| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You shape a wall of solid stone. 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. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
I say technically no, because the space you put the wall is the border between squares and that space must be open and not contain objects. What I'm saying is that the wall blocks itself so you can't do this.
Wall of Stone is a problem spell. A GM has to put some sane limits on it or it will get overused by intelligent players and it will break your game.
This type of control effect has to be able to work or it weakens a classic caster type to uselessness and devalues the whole game.
A GM has to find a reasonable balance point, because Paizo has been very vague.
I suppose if you had 5' per layer you could fold the wall across a longer area, such as a hall
Does the wall need to be continuous?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it needs to be a continuous wall, not a series of disconnected wall segments.
So to thick the wall you can zigzag it following the square borders. This will create a multi layer wall using the max 120 feet, like this:
____
____|
|____
____|
Yes that is legitimate
For reference.
Walls
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.
Wall of Stone
You shape a wall of solid stone. 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. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don’t pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
For reference.
Walls
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 can a caster thicken the wall putting it adjacent to other section?
For reference.
Walls
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.
Taking advantage of this I have a question too
The Wall of Force don't say how it can be positioned so can we shape it like Wall of Stone/Wind explicitly says or it's needs to be straight like Prismatic/Chromatic Wall/Wall of Ice/Thorns/Flesh?
So can a caster thicken the wall putting it adjacent to other section?
Just repeating the answer is no.
For reference.
Walls
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.Taking advantage of this I have a question too
The Wall of Force don't say how it can be positioned so can we shape it like Wall of Stone/Wind explicitly says or it's needs to be straight like Prismatic/Chromatic Wall/Wall of Ice/Thorns/Flesh?
The rules don't say. Some walls can't, some walls can, some walls don't talk about it. It is totally unclear.
The rules also don't say whether or not you can build a box shape with a covered top out of Wall of Stone. It might be possible as 3-D is enabled by the spell to a certain extent.
Older editions and other games do allow for boxes so player expectations are going to be there. But then again the largest portion of your encounters are inside so it often doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, though, only an absolute lunatic of a GM is actually going allow Box of Stone, let alone doubling up walls in actual play.
The rules also don't say whether or not you can build a box shape with a covered top out of Wall of Stone. It might be possible as 3-D is enabled by the spell to a certain extent.
Older editions and other games do allow for boxes so player expectations are going to be there. But then again the largest portion of your encounters are inside so it often doesn't matter.
I agree it could be clearer what is and isn't allowed, and from a RAI perspective I'm not entirely sure what they were going for, but as written it is actually geometrically impossible within the rules provided by that specific spell to create a box with a single casting.
Two castings, on the other hand. Now THAT creates a lot of possibilities
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A box of stone is mathematically not possible (with a single casting).
In Math exams (GCSE year 11 UK) one question that has been asked a few times is to be presented with 6 squares connected to each other.
These 6 squares are in different configurations. You get 3 or 4 configurations and have to check the ones that can be folded up into a cube.
A strip of 6 ins row is the easy one. Always no - just impossible.
Another easy one. 4 squares in a row, 1 protruding to the left at the start / one to the right at the end. Fold up the 4 to form a square, fold one protruding up to form the bottom, fold one protruding up to form the top.
There are others that are obvious / some that are pretty hard to envision.
Bottom line: no - a straight strip (wall) can’t be folded up to a cube. Topology doesn’t allow it.
...
So can a caster thicken the wall putting it adjacent to other section?
...
I have no idea. :)
I don't follow this part at all.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
So can a caster thicken the wall putting it adjacent to other section?
...I have no idea. :)
I don't follow this part at all.
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.
It restricts that you can go through a space twice and therefore restricts the shapes you can build.
---
| |
---
| |
---
This is an allowed shape of a wall - to adjacent squares fully enclosed.
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
This is a disallowed shape of a wall - three adjacent squares fully enclosed.
A simple rule: There can be only 2 grid sections in the wall where an odd number of walls meet. These are the start and the end of the wall. There are multiple ways to 'fold' the top wall. But all start at one of the grid sections in the middle and end at the other one. These two places have 3 walls (odd number) meeting.
