Bad GM rulings? How would you rule?

[roguerouge]

It's like Uber-Wind Wall, because it also stops most melee attacks (if not the first, then probably the second), on top of all the other stuff like damage and cover.

I agree. It's a sixth level spell. Wind wall is third level. The "wall of" spells are fourth and fifth. By this point, the PCs should have teleports, dimension doors, blink, stone shapes, and/or ethereal jaunts. Or just have kickin' Reflex saves.

You want to go through the wall spell, you pay the price.

 

[KarinsDad]

A brick wall is a solid barrier that would stop sound attacks, but you can still make a listen check through it.

A brick wall is not impervious to the equivalent of a nuclear explosion.


We do not really know what force is or does (outside of incorporeal creatures). The main thing we know is that in the case of Wall of Force and Force Cage, it stops spells and creatures from passing through them and in the case of a barred cage, it stops larger weapons as well.

That's most of it. Most everything else is conjecture.

This powerful spell brings into being an immobile, invisible cubical prison composed of either bars of force or solid walls of force (your choice).

Creatures within the area are caught and contained unless they are too big to fit inside, in which case the spell automatically fails. Teleportation and other forms of astral travel provide a means of escape, but the force walls or bars extend into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel.

Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation.

Barred Cage: This version of the spell produces a 20-foot cube made of bands of force (similar to a wall of force spell) for bars. The bands are a half-inch wide, with half-inch gaps between them. Any creature capable of passing through such a small space can escape; others are confined. You can’t attack a creature in a barred cage with a weapon unless the weapon can fit between the gaps. Even against such weapons (including arrows and similar ranged attacks), a creature in the barred cage has cover. All spells and breath weapons can pass through the gaps in the bars.

Windowless Cell: This version of the spell produces a 10-foot cube with no way in and no way out. Solid walls of force form its six sides.

...

A wall of force spell creates an invisible wall of force. The wall cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic. However, disintegrate immediately destroys it, as does a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or a mage’s disjunction spell. Breath weapons and spells cannot pass through the wall in either direction, although dimension door, teleport, and similar effects can bypass the barrier. It blocks ethereal creatures as well as material ones (though ethereal creatures can usually get around the wall by floating under or over it through material floors and ceilings). Gaze attacks can operate through a wall of force.

Nowhere in the description of Wall of Force does it state that it stops material objects. The wall itself cannot be harmed or moved, but that says nothing about it being solid and stopping other material objects.

So, if one rules literally that since Wall of Force does not state that it stops sound, then one should also literally rule that it does not stop rain, or arrows, or normal fire, or wind, or natural lightning from the sky, or smoke from a Smokestick or the goo from a Tanglefoot bag, etc. If one were to rule literally.

Given the descriptions we have, I prefer to rule that both spells stop everything (in the windowless cell version of Force Cage). Matter. Energy. Magic. Sound. Everything. The only thing they do not stop is Light (because they are invisible), Gaze Weapons, and Teleportation Magic. Note: Force Cage does not state that Gaze Weapons go through it, but that is a personal ruling of mine that both spells work identically in that case since I like consistency.

Instead of ruling that only the things it stops is the things that it explicitly states that it stops (which leads to Walls of Force not stopping rain or the heat of a forest fire whereas a stone wall would), I prefer to rule that the only things it does not stop is the things it states it does not stop. I focus on the exceptions as opposed to the inclusions.

The reason I do this is that the Wall of Force spell does not state that it stops arrows or any other material object or weapon. Only the Force Cage implies that (an inference based on it being solid and on the Barred Cage version stopping larger weapons).

Additionally, neither spell explicitly stops extraordinary or supernatural abilities. For example, an Aboleth's Enslave or its Mucus Cloud.

It does not make sense to me (from a historical DND Wall of Force POV) that a Wall of Force would not stop arrows or bolts, and anything else that could pass through it. And that is what one would have to rule if one were to literally rule only based on what Wall of Force states that it stops. So, I take the opposing POV and rule that it stops everything and does not stop what it explicitly states it does not stop. I rule the same for Force Cage (actually, I rule that the spells are identical for all intents and purposes).

