply picking up an object and moving it it is relevant enough that it will make the area an invalid target for the spell.

You can't cast create pit under the main mast of a ship to dismast it. You can cast create pit to uproot a tree.
And yes, a person buried in the sand an unable to walk away without digging him out will make the area an invalid target for the spell

Thomas Long 175 wrote:


So technically small enough trees and pillars should still allow this to go off... I'm just going to facepalm and walk away.

Yes, a few trees or a fence will make the area an invalid target for teh spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Create Pit spell isn't actually "digging" a pit in the ground; the pit is an extra-dimensional space. For example, you could cast Create Pit on the deck of a ship or second floor of a house and it wouldn't "protrude" into the deck/floor underneath; it could be a 10 foot deep pit but you walk down stairs and it's just solid ceiling above you and zero indication that a pit was just made. In other words, the pit is "superimposed" upon the surface, not dug down into it. So rubble underground has absolutely zero effect on the spell. However, a tree that protrudes up from the ground does, indeed, create a problem because you are, essentially, slicing the tree off at the trunk right at the surface. Same goes for a support pillar. It wouldn't simply rest on the ground; it'd be buried deep. The spell cannot "slice" through material so any material that extends down from the surface effectively blocks the spell. So yes, that means that someone burying themselves ankle-deep would effectively block the spell. Now, if you wanted to cast it under the wheel of a wagon, that's a whole other story. But for buried support beams, it's a no-go.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
You can't cast create pit under the main mast of a ship to dismast it. You can cast create pit to uproot a tree.

I fail to see how these two are any different.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Artanthos way of managing create pit is way better.
If an obstruction require something more than simply picking up an object and moving it it is relevant enough that it will make the area an invalid target for the spell.

Curse me and my inability to walk away from an argument.

Not really it isn't. Now I can dig a small hole, bury my backpack with just the tip sticking out, and that would be enough to block this spell.

Or are we really going to argue about how much force should be required to pick up the object and move it?

I recently made a character with a heavy load of 45 million. I'm pretty sure he could pick up any number of trees and carry them away. Does this spell automatically work differently for him than a 7 strength halfling?

Because, once again, trees are not attached to the ground. They simply require significant force to uproot them. So they still fit under the classification of picking up an object and moving it.

What it will take to "appease my way of seeing things," as you so rudely put it, is to actually have an internal logic that is function. Aka, trees are not, have never been, and will never be part of the ground anymore that anything else that is buried is part of the ground. And if so, what happens when an adventure sticks an immovable rod in a hole in the ground. Do immovable rods auto counter this spell? What is the necessary level of effort before something becomes "part of the ground" for the purpose of blocking this spell? How did you decide that point, or is it arbitrary?

Sovereign Court

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Curse me and my inability to walk away from an argument.

Not really it isn't. Now I can dig a small hole, bury my backpack with just the tip sticking out, and that would be enough to block this spell.

Or are we really going to argue about how much force should be required to pick up the object and move it?

I recently made a character with a heavy load of 45 million. I'm pretty sure he could pick up any number of trees and carry them away. Does this spell automatically work differently for him than a 7 strength halfling?

Because, once again, trees are not attached to the ground. They simply require significant force to uproot them. So they still fit under the classification of picking up an object and moving it.

What it will take to "appease my way of seeing things," as you so rudely put it, is to actually have an internal logic that is function. Aka, trees are not, have never been, and will never be part of the ground anymore that anything else that is buried is part of the ground. And if so, what happens when an adventure sticks an immovable rod in a hole in the ground. Do immovable rods auto counter this spell? What is the necessary level of effort before something becomes "part of the ground" for the purpose of blocking this spell? How did you decide that point, or is it arbitrary?

It would seem to me that you came here seeking justification for the way you rule and are not getting that, how about we agree to disagree and you rule it your way and we'll rule it our way? For me, that's going to be, "do any of the 4 squares you're trying to cast into have more than 50% of said square as impassable terrain? If yes, the spell does not go off."

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Artanthos way of managing create pit is way better.
If an obstruction require something more than simply picking up an object and moving it it is relevant enough that it will make the area an invalid target for the spell.

