From my interpretation the spell is effective in a certain area so the wall of iron should not matter. If the wind wall flowed from A to B then it might work.
If you allow the wall of iron to block the wind wall, then what happens if some obstruction(such as a wall of iron) is already on the ground before the wind wall spell is cast? Does the wind wall start on top on the wall of iron? If so and the wall of iron is removed does it(the wind wall's origin) then go to the ground for a new starting point?
The way I see it the wind wall just flows upwards, but has no definite starting point.
edit:added the word "it"
edit2: changed "wall of stone" to "wall of iron".
From my interpretation the spell is effective in a certain area so the wall of iron should not matter. If the wind wall flowed from A to B then it might work.
If you allow the wall of stone to block the wind wall, then what happens if some obstruction(such as a wall of iron) is already on the ground before the wind wall spell is cast? Does the wind wall start on top on the wall of iron? If so and the wall of iron is removed does it(the wind wall's origin) then go to the ground for a new starting point?
Now we're getting some good quality arguments!
The way I see the wind wall just flows upwards, but has no definite starting point.
I'm inclined to agree, though I might rule differently if only to reward my players' creativity (and because beating a lower level spell with creative use of a higher level spell is hardly broken).
I'm certainly open to the differing interpretations people have presented here, except for when they their interpretations clearly go against clear RAW. The spell clearly says the wind blows things upwards. There are no "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.
The if, and, or but is that you've decided this means a lot more than it actually does.
I mean, you've made a decision for your game. I support that, and more power to you . . . but since you've already decided what the right answer is and your intention is to defend that interpretation as correct rather than actually approach the question with anything resembling an open mind, what's the point?
It's fine to be a debater; to post something under the guise of seeking advice when what you really want is a debate in which interpretations no less valid than your own will be brushed off is kind of jerky though, IMHO. It's like being the kid who invites you to play with his ball but doesn't inform you that he's only interested in playing if he can win.
The if, and, or but is that you've decided this means a lot more than it actually does.
I mean, you've made a decision for your game. I support that, and more power to you . . . but since you've already decided what the right answer is and your intention is to defend that interpretation as correct rather than actually approach the question with anything resembling an open mind, what's the point?
It's fine to be a debater; to post something under the guise of seeking advice when what you really want is a debate in which interpretations no less valid than your own will be brushed off is kind of jerky though, IMHO. It's like being the kid who invites you to play with his ball but doesn't inform you that he's only interested in playing if he can win.
You may not understand why I do the things I do. I imagine it's very much like how I don't understand why people think they can put up a good argument when they don't even bother read the rules first sometimes.
It's one thing to voice an interpretation of a rule, it's quite another to contradict a rule outright.
(Please know that this isn't an attack on any one person, but rather a generalization.)
Have a question: If you summon a wall of iron next to a wind wall, would not the wind wall blow the wall of iron away from it???
After all, my understanding is:
You have to summon the wall or iron Vertical.
Would not the wind wall push the wall of iron away.
If a wall of iron did fall on a wind wall, i think the wind wall would lose (lower level spell defeated by higher level spell).
On the other hand, if i could, i would just cast wind wall again; right on top of the wall of iron, and back to business.
That's just not true at all.
You seem to usually have an end in mind and try to turn the ruling towards that end. You will only accept an absolute flat contradiction with raw, but of course language isn't strict enough for that to happen. You also depend very heavily on the "you can't prove its false so it must be true" line of thinking. It doesn't say that hitting the caster with a rubber chicken won't end the spell, therefore hitting the caster with a rubber chicken might end the spell.
Effect wall up to 10 ft./level long and 5 ft./level high (S)
the effect is not a non dimensional fan on the ground to be covered up. The wall is just that.. a wall. The chief definition of a wall is that it exists in the vertical and horizontal (width) planes. This wall is also 2 feet thick. While it is blowing up, it specifically exists everywhere (like a curtain) from its base to its height. It is not described as emanating only from the ground
Treating it like a giant fan on the ground allows the spell to be overcome by any wall (except a wall of fire), stone shape, a horizontally placed tower shield, a medium or larger character simply standing in the wall, entangle, a horse, a peasant with a shovel, enemy corpses, resilient sphere...
While i understand the spell was giving your party problems, they could have walked through it and taken out their melee weapons if they had no other way to deal with the wall. if the caster was flying they could have walked into the casters space and shot strait up (since the spell is shapable and the smalest dimension you can make is 10', all four should be able to fit inside the cylinder of wind and shot/stabbed him.
If he has wall of iron and doesn't have a pocket full of dispel magic scrolls then live and learn.
You also depend very heavily on the "you can't prove its false so it just might be true" line of thinking.
Fixed it for you.
It doesn't say that hitting the caster with a rubber chicken won't end the spell, therefore hitting the caster with a rubber chicken might end the spell.
You can't really look at things in a vaccuum. Doing so can be misleading. The whole point of the concentration rules is to represent a spellcaster maintaining concentration on a spell. If a spellcaster is being beat over the head by a rubber chicken (made me laugh, thanks for that) then it stands to reason that he is distracted, and may have to make concentration checks.
Effect wall up to 10 ft./level long and 5 ft./level high (S)
the effect is not a non dimensional fan on the ground to be covered up. The wall is just that.. a wall. The chief definition of a wall is that it exists in the vertical and horizontal (width) planes. This wall is also 2 feet thick. While it is blowing up, it specifically exists everywhere (like a curtain) from its base to its height. It is not described as emanating only from the ground
Treating it like a giant fan on the ground allows the spell to be overcome by any wall (except a wall of fire), stone shape, a horizontally placed tower shield, a medium or larger character simply standing in the wall, entangle, a horse, a peasant with a shovel, enemy corpses, resilient sphere...
Good points all. I would like to point out that a magical "fan on the ground" would still create a vertical "wall" of wind much like you describe. I submit to you then that, without a developer clarifying otherwise, both interpretations can be correct.
|
From my interpretation the spell is effective in a certain area so the wall of iron should not matter. If the wind wall flowed from A to B then it might work.
If you allow the wall of stone to block the wind wall, then what happens if some obstruction(such as a wall of iron) is already on the ground before the wind wall spell is cast? Does the wind wall start on top on the wall of iron? If so and the wall of iron is removed does it(the wind wall's origin) then go to the ground for a new starting point?
