Hello there,
If I cast spell pit/(any pit is okay), then I cover it with a shrinked wall of stone (tossing in the air and use command word), and then I dismiss my Pit spell.
The spell says "When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round."
Will my ennemies be crushed like pancakes?
How do you dismiss the pit Spell. And is a falling Wall of Stone a auto win in your game?
I dont think you will crash any body. If standing in a pit that had a Wall on top was a auto kill it would have been mentioned in the spells i think.
what is the surface?
Let's say that I cast the spell in the street of Magnimar, so it will be earth.
@cap Darling. The wall is not falling on the prisonners of the pit. The wall cover the whole pit. When the spell is over, my ennemies will rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface. But on the surface, I have my wall of stone.
Will they be crush?
I would rule that they won't be crushed but shunted on top of the wall of stone which is now the new surface.
@ Kalshane and Mortagon: Is it RAW or RAI?
From what I can see from a quick read-over of both shrink item & wall of stone, the scenario wouldn't work (and if you managed to fast-talk your GM into it, the description of wall of stone itself indicates that those trapped underneath it get a Reflex save to get out.
-TimD
|
Wall of stone can be constructed over the pit, but it looks like it can't be dropped:
The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.
As pointed out above, the pit cannot be dismissed.
Again, as pointed out above, most extra-dimensional travel shunts you to a nearby safe place if the destination is occupied. I'd rule that way.
|
Wall of stone can be constructed over the pit, but it looks like it can't be dropped:
The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.As pointed out above, the pit cannot be dismissed.
Again, as pointed out above, most extra-dimensional travel shunts you to a nearby safe place if the destination is occupied. I'd rule that way.
The pit does not need to be dismissed, it will run out on its own soon enough. Assuming the trapped victims have no way to escape, they should suffer falling damage at the least, but to have them appear on top? That is BS...
Hello there,If I cast spell pit/(any pit is okay), then I cover it with a shrinked wall of stone (tossing in the air and use command word), and then I dismiss my Pit spell.
The spell says "When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round."
Will my ennemies be crushed like pancakes?
I'm going to say yes, they rise, they don't get teleported through all obstacles to safety.
Don't forget there is also the spell staggering fall, and it is an immediate action. We really hurt a giant falling snake with it last night.
RAW don't state what happens when you drop a wall over a pit spell. So there is no answer there.
RAI, IMO, is to not allow you to use the pit spells to create instant death traps.
Well if they didn't want to die they should have had no clip on.
The pit does not need to be dismissed, it will run out on its own soon enough. Assuming the trapped victims have no way to escape, they should suffer falling damage at the least, but to have them appear on top? That is BS...
how's it BS? Anytime anyone gets poofed into an occupied space they instead take damage and appear in the nearest available space. I guess you could argue that the spell isn't teleporting them to an occupied space, but its experation forces them into one. I'm pretty sure its handled the same way
Dropping someone down a pit is a combat spell, a wall can be used as a combat spell, i.e. dropping it on them for damage.
Could you tell me where every edition has been officially against using non-combat spells for combat? Thanks.
Also hello green slimy brother.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pit does not need to be dismissed, it will run out on its own soon enough. Assuming the trapped victims have no way to escape, they should suffer falling damage at the least, but to have them appear on top? That is BS...how's it BS? Anytime anyone gets poofed into an occupied space they instead take damage and appear in the nearest available space. I guess you could argue that the spell isn't teleporting them to an occupied space, but its experation forces them into one. I'm pretty sure its handled the same way
Ok, I can concede that they can get shunted, but not without paying the price. The minimum penalty should be falling damage for the distance traveled.
As an aside, I like to create pits and then cast cloudkill into them. :)
a wall can be used as a combat spell, i.e. dropping it on them for damage.That was in fact the thing I was pointing out. You can not in fact use a wall this way.
