[PF]Wall of Fire + Reach

[1Thunder1]

Okay I was just playing a game where I set up a Wall of Fire in a radius around myself, so that it was directly around me. In other words I cannot move without taking damage. The plan was to cast spells through the wall, while protecting myself from the opposing winter wolf.

Unfortunately it this encounter didn't even come close to going as planned. The next action was the DM saying that the winter wolf Lunged (as the feat) and attacked me at a reach with it's bite attack. I mentioned that he took fire damage for passing through the wall but I was corrected that he used a reach weapon and therefore took no damage. Baffled at this statement I tried to overcome it with logic, but could find no actual place where anything about reach weapons was mentioned. Of course he had to pass through the wall to get to me (taking damage in my opinion) but this was overruled.

So my question is, is this correct?
If so, what is the point of wall of fire and other walls?

Also if it does do damage to the wolf, would it do damage to a spear trying to pass through the wall? Possibly destroying it before it every even got to do damage?

EDIT - Also does the wall take up actual squares or sit on the lines in between them?

[Ravenica]

for all intents and purposes the DM is right so far as rules as written are concerned, just like any other creature with reach he technically doesn't pass through the wall (though he may be standing close enough to take the radiant damage)

While I personally agree that he would take the damage, and would act accordingly in my own campaigns) that would be a RAI (possibly) or a RACSD ruling and is entirely DM dependant

[HunterOfJello]

The Effect description refers to it as an "opaque sheet of flame" and the rest refers to it as "an immobile, blazing curtain" so I would assume that the Wall does not have a significant width like most other wall spells do and is as thin as a typical bedsheet. Whether that makes it appear on the outlines of spaces or in the center of them, i don't really know.


As far as the reach question goes, I think that the Winter Wolf should absolutely have taken fire damage for attacking through the wall with a Natural Weapon. The creature should already have been taking damage from the wall's "waves of heat" that billow away from you, but if it attacks through a wall with a natural weapon (i.e. part of its own body) then it is physically passing through the wall at least partially with a part of its own body. If the Winter Wolf was using a manufactured weapon to attack through the gap, such as a longspear, then that would be an entirely different story.

You DM can ultimately use DM fiat to rule against this, but Winter Wolves attack with bite attacks. Regardless of how long you stick your neck out, if you stick your head into a wall of freaking magical fire, you will burn your face off.

[Andreaz]

As Ravenica said, it is correct. If you want to get out of RAW for the sake of making sense and saving a valid strategy, note the following:

Many powers that backlash at attackers. Fire Shield (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fire-shield) for example, damages anyone but those that attack with melee reach weapons. Reach with natural weapons does not protect them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, if he wants to stick to raw the wolf would take damage just the same. He's "passing through the wall" to bite you. It just isn't with a movement.

[RagnaroksChosen]

This is a tricky one.

First, I don't see any thing in the spell description that says reach weapons ignore passing through the wall or for that matter attacks in general don't count as passing through the wall.

So I would argue that via RAW reach doesn't matter in this case, unless the creature was large enough to physically reach over the wall.

Second I would argue that because it is a natural attack the wolf has to pass through the wall to make contact. I think if it only counted movement it would say. Take wall of thorns (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-thorns) for example. So passing through means if you or any thing in your possession crosses the barrier it counts as passing through and the creature would take the 2d6 + cl damage.

[Ravenica]

This is a tricky one.

First, I don't see any thing in the spell description that says reach weapons ignore passing through the wall or for that matter attacks in general don't count as passing through the wall.

So I would argue that via RAW reach doesn't matter in this case, unless the creature was large enough to physically reach over the wall. you "could" argue that except there is no part of RAW that describes an "attack" as passing through any space what so ever. As far as the mechanics involved are concerned a melee attack never passes through anything RAW, hence why any decision deciding otherwise has to be considered RAI or RACSD.




Second I would argue that because it is a natural attack the wolf has to pass through the wall to make contact. I think if it only counted movement it would say. Take wall of thorns (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-thorns) for example. So passing through means if you or any thing in your possession crosses the barrier it counts as passing through and the creature would take the 2d6 + cl damage.

except it specifies "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."

creature passing through, not part of creature, not attack, not object, not spell, not any number of other things that "may" be affected by going through a wall of fire. Any ruling per RAW requires that the object passing through the wall must be a creature.