Now we're getting some good quality arguments!
The way I see the wind wall just flows upwards, but has no definite starting point.I'm inclined to agree, though I might rule differently if only to reward my players' creativity (and because beating a lower level spell with creative use of a higher level spell is hardly broken).
I tend to go with this idea. There is no definitive origin point for the wind. And though my gut says the iron wall shouldn't have any meaningful effect on the wind wall, I think I would rule in favor of the party just for the creative use of the spell.
NOW, if the story required the wind wall to win, the iron wall would not be able to affect the wind wall. IF the story was not dependent upon the wind wall, then I'd rule in favor of the players just for the "cool" factor.
Regardless of RAW says, sometimes the rules are just plain in the way for a story. Back in the day, (sounding like an old fart) the rules books were a fraction of the size of the Pathfinder Rule Book. That meant the GM actually had to interpret and decide what happened. Now there are freaking rules for everything. Players can go crying to the web for comfort whenever a rule is not in their favor. There are too may rules, too much reliance on RAW and not enough imagination these days :) Okay old fart rant is done. :)
Story, fun and imagination... those should be the deciding factors if something works. Everything else is guidelines. :)
Nope. There's no support for it being an emanation.
Good points all. I would like to point out that a magical "fan on the ground" would still create a vertical "wall" of wind much like you describe. I submit to you then that, without a developer clarifying otherwise, both interpretations can be correct.
Putting words in my mouth in order to win an imagined argument? I never said it was an emanation. What is that debate tactic called again? A straw man?
Fixed it for you.
Don't do that.
I said must. I meant must. You didn't fix anything, you completely missed the point. You do NOT argue to the point of might. You argue to the point of must and then some. I get caught in that myself sometimes.
Putting words in my mouth in order to win an imagined argument? I never said it was an emanation. What is that debate tactic called again? A straw man?Nope. There's no support for it being an emanation.
Good points all. I would like to point out that a magical "fan on the ground" would still create a vertical "wall" of wind much like you describe. I submit to you then that, without a developer clarifying otherwise, both interpretations can be correct.
That would be a strawman... if it wasn't your point. You are in fact treating it as an emanation from a line on the ground. (in plain English emanation, not the D&D definition of emanation) You are treating the spell as something that starts on the ground and goes up,can have its line of effect from the ground cut off, based on the conjecture that since the wind is moving up, it must all start on the ground.
Since your argument relies on this being the case, you have the burden of proof to supply evidence for it. *The spell doesn't say it doesn't work that way* is insufficient on its own. There is no reason why the spell can't produce upward force at every single point within its area of effect.
The spell has dimensions, minimally 10 feet by 5 feet by 2 feet. The wall exists in all of those points. It is not described anywhere as being different at one location 1 inch from the ground as it is 4.5 feet in the air. It is also described as a curtain, which is a semi solid object from top to bottom.
So we have 1) minimal to no evidence for your hypothesis 2) a description contrary to it 3) The mechanics you propose allow the wall to be bypassed by lower level spells (mount, entangle, summon monster II) All of this adds up to.. yeah we definitely went outside the rules here.
With that said.. i might have said that is COMPLETELY against the rules.. but cool enough to get away with anyway, provided you can bribe the DM with chocolate. Next time have a dispel magic scroll ready.
or more chocolate.
|
|
Putting words in my mouth in order to win an imagined argument?
Exhibit A:
You also depend very heavily on the "you can't prove its false so it just might be true" line of thinking.Fixed it for you.
Mr. Pot, please let me introduce Mr. Kettle.
-Skeld
PS: It's bad form to quote someone and then change their words. The "I fixed it for you" meme needs to die in a fire.
Mr. Fishy has matches...damn they're hard to light.
I've been giving this way more thought than I should, but I think I'm on board with Wind Wall creating a static fixed effect at the time of casting.
What finally turned me around was to think about this using Wall of Ice and Wall of Fire instead of Wind Wall. They are all evocations and create a fixed effect.
If you were to cast Wall of Ice the size of the wall would be constrained by the line of effect going from the origin (which all spells have) to any barriers short of the maximum range.
If you cast it in a 10' tall room, the wall is 10' tall, period. The line of effect is only relevant during the casting. If the ceiling goes up afterward, the wall is still 10' tall. It doesn't resize to fit the space.
If the ceiling comes down, in this case, it would need to damage the wall enough to breach it to drop below 10'. The lowered ceiling wouldn't automatically reduce the height of the wall just because it reduced the line of effect. If the ceiling goes back up again, the wall is still breached at the top by whatever distance the ceiling crushed it.
If this were a Wall of Fire, the wall is also 10' and doesn't change if the ceiling goes up. If the ceiling drops 5', the wall is not damaged (but the ceiling might be), and that 10' fire effect would still be occupying that space. This means there would be flames 5' below the ceiling and 5' above the ceiling. It's counter to how physics works, but this is magic, so who cares. If the ceiling goes back up, the wall remains 10' tall.
So, I'm changing my answer. Changing the line of effect of a spell that is not a burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation doesn't alter the spell after the fact.
With that being said, I'd still totally allow the OP to work, since it was a clever idea.
** spoiler omitted **
It seems rather clear to me that the wind is blowing upwards. I'm surprised to see so many people disallow it.
If you let them do it once, you've basically added to the text of the spell Wall of Iron, "This spell negates the effect of Wind Wall"
I might try and split the difference. You are able to get a round worth of attacks through the breach before the Wind Wall automatically readjust itself to the new terrain.
I think rewarding players for creative is good, letting them re-write the way spells work is bad. Besides letting them get hosed in one encounter might have taught them the value of Dispel Magic.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Look up ground in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Ground may refer to:
Earth's surface
Soil, a mixture of clay, sand and organic matter present on the surface of the Earth and serving as substrate for plant growth and micro-organisms development
Ground, in electrical engineering, something that is connected to the Earth or at the voltage defined as zero (in the U.S., called ground; in the UK, called earth):
Earthing system
Ground (electricity)
Ground and neutral
Ground (often grounds), in law, a rational motive, basis for a belief or conviction, for an action taken, such as a legal action or argument; reason or cause:
Grounds for divorce
Grounds for dismissal
Common ground, in communication, people sharing some common understanding
Coffee ground, grinded/ground coffee beans
Socially grounded argument, in philosophy, those which take as their starting point social conditions
Ground bass, in music, a bass part that continually repeats, while the melody and harmony over it change
Ground tissue, one of the three types of tissue systems in a plant
Ground term, in symbolic logic, a term with no variables
Ground surface, often on metals, created by various grinding operations
Football stadium
Ground (unit), a unit of area used in India
How can you cast wind wall underground?
