Please correct me if I'm wrong: A character starting their turn near a wall of fire could move into it, run along the entirety of its length, then step out again on the same side they entered, ending their turn and taking absolutely no damage whatsoever.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravigdorg - I’m disappointed - if you twist rules (pun intended) then go the whole way as you miss a trick here (pun intended as well).
CRB says you can cast the wall as a straight line or a circle. It doesn’t disallow a twisted circle - otherwise known as Mobius Strip.
Now go into the wall and wherever you go out again it will be the same side.
Now by RAW you can cross without crossing.
As I said - if you want to twist the rules - twist them properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you have some way to run on walls, you can go like you are walking on hot coals.
If you do not enter the wall and pop out the other side you have not, by definition, "crossed the wall." If you do not end your turn inside it, you obviously aren't going to start your turn inside of it.
At what point does one meet the requirements for taking damage from the spell?
Sure a GM could rule such a character takes damage, but that could easily be argued as either (1) a house rule, or (2) a form of anti-player cheating.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on what it means to "cross" the wall. It seems to me like if you cross the edge of the wall on either side, you've crossed the wall for the purpose of determining if you have encountered fire. So the "to intersect" definition of to cross is probably what I would apply here.
|
|
The way players use language always amazes me:
cross (as in cross the wall of fire)
verb
1. go or extend across or to the other side of (an area, stretch of water, etc.).
No - it is not crossing as I don't come out the other site. Ruling it this way is a form of anti-player cheating
through (as in tumble through)
adverb
1.
expressing movement into one side and out of the other side of an opening, channel, or location.
Oh no - I stride and I stride in and out the same side without issues to get my panache.
An important part as GM is to be consistent. I really can't see any consistency personally as GM if I allow moving in and out of a wall of fire without incurring a roll for damage while allowing a swashbuckler to tumble through but not ending up on the opposite site.
Taking a single rule and the wording out of context can be fun in an academic way - but as GM I have to balance ALL rules and all interpretations. Personally - as I allowed swashbucklers aiming to gain panache to tumble in and back there is no way that I could allow moving in and out of a wall of fire without incurring damage at the same time.
YMMW
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too took “crosses the wall” to mean “makes it mad”.
That certainly seems to be what was being described in the original post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We players and GMs want a good clear moment when the Wall of Fire deals its 4d6 fire damage. We do not want it to deal damage twice on the same turn, unless the character interacts with the wall twice, such as someone stepping through a wall of fire around the McGuffin treasure, grabbing the treasure, and stepping back through the wall.
"Crosses the wall" would be less ambiguous if the wall were drawn as an edge, like with the 1-inch-thick Wall of Stone. However, a 1-inch-thick wall of fire feels like something a character can jump through and merely be a little singed. The spell feels more realistic with a full five-foot thickness.
If the rules said, "Enters the wall," then a diagonal or circular wall of fire, which has some fire squares touching only at corners (see the Areas diagrams), could be crossed diagonally without taking fire damage.
The rules do cover the unusual case where a character enters the wall and stops before crossing with "or is occupying the wall's area at the start of its turn." Now Ravingdork has identified two other fringe cases: entering the fire and exiting by the same side and entering the fire and exiting by the end of the wall, which is not really on either side.
My personal GM ruling to deal with the fringe cases would be that entering the fire and then exiting the fire on the same turn counts as crossing the wall. Arguments about the difference between the same side and other side run into the Jordan curve theorem, which is very difficult to prove.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also helps if you remember it's a game meant to be played and not an elaborate "gotcha!" word problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also helps if you remember it's a game meant to be played and not an elaborate "gotcha!" word problem.
Yes, but as with any game, consistency in understanding the rules is important. Without that, we might as well be playing different games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The journey is more important than the destination.
Once you enter the square with a wall of fire you are passing through the fire doesn't matter where you end up or if you stop there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but as with any game, consistency in understanding the rules is important. Without that, we might as well be playing different games.
Complete consistency is a pipe dream and Utopia.
The closest we likely get to a fully consistent set of rules is Mathematics. I worked on an earlier version of a reply to get an exact definition of the problem using Mathematics.
I ended up using Toplogy and Manifolds. I stopped when I realized that we either need to know if the Wall of Fire has rounded edges (this would result in the wall be topologically identical to a sphere and therefore it wouldn't matter where you enter and leave) or if the Wall of Fire has edges in which case we would have to use Surgery Theory.
