Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Psyrus 09-06-07, 04:16 PM	Wall of Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfFire.htm) Walls of fire don't list a thickness for the walls and I was wondering if you could have multiple parallel walls in a 5' area. Even if the walls themselves are spread out farther than 5' from each other, but the damaging effects overlap, would a creature take damage from each walls or just the strongest wall? I'm just checking to see if it's possible for a character to create multiple walls while in a TimeStop, then when the TimeStop ends Bull Rush or otherwise force a creature through the walls.
chucky 09-06-07, 04:30 PM	The wall of fire is just that a wall of fire. If you stack several of them in the same space you take damage from all of them. Its up to you gm to decide if you can actually tell that there are several stacked in one spot. But as your doiing it in time stop they really dont get the chance to see them before you punt them through it. As far as i know you can do the same thing with a prismatic wall as both of them are just energy constructs. :devil:
tarkin 09-06-07, 04:42 PM	Actually there IS an arguement that you do not take damage from multiple ones, at least for the area effect. The wall of fire is just a wall of fire. It puts out a certain amount of heat. It does not upgrade that heat simply because another wall of fire is near it. It just creates a situation where anyone in that area takes a set amount of damage. I.E. One wall of fire creates a situation where everyone in within 10 ft takes 2d4 of damage. It does not matter that there is one wall or two walls, you take the set amount of 2d4, whenever you are in the area. That damage does not go up if you happen to be within 10ft of 2 walls, because the temperature has not changed. However, each wall sets up a set amount of damage when you pass through that particular wall. So if you pass through two of them you need to take damage twice. I see no argument for ruling that you only take the highest damage for passing through. Now, please note I am not saying that I believe this arguement is valid, just that it is possible to make it. In fact I don't believe it, but it should be discussed. After all, you should DEFINITELY be able to do it making a Wall of Fire, and a Wall of Electricity (Wall of Fire + elemental Substition Electricity)
redraven 09-07-07, 02:30 AM	Since the walls do not list a thickness, they essentially have be cast along grid intersections and the grid lines on a battle map. Personally, I would not allow an overlap of Walls of Fire along the same grid lines, except in cases where they intersect one another (forming crosses and the like). As for the damage aspect, keep in mind your question is sort of similar to the perennial "stacking Acid Fogs" questions that appear on these boards. I would allow the area damage from Wall of Fire to stack for the explicit reason that it is an Evocation spell - Acid Fog is Conjuration so I could not see multiple fogs existing to deal multiple damage a number of times, but Evocation I could definitely see.
groveborn 09-07-07, 04:45 AM	Tarkin, you make a fine point, and I too disagree with it. Having worked around fire (welding and such) I can say without any doubt that more heat=more heat. Did that make any sense at all? Well, put it this way, it all has to go SOMEWHERE, and if it happens to go out 10 feet, then it's doubled, or nearly so. For balance reasons I'd say you increase the damage the same way as you would with other things. Instead of a flat 2x, it'd be 1.5x, then 2x, then 3x. My progression is likely off, as I've never actually done it, but you get the idea I think.
Empirate 09-07-07, 04:24 PM	The grid intersection thing must have originated in the mind of a Miniatures player - We never play with miniatures and only very seldom with a grid. It all happens in our minds. And there is no reason why to Walls of Fire, that are basically thin curtains of very hot flame, should have to be separated by at least 1.5m instead of, say, only 84cm. Nor is there any reason why two Walls of Fire, regardless of the school of magic they're called up with, shouldn't both produce heat waves that deal a certain amount of damage out to a certain distance, thus adding up damage.
Whitegravity 09-08-07, 12:55 AM	I don't think the damage would stack per se; I would begin to wonder the consequences from the amount of air being burned though...if it could lead to suffication in closed spaces. After all, you should DEFINITELY be able to do it making a Wall of Fire, and a Wall of Electricity (Wall of Fire + elemental Substition Electricity) So those damages stack then? Then if you reverse the fire spell into a Wall of Water spell with a Wall of Electricity spell in proximity might change the damage properties then? But double-fire won't? Interesting. So if they don't occupy the space and we say, maybe, that the flamewall does have depth - can we layer walls then? That would seemingly creat the said effect - but I doubt damage would multiply- instead it may cause damage as exposure to that heat for a longer period?
Tedronai 09-08-07, 01:20 AM	The wall has no material features. It takes up no space, it merely affects a certain area. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. Two sheets of fire certainly could, and would be twice as effective as a single such sheet.
redraven 09-08-07, 01:25 AM	The grid intersection thing must have originated in the mind of a Miniatures player - We never play with miniatures and only very seldom with a grid. It all happens in our minds. And there is no reason why to Walls of Fire, that are basically thin curtains of very hot flame, should have to be separated by at least 1.5m instead of, say, only 84cm. Nor is there any reason why two Walls of Fire, regardless of the school of magic they're called up with, shouldn't both produce heat waves that deal a certain amount of damage out to a certain distance, thus adding up damage. That's all well and good. I'm glad there are still people out there playing their own custom D&D games. If you were talking about 3.5 RAW, then no, that is incorrect. Minis or no, the game takes place on a grid. Indeed, the entire structure of the rules is predicated on there being at least a hypothetical grid of 5-foot squares. It's all in the PHB and the SRD and the language of all descriptions of spaces and actions and such. Five-foot steps? Splash weapons being thrown at grid intersections? Magic being thrown at grid intersections? Large creatures taking up a space ten-feet square? Hell, ten-foot reach? Aiming things like the Lightning Bolt spell and determining what is in its path? Adjudicating the radius of a Fireball? "It all happens in our minds" = "We make up the rules as we go along."
