Wall of Force

[Atalius]

Can you lay a Wall of Force horizontally rather than vertically? Ie. Using it to put a cover on a small room with no roof

[breithauptclan]

Hmm... Not sure. Some wall spells like Wall of Wind and Wall of Thorns specifically say that they must be vertical. Wall of Stone specifically says that it can be placed in any orientation.

Personally I would think that the intention of the rules is that the various walls must be placed vertically - like a wall - unless it says otherwise. So no, no ceilings made of wall of force.

But that is one of those things that could be changed based on the needs of the plot.

[Mellored]

Yes. Nothing says it need a to be attached to the ground or anything like that.

breithauptclan wrote:

Hmm... Not sure. Some wall spells like Wall of Wind and Wall of Thorns specifically say that they must be vertical. Wall of Stone specifically says that it can be placed in any orientation.

Which is why I think it's fine.

Quote:

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

There is nothing that says it must be vertical. So it does not need to be vertical.

[thenobledrake]

The word "wall", having not been given a game-specific definition, suggests a vertical orientation that rests upon a floor.

Wall spells that explicitly state they must be vertical are more clearly worded via redundancy, but are not necessarily proving the need to say "vertical" in order to limit the resulting wall to being like a real wall except in the ways it is explicitly not (such as being made of fire)

And a wall spell explicitly mentioning that you can make it horizontal - which doesn't confirm to the usual definition of a wall - is needed in order for that wall to be made horizontally.

Because rules do what they say they do, and nothing else - that's just how written rules work.

[Dragorine]

I agree with thenobledrake's interpretation of RAW. However I find it weird that the Wall of Force seems to be the only wall that doesn't say if it can or can't be place horizontally. That being said, I'd allow for it to be place horizontally in my game if only because walls of stone and ice both can and are lower level than force despite the RAW. Also I like to reward my players for coming up with interesting strategies as it makes it more fun for them.

[Gortle]

thenobledrake wrote:

The word "wall", having not been given a game-specific definition, suggests a vertical orientation that rests upon a floor.

Agree

thenobledrake wrote:

Wall spells that explicitly state they must be vertical are more clearly worded via redundancy, but are not necessarily proving the need to say "vertical" in order to limit the resulting wall to being like a real wall except in the ways it is explicitly not (such as being made of fire)

Agree

thenobledrake wrote:

And a wall spell explicitly mentioning that you can make it horizontal - which doesn't confirm to the usual definition of a wall - is needed in order for that wall to be made horizontally.

Thats a reasonable interpretation. But it ignores the shared understanding and history of the genre. Walls in fantasy can be placed in 3 dimensions. You are bringing in a limit which is not explicit in the language or the spell.

thenobledrake wrote:

Because rules do what they say they do, and nothing else - that's just how written rules work.

Too narrow. Rules, language and meaning are much broader than that. Everything has context.

[shroudb]

I play it as it can be placed in any orientation.

I GM Force walls as Invisible/Force platforms that you can position any way you like. Nothing in the description says they are anchored or vertical only.

[thenobledrake]

Gortle wrote:

But it ignores the shared understanding and history of the genre.

No one is required to know anything about fantasy, games, or fantasy games to play Pathfinder 2nd edition other than what is written in the Pathfinder 2nd edition books, and the rules are not intended to be different depending on what information not found in the Pathfinder 2nd edition books a player happens to possess.

Gortle wrote:

Walls in fantasy can be placed in 3 dimensions. You are bringing in a limit which is not explicit in the language or the spell.

No, you're bringing in an ability which is not explicit in the language of the spell.

Gortle wrote:

Too narrow. Rules, language and meaning are much broader than that. Everything has context.

Context is why game rules only do what they say they do.

[Mellored]

Dragorine wrote:

I agree with thenobledrake's interpretation of RAW. However I find it weird that the Wall of Force seems to be the only wall that doesn't say if it can or can't be place horizontally.

House of illusory walls also does not specify the orientation. But also says you can climb on it.

