So, my Wizard has just gained access to the spell Hungry Pit - it's great. I cast it under a golem last meeting, and it rolled a 20 on its reflex save to pass. My DM ruled that as he passed, he would be shunted to the edge of the pit. It doesn't make a lot of sense if he passes the save, and ends up standing on thin air (unless you take it that he is hanging onto the edge of the pit, which opens up a whole different can of worms).
So first question, does anyone else employ this rule for pit spells and similar situations?
Second question, Assuming that the above situation is logical and we'll go ahead and use it, what happens if I were to encase the golem in a Wall of Force, and then cast hungry pit below it? Would the golem simply be unable to save, since he has nowhere to escape to?
Third question, could I even cast Hungry Pit 'through' the Wall of Force? Would I need to fly above it (assuming I made the wall a doughnut shape)to cast it on the encased area?
Fourth question, if I were to Intensify a Hungry Pit as per the epic feat (maximised and doubled) what would this do to the damage? My DM has suggested that the 10d6 falling damage would not be maximised and doubled. Do you agree? Would the rest of the ongoing 4d6 damage/round be maximised and doubled? (Halved on a successful save)
Fifth Question, if one were to plonk a wall of stone (or similar effect) flat on top of the pit, would the creatures within be unable to escape without first breaking through the wall?
yes to the first question, some spells assume the same principle (blade barrier for example) so it is not entirely unprecedented.
second, DM judgement, if he sees an option to not fall in the pit it might be feasible to hang there.. with a climb check possibly even so the dm might agree to give a penalty on saves.
third, I dont think you can, you will need line of effect, flying over it would help.
fourth, I agree with your DM on the falling damage. I do not use that version of intensify spell, but it seems fair estimate the other damage would be affected by such effects that enhance magic.
fifth, provided the spell allows in that situation yes they'd have to break through the wall unless they have other means to escape.
These are just my opinion though and not so much rooted in rules for the most part, your DM will have to call the shots in situations like this best to ask him ;)
Hungry pit functions as create pit plus some additional things, create pit states that if cast under a creature the creature can make a reflex save to jump to the nearest open space. so I would have ruled it like your GM.
for your second question I would rule it didn't work... the wall of force would block the line of effect needed for your pit spell, baring unusual circumstances such as....
your third question... if you could somehow cast I doughnut shaped wall of force I would probably rule the golem would not get a chance to save... however the Pathfinder wall of force spell only allows you to create a "flat vertical plane" doughnut shaped is not flat. wall of stone would work better as it is pretty much shapable to your whim.
your fourth question... my ruling would be that since Intensify Spell doesn't make the pit deeper, it would not affect the falling damage (it is falling damage, not spell damage), the other damage caused by the spell (the crushing damage for hungry pit or the acid damage for acid pit) would be affected normally by the feat.
your last question... yes... but with the caveat that I would rule that should the pit spell's duration end the creature would appear on top of the wall of stone over where the pit was beneath it.
Thanks for the comments.
RE Wall of Stone: It works better, however, it allows a reflex save, making it pretty worthless in this given scenario unfortunately.
RE Wall of Force: The description states a flat vertical plane. What I mean by a doughnut is:
112233
112233
44xx55
44xx55
667788
667788
Where the numbers represent the individual 10 foot panes of the spell, and the x's represent the area left unfilled.
'The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level. The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.'
Does this formation contradict those rules?
Yes, because the spell says 'Flat Plane'. Your box shape would not be a flat plane, it would be four flat sections. However, what you could do is cast it four times to get the equivalent. The first casting would be boxes 1, 2, and 3, and all the excess length used to make it higher. Then 4, then 5, then 6, 7, and 8. However, you could get the same effect by casting it 3 times. This would form a pyramid shape of 3 walls that are 1 inch apart where they intersect (so they don't kill the other walls as cast). Honestly, if you want something like this, I'd wait until you can cast wall of force, and ask the DM to allow your wizard to research 'Force Prison' which is a version of wall of force that automatically forms a circle, or better yet a dome. As long as it doesn't ever get more total surface area than Wall of Force, I'd allow you to do that as a GM.
I don't really see why a flat plane must necessarily be in a line. When the spell describes a flat vertical plane, I read that as it is a thin, vertical sheet that spreads 10feet and rises 10 feet.
If you take Wall of Fire as an example, it's effect is described as an:
'opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level'
This I would argue must be a flat, continuous line.
Wall of Force however states:
'wall whose area is up to one 10-ft. square/level'
But does not stipulate that those squares must be placed in any particular formation. (Equally it doesn't explicitly state that they can be placed in any way the caster chooses)
the problem is you are not creating multiple 10 by 10 foot wall sections to be placed as desired with wall of force, you are creating one single flat plane that can be up to 10 by 10 feet per level.
flat would rule out corners and curves.
What you are trying to do is use a 6th level spell (wall of force) to emulate a 7th level spell (forcecage) only you want your lower level version to work better then the higher level spell (no save, because wall of force is listed as save none).
As cwslyclgh said, flat plane means no corners. If you have a corner, it's not flat.
If the spell said 'flat planes, each 10 by 10, in any configuration' then yes, you could make corners. Since it doesn't, you can't.
And, as pointed out above, if your interpretation of a spell duplicates a higher level spell, then your interpretation is wrong. Especially if it is better than the higher level spell.
I agree, wall of force makes a single wall, one of the small measures they took to take down magical awesomeness a tiny notch.
A similar scenario can still work though, but in a more restricted environment, possibly with two castings.