The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once, but it can double back so one section is adjacent to another section of the wall.
Ok, I have given this some more thought and maybe Ravingdork is correct, however this could easily be a non-native speaker issue with the expression of "doubling back".
Case 1 (space = square): Imagine a wall running west, then doubling back east while not using the same squares doing so (one uses the northern, one the southern square).
Case 2 (space = border between squares): Imagine a wall running west, them doubling back south, east and north while not using the same border in between squares doing so.
Both walls (according to their individual rules definiton) do not enter the same space more than once, do double back (as in ending up where you have started, not necessarily taking exactly the same route back) and there are indeed wall sections that are adjcent to each other (fully adjacent for case 1; adjacent by 1" for case 2, where the wall sections meet).
What do the native speakers make out of it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I always interpreted Wall of Stone specifically, and most walls generally more like any wall that isn't 5' thick specifically I suppose, as occupying not a full 5' square but the border between squares. The issue with Ravingdork's diagram is best exemplified by figures E and F in my opinion. E he marked as illegal, because he arbitrarily decided that the wall is occupying the "inner" squares instead of the outer squares. F is legal for the opposite reason.
But if you flipped them, again arbitrarily since there is no given reason as to why the wall inhabits a given square in his diagram, then E would be fine and F would be illegal. J and K are the same wall, but arbitrarily again, one has chosen the the inner squares while the other chose the outer ones.
My question to RD is, how are you determining what square the wall is taking up?
Edit: Really my question is, what in Wall of Stone leads you to believe that the wall takes up a 5' square at all? Legitimately curious because I've never had that notion reading the spell.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
Nice work but ... looks to me like a lot of wasted time.
Source Core Rulebook pg. 383 2.0
Traditions arcane, primal
Deities Anubis, Ashukharma, Mazludeh
Cast Three Actions material, somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet
You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares. The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
Bolded the part that is important
So Figure B should be legal - actually - it is just the mirror image of figure C.
Figure D: No - not legal. You place walls on top of each other
Figure E and F are actually identical.
Figure H should be non legal
Figure I should be legal
Figure J and K are identical
We can discuss if on the border between squares. implies that the wall is 1/2 inch in either squares or if the border itself is 1 inch thick or a 5 foot square is actually 4 foot 11 inch with 1/2 inch reserved for the border, or you really move 5 foot and 1 inch inch you step.
Or we just accept - the 5 foot square is an abstraction. The border is an abstraction. To fit the wall on the border we make it thin (1 inch) while in all purpose for a game it takes zero space.
It is called rounding - or all it is just a rounding error how we treat the thickness of the border.
Anyhow - RAW says - on the border between squares. So you can't even argue there is a double border (one for each square) as you seem to imply with the images.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool so we have another basic factor, regarding wall of stone placement, that several people have a different interpretation on.
Sadly I have to admit that I agree with Thod here: that the wall is on the border and not really in the square. So the placement really only cares about that border line meeting up again.
IE only D and H are invalid.
I'm starting to comearound to Thod's point of view as well, though by his interpretation I could see J and K being illegal as well as D and H.
If you allow the edges to touch, much less connect, then I feel D and H should be permitted via the same logic.
Why is B illegal?This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
Because it doubled back into the same squares (if you zoom in, you can see that it runs along one side of the border or the other.
My question to RD is, how are you determining what square the wall is taking up?
The caster decides, so long as it's a contiguous line.
Really my question is, what in Wall of Stone leads you to believe that the wall takes up a 5' square at all? Legitimately curious because I've never had that notion reading the spell.
It's been quoted already, but it was the reference to spaces.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think D and H are illegal.
If J and K are illegal because of the wall touching an 'end-border' why would E and F not be illegal as well?
I think D and H are illegal.
If J and K are illegal because of the wall touching an 'end-border' why would E and F not be illegal as well?
Seems to me that many people are arguing that already (no boxing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that many people are arguing that already (no boxing).I think D and H are illegal.
If J and K are illegal because of the wall touching an 'end-border' why would E and F not be illegal as well?
