Probably worth noting that this isn't an area spell, so the area rules don't govern it in the slightest. This is an effect spell.
Claiming this spell has an area is about as accurate as saying the same about summon monster.
That's what Inget for going off memory (part one)!
(Also for using "area" in an ambiguously colloquial and game manner simultaneously).
That means that Line of Effect rules become much less relevant - if it is not an Area, it doesn't fall under area rules, and thus would ignore doors. It'd still need its surface, if I recall from spell description?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is yet another example of the inherent problems with the "RPG as simulation" paradigm.
No, you shouldn't be able to use Create Pit to bypass a door. From a game-balance perspective, it's an unintended use of a spell that is arguably already "too good" in comparison to other 2nd level spells.
However, the pretense of simulation naturally invites the question "why *can't* I use it this way?" -- a question to which there is no good answer. The only viable response is "because magic," which is, of course, deeply disappointing in the context of a simulationist system.
So you can't use Rope Trick to climb to a ledge? A fireball can never start a grass fire? At some point you have to find a balance between the rules as written and adapting things to reality.
This is also a terrible argument. What you don't have to do is ignore the intent of spells and let lower levels ones do what higher level ones do when they were not intended to do so.
And no fireball can not set grass on fire by the rules.
There is nothing wrong with running a more simulation based game, but in the rules section you get the rules.
If you want "the rule of cool" then go to the advice or general discussion area. There the same people such as myself will be lax.
In here you get the rules, unless someone says something like "this is not the rule but...".
So if instead of a door we have portcullis. I can see thru, so I have line of effect, and line of sight. The portcullis is 10 ft wide. Can I use it to get under the portcullis?
If the door way itself was 10 ft wide, say a set of double doors with a gap under the door, can I cast the spell? I get that the door frame could conceivably prevent the 10x10 area of effect by not provide a horizontal surface but in this case I'm stipulating that the door frame is outside the 10x10 area. I take it, it still doesn't work?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use create pit to rebury necromancied threads?
Knock and gaseous form are both second level spells, but each would be strictly superior in this scenario in every way.Knock requires a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus. Against a high-DC lock (or a trap that's triggered by opening the door), the pit is probably better if it can be used at all.
Gaseous Form is third level spell that only allows one person to get through the door.
That's what I get for going belated off of memory (part two)!
Knock is still better: up to a DC 33 is, in fact, actually possible at third level.
Without a 20 strength or cross-class skills, that DC 25 climb check is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use create pit to rebury necromancied threads?
Only for 6 seconds per level. You've had your 2 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably worth noting that this isn't an area spell, so the area rules don't govern it in the slightest. This is an effect spell.
Claiming this spell has an area is about as accurate as saying the same about summon monster.
Stop with the hyperbole
The spell is aimed like an effect, but the resulting effect still takes up an area as referenced in the description. Summon monster does not take up an area in this manner, so the comparison is not valid.
Effect 10-ft.-by-10-ft. hole, 10 ft. deep/2 levels
Effect one summoned creature
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A portcullis is not a door, and this spell was still not intended to bypass it. At this point it is up to the GM because we have stepped beyond the use of the spell. I could see a ruling based on the actual rules going either way.
If they are willing to take the falling damage I would let it work on the portcullis.<-----I am not saying that is the actual rule.
One should also remember that if something is in play, there is little reason why NPC's also can't use it.
Probably worth noting that this isn't an area spell, so the area rules don't govern it in the slightest. This is an effect spell.
Claiming this spell has an area is about as accurate as saying the same about summon monster.
That's what Inget for going off memory (part one)!
(Also for using "area" in an ambiguously colloquial and game manner simultaneously).
That means that Line of Effect rules become much less relevant - if it is not an Area, it doesn't fall under area rules, and thus would ignore doors. It'd still need its surface, if I recall from spell description?
I suggest using the Line of Effect rules in the CRB and not use a 3rd party resource which has reformatted the layout.
"Line of Effect" is it's own subheading under the broader category of "Aiming a Spell" and is not under the "Area" subheading."Line of Effect" applies to ALL spells unless stated otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gauss is right. These are the rules that don't apply to this spell.
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
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.
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
Cone, Cylinder, Line, or Sphere: Most spells that affect an area have a particular shape.
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won't go around corners.
When casting a cylinder-shaped spell, you select the spell's point of origin. This point is the center of a horizontal circle, and the spell shoots down from the circle, filling a cylinder. A cylinder-shaped spell ignores any obstructions within its area.
