Use the Force...or don't because it sucks. (odd interpretation of Force Wall)

[Smallberries]

I'd like to get the community's opinion on a rule interpretation. Can you cast a Wall of Force between two creatures standing side be side? The description states that intervening objects or creatures cause the spell to fail.

My GM interprets that to mean that the creatures inhabit the square they're in "wall to wall," and there is no space in between, so you can't cast the spell to split them up.

For example, you have a 15-foot wide corridor. Three bad guys are at the far end. the mage casts Wall of Force down the corridor between enemies #2 and #3, effectively cutting one of them off for a few rounds, so we can fight two, rather than 3, bad guys.

The GM says no: there is no space between them, therefore there is no place to put the wall of force that wouldn't occupy a creature's square, so the spell fails.

This interpretation goes against my opinion about how the spell should operate, but I'd like to get more expert opinion. Thoughts?

[nedz]

It would depend upon the precise geometry. It would have to intersect both corners of their squares without passing through either square at all. Since it must be a flat plane I'm not sure how you can split them up this way. It sounds more like you will make two parallel corridors, but as I said — it depends upon the precise geometry.

[Mikeavelli]

Thanks to it being 2-dimensional, there doesn't need to be any space "in between." A 0-thickness plane can still be stuck "in between" two totally occupied squares, thanks to how geometry defines such things.

[Smallberries]

That's not the question. The question is, if you have two opponents standing next to each other, can you put a wall of force between them?

[Mikeavelli]

That's not defined in the rules, and open to DM's interpretation.

I would rule "yes" based on my above thoughts, yours has ruled "no."

If you want to be more convincing, you can point to various other parts of the game where it's made clear a character does not occupy the entire 5 ft square, like moving through a square (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm)

[Totema]

By how the spell is written, the wall is arbitrarily thin (it has no thickness at all really, it's a "flat, vertical plane"); unless the two bad guys are violating each other's personal space, I would think that you could separate them.

[Khedrac]

I would not rule it that way, but the DM has a point! Consider line spells like lightning bolt - they affect every square they touch - feed a lightning bolt between them and you hit both, and it is also undefined wide.

Next - if they are melee type opponents just ready to cast it when one of them has moved - the DM is going by very strict RAW so they cannot move together.
If casters, get a melee type to charge them. When one 5' steps back they only have a corner in common - ask your DM about touching corners too (but first).

Personally I think your DM is sulking over how effective you have been at splitting people up in past.

Oh - there is one other possibility - there is something you cannot see blocking the line you want to put your wall down and that is what blocked it...

[Zweisteine]

The wall is describes as being a "flat, verticle plane." That implies that it can be placed on the edges of squares.

Also, remind your DM that most (except maybe cube-shaped oozes) creatures do not take up their entire space. The five-foot squares account for constant movement in combat, and that movement is within the squares, except for when touching another creature.

Here's a helpful argument: a medium creature takes up two vertically stacked cubes (height is more than five feet, except some dwarves). In a hallway with a ten-foot ceiling, you can still shoot over their head. Perhaps as a better argument, if there is a creature in the way, you can still shoot.
Even better argument: A person is not five feet on a side, and yet they take up a five foot square.

If your DM was imagining three creatures standing shoulder-to-shoulder, they would probably have to be standing in only two squares (though they'd move instantaneously to their own when combat begins). In that case, let them see you, then, after they have moved, put up the wall.

Also, the line in wall of force's description about being broken by creatures just says that the spell fails if you try to put it on a creature.


Edit:

I would not rule it that way, but the DM has a point! Consider line spells like lightning bolt - they affect every square they touch - feed a lightning bolt between them and you hit both, and it is also undefined wide.

I believe, based on the description of the "line" area of effect, that the spell is not narrow. A spell that narrow would be stopped when it hit something, which is a ray, not a line. A line spell is ten feet wide. Lightning Bolt probably creates either a bolt that branches out to everything in its path, or a vortex of intertwined bolts.

[Tvtyrant]

If you used a system like Go where you positioned yourself where the lines hit I could see it, but the wall seems like it would take up its own space.

[Pickford]

I'd like to get the community's opinion on a rule interpretation. Can you cast a Wall of Force between two creatures standing side be side? The description states that intervening objects or creatures cause the spell to fail.

My GM interprets that to mean that the creatures inhabit the square they're in "wall to wall," and there is no space in between, so you can't cast the spell to split them up.

For example, you have a 15-foot wide corridor. Three bad guys are at the far end. the mage casts Wall of Force down the corridor between enemies #2 and #3, effectively cutting one of them off for a few rounds, so we can fight two, rather than 3, bad guys.

