Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil Rules Clarification

[JKTrickster]

So I keep on reading through the class and wondering,

Where does it say you are allowed to cast through your veils?

I always had the idea that it was possible to...but was I actually wrong?

I've always thought that since you were immune to your own veils, you could kind of stick out a pinky or whatever and proceed to cast.

But can you actually cast out of your own veils?

[JKTrickster]

Mmm just going to bump this up from the fourth page.

Anyone know how to answer my question?

[Shadowknight12]

In order to cast through your veils, you need both Line of Sight and Line of Effect.

According to my sources, the concealment effect granted by the Wardings do not block either, so you can freely cast through them. Also, people can cast at you, too.

[Psyren]

Wardings indeed do not block line of sight. Veils do, however (Prismatic Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm) is opaque) and so if you stick a Veil onto your Warding, you will need to see the target by another means to cast at it.

Near as I can tell, neither wardings nor veils block line of effect. (The veils, of course, stop specific forms of attack and are negated by others.)

[Shadowknight12]

Wardings indeed do not block line of sight. Veils do, however (Prismatic Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm) is opaque) and so if you stick a Veil onto your Warding, you will need to see the target by another means to cast at it.

Near as I can tell, neither wardings nor veils block line of effect. (The veils, of course, stop specific forms of attack and are negated by others.)

True, but I would argue whether the veils themselves are opaque or not, since a Prismatic Wall is opaque, but the veils merely duplicate individual layers, not the entire thing.

[Psyren]

True, but I would argue whether the veils themselves are opaque or not, since a Prismatic Wall is opaque, but the veils merely duplicate individual layers, not the entire thing.

A prismatic wall with only one layer remaining is still opaque by RAW; therefore, the veils are as well.

[Shadowknight12]

A prismatic wall with only one layer remaining is still opaque by RAW; therefore, the veils are as well.

True, but a veil is not a prismatic wall. The property of being opaque is part of the prismatic wall, not of its layers. The veils do not duplicate the prismatic wall, but its layers.

[Psyren]

True, but a veil is not a prismatic wall. The property of being opaque is part of the prismatic wall, not of its layers. The veils do not duplicate the prismatic wall, but its layers.

Right, and the individual layers are opaque. You would need evidence suggesting otherwise before departing from the way the regular prismatic wall functions (due to the statement "These veils duplicate the layers of a prismatic wall"); in other words, the burden of proof is on your claim.

[Shadowknight12]

Right, and the individual layers are opaque. You would need evidence suggesting otherwise before departing from the way the regular prismatic wall functions (due to the statement "These veils duplicate the layers of a prismatic wall"); in other words, the burden of proof is on your claim.

No, actually, that's quite the opposite. You're the one claiming that the layers are opaque when the spell description says that the wall is opaque and that the IotSV's veils duplicate the layers of the wall. I'm standing by strict RAW here. Burden of proof is on you.

[myancey]

It states in the warding section that you can see through the effect you put up. The purpose of the ward is to use the veil. The ward/veil provides concealment but you can see through it.


The warding provides concealment to the initiate, but she can see with no hindrance.

They have a clause akin to the one above in each of the 3 descriptors for warding.

Edit: Also, quit arguing about the burden of proof. Who cares? Both of you need to provide RAW for your cases.

[Psyren]

It states in the warding section that you can see through the effect you put up.

I've never denied that. The veil is a different ability, that you attach to the ward.


No, actually, that's quite the opposite. You're the one claiming that the layers are opaque when the spell description says that the wall is opaque and that the IotSV's veils duplicate the layers of the wall. I'm standing by strict RAW here. Burden of proof is on you.

And a wall with one layer remaining is opaque by RAW. There is no reason to believe individual layers are not opaque.

[myancey]

I've never denied that. The veil is a different ability, that you attach to the ward.

Except that the sole purpose of the ward is to be the medium for the veil. That being the case, when a veil is chosen it is subject to the RAW written in the ward section.

Yes, the veil section talks about prismatic wall--but that does not mean that prismatic wall defines the veil in its entirety.

And why would they even mention that you can see through the ward (which, once again--has no function other than being the medium of the veil) except that it counters the section on prismatic wall?

[Flame of Anor]

No, actually, that's quite the opposite. You're the one claiming that the layers are opaque when the spell description says that the wall is opaque and that the IotSV's veils duplicate the layers of the wall. I'm standing by strict RAW here. Burden of proof is on you.


And a wall with one layer remaining is opaque by RAW. There is no reason to believe individual layers are not opaque.

Sorry, Psyren--I was with you on that Cunning Strike thing--but the RAW is clearly on Shadowknight12's side here.

[sonofzeal]

I'm on Psyren's side here. If X "duplicates" Y, and Y has property Z, then X has property Z unless specifically stated otherwise. You don't need any further RAW, the word "duplicates" is enough to imply that any traits not explicitl defined as different are the same.

[Psyren]

I definitely think it's RAI that the veils are intended to be see-through, and contrary to what I said initially, that's how I'd rule it. It's just another example of silly RAW due to poor wording, of which 3.5 has plenty.

[myancey]

I'm on Psyren's side here. If X "duplicates" Y, and Y has property Z, then X has property Z unless specifically stated otherwise. You don't need any further RAW, the word "duplicates" is enough to imply that any traits not explicitl defined as different are the same.

Yup, which is why warding RAW says that the veil is different in terms of vision, and therefore not the same.


I definitely think it's RAI that the veils are intended to be see-through, and contrary to what I said initially, that's how I'd rule it. It's just another example of silly RAW due to poor wording, of which 3.5 has plenty.

