Wall of force question.

[MarkB]

Why? My DM takes the text of the spell to mena you can only create "squares" that are 10 ft in area, so either 10ft high or 20 ft high.

I suppose the wall's "Area" entry is somewhat open to interpretation, but the only hard limitation is that of the "Shapeable" property - that it must have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. A 100X15 foot wall fulfills that requirement.

 

[lukelightning]

I'd let a caster do less than 10' increments, but any increment still counts as 10 feet (e.g. a 20 foot wide and 15 foot high wall is equal to a 20 by 20).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Based on the rules concerning larger creatures and cover, the monster will have zero cover against anyone who knows where the wall is, and 50% cover against anyone who doesn't.

The fact is that there are no specific rules to cover this situation (pun intended). Based on a strict reading, the wall could be 300ft in the air and provide cover because Height isn't even mentioned.

The one stipulation is "If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover..." What this says is almost a chicken-and-egg argument. Note that the definition of whether cover is provided uses itself. Yes, that's very bad rules language, but it leaves "provides cover" very open to interpretation.

Do a wall covering your upper torso "provide cover", when consider that part of the definition (not any other part of the rules)? That's the real question. I say yes.

They have a 10ft high arc of attack, and melee fighters cannot possibly reach higher than that, so they are targetting, say, a giant's legs.

You don't target anything. You 'target' the creature, not his legs, arms, face, or anything else. But, since half his body is not 'attackable', he gets cover, pure and simple. There are no called shots.

Why? If I understand Question's positioning of the wall correctly, the monster's entire lower half is unprotected by cover. How is it possibly managing to achieve improved cover?

Well, it's all IMO because there are no reasonable rules on improved cover, but I think there is more of the giant to hit (the torso+head+arms has more area than just the legs). If it were a gelatinous cube, then probably not.

The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level. Does that mean you can form a wall, say, 100 ft long, 15 ft high, as long as you were at least 15th level?

No. One 10ft-square/level is NOT 10 square feet/level.

I suppose the wall's "Area" entry is somewhat open to interpretation, but the only hard limitation is that of the "Shapeable" property - that it must have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. A 100X15 foot wall fulfills that requirement.

Wall of Force is not shapeable.

 

[starwed]

You don't target anything. You 'target' the creature, not his legs, arms, face, or anything else. But, since half his body is not 'attackable', he gets cover, pure and simple. There are no called shots.

But for a fighter with a longsword, the wall of force doesn't block any conceivable attacks. Sure, there are no targeted attacks. But if a 3' tall halfling attacks a 30' tall golem, for instance, we can assume that he's not going to be attacking it's head. (Well, maybe Belkar.)

 

[IcyCool]

But for a fighter with a longsword, the wall of force doesn't block any conceivable attacks. Sure, there are no targeted attacks. But if a 3' tall halfling attacks a 30' tall golem, for instance, we can assume that he's not going to be attacking it's head. (Well, maybe Belkar.)

Think of it another way. You have Bob facing off against generic medium sized monster A. There is a wall that extends halfway between Bob and GMSMA. The wall is on Bob's shield arm side, not his sword arm side, so should Bob suffer any penalties for cover? After all, he's swinging at the part of the monster that isn't covered by the wall...

G = Generic Monster A
-- = Wall
B = Bob

GG
--
BB

 

[Infiniti2000]

But for a fighter with a longsword, the wall of force doesn't block any conceivable attacks. Sure, there are no targeted attacks. But if a 3' tall halfling attacks a 30' tall golem, for instance, we can assume that he's not going to be attacking it's head. (Well, maybe Belkar.)

I assumed these were ranged attacks.

Yes, if the party uses melee attacks they are not affected by the cover any more than the giant is once he realizes the wall is there. The rule that I think covers this:

Low Obstacles and Cover
A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

 

[MarkB]

The fact is that there are no specific rules to cover this situation (pun intended). Based on a strict reading, the wall could be 300ft in the air and provide cover because Height isn't even mentioned.

The one stipulation is "If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover..." What this says is almost a chicken-and-egg argument. Note that the definition of whether cover is provided uses itself. Yes, that's very bad rules language, but it leaves "provides cover" very open to interpretation.

Do a wall covering your upper torso "provide cover", when consider that part of the definition (not any other part of the rules)? That's the real question. I say yes.

It's not self-referential. "Provides cover" simply means "is a barrier solid and large enough that it can, potentially, provide cover, if you're in the right place".

And the rule I was referring to was the following:

Big Creatures and Cover

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.​

Using this ruling, the giant has no cover providing there is at least one cover-free 5-foot square of him which attackers can target. Since his entire lower ten feet of height have no cover, he has no cover. Likewise, he can choose any of those lower ten feet to attack out of, and his opponents will have no cover against him.

Well, it's all IMO because there are no reasonable rules on improved cover, but I think there is more of the giant to hit (the torso+head+arms has more area than just the legs). If it were a gelatinous cube, then probably not.

I still don't see how you could think that would give him improved cover. Improved cover only applies when there's practically nothing of the monster to aim at that isn't behind cover, and in this case, even if you ignore the whole "Big creatures and cover" section, at least 50% of this critter is totally lacking in cover.

Wall of Force is not shapeable.

Sorry, my mistake. I was going from memory, and I just realised I was remembering the 3.0 version.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Using this ruling, the giant has no cover providing there is at least one cover-free 5-foot square of him which attackers can target. Since his entire lower ten feet of height have no cover, he has no cover. Likewise, he can choose any of those lower ten feet to attack out of, and his opponents will have no cover against him.

Melee attacks only. My last post clarified my position that I was assuming ranged attacks.

So, are we in agreement on this part at least?

I still don't see how you could think that would give him improved cover. Improved cover only applies when there's practically nothing of the monster to aim at that isn't behind cover, and in this case, even if you ignore the whole "Big creatures and cover" section, at least 50% of this critter is totally lacking in cover.

As noted above, I'm ignoring it because melee attacks are a different story.

Yes, I agree it's 50% in terms of top half/bottom half, but I don't agree it's 50% in terms of area to hit or effectivity of the hit. Perhaps +8 would be too much. I only said I'd consider it. I'd consider it a lot more for something like a giant that only shows his legs vs. something like a roper. Regardless, it's very subjective and I only wanted to bring it up for consideration. Please feel free to post your guidelines on when you rule improved cover applies.

 

[MarkB]

Melee attacks only. My last post clarified my position that I was assuming ranged attacks.

So, are we in agreement on this part at least?

<Kicks self> Sorry, I missed the fact that it only applies to melee attacks. It seems I'm doing really badly accuracy-wise on this topic. :\

Regardless, it's very subjective and I only wanted to bring it up for consideration. Please feel free to post your guidelines on when you rule improved cover applies.

I tend to reserve it for situations that are just short of total cover - like an opponent behind an arrowslit or with just the top of his head showing. I wouldn't consider it for anything less than about 75% cover, regardless of which areas of the target were covered. However, it is a subjective call.