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.
And from wall of light we also learn how the authors write wall spells: if you can reorient them as you please, they will go ahead and tell you that right in the spell. This is the biggest detractor from the "I can orient a wall as I please" argument.
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.
And from wall of light we also learn how the authors write wall spells: if you can reorient them as you please, they will go ahead and tell you that right in the spell. This is the biggest detractor from the "I can orient a wall as I please" argument.
I think you can just as easily make the argument from the opposite direction, that since so many other wall spells specify that they must be placed on the "ground" and Wall of Fire only requires a flat surface, you can inherently orient the wall in whatever way the flat surface allows.
I've been pretty clear in this thread about what I feel the text actually says. However, I think this spell in particular is just... incredibly poorly written. Take the "damage with 10 feet" part of the spell. The spell says that only one side of the wall deals damage, but that everybody within 10 feet of it takes that damage. The way it's written, even creatures on the non-damaging side of the wall will take that damage unless they're in the tiny one-foot space in which they're within 10 feet of the non-damaging side but 11 feet of the damaging side.
I've also been pretty clear that I agree the intent is that the wall be placed on the ground and not other flat surfaces like walls or ceilings, and part of why I think that is how much of the spell's text is really nonsensical upon even superficial reflection. I don't think it's appropriate to ascribe any intent to what is or isn't said in the spell text, because that spell text is so badly worded.
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"?
I think I made my thoughts pretty clear about that. The height of the spell refers to the standard orientation of a wall. My opinion is that all summoned objects or areas can be rotated unless locked in place by specific wording. In the case of Wall of Fire, the specific wording locking it in place is "solid surface." So my ruling would be that the surface takes the place of the typical "ground" referred to by other spells. In this way, the new ground (the wall or the ceiling, or other surfaces in the case of floating objects) would act as the anchor for the height of the spell. Another way to read my interpretation would be to replace "high" with "out from the surface."
So 20 feet high in my games (when it comes to summoned effects or objects) would be the distance from the anchor to the top of the intended height of the effect.
What most irks me about DMs that interpret this otherwise, is the effect you are left with. Now your "wall" doesn't look like a wall at all - not even one on its side. Now you've got a fiery line up a wall or across the ceiling that has no consequential depth to it at all. I guess if you like casting Wallpaper of Fire, or Ceiling Line of Fire, that's your prerogative. For my games, I want the effect to feel the same in any use of the spell. And for a wall, the point is to create a divider in space with enough depth to cross between creatures and into a 5-foot space.
Although "Floor of Fire" is still questionable when it comes to this point, the DM could require it to snap to grid in most cases to avoid precarious positioning. In any case, I don't mind how players in my games choose to orient spells unless the spell calls that out as against the use of the spell.
I still don't understand the thought that you cannot anchor a thin flat object to a vertical surface. Have you never seen a hanging picture? Nothing in the spell says that the 1'x60' side has to be the attachment point. You could choose any of the 6 faces of the rectangular box that make up the dimensions of the wall.
I still don't understand the thought that you cannot anchor a thin flat object to a vertical surface. Have you never seen a hanging picture? Nothing in the spell says that the 1'x60' side has to be the attachment point. You could choose any of the 6 faces of the rectangular box that make up the dimensions of the wall.
Again, it’s a poorly written spell. But I’ll explain my thought here: I think the wall’s base need be the side attached to the anchor point. The base is the side whose dimensions are length x thickness. Does the spell say the base has to be attached to the surface? No. But the spell also doesn’t say the height has to be perpendicular to the ground, so we’re back to just choosing which words we want to pay more attention to.
It is a poorly legalistically written spell but it is colloquially understandable -- its intention is clear, especially considering the text of other wall spells. For example, You are technically within 10' of the front of a wall if you are right on the other side of it, but I think your English interpreter is broken if you think that is what the text describing the damage means. If, while standing in my living room, my wife pointed to a wall and said "hang this painting on that wall" and I proceeded to take it outside and hang it on the exterior of our house, I don't think she'd be amused.
All they had to write was "any horizontal solid surface," but they didn't. There are plenty of references to solid surfaces among the rules that clearly include vertical surfaces - more than enough to make this phrase ambiguous in terms of orientation.
Saying this doesn't work without houserules is not correct. All the arguments against this boil down to RAI and debatable definitions of "high" and "height." Height is very much a relative term. If my character has spider climb and walks on a wall, their height stat on the character sheet doesn't change, only their orientation. To that same character on the wall, a wall of fire cast in the same orientation would have a height of 20 feet from that frame of reference.
