The spell says “nothing can physically pass through the wall”, it never even mentions cover. So whether the spell provides cover (and exactly what it provides cover for) is a DM decision not a property of the spell.
Hoe about reading the rules on cover (published here many times), what constitutes cover, and the core sentences like "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." ?
If the DM thinks that the spell gives total cover to everything, that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation and in that case, everything that you have said is true.
It's not the DM, it's the rules. All the obstacles in 5e are physical: Walls, trees, people. Wall of Force is a wall, so it gives cover as a wall, it's just stronger. It therefore gives cover like any other obstacle. What it the problem here exactly ?
Player: I’m behind a tree, I have total cover.
DM: The tree trunk is 6 inches in diameter, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the stone wall, I have total cover.
DM: The wall is 3 feet high, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the wall, I have total cover.
DM: The “wall” is a paper partition panel, you don’t have cover.
The rules help the DM decide who has cover and how much.
The spell says “nothing can physically pass through the wall”, it never even mentions cover. So whether the spell provides cover (and exactly what it provides cover for) is a DM decision not a property of the spell.
Hoe about reading the rules on cover (published here many times), what constitutes cover, and the core sentences like "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." ?
If the DM thinks that the spell gives total cover to everything, that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation and in that case, everything that you have said is true.
It's not the DM, it's the rules. All the obstacles in 5e are physical: Walls, trees, people. Wall of Force is a wall, so it gives cover as a wall, it's just stronger. It therefore gives cover like any other obstacle. What it the problem here exactly ?
Player: I’m behind a tree, I have total cover.
DM: The tree trunk is 6 inches in diameter, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the stone wall, I have total cover.
DM: The wall is 3 feet high, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the wall, I have total cover.
DM: The “wall” is a paper partition panel, you don’t have cover.
The rules help the DM decide who has cover and how much.
Exactly. Thank you for the example as that is a helpful for illustration.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
Did you even read my whole post ? For example, does it stop a sunburst? Come on, I'll be waiting.
Edit: also, I find it funny because if I'm a simple creature, not incorporeal or ethereal, I can actually walk through the wall. I'm not a physical effect, so I can just walk right in, thanks to that "really tight writing", I think that is much more lazy that anything I can find in 5e, myself. :p
I am 100% certain that someone would never make that argument and if they did I would likely ask them to read the part about physical barrier...its a wall.
Ah, it's a wall, then, you know what, so is the one from 5e. And oyu know what provides total cover: "The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."
So, for exactly the same reason that you apply to pathfinder, 5e is exactly just as tight.
Don't be obtuse.
Your arguments are exactly the same every time your argue against 5e. But the rules of PF2e are not even tighter. As a simple creature, I can simply walk through a wall of force.
And about pathfinder, does it mean that I can't walk through a wall of fire ? Because you know, it's a WALL. But I can. I'm confused, it must be that lazy writing, damn them !
No...just...no.
You are reaching so hard I think you might throw out your back.
Also you didn't respond to my visual trait point so I guess you just concede that part...which you should because its very clear and much more precise than 5e.
"The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible)."
Did you even read the spell? This sentence alone is 100X more clear. You didn't even try.
Did you even read my whole post ? For example, does it stop a sunburst? Come on, I'll be waiting.
Edit: also, I find it funny because if I'm a simple creature, not incorporeal or ethereal, I can actually walk through the wall. I'm not a physical effect, so I can just walk right in, thanks to that "really tight writing", I think that is much more lazy that anything I can find in 5e, myself. :p
I am 100% certain that someone would never make that argument and if they did I would likely ask them to read the part about physical barrier...its a wall.
Ah, it's a wall, then, you know what, so is the one from 5e. And oyu know what provides total cover: "The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."
So, for exactly the same reason that you apply to pathfinder, 5e is exactly just as tight.
Don't be obtuse.
Your arguments are exactly the same every time your argue against 5e. But the rules of PF2e are not even tighter. As a simple creature, I can simply walk through a wall of force.
And about pathfinder, does it mean that I can't walk through a wall of fire ? Because you know, it's a WALL. But I can. I'm confused, it must be that lazy writing, damn them !
No...just...no.
So can I walk through a wall of fire ? Can I walk through a Wall of Force ? Why ? It does not say it stops creatures, just incorporeal and ethereal as well as physical effects.
And does it stop a fireball ? Is fire physical ? How about Horrid Wilting ? I'm sorry, but I can't find these answers.
