Mixing
Casting wall of fire in a T-shaped corridor
$begingroup$
In D&D 5e, is casting wall of fire like this allowed, or would I need to have line of sight for the entire corridor? Assume my wizard knows that the corridor extends both ways and how long it is.
dnd-5e spells area-of-effect line-of-sight wall
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In D&D 5e, is casting wall of fire like this allowed, or would I need to have line of sight for the entire corridor? Assume my wizard knows that the corridor extends both ways and how long it is.
dnd-5e spells area-of-effect line-of-sight wall
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In D&D 5e, is casting wall of fire like this allowed, or would I need to have line of sight for the entire corridor? Assume my wizard knows that the corridor extends both ways and how long it is.
dnd-5e spells area-of-effect line-of-sight wall
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
$endgroup$
In D&D 5e, is casting wall of fire like this allowed, or would I need to have line of sight for the entire corridor? Assume my wizard knows that the corridor extends both ways and how long it is.
dnd-5e spells area-of-effect line-of-sight wall
dnd-5e spells area-of-effect line-of-sight wall
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
edited Jan 21 at 14:25
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
57.9k10282430
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
asked Jan 21 at 14:00
gogugogu
16827
16827
4
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03
4
4
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You do not need line of sight at all
Spells will tell you the requirements to cast them. All spells require (unless indicated otherwise), a clear path to the target, but line of sight is not a general requirement. In other words, spells only require line of sight if they specifically say so.
Here are the targeting requirements for wall of fire:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Wall of fire does not have any stipulation that you must be able to see the target, therefore it is not a requirement. Just be sure that you are casting within the 120 range.
To be clear, you don't need to see any part of the place where you cast the wall. As long as you have line of effect, you can simply do it. It also does not matter if the caster knows if and/or how long the hall is for the purposes of casting the spell.
Does wall of fire even need a clear path? DM decision
This brings us to a surprisingly tricky question of if wall of fire even needs a clear path to the target. The only thing wall of fire says is:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Unlike many spells, this one does not say what, if anything, it is targeting and also doesn't have any of the standard area of effect shapes which would give us an idea of the point of origin. It is also interesting to note that all of the wall-type spells are written like this.
Regardless, there is no clear answer given to us by RAW or even by RAI and thus the DM must decide how they want to handle the issue. If they rule that a clear path is needed then you can only affect whatever is clear of cover from whatever point they decide is the origin. If not, then your spell works the way you have said.
For more discussion Bash's answer talks a bit more about the options available to a DM here.
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can do this
The description for Wall of fire only lists a range and makes no mention of a line of sight requirement:
... RANGE/AREA 120 ft ...
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick ...
Additionally, the wall can be up to 60 feet so even if the corridor was unfamiliar to the spellcaster and only extended 45 feet, the wall would size itself to fill the space. Do note however that the wall must be created within the stated 120 foot range.
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This needs DM's approval.
Spell targeting rules prevent you from targeting a point/creature behind total cover :
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
So, you can target any point/creature in the intersection, but you can't target a point/creature in the unseen corridors (not because you don't see them - but because there's no clear path.)
Fire bolt is useless here, even if you know someone set an ambush.
Some Area of effect spells can affect creatures in the corridors, as long as there's a clear path between the creature and the spell's targeted point of origin :
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Fireball can be useful, if the ambushers are close enough : just target the intersection, and the flames will expand from there.
The wall of fire issue
The spell's description lacks reference both to "standard" spell shapes, and to a proper point of origin. Which leaves it up to the DM :
- He may decide the straight wall uses the "line" template - then you need clear path to one end of it. You can only affect one of the two corridors.
- He may decide the straight wall derives from the "cube" template - then you need clear path to a point located anywhere on a face. You can affect both corridors.
- He may decide you need clear path to every inch of the wall. He's the DM, after all. You can affect only the intersection.
- He may decide you are not targeting anything - and allow you to cast this even without any clear path or point of origin. (not likely the designer's intent). You can affect both corridors.
Option (4) may raise even more questions if the corridor is shorter than the intended wall's length. For (1) and (2), total cover from point of origin would prevent the wall from continuing after the corridor's end : but what happens when there is no point of origin... isn't described in the rules, and lies again in DM's hands.
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139602%2fcasting-wall-of-fire-in-a-t-shaped-corridor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You do not need line of sight at all
Spells will tell you the requirements to cast them. All spells require (unless indicated otherwise), a clear path to the target, but line of sight is not a general requirement. In other words, spells only require line of sight if they specifically say so.