Curse me and my inability to walk away from an argument.

Not really it isn't. Now I can dig a small hole, bury my backpack with just the tip sticking out, and that would be enough to block this spell.

If you really want to be pedantic, then yes.

The boundary of the spell cannot intersect a contiguous object.

The more common sense reading would discount minor variations in surface features, but still disallow inclusion of permanent features.


The Human Diversion wrote:
It would seem to me that you came here seeking justification for the way you rule and are not getting that, how about we agree to disagree and you rule it your way and we'll rule it our way? For me, that's going to be, "do any of the 4 squares you're trying to cast into have more than 50% of said square as impassable terrain? If yes, the spell does not go off."

Not really, though at this point we're arguing the merits of each interpretation for the OP to decide which he prefers to use.

With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

With yours, every single instance is going to have to be argued separately. There isn't really any consistency its more of "Do I feel like this tree I made up right now and has no actual specifications for its size is large enough to block the spell?"

For Artanthos it comes down to an immovable rod being shoved into the ground auto negates every pit spell in the game.

Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

Scarab Sages

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

Provide a link to RAW stating the spell is capable of inflicting structural damage or cutting otherwise solid objects.

Horizontal wrote:
flat or level:

If if up to you how pedantic you want to be in your interpretation of horizontal, but common sense precludes most terrain features (floors, foundations, and paved areas excepted).

Sovereign Court

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Not really, though at this point we're arguing the merits of each interpretation for the OP to decide which he prefers to use.

With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

With yours, every single instance is going to have to be argued separately. There isn't really any consistency its more of "Do I feel like this tree I made up right now and has no actual specifications for its size is large enough to block the spell?"

For Artanthos it comes down to an immovable rod being shoved into the ground auto negates every pit spell in the game.

Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

I really get the impression you're trying to paint me in a negative light, as though I just whimsicly decide when to allow a spell and when not to and justify it by saying "ooopsie, there was a tree in that square and it doesn't work."

If you're using a published adventure, the maps are pretty clear about what's in a square and what's not. If you're the GM, you should have a clear idea in mind about what's in a square and what's not. To me, if any of the squares are more than 50% filled with impassable terrain, that would make for a non-horizontal surface. It's not really that difficult, and it's not really subject to whimsicle interpretation.

As for "arguing every single instance" It even works for your favorite (or least favorite) trees - is that a tiny little sapling that a medium creature could fit in the same square as without squeezing? Then the spell goes off. Is that a 100 year old tree that takes up the bulk of the square? Then the spell doesn't go off.

To me that's clean cut. I'm sorry if you find tiny flaws and incredibly subjective and unlikely scenarios to use as examples to punch holes in what I see as quick logic that will work in games I run.

Again, you seem like you are set on your interpretation, that's fine, but I certainly don't appreciate that you've been trying to paint me here as taking an unstable stance and using whimsy to push my argument just because we have differing opinions.


The problem is trying to rationalize this spell with our mundane physical laws. Nothing in the spell says it can't intersect a contiguous object just that the surface must be horizontal. In fact it specifically states it can be cast on the deck of a ship which means it will intersect all the contiguous objects on the decks below the one on which it is cast. If it can intersect objects on one side of the surface there is no reason it shouldn't be able to do so on both sides. So something intersecting the horizontal surface doesn't matter to the spell.

However, any object intersected by the extradimensional space isn't really severed from its whole. So you can cast this spell on the ground to intersect a tree, mast or pillar but the integrity of the tree, mast or pillar isn't going to be compromised because they are still connected in our dimension to the rest of their parts. However, the part of our dimension containing those parts is no longer normally accessible because an extradimensional space is in the way. The two areas are occupying the same space at the same time in two different dimensions.

Not sure I explained that understandably because the whole concept of extradimensional spaces is wonky.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You can't cast create pit under the main mast of a ship to dismast it. You can cast create pit to uproot a tree.
I fail to see how these two are any different.

Dammit, I should proofread before pushing submit. It was "You can't cast create pit to uproot a tree."