As to this--yes its in a different section--but again, the sole purpose of warding is to act as the medium for a veil. You can see through your warding/veils.

[Shadowknight12]

And a wall with one layer remaining is opaque by RAW. There is no reason to believe individual layers are not opaque.

A wall with 0 remaining layers (regardless of how such a thing would come to happen) would still be opaque. Opacity is not a property of the layers, but of the wall.


Prismatic wall creates a vertical, opaque wall

It never says that the layers share the wall's opacity.


I'm on Psyren's side here. If X "duplicates" Y, and Y has property Z, then X has property Z unless specifically stated otherwise. You don't need any further RAW, the word "duplicates" is enough to imply that any traits not explicitl defined as different are the same.

This is 100% correct. And if the IotSV's ability said "duplicates the effects of the Prismatic Wall spell" Psyren would be right. But it doesn't say that. It says that it duplicates the layers of a prismatic wall, not the wall itself.

[JKTrickster]

So is the issue here whether they stop LoS by RAW?

As in by RAW they do not stop LoE?

How about the veils? Do they work both ways? E.g. I can use a normal Longbow through a Red veil, even if I'm on the inside.

[myancey]

So is the issue here whether they stop LoS by RAW?

As in by RAW they do not stop LoE?

How about the veils? Do they work both ways? E.g. I can use a normal Longbow through a Red veil, even if I'm on the inside.

If you were the creator of the veil, you would have line of sight and effect. It states that you would in the warding section. You would also have concealment--likely as you would if you had cast prismatic wall (I'd say this because I didn't see mention of any other means of concealing.)

As for the arrow thing..the veil states that it blocks all non-magical ranged attacks. So I would say no..but I couldn't back that up beyond the 'just-mentioned' statement.

[Shadowknight12]

So is the issue here whether they stop LoS by RAW?

As in by RAW they do not stop LoE?

How about the veils? Do they work both ways? E.g. I can use a normal Longbow through a Red veil, even if I'm on the inside.

Yup, that's the issue. I say no, Psyren says yes.

They do not stop LoE by any interpretation of the rules.

By strict reading of the rules, only creatures may benefit from the "may cross safely" clause. Objects, spells and the like would not be able to cross from either side without interacting with the veils as normal.





EDIT:


If you were the creator of the veil, you would have line of sight and effect. It states that you would in the warding section. You would also have concealment--likely as you would if you had cast prismatic wall (I'd say this because I didn't see mention of any other means of concealing.)

Nitpick: If the veils block LoS or LoE, they do so for all. The only benefit you get from being the creator of a veil is the ability to pass through it safely, nothing more. LoE is not blocked, which means you can still be affected by spells that the veils do not protect you from.

[Psyren]

The red veil would stop nonmagical missiles and the orange veil would stop magic ones, as normal.

[myancey]

Nitpick: If the veils block LoS or LoE, they do so for all. The only benefit you get from being the creator of a veil is the ability to pass through it safely, nothing more. LoE is not blocked, which means you can still be affected by spells that the veils do not protect you from.

Again, the warding section states that the veil provides concealment but does not hinder the sight of the IotSFV. All three types of wards state this.

[sonofzeal]

Yup, which is why warding RAW says that the veil is different in terms of vision, and therefore not the same.
This is a sensible defence. I'm AFB and it would depend on the exact referents there, but a line like that would certainly resolve the situation.


This is 100% correct. And if the IotSV's ability said "duplicates the effects of the Prismatic Wall spell" Psyren would be right. But it doesn't say that. It says that it duplicates the layers of a prismatic wall, not the wall itself.
This, however, seems completely facesious to me. The wall is made of layers. The layers are the wall.

Here, to quote from the text itself....

"The wall can be destroyed, color by color, in consecutive order, by various magical effects"

This quote clearly treats "the wall" as synonymous with "the layers of the wall".

[Shadowknight12]

Again, the warding section states that the veil provides concealment but does not hinder the sight of the IotSFV. All three types of wards state this.

Yes, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that IF the veils blocked LoS or LoE, it would do so both ways, since no exception is given .


This, however, seems completely facesious to me. The wall is made of layers. The layers are the wall.

Here, to quote from the text itself....

"The wall can be destroyed, color by color, in consecutive order, by various magical effects"

This quote clearly treats "the wall" as synonymous with "the layers of the wall".

Perhaps I can clarify my position with an example.

"This spell creates a 10-feet-tall wall. The wall is made of 20 bricks stacked one over the other."

Is each individual brick 10 ft. tall? No. The wall is 10 feet tall, but its components (the bricks) do not necessarily share the characteristics of the wall unless explicitly stated.

[sonofzeal]

Perhaps I can clarify my position with an example.

"This spell creates a 10-feet-tall wall. The wall is made of 20 bricks stacked one over the other."

Is each individual brick 10 ft. tall? No. The wall is 10 feet tall, but its components (the bricks) do not necessarily share the characteristics of the wall unless explicitly stated.
Yet an opaque "brick wall" is, by logical necessity, made of opaque bricks. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Again, the warding section states that the veil provides concealment but does not hinder the sight of the IotSFV. All three types of wards state this.

Actually, they say the wardings do not hinder sight - they say nothing about the veils. It is possible to create a warding with no veil attached, even if said warding does nothing. ("She can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows...")


This quote clearly treats "the wall" as synonymous with "the layers of the wall".

Precisely. No colors = no wall.

[agahii]

I'm not seeing where it says the layers cant be seen through? Why are we assuming the layers are individual not able to be seen through?