Try out to draw the wall in one go starting at a top or bottom corner. You will quickly find out it is impossible.
The one with three squares is just impossible as there are 4 grid sections with 3 walls next to it.
------
| |
------
Possible to shape (2 odd)
---------
..| |
-----
Not possible (3 odd)
The main reason for the rule is to avoid shenanigan like the cube. Yes - it means some shapes of wall that seem pretty similar are doable / some are not.
I doubt a GM will check them for mathematical consistency - unless you really try something weird.
Edit - ignore the .. in the last example. Not easy to do line art here if spaces are stripped off
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A box of stone is mathematically not possible (with a single casting).
...
Bottom line: no - a straight strip (wall) can’t be folded up to a cube. Topology doesn’t allow it.
But there is your fallacy.
You are reading something in to the scenario that is it not totally clear to everyone.
Is it one flat section of wall that you fold into place?
Not clear. The rules talk about 5x5 sections of a wall, and placing. The rules talk about a bridge and a set of stairs. They are 3 dimensional objects.
I mean I know that a 1 inch thick, 120ft long 20ft wide flat stone bridge can't support its own weight. So can I assume it has a bit of structure around it so that it doesn't collapse?
If the writers mean as you say then they need to make it clear.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there is your fallacy.You are reading something in to the scenario that is it not totally clear to everyone.
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
The only bit I read into the rules is that the above describes a flat rectangle with dimension x long, y high and x up to 120 and y up to 20 feet.
If it is a rectangle - then it is mathematically impossible to fold it into a cube.
Is it allowed to make a wall that is 10 foot high at the start (first 5 foot), carries on for 20 foot being 5 foot high and then is 10 foot high again at the end - but in the other direction.
xoooo
xxxxx
oooox
x is my wall -o is empty space.
Such a shape could be folded to a cube.
Do I read into the rules that up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high describes a rectangle - Yes.
If it describe a rectangle - then yes - the rules (indirect via the rules of mathematics and topology) infer that a cube can't be formed. The rules don't have to specify it - it just isn't possible.
edit: You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
This implies it is a rectangle (before folding) or the following is possible
xxxxxxx
xxxoxxx
o is a medium enemy who is in the way. It shows a 10 foot high, 35 foot long wall - with a cutout square. If this is disallowed (and my understanding is - it isn't allowed) then this directly leads to cubes being disallowed as well. If you don't believe me - try with a long strip of paper and fold it into the shape above (or a cube). A 65 by 5 foot strip can't be folded into the above shape - not even a longer one allowing double folds (which btw are disallowed by the rules).
Very well said on all accounts, Thod.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A box of stone is mathematically not possible (with a single casting).
...
Bottom line: no - a straight strip (wall) can’t be folded up to a cube. Topology doesn’t allow it.But there is your fallacy.
You are reading something in to the scenario that is it not totally clear to everyone.
Is it one flat section of wall that you fold into place?
Not clear. The rules talk about 5x5 sections of a wall, and placing. The rules talk about a bridge and a set of stairs. They are 3 dimensional objects.
I mean I know that a 1 inch thick, 120ft long 20ft wide flat stone bridge can't support its own weight. So can I assume it has a bit of structure around it so that it doesn't collapse?If the writers mean as you say then they need to make it clear.
They did make it pretty clear, actually, in describing the wall. All we really need is:
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.If someone can actually explain to me how that description can make a box rather than just saying that it doesn't disallow it (which I know is impossible, as Thod already proved as much), then I, personally, would concede the point.
For reference, this is what you're working with to turn the wall into a box:
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. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
Good luck! Also, note that nowhere in that description of things you're allowed to do change the fundamental properties of the wall.
Regarding directional input all you can do is change "the wall's path", something that makes sense for a "wall". Fences, walls of houses, etc., they all have "a path" that's pretty easily understood.It also talks about how it doesn't need to be vertical on the plane of existence you're on. Fair enough. So we have rotation of the entirety of the object. Oh, and it even gives examples! Let's see... a bridge or a set of stairs. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Just flip the entire wall on it's side and you're good to go. Looking at it from the side it still looks like a wall. Perfect!
