[3.0] Wall of Iron stupidity

[der_kluge]

Saeviomagy, I like the wall of iron stupidity. That's pretty funny. Maybe wall of ignorance would be a better name, though. Still...


In case anyone cares, here are my House Rules for Wall of Iron:


 Wall of iron – A wall of iron has DR 5/+1, meaning it takes an additional 5 points of damage reduction from non-magic weapons, in addition to the hardness it already possesses. It is not possible to make a strength check to bust through a wall of iron, however a strength DC of 10 +2 per inch of thickness can topple the wall over. This is in addition to any opposed strength check from the other side of the wall, should there be any resistance. A vertical wall without resistance from either side will topple (50% either direction) after a number of rounds equal to the thickness in inches * 10. Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves at a DC 13 + 2 per 5 square feet of dimension. Furthermore, the wall can crush victims of a size category as large as the wall will allow. The wall can crush small and tiny creatures at 5 square feet, medium creatures at 10 square feet, large at 20 square feet, and Huge at 40 square feet. The wall weighs 500 pounds per 5 square feet per inch of thickness. Crushed creatures take 3d6 per 500 pounds of weight of the wall crushing them. It has a duration of 1 hour per caster level.

 

[LokiDR]

Well spooky old wizards have a hard time finding help in the middle of nowhere, they have to build their towers somehow

Don't forget to build yourself a cave complex by shaping out the earth.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: [3.0] Wall of Iron stupidity

Yep. So if you're really strong but not quite that strong, you can't push it over, but you can make a hole in it. Which makes perfect sense to me. A catapult stone isn't going to make a castle wall topple over, but it can make a section collapse.

Castle walls:

a) have foundations, making them more difficult to tip over
b) are generally connected to other walls at an angle which provide support, making them more difficult to tip over
c) are made up of lots of little pieces instead of one big one. (the catapult has to overcome the strength of the mortar to knock a hole in the wall, not the strength of the stone)

The wall of iron, on the other hand, has none of these factors.

J

 

[LokiDR]

Didn't the old spell include a pecent that was influenced by the sides. So, if you got your whole party pushing, you might change the chance to fall on you to 25%. I don't remember the rule used. This seems more realisitic that "push it over or don't matter at all".

 

[Murrdox]

Don't be so silly.

If a creature tries to break through the wall with a single attack, the DC for the Strength check is 25 + 2 per inch of thickness.

If the character desires, the wall can be created vertically resting on a flat surface but not attached to the surface so that it can be tipped over to fall on and crush creatures beneath it. The wall is 50% likely to tip in either direction if left unpushed.

Creatures can push the wall in one direction rather than letting it fall randomly. A creature must succeed at a Strength check (DC 40) to push the wall over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice how the DC for breaking through the wall is listed BEFORE the spell description begins talking about the wall being created in an unsecured fashion?

If the wall isn't attached to anything, your STR check against the wall will AUTOMATICALLY be a STR check to knock it down. If the wall isn't secured in place, you can't beat your way through it.

Think of a plank of wood resting vertically. A kung-fu master kicks the plank. What happens to it? Well, it's not secured in place, so the plank just gets knocked over, or goes flying. Now, take that plank and attach the bottom and/or sides to something, and when the master kicks it, it will break.

 

[hoyerhan]

Don't be so silly.



Notice how the DC for breaking through the wall is listed BEFORE the spell description begins talking about the wall being created in an unsecured fashion?

If the wall isn't attached to anything, your STR check against the wall will AUTOMATICALLY be a STR check to knock it down. If the wall isn't secured in place, you can't beat your way through it.

Think of a plank of wood resting vertically. A kung-fu master kicks the plank. What happens to it? Well, it's not secured in place, so the plank just gets knocked over, or goes flying. Now, take that plank and attach the bottom and/or sides to something, and when the master kicks it, it will break.

That does not make sense.

Do you actually believe that it is harder to knock over an unsecured plank, than to break it if it is stuck?

 

[Murrdox]

So, you give me a large wooden wall, at rest and not secured, and a baseball bat. I hit the wall. I'll put a dent in the wall, and the wall will "give" somewhat because I've smashed it, but it's not secured to anything. Thus, the wall will sway a tiny bit, absorbing part of the blow.

If the wall is secured in place, the wall absorbes the full force of my strike, meaning that I'll do more damage to it.

Because an unsecured wall won't take as much damage, any force that's large enough to do a significant amount of damage to the wall will probably ALSO knock it down before before breaking through it.

I'm not a physics expert... but this relationship seems common sense to me. Perhaps it doesn't translate perfectly into D&D terms.. but it seems that it's going to be easier to knock over an unsecured wall than to beat your way THROUGH it.

 

[LokiDR]

So, you give me a large wooden wall, at rest and not secured, and a baseball bat. I hit the wall. I'll put a dent in the wall, and the wall will "give" somewhat because I've smashed it, but it's not secured to anything. Thus, the wall will sway a tiny bit, absorbing part of the blow.

If the wall is secured in place, the wall absorbes the full force of my strike, meaning that I'll do more damage to it.

Because an unsecured wall won't take as much damage, any force that's large enough to do a significant amount of damage to the wall will probably ALSO knock it down before before breaking through it.

I'm not a physics expert... but this relationship seems common sense to me. Perhaps it doesn't translate perfectly into D&D terms.. but it seems that it's going to be easier to knock over an unsecured wall than to beat your way THROUGH it.

Are you saying it is not possible to break through an unsecured wall without knocking it down? I don't think that is what the spell says.

 

[der_kluge]

No matter what they intended, it's obviously unclear. I still find it hard to believe that with a DC 27 I could simply punch a hole through a 1 inch thick iron wall. I find that hard to believe. And where are you going to be if you're in a position to secure the iron wall to something? How many floors and walls are made of iron? I guess if you live in Archon it's a no brainer...

In any case, hopefully 3.5 will revise it.

 

[Murrdox]

Are you saying it is not possible to break through an unsecured wall without knocking it down? I don't think that is what the spell says.

I think that the spell assumes that if the wall is ABLE to be knocked down, any STR against it are for THAT purpose and not to put a hole in it.

If the wall is secured, I think the spell assumes any STR against it are to put holes in it.

I acknowledge it's poorly phrased, and the DC for punching a hole in an iron wall is incredibly low... but I think that's how the spell is phrased.