Had something similar on this last week but I was a bit broad and a little off point on what I was actually looking for an answer on. This was never answered though:
Does Wall of Fire deal damage per 5' square (like Spike Stones), or only once per round, per character?
Now, per the spell description, the distance heat damage is pretty clearly spelled out: "One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round."
This seems to me to mean if a creature really wants to it could move into either the 2d4 or 1d4 heat areas on it's turn, run around and back out and not take any damage so long as it's outside the area by the start of the caster's turn.
However the next part of the spell is less clear:
"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."
Here's where my question starts: Clearly this damage isn't connected to "the start of the caster's turn" as it states it's caused by the creature actively passing through it. So does a creature passing through multiple sections (either through being larger than medium or by traversing the WoF down it's length, as in if the WoF was created down a 5' wide hallway that a creature needed to travel down) take damage per section, or just once, like the heat damage?
The WoF spell indicates it sees each 5' of the WoF as an individual entity in saying "If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points or more of cold damage in 1 round, that length goes away," and makes me feel it should do damage that way.
Spike Stones is a level less powerful than WoF on the Druid spell list and it clearly states that "each creature moving through the area takes 1d8 points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked area." SS does not require concentration like WoF, effects 4x the area and lasts 1 hour/level. Why would SS, a supposedly less powerful spell, last so much longer, not need concentration, effect a much larger area, do so much more damage via rolling every 5' (neither WoF or SS can reflex save against damage) and have an additional effect of 1/2 movement if a Reflex save is failed (which is rolled each time damage is taken)?
Right, this is no different than a fireball.
Fireball a huge creature, and it doesn't take damage for every one of its squares that are inside the fireball. Certainly a realistic way to play it, but not how RAW works.
Not sure the average damage argument is that much of an argument as a) it's a higher level spell with a lot less duration, etc. Plus the average damage doesn't really increase too much passed that 7th level min. Compare it to fireball, which is two levels lower, and that 7th level is averaging 24.5. And b), any creatures you're encountering at 7th level aren't going to worry about 14 points of damage (much less 17 points at 10th) and then has a free shot on the caster who's stuck concentrating on the damn thing...That 4th level SS spell is auto halving movement, and then halving again unless a reflex save is made each 5' moved, while doing 4.5 damage per step for a 140' x 140' square at 7th level. Either those creatures need to walk a long way taking 4.5 per square, eventually at half speed, or they need to camp out for 7 hours for the spell to run out. Either way, the caster is free to do anything else during that time: run, cast, fight, eat a couple meals, etc.
The only way this isn't a horrible 5th level spell is if it does damage per square, then it only becomes slightly better with really specialized use, like the hallway thing. Otherwise, it's really easy to avoid, while completely taking a 7th+ level caster out of the fight.
Not sure the "it doesn't specifically say it, so it doesn't do it" argument holds either as it does specifically say "to any creature passing through it." Clearly you're passing through a wall when going lengthwise and as the spell designates that you need to damage each 5' portion of the wall individually and only each specifically damaged portion will go away as opposed to the whole wall being treated as 1 object, there is an argument to be made.
I'm wondering if there is anything in FAQs or errata that covers this
If a creature was on the damaging side of the wall at the beginning of its turn it would take the appropriate damage, then if it moved through the wall on their turn they would take the listed damage. If later in the same round on an enemies turn the creature was bull rushed through the wall they would take the damage once more.
If for example a Large sized creature ran down the length of the wall on its turn it would only take damage once in that round no matter how many squares it passed through.
--Schoolhouse Vrock
No, there isn't, and the spell is in no way horrible. It's area denial; it's not there to utterly destroy single targets, it's there to keep swarms of mooks at bay. There's lots of things you might fight at level 7 that might well care about 14 points of damage, especially if they might have to take it on multiple turns. Fireball's one-shot; wall of fire stays there for long enough to kill lots of things if they don't move.
It does not do damage per square, and nor do any other spells, ever. That is simply not how the game works.
Seebs wrote: "It does not do damage per square, and nor do any other spells, ever." He is absolutely wrong. Read the description for SS.
KoV: WoF states the damage for heat is taken on the caster's turn, so it is incorrect to state that a creature on "the damaging side of the wall" takes damage at the start of the turn AND if it tries to move through the wall. It would only take damage if it actively tried to cross the wall. I further postulate that ANY attempt to cross the wall, on any 5' square of the wall, would work.
Again, please state rules if responding. I'm looking for RAW here (or at least RAI with an argument), not someone just stating "no, that's wrong." That doesn't actually do any good.
Krith wrote:
Again, please state rules if responding. I'm looking for RAW here (or at least RAI with an argument), not someone just stating "no, that's wrong." That doesn't actually do any good.
Since it is not spelled out clearly either way, we cannot state RAW.
Now RAI, is another matter.
Spike Stones calls out how it works specifically, which implies that its rule is an exception. Wall of Fire does not which implies that it doesn't work how you seem to want it to. As far as I can tell, that is the RAI.
But you can discuss it with your GM who can rule either way.
Thanks Gilarius. I think it's a difference of views: I see how it could be read as implying it does deal damage as I stated. The rules state the world is made up of 5' squares (as opposed to say, atoms). So if you cross a WoF, you take damage per 5' square traveled.
Look at it this way: If you cast the spell in a 5' square and then another caster casts it in another, separate 5' square, would you deal damage for both spells if the same character crossed both squares during it's move? If not, why would that creature get immunity to the second spell?
The rules state the damage is taken when the creature crosses, I'm just saying that, per the rules of 5' squares, the creature is crossing the wall multiple times and therefore, according to how the spell is written, should take damage multiple times.
Just to note, it is a 4th level spell, and also really good. blocking vision is surprisingly powerful imo
Krith wrote: Does Wall of Fire deal damage per 5' square (like Spike Stones), or only once per round, per character? Only once per round, per character. That's clear from the spell description, which you quote.
Krith wrote: "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."
Here's where my question starts: Clearly this damage isn't connected to "the start of the caster's turn" as it states it's caused by the creature actively passing through it. So does a creature passing through multiple sections (either through being larger than medium or by traversing the WoF down it's length, as in if the WoF was created down a 5' wide hallway that a creature needed to travel down) take damage per section, or just once, like the heat damage?