And finally it must be in an unbroken, open space with it's edges not passing through a creature or object. The unbroken part is a huge limitation here, as without that it's unclear where the new wall can start back up again.
|
|
So I always assumed the up to qualifier included the 20ft high part.
Oh yes - it can be 20 foot high.
What it can't be is 5 foot, then 20, then 10 etc. It has to be the same height across the whole wall.
ASCII Art is difficult enough here trying to do 15 foot high walls. So I didn't try 20 foot high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always read the "up to... 20 feet high," as being relative to the ground, and variable from 5 foot segment to 5 foot segment. So say you were to cast Wall of Stone and place the wall on an incline. You could have that wall follow the incline with each segment being 20 feet taller than the section of incline it happens to be made on, even if that means that the top of the wall is technically more than 20 feet taller than the ground relative to the caster. Or you could have the same wall be 20 foot tall in one section but only 10 feet in another if needed. Like say there is some kind of overhang you need to shape the wall to.
As to using the wall to "cap" itself and make a 5 sided cube, that is up to the GM. I'd allow it personally. By my reading you aren't folding an existing unbroken "strip" of wall, you are creating the wall's path section by section then filling it in all at once. Otherwise trying to create a bridge spanning a chasm for example would be even more ludicrous as there would be moments where the bridge wasn't supported on both sides. Applying real world math to Magic isn't a great argument is the point I suppose.
Thod's example mentions folding an already existing strip of material into a cube and is 100% accurate in that example. But that isn't what the caster is doing imo, they are creating the wall's path then filling it in. Hence why the length and height are both variable; the caster could create a full 120' long by 20' tall wall in single line, or a small 10' long by 3' tall one if they so desired for cover purposes. The specifics of how creative they can be is solely up to the GM.
The one real restriction I see in the spell is the 20 foot tall bit. You couldn't create a 120' tall obelisk. You are capped at 20' relative to the ground.
I always read the "up to... 20 feet high," as being relative to the ground, and variable from 5 foot segment to 5 foot segment. So say you were to cast Wall of Stone and place the wall on an incline. You could have that wall follow the incline with each segment being 20 feet taller than the section of incline it happens to be made on, even if that means that the top of the wall is technically more than 20 feet taller than the ground relative to the caster. Or you could have the same wall be 20 foot tall in one section but only 10 feet in another if needed. Like say there is some kind of overhang you need to shape the wall to.
As to using the wall to "cap" itself and make a 5 sided cube, that is up to the GM. I'd allow it personally. By my reading you aren't folding an existing unbroken "strip" of wall, you are creating the wall's path section by section then filling it in all at once. Otherwise trying to create a bridge spanning a chasm for example would be even more ludicrous as there would be moments where the bridge wasn't supported on both sides. Applying real world math to Magic isn't a great argument is the point I suppose.
Thod's example mentions folding an already existing strip of material into a cube and is 100% accurate in that example. But that isn't what the caster is doing imo, they are creating the wall's path then filling it in. Hence why the length and height are both variable; the caster could create a full 120' long by 20' tall wall in single line, or a small 10' long by 3' tall one if they so desired for cover purposes. The specifics of how creative they can be is solely up to the GM.
The one real restriction I see in the spell is the 20 foot tall bit. You couldn't create a 120' tall obelisk. You are capped at 20' relative to the ground.
Ignore math. Gotcha. In that case all my spells do infinite damage, because magic. No rules, let's goooooo!!!
jk, jkBut in all seriousness, the point isn't that it would be difficult to physically create a box. In fact, it would be rather easy. The point is that, within the bounds of the rules laid out for us about how the spell works it isn't possible. Not structurally unsound; not difficult: impossible.
Even if you allow for different heights across the length of the wall, which I'm inclined to do, personally, even if I think it's a bit unclear whether that's meant to be allowed or not, that still only opens up the possibility of a box if you then allow folding the wall's height in on itself, which, as far as I'm concerned, isn't laying out the path of the wall.
