Cruel Use of Wall of Force

[VoxRationis]

Looking at the description for wall of force, I found that it is described as a "plane." As in a two-dimensional figure. As in having no thickness.

This makes it the sharpest blade in existence.

If you place the wall parallel to your enemy's path rather than perpendicular to it, you can trick him into running onto a sub-atomic invisible blade. The wall is immovable and indestructible by use of physical force, so it doesn't bend, blunt, deform, or move backwards with it. It is an immovable object sharper than the finest scalpel, sharper than an obsidian knife, sharper than anything.

This could only end badly for the thing running into it.

Now, I know you can probably find a better use for that spell slot, but come on, instant bisection of any foe, so long as they are running forward—you gotta love that.

[HunterOfJello]

Sounds a lot like deathgates from Wheel of Time. They were rectangular teleportation portals that could be moved around so that they teleported half of a person to one location and left the other half where they were standing.

~~~~

The cruelest use of Wall of Force that i've seen was using Celerity + Wall of Force in front of an airplane that was flying at full speed.

[jindra34]

Its also completely 100% subject to DM adjucation, and therefore completely unreliable.

[ericgrau]

It must be vertical. It's a plane but not an ideal geometric plane.

It is invisible so you can get people to smack into it. By RAW you can have high speed moving objects slam into it, such as getting a space ship and putting it in the path of a planet to effectively get a nuke+volcano. But first you need your space ship and then the DM's going to say, no, that's a bit too much. After all if an epic prestige class can break it than so can a planet. And technically there's no RAW effect for slamming an undamageable object into another at high speed either.

[HaikenEdge]

RAW says:


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.

So, the suggested application is not possible within RAW, though a lenient DM might allow it, though since physics rules don't apply to D&D anyways...

[Invader]

Where is it said that a plane can't have thickness?

[Jack_Simth]

Looking at the description for wall of force, I found that it is described as a "plane." As in a two-dimensional figure. As in having no thickness.

This makes it the sharpest blade in existence.

If you place the wall parallel to your enemy's path rather than perpendicular to it, you can trick him into running onto a sub-atomic invisible blade. The wall is immovable and indestructible by use of physical force, so it doesn't bend, blunt, deform, or move backwards with it. It is an immovable object sharper than the finest scalpel, sharper than an obsidian knife, sharper than anything.

This could only end badly for the thing running into it.

Now, I know you can probably find a better use for that spell slot, but come on, instant bisection of any foe, so long as they are running forward—you gotta love that.
You're attempting to apply real-world physics to D&D. Now, there's a couple of problems:

1) The effect happens along the grid. You can't place the wall such that an edge is in the middle of a square. Trouble is, people run along the grid, so it'd have to be a Large or larger critter to have any effect in that regard.
2) You're trying to use mathmatical terms and real-world physics to extrapolate what might happen in game mechanics terms. Clearly, you're looking for a variation on pink mist... however, there's no particular reason why a "a flat, vertical plane" has to be the infinitely-thin math variety. It could, say, be more like 1 mm thick glass. Or 1 cm thick. Or 1/4th of an inch. Or 1/pi inches thick. Not so thick that most people will care about the distinction, but thick enough that it's not going to have the knife-like effect.

So really, it's completely up to the DM at the table as to what happens.

[VoxRationis]

Its also completely 100% subject to DM adjucation, and therefore completely unreliable.

It is true that it relies on the DM agreeing with one's interpretation of the spell, but I think my interpretation follows pretty soundly. It is a little cheesy, but follows logically. Let's take a poll: How many people think this is a viable way to use wall of force?

Edit: Oh wow, that's a lot of people that responded while I was typing that. One moment while I process these new opinions.

[Qwertystop]

Only if they're running fast enough to produce enough force to break all their bits across the edge. More likely they get a very bad wound. Whether it's fatal (or whether anything is amputated) depends on where it hits and how fast they're going, but it's probably not going to completely bisect them unless they're going pretty quick.

Doesn't matter if you drop a cleaver into an apple or an apple onto a cleaver, it'll only go so far before it stops. The energy to break things still has to come from somewhere.

[VoxRationis]

Where did I say it wasn't vertical? Imagine that the dragon or whatever is traveling from the top of this page to the bottom of this page, where the point of view of the reader is "up." You're a bird.

Most people would try to block the dragon by placing a wall of force like this:

__________________________________________________ _________________

I'm advocating putting it like this:
|
|
|
|
Still vertical, just rotated 90 degrees on a vertical axis.
Wall spells that create walls with thickness generally say so as part of the spell description.

