settle an arguement please

[rrathnor]

i am a new dm and we are playing 3.5 d&D i have a friend playing a warmage and we have been arguing about this for days. he says if he casts prismatic wall and gets attacked directly that the wall's magic will attack the person attacking him. what he means is even if a character is already beyond the wall and hits him with any form of attack they will take damage from the wall.

how i see it is only if a person passes through the wall will they take damage, and if they try to attack him with range or magic through the wall, the attacks will be stopped but the person attacking will not be harmed unless he touches the wall. i know i am new to D&D and he is more experienced then me but i really thought i read it this way. am i just completely wrong here? or is he?

[Douglas]

Short version: You are right, your player is wrong.

Longer explanation: I can see how your player might reasonably have interpreted the wording that way, but it's on very shaky grounds and almost certainly not intended. The spell description states that the table lists the seven colors' "effects on creatures trying to attack you or pass through the wall". He's interpreting that as the entire quote referring to the entire table entry. The intended meaning, as I and everyone I've ever seen comment on it interpret it, is that it's a paired reference instead - the first part of the phrase refers to the first part of the table entry, and the second part of the phrase refers to the second part of the table entry.

[FireGriver]

The SRD say this in the description of the spell: "Each color in the wall has a special effect. The accompanying table shows the seven colors of the wall, the order in which they appear, their effects on creatures trying to attack you or pass through the wall, and the magic needed to negate each color."

It seems to me that if someone tries to pass the wall, every effect will trigger and the attacker would have to roll to save each effect for separated.

If somehow the attacker survives and end in the same side of the wall that the caster is, the attacker could attack the caster freely, without having to suffer the effects again, until he tries to move trough the wall again.

That beign said, if the caster is on one side of the wall and the attacker is on the other and tries to attack the caster, he or she will have to endure the effects even if it attacks with ranged or magic, not only melee.

[rrathnor]

okay thats how i thought he might be messing it up. basically to read it correctly would be "attacking you through the wall or passing through the wall" correct?

[rrathnor]

so to make sure .... attacking the caster directly, and not through the wall, will not cause a creature to take any damage from the spell?

[FireGriver]

Yes, the only thing I think you had wrong is this:


if they try to attack him with range or magic through the wall, the attacks will be stopped but the person attacking will not be harmed unless he touches the wall.

If someone attacks through the wall with magic or range, he or she will suffer the effects of the wall, and not only the attack will be stopped. The rest, is as you say.

[Crake]

It is worth noting that the prismatic wall is completely opaque, you can't see through it at all, so if you attack someone on the other side of the wall, you'd be attacking blindly. Also, for ranged attacks, only the projectile suffers the effect, by which i mean, it is just straight up blocked and destroyed by the first two or so layers iirc. You don't suffer the effects, because you aren't attacking through the wall, you're firing a projectile that is passing through the wall. I mean, sure technically you could argue that stance all you want, but that's a pretty silly RAW interpretation and would deserve it's own post in the raw disfunction thread.

[ATHATH]

It is worth noting that the prismatic wall is completely opaque, you can't see through it at all, so if you attack someone on the other side of the wall, you'd be attacking blindly. Also, for ranged attacks, only the projectile suffers the effect, by which i mean, it is just straight up blocked and destroyed by the first two or so layers iirc. You don't suffer the effects, because you aren't attacking through the wall, you're firing a projectile that is passing through the wall. I mean, sure technically you could argue that stance all you want, but that's a pretty silly RAW interpretation and would deserve it's own post in the raw disfunction thread.
Maybe the wall extends a multicolored tendril to thwack attackers?

[Douglas]

Yes, the only thing I think you had wrong is this:



If someone attacks through the wall with magic or range, he or she will suffer the effects of the wall, and not only the attack will be stopped. The rest, is as you say.
Ok, that makes two people I've seen interpret it that way, ever. You, and rrathnor's friend.

It's a wall. It stops things going through it. It doesn't respond to an arrow by reaching out, following the arrow's flight path, and zapping the archer. The sentence in question is a two part reference, with "trying to attack you" and "or pass through the wall" each referring to its own separate part of the table entry.

[ATHATH]

Ok, that makes two people I've seen interpret it that way, ever. You, and rrathnor's friend.

It's a wall. It stops things going through it. It doesn't respond to an arrow by reaching out, following the arrow's flight path, and zapping the archer. The sentence in question is a two part reference, with "trying to attack you" and "or pass through the wall" each referring to its own separate part of the table entry.
Actually, I think it does just that. It's magic(al), after all.

[Hiro Quester]

So the player is being attacked by an enemy. He casts prismatic wall on the space behind the enemy, but expects the wall to pass through the enemy as he casts it. Or he expects the wall to reach out and attack the enemy from behind.

It doesn't work that way. The wall appears behind the enemy, and does not affect him at all (though it may prevent his retreat from the caster).

[Crake]

Ok, that makes two people I've seen interpret it that way, ever. You, and rrathnor's friend.