Just once. There are no such things as "multiple sections" in terms of a wall of fire dealing its damage. The spell does later describe a 5-foot section of the wall disappearing if it takes enough cold damage in a round, but that has no bearing on the wall dealing damage. The wall deals the additional damage to any creature passing through it - once per creature, per time it passes through, regardless of the creature's size. The way that spike stones deals its damage is not relevant to how wall of fire works.
With your example of a creature walking lengthways down a wall, it could be argued that (RAW) the creature hasn't "passed through" the wall until it reaches the far end. In such an unusual situation, however, a GM may well be required to make a ruling. Personally, I would say that each round a creature walks along (or stands in) a wall of fire, it takes the "passing through" damage.
Krith, I agree that your interpretation is 'reasonable' and therefore you can ask your GM about it, but the rules don't allow it without a GM call.
Overall, I side with Callum's interpretation.
Spike Stones isn't doing damage per square, it's doing damage per distance travelled. There's a subtle distinction there.
And the point is, the reason Spike Stones has to describe that mechanic is that the mechanic is not how spells otherwise work. This is a pretty much perfect example of the principle "the exception proves the rule". The fact that spike stones has to explicitly describe its unusual mechanic is convincing evidence that the behavior of every other spell follows rules that aren't those rules.
So would you all default to thinking if a large creature is in both the 10' damage area and the 20' area, he would only take damage once? Or say in both the 10' area and in a square the wall was created in? Seems to me the wording pretty clearly states it would take all the damage for each section of damage it is in (said creature would be a creature within 10' of the wall as well as being a creature within the wall when it evokes which are each separately stated as conditions that receive damage), though I'm assuming you would all say that's an impossibility based on the above interpretations of spells only able to do damage once per round per creature.
I hadn't thought of the not seeing through it, but if anything, I'd say that's more of a disadvantage if anything. The caster won't know what any creatures on the other side would be doing, be it hiding, running away, etc. The caster wouldn't even know if any creatures were being effected by the fire. Or say all the creatures on the other side die or flee, when is he supposed to stop concentrating? At least if you could see through it, you'd know whether to maintain it or not...
As for the it being a level 4 spell, this is true, however, the only way to give a fair comparison of a spell's effectiveness is with another spells on the same caster's list. So to compare SS and WoF, you'd have to go with WoF being a level 5 druid spell as no other class list gets SS.
Krith, what has your GM said?
At the moment, we all say your interpretation would not be the way we'd run it, but your argument makes a certain amount of sense.
If you want to convince anyone, you should examine each common spell in the game and see if your changes to Wall of Fire affect any of them.
And Wall of Fire is a 4th level arcane spell; it is balanced against other 4th level arcane spells. The fact druids get it at 5th level is irrelevant to that balancing. Most alternative 5th level druid spells should be better than Wall of Fire since they don't come from someone else’s list.
Gilarius,
GM Hasn't said anything on it as I can't cast it. This is just something I've noticed.
Particularly with the different areas of damage, the RAW of the spell pretty clearly state the conditions of when it deals damage, and I don't see why taking damage for being a creature within the wall when it's created would preclude you from also being a creature within 10' of the wall (assuming you are taking up a 5' square within that area as well).
I read spells as describing the conditions under which they will effect things.
Fireball states it "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area." Therefore, if you're a creature within that area, you take that damage. For SS, it gives the condition of taking 1d8 damage+1/2 movement+save for another 1/2 movement, per 5' square of movement. WoF gives multiple conditions for dealing damage.
Since I've yet to see any quoted umbrella rule regarding a spell only doing damage, once per round, per creature, regardless of what the spell description states; I don't see why you wouldn't apply those conditions to all creatures within it's AoE, as that is what the spell description states.
I'm not sure you're correct on how you're seeing divine and arcane spells. WoF is not intrinsically an arcane spell; it, as with any spell, is divine if cast by a divine caster and arcane if cast by an arcane caster. I'm not sure how you could compare it with other "arcane" spells in that sense, hence my comparison using lists.
It's also not from any specific list more so than any other list that it is on, so far as I can tell, so it wouldn't be an "alternative" druid spell. It's a 5th level druid spell. The reason why druids get it at 5th instead of 4th, I'm assuming, is because they aren't as powerful as other casters when it comes to WoF for some reason.
Krith wrote: Gilarius,
GM Hasn't said anything on it as I can't cast it. This is just something I've noticed.
Particularly with the different areas of damage, the RAW of the spell pretty clearly state the conditions of when it deals damage, and I don't see why taking damage for being a creature within the wall when it's created would preclude you from also being a creature within 10' of the wall (assuming you are taking up a 5' square within that area as well).
I would not have a problem with having a large creature take damage from both being in/passing through a wall and from being within 10', but I would be very wary of allowing it without considering the ramifications if the same ruling were applied to other common spells - and that would be the player's responsibility to check for me or I'd rule against him/her. If I am allowing a player a bonus, I won't want to have to do extra leg-work.
Krith wrote:
Fireball states it "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area." Therefore, if you're a creature within that area, you take that damage. For SS, it gives the condition of taking 1d8 damage+1/2 movement+save for another 1/2 movement, per 5' square of movement. WoF gives multiple conditions for dealing damage.
So, that's 2 spells. What about the rest? (Grin, you don't have analyse the rest for my benefit, just for your GM's.) And if you think that SS is about the same power as WoF, then you are in agreement with the original game designers! See below...
Krith wrote:
Since I've yet to see any quoted umbrella rule regarding a spell only doing damage, once per round, per creature, regardless of what the spell description states; I don't see why you wouldn't apply those conditions to all creatures within it's AoE, as that is what the spell description states.
There are several underlying assumptions in the game; you want to change/apply a particular one to Wall of Fire, making it more effective instead of what has been assumed for the last 30-odd years. This is not a new spell...see below.
Krith wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct on how you're seeing divine and arcane spells. WoF is not intrinsically an arcane spell; it, as with any spell, is divine if cast by a divine caster and arcane if cast by an arcane caster. I'm not sure how you could compare it with other "arcane" spells in that sense, hence my comparison using lists.
