Top: the highest or uppermost point, part, or surface of something.
Bottom: the lowest point or part of something
I'm sorry but you're still wrong, those terms specifically refer to vertical extremes.
Maybe you’re not a native English speaker, but the way we actually use these words is, again, generally relative to a thing’s standard orientation. Top and bottom are intrinsic properties of an object independent of orientation. That’s why phrases like “upside down” have meanings that make sense.
Top: the highest or uppermost point, part, or surface of something.
Bottom: the lowest point or part of something
I'm sorry but you're still wrong, those terms specifically refer to vertical extremes.
Maybe you’re not a native English speaker, but the way we actually use these words is, again, generally relative to a thing’s standard orientation. Top and bottom are intrinsic properties of an object independent of orientation. That’s why phrases like “upside down” have meanings that make sense.
Hilarious - you're arguing that because I understand the meanings of words I'm not a native English speaker?
You're going out of your way to justify other meanings to phrases here - spells are written in plain English. Not only are you wrong but it's steering away from the point.
I’m not arguing anything. In common English, the top is the top, no matter what direction the top is pointing. Again, we speak of things “lying on their sides” all the time. If you think privileging a Wiktionary entry over how people actually speak is truer to “common English,” I really don’t know what to tell you.
As tiresome as I find semantic discussions, this one is precisely the point. But it is pointless to try and convince someone whose position is “nothing can ever be upside down because the upside is always the side pointing up,” so you know. Have fun.
In everyday English the word "wall" implies a vertical structure. It's fairly clear from how its dimensions are specified, especially when contrasted with other spells like Wall of Stone, that it's intended be upright.
I’m not arguing anything. In common English, the top is the top, no matter what direction the top is pointing. Again, we speak of things “lying on their sides” all the time. If you think privileging a Wiktionary entry over how people actually speak is truer to “common English,” I really don’t know what to tell you.
As tiresome as I find semantic discussions, this one is precisely the point. But it is pointless to try and convince someone whose position is “nothing can ever be upside down because the upside is always the side pointing up,” so you know. Have fun.
In common English, the top is the top but " 20 feet high" doesn't mean vertical distance? That is mincing words if I've ever read it.
In everyday English the word "wall" implies a vertical structure. It's fairly clear from how its dimensions are specified, especially when contrasted with other spells like Wall of Stone, that it's intended be upright.
"You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range." Using that definition, the spell could be cast in a horizontal orientation anchored to a solid vertical surface
The dimensions of the spell still work in the horizontal orientation if we look at the words "long", high", and "thick" as being relative to the point of origin.
Nothing in the spell's description imposes a requirement that the wall of fire emerge vertically from the solid surface within range.
The case against:
The spell is called wall of fire. Walls are vertical unless qualified differently. The OP even refers to attaching the wall of fire to a wall with the understanding that walls are vertical.
I'm not sure you could convincingly describe a 60' long x 20' wide x 1' tall volume of flame as a wall.
"High" and "height" both refer to vertical orientation in idiomatic English. I am not aware of anything in the game's rules that changes that definition.
My opinion:
I certainly see the upside of casting it as a "carpet of fire" and the area of practical effect could situationally be much larger than casting it as a vertical wall. The rules as written do not specifically forbid its use in this manner. However, it takes a leap of logic and several "well actually"s to make the case for words that seem to indicate a vertical orientation to have relevant definitions in this other context. Nothing in the rules prevents you from anchoring it to a 90 degree angle surface, a 45 degree angle surface, a 1 degree angle surface. But the flames would still rise vertically.
I wonder why they didn't bother to include 'wall' in the list of areas of effect. However, the rules for a cylinder make it clear that 'height' is Z axis, so I would assume the same applies to walls.
I wonder why they didn't bother to include 'wall' in the list of areas of effect.
The core rules needed to be kept as small as possible. Wall effects are relatively rare and each one does its own thing; some are straight, some can have arbitrary curves, others can form rings or domes, and others still are segmented and built out of discrete panels.
"You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick."
Long can be any direction you desire. Thick clearly refers to the direction not described as either long or high. High is question.
Consider the best case scenario - you cast it in a space ship where there is no height. Which brings me to my point. Fire works differently in a space ship, it shrinks down to a ball. Because FLAMES REACH UP. Link to space.com, fire page
That is the distinguishing thing about fire, it always reaches up. It is clear to me that High was used because Fire always goes in the direction opposite to gravity.
My basic rule is this - magic works as the rules book describes, but in all other ways it follows the laws of the real world, not without DM house ruling. You can't suddenly claim that an acid attack will ignite wood, cause you think that would be cool.
Similarly you can not suddenly claim that fire extends sideways. Fire goes up.