To be clear, this started from talking about 3d boxes with roofs and all 4 sides, not a simple "no boxing someone in" rule or something like that. I might have missed something, but I know Thod, Ubertron_X, and I never claimed E or F were illegal at least. My claim was more related to a single casting having to be a wall relative to some plane. Basically, if you can't draw it on a grid as you have with all of your examples (a straight line from some viewpoint), then it doesn't work. Not even talking about doubling back, which I have my own opinions on, but I don't really care enough to argue about.
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but did you all also check the orange spaces in addition to the walls?
The difference between B and D, E and F, J and K is seems pretty obvious to me when you consider the used squares.
A wall can't use the same square, so given a grid and two adiacent orange spaces, the difference is that it may stay on either on one or the other.
If the caster manages to have every single segment on a different square, then there should be no issue at all.
The example D perfectly shows how it should be done to have adiacent sections that use different squares.
The walls are not inside any square:
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
The above is directly from the Core Rule Book - Spell Description, page 383. So unless you have another source - why do you think a wall is in a square when the rules say they are between squares?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, this started from talking about 3d boxes with roofs and all 4 sides, not a simple "no boxing someone in" rule or something like that. I might have missed something, but I know Thod, Ubertron_X, and I never claimed E or F were illegal at least. My claim was more related to a single casting having to be a wall relative to some plane. Basically, if you can't draw it on a grid as you have with all of your examples (a straight line from some viewpoint), then it doesn't work. Not even talking about doubling back, which I have my own opinions on, but I don't really care enough to argue about.
That describes my position pretty well.
I'm also not aware of a direct mention of no doubling back or of a developer opinion. Please let me know if that exists (ideally a link).
I see the no doubling back rather as a result of the walls being between squares. You can't double back on itself as that space is already occupied.
|
|
I argue that it's perfectly fine to touch the end of the wall as a path could be made going either way and it would be otherwise legal. Not to mention that the wall doesn't have to be 5-ft entirely, as the 5-ft limit is only talking about where the wall segments are placed, not their length or height.
Which seems to me like the biggest difference I am having with the rest on this discussion.
Also yeah, D and H seem like the only illegal ones due to being the exact same line if you didn't use the 5-ft square interpretation.
I see no problem with an 8 foot high wall blocking an 8 foot high corridor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The walls are not inside any square
In my diagrams they are! :P
(Except perhaps Figure A.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to mention that the title of this thread is somewhat irksome since the word in question is "concertina" (named after a kind of instrument, a cousin of the accordion.)
|
|
So the thing people seem to be overlooking with "can't make a box" is that you only need to create 5 faces of the box, because the floor already exists. And you can absolutely fold the wall such that it does that. (It will then need to go off in an overhang for a square before coming back down, and you still can't create adjacent boxes, but)
Try the following
Take a piece of paper. Fold it once to form a corner.
Now fold it as you said above to add the top.
Try it and report back when you have managed it.
This seems simple - you only create 3 faces. But believe me - it is impossible without double folds / a scissor / using a net and not a rectangle.
If you don't believe me - try it !!
An L shaped piece of paper would do - but that means you have different lengths or widths in your wall. Because if you use nets then you can as well just leave 'doors' wherever an enemy is.
Take a piece of paper.
A quick question Thod, what about Wall of Stone, or any wall for that matter, leads you to believe that they should be thought of as a single piece, as in your paper analogy, before being conjured?
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
Some walls can be shaped; you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.
Both of these quotes lead me to believe that instead of placing an already "solid" piece of wall, I am instead laying out the wall section by section. Edit: For clarity, it is my view that the wall is "conjured" in one piece, fitting into the path that you lay out while casting the spell. This is what allows you to, "manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line..."
So what leads you to believe that you are plopping down a pre-existing, already formed wall ala a strip of paper?