I would give them one full round of there being a breach in the wind wall, then it's start point would move upward to the new, uneven, ground.
It won't work IMO for one specific reason that has not been mentioned yet in this thread:
Wind wall allows Spell Resistance. That means it is a continuous truly magical wind, not a magical effect that causes the actual air to move. If the effects of the spell were due to actual physical winds, the spell would not allow SR; see control weather and control winds for examples. Since the spell does allow SR to completely negate the effects of the spell, the only logical conclusion is that the "wind" effect isn't really wind, but is rather some sort of purely magical effect that simply emulates wind.
As such, it would continue to affect the defined area regardless of whether the defined area was morphed in some fashion (such as by a wall of iron or hemispherical wall of ice).
Actually you have, you just haven't realized that you have been doing it.
"An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres."
Emanations come from a central, singular point of origin by their very definition, not from an entire line of origin. I have neither claimed it was an emanation nor have I described it as such.
People are distorting what I've said to their own ends.
Please refrain from that if you don't mind.
Great, so again there's absolutely NOTHING that implies that the wall is coming ONLY from the line on the ground.
And there is absolutely NOTHING that implies it is coming from anywhere BUT the ground.
Right??
Perhaps.
So why would blocking the ground do ANYTHING?
Because the GM said so. Or because the gaming group follows the other interpretation that you do not.
Duh. :P
j/k
I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation. I just don't think the evidence (or lack there of) supports your interpretation any better than it does the opposing interpretation.
It's a wall. So if it was stone or iron you could breach it, but air or fire is insubstantial so it should, barring total destruction, move into cover the gap. It would flow back into shape after the object passed though it.
Your DM allowed the wall to be suppressed so the point is moot in that case.
And there is absolutely NOTHING that implies it is coming from anywhere BUT the ground.
1) The fact that the spell has a volume in 3 dimensional space, NOT 2 dimensions along the ground
2) it is a wall
3) it is described as a curtain.
4) The spell works perfectly fine without line of effect from the ground up: it works on a ships deck, in mid air, under ground, on a lake, etc.
And there is absolutely NOTHING that implies it is coming from anywhere BUT the ground.
1) The fact that the spell has a volume in 3 dimensional space, NOT 2 dimensions along the ground
2) it is a wall
3) it is described as a curtain.
4) The spell works perfectly fine without line of effect from the ground up: it works on a ships deck, in mid air, under ground, on a lake, etc.
I really don't see how any of that disproves the other interpretation.
If the wall of wind would lose its dimensions when a wall of iron dropped on it, then wouldn't it stand to reason that a wall of iron would also lose its vertical limit if something were to punch a hole through it?
Let's say there's a 15ft tall wall of iron and I use a ram to punch a hole through the wall of iron at 5ft. Does that mean the 10ft of iron above the ram vanishes?
If the wall of wind would lose its dimensions when a wall of iron dropped on it, then wouldn't it stand to reason that a wall of iron would also lose its vertical limit if something were to punch a hole through it?
Let's say there's a 15ft tall wall of iron and I use a ram to punch a hole through the wall of iron at 5ft. Does that mean the 10ft of iron above the ram vanishes?
That depends entirely on a person's interpretation.
If you believe it to be a wall of air rising upwards from the ground (or other qualifying surface) than the air flow would be blocked. If you believe it is a wall of air in that the moving air is magically generated and has no definitive starting point, then the wall would not be breached at all.
Ask your GM, not us. If you are the GM, weigh the pros and cons as you see them and either make a decision as to which interpretation you want to follow...or else flip a coin.
Hmm. An interesting situation...
I'm prone to agreeing with Raving's initial determination, that a Wall of (insert solid substance here) would create some form of void in the space it occupies. I very much see the Wind Wall generating an upward air current from a designated line that is sufficient to cause the effects outlined in the spell's description. My reasoning behind adopting this stance has to do with a tangential scenario:A Wind Wall is cast, then a Wall of Stone (of thickness greater than the Wind Wall's Area, this becomes important later) is cast directly overlapping a portion of the Wind Wall. Finally, an Orb of Annihilation or Sphere of Ultimate Destruction or other suitable effect carves a 2 foot diameter hole in our rock wall roughly a foot above the ground.
The question one has to consider at that point is: does the underlying Wind Wall fill the newly created void despite it being completely cut off from the rest of the wall (creating, in effect, a small, detached Wind Wall segment in the hole of the stone wall), or do we now have a 2 foot diameter tunnel through which an arrow may be fired?
My opinion is, if a Wind Wall's upward wind flow is blocked, the space above the blockage is no longer affected. I further assess that the wind is traveling from the ground upward, as described in the spell. But that's just my (reasonable, I believe) interpretation.
Maybe the iron wall which is toppled effectively becomes the new ground.
A case by case basis.
The Wind Wall spell mentions effects suggesting an upward current.
Wall of Iron does not.
Although it might be dispellable, a Wall of Iron should act like real iron unless the spell says otherwise.
I really don't see how any of that disproves the other interpretation.And there is absolutely NOTHING that implies it is coming from anywhere BUT the ground.
1) The fact that the spell has a volume in 3 dimensional space, NOT 2 dimensions along the ground
2) it is a wall
3) it is described as a curtain.
4) The spell works perfectly fine without line of effect from the ground up: it works on a ships deck, in mid air, under ground, on a lake, etc.
I really don't see how any of that disproves the other interpretation.
You should. This is why people accuse you of discounting what people say.
Your other "interpretation" isn't an interpretation at all. There's NO evidence for it, at all. The lack of evidence for your interpretation alone should be enough: the wall is not described as a giant fan in the ground. It does not have to work with ambient: it could very well be and probably IS creating its own air
It IS described as a curtain. A curtain exists from top to bottom. It is decribed as a wall: a wall exists from top to bottom. It specifically has 3 dimensions. It never differentiates between any part of the wall and another. It is subject to spell resistance (nice catch to the guy above), which implies that the force of the wall exists at every single point in the wall rather than just at the bottom. Air that has been magically thrown from point A and then left to run on momentum by the giant fan hypothesis would NOT be subject to spell resistance.
Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.- wiki
That SHOULD be enough to come to the reasonable conclusion that the fan hypothesis is wrong. If its not proof then you're looking for a level of certainty that simply doesn't exist when you try to get creative. You are not trying to determine IF a wall of iron SHOULD stop a wind wall, you have decided that it should and you're trying to rules lawyer your way to it by shifting the burden of proof and ignoring opposing evidence. The burden of proof you're placing on the fan hypothesis is NONE: it requires no evidence it must absolutely be proven false. The burden of proof you're placing on the curtain of air hypothesis is that it requires absolute proof. You're never going to reach an honest assessment when you've prejudiced the different interpretations like that.
I can just as easily accuse people of discounting what I say.
I had already countered each and every one of your points earlier in this thread when brought up by others and I saw no reason to do so again. I guess I will have to though since people can't be bothered to read old posts with the intent of comprehending them. Instead they prefer to repeat the fallacies of others ad nausium in hopes that they can win a debate by driving their opponents away via boredom produced out do the overwhelming redundancy of it all.
1) The fact that the spell has a volume in 3 dimensional space, NOT 2 dimensions along the ground
- The spell makes it clear that it must be along the ground (rather than, say, floating in the air). You are right in that it is a 3D space (this is made clear by the dimensions given in spell). Moving air from a fan on the floor can fill a volume just as readily as iron can--just as readily as magic air with no starting origin can. It neither proved nor disproved anything. Therefore, it is not evidence of anything.
2) it is a wall
- Stating the obvious proves nothing and only serves to demean the intelligence of those you debate with, in other words, it's bad form.
Whether it is air magically blowing upwards from the ground or air magically blowing from everywhere within its volume, it could still be described as a wall of air. This statement, too, neither proves nor disproves anything. Therefore, it is not evidence of anything at all.
3) it is described as a curtain.
- See #2. You are describing the general shape of the volume, which is already understood by everyone. Both interpretations can create a curtain-like/wall-like volume of moving air. Again, not evidence.
4) The spell works perfectly fine without line of effect from the ground up: it works on a ships deck, in mid air, under ground, on a lake, etc.
- Much of this is wrong according to the spell's text. You cannot create a wind wall in mid air (it has to be "a continuous path along the ground") and I'm doubtful you could cast it on a lake (the ground is underneath the water). Though I would personally allow it, some people may also argue against casting it on a ship's deck. Being based on a false premise to begin with, this is simply bad evidence. Even if it wasn't, it would neither prove nor disprove where the movement of the wind STARTS from, which is what is being debated.
Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.- wiki
This quote applies to your interpretation just as much as the other. There is ZERO proof or evidence showing that the air comes from everywhere within the volume as there is showing that it comes from the ground.
That SHOULD be enough to come to the reasonable conclusion that the fan hypothesis is wrong. If its not proof then you're looking for a level of certainty that simply doesn't exist when you try to get creative. You are not trying to determine IF a wall of iron SHOULD stop a wind wall, you have decided that it should and you're trying to rules lawyer your way to it by shifting the burden of proof and ignoring opposing evidence. The burden of proof you're placing on the fan hypothesis is NONE: it requires no evidence it must absolutely be proven false. The burden of proof you're placing on the curtain of air hypothesis is that it requires absolute proof. You're never going to reach an honest assessment when you've prejudiced the different interpretations like that.
I am not prejudiced. In the entirety of this thread, I have supported neither interpretation more than the other as fact. I have said which one I would go with in certain circumstances, but that's different. I'm merely trying to get people to keep their mind's open. It's fine to follow one interpretation over the other, but not if you have your facts misunderstood (as I have shown your non-evidence to be).
Ravingdork (or anyone else, for that matter; everyone seems to have either accepted it as fact or ignored it), care to address my point about the nature of the spell due to its SR?
A case by case basis.
The Wind Wall spell mentions effects suggesting an upward current.
Wall of Iron does not.
Although it might be dispellable, a Wall of Iron should act like real iron unless the spell says otherwise.
Walls of Iron, Stone, and Thorns are conjuration(creation) and "manipulate matter to create an object". It actually creates those objects and they are subject to the standard laws of physics
Walls of Fire, Ice, Wind, and Force are evocation and "manipulate magical energy ... to produce a desired end". They are magical effects and not necessarily subject to the laws of physics.
When thinking about interaction with physical objects, you should treat all of the evocation walls in a consistent manner.
The Wind Wall doesn't say anything about the direction of the wind. The only thing it describes is what happens as a magical effect if something enters the wind wall. Loose materials and garments fly upward and missiles deflect upward due to the magical effect. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a wind flowing from the ground upwards. It is a magical effect and not a physical creation.
That's why I changed my tune and decided that putting something into the magical effect doesn't change the magical effect.
I can just as easily accuse people of discounting what I say.
as easily, yes. As accurately, no.
I had already countered each and every one of your points earlier in this thread when brought up by others and I saw no reason to do so again. I guess I will have to though since people can't be bothered to read old posts with the intent of comprehending them.
I don't read other peoples posts to other people most of the time
Instead they prefer to repeat the fallacies of others ad nausium in hopes that they can win a debate by driving their opponents away via boredom produced out do the overwhelming redundancy of it all.
Nothing here is a fallacy. Fallacy has a meaning other than "is inconvenient to what i want to be true"
1) The fact that the spell has a volume in 3 dimensional space, NOT 2 dimensions along the ground
- The spell makes it clear that it must be along the ground (rather than, say, floating in the air)
whoops. I knew i should have sprung for the bigger monitor...
You are right in that it is a 3D space (this is made clear by the dimensions given in spell). Moving air from a fan on the floor can fill a volume just as readily as iron can--just as readily as magic air with no starting origin can. It neither proved nor disproved anything. Therefore, it is not evidence of anything.
IS it described as air moving up from the ground? no. Is it described as generating all of the air starting at the ground? No. Is it described as relying on ambiant air? No.
