Surely if you're just looking to make up a few situations "for it to pass the sniff test" you'll be able to invent them. That doesn't make it actually reasonable.
Surely if you're just looking to make up a few situations "for it to pass the sniff test" you'll be able to invent them. That doesn't make it actually reasonable.
But how so? They're not made up examples, they're examples. If they're wrong, elaborate.
…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.
1). If you're going to misinterpret the spell, then I don't see why you don't go all the way - If you can lay the wall of fire down, what stops you from laying it on the ground instead of attaching it to a wall? The positioning requirement for the spell is just "a flat surface."
2). A wall of fire threatens 10'x60' of floorspace. Floor of fire doubles that.
3). This is orientation independent and not really a point in either favor. It is in fact harder to position a larger area, that is true, but not so much more so that larger spells are considered less effective. Especially if you have sorcerers or evokers casting the spells.
Surely if you're just looking to make up a few situations "for it to pass the sniff test" you'll be able to invent them. That doesn't make it actually reasonable.
But how so? They're not made up examples, they're examples. If they're wrong, elaborate.
The way they're wrong is in the assertion that they're rare. If 95% of the time you would want to cast the spell in the normal way, sure, it doesn't matter if you have a weird alternate interpretation.
…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.
1.) If you're going to misinterpret the spell, then I don't see why you don't go all the way - If you can lay the wall of fire down, what stops you from laying it on the ground instead of attaching it to a wall?
2). A wall of fire threatens 10'x60' of floorspace. Floor of fire doubles that.
3). This is orientation independent and not really a point in either favor. If is in fact harder to position a larger area, that is true, but not so much more so that larger spells are considered less effective. Especially if you have sorcerers or evokers casting the spells.
1. Because the spell still requires the base to be along a flat surface and logically that surface would effect the orientation of the spell. To say you can just cast it horizontally would be to actually ignore the flat surface requirement, wheras casting it horizontally on a wall doesn't ignore any of the spell requirements and, since cases can be made both for and against, make it pretty much a DM call.
2. Yeah that's what I said. 10ft doubled is 20. Enemies fighting in a room over 20ft can always move to the not on fire part. An improvement, but a situational and non-game-breaking one.
3. Yes there are lots of big spells that could hit allies, but most of them are not concentration dealing damage turn after turn. You might cast fireball near your group to kill lots of bad guys in one turn, but casting something like Hunger of Hadar in the middle of your allies would be way worse. Even with careful spell they're still taking damage every turn, so I probably would hold the phone on it in that situation and cast it vertically to avoid hitting allies.
…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.
What you have done here is added a bunch of house rules (while thinking they were in the spell- they are NOT) and then claimed that your intepretation is reasonable because of those house rules.
1) Nothing about the spell says anything about a 'wall' being required. The original "solid surface within range' clearly meant a horizontal floor. So they did not put a size limit on it. Any solid surface will do - say a chest. Or a Tree, rock, or even a person. You are HOUSE RULING that it must be a large solid surface. Also, nothing says it can not occupy the same space as other things. The spell specifically states that people can be inside the wall when you cast it. Nothing prevents you from putting it in a 10 x 10 room. So what if the fire goes through a wall?
2) No the creatures can NOT still use their movement. Put it one inch above the floor, not at waist level. The only way they can avoid it is to fly/levitate or otherwise not be standing in the are.
3) I am sorry, did you seriously just state that the large area effect spell you created is somehow LIMITED by how large it is? Your reasoning appears to be several unstated house rules (that it must fit in the current area and requires a wall, neither of which is in the spell). Fireball is a 20 ft radius, doing 8d6 save for 1/2 for an instant. Your spell is 60 ft by 20 ft wide (a much better area of effect - you can point the rectangle any way you desire), save for 1/2 damage the round it appears plus NO SAVE if they are in the area and not flying for any round after the first.
It is so wildly ridiculously over powered against non-flying creatures that I would laugh in your face if you proposed it as a new spell. Among other things, consider that a wizard could easily build his entire castle with 60 ft x 20 ft rooms/hallways with 10ft ceilings. Any room you enter he can turn into a death chamber - cast the spell, lock the door. If he wants to watch you, he makes the ceiling a cage of metal, stands on it, literally PISSING on you while you burn to death.
Doesn’t the spell say something about creatures take damage from being within 10 feet of the wall? That increases the horizontal threat area to 80’ x 40’. That’s a crazy threat range that most creatures can’t even dash past.
Yes. Also the spell says "UPTO" before listing it's size. Allowing this as horizontal turns this into a 9th level spell, unless you house rule a bunch of crap such as "can not be larger than the 'solid surface used', 'can not be placed so as to go through solid matter', and "remove the word 'upto' from the spell description"
Basically, the spell must be Vertical unless you do a lot of house ruling. Nothing wrong with creatively using a spell, but this idea is a really really bad one.