The Human Diversion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Not really, though at this point we're arguing the merits of each interpretation for the OP to decide which he prefers to use.

With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

With yours, every single instance is going to have to be argued separately. There isn't really any consistency its more of "Do I feel like this tree I made up right now and has no actual specifications for its size is large enough to block the spell?"

For Artanthos it comes down to an immovable rod being shoved into the ground auto negates every pit spell in the game.

Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

I really get the impression you're trying to paint me in a negative light, as though I just whimsicly decide when to allow a spell and when not to and justify it by saying "ooopsie, there was a tree in that square and it doesn't work."

If you're using a published adventure, the maps are pretty clear about what's in a square and what's not. If you're the GM, you should have a clear idea in mind about what's in a square and what's not. To me, if any of the squares are more than 50% filled with impassable terrain, that would make for a non-horizontal surface. It's not really that difficult, and it's not really subject to whimsicle interpretation.

As for "arguing every single instance" It even works for your favorite (or least favorite) trees - is that a tiny little sapling that a medium creature could fit in the same square as without squeezing? Then the spell goes off. Is that a 100 year old tree that takes up the bulk of the square? Then the spell doesn't go off.

To me that's clean cut. I'm sorry if you find tiny flaws and incredibly subjective and unlikely scenarios to use as examples to punch holes in what I see as quick logic that will work in games I run.

Again, you seem like you are set on your interpretation, that's fine, but I certainly don't appreciate that you've been trying to paint me here as...

I never said you were whimsical. If you're reading negative things thats all on you because I haven't insulted you in the least. I disagree with your methodology, as it creates an entirely fiat basis on whether a spell works or not, which is my main argument against it.

As for Artanthos. Show me the rule where it says that create pit at all? Not in the spell? Must not do it. Oh wait, falling damage. Well there you go, it must do falling damage to the now unsupported portion of the structure that falls. Actually as has been shown, your "common sense" has a lot of flaws with people disagreeing on where it works and doesn't?

Just above someone else though it would allow it to work on trees but not structures and RavingDork asked why it would work for one not the other. Honestly, your ruling comes down to, it either works for all of them or none of them, and if it doesn't then because "reasons." Which is honestly a pretty crappy way to make a ruling.

Sovereign Court

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

The problem is trying to rationalize this spell with our mundane physical laws. Nothing in the spell says it can't intersect a contiguous object just that the surface must be horizontal. In fact it specifically states it can be cast on the deck of a ship which means it will intersect all the contiguous objects on the decks below the one on which it is cast. If it can intersect objects on one side of the surface there is no reason it shouldn't be able to do so on both sides. So something intersecting the horizontal surface doesn't matter to the spell.

However, any object intersected by the extradimensional space isn't really severed from its whole. So you can cast this spell on the ground to intersect a tree, mast or pillar but the integrity of the tree, mast or pillar isn't going to be compromised because they are still connected in our dimension to the rest of their parts. However, the part of our dimension containing those parts is no longer normally accessible because an extradimensional space is in the way. The two areas are occupying the same space at the same time in two different dimensions.

Not sure I explained that understandably because the whole concept of extradimensional spaces is wonky.

The "below decks" never enter into it, think of the pit as merely a 10' x 10' doorway to a pocket dimension, and that doorway can only be opened on a 10' x 10' horizontal surface. A high level wizard could use create pit to make a 40' deep pit on the roof of a house that has 4 stories and none of the 4 stories will interact in the slightest with the pit because it's simply just a doorway to a pit in another dimension.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Artanthos way of managing create pit is way better.
If an obstruction require something more than simply picking up an object and moving it it is relevant enough that it will make the area an invalid target for the spell.

Curse me and my inability to walk away from an argument.

Not really it isn't. Now I can dig a small hole, bury my backpack with just the tip sticking out, and that would be enough to block this spell.

Or are we really going to argue about how much force should be required to pick up the object and move it?

I recently made a character with a heavy load of 45 million. I'm pretty sure he could pick up any number of trees and carry them away. Does this spell automatically work differently for him than a 7 strength halfling?