A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area. Spheres may be bursts, emanations, or spreads.
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect "living creatures," which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell's area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Objects: A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
Other: A spell can have a unique area, as defined in its description.
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with "(S)," you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
However, these rules for effect spells DO apply.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can't see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest using the Line of Effect rules in the CRB and not use a 3rd party resource which has reformatted the layout.
"Line of Effect" is it's own subheading under the broader category of "Aiming a Spell" and is not under the "Area" subheading."Line of Effect" applies to ALL spells unless stated otherwise.
You assumed what my argument was, and attacked that from the wrong angle (apparently by making an assumption based on what I linked to?). That said, in the future, if you have a problem with the sources someone links, please supply your own. The PRD is available on the top right, and you can easily go there on most any device, highlight and cut the link, then get back here by using the back arrow and pasting it.
Anyway, I didn't link to "Area" and "Line of Effect" isn't listed as a sub-heading of "Area" so you really didn't understand the argument that was being put forth and attacked what you guessed (wrongly) was my intent/understanding.
Gauss is right. These are the rules that don't apply to this spell.
** spoiler omitted **...
Thank you, that's a good quote, but you are only partially correct.
The only thing under "Effect" that applies is:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Nothing else is relevant (as the spell in question is neither a ray nor a spread). And, within that part of the rules, there is nothing that was at all useful in stopping this idea.
I had a much bigger post, but it was heavily sarcastic and rather bitter. I wrote this one instead to do away with that tone and be both civil and direct.
The formatting isn't the problem, and I wasn't confused by that.
In fact, the d20pfsrd has a marvelous hyperlinking system that allows me to instantly get to where I want, as well as supplying more first-party information throughout the whole, while the PRD is faithful to the books as-printed. Both have their purposes and uses.
As Gauss did not do so, I'll link to the PRD, as well as the d20pfsrd (they say exactly the same thing), and quote what I think is his actual objection.
I have to guess, though, because in attempting to guess what I was arguing, he didn't clarify.
It's found under Line of Effect (sorry, no direct link to the PRD, but they both say the same thing):
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
My guess is that he's bothered by the part in bold.
My problem, however, is two-fold:
1) The wall and door are not part of the same object/barrier - they are two different objects/barriers with their own hardness and hit points, and their individual traits, subject to different effects at different rates. The wall itself actually physically has a hole in it. As my expertise in how tightly doors were flush with the floor and walls in a relatively similar apparent-technology period is vague, at best, as that's not something I've ever studied, and I don't feel like Wikipedia-diving, we've just got our own presumptions to work with, here.
(My second search-fu failed as well. If anyone has good information on this, I'd be delighted to be informed.)
To this end, however, I submit this: I have not been imagining tight, flush doors with no room between themselves and the floor (in part because of the unevenness of most rock floors, in part because doors with a corridor* of a proper size that this trick would work on are exceptionally few in number.)
*
2) Following the exact wording (which, I submit, he's probably doing) means that a 1-foot diameter circle that passes all the way through a wall would entirely prevent the bead of a fireball from passing through, as it is not quite as large as a 1-foot square.
Proof part 1 (input "12" for number of inches on a side, and you have 144 inches)
Proof part 2 (input "6" for number of inches in a radius, and you have 113.1 inches)
So, in the second instance, what I was getting from this whole thing was Intent, as expressly stated by the Developers (i.e. "it's not meant to be a rules matrix"). I submit that it does not follow the exacting RAW, however.
Please clarify, Gauss, if that was the extent of what you were trying to argue - as I said, I can only guess.
(I apologize if I somehow offended by my word choice - I assure you it wasn't on purpose. I forgot how unpleasant, superior, and heated the tone can be on this subforum, even on accident.)
EDIT: To change a bit of wording, as I'm trying to de-escalate, and clarify, and one line could be read as more aggressive than intended. And thrice again to change some words and one section for the same reason. Sigh. I'll get this right, eventually... maybe. XD
** spoiler omitted **If making the party sweat to open a door is your idea of challenging a level 3+ party, then I think you're just setting your goals too low.
At low levels spending your highest-level spell slot as well as a lot of tricky climbing, isn't getting anything for free. (And remember it only works if the door is 10ft wide at least.)
At high levels a regular door is just kindling waiting for the barbarian to happen anyway. Doing it this way is the loooong way around.
