Is there some rule that "unoccupied square in range" needs to be on the ground?
Could you put a wall of fire off the ground so smaller creatures could walk underneath within damage?
What about a wall of stone, wooden palisade, or Jagged Berms? If so, would they fall down?
Summons have a specific rule for where they can be created. There is not a general rule for a mechanically vague category of "all abilities that put something somewhere". You'd need to look at them all separately, whether the individual abilities, or any of their traits say anything.
That being said, solid physical objects like those examples have no reason not to fall if nothings holding them up, and not reason to need a special rule saying they can fall, like anything else.
Summons have a specific rule for where they can be created. There is not a general rule for a mechanically vague category of "all abilities that put something somewhere". You'd need to look at them all separately, whether the individual abilities, or any of their traits say anything.
most just say an "unoccupied square in range". No rules.
That being said, solid physical objects like those examples have no reason not to fall if nothings holding them up, and not reason to need a special rule saying they can fall, like anything else.
do creatures get stuck under them then? Encumbered?
Can a giant pick up a Jagged Berm and throw it?If I put a "bridge" from wall of stone over a flying creature, does it fall?
Dropping for damage is basically out. But what else happens?
|
Summons have a specific rule for where they can be created. There is not a general rule for a mechanically vague category of "all abilities that put something somewhere". You'd need to look at them all separately, whether the individual abilities, or any of their traits say anything.most just say an "unoccupied square in range". No rules.
That being said, solid physical objects like those examples have no reason not to fall if nothings holding them up, and not reason to need a special rule saying they can fall, like anything else.do creatures get stuck under them then? Encumbered?
Can a giant pick up a Jagged Berm and throw it?
If I put a "bridge" from wall of stone over a flying creature, does it fall?Dropping for damage is basically out. But what else happens?
So many reasons for a GM to adjudicate that it must be on the ground. So much simpler that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people have squabbled over my interpretation on this question before but it has not deterred me:
The rules here related to such an unoccupied square in range that you can "see" and if something does not have a frame of reference within or at least adjacent to it and is simply empty and completely transparent air then you cannot see it, full stop. It is empty air that is for all intents and purposes is invisible to you, it is as valid as trying to Magic Missle the darkness, you cannot see the space/thing you're trying to interact with so you fail the casting requirements of the spell.
On top of that, the only real use that I've ever seen for summoning/conjuring things midair is shenanigans to try to exploit falling object damage unless you're talking about summoning a flying creature with a spell or effect and even then it doesn't matter because if you DO summon it high up in the air the very first thing you'd have to do is spend Actions by the summon to move/fly do it doesn't just instantly fall.
In summary, I do not believe you can summon things in empty spaces midair that are not at LEAST directly adjacent to some solid point of reference (or at least another airborne creature) that you can see, allowing this is a massive can of worms that on top of players trying to manipulate and use environmental damage (which is a GM tool in the first place) also creates an exponential number of questions that are completely open to GM fiat and table variation and to put it simply, the rules should never be interpreted in a manner that if the answer to a question is yes then what follows is always going to heavily rely on making a GM call for EVERY time you do, especially regarding multiple questions that arise each time you do it then you should assume that doing such a thing is not allowed or in the least should HEAVILY be discouraged.
to try to exploit falling object damage
I feel life falling damage is covered well enough. Mainly any creature past the first few levels won't take any.
at LEAST directly adjacent to some solid point of reference (or at least another airborne creature) that you can see,
so if I gently place a wall of stone on a flying dragons head...
I kinda feel like they get a bunch of bulk added to them, which is very likely to encumbered them (-10 speed and clumsy 1).
For every bulk over Str+10, they are pushed down 5' (no fall damage) at the start of each of their turns, and they can't fly up.
Seems like a decent ruling?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is empty air that is for all intents and purposes is invisible to you, it is as valid as trying to Magic Missle the darkness, you cannot see the space/thing you're trying to interact with so you fail the casting requirements of the spell.
So you wouldn't allow throwing a fireball at flying targets? I think you're very, very wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting a universal answer to "what happens if I create something over a creature aside from the falling object rules?" that isn't "Ask Your GM" is a lost cause. I wouldn't agree with a universal answer that makes incredibly strong spells like Wall of Stone even stronger being a reasonable expectation, of course.
But that doesn't make the "can't place an effect in open air because it's transparent, so you can't see it" not be the one of the most nonsensical rulings I've ever heard of.