What in either the spell itself or the walls rule, or anything else for that matter, indicates that the only edge of a wall segment you can continue the wall from is the "front" facing one? Why couldn't you make a 90° turn from the "top" of a segment instead, transitioning from a vertical wall segment to a horizontal or even angled one?
|
|
Again we are not talking about a piece of paper. Your analogy doesn't equate.
And you can absolutely fold the wall such that it does that.
I'm trying here to convince someone that it is just physical impossible to fold a rectangle or square pieces of paper into the suggested form.
Fold a strip into walls
North - East - South - West - easy
Fold a strip into walls
North- Ceiling - South - easy
Fold a strip into
North, East, Ceiling
Impossible - unless
a) you take a square paper and cut from one middle side to the middle of the paper. Now you can fold it - by double folding.
b) you take a square paper 10x10 and cut out one 5x5 piece
WHY does this matter?
Let me quote the Rules ones more:
CRB page383
You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
So just for the sake of it - I have a corridor. It is 20 foot wide and 15 foot high. Can I conjure a wall across it?
Yes - that seems out of question.
Now I place 3 orcs in it on one side and 3 giant bats flying overhead
bbbx
xxxx
xooo
b = bat
o = orc
x = empty space
Do you allow the empty space aka every single x to be filled with a wall?
I do say - no - this is against the rules as in my view this is not an unbroken open space. There are creatures in the way.
Why does it matter? What has it to do with a piece of paper?
The exact shape is one of 11 allowed shapes that can be folded into a cube. So if you can cast it - then YES - you can cast a cube. If you are not allowed to cast it - then you can't cast a cube (alas - to fully proof that might be more difficult and out of scope here in this forum).
And now to me piece of paper example 2.
10 feet wide wall, 10 feet high
xx
xo
x equals empty space
o equal orc
Can I cast a wall to block 3/4 out of it. Again - I interpret the rule a no. But a wall of that shape is the basic building block to form a corner wall AND a ceiling at the same time.
So the question here is:
For clarity, it is my view that the wall is "conjured" in one piece, fitting into the path that you lay out while casting the spell.
That does allow a wall aka
xx
x
being cast
For clarity
You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
This in my view disallows it a wall of the shape
xx
x
being cast. Walls (if unfolded) have to be a rectangular
xx
xx
fine
xxx
xxx
fine
xxx
x_x
not allowed
I hope this helps. This breaks it down to the most fundamental question.
xx
x
Yes or no - allowed or not. Everything else follows. If you allow this wall - then yes - you can (should !) allow a cube. But I'm not aware of any GM I play with who would allow that.
|
|
If you can continue the wall from a top edge, could you make a wall of stone 20 ft wide and 120 tall?
What about an L shape, where you’d have a wall that’s 60 ft wide at the base, with a 60 ft spire on one side?
Boils down to the same principle as
XX
XO
Doesn’t matter if X is 5x5 feet or if the outer X are 40x20 with the X in the middle being 20x20. You just make a bigger version.
If you can continue the wall from a top edge, could you make a wall of stone 20 ft wide and 120 tall?
What about an L shape, where you’d have a wall that’s 60 ft wide at the base, with a 60 ft spire on one side?
Simplest way to answer: No, because height is still height relative to whatever is "down". When the spell says that the wall can be 120' long and 20' high, I see no reason to allow for the wall to be stacked higher than 20' relative the "ground" beneath it.
For example, say you wanted to make a free standing staircase. No matter how you split the length and height, the total staircase couldn't be higher than 20' from the floor. If however you were to secure that staircase to a wall, then the wall becomes "down" and the staircase can climb up the wall.
TL;DR: The way I see things, whatever the wall is built from becomes "down". At least that is how I see things, your mileage and opinions may (and likely do) vary.
That does allow a wall aka
xx
xbeing cast
Yes or no - allowed or not. Everything else follows. If you allow this wall - then yes - you can (should !) allow a cube. But I'm not aware of any GM I play with who would allow that.
I may just be tired after a day at work, but I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say here.
XX
X
This appears to be a wall with 2 segments, for arguments sake let's say 5' square length, then a 90° turn.