It's also not from any specific list more so than any other list that it is on, so far as I can tell, so it wouldn't be an "alternative" druid spell. It's a 5th level druid spell. The reason why druids get it at 5th instead of 4th, I'm assuming, is because they aren't as powerful as other casters when it comes to WoF for some reason.
Wall of Fire has been a 5th level spell for druids ever since druids were invented; it has been a 4th level spell for Wizards ever since wizards ('Magic-Users' at the time) were invented. Clerics did not get elemental spells (with a very few thematic exceptions), druids were given a few arcane spells to make up for losing a large part of a cleric's spell list. When spells were moved across classes, they generally were made a level higher, so the class whose main speciality it was would remain the best at casting/using it. Therefore, non-wizards get certain arcane spells at higher level, and wizards got certain divine spells also at a higher level. Eg Resist Fear (Wiz2 - but not available in PF) was identical to Remove Fear (Cleric1).
This aspect is clearly spelled out in the descriptions of Limited Wish and Wish - it is harder to cross the divide between divine and arcane.
Druids are 'alternatives' to clerics; they get extra features like wildshape instead of channeling, etc. Their spells, originally, were deliberately weaker than clerics but had a few interesting extra ones in, including a few from the wizard's list, but at a higher level.
So, if you make Wall of Fire 'better' you now have to balance it against 4th level arcane spells, not 5th level druid spells. It is and always has been a weak choice for a druid - because druids aren't supposed to be the best at using that 'sort' of spell.
Krith wrote: So would you all default to thinking if a large creature is in both the 10' damage area and the 20' area, he would only take damage once? Yes. As the spell states: "...dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet." A creature that is within 10 feet of the wall is not also past 10 feet but within 20 feet, so it will take 2d4 points of fire damage on the caster's turn.
Krith wrote: Or say in both the 10' area and in a square the wall was created in? If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, they will take 'passing through' damage (2d6+CL) on your turn. If they didn't move away on their turns, they would then take 'within 10 feet' damage (2d4). By RAW, a creature "in a square the wall was created in" is not passing through it, so it would not take more 'passing through' damage on your next turn. However, as a GM, I would be included to rule that it did take this damage again on each of your turns. It would then take more 'within 10 feet' damage on its own turn if it again didn't move.
Okay, I have been pretty dismissive of Krith's theories, but I think he actually has an interesting point about the location of a large creature.
A large creature which straddles the 10' line has at least one part which is "within 10 feet of the wall". And it has at least one part which is "past 10 feet but within 20 feet".
I think this is resolved by the fact that the rules already cover how you count distance between things -- you count distance between centers of nearest squares. But I'm not entirely sure, and I couldn't quote you anything off the top of my head.
As a GM I would only do the 1d4 or the 2d4 once per creature. It would take what ever is worse. On the other hand, if a creature crosses the wall more then once or the run down the wall as a large creature they will take damage from each square.
Krith wrote: Seebs wrote: "It does not do damage per square, and nor do any other spells, ever." He is absolutely wrong. Read the description for SS.
KoV: WoF states the damage for heat is taken on the caster's turn, so it is incorrect to state that a creature on "the damaging side of the wall" takes damage at the start of the turn AND if it tries to move through the wall. It would only take damage if it actively tried to cross the wall. I further postulate that ANY attempt to cross the wall, on any 5' square of the wall, would work.
Again, please state rules if responding. I'm looking for RAW here (or at least RAI with an argument), not someone just stating "no, that's wrong." That doesn't actually do any good.
You're right it does happen on the casters turn... but that only changes my example slightly.
In any case a creature in both areas of the damaging side of the wall would take the worse of the two damages.
It would take damage only once per instance of passing through the wall whether it was passing through the narrowest part or running along the entire length of the wall. They could still conceivably take the passing through damage again in the same round if they are forced through it multiple times.
I think the damage for being in the wall is intended to be once per round. If not then how often per round would you inflict the damage against a creature who camps out in the wall due to being stunned, paralyzed, grappled, or just stubborn?
That said, it can be a little surprising and possibly frustrating when you think you've got monsters "trapped" in Wall of Fire and they just use it as a path to get places without even taking additional damage. I was actually thinking about starting a thread on the often failed ambitions of casters using continuous area damage spells. Wall of Fire has been a bit of a dud in our home games, especially since a clever DM can use it as a defense for the monsters or even force PCs into it. On the other hand, Wall of Fire and especially Sirocco can be absolutely hellish if you can get the monsters to stand still for them.
Gilarius,
Interesting thoughts on the development of the druid and arcane vs divine spells, however, I don't think the history is relevant here as per RAW:
"Spells come in two types:
Arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and
Divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers)"
So, regardless of how the spell developed, the rules state any spell cast by a druid is divine, and, at least in so far as I've seen with Pathfinder, the only way to classify spell types. That said, if there is anything other than caster's class that states spells are either divine or arcane, I'd love to hear about it as it would actually have a significant impact on our game.
Further, the history you're going with goes back decades before Pathfinder started; even if the druid was supposed to be an alternative, or modified, cleric, they've developed the class in their own right well beyond this simplification. Also, the wording of the wish spell isn't that's more difficult to cast divine spells with it, but that it can only cast up to a certain level of non-wizard list spells, which to me is a significant difference.
Take for instance, if an arcane caster creates their own spell per spell creation rules, that would be an example of an arcane spell that isn't on the wizard spell list and would be subject to the same restrictions as you state as the 'Wish divine spell rules.'
We do know that the developers (PF or anyone else) deemed it would be more difficult for druids to cast WoF. But that's exactly why we can't compare off-list spells in this way, in my opinion. We have no idea what the developers would say about SS being on the wizard's list, because it's not on the wizard's list and they haven't said anything about it (so far as I'm aware), and nothing of the development of the spells is in the rules, so I'd be very hesitant to start allowing hearsay theories and snippets of game development from the 80's to dictate current PF.
From reading other posts, it seems a lot of work and many changes go into the development of classes. I doubt it would be wise to say 30 years from now "my gunslinger should get X ability because, even though it's not in the rules now, the first generation of the class had this ability..."