[Shadowknight12]

Yet an opaque "brick wall" is, by logical necessity, made of opaque bricks. :smallconfused:

Nope. Place enough perfectly transparent glass panes one in front of the other and at some point you will have opacity. Yet each glass pane is perfectly transparent. The row of glass panes is opaque. Each individual glass pane isn't.

[Psyren]

I'm not seeing where it says the layers cant be seen through? Why are we assuming the layers are individual not able to be seen through?

Because they "duplicate layers of the prismatic wall spell" which are themselves opaque.


Nope. Place enough perfectly transparent glass panes one in front of the other and at some point you will have opacity. Yet each glass pane is perfectly transparent. The row of glass panes is opaque. Each individual glass pane isn't.

Your analogy doesn't work in this instance because a wall with one layer (one pane of glass) is just as opaque as one with all 7.


Again, I'm not saying the above is RAI nor would I enforce it.

[Shadowknight12]

Your analogy doesn't work in this instance because a wall with one layer (one pane of glass) is just as opaque as one with all 7.

Again, I'm not saying the above is RAI nor would I enforce it.

It's an analogy to explain my reasoning, I'm not saying that magic behaves just like RL physics. As I see it, your statement is RAI, to me, by saying that it's intended for the veils to copy the full extent of the prismatic wall. However, it doesn't say it. It says it copies the layers, not the actual wall, and the layers themselves are never actually stated to be opaque.

[sonofzeal]

Nope. Place enough perfectly transparent glass panes one in front of the other and at some point you will have opacity. Yet each glass pane is perfectly transparent. The row of glass panes is opaque. Each individual glass pane isn't.
False. Place NI fully transparent glass panes, and the result will always be transparent. Place NI translucent glass panes, and the result will always be translucent (although tending in the direction of, while never reaching, opacity)... with the possible exception of polarizers, but that's getting a bit off topic. Place NI opaque glass panes, and the result will always be opaque.

[Douglas]

The Warding, which the veils are part of, explicitly does not interfere with the Initiate's own vision (except for the wall version, but who uses that?). The individual veils make no exception to their blockages for the Initiate's attacks, however.

An Initiate using the red veil cannot make nonmagical ranged attacks through it. An enemy outside of an Initiate's orange veil would be safe from her disintegrate spell. A medusa Iot7fV, if such an unlikely thing existed, would be well advised to usually not use the yellow veil because it would block her own petrification gaze attack. The indigo and violet veils render an Initiate nearly invulnerable to enemy casters, but only by producing a stalemate where neither party can attack rather than granting one side an advantage. Etc.

The personal and area (but not wall) wardings grant one-way concealment to the Initiate's advantage. The specific protections of each veil are two-way and impartial, however, so you should generally refrain from using the veils that block the types of attacks you intend to use.

[myancey]

Actually, they say the wardings do not hinder sight - they say nothing about the veils. It is possible to create a warding with no veil attached, even if said warding does nothing. ("She can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows...")


First, you've got the wording wrong. It's "she can choose one veil she knows to be imbued in the warding".

You were talking about RAI earlier. To read it as you've been reading it would be RAI.

When she creates a warding, she imbues it with a specific veil of her choice. Why would anyone choose to not imbue a veil?

"Hey guys, I'm gonna make a class feature useless. Watch!"

And why would the writers even put that as a clause in there. It's blatantly saying exactly as I've posted in earlier posts.

[Shadowknight12]

False. Place NI fully transparent glass panes, and the result will always be transparent. Place NI translucent glass panes, and the result will always be translucent (although tending in the direction of, while never reaching, opacity)... with the possible exception of polarizers, but that's getting a bit off topic. Place NI opaque glass panes, and the result will always be opaque.

That only works if it is possible to actually find ideally transparent glass. Such a thing does not exist. What we understand as transparent is actually something with minimal opacity. For what is commonly understood as transparent, and not the ideal definition of it, my example still stands.

But I digress. My point is that some things may have properties that their individual components lack. Bottom line is that, by strict reading of RAW, layers are not opaque.

[sonofzeal]

That only works if it is possible to actually find ideally transparent glass. Such a thing does not exist. What we understand as transparent is actually something with minimal opacity. For what is commonly understood as transparent, and not the ideal definition of it, my example still stands.
No, your example still fails. Let us grant for the moment that "transparent" is a euphemism for "acceptably low opacity". Let's say, for the moment, 1% opacity is enough to be termed transparent. Do you know how many "transparent" sheets you'd need to produce an opaque result?

If you said 100, you fail math. With 100 "transparent" sheets, you only have 63.4% opacity.

As I said - your example fails.


Bottom line is that, by strict reading of RAW, layers are not opaque.
Except you have not demonstrated that at any point. You have presumed it to be true, and are actively dismissing evidence to the contrary without reference to physics, logic, or the wording of the text in question.

I'm sorry, I'm sure you're an okay person who doesn't deserve that, but I feel like I'm debunking the same claim over and over without you actually noticing that it's been debunked. There are far better examples for "whole is greater than the sum of its parts", but panes of glass isn't cutting it.

[Psyren]

First, you've got the wording wrong.

No, I haven't. My quote comes from the "Veils" ability on pg. 46. You're quoting "Warding" on page 44. And they're both saying the same thing - imbuing wardings with veils is optional.


When she creates a warding, she imbues it with a specific veil of her choice. Why would anyone choose to not imbue a veil?

I don't know. Why would anyone leave all their spell slots empty? Why would a druid not take Natural Spell? That doesn't change the fact that you can do it. It is up to the Initiate whether to attach veils to wardings.


my example still stands.

It would if the wall decreased in opacity with each layer destroyed. It does not.