…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.
What you have done here is added a bunch of house rules (while thinking they were in the spell- they are NOT) and then claimed that your intepretation is reasonable because of those house rules.
1) Nothing about the spell says anything about a 'wall' being required. The original "solid surface within range' clearly meant a horizontal floor. So they did not put a size limit on it. Any solid surface will do - say a chest. Or a Tree, rock, or even a person. You are HOUSE RULING that it must be a large solid surface. Also, nothing says it can not occupy the same space as other things. The spell specifically states that people can be inside the wall when you cast it. Nothing prevents you from putting it in a 10 x 10 room. So what if the fire goes through a wall?
2) No the creatures can NOT still use their movement. Put it one inch above the floor, not at waist level. The only way they can avoid it is to fly/levitate or otherwise not be standing in the are.
3) I am sorry, did you seriously just state that the large area effect spell you created is somehow LIMITED by how large it is? Your reasoning appears to be several unstated house rules (that it must fit in the current area and requires a wall, neither of which is in the spell). Fireball is a 20 ft radius, doing 8d6 save for 1/2 for an instant. Your spell is 60 ft by 20 ft wide (a much better area of effect - you can point the rectangle any way you desire), save for 1/2 damage the round it appears plus NO SAVE if they are in the area and not flying for any round after the first.
It is so wildly ridiculously over powered against non-flying creatures that I would laugh in your face if you proposed it as a new spell. Among other things, consider that a wizard could easily build his entire castle with 60 ft x 20 ft rooms/hallways with 10ft ceilings. Any room you enter he can turn into a death chamber - cast the spell, lock the door. If he wants to watch you, he makes the ceiling a cage of metal, stands on it, literally PISSING on you while you burn to death.
Im not saying those things limit the casting (except the first one, which I wouldn't say is a house-rule rather an interpretation that the intention behind a wall needing a flat surface would be for the base to connect to said surface). The other examples I used are merely situations where casting it horizontally would not be optimal.
For instance, no matter the orientation (vert or horiz), if the space you are fighting in is bigger than spell's area, then you can always move to the part of the room that is not on fire, therefore it's not 100% game-breaking to cast it that way. That's actually an argument pro-being able to cast horizontally, illustrating that it's not broken.
Likewise, you absolutely CAN cast the spell on a room full of your allies (or any creatures), it is simply a bad idea to do so if again, the area is full of allies.
If you read my original post, I brought up these examples as reasons why horizontal casting isn't game-breaking-OP, and there's still plenty of circumstances where you'd do better casting vertical. Again, this is an argument for why you SHOULD be able to do both depending on the situation, because they have separate situational uses. Allowing horizontal casting I think is a good way to reward creative spell use.
Tl;Dr:
Yes it's powerful, but in many situations it would actually be too powerful to use effectively without killing your friends, like bringing a nuke to a knife fight. OP generally means bad design when the OP option becomes the only viable option, but there's still many instances in this case where the "OP" can be a pretty bad option.
I haven't heard anything that fully addresses the points I brought up without misrepresenting them or ignoring them, so I'm gonna maintain that this is a DM call. I don't see anyone changing their minds though so yeah let's call this one.
I haven't heardlistened to anything that fully addresses the points I brought up without misrepresenting them or ignoring them, so I'm gonna maintain that this is a DM call. I don't see anyone changing their minds though so yeah let's call this one.
FTFY.
There have been plenty of posts that point out each of the sequence of misinterpretations that lead you down the rabbit hole you ended up, but by ignoring them, you've safely protected your position.
Start by reading the spell. As others have pointed out, it states the dimensions using the "standard orientation" of a wall -- that is, using vertical height-- and (unlike other walls that can be reoriented) does not say that it can be other than in standard orientation. The mounting point is just a solid surface, it doesn't have to be any orientation. You can hang a wall of fire like a painting against a stone castle wall if you'd like -- but the wall still is constrained by its dimensions, up to 20' vertical, 1' deep, and 60' horizontal
Looking at all of the Wall spells there are three basic groupings for where they can be placed. They are roughly grouped in power and I have to imagine the difference in text means something. If I cast my Wall of Fire on the ceiling in the castle (valid solid surface) does it hang down by "height" into my room or disappear into the area above? If I cast on the ceiling and it points down and I cast on the floor and it points up, how can it transition between the two?
Looking at all of the Wall spells there are three basic groupings for where they can be placed. They are roughly grouped in power and I have to imagine the difference in text means something.
The first set ('ground') cannot be cast while inside a building, unless on the ground floor. The second set can be cast on any floor. The third set can be cast in midair.
"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.
Actually... flames follow their fuel. On Earth, the fuel is oxygen, and oxygen is almost everywhere. But as you get closer to the ground, the concentration changes, and is more heavily carbon dioxide. This inevitably means that the richest source of oxygen for the fire to continue burning is above the fire. This produces the effect, under most normal conditions, that fire moves in the opposite direction of gravity (upwards), which is entirely untrue. There are any number of laboratory conditions you can manufacture to force fire to spread in whatever direction you want.