For instance, wasn't it back in 2 that divine casters didn't have to prepare spells and were all spontaneous casters? Obviously this has changed too and I can imagine the thinking back then being "we don't want spontaneous casters being able to cast at the same level as those who need to prepare spells in advance because of fairness issues." Obviously this still holds true in that spontaneous casters advance much slower than those who have to prepare spells. I'd say this would have been much more of a factor in WoF being a level 5 druid spell than your reasoning (though, again, I do appreciate you presenting it here). Again, I think it's dangerous to use unstated/unruled on hearsay (for lack of a better term) for this reason. We can only go by what they eventually decided to put in the rules (the 3.5 Wild Shape rules would be another example of this but I don't think we need another example written out).
Also, spells like summon monster which is on both the "divine" Cleric and "arcane" Wizard lists at the same level, or Fire Snake, which is on both the Druid and Wizard list at the same level, would also counter the spells are divided based on being Divine vs Arcane d/t the spell (and not the caster) argument.
King of Vrock wrote:
You're right it does happen on the casters turn... but that only changes my example slightly.
In any case a creature in both areas of the damaging side of the wall would take the worse of the two damages.
It would take damage only once per instance of passing through the wall whether it was passing through the narrowest part or running along the entire length of the wall. They could still conceivably take the passing through damage again in the same round if they are forced through it multiple times.
So we actually AGREE then that WoF DOES deal damage multiple times in a round to the same creature: it deals the "10' or 20' distance-to-the-wall damage" (referred to in the description as from waves of heat, so lets refer to this as the 'heat' damage of the spell) on the caster's turn, and the "passing through the wall damage" (lets call this the 'contact' damage) on the creature's turn. Same spell, same creature, same round, multiple damage effects.
Why, then, would you now say when you create the spell, you wouldn't take both the heat and contact damage? The spell clearly states "The wall deals this damage when it appears" and "If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall."
Devilkiller wrote: I think the damage for being in the wall is intended to be once per round. If not then how often per round would you inflict the damage against a creature who camps out in the wall due to being stunned, paralyzed, grappled, or just stubborn?
That said, it can be a little surprising and possibly frustrating when you think you've got monsters "trapped" in Wall of Fire and they just use it as a path to get places without even taking additional damage. I was actually thinking about starting a thread on the often failed ambitions of casters using continuous area damage spells. Wall of Fire has been a bit of a dud in our home games, especially since a clever DM can use it as a defense for the monsters or even force PCs into it. On the other hand, Wall of Fire and especially Sirocco can be absolutely hellish if you can get the monsters to stand still for them.
Similar to my response to KoV: If the creature camps out in the wall for multiple rounds, it would take the heat damage on the caster's turn, and the contact damage on the creature's turn.
I'd also say if the creature is in both heat sections, within 10' and within 20', it would fulfill the requirement to take both categories of heat damage, per the RAW.
Callum wrote: Krith wrote: So would you all default to thinking if a large creature is in both the 10' damage area and the 20' area, he would only take damage once? Yes. As the spell states: "...dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet." A creature that is within 10 feet of the wall is not also past 10 feet but within 20 feet, so it will take 2d4 points of fire damage on the caster's turn. If I'm standing 5' from the wall and my body occupies the 10' of distance from there to 15' from the wall, then I am both within 10' of the wall and also past 10' of the wall but within 20'. Per the rules you quoted, this would fulfill both conditions and therefore, I would take both categories of heat damage. Not sure why you think this is impossible...
Pretty sure a large creature standing at 5 feet (and occupying space) does not qualify as "being past 10 feet."
Sure, part of its body is, but the creature as a whole is only 5 feet from the wall.
I would tend to view it similarly to AoO: You don't take more than one AoO from a given combatant for the same thing which provokes AoOs, but if they have combat reflexes you may take more than one for different things. Similarly, you could take damage on the caster's turn for being near the wall, and damage on yours for moving through it.
3E had a chart of recommended damage ranges for arcane and divine casters, by spell level, but I don't think it made it into the SRD.
And Krith, I think you are mistaken: There is a single distance between "you" and the wall. I believe the way distance is computed is "distance between centers of closest squares". You keep trying to subdivide creatures into their squares, but that's not how it works; the creature is simultaneously in all of those squares, but it's still only one creature. There is only one "distance between X and Y", even if X and Y both take up multiple squares.
Draco18s wrote: Pretty sure a large creature standing at 5 feet (and occupying space) does not qualify as "being past 10 feet."
Sure, part of its body is, but the creature as a whole is only 5 feet from the wall.
If there's a rule stating something like this, I'd love to see it. Outside of that, that large creature is both within the 10' area as well as being within the 10'-20' area. It's just part of being a large creature that takes up 4x the amount of space as a medium creature. I don't know why that large creature would cease to be within half the squares it occupies.
seebs wrote: I would tend to view it similarly to AoO: You don't take more than one AoO from a given combatant for the same thing which provokes AoOs, but if they have combat reflexes you may take more than one for different things. Similarly, you could take damage on the caster's turn for being near the wall, and damage on yours for moving through it.
3E had a chart of recommended damage ranges for arcane and divine casters, by spell level, but I don't think it made it into the SRD.
And Krith, I think you are mistaken: There is a single distance between "you" and the wall. I believe the way distance is computed is "distance between centers of closest squares". You keep trying to subdivide creatures into their squares, but that's not how it works; the creature is simultaneously in all of those squares, but it's still only one creature. There is only one "distance between X and Y", even if X and Y both take up multiple squares.
If there's a rule about this, I'd love to read it. But here's what I've found in the "Space, Reach, & Threatened Area Templates" section:
"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."
This seems to back up the notion that the large creature can occupy both the 10' area and the 20' area. You would count out 2 squares, intersection to intersection, from the wall and that wold be your 10' area. Any creatures within this area would take 2d4 damage.
You would then count out 2 more squarea, intersection to intersection, from that 10' line. Any creatures within this area would take 1d4 damage.
That is exactly the opposite of what it's telling you to do, though.
You determine whether the creature is in the area of the spell or not.
Not whether each square, counted separately, is in the area.
Once you have made a determination for the creature, that creature is done and you do not need to make any more determinations of it. To put it another way: The ogre may have a part that is more than ten feet from the wall, but the ogre is not more than ten feet from the wall.
We operate on creatures, not squares.
I don't think they bothered to explicitly state how you count distance between things because it's pretty obvious, and it's also pretty thoroughly embedded in basically every example they give of distance between two things.
seebs wrote: That is exactly the opposite of what it's telling you to do, though.