Lafing Cat 09-08-07, 02:04 AM	The wall has no material features. It takes up no space, it merely affects a certain area. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. Two sheets of fire certainly could, and would be twice as effective as a single such sheet. Wall of Fire *is* an object, it even tells you so in the spell description. If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points of cold damage or more in 1 round, that length goes out. (Do not divide cold damage by 4, as normal for objects.)
groveborn 09-08-07, 03:47 AM	Wall of Fire *is* an object, it even tells you so in the spell description. If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points of cold damage or more in 1 round, that length goes out. (Do not divide cold damage by 4, as normal for objects.) It's just telling you not to use the cold rules for objects on it. How does that indicate that it is in fact an object, where an object is anything that isn't living? Hmm? Of course it's an object. It's an object that requires no space of it's own. Two of them may occupy the same space, just as a creature may occupy the same space as it, provided it's enjoying the heat. You can stack boxes on top of each other in the same space, and they have physical dimension.
Lafing Cat 09-08-07, 12:41 PM	It's just telling you not to use the cold rules for objects on it. How does that indicate that it is in fact an object, where an object is anything that isn't living? Hmm? Of course it's an object. It's an object that requires no space of it's own. Two of them may occupy the same space, just as a creature may occupy the same space as it, provided it's enjoying the heat. You can stack boxes on top of each other in the same space, and they have physical dimension. Since a wall of fire is an object, the post that I was replying to contains a contradiction. "Two objects cannot occupy the same space. Two sheets of fire certainly could" Says that two sheets of fire both can and cannot occupy the same space. Also, the clause "as normal for objects" states that the subject of the clause is, indeed, an object. If it was not an object, those rules would not be mentioned.
IceFractal 09-08-07, 02:48 PM	Well normally people can't move through objects either. Clearly, if this is an object, it is an incorporeal one, or at least treated that way. As there is no limit to how many incorporeal creatures/objects can be in the same space, there is no reason Walls of Fire can't be stacked. Also, if we were to go technically by the RAW, Walls of Fire are two-dimensional, possessing no thickness. That means that no matter how many parallel ones you place at the same basic location, the chance of them intersecting is zero.
Tedronai 09-08-07, 04:24 PM	The wall has no HP values, 3rd dimension, or mass. All qualities of objects. 'Humans are not limited to an intelligence no higher than 2, as is normal for animals.' The above statement does not state that humans are animals, anymore than the sentence quoted earlier state that a Wall of Fire is an object.
Lafing Cat 09-08-07, 06:32 PM	The wall has no HP values, 3rd dimension, or mass. All qualities of objects. 'Humans are not limited to an intelligence no higher than 2, as is normal for animals.' The above statement does not state that humans are animals, anymore than the sentence quoted earlier state that a Wall of Fire is an object. I doubt that sentence is in the rules, because it is irrelevant. If it is, I'll concede the point, but I strongly doubt it. Provide reference, please? Also, the only characteristics of objects in the DnD world is that they don't possess a Wisdom or Charisma score. There is no requirement whatsoever for a 3rd dimension, or mass. And the wall *does* have HP. 20 per 5 foot square, and its immune to all damage that isn't cold.
Tedronai 09-08-07, 09:22 PM	I doubt that sentence is in the rules, because it is irrelevant. If it is, I'll concede the point, but I strongly doubt it. Provide reference, please? It's not found anywhere in the rules that I'm aware of, but then, it doesn't need to be. It follows the same form as the sentence being quoted, and is used here merely to demonstrate the logical falacy of drawing the conclusion from that sentence that the wall is an object (or that a human is of the animal type). A is not subject to B, as normal for C. The conclusion being made is that A equals C, but is an exception to the normal requirement of B. The statement, however, holds just as true if A does NOT equal C. And the wall *does* have HP. 20 per 5 foot square, and its immune to all damage that isn't cold. Please provide an appropriate reference. All I seem to be able to find is a reference stating the effects of the wall taking a certain amount of cold damage in a single round.
Lafing Cat 09-08-07, 10:45 PM	It's not found anywhere in the rules that I'm aware of, but then, it doesn't need to be. It follows the same form as the sentence being quoted, and is used here merely to demonstrate the logical falacy of drawing the conclusion from that sentence that the wall is an object (or that a human is of the animal type). A is not subject to B, as normal for C. The conclusion being made is that A equals C, but is an exception to the normal requirement of B. The statement, however, holds just as true if A does NOT equal C. The point is that line is only *relevant* if A is C. Otherwise we could clutter up the rules with lines like "Spoons are not subject to suffocation, as is normal for humaniods" If spoons weren't intended to be humanoids, why on earth even bother to print that? Please provide an appropriate reference. All I seem to be able to find is a reference stating the effects of the wall taking a certain amount of cold damage in a single round. Damage Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. If something can take damage, it has hit points, because damage is defined as a reduction in hit points. Everything with hit points is either a creature or an object. As Wall of Fire does not have a Charisma or Wisdom score, it is not a creature, thus it is an object. QED.
groveborn 09-09-07, 06:39 AM	How about using a bit of physics? I know that's bad when dealing with magic, but lets just assume you can this time. Take two lighters, and merge their flame. Did it work? Yes it did. Now pretend the lighters weren't there, but the flame was. Now add 400 more. It fits, the fire is just escaping at higher velocity, allowing for much hotter fire. How hard is that, really (aside from the 402 lighters of course)?