[Manly Man]

I once had a series of Walls of Force appear to make a section of the dungeon that functioned as a cage, and immediately inside of it with only a six-inch space between the two was an antimagic field. I managed to trap the party's spellcasters in there, except for the Paladin, leaving him and the team Rogue to deal with five other bad guys on their own.

[VoxRationis]

Only if they're running fast enough to produce enough force to break all their bits across the edge. More likely they get a very bad wound. Whether it's fatal (or whether anything is amputated) depends on where it hits and how fast they're going, but it's probably not going to completely bisect them unless they're going pretty quick.

Doesn't matter if you drop a cleaver into an apple or an apple onto a cleaver, it'll only go so far before it stops. The energy to break things still has to come from somewhere.

But it stops because there's friction against the blade by the flesh of the apple. There's no friction against a plane of massless force, either against the edge or the side of the plane. The sharper a blade, the more easily it cuts with a given force. This is—assuming you accept my reading of the word "plane," and that's not the objection I'm addressing right at the moment—a blade of infinite sharpness, and therefore cuts infinitely more easily with a given force.

[Invader]

Isn't it a bit of munchkinery to say a vertical plane turned 90 degrees is just that and not a horizontal plane?

[Qwertystop]

Isn't it a bit of munchkinery to say a vertical plane turned 90 degrees is just that and not a horizontal plane?

It's not turned away from verticalness. It's still vertical, just pointed so the edge is toward the enemy instead of the flat bit.

[Invader]

It's not turned away from verticalness. It's still vertical, just pointed so the edge is toward the enemy instead of the flat bit.

Ahh I see now

[EugeneVoid]

No, what they mean by plane is an airplane.

[Leviting]

can you move a wall of force? Because if you can, you could just violently drop a sharp edge on one enemy, then slide it across the battlefield through all his friends.

[Melville's Book]

If it is truly subatomically thin, it's entirely possible for the blade to slice through them without actually causing a noticeable amount of damage. Sure, it slices through them just fine, but it's more likely to break a few chemical bonds than actually sever a significant amount of mass.

[HaikenEdge]

Again, real-world physics doesn't apply to D&D; otherwise, the commoner railgun would be one of the most powerful weapons in the game.

[Melville's Book]

Again, real-world physics doesn't apply to D&D; otherwise, the commoner railgun would be one of the most powerful weapons in the game.

The rules say that physics apply unless contradicted by a rule. Would you like a book and page number?

(As an aside, Commoner Railgun works in theory but what you end up with doesn't have statted damage so wouldn't really do anything besides being flashy. Remember, we have had four completely filled threads about why RAW doesn't make sense)

[Khatoblepas]

A Wall of Force has a thickness of one inch. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/obstacles.htm)

[Jack_Simth]

But it stops because there's friction against the blade by the flesh of the apple. There's no friction against a plane of massless force, either against the edge or the side of the plane. The sharper a blade, the more easily it cuts with a given force. This is—assuming you accept my reading of the word "plane," and that's not the objection I'm addressing right at the moment—a blade of infinite sharpness, and therefore cuts infinitely more easily with a given force.How do you come to the conclusion that there is no friction involved? Friction is not just caused by physical irregularities. Magnetic fields, for instance, have loss in their energy exchanges.

That said, even if I were to grant that the plane is infinitely thin, and if I were to grant that it's frictionless (I wouldn't grant you either, were I DM'ing this scenario), there's still an energy potential increase involved in breaking all those bonds. That will eat up energy, which will slow the critter down and limit the damage. And, of course, the critter (in taking damage) knows it, and should get a reflex save (at a minimum) to stop early.

The exact effect is ridiculously DM-dependant. If I were being generous, I'd make it 1d6/10 feet of remaining planned movement, reflex DC (your 5th level spell save DC) half.

[Urpriest]

Isn't it a bit of munchkinery to say a vertical plane turned 90 degrees is just that and not a horizontal plane?

The post you're looking at is a bird's eye view. Does that clarify things?

[Qwertystop]

A Wall of Force has a thickness of one inch. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/obstacles.htm)

I like how that chart list's paper's typical thickness as "Paper-thin".

[VoxRationis]

If it is truly subatomically thin, it's entirely possible for the blade to slice through them without actually causing a noticeable amount of damage. Sure, it slices through them just fine, but it's more likely to break a few chemical bonds than actually sever a significant amount of mass.

If you sever the "few chemical bonds" connecting one half of the being to the other, it will fall apart and bleed out. The thinness of the cut will not change how thoroughly it is bisected. I'm not sure entirely what you mean by this objection; could you please clarify so I may address it more thoroughly?

[VoxRationis]

A Wall of Force has a thickness of one inch. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/obstacles.htm)

Whoops.

Sorry about that; I hadn't seen that table since I (almost exclusively) play low-level games. I guess that makes it a lot less useful in that regard. It would probably still work well against ships, though.