It's a wall. It stops things going through it. It doesn't respond to an arrow by reaching out, following the arrow's flight path, and zapping the archer. The sentence in question is a two part reference, with "trying to attack you" and "or pass through the wall" each referring to its own separate part of the table entry.

I have to ask actually, what do people think about those using melee attacks through the wall. I'm of the opinion that to reach into someone else's square and attack you would have to pass at least part of your body through the wall, would you not? I'm of the opinion that, at least in melee, attacking the other side of the wall would affect you as if you passed through it.

[FireGriver]

Ok, that makes two people I've seen interpret it that way, ever. You, and rrathnor's friend.

It's a wall. It stops things going through it. It doesn't respond to an arrow by reaching out, following the arrow's flight path, and zapping the archer. The sentence in question is a two part reference, with "trying to attack you" and "or pass through the wall" each referring to its own separate part of the table entry.

Yes, I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear, english is not my native language. I separate the two parts when I read it, the part that says "trying to attack you" and the part that says "or pass through the wall".
I read "trying to attack you" as any kind of attack, not only melee. It could be ranged or magic too. If there is a differentiation by RAW of "attack", "magic attack", "melee attack" and "ranged attack" I'm not aware of it and I apologize and stand corrected.

By the same logic you point with the arrrow example, I could argue that when you make a melee attack to the wall with a sword, the spell only damages the sword and not the one wielding it.


Actually, I think it does just that. It's magic(al), after all.

Exactly, as you say, it may well extend some magic tendril or whatever and zap the archer/caster. It's magic. And a lvl 8 spell at that.


So the player is being attacked by an enemy. He casts prismatic wall on the space behind the enemy, but expects the wall to pass through the enemy as he casts it. Or he expects the wall to reach out and attack the enemy from behind.

It doesn't work that way. The wall appears behind the enemy, and does not affect him at all (though it may prevent his retreat from the caster).

I fully agree with you. I'm not saying that the wall works if the enemy and the caster of the wall are on the same side of the wall, I'm saying that the wall works if the wall is between the caster and the attacker. Be it attacking the wall (or trying to attack the space where the caster could be on the other side of the wall) ranged or melee.


i am a new dm and we are playing 3.5 d&D i have a friend playing a warmage and we have been arguing about this for days. he says if he casts prismatic wall and gets attacked directly that the wall's magic will attack the person attacking him. what he means is even if a character is already beyond the wall and hits him with any form of attack they will take damage from the wall.

how i see it is only if a person passes through the wall will they take damage, and if they try to attack him with range or magic through the wall, the attacks will be stopped but the person attacking will not be harmed unless he touches the wall. i know i am new to D&D and he is more experienced then me but i really thought i read it this way. am i just completely wrong here? or is he?

I agree with the OP way of interpreting the spell, except with the bolded part. The attacker would take damage if they (try to) pass through the wall AND if they (try to) attack through the wall (via a melee attack, a ranged one or a magic one.)

The third sentence of the OP is the one where the player is wrong for sure.

Again, I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

[Douglas]

Yes, I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear, english is not my native language. I separate the two parts when I read it, the part that says "trying to attack you" and the part that says "or pass through the wall".
I read "trying to attack you" as any kind of attack, not only melee. It could be ranged or magic too. If there is a differentiation by RAW of "attack", "magic attack", "melee attack" and "ranged attack" I'm not aware of it and I apologize and stand corrected.
"Trying to attack you" does indeed mean any kind of attack, that's not the part I'm disagreeing with.

I'll try to make this clearer. There is a table listing the colors and their effects. In that table, the "Effect of Color" column has two lines for each color. What I'm saying is that only the first of those lines applies to "creatures trying to attack you", and the second line applies only to creatures who "pass through the wall".

It's a matter of grammar - a phrase that mentions two conditions directs you to a reference that lists two effects. This is a somewhat common way to say that each individual condition corresponds to just one of the effects, provided there is an obvious relationship between which condition and which effect and they're in the same order. Adding the word "respectively" to the phrase would make it more explicitly clear that this is the intent, but it's not strictly necessary.

[FireGriver]

"Trying to attack you" does indeed mean any kind of attack, that's not the part I'm disagreeing with.

I'll try to make this clearer. There is a table listing the colors and their effects. In that table, the "Effect of Color" column has two lines for each color. What I'm saying is that only the first of those lines applies to "creatures trying to attack you", and the second line applies only to creatures who "pass through the wall".

It's a matter of grammar - a phrase that mentions two conditions directs you to a reference that lists two effects. This is a somewhat common way to say that each individual condition corresponds to just one of the effects, provided there is an obvious relationship between which condition and which effect and they're in the same order. Adding the word "respectively" to the phrase would make it more explicitly clear that this is the intent, but it's not strictly necessary.

Oh, now I understand your point, thanks! I always considered the "Effect of color" column in the table as one whole result of any of the two conditions meeting, the division in two sentences in each effect only beign the way of separate two very different parts of a whole effect. I don't know if I'm making any sense with that sentence.

Your interpretation would make much more sense, and now can understand why most people would take that as the correct one (count me on that side from now on :P).