So much for "balance".
You're fifth to ninth level. I'd expect most people to have knock available in some form by that point.
If you had a superior lock plus arcane lock, sure, it'd be entirely impossible with knock, but that's explicitly not what it says (at least, not in the part you've provided - it explictly notes that Disable Device is worthless due to the lack of mechanism).
That's a 2nd level spell, DC 20, you roll a d20+CL+10 - pretty solid chances.
If, on the other hand, it uses unique rules to explicitly counter that technique, that's exactly the kind of thing that people are often decried for via, "House Rules" - it's also explicitly something that's generally advised against for GMing in most instances, as it seems made to arbitrarily shut down characters (which it's already doing for the "skilled" character).
Nice example, though, and an impressive find!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a rules standpoint it calls out a horizontal surface, and it opens into an extradimensional space, which is not even on the same plane, while the room behind the door is.
Passwall which is a higher level spell would work.<---And having lower level spells completely replace higher level spells should be avoided when possible, generally speaking.
edit:By strict RAW passwall only works on walls, but phasedoor works, and it is a 7th level spell.
Passwall and phase door do not require a 10' wide door to be there. They can go through anything. The pit also requires a climb check or flight or levitation or filling it with water and a swim check. Thus this spell is strictly worse than the higher level spells. As it should be.
I was saying they bypass physical barriers, and using a lower level spell to get the same thing is a bad precedent.
Was that not obvious? If not, what did you think my point was?
I don't know.
I find that fireball and wall of fire and delayed blast fireball all allow me to do the same basic thing: fire damage to my enemies.
The difference in spell levels, however, describes the difference in how easily it deals fire damage to my enemies - i.e. the scope and impact change.
I can see your argument, and it makes a solid point, but I also see Philo's in this case, as he's pointing out that the two cases are parallel: use of either could get you past the door, but one does it without effort (except expending the spell), while the other requires a lot of effort or extra expenditures.
Both do the same basic thing, in this case.
An even more similar thing would be something akin to limited wish and wish - the lower level clearly lets you get the same basic effect of the higher level ("imitate lower level spells") but the higher level is still strictly superior because it can be used in instances and for purposes the lower level could not.
The comparison between passwall or phase door and create pit (insomuch as the latter involves getting past a door) is similar, I'd say.
It's using a lower-level effect to do something a higher level effect could also do... but the higher level effect is strictly superior and functions in a number of cases where the lower level's limitations would not.
(Still admitting that it's not RAW; but clarifying the difference in argumentation.)
I suggest using the Line of Effect rules in the CRB and not use a 3rd party resource which has reformatted the layout.
"Line of Effect" is it's own subheading under the broader category of "Aiming a Spell" and is not under the "Area" subheading."Line of Effect" applies to ALL spells unless stated otherwise.
You assumed what my argument was, and attacked that from the wrong angle (apparently by making an assumption based on what I linked to?). That said, in the future, if you have a problem with the sources someone links, please supply your own. The PRD is available on the top right, and you can easily go there on most any device, highlight and cut the link, then get back here by using the back arrow and pasting it.
Anyway, I didn't link to "Area" and "Line of Effect" isn't listed as a sub-heading of "Area" so you really didn't understand the argument that was being put forth and attacked what you guessed (wrongly) was my intent/understanding.
Gauss is right. These are the rules that don't apply to this spell.
** spoiler omitted **...
Thank you, that's a good quote, but you are only partially correct.
The only thing under "Effect" that applies is:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.Nothing else is relevant (as the spell in question is neither a ray nor a spread). And, within that part of the rules, there is nothing that was at all useful in stopping this idea.
...
You stated:
That means that Line of Effect rules become much less relevant - if it is not an Area, it doesn't fall under area rules, and thus would ignore doors.
If that is not a statement that means the Line of Effect rules do not apply because it is not an Area spell then you really need to reconsider how you are writing your statement.
ALL spells are subject to the Line of Effect rules unless there is a statement to the contrary.
I supplied my reference, the CRB. It specifically has "Line of Effect" as a different subsection than "Area" and is not a subsection of "Area".
As for the rest of your post, I really have no idea what you are trying to argue but here are the relevant rules (btw, linking rules really doesn't help if the link goes to a large section of the rules).
1)
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it.
So we know that you must have Line of Sight (or be able to define the area).
2)
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.
So we know that you must have a line of effect.