[Shadowknight12]

No, your example still fails. Let us grant for the moment that "transparent" is a euphemism for "acceptably low opacity". Let's say, for the moment, 1% opacity is enough to be termed transparent. Do you know how many "transparent" sheets you'd need to produce an opaque result?

If you said 100, you fail math. With 100 "transparent" sheets, you only have 63.4% opacity.

As I said - your example fails.

What? What the gentle caress are you saying? I never said how many you'd need. I said that if you stacked enough, at some point, you'd have opacity.

You completely and utterly missed the point of the argument. If you have a book with MANY pages (and I'm not saying how many, either), you have an object that is capable of withstanding a stab or a shot. A regular sheet of paper does not possess this quality.


Except you have not demonstrated that at any point. You have presumed it to be true, and are actively dismissing evidence to the contrary without reference to physics, logic, or the wording of the text in question.

I have demonstrated it, with an actual quote. I can do it again, look:


Prismatic wall creates a vertical, opaque wall

and


When an initiate creates a warding, she can choose and imbue the warding with any one veil she knows how to create. These veils duplicate the layers of a prismatic wall and are described below. An initiate’s caster level for these veils is equal to her arcane spellcaster level.

Emphasis mine. It does not say that it duplicates the effects of a prismatic wall, or the actual wall, but the layers, which are not stated to be opaque. This is direct RAW.


I'm sorry, I'm sure you're an okay person who doesn't deserve that, but I feel like I'm debunking the same claim over and over without you actually noticing that it's been debunked. There are far better examples for "whole is greater than the sum of its parts", but panes of glass isn't cutting it.

You're quite correct, since it seems that the example in question is extremely confusing, judging from some of the comments.


It would if the wall decreased in opacity with each layer destroyed. It does not.

Again: My example does not refer to the opacity of the wall. I'm citing an example of a series of objects that together have a quality that they individually lack. Until you prove that the layers have opacity, RAW states, with no uncertainty, that the opacity is solely ascribed to the wall.

[Psyren]

Again: My example does not refer to the opacity of the wall. I'm citing an example of a series of objects that together have a quality that they individually lack. Until you prove that the layers have opacity, RAW states, with no uncertainty, that the opacity is solely ascribed to the wall.

sonofzeal already gave you the quote that proves the wall is the sum of its parts:

"The wall can be destroyed, color by color, in consecutive order, by various magical effects."

Your attempt to separate the wall itself from its layers is not supported in the rules.

[Lord_Gareth]

Again: My example does not refer to the opacity of the wall. I'm citing an example of a series of objects that together have a quality that they individually lack. Until you prove that the layers have opacity, RAW states, with no uncertainty, that the opacity is solely ascribed to the wall.

This is utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand in every way, but I felt the need to say this: one day, I shall run a game where the wall itself is utterly opaque...thus obscuring the colors of the layer itself.

Player: What is this large black wall?
*Player touches it, gets transported to the ninth layer of Baator*
Me: So, Asmodeus is playing some Sudoku when he...

[Shadowknight12]

sonofzeal already gave you the quote that proves the wall is the sum of its parts:

"The wall can be destroyed, color by color, in consecutive order, by various magical effects."

Your attempt to separate the wall itself from its layers is not supported in the rules.

I didn't separate it, the text in Complete Arcane did. It specifically refers to the layers, not the actual wall. We cannot assume that the qualities that are exclusive of the wall are shared by the layers. Look at the measures, they are specifically given under the Warding section, because the measures of the wall are a property of the wall, not necessarily of the layers. They may coincide, but they don't HAVE to.

The spell description specifies how to end each individual effect of the spell. That quote merely tells you that when all the layers have been destroyed or ended, the wall is destroyed.


This is utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand in every way, but I felt the need to say this: one day, I shall run a game where the wall itself is utterly opaque...thus obscuring the colors of the layer itself.

Player: What is this large black wall?
*Player touches it, gets transported to the ninth layer of Baator*
Me: So, Asmodeus is playing some Sudoku when he...

An ordinary stone wall is opaque. Does it mean that you can't see the colour of the stone? :smallamused:

[Lord_Gareth]

An ordinary stone wall is opaque. Does it mean that you can't see the colour of the stone? :smallamused:

Aye, but in separating "layer" from "wall" you gave me a mental image of the spell basically being an opaque veil wrapped around a bunch of horrific rainbow doom-sheets that whirl around inside of it like the world's most sadistic clothes-drying machine, hence the joke.

[Psyren]

one day, I shall run a game where the wall itself is utterly opaque...thus obscuring the colors of the layer itself.

The sequential order in which the wall must be destroyed is actually misleading - at all times, looking at the wall shows all the remaining colors in it. (There's a picture of what the spell looks like in the PHB if you're interested.)


The spell description specifies how to end each individual effect of the spell. That quote merely tells you that when all the layers have been destroyed or ended, the wall is destroyed.

Right, because the wall is the sum of its layers, in the same way that a rainbow is the sum of its individual colors. If you block the individual colors of a rainbow from appearing, there is no longer a rainbow.

I don't want to have another 20-page rules debate though (I'm not as invested in this one as the fight to champion FAQ's legitimacy to the mighty Curmudgeon), so I'll agree to disagree with you here.

[sonofzeal]

I didn't separate it, the text in Complete Arcane did. It specifically refers to the layers, not the actual wall. We cannot assume that the qualities that are exclusive of the wall are shared by the layers. Look at the measures, they are specifically given under the Warding section, because the measures of the wall are a property of the wall, not necessarily of the layers. They may coincide, but they don't HAVE to.
Either....