Spreading this to your space analogy, the only spacecraft that would, as the expression goes, "burn in space", are the ones leaking a flammable atmosphere. And the flames would follow the flow of oxygen, from the high concentration inside the ship, to the extremely low concentration outside the ship in the vacuum of space.
Back to what has now become the topic at hand, is it legal to allow Wall of Fire to be cast on a surface other than the ground.
There are a lot of faceted and competing arguments flying around in here. But I notice 2 major things that have kinda been glossed over.
First, nowhere in the text does the spell say you must cast it on the ground. Bixington even provides us with a convenient list of all Wall style spells, and the text explicitly calls out a solid surface, not the ground, or the floor, etc. Just that the surface be solid. Generally speaking, if the text is not purely flavorful, the wording is chosen with care. I have to assume that the choice of words "on a solid surface" are not flavor text, as none of the other text in this particular spell is flavor. For those wondering what I mean, a fair number of the spells in the PHB have text that describes the hand waving that comprises the Somatic component of the spell, rather than describing what the spell actually does. An easy example would be Blade Ward, "You extend your hand and trace a sigil in the air". Ok, yeah, but that's not a function of the spell. That's the Somatic component, I guess. As later books were written, that kind of fluffery quickly disappeared in favor of actual mechanical text.
Which brings me back to the point -- there must be a reason the spell was written with wording that was ambiguous about what surface you can target. Otherwise it would probably say, instead, "on the ground or floor" instead. The words chosen are permissive, rather than restrictive. And if there was no intention of allowing for casting the spell on surfaces other than the ground, why was the more generous choice of words used?
The second thing, (and I feel this is of critical importance to the whole balance vs not issue) is that the wording used above ("on a solid surface") would indicate that if the wall was broken, by say a door or a window, that the spell would reach an edge, and the sideways Wall of Fire would be unable to continue beyond that point, regardless of how much remaining length th spell would otherwise be capable of filling. So if you're casting the spell in a long corridor, it probably doesn't matter how long the corridor is, because there are likely windows or doors at intervals along its length that would form natural firebreaks. At least, that's how I'd rule it. I'd also rule that it doesn't jump from one wall to another, in say an octagonal room. That room has 8 walls, and some of them are broken into segments by doorways. You can pick *a* wall in that room to cast the spell on, if you want, but you can't use 3 adjacent walls -- those are all unique surfaces. Those of you who are asserting that casting the spell on a wall instead of the floor makes the spell overpowered are all just envisioning the worst case scenario, of a 120 foot long corridor with no obstructions, and basing your entire thoughts on the balance of that use on that one worst case scenario.
Ultimately, this should be left up to the DM. Is it exactly what WotC was intending when they wrote the spell? Probably not. But did they think of it while they were playtesting? Also probably not. Until this use case is attempted in AL or some other similar venue, I doubt any sort of official yes/no answer will be possible. Does Jeremy Crawford still answer "sage advice" tweets? Perhaps someone should ping him. Ultimately, this seems like a very creative and out-of-the-box use of the spell, and the entire spirit of DnD is about figuring out ways to bend the rules to pull off crazy stunts. Until there is a Sage Advice entry or an errata changing the text of the spell, this will remain a decision that lies with the DM.
I just wanna say I totally get why this discussion bothers players and DMs alike because the wording is both ambiguous and specific at the same time. On one hand, you've got the placement of the spell that can be on a "solid surface" which seems to contrast with similar spells that require the ground for placement. On the other, there is the typical concept of the standard orientation of a wall that is a vertical divider, perpendicular to the ground.
In my interpretation of a summoned effect or object by a spell, the dimensions are simply one orientation unless specifically locked into position by "the ground" or something like that. For example, I enjoy more creative interpretations of other spells like Spiritual Weapon that claims it is spectral, so I allow players in my games to have the weapon pass through walls (not that I want to start that discussion here, but that's just an example of my ruling style). So when a wall is summoned, I imagine the standard position as vertical, and that a keen spellcaster looking for other orientations should be allowed to do so.
THAT SAID...
I completely understand how powerful the "floor of fire" (as you guys put it) truly is. Here's another example that I haven't seen yet of how powerful a Wall of Fire on a wall is.
Imagine the wall the spell is summoned upon is not a straight hallway. Perhaps it is still conveniently 20 feet wide to assume the largest number of targets for the spell (and that each of them are medium-sized creatures). Now imagine this wide hallway is the full 60 feet in length, but it is curved instead... In this example I've drawn up on Roll20, I counted 68 targets for the spell. As a reminder, the spell's cage formation hits about 12-16 targets. The fiery shell formation hits a maximum of about 36 targets. The Wall of Fire on a straight wall can target up to 48. And this example is 20 more than what was already about 4 times as deadly as the cage.