Are you implying that a Wall of Stone cannot make a 90° turn, or am I not understanding your meaning?
As to the limitation of Wall of Stone not being able to cross creatures or objects, where in your example is that occurring? The orcs take up the space within their square, but they do not cross the space between squares where the Wall is built. So even if two creatures are standing in adjacent squares, a wall of stone should be able to separate them.
Really imo a creature would have to be at least Large before that limitation even matters. It mostly matters for those larger creatures and objects, which are much more likely to be taking up more than a single square, or residing partially in multiple squares.
In other words, you couldn't put a Wall of Stone through a Tavern table, but you could separate a creature and their buddy with such a wall.
|
|
@Beowulf
I have build up my wall
edit:adding an empty line ...
xx
x
It is full 3D. The basic corridor is DwarvenForge. The Goblin Miniatures are Otherworld. The wall of stone (white) is Hirst Arts.
A wall that in my view isn't allowed
This is as simple as it gets. Between squares. No folding, no large sizes. A simple wall filling a total of 3 5x5 squares.
To paraphrase one of the most brilliant posters here (taken from Ravingdork)
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty photo!
In short, as my wall needs a piece to be 'cut-out' from a rectangle it isn't allowed. There is also no way to fold a larger wall into this shape. And if you can't cast this shape, then a cube also is not possible.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
If you can continue the wall from a top edge, could you make a wall of stone 20 ft wide and 120 tall?
What about an L shape, where you’d have a wall that’s 60 ft wide at the base, with a 60 ft spire on one side?
Simplest way to answer: No, because height is still height relative to whatever is "down". When the spell says that the wall can be 120' long and 20' high, I see no reason to allow for the wall to be stacked higher than 20' relative the "ground" beneath it.
For example, say you wanted to make a free standing staircase. No matter how you split the length and height, the total staircase couldn't be higher than 20' from the floor. If however you were to secure that staircase to a wall, then the wall becomes "down" and the staircase can climb up the wall.
TL;DR: The way I see things, whatever the wall is built from becomes "down". At least that is how I see things, your mileage and opinions may (and likely do) vary.
So then how do horizontal panels factor in to the wall’s dimensions?
Could I make a wall 20 ft tall, 120 ft long, with a 5 ft horizontal overhang along the entire length? What about a 20 ft overhang? Both would still be 20 ft tall, relative to ‘down’
So then how do horizontal panels factor in to the wall’s dimensions?
Could I make a wall 20 ft tall, 120 ft long, with a 5 ft horizontal overhang along the entire length? What about a 20 ft overhang? Both would still be 20 ft tall, relative to ‘down’
How do you figure out the dimensions of a bridge using Wall of Stone? That is the method you use to factor in a horizontal panel to an wall's overall length.
As to your example wall, no because the overhang, being it's own segment of wall, counts towards the length of the wall, so you could make such a wall 60' long imo.
@Thod
My question to you is why? I went back through and looked for any sort of reasoning from your posts, and as far as I can tell, you haven't provided any reasoning based on the rules to support your position.
I'm not saying you don't have any, just that you haven't pointed them out. The summation of what you have said is the following:
"You can't do that. You can't make a box with a strip of paper. Here, picture of model and some neat terrain pieces."
It is hard to have a discussion about a topic without any context for what the other half of the discussion believes.
So why do you view Wall of Stone as being synonymous with a strip of paper? Why couldn't you make a wall (which I didn't realize was supposed to be vertical since you gave no scale or dimensions)with a cutout as in your picture? Point to me the reason, explain it. Then we can discuss it.
Instead you've only made declarative statements that what you are saying is true, with little or no justification. For our purposes, that means no reference to the rules in question. Point to the words that make you see the wall as paper.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@beowulf
You didn’t answer my very simple question - is the wall I build and made a photo allowed or not.
Now the why: if you say no then a cube isn’t allowed as a cube needs a net to be made.
If you say yes and a net is allowed, then you can build a 240 foot long 5 foot high wall.
If you say - but that is not what you want/say how you do it then I can show you with photos how it is done.