Furthermore it is an evocation spell.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
It is not an evocation spell along the ground and then a transmutation spell in mid air. It is an evocation spell at every single point.
2) it is a wall
- Stating the obvious proves nothing and only serves to demean the intelligence of those you debate with, in other words, it's bad form.
Rules lawyering is all about denying the obvious and proceeding to the minutia. I stated the obvious because it NEEDED stating.
Whether it is air magically blowing upwards from the ground or air magically blowing from everywhere within its volume, it could still be described as a wall of air. This statement, too, neither proves nor disproves anything. Therefore, it is not evidence of anything at all.
Except that the spell is NOT described as a magic fan. Air being blown magically from a point at your feet would not call for a spell resistance roll.
You are not answering the spell resistance objection. Why does air moving up from your feet fail to affect you if you fly over if it is itself not being magically generated?
- Much of this is wrong according to the spell's text. You cannot create a wind wall in mid air (it has to be "a continuous path along the ground") and I'm...
Thats one error. not "much"
This quote applies to your interpretation just as much as the other. There is ZERO proof or evidence showing that the air comes from everywhere within the volume as there is showing that it comes from the ground.
I stated the evidence for this being the case. It is a wall, it is described as a curtain, the spell is in effect from top to bottom. It is simply dishonest to say that i have no evidence. It does not say that it is a line on the ground that produces an effect of the given dimensions. it says that it IS an effect of the given dimensions.
You have a tunnel that exits a mountainside 10 feet above the ground. The bbged has escaped ahead of the party, dropped down, and cast wind wall. Suspecting a trap , the party casts detect magic 30 feet in the tunnel. Are you going to tell me that the party doesn't see the wall as magical? Of course not. The section of wall the pcs can see from 5 feet to 10 feet is within the area of a spell.
I am not prejudiced.
Yes. You are. Your demand for evidence for your position is much lower for your demand for both the contrary. You want absolute disproof or absolute proof from the other side but you're not willing to accept it for your own position. That the wall exerts an upward force does not have to mean that the force is only coming from the ground.
Your "evidence" amounts to the same as saying that someone in Chicago heading east. He must have come from the west coast.
Ravingdork (or anyone else, for that matter; everyone seems to have either accepted it as fact or ignored it), care to address my point about the nature of the spell due to its SR?
I think it's a good argument for your interpretation, and also the one of the reasons why I share that view.
Walls of Iron, Stone, and Thorns are conjuration(creation) and "manipulate matter to create an object". It actually creates those objects and they are subject to the standard laws of physics
Walls of Fire, Ice, Wind, and Force are evocation and "manipulate magical energy ... to produce a desired end". They are magical effects and not necessarily subject to the laws of physics.
When thinking about interaction with physical objects, you should treat all of the evocation walls in a consistent manner.
The Wind Wall doesn't say anything about the direction of the wind. The only thing it describes is what happens as a magical effect if something enters the wind wall. Loose materials and garments fly upward and missiles deflect upward due to the magical effect. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a wind flowing from the ground upwards. It is a magical effect and not a physical creation.
That's why I changed my tune and decided that putting something into the magical effect doesn't change the magical effect.
This mirrors my thoughts on the matter near exactly and is what first crossed my mind when brought up by my players (the types and subtypes of the spells govern how they behave). It is also the chief reason why I DON'T personally believe in the ground fan interpretation.
IS it described as air moving up from the ground? no. Is it described as generating all of the air starting at the ground? No. Is it described as relying on ambiant air? No.
The spell causes things to fly upwards. Ergo, the air (or magical force or whatever) is moving upwards.
Furthermore it is an evocation spell.
This is the best point you've made so far. Evocation uses magic to create a desired effect, often seeming to make something out of nothing, in this case, the appearance of moving air. Whether or not it is actually moving air, is highly questionable.
It is not an evocation spell along the ground and then a transmutation spell in mid air. It is an evocation spell at every single point.
Assigning what schools govern what effects can be tricky as there is much overlap. Conjuration and evocation both, for example, create things; conjuration and Necromancy both deal with the forces of life; Evocation and Transmutation are both capable of changing something's form, etc.
As such, I don't think labeling it as anything other than it is really works (the text clarified it is evocation). Also, no one said it wasn't evocation but for your implications that I had. Please stop doing that.
Rules lawyering is all about denying the obvious and proceeding to the minutia.
I'm inclined to agree.
I stated the obvious because it NEEDED stating.
If it was so obvious, then why did it need stating? I submit to you that it was NOT so obvious as you say. In any case, it had already been stated before. You're just being stubborn.
Except that the spell is NOT described as a magic fan. Air being blown magically from a point at your feet would not call for a spell resistance roll.
How do you know? Though I agree with your logic, there is no general rule anywhere (that I'm aware of) saying that nonmagical forces created by magic don't allow for spell resistance. You and others are simply making an assumption based on a trend. Trends =/= facts.
You are not answering the spell resistance objection. Why does air moving up from your feet fail to affect you if you fly over if it is itself not being magically generated?
I think it is clear that it IS being magically generated as you say. The question has long since become "where from?" Where is it originating from? The ground? Or the entire volume?
Nobody knows for sure. In the end, that's all I'm trying to say. The text is ambiguous and nobody knows for sure so a ruling, an interpretation, must be chosen on a group by group basis in order to handle the corner cases like the one described in my OP.
I stated the evidence for this being the case. It is a wall, it is described as a curtain, the spell is in effect from top to bottom. It is simply dishonest to say that i have no evidence. It does not say that it is a line on the ground that produces an effect of the given dimensions. it says that it IS an effect of the given dimensions.
Well, I suppose you COULD say you gave evidence, it just didn't disprove anything is all (for the reasons I described above).
And of course it doesn't say it's a line. A line is a defined term with it's own definition to which this spell does not match up. It's an effect. An effect can be just about anything though. It could just as easily be manifested air following the beliefs of either interpretation.
Also, I've never said it was a line. That was YOUR description. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop doing that.
Yes. You are. Your demand for evidence for your position is much lower for your demand for both the contrary. You want absolute disproof or absolute proof from the other side but you're not willing to accept it for your own position.
But I haven't demanded evidence at all. I merely wanted to know how others would rule and why.
Most everything I've said lately has been reactionary. You would say "X" and I would say "this is why X doesn't work as good evidence."
