Is Wall of Thorns as utterly broken as it seems to be?

[maggot]

Back on the topic of Wall of Thorns, I do find it over the top. It is not just a wall like wall of force, it can trap creatures inside it. Your 9th level fighter might be able to make a DC25 strength check, sure, and he might not take any damage doing that, but he will only move 5' with his full round action. You can't use fly against the wall of thorns if you are already inside it.

Our druid liked to use wall of thorns to trap opponents and then a wall of fire in the same spot to slowly roast them. Archery against the trapped creatures is also quite effective. We house ruled the spell after an opposing druid wrecked the party with this one spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And to answer your question infinity, no, I do not think that a dagger created via Major Creation bypasses DR. However, anytime a spell lists the damage it deals as piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning, I assume that to be more than a mistake and treat it as the only thing it could be (IMO), normal nonmagical damage. So yes, that could lead to a wizard casting Ice Storm on a Drow, beating its spell resistance, and then having the bludgeoning damage it deals potentially negatable by DR. You see this as inconsistency, I do not.

If you rule it that way, then I agree it's not inconsistent. I woulda thunk that it would be obvious, though, that SR applies to both the bludgeoning and cold damage from an ice storm. It doesn't say "SR: see text" or anything like that. It's just "SR: Yes" and therefore SR applies to the whole spell, not some undefined portion of it that's up to DM whim.

Uh oh, the whole spell dealing damage vs. DR discussion again...

I looked in my calendar and it said it was time.

 

[IcyCool]

If you rule it that way, then I agree it's not inconsistent. I woulda thunk that it would be obvious, though, that SR applies to both the bludgeoning and cold damage from an ice storm. It doesn't say "SR: see text" or anything like that. It's just "SR: Yes" and therefore SR applies to the whole spell, not some undefined portion of it that's up to DM whim.

You misunderstand me. The wizard must beat the creature's SR before the creature can be affected at all.

Oddly enough, there are very few spells that specify a damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), most of which are conjurations (I think). Take from that what you will.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Is the spell more or less powerful if it blocks LoE and LoS ?

When it was used in a game I was playing, more than 5' provided full cover.
We decided that we still needed to get through it. So after healing and some buffs, we resumed the fight - hardly game breaking. The opponents who could not escape, tried a round of movement then waited it out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You misunderstand me. The wizard must beat the creature's SR before the creature can be affected at all.

So, then you are being inconsistent.

• SR blocks spells.
• DR does not block spells.

Ice storm cannot both be a spell and not be a spell at the same time.

 

[IcyCool]

So, then you are being inconsistent.

• SR blocks spells.
• DR does not block spells.

Ice storm cannot both be a spell and not be a spell at the same time.

Sure it can. Take any of the Summon Monster spells, for instance. Or pretty much the entire school of conjuration.

 

[Nail]

Besides, consistancy is hardly an iron-clad feature of the present rule-set.

 

[beaver1024]

Which is a problem with Greenbond Summoning, and not the spell itself.

The same issue arose with Persistent Spell. WoTC still had to nerf the core cleric spells that Persistent affected. Although they didn't finish the job. How can they, that would be mean that their favourite classes would be balanced.

 

[beaver1024]

So stabbing someone with a dagger created with major creation gets past DR? Good to know.

Edit - Check out Ring of Blades from Complete Arcane, and the bludgeoning damage you can deal with Meteor Swarm. Also, ask yourself why they bother to describe the type of damage (bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing), if it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Because the designers didn't play test their product at all and got their rules mixed up?

 

[beaver1024]

Besides, consistancy is hardly an iron-clad feature of the present rule-set.

What? This is unpossible. I mean we got this new and improved 3.5 and everything.