Okay so first of all. A box does not have to be square. And its very easy to divide 120ft x 20ft into a any group of rectangles that would give you a box, even a square box.
Basic 5 sided square box layout, X= 20 ft.:
X
XX
XX5 sided box layout with width X and length Y.
XX
XY XY
XX XY.If we allow triangular sides. We could even make a dome out of indefinetly small polygons.
P.S. people really should look into unfolded 3d objects. Its fasinating how easy it is to get virtually any shape with just a handful of well structured folds.
This assumes that you can simply divide a rectangle however you want and replace it down however you want. For arguments sake I'll assume you mean you can fold it into a box very easily, as that's a stronger statement. However, it still assumes that any folding of the original shape is allowed, when in reality that's not what's said.
| 1 person 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.
Just saying that you can't make a box with wall of stone doesn't make it true. You can double back said wall so that two segments are adjacent to each other after all, so why wouldn't you be able to double it back to create a box?
I am simply not getting your vehement denial of this spells ability to make a square.
If you can make a square, and you can also make stairs, then you can make a box.
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?
I fixed your bolding for you :smile:
comma = more relevant information comes after this, keep reading.
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.
:smile:
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?
I fixed your bolding for you :smile:
comma = more relevant information comes after this, keep reading.
Okay, and what part of making a box breaks that rule? You are still placing the wall segments on the border between squares, the "roof" just goes on the bottom/top border of two squares stacked on top of each other in this case.
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.
For the record I don't have an issue with the balance of making a box. In many situations there are even more beneficial ways of using it.
The point remains that you can't make a box rules as written with a single casting of the spell.
What kind of boxes are you currently talking about? 4 sides or 5/6 sides?
What kind of boxes are you currently talking about? 4 sides or 5/6 sides?
4 sides and a "roof". As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly valid shape to create as long as it is neither longer than 120' or taller than 20' at any point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of boxes are you currently talking about? 4 sides or 5/6 sides?4 sides and a "roof". As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly valid shape to create as long as it is neither longer than 120' or taller than 20' at any point.
The problem being that the colloqial wording of the spell might do us a disfavour here as shaping within certain limits is not at all identical with shaping freely, however both statments would probably read "You can shape the walls path...".
The difference being that Thod and Aw3som3-117 (and myself btw) acknowledge the shapability of the wall, however only in one singular plane chosen at the moment of casting. So you choose either "floor plane" or "wall plane" and can then shape the wall continously within this plane, however your individual sections can never leave the chosen plane. A good example of this would be strip of bicycle or motorcycle chain, which you can easily adjust to various 2D shapes, however you can never create any 3D shapes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem being that the colloqial wording of the spell might do us a disfavour here as shaping within certain limits is not at all identical with shaping freely, however both statments would probably read "You can shape the walls path...".
The difference being that Thod and Aw3som3-117 (and myself btw) acknowledge the shapability of the wall, however only in one singular plane chosen at the moment of casting. So you choose either "floor plane" or "wall plane" and can then shape the wall continously within this plane, however your individual sections can never leave the chosen plane. A good example of this would be strip of bicycle or motorcycle chain, which you can easily adjust to various 2D shapes, however you can never create any 3D shapes.
If it is only shapeable on only one plane at a time, then stairs are impossible to make. I don't support the interpretation that Wall of Stone stairs are just a wall flipped horizontally, rather it is a wall that starts vertically, then turns horizontal and back until the desired height has been reached.
At least that is how I read it. I'm pretty certain that is where the disconnect between the two interpretations exists btw. It just didn't come up organically in the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does the spell say you can only have 1 plane? Where does it even say that the it has to follow a 2 dimentional path?
I didn't see it anywhere. For all the spell says, you can makes a spiral staircase with a guard rail ending in a flat platform as long as you make the proper path for it.
In my humble opinion it does so in the spell itself.
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
Maps and Miniatures: The chaos of combat can be difficult to imagine, so many groups use maps to represent the battlefield. These maps are marked with a 1-inch grid, and each square represents 5 feet in the game.
So you can run your wall along the squares of the grid for up to 120 ft. or at the time of casting you can tilt the grid by 90° (or any other angle that makes sense) and run along the squares of that plane.
The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example.
And no, I don't assume that the spell was written with a 3D grid in mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, I don't assume that the spell was written with a 3D grid in mind.