There are rules for the damage of falling objects. A tricky dm can also have a particularly large monster use its weight and fall on to targets. To represent crushing damage is why we have the rules on weights falling on the players.
how's it BS?Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.
Some players don't like to be told this.
are you saying those spells don't lawfully target enemies and these ones do, therefore they work differently? I suppose that's a good point.
In that case I'd think it would not be falling damage, it would be crushing damage based off the weight of the wall. It would prolly be way more than just falling the depth of the pit. Not to mention the walls likely to heavy for the target to push off themself so even if they lived they'd be trapped
how's it BS?Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.
Some players don't like to be told this.
Eh? I've gotten a lot of mileage out of mere cantrips and petty illusions in combat over the various editions. Nothing like using ghost sound as battlefield control.
The pit pancake is b!~*#~%s, though.
Sorry, but english is not my native language. What BS means ?
And well, thx for your help :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a dev comment in a thread about a similar topic. And it said that victims are not crushed. I think the reason was that the new ground (the wall) becomes the anchor for the pit spell.
Edit:
Found it. Was not a dev but JJ:
This is certainly a creative use for the spells, but it's also well beyond the intent of the spell. I'd say that if you create a wall over a pit in this manner, the pit's new opening simply shifts up to the top of the wall—the pit stays the same size, it just shifts upward enough so that the upper edge is still flush with the "surface" above. Then when the pit spell ends, things within are deposited atop the recently-created wall.
Going with the "cap the victim in place in the pit" option can be fun, though... fun enough that it should probably be it's own specialized spell.
And anyway, the create pit spells are already arguably too good for the levels they're all at anyway. They don't need help being better. ;-)
As he's no rules guy it is more of an opinion but one that's important for some posters.
Sorry, but english is not my native language. What BS means ?And well, thx for your help :)
Well, as an impolite expression, I am not sure I can write it here :)
But it is: B = male cow, and S = another word for excrement.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.are you saying those spells don't lawfully target enemies and these ones do, therefore they work differently? I suppose that's a good point.
Yes
I'm saying when a player says "I am casting Wall of Stone so that it will fall and deal crushing damage to that foe" then I say "no, you are not. What would you like to do?"
|
|
Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.are you saying those spells don't lawfully target enemies and these ones do, therefore they work differently? I suppose that's a good point.Yes
I'm saying when a player says "I am casting Wall of Stone so that it will fall and deal crushing damage to that foe" then I say "no, you are not. What would you like to do?"
What if it was Wall of Iron, not Wall of Stone?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a dev comment in a thread about a similar topic. And it said that victims are not crushed. I think the reason was that the new ground (the wall) becomes the anchor for the pit spell.
Edit:
Found it. Was not a dev but JJ:As he's no rules guy it is more of an opinion but one that's important for some posters.This is certainly a creative use for the spells, but it's also well beyond the intent of the spell. I'd say that if you create a wall over a pit in this manner, the pit's new opening simply shifts up to the top of the wall—the pit stays the same size, it just shifts upward enough so that the upper edge is still flush with the "surface" above. Then when the pit spell ends, things within are deposited atop the recently-created wall.
Going with the "cap the victim in place in the pit" option can be fun, though... fun enough that it should probably be it's own specialized spell.
And anyway, the create pit spells are already arguably too good for the levels they're all at anyway. They don't need help being better. ;-)
I personally think he is wrong. He just didn't want to reward his players for coming up with a great synergy between spells. More of a jerk GM move to me...
how's it BS?Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.
Some players don't like to be told this.
are you saying those spells don't lawfully target enemies and these ones do, therefore they work differently? I suppose that's a good point.
In that case I'd think it would not be falling damage, it would be crushing damage based off the weight of the wall. It would prolly be way more than just falling the depth of the pit. Not to mention the walls likely to heavy for the target to push off themself so even if they lived they'd be trapped
All wall spells (well, I didn't double check every single wall spell, but I believe they all do) contain something like that found in wall of stone.
...The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.