Note I'm saying there is some ambiguity in the term height in a world where magic can routinely defy gravity. Because I don't need a rock-solid case here. I just need to prove that the rules don't definitively say that you can't cast wall of fire on a vertical surface. And they don't. That's just how RAW works.
All that stuff about what direction fire goes and whatnot is very interesting and all, but it's RAI and attempting to apply real world physics to magic.
Balance-wise, this is pretty limited in use and honestly if you're encountering 50 guys packed into 20-foot hall you should be able to fish-in-a-barrel them. It's the kind of thing that the group would still bring up 2 campaigns later.
My main reason to assume walls have to be vertical unless otherwise specified is that cylinders have to be vertical unless otherwise specified, and are the only standard area shape that specifically references height.
Simple if a wall is on the ground it’s no longer a wall. Is the spell called floor of fire? No. If someone says touch the nearest wall would you touch the ground?
All they had to write was "any horizontal solid surface," but they didn't. There are plenty of references to solid surfaces among the rules that clearly include vertical surfaces - more than enough to make this phrase ambiguous in terms of orientation.
Saying this doesn't work without houserules is not correct. All the arguments against this boil down to RAI and debatable definitions of "high" and "height." Height is very much a relative term. If my character has spider climb and walks on a wall, their height stat on the character sheet doesn't change, only their orientation. To that same character on the wall, a wall of fire cast in the same orientation would have a height of 20 feet from that frame of reference.
Note I'm saying there is some ambiguity in the term height in a world where magic can routinely defy gravity. Because I don't need a rock-solid case here. I just need to prove that the rules don't definitively say that you can't cast wall of fire on a vertical surface. And they don't. That's just how RAW works.
All that stuff about what direction fire goes and whatnot is very interesting and all, but it's RAI and attempting to apply real world physics to magic.
Balance-wise, this is pretty limited in use and honestly if you're encountering 50 guys packed into 20-foot hall you should be able to fish-in-a-barrel them. It's the kind of thing that the group would still bring up 2 campaigns later.
This is absurd. Yes we can debate the definitions of high and height, but we don't need to. Somebody has already done that work and has written a whole book about it.
highadjective \ ˈhī\
rising or extending upward a great distance : taller than average, usual, or expected; ahigh wall; a high fly ball
having a specified height or elevation : TALL six feet high—often used in combination; sky-high; waist-high
situated or passing above the normal level, surface, base of measurement, or elevation; : the high desert
heightnoun \ hīt \
the measurement from base to top or (of a standing person) from head to foot : "columns rising to 65 feet in height"
If we can't even agree on the definition of words in the English language, we can't have a debate at all.
The only thing the spell text says is that it must be a "solid surface" (no wall of fire on water or in the air) and that the wall is 20 feet "high".
The question is really, if you put the wall of fire on a wall which way does it extend? Putting it on the wall doesn't change the requirement that the wall of fire is 20 feet high. The definition for height is only relevant for the second definition of high. Note that the head to foot measurement is only of a standing person, otherwise it's base to top. So where is the top of the wall and where is the base of the wall?
base noun \ ˈbās\
the bottom of something considered as its support : the base of the mountain; the lamp's heavy base
architecture:
the lower part of a wall, pier, or column considered as a separate architectural feature
the lower part of a complete architectural design (as of a monument)
mathematics: a side or face of a geometrical figure from which an altitude can be constructed: a side or face on which the figure stands; the base of a triangle
All these things need a frame of reference. Humans use gravity for that. That's how we decide what is down and what is up. Is that relative to local gravity? Yes. People in Australia don't agree with America on which direction is down in a Cartesian coordinate system.
The direction that fire normally goes is irrelevant. Spider climb is irrelevant (it doesn't change gravity). Reverse gravity is far more relevant, and I definitely wouldn't object to a wall of fire extending from the ceiling when gravity is reversed.
I've been trying hard and there's no way I can justify, within the bounds of RAW and common definitions for English words, allowing the wall to be horizontal.
And from wall of light we also learn how the authors write wall spells: if you can reorient them as you please, they will go ahead and tell you that right in the spell. This is the biggest detractor from the "I can orient a wall as I please" argument.
I think you can just as easily make the argument from the opposite direction, that since so many other wall spells specify that they must be placed on the "ground" and Wall of Fire only requires a flat surface, you can inherently orient the wall in whatever way the flat surface allows.
I've been pretty clear in this thread about what I feel the text actually says. However, I think this spell in particular is just... incredibly poorly written. Take the "damage with 10 feet" part of the spell. The spell says that only one side of the wall deals damage, but that everybody within 10 feet of it takes that damage. The way it's written, even creatures on the non-damaging side of the wall will take that damage unless they're in the tiny one-foot space in which they're within 10 feet of the non-damaging side but 11 feet of the damaging side.