That is when I scrapped my reply as I realized
a) a consistent rule set like Maths could answer the question in theory
b) even a consistent rule set like Maths would need several more parts of the question defined before it is able to answer the question
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a 1-inch-thick wall of fire feels like something a character can jump through and merely be a little singed
one could argue that given
- the mechanics of HP (easily lost & easily regained)- the level at which characters would encounter or use wall of fire
4d6 fire damage would often be “a little singed”
I just took 18 fire damage!
::slaps PC:: ::auto heals them for 2d8+10:: snap out of it!
thanks - I needed that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but as with any game, consistency in understanding the rules is important. Without that, we might as well be playing different games.Complete consistency is a pipe dream and Utopia.
The closest we likely get to a fully consistent set of rules is Mathematics. I worked on an earlier version of a reply to get an exact definition of the problem using Mathematics.
I ended up using Toplogy and Manifolds. I stopped when I realized that we either need to know if the Wall of Fire has rounded edges (this would result in the wall be topologically identical to a sphere and therefore it wouldn't matter where you enter and leave) or if the Wall of Fire has edges in which case we would have to use Surgery Theory.
That is when I scrapped my reply as I realized
a) a consistent rule set like Maths could answer the question in theory
b) even a consistent rule set like Maths would need several more parts of the question defined before it is able to answer the question
Manifolds? Why use manifolds in Euclidean space? I agree about topology, which is why I referenced the Jordan Curve Theorem.
Technically, a Wall of Fire will be consistent once we develop a practical definition of crossing the wall. Yet I would also like that definition to describe a wall of flame that resembles fire in real life.
Furthermore, I think the Wall of Fire has a bigger problem with time than with space. In fantasy video games, the damage from their walls of fire are damage over time. Pathfinder is a turn-based system that only crudely mimics time. A character who enters a square of fire on his first action and attacks an enemy adjacent to the fire on the next two actions takes no damage from the Wall of Fire that turn. Instead, he takes fire damage at the beginning of the next turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong: A character starting their turn near a wall of fire could move into it, run along the entirety of its length, then step out again on the same side they entered, ending their turn and taking absolutely no damage whatsoever.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say not only do I think RD is 100% correct, I think his interpretation is exactly what the designers intended.
The purpose for a Wall of Fire is to control the battlefield, restricting someone from moving through an area. If all a person is doing is moving laterally along the wall then the wall has served its purpose; e.g. "Thou shall not... PASS!!"
The spell could have easily been written to inflict damage immediately upon entering its space. It wasn't.
"Congratulations, you did not cross the wall so you do not take fire damage. However, sadly, you crit failed the secret Con check I just rolled for you. Your character has a brain aneurysm. Start making death saves"
Personally, I'm more of a "talk to your players" like adults," rather than a "revenge-murder them in-game like a petulant child," kind of GM.
I would say the player behaviour is being childlike too. This is pretty much text book hovering your finger an inch from your siblings face while shouting "but I'm not touching you."
Meh. As a player I'd be like "But the rules say..." and when the GM says "And I say..." then I'm all like (totally non-sullenly) "well, okay then."
Then we all get on with the game like adults.
Usually. ;)
My personal GM ruling to deal with the fringe cases would be that entering the fire and then exiting the fire on the same turn counts as crossing the wall. Arguments about the difference between the same side and other side run into the Jordan curve theorem, which is very difficult to prove.
For the circular wall, the Jordan curve theorem is massive overkill (it's a simple matter to prove the result for circles). For the line version, it's not even applicable since that's not a closed curve – unless you just concentrate on a strip around the wall and extend the line through the area you don't care about, but then it's again very easy to prove the result.
Generally speaking, what makes the theorem difficult is the fact that curves that are only continuous can be very pathological. If we require the curve to be smooth or piecewise smooth, the proof already simplifies quite a bit. And in this case, we are even looking at circles and lines only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say the player behaviour is being childlike too. This is pretty much text book hovering your finger an inch from your siblings face while shouting "but I'm not touching you."
I can imagine legitimate cases where non-crossing the Wall of Fire would happen in the game.