And no, you can't move the wall of force.

[Mootsmcboots]

So I am not math savvy however;

You're opening sentence kind of settles out the argument, especially as you're using a "plane" in the mathematical sense, as in a 2D surface.

"Looking at the description for wall of force, I found that it is described as a "plane." As in a two-dimensional figure. As in having no thickness."

If an object has no thickness, as in 0 thickness, not like paper thin, which still has thickness, but actually 0 thickness.... Then what is cutting me?

It would pass right through me no? So you are describing the object in it's 2d mathematical sense, but if it's thick/thin enough on the edges to cut someone then it is no longer a 2d object, as it has just been given a thickness.

Even still, as a mind boggling thin 3d object, it's sharpness isn't the only concern. How does the wall stop force? As a solid object like sheet metal? Or does it absorb force the way kevlar does? Not all thin things are good for cutting, and not all objects that absorb force effectively do so equally from all sides.

I can run straight into the edge of a piece of paper, it's thinner than the blade of my kitchen knives....but the paper is just going to crumple. So if the wall of force's ability to absorb impact isn't equal on all sides, then perhaps I run into it edge on and it breaks, bends, fold etc.

[VoxRationis]

Well, firstly, the wall of force can't crumple; you'll see that's one of the reasons I mentioned this would have the effect I predicted (though it seems I missed the epic rules table that listed it as having a thickness of 1 inch; let's assume for the time of my addressing your concerns that it is infinitely thin, however).
When you apply a paper-thin object to your flesh in such a way that it can't bend away or crumple easily, it leaves a rather nasty cut, if you'll recall. You usually aren't running against such an object so much as scraping along it, however, plus the paper has physical limits to its durability, so the cut won't work like I've mentioned earlier.
And yes, the wall isn't like a physical object, as it can't be, since it has no thickness. (This "isn't like a physical object" is also where I got the idea of it being frictionless, by the way.) The wall also doesn't have mass; it just exists. A plane of a certain length and width is impassable. Well, if that's the case, a certain amount of you, infinitely small, is barred from moving forward parallel to the wall, and the splitting of the molecular bonds so that amount of you can move around the wall is less energetically intensive than the effort to prevent the entire mass of you from continuing forward. Hence, you split into two pieces.
This is also why I'm assuming the target is running; it doesn't work if the target can check their movement properly.
As for the earlier argument that the target should be able to pull back once they notice they're getting damaged: This would require that they can notice the damage, interpret how to stop it, and check their movement before the wall gets the few inches it needs to in order to inflict lethal organ trauma, while traveling at a speed of 20 feet a second or more. How quickly can YOU stop running?
Again, it's a moot point, since apparently it has a thickness of 1 inch; thank you, forums, for pointing this out to me.:smallredface:

[Namfuak]

If you sever the "few chemical bonds" connecting one half of the being to the other, it will fall apart and bleed out. The thinness of the cut will not change how thoroughly it is bisected. I'm not sure entirely what you mean by this objection; could you please clarify so I may address it more thoroughly?

I think his argument is that the disruption is so thin it will only cause damage for the microseconds it takes for the molecules making up the body to come back together. As you likely know, most of any "body" is empty space. If our hypothetical wall of force has a side area of infinite smallness, it has a pretty decent chance of passing through the body without even knocking an electron off-course, let alone bisecting it as you mention.

[Jack_Simth]

I think his argument is that the disruption is so thin it will only cause damage for the microseconds it takes for the molecules making up the body to come back together. As you likely know, most of any "body" is empty space. If our hypothetical wall of force has a side area of infinite smallness, it has a pretty decent chance of passing through the body without even knocking an electron off-course, let alone bisecting it as you mention.
If that's the argument, then it fails for a Wall of Force - because continuing past the edge of the Wall causes problems - things can't go through the wall from one side to the other, so heat vibration would do most the splitting... plus, of course, the 'little' issue of things like blood not getting from one side to the other, and the pressure of that causing separations and things.

It would be a solid argument for an infinitely fine monofilament whip, but doesn't work for a Wall of Force.

[Genth]

If you sever the "few chemical bonds" connecting one half of the being to the other, it will fall apart and bleed out. The thinness of the cut will not change how thoroughly it is bisected. I'm not sure entirely what you mean by this objection; could you please clarify so I may address it more thoroughly?

Well, for one, chemical bonds aren't like little bits of string connecting two molecules together, it's a bond of force, usually electromagnetism, electron-sharing, or one of the nuclear forces. Since the plane is invisible, it permits photons (of at least some wavelengths), and electrons (otherwise I THINK you'd see cherenkov radiation glowing around it) and therefore electromagnetic force/covalent bonds to pass through it, and so the plane should have no effect on it.

