Walls: to look or not to look through

[Scharlata]

Hi!

I've been sure that walls of fire and walls of ice couldn't be looked through, but in 3.5 there's no such word as "opaque" in the spell's decriptions of either spell, or is it?

Can someone look through theses walls? Multiple walls that are rowed one behind the other?

Kind regards

 

[Geoff Watson]

The wall of fire spell is noted as being opaque (see the Effect line).

Geoff.

 

[shilsen]

Geoff already covered the fire, and I'd say that's true for the ice too.

 

[Taloras]

You try looking through a fire.....see how hard it is, even when its flickering. And wall of fire isnt flickering, its a solid wall. And as was noted, it says its opaque in the Effect line of the spell. As for ice, it depends on how thick the ice is. Minimum thickness is 7 inches, I believe(as its a 4th level spell). Its 1 inch thick per caster level. You take a 7 inch thick piece of ice and see how well you see through it. You wont get a clear picture, but you might get shadowy images if the person is close enough and stands out from his background well enough.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, looking at both the spell's description...

Is there any reason not to allow the caster of a Wall of Ice to specify whether he wants a sheet of opaque ice or a preternaturally clear sheet of ice?

It still blocks line of effect either way, so I can't see any reason to rule one way or the other.

 

[sfedi]

Is there any reason not to allow the caster of a Wall of Ice to specify whether he wants a sheet of opaque ice or a preternaturally clear sheet of ice?

Yes.

You'd make the spell more flexible than intended.
I'd suggest that you (and your players perhaps) define exactly what the spell effect is, and stick to it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes.

You'd make the spell more flexible than intended.

Well, now, that's an interesting claim to make, seeing as the rules don't specify one way or the other. Therefore, it's a bit hard to determine what was really intended in this case.

Do you have any harder support for your point of view?

 

[Scharlata]

You try looking through a fire.....see how hard it is, even when its flickering. And wall of fire isnt flickering, its a solid wall. And as was noted, it says its opaque in the Effect line of the spell. As for ice, it depends on how thick the ice is. Minimum thickness is 7 inches, I believe(as its a 4th level spell). Its 1 inch thick per caster level. You take a 7 inch thick piece of ice and see how well you see through it. You wont get a clear picture, but you might get shadowy images if the person is close enough and stands out from his background well enough.

Thanx to all!

I must've been blinded by the fire to not see the "opaque" entry.
I think to handle the wall of ice effect as "opaque" too.

Kind regards

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, now, that's an interesting claim to make, seeing as the rules don't specify one way or the other. Therefore, it's a bit hard to determine what was really intended in this case.

Do you have any harder support for your point of view?

Quite simply, the ability to choose between opaque or preternaturally clear is not listed as a quality of the spell. The right answer is simply a function of what you consider "normal" ice to be like.

There is nothing wrong with ruling either way, but there is no good reason to rule that the caster can choose between the two. Just pick one and do not overthink the situation.