mvincent 09-10-07, 04:02 PM	I didn't see the applicable RAW statement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffect s) yet in this thread, so here it is (if desired): "In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies." ... now sure, this doesn't technically say what would happen if two or more identical spells of the same strength are operating in the same area, but I think we can assume...
groveborn 09-10-07, 09:25 PM	I didn't see the applicable RAW statement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffect s) yet in this thread, so here it is (if desired): "In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies." ... now sure, this doesn't technically say what would happen if two or more identical spells of the same strength are operating in the same area, but I think we can assume... Good quote, but lets use that on fireballs shall we? These are damaging effects, and as such aren't "strengths" at all. This applies to things like Bestow Curse.
ravenshrike 09-10-07, 09:52 PM	The wall of fire is just a wall of fire. It puts out a certain amount of heat. It does not upgrade that heat simply because another wall of fire is near it. It just creates a situation where anyone in that area takes a set amount of damage. Sooo, you're saying that one heat source boils water just as quickly as two heat sources applied to the same reservoir of water?!?
Nom 09-10-07, 11:31 PM	Good quote, but lets use that on fireballs shall we? These are damaging effects, and as such aren't "strengths" at all. This applies to things like Bestow Curse.fireballs have duration Instantaneous, so it's a pretty bizarre set of circumstances to make them co-exist. Walls of fire, fog clouds, grease, and ice storm all have durations and thus might co-exist or overlap.
Oliver D'Argent 09-10-07, 11:37 PM	If two Fireball spells were cast simultaneously (yes, I know, everything happens in initiative order - I am speaking theoretically here) at the same aiming point, everyone in the area would have to make a save against each spell and would take damage from each spell (provided that those in the area don't have Evasion). The damage from each spell would be rolled separately, and any fire resistance possesed by those in the target area would be applied to each damage roll individually. A Wall of Fire is not an object - it is a spell effect. It has length and height, but no thickness - so I see no bar to placing more than one in the same area (much like the aforementioned Fireballs). Assuming the caster set the heat waves on all castings of the spell to go in the same direction, the damage should accumulate rather than stack - that is, fire resistance would reduce each damage roll separately rather than just reducing the total damage from all the rolls added together. The point is moot if the affected creature has no fire resistance, but the distinction is important for those who do have fire resistance. A Wall of Fire does not have hit points - if any 5-foot section of the wall takes 20 points (or more) of cold damage in a single round, the wall effect in that section is cancelled. If they had hit points, you would be able to knock it down with bits of cold damage over the course of several rounds - but you can't.
Lafing Cat 09-10-07, 11:55 PM	A Wall of Fire does not have hit points - if any 5-foot section of the wall takes 20 points (or more) of cold damage in a single round, the wall effect in that section is cancelled. If they had hit points, you would be able to knock it down with bits of cold damage over the course of several rounds - but you can't. Damage is defined as a reduction in hit points. If it doesn't have hit points, it can't take damage, because you can't reduce a non-statistic. It may completely reset its hit points each round, but it has to have them. Sorry, Wall of Fire is an object.
Oliver D'Argent 09-11-07, 12:08 AM	Damage is defined as a reduction in hit points. If it doesn't have hit points, it can't take damage, because you can't reduce a non-statistic. It may completely reset its hit points each round, but it has to have them. Sorry, Wall of Fire is an object. I disagree. Certain spell effects can be cancelled by damage - Wall of Fire is one, Unseen Servant is another - but they are still spell effects, not objects.
redraven 09-11-07, 07:13 AM	Okay, a couple of points: 1) Multiple Walls of Fire deal damage separately. I see no real argument to the contrary, at least not one that invalidates the usefulness of Scorching Ray and Meteor Swarm. They are all evocation spells, they all deal damage, and they all can deal damage multiple times simultaneously. If you Meteor Swarm someone so that they are caught in the radius of all four explosions, I do not not see anyone arguing that they only take 6d6 damage. Again, this is not like multiple Acid Fogs stacking, this is about multiple evocation spells dealing fire damage. 2) I am against Walls of Fire being stacked along the same grid lines, except when they intersect with one another (forming crosses and the like). This has nothing to do with whether they are objects or have HP, and everything to do with (meta)game balance. When a character sees a Wall of Fire, how am I supposed to communicate there is more than one there? What if the player decides to run the character through it to charge the spellcaster? "Gee, sorry Bobby. You didn't check to see if it was only one Wall of Fire. In actuality, Tim the BBEG set up seven of them, so you take 14d4 + 14d6 + 105 fire damage." It seems cheap, it seems cheesy, and anyone without Spellcraft is never going to be able to know whether a given Wall of Fire is just one or several stacked together before being burned. I am completely fine with several rings of fire encircling a group, I am completely fine with boxing in people with multiple Walls of Fire, and I am completely fine with Walls of Fire every five feet or whatever other combination. Each Wall of Fire should deal its stated fire damage separately. I am not fine with stacking them along the same grid line however.
Oliver D'Argent 09-11-07, 07:41 AM	If you, as a DM, object to having more than one Wall of Fire along the same grid line, you are within your rights to ban it - but I see no actual rules issue that would disallow the tactic. As far as characters not knowing if they were running through one or multiple walls goes. . . well, unless you saw them being cast, that is the risk you take in running through. If the characters see the spell cast, they can be reasonably certain that there won't be more than two walls (the caster might have Quickened one) - but the longer they wait to go through, the greater the risk that they will be passing through multiple walls.
redraven 09-11-07, 07:59 AM	It is worth noting that Walls of Fire do not give off any light either, so cutting the lights and stacking walls makes for a brand of cheesiness approaching the old Book Full of Explosive Runes + Intentionally Failed Dispel Magic trick. If you are worried about the party feeling the heat and not going any closer, just aim the walls in the opposite direction.