Just out of curiosity, my previous way of reading the spell and the table is just plain wrong or it could be read that way? Just to know if I just totally failed with my english or just a little. :P

[Barbarian Horde]

Wall is immobile he can remain near it and just use his move action to pass through it unharmed then whom ever is chasing is force to move if they want to hit him. I agree with the other post. It is a wall whoms function is to block. You need have it between you and what ever is attacking you for it to fufill it's purpose. It doesn't expand like brown mold when attacks come flying towards the caster.

Caster
[ ----Wall---- ]Spell is blocked
enemy Magic user

-----
[ ----wall---- ]Spell is not blocked
Caster -- Enemy magic caster...

[Douglas]

Just out of curiosity, my previous way of reading the spell and the table is just plain wrong or it could be read that way? Just to know if I just totally failed with my english or just a little. :P
It could be read that way. Both interpretations are technically valid and fit the rules of English grammar, it's a matter of context and meaning to determine which one is probably intended.

Now, if it said this instead:

The accompanying table shows the seven colors of the wall, the order in which they appear, their effects on creatures trying to attack you or pass through the wall, respectively, and the magic needed to negate each color.
then in that case your original reading would be just plain wrong. The addition of the "respectively" modifier is an explicit invocation of this piece-wise reference principle.

[rrathnor]

thank you all for taking the time to reply and help me clear this up in my head. i was feeling very stupid over this arguement since the others had way more experience with D&D then myself and it was starting to make me think i shouldn't even be dming. the was this was being argued actually had me very upset, thats what made me post since i have used this forum many times to help myself learn by reading other posts. thank you all for the time you took out to explain it. (also it's nice to be right for once since i am usually wrong lol)

[FireGriver]

It could be read that way. Both interpretations are technically valid and fit the rules of English grammar, it's a matter of context and meaning to determine which one is probably intended.

Now, if it said this instead:

The accompanying table shows the seven colors of the wall, the order in which they appear, their effects on creatures trying to attack you or pass through the wall, respectively, and the magic needed to negate each color.

then in that case your original reading would be just plain wrong. The addition of the "respectively" modifier is an explicit invocation of this piece-wise reference principle.

Thank you very much! With the addition of only one word I (and everybody, I think) would never had interpreted the spell the other way around. :)


I have to ask actually, what do people think about those using melee attacks through the wall. I'm of the opinion that to reach into someone else's square and attack you would have to pass at least part of your body through the wall, would you not? I'm of the opinion that, at least in melee, attacking the other side of the wall would affect you as if you passed through it.

That's tricky. I mean, not counting the violet effect, there is no effect that actively stops melee attacks, only ranged ones and spells (and other effects). That only effect would stop your melee attack to the other side of the wall from being effective, it would destroy your weapon. Poor you if it was a natural melee attack or an unarmed one. And supposing that your weapon is not destroyed, what would happen with a reach melee attack?

I mean, the spell states only that the wall is 4ft./level wide and 2ft./lvl high, but says nothing about thickness. So if it is at least 5ft. thick, you should have some kind of reach to attack at melee without going through the wall. But on the other hand, if it is less than 5ft. thick, by RAW you do not need to occupy the same square you are attacking, barring sizes differences and some feats. So by RAW you could technically attack the adjacent square of the other side of the wall you are without crossing it, I think.

Personally, I would not allow that, I think it would be just like letting attack through a common wall less than 5ft. thick without breaking it or passing through it somehow first. But anyway its all moot, the violet effect would destroy any weapon anyway as soon it makes contact with the wall, I would think the attacker would stop the attack at that moment.


So the player is being attacked by an enemy. He casts prismatic wall on the space behind the enemy, but expects the wall to pass through the enemy as he casts it. Or he expects the wall to reach out and attack the enemy from behind.

It doesn't work that way. The wall appears behind the enemy, and does not affect him at all (though it may prevent his retreat from the caster).


I think the bolded part doesn't work. A prismatic wall spell cast to materialize in a space occupied by a creature is disrupted, and the spell is wasted. But that aside, I fully agree with you, as I said before.


thank you all for taking the time to reply and help me clear this up in my head. i was feeling very stupid over this arguement since the others had way more experience with D&D then myself and it was starting to make me think i shouldn't even be dming. the was this was being argued actually had me very upset, thats what made me post since i have used this forum many times to help myself learn by reading other posts. thank you all for the time you took out to explain it. (also it's nice to be right for once since i am usually wrong lol)

No problem at all! I'm happy if I helped in any way and I'm sorry if I confused you in any way. :P

[Crake]

I mean, the spell states only that the wall is 4ft./level wide and 2ft./lvl high, but says nothing about thickness. So if it is at least 5ft. thick, you should have some kind of reach to attack at melee without going through the wall. But on the other hand, if it is less than 5ft. thick, by RAW you do not need to occupy the same square you are attacking, barring sizes differences and some feats. So by RAW you could technically attack the adjacent square of the other side of the wall you are without crossing it, I think.

I'm pretty sure, based on the description and the illustration, that the wall has no thickness, it is a flat plane just like wall of force, or wall of fire. You pass through it, not into it.