I find ruling in the opposite direction nebulous and arbitrary (well, Wall of Force stops arrows, but it doesn't stop sound: huh?).

 

[KarinsDad]

Let's go down this path and see where the logic takes us. So, if we stick something through the Blade Barrier, it takes damage. Well, what if someone tries to swing a Longsword through it? The Longsword would take 15d6 damage. That's an average of 52.5 damage. A +3 Longsword has a hardness of 16 and 35 HP, enough to survive 51 damage. Oh look, we have a broken +3 Longsword! The Blade Barrier would also destroy arrows and other ranged weapons.

Nope.

Reread the spell:

Any creature passing through the wall takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6), with a Reflex save for half damage.

Blade Barrier affects creatures, not objects. Nowhere in the description does it state that it does any damage to anything other than a creature.

And, it affects creatures passing through it. Not moving through it (i.e. as in Movement and official movement rules), passing through it.

It is perfectly reasonably that a DM rules that reaching through it is passing through it. It does not state "completely passing through it with movement". The spell has no such limitation listed.

 

[Zelc]

I agree. It's a sixth level spell. Wind wall is third level. The "wall of" spells are fourth and fifth. By this point, the PCs should have teleports, dimension doors, blink, stone shapes, and/or ethereal jaunts. Or just have kickin' Reflex saves.

Let's look at what the spell does and try to tag a level on it. It does up to 15d6 damage in an AoE, with a save. This is the equivalent of a level 5 spell, like Cone of Cold. It lasts multiple rounds, which bumps it to a level 6 spell. The cover is a minor benefit and cancels with the effects of the reflex negates save. So, from the pure RAW view, the level assigned to it is fair.

Let's see what happens when we try to price the "common sense" effects of the wall. Wind Wall, a 3rd level spell, stops all small missile weapons and gives larger missiles like javelins a 30% miss chance. The "common sense" effects of Blade Barrier would do this as well as stopping javelin-like missiles entirely. Not only that, but it destroys melee weapons that try to attack through it. This effect is much more difficult to price. It could be the equivalent of something like a Disintegrate or Reach Spell Crumble, which are 6th and 5th level spells respectively. Alternatively, you can price it like the Starmantle spell, which is level 6 (Starmantle is also widely considered to be good-broken, and Blade Barrier can be placed more flexibly). So at the very least, the added effects of the "common sense" interpretation is a 6th level spell, and I think a good case can be made to send it higher. Note this is better than a Wall effect, because the Blade Barrier cannot be destroyed with damage and it deals with the enemy's weapon permanently, as opposed to simply stalling them.

Now, it could be difficult to use both effects at once. Placing it to destroy a weapon may mean you can't hit an enemy with it at the same time. Still, the added functionality means the spell should be worth more than a spell that has only one of the effects. Since both effects are at least 6th level effects, the "common sense" Blade Barrier should at least be a 7th level spell.

 

[Zelc]

Blade Barrier affects creatures, not objects. Nowhwere in the description does it state that it does any damage to anything other than a creature.

Interesting. In that case, I suppose it wouldn't be too bad to rule it deals damage for touch attacks on someone on the opposite side. I'm not sure if this interpretation of "passing through" could break it in a different way, though. It might cause someone charging down the line to take damage for every square he "passes through", which could be a problem. I brought it up earlier here and on the Gleemax forums, where it was suggested to interpret "passing through" as actually moving from one side to the other, which would solve the problem.

By the way, that thread also touches on how to place a Blade Barrier/Wall of Fire, which is a tricky issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

Interesting. In that case, I suppose it wouldn't be too bad to rule it deals damage for touch attacks on someone on the opposite side. I'm not sure if this interpretation of "passing through" could break it in a different way, though. It might cause someone charging down the line to take damage for every square he "passes through", which could be a problem. I brought it up earlier here and on the Gleemax forums, where it was suggested to interpret "passing through" as actually moving from one side to the other, which would solve the problem.

I do not see that the problem is serious or critical.

Passing horizontally through, vertically through, or diagonally through, through is through.

It does not matter if it is one inch or 100 yards.

Going into and coming out the other side is "through". If the wall is 50 feet long, one does not come through until one comes back out.