We follow this to it's logical conclusion.
Basic principles, a melee attack, even a reach one, is never stated to pass through intervening space. It has a target and an origination point but is never stated to pass through space. Any decision to make it do so is thus not RAW and is up to the DM. We cannot make a RAW argument to defend any claim that it does. It's an oversight and most DM's will use the RACSD decision when it makes sense to but we can not force that decision on any DM who decides not to.

Wall of Fire only affects creatures that pass through: Even if a RACSD decision is made that attacks do pass through intervening space, the spell requires an object to pass "through" the ill defined "area" of the wall and a DM could make an argument that because the attack can land from within the neighboring square it never needs to pass "through". Again, this is a RAW issue, but semanticly it is a solid argument as a creature is assumed to encompass the entire 5ft^2 they stand in by RAW. Again I support the RACSD in that it will still affect the creature as if they had passed through but RAW does not support this.

Wall of Fire only affects creatures: Where the creature using a weapon his weapon is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to the damage of the wall (assuming we used the RACSD rulings for the other two effects) the spell only affects creatures. Now at my table we do not use that ruling and the one we do use is not necessarily RACSD, but a wall of fire affects objects as well, a wielded weapon will generally ignore the paltry damage it does but it has been known to consume arrows, wood hafted weapons and other things that would be destroyed by said damage over the course of a fight.

[Solophoenix]

How exactly were you planning to target anything with spells, given the opacity of the wall?

[Karoht]

Did you at least get cover? Fire is normally difficult to see through. It may not say it in the spell but typically cover is granted. That's probably a RAI thing though.

[RagnaroksChosen]

you "could" argue that except there is no part of RAW that describes an "attack" as passing through any space what so ever. As far as the mechanics involved are concerned a melee attack never passes through anything RAW, hence why any decision deciding otherwise has to be considered RAI or RACSD.



except it specifies "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."

creature passing through, not part of creature, not attack, not object, not spell, not any number of other things that "may" be affected by going through a wall of fire. Any ruling per RAW requires that the object passing through the wall must be a creature.

We follow this to it's logical conclusion.
Basic principles, a melee attack, even a reach one, is never stated to pass through intervening space. It has a target and an origination point but is never stated to pass through space. Any decision to make it do so is thus not RAW and is up to the DM. We cannot make a RAW argument to defend any claim that it does. It's an oversight and most DM's will use the RACSD decision when it makes sense to but we can not force that decision on any DM who decides not to.
...


Fair enough, don't get me wrong I can see it going both ways. I was just explaining what I would argue in regards to raw.

I was looking at it as passing does not necessarily mean movement between squares, as when spells are referring to movement they specify movement(as in the example of wall of thorns). However looking for other references to passing through things I found the Incorporeal rules talking about passing through objects in regards to attacks. I figured seeing as they used the term "pass" in regards to attacks and in this case what it ignores that we could use that same logic to apply to wall of fire.

Would you consider an attack with a magic weapon through a wall of suppression not passing through the wall?




Wall of Fire only affects creatures that pass through: Even if a RACSD decision is made that attacks do pass through intervening space, the spell requires an object to pass "through" the ill defined "area" of the wall and a DM could make an argument that because the attack can land from within the neighboring square it never needs to pass "through". Again, this is a RAW issue, but semanticly it is a solid argument as a creature is assumed to encompass the entire 5ft^2 they stand in by RAW. Again I support the RACSD in that it will still affect the creature as if they had passed through but RAW does not support this.


The wall is 20ft high, so they only way would be for a create to be as high or higher, or to be standing neer the edge. I did not get the impression from the OP's post that this was the case.




Wall of Fire only affects creatures: Where the creature using a weapon his weapon is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to the damage of the wall (assuming we used the RACSD rulings for the other two effects) the spell only affects creatures. Now at my table we do not use that ruling and the one we do use is not necessarily RACSD, but a wall of fire affects objects as well, a wielded weapon will generally ignore the paltry damage it does but it has been known to consume arrows, wood hafted weapons and other things that would be destroyed by said damage over the course of a fight.