It really depends on which 'force' it is. Glass, for example, prevents you from moving through it because the electromagnetic force around the atoms repels the atoms in your hand. Logically, therefore, the 'force' is electromagnetic. But since it's 'infinitely thin' in your description, the electromagnetic field is very strong, but tiny, and shouldn't be able to force apart the molecules in your body enough to cause bifurcation.

[VoxRationis]

So you are suggesting that someone impaled on this wall would just sit there, unaffected, once they stopped moving? An interesting argument.
I would think, however, that that would mean you just get a lot of goop stuck on the wall. Between random vibrations, muscle contractions, asymmetrical gaits, etc., the target will move such that the molecules that first get impaled wouldn't be the closest to it, ideally, but the impaled molecules would still "want" to be closer together, and the target would then start to tear itself apart.

[nyjastul69]

So you are suggesting that someone impaled on this wall would just sit there, unaffected, once they stopped moving? An interesting argument.
I would think, however, that that would mean you just get a lot of goop stuck on the wall. Between random vibrations, muscle contractions, asymmetrical gaits, etc., the target will move such that the molecules that first get impaled wouldn't be the closest to it, ideally, but the impaled molecules would still "want" to be closer together, and the target would then start to tear itself apart.

I would suggest that the creature falling on to the thin edge of the wall be shunted to one side, or the other. Wall of Force won't damage a creature in the way you suggest simply because it's not a stated effect of the spell.

[VoxRationis]

I would suggest that the creature falling on to the thin edge of the wall be shunted to one side, or the other. Wall of Force won't damage a creature in the way you suggest simply because it's not a stated effect of the spell.

Doesn't that seem like a very metagame-y solution, that things not explicitly stated in the spell description don't happen, even if they would make sense to happen, given other things in the spell description? Plant growth doesn't say that the increased fertility of plants can be used to feed more people, but it logically follows from increasing the yield of an area by 33%.

[zionpopsickle]

Vox, atomism doesn't exist in DnD. The material plane is composed of the classical elements as are all matter (for lack of a better word) in it. Thus, one does not cut things via the way normal physics works. In fact, given the nature of DnD (that of some type of neo-platonism) the thing that allows something to cut something is probably some quality of sharpness. Which probably also explains why a masterwork sword, which is presumably sharper than a normal sword does no more damage than a normal sword. In fact, numerous different materials don't change weapon damage despite the fact that swords made of such materials should have different cutting properties.

While real world physics do apply in situations where they are not precluded by the rules, the creators were simply so ignorant of physics that in reality nearly none of physics apply because they changed the fundamental rules of the universe from which physics are derived.

[VoxRationis]

I was referring to atomic theory in defense against an argument that itself relied on it; my initial idea doesn't rely on it, since you don't need to know about atomic theory to know about cutting things, nor to know that thinner things make better blades, assuming they don't blunt or break.

[nedz]

I think we may have all seen a WoF used against a fast moving, flying or charging, opponent; but normally not edge on.

You could have a large creature charging down a 10' wide corridor. You place a WoF in the middle of the corridor but this just stops the charge as the creature is forced to squeeze. By the laws of physics, and the rule of funny, the creature should take some damage — but that's a DM call, not RAW.

Force Cages have sharp corners which you could probably weaponise too, but again that's Rule 0.

[zionpopsickle]

I was referring to atomic theory in defense against an argument that itself relied on it; my initial idea doesn't rely on it, since you don't need to know about atomic theory to know about cutting things, nor to know that thinner things make better blades, assuming they don't blunt or break.

Vox, making things thinner literally doesn't make better blades in D&D. In fact, many things that make blades thinner (decreases in size for example) do the opposite.

This is what you (and to be fair many people) don't seem to get. When you change the fundamental forces of physics to work in different ways then the entirety of our modern physics just gets thrown out the window and we have to re-derive physics from what we observe in the game instead of what we know to be true in the real world.

[VoxRationis]

Please stop addressing your posts consistently with the first half of my forum-name; it sounds patronizing.

And things like reduced weapon damage at small sizes are due to things that don't apply to a wall of force, like mass considerations, the possibility of the weapon blunting or breaking before the thing it hits does, or being forced back by the momentum of the thing coming against it, or friction, or anything. The wall of force has a simplicity from not being a physical object that makes it take a basic idea (sharper edge=better cut, all else being equal) and move it to extremes that other considerations would prevent, were it a physical object.

[zionpopsickle]

Again, VoxRationis, the physics for how cutting things works in D&D do not work the way they work in real life, thus you cannot apply real life considerations.

Assuming that sharper edge=better cutting is simply not something we can assume in D&D without finding some rules support that suggests that there are ways to better sharpen a blade and thus increase its cutting ability.