One tricky thing here is that a PC could enter it and never pass through and never take damage, but that is DM adjudicating 101. "Don't be literal when the result is silly". If a creature takes damage going through or when the wall is first put up in its location, then it also takes damage if it stops in the middle of the wall and does not literally "pass through".


Now, I could see a given DM having a problem with passing 100 feet through 20 walls doing 20x the damage of moving 100 feet through a single wall in a different direction. But, that's what DM adjudication is all about. Ruling a given way based on what the rules state combined with what makes sense for a given DM. Either interpretation is reasonable. One is literal (take damage once each time one passes all the way through), the other is more "common sense" (take damage in each 5 foot grid because of the 20 walls in a different direction issue).

In this case, I use the more literal ruling because I have never seen a boatload of wall spells up at the same time and I have also never seen situations where someone moves down the grids of a wall spell. Sure, they could happen in the game, but it's easier (and less game breaking) to allow the damage to occur once per "pass through".

By the way, that thread also touches on how to place a Blade Barrier/Wall of Fire, which is a tricky issue.

Again, I don't see a real problem.

A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through.

Granted, walls are not defined as "Line effects" in the game. But, I really do not see the need for a difference.

Frank's A and 1 (draw another parallel line 5 feet away, 10 feet away, etc.) handle it quite nicely.

Why make it more complex than it needs to be?

 

[azhrei_fje]

After hearing more of the story, I agree with your ruling on the BBEG and ethereal jaunt, azhrei_fje. Tell your "rules lawyer" player (who doesn't know the rules on Listen checks) to just shut up, that you have the how's and why's well in hand and that all will be made clear at some future point.

Heh-heh, thanks. But I wouldn't tell a player to "shut up" until I was sure. So I've added the Listen check clarification to our "house rules" thread on my personal gaming forum.

Just keep in mind that you're using a very powerful ability for her that was unforeseen in the module. Perhaps you did not consider how that would play into the death of a PC. It's a fine ruling if it helps the story (the attack from the other board) or provides a very useful escape route, but it sucks when it's 'abused' merely to kill a PC. Killing the traitor is okay, but it's also quite reasonable to assume that she's pressed for time. She need not push fate to see if she can get away with another murder.

It's true that it's fairly powerful. When I read about it on the other board, I decided that I would use it. It takes a standard action to enter the stone and normal movement to exit. That means it's no faster to go through the stone to get to her bed chamber than it is to go through the door (slower even, if you figure you can leave the door ajar and only need open it once).

However, it would not be difficult for her to have a few drams of dreamstep on her person anyway. And if she needed it to get into the stone, she would've have at least one dose on her, probably more.

Also, there's some truth in what the poster said about it being lame. Ignore how justified it is for the BBEG or any other similar in-game concern. It just sucks as a player for your character to be killed like that, out of combat. And, maybe I missed it, but this player wasn't even there, right?

The player was there. The tricky part is that the player was NOT there at the previous session so another player had taken over the character. That player ended up triggering a symbol of insanity, which eventually led to the party knocking her unconscious because they couldn't fix that spell right away. But I have to admit that the other player did a great job of playing the rogue true-to-form. Triggering the symbol was just the kind of thing that the rogue's player would have done. I don't think there's any hard feelings between those two players.

(In a much older session, I ruled that dying eliminated mind-affecting effects. So the good news is that the rogue will come back without the insanity effect. )

I just got a message from one of the players that what irked him the most was that the onus of dropping out of combat was put on the players because I asked! I tried to explain that the question came up as soon as the BBEG jaunt'd, then again a few rounds later after she had taken her fateful actions. But he seems to think that I shouldn't have pushed the responsibility onto the players towards the end of a gaming session! (The effect would've been exactly the same, so this seems like a silly thing to become upset about. But I suppose appearances matter in a situation like this...)

 

[green slime]

What gets me is how some people seem to expect that high level PC's have some "Immunity from Death" card.