There used to be a general rule that things had to be conjured on a surface capable of bearing them. Insofar as I can tell, that rule is mysteriously absent in the Remaster rule set, right along with the spell schools from whence it came.
A bunch of cubical wall sections floating in air sounds more like playing Minecraft than Pathfinder. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bunch of cubical wall sections floating in air sounds more like playing Minecraft than Pathfinder. :)
Craftfinder?
Pathminer?
Why would the dragon try to balance the wall on its head?
a simple tilt of its body would be enough to allow the wall to simply slid away and down.
not really.
He would have to effectively pick up half the wall in order to tip it.I mean, would you alow it to tip over the wall if it was vertical?
Here's the actual math.
And I still think "you get pushed down a bit and are encumbered until you move" is reasonable.
There's another question about "putting things in the air" which is: Can you target the air with a Fireball so the affected area on the floor is smaller than a 20-foot radius? It can be rather handy, especially with extreme area spells like Eclipse Burst.
There's another question about "putting things in the air" which is: Can you target the air with a Fireball so the affected area on the floor is smaller than a 20-foot radius? It can be rather handy, especially with extreme area spells like Eclipse Burst.
Of course. Why would that be in question?
Of course. Why would that be in question?
There was a lot of negative answers so I was just bringing another case of "targetting the air" to get a specific effect.
|
|
So you wouldn't allow throwing a fireball at flying targets? I think you're very, very wrong.It is empty air that is for all intents and purposes is invisible to you, it is as valid as trying to Magic Missle the darkness, you cannot see the space/thing you're trying to interact with so you fail the casting requirements of the spell.
Counterpoint: You have a frame of reference for the flying creatures, that being the flying creatures themselves, you simply place it by one of them mid-air. That's perfectly valid, summoning something heavy to drop on an opponent is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now the point of origin for your fireball must be a corner of a flying creature's space?
I must have missed the memo on that rule.
What if I want the fireball to detonate 10 feet away from said flying creature's space? Is that allowed? If so, is that not "targeting the air?"
The whole concept sounds ridiculous to me.
you forget the simple fact that he simply... doesn't? He can tilt his body by making his body go down, there's no ground beneath him.
there's no need to make the wall go up to tilt the body.
so when i throw a shoe at a fly, it simply tilts it's body and the shoe slides off them?
Not how physics works. Things don't rotate without applying force, which scales with mass. (I.e. bulk).
If the target has enough strength to not be encumbered, the yes, dropping it as a free action would be fine. Wall of Pancake would be easy enough to shrug off for most creatures.
I could also see it as an athletics check, but encumbered seems easiest.
Lol funny you mention physics when you fully fail to grasp the geometry at hand. There's no need for rotation.
If you have two non bound planes you can move the below plane downwards without extending force upwards.
To give you a simple graph:
You have this:
---- (wall)
---- (dragon)The dragon can simply drop one of his sides to:
-----(wall)
-
.-
..-
...-(dragon)And the wall will naturally slid away due to gravity.
He doesn't have to rotate his body using the center as an axis which is what you have to do if you want to apply force upwards on the wall.
Objects don't change unless acted upon by an outside force. And gravity provides an uniform force downwards.
Any rotation or sideways movement only
happens if the dragon adds force.
F=MA. So the higher the Mass, the higher the Force (i.e. Strength)
Make a wedge out of paper and drop a 2x4 on it. The 2x4 won't notice because the paper lacks strength.
Or (gently) drop a 2x4 on your tilted outstretched hand. You will feel the weight of it (i.e. you will be pushing up).
And no, it doesn't need to rotate around the dragon as the center. Never said it did.
I suggested half the weight as an easy number. But maybe 1/4 would be more accurate (and balanced). I didn't crunch any numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
F=MA. So the higher the Mass, the higher the Force (i.e. Strength)
My experience on these boards is that when you get that far away you are certainly knee deep in a rabbit hole.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The above nitpicking and discussion about physics and realism is at the very core of why I think that allowing this type of thing is a full on no-go, it creates a nearly fractal number of ways that interpretation and "game-feel" differ from person to person and from GM to GM, it's simply not productive and if there is one thing I've learned about the system to date it is that if there is something that you want to build your Character around doing or even leverage tactically in more than even a single one-off instance that required GM fiat then you should assume that said tactic should not ever be considered viable, worth building around, or assuming that is even valid in the first place.