| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
canggar |
Wall of Force and Invisibility |
Lead | |
|
If a player tries to create a wall of force in a room, and the wall of force would cut right through a big monster (e.g., a huge dragon), but the player
doesn't know it (e.g., because the monster is invisible), what happens?
|
|||
Eldric IV |
|||
|
The spell fails and it is up to the wizard to puzzle out that it is an invisible creature.
**Final Words, before the battle with Demogorgon: My life does not matter. It was given to me to better the lives of my people. Please give the Pureblade to my
son so that he may finish what I start here today.**
|
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
|
Give the dragon a Reflex saving throw against the spell. If he makes it he ends up on whichever side he wants, but if he fails it he ends up on the side most
advantageous to the caster.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Aegir |
|||
|
I believe Eldric's answer is correct per the RAW, but I'd have to second canggar's as how I'd handle it, personally.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
I hate Reflex saves that logically require the saver to actually execute a move action. For Dan's idea to work,
a) the dragon has to use Spellcraft to recognize the spell, then b) *somehow* figure out where the spell effect is going to be placed Note that nowhere in the descriptions of Spellcraft or Counterspelling, is b) supported. Normally, I'd say, it's not an issue; you can reasonably assume that fireball is going somewhere you won't like. And I'll even agree that you can get a general sense of where, from the caster's facing...it'll be somewhere within his field of view. (Yes, *technically* I suppose the caster could whirl around and target something 'behind' him...but that's wildly unlikely.) Beyond that, tho, how can you know? Now, if you rule that the dragon *can* know...then it's not a Reflex save. The dragon can stay put and cause the spell to fizzle if he chooses. This is not an attack, the dragon doesn't become visible. The caster should reasonably guess that there's something he can't see that blocked the spell from taking effect, but he doesn't get an exact location...it could be anywhere along the intended line of effect. The dragon can choose to move; he pretty much is holding action, so I don't have a problem with him moving. HE gets to pick where he moves to...no Reflex save required. If the dragon can't know the exact area, then it's still reasonable to say, he can guess. Dragons are usually reasonably smart. Since it's a PC who's casting the spell, and the DM controls the dragon, the best thing to do would be to *not* have the player immediately announce where the spell's going...give the dragon time to make a tactical assessment, and choose to move or not based on that assessment, as above. Finally, note that the dragon's invisible...but not silent. If he decides to move, this should invoke Listen checks. |
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:a) Why does the dragon need spellcraft? They all have blindsense, which means that the "invisible wall of force" isn't invisible to them. b) How does the wall of force actually get created? Does it just appear out of thin air completely formed? Or does it start at one point and create itself along the way to the final point (like the walls are made by the bikes in Tron)? If so, he can see the spell coming and try to avoid it. If the wall does break because the dragon's there, does the caster know exactly where? How, exactly, does the spell fail? Does the spell shatter around a dragon-shaped hole in the wall? Or does it simply not start at all? It's not that the spell description doesn't give enough information, it's that no spell description can cover every eventuality. When in doubt, make it up and make it cool.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
a) Because the dragon has to do this *as the spell is being cast.*
b) If this were true, so would anyone else who happened to have See Invis, or some other means of detecting it. IMO, the actual 'materialization time' for the wall is so close to 0 as to not matter. No, the caster has no clue where the wall fizzled...but I already said that. No, it doesn't shatter; the wall simple never forms anywhere. Read the spell description without trying to achieve a means by which it can work. It very clearly DOES NOT work, if the line of effect includes one of the dragon's squares. It's not that the spell description doesn't give enough information, it's that no spell description can cover every eventuality. When in doubt, make it up and make it cool.Horsecrap. This case is absolutely covered. From the SRD: 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. What part of this is unclear? What IS unclear, is where your Reflex save came about, in part because it's hanging out there unjustified. What are you attempting to accomplish, and in what situations does it make sense, with this notion of a Reflex save? Why does the dragon even *want* to move? Now, ok, you say, don't care...he chooses to move. Fine. Let's go back to the stages of a spell, from the Spellcraft skill roll, and Counterspelling. #1: it is NOT!!! free to recognize the spell that's being cast, in time to do something about it. We're talking a spell that will require time to physically move...not do some form of duck and cover, as fits a normal Reflex save, but to execute a Move action. IMO, that means it has to be recognized during the casting. AND, he has to know *where* it's gonna go, to achieve the result you encourage, of knowing the 'advantageous' and 'disadvantageous' sides. That is never supported anywhere, and I *don't want* to support it...because if the dragon can do this, in time to move 50'...then why can't the rogue/bard with +30 in spellcraft do this, in time to completely move out of the area of the fireball? Your "make it up, make it cool" with the implicit "the heck with any rules concepts" is totally Gygaxian...which, I'm sorry to say, is the worst insult I can make in a gaming context. Make it up...based on a sound understanding of rules principles. Cool would be nice, but I'm never gonna sacrifice rules consistency for coolness. |