3)
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect.
So we know that a 1square foot hole allows you to get through a barrier.
4)
You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size.
So we know that you need a space of sufficient size (10' by 10' in this case).
Based on all of these things you cannot create a pit so that it extends underneath a door. The door is a barrier preventing Line of Effect from being established.
I did. I retract at least part of the tone of the initial post - I was trying, but failed to be as polite or clear as I wanted. Please see my edits. Thanks!
Get wrekt, wizard. XD
(Similar low-tech problem: bag of flower balanced on a door.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that when you use a spell outside of its intended purpose one should not expect for the new idea to work even if there is a possibility that it might.
I am not saying "don't be creative". I am saying I wouldn't expect for it to work unless I knew the GM was loose with the rules.
As an example if you are subject to a reflex save from this spell you can jump away and end up in a new location, however the spell was not intended to give you free movement.
Yes by RAW and RAI that works, but the intention is also not to grant free movement so the GM might see it as abuse where as you(not any specific person) sees it as being creative.
Not rules related-->As for this topic, I don't know if I would allow it or not. At best I would allow it as a probationary thing to see how much trouble it caused. That is how I handle other creative situations also. I also look at how they can be used against the party without being too harsh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that when you use a spell outside of its intended purpose one should not expect for the new idea to work even if there is a possibility that it might.
I am not saying "don't be creative". I am saying I wouldn't expect for it to work unless I knew the GM was loose with the rules.
As an example if you are subject to a reflex save from this spell you can jump away and end up in a new location, however the spell was not intended to give you free movement.
Exactly.
Yes by RAW and RAI that works, but the intention is also not to grant free movement so the GM might see it as abuse where as you(not any specific person) sees it as being creative.
Not rules related-->As for this topic, I don't know if I would allow it or not. At best I would allow it as a probationary thing to see how much trouble it caused. That is how I handle other creative situations also. I also look at how they can be used against the party without being too harsh.
Just in case it's still unclear, I came to the conclusion in my own post above, while perusing d20pfsrd, that it wasn't strictly RAW based on the barrier thing in the Line of Effect entry - Gauss' objection; I stand by the fact that such a strict interpretation as would disallow this was not RAI, even if this particular use of this particular spell was also not RAI - as I don't think any developer would have made the pit spell with the intent of people accidentally getting trapped in their own pit while trying to get through a door. But the consequences of disallowing on those particular grounds is pretty clearly a point of splitting hairs that would violate the spirit under which the developers were trying to get things across. All said, I don't think such things can work, RAW.
I'd have to go by the situation whether such things are allowed or not (your portcullis example is pretty sensible, as would be non-flush glass doors without a step up, or doors simply hoisted high enough to see under, even a little ways), but that's not really what the hard rules indicate.
APG wrote in Create Pit:
You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient
size.
Since, you can't see the other side of the door, or even know that it is a real door instead of a fake door, I don't see how any ruling would allow the pit to bypass the door. In other words, you got to lay it down where it can obviously go, not stick it where you can't see it. Create Pit just isn't that kind of girl/boy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since, you can't see the other side of the door, or even know that it is a real door instead of a fake door, I don't see how any ruling would allow the pit to bypass the door.
What if it is a glass door, or there's a narrow gap below the door that you can use to confirm that there's enough space on the other side?
Most doors do have a small gap below them, so that the friction wouldn't interfere with the movement. How big the gap can be so that you'd still say the door interfere with the spell?
EDIT:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.
Create pit is an effect spell, you want to create an effect that occupies several squares. Because of that I would say that if the gap below the door is big enough to create a line of effect to the squares on the other side of the door, then you can create a pit that is partialy on the other side. If the gap isn't wide enough, then you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's a glass door, I can think of easier ways to bypass it.
Depends on the glass and what the mage can and is willing to do. For example, he may want to slip away, leaving behind an illusion. Broken door would kinda ruin the ploy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mention of Line of Effect seems to provide the answer to the question:
Normally, you can't get Line of Effect to the other side of the door to get Create Pit to keep going past the door, or if it does go past the door, it only does so in the extradimensional space it creates, with the latter result meaning that you could climb down into the pit and move the horizontal distance required to come up on the other side, but find that the part of the pit there had a ceiling that you wouldn't be able to break through without doing so much damage as to suffice for drilling under the door in the first place (which is probably a lot more than for breaking through the door). This thoroughly prevents you from using Create Pit to get past the sealed door in the PFS scenario mentioned above. (In many cases, you could Earth Glide up to the other side if you have that ability, but if you do, what did you need Create Pit for?)