1) RttToEE is reknowned as a PC-grinder. If you are playing that module, you treasure each survived session.
2) The OP did indeed warn the players: "This is tough. No holds barred. These are BAD dudes. Not just ordinary criminals. Sick depraved b*st*rds"
3) Of course a vicious, sadisitic, vengeful BBEG is going to CDG an opponent when given a chance of doing it and getting away.
4) If I as a player found out that the BBEG chickened out and went all puppy-eyes, I'd be more than a tad miffed. I like to have good reasons to hate the BBEG.
5) At the level these guys are at, death is expected. Suck it up and pay for the diamond.
6) The player took the killing of his PC personally.
7) I don't think I'd have killed the PC: there are other fates worse than killing the PC and leaving the corpse for his friends to find....

I have made it clear to my players, that rumours get around: If a particular team of heroes CDG's their opponents at the first opportunity, then the Bad guys will respond in kind, because they know they can expect no better treatment themselves. If, on the other hand, a team is reknown for showing mercy, and treating prisoners well, then the minions of the BBEG will know they have a chance of living to see another day. It will also increase the likelihood of the PC's being well-treated when captured in order for the Evil Minions (TM) to "hedge their bets" & gain bonus cookie points should things go south (and pear shaped).

 

[roguerouge]

Let's see what happens when we try to price the "common sense" effects of the wall. Wind Wall, a 3rd level spell, stops all small missile weapons and gives larger missiles like javelins a 30% miss chance. The "common sense" effects of Blade Barrier would do this as well as stopping javelin-like missiles entirely. Not only that, but it destroys melee weapons that try to attack through it. This effect is much more difficult to price. It could be the equivalent of something like a Disintegrate or Reach Spell Crumble, which are 6th and 5th level spells respectively. Alternatively, you can price it like the Starmantle spell, which is level 6 (Starmantle is also widely considered to be good-broken, and Blade Barrier can be placed more flexibly). So at the very least, the added effects of the "common sense" interpretation is a 6th level spell, and I think a good case can be made to send it higher. Note this is better than a Wall effect, because the Blade Barrier cannot be destroyed with damage and it deals with the enemy's weapon permanently, as opposed to simply stalling them.

Now, it could be difficult to use both effects at once. Placing it to destroy a weapon may mean you can't hit an enemy with it at the same time. Still, the added functionality means the spell should be worth more than a spell that has only one of the effects. Since both effects are at least 6th level effects, the "common sense" Blade Barrier should at least be a 7th level spell.

Interesting. I generally play with people who skew towards role-playing rather than this approach. They'd rather something fits narratively than fits by power. So if I'm not responding in the proper manner here, please help me out.

My take is that blade barrier, as a wall spell, has some serious limitations. The most important limitation is that it's permeable. Rogues can tumble through it, albeit with risk. You can target spells through it (which you can't with Walls of Stone, Ice, and Force) at the minor cost of its providing cover (+4 AC, +2 Reflex).

As a DM, I'd argue that placing it to destroy a weapon is a kind of fine-tuned placement that the wall cannot handle. Weapons are here, there, and everywhere in melee and mostly share a creature's space. (Even reach weapons could be argued to "retreat" to this space to aid in parrying and defense after the melee attack roll.) And as an attended item, I'd rule that it requires a 1 on the save of the weapon owner to afflict it in this way, much as other posters have mentioned.

But if you stick your weapon and arm into the blender voluntarily: you get to make another Reflex save (per the spell rules) and if you roll a 1, your weapon is toast.

Basically, if a player told me s/he wanted to attack through a blade barrier, I'd give them a Wisdom check, DC 5. If they succeeded, I tell them exactly what's going to happen and say "Are you SURE?" If they want to risk it, great.

In conclusion: PC stupidity ALWAYS makes opponents (and their spell effects) more powerful.

 

[roguerouge]

But he seems to think that I shouldn't have pushed the responsibility onto the players towards the end of a gaming session! (The effect would've been exactly the same, so this seems like a silly thing to become upset about. But I suppose appearances matter in a situation like this...)

At the end of the session, good players will let the DM segue so that they can end the game in a memorable point. They won't question every detail, especially if even one player has a commute ahead of them. No one wants their last memory of the game to be about arguing about the fine points of DnD rules or searching the broom closet of the BBEG.

Your player is right and you need to reboot. If you need to justify it, call it "heroic precognition" of what might be.