Can you fold a wall of stone spell upon itself, thus multiplying its thickness?
For instance, could an 9th level wizard plug a 5'x5' shaft with 2" thick wall of stone folded upon itself for a total of 18" of stone?
What about other wall spells like iron, ice, and fire?
Nope.
I didn't think so, but why not?
It's a common tactic of my players but it just doesn't feel right to me so I started saying no. Why?
"Shapeable" is a property some spells have. Wall spells generally don't have that property.
That's a good question. The meta argument is that it would be unbalanced and should be banned / isn't broken and should be legal. I do not actually know if it would ruin games or not. I'm leaning on the side that it should be legal because "Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire". If you're looking for an in game reason...
Magic?
Well, wall of stone is shapeable, but the others are not.
Slightly off subject, what is the default shape of a wall? Is it an upright, vertical flat plane, or something else? Is a square keep made up of four walls or one?
Of all the wall spells, few are shapeable and then you need to look at the text to figure out just how shapeable it truly is. I would think that you could fill a corridor with a wall of stone, it would just reduce the overall length. It clearly states that you can shape it into almost any shape. It has to be anchored but I don't see anything that would preclude you from sealing a corridor. However, most wall spells stipulate that it must be a flat plane, making it hard to argue that you could fold it. Some must be anchored, contiguous and unbroken. All in all, in general you can't fold a wall spell.
|
Can you fold a wall of stone spell upon itself, thus multiplying its thickness?
For instance, could an 9th level wizard plug a 5'x5' shaft with 2" thick wall of stone folded upon itself for a total of 18" of stone?
What about other wall spells like iron, ice, and fire?
I think you could double up the wall, but each layer would be resolved seperately. As per the description, the maximum thickness is well defined at 1" per 4 caster levels. I don't think you can increase the spells' effect beyond this, but you could have the wall zigzag so a person that wanted to bust through had to penetrate multiple layers of the same wall. Does that make sense?
|
Wall of Stone
School conjuration (creation) [earth]; Level cleric 5, druid 6, sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a small block of granite)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw see text; Spell Resistance no
This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock surfaces. A wall of stone is 1 inch thick per four caster levels and composed of up to one 5-foot square per level. You can double the wall's area by halving its thickness. The wall cannot be conjured so that it occupies the same space as a creature or another object.
Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp. For this use, if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell's area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenellations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area.
Like any other stone wall, this one can be destroyed by a disintegrate spell or by normal means such as breaking and chipping. Each 5-foot square of the wall has hardness 8 and 15 hit points per inch of thickness. A section of wall whose hit points drop to 0 is breached. If a creature tries to break through the wall with a single attack, the DC for the Strength check is 20 + 2 per inch of thickness.
It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves.
Keeping all that in mind, especially the buttressed part, I would say that you can.
Look how "buttressing" work: you halve the wall size for extra solidity. Arching it occupies extra space too. Nothing stop you from making a curved wall too, so you can make a curved wall that block a 5' corridor, a arched wall that plug a 5'x5' hole (if needed you can call it a bridge) and so on.(I really wish there was an underlined option in these boards, it would have worked better for highlighting the spell text.)
I think you could double up the wall, but each layer would be resolved seperately. As per the description, the maximum thickness is well defined at 1" per 4 caster levels. I don't think you can increase the spells' effect beyond this, but you could have the wall zigzag so a person that wanted to bust through had to penetrate multiple layers of the same wall. Does that make sense?
No "maximum" word in the spell description. As it is worded, it is a typical thickness (not that it use that word) as "you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that makes sense Murdock. To break through the folded wall you would need to make multiple strength checks. That is a nice, succinct judgment that reduces the power of such a folded wall by increasing the possibility that something could bust through the plug.
On the other hand, such a scenario with a 5 ft. by 5 ft. shaft is rare at best, and players could instead halve the thickness of the wall, thus doubling the area and subsequently the number of layers. This would achieve the same size plug, just with twice as many layers, thus twice as many break checks, and, even if the break DC is easier, stall a determined enemy twice as long.
Again, on the third hand, if you just made one big fat plug, as per Agodeshalf, without the layers, in a doorway, then at some point the DC to break the plug would be so impossible that it would be easier to just break through the adjoining rock wall.
I did some calculations and considered determined dragons on the other side of walls of different thicknesses cast by wizards of varying levels. I found that a wizard could stop a large dragon dead in its tracks trying to get through a large portal. But, bigger dragons trying to get through larger portals blocked by subsequently thinner and thinner walls of stone are unstoppable. Except, very high-level wizards could stop a huge dragon. However, even a 20th level wizard couldn't stop a gargantuan dragon.