Take a 120x20 foot wall and use an U-shaped 5feet wide part of it. Some clever folding later and you have a 240 foot long L shaped wall.
So again
Is
XX
X
Allowed.
Do you allow any net that fits inside 240x20 or not.
As far as I can tell - all we disagree about is if you can use a net with max shape 240x20 or if it has to be a rectangle.
A net allows options like
A cube
A 240 long wall
The Wall with door I posted
And the way I understand the rules a net is not allowed. You have to cut out/leave out/add individual sections from the rectangle wall.
Paper is just quicker to use compared to build it up in Hirst Arts to make my point.
|
|
A net doesn't allow the spell to break it's own rules. The max length will always be 120ft. No matter how tall the walls are.
Similarly, the wall will always have a max height of 20ft not matter how long it is.
But I beg to differ
Step 1:
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
Step 2:
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
Just to be obnoxius - it doesn't tell me I can't do the creation first and do the shaping second.
So I'm not breaking the rules of making a wall >120 feet. I just make a 120 feet U-shaped wall (net) and shape it into a 240 feet wall.
To be clear - I am of the opinion nets are not allowed. So it doesn't matter if I create first and shape later or if both has to be at the same time. But if you allow a net then you have to define what happens when.
|
|
The length of the wall is about the path it travels. The cap is 120 ft. No matter how you try to slice it, you can't make the wall longer. Just like you can't make the wall taller than 20 ft.
You cannot, in any way just make the length 240. If the game said you have "X 5-ft squares" sure. But no the game says "up to 120 ft", no "up to 240 depending how you fold", no "up to 240 by mixing vertical and horizontal". Just "up to 120" plain and simple.
I'm fully aware what the rules say.
Range 120 - so no part of the wall ever can be >120 feet from the caster. This still allows up to 240 if you place the caster in the middle of the wall and cast the wall in either direction.
Now how do I fold a 120 foot long wall into a 240 foot long wall?
Here are the images how it is being done.
Step 1: I cast a U shaped wall of 120 feet long - 5 feet wide. It goes 115 feet x 5 feet in one direction, 20x5 feet perpendicular and then 115 x5 feet back.
For illustration - Image 1.
U-shaped Wall of Stone - image 1
Now I cleverly fold the Wall in a way to elongate the total lengths while at no time have a piece of the wall >120 away from the caster.
See Image 2
U-shaped Wall of stone - folded - pic 2
Image 3 is a close up of my fold
U-shaped Wall of Stone - close up fold - image 3
The quality is lousy (compared to my L-shaped wall image). I was mucking out at the stable when I had the idea and a piece of cardboard, a knife and my phone was all I had.
But it illustrate how it is done.
You can do pretty imaginative creations if you allow a net and fold it afterwards. I can't see anything RAW that disallows it IF you allow nets. My net is 120x20 and not larger.
I always maintained - nets (cubes) are not allowed. As such all of this doesn't matter. I can't fold it that way if I have a rectangle 120x20 wall to start with.
I'm fully aware what the rules say.
Are you though?
Range 120 - so no part of the wall ever can be >120 feet from the caster. This still allows up to 240 if you place the caster in the middle of the wall and cast the wall in either direction.
It does not. It allows the wall to stretch up to 120 feet within a 240' diameter around the caster.
Now how do I fold a 120 foot long wall into a 240 foot long wall?
Here are the images how it is being done.
Okey dokey.
Step 1: I cast a U shaped wall of 120 feet long - 5 feet wide. It goes 115 feet x 5 feet in one direction, 20x5 feet perpendicular and then 115 x5 feet back.
For illustration - Image 1.
So you have already broken the Wall of Stone's limitation. Not the Range, which is describing where the wall can be placed, the dimensions given for the wall within the text of the spell. You just stated that your example wall (being that it is a rough facsimile, it's all good about scale, not going to nitpick) has the following dimensions: 115' long for 1 "side" 20' long in the "center" and 115' long for the other side.
