Does Wall Run let you run DOWN walls?


Rules Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I wonder if some of you would make a monk fall of the top of a wall after a Wall Run because it's not "the ground."

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Abundant Step is literally teleporting so you can pass physical objects if you need to.

Provided you have line of sight of course, which precludes windows in this edition.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
The biggest restriction on Wall Run is "you have to start the action with your feet flat on the ground" and "you have to be able to run there" so it's no use when you're falling and no use when there's not a way to run to where you're going.

Where is that second restriction shown? I can't seem to find it in the feat text. I don't think that one is true.


I was not aware that windows blocked line of sight. That's silly and I will ignore it.

What I meant is that Wall Run requires you to be able to move to your destination in a single stride action. It's conceivable that impassible terrain would thwart wall running but Abundant Step would still be useful. Like if you need to be able to get on the other side of a 40' wide lava flow in a wide open cavern, teleporting is your best choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the line about traveling up at your full speed is just intended to indicate that it's at your full speed (unlike flying), not establish that other directions of movement aren't allowed.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If there was a circular ramp, would you allow someone with Wall Run to make the complete loop (even being upside down briefly)? Why or why not?

Clarifying Sample Image

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I was not aware that windows blocked line of sight. That's silly and I will ignore it.

Yeah, you need at least a 1-foot-square gap to get line of sight.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
What I meant is that Wall Run requires you to be able to move to your destination in a single stride action. It's conceivable that impassible terrain would thwart wall running but Abundant Step would still be useful. Like if you need to be able to get on the other side of a 40' wide lava flow in a wide open cavern, teleporting is your best choice.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If there was a circular ramp or similar terrain feature, would you allow someone with Wall Run to make the complete loop like this? Why or why not?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I was not aware that windows blocked line of sight. That's silly and I will ignore it.

Yeah, you need at least a 1-foot-square gap to get line of sight.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
What I meant is that Wall Run requires you to be able to move to your destination in a single stride action. It's conceivable that impassible terrain would thwart wall running but Abundant Step would still be useful. Like if you need to be able to get on the other side of a 40' wide lava flow in a wide open cavern, teleporting is your best choice.

One could argue this is true for all forms of movement. :P


Ravingdork wrote:
If there was a circular ramp, would you allow someone with Wall Run to make the complete loop (even being upside down briefly)? Why or why not?

Yes. This is indeed physically possible in reality, you just need to be moving fast enough. Normal humans running don't get that fast, but monks in Pathfinder get significantly faster than normal humans do.


For me it is a matter of verisimilitude and knowing that I have a couple of specific players who would happily do dumb things with it just because they could.
The sort of player who finds out that in 5e you don't take AoO unless you move out of reach and then for the next 3 sessions uses all of their movement to run around in circles around opponents to point out how dumb they think it is because they aren't being mechanically stopped from doing so.

I won't say others are wrong for wanting more gonzo rule of cool style fantasy superhero play, it is a commonly desired mode of play. At my core I am more of a dark/grounded fantasy kinda guy and while wallrunning doesn't fit that 100% anyway; allowing upward traversal of terrain features is easier to picture in my mind as a GM than running on any vertical surface and treating it like sonic.
(and yes I know PF2e is already pretty darn fantasy supers anyway).

In real life I can picture people scaling walls quickly ala jackie chan and parkour athletes. Running down a wall doesn't let you grip the wall and fight against gravity so it begs the question why you don't immediately fall. Running up you are pushing against it so while still extremely unrealistic it fits my personal imagination of how it could work better.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I was not aware that windows blocked line of sight. That's silly and I will ignore it.

I think I could see it working like that.

Depending on the window arrangement (particular in a glass scarce medieval style era), the windows might be relatively thin. Probably about the width of a person- maybe less if it is just for a bit of light.

With thin windows, I think that they might provide enough cover that you would have to get a good angle and carefully look at it to get a view inside. Which is something you don't really get if you are falling to your death.

I would personally rule that you could teleport onto the window sill. Again- if you aren't at the fancy mansion of a wealthy noble or merchant, there is probably not going to be glass. Buildings large enough to dramatically fall from have a lot of windows, and those are expensive and fragile. So I would let you onto the open window itself.


The art for Breechill in the the last AP has modern-looking cross windows, and presumably there is a way to open them (to warm or cool the home, or let out bad smells) so I presume there are windows out there that you can climb out of.

Architecture, in generally, in fantasy settings is going to be anachronistic because we first and foremost need these buildings to be intelligible to your players, who are living in the current year.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
unrealistic

How do you handle conservation of mass and energy with conjuration and evocation spells?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Selective realism is my pet peeve in these games. It's fine for a wizard to call down lightning bolts; or for a barbarian to literally hulk up to giant size when they rage; or for a fighter to load, aim, and fire a crossbow impossibly fast... but if a monk wants to be able to do the practical effects that they do with wires in those Hong Kong films, that's a bridge too far.