Here are the targeting requirements for wall of fire:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Wall of fire does not have any stipulation that you must be able to see the target, therefore it is not a requirement. Just be sure that you are casting within the 120 range.
To be clear, you don't need to see any part of the place where you cast the wall. As long as you have line of effect, you can simply do it. It also does not matter if the caster knows if and/or how long the hall is for the purposes of casting the spell.
Does wall of fire even need a clear path? DM decision
This brings us to a surprisingly tricky question of if wall of fire even needs a clear path to the target. The only thing wall of fire says is:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Unlike many spells, this one does not say what, if anything, it is targeting and also doesn't have any of the standard area of effect shapes which would give us an idea of the point of origin. It is also interesting to note that all of the wall-type spells are written like this.
Regardless, there is no clear answer given to us by RAW or even by RAI and thus the DM must decide how they want to handle the issue. If they rule that a clear path is needed then you can only affect whatever is clear of cover from whatever point they decide is the origin. If not, then your spell works the way you have said.
For more discussion Bash's answer talks a bit more about the options available to a DM here.
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not need line of sight at all
Spells will tell you the requirements to cast them. All spells require (unless indicated otherwise), a clear path to the target, but line of sight is not a general requirement. In other words, spells only require line of sight if they specifically say so.
Here are the targeting requirements for wall of fire:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Wall of fire does not have any stipulation that you must be able to see the target, therefore it is not a requirement. Just be sure that you are casting within the 120 range.
To be clear, you don't need to see any part of the place where you cast the wall. As long as you have line of effect, you can simply do it. It also does not matter if the caster knows if and/or how long the hall is for the purposes of casting the spell.
Does wall of fire even need a clear path? DM decision
This brings us to a surprisingly tricky question of if wall of fire even needs a clear path to the target. The only thing wall of fire says is:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Unlike many spells, this one does not say what, if anything, it is targeting and also doesn't have any of the standard area of effect shapes which would give us an idea of the point of origin. It is also interesting to note that all of the wall-type spells are written like this.
Regardless, there is no clear answer given to us by RAW or even by RAI and thus the DM must decide how they want to handle the issue. If they rule that a clear path is needed then you can only affect whatever is clear of cover from whatever point they decide is the origin. If not, then your spell works the way you have said.
For more discussion Bash's answer talks a bit more about the options available to a DM here.
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not need line of sight at all
Spells will tell you the requirements to cast them. All spells require (unless indicated otherwise), a clear path to the target, but line of sight is not a general requirement. In other words, spells only require line of sight if they specifically say so.
Here are the targeting requirements for wall of fire:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Wall of fire does not have any stipulation that you must be able to see the target, therefore it is not a requirement. Just be sure that you are casting within the 120 range.
To be clear, you don't need to see any part of the place where you cast the wall. As long as you have line of effect, you can simply do it. It also does not matter if the caster knows if and/or how long the hall is for the purposes of casting the spell.
Does wall of fire even need a clear path? DM decision
This brings us to a surprisingly tricky question of if wall of fire even needs a clear path to the target. The only thing wall of fire says is:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Unlike many spells, this one does not say what, if anything, it is targeting and also doesn't have any of the standard area of effect shapes which would give us an idea of the point of origin. It is also interesting to note that all of the wall-type spells are written like this.
Regardless, there is no clear answer given to us by RAW or even by RAI and thus the DM must decide how they want to handle the issue. If they rule that a clear path is needed then you can only affect whatever is clear of cover from whatever point they decide is the origin. If not, then your spell works the way you have said.
For more discussion Bash's answer talks a bit more about the options available to a DM here.
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
$endgroup$
You do not need line of sight at all
Spells will tell you the requirements to cast them. All spells require (unless indicated otherwise), a clear path to the target, but line of sight is not a general requirement. In other words, spells only require line of sight if they specifically say so.
Here are the targeting requirements for wall of fire:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Wall of fire does not have any stipulation that you must be able to see the target, therefore it is not a requirement. Just be sure that you are casting within the 120 range.
To be clear, you don't need to see any part of the place where you cast the wall. As long as you have line of effect, you can simply do it. It also does not matter if the caster knows if and/or how long the hall is for the purposes of casting the spell.
Does wall of fire even need a clear path? DM decision
This brings us to a surprisingly tricky question of if wall of fire even needs a clear path to the target. The only thing wall of fire says is:
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.