Dimensions are relative to the object they are describing. My feet are at the bottom of my body whether I am standing or lying down, and my height is ~6ft, but if I was lying down you wouldn't say I was ~6 long. The dimensions of the wall are relative to the wall, while the available flat surfaces determine the position.
Dimensions are relative to the object they are describing. My feet are at the bottom of my body whether I am standing or lying down, and my height is ~6ft, but if I was lying down you wouldn't say I was ~6 long.
I might, it depends on the situation. In any case, given that you can't lay cylinders on their sides (that's stated explicitly; height means up/down) there's no reason to think walls are different.
A 20' wide x 60' long x 1' tall "floor of fire" is certainly going to give you more bang for your buck in most situations than a 20' tall, 60' long, and 1' thick wall of fire that is only hot on one side. Unless I was in a tight quarters situation or I had to be careful about friendly fire (pun intended) I would use the floor of fire orientation every time.
i think this is the biggest impact. you're massively increasing the intended power of the spell when you go from covering 60 square feet of the map to 1,200 square feet.
i suppose you could then scale down the damage. if i stand in a WALL of fire, I get coverage through a plane passing through my entire body, head to toe (say i'm 6 feet tall x 2 feet wide x2 foot deep warrior built like a brick house, that's a plane that's 12 square feet). If the line goes through me horizontally, the coverage is massively smaller, a line through each of my legs or maybe through my stomach (4 square feet). So sure, you can have your ceiling of fire, but it does 1d8+4 damage instead of 5d8.
if you actually put it on the floor, i'd say even less damage, maybe 1d4 tops.
Lots of interesting responses here. It makes me think of a question. For this question, I am going to consider Wall of Stone instead of Wall of Fire so we can ignore any of the real world fluid/gas dynamics that influence the shape of fire.
What would happen if a creature used Spider Climb to walk on a wall and reorient their body such that the "wall" has become the new floor for them. When they cast a spell, does it cast relative the the caster's perception or relative to some "true floor" of the world?
Also, lets consider an extreme case, for funsies.
What if the wizard walks up a wall (an lets say their spider climb ability is due to a magic item, rather than casting a spell). This wall they climb is gigantic (thousands of ft high), such that once the wizard has walked halfway up the wall, they can no longer see the ground they originally came from. Now lets say he casts Wall of Stone. What happens?
(i) Does the wall cast from his "new ground" , with the height of the wall running perpendicular to the original wall he is standing on?
(ii) Does the wall somehow originate from the "true ground" which is out of sight below him?
(iii) Does the spell cast in his location -but casts parallel to the wall he is standing on such that the height of the wall runs parallel to the wall he is standing on, and one of the large faces is in direct contact with the wall he stands on?
(iv) OR does the spell simply fail because the "true ground" is out of the 120ft range of the spell?
Not really looking to say one way or another how to rule this one. Its rather nitpicky and technical and I would probably accept either interpretation from the DM. That being said, the whole discussion did bring little questions like this to mind
Edited to try and make the question easier to read and more clear on my thoughts.
What would happen if a creature used Spider Climb to walk on a wall and reorient their body such that the "wall" has become the new floor for them. When they cast a spell, does it cast relative the the caster's perception or relative to some "true floor" of the world?
Also, lets consider an extreme case, for funsies.
What if the wizard walks up a wall (an lets say their spider climb ability is due to a magic item, rather than casting a spell). This wall they climb is gigantic (thousands of ft high), such that once the wizard has walked halfway up the wall, they can no longer see the ground they originally came from. Now lets say he casts Wall of Stone. What happens?
(i) Does the wall cast from his "new ground" , with the height of the wall running perpendicular to the original wall he is standing on?
(ii) Does the wall somehow originate from the "true ground" which is out of sight below him?
(iii) Does the spell cast in his location -but casts parallel to the wall he is standing on such that the height of the wall runs parallel to the wall he is standing on, and one of the large faces is in direct contact with the wall he stands on?
(iv) OR does the spell simply fail because the "true ground" is out of the 120ft range of the spell?
It casts relative to the true up and down (what happens if you cast it on a spaceship is left as an exercise for the DM who decided to run Spelljammer in 5e), and in your extreme case it appears that the answer would be (iii), as wall of stone is not required to be on a floor.
Dimensions are relative to the object they are describing. My feet are at the bottom of my body whether I am standing or lying down, and my height is ~6ft, but if I was lying down you wouldn't say I was ~6 long. The dimensions of the wall are relative to the wall, while the available flat surfaces determine the position.
Wait, you would only measure a person using that exact terminology? It's weird, when my son was less than 1, the pediatricians did NOT measure how tall he was, they measured his length.