You determine whether the creature is in the area of the spell or not.
Not whether each square, counted separately, is in the area.
Once you have made a determination for the creature, that creature is done and you do not need to make any more determinations of it. To put it another way: The ogre may have a part that is more than ten feet from the wall, but the ogre is not more than ten feet from the wall.
We operate on creatures, not squares.
I don't think they bothered to explicitly state how you count distance between things because it's pretty obvious, and it's also pretty thoroughly embedded in basically every example they give of distance between two things.
Not sure how that's the opposite and per the rules of how to determine AoE spells, you do "operate" on squares. Once you have the AoE down by 5' squares, intersection to intersection, you then apply those AoE effects to creatures, per the spell.
So, Using the rules for determining a spell's AoE, you block out 10' from the wall. This is the 2d4 damage area of the spell and it covers intersection to intersection. Now do this again, again per the rules, from the 10' out line and go another 10' out, so you're now at 20' from the wall. If it makes it easier to see, color the first group of squares blue and the second group green.
Then, per the spell, deal "2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet." So any creature within the blue section takes 2d4 damage. Then, also per the spell, deal with the green section: "and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet." Now, there may be creatures that are in both areas, but per the Pathfinder rules and the description of the spell, they qualify for both AoE sections.
In fact, from a strict, literal perspective, you could make the argument that the words "to those" is referring to the original "creatures" referenced in the first part of the sentence and, therefore, the only creatures that would take damage in the 10' to 20' area, are creatures that also qualified for the 0-10' section. I doubt this is what is meant however. It's more likely, in my opinion, that "to those" is an equal substitution for the referenced "creatures" so that you could read it as follows:
"2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage [to creatures] past 10 feet but within 20 feet."
I'm also wondering how you're considering a large creature as NOT within half the squares the rules clearly state the creature as occupying. By your logic, why aren't you excluding that large creature from the 0-10' area and only having it occupy the back half of it's 10' x 10' area?
Also, as this is the rules forums, please state rules with your comments rather than a "this is wrong because I want it to be wrong." I'm more than happy to read rules that state that distance is factored in a different way than the rules I've quoted; that's why I started this post. Just, again, please use actual rules in your post. You state "it's also pretty thoroughly embedded in basically every example they give of distance between two things." If this is true, please state some so the rest of us can refer to them as well. Thanks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No, there is no point at which you apply the effects of each square to creatures. You first determine which creatures are in the area, then determine the effect on each creature.
THE EFFECT OF THE SPELL IS ON CREATURES, NOT ON SQUARES.
It is not "For each square within 10' of the wall, each creature in that square takes 2d4 damage". It is "2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet."
If you have determined that the creature is within 10' of the wall, then the creature is not more than 10' from the wall. There is a single number: Distance from the wall to the ogre. That's it. You compute the distance, singular, and then you apply the effect corresponding to that distance.
You compute the area, from the computation of the area you find the set of affected creatures, then you resolve the effect on each creature. If the effect relies on distance, then you resolve the distance once and apply the effect once.
This comes down to exactly the same problem as your previous thread: You're trying to get extra bonus damage on creatures that take up more squares. And that is not how the game works. There are two options if you want it to work that way:
1. We change the game to work that way, and the game is entirely wrecked from a game balance perspective and ceases to be fun.
2. We change the game to work that way, then fix all the resulting balance issues and rework everything else from weapon damage to strength bonuses to patch up the errors, and end up with a game which actually isn't really different from Pathfinder except that it takes about 5x as long to run a turn from all the added complexity.
Neither of these is actually any good. You can't make this work. I don't know what the deal is here, maybe a creature with a 10x10 space used to steal your lunch money in school or something, but really, no, it is not going to become a good idea, ever, to try to get larger creatures to take more damage from AoE effects. We've been over the reasons for which this would break things, we've presented the math, and you're still going at it, and this is long past ridiculous.
seebs wrote: No, there is no point at which you apply the effects of each square to creatures. You first determine which creatures are in the area, then determine the effect on each creature.
THE EFFECT OF THE SPELL IS ON CREATURES, NOT ON SQUARES.
It is not "For each square within 10' of the wall, each creature in that square takes 2d4 damage". It is "2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet."
If you have determined that the creature is within 10' of the wall, then the creature is not more than 10' from the wall. There is a single number: Distance from the wall to the ogre. That's it. You compute the distance, singular, and then you apply the effect corresponding to that distance.
You compute the area, from the computation of the area you find the set of affected creatures, then you resolve the effect on each creature. If the effect relies on distance, then you resolve the distance once and apply the effect once.
This comes down to exactly the same problem as your previous thread: You're trying to get extra bonus damage on creatures that take up more squares. And that is not how the game works. There are two options if you want it to work that way:
1. We change the game to work that way, and the game is entirely wrecked from a game balance perspective and ceases to be fun.
2. We change the game to work that way, then fix all the resulting balance issues and rework everything else from weapon damage to strength bonuses to patch up the errors, and end up with a game which actually isn't really different from Pathfinder except that it takes about 5x as long to run a turn from all the added complexity.
Neither of these is actually any good. You can't make this work. I don't know what the deal is here, maybe a creature with a 10x10 space used to steal your lunch money in school or something, but really, no, it is not going to become a good idea, ever, to try to get larger creatures to...
You're confusing two threads, I think. A past thread dealt with damage per square, and there is an aspect of that to this post, but the current issue is a bit different.
This thread is about Wall of Fire and what it does. The spell specifically states it has three distinct damaging effects: damage to those creatures within 0-10' of the wall, damage within 10'-20' of the wall, and the damage done when a creature passes through the wall. If you're arguing this point, I cannot help you.
Read the rules on AoE spells and figure out, by the rules, which squares are covered by the spell. Then, see which creatures are effected by the spell (ie are in the AoE), per the RAW of the spell.
In this case, if the wall is created where a creature is standing, it takes 2d6+1/lvl. If it's created where a creature is in the 0-10' area, it takes 2d4 damage. If it's created where a creature is in the 10'-20' area, it takes 1d4 damage.
The spell specifically states to apply the distance to the wall damage on the casters turn AND when the wall is first created.
