Rules Question: Illusory Wall
- Thread starter JohnnyO
- Start date
Bold or Stupid
First Post
As I read it the height is independent of the length.
webrunner
First Post
Wouldn't a large monster have part of it move adjacenet to the wall on the first square of movement through the wall (the dragon's 'backside' would now be adjacent and the dragon's head would be in the wall..)
It's not, the height is just the maximum number of squares it can occupy. Otherwise it is not following how a wall would work, because an eight square wall would occupy 8x4=32 contiguous squares. Far more than the power specifies.
You could use the wall to block a 2x2 corridor very easily though, as it could fill 20 feet up worth of squares.
Rules Compendium said:
The height is just telling you how high it can go, not that the wall is also four squares high.
Webrunner said:
No, for purposes of movement for creatures bigger than medium sized, only one "square" counts for movement. For example if a large creature moves through a zone it doesn't take damage for each square it occupies in the zone - only once for entering/moving/exiting or whatever. When the dragon moves into the wall he does just that, but it doesn't count as moving adjacent as he was already adjacent anyway. When he moves through the other side though he will be "adjacent" to the wall again, but by that point it's now firmly irrelevant.
Take the old bloodpulse as an example. A large creature occupies four squares. It moves 1 square, effectively leaving "4 squares": Does it take 1d6+int damage or 4d6+4xInt damage?
Edit: Also if you examine the OPs example again, the wall is only 5 feet high and the dragon is large, making him 10 feet high. He can see over the wall without obstruction and I've just realized that the entire example doesn't even work because of that anyway as frogged pointed out earlier in the thread. The Wizard would need to make it a minimum 4 long wall with double height.
Edit: For a clearer example of how it should be worded, see Wall of Fire:
Wall of Fire said:
In illusory walls case, what they forgot to do was be specific with the wording of "up to". But it doesn't change how the way walls work anyway - because it can't occupy more than 8 squares anyway. An eight square illusory wall would occupy 32 squares. That's definitely not correct.
Last edited:
Journeymanmage
First Post
Deleted.
Last edited:
Yes it does. See the definition of wall above, it clearly states a wall fills the specified number of contiguous squares. In this case it can occupy eight squares. Not 32.
Yes he does. In this case we also have the definition of an area wall power. Poor wording of this power does not suddenly change anything. To me, the sentence means the same thing - but one is not clear and can be interpreted differently. It can be up to 8 squares long and 4 squares high, is similar to writing "It can be up to 8 squares long and up to 4 squares high". The power already tells you how many contiguous squares it can occupy (8 in this case) and the definition of how wall powers works backs me 100% on that. The power then describes the limitations, eight squares long and four squares high. It does not mean it is eight squares long and high. For example, if I stack it four squares up to I make a wall that is eight squares (40 feet) high? Or do you think the limitation is it can only go up to 20 feet (four squares).
Do you really believe the RAI and RAW means this area wall EIGHT power occupies 32 squares?
Edit: I can absolutely understand how you reach the conclusion, compared to other area wall powers you listed its worded no where near as precisely. But I don't read it as being any different really and the definition of how wall powers work is pretty clear. I see "Up to eight squares long and four squares high" as being a less clunky and wordy way of saying "Up to eight squares long and up to four squares high". That the RAW for how walls works clearly backs one interpretation and not the other just removes any other ambiguity I have there.
Last edited:
After reading up on the definition of walls, and reading the text of almost every other wall power in existence, I'm inclined to agree with Aegri's interpretation.
I will agree that Illusory Wall is not as clearly worded as it could be, and has a lot of possible interpretations based on some poor wording choices, but for my home game, I will be treating it as follows (my changes highlighted)
Thanks to all for your expert advice. Now to send the update to my players....
I will agree that Illusory Wall is not as clearly worded as it could be, and has a lot of possible interpretations based on some poor wording choices, but for my home game, I will be treating it as follows (my changes highlighted)
Thanks to all for your expert advice. Now to send the update to my players....
DracoSuave
First Post
Before you start calling out something as RAW, please make sure the rules are actually -written- somewhere.
The idea of spells taking up 'cubes' when you go to three dimensional movement is not actually written in the DMG. What is written there is a mention on how movement works, and how to find range.
What does NOT exist is a mention on how vertical range works with Area effects, or bursts, or blasts, or walls.
This 'cube' thing is strictly an extrapolation of the movement rules, and only applies to finding distances. Once you actually get into walls, you've gone well beyond the pale of Rules as Written, and are deep into Rules as The DM Had To Decide Them On The Spot.