Because, once again, trees are not attached to the ground. They simply require significant force to uproot them. So they still fit under the classification of picking up an object and moving it.

What it will take to "appease my way of seeing things," as you so rudely put it, is to actually have an internal logic that is function. Aka, trees are not, have never been, and will never be part of the ground anymore that anything else that is buried is part of the ground. And if so, what happens when an adventure sticks an immovable rod in a hole in the ground. Do immovable rods auto counter this spell? What is the necessary level of effort before something becomes "part of the ground" for the purpose of blocking this spell? How did you decide that point, or is it arbitrary?

Exactly what is "part of the ground"?

And why it should matter as the spell say nothing about the ground? It say: "You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size."
It can be a tarpaulin stretched over some poles, a piece of flat ground, the third floor of a house. It don't matter. What matter is that it should be a 10'x10' horizontal surface.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

Again, irrelevant. It is a flat surface? No, it isn't if there is a tree in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it, if all squares of the target area counts as terrain which is valid to move on without requiring flight, burrowing, swimming, climbing, or escape artist checks to squeeze, then it works.

A non-horizontal surface requires one or more of these things.

Sovereign Court

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I never said you were whimsical. If you're reading negative things thats all on you because I haven't insulted you in the least. I disagree with your methodology, as it creates an entirely fiat basis on whether a spell works or not, which is my main argument against it.

Yes, because responding with "*facepalm*" or using words like "ridiculous" is non-confrontational at all.

Anyway, I'm done here. I've said what my ruling is (and determining if a square is more than 50% impassable -to me- is about as non-subjective as you can get) and you've disagreed with it. I would guess you just can't stand to be wrong and you'll reply to this. That's fine. We'll have our different rulings and Pathfinder will go on.

Liberty's Edge

Malignor wrote:

The way I see it, if all squares of the target area counts as terrain which is valid to move on without requiring flight, burrowing, swimming, climbing, or escape artist checks to squeeze, then it works.

A non-horizontal surface requires one or more of these things.

Stairs.

No check required and if they are gentle enough they don't count as difficult terrain, but they are very far away from an horizontal surface.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Exactly what is "part of the ground"?
And why it should matter as the spell say nothing about the ground? It say: "You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size."
It can be a tarpaulin stretched over some poles, a piece of flat ground, the third floor of a house. It don't matter. What matter is that it should be a 10'x10' horizontal surface.

I suppose I should say surface but for the purpose of my argument with Artanthos is he claims a tree should auto block the casting of the spell as it counts as a protrusion and part of the ground, therefore making the ground no flat.

My objection is a good bit this. Nowhere in the spell does it say nothing can stick out of the ground. It says the surface must be flat. Ok. The surface is flat with something that is not part of the surface sticking out of it.

At which point it got into an argument for all intents and purposes of when does something then become part of the ground? I can come up with all kinds of shenanigans that auto negate the entire create pit series of spells simply by inserting an object into the ground. I feel like this is a major flaw in the ruling in and of itself that a stick shoved into the ground would negate the casting of even higher level magics. However that is the logical outcome of saying things poking out of the ground auto negate them.

I like Human divisions ruling a tad more, where basically a square requiring squeezing would block the casting of the spell, but that gets into things resting on the surface block the casting of this spell. Not to mention, whether an area requires squeezing to fit there is rather ambiguous in most cases, making casting the spell hit or miss and entirely up to fiat. Something, if it hasn't caught on, I entirely disdain.

Liberty's Edge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

The problem is trying to rationalize this spell with our mundane physical laws. Nothing in the spell says it can't intersect a contiguous object just that the surface must be horizontal. In fact it specifically states it can be cast on the deck of a ship which means it will intersect all the contiguous objects on the decks below the one on which it is cast. If it can intersect objects on one side of the surface there is no reason it shouldn't be able to do so on both sides. So something intersecting the horizontal surface doesn't matter to the spell.

However, any object intersected by the extradimensional space isn't really severed from its whole. So you can cast this spell on the ground to intersect a tree, mast or pillar but the integrity of the tree, mast or pillar isn't going to be compromised because they are still connected in our dimension to the rest of their parts. However, the part of our dimension containing those parts is no longer normally accessible because an extradimensional space is in the way. The two areas are occupying the same space at the same time in two different dimensions.

