Rule inerpretation / clarification

[Lonewolf147]

Hey folks, so I need to get some clarification on a rule. Actually, this applies to numerous rules that have their damage description listed in the same grammatical way.

I'll use Wall of Fire to start with, I've bolded the sentence.

Wall of Fire
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Drd 5, Fire 4, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft. per two levels; either form 20 ft. high
Duration: Concentration + 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

An immobile, blazing curtain of shimmering violet fire springs into existence. One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears and on your turn each round to all creatures in the area. In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage +1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it. The wall deals double damage to undead creatures.

If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points of cold damage or more in 1 round, that length goes out. (Do not divide cold damage by 4, as normal for objects.)

Wall of fire can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent wall of fire that is extinguished by cold damage becomes inactive for 10 minutes, then reforms at normal strength.
Arcane Material Component

A small piece of phosphorus.



Now here's my question. I can see this being interpreted several ways and wanted to get some more input on it.

It says 2d6 damage +1 per caster level.

There are no commas or other breaks in the sentence, so one way to look at this is that for every caster level you do 2d6+1. A 10th level caster would do 20d6+10.

Another way to look at it is to assume there should be a comma after the 2d6 dmg. So the same 10th level caster would only do 2d6+10.

Now if I take this up to a 21st level caster, it could be either 40d6+20 or 42d6+20. Since it specifies that +20 is the maximum, if that is tied to the d6 portion of the roll it would also stop it at 40d6, or if not, the d6 would continue to increase and only the plus would stop at 20.

I've found this same grammatical structure in other spells (both damaging and healing).

Opinions on this?

[ArcturusV]

Well, it says "Maximum +20" instead of "Maximum 40d6 + 20". So I would rule that it always does 2d6 + X, where X is Caster Level. Which is at least how it is intended to be from everything I've seen. But also the only way that really makes sense with the (Maximum +20) sort of line in there.

[Curmudgeon]

You're very likely not to want the CL * (2d6 + 1) construction, because if you go for that then the +20 maximum must apply to the total. At CL 5 then (10d6 + 5), maximum 20, would be rather underwhelming; instead of that total ranging anywhere from 15 to 65, it would only range from 15 to 20.

Anyway, the only reasonable way to read it is 2d6 + CL*1, because the term "fire damage", repeated, serves as a scope delineator.

[Douglas]

It is true that there is no comma or explicit break, but the 40d6+20 at CL 20 interpretation requires that you interpret the following as a single phrase:
"2d6 points of fire damage +1 point of fire damage"

That seems a rather odd way of phrasing it. If that were the intended meaning, it would be much more obvious and natural to write it as "2d6+1 points of fire damage". So much more obvious and natural, in fact, that I would bet real money on a court of law (a dispute about a contract could involve something like this) ruling that the 2d6 and the +1 are separate if the question came up in such a context.

[Lonewolf147]

Thanks for the input. That helps to clarify it for me :)

[KillianHawkeye]

It would not be grammatically correct to place a comma there in any case.

[TuggyNE]

It would not be grammatically correct to place a comma there in any case.

I actually disagree; "2d6 fire damage, plus 1 fire damage per caster level" seems quite plain, and perfectly reasonable grammatically.