[Mellored]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Walls in fantasy can be placed in 3 dimensions. You are bringing in a limit which is not explicit in the language or the spell.

No, you're bringing in an ability which is not explicit in the language of the spell.

so your saying fireball can't be shot in 3 dimensions since it does not explicity say you can?

[Gortle]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Walls in fantasy can be placed in 3 dimensions. You are bringing in a limit which is not explicit in the language or the spell.

No, you're bringing in an ability which is not explicit in the language of the spell.

Ignoring a limit that is not mentioned, is as valid as including it.

This is not a discussion that is resolvable in a definitive way, without more information.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

So far as I can tell, there are three 'wall' spells that do not specify.
Wall of Flesh
Wall of Force
Blade Barrier

As a GM I'd adjudicate them differently based on what the wall is composed of.

For Wall of Flesh, it is made out of flesh and therefore would at least have to be anchored like the wording in Wall of Ice. (The thought of a Wall of Flesh bridge is disturbing.)

Blade Barrier and Wall of Force are force effects. As such they traditionally anchor differently in the Material Plane and the adjacent ones. I'd allow any orientation so long as it maintains the 'wall' shape and abides any other specifications given by the respective spell.

[Mellored]

IMO, the big thing they are trying to avoid is summoning an unsupported physical wall as a weapon. Dropping a wall of stone from 500' is way too potent, even if it is just a DC 15 save.

But beyond that, I don't see an issue making bridges or ceilings out of stuff. Or using wind wall mid-air outside a tower window to prevent flying creatures from getting in.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Talking about bridges, god moonlight bridge (cosmos oracle focus) is a disgustingly effective offensive spell.

[thenobledrake]

Mellored wrote:

so your saying fireball can't be shot in 3 dimensions since it does not explicity say you can?

Bad example. Targeting in 3 dimensions is explicitly allowed because the words involved have the right meanings for that to be the case.

"a spot you designate" "20-foot burst" and "range 500 feet" all actually mean 3-dimension space because the game doesn't redifine them from their usual definitions.

The very reason why "wall" doesn't give you permission to make a "floor" too is why 3-dimensional play doesn't require the book to say "up and down are also directions, and you can do stuff in them"

Gortle wrote:

Ignoring a limit that is not mentioned, is as valid as including it.

No it isn't. The entire argument "it doesn't say I can't" is predicated on the idea that a rule ever existed which made an exhaustive list of every possible thing which someone might imagine it could do that it isn't meant to do and said explicitly "you can't do that"

A statement of what you are permited to do should always be treated as being the only things you've been given permission for. Just like if your Gran says "you can have $20 out of my purse" she means you can have exactly that, not also whatever else you happen to want to grab while you're in there that she didn't say you couldn't grab.

Wall spells that don't specify a non-standard configuration such as being able to be formed horizontally are just as capable (as in completely not) of being formed horizontally as they are of being able to be formed into a sphere encasing you and then rolled across the battlefield to crush your enemies like a weaponized hamster wheel. Both are equally supported by the rules text.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

I don't think anyone was suggesting a hamster wheel of death. I think the majority of us are of the opinion that as long as it stays a wall and makes sense in setting, why not?

Physical walls need supporting structure of some sort. Walls with the Force trait can conceivably be rooted in thin air as they are made of Force and Force has never really had to obey gravitational rules. Or they do because they are weird. They still have to be 'walls' (unless stated otherwise).

[Mellored]

thenobledrake wrote:

"a spot you designate" "20-foot burst" and "range 500 feet" all actually mean 3-dimension space because the game doesn't redifine them from their usual definitions.

Right. "Range 30 feet" is 3 dimensional.

Which is what wall of force has.

[Ravingdork]

Walls (Core Rulebook p306)
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.

If you lay a wall flat, it's depth and height effectively changes.

I don't think that's intended.

[thenobledrake]

Mellored wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

"a spot you designate" "20-foot burst" and "range 500 feet" all actually mean 3-dimension space because the game doesn't redifine them from their usual definitions.

Right. "Range 30 feet" is 3 dimensional.