You are reaching so hard I think you might throw out your back.
Also you didn't respond to my visual trait point so I guess you just concede that part...which you should because its very clear and much more precise than 5e.
Indeed, the visual trait is there, but it's funny because light is not visual in pathfinder. So how does the wall of force work with the light spell On what basis ? How is light a physical effect that is stopped by a Wall of Force ? How about spiritual weapons ? Because I gave you a long post, and you have not even answered 5% of it. It's as full as inconsistencies and edge cases as 5e.
And I can still walk through a wall of force, happy with this one.
You are reaching super super hard....its a physical barrier and is described as such so you are being incredibly obtuse to even think that is an option. Your example is terrible.
And yeah it doesn't...you can add the Visual trait to whatever you want though so it makes it easy to modify spells to work with the wall as its very clear.
For 5e that doesn't exist so instead you get this weird "Can I use an Illusion through a Wall of Force?" But have to have a DM define it instead of having clear traits.
You are reaching super super hard....its a physical barrier
No it's not. It's not even written in the spell description. It just blocks "physical effects".
and is described as such so you are being incredibly obtuse to even think that is an option. Your example is terrible.
No more terrible than asking if the 5e wall of force is porous just for stating that "Nothing can physically pass through the wall." which has been one of your arguments all along.
It's not better, it's worse, because it does not even state, nowhere, clearly, that physical OBJECTS can get through it.
And yeah it doesn't...you can add the Visual trait to whatever you want though so it makes it easy to modify spells to work with the wall as its very clear.
For 5e that doesn't exist so instead you get this weird "Can I use an Illusion through a Wall of Force?" But have to have a DM define it instead of having clear traits.
So basically, it's exactly as 5e, you decide upon house rules but just call them traits ? How less lazy is it ?
Because from a looong experience of writing both technically and for games, it's much more difficult to be concise. Writing pages and pages like PF2E does not make them less lazy, because it came at the expense of checking. How normal is it that noone has ever found out that WoF does not even block objects and creatures ? And don't tell me that it's because it's a wall because wall of fire is a wall and doesn't block them.
And you still have not answered about all the edge cases on Spiritual Weapon and wall of force. They are exactly the same between 5e and PF2e. Because that's the nature of game. You can write tons of rules and still not cut edge cases.
Good designers like JC know that, are aware of it and design in consequence. And I consider that it's far worse design that to write 5 times more pages and still leave the same edge cases.
The fact is everyone seems to know in PF2e what the wall does, what can go through it, and what cannot.
In 5e we have a 9 page thread on the just one spell, a podcast where they discuss it for a good 45 mintues, and a sage advice article.
A lot of time and energy goes into the 5e discussion while PF2e just....works.
I applaud a lot of the design for 5e (Advantage/Disadvantage, the spell slot system despite the naming, well designed classes like rogue and paladin) but I have distain for the poor aspects (Lazy attempts at content like custom linage when other customization efforts are much more robust like creating a spell from the DMG, natural language, general balance of feats, and poorly designed classes like ranger and sorcerer).
I spend more time on the latter as those are the things that need to be addressed and fixed (Tasha's fixed ranger so thats a start!) while the things I like need no attention.
I do not come into a forum to just talk about thinks I like (I do that as well) but also to discuss the things that I think they should do away with (Natural language, negative ASI for races...very glad that one is gone, and poorly designed features like Favored Enemy).
The Trait system in PF2e is a great example of how to deal with it without making something incredibly complicated. You have these traits that apply to the situation and the GM can change them depending on how you describe your actions. It is then set how it will interact with the world in a more conducive way.
The Trait system in PF2e is a great example of how to deal with it without making something incredibly complicated. You have these traits that apply to the situation and the GM can change them depending on how you describe your actions. It is then set how it will interact with the world in a more conducive way.
I have to say, apart from this fascinating discussion, that tags are something that I kinda miss from spells in 5e.
It reminds me of the Mind Blank spell and the discussions what exactly "affects target mind" means in the context of its previous sentence.
In 3e it was clear because it provided immunity to mind-affecting elements and spells had additional descriptor like "Mind Affecting" so no one had any doubts whether Mind Blank protects against Hold Person or not.
In 5e there is a strong indication that Hold Person is still a mind affecting effect (enchantment school which is defined as "affecting minds of others", Wisdom saving throw) but the lack of descriptors makes it a bit less clear whether the spell actually protects against Hold Person in 5e or not.