{a} the PW is something which contains layers (like a book's cover contains pages)

...or...

{b} the PWis composed of layers (like a brick wall is composed of bricks)

You're arguing from a basis of {a}, and if {a} were the case you would be correct. If a PW contained layers, it could have properties like opacity that the layers lack. However, the given quote from the actual rules that I posted earlier describes situation {b}. The PW is its layers. You can't separate the two ideas the way you're trying to. The RAW text doesn't support the distinction between "Wall" and "Layer" that you're trying to draw.

[Shadowknight12]

Aye, but in separating "layer" from "wall" you gave me a mental image of the spell basically being an opaque veil wrapped around a bunch of horrific rainbow doom-sheets that whirl around inside of it like the world's most sadistic clothes-drying machine, hence the joke.

Oh! That IS hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:


Either....

{a} the PW is something which contains layers (like a book's cover contains pages)

...or...

{b} the PWis composed of layers (like a brick wall is composed of bricks)

You're arguing from a basis of {a}, and if {a} were the case you would be correct. If a PW contained layers, it could have properties like opacity that the layers lack. However, the given quote from the actual rules that I posted earlier describes situation {b}. The PW is its layers. You can't separate the two ideas the way you're trying to. The RAW text doesn't support the distinction between "Wall" and "Layer" that you're trying to draw.

I fail to see the distinction you're making. A wall can be said to be containing the bricks that compose it, and a book can be said to be composed of the pages it contains.

Furthermore, you are claiming that the PW *is* the layers, when it's not specified anywhere. Furthermore, Complete Arcane specifically talks about layers, rather than the wall. I'm not the one making the distinction between the two, I'm merely citing the specific wording of the rules.


The sequential order in which the wall must be destroyed is actually misleading - at all times, looking at the wall shows all the remaining colors in it. (There's a picture of what the spell looks like in the PHB if you're interested.)

Yes, because all colours coexist together at the same time, they just have a quirky way of interacting with reality.


Right, because the wall is the sum of its layers, in the same way that a rainbow is the sum of its individual colors. If you block the individual colors of a rainbow from appearing, there is no longer a rainbow.

I don't want to have another 20-page rules debate though (I'm not as invested in this one as the fight to champion FAQ's legitimacy), so I'll agree to disagree with you here.

Agreed on both counts.

[Lord_Gareth]

The sequential order in which the wall must be destroyed is actually misleading - at all times, looking at the wall shows all the remaining colors in it. (There's a picture of what the spell looks like in the PHB if you're interested.)

Oh, I've seen the picture, and in most normal games I run that's exactly how the spell looks. However, I now want my horrific death-dryer in a game, and damnit I will make it happen!

[sonofzeal]

I fail to see the distinction you're making. A wall can be said to be containing the bricks that compose it, and a book can be said to be composed of the pages it contains.
A wallet contains dollar bills but is not composed of them.

A wallet (dollar bills included) contains molecules, but we wouldn't usually talk about it that way, it would be more precise to talk about it being composed of them.

Does that help?


Furthermore, you are claiming that the PW *is* the layers, when it's not specified anywhere. Furthermore, Complete Arcane specifically talks about layers, rather than the wall. I'm not the one making the distinction between the two, I'm merely citing the specific wording of the rules.
I can talk about molecules, rather than wallets. But the wallet still is composed of molecules, and all its properties are derived therefrom. The CA quote does not draw the distinction you are trying to draw. And the PHB quote actively undermines it.

[Shadowknight12]

A wallet contains dollar bills but is not composed of them.

A wallet (dollar bills included) contains molecules, but we wouldn't usually talk about it that way, it would be more precise to talk about it being composed of them.

Does that help?

I see what you mean. The answer is inconclusive. I have no evidence to presume that the wall behaves one way or the other.


I can talk about molecules, rather than wallets. But the wallet still is composed of molecules, and all its properties are derived therefrom. The CA quote does not draw the distinction you are trying to draw. And the PHB quote actively undermines it.

And the rules don't state that they're the same thing, while the CA quote undermines that assumption. Sounds to me like it's a dead end.

[myancey]

No, I haven't. My quote comes from the "Veils" ability on pg. 46. You're quoting "Warding" on page 44. And they're both saying the same thing - imbuing wardings with veils is optional.

Nice, another section that says the same thing I've been arguing. Your RAI would have everyone believe that she can leave them out or not. But the quote your actually taking from the book simply gives her the option of picking which veil to use. That's it.

It doesn't say anywhere that she can choose whether or not to imbue a warding with a veil. That's bull.

[Kumori]

Has anyone else noticed that the PHB doesn't even ever describe the wall as being layered? That's something that the complete arcane threw into the mix. Try swapping the word 'layers' with the word 'colors' and see if maybe that might help resolve the issue.

[sonofzeal]

I have no evidence to presume that the wall behaves one way or the other.
Except, y'know, the actual quote from the Prismatic Wall text? The primary source on how Prismatic Wall works?

[Psyren]

It doesn't say anywhere that she can choose whether or not to imbue a warding with a veil. That's bull.

"You can choose to do X" means that you don't have to - by my understanding of English anyway.

[Shadowknight12]

Except, y'know, the actual quote from the Prismatic Wall text? The primary source on how Prismatic Wall works?

And where, exactly, in the text, is that distinction made? "destroyed, colour by colour," doesn't specify if the colours compose the wall or are contained by it.

[sonofzeal]

And where, exactly, in the text, is that distinction made? "destroyed, colour by colour," doesn't specify if the colours compose the wall or are contained by it.
I don't "destroy" a wallet, dollar bill by dollar bill. I can empty it that way, but not destroy. I can, however, destroy it atom by atom.