Unlike many spells, this one does not say what, if anything, it is targeting and also doesn't have any of the standard area of effect shapes which would give us an idea of the point of origin. It is also interesting to note that all of the wall-type spells are written like this.
Regardless, there is no clear answer given to us by RAW or even by RAI and thus the DM must decide how they want to handle the issue. If they rule that a clear path is needed then you can only affect whatever is clear of cover from whatever point they decide is the origin. If not, then your spell works the way you have said.
For more discussion Bash's answer talks a bit more about the options available to a DM here.
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
edited Jan 24 at 22:16
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
answered Jan 21 at 14:18
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10282430
57.9k10282430
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can do this
The description for Wall of fire only lists a range and makes no mention of a line of sight requirement:
... RANGE/AREA 120 ft ...
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick ...
Additionally, the wall can be up to 60 feet so even if the corridor was unfamiliar to the spellcaster and only extended 45 feet, the wall would size itself to fill the space. Do note however that the wall must be created within the stated 120 foot range.
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can do this
The description for Wall of fire only lists a range and makes no mention of a line of sight requirement:
... RANGE/AREA 120 ft ...
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick ...
Additionally, the wall can be up to 60 feet so even if the corridor was unfamiliar to the spellcaster and only extended 45 feet, the wall would size itself to fill the space. Do note however that the wall must be created within the stated 120 foot range.
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can do this
The description for Wall of fire only lists a range and makes no mention of a line of sight requirement:
... RANGE/AREA 120 ft ...
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick ...
Additionally, the wall can be up to 60 feet so even if the corridor was unfamiliar to the spellcaster and only extended 45 feet, the wall would size itself to fill the space. Do note however that the wall must be created within the stated 120 foot range.
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
$endgroup$
Yes you can do this
The description for Wall of fire only lists a range and makes no mention of a line of sight requirement:
... RANGE/AREA 120 ft ...
You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick ...
Additionally, the wall can be up to 60 feet so even if the corridor was unfamiliar to the spellcaster and only extended 45 feet, the wall would size itself to fill the space. Do note however that the wall must be created within the stated 120 foot range.
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
answered Jan 21 at 14:43
lightcatlightcat
4,7691855
4,7691855
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This needs DM's approval.
Spell targeting rules prevent you from targeting a point/creature behind total cover :
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
So, you can target any point/creature in the intersection, but you can't target a point/creature in the unseen corridors (not because you don't see them - but because there's no clear path.)
Fire bolt is useless here, even if you know someone set an ambush.
Some Area of effect spells can affect creatures in the corridors, as long as there's a clear path between the creature and the spell's targeted point of origin :
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Fireball can be useful, if the ambushers are close enough : just target the intersection, and the flames will expand from there.
The wall of fire issue
The spell's description lacks reference both to "standard" spell shapes, and to a proper point of origin. Which leaves it up to the DM :
- He may decide the straight wall uses the "line" template - then you need clear path to one end of it. You can only affect one of the two corridors.
- He may decide the straight wall derives from the "cube" template - then you need clear path to a point located anywhere on a face. You can affect both corridors.
- He may decide you need clear path to every inch of the wall. He's the DM, after all. You can affect only the intersection.
- He may decide you are not targeting anything - and allow you to cast this even without any clear path or point of origin. (not likely the designer's intent). You can affect both corridors.
Option (4) may raise even more questions if the corridor is shorter than the intended wall's length. For (1) and (2), total cover from point of origin would prevent the wall from continuing after the corridor's end : but what happens when there is no point of origin... isn't described in the rules, and lies again in DM's hands.
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This needs DM's approval.
Spell targeting rules prevent you from targeting a point/creature behind total cover :
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
So, you can target any point/creature in the intersection, but you can't target a point/creature in the unseen corridors (not because you don't see them - but because there's no clear path.)
Fire bolt is useless here, even if you know someone set an ambush.
Some Area of effect spells can affect creatures in the corridors, as long as there's a clear path between the creature and the spell's targeted point of origin :
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Fireball can be useful, if the ambushers are close enough : just target the intersection, and the flames will expand from there.
The wall of fire issue
The spell's description lacks reference both to "standard" spell shapes, and to a proper point of origin. Which leaves it up to the DM :
- He may decide the straight wall uses the "line" template - then you need clear path to one end of it. You can only affect one of the two corridors.