Which is what wall of force has.

...so you're saying you think it's that having a range can communicate 3D space means that "wall" and "floor" are interchangeable? I think I'm not taking your point.

Let's look at it another way, shall we:

The words "length", "height" and "thickness" are used to describe the size of a wall. These words have conditional meanings that illustrate the orientation intended of a wall (as an upright structure). If you took the flat rectangular shape with a length, height, and thickness and laid it down horizontally it would maintain thickness, but would now have width instead of length and length instead of height.

TL;DR: even in 3D space, wall go up.

[Gortle]

Ravingdork wrote:

Walls (Core Rulebook p306)

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.

If you lay a wall flat, it's depth and height effectively changes.

I don't think that's intended.

The problem is that dimensions are relative to your frame of reference.

No frame of reference is specified.

It does not seem unreasonable to rotate or otherwise adjust your frame of reference so the dimensions are still the same. It is very simple.

If as you suggest, you stick with the a fixed frame of reference you can get slanted walls of much greater size. Thats not simple, to deal with. I wouldn't recommend anyone go down that route.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

*shrug*
Sure. As this is a rules forum, and is meant to be technically true, then sure, the length, height, and depth argument seems legit. I would question it in the context in which it mentions the dimensions and is followed by "..also specifying how it can be positioned." Which goes back to the issues of "what if it doesn't say how it can be positioned?". Which, in that context seems to imply that the dimensions must be D x L x H, but not with any intentional reference point line-up to a specified xyz axis. Therefore a Wall of Force must be up to 50 x up to 20 x ? in its dimensions. As long as it achieves that...*shrug*.

So at this point I will smile and nod at your rules quote and then proceed to do my own thing because it is ambiguous. Also because it allows for creativity, which is what I encourage from my players.

[Mellored]

thenobledrake wrote:

TL;DR: even in 3D space, wall go up.

what if you cast wall of force on the international space station (or a fantasy equivelent)?

Which way is "up" on the astral plane?

What if you are in a castle that rolls like a ball?

Or are effected by the reverse gravity spell?

Many planes have unusual gravity

[thenobledrake]

Mellored wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

TL;DR: even in 3D space, wall go up.

what if you cast wall of force on the international space station (or a fantasy equivelent)?

Which way is "up" on the astral plane?

What if you are in a castle that rolls like a ball?

Or are effected by the reverse gravity spell?

Many planes have unusual gravity

If you are in one of those decidedly non-typical situations, presumably that situation has it's own rules that create excepts to the general rules that make the rules designed to do typical stuff bend to fit situations that aren't normally a thing according to the rules.

Gortle wrote:

The problem is that dimensions are relative to your frame of reference.

No frame of reference is specified.

Yes, a frame of reference is specified. It's like how you can determine the length of a third side of a triangle if you've got two sides' length - because what the dimensions are called indicate what the frame of reference must be.

That, and the word "wall" gives us all a frame of reference since we've got walls around us constantly in our daily lives (and none of them are horizontally oriented, since we've got different words for things that are wall-like in all ways except for their horizontal orientation).

Leo wrote:

it is ambiguous.

The word "wall" is not ambiguous. Things don't become ambiguous just because someone wants them to say something other than what they do.

Leo wrote:

Which goes back to the issues of "what if it doesn't say how it can be positioned?"

There's no such thing as a wall spell that doesn't say how it can be positioned, because use of the word "wall" is itself a description of a particular positioning of a (typically) rectangular object.

And besides that, an answer of "then you can do whatever you want" doesn't make any logical sense if you are asking the question what the difference between wall of stone (explicit mention of non-wall positioning options) and wall of force (no explicit options at all if we accept the "it doesn't say how it can positioned" argument) because if every stated configuration is a reduction of the infinite possible arrangements not saying anything but "wall" and the dimensions grants, why is it written as "you can" instead of "you can't" or "you can only"?

[Gortle]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gortle wrote:

The problem is that dimensions are relative to your frame of reference.

No frame of reference is specified.