Wall of iron has to rest on a solid surface.
These could be used to cover a natural pit. Used to cover an extra dimensional space like a pit spell will be up to the GM.
|
|
It's not a question of "synergy", it's game-breaking. Wall of iron has to be vertical when created, but you can tip it. But having a 1st-level spell and a 6th-level spell instakill all sorts of things is broken.
Clever ideas are great, but the locate city nuke is still a Bad Idea, and the answer is "it doesn't work that way, no".
I'd probably go with the default "shunted to nearby place, take 1d6 damage".
Create Pit is a 2nd level spell, Spiked Pit is a 3rd level spell, Acid Pit is a 4th level spell, Hungry Pit is a 5th level spell. By the time you can use the spells to synergize you already have save or suck/die spells. Baleful Polymorph, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone to name a few.
Why are people crying over someone using 2 spells to achieve the same thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aspasia De Malagant - Because there is no clear answer to the question.
Here's the next thing I propose. Would the horizontal wall have a hole formed in it because it is now the surface of the ground, and therefore the top of the pit? The pit spells say it opens on the surface of anything (they use the deck of a ship as an example). Would the pit spell cause a pit to appear in the wall once the wall is now the surface of the ground? That would answer whether they would answer the "shunting" question.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why are people crying over someone using 2 spells to achieve the same thing?
Because using them this way isn't designed or intended to work this way and requires the GM adjudicated where the rules don't tell you. Any time you do that you run the risk of introducing something truly broken into a game.
|
|
Why are people crying over someone using 2 spells to achieve the same thing?Because using them this way isn't designed or intended to work this way and requires the GM adjudicated where the rules don't tell you. Any time you do that you run the risk of introducing something truly broken into a game.
Show me where it "proves" your point...in the rules...
|
|
It's not a question of "synergy", it's game-breaking. Wall of iron has to be vertical when created, but you can tip it. But having a 1st-level spell and a 6th-level spell instakill all sorts of things is broken.
Clever ideas are great, but the locate city nuke is still a Bad Idea, and the answer is "it doesn't work that way, no".
I'd probably go with the default "shunted to nearby place, take 1d6 damage".
Create Pit is a 2nd level spell, Spiked Pit is a 3rd level spell, Acid Pit is a 4th level spell, Hungry Pit is a 5th level spell. By the time you can use the spells to synergize you already have save or suck/die spells. Baleful Polymorph, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone to name a few.
Why are people crying over someone using 2 spells to achieve the same thing?
Well, disintegrate and flesh to stone are both sixth level, single-target. None of the pits other than "create pit" are necessary to make this attack work, and that's only second level. It does also require some way to block the opening of the pit, of which wall of stone is the most obviously-robust, and that's fifth level, but it could probably be done with stone shape (4th) in some cases, or with objects other than stone.
It's the thing where a second level spell plus environmental damage can be a save-or-die for multiple targets, while a single 6th level spell (disintegrate) is only save or take lots of damage which might well not even remotely come close to killing you, that's causing concern.
The spell is clearly not intended to produce "so much damage we don't even have a rule for it but obviously you are dead because it is impossible to survive that".
EDIT: Also, tone matters, and when you use emotionally-laden and derisive words like "crying" to characterize the people disagreeing with you, it is likely to make them even more dismissive than they would be otherwise.
The people disagreeing with me, are basically saying, "No! Because of reasons..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That may be, but calling it "crying" undermines any chance of a serious discussion.
From the top:
Ultimately, Pathfinder is a game, not a physics simulator. The point of the game is to be fun. If you find a way to use a spell that makes it far more effective than it's intended to be, that may seem fun at first, but it is very likely to result in "breaking the game" -- undermining the tools the game provides to allow the GM to provide reasonable and interesting challenges for the players.