To be fair, an area hazard that does not care about the party's well-being can be exploited by enemies who survive this attack - especially enemies who can fly or those who have great strength and endurance. Giants and dragons come to mind as poor choices for targets of this tactic. All they need to do is tank about 20 points of damage and they can inflict the same suffering on any poor bastard in the party that gets grappled by them. Even worse if the target is resistant or immune to fire - you just did a red dragon a favor by dropping it that way.
For any DMs who have a player that wants to play it this way, I encourage you to allow it - and here's why. Most characters who can summon this spell are not very durable. If you can get your hands on the caster through a grapple or similar means, you can push them into their own fire. They now have only two choices: release concentration on the spell before taking any damage (thus ending the hazard) or take the damage (no save) and pass a Constitution saving throw to maintain the spell (which could also end the hazard). It would teach the player not to abuse the spell, but rather use it tactically and carefully.
There are many other fun uses of the spell, such as obscuring the line of targeting by spellcasters (especially with things like Counterspell that require the caster to see the target). If given the chance for a Wall of Fire on the wall to create the facsimile of a ceiling, it could prevent aerial attacks by creatures that don't have ranged attacks, like wyverns and harpies.
I implore every DM to allow as much creativity within a game of D&D as possible. Definitely consider the ramifications of how unbalanced this can be and judge for yourself whether it is something you want to compromise on with your players. A buddy of mine came up with an interpretation of the spell that was 5-foot segments of the wall that acted like jets of flame, so if they were to round a corner on a wall they would split, and avoid granting several more targets through curvy shapes.
There are many ways of interpreting the rules of our game, and my favorite is the rule of cool. Let creativity guide your fun :)
"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.
Actually... flames follow their fuel. On Earth, the fuel is oxygen, and oxygen is almost everywhere. But as you get closer to the ground, the concentration changes, and is more heavily carbon dioxide. This inevitably means that the richest source of oxygen for the fire to continue burning is above the fire. This produces the effect, under most normal conditions, that fire moves in the opposite direction of gravity (upwards), which is entirely untrue. There are any number of laboratory conditions you can manufacture to force fire to spread in whatever direction you want.
Spreading this to your space analogy, the only spacecraft that would, as the expression goes, "burn in space", are the ones leaking a flammable atmosphere. And the flames would follow the flow of oxygen, from the high concentration inside the ship, to the extremely low concentration outside the ship in the vacuum of space.
Even though you are wrong about a lot of the science behind fire (you should read the space.com article linked above, it's actually pretty good), you are right on one key point that actually made me reconsider my position, but not change my mind. Fire does not necessarily go opposite gravity (think about a blowtorch).
Back to what has now become the topic at hand, is it legal to allow Wall of Fire to be cast on a surface other than the ground.
There are a lot of faceted and competing arguments flying around in here. But I notice 2 major things that have kinda been glossed over.
First, nowhere in the text does the spell say you must cast it on the ground. Bixington even provides us with a convenient list of all Wall style spells, and the text explicitly calls out a solid surface, not the ground, or the floor, etc. Just that the surface be solid. Generally speaking, if the text is not purely flavorful, the wording is chosen with care. I have to assume that the choice of words "on a solid surface" are not flavor text, as none of the other text in this particular spell is flavor. For those wondering what I mean, a fair number of the spells in the PHB have text that describes the hand waving that comprises the Somatic component of the spell, rather than describing what the spell actually does. An easy example would be Blade Ward, "You extend your hand and trace a sigil in the air". Ok, yeah, but that's not a function of the spell. That's the Somatic component, I guess. As later books were written, that kind of fluffery quickly disappeared in favor of actual mechanical text.
Which brings me back to the point -- there must be a reason the spell was written with wording that was ambiguous about what surface you can target. Otherwise it would probably say, instead, "on the ground or floor" instead. The words chosen are permissive, rather than restrictive. And if there was no intention of allowing for casting the spell on surfaces other than the ground, why was the more generous choice of words used?
I think most people on both sides of this argument agree with the spell text that the spell can be cast on any flat surface. The disagreement is in what orientation the wall takes when not cast on the ground. Hopefully, everyone here is trying to argue RAW and not RAI, because unless the author of the spell speaks up, we won't know what RAI is. So speculation as to why something was written differently here or there is irrelevant.
What we do know is the spell text. The spell text says "20 feet high". Maybe you can argue that "high" is fluff text, but I don't buy that argument. If that were the case, the wall could be place in any orientation on any solid surface.