Lafing Cat 09-11-07, 08:10 AM	I disagree. Certain spell effects can be cancelled by damage - Wall of Fire is one, Unseen Servant is another - but they are still spell effects, not objects. Provide me any source that allows for dealing cold damage to something that isn't an object or a creature then. Hint: spell effects don't have a defined AC, so you can't attack them with weapons or weapon-like spells, and damaging spells without an attack roll only affect creatures or objects as far as I can find. Edit: Well, wrong on the last point at least, Cone of Cold, oddly enough, appears to do damage to everything inside it, regardless of what it is. Still, not many options.
Oliver D'Argent 09-12-07, 12:09 AM	You are missing the point. If a Wall of Fire were an object, it would have hit points that could be whittled away over the course of several rounds (this is true of Wall of Ice, Wall of Iron and Wall of Stone) - but you can't, because it is a spell effect rather than an object. A Wall of Fire doesn't have hit points to keep track of, it has a countering threshold set at a minimum of 20 points of cold damage in a single round. You could direct 19 points of cold damage against the wall every round, all day long and it would not have the slightest effect on the wall. There are a number of examples of spells that are negated or countered by other spells - Light counters Darkness, Stone to Flesh counters Flesh to Stone, Mud to Rock counters Rock to Mud, Silence negates sonic effects, and so on. The 20-points-or-more-of-cold-damage-in-a-single-round is just another example of countering one effect with another.
Lafing Cat 09-12-07, 12:18 AM	You are missing the point. If a Wall of Fire were an object, it would have hit points that could be whittled away over the course of several rounds (this is true of Wall of Ice, Wall of Iron and Wall of Stone) - but you can't, because it is a spell effect rather than an object. A Wall of Fire doesn't have hit points to keep track of, it has a countering threshold set at a minimum of 20 points of cold damage in a single round. You could direct 19 points of cold damage against the wall every round, all day long and it would not have the slightest effect on the wall. There are a number of examples of spells that are negated or countered by other spells - Light counters Darkness, Stone to Flesh counters Flesh to Stone, Mud to Rock counters Rock to Mud, Silence negates sonic effects, and so on. The 20-points-or-more-of-cold-damage-in-a-single-round is just another example of countering one effect with another. I could make a similar comment about a creature with fast healing 20 and 20 HP. I can do 19 points of damage to it every round, all day long, and it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the creature. I'm curious though, since it isn't an object, how do we calculate its AC and saving throws? When one option requires extensive house ruling (not an object) and the other (object) requires no house ruling, it seems straight forward to accept the ruling that does not involve making extensive additional rulings.
ArcTan 09-12-07, 12:48 AM	Tarkin, you make a fine point, and I too disagree with it. Having worked around fire (welding and such) I can say without any doubt that more heat=more heat. Did that make any sense at all? Her'es how I'd put it: Heat is not temperature. A greater amount of material that's the same temperature puts out more heat. Which is why one drop of boiling water contains less heat than twenty liters of boiling water, despite the fact that all the boiling water is at 100 degrees C. Two flames at the exact same temperature are putting out twice as much heat as one flame of that temperature. Of course, how heat translates to "damage" in D&D is up in the air, and a ruling about this really should focus on game balance more than "realism" (I mean, c'mon, it's magic). I would probably just say that the way a wall of fire works means you can't put them less than 5' apart from each other.
Oliver D'Argent 09-12-07, 12:49 AM	I could make a similar comment about a creature with fast healing 20 and 20 HP. I can do 19 points of damage to it every round, all day long, and it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the creature. I'm curious though, since it isn't an object, how do we calculate its AC and saving throws? When one option requires extensive house ruling (not an object) and the other (object) requires no house ruling, it seems straight forward to accept the ruling that does not involve making extensive additional rulings. A creature with fast healing has a stated mechanic to return lost hit points - a Wall a Fire has none to lose. Persistent spell effects can have a size even without having a physical presence - so if a to-hit roll is needed, AC can be calculated from the size of the effect. As an immobile effect, a Wall of Fire would not get a Reflex save so that is a moot question. No extensive additional rulings are needed - it's all covered by the basic rules.
ArcTan 09-12-07, 12:52 AM	I didn't see the applicable RAW statement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffect s) yet in this thread, so here it is (if desired): "In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies." ... now sure, this doesn't technically say what would happen if two or more identical spells of the same strength are operating in the same area, but I think we can assume... It's a good argument for why a wall of fire that completely overlaps another wall of fire counts as just one wall of fire, not a double-strength super-wall of fire. The problem is having two separate walls "two inches apart" or something like that. This is a problem mainly because D&D's combat rules assume a grid-based world, and using a continuous, non-grid-based set of rules for some things while other things (like movement of creatures) remains grid-based is a problem. Put it this way -- you shouldn't be okay with having multiple walls running parallel through the same strip of 5' squares unless you'd also be comfortable with having a player say his character was "straddling" a gridline and half in one square and half in another, and adjudicating the various issues associated with that. Anyone who plays on the grid should by now be used to "fudging" so the grid makes sense -- so that you're either in an AMF or out of an AMF rather than standing in the AMF but sticking your sword out of it so your sword is still +5 even while you're protected from magic. The latter kind of makes sense, sure, but it makes a horrible hash out of the rules, and it's best to just keep this kind of thing from happening.
