Wall clarity

[Atalius]

Looking at the Wall of Force spell it says

You must create the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.

Does this mean it doesn't need to be built in a straight line, the wall could just be connected at the corners? Also can the caster dismiss the spell at any time? Thank you for the help. Blessings be upon you.

http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=363

[thenobledrake]

It's the "You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet long and up to 20 feet high." part, and not specifying what curvature or other angles involved that would be allowed, that makes this wall a straight line... I don't know what you mean by "just be connected at the corners" though.

As for dismissing a spell, that is a specific action and it is only allowed to dismiss effects which explicitly state they can be dismissed, which wall of force does not.

[Atalius]

Ohhh :( I meant like a staircase type design not a straight line, even being able to box an enemy into a 10X10 square by surrounding it with the wall would have been nice, ugh straight line is rough. For an Occult caster would you pass on this spell?

[thenobledrake]

I'd take this spell on an occult caster. It's one of the best common 6th level spells.

I might not take it on every occult caster, though.

[Atalius]

Interesting thank you :) Would I be able to cast spells like Phantasmal Calamity and other mental effects vs enemies on the otherside of the wall?

[thenobledrake]

That's seems correct. The wall only blocks effects which would have to physically pass through it, not those which would originate on the other side of it.

[mrspaghetti]

thenobledrake wrote:

It's the "You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet long and up to 20 feet high." part, and not specifying what curvature or other angles involved that would be allowed, that makes this wall a straight line... I don't know what you mean by "just be connected at the corners" though.

As for dismissing a spell, that is a specific action and it is only allowed to dismiss effects which explicitly state they can be dismissed, which wall of force does not.

It doesn't say it has to be in a straight line at all, or a flat surface even. Make a wall 20'x50', shape it as you like. Spell only restricts the surface area.

[Atalius]

That's what I believe also upon further review mrspaghetti, I think your right. That would make this spell much better also thankfully, not quite as good as Wall of Stone but still good enough.

[thenobledrake]

mrspaghetti wrote:

It doesn't say it has to be in a straight line at all, or a flat surface even. Make a wall 20'x50', shape it as you like. Spell only restricts the surface area.

That's not how written rules work.

They tell you what you can do, and anything that isn't mentioned explicitly is identical in function to explicitly saying you can't - but it saves space to just not make the "but not also this other thing" list.

Also letting this spell create any shape of wall other than a straight line brings into question whether the length mentioned is linear feet or from one end to the other, suggesting strongly that to not be the intent.

And last, but not least, the language of the wall of stone spell being different from that of wall of force is another strong indicator that un-said things aren't permitted.

[mrspaghetti]

thenobledrake wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

It doesn't say it has to be in a straight line at all, or a flat surface even. Make a wall 20'x50', shape it as you like. Spell only restricts the surface area.

That's not how written rules work.

They tell you what you can do, and anything that isn't mentioned explicitly is identical in function to explicitly saying you can't - but it saves space to just not make the "but not also this other thing" list.

Also letting this spell create any shape of wall other than a straight line brings into question whether the length mentioned is linear feet or from one end to the other, suggesting strongly that to not be the intent.

And last, but not least, the language of the wall of stone spell being different from that of wall of force is another strong indicator that un-said things aren't permitted.

<shrug>

I'd let the player shape it.

[Atalius]

I read Fedoras guide (a masterpiece), he wrote the following but no mention of whether the wall is straight or not?

Wall of Force (Arcane, Occult)
Area Control (**), Utility (**), Versatility (**)
So here’s the thing, wall of force is pretty much worse than wall of stone in every way. It has less of a size, it allows visual effects through, it’s harder to break through but wall of stone is already plenty difficult to get across, and the main advantage it has, blocking incorporeals, is negated by the fact that incorporeal creatures can just go through the floor. The only reason to go for a wall of force over a wall of stone is if you don’t have access to stone

[Porridge]

It seems underdetermined by rules and the description of the spell. In the magic section, it has this general description regarding wall spells:

CRB, p306: wrote:

"Spells that create walls list the depth, length, and height of the wall, also specifying how it can be positioned. 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. 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."

So the key question would be whether the Wall of Force spells allows you to form a shaped wall, or whether it specifies that the wall has to be straight.