To repeat my previous assertion, the four fundamental physical forces of our universe do not exist in the same way in the D&D universe and thus all of the physics we derive in our universe do not apply to D&D.

For some basic examples, D&D is purely Newtonian as several spells can allow us to break General Relativity. Causality operates differently. Light operates differently (from lighting rules). Atoms and molecules don't exist, things are made of earth, air, fire and water. I can go on.

If you know physics you can see why such changes basically throw out all our modern assumptions of how things work.

[Keneth]

The wall actually does have a thickness, so this argument is pointless. Even if you had a dragon charging at the 1 inch thick plane of force at 1250 ft. per round (142 miles per hour) with its enormous mass, there are simply no rules to determine how much damage that would do, not to mention that there's no such thing as bifurcation. Unless the rules say otherwise damage is just damage, no matter how sharp the sword.

[Sir Chuckles]

Please stop addressing your posts consistently with the first half of my forum-name; it sounds patronizing.

And things like reduced weapon damage at small sizes are due to things that don't apply to a wall of force, like mass considerations, the possibility of the weapon blunting or breaking before the thing it hits does, or being forced back by the momentum of the thing coming against it, or friction, or anything. The wall of force has a simplicity from not being a physical object that makes it take a basic idea (sharper edge=better cut, all else being equal) and move it to extremes that other considerations would prevent, were it a physical object.

Rationis, you're attempting to apply shaky physics to a game. Sometimes that can work, but in this it turns to DM fiat. There are some abilities that throw enemies into walls to do damage, but nothing there changes whether the obstacle is a cliff, wall, pane of glass, or even 1in thick wall of immovable force.

The basic idea behind it could would if the DM agreed to it, but it's a bit of a stretch that borders on disrupting the game, if you try to explain it.

[VoxRationis]

You can apply physics unless the rules say otherwise, I believe it was mentioned previously.
That said, yes, this argument is pointless; I acknowledge it as such. I did not see a part of the rules which invalidated my interpretation. I acknowledge that. Problem solved, argument over, thread done.

[Erik Vale]

I don't really support this, as even were it infinitely thin, it'd be only capable of stopping movement of molecules accross the barrier, so you'd need to hold them... 'through' the wall until such time as they... Their leg's die due to lack of oxygen and start rotting?

However for the anti-atomic argument, it does in pathfinder [there's some creature who, if it kills others with it's breath, dissolves things into neutrons, electrons and protons, which physics wise should cause a rather lethal radiation burst though nuclear explosion was decided against], and I think WoF exists in PF.
Were WoF infinitely thin [it's not] and you did this in PF, you could argue as such for occasionally causing Nuclear Fission in targets, which would cause a undefined amount of damage.

[VoxRationis]

Undefined but small. The amount of fission released by the random intersection of an infinitely thin plane with nuclei (which are unbelievably small even in comparison to their respective atoms) would be low, and not enough to cause a chain reaction unless the creature in question were entirely composed of some high-atomic-number isotope (and maybe not even then). But again, my initial argument did not rely on atomic theory, and again, the argument is pointless, since by the rules, the wall is an inch thick.

[Captnq]

And a thousand cat girls cried out and were suddenly silenced.

The only rules covering what you are talking about was from D&D immortals boxed set page 12 of the DM's Guide to Immortals:


Unusual Dimensional Effects
A one-dimensional object or plane has
length, but no width (direction) nor depth
(volume). If a two-dimensional being is
struck by the edge of a one-dimensional
object, it may be sliced in half. This effect is
the same as described for a weapon with slicing
ability—the victim must make a successful
unmodified saving throw vs. Death Ray
or lose half his hit points. However, a being
who exists in three or more dimensions is
completely unaffected by being struck by a
one-dimensional object or plane, and is also
unable to affect it by physical means. The
creature's two remaining dimensions bind
the figure together against the severing force.
For example, a normal human adventurer
who discovers a monospacial plane or object
can reach through it, but cannot grasp it.
An identical effect occurs if an object or
plane limited to two-dimensional existence
strikes a three-dimensional being, but only if
an edge is contacted.

That's your answer. You have to go back in time to 1986 to get it. Call up Michael J Fox and maybe you can hitch a ride in Doc Brown's Delorean.

[Deophaun]

As you likely know, most of any "body" is empty space. If our hypothetical wall of force has a side area of infinite smallness, it has a pretty decent chance of passing through the body without even knocking an electron off-course, let alone bisecting it as you mention.
This assumes two things:

The first is the completely improbable scenario where the wall and the trajectory of the creature are perfectly parallel throughout the duration of their contact. Otherwise, the wall of force will wedge the two halves apart; imperceptibly so if you did a good job positioning it. Only in carefully controlled laboratory conditions could you hope to avoid that.