If the door is made of glass, you have Line of Sight to the floor on the other side, but still not Line of Effect, so the same thing holds true.
If the door has a gap under it, or if it has a dog door in it that you can get open, or if the door is actually a portcullis, then it depends upon whether the openings (or spaces between portcullis bars) are big enough to get Line of Effect through (somebody mentioned 1' square hole as being big enough). If the openings are not big enough, then you have the same situation as with the glass door. If the openings are big enough, then you can potentially use Create Pit to get past the door, but depending upon the layout of the openings, it may be tricky. If the door is a portcullis whose bars are all set too far apart or has a sufficiently large gap under it, then you're probably good to go -- you can cast the spell from a safe distance, and get it to do what you want. On the other hand, if the door just had a sufficiently large dog door in it or is a portcullis that has bars mostly sufficiently close together to block Line of Effect but has a bar missing somewhere in it, then the only way you are going to get Line of Effect to a sufficiently large area for Create Pit on both sides is to be right there at the opening, which means that the pit is going to open under you with no chance for a Saving Throw (and in the case of the open dog door, you are also going to have to be in an awkward position to be able to get the spell through to both sides, which would not be the position you want to be in to be ready for a fall, even if it is expected). So you will need to have Levitate running on yourself, or Feather Fall ready to go. At this point, you're using more than just a 2nd level spell to get past a problem that would usually be better solved by other means, and using it in a way that will only work in a narrow subset of these situations.
This answer should work by Rules As Written, and doesn't let anything overpowered slip by.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **If making the party sweat to open a door is your idea of challenging a level 3+ party, then I think you're just setting your goals too low.
At low levels spending your highest-level spell slot as well as a lot of tricky climbing, isn't getting anything for free. (And remember it only works if the door is 10ft wide at least.)
At high levels a regular door is just kindling waiting for the barbarian to happen anyway. Doing it this way is the loooong way around.
So much for "balance".
I don't see anything in that description stopping the barbarian with an adamantine weapon from chopping through it, or a wizard from DimDooring the PCs through.
But since there's not even a gap for gaseous form, in that case a GM could rule the there's no line of effect to the area on the other side of the door. A door with absolutely no crack below it could be said to break the required horizontal surface.
---
I disagree with the "not intended for X" reasonings to disallow things. A spell does what it does. If it happens to accomplish your purpose, fine; even if the scenario writer wanted you to do something else.
Part of the fun of tabletop RPGs is that you're not limited to the rails the programmer laid out for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the door even a factor? What's the difference between [casting the spell under a 10'-wide door], and [casting the spell, and then placing a vertically standing 10'-wide door over the middle of the hole]? In the second scenario, would anyone already inside the pit suddenly only have access to one side if they managed to climb out?
I see no reason to not allow it. It's a pretty heavy cost to circumventing a door when Disable Device exists for free, but if you lost your thieve's tools, and need to get past that door NOW, then hey, nice thinking.
In one scenario you have line of effect at the time the spell is cast.
In the other scenario, you do not.
If you can see through the crack under the door, is that not line-of-effect?
If you can see through the crack under the door, is that not line-of-effect?Why is the door even a factor? What's the difference between [casting the spell under a 10'-wide door], and [casting the spell, and then placing a vertically standing 10'-wide door over the middle of the hole]? In the second scenario, would anyone already inside the pit suddenly only have access to one side if they managed to climb out?
I see no reason to not allow it. It's a pretty heavy cost to circumventing a door when Disable Device exists for free, but if you lost your thieve's tools, and need to get past that door NOW, then hey, nice thinking.
In one scenario you have line of effect at the time the spell is cast.
In the other scenario, you do not.
Are you going to allow casters to throw other spells under doors at NPC's on the other side?
Are you going to allow NPC's to throw spells under doors at the party?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A line of effect is only relevant to the point of effect. I don't need to see an npc's brain to effect it with a mind-affecting spell, merely the generality of 'the character.'