- He may decide the straight wall derives from the "cube" template - then you need clear path to a point located anywhere on a face. You can affect both corridors.
- He may decide you need clear path to every inch of the wall. He's the DM, after all. You can affect only the intersection.
- He may decide you are not targeting anything - and allow you to cast this even without any clear path or point of origin. (not likely the designer's intent). You can affect both corridors.
Option (4) may raise even more questions if the corridor is shorter than the intended wall's length. For (1) and (2), total cover from point of origin would prevent the wall from continuing after the corridor's end : but what happens when there is no point of origin... isn't described in the rules, and lies again in DM's hands.
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This needs DM's approval.
Spell targeting rules prevent you from targeting a point/creature behind total cover :
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
So, you can target any point/creature in the intersection, but you can't target a point/creature in the unseen corridors (not because you don't see them - but because there's no clear path.)
Fire bolt is useless here, even if you know someone set an ambush.
Some Area of effect spells can affect creatures in the corridors, as long as there's a clear path between the creature and the spell's targeted point of origin :
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Fireball can be useful, if the ambushers are close enough : just target the intersection, and the flames will expand from there.
The wall of fire issue
The spell's description lacks reference both to "standard" spell shapes, and to a proper point of origin. Which leaves it up to the DM :
- He may decide the straight wall uses the "line" template - then you need clear path to one end of it. You can only affect one of the two corridors.
- He may decide the straight wall derives from the "cube" template - then you need clear path to a point located anywhere on a face. You can affect both corridors.
- He may decide you need clear path to every inch of the wall. He's the DM, after all. You can affect only the intersection.
- He may decide you are not targeting anything - and allow you to cast this even without any clear path or point of origin. (not likely the designer's intent). You can affect both corridors.
Option (4) may raise even more questions if the corridor is shorter than the intended wall's length. For (1) and (2), total cover from point of origin would prevent the wall from continuing after the corridor's end : but what happens when there is no point of origin... isn't described in the rules, and lies again in DM's hands.
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
$endgroup$
This needs DM's approval.
Spell targeting rules prevent you from targeting a point/creature behind total cover :
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
So, you can target any point/creature in the intersection, but you can't target a point/creature in the unseen corridors (not because you don't see them - but because there's no clear path.)
Fire bolt is useless here, even if you know someone set an ambush.
Some Area of effect spells can affect creatures in the corridors, as long as there's a clear path between the creature and the spell's targeted point of origin :
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover.
Fireball can be useful, if the ambushers are close enough : just target the intersection, and the flames will expand from there.
The wall of fire issue
The spell's description lacks reference both to "standard" spell shapes, and to a proper point of origin. Which leaves it up to the DM :
- He may decide the straight wall uses the "line" template - then you need clear path to one end of it. You can only affect one of the two corridors.
- He may decide the straight wall derives from the "cube" template - then you need clear path to a point located anywhere on a face. You can affect both corridors.
- He may decide you need clear path to every inch of the wall. He's the DM, after all. You can affect only the intersection.
- He may decide you are not targeting anything - and allow you to cast this even without any clear path or point of origin. (not likely the designer's intent). You can affect both corridors.
Option (4) may raise even more questions if the corridor is shorter than the intended wall's length. For (1) and (2), total cover from point of origin would prevent the wall from continuing after the corridor's end : but what happens when there is no point of origin... isn't described in the rules, and lies again in DM's hands.
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
edited Jan 23 at 8:52
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
answered Jan 22 at 9:37
BashBash
1,423221
1,423221
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
Can you explain how not requring a clear path results in "if the corridor is shorter than the wall's length... the wall will continue after it, affecting anything behind the corridor's end"? I don't understand how one follows the other at all. In fact, the question of what happens when a wall collides with a barrier seems like a separate independent issue. The other minorish point is that saying "doubt that is the intent" isn't very helpful without some reason given for why you think that and what evidence supports it. Otherwise very good answer.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 22 at 17:20
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
I like the new wording a lot! Very nice.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 12:57
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
$begingroup$
yeah I'm going to add something about this whole thing to my answer (due credit given of course if I borrow from here) I just haven't had the time yet
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Jan 23 at 13:28
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139602%2fcasting-wall-of-fire-in-a-t-shaped-corridor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
Hello and welcome! You can take the tour to learn more about the site. This looks like a good question to me. Thank you for participating and happy gaming!
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Jan 21 at 14:03