Like, it's totally fine if you want to run it that way, but saying that arguments based on math aren't valid because it's magic makes no sense, since the arguments aren't based on what's practical without magic, they're based on what the game says the magic does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure sure. That is why I said that what the wall can and can't do is strictly up to the GM. In my case, I have no problem with using Wall of Stone to create a box. In my opinion, it makes sense that it could given that we know the wall can create stairs or bridges as well as walls.
I don't see the "...bounds of the rules laid out for us," that say that a box is an invalid shape. I mean, if stairs work, then why not a box? We know that the wall can make 90° turns horizontally, they would have to be able to to make stairs in the first place. So why not a horizontal 90° turn to cap a box?
Edit: Honestly, I think people are focusing too hard on the offensive possibilities of the spell and sleeping on the defensive applications. You can create your own cover where you need it and when you need it. Using Wall of Stone to box in a creature is cool and all, but it is really just kind of a useless tactic barring stopping someone from getting to something else.
Using wall of stone defensively though could be really strong. Facing a Dragon in their lair with nothing to hide your casters behind to avoid it's breath attacks? Wall of Stone got yo back. Caught out in the open with flying enemies harrying you from range? Wall of Stone can handle that too. Ready made battlements. Rough stone cubes that can be used as shelter from a bad storm. Things like that are much more interesting to me than boxing in a creature that the party then has to spend resources to break out to attack, or wait for it to break free itself.
I think you're using a pretty unusual definition of "useless tactic". Breaking an encounter into smaller encounters that can be dealt with one at a time is INCREDIBLY powerful.
I think you're using a pretty unusual definition of "useless tactic". Breaking an encounter into smaller encounters that can be dealt with one at a time is INCREDIBLY powerful.
And clever. Something I like about TTRPG's, tackling an encounter as a problem that needs to be solved vs. a knock down dragout slug fest with one solution.
If a foe is strong enough that the party benefits from walling it off from the rest of the combatants, then it probably won't care altogether too much about the wall of stone and will rejoin the battle shortly. If it's weak enough that it can't deal with Wall of Stone, then did the party really need to wall it off in the first place? I guess there is some variance and nuance there, caster's being particularly vulnerable and all that.
Riddle me this: If Wall of Stone can't be used to stop someone from getting somewhere, ie breaking an encounter into smaller ones, then what can it be used for?
Edit: Let me put it this way. If you use Wall of Stone to block in a creature, and bypass that encounter, is that an exploit or is it clever play?
If you used stealth to bypass that same encounter, what is the difference? Diplomacy? Distraction?
Sure, it can be powerful in the right circumstances. I personally don't see it as being overly powerful though. Usually you won't be able to attack whatever you walled in in the same way that it can't attack you. So you have put in place an impasse. Someone has to break the wall to continue the combat. The party wants that person to be the foe, nothing is stopping them from breaking through in a place the party isn't watching/isn't prepared for and fighting from there. The wall is just as much an obstacle to the party as it is a tool. If you intend to kill whatever you wall off, then it is basically a delaying tactic.
I find more value in using the wall defensively personally, giving you cover where you need it.
Walling something off so that it needs to go around or over, not wallong something in so that breaking through is the only option. In addition to more situational uses like creating bridges, dams, etc.
Additionally, why would it need to be single for? And the answer to "if it can't break through quickly, is there a point?" is yes. Lots of creatures that are pretty nasty to have in an encounter when you can get your hands on that spell aren't able to break through it quickly at all. You can even end up with a group of minions that matter to a battle but can't break through AT ALL if you're dealing with, say, precision based rogue types.
I'd also say that "make a box, it always works without having to be shaped to the situation" is about an uncreative as this spell can get.
I'd also say that "make a box, it always works without having to be shaped to the situation" is about an uncreative as this spell can get.
Equally saying that boxing something in is impossible is also uncreative. Both uses are valid imo. Why should one be viable while the other isn't?