The second is that you need to hit an electron or nucleus to have an impact. You don't. You just need to block the transit of force carrier particles from one side of the wall to the other, which would mean that any and all relationships between the two halves stop. One of these force carriers is the electron. If electrons cannot pass from one side of the wall to the other, then all chemical bonds across it cease to exist.

[Genth]

Electrons CAN cross the barrier, clearly, since there's no Cherenkov radiation from electrons being suddenly and violently stopped.

[cakellene]

An issue with orientation you want, is the ends of wal have to be anchored and can't just be in middle of nowhere, IIRC.

[Erik Vale]

Ok, so far we've established, if you could, you would only halve their hit points no save and cause whatever effects would happen due to a halving of their body, but they could rejoin their body to end the effect relatively easily.

It seems it would take a high level spell, and be mostly useless.

[boxfox]

I skipped everything after "A wall of force is 1 inch thick." because that rule breaks the original argument. However, I would argue that you can still use it to kill a Kraken. The Kraken's Jet ability propels it backward at 280 feet per second. That's roughly 190 mph. As a spell caster, you can determine the orientation of any wall spells you cast (either inherently or by moving to the correct angle to get the wall positioned correctly), so that isn't even up for discussion.
The point is, anything made of flesh and bones is going to lethally sever itself if it hits a 1 inch thick immovable wall going 190 miles an hour...a car would get split in two.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/04/the_ferrari_that_split_in_half.html

So, at least in this one case, the original theory is 100% correct.

[Dr. Cliché]

I skipped everything after "A wall of force is 1 inch thick." because that rule breaks the original argument. However, I would argue that you can still use it to kill a Kraken. The Kraken's Jet ability propels it backward at 280 feet per second. That's roughly 190 mph. As a spell caster, you can determine the orientation of any wall spells you cast (either inherently or by moving to the correct angle to get the wall positioned correctly), so that isn't even up for discussion.
The point is, anything made of flesh and bones is going to lethally sever itself if it hits a 1 inch thick immovable wall going 190 miles an hour...a car would get split in two.

Would you even need to have the wall flat-on though?

I'm pretty sure going 190mph into an immovable wall would be just as fatal. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

Actually, a kraken's jet propels him 280 feet per six seconds (32 mph). So, as mentioned above, a gold dragon using the run action while flying for 1250 ft. in a round is a better scenario. I can't quite remember if that works in 3.5 (it does in PF). Obviously there are faster methods of movement, that's just the easiest one for me to imagine.

It's probably lethal, or it would be if there were any rules regarding crashing into immovable objects at speed. You could try falling damage, it's got roughly equivalent speed, but it caps out at 20d6 regardless of mass or acceleration. And like I said, even if you could somehow calculate damage, unless the rules specifically say otherwise, damage is always gonna be just damage, regardless of how high it is or how sharp the weapon.

[Zrak]

Doesn't that seem like a very metagame-y solution, that things not explicitly stated in the spell description don't happen, even if they would make sense to happen, given other things in the spell description? Plant growth doesn't say that the increased fertility of plants can be used to feed more people, but it logically follows from increasing the yield of an area by 33%.

On the other hand, fire spells that don't specifically state they ignite flammable objects don't ignite flammable objects. The way I would think about it is that magic produces no effects and makes no changes aside from those listed in the description. Unless it says the magical ice makes the ground slippery, it doesn't; unless it says the additional plants grown differ in any way from the existing plants, they don't. As such, cone of cold can't double as grease, but plant growth would grow additional food if used on edible plants.

[Deophaun]

Electrons CAN cross the barrier, clearly, since there's no Cherenkov radiation from electrons being suddenly and violently stopped.
So an orb of electricity is not blocked by a wall of force?

Edit: And reading up on Cherenkov radiation, I don't see how it applies here, as it seems to have nothing to do with electrons stopping, and everything to do with electrons exceeding the phase velocity of light.

[VoxRationis]

Replying to captnq: What about cat girls? Is this a meme with which I am unfamiliar or something?

Replying to cakellene: You don't recall correctly; the anchoring thing is for wall of stone.

Replying to Erik Vale: I don't think we've established that. Being cut in half, unless you're an ooze, does not mean simply halving your current hit point total. People depend on having both halves of them attached to one another. Only cartoon characters and certain simple organisms can be split in half and function perfectly well as those two separate halves.

Replying to boxfox: Well, your use of falling damage at least allows us to figure out what collision damage at high speeds means. I remember something in the DMG being about how one falls 100 feet the first round (for 10d6 damage) and 300 every round thereafter (any of those 100 foot sections would bring that up to the maximum of 20d6), so anyone traveling at 200 feet/round or so should take maximum falling damage if they suddenly collide with something. The kraken should take 20d6 damage as a minimum when it hits the wall of force at any angle and then things like sharpness come into it.