That doesn't make me biased. That makes me well-reasoned. I'm open to multiple interpretations and can see the pros and cons of both, as well as the support (and lack there of) for both. You on the other hand have a very narrow view of what the rules say, and that makes you stubborn because you believe that to say otherwise would make you somehow "wrong."
This really is a case of "the rules are ambiguous." The only person showing bias here is you.
That the wall exerts an upward force does not have to mean that the force is only coming from the ground.
Your "evidence" amounts to the same as saying that someone in Chicago heading east. He must have come from the west coast.
I absolutely agree. However, it doesn't disprove that the wind is coming from the ground or that the man came from the west coast either. In short, both interpretations are possible by the rules and both rulings have ramifications.
I for one don't much like the idea of a stationary wall that moves upwards just because somebody put a slab of iron under it. That could lead to a number of problems.
I didn't read through the entire thread, but the answer is simple. Does the DM think it's a creative counter to the windwall? If so, then it works! I like to ask "what would it look like in the movie?" It's a mistake to get too caught up in one time rules questions. Make a decision and move on - or you might stop having fun!
AGREED!
It is also the chief reason why I DON'T personally believe in the ground fan interpretation.
So are you arguing based on a different interpretation now?
The spell causes things to fly upwards. Ergo, the air (or magical force or whatever) is moving upwards.
and from that you conclude that it must start at the ground, which is fallacious reasoning.
if you cast detect magic on a spell that has an area of effect at 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet, doesn't the whole thing glow? Isn't the whole thing magic?
This is the best point you've made so far. Evocation uses magic to create a desired effect, often seeming to make something out of nothing, in this case, the appearance of moving air. Whether or not it is actually moving air, is highly questionable.
... An invisible vertical curtain of wind appears ... now unless you have some obscure game logic for wind being something other than moving air it is in fact air.
As such, I don't think labeling it as anything other than it is really works (the text clarified it is evocation). Also, no one said it wasn't evocation but for your implications that I had. Please stop doing that.
I cannot stop you from misinterpreting what "implications" i make. And it is absolutely, 100% a misinterpretation on your part. If I'm thinking something, I'll say it strait out.
Rules lawyering is all about denying the obvious and proceeding to the minutia.
I'm inclined to agree.
and thats what you're doing here. you're focused like a laser beam on the fact that the air is moving upwards and you're completely disregarding EVERYTHING ELSE about the spell, including the fact that it a 3 dimensional and NO mention is made of it only being magical in one part of it.
If it was so obvious 0then why did it need stating?
Because you were rules lawyering... denying the obvious and proceeding to the minutia. You were also claiming that since it wasn't proved that the wall wasn't homogeneous that it had to be two different parts.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that the spell is NOT described as a magic fan. Air being blown magically from a point at your feet would not call for a spell resistance roll.
How do you know? Though I agree with your logic, there is no general rule anywhere (that I'm aware of) saying that nonmagical forces created by magic don't allow for spell resistance. You and others are simply making an assumption based on a trend. Trends =/= facts.
Trends ARE facts. F=M*A is a trend, and a fact. It might have the occasional hiccup, but its still a fact. When you need to decide how things in a rule system should work but its not spelled out you DO have to look at the trends. The trend here is that things don't call for spell resistance unless they're directly affecting the target.
Effect Spells: Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly , such as web.
That would suggest that the air wall is being applied directly at the point where the spell resistant creature enters , rather than 10 feet away at the ground.
Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature's mind or body . If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required . Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
So yes, it is stated outright that spell resistance has to be pretty direct, implying that the air is not coming from 10 feet away.
Nobody knows for sure. In the end, that's all I'm trying to say. The text is ambiguous and nobody knows for sure so a ruling, an interpretation, must be chosen on a group by group basis in order to handle the corner cases like the one described in my OP.
ANYTHING is less than 100% clear if you are determined to muck it up. (what is is?) The text is not "ambiguous" for simply not having each and every spell take up the same amount of space as the entire rule book. The wall is 5 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet. Arbitrarily deciding that the magic is only coming from the ground requires evidence: thats where the burden of proof is.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I stated the evidence for this being the case. It is a wall, it is described as a curtain, the spell is in effect from top to bottom. It is simply dishonest to say that i have no evidence. It does not say that it is a line on the ground that produces an effect of the given dimensions. it says that it IS an effect of the given dimensions.
Well, I suppose you COULD say you gave evidence, it just didn't disprove anything is all (for the reasons I described above).
And that is exactly why you get accused of bias: you are being biased. You demand PROOF for the opposition, but will accept the most tenuous conjecture for your own side. that is NOT how reason and evidence work. You are treating anything less than a 100% contradiction as worthless, rather than treating it on its own merit. It has a lot of merit even if it is short of 100% philosophical disproof (an unattainable standard)
The facts i stated DO strongly imply that your reading is wrong. Your one fact does not manage to strongly imply that you are right (because of the Chicago problem)
Also, I've never said it was a line. That was YOUR description. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop doing that.
If you don't want me treating what you say as if you thought the magic was described as a line on the ground, then don't describe the magic acting as it it was a line on the ground. NOt everything someone uses in a conversation is a technical term.
But I haven't demanded evidence at all. I merely wanted to know how others would rule and why.
And then when you get why they would rule that way, you say that they don't make any sense because they're not absolutely disproving the way you would rule it.
Most everything I've said lately has been reactionary. You would say "X" and I would say "this is why X doesn't work as good evidence."
Except you're NOT doing that. you're saying that X doesn't work as DISPROOF. Which DOES make you biased.
You on the other hand have a very narrow view of what the rules say, and that makes you stubborn because you believe that to say otherwise would make you somehow "wrong."
I happen to believe that truth is usually reachable, attainable, and knowable through evidence and reason , and saying "well we just don't know with absolute 100% certainty so we can do whatever the hell we want" is an enormous, dishonest cop out and an insult to sentience.
That the wall exerts an upward force does not have to mean that the force is only coming from the ground.
Your "evidence" amounts to the same as saying that someone in Chicago heading east. He must have come from the west coast.
I absolutely agree. However, it doesn't disprove that the wind is coming from the ground or that the man came from the west coast either. In short, both interpretations are possible by the rules and both rulings have ramifications.
What WOULD disprove that he was coming from the west coast?
