| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you have natural reach, and attack a creature through a wall of fire, do you take the fire damage of the wall of fire?
Can a creature with reach attack into an Antilife Shell if they have sufficient reach to hit their target within?
Essentially, is a creature confined entirely to their space, and can only be affected by effects that affect their space, or are they susceptible to intervening effects between them and the target of their natural reach attacks?
FAQ or discuss this topic?
Uh oh, I knew this was going to happen...I can answer the questions though.
1. No; you only take damage if your space passes through the wall of fire. Since reach in this case is not a part of your space, it doesn't make the creature take damage, though at the same time the reacher does not have line of sight to the target; he may attempt to attack a square and hope to hit the creature, but the creature is, for all intents and purposes, granted Total Concealment from the attack, unless the creature can see directly through the opaque Wall of Fire with a spell such as True Seeing.
2. RAW, the reacher can attack into the shield, assuming it is one of the types of creatures that is affected by the spell, though the best form of intent is to treat the reacher making an attack against a caster affected by Anti-Life Shell as not having line of effect, meaning he simply cannot make the attack because the square he's reaching into cannot be affected by his being, the same way a spell cannot affect the spaces of an Anti-Magic Field.
3. A creature makes attacks from their space, and the range of which the attacks the creature can make equates to their reach. In other words, unless you're affecting the space in which they occupy, you're not affecting the creature.
Uh oh, I knew this was going to happen...I can answer the questions though.
Haha, yeah... I don't like unanswered questions. By RAW there doesn't seem to be one.
For example:
1. No; you only take damage if your space passes through the wall of fire. Since reach in this case is not a part of your space, it doesn't make the creature take damage, though at the same time the reacher does not have line of sight to the target; he may attempt to attack a square and hope to hit the creature, but the creature is, for all intents and purposes, granted Total Concealment from the attack, unless the creature can see directly through the opaque Wall of Fire with a spell such as True Seeing.
This seems like a reasonable assertion... but it assumes the answer, instead of answers the question.
In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it.
The spell simply states that any creature passing through it takes damage... it doesn't specify that it requires the space of the creature to move through it, simply any creature that passes through it.
Which is ultimately the question at hand.
Does a creature pass through it when it uses a natural reach attack? Is there even a RAW answer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those silly questions where nobody outside of PFS will be affected by the answer, isn't it?
If your arm/tentacle/whatever reaches through a freaking wall of fire to slap someone, that appendage is going to burn, questionable hyperliteralist interpretations notwithstanding.
Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).... Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.
You can draw two possible answers from this: Fire Shield creates a similar situation and tells you that striking through it with a natural or non-reach melee weapon causes you to suffer the consequences of "reaching through" the effect. The same should apply to Wall of Fire.
Conversely, you can say this only applies to Fire Shield because it specifically calls out this effect.
*shrug*
Do with it what you will.
Uh oh, I knew this was going to happen...I can answer the questions though.Haha, yeah... I don't like unanswered questions. By RAW there doesn't seem to be one.
For example:
1. No; you only take damage if your space passes through the wall of fire. Since reach in this case is not a part of your space, it doesn't make the creature take damage, though at the same time the reacher does not have line of sight to the target; he may attempt to attack a square and hope to hit the creature, but the creature is, for all intents and purposes, granted Total Concealment from the attack, unless the creature can see directly through the opaque Wall of Fire with a spell such as True Seeing.This seems like a reasonable assertion... but it assumes the answer, instead of answers the question.
In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it.The spell simply states that any creature passing through it takes damage... it doesn't specify that it requires the space of the creature to move through it, simply any creature that passes through it.
Which is ultimately the question at hand.
Does a creature pass through it when it uses a natural reach attack? Is there even a RAW answer?
RAI, it makes sense to allow damage to be dealt in such as case, though only in cases of natural reach, and I wouldn't really condemn it. Most creatures with average intelligence would find a way around the wall instead of charging/attacking blindly into it, unless of course they had strong enough resistances and/or immunity.