Why not, the rest of the game is written with 3 dimensions in mind. It is most easily thought of as being played in 2 dimensions, but as soon as you include flight or even just elevated terrain, boom. You have 3 dimensions. And from that perspective putting a roof on a box follows the rules of the spell as the roof is being placed on the border between two squares, the top and bottom of said squares in this case.
I don't see the spell as having to "tilt" anything as written. You build the stairs or the bridge the same way you build the wall, just along a different axis.
Edit: Imo you could create a 40' bridge with guard rails on either side with one casting. Start with one guard rail, swing back with the base of the bridge, then shoot back to the end to complete the other guard rail.
Is that reasonable?
The problem being that the colloqial wording of the spell might do us a disfavour here as shaping within certain limits is not at all identical with shaping freely, however both statments would probably read "You can shape the walls path...".
The difference being that Thod and Aw3som3-117 (and myself btw) acknowledge the shapability of the wall, however only in one singular plane chosen at the moment of casting. So you choose either "floor plane" or "wall plane" and can then shape the wall continously within this plane, however your individual sections can never leave the chosen plane. A good example of this would be strip of bicycle or motorcycle chain, which you can easily adjust to various 2D shapes, however you can never create any 3D shapes.
If it is only shapeable on only one plane at a time, then stairs are impossible to make. I don't support the interpretation that Wall of Stone stairs are just a wall flipped horizontally, rather it is a wall that starts vertically, then turns horizontal and back until the desired height has been reached.
At least that is how I read it. I'm pretty certain that is where the disconnect between the two interpretations exists btw. It just didn't come up organically in the conversation.
I have a question for you: what does a horizontal wall look like, then? Just a bridge-like object and nothing else? Because by that definition a vertical wall should only be able to be a straight line. Like, let's go back to a standard zig-zag wall that goes north, east, north, east, and so on. What would that look like on a horizontal-based wall if not stairs?
And no, I don't assume that the spell was written with a 3D grid in mind.Why not, the rest of the game is written with 3 dimensions in mind. It is most easily thought of as being played in 2 dimensions, but as soon as you include flight or even just elevated terrain, boom. You have 3 dimensions. And from that perspective putting a roof on a box follows the rules of the spell as the roof is being placed on the border between two squares, the top and bottom of said squares in this case.
I don't see the spell as having to "tilt" anything as written. You build the stairs or the bridge the same way you build the wall, just along a different axis.
Edit: Imo you could create a 40' bridge with guard rails on either side with one casting. Start with one guard rail, swing back with the base of the bridge, then shoot back to the end to complete the other guard rail.
Is that reasonable?
Answering the edit question:
I'm assuming you're asking from the perspective of people who say a box is not allowed within the limits of the spell. In that case the answer would be no. You could create a 120ft long bridge without guard rails, and you could create a 20ft long bridge with guard rails (the "height" of the wall being the length of the bridge), but 40ft long with guard rails is a no, go, since it requires the height to not be one dimensional and/or the length to leave cross two separate planes.Though, if we can't even agree on how stairs work, then I have a feeling you're going to think that explanation makes no sense, as it's a more complicated use of the same concept.
I have a question for you: what does a horizontal wall look like, then? Just a bridge-like object and nothing else? Because by that definition a vertical wall should only be able to be a straight line. Like, let's go back to a standard zig-zag wall that goes north, east, north, east, and so on. What would that look like on a horizontal-based wall if not stairs?
A horizontal wall is a floor or a ceiling usually. Depends on where it happens to be.
The issue is, we have different concepts for how this whole interaction works. You assume that when you make a horizontal "Wall of Stone" for say a bridge, you just take the Wall of Stone and rotate it entirely into a horizontal position.
I assume that you make the wall in the same way that you make any other, just starting with a different "facing" of the cube you decide to start the wall in, then build out from there using the rules for Wall of Stone as is, segment by segment. So long as it is no longer than 120' long or 20' high at any point, you are good to go.
Answering the edit question:
I'm assuming you're asking from the perspective of people who say a box is not allowed within the limits of the spell. In that case the answer would be no. You could create a 120ft long bridge without guard rails, and you could create a 20ft long bridge with guard rails (the "height" of the wall being the length of the bridge), but 40ft long with guard rails is a no, go, since it requires the height to not be one dimensional and/or the length to leave cross two separate planes.