I understand the common interpretation agrees with you Aevari, however it is nothing more than an interpretation... the 'rule' you are trying to invoke is non-existant.
The idea of spells taking up 'cubes' when you go to three dimensional movement is not actually written in the DMG. What is written there is a mention on how movement works, and how to find range.
What does NOT exist is a mention on how vertical range works with Area effects, or bursts, or blasts, or walls.
This 'cube' thing is strictly an extrapolation of the movement rules, and only applies to finding distances. Once you actually get into walls, you've gone well beyond the pale of Rules as Written, and are deep into Rules as The DM Had To Decide Them On The Spot.
I understand the common interpretation agrees with you Aevari, however it is nothing more than an interpretation... the 'rule' you are trying to invoke is non-existant.
I cited my RAW ruling. It's from the rules on Walls, which I will requote.
Notice that the wall specifically states how they work in a 3D environment with stacking. You can build walls upwards specifically in the RAW and it makes an exception allowing this. Nowhere in the RAW does it state that vertical stacking of a walls power is free. Nowhere does it state in the RAW that the vertical aspect of a wall doesn't count as another square - in fact the ruling right there by RAW shows walls assume they can be stacked in 3D space (forming well, a wall). And that each square of that wall takes up one of the squares you have to build it (implicit from the first sentence).
The first sentence is critical, because the rules are addressing how walls are formed. It states:
These can be horizontal or vertical. So long as they follow the rules there for walls - which also means they are limited by the number of squares in the power. Illusory Wall states it is an area wall 8. It can therefore occupy eight squares. Not eight squares horizontally and 24 vertically. Eight squares.
That is by RAW.
But is in the rules that I have just quoted to you that tells you how a wall functions in 3D space, specifically with stacking the wall pieces together. So this isn't plain true when it comes to walls.
I disagree, unless you have another interpretation as to what "Stacking" the wall is, it's very clearly telling me how you can build a wall in 3D space. It even makes a rules exception to specifically allow this.
I am quoting the rules for Walls to you. If quoting the rules for Walls, that tells you how you can build 3D or vertical in this case walls is not quoting the rules as written, then what exactly do you want me to quote?
I firmly believe this RAW below I've bolded completely supports my position.
So you can make a vertical wall that looks like this:
O=Origin square. X = Wall in 3D space (looking at it from the ground). W = Wall.
WXXW
WXXW
WXXW
WXOW
That's eight squares (area wall 8) and four squares high. The rules clearly define you are allowed to do this. Now let's look at it from a 2D view. With B = free square. M=Monster. X = Wall in 2D space this time.
WBBW
WXXW
WXXW
WXXW
WX0W
WMBW
If that was 2D, you couldn't do that because the wall is illegal as numerous squares share more than 2 sides. Again, that's by RAW, a limitation that building a vertical wall doesn't have (so this proves that the rules for walls have already addressed how you make a vertical wall and that vertical walls follow the same rules for horizontal ones, with a specific exception).
You could build a wall in this case that looked like this:
WB0W
WXXW
WXBW
WXXW
WBXW
WMXW
Because none of the squares share more than two sides.
Now why am I going into this? Because it shows that in all examples, you still can only build a wall that is the same as the area it gives within the limitations. In this case, it can be eight squares built either as eight total horizontal squares, or up to four squares vertically (enough to block a 2x2 corridor that is 20 feet high!). Nothing in the rules for walls says vertical squares are free or don't count as a part of the wall. Neither is the rules for making walls silent about making a 3D wall, because it specifically addresses it in allowing stacking. Implicitly, this means 3D walls follow exactly the same rules as a horizontal one and you can only build the wall up to eight squares in total (horizontal or vertical, with a 4 square height limit on being vertical). Not 32 as is claimed with illusionary wall.
Edit: The point is it defies the way Walls are written as working by not being an area wall 8. The interpretation that it is eight squares long and four squares high just doesn't match with the way all other wall powers work and the base rules for walls. The vertical squares of a wall are clearly addressed in the rules for building walls as being a part of the number of squares you're allowed to build them. Given that the sentence in Illusory Wall can equally be read to be a limitation on both the horizontal/vertical and not as "Horizontal PLUS vertical" and the RAW for walls there is a strong RAW and RAI argument it is not four squares high by default.
Edit2: The other reason here is the way I read the power. The power already tells me how many squares it occupies (area wall 8 within 20). The text tells me the limitations of the horizontal and vertical. It is not telling me it's an area wall 8 + 4 squares of height per horizontal square.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