Every wall spell except for Wall of Force specifies one or the other.

Wall of Stone and Wall of Wind both specify that you can shape the wall.

Wall of Thorns, Wall of Ice, Wall of Fire, Chromatic Wall, Prismatic Wall, and Blade Barrier, all specify that the wall has to be straight.

(Likewise, every wall spell except for Wall of Force and Blade Barrier explicitly state whether the wall has to be vertical or not. Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice both specify that they do not have to be vertical. Wall of Wind, Wall of Thorns, Wall of Fire, Chromatic Wall, and Prismatic Wall, all specify that they have to be vertical.)

But the Wall of Force description says neither that it can be shaped, nor that it must be straight, nor that it must be vertical.

This looks like a good FAQ question to me.

[thenobledrake]

Atalius wrote:

I read Fedoras guide (a masterpiece), he wrote the following but no mention of whether the wall is straight or not?

Wall of Force (Arcane, Occult)
Area Control (**), Utility (**), Versatility (**)
So here’s the thing, wall of force is pretty much worse than wall of stone in every way. It has less of a size, it allows visual effects through, it’s harder to break through but wall of stone is already plenty difficult to get across, and the main advantage it has, blocking incorporeals, is negated by the fact that incorporeal creatures can just go through the floor. The only reason to go for a wall of force over a wall of stone is if you don’t have access to stone

I guess that's why I never seem impressed by people's guides... they make assumptions that there really isn't a reason to make.

Allowing visual effects through isn't necessarily a con, as that comes down to whether you or the opposition has more effects that could still work through the wall.

And as for incorporeal being able to "just go through the floor" that presumes that the incorporeal creature realizes that what is stopping it from proceeding is a thing it can maneuver around, so there is still reason to believe that a wall of force will slow down incorporeal creatures enough to have that be worth mentioning.

The main advantage of the spell compared to other walls is actually it's incredible durability and that, assuming the caster has developed a synergy with their spell selection, this wall shuts down the enemy but not the caster.

<wanders off muttering about stone shaping a hole in a wall>

[mrspaghetti]

Atalius wrote:

I read Fedoras guide (a masterpiece), he wrote the following but no mention of whether the wall is straight or not?

Wall of Force (Arcane, Occult)
Area Control (**), Utility (**), Versatility (**)
So here’s the thing, wall of force is pretty much worse than wall of stone in every way. It has less of a size, it allows visual effects through, it’s harder to break through but wall of stone is already plenty difficult to get across, and the main advantage it has, blocking incorporeals, is negated by the fact that incorporeal creatures can just go through the floor. The only reason to go for a wall of force over a wall of stone is if you don’t have access to stone

And as Wall of Force is a level higher than Wall of Stone, to me it should probably be better. I agree with @Porridge, the spell doesn't specify.

[Atalius]

Agreed, the length of the wall is significantly shorter than a wall of stone, I imagine you could at least shape it.

[Unicore]

Wall of force cannot be shaped, because it doesn't say it can in the spell description.

[Atalius]

Unicore wrote:

Wall of force cannot be shaped, because it doesn't say it can in the spell description.

See above though

[Squiggit]

Upon first reading I assumed the wall couldn't be shaped, but given the nonspecifity of the general rule and the way other wall spells are written I agree this spell could use an update.

[thenobledrake]

This is a case of confusing the absence of a redundant piece of text (that a wall, without information about what other shape it could be, is a straight line) with deliberately different writing.

If I say "the east wall is 30 feet long and 10 feet high", no one is going to think I haven't told them enough information to determine the shape of the wall because a wall is a thing with a commonly understood default shape.

[Unicore]

The explanation of wall spells is pretty explicit: "Some walls can be shaped;"

Without being told that a wall spell can be shaped, the default reading would have to be that it cannot be, and everything after the semicolon does not apply.

I don't disagree that the spell list is a mess of inconsistent language that creates a lot of confusion and unclear spells, but I don't see how this one is particularly confusing. Your GM is being incredibly kind if they are letting you get away with using this spell to shape your wall.

[Atalius]

Seems like it could very well be a wall that does not have to be in a straight line. I mean it's a high level spell with a very short length. Certainly balanced if it didn't have to be in a straight line, certainly a spell a lot of people would pass on if the wall has to be straight.

