Does blade barrier damage objects?

[Hypersmurf]

If you emphasize the "creature" aspect of Blade Barrier, do you not also have to do the same for Wall of Force?

I'd say that Wall of Force blocks arrows by virtue of being a wall of force. I'd say that while arrows passing through the curtain of whirling blades are batted about or deflected somewhat (enough to provide, say, a +4 cover bonus to AC for targets on the far side), they can get through without suffering damage.

An arrow that hit one of the whirling blades of force square-on would not pass through the barrier (just as an arrow that hits a wall of force would not pass through)... but this is represented by the cover bonus.

The damage from the barrier is specific to creatures.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd say that Wall of Force blocks arrows by virtue of being a wall of force. I'd say that while arrows passing through the curtain of whirling blades are batted about or deflected somewhat (enough to provide, say, a +4 cover bonus to AC for targets on the far side), they can get through without suffering damage.

An arrow that hit one of the whirling blades of force square-on would not pass through the barrier (just as an arrow that hits a wall of force would not pass through)... but this is represented by the cover bonus.

The damage from the barrier is specific to creatures.

What a Wall of Force blocks is specific to spells, breath weapons, and creatures. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not solid. It does not stop line of effect. It does not provide total cover. It does none of these things except with regard to spells, breath weapons, and creatures.

Hence, it does not stop arrows.

If you are literal about what the damage of a Blade Barrier affects (even though we know that a Blade Barrier provides a cover bonus and hence affects missiles), you should also be literal about what a Wall of Force blocks.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's possible then that the blade barrier will do some damage. It's also possible it could just stop the ship. Consider an arrow. If the arrow makes it through, clearly no damage was done (no arrow could withstand 15d6). Any other ideas (from anyone) on how else to adjudicate that?

I could see an adjudication that the ship gets stopped (and takes ramming damage) because it cannot pass between the blades. However, the problem with this adjudication is that a Gargantuan sized creature should also only be stopped. But, a Gargantuan sized creature will take damage and will move through the blades.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What a Wall of Force blocks is specific to spells, breath weapons, and creatures.

A Wall of Stone blocks spells, breath weapons, and creatures too, despite not stating it in the spell description.

Wall of Force produces a wall, composed of force.

I don't read the line "It blocks ethereal creatures as well as material ones" as informing us that the wall blocks material creatures; it does that by virtue of being a wall. This line is emphasising that as force, it also blocks ethereal creatures, who could normally walk through a wall.

As a wall, it blocks arrows... just like a wall of stone would.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem is that WotC does not explain what Force is.

Sometimes it is non-solid like Tiny Hut, other times it is effectively totally solid like Resilient Sphere.

Sometimes it gives an armor bonus (Mage Armor), sometimes it gives a shield bonus (Shield), sometimes it does damage (Blade Barrier), sometimes it can be harmed by physical damage(Bigby's), sometimes it cannot be harmed by physical damage (Wall of Force), sometimes it is invisible, sometimes it is opaque, sometimes it is shimmering, etc.

It also comes in 3 flavors: Evocation, Conjuration (creation), and Abjuration.

But, the bottom line is that WotC did not define what it is and every person has a slightly different take on it.


The only real consistent properties that we know about it are that it extends into the Ethereal Plane and affects Incorporeal creatures without the standard miss chance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It also comes in 3 flavors: Evocation, Conjuration (creation), and Abjuration.

So does fire

('course, fire comes in Transmutation as well...)

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

As a wall, it blocks arrows... just like a wall of stone would.

Does a wall of fire block missiles?

Where is the definition of wall such that it states that all walls block all objects?

Where is the definition of force such that it states that all force effects blocks all objects?


You are giving a property to both walls and force that it affects objects, even though the spell does not state this, nor does all wall spells or all force spells do this.

A Tiny Hut does not stop arrows, but it is made of force.

A Magic Missile does not damage objects, but it is made of force.

A Wall of Fire does not stop missiles (or objects), but it is a wall. The fire rules on objects can be used to indicate that Wall of Fire damages objects as well as creatures, but we have no such rules on Force Effects.


Where are your rules for this claim?

Where are your rules that a Wall of Force provides cover, stops line of effect (outside of spells and breath weapons), etc.?


The problem we face is that we have rules (and a definition) for fire. We do not have rules or a definition for force (outside of the ethereal and incorporeal ones), hence, we cannot assign properties to it that are not defined by each individual spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A Tiny Hut does not stop arrows, but it is made of force.

A Magic Missile does not damage objects, but it is made of force.

Tiny Hut and Magic Missile both state that.

In the absence of wording to the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to consider force to be solid.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the absence of wording to the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to consider force to be solid.

I totally agree.

But, I do not think that because a spell indicates that it damages creatures that it should not damage objects if it is a effect that should do so, for example, a solid force effect that creates blades.

A Spiritual weapon only states that it attacks opponents (and targets, presumably creatures), but if there were a way to interpose an object, it should damage an object. Say, for the sake of discussion, that someone had a feat or PrC special ability that allowed him to interpose his shield instead of taking damage from a melee attack and it gets resolved as a sunder (I do not know of such a feat, but such things are possible).

Wall of Fire does not state that it damages any unattended objects (like arrows) that pass through it, but I find it reasonable to have magical fire from a Wall of Fire damage arrows because there are rules about fire affecting unattended objects.

Ditto for Blade Barrier. If I have whirling blades of solid force that can block/damage arrows (i.e. give a cover bonus, and note, arrows that hit a solid surface are automatically destroyed anyway) and can damage a metal construct, I expect that those same whirling blades will damage any other object that goes through them. Granted, a boat could be ruled to slam into them and stop (i.e. it does not pass through them, hence, it only takes ramming damage).


But, I think a literal creature only translation (like arrows passing unharmed through a Wall of Force or objects passing unharmed through Blade Barrier) is not reasonable.


PS. A lot of these weird force effects are sacred cow holdovers from 1E and 2E. The designers did not come up with a good definition of force for 3E, they just threw it into the game system.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wall of Fire does not state that it damages any unattended objects (like arrows) that pass through it, but I find it reasonable to have magical fire from a Wall of Fire damage arrows because there are rules about fire affecting unattended objects.

What's your take on someone remaining in the same square as a neglected Flaming Sphere?

-Hyp.