I for one don't much like the idea of a stationary wall that moves upwards just because somebody put a slab of iron under it. That could lead to a number of problems.
Thats not what we're saying. (or at least i'm not) I'm saying its 10 million magic force fans in 3 dimensional space all driving the air up. When you drop a wall of iron accross it, you disrupt the fans along the bottom few inches , but everything above that works fine.
this fits
-the direction of the air
-the three dimensional nature of the wall
-the fact that spell resistance applies
what seems a little ambiguous is if its making the air or just moving it, i'm inclined to say that its just moving it because there's no mention of breathing it
I would allow it, as it is using a resource to counter a resource in an intelligent manner. Besides it's a 6th level spell being used to counter a 3rd level spell.
I am not prejudiced.
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe you can produce a person other than yourself who has read this thread and believes that.
It's obvious that you had decided what the "right" answer was before the first post.
So are you arguing based on a different interpretation now?
My interpretation hasn't changed during the entirety of this thread. You clearly aren't paying attention. The only thing I've argued against is your bullheadedness against accepting that other interpretations are possible.
and from that you conclude that it must start at the ground, which is fallacious reasoning.
That's not my personal conclusion, no, but I can see why people (like my players) would argue for it.
if you cast detect magic on a spell that has an area of effect at 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet, doesn't the whole thing glow? Isn't the whole thing magic?
I don't believe detect magic has a visual manifestation, but I'm sure GMs and players will describe their spells however they please, within the confines of the spell description.
... An invisible vertical curtain of wind appears ... now unless you have some obscure game logic for wind being something other than moving air it is in fact air.
You're absolutely right. I must have overlooked it when I made that statement.
I cannot stop you from misinterpreting what "implications" i make. And it is absolutely, 100% a misinterpretation on your part. If I'm thinking something, I'll say it strait out.
So let's set things straight shall we? Please state clearly your intended goal in this debate. At this point I think we are both misinterpreting each others' words.
and thats what you're doing here. you're focused like a laser beam on the fact that the air is moving upwards and you're completely disregarding EVERYTHING ELSE about the spell, including the fact that it a 3 dimensional and NO mention is made of it only being magical in one part of it.
What I'm doing, for lack of a better description, is playing devil's advocate in an attempt to show you that other interpretations are perfectly reasonable.
Also, the spell's shape or size has no bearing whatsoever for the smae reasons I posted ages ago.
Because you were rules lawyering... denying the obvious and proceeding to the minutia. You were also claiming that since it wasn't proved that the wall wasn't homogeneous that it had to be two different parts.
Except it isn't obvious, not by a long shot. And I never said anything of the kind. You are making assumptions about my stance, thoughts, and words. You are drawing up a completely different image of me and my argument as surely as I likely am you.
Trends ARE facts.
Facts are irrefutable. Trends can vary. Saying that trends are facts is like saying a car is an orange.
You are, however, correct in saying that the trend supports your interpretation. Just don't mistake it for fact. At best, it's decent evidence.
...
So yes, it is stated outright that spell resistance has to be pretty direct, implying that the air is not coming from 10 feet away.
Hm. You seem to be right on this one. There does appear to be a general rule for it. Good catch.
You are treating anything less than a 100% contradiction as worthless, rather than treating it on its own merit.
I'm not treating anything as worthless. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying "it's a possibility" when you seem to say "no it's impossible."
I'm getting tired of listening to you speak in absolutes all of the time.
And then when you get why they would rule that way, you say that they don't make any sense because they're not absolutely disproving the way you would rule it.
I never said anything of the sort! At worst, I've said both interpretations are possible and that both should be considered.
I happen to believe that truth is usually reachable, attainable, and knowable through evidence and reason , and saying "well we just don't know with absolute 100% certainty so we can do whatever the hell we want" is an enormous, dishonest cop out and an insult to sentience.
A dishonest cop out against an abstract concept? Really?
Saying a spell (or rule) might work this way rather than THIS WAY is a far cry from "doing whatever the hell we want."
Stop being antagonistic. It's unbecoming.
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe you can produce a person other than yourself who has read this thread and believes that.
It's obvious that you had decided what the "right" answer was before the first post.
How can I have decided the "right answer" when I haven't even declared which one I know to be right? I couldn't have. I would not be able to argue that both interpretations are possible if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that one interpretation was the absolute correct one and the other was not.
Dropping the Wall of Iron doesn't work.
This is because it clear that the Wind Wall is not creating air, but moving air in an area in a magical fashion that blocks missile weapons. Check the text for Gust of Wind to see what "creating air" spells look like.
Luckily, the issue of is moot because it's not an emanation as defined by the rules, and that means you can't block line of effect after it is cast. That's a simple RAW rule concerning how area spells are handled and there is no counter-argument. That it doesn't make a lot of sense considering real world physics is moot; this is how the game handles area effects. You could no more block a Wind Wall with a Wall of Iron than you could use a Resilient Sphere to escape a Forbiddence.
It should be noted that creating air with a Gust of Wind only imposes a -4 to ranged attacks despite being powerful enough to knock people prone, while Wind Wall creates flat miss chances to ranged attacks but doesn't seem to affect people at all. That should be a sign that WW uses magic logic and not real world physics.
Dropping the Wall of Iron doesn't work.
This is because it clear that the Wind Wall is not creating air, but moving air in an area in a magical fashion that blocks missile weapons. Check the text for Gust of Wind to see what "creating air" spells look like.
Just being nitpicky, but evocation spells can create things too. One could argue (and I'm not) that wind wall is actually creating air and moving it within its volume.
I didn't read through the entire thread, but the answer is simple. Does the DM think it's a creative counter to the windwall? If so, then it works! I like to ask "what would it look like in the movie?" It's a mistake to get too caught up in one time rules questions. Make a decision and move on - or you might stop having fun!
I'm not saying this is the wrong solution. I might be inclined to allow the tactic to work for this reason, but not for any rules reason I've seen.
The down side is what a seemingly simple change can do to the mechanics. If evocation spells are only magic at the source.. then what? Can fireballs or burning hands evade anti magic fields and globes of invulnerability by putting the center outside? Can you void spell resistance by casting away from the creature?
They seem to be referring to ground as anything you can stand on.
