Are these Walls of Stone shaped correctly?

[SuperParkourio]

I uploaded the examples on Reddit. I get the feeling they are not allowed since the entrapped creature would have to break down the wall twice.

[Witch of Miracles]

The one on the right seems illegal to me, since it can only be placed on the borders of squares, and those borders are occupied by the wall in a few places. That's the only reason why, though.

The left one seems overly cheesy, but I can't see any reason it wouldn't work. You're right to point out that it "doubles up" on corners, but I don't think the intersection points on the grid really count as "spaces" to fill. I agree it doesn't feel right, though.

I think there's an intuitive sense that the wall should end if it runs into itself and creates an enclosed space—or if it completes a closed space, period, perhaps with the aid of a preexisting wall. But that's not really supported by any way of reading the spell. It seems open to the kind of abuse shown on the left.

[Gortle]

SuperParkourio wrote:

I get the feeling they are not allowed since the entrapped creature would have to break down the wall twice.

That might be the intention of the designer. It certainly is a concern for a GM. Stopping a fighter for a round or maybe 2 with a wall might be considered fair. Stopping them for 3 or more rounds is not. Remember there is no saving throw for this.

[Gortle]

My interpretation is that both are illegitimate.

The first is wrong because its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects specifically because it touches itself multiple times. I choose to only allow once

The second because it runs along a wall and that violates the same rule.

Yes it is well within the realm of GM interpretation. A GM is could reasonably disagree without invoking GM fiat. I'm choosing to use a more restrictive reading of the rule, because it largely stops double wrapping of creatures which I think is too strong.

[NorrKnekten]

Not quite sure how to rule this but obviously Gortle is on to the same thing I first noticed. The wall cannot pass trough objects or obstacles so the right image is instantly invalid because two sections go trough another wall that isnt Wall of Stone.

I also think that would apply to corners of the walls created by the spell. So you wouldnt be able to go trough one corner, Circle back and then go trough the same corner again.

Especially since Wall of Stone doesnt fill spaces but exists on the border between squares I cant see the moving trough the same corner twice as not violating "must pass trough an unbroken open space" as that space is filled with a previous wall.

[Witch of Miracles]

If it can't hit the same "corner" twice, it can't close a square at all.

The spell only lets you lay the wall in 5ft increments along grid lines. There's no "haha it's one inch short of closing" nonsense. It's 5ft or nothing. Since you can /only/ place it in five foot lines, if you can't hit the same grid intersection twice, you can't even close a square. That's obviously wrong.

[NorrKnekten]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

If it can't hit the same "corner" twice, it can't close a square at all.

The spell only lets you lay the wall in 5ft increments along grid lines. There's no "haha it's one inch short of closing" nonsense. It's 5ft or nothing. Since you can /only/ place it in five foot lines, if you can't hit the same grid intersection twice, you can't even close a square. That's obviously wrong.

That's not what I said or meant, The spell can close a space completely as it can 'hit' the same corner twice for the same reasons the walls segments are continious and don't conflict with eachother. but I cannot in good faith allow it to pass trough a corner which has already been passed trough and still call it continious even if the wall obviously can end at such a corner.

So you can absolutely have three segments touching at a single corner but passing trough and creating 4 segments on the same corner would mean that you are putting the start and end points at the same place only crossing trough it once for a figure 8

You wouldn't be able to pass trough two segments that form a straight line even if you can end the wall there, So what says you can pass trough two segments that form a corner?

I think I prefer this reading simply because you cant a cluster of enemies into their own 5ft cubicle.

But as said, This is what I believe would happen and its fully possible the RAI is that the walls are meant to be 24 segments you can place in whatever order you choose as long as they logically follow a line in their placement order.

------------------

The difference is that when asked to draw a continious line along a grid without crossing anything, Most people would probably argue that if the line attempts to continue trough the same point twice it crosses itself compared to it just ending in that crossing.

If we instead think about it segments being like boardgame pieces or even traffic intersections we have now framed the "Continious line" differently with corners only existing as cordinates and rules. Or not being absolute points and thus being able to 'fit' more space.

[Claxon]

As others are expressing, I feel the right is obviously invalid passing through/along an existing object.

I feel the left also doesn't work, but let me explain in a little more detail.

The first 5/10/15/20 ft segments are all fine. If you stopped at 20ft then you would be okay. It's that 25 ft section that start becoming questionable, as your new section will need to pass through an existing section. Not 100% that this doesn't work, but it's questionable to me.