As a general rule, the "create pit" spells are already a little on the "probably too good" side of the power spectrum; they are more powerful than a lot of other similar-level spells. The often-proposed idea of blocking the surface of the pit with something solid and immovable, and then causing creatures in the pit to be destroyed when the spell expires (or is dispelled), is too powerful. If that tactic works, it is so much more effective than many other tactics available with comparable spells that it undermines the ability of the game to be fun.
What that means is that either you rule it doesn't work, or you need errata to make sure it doesn't work. Or you've just made the game no longer particularly fun.
That said, I think it's pretty clear that the existing rules already invalidate this tactic.
From a rules standpoint: There is not a general rule about what happens if you cannot be expelled from an extradimensional space. There's a lot of ways you could accomplish this. For instance, put someone in a portable hole, or rope trick, or whatever, then fill in the area and dispel the effect. The various pit spells do sort of refer to moving characters/contents out: "When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round." (Of course, they say nothing about objects within the pit.)
However, there's a lot of magic rules that talk about what happens when you try to put a...
So the dm can drop players down pits and have walls fall on them, but the powerful spellcaster can't do that because it would be OP?
The spells are there, cunningly using spells together can result in greater effects, it is the same principle behind traps and enemy spellcasters as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every edition has been clear that using non-combat effective spells in combat ways is not intended nor supported.are you saying those spells don't lawfully target enemies and these ones do, therefore they work differently? I suppose that's a good point.Yes
I'm saying when a player says "I am casting Wall of Stone so that it will fall and deal crushing damage to that foe" then I say "no, you are not. What would you like to do?"
Wall of stone "merges into adjoining rock surfaces", so it would not fall. If the party or spellcaster next round damaged it enough (or removed a thinly created support) it would then fall and you would be obligated by the rules on weights falling on to people. The same ones the dm uses to crush players with cave-ins, boulders and the like.
How can it be used in combat? Why? This is impossible!
"you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation"
So you can set it up as a suspended boulder (or pancake trap) as its foundation does not need to be firm. You could also set it up to drop on an enemy in the pit after they clamber out (would have to get the timing right with held actions and reserved party members). A crushing precaution if you will.
Don't forget that not only can you crush someone with all that stone, you can trap them:
"It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves."
So I read the spell, you are wrong. You can totally drop that stone on enemies with a bit of work on a weak point after the spell, and with a player using their intelligence when creating it.
Also for more ideas, play the Kagero trap games of the Deception series. Recommended for every dm or wall of stone using player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No sure I saw anyone say "players can't use this tactic but GMs can", so that's a bit of a far fetched accusation.
As there is no specific rule listed for it, one must look to similar effects. Personally I run with the d door solution for appearing in an occupied space.
Bottom line is there is no RAW. RAI is pretty clear that it should not work as an insta-kill spell combo. However, since there is no RAW for this, expect table variation, and if you complain that it should work when your GM says it does not and the GM allows it, expect to have all spell asters have what would be a common tactic use it against your party ... Again and again and again...
Echoing posts above, so if he creates an iron wall on the edge of the pit, which is sloped anyway according to the base create pit description, then tips it in...?
This reminds me of DMs crying about a handful of pebbles taking out a stoneskin spell or gust of wind moving cloud/fog spells around in 2nd Ed. If my players did this I'd allow it and my NPCs would be on the lookout for similar nastiness in the future. Might even use it themselves. Its not like coming up with a really mean combo of spells lets them "Win the Game" here. Even if it DID insta-kill.
With the scenario in the OP I'd rule that everyone in the pit takes falling damage a second time (maybe non-lethal) and are trapped under the wall unless they can lift it off. Its not like the wall would crumble and bury them alive, suffocating them. Heat metal on that iron wall afterwards though, damn...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Show me where it "proves" your point...in the rules...
There is no line that is in print saying "That theory that Aspasia de Malagant comes up with is wrong" in the rules.
cunningly using spells together can result in greater effe
Which is what shouldn't be allowed because it is gaining more power out of a lower level spell.