Though, if we can't even agree on how stairs work, then I have a feeling you're going to think that explanation makes no sense, as it's a more complicated use of the same concept.
So in your 20' long bridge example, how do you get both of your guard rails? Do you create first one guardrail, then swing back with the "floor" of the bridge, then back again with the other guardrail?
At what point does length and height get swapped for you? Why? Where in the rules does it specify that you can create a 20' "tall-long" bridge?
Why isn't height just height and length just length?
So in your 20' long bridge example, how do you get both of your guard rails? Do you create first one guardrail, then swing back with the "floor" of the bridge, then back again with the other guardrail?At what point does length and height get swapped for you? Why? Where in the rules does it specify that you can create a 20' "tall-long" bridge?
I know you're not going to agree with me about this, as it requires the same logic as the stairs, but I'll give explaining it a shot.
The length and height don't "swap" at any point, nor does any swinging back happen in this case.
Basically, you choose at creation what dimension the wall's height is in. This is a constant and is what makes it a wall with a defined height, width, length, and the ability to have a path lengthwise.
If the height is vertical, then you're creating what most people understand to be a typical "wall"
If the wall is horizontal (or some other angle, but we'll stick with horizontal for now), then it remains as such for the entirety of the spell. This is what I would do to create a 20ft long bridge. The "height" would be defined from a horizontal perspective and would stay that way throughout. From there it's easy. Lay down the length of the wall from one hand rail to the other. Super easy. Barely an inconvenience! Wall numbers below, each 20ft high going into the computer, so to speak:
1 |___| 3
-----2
Alternatively, if you think of this as a vertical wall it would just make 3 walls as normal. In fact, lines are a good test. If you can draw a line and have the height all be "in the page", then it's a wall that can be made as described by the spell. Well... ignoring the grid restrictions, but let's forget about those for now, as it's not really relevant to this part of the discussion.
|
If a player wants to cube in a target, I'd shrug and say, "Sure, they get a Reflex save. What you are doing is basically a stone version of Force Cage so we'll use the text of Force Cage."
Each creature in the area where you create the cage must attempt a Reflex save. If such a creature fails, it becomes trapped inside the cage. If it succeeds, it's pushed outside the cage into a space of its choice. If a creature in the area is too big to fit inside the prison, the spell automatically fails.
Done. Creativity unhindered and power reigned in. Good luck casting it on a boss.
|
Why then stop at one box?
The first box takes 6 5x5 squares. An adjacent one needs 5 extra. A 120x20 wall has 24x4=96 5x5 squares.
So we have enough material for 19 boxes (all connected) or a little bit less.
120x5 is still 24 which is enough material to make 4 boxes.
It is the rules that disallow making 1, 5 (or even 19) boxes as I would need to cut and fold but I’m only allowed to fold.
|
|
The 6th side of the box would be the ground. So that one can be skipped for most intents and purposes. But it should be 100% possible to make a 6-wide cube out of a single casting of the spell, if you want to make flat ground for some reason.
Also, I didn't think I would need to actually bring in a video to explain folding a cube. But oh well here we are.
Thank you - indeed it shows the 11 shapes they ask in Maths tests here in this country (UK).
A rectangle isn’t one of them.
A box with no floor still doesn’t work.
xxxx
x
Is what you need. You can move the bottom x along the top or bottom and all variations work to form a box out of 5 squares connected. More complex forms might work as well.
xxxxx
Doesn‘t.
|
|
Great work - great examples.
All work !!
We are slowly getting there.
..
What stops you from doing another fold to cover the top, outside of "I don't like that"?
The simple reason - it is impossible.
You agree that
------
|
|
is a valid fold?
Now we can use this to either form a corner in the wall - or a wall and a floor or a wall and a ceiling.
Now take a piece of paper - make this fold. Try make another fold to add a ceiling or floor.
Just not possible - no matter how hard you try.
So if you can't add a ceiling to with another fold
------
|
|
How will you be able to make something even more complex like a cube?
Btw: it can be done by cutting out pieces of material and do 2 folds or by folding along 45 degrees instead of 90 degrees and double folding - all options not in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why then stop at one box?
The first box takes 6 5x5 squares. An adjacent one needs 5 extra. A 120x20 wall has 24x4=96 5x5 squares.
So we have enough material for 19 boxes (all connected) or a little bit less.