ArcTan 09-12-07, 12:56 AM	I could make a similar comment about a creature with fast healing 20 and 20 HP. I can do 19 points of damage to it every round, all day long, and it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the creature. I'm curious though, since it isn't an object, how do we calculate its AC and saving throws? When one option requires extensive house ruling (not an object) and the other (object) requires no house ruling, it seems straight forward to accept the ruling that does not involve making extensive additional rulings. Er, what? A wall of fire is a spell effect, not an object. As such, it lacks any AC or saving throws. Things that enter its area auto-hit it without having to roll. It never makes saves against anything. Saying it *is* an object would *require* us to *make up* stats for all the things that it doesn't have, like a Reflex save, or a total number of HP, or that kind of thing. Is that what you really want? Can a wall of fire be sundered by a mundane sword, if you do enough damage to bypass its hardness? What *is* its hardness? Does it get a Reflex save against cone of cold? It doesn't if it's mundane, but surely you're not going to say a wall of fire, if it's an item, is a mundane item rather than a magic item? Etc., etc., etc. It creates a huge enormous problem that's best *avoided* by just saying it's not an object, it's an effect. (Same deal with, say, figments created by Illusion spells.)
groveborn 09-12-07, 06:20 AM	Her'es how I'd put it: Heat is not temperature. A greater amount of material that's the same temperature puts out more heat. Which is why one drop of boiling water contains less heat than twenty liters of boiling water, despite the fact that all the boiling water is at 100 degrees C. Two flames at the exact same temperature are putting out twice as much heat as one flame of that temperature. Of course, how heat translates to "damage" in D&D is up in the air, and a ruling about this really should focus on game balance more than "realism" (I mean, c'mon, it's magic). I would probably just say that the way a wall of fire works means you can't put them less than 5' apart from each other. I'd call that argument completely pointless until you get to the end. I don't mind that you disagree with me, just try to make a point. As for the last part, at this point, seems largely opinion both for and against. Much like Enlarge Person :) There's no solid argument.
Lafing Cat 09-12-07, 08:21 AM	Er, what? A wall of fire is a spell effect, not an object. As such, it lacks any AC or saving throws. Things that enter its area auto-hit it without having to roll. It never makes saves against anything. Saying it *is* an object would *require* us to *make up* stats for all the things that it doesn't have, like a Reflex save, or a total number of HP, or that kind of thing. Is that what you really want? Can a wall of fire be sundered by a mundane sword, if you do enough damage to bypass its hardness? What *is* its hardness? Does it get a Reflex save against cone of cold? It doesn't if it's mundane, but surely you're not going to say a wall of fire, if it's an item, is a mundane item rather than a magic item? Etc., etc., etc. It creates a huge enormous problem that's best *avoided* by just saying it's not an object, it's an effect. (Same deal with, say, figments created by Illusion spells.) Where are your rules for stating that things auto-hit it? If I want to hit the side of a barn with a Polar Ray, an object similar in size to a wall of fire, I certainly still need to make an attack roll. A wall of fire is only destroyed if it takes 20 points of cold damage, so no, a wall of fire can't be sundered by a mundane sword. As a magic item, its saving throw vs cone of cold is 1/2 its CL, all straightforward applications of rules we already have for objects. None of them need to be "made up"
Oliver D'Argent 09-13-07, 12:31 AM	You are still stuck on the idea that a Wall of Fire is an object - it is not. Can you cut a piece off of a Wall of Fire like you could a Wall of Iron or a Wall of Stone? No, you can't - because it is a spell effect rather than an object. The spell description does not say that the effect is ethereal or incorporeal, so you cannot claim that as a reason why you cannot cut a piece off. As far as saving throws go, it is a non-issue. The only spells that could possibly affect it are Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic (which just have a caster level check rather than a Save) and spells that cause cold damage. Of the latter, ray effects usually do not allow a save and area effect spells have a Reflex save - and something that is immobile does not get to make a Reflex save.
ArcTan 09-13-07, 01:40 AM	Where are your rules for stating that things auto-hit it? If I want to hit the side of a barn with a Polar Ray, an object similar in size to a wall of fire, I certainly still need to make an attack roll. The attack roll I might give you, but only because other abstract things that aren't objects, like a grid intersection, need to be targeted by attack rolls. A wall of fire is only destroyed if it takes 20 points of cold damage, so no, a wall of fire can't be sundered by a mundane sword. ...So it's not an object. All objects take damage from mundane weapons based on their hardness (which a wall of fire apparently doesn't have). All objects take only 1/4 damage from cold; does that also apply to wall of fire? (Note that wall of fire nowhere specifies that it takes full damage from cold, which means, assuming it's an object, it follows the default rules for objects.) As a magic item, its saving throw vs cone of cold is 1/2 its CL, all straightforward applications of rules we already have for objects. None of them need to be "made up" Who the hell says a wall of fire is a magic item? It doesn't have *any* of the stats of a magic item -- no XP cost to create, no spell prereqs, no price. Importantly, wall of fire DOESN'T HAVE A CASTER LEVEL! An item's caster level, as per the errata in the DMG, is something set separately for the item that is *not* the same as the caster level of the mage who makes it. (This is why you don't need to seek out the Archmage Mordenkainen in order to buy bottles of sovereign glue, which has CL 20.) Even if casting wall of fire counted as "crafting" the item, which it doesn't, that wouldn't mean the caster's CL counted as the item's CL. Importantly, items made by magic are not the same thing as "magic items". Major creation, for instance, makes non-magical items, not magical ones. Indeed, it specifies that the item it makes MUST be non-magical. Make a sword with major creation and it's a *mundane sword*. It's "magical" in the sense that it detects as magical under detect magic, sure. But dispel magic does *not* treat it as a magic item, it treats it as a spell effect. It doesn't "suppress" its magic powers (of which it has none), it simply makes it vanish. Wall of fire is the same way. We can, awkwardly, call a big wall of blazing violet flames a "non-magical item" if we want -- a special non-magical item that, unlike all normal items, has no HP total, no hardness, ignores the object rules for energy damage, etc. -- or we can just give in and recognize that a *spell effect* is a completely different category from an *object*, which is why they're always *listed* separately in spell entries. (Silent image, for instance, can be the image of a "creature, object OR effect", meaning effects aren't objects.)