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:Absolutely nothing. But explain to me, then, how something can break if it never exists to be broken? I can't break the pencil sitting on my desk if it's not there for me to break. How does the wall of force "break" if it's not there to be broken? Your "make it up, make it cool" with the implicit "the heck with any rules concepts" is totally Gygaxian...which, I'm sorry to say, is the worst insult I can make in a gaming context.I don't mind if you don't agree with my interpretation of the rules. But I don't appreciate veiled insults. Make it up...based on a sound understanding of rules principles. Cool would be nice, but I'm never gonna sacrifice rules consistency for coolness. Sound understanding of the rules principles and rules consistency? Okay. Here's how I came up with my ruling. I took a look at the various other wall spells in the SRD. Wall of ice says "Its surface must be smooth and unbroken when created. Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed." Wall of iron says "Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves." Wall of stone says "Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves." Both wall of fire and wall of thorns can be made directly on a creature with no save. So rules consistency is pretty much out the window on wall spells. But with a wall of ice, how could you disrupt it if you didn't know where it was going? The spell mentions "as it is being formed," meaning it's not instantaneous. With a wall of stone, if the wall were created instantaneously, how could you avoid entrapment? To make a reflex save you would need at least a split second to see the wall coming and avoid it. So using those two examples, coupled with what I said earlier about the wall of force breaking, I ruled that it doesn't form instantaneously; you can see it coming (as long as you can see invisible things). Now, one wall spells lets you disrupt the wall from forming with a reflex save while another lets you avoid the wall with a reflex save. So I came up with the idea of allowing a reflex save to avoid the wall if you see it coming. Now, the wall is invisible. Dragons have blindsense, so it's not invisible to them. I made the assumption that the dragon is lying in wait for them, since it's invisible, so I assume it's readied to take an action. Since the dragon is readied to act and can see the wall coming, I would give him a reflex save to avoid it. I wouldn't rule that he needs a spellcraft check since he can see the wall coming. And I assume that the dragon would want to move so that he maintains the element of surprise. To take it a step further, whether the dragon made his save or not I would have him make a move silently check opposed by the PCs listen checks. If the dragon stopped the wall from forming, I would also let the spellcaster know where the spell stopped. If you don't agree with how I would rule the situation, that's fine. But I think it's much more fun than saying "Your spell fails." And remember, the very next question to be answered would be "Why did it fail?"
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
But explain to me, then, how something can break if it never exists to be broken?Grammatic error on their part. Change the tense to future imperfect..."would be broken". "Its surface must be smooth and unbroken when created. Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed."And wall of force doesn't say that. What this suggests is, there is a notable transitional moment as the wall of ice forms, in which its location can be discerned, but its coalescence is not complete. It's in that moment that something can interfere, and disrupt the wall. Wall of Force DOES NOT say this, therefore, this phase DOES NOT exist for this spell. Wall of iron says "Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves."Stage it out. The wall HAS formed completely. It is now visible. Everyone can tell where it is, and how it's falling. It is reasonable to say, it takes a second or two to fall over, and THAT is the time interval for the Reflex save. Wall of stone says "Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves."But nothing in Wall of Force says this is possible. Both wall of fire and wall of thorns can be made directly on a creature with no save.And wall of force doesn't allow this. Now, the wall is invisible. Dragons have blindsense, so it's not invisible to them. I made the assumption that the dragon is lying in wait for them, since it's invisible, so I assume it's readied to take an action. Since the dragon is readied to act and can see the wall coming, I would give him a reflex save to avoid it.Unjustified. I'm a rogue, I'm invisible but with a ring of True Seeing on. I have a held action. Opposition caster wants to cast a wall of force. I could see it form, by your ruling. Let's say it'll pass through a square adjacent to me. Can I interfere with the spell? NO. There is nothing in the spell mechanic that supports this. To take it a step further, whether the dragon made his save or not I would have him make a move silently check opposed by the PCs listen checks. If the dragon stopped the wall from forming, I would also let the spellcaster know where the spell stopped.Tell me WHERE in the description of Wall of Force, that this is supported. Your ruling that "you can see the spell as it forms" MIGHT cover it...but that ruling is totally unsupported as well. You yourself say there's little coherence in the wall spells; they vary notably in several aspects. And I totally agree that Wall of Stone and Wall of Ice have specific rules that say, they have non-trivial time intervals in which they complete. But that does NOT mean that all the wall spells do. Why assume it here? The spell ONLY says, the wall of force does not form. It does NOT say it 'flows through' to some termination point, then collapses, thus justifying the "aha! there's something invisible there!" that you want. The spell fails. That's a mechanical statement made by the DM. Fine, the wizard asks why? He's asking himself, cuz me, the DM, am DAMN SURE not answering. That's for him to figure out. Final point: read what is allowed under Readied. What you're trying to do, breaks down in the fine-scale timing. |