120x5 is still 24 which is enough material to make 4 boxes.
It is the rules that disallow making 1, 5 (or even 19) boxes as I would need to cut and fold but I’m only allowed to fold.
Which is why some people see Wall of Stone as a problem. Because you can do this, even if using the limits you are saying are in the spell, if you are inside anywhere with a ceiling or even just a pair of walls ouside
If it so happens that the trapped entities aren't strong and can bash the wall down in a few hits, or don't have passwall/a non line of sight teleport or similar spell ready. Then the encounter is almost over.
I'm starting abomination vault at the moment only level 1 so its not a problem yet. But basically the entire adventure path is vulnerable to this.
Personally I prefer a full 3d interpretation of Wall of Stone. Because
1) the spell explicilty talks about not being limited to the vertical plane,
2) it talks about placing adjacent segements of the wall - not wrapping,
3) it provides examples of what I view as reasonably complex 3d shapes that I can't make sensibly by folding a wall - bridges and stairs
I do see what you are saying. If a Paizo dev were to clarify things I'd be perfectly happy with either interpretation. But it doesn't reduce the the power of the spell much - which is: in common circumstances it will imprison many enemies for a round or two reliably with no save.
The difficulty is the AC 10, Hardness 14, and 50 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage. You do get to hit it 3 times per round with that low AC but with that hardness precision damage dealers are quite vulnerable to it. I mean a typical monster at level 9 might average 20 damage per hit. Maybe 3 full rounds of bashing to get out.
The details differ but this is what Wall of Stone and Wall of Force have always done.
When I GM against players with this, I have to add more monsters. My expectation is that by this level the players have a moderate amount of synergy going anyway - even if its not excellent control magic like this. If you have just casual players with out a lot of combinations going then you will need to turn the encounters down a bit. I see this problem as largely entractable as most players don't want a system that doesn't reward intelligent character building and tactics.
|
|
* P.S. How the heck are you supporting your bridges with no support? The spell says it can make a bridge. But you are refusing to combine vertical and horizontal segments to the wall that would create that support.
Flat bridges are quite common.
Pontoon bridges are a common example.
The simplest bridge are a few slabs of wood crossing a small stream.
You can even buy one for you own Garden Buying your own flat stone bridge - 225 pounds.
Railings are added for Health and Safety Reasons. They are not necessary for a bridge design.
Also google flat bridge - loads of nice examples.
Here is a slide show - goes into the history or Bridge Building. It actually started with flat bridges Slide show bridges
Slide 2 - A sagging problem explains it perfectly
If you walk across a wide gap, it bends in the middle. The longer the plank, the more it bends.
Bridge Builders realized they needed to of how to support the bridge in the middle.
Over the centuries builders developed different types of bridges as the needs of people changed and technology improved.
-----
Now the first used wood. Stone doesn't bend (well). At some stage it just collapses. The Golden Gate Bridge is a nice example. In principle a casting of wall of stone - and then it uses the cables to ensure it doesn't collapse under it's own weight.
So the problem isn't - can you build a flat stone bridge - the issue is - it is unsafe and might collapse if too long and without supports in the middle. That is a different discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw: it can be done by cutting out pieces of material and do 2 folds or by folding along 45 degrees instead of 90 degrees and double folding - all options not in the rules.
Talking about things that aren't in the rules, treating the wall as a complete object before conjuring it isn't supported in the rules. No folding necessary is necessary when you plan out the path of the wall segment by segment, instead of treating it as a full "piece". And if you do envision the wall as a full object prior to conjuration, then how are you not "cutting" it to trim it down to your desired length/height?
I know you're not going to agree with me about this, as it requires the same logic as the stairs, but I'll give explaining it a shot.
I'm not seeing how you are limited to 20' length of a bridge with "guardrails". Is your point that you can't extend the wall from a "top" or "bottom" section of a wall segment? That is the only way I can see you disagree with the possibility of a 40' long bridge with guards.
If that is your stance, why? What leads you to believe that the bottom or top of a wall segment is not fair game for extending the wall from?
Who said that the spell has to be a straight line? Who said that the spell had to be only vertical or horizontal? No where in the spell it says either of those things. If you can make 1 bend, you can make 2, and if you can make 2 you can make 4. This entire argument seems to stem from the premise that you have that "you cannot bend the path horizontally", despite nothing in the spell saying that is impossible to do.