Well, honestly, after seeing a formulation like this, you would expect that the "some spells" would be clearly identified, and it's a good thing that they actually are.
But the exception part says some spells and then references AoE's. So to me the intuitive reading would be that the exception applies to all AoE's. If they meant for the exception to only apply to some AoE's, to be later identified, then it would have been helpful to include text that made it clear from the start.
Just for clarity, I'm not necessarily arguing that this is how the rules must work, in fact if you and I sat down at the same table I think we'd be in agreement of how the rules work. All I'm saying is that it isn't completely ridiculous to read the rules and come to a different conclusion, or at least want the rules to be somewhat clearer.
The Trait system in PF2e is a great example of how to deal with it without making something incredibly complicated. You have these traits that apply to the situation and the GM can change them depending on how you describe your actions. It is then set how it will interact with the world in a more conducive way.
I have to say, apart from this fascinating discussion, that tags are something that I kinda miss from spells in 5e.
It reminds me of the Mind Blank spell and the discussions what exactly "affects target mind" means in the context of its previous sentence.
In 3e it was clear because it provided immunity to mind-affecting elements and spells had additional descriptor like "Mind Affecting" so no one had any doubts whether Mind Blank protects against Hold Person or not.
In 5e there is a strong indication that Hold Person is still a mind affecting effect (enchantment school which is defined as "affecting minds of others", Wisdom saving throw) but the lack of descriptors makes it a bit less clear whether the spell actually protects against Hold Person in 5e or not.
The fact is everyone seems to know in PF2e what the wall does, what can go through it, and what cannot.
From not reading the rules, obviously, since I poked a gaping hole in them in all of 10 seconds. :p
In 5e we have a 9 page thread on the just one spell, a podcast where they discuss it for a good 45 mintues, and a sage advice article.
No, I'm sorry, but this is a total exaggeration.
A lot of time and energy goes into the 5e discussion while PF2e just....works.
And so does 5e, and I would argue much better since it has at least 10 times more players around the world.
The populations are also I believe fairly different, PF2e is a gamers' game where people enjoy reading through books and build things with the system, 5e is a more casual and story oriented game, which (and this has been largely demonstrated) has attracted millions of new gamers to the hobby, people who have no idea how to read roleplaying game rules.
And seeing the amount of bad faith to torpedo 5e while objectively (and I have demonstrated this clearly), although much more complex, the PF2E rules are not even tighter and to not solve any of the edge cases that you pour on 5e, I really pity the people trying to run PF2E from scratch. And there are therefore good reasons for this not to happen.
I applaud a lot of the design for 5e (Advantage/Disadvantage, the spell slot system despite the naming, well designed classes like rogue and paladin) but I have distain for the poor aspects (Lazy attempts at content like custom linage when other customization efforts are much more robust like creating a spell from the DMG, natural language, general balance of feats, and poorly designed classes like ranger and sorcerer).
Will you please understand that the custom lineage is just a quick patch to satisfy SJW ? It's just an option, and they certainly don't want to destroy a game that is working so well by introducing intrusive rules.
I spend more time on the latter as those are the things that need to be addressed and fixed (Tasha's fixed ranger so thats a start!) while the things I like need no attention.
I do not come into a forum to just talk about thinks I like (I do that as well) but also to discuss the things that I think they should do away with (Natural language, negative ASI for races...very glad that one is gone, and poorly designed features like Favored Enemy).
And these are drops in the water compared to the scope of the game, so the constant unjustified criticism assorted of strong wording when it's been demonstrated clearly that PF2E does no better, is just insulting.
The Trait system in PF2e is a great example of how to deal with it without making something incredibly complicated. You have these traits that apply to the situation and the GM can change them depending on how you describe your actions. It is then set how it will interact with the world in a more conducive way.
Well, some people praise it, but I've given you the review of the game, which people that I've known for 40 years and that I consider amongst the best roleplayers ever slag the game for being just a pile of old-fashioned rules that simplify nothing and just promote technical gaming.
Once more, this is not the intent of 5e, it's not a technical game, never was intended to be one, never will be, and it has garnered a much larger following while still satisfying old grognards like myself 100 times more than any version of D&D, including PF1.
