The candle flame trick

[Ravingdork]

Ubertron_X wrote:

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.

This is likely how I will run it in my games as well. It just simplifies matters, makes conceptual sense, and stops potential rules disruptions before they occur.

[BloodandDust]

RE: the 1" thick vs 5' thick.

That's a good point, and I'd forgotten that the spell states 5' thick so on a 5'/hex map the answer is pretty clear. The point was not to pick a thickness specifically though, but to establish the idea that:
1) being "close to" a fire is not the same as being "in the fire",
2) how long you are near a fire may make a difference as well.

So I would land on character intent... if a player says "I run into and along the wall of fire" then they will get burned, likely multiple times (after checking to make sure that they really intended to run through extra fire intentionally). OTOH if the player says "I sprint along the edge of the fire here (points at map) and try not to fall in" then I'll probably let it work.

"Probably" is to allow for circumstance. E.g. no space for edge walking, casting wizard is trying to block that particular location, carrying flammable alchemy, soaking wet, or whatever.

[Thod]

Pathfinder uses a 5 foot grid system for simplicity of dealing with locations.

For a firewall this means a 5 foot square is either 100% covered in fire or not covered at all.

In this respect there is no ‘edge walking’

You have a 5 foot wide straight corridor - it is filled completely with fire.

You have a 10 foot wide corridor and one side is fully covered - the other is perfectly free to walk in without harm.

The system also doesn’t allow a caster to cast it in the middle of a 10 foot corridor to leave squeezing space on either side. You would have to cast two such spells to cover the corridor.

The reason doing it this way is to avoid discussions - each square is yes or no - never partial. But yes - this makes a rule more clear when it applies (or not) but it means you are disallowed certain shapes that seem obvious (as I said middle of a 10 foot corridor)

As GM there are simple ways to solve this inside the rules. A 7.5 feet wide corridor will have squeeze space on one side. So for a special encounter this can be done. But there are reasons we abhor half squares normally as player and GM and seldom see them.

They tend to end up in lengthy rules discussions.