Because one options means that Wall of Stone is a powerful, flexible tool that can be shaped to the specific situation, and which creatures might try to get around in different ways. Good for the game.
The other makes the exact same application of the same spell overwhelmingly powerful in every case that isn't a solo encounter. No change in application, no change in how the opposition can approach it in most cases. Uninteresting. Bad for the game.
I don't think there is as big a difference between the two as you are saying. Unless you mean that you couldn't use wall of stone to completely separate a room into two as written. Is that the case?
If so, why?
Even separating a room is at least a little bit situation dependent. Everything isn't always in a room. Or in a room with less than a 20 ft ceiling.
Even separating a room is at least a little bit situation dependent. Everything isn't always in a room. Or in a room with less than a 20 ft ceiling.
I'd argue that in a medieval-esque setting, most indoor environments won't have a ceiling much higher than 20'. I would also argue that in a considerable percentage of all of the campaigns I've played or GM'd, the average battle map could Easily be split in two by a 120' long wall, often with quite a bit of room to spare. Especially if a GM uses a VTT, as is becoming more and more common, there just aren't really encounters that happen with battle maps that are more than 30x30 5 foot squares or so. So I'd say that "situation dependant," is a bit of an understatement.
Imo, allowing more freedom to the caster in this case is perfectly fine. No matter what application of Wall of Stone is allowed, it should be able to be used as an impediment. Many aren't willing to allow a creature to be boxed in. That's fine. I would allow it. Either way the foe will have to spend turns breaking through the wall, or the party will use the wall to escape or complete whatever objective they are after, no matter what restrictions I place on the spell. If they can't, I'm probably being too restrictive, and am making the spell not do what it probably should be able to do: be a wall.
Equally saying that boxing something in is impossible is also uncreative. Both uses are valid imo. Why should one be viable while the other isn't?
I'd also say that "make a box, it always works without having to be shaped to the situation" is about an uncreative as this spell can get.
Creating limits, or in this case enforcing limits that the game creates, is not a sign of a lack of creativity.
If there are 0 limits, then the game loses all meaning and we loop back around to all my spells doing infinite damage because magic.In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. If one person needs to break rules in order to solve their problems and someone else doesn't when put in the exact same situation, then I would say the latter, not the former, is being more creative.
This isn't exactly an argument for or against a certain ruling in this specific case, but I felt like I had to point out the inaccuracy of the claim that having rules that must be followed is inherently uncreative in nature.
Equally saying that boxing something in is impossible is also uncreative. Both uses are valid imo. Why should one be viable while the other isn't?
I'd also say that "make a box, it always works without having to be shaped to the situation" is about an uncreative as this spell can get.Creating limits, or in this case enforcing limits that the game creates, is not a sign of a lack of creativity.
If there are 0 limits, then the game loses all meaning and we loop back around to all my spells doing infinite damage because magic.In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. If one person needs to break rules in order to solve their problems and someone else doesn't when put in the exact same situation, then I would say the latter, not the former, is being more creative.
This isn't exactly an argument for or against a certain ruling in this specific case, but I felt like I had to point out the inaccuracy of the claim that having rules that must be followed is inherently uncreative in nature.
Point to me the line in Wall of Stone or the Wall rules that states that a wall can't be used to box in a creature. If you can't, then what exact limitations are being broken?
The only limitations I see on Wall of Stone are as follows:
It is a single unbroken object. So no more than 1 individual wall segment for one casting.
It can be up to 120' long.
It can be up to 20' high.
It can be shaped meaning, "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square."
It cannot be shaped so that it enters the same space more than once, but can double back so that one section is adjacent to another.
It can be shaped horizontally into a road, bridge or stairs for example.
Nothing about impeding a creature's movement, or boxing in a creature. Nothing about being both horizontal in parts and vertical in parts, which stairs would naturally have to be.
What limitations are you speaking of?
Regardless what rules might say or not, I usually try giving "it" to 2 enemies our ot 4 against a 4 players party.