I was under the impression it was only immune if there is a saving throw/attack involved. With this having no attack, the section about attended magic items (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects#TOC-Saving-Throws) doesn't really apply. Again I may have missed the section else where that says it.

[Ravenica]

Fair enough, don't get me wrong I can see it going both ways. I was just explaining what I would argue in regards to raw.

I was looking at it as passing does not necessarily mean movement between squares, as when spells are referring to movement they specify movement(as in the example of wall of thorns). However looking for other references to passing through things I found the Incorporeal rules talking about passing through objects in regards to attacks. I figured seeing as they used the term "pass" in regards to attacks and in this case what it ignores that we could use that same logic to apply to wall of fire.

Would you consider an attack with a magic weapon through a wall of suppression not passing through the wall?I would, I'm only advocating that there is little support for RAW for a defined term of "passing through" beyond movement.



The wall is 20ft high, so they only way would be for a create to be as high or higher, or to be standing neer the edge. I did not get the impression from the OP's post that this was the case. The height and length are the only defined aspects of the wall, we are missing a third dimension, hence for something to pass through, rather than to pass into, the wall is poorly defined, that was my only point there heh





I was under the impression it was only immune if there is a saving throw/attack involved. With this having no attack, the section about attended magic items (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects#TOC-Saving-Throws) doesn't really apply. Again I may have missed the section else where that says it. By RAW the spell only affects creatures, so every item is immune by RAW

[Jack Zander]

Did you at least get cover? Fire is normally difficult to see through. It may not say it in the spell but typically cover is granted. That's probably a RAI thing though.

Nothing about the spell suggests it grants cover. Even if it was ruled that it difficult to see through, that would be a condition for concealment, not cover.

[1Thunder1]

Wow there are a lot of things in there that could be assumed. Any good ideas for how to ask the DM to change his ruling for later sessions? The spell seems rather useless when basically anything can attack through it unharmed. For a 4th level spell it seems like a pretty big waste.

Or if the ruling stands, how should this spell be used? It's damage is pretty minor in the first place and pathetic if the pass through damage never happens.

(Note: I probably would care as much if the DM wasn't known for adding feats to counter abilities. In other words, every single mob will have lunge from now on)

[Ravenica]

in relation to a dm such as that you are probably better off with a different spell for in combat. It can be used pretty effectively beyond that for fortifying a location permanently outside of combat still as it is a rather cheap "upgrade" to add just outside your buildings walls.

if you have to use it in combat, putting it between you and other combatants outside of reach distance (15-20 feet away from you) so that they have to approach through it is it's best use, or if they happen to line up just right for you dropping it right on them... you could also get some use by making it a circle around you with a radius of 15 feet and focusing the damage inwards so that anything within 10 feet of you takes the radiant damage, and they have to pass through it to get that close, but you yourself are not in the damage range

[TuggyNE]

Wow there are a lot of things in there that could be assumed. Any good ideas for how to ask the DM to change his ruling for later sessions? The spell seems rather useless when basically anything can attack through it unharmed. For a 4th level spell it seems like a pretty big waste.

Or if the ruling stands, how should this spell be used? It's damage is pretty minor in the first place and pathetic if the pass through damage never happens. on)

Form the wall 5' further out, so you're surrounded by an empty square on each side. For the wolf to attack you, it has to be in a square with fire in it.

[Ravenica]

Tuggyne, that really depends on how honest (or knowledgable) his DM was, as it were with lunge the winter wolf would only have had 10ft reach and should have been within the radiant damage range already...

[1Thunder1]

thankfully the winter wolf did still take the radiant damage, it just avoided the "passing through" damage

And thanks everyone, great help.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I would, I'm only advocating that there is little support for RAW for a defined term of "passing through" beyond movement.


What?? But I just showed examples of where Passing through means something other then movement. If they intended for the wall to be triggered off movement why did they not specify movement like they did in so many other spells.

It seems that they use movement else where and passing through for movement and other things again the incorporeal rules use the same language.



The height and length are the only defined aspects of the wall, we are missing a third dimension, hence for something to pass through, rather than to pass into, the wall is poorly defined, that was my only point there heh

Its not ill defined:

opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high

Its a flat opaque sheet (so it would be on the edge of 2 squares) 20 ft high. then you can either have it as a 20ft /level long or a ring of fire with a radius of 5 ft/2 levels.