ArcTan 09-13-07, 01:42 AM	BTW, about saving throws: If wall of fire is an object, it's a mundane object, just like the lumps of wood made by minor creation. It doesn't get saving throws. A better way to phrase it, of course, is that it doesn't get saving throws because it's NOT AN OBJECT AT ALL -- it's a spell effect, which is floating in the air and demarcating a certain region of space, and *anything that crosses that region of space and does cold damage* does cold damage to it, period.
groveborn 09-13-07, 07:15 AM	BTW, about saving throws: If wall of fire is an object, it's a mundane object, just like the lumps of wood made by minor creation. It doesn't get saving throws. A better way to phrase it, of course, is that it doesn't get saving throws because it's NOT AN OBJECT AT ALL -- it's a spell effect, which is floating in the air and demarcating a certain region of space, and *anything that crosses that region of space and does cold damage* does cold damage to it, period. I'd say it's not an object at all, but as you've said before, it's a spell effect. It's capable of being damage by cold, and only cold (and of course dispels and such), because of it's nature. I don't think one would need to roll to hit at all, either. It's kind of pointless, as with most skills, there's no bad failure here, so taking 20 should be allowed! Even if not 20, certain 10 should be. If it can be assumed to be an object, then the wall should have an AC of 10 or less. Lets say less for now. It should receive no saving throw, as it's not an object, but an evocation. Treat it as a hot cloud, no substance, all fire. But as to the original question, can two occupy the same space, and if so, what if any effect would that have? I propose it's not an object, but a spell effect. As it's an evocation spell effect, and deals damage, it's effects stack as per regular rules. Two fireball cast simultaneously would both deal full damage. The only difference is the lack of a saving throw. One more argument against calling it an object is that you must deal 20 points of cold to a section in a single round to have an effect at all. Anything less means it ignores it entirely. That's not hardness, it's cold resistance!
Lafing Cat 09-13-07, 08:55 AM	The attack roll I might give you, but only because other abstract things that aren't objects, like a grid intersection, need to be targeted by attack rolls. So how do we figure out that AC? ...So it's not an object. All objects take damage from mundane weapons based on their hardness (which a wall of fire apparently doesn't have). Rope a paper don't have hardnesses either, does that make them not objects suddenly? All objects take only 1/4 damage from cold; does that also apply to wall of fire? (Note that wall of fire nowhere specifies that it takes full damage from cold, which means, assuming it's an object, it follows the default rules for objects.) Yes, Wall of fire does specify it takes full damage from cold. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points of cold damage or more in 1 round, that length goes out. (Do not divide cold damage by 4, as normal for objects.) That line is the entire reason I think WoF is an object. Who the hell says a wall of fire is a magic item? It doesn't have *any* of the stats of a magic item -- no XP cost to create, no spell prereqs, no price. I say it is. It goes away in an anti-magic field, which certainly makes it magic as far as I'm concerned. Importantly, wall of fire DOESN'T HAVE A CASTER LEVEL! An item's caster level, as per the errata in the DMG, is something set separately for the item that is *not* the same as the caster level of the mage who makes it. (This is why you don't need to seek out the Archmage Mordenkainen in order to buy bottles of sovereign glue, which has CL 20.) Even if casting wall of fire counted as "crafting" the item, which it doesn't, that wouldn't mean the caster's CL counted as the item's CL. Wall of Fire certainly has a caster level. And it need not be the mages CL. You can *always* set the CL of your spells to something lower your actual CL so long as it's above the minimum necessary. Just like I can make CL 11 Soverign Glue at CL 20, I can make a CL 11 Wall of Fire at CL 20. Importantly, items made by magic are not the same thing as "magic items". Major creation, for instance, makes non-magical items, not magical ones. Indeed, it specifies that the item it makes MUST be non-magical. Make a sword with major creation and it's a *mundane sword*. It's "magical" in the sense that it detects as magical under detect magic, sure. But dispel magic does *not* treat it as a magic item, it treats it as a spell effect. It doesn't "suppress" its magic powers (of which it has none), it simply makes it vanish. Wall of fire is the same way. We can, awkwardly, call a big wall of blazing violet flames a "non-magical item" if we want -- a special non-magical item that, unlike all normal items, has no HP total, no hardness, ignores the object rules for energy damage, etc. -- or we can just give in and recognize that a *spell effect* is a completely different category from an *object*, which is why they're always *listed* separately in spell entries. (Silent image, for instance, can be the image of a "creature, object OR effect", meaning effects aren't objects.) We certainly can't call it a non-magical item, because it disappears in an anti-magic field, That doesn't fit any definition of mundane sword that I'm aware of. And for the third time. Wall of force *has* to have Hit Points, because it can take damage, which is defined as a reduction in hit points. No Hit points, no damage. As per your Silent Image example, the spell says This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you I certainly don't see effect listed anywhere there.