If abusing of a specific skill/spell/feat/mechanics doesn't always result into a success ( not talking about a degree but the outcome of the fight ), then it's probably fine.
Otherwise, it might be broken ( I also discussed it in a thread about the "best summoner spells" ). Leaving apart how boring might become an encounter.
Anyway, I tried with 2 enemy spellcasters using walls to separate allies, and it turned out as a tpk 3 out of 3 times ( without using the "box" possibility ). Now that I think about it, it might have been even worse with the box.
Now that I remember it, it was the same with 2 enemies using Scare to death against players.
I think I get what you are saying. If a tactic or spell is overly effective, then it may be a problem.
But problems just beg for solutions. You handle that as a GM in encounter building. If your party establishes a track record of using Wall of Stone to decimate your encounters, adjust how you build your encounters. Add waves of opponents instead of starting with everything on the field. Add objectives they have to complete that the monsters are guarding or make inserting a wall into the situation difficult.
If all that fails, then sure, institute some house rules about the use of the spell. I haven't yet had an experience that indicates to me that Wall of Stone is an issue. I haven't really had to deal with it at all to be honest, as I've never had a player cast it to my recollection.
But don't go out telling others that your house rules are the way that the spell should be played. Up to this point in the thread, I've framed my arguments through the lens of how I rule the spell working, and noted that others differ. But saying that the spell absolutely can't be used to box in a creature or create relatively complex shapes isn't strictly true. So again, it's up to the GM exactly how this spell can and can't function, and I believe that is the intent behind the vague rules.
Equally saying that boxing something in is impossible is also uncreative. Both uses are valid imo. Why should one be viable while the other isn't?
I'd also say that "make a box, it always works without having to be shaped to the situation" is about an uncreative as this spell can get.Creating limits, or in this case enforcing limits that the game creates, is not a sign of a lack of creativity.
If there are 0 limits, then the game loses all meaning and we loop back around to all my spells doing infinite damage because magic.In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. If one person needs to break rules in order to solve their problems and someone else doesn't when put in the exact same situation, then I would say the latter, not the former, is being more creative.
This isn't exactly an argument for or against a certain ruling in this specific case, but I felt like I had to point out the inaccuracy of the claim that having rules that must be followed is inherently uncreative in nature.
Point to me the line in Wall of Stone or the Wall rules that states that a wall can't be used to box in a creature. If you can't, then what exact limitations are being broken?
The only limitations I see on Wall of Stone are as follows:
It is a single unbroken object. So no more than 1 individual wall segment for one casting.
It can be up to 120' long.
It can be up to 20' high.
It can be shaped meaning, "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square."
It cannot be shaped so that it enters the same space more than once, but can double back so that one section is adjacent to another.
It can be shaped horizontally into a road, bridge or stairs for example.Nothing about impeding a creature's movement, or boxing in a creature. Nothing about being both horizontal in parts and vertical in parts, which stairs would naturally have to be.
What limitations are you speaking of?
That... wasn't really the point of my reply. My main points were several posts earlier. All I was doing was pointing out the ridiculousness of the lack of creativity claim.
But, I'm bored, so I'll answer your question anyway:
I have already explained the limitations I'm speaking of, all of which come from quoting the spell directly, rather than misquoting and changing parts to match a specific understanding of the spell as a whole.
Nowhere does it say "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.", or simply "it can be shaped"
Why would you put quotes around something that's not a quote? That seems very misleading to me.
What it says is "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares."
Anyway. I will not repeat the same points 50 more times. See the quoted post below if you're up to the challenge of actually showing how it is possible within the rules that the spell gives us and nothing more to create a box rather than having me point to a very specific restriction on boxes which no one in this particularly thread is claiming exists.
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
If someone can actually explain to me how that description can make a box rather than just saying that it doesn't disallow it (which I know is impossible, as Thod already proved as much), then I, personally, would concede the point.
For reference, this is what you're working with to turn the wall into a box:
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. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.Good luck! Also, note that nowhere in that description of things you're allowed to do change the fundamental properties of the wall.