Yes, a frame of reference is specified. It's like how you can determine the length of a third side of a triangle if you've got two sides' length - because what the dimensions are called indicate what the frame of reference must be.

That, and the word "wall" gives us all a frame of reference since we've got walls around us constantly in our daily lives (and none of them are horizontally oriented, since we've got different words for things that are wall-like in all ways except for their horizontal orientation).

So not true.

Example you build a maze on a flat horizontal surface. The side of the maze are clearly walls. Insert a rat to find the cheese.

You put a few bricks under one end to raise it on an angle. Maybe you want to flow water through it. Or to make your rat walk uphill. What are the sides called? Walls

You set it vertical? Still walls.

We intuitively change our frame of reference to make it convenient for our understanding. It is not fixed.

[Ravingdork]

And I suppose early mankind migrated between continents via a horizontal land wall, not a land bridge,

Kids these days, constantly trying to redefine terms.

[thenobledrake]

Gortle wrote:

So not true.

Example you build a maze on a flat horizontal surface. The side of the maze are clearly walls. Insert a rat to find the cheese.

You put a few bricks under one end to raise it on an angle. Maybe you want to flow water through it. Or to make your rat walk uphill. What are the sides called? Walls

You set it vertical? Still walls.

We intuitively change our frame of reference to make it convenient for our understanding. It is not fixed.

I would like for you to note that in your example which you are trying to prove me wrong with, you have actually proven me correct because the walls retain their perpendicular to the floor orientation, and are thus firmly locked in the vertical-only state I've described them as within their frame of reference.

Or are you saying that once you tilt this maze that it's floor isn't still it's floor?

[Gortle]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gortle wrote:

So not true.

Example you build a maze on a flat horizontal surface. The side of the maze are clearly walls. Insert a rat to find the cheese.

You put a few bricks under one end to raise it on an angle. Maybe you want to flow water through it. Or to make your rat walk uphill. What are the sides called? Walls

You set it vertical? Still walls.

We intuitively change our frame of reference to make it convenient for our understanding. It is not fixed.

I would like for you to note that in your example which you are trying to prove me wrong with, you have actually proven me correct because the walls retain their perpendicular to the floor orientation, and are thus firmly locked in the vertical-only state I've described them as within their frame of reference.

Or are you saying that once you tilt this maze that it's floor isn't still it's floor?

Perpendicular to one floor orientation and not another. The observer has a different orientation.

But seriously. I couldn't be less interested. Happy to put the information out there, and let people decide for themselves. Once thats done I lose interest in a discussion.

[thenobledrake]

Gortle wrote:

Perpendicular to one floor orientation and not another. The observer has a different orientation.

Yup, perpendicular to the floor from the caster's perspective because the caster is in the maze - not the person outside it with what equates to a toy maze they can spin around however they see fit.

[shroudb]

so, if you are prone then the wall is horizontal and if you are standing it's vertical?

The lack of specified orientation in force walls still seems to me that means that you can place them how you wise as long as the dimenshions (10x10) are followed.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

It is not worth a semi-semantics argument folks. Smile and nod and move one. This is my suggestion.

Pointing to "wall" is a legitimate technical argument. Also in many of the texts of the spells they use words like "tall" and "high" which do reference a point due to gravity. It is a very technical argument which is the spirit of the rules discussion forum.

Smile, nod, tell them that they are technically correct and then proceed to do your own thing that enables a larger amount of creativity.

[Mellored]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Pointing to "wall" is a legitimate technical argument. Also in many of the texts of the spells they use words like "tall" and "high" which do reference a point due to gravity. It is a very technical argument which is the spirit of the rules discussion forum

Does my height change if I lay down?

[thenobledrake]

Mellored wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Pointing to "wall" is a legitimate technical argument. Also in many of the texts of the spells they use words like "tall" and "high" which do reference a point due to gravity. It is a very technical argument which is the spirit of the rules discussion forum

Does my height change if I lay down?

Yes and no.