Please stop forcing the need for technical upgrades to the game, especially since, once more, the PF2E version of Wall of Force, while more complicated, has one glaring hole in it and solves nothing of the edge cases. As a result, you have a game where a DM is hampered by tons of unnecessary rules and rules-lawyering players and does not even have the freedom to solve the edge cases easily by using the Rule 0 of 5e.
As demonstrated, the 5e rules stand on their own, they need some explanations for beginners to the game because it's still a complex game, but first beginners to not touch PF2e with a 10 foot pole, and I would like to see them try and succeed as a first TTRPG experience.
So in the end, please leave us be didactic to people who need help, leave JC do his podcast which are entertaining on top of being informative, and stop slagging of the game on every little aspect of it (especially since, as clearly demonstrated, it's totally unjustified in this case). Either you love it, so stay here and confine yourself to helping out and criticism of the small areas that you say need improvement, or leave for PF2E if that strikes your fancy more. But the reason this thread is so long is because of disruption from people like you who don't even read the rules and make totally unfair comparison to other games which are, factually, not better and probably worse in terms of overall consistency, again as demonstrated on the very same examples.
Dude your "hole" was about the silliest thing I've read on here for a while.
You did more mental gymnastics then Simone Biles to try to "gotcha" it but it's just silly.
I am not the biggest fan of PF2e myself but it's obvious from the examples posted they did a much better job with the wall of Force spell compared to 5e.
I'm not sure about the rest but just take the L on this one man cus this is a sad look.
OK, simple question, where in the PF2E rules does it say whether creatures and objects can pass through a wall of force. I think that it's a tad more important than adjucating edge cases of spells like spiritual weapon, which are not more clear in one case that the other.
You basically had to be obtuse to a level of absurdity that was mostly just funny rather than actually trying to make any point.
OK, just answer the simple question above, right ? Since it's so trivial.
Where as we have 9 pages of back and forth on 5e.
Mainly because you don't read the rules, but criticise them all the time nonetheless ?
Yes physical effects would mean you can't walk through it.... Do you really need that explained?
OK, simple question, where in the PF2E rules does it say whether creatures and objects can pass through a wall of force. I think that it's a tad more important than adjucating edge cases of spells like spiritual weapon, which are not more clear in one case that the other.
You basically had to be obtuse to a level of absurdity that was mostly just funny rather than actually trying to make any point.
OK, just answer the simple question above, right ? Since it's so trivial.
Where as we have 9 pages of back and forth on 5e.
Mainly because you don't read the rules, but criticise them all the time nonetheless ?
Yes physical effects would mean you can't walk through it.... Do you really need that explained?
Because a creature is an effect ? An object is an effect ? Please explain a bit further.
.....really? Come on now....are you saying that creatures are not physical things? That them walking into something is not a physical effect? No reasonable person would read that spell and think they can walk though it in any fashion.
OK, simple question, where in the PF2E rules does it say whether creatures and objects can pass through a wall of force. I think that it's a tad more important than adjucating edge cases of spells like spiritual weapon, which are not more clear in one case that the other.
You basically had to be obtuse to a level of absurdity that was mostly just funny rather than actually trying to make any point.
OK, just answer the simple question above, right ? Since it's so trivial.
Where as we have 9 pages of back and forth on 5e.
Mainly because you don't read the rules, but criticise them all the time nonetheless ?
Yes physical effects would mean you can't walk through it.... Do you really need that explained?
Because a creature is an effect ? An object is an effect ? Please explain a bit further.
.....really? Come on now....are you saying that creatures are not physical things?
They, are, which is why the 5e wording is the correct one, as it stops anything physical.
That them walking into something is not a physical effect?
It's funny that you ask, because pathfinder 2 defines what effects are, and, you know what, creatures and objects are not in there. Because they describe game effects like spells and powers. And you know what, some of the sections there look suspiciously like the one from D&D, which is not unexpected since that's exactly what they did, they copied from the d20 SRD. So who's lazy now, seeing in particular that they did not do a better job by any standard, it's just that their objectives were different (and created a game which, while apparently rich and complex, does not allow the majority of TTRPG players to enjoy it because it's too complex).
So not only are you completely wrong about creatures and objects being effects in PF2, but it still does not plug the whole in the WoF, so to speak.
So now, can you PLEASE lay off the "lazy" criticism of 5e ? And admit that the 5e rules are more than sufficient to be clear in particular in the area of Wall of Force ?
No reasonable person would read that spell and think they can walk though it in any fashion.