Regarding directional input all you can do is change "the wall's path", something that makes sense for a "wall". Fences, walls of houses, etc., they all have "a path" that's pretty easily understood.
It also talks about how it doesn't need to be vertical on the plane of existence you're on. Fair enough. So we have rotation of the entirety of the object. Oh, and it even gives examples! Let's see... a bridge or a set of stairs. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Just flip the entire wall on it's side and you're good to go. Looking at it from the side it still looks like a wall. Perfect!
And finally it must be in an unbroken, open space with it's edges not passing through a creature or object. The unbroken part is a huge limitation here, as without that it's unclear where the new wall can start back up again.
Nowhere does it say "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.", or simply "it can be shaped"
Why would you put quotes around something that's not a quote? That seems very misleading to me.
What it says is "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares."
General rule on Walls in the CRB. A direct quote I will add.
As to making a box, how would you make stairs with Wall of Stone? You start with a vertical wall. Then make a 90° horizontal turn on the top, then another etc...
If you can do that for stairs, why can't you do so to make a box?
Edit: As to your previous post, I wasn't directly speaking to that. But I feel like my point stands: You say there are limitations built into the spell that say that you can't use it to make a box. Point to me where those limitations are, and you will have my full agreement.
But what I think you aren't quite getting is that the area above the battlefield is also split into 5 foot squares. So even without referencing the general rule on walls (crazy to think that spells could call back to general rules, I know) you can place 5 foot segments of a wall of stone on the bottom/top border between two squares. Otherwise you would never be able to use Wall of Stone to make a bridge or stairs in the first place.
Nowhere does it say "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.", or simply "it can be shaped"
Why would you put quotes around something that's not a quote? That seems very misleading to me.
What it says is "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares."General rule on Walls in the CRB. A direct quote I will add.
As to making a box, how would you make stairs with Wall of Stone? You start with a vertical wall. Then make a 90° horizontal turn on the top, then another etc...
If you can do that for stairs, why can't you do so to make a box?
Edit: As to your previous post, I wasn't directly speaking to that. But I feel like my points stands: You say there are limitations built into the spell that say that you can't use it to make a box. Point to me where those limitations are, and you will have my full agreement.
But what I think you aren't quite getting is that the area above the battlefield is also split into 5 foot squares. So even without referencing the general rule on walls (crazy to think that spells could call back to general rules, I know) you can place 5 foot segments of a wall of stone on the bottom/top border between two squares. Otherwise you would never be able to use Wall of Stone to make a bridge or stairs in the first place.
Ah, an actionable question that hasn't been answered already. Good.
So, stairs:
This comes down to the fact that the wall doesn't need to be vertical. Which, no figure. I mean, that's what the sentence was trying to explain.
Now, I think we can all agree that a zigzag is a wall. Pretty simple. You just start going north, then east a square, then north again, and so on back and forth, with the height of the wall being vertical.
I posit that that's all stairs are in this scenario. It works a bit better if you don't limit verticality to increments of 5ft, which there's a basis for in the rules for jumping, but even if that's not the case you can still just alternate between two directions and make stairs with ease. Up, north, up, north, up, north, and so on (or any cardinal direction, for that matter). Same concept would be down, east, down, east, down, east, and so on.
The wall in this case isn't vertical. It's horizontal. But we already know that's allowed. Again, that's what the sentence is trying to give you examples of: a non-veritcal wall.
General rule on Walls in the CRB. A direct quote I will add.Nowhere does it say "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.", or simply "it can be shaped"
Why would you put quotes around something that's not a quote? That seems very misleading to me.
What it says is "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares."
Oh, and also, if you're going back to walls and not the specific spell, then we've got a bigger problem. The very first thing the link you provided says is:
"Spells that create walls list the depth, length, and height of the wall, [/b]also specifying how it can be positioned.[b]"
Anything after that about what "Some walls" in no way overrides what the spell itself says you can do.
Ah, an actionable question that hasn't been answered already. Good.