UltimateGnome 09-13-07, 11:33 AM	In the Tome of Magic on page 38, it distinctly says that wall of fire is not an object. "Targeting a spell effect that is not an object or creature (such as the flames of a wall of fire) has no effect."
maskimus 09-13-07, 12:54 PM	In the Tome of Magic on page 38, it distinctly says that wall of fire is not an object. "Targeting a spell effect that is not an object or creature (such as the flames of a wall of fire) has no effect." UG, did you find that by accident, or did you take 20 on your search check?;)
UltimateGnome 09-13-07, 01:17 PM	I was rereading the book because I was making a Binder enemy for my campaign and happened across that.
Lafing Cat 09-13-07, 02:10 PM	I was rereading the book because I was making a Binder enemy for my campaign and happened across that. Ah well, if the official position is it has an undefined AC, I guess I'll have to live with that. Won't be the first time the rules have a fundamental conflict. (See Dispel Magic targetting)
mvincent 09-13-07, 03:56 PM	Good quote, but lets use that on fireballs shall we? These are damaging effects, and as such aren't "strengths" at all. This applies to things like Bestow Curse.As Nom mentioned, fireballs are instantaneous. We're not talking about stacking damage though (i.e. damage is outside of the stacking rules)... we are talking about an area or target containing the same spell/effect more than once. By the stacking rules, this is not allowed. If we were to take the fact that something does damage as evidence that it can stack with itself, then we could have PC's say, use a wand to cast Flame Arrow 50 times on their ammo (to do 50d6 fire damage each). The stacking rules prevent this.
IceFractal 09-13-07, 04:07 PM	Here's the thing though - it isn't stacking. Stacking would be if you had two walls of fire and they stacked to deal 4d4 damage. They don't. Instead, each one, separately deals 2d4 damage. Fire resistance applies separately, and if you had SR you might resist one but not the other. This is the same as if someone cast Minor Image (a dancing bear), and then I cast Minor Image (a big pile of money) at the same location. What people would see is a dancing bear intersecting a pile of money (which would reduce the believability significantly). The effects don't stack or override each-other - they both exist separately.
mvincent 09-13-07, 04:40 PM	Here's the thing though - it isn't stacking.It seems to fit the "cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area" definition of stacking. Stacking would be if you had two walls of fire and they stacked to deal 4d4 damage.That's not completely what stacking means. Regardless, I agree that one could be affected by two walls of fire at the same time. Example: two parallel walls of fire are created 10' apart, with their heat waves facing inward. Anyone walking down the 10' corridor they create would be affect by both... this is because the heat affect is not technically listed as part of their area (... interesting). However, a DM might rule that the heat wave is part of the area of effect. However, multiple fire walls place along the exact same line would not work because this would fit the "two or more identical spells are operating in the same area" stacking rule. But, assuming intersecting walls are allowed (which they seem to be), then a person in the right location (i.e. near an intersection) could take damage from both sources. This is the same as if someone cast Minor Image (a dancing bear), and then I cast Minor Image (a big pile of money) at the same location. What people would see is a dancing bear intersecting a pile of money (which would reduce the believability significantly). The effects don't stack or override each-other - they both exist separately.That is an excellent counterpoint, but do you believe that the Flame Arrow spell could be cast 50 times on the same group of arrows (allowing them to do 1d6 fire damage fifty times apiece... which is what I was refering to earlier). I believe the stacking rules prevent this.
ArcTan 09-14-07, 02:00 AM	So how do we figure out that AC? *shrug* The same way we'd figure out the AC of shooting something at any other arbitrary area of space. Rope a paper don't have hardnesses either, does that make them not objects suddenly? Hardness 0 is not the same thing as no hardness, just like Int 0 is not the same thing as no Int score. Yes, Wall of fire does specify it takes full damage from cold. That line is the entire reason I think WoF is an object. You're right, it does. I missed that. ...Still seems weird to me. After all, it doesn't specify that it *doesn't* take damage from physical attacks or energy attacks, the way normal objects do. (Does it still take full damage from acid? Doesn't say it doesn't.) I say it is. It goes away in an anti-magic field, which certainly makes it magic as far as I'm concerned. Mundane swords created by major creation go away in an AMF. Wall of Fire certainly has a caster level. And it need not be the mages CL. You can *always* set the CL of your spells to something lower your actual CL so long as it's above the minimum necessary. Just like I can make CL 11 Soverign Glue at CL 20, I can make a CL 11 Wall of Fire at CL 20. But you can also make CL 20 sovereign glue at CL 3. Indeed, you *must* be able to, or the default sovereign glue couldn't possibly have CL 20. (Does Mordenkainen have his own little side business or something?) The DMG errata says CL for Wondrous Items is arbitrary, and can be set to whatever you want, including CLs much higher than your own. We certainly can't call it a non-magical item, because it disappears in an anti-magic field, That doesn't fit any definition of mundane sword that I'm aware of. As an item, it's a mundane item. As an *effect*, it's a spell effect. Two separate things. How do you get around the fact that major creation *specifically says* that the things it makes *must* be non-magical? And for the third time. Wall of force *has* to have Hit Points, because it can take damage, which is defined as a reduction in hit points. No Hit points, no damage. Who says that? If that's the case, how much HP does it have? As per your Silent Image example, the spell says I certainly don't see effect listed anywhere there. Fine, "force". A force is something separate from creatures or objects. Since a silent image is, well, an image, it means that there can be things that float around in the air and exist as visual images for a certain period of time that aren't objects. Dispel magic does refer to spell effects separately from creatures or objects.