Not sure I explained that understandably because the whole concept of extradimensional spaces is wonky.

Create Pit wrote:
Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material.

It don't intersect at all the other side. It is not a vertical passwall. Read the spell.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Again, irrelevant. It is a flat surface? No, it isn't if there is a tree in it.

Then you are in concordance with me. I shall remember to carry 20 arrows in your game and stick one in the ground in my square. Then when any wizard attempts to cast create pit under me, I will tell you "Can't, not a flat surface, there's something poking out."

Later on, I'll get an immovable rod so you can't use mage hand or such on it.


Err... I don't have much to say, but I saw a post about using create pit on a tree, and I couldn't resist the urge to chip in.

I learned in grade school that trees are like, bigger underground than above ground. So even small trees are like, really really really rooted into the earth.

I also think that if you can cast create pit to cut trees, you can also cast create pit to sever purple worms and other burrowing creatures with readied actions. That acutally sounds kinda cool to me, but I probably wouldn't let that fly at my table. Unless my players seemed super excited about it and I felt whimsical.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

To be truly pedantic, stars are not permanent. They only burn for a few billion years (depending on mass and metal content).

In the scale of a human lifetime, trees are permanent features unless something significant removes them.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Again, irrelevant. It is a flat surface? No, it isn't if there is a tree in it.

Then you are in concordance with me. I shall remember to carry 20 arrows in your game and stick one in the ground in my square. Then when any wizard attempts to cast create pit under me, I will tell you "Can't, not a flat surface, there's something poking out."

Later on, I'll get an immovable rod so you can't use mage hand or such on it.

Does your racial description explicitly define you as having hands?

No?

How are you manipulating your arrows?

Pedantry is fun, is it not?

The rules are written assuming common sense. The moment you discard that, the game becomes unplayable.


I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

Scarab Sages

Deadalready wrote:

I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

That equates to my position.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Deadalready wrote:

I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

That equates to my position.

It's more like a 20x20 mat. You need to account for the sloped edges.

Sovereign Court

Deadalready wrote:

I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

I think this is a good rule of thumb. It has the semblance of sanity.

You might refine it a little bit by saying you're allowed to lift up unattached things (like people) to roll out the portable hole, and then drop them in.

And I suppose then you gotta wonder: if there's a boulder lying there, can it fall in? An earth elemental could fall in (assuming the Int 4 critter isn't doing something overly clever), so why not a boulder?

And then we come to the load-bearing column that's not rooted in the ground... yeah, it makes sense to me that it could fall in as well.

*shrug* so maybe you can damage buildings that are built without the right kind of foundations. I'm fine with that. You could just as well cause structural damage with other spells at that level, like setting the building on fire with a Flaming Sphere. And a proper fortress will probably have the kind of foundations that prevent this chicanery. But if it works on a slapdash orc fortification, well that's just funny.


I think the best way to phrase the question is can I use create pit for bad wrong fun, such as collapsing a tower, tumbling castle walls, caving in something and dropping a ton of debris upon someone's head.

The answer I think is very situational, that yes maybe once in a blue moon you can do something totally awesome and beyond the written scope of the spell, but most of the time the strict limitations of the spell prevent such events.

My humble opinion: With one use of the spell you might be able to topple a single pillar, but the results would be random....

Including the pillar remains upright but is merely shortened.

Grand Lodge

This is an extremely easy question. Create Pit only effects creatures.

Quote:

You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material. You can create the pit in the deck of a ship as easily as in a dungeon floor or the ground of a forest. Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space. In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it. Creatures subjected to an effect intended to push them into the pit (such as bull rush) do not get a saving throw to avoid falling in if they are affected by the pushing effect.

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal. The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25. When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.

Nothing in here implies that this pit does anything to objects.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Haha. That is so queer!

That sounds more like a mind-affecting illusion effect, rather than a transmutation effect, claudekennilol. After reading the spell more closely, I think that you must be right, but I suppose much of the above discussion can still be applied to portable holes and their effects on various things.