1) The enemy wizard casts a Wall of Fire adjacent to himself. The party fighter Strides into the Wall of Fire adjacent to the wizard, Strikes the wizard, and then Strides or Steps out of the Wall of Fire to the same square from which he entered. His sword crossed the wall, but technically he didn't.
We could compare this case to where the fighter does not enter the Wall of Fire and instead attacks through it with a reach weapon.
2) The party retreats down a straight 5-foot-wide corridor. The party wizard casts Wall of Fire to fill the corridor behind them. An enemy warrior, starting from the left of the wall, follows the party down the corridor until he exits the end of the Wall of Fire. The GM says he hugs the left wall. Does he take any damage from the Wall of Fire?
We could compare this case to a 10-foot-wide corridor, so the wizard casts the Wall of Fire a little diagonally: 30 feet straight on the left followed by 30 feet straight on the right. The warrior could cross the wall at the diagonal jog and take fire damage once. Or he could still hug the left.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong: A character starting their turn near a wall of fire could move into it, run along the entirety of its length, then step out again on the same side they entered, ending their turn and taking absolutely no damage whatsoever.
Applying nonsensical rulings doesn't make you a better GM. True story.
My personal GM ruling to deal with the fringe cases would be that entering the fire and then exiting the fire on the same turn counts as crossing the wall. Arguments about the difference between the same side and other side run into the Jordan curve theorem, which is very difficult to prove.For the circular wall, the Jordan curve theorem is massive overkill (it's a simple matter to prove the result for circles). For the line version, it's not even applicable since that's not a closed curve – unless you just concentrate on a strip around the wall and extend the line through the area you don't care about, but then it's again very easy to prove the result.
Generally speaking, what makes the theorem difficult is the fact that curves that are only continuous can be very pathological. If we require the curve to be smooth or piecewise smooth, the proof already simplifies quite a bit. And in this case, we are even looking at circles and lines only.
The Jordan Curve Theorem is overkill. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that defining crossing a curve can be difficult.
With the Wall of Fire, the problem is not that the curve can be very convoluted like a fractal curve, but that the curve is approximated by a series of squares linked at edges or corners. Even a simple 60-foot by 5-foot rectangle has the fringe case that Ravingdork described. We could define crossing the wall as entering by a 60-foot side and then crossing the opposite 60-foot side, but what if the character uses a 5-foot side of the rectangle instead?
The circular wall of fire is made of four 10-foot by 5-foot rectangles and four 5-foot by 5-foot squares touching at corners. A character could move diagonally through one of those corners, thereby crossing the circle, yet we have the paradox that by the movement rules, the character did not touch the wall itself. I did not see any rules about "hard corners," a concept from PF1, in the Grid Movement rules on page 473 of the PF2 Core Rulebook. We can justify this by saying that the circle made of squares is just an approximation of the exact location of the fire, and we are trying to mimic the behavior of a real circular ring five feet wide. In that case, we want to make sure that the rules really do mimic the ring of fire.
Personally, I'm more of a "talk to your players" like adults," rather than a "revenge-murder them in-game like a petulant child," kind of GM.Which is why I find it really odd that so much of your player-side questions come off as a completely separate attitude from that.
Like this one, where you're apparently expecting the perceived letter of the rules to triumph over everything else until/unless the GM steps in to say "Nuh uh, no way is that happening." even though you seem to know you're trying to squeeze an unfair advantage out of the definition of a word.
I mean, I generally think the rules mean what they say until the GM overrides them. That's just how games work I figure.
Though I'm not generally a fan of "surprise house rules," what many have described in this thread to keep things sensible don't really meet that criteria in my mind.
I can't really control how people see me anymore than I can control how they'd interpret a given rule. Insofar as I'm aware, most who have personally played alongside me have found me to be quite reasonable though.
Most of my forum antics, as some people perceive them, are just me expanding my understanding of the rules and peoples' interpretation of them through experimentive dialog and corner cases. Oftentimes it's not really planned; I often post things as they occur to me.
For many years people have referred to me as a Rules Lawyer, but I like to think of myself more as a Rules Philosopher. And yes, sometimes that does confuse people and make them want to poison me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but as with any game, consistency in understanding the rules is important. Without that, we might as well be playing different games.Complete consistency is a pipe dream and Utopia.
The closest we likely get to a fully consistent set of rules is Mathematics. I worked on an earlier version of a reply to get an exact definition of the problem using Mathematics.