groveborn 09-14-07, 06:42 AM	As Nom mentioned, fireballs are instantaneous. We're not talking about stacking damage though (i.e. damage is outside of the stacking rules)... we are talking about an area or target containing the same spell/effect more than once. By the stacking rules, this is not allowed. If we were to take the fact that something does damage as evidence that it can stack with itself, then we could have PC's say, use a wand to cast Flame Arrow 50 times on their ammo (to do 50d6 fire damage each). The stacking rules prevent this. Two WoF's aren't the same as two flame arrows. It's not providing a bonus of any sort. It has an effect, twice. Each independant of the other. As Tarkin pointed out, it's not 4d4, but 2x2d4, each making it's own resistance, and it's own caster level check against SR. Furthermore, dealing 20 points of cold damage to a section would remove 1, not the other. They are not bonuses, and do not qualify for stacking rules of any sort. They're the same as two Light spells. The light doesn't travel further, but it's the same as having two torches, 2 * candlepower! The point is, there is no rule anywhere saying that you can't have two effects active at once. The rule says that only one has an effect for a bonus (or reduction). Since neither give a bonus of any kind, stacking doesn't happen. And for the fun of it: Combining Magical Effects spellinfo Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place: spellinfo Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn't named stacks with any bonus. Bonuses! Has to be a bonus to apply!!!! Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. I'd say that one doesn't apply due to it not having a "strength", it's talking about bonuses again Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. Things like Darkness vs. Light. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion. Similar, but more like Charm Person and Sleep (horrible example, but it's really late!) Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys. Obviously not what they're talking about here spellinfo Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description. Again, not the place. spellinfo Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target. It'd be stretch to say this is what we're looking for, but even this isn't QUITE right. It's the closest example by far. Now, prove me wrong. Go ahead. Every bit of information you need to do so would be here. It's not though. Wall of Fire was never meant to be used twice, that being said, it can be. It's the same as using twice as much fire in a pit to melt something of a higher temper. Fire stacks, always has. The fact that it comes from a spell is not important. Each effect is separate and distinct, and as powerful as the other.
Nom 09-14-07, 07:47 AM	The DMG errata says CL for Wondrous Items is arbitrary, and can be set to whatever you want, including CLs much higher than your own.Actually, it says no such thing. Just because the CL is "determined by the creator" doesn't in any way imply that it can be set to any arbitrary number the creator desires, at least not without corroboration from the rest of the ruleset. More specifically, I believe you are misreading "determined by" as "choosen by" or "set by", where it actually means "derived from". Otherwise, the previous paragraph's ruling that "The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus ..." becomes a nonsense; a caster level can't choose a saving throw bonus, let alone an arbitrary one! Consider DMG pg 282: "A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell". This sentence explicitly gives the ability to set the item's caster level at or below the caster's own caster level. It gives no blessing to the idea that a creator could create an item above their own caster level.
mvincent 09-14-07, 01:00 PM	And for the fun of it:Well done. An analysis of those rules is perfect for discussion, and I feel you have some valid points. Some issues though: A) The Stacking Effects section contains the following subsections: .1) Different Bonus Names .2) Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths .3) Same Effect with Differing Results .4) One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant .5) Multiple Mental Control Effects Only the 1st item definitely pertains to bonuses, and the last three do not. Therefore, assuming that the second item must pertain to bonuses seems unwarranted. I agree that it's possible that this was the writer's intent, but it just doesn't appear to be a truism. B) Your interpretation seems to imply that one could cast multiple acid fogs on the same area, and all would have an effect on anyone entering. C) Your interpretation seems to imply that several clerics could cast shield other (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOther.htm) on the same person, and the effect of each (other than the bonuses), would be applicable (for 1/4th damage, 1/8th damage, etc). Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that the area currently seems open to interpretation, and is worthy of more research.
groveborn 09-14-07, 01:41 PM	Well done. An analysis of those rules is perfect for discussion, and I feel you have some valid points. Some issues though: A) The Stacking Effects section contains the following subsections: .1) Different Bonus Names .2) Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths .3) Same Effect with Differing Results .4) One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant .5) Multiple Mental Control Effects Only the 1st item definitely pertains to bonuses, and the last three do not. Therefore, assuming that the second item must pertain to bonuses seems unwarranted. I agree that it's possible that this was the writer's intent, but it just doesn't appear to be a truism. B) Your interpretation seems to imply that one could cast multiple acid fogs on the same area, and all would have an effect on anyone entering. C) Your interpretation seems to imply that several clerics could cast shield other (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOther.htm) on the same person, and the effect of each (other than the bonuses), would be applicable (for 1/4th damage, 1/8th damage, etc). Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that the area currently seems open to interpretation, and is worthy of more research. I was going off the "Strength" thing. That implies bonuses, or at least it does to me. Shield Other explicitly lists bonuses, and thus can't stack. I can't see why Acid Fog couldn't be cast twice in the same area, except that you wouldn't have line of effect (which I'm not sure you'd need), and both should be dealing their full damage, and both allowing their respective saves and SR's. And thank you for being so polite in pointing out the holes in my argument, others aren't quite so kind. I do like to argue, even when I'm blatantly wrong. Though in this case, I believe I'm right :)
mvincent 09-14-07, 01:53 PM	Shield Other explicitly lists bonuses, and thus can't stack.We agree that the bonuses couldn't stack, but the main effect (reducing damage) is not a bonus. Or are you saying that if an effect provides a bonus/penalty at all, then none of the effects stack? That would not seem to follow D&D precedent, but if so; multiple acid fogs wouldn't stack since they give penalties. I do like to argue, even when I'm blatantly wrong.Ditto. I enjoy it when someone can give me new, good perspectives or information. btw: this topic is also being discussed here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13779834#post13779834).