[thenobledrake]

That a number of people will discount all the actual features of a spell and insist in needs yet another feature added to it or they'll just skip it isn't actually relevant to whether the spell is balanced and fair as written.

"certainly balanced if it didn't have to be in a straight line" is as dubious as saying "fireball would still be balanced if it had a larger area of effect" - even if it's true, it doesn't mean the spell is unbalanced without that change.

[voideternal]

For the sake of argument of a shapable wall of force - consider balance implications of a shapable wall.

One of the most often used tactics of a wall of stone is that because it's shapable, a caster can use it to box in an enemy or group of enemies. The 120 feet of wall of stone gives ample space for the wall of stone to even make a ceiling, so, sans special movement options, enemies have to resort to "breaking" a wall of stone to escape.

A wall of stone is a 5th level spell with 14 hardness and 50 hp. This is likely cast by a level 9 or 10 spellcaster.
I'll compare this with a level 11 monster without special movement. I'm choosing the stone golem.
The stone golem swings for 2d10+13, which averages for 24 damage, which means each strike does about 10 damage. The stone golem, on average, will escape the wall of stone after 5 strikes, which is a bit under 2 rounds.

A wall of force is a 6th level spell with a whopping 30 hardness and 60 hp. This is likely cast by a level 11 or 12 spellcaster.
Again, comparing with a higher level monster, I'm comparing this with the level 13 iron golem.
The iron golem swings for 3d10+12, which averages for 28.5 damage. This doesn't overcome the hardness, so on average, the iron golem will be trapped in the wall of force for the full 10 rounds.

Now, there are a few things to note for a theoretical shapable wall of force:
1) At higher levels, more creatures have access to special movement and spells such as dimension door. One example is the level 13 ice devil. That said, there are still many creatures that don't have access to these spells and will have to resort to "breaking" the wall.
2) A bigger concern for the spellcaster is that the wall of force is only 50 feet long. This means that there isn't enough length to "box in" a huge sized creature. At higher levels, monster sizes tend to increase, and at the level 11 ~ 14 range, about half the bestiary monsters will be invalid wall-of-force-boxing candidates based on size alone.

[Atalius]

Can a Wall of Force be dismissed at any point or do you have to wait the duration of the spell (10 rounds)?

[Aratorin]

Atalius wrote:

Can a Wall of Force be dismissed at any point or do you have to wait the duration of the spell (10 rounds)?

A Spell can only be Dismissed if it says so.

CRB 305 wrote:

DISMISS [one-action]

CONCENTRATE
You end one spell effect or magic item effect. This must be an effect you are allowed to dismiss, as defined by the spell or item. Dismissal might end the effect entirely or might end it just for a certain target or targets, depending on the spell or item.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Wall of Thorns wrote:

You create a 5-footthick wall of brambles and thorns in a straight line up to 60 feet long and 10 feet high. You must create the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don’t pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost. The wall stands vertically. If you wish, the wall can be of a shorter length or height.

Wall of Wind wrote:

The wall of swirling winds is 5 feet thick, 60 feet long, and 30 feet high. The wall stands vertically, but you can shape its path.

Wall wrote:

You create either a 5-foot-thick wall of flame in a straight line up to 60 feet long and 10 feet high, or a 5-foot-thick, 10-foot-radius ring of flame with the same height. The wall stands vertically in either form; if you wish, the wall can be of a shorter length or height.

Wall of Ice wrote:

You create either a 1-foot-thick wall of ice in a straight line up to 60 feet long and 10 feet high (the wall doesn’t have to be vertical, but it must be anchored on both sides to a solid surface) or a 1-foot-thick, 10-foot radius hemisphere of ice.

Wall wrote:

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.

Wall of Stone wrote:

You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet long and up to 20 feet high. The wall has no discernible thickness.

As we can see, there is quite consistent language about how wall shaping works, and the rules are all about permissive language.

When it states straight wall, it is always following it up with another shape and only one other shape that can be used (in the case of wall of ice or wall of fire)

My reading of the wall means that it can be any angle, must be a solid plane and does not need to be anchored.

As for whether it is unbalanced to be able to trap creatures in a box of wall of force (especially flying ones as per the readings of others in this thread)... well... That is up to the GM of the game.