If you are water walking, you can place the spell on the water going up. Yes, there is spell resistance, so a Drow can stand in the wall interupting it. Untill the spell is fixed, it's the GMs call whether the area above the interuption is still functional. The GM must apply the same ruling to all Wind Walls and Walls of Fire. I still have to read up on the Wall of Ice.
For me, whether the wall readjusts or more wind is created by the spell, the iron wall gives them one round of a clear shot. The part above where the Iron Wall didn't smash through the Wind Wall might still be there.
I didn't read through the entire thread, but the answer is simple. Does the DM think it's a creative counter to the windwall? If so, then it works! I like to ask "what would it look like in the movie?" It's a mistake to get too caught up in one time rules questions. Make a decision and move on - or you might stop having fun!I'm not saying this is the wrong solution. I might be inclined to allow the tactic to work for this reason, but not for any rules reason I've seen.
The down side is what a seemingly simple change can do to the mechanics. If evocation spells are only magic at the source.. then what? Can fireballs or burning hands evade anti magic fields and globes of invulnerability by putting the center outside? Can you void spell resistance by casting away from the creature?
I think in Pathfinder, spell resistance only protects that specific creature from the area of effect. You should always shoot Fireballs at the back wall for many reasons.
Untill the spell is fixed, it's the GMs call whether the area above the interuption is still functional. The GM must apply the same ruling to all Wind Walls and Walls of Fire.
Heh. Then you just have to deal with getting across the now red-hot wall of iron on the ground.
My interpretation hasn't changed during the entirety of this thread. You clearly aren't paying attention. The only thing I've argued against is your bullheadedness against accepting that other interpretations are possible.
you're playing devils advocate, i'm playing advocatus Dei.
Other explanations than plate tectonics might explain continental drift. But i don't use any of those interpretations unless they're shown to be at least as accurate as plate tectonics. "They're not completely dis proven" doesn't cut it.
and from that you conclude that it must start at the ground, which is fallacious reasoning.That's not my personal conclusion, no, but I can see why people (like my players) would argue for it.
Its the conclusion and logic you are using as the foundation for your argument, whether you believe in the argument or not.
if you cast detect magic on a spell that has an area of effect at 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet, doesn't the whole thing glow? Isn't the whole thing magic?I don't believe detect magic has a visual manifestation, but I'm sure GMs and players will describe their spells however they please, within the confines of the spell description.
This is why you get accused of being pendantic. You have a serious question before you about the model, and you're going to try to derail it onto something else. From the spells description what area would detect as magic?
So let's set things straight shall we? Please state clearly your intended goal in this debate. At this point I think we are both misinterpreting each others' words.
1) I HATE the "its not absolute proof therefore its not evidence" line of thought. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything even remotely ambiguous that way, and you'd be amazed at what people can rational as ambiguous when they want to.
1a) i want to have a rules discussion based on the relative merits of the rulings based on their own merits, not where one side is held to a philosophically impossible standard while the other is held as true unless absolutely proven wrong.
2) I hate the "it doesn't say thats not how it works so i can make up any way of it working that i want to" (your fan hypothesis) Lack of evidence against is not sufficient for assuming a positive position.
3)) If you are going to use the rule of cool COP TO IT. Otherwise you're going to throw the game out of whack.There's nothing wrong with going outside the rules but don't pretend you're within the rules if you're not.
What I'm doing, for lack of a better description, is playing devil's advocate in an attempt to show you that other interpretations are perfectly reasonable.
and failing. You have two alternate explanations. One of them fits one observable fact and misses on 3-4 others, and requires several things that are not in evidence. The other explains that fact AND fits everything we know, including the descriptions. That makes the explanations unequal in their reasonableness.
Also, the spell's shape or size has no bearing whatsoever for the same reasons I posted ages ago.
I find your reasons practically non existent in terms of their ability to refute the point, hence the repeated conclussion of the dimensions. There is NO Mention of the spell working differently at any point within the wall compared to any other. The absence of mention is usually good enough to be evidence of absence to anyone but a philosopher. For example, if an eyewitness states that they walked from their apartment, passed the Starbucks passed the guy selling newspapers and doesn't mention someone in a Sasquatch suit, then assuming that there WAS someone in a sasquatch suit is random, arbitrary and unsupportable.
Except it isn't obvious, not by a long shot. And I never said anything of the kind. You are making assumptions about my stance, thoughts, and words. You are drawing up a completely different image of me and my argument as surely as I likely am you.
I'm drawing a picture of the argument you're presenting.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Trends ARE facts.Facts are irrefutable. Trends can vary. Saying that trends are facts is like saying a car is an orange.
Facts are quite refutable if you don't care about the truth. For example what you did just there.
You are, however, correct in saying that the trend supports your interpretation. Just don't mistake it for fact. At best, it's decent evidence.
So why is decent evidence insufficient if one side has it and the other doesn't?
Hm. You seem to be right on this one. There does appear to be a general rule for it. Good catch.
-thank you. Sometimes its hard to pin down what part of the rules other people are forgeting, what part of the rules got changed from 3.5 and what part of the rules you "remember" are really just from bad nachos...
I'm not treating anything as worthless. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying "it's a possibility" when you seem to say "no it's impossible."
you keep insisting that the points of evidence i bring up are not proof, and therefore you dismiss them.
I'm getting tired of listening to you speak in absolutes all of the time.
Like your absolute that each individual point doesn't refute you therefore there's no cumulative case?
Think about a trial. There's lots of different ways your dna can get on a persons shirt. There's lots of different ways a body can wind up in your back yard. There's lots of different ways that your knife can wind up in someones ribs. Each one might have a plausible explanation but all of them together pushes it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I never said anything of the sort! At worst, I've said both interpretations are possible and that both should be considered.
But you want them considered equally valid despite the fact that one fits one fact but flubbs on 3-4 others while the other one perfectly explains and predicts everything we know about the wall. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean you let your brain roll out: when an explanation doesn't fit then it doesn't fit. its not predjudice to dismiss something based on the evidence.
Saying a spell (or rule) might work this way rather than THIS WAY is a far cry from "doing whatever the hell we want."
A spell needs to work this way for us to do X, therefore it will work that way, and we'll only change or minds if it can be absolutely 100% proven that it DOESN"T work that way... i'm not the only one that thinks this is what you're doing.