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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many of the shapes this would seem to bar can still be drawn, just in a different order. It's an incredibly unintuitive restriction once you start trying to play with it. Whether you could make the shape of a 9 on a digital clock, for example, would depend on which wall you placed first.
It is also still extremely easy to set up a configuration where an enemy has to break two walls to escape, provided the dungeon map has walls that are close to, but not actually on, grid lines. (Think of your typical cave walls.) Provided that there is so little space between the cave wall and the edge of a wall of stone that a creature cannot even treat it as difficult terrain—and as a reminder, squeezing in combat just doesn't exist in PF2E—you can effectively get the benefit of a second wall without actually running afoul of your conditions. You just entrap the creature(s) with in a spiral shape next to the wall.
I feel like this would be much easier to explain with a picture, but I'm not really sure what the best way to show pictures is on here. But basically, draw a blocky spiral around the enemy, box the enemy in the center of the spiral, and have the exit of the spiral spit them out into the squiggly wall. Maybe this is actually a weirder case than I think it is, but I've seen quite a lot of squiggly cave walls in my time, so it feels common enough to care about.
Honestly, spirals are abusable regardless. They force the worst possible movement path through a space and are far too time-consuming to smash through. Boxing a medium-sized enemy inside of a spiral still makes them waste 40 ft of movement to exit it after smashing the center enclosure; it then makes them waste more movement after, because you probably had the spiral spit them out facing a different direction from the party. Boxing a bigger enemy in a spiral forces them to move through difficult terrain after breaking out of the center, as well, since they're moving through spaces smaller than their size. This isn't much weaker—if any weaker—than making a creature break through two walls. And I haven't seen a single way of running the spell that would bar it.
Boxing a bigger enemy in a spiral forces them to move through difficult terrain after breaking out of the center, as well, since they're moving through spaces smaller than their size. This isn't much weaker—if any weaker—than making a creature break through two walls. And I haven't seen a single way of running the spell that would bar it.
As a GM, to me this is the big thing. If I rule no on some of the things I think are questionable, you still have totally valid and legal options that are probably almost as effective. You can totally build a spiral that doesn't touch itself and would cause the enemy to waste 3+ turns walking out of it or 3+ turns smashing it down. Regardless, the enemy is pretty well out of combat until you decide to face them.
And Two; if any part of your wall can be drawn as a + it is an invalid wall.
I for sure agree with this part, and would remind my player all wall section come into being simultaneously, so there is no "order of operations" to the wall.
Unfortunately this is one of those topics that could be divisive when it comes up, but is also something that doesn't come up in game play as a while and wouldn't be high on my radar to address until a player told me they had the spell (or were trying to use it in combat, which is the most likely scenario).
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.Many of the shapes this would seem to bar can still be drawn, just in a different order. It's an incredibly unintuitive restriction once you start trying to play with it. Whether you could make the shape of a 9 on a digital clock, for example, would depend on which wall you placed first.
Not really. You can draw a wall, you can bend the wall. You can draw a box with one side extended. But you can't touch any wall except at each end of the new wall. Stay on the grid lines.
It is also still extremely easy to set up a configuration where an enemy has to break two walls to escape, provided the dungeon map has walls that are close to, but not actually on, grid lines.
Well that is on you the GM for making such a map. If I'm on such a map I just arbitrarily rule some squares are full and some as empty and move on.
Even so it is not that easy in practise.
There are rules for squeezing in the game. See Rage of Elements.
Honestly, spirals are abusable regardless. They force the worst possible movement path through a space and are far too time-consuming to smash through. Boxing a medium-sized enemy inside of a spiral still makes them waste 40 ft of movement to exit it after smashing the center enclosure; it then makes them waste more...
Yes you can make a very spiraly shaped number 6. Movement is pretty fast. A spiral is unlikely to waste more than 3 actions. Plus it is not always possible to do a spiral.
There are rules for squeezing in the game. See Rage of Elements.
Are there any for encounter mode? Last I looked, it was an exploration activity. It seemed the intent was that either the gap was wide enough to be difficult terrain or narrow enough that it was effectively impassable during combat, with no inbetween.
Sorry I'm thinking Howl of the Wild for size large.
But it is pretty simple to extend it by analogy to size medium.
Down to half of a 5ft opening/corridoor would just be difficult terrain for size medium. Under 2.5ft use a squeeze check. At some point the GM just says no.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the spell may need additional balancing. But I don't like balancing through crazy technicalities. It should be done through obvious straightforward methods, not obscure limitations.
I also think the five foot grid should not be treated as if it was a rigid unyielding metaphysical truth of the universe, but more as a practical way to simplify determining distances and positions. So saying you can draw a wall if the grid line is free, but not if a piece of scenery is one inch over it, is wrong in my eyes.
NorrKnekten also pointed out that the rules for wall spells allow doubling back and being adjacent, so theoretically you could go left along the gridline and then come back right along the same gridline. The only thing you definitely cannot do is intersect.
I think the idea of the wall running along gridlines should be understood more as an ease of use thing: you're not gonna worry about how much of a 5ft square is cut off by a wall running through that square, and which side of the square is still inhabitable. It's not meant to be the thing that the spell depends on to be balanced.
Now, if you double back the wall along the same gridline, I do think I would rule that this doesn't allow you to make that segment extra thick, because that would be a "too good to be true" thing.
But I don't like balancing through crazy technicalities. It should be done through obvious straightforward methods, not obscure limitations.
I agree. I feel that way about a number of things in PF2. But Paizo has declined.
For the square based walls, doubling back to place a section adjacent to another sounds like it's not reentering the same squares, just entering adjacent squares.
|
|
Ah, good question, how wide is the border between squares anyway? Is it infinitely thin? Coincidentally just one inch thick?
Anyway, another interesting point is that the spell says that it doesn't have to be aligned vertically; you can use it to create a bridge or stairs. To be a feasible bridge/staircase you'd already be going off-grid-border and actually through or over squares.
Anyway, another interesting point is that the spell says that it doesn't have to be aligned vertically; you can use it to create a bridge or stairs. To be a feasible bridge/staircase you'd already be going off-grid-border and actually through or over squares.
Yeah, I'm still unsure how to reconcile that with the rest of how the spell works by RAW. I understand the intent, and it's not really that hard to improvise, so I can run it just fine. But the mechanics of it are oddly ill-defined.
It's also pretty weird how the wall's hp is listed for 10x10 sections when you're usually placing it in increments 5 wide and 20 tall.