And on that note if you are going to say that dimensions are relative to the object they're describing, then using the three dimensions 60', 20', and 1', a wall in colloquial terms cannot be constructed with the 1' dimension in the vertical direction -- because we have different words for when the flat surfaces that make up the borders of rooms are in different orientations, such as floors or ceilings. You might call a 20' by 60' area that is raised up 1' above the rest a dias, if you'd like, but you still can't create a Dias of Fire.
…I would use the floor of fire orientation every time.
That is my "sniff test" for whether an interpretation is good or not. If a possible interpretation is so effective that there is no situation where you wouldn't use it; then it is probably wrong.
Also, wall of force and wall of light both say "he wall appears in any orientation you choose: horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. ", suggesting that the other wall spells cannot appear in any orientation you choose.
…I would use the floor of fire orientation every time.
That is my "sniff test" for whether an interpretation is good or not. If a possible interpretation is so effective that there is no situation where you wouldn't use it; then it is probably wrong.
Also, wall of force and wall of light both say "he wall appears in any orientation you choose: horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. ", suggesting that the other wall spells cannot appear in any orientation you choose.
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are several instances where you either cannot cast "floor of fire" or where casting "floor of fire" is less or just as effective.
1. You cannot cast wall of fire on a wall when you are outside. There are no walls and the only flat surface available is the ground.
2. If you're fighting in a room more than 20ft long or wide. Unless the floor of fire can cover the whole space of a room, then it is just as effective as the regular spell. A creature may still use its movement to travel through the wall to safety as they would normally.
3. Floor of fire is an extremely poor choice if you happen to have any allies on the battlefield, as they will take damage each turn as well (provided you are fighting in a narrow enough space for the wall's area to cover).
The way I see it, casting floor of fire is really only particularly useful IF you're fighting indoors/near a wall, IF you're fighting in a <20ft corridor or alleyway, IF you're being chased and none of you're allies intend to engage the enemy in melee.
For me, that's enough IF's for the interpretation to pass the "sniff test." There are many instances where I would not use it, some where you cannot, and really only one situation where it is exceptionally useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe you’re not a native English speaker, but the way we actually use these words is, again, generally relative to a thing’s standard orientation. Top and bottom are intrinsic properties of an object independent of orientation. That’s why phrases like “upside down” have meanings that make sense.
Hilarious - you're arguing that because I understand the meanings of words I'm not a native English speaker?
You're going out of your way to justify other meanings to phrases here - spells are written in plain English. Not only are you wrong but it's steering away from the point.
"High" means vertical.
I’m not arguing anything. In common English, the top is the top, no matter what direction the top is pointing. Again, we speak of things “lying on their sides” all the time. If you think privileging a Wiktionary entry over how people actually speak is truer to “common English,” I really don’t know what to tell you.
As tiresome as I find semantic discussions, this one is precisely the point. But it is pointless to try and convince someone whose position is “nothing can ever be upside down because the upside is always the side pointing up,” so you know. Have fun.
In everyday English the word "wall" implies a vertical structure. It's fairly clear from how its dimensions are specified, especially when contrasted with other spells like Wall of Stone, that it's intended be upright.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
In common English, the top is the top but " 20 feet high" doesn't mean vertical distance? That is mincing words if I've ever read it.
Oh absolutely, I 100% agree.
The case for a horizontal wall of fire:
The case against:
My opinion:
I certainly see the upside of casting it as a "carpet of fire" and the area of practical effect could situationally be much larger than casting it as a vertical wall. The rules as written do not specifically forbid its use in this manner. However, it takes a leap of logic and several "well actually"s to make the case for words that seem to indicate a vertical orientation to have relevant definitions in this other context. Nothing in the rules prevents you from anchoring it to a 90 degree angle surface, a 45 degree angle surface, a 1 degree angle surface. But the flames would still rise vertically.
This one doesn't pass muster for me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I wonder why they didn't bother to include 'wall' in the list of areas of effect. However, the rules for a cylinder make it clear that 'height' is Z axis, so I would assume the same applies to walls.
The core rules needed to be kept as small as possible. Wall effects are relatively rare and each one does its own thing; some are straight, some can have arbitrary curves, others can form rings or domes, and others still are segmented and built out of discrete panels.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
the horizontal surfaces in my house are ceilings or and floors....not walls.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
"You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick."
Long can be any direction you desire. Thick clearly refers to the direction not described as either long or high. High is question.
Consider the best case scenario - you cast it in a space ship where there is no height. Which brings me to my point. Fire works differently in a space ship, it shrinks down to a ball. Because FLAMES REACH UP. Link to space.com, fire page
That is the distinguishing thing about fire, it always reaches up. It is clear to me that High was used because Fire always goes in the direction opposite to gravity.
My basic rule is this - magic works as the rules book describes, but in all other ways it follows the laws of the real world, not without DM house ruling. You can't suddenly claim that an acid attack will ignite wood, cause you think that would be cool.