The language used in both CA and PHB are consistent with the {b} interpretation. However, the PHB language is inconsistent with the {a} interpretation. Therefor, in lieu of any further evidence, the {b} interpretation holds and the {a} interpretation does not.

Admittedly it's an indirect proof, but this does not invalidate it. However, I would accept a more direct statement from FAQ or CustServ, if either of them had ever chosen to weigh in on this. If you know of a relevant FAQ or CustServ quote, I'd accept that as a more specific answer.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't "destroy" a wallet, dollar bill by dollar bill. I can empty it that way, but not destroy. I can, however, destroy it atom by atom.

The language used in both CA and PHB are consistent with the {b} interpretation. However, the PHB language is inconsistent with the {a} interpretation. Therefor, in lieu of any further evidence, the {b} interpretation holds and the {a} interpretation does not.

Actually, the CA interpretation is consistent with both, since it talks specifically about layers and not as the actual wall, then goes on to tell you about the properties of each. This can apply either to the "dollar bill" interpretation ("Twenty dollar bill has X property, Ten dollar bill has Y property, etc") or the atoms interpretation ("The carbon atom has X property, the hydrogen atom has Y property, etc"). The rest is quite true, but this is stated nowhere in the rules.


Admittedly it's an indirect proof, but this does not invalidate it. However, I would accept a more direct statement from FAQ or CustServ, if either of them had ever chosen to weigh in on this. If you know of a relevant FAQ or CustServ quote, I'd accept that as a more specific answer.

Hum. Off to do some internet hunting then...

[Quietus]

And where, exactly, in the text, is that distinction made? "destroyed, colour by colour," doesn't specify if the colours compose the wall or are contained by it.

It certainly does. If I say "A wall of stone", you can't presume that said stone is wrapped in an outer layer of iron. In the same way, a pristmatic wall creates a wall of color, or rather :


a vertical, opaque wall—a shimmering, multicolored plane of light

That is, a wall consisting of light in seven different colors. You can no more assume there is some opaque covering over these colors than you could the iron above. The opacity of the wall must be part of what the spell says it's made from, because we cannot assume it contains anything else. Therefore, the wall itself is made from seven layers of light, and those layers, being part of this wall, are opaque. Suggesting there's something else there lending opacity is adding another layer to the spell that doesn't actually exist.

That being said, I do lean toward the Warding/concealment side of the argument on that front, for a slightly different reason than most. At no point does a Iot7V use her "Veil" ability. Instead, she uses her "Warding" ability. When using her Warding ability, she chooses two things : The type, and any veils imbued. I see this in either of two ways.

1) The result depends on the order. Buffs can be applied in any order the character wishes; If an Iot7V applies the type first, then the veil, then the veil's more recent and provides the opacity of a Prismatic Wall. If she applies the veil first, then the type, then the veil inherits the concealment clause of the type chosen, generally not providing concealment. Thankfully, the fact that concealment is a defined term means that there is a difference between concealment and total concealment.

2) The Warding's type specifically calls out that the warding provides concealment. It wouldn't do so if it were to be overwritten by the veil, therefore it provides concealment, not opacity/total concealment.

[sonofzeal]

Actually, the CA interpretation is consistent with both, since it talks specifically about layers and not as the actual wall, then goes on to tell you about the properties of each. This can apply either to the "dollar bill" interpretation ("Twenty dollar bill has X property, Ten dollar bill has Y property, etc") or the atoms interpretation ("The carbon atom has X property, the hydrogen atom has Y property, etc"). The rest is quite true, but this is stated nowhere in the rules.
I didn't deny this.

CA is consistent with {a} and {b}

PHB is consistent with {b} but not {a}

Therefor, I side with {b} as being more in line with RAW. Simple as that.

[Shadowknight12]

It certainly does. If I say "A wall of stone", you can't presume that said stone is wrapped in an outer layer of iron. In the same way, a pristmatic wall creates a wall of color, or rather :

That is, a wall consisting of light in seven different colors. You can no more assume there is some opaque covering over these colors than you could the iron above. The opacity of the wall must be part of what the spell says it's made from, because we cannot assume it contains anything else. Therefore, the wall itself is made from seven layers of light, and those layers, being part of this wall, are opaque. Suggesting there's something else there lending opacity is adding another layer to the spell that doesn't actually exist.

That is fallacious reasoning, because I never stated that there was an opaque covering. That's all you. I said that the rules state that the opacity is of the wall, not necessarily of the layers.

Note, then, how you use words like "must." The rules don't state what you're stating.


I didn't deny this.

CA is consistent with {a} and {b}

PHB is consistent with {b} but not {a}

Therefor, I side with {b} as being more in line with RAW. Simple as that.

The PHB is consistent with {a}. You CAN destroy a book, page by page. You CAN destroy a house, room by room. A wallet is a bad example because the wallet contains MORE than the bills, it contains the actual wallet. If you find something that contains only X items, then saying "destroyed, X by X," is actually perfectly consistent with the PHB wording.

[Diarmuid]

You cannot destroy a book completely page by page. In that example you would still have the cover and bindings left, albeit empty.

[Psyren]

To be clear Shadowknight, I'm okay with your conclusion (that a Iot7FV can see through her veils, at least by RAI and common sense); but you're using some extremely shaky logic to try and make the RAW case.

[Diarmuid]

Seconded, the RAW is silly and doesnt make sense, hence the very common RAI that I too would implement in any game I ran.