RAW, the damage only applies when your space moves into/through the Wall of Fire, hence the terminology "creature passing through it." When making an attack a creature isn't moving into the squares which it can reach to carry out that attack, hence why the RAW would view it that way. I'm pretty certain if the game wanted to damage natural reachers as well, it would've included a clause for such a situation, but of course that is not the case.
@ fretgod99: The Fire Shield analogy would make sense if it had the same area and proximity of Wall of Fire. It does not. In addition, the sentence only specifies "melee weapons with reach." If it meant melee weapons with the reach property, you would have a case; however, all Large-sized weapons have a reach of 10 feet, so a Large or larger creature would still not be affected, since say, a Large Club, is a melee weapon with reach.
@ fretgod99: The Fire Shield analogy would make sense if it had the same area and proximity of Wall of Fire. It does not. In addition, the sentence only specifies "melee weapons with reach." If it meant melee weapons with the reach property, you would have a case; however, all Large-sized weapons have a reach of 10 feet, so a Large or larger creature would still not be affected, since say, a Large Club, is a melee weapon with reach.
That's not true. The Large Club does not have reach. The Large Creature wielding the Large Club has reach. We can get pedantic if we want and really parse the language: The spell calls out melee weapons with reach, not creatures with reach using melee weapons. Ultimately it turns on if you think "reach weapon" means something distinct from "weapon with reach".
Again though, my post wasn't meant to be determinative. I think there's an argument that could be made based off of Fire Shield, though it'd admittedly be a fairly weak one. I just thought it was an interesting point. Beyond that, as I noted, it can actually be argued either way (1. It's a relevant analogy and the logic should apply to Wall of Fire et al. as well; 2. Whether it's an apt analogy or not is irrelevant because Fire Shield specifically calls out these effects when the other spells to which you're trying to draw the analogy do not).
And in any event, this doesn't really provide any assistance in answering whether you could ready an attack to sunder the weapon of an opponent that attacks you if that opponent is outside of your threatened area.
It's like he's grasping at straws, man.
And in any event, this doesn't really provide any assistance in answering whether you could ready an attack to sunder the weapon of an opponent that attacks you if that opponent is outside of your threatened area.
Or... I moved on to what I thought was an interesting question?
Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).... Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.You can draw two possible answers from this: Fire Shield creates a similar situation and tells you that striking through it with a natural or non-reach melee weapon causes you to suffer the consequences of "reaching through" the effect. The same should apply to Wall of Fire.
Conversely, you can say this only applies to Fire Shield because it specifically calls out this effect.
*shrug*
Do with it what you will.
Yeah, there are other spells/effects with similar wording to fire shield. They all thematically seem to be offensively defensive personal buffs. The area of effect is essentially just your person, and anything that attacks you gets affected by it. (Minus ranged/reach weapons)
They seem inconclusive, either way, whether they apply to this question about intervening barriers. You could stretch them to make a weak case in either direction.
Fire shield does what you are asking for, and specifically calls it out as the result of the ‘attack’. Thus the creature doesn’t ever really pass through the barrier.
Or
Fire shield works just like wall of fire, and the creature actually passing through the spell effect is the trigger, because fire shield is locally centered in your space, they worded it so that it is their attacks that trigger it.
But both are weak arguments >.< So don’t exactly help.
Anyone have anything more conclusive? Seems weird that whether or not a creature is trapped in an invisible cube or not is not spelled out. Clearly my position is that sounds silly. But, there really doesn’t seem to be any RAW answer one way or another.
Least, I haven’t seen it yet. More hunting!
Pathfinder must have gotten suddenly very popular with lawyers because these boards have come up with some crazy nit-picky arguments and questions lately.
As for the question, yes, I believe they would take damage.