I get the appeal of grounded/low fantasy, but it seems that if you wanted to do that in Pathfinder you'd have to excise over half the game.


I prefer the term "realism in one direction" ...literally, in this case. /s


It's not a matter of "adding on" additional abilities, this is all based on text of ability which states you can move on vertical plane as easily as on horizontal ground. You aren't constrained in 2d direction within horizontal plane, so why would you be on vertical plane if just told you can move as easily as on horizontal plane?

Running ANY direction while on vertical wall is "running up wall" from perspective of horizontal floor base, so "run up" in this context doesn't necessarily indicate direction of movement... not to mention ability also states "run along wall" which actually indicates movement parallel to floor (i.e. horizontal). Maybe that is clearer by saying "climb along fence" which would not be assumed to indicate climbing UP the fence.

Since those actually indicate different assumed directions, it seems safer to assume that the "you can move on vertical plane as easily as on (horizontal) ground" is actually mechanically relevant since it is directly translatably to movement mechanics (not fluff text like "you smell like a pig"). As mentioned, a 2nd level Feat is still better than this 8th level Feat for moving down walls with lesser or no action cost (or even as reaction, off-turn) and no distance limitation, so "allowing" this isn't taking away niche of that Feat... never mind Leaf has further benefit for Jumps, so it's fully viable to know both Feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get why people want to place arbitrary limits on a cool ability so players can't use it the way the same thing is presented in popular media.

I mean the ability with the same in Pathfinder First Edition specifies that you can run horizontally on vertical surfaces, rather than vertically. So making the ability more limited in the "martials can do cool things" edition is weird to me.

Sovereign Court

RicoTheBold wrote:
I think the line about traveling up at your full speed is just intended to indicate that it's at your full speed (unlike flying), not establish that other directions of movement aren't allowed.

This is my thinking too. Throughout the previous edition, and also in this edition, most forms of upward movement are at reduced speed. For example the Fly action on page 472. Wall Run, being all about running so fast you don't fall, is an exception to that.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If there was a circular ramp, would you allow someone with Wall Run to make the complete loop (even being upside down briefly)? Why or why not?
Yes. This is indeed physically possible in reality, you just need to be moving fast enough. Normal humans running don't get that fast, but monks in Pathfinder get significantly faster than normal humans do.

I'll allow it...


swoosh wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
unrealistic
How do you handle conservation of mass and energy with conjuration and evocation spells?

I feel that is a disingenuous quote snippet

"Running up you are pushing against it so while still extremely unrealistic it fits my personal imagination of how it could work better."
and
"(and yes I know PF2e is already pretty darn fantasy supers anyway)."

It is a degrees thing and based on what I personally can accept. Everyone has their own realism break points.

For instance, we accept that there are limitations on how often spell can be cast or what can be targeted in a game... Ranges are defined and even specific body part targeting is abstracted.

Would you be happy with a player saying that their movement action is a large phallus that they pogo hop on because it is a fantasy realm with unrealistic elements? would you require them to have a special ability to do this even if it gave no other benefits other than what stride would normally give?
And even if you were to accept this mode of transportation would you be accepting that not everyone would accept this in their world BECAUSE people have different break points?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Selective realism is my pet peeve in these games. It's fine for a wizard to call down lightning bolts; or for a barbarian to literally hulk up to giant size when they rage; or for a fighter to load, aim, and fire a crossbow impossibly fast... but if a monk wants to be able to do the practical effects that they do with wires in those Hong Kong films, that's a bridge too far.

I get the appeal of grounded/low fantasy, but it seems that if you wanted to do that in Pathfinder you'd have to excise over half the game.

This is all about personal break points, I gave a particularly out there example before with the phallic pogo stide.

But how about a less extreme version, a person wielding knives on their knees, elbows, feet and forehead as well as their hands. In a world where people can do such fantastical things is it really unfair to say that this person cannot make performance checks to slice their foes up?

I mean hey why not used diplomacy to convince people to change sides and take direct control over them mid combat. As written that takes time outside of combat to change an attitude and then make a request. But people are casting fire spells and giving form to summoned creatures even at low levels. Is not the reason this takes time because of expectations of "realism" from the designers.

Again, I am not saying that you are wrong for liking what you like. But trying to point out that your "unbiased" view isn't as unbiased as perhaps you think it is and more rooted in your own personal preferences .


I think I would probably allow them to run down for simplicity's sake. Although making them have to take slow fall for safety does have a certain sense to it. I think I would go with the ok for down and think of it as repelling but you know more intense.


Quandary wrote:
I prefer the term "realism in one direction" ...literally, in this case. /s

I like RAMVORD. Rules as My Views of Reality Dictate. The rules theory no questioning can be done of how magic works because magic. But any ability no intrinsically fueled by such must conform to the GM's determination of how "real world physics" works.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Does Wall Run let you run DOWN walls? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.