That being said, just because something doesnt make logical sense or makes something uselsss does not automatically discount the RAW. Hence the vehemence in most RAW arguments. The RAW purists hold to the letter of the law exactly as its written, to a fault.

[Psyren]

The RAW purists hold to the letter of the law exactly as its written, to a fault.

What's amusing is even in cases where WotC has done the right thing and said "hey, this is what we meant by that" the purists bellow "Sure they said that, but it's in THIS document and not THAT one! It doesn't count!" :smalltongue:

[myancey]

"You can choose to do X" means that you don't have to - by my understanding of English anyway.

Except that the statement is saying "You can choose to implement which x, y, or z--based on what your character knows."

[Tyndmyr]

I'm on Psyren's side here. If X "duplicates" Y, and Y has property Z, then X has property Z unless specifically stated otherwise. You don't need any further RAW, the word "duplicates" is enough to imply that any traits not explicitl defined as different are the same.

While correct, the ward explicitly stating that it's transparent trumps this. The veil is an option for the ward, which exists to construct the veil. Therefore, explicit properties of the ward trump inherited properties of prismatic wall.

Also, note that from a physics standpoint, if any one layer of the wall is opaque, then the entire wall would be opaque. You could still have as many as six transparent layers. Therefore, the knowledge that the wall is opaque is not sufficient to determine that every component is also opaque.

[Quietus]

That is fallacious reasoning, because I never stated that there was an opaque covering. That's all you. I said that the rules state that the opacity is of the wall, not necessarily of the layers.

By the nature of your argument, if the wall is opaque outside of the layers themselves, then there must be something there that isn't just the layers - and there is not. The portion I quoted quite clearly states :


a vertical, opaque wall—a shimmering, multicolored plane of light

Therefore, the wall is made of multicolored, opaque light. The dash indicates that the latter is a clarification of the former, NOT separate constructs. The opacity is therefore a property of the colored layers that make up the "Shimmering, multicolored plane of light".

If the opacity is attributed to something other than this, what is it?

[King Atticus]

Actually, they say the wardings do not hinder sight - they say nothing about the veils. It is possible to create a warding with no veil attached, even if said warding does nothing. ("She can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows...")

No, you're emphasizing the wrong word. It's not that she chooses to imbue or not to imbue a veil (That choice is already made once she decides to put up a warding). But that she can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows. By definition any one does not include choosing none. It's just that she can select which veil in which she will imbue her selected warding.

[sonofzeal]

No, you're emphasizing the wrong word. It's not that she chooses to imbue or not to imbue a veil (That choice is already made once she decides to put up a warding). But that she can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows. By definition any one does not include choosing none. It's just that she can select which veil in which she will imbue her selected warding.
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

"You can choose to visit any one ride at Disneyland."

"You can choose to eat any one meal from McDonald's."

"You can choose to wedgie any one poster on GiantITP."

I think the "any one" merely limits to one as opposed to more, but the "can choose to" still allows the possibility of not choosing. In this case, the key word is not "choose", but "can".

I can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil I know. I might not choose to do do so.

English is an ambiguous language, but I'm pretty sure that works.

[myancey]

No, you're emphasizing the wrong word. It's not that she chooses to imbue or not to imbue a veil (That choice is already made once she decides to put up a warding). But that she can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil she knows. By definition any one does not include choosing none. It's just that she can select which veil in which she will imbue her selected warding.

This.

You have made a more eloquent response than I have--but this is exactly what I've been arguing for the last 30 billion posts.

[Psyren]

I was going to have a longer response to the "choose" argument, but sonofzeal made it for me.

"I can have one side with my entree" does not mean I am forced to choose a side at all.

[myancey]

I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

"You can choose to visit any one ride at Disneyland."

"You can choose to eat any one meal from McDonald's."

"You can choose to wedgie any one poster on GiantITP."

I think the "any one" merely limits to one as opposed to more, but the "can choose to" still allows the possibility of not choosing. In this case, the key word is not "choose", but "can".

I can choose to imbue the warding with any one veil I know. I might not choose to do do so.

English is an ambiguous language, but I'm pretty sure that works.

The entire point of the argument, though, comes down to the fact that the warding clause dealing with veils eliminates the need to hypothesize on whether you can see through a veil or not according to the prismatic wall clauses.

That is why this is a big issue. The only response King Atticus and I have seen against this is that 'you can choose to employ a veil or not according to the warding section'.

So yes, if you really want to RAI the situation--you can certainly choose to not attach a veil to your warding (thus making the ward useless as its only purpose is being a medium for veils...)

But who cares about that?

Either way, the warding clause on veils in the wardings section states that you can see through the veil.

It's blatantly obvious.

[Shadowknight12]

You cannot destroy a book completely page by page. In that example you would still have the cover and bindings left, albeit empty.

In a lot of books, the cover is actually a page. I believe the term is "soft cover" or "paperback" or some such. I forget.


By the nature of your argument, if the wall is opaque outside of the layers themselves, then there must be something there that isn't just the layers - and there is not. The portion I quoted quite clearly states :



Therefore, the wall is made of multicolored, opaque light. The dash indicates that the latter is a clarification of the former, NOT separate constructs. The opacity is therefore a property of the colored layers that make up the "Shimmering, multicolored plane of light".

If the opacity is attributed to something other than this, what is it?

I never denied that the wall was made of multicoloured, opaque light. You are leaping to conclusions by assuming that because the wall has characteristic X, then so must its components. There is no evidence to support this claim, other than basic logic (but we all know that we can't start applying logic to D&D, so that point is moot).