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:I don't believe it is a grammatical error. If it were the entire sentence would be redundant. I'm a rogue, I'm invisible but with a ring of True Seeing on. I have a held action. Opposition caster wants to cast a wall of force. I could see it form, by your ruling. Let's say it'll pass through a square adjacent to me. Can I interfere with the spell? NO. There is nothing in the spell mechanic that supports this.The rogue can five foot step into the wall's path. As per the spell's description, "If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails." That's part of the reason why I'm ruling it the way I do; so that entire sentence has actual meaning. The spell ONLY says, the wall of force does not form. It does NOT say it 'flows through' to some termination point, then collapses, thus justifying the "aha! there's something invisible there!" that you want. The spell fails. That's a mechanical statement made by the DM. Fine, the wizard asks why? He's asking himself, cuz me, the DM, am DAMN SURE not answering. That's for him to figure out.It absolutely justifies that there's something invisible there, whether it's an exact point because the wall begins to form from a single point or somewhere along the wall if it appears instantaneously; it's pretty much the only way the spell will fail upon casting, because again, as per the spell description, "If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails." In other words, there had to have been something there to break the spell, and if you can't see it, it must be invisible. And if I were the DM, I would tell the player why the spell failed. The player might not know, but the wizard would know the spell's limitations, and as the DM I would tell him so that the game didn't come to a screeching halt while the player tried to puzzle out something his wizard would easily know.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
I don't believe it is a grammatical error. If it were the entire sentence would be redundant.From the SRD: The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails. Tense-edited: The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface would be broken by any object or creature, the spell fails. Of course it's a grammatical error. The first sentence is future perfect; the second is present. They don't fit together...but they DO fit, if the second sentence is future imperfect. Nor are they redundant. The first establishes a requirement; the second sets the conditions to violate the requirement, and the consequence for doing so. The rogue can five foot step into the wall's path. As per the spell's description, "If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails." That's part of the reason why I'm ruling it the way I do; so that entire sentence has actual meaning.None of that describes those things that are necessary for the rogue to DO this. Wall of Ice has a specific enabler for this, but Wall of Force doesn't...neither does Wall of Fire. From WoFire: If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. There's no "oh, you have a second to figure out where it's going, then leap away if you want." It absolutely justifies that there's something invisible there, whether it's an exact point because the wall begins to form from a single point or somewhere along the wall if it appears instantaneously; it's pretty much the only way the spell will fail upon casting, because again, as per the spell description, "If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails." In other words, there had to have been something there to break the spell, and if you can't see it, it must be invisible. And if I were the DM, I would tell the player why the spell failed. The player might not know, but the wizard would know the spell's limitations, and as the DM I would tell him so that the game didn't come to a screeching halt while the player tried to puzzle out something his wizard would easily know.But there's a logical process here, that is the caster's concern. You're skipping a step because it's a trivial one...but it's crucial to understand that the step exists. (Ack, shades of my Advanced Calc prof chewing me out for doing that in proofs. "But they're trivial steps." "Yes, but they're steps....") Saying it 'absolutely justifies' is reasonably valid *here* because it's the only method defined for the spell failing. It might not be valid in other cases, where there are multiple failure conditions. But it's not true even here; there are other ways to have it fail. Maybe an epic caster with Auto Still and Auto Silent and Improved Invis, used Greater Dispel or just cast WoF himself, as a counterspell. Would you know? You were busy. Perhaps the room itself has some kind of weird ward against force effects, or...who knows? But at most, all you can say is, that *something* invisible is probably in the path; if I'm the wizard, I'd make that assumption, and if I'm the wizard's DM, I'd agree that he's completely justified in doing so. But, *as the DM*...I damn sure DO NOT!!!! tell him why it failed. I would, if necessary, quote the rules passage, as I agree the wizard would know that. But that IS NOT the same thing. When you, as the DM, say that the spell failed because it intersected with an invisible object, you are declaring that this is THE reason, incontrovertibly, and don't bother considering any other options. If you quote the sentences from the WoF rule, you are offering *a* reason...but there may also be others. Beyond that, even saying "it encountered some invisible...something", leaving the critter/object point vague, that does NOT say the wizard knows what or where it is. The player might want the answer, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to it. Let him cast a Detect Invis or True Seeing...then maybe he'll know. (Maybe, cuz there might be range issues.) |
|||