Spells with a target, like another creature, indeed need only a line of effect to that creature. Spells with an area usually need a line of effect only to the point of origin, then they can burst, spread or emanate to the points the caster doesn't have a line of effect to. But spells with an effect like create pit, require a line of effect to any space in which the effect is to be created. I've cited this few posts up:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can see through the crack under the door, is that not line-of-effect?Why is the door even a factor? What's the difference between [casting the spell under a 10'-wide door], and [casting the spell, and then placing a vertically standing 10'-wide door over the middle of the hole]? In the second scenario, would anyone already inside the pit suddenly only have access to one side if they managed to climb out?
I see no reason to not allow it. It's a pretty heavy cost to circumventing a door when Disable Device exists for free, but if you lost your thieve's tools, and need to get past that door NOW, then hey, nice thinking.
In one scenario you have line of effect at the time the spell is cast.
In the other scenario, you do not.Are you going to allow casters to throw other spells under doors at NPC's on the other side?
Are you going to allow NPC's to throw spells under doors at the party?
That's different. A creature on the other side of a door is completely removed from your line-of-effect. In this case, the floor basically has partial cover, provided by the door; I can see the whole thing at the right angle through the crack at the bottom, and a significant portion of it is blatantly accessible. Is this so different from targeting a creature with partial cover from being behind another creature with a spell like Command?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, sadly you need line of effect to the whole effect in this spell's case. Had it been an area spell, then we would only need its point of origin on the caster's side of the door, with nearly half the hole appearing on the other side.
First to let the analists know they win..
As written, the rule only allows for creatures to be damaged by falling, one cannot deliberately, as written, climb or otherwise self-motivate into the extra-dimensional space manifested by 'create pit.'
But it seems to me that if you have a lot of stonework and a door amidst that stonework..and one lays out an extra dimensional pit that temporarily 'slides under' that stonework..what the stonework normally rests on is effectively no longer there.
You hear a cracking grumble as your buddies awesome spell manifests. Shocked by the noise, but knowing the plan you jump down quickly into the (pretty freaky) hole and, using your quarterstaff's leverage, gradually make your way up the other side.
Unfortunately...
The stonework is buckling above your head, shorn of it's mutually supporting pieces. The first to go is the slab of the threshold with absolutely nothing now supporting it other than the memory of it's purpose. You dodge it (DC 10 Reflex vs 1d6 bludgeoning) as it crashes down into the pit, quickly followed by the various stones of the jamb. As your staff snaps, panic rises in your chest..then the door itself crunches down onto you (DC35 Reflex vs Death) followed by the lintel and a ton or two of stone before the building above settles.
Nethys chuckles to himself. "Neutral Stupid rocks dude, RAW."
On the plus side, the doorway is now just a few tiles of difficult terrain.
This isn't really fair. Not only does it unjustly punish creative players, it likely wouldn't happen that way per RAW.
You can't create a hole under the foundation, to collapse the doorway. The spell is clear that you need the room to create it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no gaps in this door that would allow a creature to get through, even in gaseous form.
That sounds like a door that is sufficiently connected to the floor that Create Pit won't work, even if the GM allows this trick in general.
Knock is still better: up to a DC 33 is, in fact, actually possible at third level.
DC 33 is possible... but will take twenty castings on average. I hope you left twenty spell slots open for this situation.
Without a 20 strength or cross-class skills, that DC 25 climb check is not.
But you're probably a member of an adventuring party working as a team. If one of you can climb (or fly) and somebody remembered a rope, you'll make it.
Or you could just stand in the pit on the far side of the door and wait for the duration to wear off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice! Going to have to remember that, the next time we encounter a door with a hole of at least 1 square foot in it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice! Going to have to remember that, the next time we encounter a door with a hole of at least 1 square foot in it.
agreed... which is why I don't think a Pit can extend under a door. Too many nasty spells are normally blocked by doors.... though it takes a BIG towel to block one square foot of hole...
If there's a pea-high gap under the door, you could fire a fireball through it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a gap under a door allow spells to be cast through it if its height x width = 1 square foot?
Or does it actually need to be a big hole roughly 1-foot square or larger, like a doggy door?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm now thinking I'd allow Create Pit to be used this way on any door that wasn't well sealed. What I like about it is that it creates interesting tactical situations. If the PCs are trying to enter a room with enemies in it, they now have to enter the room by climbing into and out of a pit while the combat is breaking out.
So! As it turns out, having a half-started post on your phone, hen accidentally posting it is a thing. I delete it pretty quickly, but.. oops! If you happened to see it, it was made when I was half-cocked and before reflecting; also, yesterday much earlier on. Sorry!