Then it states to apply the damage from crossing the wall on the creature's turn. However, it specifically adds in again, to apply this damage when the wall is created.
So you have 3 separate damaging effects of the spell, that each covers a separate AoE. If a creature is in each of those AoE's it takes damage from each.
There is a second part to this post that deals with taking damage for crossing multiple sections of the wall in a round (whether through large or larger size or other means). As no poster on this thread has posted any rules on this, it seems to be a straight GM's call, as many have suggested.
Now you've yet to state rules to back up your theories, even though this is a rules forum and I've specifically asked for rules. I've clearly stated Pathfinder's rules for applying AoE effects, which for some reason you dismiss. I've clearly stated Pathfinder's rules for the spell, which you also dismiss. I'm assuming you're just looking for an argument at this point. Please don't ruin a legitimate discussion on the rules with constant interjections that go with your opinion and not rules.
The rules for Wall of Fire seem a little silly since if they mean that when you use all your movement to walk through a CL10 Wall 12 times (with Haste) you'll take 24d6+120 damage (~204 average) while if you simply stand in the Wall or maybe pace back and forth inside it you'll only take 2d6+10 damage (~17 average).
The rules for falling damage sometimes seem a little silly too. Most high level PCs can jump off the tallest tower or mountain with little if any chance of dying. Sometimes the rules are clear but can create silly situations. I guess it is up to each group whether to avoid such situations or bask in them (maybe in some groups it is stylish to go skydiving without parachutes to see who can make the best Wily Coyote style hole in the ground)
Krith wrote: Callum wrote: Krith wrote: So would you all default to thinking if a large creature is in both the 10' damage area and the 20' area, he would only take damage once? Yes. As the spell states: "...dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet." A creature that is within 10 feet of the wall is not also past 10 feet but within 20 feet, so it will take 2d4 points of fire damage on the caster's turn. If I'm standing 5' from the wall and my body occupies the 10' of distance from there to 15' from the wall, then I am both within 10' of the wall and also past 10' of the wall but within 20'. Per the rules you quoted, this would fulfill both conditions and therefore, I would take both categories of heat damage. Not sure why you think this is impossible... It's impossible because it's logically impossible for an entity to be both A and not-A at the same time.
You are confusing creatures with parts of creatures. Wall of fire talks about creatures. When evaluating what damage (if any) a creature will take from the spell, you look to see which categories, defined by the spell, it fits into (if any). Is it one of the "creatures within 10 feet" of the wall? if so, it takes "1d4 points of fire damage". Is it one of the "[creatures] past 10 feet but within 20 feet" of the wall? If so, it takes "2d4 points of fire damage". Since a creature logically cannot be both "within 10 feet" and "past 10 feet" at the same time, it can never take both categories of damage.
Note that the spell never talks about "parts of creatures" or "squares"; it simply talks about "creatures" and distances. If it was intended to deal damage by squares, it would mention this (as with spike stones). if it was intended to affect creatures of different sizes in different ways, it would mention this (as with whirlwind).
It is a natural consequence of the way the rules are set up that spells can have a different in-game 'power' depending on the creatures that they affect. A single water walk spell has a vastly different apparent effect if cast on eight Colossal creatures than it does if cast on eight Tiny creatures. Is that reasonable, 'realistic', or balanced? Maybe not, but that's the way the rules work. If it offends your sensibilities, and you want all spells (and other effects) in the game to take account of creatures' sizes, then feel free to work out and write up a comprehensive set of amendments for use in your own games; but you'll need to consider how they'll apply to every spell (or other effect) that might be used in those games.
It's also not as straightforward as you might think. To take wall of fire as an example, you might want to say that larger creatures should be affected more by the heat of the wall, as they have more body to be exposed to it. Note, however, that this wouldn't be determined by proximity to the wall, as the part of the creature's body closer to the wall would be shielding the part further away - so you'd want to stick with the proximity effects as described in the existing version of the spell. Instead, you'd want to look at how much 'facing' a creature is presenting to the wall, and increase the damage accordingly. Don't forget that the wall is only 20 feet high, though - which will restrict the amount of facing a tall creature can present to the wall. You'd also have to determine if you want there to be some 'fade off' damage above the wall. Also, smaller creatures would presumably take less damage - you'd have to work out some system for this. Once you've done this for all spells and effects, you'd then need to look over all the available PC races and see if they require some re-balancing based on their sizes. Is all this going to be worth it, for a little extra verisimilitude? I'd say probably not, and the game's designers would seem to agree - but if it'll make you enjoy your games more, then go ahead!
Callum wrote: It's impossible because it's logically impossible for an entity to be both A and not-A at the same time.
You are confusing creatures with parts of creatures. Wall of fire talks about creatures. When evaluating what damage (if any) a creature will take from the spell, you look to see which categories, defined by the spell, it fits into (if any). Is it one of the "creatures within 10 feet" of the wall? if so, it takes "1d4 points of fire damage". Is it one of the "[creatures] past 10 feet but within 20 feet" of the wall? If so, it takes "2d4 points of fire damage". Since a creature logically cannot be both "within 10 feet" and "past 10 feet" at the same time, it can never take both categories of damage.
Note that the spell never talks about "parts of creatures" or "squares"; it simply talks about "creatures" and distances. If it was intended to deal damage by squares, it would mention this (as with spike stones). if it was intended to affect creatures of different sizes in different ways, it would mention this (as with whirlwind).
It is a natural consequence of the way the rules are set up that spells...
See I think you're doing what you seem to be accusing me of. I'm not taking real world rules and applying it to the game; I'm applying the game's rules to the game. The game considers "parts of creatures" as creatures. If a fireball goes off and a colossal creature is at the very boundary of it's AoE, and only 1 square of the colossal creature's body within the AoE of the fireball, the colossal creature still takes damage from the fireball, even though only part of it's body (and at that only a small percentage) is in the AoE. Parts = the creature for the spell effect. Let's remove any "real world" thinking and just go by the rules of Pathfinder:
A colossal creature takes up 30' of space (per the creature's size chart).
A WoF has 3 different damage dealing effects: crossing the wall, the first 10' of heat damage and the second 10' of heat damage for a total of 20' area of effect when you calculate everything.