The thing is that the reverse is also true. Nowhere in the spell states that you can deviate from a "straight line", however let me try to explain using the govering rules text while trying to transcent from colloqial text to math / placing algorythm, a procedure which probably is the root cause for this argument.
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
You shape a wall of solid stone.
Descriptive text. However it also informs us about the material of construction. A wall usually is something that is resting on the ground and extends to some height in order to block ground movement.
You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.
Instruction 1: Provides details on the thickness, height and maximum length of the wall.
"Create a strip of wall"
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.
You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares.
Instruction(s) 2 & 3: Provides details on how the wall can be placed and shaped, not needing to be a straight line (on the ground) but using 5 feet sections placed on the border between squares (still on the ground).
"Place the wall on the grid"
"Shape the wall along the grid in segments"
The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example.
Instruction 4: The wall - as an entirety established using instructions 1 & 2 & 3 - does not need to be placed on the ground/grid, but e.g. can also be placed horizonally.
"If needed the wall can be rotated"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very well aware that the line "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares." is the basis for any considerations about (closed) box shapes, especially if you do consider a 3D environment, aka cubes, instead of the battle grids usual 2D environment, aka squares, so I think that by now we have both understood each others line of reasoning and simply choose to disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very well aware that the line "You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares." is the basis for any considerations about (closed) box shapes, especially if you do consider a 3D environment, aka cubes, instead of the battle grids usual 2D environment, aka squares, so I think that by now we have both understood each others line of reasoning and chose to disagree.
Pretty much this. Each side has their own notions and methodology for creating a wall of stone. And the neat thing is, with how vaguely written rules are on this subject, neither interpretation is strictly provable. I can't prove that Thod is incorrect in assuming that you should treat the wall of stone as a single un-cut/folded line of paper that you shape into your preferred shape. Equally, Thod cannot prove that my method of placing the segments one by one from any open end of a section of wall, horizontal or vertical, is incorrect.
At the end of the day I go back to my initial post. The specifics of how creative they can be is solely up to the GM.
If your GM aligns more with Thod, then you won't be capable of making complex multi-dimensional shapes with the wall. Strictly 2-d, which stops a lot of potentially abusable uses of the spell (though not all, especially given the realities of most maps/dungeons) but still leaves most uses available.
If your GM aligns more with mine, then you can create complex multi-dimensional shapes with wall of stone, potentially boxing in a creature (without the use of a ceiling/naturally occurring walls) or creating things like walls with overhangs for top cover and the like. Or neat covered camps for riding out storms and the like.
At this time, we don't have a definitive answer as to which is more or less correct. Find the answer that works best for your group, and roll with that.
...You literally said "the path of the shaped wall does not have to be a straight line" and "the path of the shaped wall can double back such that 1 part is adjacent to another"
Which is exactly what I am saying is possible. The spell even says "you shape a wall", "shape the path", and "the wall does not have to be vertical". So you can't possible argue that it has to be a straight line.
I did not expedite on the issue in my "algorythm" post, however I do consider the phrase "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" as an exception to the beforementioned placement rules to specifically allow 4 sided boxes, as without the addition that wall sections can be adjacent to each other you could not even create any open topped enclosures, like a swimming pool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flat bridges are quite common....
So the problem isn't - can you build a flat stone bridge - the issue is - it is unsafe and might collapse if too long and without supports in the middle. That is a different discussion.
Just no. All your examples are of tiny bridges under 10 foot. Even by the time they are 20 foot in length they are curved, or have secondary supporting structures.
A 120 foot flat stone bridge 1 inch thick. Does not even last 1 second. It collapses straight away under its own weight.
|
|
Flat bridges are quite common....
So the problem isn't - can you build a flat stone bridge - the issue is - it is unsafe and might collapse if too long and without supports in the middle. That is a different discussion.Just no. All your examples are of tiny bridges under 10 foot. Even by the time they are 20 foot in length they are curved, or have secondary supporting structures.
A 120 foot flat stone bridge 1 inch thick. Does not even last 1 second. It collapses straight away under its own weight.
So why is this contradicting me?
A player casts a 120 foot flat stone bridge. No support in the middle.
100% RAW legal. As GM you break the rules if you disallow the casting.
The GM decides it collapse under it's own weight before you can use it.