The second thing, (and I feel this is of critical importance to the whole balance vs not issue) is that the wording used above ("on a solid surface") would indicate that if the wall was broken, by say a door or a window, that the spell would reach an edge, and the sideways Wall of Fire would be unable to continue beyond that point, regardless of how much remaining length th spell would otherwise be capable of filling. So if you're casting the spell in a long corridor, it probably doesn't matter how long the corridor is, because there are likely windows or doors at intervals along its length that would form natural firebreaks. At least, that's how I'd rule it. I'd also rule that it doesn't jump from one wall to another, in say an octagonal room. That room has 8 walls, and some of them are broken into segments by doorways. You can pick *a* wall in that room to cast the spell on, if you want, but you can't use 3 adjacent walls -- those are all unique surfaces. Those of you who are asserting that casting the spell on a wall instead of the floor makes the spell overpowered are all just envisioning the worst case scenario, of a 120 foot long corridor with no obstructions, and basing your entire thoughts on the balance of that use on that one worst case scenario.
Ultimately, this should be left up to the DM. Is it exactly what WotC was intending when they wrote the spell? Probably not. But did they think of it while they were playtesting? Also probably not. Until this use case is attempted in AL or some other similar venue, I doubt any sort of official yes/no answer will be possible. Does Jeremy Crawford still answer "sage advice" tweets? Perhaps someone should ping him. Ultimately, this seems like a very creative and out-of-the-box use of the spell, and the entire spirit of DnD is about figuring out ways to bend the rules to pull off crazy stunts. Until there is a Sage Advice entry or an errata changing the text of the spell, this will remain a decision that lies with the DM.
After rereading the spell again, I agree with your ruling that the wall can't extend beyond the solid surface. I disagree that that makes the horizontal wall not broken. The "worst case scenario" is not the right comparison and I don't think that this is what most people are considering. The right question to ask is, "what percentage of the time is it better to use the flat wall of fire versus the upright wall of fire?" I think in most cases where it's possible, it would be better to use a flat wall of fire. In your scenario of the long hallway broken up by doors and windows, just put it above those things pointing down. In the case of the octagon, you're definitely right that using the flat wall is worse.
I just wanna say I totally get why this discussion bothers players and DMs alike because the wording is both ambiguous and specific at the same time. On one hand, you've got the placement of the spell that can be on a "solid surface" which seems to contrast with similar spells that require the ground for placement. On the other, there is the typical concept of the standard orientation of a wall that is a vertical divider, perpendicular to the ground.
In my interpretation of a summoned effect or object by a spell, the dimensions are simply one orientation unless specifically locked into position by "the ground" or something like that. For example, I enjoy more creative interpretations of other spells like Spiritual Weapon that claims it is spectral, so I allow players in my games to have the weapon pass through walls (not that I want to start that discussion here, but that's just an example of my ruling style). So when a wall is summoned, I imagine the standard position as vertical, and that a keen spellcaster looking for other orientations should be allowed to do so.
What are your thought on the text of the spell specifying "20 feet high"?
Is “high” a purely vertical measurement or just perpendicular to the base? I have a fence installed on my property, flat ground then down a hill at almost 45 degrees. Each panel is the same size. Building code says that it can be 6’ high. On the flat area, everyone agrees. On the slope it is either 6’ or over 8’. Not that my local bureaucracy is a great arbiter of rules but they definitely think it’s a 6’ fence
I think the problem people actually have isn’t height, it’s thickness not being perpendicular to vertical.
Adding on to be more specific. If the fence turned 90 degrees on the sloped section I think everyone would expect it to be vertical and not tilted 45 degrees, perpendicular to the slope. Just practical real world wall building. Magic obviously doesn't need this constraint.
From Wall of Light: "The wall appears in any orientation you choose: horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. It can be free floating, or it can rest on a solid surface. The wall can be up to 60 feet long, 10 feet high, and 5 feet thick." Here "high" is a measure of the wall internally, regardless of orientation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Surely if you're just looking to make up a few situations "for it to pass the sniff test" you'll be able to invent them. That doesn't make it actually reasonable.
But how so? They're not made up examples, they're examples. If they're wrong, elaborate.
1). If you're going to misinterpret the spell, then I don't see why you don't go all the way - If you can lay the wall of fire down, what stops you from laying it on the ground instead of attaching it to a wall? The positioning requirement for the spell is just "a flat surface."
2). A wall of fire threatens 10'x60' of floorspace. Floor of fire doubles that.
3). This is orientation independent and not really a point in either favor. It is in fact harder to position a larger area, that is true, but not so much more so that larger spells are considered less effective. Especially if you have sorcerers or evokers casting the spells.
The way they're wrong is in the assertion that they're rare. If 95% of the time you would want to cast the spell in the normal way, sure, it doesn't matter if you have a weird alternate interpretation.
1. Because the spell still requires the base to be along a flat surface and logically that surface would effect the orientation of the spell. To say you can just cast it horizontally would be to actually ignore the flat surface requirement, wheras casting it horizontally on a wall doesn't ignore any of the spell requirements and, since cases can be made both for and against, make it pretty much a DM call.