Just as no reasonable person reading 5e would allow spells to be cast through a wall, which is what a number of people here are implying because the 5e designers were purportedly "lazy".
Except you can cast through the wall in 5e....Sacred Flame. JC says so himself.
So no its bad rules logic and PF2e is better because at least they have a clear list of spells that WILL work through the wall. Were as 5e we have to have a 11 page talk about it....
Common Lyxen, under the definition from PF2 you posted it is literally first sentence
"Anything you do in the game has an effect"
You itself are not an effect but you walking creates a physical effect of you changing your relative state. Which WoF blocks. Walking through a Wall of Force is no less of an effect than throwing a boulder at it.
Moving on from PF, I personally don't like how many of the spells are handled and I have been very vocal about it. I think that for a TTRPG many of them are a huge step backwards, requiring DM to adjudicate against RAW in order to preserve a sense of verisimilitude or facilitate player's inventiveness. So I personally don't care what RAW really says about WoF because I know how I want it to work and it wouldn't be the first spell I needed to change in order to not sound stupid to my players.
I either change the spell because RAW is not clear to me or I change it because RAW is clear but it leads to stupid instances. Either way I change it.
Common Lyxen, under the definition from PF2 you posted it is literally first sentence
"Anything you do in the game has an effect"
You itself are not an effect but you walking creates a physical effect of you changing your relative state. Which WoF blocks. Walking through a Wall of Force is no less of an effect than throwing a boulder at it.
Moving on from PF, I personally don't like how many of the spells are handled and I have been very vocal about it. I think that for a TTRPG many of them are a huge step backwards, requiring DM to adjudicate against RAW in order to preserve a sense of verisimilitude or facilitate player's inventiveness. So I personally don't care what RAW really says about WoF because I know how I want it to work and it wouldn't be the first spell I needed to change in order to not sound stupid to my players.
I either change the spell because RAW is not clear to me or I change it because RAW is clear but it leads to stupid instances. Either way I change it.
Exactly....to try and make this weird mental flex to make it debatable is laughable IMO.
Its very clear what it does, what can go through it (teleportation magic and spells/features with the visual trait tag). It purposefully is more clear than 5e as if they learned something from others mistakes....
A simple tag system would work wonders for 5e and I hope they use it in the future. Would cut down on these 11 page discussions for sure!
The bottom line is that until WoC or the Sage Advice Compendium decides to clarify what they want to consider total cover - then how every individual DM decides to play and interpret total cover is entirely a ruling up to that individual DM and is in no way incorrect or wrong no matter which of the interpretations they choose to use.
This is, once more, a very partial and oriented reading of the rules in the hope of not being forced to admit that the RAW is actually perfectly clear. Even without the "conceal" fallacy above, the cover section of the rules is perfectly clear especially when completed with the sentence from spellcasting: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." Here you go, without even the benefit of the doubt of the word "conceal", using the "clear path"
Only one more comment. We would not have an 8 page thread (and many similar threads) on this topic if "RAW was perfectly clear". Some folks agree with your interpretation. Some do not. Some folks read the same words differently from you do. Denigrating comments as "strawman", "only my interpretation makes sense", "please read all the material" (believe me I have - I just simply disagree with your viewpoint on this issue and do not find RAW to be as clear as you prefer to believe), "in the hope of not being forced to admit that RAW is actually perfectly clear" ... the one thing that seems clear to me from reading this thread is that there are MANY people for whom RAW is NOT perfectly clear on this topic. Otherwise the discussion with so many different people involved would not exist since everyone would agree.
Many of the folks, like me, have probably just given up the discussion since it is simply a waste of time when folks have such entrenched positions on what RAW says. Personally, I am happy enough playing or running it either way and any DM can choose the same. I do not like folks adamantly claiming that RAW says it must be played this way when I, and many others, certainly appear to find the wording lacking in clarity.
P.S. Lyxen, you have expressed many opinions I agree with on these forums but when you disagree, the discussion tends to get far more antagonistic, confrontational, and just one step short of directly insulting than necessary. I understand that dealing with folks who don't agree with you can be frustrating but please understand that they aren't doing it on purpose, they see the same words and have a different reading and interpretation, and that is ok.
This exactly....
The fact we have so many threads like this for these edge cases makes only ONE thing pretty clear....the rules are not clear.
There is a human to deal with "edge cases". This human is usually referred to by the letters DM.