Then where the wall has 85ft segment and 30ft segment that's where I definitely wouldn't allow because the wall is very obviously crossing itself which isn't allowed. You could argue that it's just "making corners" but I don't buy it. The wall doesn't appear in sections, it appears all at once. So there is no order, and sections 85 and 30 create a "continuous" wall, that is pierced by 25/90 sections.

[NorrKnekten]

Claxon wrote:

Then where the wall has 85ft segment and 30ft segment that's where I definitely wouldn't allow because the wall is very obviously crossing itself which isn't allowed. You could argue that it's just "making corners" but I don't buy it. The wall doesn't appear in sections, it appears all at once. So there is no order, and sections 85 and 30 create a "continuous" wall, that is pierced by 25/90 sections.

Yeah, The ordering is however useful to visualize the continious nature of it. Ofcourse 5-10 would be two continious segments so if we allow the walls endpoint to be at that point we would know 5-10 connects while 5-120 doesnt. And its also a good method for GMs and Players to discuss.

I do see a rather big issue with counting the walls end points as occupying that space. Does that mean we cannot start a wall from a natural wall?

Even my own previous reading have issues if we place it in scenarios where you might want to use the spell to seal off multiple pathways by connecting to each pathways corner.

[Claxon]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Then where the wall has 85ft segment and 30ft segment that's where I definitely wouldn't allow because the wall is very obviously crossing itself which isn't allowed. You could argue that it's just "making corners" but I don't buy it. The wall doesn't appear in sections, it appears all at once. So there is no order, and sections 85 and 30 create a "continuous" wall, that is pierced by 25/90 sections.

Yeah, The ordering is however useful to visualize the continious nature of it. Ofcourse 5-10 would be two continious segments so if we allow the walls endpoint to be at that point we would know 5-10 connects while 5-120 doesnt. And its also a good method for GMs and Players to discuss.

I do see a rather big issue with counting the walls end points as occupying that space. Does that mean we cannot start a wall from a natural wall?

Even my own previous reading have issues if we place it in scenarios where you might want to use the spell to seal off multiple pathways by connecting to each pathways corner.

Honeslty, I feel trying to run any of the wall spells "RAW" is going to have some unsatisfying consequences no matter how you interpret it.

To your point, if there is a 5ft wide hall way, I think you should be able to seal off that hall way with your stone wall, but to your point depending on interpretation maybe that shouldn't work.

As a GM, I would tell players that wanted to use the spell that I'm not going to try to screw them over, but I'm going to run it in a way that makes sense to me as a GM even if it's not exactly RAW.

The wording in the description makes it hard to know exactly what is and isn't intended. A few example pictures would have helped immensely, but we're at where we're at.

[Nelzy]

Both are legal in my opinion,
you dont path "through" anything in both examples, even 20 and 60 in example 2 are against the wall not through or over it.

in example 1 if 5 and 10 can occupy the same Corner, then 25, 30, 85, 90 can aswell.
so ither the spell dont work at all or that is legal.

[Ectar]

I'd probably allow either, tbh.

[NorrKnekten]

I did a bit of looking up the relevant rules.

And it seems this behavior is actually covered...ish.

Player Core pg. 303 "Spells/Walls" wrote:

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 to me that sounds to me like only continious segments can touch when it uses the edge of the squares, even though the above example uses walls whose segments occupy the squares. You decide if that matter since Wall of Stone is the exception among the Wall Spells

Nelzy wrote:

you dont path "through" anything in both examples, even 20 and 60 in example 2 are against the wall not through or over it.

Just going to say that this is a rather weak argument as map-walls are absolutely obstacles, typically do occupy the grid line entirely and thus cannot be considered open space. A GM can however rule the 'natural' wall to take up as much or little space as they think fits the narrative, Even going partially into the next square.

Similarly with the first example it seems up to wether or not the GM treats the corner as a "space" in regards to the rule of wall spells not being able to path trough the same space twice.

[Gortle]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

If it can't hit the same "corner" twice, it can't close a square at all.

The rule is not hit twice it is pass through. The wall is also laid out how you would draw it on a map by following a path. When you met yourself again you stop. It is pretty simple. You can draw a wall in a shape like you would write the letter 6 or 9 - if you draw it in the right direction from the outside in.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

The spell only lets you lay the wall in 5ft increments along grid lines. There's no "haha it's one inch short of closing" nonsense. It's 5ft or nothing. Since you can /only/ place it in five foot lines, if you can't hit the same grid intersection twice, you can't even close a square. That's obviously wrong.

I agree you need to embrace the limitions of the 5ft grid. But that is expressly stated in the wall of stone spell - you place along the border of the squares.

You can hit the same grid twice, you just can't pass through it twice.