Scarab Sages

Ascalaphus wrote:
Deadalready wrote:

I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

I think this is a good rule of thumb. It has the semblance of sanity.

You might refine it a little bit by saying you're allowed to lift up unattached things (like people) to roll out the portable hole, and then drop them in.

Assumed, or the spell would not function.

Quote:
And I suppose then you gotta wonder: if there's a boulder lying there, can it fall in? An earth elemental could fall in (assuming the Int 4 critter isn't doing something overly clever), so why not a boulder?

Resting on the ground, yes. Extending below ground, no.

Quote:
And then we come to the load-bearing column that's not rooted in the ground... yeah, it makes sense to me that it could fall in as well.

Not rooted, sure. However, most load bearing supports will not be free standing. Load bearing supports tend to either have foundations or are deeply embedded.

Quote:
*shrug* so maybe you can damage buildings that are built without the right kind of foundations. I'm fine with that. You could just as well cause structural damage with other spells at that level, like setting the building on fire with a Flaming Sphere. And a proper fortress will probably have the kind of foundations that prevent this chicanery. But if it works on a slapdash orc fortification, well that's just funny.

Poorly constructed buildings would not be difficult to knock down with any number of methods. I would expect a properly constructed castle wall to account for enemy sappers, something far more destructive than a mere 10x10 pit.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

This is an extremely easy question. Create Pit only effects creatures.

Quote:

You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material. You can create the pit in the deck of a ship as easily as in a dungeon floor or the ground of a forest. Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space. In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it. Creatures subjected to an effect intended to push them into the pit (such as bull rush) do not get a saving throw to avoid falling in if they are affected by the pushing effect.

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal. The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25. When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.

Nothing in here implies that this pit does anything to objects.

It also pretty much answers the question of if a tree would prevent the spell. Notice that one of the examples of a suitable surface is "the ground of a forest", which would normally have trees.

At this point, I think the easiest way to deal with it is have it not affect any pillars or trees in the way (they are still connected to the original surface) while things not nailed down go into the pit. The spell doesn't define what happens but the given example makes me think the tree does not block the spell nor does the tree fall.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Deadalready wrote:

I think people are over thinking things, this spell creates a portal to another dimension. Think of it like placing a 10x10 portable hole on the floor.

Can you roll a 10x10 mat onto the exact same space?
Yes: you can cast create pit there
No: no you can't cast create pit there

That equates to my position.
It's more like a 20x20 mat. You need to account for the sloped edges.

I think that what matter is the 10'x10' area, the spell effect is "Effect 10-ft.-by-10-ft. hole, 10 ft. deep/2 levels".

claudekennilol wrote:

This is an extremely easy question. Create Pit only effects creatures.

Quote:

You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material. You can create the pit in the deck of a ship as easily as in a dungeon floor or the ground of a forest. Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space. In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it. Creatures subjected to an effect intended to push them into the pit (such as bull rush) do not get a saving throw to avoid falling in if they are affected by the pushing effect.

Creatures who fall into the pit take falling damage as normal. The pit's coarse stone walls have a Climb DC of 25. When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.

Nothing in here implies that this pit does anything to objects.
Ravingdork wrote:

Haha. That is so queer!

That sounds more like a mind-affecting illusion effect, rather than a transmutation effect, claudekennilol. After reading the spell more closely, I think that you must be right, but I suppose much of the above discussion can still be applied to portable holes and their effects on various things.

The effect is a pit. The spell cite creatures getting a reflex saving throw because unattended object don't roll reflex ST.

It don't say that object don't fall into a pit. It say that only creatures get a ST, for unattended objects it work as any other pit.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
I think that what matter is the 10'x10' area, the spell effect is "Effect 10-ft.-by-10-ft. hole, 10 ft. deep/2 levels".

So, under your interpretation, I could cast this spell in a flat, 10-foot wide hallway, then squeeze/escape artist underneath the nearby wall, since the slope that is created is not counted for the purposes of placement?

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Create Pit cause structural damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.