All in all, I think I've made my piece with this tactic because even a non-folded wall is a serious impediment to a human foe. If my players continue to use it, I'll accept it. It will be one less thing I need to say no to.
You can totally fold it, essentially making multiple shorter barriers that would need to be broken through one at a time. This is arguably more powerful than a single solid block since you would have to target them separately. (So if you are doing high damage, much of your damage would "overflow" and be wasted. You may even have to contend with hardness multiple times with this configuration.)
For example, in this sample image you have a spellcaster on the far right conjuring a wall of stone to block the advance of several bloodthirsty savages in a narrow hallway. He could interpose all of the walls between him and his foes, making an effective barrier, or even separate his adversaries from one another by compartmentalizing the narrow hallway.
|
|
All in all, I think I've made my piece with this tactic because even a non-folded wall is a serious impediment to a human foe. If my players continue to use it, I'll accept it. It will be one less thing I need to say no to.
Well, for game balance, there is a really simple fix for this one: Wall of Stone requires the wall to be able to "merge with and be supported by existing stone." As the GM, if you don't provide Stone in the setting, they can't use this spell. You could even rule that the stone present isn't enough to support the created wall, so the players are unable to cast it.
I don't think you should remove all stone or use this excuse often, but as the GM, you can design encounters where the players are unable to use certain spells, like wall of stone, due to a lack of specific requirements to the spell. Mind you, the players can bring stone with them, or use spells to generate it (like Petrify), but the more steps they have to take to use a certain spell, the less practical that spell becomes.
Kinda like nerfing Shillelagh by my making oak trees less common, since the spell only functions on non-magical oak.
Note that shapeable spells have a minimum size requirement:
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with "(S)," you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
This is, of course, a hopelessly ambiguous statement that can be impossible to resolve.
Note that shapeable spells have a minimum size requirement:
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with "(S)," you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.This is, of course, a hopelessly ambiguous statement that can be impossible to resolve.
That would seem to preclude folding the wall upon itself.
I guess you could do this: |_|
Or this: /\/\
I guess you could do this: |_|
Or this: /\/\
You would have to do /\/\ in a 5 ft. by 5 ft. shaft. Right?
Note that shapeable spells have a minimum size requirement:
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with "(S)," you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.This is, of course, a hopelessly ambiguous statement that can be impossible to resolve.
That general rule is also contradicted (overridden?) by the specifics of the spell, which says minimum 5 ft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh...you're right.
You know, sometimes I think this game is just a little too complicated. And, it's not meant to be played by the rules, but rather, it's meant to be played despite the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, sometimes I think this game is just a little too complicated. And, it's not meant to be played by the rules, but rather, it's meant to be played despite the rules.
They've got to drive traffic to this forum somehow, right? ;)
|
|
This is passive aggressive GMing at its worst. If you don't like a spell, ban it, though if you're banning wall of stone just go ahead and ban magic. Better wall than icy prison I'd say. But more importantly, why include Shillelagh as an option if you are going to selectively and rarely permit it to work?
No, this is not passive agreesive. It is managing player resources, and some GMs don't like doing that, but it is certainly part of a GM's style, not something that is banned or even discouraged by the rules.
When I design an encounter, part of the encounter design should include the terrain and other availible resources for the players. If I put a tree inside or outside a dungeon, the type of tree matters. Not just Shillelagh, the more important one is the Treestride spell. By putting an Oak, Ash, or Yew tree inside a dungeon and another near the enterance, I'm basically putting a teleport gate there for druids to be able to hop in and out of the dungeon very easily.
If I have a chasm with large rock formations on either side, I have created the option for players to use the stone wall spell to negate the obstacle. I could have a tree on either side, where the players could knock it down and create a bridge. Alternatively, I could create a chasm with no resources for the players, and force them to solve it with only the supplies they brought. This would make it more challenging, certainly, so something to consider when designing an encounter. Perhaps the point of the encounter is not that they cross it, but that they are supposed to go around. And just because I think I have the solutions accounted for, they aren't prevented from doing something entirely different, if they can.
Anyway, if a spell like Wall of Stone or Shillelagh becomes abusive in your setting, the easiest way to nerf it is just to make it's required components less common. You don't have to take anything away from the players, and they can still work around it. Likewise, if sunder or disarm become excessive, switch over to monsters with natural attacks and natural armor. If anything, it encourages the players to get more creative with their characters.
Honestly, if any one spell or maneuver is becoming abused, it's a sign that your setting lacks diversity. Switch it up a bit. I don't think the players enjoy a setting where every opponent can be defeated by the same spell/maneuver being spammed. I think the PFS scenarios are pretty well built in this respect.
You could fold a wall of stone along a 5' square, but you'd have to do the math insofar as how thick it is, and if it reaches a certain thickness, it might fill the entire space, giving you a a solid column of stone.