Pit spell + A shrink wall and dispel pit


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In general, when using dimensional travel and arriving in solid object (ala Dimension Door, Blink) you a shunted to an available free space and take a minor amount of damage. I think this would qualify as a reasonable expectation as to what would occur, though I fully expect significant variance from GM to GM.


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?


Yeah, I'd either use the rules for being shunted through a solid object, or simply rule that, being an extra-dimensional opening, the pit opening now resides in the wall of stone rather than the ground.

The pit spells are powerful enough for their level as-is. Making them insta-kill via combination with wall spells is cheesy, IMO.

Also, the pit spells are not dismissable, to my knowledge. Even if your plan did work, you'd have to wait out the duration of the pit spell.


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?


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.


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

Silver Crusade

Wall of stone can be constructed over the pit, but it looks like it can't be dropped:

PRD wrote:
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 Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sstrad wrote:
Will my ennemies be crushed like pancakes?

No

Liberty's Edge

DesolateHarmony wrote:

Wall of stone can be constructed over the pit, but it looks like it can't be dropped:

PRD wrote:
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...


Sstrad wrote:


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.


Kalshane wrote:

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.


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
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

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

jimibones83 wrote:
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.


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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
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. :)


James Risner wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
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.


James Risner wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
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


James Risner wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
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:

James Jacobs wrote:

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.


Sstrad wrote:


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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

jimibones83 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
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?"

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
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?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
My2Copper wrote:

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:

James Jacobs wrote:

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.

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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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".


jimibones83 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
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.

PRD wrote:


...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.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:

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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
seebs wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
seebs wrote:

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 creature in a space where there's no space, and it's pretty consistent: The creature is put somewhere else, instead. Not crushed. So, for instance:

[indent]If you arrive in a place that is already occupied by a solid body, you and each creature traveling with you take 1d6 points of damage and are shunted to a random open space on a suitable surface within 100 feet of the intended location.

If there is no free space within 100 feet, you and each creature traveling with you take an additional 2d6 points of damage and are shunted to a free space within 1,000 feet. If there is no free space within 1,000 feet, you and each creature travelling with you take an additional 4d6 points of damage and the spell simply fails.[/indent]

That's from Dimension Door. Many other spells simply fail if you can't go there, but in the case of being expelled from an extradimensional space, you have to go somewhere. But basically, there's not much reason to imagine that this is intended to be able to crush things, no rules provided for what damage it would do, and the game is broken if you actually let it work. So I'd probably go with dimension door in the absence of a more specific formal ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seebs has it right. In the presence of no distinct rules on the subject, it's up to the individual GM to make a ruling, using existing rules as a guideline.

The existing rules for trying to move something into a space it can't exist are "It can't happen and effect fails" or "subject is shunted into nearest safe space and takes a small amount of damage." Since the spell can't logically fail in this instance, the "take 1d6 damage and shunted to the surface" seems to be the most inline with the existing rule set.

Ultimately, it's up to the GM of the game in question. And since the rules allow character to survive a large number of other things that in reality would result in instant death (falls from great heights, immersion in lava, getting eaten by a large predator, etc) I don't think it's unreasonable to say "being crushed to death by an expiring low-level spell" is against the spirit of the game.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
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?

I don't think I said that, or anything much like that.

Fixed-emplacement traps are subject to detection and disarming, and furthermore, I rarely-if-ever see a GM declare that a trap just instantly kills you because it's logically obvious you can't survive it. In theory I suppose a GM could design a dungeon which is summarized as "rocks fall, everyone dies". I've basically never seen it in a game with adult players, though, because that's not fun.

Quote:
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.

Except it's wildly different from the principle behind traps, which is that the traps have DC or to-hit rolls and damage or other outcomes which scale with intended challenge. They don't declare you instantly dead because you were squashed.

Enemy spellcasters are usually under roughly the same rules as the PCs, and I would be pretty distrustful of a GM who habitually allowed enemy spellcasters to instakill anyone who ended up falling in a pit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slightly off topic, but what happens when someone falls down in a pit and then after that a horse falls on top of that person?

Sovereign Court

Rikkan wrote:
Slightly off topic, but what happens when someone falls down in a pit and then after that a horse falls on top of that person?

Comedy ensues? ;)

Personally, I tend to apply falling damage to all those involved.


Rikkan wrote:
Slightly off topic, but what happens when someone falls down in a pit and then after that a horse falls on top of that person?

They roll initiative, and with any luck they beat the dead horse?


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...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
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.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
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.

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Pit spell + A shrink wall and dispel pit All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.