To determine a spells AoE, here's the rules from Pathfinder:
"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."
That same section of rules, "Space, Reach, & Threat" also states, in the next paragraph:
"If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area."
As a colossal creature counts as "anything" it can absolutely, according to Pathfinder's rules, be within both the 0'-10' AoE and the 10'-20' AoE, and crossing the wall, all at the same time.
So now let's apply the spell per it's RAW, step by step:
"One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet."
Okay so mark out both AoEs, the 10' section and the 20' section. Based on the "anything within that square is within the spell's area" rule that colossal creature is in both sections.
On to the next step:
"The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round."
So lets say we just cast this WoF. We would then roll the damage for each section, 2d4 damage and 1d4 damage.
Next part of the spell:
"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."
Whether or not you feel that sentence implies the creature has to be actively moving through the wall to take that damage, is moot to this argument as the spell adds a caveat:
"If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall."
So since we just cast the spell, and even though the colossal creature already took two different damage rolls from the spell already, it would now take a third damage roll, 2d6+1/level, for being where the wall appears when the wall is evoked.
Total damage for that colossal creature right when a minimum level caster (let's say a level 7 wizard) casts it:
2d6+7 + 3d4
I haven't tried to put any real world logic, such as "larger creatures should be affected more by the heat of the wall, as they have more body to be exposed to it," into any of these effects. This is all straight from the rules of Area of Effect, Creature Size and the Wall of Fire spell description from the Pathfinder website.
Krith wrote: See I think you're doing what you seem to be accusing me of. I'm not taking real world rules and applying it to the game; I'm applying the game's rules to the game. The game considers "parts of creatures" as creatures. If a fireball goes off and a colossal creature is at the very boundary of it's AoE, and only 1 square of the colossal creature's body within the AoE of the fireball, the colossal creature still takes damage from the fireball, even though only part of it's body (and at that only a small percentage) is in the AoE. [citation needed for bolded section]
Counter argument:
If more than one square of a colossal sized creature is within the AoE of the fireball it still only takes the damage once. Each "part" doesn't take the damage separately.
Krith wrote: To determine a spells AoE, here's the rules from Pathfinder:
"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."
A key problem with your line of reasoning dependent upon this quote, with regard to wall of fire, is that the 'heat damage' is not the area of effect of the spell. The effect of wall of fire is an "opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high".
When answering your questions about the rules, I'm most definitely not applying any real world rules (other than those of grammar, logic, etc necessary to read and understand the written rules); I'm expressly sticking to the rules of the game. I did digress to discuss how you might modify the rules to make them more 'realistic', but that was just an aside.
Krith, do you allow alchemists to hit a large, or better yet, a huge creature and then do both impact AND splash damage? More importantly, do you allow splash damage on EVERY adjacent square to the point of impact the creature occupies? Do they have to make saves for each square they occupy?
Sure, this is not what you are discussing currently, but from your stance on WoF, I can see this being a logical extension.
As far as WoF goes, it is one time per passing through the wall. It does not say the damage is per 5' of the wall that is passed through, it is the single action of passing through.
Before you ask me to show you a specific rule for this, I would like to preemptively counter with please show me a written rule for WoF that supports your position for this spell.
Bottom is where a common sense reading of the spell comes into play.
prd wrote: One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. A large creature will be within 10 OR 20 feet ... if it straddles the line it is considered the worse of the two damage conditions (because it is within 10 feet).
prd wrote: 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. "to any creature passing through it" not "for every 5 feet a creature passes through." Two very different things.
Draco18s wrote: Krith wrote: See I think you're doing what you seem to be accusing me of. I'm not taking real world rules and applying it to the game; I'm applying the game's rules to the game. The game considers "parts of creatures" as creatures. If a fireball goes off and a colossal creature is at the very boundary of it's AoE, and only 1 square of the colossal creature's body within the AoE of the fireball, the colossal creature still takes damage from the fireball, even though only part of it's body (and at that only a small percentage) is in the AoE. [citation needed for bolded section]
Counter argument:
If more than one square of a colossal sized creature is within the AoE of the fireball it still only takes the damage once. Each "part" doesn't take the damage separately. Draco, the bolded wasn't a citation, it was a quote off of what I was responding to. I wasn't saying each part takes damage separately, I was saying if part of the creature is in an AoE, then that AoE applies to the creature, even though only part of it is an the AoE.
Callum wrote: Krith wrote: To determine a spells AoE, here's the rules from Pathfinder:
"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."
A key problem with your line of reasoning dependent upon this quote, with regard to wall of fire, is that the 'heat damage' is not the area of effect of the spell. The effect of wall of fire is an "opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high".
When answering your questions about the rules, I'm most definitely not applying any real world rules (other than those of grammar, logic, etc necessary to read and understand the written rules); I'm expressly sticking to the rules of the game. I did digress to discuss how you might modify the rules to make them more 'realistic', but that was just an aside. I'd go with the heat damage using the spell AoE rules as a) I don't know of any other AoE rules in Pathfinder (feel free to cite them if I'm missing something) and b) it is the stated effect of a spell, per it's RAW, that effects a stated area, therefore, it is a 'spell's AoE.'
If the key problem with my logic is that it isn't the spell's AoE, how would you factor the AoE for the heat per RAW? If there isn't a non-spell AoE rule, you're now stuck with a completely undefined damage dealing spell for which no argument you or I pose could be backed up as there is no rule on it.
I'd be interested to hear the argument that the heat damage isn't the spell's AoE. I'd assume that means the heat damage as you're referring to it would not be subjected to SR.
zylphryx wrote: Krith, do you allow alchemists to hit a large, or better yet, a huge creature and then do both impact AND splash damage? More importantly, do you allow splash damage on EVERY adjacent square to the point of impact the creature occupies? Do they have to make saves for each square they occupy?
Sure, this is not what you are discussing currently, but from your stance on WoF, I can see this being a logical extension.
As far as WoF goes, it is one time per passing through the wall. It does not say the damage is per 5' of the wall that is passed through, it is the single action of passing through.
Before you ask me to show you a specific rule for this, I would like to preemptively counter with please show me a written rule for WoF that supports your position for this spell.