How is that not clear?



By RAW the spell only affects creatures, so every item is immune by RAW
Fair enough, ill concede that point that the weapon would be immune.


Side note OP.

How did the winter wolf see you the wall is a "opaque sheet of flame" no light can go through it? Would that not block line of site? I know you can still attack the square or what not.

[1Thunder1]

Both the DM and I missed the opaque part, and he did see me cast it around myself in the first place. So seeings how I was standing there before, and now there is a 5' ring of fire where I used to be, it wouldn't be hard to figure out.

Though, if we had noticed this fact, does this impose penalties? Cover? Concealment? Doesn't that limit spell casting through the wall? What spells or attack could go through the wall?

[Ravenica]

What?? But I just showed examples of where Passing through means something other then movement. If they intended for the wall to be triggered off movement why did they not specify movement like they did in so many other spells.

It seems that they use movement else where and passing through for movement and other things again the incorporeal rules use the same language.


Its not ill defined: nothing you quoted "defines" it, nor does any of it apply to "passing through" said wall. Furthermore the only lines ever quoting the phrase "pass through" are regarding the tower shields full cover ability preventing attacks or force cage "barred cage" allowing attacks to pass through. As such it is then the ATTACK passing through and not the CREATURE by RAW, even if that attack is part of the creature there is no RAW statement that supports the additional damage from the spell. Again I am not endorsing this as right, I am endorsing this as rules as written. I have already stated I do not work it this way in my games, but it is a very fine line that must be walked when discussing such things on the blogosphere. I would point out your wall of thorns link specifically uses "pass through" in relation to movement exculsively as well.

The caveat to all of this is that ranged attacks ARE specifically called out as passing through intervening squares, it is only melee attacks that are not covered in RAW as doing so.



Its a flat opaque sheet (so it would be on the edge of 2 squares) 20 ft high. then you can either have it as a 20ft /level long or a ring of fire with a radius of 5 ft/2 levels.

How is that not clear? where does it say it is flat? You are adding that inference yourself based on the word sheet which again is not RAW nor even true, there are many "sheets" that have a third dimension (in fact all of them, some much thicker than others). In fact I could easily read it to mean that the entire square at the outside radius is filled with flame furthermore it can't be simply a square face as the spell specifically STATES that it can occupy the same area as a character. By RAW it is VERY ill defined and requires the DM to make a judgement call based on how they understand it.

[RagnaroksChosen]

nothing you quoted "defines" it, nor does any of it apply to "passing through" said wall. Furthermore the only lines ever quoting the phrase "pass through" are regarding the tower shields full cover ability preventing attacks or force cage "barred cage" allowing attacks to pass through. As such it is then the ATTACK passing through and not the CREATURE by RAW, even if that attack is part of the creature there is no RAW statement that supports the additional damage from the spell. Again I am not endorsing this as right, I am endorsing this as rules as written. I have already stated I do not work it this way in my games, but it is a very fine line that must be walked when discussing such things on the blogosphere. I would point out your wall of thorns link specifically uses "pass through" in relation to movement exculsively as well.

The caveat to all of this is that ranged attacks ARE specifically called out as passing through intervening squares, it is only melee attacks that are not covered in RAW as doing so.


/Nod
I will agree to disagree sir.




where does it say it is flat? You are adding that inference yourself based on the word sheet which again is not RAW nor even true, there are many "sheets" that have a third dimension (in fact all of them, some much thicker than others). In fact I could easily read it to mean that the entire square at the outside radius is filled with flame furthermore it can't be simply a square face as the spell specifically STATES that it can occupy the same area as a character. By RAW it is VERY ill defined and requires the DM to make a judgement call based on how they understand it.

O what ever if you want to nit pick that bad... A sheet as most people know it is a flat square of something...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet

That's because it is a sheet I was trying to give the example for playing with a battle grid. Not every one does, that is why you can drop it on some one.
Also in theory you could drop it in the middle of a square, I mean we don't have to keep it strictly to a grid.