The GM says no: there is no space between them, therefore there is no place to put the wall of force that wouldn't occupy a creature's square, so the spell fails.

This interpretation goes against my opinion about how the spell should operate, but I'd like to get more expert opinion. Thoughts?

The spell block clears this up:


Effect: Wall whose area is up to one 10-ft. square/level

If you don't have space to thunk down even one 10-ft. wall, you can't cast the spell.

[Stegyre]

The spell block clears this up:



If you don't have space to thunk down even one 10-ft. wall, you can't cast the spell.
What? The very language you quote ". . . up to . . . " makes clear that this is not a minimum space limitation. This necessarily allows one to make the wall any size less than 10' square per level.

[Deophaun]

If you don't have space to thunk down even one 10-ft. wall, you can't cast the spell.
First of all: up to. So it can be less.

Second: square. Not cube, so it doesn't answer wether a verticle wall can be placed between two adjacent creatures.

[limejuicepowder]

If you don't have space to thunk down even one 10-ft. wall, you can't cast the spell.

There's nothing to suggest that you can't use less then the total amount - in fact, this description says the opposite: up to a 10 foot square/level. Just because you gain wall size in units of 10x10 squares doesn't mean you can't make a smaller wall then that.

[Pickford]

First of all: up to. So it can be less.

Second: square. Not cube, so it doesn't answer wether a verticle wall can be placed between two adjacent creatures.

You are misreading that: It's up to one (i.e. a single unit) 10-ft wall. That means the wall only increases in units of 10 feet.

edit: Further clarification: I understand what you're saying, but to read that way it would have to say the following:

"A wall whose area is up to 10-ft/level."

Instead by saying:

"A wall whose area is up to one 10-ft square/level." it sets the minimum unit size at a 10-ft square.

[Smallberries]

Ok, No one has really answered the question I originally raised.

The question before the court is this:

XX


@

The X's are both bad guys. The @ is Our Hero. Can @ put a wall of force between the two X's ?

My GM says no. I disagree. I'd like to take the temperature of the room and see if I'm on the right side of this or not.

[Totema]

The spell gives you the option to create the wall as a plane. Planes have no thickness. Ergo, yes you should be able to separate the enemies this way.

[limejuicepowder]

"A wall whose area is up to 10-ft/level."

Instead by saying:

"A wall whose area is up to one 10-ft square/level." it sets the minimum unit size at a 10-ft square.

The only difference between those two sentences is "square." How is one to be interpreted to have infinite variability in size, up to a maximum, and the other to only work at fixed increments?

Also, 10-ft/level would be a line of force, not a wall of force, as there's no second dimension to define it's space.

As for the original question: Your DM is nuts, and I suspect he's trying to nerf the tactic. With a rare exception, creature do not take up their whole space and thus the wall may be created between two creatures.

[Stegyre]

Ok, No one has really answered the question I originally raised.

The question before the court is this:

XX


@

The X's are both bad guys. The @ is Our Hero. Can @ put a wall of force between the two X's ?

My GM says no. I disagree. I'd like to take the temperature of the room and see if I'm on the right side of this or not.
Mikeavelli answered it in post #3; Totema, shortly thereafter. My sense is that, from the community's perspective (with the exception of Pickford, who has a "unique" reading of the rules), this is a trivial question: yes, of course you can put a Force Wall between two characters. What you can't do is use a forcewall to, say, cut off somebody's arm, or bisect an object, or separate grappling characters.

All of that said, public opinion only gets you so far. Your GM's decision is the rule at your table, even if everyone else here would let it fly. (Indeed, divide-and-conquer seems like it would be a classic use of Wall of Force.)

[Deophaun]

You are misreading that: It's up to one (i.e. a single unit) 10-ft wall. That means the wall only increases in units of 10 feet.
I interpret it as the wall is only measured in 10-ft-sq units. So if you made a wall that was 40 feet long and five feet high, it would count as 4 units, not 2. I don't see how the text mandates that the wall itself take up full units, and it would create a strange quirk of engineering where only passages with a multiple of 10ft. Wide can be blocked by a wall of force.

[HaikenEdge]

Maybe I'm bad at English, but my understanding of "Up to" is that it defines a maximum, not a minimum.

[nyjastul69]

As a DM I would rule that those creatures could be separated by the wall. It has 0 thickness and isn't passing through either creatures square.