@ fretgod99: The Fire Shield analogy would make sense if it had the same area and proximity of Wall of Fire. It does not. In addition, the sentence only specifies "melee weapons with reach." If it meant melee weapons with the reach property, you would have a case; however, all Large-sized weapons have a reach of 10 feet, so a Large or larger creature would still not be affected, since say, a Large Club, is a melee weapon with reach.That's not true. The Large Club does not have reach. The Large Creature wielding the Large Club has reach. We can get pedantic if we want and really parse the language: The spell calls out melee weapons with reach, not creatures with reach using melee weapons. Ultimately it turns on if you think "reach weapon" means something distinct from "weapon with reach".
Again though, my post wasn't meant to be determinative. I think there's an argument that could be made based off of Fire Shield, though it'd admittedly be a fairly weak one. I just thought it was an interesting point. Beyond that, as I noted, it can actually be argued either way (1. It's a relevant analogy and the logic should apply to Wall of Fire et al. as well; 2. Whether it's an apt analogy or not is irrelevant because Fire Shield specifically calls out these effects when the other spells to which you're trying to draw the analogy do not).
And in any event, this doesn't really provide any assistance in answering whether you could ready an attack to sunder the weapon of an opponent that attacks you if that opponent is outside of your threatened area.
I suppose you're right, since a creature's reach is determined by its size, not the weapon's size, and the Reach property on weapons simply alters it. Enlarge Person is proof of this. Very well, I'll concede that point.
Again though, Fire Shield calls out for when you're making attacks against a creature while it's active, Wall of Fire calls out for when you're passing through its area of effect, in which case RAW would dictate it means the creature's space. If making attacks into squares that go into or beyond a Wall of Fire's effects count as passing through its area of effect, then I'll concede (and I'll agree that RAI it makes sense).
RAW says otherwise though.
If you have natural reach, and attack a creature through a wall of fire, do you take the fire damage of the wall of fire?
Can a creature with reach attack into an Antilife Shell if they have sufficient reach to hit their target within?
Essentially, is a creature confined entirely to their space, and can only be affected by effects that affect their space, or are they susceptible to intervening effects between them and the target of their natural reach attacks?
RAW and maybe even RAI I think you have to enter the area. I say that because if you put a reach weapon through a fire it does not take fire damage. However don't be surprised if a GM makes you or the reach weapon take fire damage.
PS: Weapons don't take fire damage when fighting fire elementals, and I would try to use that to support my case, but I would not derail a game for it.
With that aside I learned a long time ago the rules are not exactly consistent so I don't always expect one ruling to affect another rule even if it should logically.
One thing I thought of a while ago that I wish paizo had done with pf is have universal spell structure stuff like the universl monster rules.
There are a lot of spells that redescribe obscure parts of the rules in their text. It makes the spell work but the reader may be unaware its a rule outside of the spell.
In the case of the spells mentioned above it likely falls under the game assumes the dm will apply logic so we don't need to mention it. However since many spells break the rule of logic its probably not a good model to follow.
At the end of the day though each spell is its own limited set of rules that only interact with other rules if they say they do.
Or if the GM says they do, because sometimes the rules are crazy stupid.
Again though, Fire Shield calls out for when you're making attacks against a creature while it's active, Wall of Fire calls out for when you're passing through its area of effect, in which case RAW would dictate it means the creature's space. If making attacks into squares that go into or beyond a Wall of Fire's effects count as passing through its area of effect, then I'll concede (and I'll agree that RAI it makes sense).
RAW says otherwise though.
How do you determine that bolded part?
For what it is worth, I'm genuinely asking how you make that determination. I really don't care about being right or wrong, and am trying to follow your logic.
You are obviously not asking this question in the context you are trying to make it appear. Why are you so intent on pushing this issue? There is nothing RAW that supports the ability to ready an attack against a creature with a reach weapon or with natural reach unless you have the feat Strike Back. Even though you asked a loaded question, here's my answer. RAW, no there is no rule that says you will take any damage for reaching through a wall of fire. But guess what? In my game I will houserule that you do take damage. Even if I were GMing a PFS table, I would apply this ruling. Know why? Cause I'm the GM and I am the final arbiter of the rules. You don't need a FAQ for everything to tell you how to run your games.