2. Yeah that's what I said. 10ft doubled is 20. Enemies fighting in a room over 20ft can always move to the not on fire part. An improvement, but a situational and non-game-breaking one.
3. Yes there are lots of big spells that could hit allies, but most of them are not concentration dealing damage turn after turn. You might cast fireball near your group to kill lots of bad guys in one turn, but casting something like Hunger of Hadar in the middle of your allies would be way worse. Even with careful spell they're still taking damage every turn, so I probably would hold the phone on it in that situation and cast it vertically to avoid hitting allies.
What you have done here is added a bunch of house rules (while thinking they were in the spell- they are NOT) and then claimed that your intepretation is reasonable because of those house rules.
1) Nothing about the spell says anything about a 'wall' being required. The original "solid surface within range' clearly meant a horizontal floor. So they did not put a size limit on it. Any solid surface will do - say a chest. Or a Tree, rock, or even a person. You are HOUSE RULING that it must be a large solid surface. Also, nothing says it can not occupy the same space as other things. The spell specifically states that people can be inside the wall when you cast it. Nothing prevents you from putting it in a 10 x 10 room. So what if the fire goes through a wall?
2) No the creatures can NOT still use their movement. Put it one inch above the floor, not at waist level. The only way they can avoid it is to fly/levitate or otherwise not be standing in the are.
3) I am sorry, did you seriously just state that the large area effect spell you created is somehow LIMITED by how large it is? Your reasoning appears to be several unstated house rules (that it must fit in the current area and requires a wall, neither of which is in the spell). Fireball is a 20 ft radius, doing 8d6 save for 1/2 for an instant. Your spell is 60 ft by 20 ft wide (a much better area of effect - you can point the rectangle any way you desire), save for 1/2 damage the round it appears plus NO SAVE if they are in the area and not flying for any round after the first.
It is so wildly ridiculously over powered against non-flying creatures that I would laugh in your face if you proposed it as a new spell. Among other things, consider that a wizard could easily build his entire castle with 60 ft x 20 ft rooms/hallways with 10ft ceilings. Any room you enter he can turn into a death chamber - cast the spell, lock the door. If he wants to watch you, he makes the ceiling a cage of metal, stands on it, literally PISSING on you while you burn to death.
Doesn’t the spell say something about creatures take damage from being within 10 feet of the wall? That increases the horizontal threat area to 80’ x 40’. That’s a crazy threat range that most creatures can’t even dash past.
Yes. Also the spell says "UPTO" before listing it's size. Allowing this as horizontal turns this into a 9th level spell, unless you house rule a bunch of crap such as "can not be larger than the 'solid surface used', 'can not be placed so as to go through solid matter', and "remove the word 'upto' from the spell description"
Basically, the spell must be Vertical unless you do a lot of house ruling. Nothing wrong with creatively using a spell, but this idea is a really really bad one.
Im not saying those things limit the casting (except the first one, which I wouldn't say is a house-rule rather an interpretation that the intention behind a wall needing a flat surface would be for the base to connect to said surface). The other examples I used are merely situations where casting it horizontally would not be optimal.
For instance, no matter the orientation (vert or horiz), if the space you are fighting in is bigger than spell's area, then you can always move to the part of the room that is not on fire, therefore it's not 100% game-breaking to cast it that way. That's actually an argument pro-being able to cast horizontally, illustrating that it's not broken.
Likewise, you absolutely CAN cast the spell on a room full of your allies (or any creatures), it is simply a bad idea to do so if again, the area is full of allies.
If you read my original post, I brought up these examples as reasons why horizontal casting isn't game-breaking-OP, and there's still plenty of circumstances where you'd do better casting vertical. Again, this is an argument for why you SHOULD be able to do both depending on the situation, because they have separate situational uses. Allowing horizontal casting I think is a good way to reward creative spell use.
Tl;Dr:
Yes it's powerful, but in many situations it would actually be too powerful to use effectively without killing your friends, like bringing a nuke to a knife fight. OP generally means bad design when the OP option becomes the only viable option, but there's still many instances in this case where the "OP" can be a pretty bad option.
Time to throw in the towel on this one, Charles.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I haven't heard anything that fully addresses the points I brought up without misrepresenting them or ignoring them, so I'm gonna maintain that this is a DM call. I don't see anyone changing their minds though so yeah let's call this one.
FTFY.
There have been plenty of posts that point out each of the sequence of misinterpretations that lead you down the rabbit hole you ended up, but by ignoring them, you've safely protected your position.