[Dalebert]

I like how that chart list's paper's typical thickness as "Paper-thin".

Yeah. That's like saying the thickness of a wall is "wall-thin". It's technically correct and yet provides no useful information.

[ben-zayb]

Yeah. That's like saying the thickness of a wall is "wall-thin". It's technically correct and yet provides no useful information.Technically, it works. The table lists WALL thickness, so you can't say a wooden wall is wood-thick because there's no standard wood thickness but paper contextually does.

[Qwertystop]

Technically, it works. The table lists WALL thickness, so you can't say a wooden wall is wood-thick because there's no standard wood thickness but paper contextually does.

Yes, but paper can be a variety of thicknesses too - oaktag and tissue are both paper.

Also, if it's obvious-in-context, there's no reason for the entry to exist at all.

Considering that the sum total of the rest of the entry adds up to "any attempt to break it with anything will succeed unless fumbled horribly by someone a good bit weaker than average" and it's in a list nominally of "epic obstacles", the question of why it's listed remains.

[Sir Chuckles]

Yes, but paper can be a variety of thicknesses too - oaktag and tissue are both paper.

Also, if it's obvious-in-context, there's no reason for the entry to exist at all.

Considering that the sum total of the rest of the entry adds up to "any attempt to break it with anything will succeed unless fumbled horribly by someone a good bit weaker than average" and it's in a list nominally of "epic obstacles", the question of why it's listed remains.

Because paper blocks vision, and that's clearly an epic level challenge.

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, but paper can be a variety of thicknesses too - oaktag and tissue are both paper.

Also, if it's obvious-in-context, there's no reason for the entry to exist at all.

Considering that the sum total of the rest of the entry adds up to "any attempt to break it with anything will succeed unless fumbled horribly by someone a good bit weaker than average" and it's in a list nominally of "epic obstacles", the question of why it's listed remains.
Because Paper beats rock, obviously.

On a slightly more serious note:
My guess is 'because it's just a table, so it doesn't cost them much to list, and they were trying to be relatively thorough"

Besides: Paper walls are very useful mundane method for ruining the day of people making use of Find the Path.

[TuggyNE]

Because paper blocks vision, and that's clearly an epic level challenge.

There's NO SAVE. Do you know how OP that is? :smalleek:

[Sir Chuckles]

There's NO SAVE. Do you know how OP that is? :smalleek:

It scares me!
Think of the horrors the evil paper bag could do to a Wizard!

[Story]

There should be an epic Spot check for seeing through paper.

[nyjastul69]

Because paper blocks vision, and that's clearly an epic level challenge.

It blocks LoE too. Paper is nasty stuff. :smallwink:

[nedz]

I cast Magic Missile at the Paper !

[nyjastul69]

I cast Magic Missile at the Paper !

MM can't damage inanimate objects. :smalltongue:

[Sir Chuckles]

MM can't damage inanimate objects. :smalltongue:

But what if it's an animated object!

[nyjastul69]

But what if it's an animated object!

Those are valid targets. :smallbiggrin: So animated walls of paper should be wary.

[cakellene]

MM can't damage inanimate objects. :smalltongue:

That's what Awaken Paper is for.

[Deophaun]

That's what Awaken Paper is for.
A dissertation that defends itself!

[ben-zayb]

Yes, but paper can be a variety of thicknesses too - oaktag and tissue are both paper.

Also, if it's obvious-in-context, there's no reason for the entry to exist at all.

Considering that the sum total of the rest of the entry adds up to "any attempt to break it with anything will succeed unless fumbled horribly by someone a good bit weaker than average" and it's in a list nominally of "epic obstacles", the question of why it's listed remains.You have to take into consideration that D&D's minimum measure of length is expressed in terms of inches while paper thickness can't be strata'd by that measure; on the contrary, the caliper used to measure paper thickness is expressed in thousandths of an inch. That's probably why paper in general is classified based on weight.:smallwink:

And obviously a wall of paper is an epic obstacle because its microscopic-level sharpness can cause papercut vertically bifurcate anyone charging at it from the side.

[Abithrios]

In game, moving objects have a tendency to stop moving as soon as their reason, so if you run into an infinitely thin razor-like object of any sort, you can just stop moving, no matter how far you have traveled in the last six seconds.


As for the table, the message I am getting from it is that if you want to break through a wall of adamantine (without using power attack), you should magically treat it. This apparently changes the break DC from 66 to 20. This is why commoners are so overpowered--they can just buy a portable ram, and then they can simply muscle down magically treated walls of adamantine, even if they start with a strength as low as 6.