Common Lyxen, under the definition from PF2 you posted it is literally first sentence
"Anything you do in the game has an effect"
You itself are not an effect but you walking creates a physical effect of you changing your relative state. Which WoF blocks. Walking through a Wall of Force is no less of an effect than throwing a boulder at it.
OK, thanks for the explanation, but it's such a weird use of the word "effect" (and not one coming from any previous editions), because none of the above examples are effects. When I move, I move, it does not create "an effect of moving". And by the way, I checked, for example Crawl does not say that you create an effect of moving, it just says "You move 5 feet by crawling and continue to stay prone." just as the type of move Action is "An action with this trait involves moving from one space to another." So honestly, guessing that this produces an effect is very, very far fetched. And it took anyone long enough to come up with that explanation (and the more loud voices never even came close to it), so I imagine that the PF2e forums are full of questions like this as well (except that the players are mostly gamer geeks so maybe they don't ask themselves more simple questions .
In any case, the point I think is clearly made, especially because the detractors of 5e focussed on this point but never answered the others which are much more crucial to the case: Pathfinder 2e does not cover all the edge cases that 5e is accused of not covering, in particular whether non physical spells (like psychic for examples) are stopped by it, and how it behaves compares to spells like Spiritual Weapon or Bigby's Hand.
So, at least in this particular case, please stop being unfair to the way the spell is described, it's equivalent to previous editions including recent ones.
Moving on from PF, I personally don't like how many of the spells are handled and I have been very vocal about it. I think that for a TTRPG many of them are a huge step backwards, requiring DM to adjudicate against RAW in order to preserve a sense of verisimilitude or facilitate player's inventiveness. So I personally don't care what RAW really says about WoF because I know how I want it to work and it wouldn't be the first spell I needed to change in order to not sound stupid to my players.
I either change the spell because RAW is not clear to me or I change it because RAW is clear but it leads to stupid instances. Either way I change it.
And that's fine because 5e is made to be changed by the DMs, and doing so will not create holes or inconsistencies elsewhere.
Honestly, I'm pretty annoyed by all the expert gamers around here who still think that a TTRPG needs to guide them by the hand to explain to them all the technical activities that can be done. This is not an MMORPG with specific actions, this is an open game where you can simulate absolutely everything that goes through your mind. So I understand, this is a bit too complex and open for you and you need to be taken by the hand step by step, and 5e does not do this, that's fine. But it's not its intent. So stop trying to change it, the rules are fine and globally clear enough for the DMs to adjudicate consistently, if they are actually read.
Go and play your guided games if you like to be securised, but both experienced gamers like myself and millions of beginners have managed to understand them fine, so where does this leave you ?
There is a human to deal with "edge cases". This human is usually referred to by the letters DM.
Exactly, and in this particular case, the DM is needed as much for 5e as it is for equivalent editions.
Its much more clear in PF2e with the trait system. Both the DM and Player know exactly what works. 5e requires the DM to make a judgement call which is generally ok but in these situations can cause issues as its hard to know unless you both address it ahead of time. Overall 5e there are more "gaps" that if you do not address ahead of time can make it difficult at the time of play.
PF2e just does a much better job of outlining what you can or can't do with the spell off the bat.
Its much more clear in PF2e with the trait system. Both the DM and Player know exactly what works. 5e requires the DM to make a judgement call which is generally ok but in these situations can cause issues as its hard to know unless you both address it ahead of time. Overall 5e there are more "gaps" that if you do not address ahead of time can make it difficult at the time of play.
The problem is that we don't play with the same paradigm at all. You play from a perspective where the rules are everything and must always be referred to. But the fact is that, ultimately, there will always be cases where the DM needs to adjudicate, even with more complex rules. This has been amply demonstrated before, and in the case of our groups, the complexity did not bring anything more than headaches because it had to be mastered by everyone, not to mention the fact that complex rules create rules-lawyers ont top of a system that makes situations already long and complex to resolve. And considering the popularity of the games, I think it's the reason 5e is so popular, it works more than well enough and allows people who don't want to play a complex boardgame requiring them to assimilate hundreds of pages of rules to enjoy their adventures.
And if I we can have years long campaigns with systems with 4 attributes and one rule, honestly, we have no problem with 5e because the pasic paradigm is that we trust the DM and we let his decisions stand, He is not an idiot, and he is not playing against the players but with them, so why make it difficult for him.