That is a wall that is already 250' long no matter which way you slice it by my reckoning. So you didn't magically create extra wall with "clever folds". You just made a wall over double the length that is allowed by Wall of Stone.
Now I cleverly fold the Wall in a way to elongate the total lengths while at no time have a piece of the wall >120 away from the caster.
See Image 2Image 3 is a close up of my fold
The quality is lousy (compared to my L-shaped wall image). I was mucking out at the stable when I had the idea and a piece of cardboard, a knife and my phone was all I had.
But it illustrate how it is done.
You can do pretty imaginative creations if you allow a net and fold it afterwards. I can't see anything RAW that disallows it IF you allow nets. My net is 120x20 and not larger.
I always maintained - nets (cubes) are not allowed. As such all of this doesn't matter. I can't fold it that way if I have a rectangle 120x20 wall to start with.
I don't know what to say. Are you saying that according to your interpretation of Wall of Stone, as long as the wall fits within a 240' diameter around the caster, it's all good to go? There is a finite length given in Wall of Stone that you Clearly ignored in your first unfolded image.
Know what happens if you substituted more reasonable numbers into your example? Like say sides that are 55' long with a 10' bottom of the U? They add up to 120' no matter how you "bend" or "fold" them.
Edit: Sorry, long day at work, to answer your question that was last posed to me before this, namely is your wall with a door reasonable to me, the answer is yes, so long as follows the other limitations given in the spell. So can't be higher than 20', can't be placed in a space that currently has a creature or object in said space.
But the thing is, unless we are talking about large sized creatures, I see no reason for you to have stacked the wall the way you did. The goblins are not large enough to stretch between squares, so there is room to put a full 10x10 wall in front, behind or between said goblins. Unless you wanted the back goblin to have a way through the wall for... reasons?
Also, nice terrain/mini's. Not on topic, but they do look nice.
|
|
@beowulf
Edit2: Question is answered now and I have deleted it
About the U:
How do you measure 'lengths' in a net?
I take any net that fits into a rectangle of 120x20 feet. No (single) wall is longer as 120 feet. The clever fold makes it longer. The Wall itself in no place ever is >120 feet. Therefore my net does not break the rules of the spell.
And it doesn't say I can't unfold (edit: replaced shape with unfold) it with dimensions >120 feet.
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
I cast the wall - then I shape the path. The only restriction I have in shaping the path is - I have to place each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares (and stay inside 120 feet of the caster as that is my range).
I do not see how my fold in any way doesn't follow the rule here a written.
Yes - I create first - I shape second. But that is how it is written in the spell description.
@beowulf
You still ignore my simple question which I asked now multiple times
Is an l-shaped wall (and nets) my first photo of a 10x10 square with one 5x5 corner missing - allowed or not.
About the U:
How do you measure 'lengths' in a net?I take any net that fits into a rectangle of 120x20 feet. No (single) wall is longer as 120 feet. The clever fold makes it longer. The Wall itself in no place ever is >120 feet. Therefore my net does not break the rules of the spell.
And it doesn't say I can't shape it with dimensions >120 feet.
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
I cast the wall - then I shape the path. The only restriction I have in shaping the path is - I have to place each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares (and stay inside 120 feet of the caster as that is my range).
I do not see how my fold in any way doesn't follow the rule here a written.
Yes - I create first - I shape second. But that is how it is written in the spell description.
First, I did answer your question, just in an edit. The answer is yes, I would allow that L shaped wall, so long as it didn't break other bits of the rules text.
Second: I never stated that I thought of the wall as a Net. It is a complex polyhedron made of multiple rectangles (each segment) at best. A net is incompatible with what we are creating (in my mind) being that a Net (as used in geometry- yay google since I'm years out of any formal schooling) is a 2 dimensional representation of an unfolded geometric shape. Really we are making such a shape which itself has a net.
Anyway, I bolded the disconnect in your post. Apparently to you, a wall up to 120' means a wall that is no longer than 120' in a single direction. So wouldn't that logic also include a wall that is a rectangle that just has a few 90° turns in it? For example, make a straight 120' long wall, 90° in either direction twice then shoot back 235' or so past the caster. Isn't that legal according to what I now assume is your understanding of the spell?