...
That is when I scrapped my reply as I realized
a) a consistent rule set like Maths could answer the question in theory
b) even a consistent rule set like Maths would need several more parts of the question defined before it is able to answer the question
Even more fun is when you realize that even if we do create the rules in a formal language like math that then it is able to be proven that the rules must be either incomplete or inconsistent.
Most of my forum antics, as some people perceive them, are just me expanding my understanding of the rules and peoples' interpretation of them through experimentive dialog and corner cases.That description doesn't really seem to mesh with the example of this thread, wherein you make a statement asking to be corrected if you are wrong, are corrected because you are wrong, and then you argue that you weren't wrong at all.
That doesn't look like expanding anyone's understanding, that looks like you wanted to be right in your initial assessment of being able to avoid damage from a damaging spell effect through the power of semantics, and were willing to argue to try to get that outcome.
As I said, I can't really control how people choose to perceive me or my actions.
At this point, it seems like you're taking not having full control over how people perceive you as an excuse to claim so little responsibility for it that it's equivalent to you having no part in someone seeing you wear the color of shirt you chose to wear on a particular day.
Like you're saying I didn't actually see you make this post, I just chose to perceive that it was you that made this post, and you have no control over that at all.
Case in point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, ruling that going 'inside' the wall counts as crossing it for taking damage sounds very reasonable. I will certainly do like this, if it ever happens at my table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me just preface my main point by saying something about how this should actually be handled:
Player: ASKS if entering a square of the fire wall and then exiting on the same side later in their turn is going to cause damage, quoting or providing the spell's description if they deem it necessary for the GM to make their decision.
GM: Answers
Player: Accepts the answer
How it shouldn't go:
Player: walks into and out of the fire wall on the same turn
GM: Rolls damage or asks the caster to roll damage for the fire.
Player: Complains about the ruling and/or says "that's not how it works" or something similar, confidently supplying the GM with the wording of a spell that in no way clearly indicates they can do what they just did without taking damage.
GM: Says that's not how it works, either by RAW, or in their game
Player: Only now accepts the answer
With that out of the way, the actual answer to the question:
RAW could be either way. Crossing "the wall" isn't as obvious as one might initially think in the English language. With the standard understanding of a wall, which typically can't be entered, it's pretty clear that crossing means crossing through / to the other side of the wall, but since a wall of fire can be entered, it could also be referring to crossing into the wall. This isn't to say that that's necessarily what the dev's had in mind, and I'll be the first to admit that the more standard way of reading it is crossing through. However, since we're dealing with the world of semantics and seemingly trying to get one over on the DM, I think it's perfectly reasonable to come back at the argument with semantics as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How it shouldn't go:
Player: walks into and out of the fire wall on the same turn
GM: Rolls damage or asks the caster to roll damage for the fire.
Player: Complains about the ruling and/or says "that's not how it works" or something similar, confidently supplying the GM with the wording of a spell that in no way clearly indicates they can do what they just did without taking damage.
GM: Says that's not how it works, either by RAW, or in their game
Player: Only now accepts the answer
Added a bit at the end why these discussions here are not always as innocent as they always seem
How it shouldn't go:
Player: walks into and out of the fire wall on the same turn
GM: Rolls damage or asks the caster to roll damage for the fire.
Player: Complains about the ruling and/or says "that's not how it works" or something similar, confidently supplying the GM with the wording of a spell that in no way clearly indicates they can do what they just did without taking damage.
GM: Says that's not how it works, either by RAW, or in their game
Player: Points to the internet where a fringe group of players/GMs do not object to his opinion as proof that he is right.
GM: For the sake of the game lets it slide and while he didn't read the posts but feels overruled by the player and a few sessions later the players are surprised why the GM stops
It isn't hypothetical - had something like that happen in an AP I played with a semi-new GM who gave up when once overruled too often.
Let me just preface my main point by saying something about how this should actually be handled:
Player: ASKS if entering a square of the fire wall and then exiting on the same side later in their turn is going to cause damage, quoting or providing the spell's description if they deem it necessary for the GM to make their decision.