Bottom is where a common sense reading of the spell comes into play.
prd wrote: One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. A large creature will be within 10 OR 20 feet ... if it straddles the line it is considered the worse of the two damage conditions (because it is within 10 feet).
prd wrote: 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. "to any creature passing through it" not "for every 5 feet a creature passes through." Two very different things.
Zylphryx,
I don't know the rules for Alchemists so I won't speak on what they should or shouldn't do. Also, I just don't think its relevant here. Whether or not I think splash damage would or wouldn't apply doesn't change the rules of AoE and the RAW of WoF. That said, if you think something within those rules would apply here, cite it and I'll take a look and give my feedback.
As to "A large creature will be within 10 OR 20 feet ... if it straddles the line it is considered the worse of the two damage conditions (because it is within 10 feet)." This is answered by the rules of AoE, which I've quoted above and says that if any part of a creature is within an AoE, that creature takes effects of the AoE. That means, in Pathfinder, a creature can be both within 0'-10' and within 10'-20' if any of their four 5' x 5' squares are within either of the AoEs. I don't mean to be argumentative, but this is what the RAW say. I haven't seen any quoted rule of "if a creature is within multiple AoEs, only apply the effect that deals the most damage" but again, my point in posting is to learn if I'm missing something, so let me know if there is something that says that.
I'm wondering what you would do with a creature within the AoE of two different spells. Would it only take the worse damage condition? What if it was two different WoF spells facing each other with the creature in between? Still one condition or two?
zylphryx wrote: As far as WoF goes, it is one time per passing through the wall. It does not say the damage is per 5' of the wall that is passed through, it is the single action of passing through." This has been covered in that there doesn't seem to be a RAW (no rules have been quoted as to whether you're also passing through a wall running length-wise) and people seem to either think it makes sense or, as DevilKiller states, it's just a wacky rule. Either way, it seems up to specific DM's since there is no RAW one way or the other.
Not sure if people will consider this RAW or not, but it's slightly different language and, I think, still supports what I've posted so far. From WoF's brief description on the Druid Spell List:
"Deals 2d4 fire damage out to 10 ft. and 1d4 out to 20 ft. Passing through wall deals 2d6 damage +1/level."
3 separate conditions of damage: "out to 10 ft.", "out to 20 ft.", and "Passing through".
Callum wrote: A key problem with your line of reasoning dependent upon this quote, with regard to wall of fire, is that the 'heat damage' is not the area of effect of the spell. The effect of wall of fire is an "opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high".
When answering your questions about the rules, I'm most definitely not applying any real world rules (other than those of grammar, logic, etc necessary to read and understand the written rules); I'm expressly sticking to the rules of the game. I did digress to discuss how you might modify the rules to make them more 'realistic', but that was just an aside.
Callum,
Also noticed this which leads off the Space, Reach, & Threatened section which the original rules quote of Spell AoEs came from:
"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."
So I'd go with whether or not the heat is the 'area of effect' of WoF, it is certainly "a specially defined area" in the spell description and would therefore be subject to the spell AoE rules.
Johnny Cash explains it best:
I fell into a burning Wall of fire
Hitpoints went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the wall of fire
The wall of fire
Krith wrote: I'd go with the heat damage using the spell AoE rules as a) I don't know of any other AoE rules in Pathfinder (feel free to cite them if I'm missing something) and b) it is the stated effect of a spell, per it's RAW, that effects a stated area, therefore, it is a 'spell's AoE.'
If the key problem with my logic is that it isn't the spell's AoE, how would you factor the AoE for the heat per RAW? If there isn't a non-spell AoE rule, you're now stuck with a completely undefined damage dealing spell for which no argument you or I pose could be backed up as there is no rule on it.
I'd be interested to hear the argument that the heat damage isn't the spell's AoE. I'd assume that means the heat damage as you're referring to it would not be subjected to SR.
Some spell descriptions in Pathfinder (such as spike stones) have an "area" entry, while others (such as wall of fire) have an "effect" entry (and some others have a "target" entry). The rules you quoted actually come from the section dealing with area spells - I'd recommend that you refer to the PRD, here on Paizo's own website, rather than to d20PFSRD, which often chops and changes things around. Here's the relevant section from the PRD:
PRD wrote: 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.
The flexibility and open-endedness of Pathfinder means that you can't (and shouldn't) have general rules that cover every single possibility. It's great to know that many spells are classified as bursts, or cones, and to have general rules that cover how those operate, so you don't have to repeat them in every burst or cone spell. But you are always going to have unusual spells that lie outside these generalities; for these, you simply put the relevant rules in the spell description itself. Wall of fire is a good example of this latter type of spell. It has an unusual effect, which requires some explanation.
To work out whether the 'heat damage' is subject to spell resistance, let's look in the PRD section on spell resistance, specifically "When Spell Resistance Applies":
PRD wrote: Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does.
Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
Area Spells: Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell's area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.
Effect Spells: Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.
(Note, again, the distinction between targeted, area, and effect spells.) So, for an effect spell such as wall of fire, we need to evaluate whether it acts "upon a creature more or less directly". We should also note that the "spell resistance" entry for wall of fire is "yes". The wall itself is clearly subject to spell resistance - so a creature with SR might not take fire damage when passing through it, as the wall is then definitely acting on it directly. For the 'heat damage', I can see the argument both ways. If this heat is just a side-effect of the wall's existence - the air becoming hot - then the damage would not be subject to SR. If, however, the spell is creating waves of heat that act on the creature directly, then the damage would be subject to SR.
In either case, working out how much heat damage a creature might take is dependent on the wall of fire spell description, and not the rules for area spells. There are not two separate "areas of effect" for this spell.
Krith wrote: Total damage for that colossal creature right when a minimum level caster (let's say a level 7 wizard) casts it:
2d6+7 + 3d4
I notice that you're not multiplying this damage by six or twelve, to take into account the number of 'squares' of the colossal creature that are in each 'damage section'. Have you had a change of heart about that aspect of things?
Krith wrote: I haven't seen any quoted rule of "if a creature is within multiple AoEs, only apply the effect that deals the most damage" but again, my point in posting is to learn if I'm missing something, so let me know if there is something that says that. Here's a rule, from the section under "Magic" on "Combining Magic Effects":
PRD wrote: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Except for called-out spells like Meteor Swarm, where overlapping AOEs specifically both apply.
|