Similarly you can not suddenly claim that fire extends sideways. Fire goes up.
Dimensions are relative to the object they are describing. My feet are at the bottom of my body whether I am standing or lying down, and my height is ~6ft, but if I was lying down you wouldn't say I was ~6 long. The dimensions of the wall are relative to the wall, while the available flat surfaces determine the position.
I might, it depends on the situation. In any case, given that you can't lay cylinders on their sides (that's stated explicitly; height means up/down) there's no reason to think walls are different.
It seems appropriate that I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall with some responses in this thread.
i think this is the biggest impact. you're massively increasing the intended power of the spell when you go from covering 60 square feet of the map to 1,200 square feet.
i suppose you could then scale down the damage. if i stand in a WALL of fire, I get coverage through a plane passing through my entire body, head to toe (say i'm 6 feet tall x 2 feet wide x2 foot deep warrior built like a brick house, that's a plane that's 12 square feet). If the line goes through me horizontally, the coverage is massively smaller, a line through each of my legs or maybe through my stomach (4 square feet). So sure, you can have your ceiling of fire, but it does 1d8+4 damage instead of 5d8.
if you actually put it on the floor, i'd say even less damage, maybe 1d4 tops.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Lots of interesting responses here. It makes me think of a question. For this question, I am going to consider Wall of Stone instead of Wall of Fire so we can ignore any of the real world fluid/gas dynamics that influence the shape of fire.
What would happen if a creature used Spider Climb to walk on a wall and reorient their body such that the "wall" has become the new floor for them. When they cast a spell, does it cast relative the the caster's perception or relative to some "true floor" of the world?
Also, lets consider an extreme case, for funsies.
What if the wizard walks up a wall (an lets say their spider climb ability is due to a magic item, rather than casting a spell). This wall they climb is gigantic (thousands of ft high), such that once the wizard has walked halfway up the wall, they can no longer see the ground they originally came from. Now lets say he casts Wall of Stone. What happens?
(i) Does the wall cast from his "new ground" , with the height of the wall running perpendicular to the original wall he is standing on?
(ii) Does the wall somehow originate from the "true ground" which is out of sight below him?
(iii) Does the spell cast in his location -but casts parallel to the wall he is standing on such that the height of the wall runs parallel to the wall he is standing on, and one of the large faces is in direct contact with the wall he stands on?
(iv) OR does the spell simply fail because the "true ground" is out of the 120ft range of the spell?
Not really looking to say one way or another how to rule this one. Its rather nitpicky and technical and I would probably accept either interpretation from the DM. That being said, the whole discussion did bring little questions like this to mind
Edited to try and make the question easier to read and more clear on my thoughts.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It casts relative to the true up and down (what happens if you cast it on a spaceship is left as an exercise for the DM who decided to run Spelljammer in 5e), and in your extreme case it appears that the answer would be (iii), as wall of stone is not required to be on a floor.
Wait, you would only measure a person using that exact terminology? It's weird, when my son was less than 1, the pediatricians did NOT measure how tall he was, they measured his length.
And on that note if you are going to say that dimensions are relative to the object they're describing, then using the three dimensions 60', 20', and 1', a wall in colloquial terms cannot be constructed with the 1' dimension in the vertical direction -- because we have different words for when the flat surfaces that make up the borders of rooms are in different orientations, such as floors or ceilings. You might call a 20' by 60' area that is raised up 1' above the rest a dias, if you'd like, but you still can't create a Dias of Fire.
That is my "sniff test" for whether an interpretation is good or not. If a possible interpretation is so effective that there is no situation where you wouldn't use it; then it is probably wrong.
Also, wall of force and wall of light both say "he wall appears in any orientation you choose: horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. ", suggesting that the other wall spells cannot appear in any orientation you choose.
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are several instances where you either cannot cast "floor of fire" or where casting "floor of fire" is less or just as effective.
1. You cannot cast wall of fire on a wall when you are outside. There are no walls and the only flat surface available is the ground.
2. If you're fighting in a room more than 20ft long or wide. Unless the floor of fire can cover the whole space of a room, then it is just as effective as the regular spell. A creature may still use its movement to travel through the wall to safety as they would normally.
3. Floor of fire is an extremely poor choice if you happen to have any allies on the battlefield, as they will take damage each turn as well (provided you are fighting in a narrow enough space for the wall's area to cover).
The way I see it, casting floor of fire is really only particularly useful IF you're fighting indoors/near a wall, IF you're fighting in a <20ft corridor or alleyway, IF you're being chased and none of you're allies intend to engage the enemy in melee.
For me, that's enough IF's for the interpretation to pass the "sniff test." There are many instances where I would not use it, some where you cannot, and really only one situation where it is exceptionally useful.