[Eaglejarl]

Let's take a poll: How many people think this is a viable way to use wall of force?


Not only do I think it works, I thought it worked several months ago when I wrote it in to chapter 8 of my 'fic. :smallsmile: (Link in sig if you're curious.)

My protagonist used a WoF as an industrial device. Sadly, it also became weaponized accidentally: someone fell into it. (The antagonists have per-se weaponized WoF, but that isn't shown until one of the most recent chapters.)

EDIT:
Also, for the record, I have several problems with the table that lists a thickness for WoF:

1) it's Epic Rules, which I consider to not exist.

2) it say "typically", meaning "not always" but gives no indication of variability (rules for varying the thickness of e.g. Wall of Stone are given elsewhere, so "typically" makes sense there).

3) "A flat vertical plane". A piece of glass 1" thick is not a *plane*, it is a *pane*; important difference. Leaving aside the "airplane" meaning, "plane" has a specific definition: a two dimensional object, completely flat, with no thickness. The table listing it with 1" thickness flies directly in the face of this definition, and I assert that the actual spell definition wins. A WoF has no thickness.


ObDisclaimer: this is what I see when I read the rules, and how I run my story / my table. If you see something else, then you should absolutely run your table differently.

[Sir Chuckles]

Not only do I think it works, I thought it worked several months ago when I wrote it in to chapter 8 of my 'fic. :smallsmile: (Link in sig if you're curious.)

My protagonist used a WoF as an industrial device. Sadly, it also became weaponized accidentally: someone fell into it. (The antagonists have per-se weaponized WoF, but that isn't shown until one of the most recent chapters.)

"a world that runs on very strict RAW" might be a lofty statement for that...

[Eaglejarl]

"a world that runs on very strict RAW" might be a lofty statement for that...

I was just editing my post to cover this when you posted. To respond:

The story works on the most accurate understanding of RAW that I can get. I've done a bunch of reading and anything I wasn't sure about I've run past the "3.5 by RAW" thread. Where there is an actual question of interpretation, then I do it the way I think is most consistent and most fun. Where there are actually words on the page *that lie within the ruleset I'm using*, then I will always follow the RAW. See chapter 10, where I list out my ruleset. Epic is explicitly stated as being outside that ruleset, so I don't feel bound by the table quoted earlier...which, as I say above, I have problems with anyway.

Long story short: yeah, I think it's pretty fair to say my world runs on strict RAW.

[Mootsmcboots]

I would still like to point out that because the wall absorbs force effectively on it's flat surface does not mean the edge has the same properties.

[Shining Wrath]

Where is it said that a plane can't have thickness?

Euclid's Elements.

[VoxRationis]

There's also no mention of any sort of force construct (in the core rules at least) that absorbs force less effectively from particular angles, so there's no reason to believe it would shatter or bend if you hit it on the edge.

[Shining Wrath]

I think everyone has missed the most obvious point here: Immovable Rods.

An IR is defined in SRD thus:

This rod is a flat iron bar with a small button on one end. When the button is pushed (a move action), the rod does not move from where it is, even if staying in place defies gravity. Thus, the owner can lift or place the rod wherever he wishes, push the button, and let go. Several immovable rods can even make a ladder when used together (although only two are needed). An immovable rod can support up to 8,000 pounds before falling to the ground. If a creature pushes against an immovable rod, it must make a DC 30 Strength check to move the rod up to 10 feet in a single round.

So, if you are being charged down a narrow hallway, place your IR pointing at the foe, activate it, and watch as they run headlong into something not dissimilar in shape to a spear.

Can you say charging damage? I knew you could! If I'm the DM, I give them a damage boost akin to bracing a spear (think "Braveheart"), except the immoveable rod won't move AT ALL - or bend, or point in a different direction.

I think 5D8 would be appropriate damage for a charging barbarian who ran into the narrow end of an immoveable rod. There was a "Lethal Weapon" movie where Danny Glover took a length of rebar to the BBEG; the effect is about the same.

[VoxRationis]

I always wondered why it was that Walls of Force are not stated as being immovable (indeed, logically, you should be able to overcome something made "of force" with a greater force) in their names but are in their descriptions, but Immovable Rods are specifically named as "immovable" but in fact can be moved with a Strength check.

[Shining Wrath]

But what if it's an animated object!

We know, per OotS, that there are tissue paper ghola (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0863.html).

[Worira]

"Golems". And no, we just know that someone made an analogy involving one.

[Aliek]

You could have some paper ceilings and use the ceiling damage rules instead of falling objects tough :smallbiggrin:
Can't quote the rule ATM since my google-fu isn't as shiny as it should, but I've seen it mentioned before!