[Aquillion]

I don't see how the text mandates that the wall itself take up full units, and it would create a strange quirk of engineering where only passages with a multiple of 10ft. Wide can be blocked by a wall of force.Now I'm picturing a D&D-universe dungeon engineer reading this and scratching his head. "Whaaa...? Passages not measured in multiples of 10 feet? This guy doesn't understand basic engineering!"

Or a lich trying to explain to the engineer how he wants his throne room to be built.

LICH: "Alright, so we need a 5-foot-wide passage over here."

ENGINEER: "Right, a 10-foot wide--"

LICH: "No, five feet wide."

ENGINEER: "Yeah, I hear you, ten feet wide."

LICH: "F-I-V--"

ENGINEER: "Yeah, I know! T-E-"

LICH: "Finger of death. There, now let's see these plans, I'll just pick them up and pencil in a five foot... oh dammit what's wrong with my fingers?"

(Or maybe "Sorry, gotta have at least ten feet of clearance in all directions. Dungeon Cartographer's Union regulations.")

[Smallberries]

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I don't think I'll be able to bring my GM on board but I'll give it a college try. Thanks again :)

[CombatOwl]

I'd like to get the community's opinion on a rule interpretation. Can you cast a Wall of Force between two creatures standing side be side? The description states that intervening objects or creatures cause the spell to fail.

My GM interprets that to mean that the creatures inhabit the square they're in "wall to wall," and there is no space in between, so you can't cast the spell to split them up.

For example, you have a 15-foot wide corridor. Three bad guys are at the far end. the mage casts Wall of Force down the corridor between enemies #2 and #3, effectively cutting one of them off for a few rounds, so we can fight two, rather than 3, bad guys.

The GM says no: there is no space between them, therefore there is no place to put the wall of force that wouldn't occupy a creature's square, so the spell fails.

This interpretation goes against my opinion about how the spell should operate, but I'd like to get more expert opinion. Thoughts?

walls of force are drawn on edges. You can run a wall right alongside a creature, along one edge of their position. Yes, you can put a wall of force between two adjacent creatures. What you cannot do is put the wall in a way that would literally bisect the creature.

[Spore]

The wall is flat, ergo a two dimensional plane. It HAS not thickness:


The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level. The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.

You can define flat in several ways (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flat), but it's also "broad in relative to thickness or depth.

[Stegyre]

Isn't there a Mitchell and Webb sketch like that: Evil Overlord's lair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipaf-NXqF7Q).

[Abithrios]

Ok, No one has really answered the question I originally raised.

The question before the court is this:

XX


@

The X's are both bad guys. The @ is Our Hero. Can @ put a wall of force between the two X's ?

My GM says no. I disagree. I'd like to take the temperature of the room and see if I'm on the right side of this or not.

X|X
That seems legal.

X\X
or
X/X
These I would not allow.

[zlefin]

I would say you can, in general.
But if the creatures both occupy the same square, I'd say there's no clear way to separate them.
There might also be other bases on which to disallow it depending on situation. If they're moving around enough, or carrying gear wide enough, that might interfere with the spell.
If they're in a tight formation, like a phalanx, I'd disallow it.

They could also have a small string attaching them which would prevent it. Haha, using a piece of string to prevent force walls from separating, that's an amusing defense.

[Thanatosia]

Or maybe the monsters just like each other and are holding hands.

[Dalebert]

Yes, you can do it.


The wall is flat, ergo a two dimensional plane. It HAS not thickness:

That's my interpretation. If you want to interpret it mathematically, area refers to two dimensions as opposed to volume which refers to three. But even by the way it reads, that's clearly what it means:


The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level.

It's flat meaning you can't zig-zag the wall, like into a half-box shape around the creature. It's a 10 ft by 10 ft square (NOT cube) and you can connect these squares side by side to form a tall, wide, but thin wall. The "up to" means you can form the thin wall out of fewer squares to fit it into a smaller space, but the wall has no thickness.

To further back up this interpretation, look at other wall spells. They almost always tell you how thick the wall can be when thickness is an issue.


Or maybe the monsters just like each other and are holding hands.

That's adorable. :)

[Bullet06320]

I always imagined walls of force similar to the force fields in startrek that can be used to block the halls and decks and bulkheads in the starships.

with that in mind, it would seem reasonable that walls of force would or could be formed along the edge of a square as by RAW have no thickness, and could be used to cut off enemies in the manner the op described.

I'd allow it just fine, and have done the same thing, but then again I like lightning bolts in this situation, they act as hallway clearers, lol

[Zweisteine]

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I don't think I'll be able to bring my GM on board but I'll give it a college try. Thanks again :)

My previous post presented a few useful arguments.