Start by reading the spell. As others have pointed out, it states the dimensions using the "standard orientation" of a wall -- that is, using vertical height-- and (unlike other walls that can be reoriented) does not say that it can be other than in standard orientation. The mounting point is just a solid surface, it doesn't have to be any orientation. You can hang a wall of fire like a painting against a stone castle wall if you'd like -- but the wall still is constrained by its dimensions, up to 20' vertical, 1' deep, and 60' horizontal
Looking at all of the Wall spells there are three basic groupings for where they can be placed. They are roughly grouped in power and I have to imagine the difference in text means something. If I cast my Wall of Fire on the ceiling in the castle (valid solid surface) does it hang down by "height" into my room or disappear into the area above? If I cast on the ceiling and it points down and I cast on the floor and it points up, how can it transition between the two?
The first set ('ground') cannot be cast while inside a building, unless on the ground floor. The second set can be cast on any floor. The third set can be cast in midair.
Actually... flames follow their fuel. On Earth, the fuel is oxygen, and oxygen is almost everywhere. But as you get closer to the ground, the concentration changes, and is more heavily carbon dioxide. This inevitably means that the richest source of oxygen for the fire to continue burning is above the fire. This produces the effect, under most normal conditions, that fire moves in the opposite direction of gravity (upwards), which is entirely untrue. There are any number of laboratory conditions you can manufacture to force fire to spread in whatever direction you want.
Spreading this to your space analogy, the only spacecraft that would, as the expression goes, "burn in space", are the ones leaking a flammable atmosphere. And the flames would follow the flow of oxygen, from the high concentration inside the ship, to the extremely low concentration outside the ship in the vacuum of space.
Back to what has now become the topic at hand, is it legal to allow Wall of Fire to be cast on a surface other than the ground.
There are a lot of faceted and competing arguments flying around in here. But I notice 2 major things that have kinda been glossed over.
First, nowhere in the text does the spell say you must cast it on the ground. Bixington even provides us with a convenient list of all Wall style spells, and the text explicitly calls out a solid surface, not the ground, or the floor, etc. Just that the surface be solid. Generally speaking, if the text is not purely flavorful, the wording is chosen with care. I have to assume that the choice of words "on a solid surface" are not flavor text, as none of the other text in this particular spell is flavor. For those wondering what I mean, a fair number of the spells in the PHB have text that describes the hand waving that comprises the Somatic component of the spell, rather than describing what the spell actually does. An easy example would be Blade Ward, "You extend your hand and trace a sigil in the air". Ok, yeah, but that's not a function of the spell. That's the Somatic component, I guess. As later books were written, that kind of fluffery quickly disappeared in favor of actual mechanical text.
Which brings me back to the point -- there must be a reason the spell was written with wording that was ambiguous about what surface you can target. Otherwise it would probably say, instead, "on the ground or floor" instead. The words chosen are permissive, rather than restrictive. And if there was no intention of allowing for casting the spell on surfaces other than the ground, why was the more generous choice of words used?
The second thing, (and I feel this is of critical importance to the whole balance vs not issue) is that the wording used above ("on a solid surface") would indicate that if the wall was broken, by say a door or a window, that the spell would reach an edge, and the sideways Wall of Fire would be unable to continue beyond that point, regardless of how much remaining length th spell would otherwise be capable of filling. So if you're casting the spell in a long corridor, it probably doesn't matter how long the corridor is, because there are likely windows or doors at intervals along its length that would form natural firebreaks. At least, that's how I'd rule it. I'd also rule that it doesn't jump from one wall to another, in say an octagonal room. That room has 8 walls, and some of them are broken into segments by doorways. You can pick *a* wall in that room to cast the spell on, if you want, but you can't use 3 adjacent walls -- those are all unique surfaces. Those of you who are asserting that casting the spell on a wall instead of the floor makes the spell overpowered are all just envisioning the worst case scenario, of a 120 foot long corridor with no obstructions, and basing your entire thoughts on the balance of that use on that one worst case scenario.
Ultimately, this should be left up to the DM. Is it exactly what WotC was intending when they wrote the spell? Probably not. But did they think of it while they were playtesting? Also probably not. Until this use case is attempted in AL or some other similar venue, I doubt any sort of official yes/no answer will be possible. Does Jeremy Crawford still answer "sage advice" tweets? Perhaps someone should ping him. Ultimately, this seems like a very creative and out-of-the-box use of the spell, and the entire spirit of DnD is about figuring out ways to bend the rules to pull off crazy stunts. Until there is a Sage Advice entry or an errata changing the text of the spell, this will remain a decision that lies with the DM.
I just wanna say I totally get why this discussion bothers players and DMs alike because the wording is both ambiguous and specific at the same time. On one hand, you've got the placement of the spell that can be on a "solid surface" which seems to contrast with similar spells that require the ground for placement. On the other, there is the typical concept of the standard orientation of a wall that is a vertical divider, perpendicular to the ground.
In my interpretation of a summoned effect or object by a spell, the dimensions are simply one orientation unless specifically locked into position by "the ground" or something like that. For example, I enjoy more creative interpretations of other spells like Spiritual Weapon that claims it is spectral, so I allow players in my games to have the weapon pass through walls (not that I want to start that discussion here, but that's just an example of my ruling style). So when a wall is summoned, I imagine the standard position as vertical, and that a keen spellcaster looking for other orientations should be allowed to do so.