The total wall (what we are measuring) cannot exceed 120' long, no matter how you stretch or fold it or where it is relative to the caster. Or is it your opinion that the Range of 120' and the maximum length given in the spell text are talking about the same metric? And somehow that allows you to make a wall of 250' or so and call it ≤ 120'?
Because that is demonstrably false.
|
|
@Beowulf
I think we are actually nearly in agreement - with one exemption - are nets allowed or not.
The reason I kept this going is that early on I said - the wall (before folding) needs to be a rectangle. Assuming this to be the case my small wall I build is not legal, a cube isn't legal, I can't 'unfold' a 120 long wall and make it longer.
If you allow a net then
a) a cube is possible
b) the L-shaped tiny wall with door is possible
But unfolding and how to define the lengths becomes a grey area !!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This is my U-shaped net - each X representing a 5x5 square. It can be 'unfolded' to stretch to >120 feet while the net itself is 120 feet long and not 1 inch longer.
You could argue - but the wall is 250 feet long (120 East/West, 10 North/South/and 120 West/East
This leads to questions like - what is the lengths of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
or even
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
OOOOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOO
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
using O to fill empty space.
All these questions just 'go away' by not allowing nets.
Is this allowed as a net:
XXX
XOX
XXX
I'm looking sideway - a 15x15 wall with a 5x5 hole.
If I'm a GM and allow a net then to be honest - I wouldn't be able to know.
I will leave it here. To me it's simple - No Nets - No Problems.
The reason I kept this going is that early on I said - the wall (before folding) needs to be a rectangle. Assuming this to be the case my small wall I build is not legal, a cube isn't legal, I can't 'unfold' a 120 long wall and make it longer.
And again, point me to anything in the rules that mentions "rectangle".
If you allow a net then
a) a cube is possible
b) the L-shaped tiny wall with door is possibleBut unfolding and how to define the lengths becomes a grey area !!
555555555555555555555555
5XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5X
5X
5XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
555555555555555555555555
This is my U-shaped net - each X representing a 5x5 square. It can be 'unfolded' to stretch to >120 feet while the net itself is 120 feet long and not 1 inch longer.You could argue - but the wall is 250 feet long (120 East/West, 10 North/South/and 120 West/East
This leads to questions like - what is the lengths of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXor even
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
OOOOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOO
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXusing O to fill empty space.
This one actually looks illegal. You can't double directly back, so I'm not sure how you would continue all 4 "ends" of any of the arms there without doubling back, something we are agreed is illegal.
All these questions just 'go away' by not allowing nets.
Is this allowed as a net:
XXX
XOX
XXXI'm looking sideway - a 15x15 wall with a 5x5 hole.
If I'm a GM and allow a net then to be honest - I wouldn't be able to know.
I will leave it here. To me it's simple - No Nets - No Problems.
Eh, I agree to disagree. I just don't see any "problem" with allowing complex-non rectangular when "unfolded" walls. The rules are very vague, which makes this whole back and forth basically pointless. Do what makes sense for your table.
I for one do not believe you can create more than 24 5-foot segments of wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I believe the writing is on the wall for this discussion...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So then how do horizontal panels factor in to the wall’s dimensions?
Could I make a wall 20 ft tall, 120 ft long, with a 5 ft horizontal overhang along the entire length? What about a 20 ft overhang? Both would still be 20 ft tall, relative to ‘down’
How do you figure out the dimensions of a bridge using Wall of Stone? That is the method you use to factor in a horizontal panel to an wall's overall length.
As to your example wall, no because the overhang, being it's own segment of wall, counts towards the length of the wall, so you could make such a wall 60' long imo.
I see, so you’re treating the overhang as doubling back, only reoriented 90 degrees.
Does that mean ‘down’ is now the plane of the extant wall? Can the overhang be up to 20 ft. long, without using any additional ‘material’?