Yes because you're now only as high as you are thick when standing up.
No because height in the context of a creature is not the same as height in the context of an object - especially not one for which there is a different word for the same basic physical shape/structure dependent upon it's orientation (i.e. a human is still a human whether it's upright or laying down, but if you take a solid rectangular object and stand it up it's a wall, lay it down it's a floor, rest an edge on the floor and the opposite at a higher elevation it's a ramp, stand it on some stilts and it's a table or a ceiling depending on relative height).

As Leo says, I'm not gonna stop any GM from doing whatever they want at their table (at least not without being a player at that same table, then I'd speak my opinion). But what I will do is point out when someone is claiming something false, like that the RAW say something can be demonstrated not to - which in this case is that "didn't say anything about positioning" is somehow less restrictive than "had multiple specific positioning options"

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

It is a bit of a stretch to say that RAW says that walls must be upright unless specified otherwise. It is merely a logical interpretation of the information provided by RAW. There is a difference.

It is just as stretch to say that the depth and height and width change if you lay it flat. It is semantical.

It is also semantics to argue point of reference in relation to lwh.

Arguing semantics beyond a certain point of clear unwavering disagreement makes all parties look petty.

[thenobledrake]

There is a massive issue with being derisive and dismissive of "semantic arguments" when the entire discussion has always been one of semantics - the question literally is "what is the meaning of these passages of text", there are no possible answers that aren't semantics.

The reason why people get their argument dismissed, and it's actually valid to dismiss it, is when the topic isn't semantics and instead of arguing on topic they instead start arguing the semantics. I.e. "did you cheat?" being answered with "that depends on what you mean by 'cheat"

The inappropriate semantic arguments here are not "that's what 'wall' means" and "it says it will tell you how you "can" configure a wall, not that it'll mention how you "can't" - those are on the actual topic of discussion. The inappropriate semantic arguments are things like "what RAW says and what it can logically be interpreted as saying are different things."

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

The RAW does not explicitly state that wall spells must, by default, be placed vertically. Nor do they explicitly state you can do otherwise unless it tells you you can't. Because RAW does not explicitly state, any conclusion is an interpretation (whether reasonable and logical or not). As we are left to derive meaning from the RAW, it is ambiguous. Again as such, any conclusion that you or I come to is, at best, an interpretation.

And, if you read my last sentence it was...

Me wrote:

Arguing semantics beyond a certain point of clear unwavering disagreement makes all parties look petty.

Rules were quoted, points were made. Unless I'm mistaken, there doesn't seem to be any new arguments to be made. So the only thing left is to rehash the same arguments, which seems like a waste of time for all parties involved. You are welcome to it I suppose, but it does seem like a silly thing to do.

[thenobledrake]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

The RAW does not explicitly state that wall spells must, by default, be placed vertically

Except that they do, because that's what a wall is.

You're effectively arguing that a rule is never explicit unless it defines every noun used in it within the rule, rather than relying on the assumption that the reader already knows what words that aren't being re-defined as game terms mean.

[Mellored]

XKCD says not all walls are vertical.

Rock Wall

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Sounds good.

[thenobledrake]

Mellored wrote:

XKCD says not all walls are vertical.

Rock Wall

You'd have a point if there were a clause somewhere in the book that said anything about using geology-specific definitions of otherwise commonly understood words.

[Burntgerb]

For what it's worth, Moonlight Bridge sounds like it does something verrry close to what you're asking about.

If I were the GM, I'd read this first before adjudicating - and be disinclined to allow your wall to be used in such a fashion.

[Gortle]

Burntgerb wrote:

For what it's worth, Moonlight Bridge sounds like it does something verrry close to what you're asking about.

If I were the GM, I'd read this first before adjudicating - and be disinclined to allow your wall to be used in such a fashion.

That is a very different spell with a very different purpose. Its not relevant

[thenobledrake]

Gortle wrote:

That is a very different spell with a very different purpose. Its not relevant

It basically covers the same reasons why walls can't generally be positioned in not-like-a-real-wall ways as wall of stone does, though, so their point stands.