THAT SAID...
I completely understand how powerful the "floor of fire" (as you guys put it) truly is. Here's another example that I haven't seen yet of how powerful a Wall of Fire on a wall is.
Imagine the wall the spell is summoned upon is not a straight hallway. Perhaps it is still conveniently 20 feet wide to assume the largest number of targets for the spell (and that each of them are medium-sized creatures). Now imagine this wide hallway is the full 60 feet in length, but it is curved instead... In this example I've drawn up on Roll20, I counted 68 targets for the spell. As a reminder, the spell's cage formation hits about 12-16 targets. The fiery shell formation hits a maximum of about 36 targets. The Wall of Fire on a straight wall can target up to 48. And this example is 20 more than what was already about 4 times as deadly as the cage.
To be fair, an area hazard that does not care about the party's well-being can be exploited by enemies who survive this attack - especially enemies who can fly or those who have great strength and endurance. Giants and dragons come to mind as poor choices for targets of this tactic. All they need to do is tank about 20 points of damage and they can inflict the same suffering on any poor bastard in the party that gets grappled by them. Even worse if the target is resistant or immune to fire - you just did a red dragon a favor by dropping it that way.
For any DMs who have a player that wants to play it this way, I encourage you to allow it - and here's why. Most characters who can summon this spell are not very durable. If you can get your hands on the caster through a grapple or similar means, you can push them into their own fire. They now have only two choices: release concentration on the spell before taking any damage (thus ending the hazard) or take the damage (no save) and pass a Constitution saving throw to maintain the spell (which could also end the hazard). It would teach the player not to abuse the spell, but rather use it tactically and carefully.
There are many other fun uses of the spell, such as obscuring the line of targeting by spellcasters (especially with things like Counterspell that require the caster to see the target). If given the chance for a Wall of Fire on the wall to create the facsimile of a ceiling, it could prevent aerial attacks by creatures that don't have ranged attacks, like wyverns and harpies.
I implore every DM to allow as much creativity within a game of D&D as possible. Definitely consider the ramifications of how unbalanced this can be and judge for yourself whether it is something you want to compromise on with your players. A buddy of mine came up with an interpretation of the spell that was 5-foot segments of the wall that acted like jets of flame, so if they were to round a corner on a wall they would split, and avoid granting several more targets through curvy shapes.
There are many ways of interpreting the rules of our game, and my favorite is the rule of cool. Let creativity guide your fun :)
Even though you are wrong about a lot of the science behind fire (you should read the space.com article linked above, it's actually pretty good), you are right on one key point that actually made me reconsider my position, but not change my mind. Fire does not necessarily go opposite gravity (think about a blowtorch).
I think most people on both sides of this argument agree with the spell text that the spell can be cast on any flat surface. The disagreement is in what orientation the wall takes when not cast on the ground. Hopefully, everyone here is trying to argue RAW and not RAI, because unless the author of the spell speaks up, we won't know what RAI is. So speculation as to why something was written differently here or there is irrelevant.
What we do know is the spell text. The spell text says "20 feet high". Maybe you can argue that "high" is fluff text, but I don't buy that argument. If that were the case, the wall could be place in any orientation on any solid surface.
After rereading the spell again, I agree with your ruling that the wall can't extend beyond the solid surface. I disagree that that makes the horizontal wall not broken. The "worst case scenario" is not the right comparison and I don't think that this is what most people are considering. The right question to ask is, "what percentage of the time is it better to use the flat wall of fire versus the upright wall of fire?" I think in most cases where it's possible, it would be better to use a flat wall of fire. In your scenario of the long hallway broken up by doors and windows, just put it above those things pointing down. In the case of the octagon, you're definitely right that using the flat wall is worse.
What are your thought on the text of the spell specifying "20 feet high"?
Is “high” a purely vertical measurement or just perpendicular to the base? I have a fence installed on my property, flat ground then down a hill at almost 45 degrees. Each panel is the same size. Building code says that it can be 6’ high. On the flat area, everyone agrees. On the slope it is either 6’ or over 8’. Not that my local bureaucracy is a great arbiter of rules but they definitely think it’s a 6’ fence
I think the problem people actually have isn’t height, it’s thickness not being perpendicular to vertical.
Adding on to be more specific. If the fence turned 90 degrees on the sloped section I think everyone would expect it to be vertical and not tilted 45 degrees, perpendicular to the slope. Just practical real world wall building. Magic obviously doesn't need this constraint.
From Wall of Light: "The wall appears in any orientation you choose: horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. It can be free floating, or it can rest on a solid surface. The wall can be up to 60 feet long, 10 feet high, and 5 feet thick." Here "high" is a measure of the wall internally, regardless of orientation.