You are obviously not asking this question in the context you are trying to make it appear. Why are you so intent on pushing this issue? There is nothing RAW that supports the ability to ready an attack against a creature with a reach weapon or with natural reach unless you have the feat Strike Back. Even though you asked a loaded question, here's my answer. RAW, no there is no rule that says you will take any damage for reaching through a wall of fire. But guess what? In my game I will houserule that you do take damage. Even if I were GMing a PFS table, I would apply this ruling. Know why? Cause I'm the GM and I am the final arbiter of the rules. You don't need a FAQ for everything to tell you how to run your games.
And you are obviously upset and naively assuming my motivation.
My motivation is to find an actual RAW answer to the questions I posed. Darksol, and others, are claiming to have a RAW answer, and I want to know where they got it and how. Is that weird to you somehow?
I stopped posting on that other thread because I dropped the issue. I dropped it. I have no idea why you want to bring it back up again. I am asking about something else that came up during that conversation, plain and simple.
But if you want to rehash that other topic we can. I didn't see any point, because all anyone was doing is making unfounded assertions without anything to back them up.
If someone claims to have the RAW answer... I want to see where and what it is. Sorry that 'just take our word for it' doesn't do it for me. I don't care if someone believes they have a RAW answer, I want to actually know what that RAW answer is and if it is in fact the RAW answer.
Want to know more about my motivation? This is the rules forum, where we discuss the rules. I am here to discuss the rules. If you don't like people discussing the rules on the rules forum, I suggest you spend your time somewhere other than the rules forum. Maybe you should ask yourself what your motivation is?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hi Remy & other people from the other thread. :D
"Passing though" is not an official game term. It has no defined meaning in the context of the game rules other than what the GM decides it to be. The two most likely interpretations are:
* "Passing through" means moving your space through it.
* "Passing through" means moving your space through it, but it also means a number of other things like attacking through it or picking up an object through it.
So, to answer the question: no, I don't think there is a clear RAW answer to the question.
Again though, Fire Shield calls out for when you're making attacks against a creature while it's active, Wall of Fire calls out for when you're passing through its area of effect, in which case RAW would dictate it means the creature's space. If making attacks into squares that go into or beyond a Wall of Fire's effects count as passing through its area of effect, then I'll concede (and I'll agree that RAI it makes sense).
RAW says otherwise though.
How do you determine that bolded part?
For what it is worth, I'm genuinely asking how you make that determination. I really don't care about being right or wrong, and am trying to follow your logic.
How I make that conclusion is with the context of the ability. "creatures who are passing through" can mean multiple things in a literal sense, but in the game, it refers to a creature's square, since a creature isn't moving into the squares it's making attacks in. With that logic in mind, its square is never crossing into or through the area of effect that Wall of Fire is being placed on, and the proxy for which damage takes place is never triggered. The problem is, you don't believe that's the case (even though that's how the game is to be ran), and that's why we're having this kind of discussion.
Granted, common sense RAI would disagree, and if pressed I personally would agree that a Wall of Fire would damage a creature whom is reaching into a square that is beyond a Wall of Fire, assuming there is no other way around it through which the creature can attack without fear of harm (after all, if a creature is smart enough, it should ignore dangerous flames sprouting infront of it). And that's on top of the already fairly generous assumption that the Wall of Fire is opaque and grants Total Concealment from the creature making the attack into the square that may or may not contain the PC.
But RAW, that's how it runs. There are already effects that specify if a creature attacks you, and that effect even makes a claim that attacks made with a weapon that has the Reach property doesn't apply to that proxy. If that's the more sensible interpretation for it, go with it. It's not like I'm saying there's no other way, I'm just telling you how the book sells it.