GM: Answers
Player: Accepts the answer
...
so if I make an attacked does it add to my MAP?
yes, it will
ok, thx; I get barkskin cast on me, do I gain fire weakness?
yes
ok cool; when I cloud jump can I use all my actions to leap really far?
yes
sweet! now what if I -
hold on there, Spanky, you’ve been asking a lot of questions which I feel seem pretty obvious - what’s going on?
well, I both am a native speaker and have a master’s in English literature but ever since that one time when ‘crosses’ suddenly included ‘enters’, my character got rocked and we got TPK’d, I’m doubting my mastery of the tongue I’ve spoken all my life and studied for many years at a higher learning institute and this one guy on the forums says asking the GM instead of assuming the rules are written to be read literally is how ‘things should go’, so I’m doing that ‘should’ - asking if the rules about to impact me mean what their verbatim meaning is or if my mastery of English is again failing me because, you know, for Paizo reasons
and a few weeks later the GM does not stop but changes to a diff system where there is zero doubt that crosses does not include enters
It isn't hypothetical - ...
given my various ramblings fall into the
based on true events - names have been changed to protect the innocent, and those not so muchcategory, that is my default setting when others are posting their tales
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deth Braedon, 2 things:
1. Can you please stop turning every single thread into your sounding board about how you think the rules suck and aren't specific enough?
2. My scenario wasn't about an overly cautious player, but rather about one who wants the GM to have a very specific and counter-intuitive ruling for a spell. It's a wall of fire. We all know how a wall of fire works: it burns things if they spend too long in it, and in this case merely crossing the wall is spending enough time in it to have it burn you, and you want to run what, 60ft inside of it with no consequences? Yeah, no. How it should really go is:
Player: Doesn't walk into fire expecting not to get burned
GM: Doesn't realize this was even something a player might think of, because, you know: fire
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, the exact argument isn't relevant since I'm assuming I'm playing with people over the age of 5 and that aren't trying to pester the GM until they up and quit, as Thod noted, but I'll repeat it in a hopefully clearer way anyway: If you enter a square, then exit it from a different direction (in this case taking a 90 degree turn instead of walking straight) isn't that crossing that square? And the wall is in that square. Sounds like a reasonable interpretation of crossing the wall of fire to me. Also, let's not forget that this whole thread was started with the question: "Hey, is it possible to do this weird thing by RAW?" My answer is basically "I mean, if you read it that way, yes, but don't assume your GM will allow it."
Btw, that would be my answer even if there was an extra paragraph on exactly how the spell works and there was no doubt about RAI and RAW being that entering isn't an issue. The wording of my reply would be different, but the underlying issue is the same. And you know what... I don't want to read a paragraph outlining how each word in a spell is intended to work in detail. Not as a GM, and not as a player. Idk about you, but I trust my GM and players to have some common sense and do things that make the game enjoyable for the group. If I didn't have that trust, then the group wouldn't last long regardless, for a myriad of reasons. Remember, this is a TTRPG. If my character were to look at a wall of fire placed to his North that's supplementing three other normal walls to his West, South, and East and think "Hmmm... yeah, that looks dangerous, I probably shouldn't cross it" then proceed to walk right into the fire, take a 90 degree turn, walk to the other side of the wall to his east, and then turn again and exit the wall of fire Southbound expecting not to get hurt, then am I really roleplaying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deth Braedon, 2 things:
1. Can you please stop turning every single thread into your sounding board about how you think the rules suck and aren't specific enough
Yeah, wouldn't that be nice.
My understanding of Ravingdork is that he just likes coming up with bizarre edge case readings of the rules because he finds it amusing. My only problem with that is that it gives fuel to people like Deth Braedon.
My ideal solution would be to have Deth Braedon publish his own TTRPG rule set and then Ravingdork can go over there and start picking out all the places where the rules are incomplete or inconsistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My ideal solution would be to have Deth Braedon publish his own TTRPG rule set and then Ravingdork can go over there and start picking out all the places where the rules are incomplete or inconsistent.
Deth Braedon would need to make a VERY good game for that to happen.
I do what I do out of love for the game.
|
|
It also helps if you remember it's a game meant to be played and not an elaborate "gotcha!" word problem.Yes, but as with any game, consistency in understanding the rules is important. Without that, we might as well be playing different games.
Intent plays a part. If you are attempting exploit an unintended loophole in the rules because of a word selected for convenience, then GTFO and the answer is and should be "just no." If OTOH, this is just some theory-crafting to walk through all the permutations that will eventually lead us to the same inevitable conclusion of "no," then have at it, but don't expect it to be an easy, well-thought out discussion as we all know rules arbitration tends to be a very emotional/passionate road to follow.