That quote says it quite well: The wall is made of opaque light. It never talks about layers. Even if we assume that layers = colours, it also doesn't talk about colours, other than when it says that the light is multi-coloured. The colours compose the light that composes the wall, but you can't assume that the opacity of the light (or the wall) is shared by the actual colours.


To be clear Shadowknight, I'm okay with your conclusion (that a Iot7FV can see through her veils, at least by RAI and common sense); but you're using some extremely shaky logic to try and make the RAW case.

It appears it isn't one of my stellar weeks. Fair enough, I think I shall take my leave before I come up with yet another inane example...

[sonofzeal]

The entire point of the argument, though, comes down to the fact that the warding clause dealing with veils eliminates the need to hypothesize on whether you can see through a veil or not according to the prismatic wall clauses.

That is why this is a big issue. The only response King Atticus and I have seen against this is that 'you can choose to employ a veil or not according to the warding section'.

So yes, if you really want to RAI the situation--you can certainly choose to not attach a veil to your warding (thus making the ward useless as its only purpose is being a medium for veils...)

But who cares about that?

Either way, the warding clause on veils in the wardings section states that you can see through the veil.

It's blatantly obvious.
....finally having the book in front of me.... yes I'll agree with this. The "provides no concealment" lines clearly refer, not just to the warding, but to the warding when imbued by a veil.

This specific exception overrides the contains/composed argument - Prismatic Wall layers are opaque, but IotSV can see through them anyways. It also renders moot the question of whether you can not have any veils imbued in your warning - you can, but it doesn't change the final conclusion.

So, problem solved! Thanks for the energizing debate, everyone! Hope there's no hard feelings. ^^

[King Atticus]

So yes, if you really want to RAI the situation--you can certainly choose to not attach a veil to your warding (thus making the ward useless as its only purpose is being a medium for veils...)


Actually, IMO, I'm not even sure it's RAI. I don't think it was ever intended to put up a warding without a veil. The way I read it the sole purpose of a warding is to determine the properties of a veil. It has absolutely no function beyond that. So if you don't want the veil up don't put up a warding.

So your choices, as I read it, come in 3 stages.
1) Choose whether or not you want to put up a veil.
2) If you answered step 1 with an affirmative, choose which veil you want to apply.
3) Choose what shape (warding) you want that veil to take.

[Quietus]

I never denied that the wall was made of multicoloured, opaque light. You are leaping to conclusions by assuming that because the wall has characteristic X, then so must its components. There is no evidence to support this claim, other than basic logic (but we all know that we can't start applying logic to D&D, so that point is moot).

That quote says it quite well: The wall is made of opaque light. It never talks about layers. Even if we assume that layers = colours, it also doesn't talk about colours, other than when it says that the light is multi-coloured. The colours compose the light that composes the wall, but you can't assume that the opacity of the light (or the wall) is shared by the actual colours.

Opaque, multicolored light. And then the spell goes on to describe how "Each color in the wall has a special effect", and specifically says that the wall has seven colors. It then further describes how "The wall can be destroyed, color by color". This combination of traits suggests that the wall's entire existence is defined by these colored layers, that there are exactly seven of them, and that each of those seven colored layers of light can be destroyed, thus destroying the wall. This tells me that the wall is formed exclusively from these layers, and doesn't have some opacity all its own devoid of them, because when the colors are destroyed, so is the wall.

Regardless, I feel that we're losing focus on where this debate is supposed to go, and you've already mentioned withdrawing from the thread, so I'll do the same. I think it's outlived its usefulness, though it's been an interesting trip.

[myancey]

....finally having the book in front of me.... yes I'll agree with this. The "provides no concealment" lines clearly refer, not just to the warding, but to the warding when imbued by a veil.

This specific exception overrides the contains/composed argument - Prismatic Wall layers are opaque, but IotSV can see through them anyways. It also renders moot the question of whether you can not have any veils imbued in your warning - you can, but it doesn't change the final conclusion.

So, problem solved! Thanks for the energizing debate, everyone! Hope there's no hard feelings. ^^

I'll live with this conclusion. :smallsmile:


Actually, IMO, I'm not even sure it's RAI. I don't think it was ever intended to put up a warding without a veil. The way I read it the sole purpose of a warding is to determine the properties of a veil. It has absolutely no function beyond that. So if you don't want the veil up don't put up a warding.

So your choices, as I read it, come in 3 stages.
1) Choose whether or not you want to put up a veil.
2) If you answered step 1 with an affirmative, choose which veil you want to apply.
3) Choose what shape (warding) you want that veil to take.

Yeah, I misused RAI...

But I agree with your set of stages.


Opaque, multicolored light. And then the spell goes on to describe how "Each color in the wall has a special effect", and specifically says that the wall has seven colors. It then further describes how "The wall can be destroyed, color by color". This combination of traits suggests that the wall's entire existence is defined by these colored layers, that there are exactly seven of them, and that each of those seven colored layers of light can be destroyed, thus destroying the wall. This tells me that the wall is formed exclusively from these layers, and doesn't have some opacity all its own devoid of them, because when the colors are destroyed, so is the wall.

Regardless, I feel that we're losing focus on where this debate is supposed to go, and you've already mentioned withdrawing from the thread, so I'll do the same. I think it's outlived its usefulness, though it's been an interesting trip.

But all of that doesn't matter. Form an actual thread on prismatic wall or opaque bricks--because it bears no relevance in this thread.

[JKTrickster]

So in that case, as long as you cast spells that aren't affected by your veils, you can freely cast through them, right?

This makes up for the high defenses the class brings - at its strongest there is no offense possible.