Now that part would make an interesting rules discussion on it's own. How long is the bridge allowed. How much bulk does it carry. How many supports does it take.
How much more weight can it bear using the heightened version (+15 HP for each section).
All I'm saying - you can cast that wall. All the above - it's between you and your players or GM how this is ruled at your table. Just keep in mind - the next step will be players casting it as weapon to have it collapse on enemies ...
|
|
About creative folding (using existing rules).
This is a single cast fold that generates 6 boxes (top open). Only assumption - large open flat surface to cast on.
ooox
ooxo
oxoo
xooo
oxoo
ooxo
x is a 5x5 foot square box. o is empty space.
Start NE corner. Folding/Directions SWSWSWSESESWNENENWNWNWNW
Actually with this design you could start anywhere and just follow the fold clockwise or counterclockwise.
Oh - and here is an 8 box design with a single cast.
ooxo
oxxx
xxxo
xooo
x is a 5x5 foot square box. o is empty space.
This one is a little bit more complex but should be the mathematical max of boxes you can fold a wall into assuming 120 foot long wall and 5 foot square boxes..
Only 2 Start and/or End points (interchangeable). One is 1 North from the Southwest corner or 1 North, 2 East from the Southwest corner.
I will start at the 1 North of the Southwest corner position. These are the only two places with an odd number (3) of walls meeting.
Folding/Directions NENENESWSWSWSENENENESWSW
23 folds (one each 5 feet) for a lengths of 120.
Alternative folds are counterclockwise start or start at the 'end' for 4 possible folds.
What prevents these to completely shut down an adventure? Pillars (trees) on corners of squares would create places that can't be folded into.
Tables, chairs, other furniture across an edge of a square would prevent folding along this direction.
|
|
Some creativity around bridges
Instable Bridge Design (spanning 75 feet)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sooooooooooooos
s is support. The bottom of x is my wall
Stable Bridge Design (pseudo-arch - spanning 55 feet - height 25 feet and an inch)
oooooxooooo
ooooxoxoooo
oooxoooxooo
ooxoooooxoo
oxoooooooxo
xooooooooox
sooooooooos
s is support. The bottom/side of x is my wall
Fold:fufufufufufdfdfdfdfdf
u = up, f = forward, d = down
Edit: layout (my avatar) has broken my instable bridge design ... I leave it that way - was instable anyhow ...
I am well aware that at this point if someone doesn't understand my position then there's probably nothing I can do short of sitting down and talking with them with example and slides and whatnot to explain my reasoning. Moreover, those that already do understand my position, yet disagree with me, are most likely not going to be convinced by rehashing the same argument, regardless of the validity of said argument.
However, I still would like to make sure we're all on the same page when it comes to what the pro-Box side is saying / understands the spell to mean. To that end, I have a couple open questions to those who believe a box is possible that would help clarify.
1a. Regardless of whether the game is forced to use a 3D grid or not, I'm using it in this question to simplify things. Is it your understanding that on a 3D grid when the spell says "The wall doesn't need to stand vertically" it is saying that the 4 sides of a box would be standing vertically, but the cover and the base of the box would be standing horizontally? Full stop. That's just how it is and there's no need to look further. The "vertical" walls under no circumstances could ever be considered part of a horizontal wall.
1b. This is only relevant if I'm correct that 1a is how you see it: Does this mean that a horizontal standing wall can only ever be perfectly flat unless it has vertical standing walls to connect it? I'm well aware you think you can have as many vertical and horizontal sections as you wish, making no distinction between them and essentially making this a non-issue for the spell, but I'm trying to figure out the logic here, not argue about the spell, as that's been done to death.
2. Would there be any difference mechanically with how you read the spell and a version of it that reads as follows:
"You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone with an area of up to 2400sq ft. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5x5 feet of the wall on the border between squares, making sure that the difference in height from the highest and lowest point of the wall never exceeds 20ft. The wall segments don't need to stand vertically. 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."
The slashed out part is because I think some people hold to that restriction and others don't. For the purposes of my question you can either include it or not, it doesn't really affect the overarching question.
Thanks for reading:
Aw3som3-117
I'll take a stab.
1a. Regardless of whether the game is forced to use a 3D grid or not, I'm using it in this question to simplify things. Is it your understanding that on a 3D grid when the spell says "The wall doesn't need to stand vertically" it is saying that the 4 sides of a box would be standing vertically, but the cover and the base of the box would be standing horizontally? Full stop. That's just how it is and there's no need to look further. The "vertical" walls under no circumstances could ever be considered part of a horizontal wall.