And once more, in the case of WoF, the rules are completely clear. You just have to take in the paradigm of cover, but it's not more strange than to have walking producing an effect. And in the end, it's exactly the same result, you can have all the tags that you want, at least I know that in 5e psychic spells do not go through a wall of force, whereas I still don't know in PF. :p
Except you have edge cases where its not clearly stated if the spell you want to use works....Sacred Flame, Misty Step, etc...
Rules do not have to be complicated. I can use the Archives and look at the visual trait in approximately 1 second (I timed it).
So in literally 1 second I can see what spells (beyond teleportation which is called out in the description fo the spell) I can use between the wall. I can then click on that spell and see its full discription.
Your dealing with a historical perspective that likely did not have the technology advantage we do today. 3.5 was released almost 20 years ago....
It takes VERY VERY little effort to find rules and information on these things for PF2e....while 5e we have to search a bunch of tweets from a designer who said that you should likely just make the call yourself....even the search function on DnD Beyond is less than helpful in these cases. PF2e makes it simple with their linking system.
Making the call yourself is ok...if you are experienced as a DM. A new DM will likely want to see examples to help with a judgement call. If they have to listen to an hour long podcast to hear the justification for Sacred Flame working well....thats not good.
Player: I’m behind a tree, I have total cover.
DM: The tree trunk is 6 inches in diameter, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the stone wall, I have total cover.
DM: The wall is 3 feet high, you have half cover.
Player: I’m behind the wall, I have total cover.
DM: The “wall” is a paper partition panel, you don’t have cover.
The rules help the DM decide who has cover and how much.
Exactly. Thank you for the example as that is a helpful for illustration.
No...just...no.
You are reaching so hard I think you might throw out your back.
Also you didn't respond to my visual trait point so I guess you just concede that part...which you should because its very clear and much more precise than 5e.
You are reaching super super hard....its a physical barrier and is described as such so you are being incredibly obtuse to even think that is an option. Your example is terrible.
And yeah it doesn't...you can add the Visual trait to whatever you want though so it makes it easy to modify spells to work with the wall as its very clear.
For 5e that doesn't exist so instead you get this weird "Can I use an Illusion through a Wall of Force?" But have to have a DM define it instead of having clear traits.
The fact is everyone seems to know in PF2e what the wall does, what can go through it, and what cannot.
In 5e we have a 9 page thread on the just one spell, a podcast where they discuss it for a good 45 mintues, and a sage advice article.
A lot of time and energy goes into the 5e discussion while PF2e just....works.
I applaud a lot of the design for 5e (Advantage/Disadvantage, the spell slot system despite the naming, well designed classes like rogue and paladin) but I have distain for the poor aspects (Lazy attempts at content like custom linage when other customization efforts are much more robust like creating a spell from the DMG, natural language, general balance of feats, and poorly designed classes like ranger and sorcerer).
I spend more time on the latter as those are the things that need to be addressed and fixed (Tasha's fixed ranger so thats a start!) while the things I like need no attention.
I do not come into a forum to just talk about thinks I like (I do that as well) but also to discuss the things that I think they should do away with (Natural language, negative ASI for races...very glad that one is gone, and poorly designed features like Favored Enemy).
The Trait system in PF2e is a great example of how to deal with it without making something incredibly complicated. You have these traits that apply to the situation and the GM can change them depending on how you describe your actions. It is then set how it will interact with the world in a more conducive way.
I have to say, apart from this fascinating discussion, that tags are something that I kinda miss from spells in 5e.
It reminds me of the Mind Blank spell and the discussions what exactly "affects target mind" means in the context of its previous sentence.
In 3e it was clear because it provided immunity to mind-affecting elements and spells had additional descriptor like "Mind Affecting" so no one had any doubts whether Mind Blank protects against Hold Person or not.
In 5e there is a strong indication that Hold Person is still a mind affecting effect (enchantment school which is defined as "affecting minds of others", Wisdom saving throw) but the lack of descriptors makes it a bit less clear whether the spell actually protects against Hold Person in 5e or not.
But the exception part says some spells and then references AoE's. So to me the intuitive reading would be that the exception applies to all AoE's. If they meant for the exception to only apply to some AoE's, to be later identified, then it would have been helpful to include text that made it clear from the start.
Just for clarity, I'm not necessarily arguing that this is how the rules must work, in fact if you and I sat down at the same table I think we'd be in agreement of how the rules work. All I'm saying is that it isn't completely ridiculous to read the rules and come to a different conclusion, or at least want the rules to be somewhat clearer.