Generally speaking, if you try to apply strict rules of math, physics, and English literature rules to a TTRPG you are going to be disappointed with the results more often than not. The game is a simulation not an exact replication of real world events. As long as you continue to use squares and rounds (coarse digital representation) to represent position and time in an analog world, you are not going to be perfectly consistent nor representative of the real world. YMMV
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
… snip …
b) Standing next to the fire briefly is uncomfortable, maybe *really* uncomfortable, but does not cause damage == jogging past the bonfire a bit too closely.
… snipAnyway, seems reasonable to run closely (<5') past the Wall and stay unhurt, vs taking damage from standing next to the wall or reaching (or running) *through* the wall.
….
I hope you are aware that OP suggested walking [inside] the wall is fine - as long as you come out the same side.
So walking 5 foot across it equal damage
Walking into it then inside for 20 foot and out same side s no damage.
There is no damage staying next to a wall of fire. That was first edition.
For what it's worth, and back to OPs practical question: I think I agree with the original suggestion and would play it similarly.
Reasoning: Wall of Fire is an intense, but very tightly contained (by magic) fire.
a) Crossing through it exposes a player to the intense heat, causing damage == e.g. reaching a hand *into* the bonfire in your fire pit.
b) Standing next to the fire briefly is uncomfortable, maybe *really* uncomfortable, but does not cause damage == jogging past the bonfire a bit too closely.
c) Standing next to the bonfire *for too long* causes damage == standing in front of the bonfire. There is a major difference in sitting a 4-5 feet from your average firepit comfortably, vs sitting 1 foot away and getting burned. In this case "for too long" means "more than 6 seconds" (length of a round). Combine those two points of reference and one could probably estimate the heat output from a Wall of Fire.Anyway, seems reasonable to run closely (<5') past the Wall and stay unhurt, vs taking damage from standing next to the wall or reaching (or running) *through* the wall.
I'd allow it in most cases. Might make a player roll an easy or moderate acrobatics to avoid an Icarus moment if it's a long sprint.
An interesting interpretation, and perhaps even more accurate than I would do from a RAW perspective, idk. So basically, instead of the wall being seen as 5ft thick it's more like an inch thick right in the middle of the square? So there's kind of room to enter the square but not really cross that thin line?
That being said, if we break a square up into multiple pieces with different statuses, then the point of squares kind of breaks apart, as you're assumed to be able to control the entirety of your square in order to properly move, attack, defend, and so on.
|
|
An interesting interpretation, and perhaps even more accurate than I would do from a RAW perspective, idk.
How can this be more accurate from a RAW perspective.
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
You raise a blazing wall that burns creatures passing through it. 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.
RAW: Wall of Stone - 1 inch thick
Wall of fire - 5 feet thick
Making the Wall of Fire 1 inch thick is homebrew
If you'd ask me I'd rule that crossing into is the the same as crossing through, i.e. crossing the walls outer borders has the same effect as crossing the wall entirely as this instantly eliminates many corner cases. The only downside to this line of reasoning is that they could have used a much easier wording in the first place if this ought to be the intended interaction.
An interesting interpretation, and perhaps even more accurate than I would do from a RAW perspective, idk.
How can this be more accurate from a RAW perspective.
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
You raise a blazing wall that burns creatures passing through it. 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.
RAW: Wall of Stone - 1 inch thick
Wall of fire - 5 feet thickMaking the Wall of Fire 1 inch thick is homebrew
Oh, yeah, sorry about that. To be clear I was just talking about the conclusion that it leads to and not the actual dimensions of the wall. The logic was just me trying to explain how that might work given that the rules do use the word "cross" the wall. Basically, it was me trying to explain how that might work in the game-world where the point that you really don't want to touch isn't the entirety of the square, but rather a line in the square where the fire is the hottest, and staying close to it burns you at the start of your turn, but passing through it burns you instantly.
I still think that the concept is clear enough that it's kind of irrelevant that the word "cross" is used, and that that's more so to keep the wall from doubling down on damage if you end your turn in it because you didn't have the movement to cross it, or perhaps were pushed into the wall. But I can see why someone would think differently looking purely at the way the spell's written.