(My face: meet egg.) XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a gap under a door allow spells to be cast through it if its height x width = 1 square foot?
Or does it actually need to be a big hole roughly 1-foot square or larger, like a doggy door?
The trick is to set things up so that the straight line from your hand to intended target does not run into any solid object. At a minimum, you would have to be prone and casting the spell from your hand at floor level. Even then, there would probably be some risk that the line is too low and hits the floor before reaching the door crack or that the line is too high and hits the door itself.
Knock is still better: up to a DC 33 is, in fact, actually possible at third level.DC 33 is possible... but will take twenty castings on average. I hope you left twenty spell slots open for this situation.
No. It really wouldn't. At a 5% success rate, it'd average out to about six tries, on average (a little less, but that's splitting hairs). It would take 20 attempts to (statistically) "guarantee" the thing working (though that is by no means actually assured - each indivual attempt has only a 5% success rate, no matter how many times you've rolled it), but that is not "on average" at all.
Either way, 5% is vastly superior to 0%.
Without a 20 strength or cross-class skills, that DC 25 climb check is not.But you're probably a member of an adventuring party working as a team. If one of you can climb (or fly) and somebody remembered a rope, you'll make it.
Your problem seems to be, "I really don't like a spell that requires the various members of my team to have the spotlight and use their specialty" which is the exact opposite what the problem should be in this game, considering how easily a caster can dominate things.
The scenario you propose - that a casterfaster uses a spell that then enables his team to do their business and be awesome - is actually relatively ideal. The caster provides a solution that was not previously available, but the group as a whole need to work for it. This is about the best of all possible outcomes in a play session.
And there is still little guarantee that you'll make it. The pit notes that anyone nearby has a chance of falling in. That means you have to make sure the rope is long enough that you can reach all the way down and still be safely out of distance - certainly doable, even at low levels, but not guaranteed (and at higher levels you'd start needing rather rediculous lengths of rope, as the depth increases; but by that point you usually have other means of bypassing the door... I'd hope!)
Also: what bonus does the rope grant? I'm on the phone right now, so I can't look it up. Is it a +5? A 8-9 Str wizard still couldn't do that. Maybe tie the wizard about the waist, then haul - heh, that's an awesome visual and would be worth it...
Of course, the spell notes the DC is 25 - I wonder if that is considered "more specific" than the normal climbing rules. I'd guess the normal rules take precedence (and that a rope would give a bonus), and that's how I'd rule it, but I could see the other argument being made, too.
Or you could just stand in the pit on the far side of the door and wait for the duration to wear off.
That is a really cool solution I hadn't thought of! Awesome! That said, I don't know of it would work. It depends on how the spell interacted with its surroundings, which seems like it would be heavily influenced by GM ruling, since this is a non-dimensional space. That's a cool one, though! And, presupposing you are absolutely not pressed for time (which I admit: I'd not been thinking of a scenario where they could just leash fly wait it out) that's a valid solution, if the GM permits the space to close in that way. Good idea!
EDIT: dang it, ninja Matt...! ;D
I'm now thinking I'd allow Create Pit to be used this way on any door that wasn't well sealed. What I like about it is that it creates interesting tactical situations. If the PCs are trying to enter a room with enemies in it, they now have to enter the room by climbing into and out of a pit while the combat is breaking out.
This is more or less what I've been envisioning all along. It's be difficult to get right, of course, and the spacing concerns are a potential issue, as are steps, but when it does work out, that'd be pretty sweet...
If there's a pea-high gap under the door, you could fire a fireball through it.I don't think so... But I'll leave it to someone with more time than I have to discuss this new tangent.
Yeah, this is the problem with this line of reasoning. A head of force will "impact on the surface" OS something less than a foot square, even if it's a foot in diameter. That is... weird, I have to say.
Also: I apologize for anything misspelled, weird words, or otherwise misplaced sentence pieces. I'm on my phone in a parking lot. My errors go up a llllloooooot.
At a 5% success rate, it'd average out to about six tries, on average (a little less, but that's splitting hairs). It would take 20 attempts to (statistically) "guarantee" the thing working (though that is by no means actually assured - each indivual attempt has only a 5% success rate, no matter how many times you've rolled it), but that is not "on average" at all.
I just ran a simulation in C#. Average number of tries across 30,000 tests: 19.905
Does this house have no foundation at all?
I mean my first thought was "Doors and walls don't levitate in the air."