So, stairs:
This comes down to the fact that the wall doesn't need to be vertical. Which, no figure. I mean, that's what the sentence was trying to explain.Now, I think we can all agree that a zigzag is a wall. Pretty simple. You just start going north, then east a square, then north again, and so on back and forth, with the height of the wall being vertical.
I posit that that's all stairs are in this scenario. It works a bit better if you don't...
That doesn't answer the question. However you get to stairs, whether you take a wall and flip it horizontal or you build it that way from the ground up so to speak, what limitation is there in the spell or any section of the rules for that matter, that states with no reservations that you cannot do so to make a box?
That doesn't answer the question. However you get to stairs, whether you take a wall and flip it horizontal or you build it that way from the ground up so to speak, what limitation is there in the spell or any section of the rules for that matter, that states with no reservations that you cannot do so to make a box?Ah, an actionable question that hasn't been answered already. Good.
So, stairs:
This comes down to the fact that the wall doesn't need to be vertical. Which, no figure. I mean, that's what the sentence was trying to explain.Now, I think we can all agree that a zigzag is a wall. Pretty simple. You just start going north, then east a square, then north again, and so on back and forth, with the height of the wall being vertical.
I posit that that's all stairs are in this scenario. It works a bit better if you don't...
I honestly don't understand the question. How can you get to a box with what I just described for stairs?
Let's go back to walls on the ground. You have: north. east. south. and west. We agree on that, correct?
That's the standard.
Now. Because we aren't limited to the wall being vertical, that means you can rotate the wall. The "height" of the wall could be horizontal. Or, if your GM allows non-grid objects (which I do), it could be on some kind of angle as well. However, you will still only ever have a wall with a height (of up to 20ft) and a width (1 inch) that can go in 4 directions that are each 90 degrees from each other relative to some 2D plane (and perhaps change height along it's path, which I allow).
A box requires more than that. You cannot, without breaking the wall and using only 4 directions that are each 90 degrees from each other on a 2D plane (any 2D plane), create a 3D box.
If you can show me a way in which you can, then you will have won me over.
General rule on Walls in the CRB. A direct quote I will add.Nowhere does it say "you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square.", or simply "it can be shaped"
Why would you put quotes around something that's not a quote? That seems very misleading to me.
What it says is "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares."Oh, and also, if you're going back to walls and not the specific spell, then we've got a bigger problem. The very first thing the link you provided says is:
"Spells that create walls list the depth, length, and height of the wall, [/b]also specifying how it can be positioned."
Anything after that about what "Some walls" in no way overrides what the spell itself says you can do.
Wait. So is it your stance that Wall of Stone is not a shapeable wall?
You shape a wall of solid stone. 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. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.
What exactly do you think the "Walls" section of spells is for, if not describing in further detail how Walls work? I don't get this logic you have going on here. That Wall of Stone specifically doesn't follow the Walls section for... reasons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're using a pretty unusual definition of "useless tactic". Breaking an encounter into smaller encounters that can be dealt with one at a time is INCREDIBLY powerful.
Adding to this....
That is always how walls have been used in D&D style games.
It is the whole point of the spell.
It has been made worse in this edition as there is explicitly no save - whereas D&D5 gives you a dex save to get to the other side if you are going to be trapped by the wall.
It does work like this. Even if you accept the Thod/Aw3som3-117 interpretation of the wall having to be one continuous folded piece of fixed width (which I don't) you can still use it like this. You just need a ceiling or enemies that don't fly, both extremely common situations.
Even just the size of the wall 120" is going to waste several actions to walk around and if there is some terrain that can buy you a whole round, against some of your enemies, quite easily.
Okay. You start with a vertical wall shaped into a box. You 90° horizontally from the top to make a "stair". Done.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW and Maths: you can’t make a box with (a single casting) of Wall of Stone.
Creativity??
Cast two wall of stones and a box (and a lot of other shapes) are possible.
This is the rules forum.
To repeat: RAW single cast of Wall of Stones and a box is not allowed. Houserule otherwise if you like.
RAW: cast wall of stone twice and you can build a box.
Simple as that.