I read this question 2 or 3 times, and I think I get what you are asking. You are asking if I see vertical walls as being separate from horizontal walls... I think? The answer is no, I see individual segments of wall of stone being contiguous no matter their orientation. So in the example of 4 vertical segments and one horizontal, they are all just wall segments, no consideration needed to their orientation.
1b. This is only relevant if I'm correct that 1a is how you see it: Does this mean that a horizontal standing wall can only ever be perfectly flat unless it has vertical standing walls to connect it? I'm well aware you think you can have as many vertical and horizontal sections as you wish, making no distinction between them and essentially making this a non-issue for the spell, but I'm trying to figure out the logic here, not argue about the spell, as that's been done to death.
I don't think this question is really getting any more information than you already have... But no, nothing I see indicates that any part of a wall of stone must be perfectly vertical or flat. The only thing stopping an angled wall from being a thing are the realities of depicting such a wall on a map if you use one, and the GM deciding if it is reasonable for you to do so.
2. Would there be any difference mechanically with how you read the spell and a version of it that reads as follows:
"You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone with an area of up to 2400sq ft. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5x5 feet of the wall on the border between squares,making sure that the difference in height from the highest and lowest point of the wall never exceeds 20ft. The wall segments don't need to stand vertically. 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."
Yes, there are several differences here. First, the original wording of the spell is much more loose with the total coverage possible, since your limiters are up to 120' long and up to 20' high. Once you reach 120' long, no matter how tall you made any segment of the wall, you are out of wall, even if you made it 1" high. You are also limiting the size of each segment to 5'x5' and eliminating the ability to make a "chest high wall" for cover purposes.
2nd you are limiting the total height possible for the wall of stone, such that if you were to place it on an incline that is greater than 20' in elevation gain, it you wouldn't be able to continue all the way up the incline and would sort of peter out. In the original spell, each segment of the wall can be 20' high, with no bearing on where that segment happens to be with respect to the rest of the wall. This is how I see stairs working for Wall of Stone. Each stair adds to the height reached, so by the end of your 120' of stair, you could end up much higher than 20' from your starting position.Hope that clarifies things a bit.
You didn't really answer the first question, but that doesn't surprise me, and I'm pretty sure I understand what your answer would be based on the information I have so far, so no need to expand on that further. Other than that, that does answer my questions, and only one thing was slightly different, but ultimately not to the point that it really changed the key points. Namely, I didn't know what your definition of height was, but I think the one you gave there is very clear and is consistent with the rest of your interpretation.
You didn't really answer the first question, but that doesn't surprise me, and I'm pretty sure I understand what your answer would be based on the information I have so far, so no need to expand on that further. Other than that, that does answer my questions, and only one thing was slightly different, but ultimately not to the point that it really changed the key points. Namely, I didn't know what your definition of height was, but I think the one you gave there is very clear and is consistent with the rest of your interpretation.
Restate the first question, it's a bit difficult to determine exactly what you are asking there. I'll take another stab after stripping out what I think is the question at hand.
Is it your understanding that on a 3D grid when the spell says "The wall doesn't need to stand vertically" it is saying that the 4 sides of a box would be standing vertically, but the cover and the base of the box would be standing horizontally?
I mean, I suppose that would be no, sort of. Really it's more complicated than that, as you could as far as I am concerned have an angled wall that is neither truly vertical or horizontal due to deviation in terrain. An example would be placing a Wall of Stone on an upward angled hill, the wall wouldn't truly be in a horizontal position, instead being angled with the slope of the hill.
Is that better? Or is that not what you are asking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
Those are pretty diagrams. Thank you.
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
Why is B illegal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!
In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.
This seems to be very much depending on the translation of "The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once,...".
1) space = square
or
2) space = border between squares
If you assume 1) then B is illegal and D) is legal.
If you assume 2) than B is legal and D) is illegal.
That having said I currently interpret the "can't enter the same space more than once" line as "there can ever only be one 1" thick wall on any border in between squares", simply because that is how the spell tells us the wall is placed, i.e. I would go by definition #2.
Edit: Before you decide to reply to this post please also take a look at my next one on the next page. Thanks.