This is completely unrelated to the actual discussion, but it seems to me that in 5e they replaced that with conditions and riders on those conditions. For example, how Hypnotic Pattern makes creatures charmed, and any creatures charmed by it are also incapacitated. Any creature immune to the charmed condition will therefore never be incapacitated by Hypnotic Pattern. In 5e, Mind Blank makes you immune to the charmed, and Hold Person does not depend on inflicting the charmed in order to apply the paralyzed condition, so Mind Blank will protect against Hypnotic Pattern, but not against Hold Person.
Your "hole" was non-existent at best.
You basically had to be obtuse to a level of absurdity that was mostly just funny rather than actually trying to make any point.
Where as we have 9 pages of back and forth on 5e.
Dude your "hole" was about the silliest thing I've read on here for a while.
You did more mental gymnastics then Simone Biles to try to "gotcha" it but it's just silly.
I am not the biggest fan of PF2e myself but it's obvious from the examples posted they did a much better job with the wall of Force spell compared to 5e.
I'm not sure about the rest but just take the L on this one man cus this is a sad look.
Yes physical effects would mean you can't walk through it.... Do you really need that explained?
.....really? Come on now....are you saying that creatures are not physical things? That them walking into something is not a physical effect? No reasonable person would read that spell and think they can walk though it in any fashion.
Except you can cast through the wall in 5e....Sacred Flame. JC says so himself.
So no its bad rules logic and PF2e is better because at least they have a clear list of spells that WILL work through the wall. Were as 5e we have to have a 11 page talk about it....
Common Lyxen, under the definition from PF2 you posted it is literally first sentence
"Anything you do in the game has an effect"
You itself are not an effect but you walking creates a physical effect of you changing your relative state. Which WoF blocks. Walking through a Wall of Force is no less of an effect than throwing a boulder at it.
Moving on from PF, I personally don't like how many of the spells are handled and I have been very vocal about it. I think that for a TTRPG many of them are a huge step backwards, requiring DM to adjudicate against RAW in order to preserve a sense of verisimilitude or facilitate player's inventiveness. So I personally don't care what RAW really says about WoF because I know how I want it to work and it wouldn't be the first spell I needed to change in order to not sound stupid to my players.
I either change the spell because RAW is not clear to me or I change it because RAW is clear but it leads to stupid instances. Either way I change it.
Exactly....to try and make this weird mental flex to make it debatable is laughable IMO.
Its very clear what it does, what can go through it (teleportation magic and spells/features with the visual trait tag). It purposefully is more clear than 5e as if they learned something from others mistakes....
A simple tag system would work wonders for 5e and I hope they use it in the future. Would cut down on these 11 page discussions for sure!
There is a human to deal with "edge cases". This human is usually referred to by the letters DM.
Its much more clear in PF2e with the trait system. Both the DM and Player know exactly what works. 5e requires the DM to make a judgement call which is generally ok but in these situations can cause issues as its hard to know unless you both address it ahead of time. Overall 5e there are more "gaps" that if you do not address ahead of time can make it difficult at the time of play.
PF2e just does a much better job of outlining what you can or can't do with the spell off the bat.
Except you have edge cases where its not clearly stated if the spell you want to use works....Sacred Flame, Misty Step, etc...
Rules do not have to be complicated. I can use the Archives and look at the visual trait in approximately 1 second (I timed it).
So in literally 1 second I can see what spells (beyond teleportation which is called out in the description fo the spell) I can use between the wall. I can then click on that spell and see its full discription.
Your dealing with a historical perspective that likely did not have the technology advantage we do today. 3.5 was released almost 20 years ago....
It takes VERY VERY little effort to find rules and information on these things for PF2e....while 5e we have to search a bunch of tweets from a designer who said that you should likely just make the call yourself....even the search function on DnD Beyond is less than helpful in these cases. PF2e makes it simple with their linking system.
Making the call yourself is ok...if you are experienced as a DM. A new DM will likely want to see examples to help with a judgement call. If they have to listen to an hour long podcast to hear the justification for Sacred Flame working well....thats not good.
Does anything have to physically pass through the wall? If not, then no problem.
Yeah thats the rub then....PF2e clearly addresses it as stuff with a "Visual" trait will.
5e says no...even stuff thats based on just seeing a target means you can't target them
Unless you are doing Sacred Flame...