[Ravenica]

/Nod
I will agree to disagree sir. Isn't the very fact that we can debate this and only come to an impasse prove my point that it's poorly defined? :smallwink:





O what ever if you want to nit pick that bad... A sheet as most people know it is a flat square of something...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet

That's because it is a sheet I was trying to give the example for playing with a battle grid. Not every one does, that is why you can drop it on some one.
Also in theory you could drop it in the middle of a square, I mean we don't have to keep it strictly to a grid. the problem with wikipedia is it is incomplete, as defined in the dictionary (and the only relevant entry in thise case

10. an extent, stretch, or expanse, as of fire or water: sheets of flame.

I'm not nitpicking so much as you might think, "sheets of flame" can and have been described that are more than 10 feet thick. An example would be many forest fires are described as moving sheets of flame and can be over 50 feet thick. In this instance the definition of sheet does not define the depth of the wall of flame to any degree of accuracy, thus it is open to interpretation.

"flat" is not a description of the dimension in any case as it refers to the surface quality rather than depth.

[ericgrau]

This is one of those common situations where you need to assume the world works the way the world works. The wolf passed through the wall so he takes damage. If part of him passed through, he still passed through. So he takes damage, done.

Once you start questioning things like that, you can start questioning what reality itself is and it's a mess. "Does anything really pass through a wall? If it did then it's not really a wall." You can try to make something up for everything, heck you can even pretend it's RAW, rather than undefined by the rules, but in the end it's just BS somebody made up on the fly.

A longspear should work fine, but it should take fire damage for being in the wall. As an object it takes half damage and then its hardness is subtracted. A magic weapon could last longer. The DM may rule that wooden objects are more vulnerable than this, but that part of the rules actually is left in the air. And realistically wood does not ignite right away nor get especially damaged, it takes a minute. So I could see a ruling either way as long as it's not too extreme. A metal-hafted reach weapon could fare better.

In the end DMs make a lot of dumb rulings and you have to decide whether it's better to move on and try something else or if it's significant enough to be worth delaying the game. Then you stand your ground and try to convince him. If he won't budge you decide again whether to move on and ignore it or to get a new DM, if it's really that important. Unless this is your only 4th level spell and everything you fight has reach, I'd maybe say something if it greatly affects the outcome of another fight but then if that failed I'd live with it and cast something else.

[1Thunder1]

Thanks everyone for your opinions ^_^ you guys sound like we did... I was hoping for a solid ruling. Obviously logic says that he takes damage, but nowhere in RAW does it explicitly say that he should. Obviously now I notice the "creature only" clause in the spell so it can't stop anything but a creature physically passing through it. As well as the opaque clause in the effect section. By RAW, though what penalties are applied to attacking through an opaque substance?


Unless this is your only 4th level spell and everything you fight has reach, I'd maybe say something if it greatly affects the outcome of another fight but then if that failed I'd live with it and cast something else.

Unfortunately at this point, it is my only 4th level spell that means anything in combat (Restoration and Cure Serious Wounds being the other 2). And since it is the spell I have been trying to use (the new one), I have found that every monster now has reach or the lunge feat.

He has let me swap the spells that he makes useless out for "better" ones so far but he seems to get more and more annoyed each time it happens.

I mean are there any cleric/oracle spells at lower levels (6-10) thahat come without the need of an interpretation to be any good?
(note: I am playing an oracle)

[Ravenica]

heh keep it in that case and use it as per my previous suggestion, 15ft radius channeled inwards gives you a pretty damn big fire aura and most enemies will HAVE to pass through it to reach you.

the only RAW effect for firing through an opaque material that doesn't actually block line of effect would be to provide concealment to things on the other side, but it doesn't explicitly grant it so best bet would be to ask your dm for a ruling at the next opportunity

[ericgrau]

Obviously logic says that he takes damage, but nowhere in RAW does it explicitly say that he should.
Or that he shouldn't. Besides the fact that abandoning common sense can let you justify anything, RAW can't possibly address everything. We'd have 2,000 page books. Hence the push to talk with the DM and do what you can.

I always assumed a wall of fire was transparent but if it completely blocks vision that means it grants total concealment. Foes would have to guess which square to target unless they make a listen check or some such, and they have a 50% miss chance. Rule is here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Concealment), under "total concealment". Line of effect + no line of sight = total concealment.