I've also been pretty clear that I agree the intent is that the wall be placed on the ground and not other flat surfaces like walls or ceilings, and part of why I think that is how much of the spell's text is really nonsensical upon even superficial reflection. I don't think it's appropriate to ascribe any intent to what is or isn't said in the spell text, because that spell text is so badly worded.
I think I made my thoughts pretty clear about that. The height of the spell refers to the standard orientation of a wall. My opinion is that all summoned objects or areas can be rotated unless locked in place by specific wording. In the case of Wall of Fire, the specific wording locking it in place is "solid surface." So my ruling would be that the surface takes the place of the typical "ground" referred to by other spells. In this way, the new ground (the wall or the ceiling, or other surfaces in the case of floating objects) would act as the anchor for the height of the spell. Another way to read my interpretation would be to replace "high" with "out from the surface."
So 20 feet high in my games (when it comes to summoned effects or objects) would be the distance from the anchor to the top of the intended height of the effect.
What most irks me about DMs that interpret this otherwise, is the effect you are left with. Now your "wall" doesn't look like a wall at all - not even one on its side. Now you've got a fiery line up a wall or across the ceiling that has no consequential depth to it at all. I guess if you like casting Wallpaper of Fire, or Ceiling Line of Fire, that's your prerogative. For my games, I want the effect to feel the same in any use of the spell. And for a wall, the point is to create a divider in space with enough depth to cross between creatures and into a 5-foot space.
Although "Floor of Fire" is still questionable when it comes to this point, the DM could require it to snap to grid in most cases to avoid precarious positioning. In any case, I don't mind how players in my games choose to orient spells unless the spell calls that out as against the use of the spell.
I still don't understand the thought that you cannot anchor a thin flat object to a vertical surface. Have you never seen a hanging picture? Nothing in the spell says that the 1'x60' side has to be the attachment point. You could choose any of the 6 faces of the rectangular box that make up the dimensions of the wall.
Again, it’s a poorly written spell. But I’ll explain my thought here: I think the wall’s base need be the side attached to the anchor point. The base is the side whose dimensions are length x thickness. Does the spell say the base has to be attached to the surface? No. But the spell also doesn’t say the height has to be perpendicular to the ground, so we’re back to just choosing which words we want to pay more attention to.
It is a poorly legalistically written spell but it is colloquially understandable -- its intention is clear, especially considering the text of other wall spells. For example, You are technically within 10' of the front of a wall if you are right on the other side of it, but I think your English interpreter is broken if you think that is what the text describing the damage means. If, while standing in my living room, my wife pointed to a wall and said "hang this painting on that wall" and I proceeded to take it outside and hang it on the exterior of our house, I don't think she'd be amused.
All they had to write was "any horizontal solid surface," but they didn't. There are plenty of references to solid surfaces among the rules that clearly include vertical surfaces - more than enough to make this phrase ambiguous in terms of orientation.
Saying this doesn't work without houserules is not correct. All the arguments against this boil down to RAI and debatable definitions of "high" and "height." Height is very much a relative term. If my character has spider climb and walks on a wall, their height stat on the character sheet doesn't change, only their orientation. To that same character on the wall, a wall of fire cast in the same orientation would have a height of 20 feet from that frame of reference.
Note I'm saying there is some ambiguity in the term height in a world where magic can routinely defy gravity. Because I don't need a rock-solid case here. I just need to prove that the rules don't definitively say that you can't cast wall of fire on a vertical surface. And they don't. That's just how RAW works.
All that stuff about what direction fire goes and whatnot is very interesting and all, but it's RAI and attempting to apply real world physics to magic.
Balance-wise, this is pretty limited in use and honestly if you're encountering 50 guys packed into 20-foot hall you should be able to fish-in-a-barrel them. It's the kind of thing that the group would still bring up 2 campaigns later.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
My main reason to assume walls have to be vertical unless otherwise specified is that cylinders have to be vertical unless otherwise specified, and are the only standard area shape that specifically references height.
Simple if a wall is on the ground it’s no longer a wall. Is the spell called floor of fire? No. If someone says touch the nearest wall would you touch the ground?
This is absurd. Yes we can debate the definitions of high and height, but we don't need to. Somebody has already done that work and has written a whole book about it.
All these things need a frame of reference. Humans use gravity for that. That's how we decide what is down and what is up. Is that relative to local gravity? Yes. People in Australia don't agree with America on which direction is down in a Cartesian coordinate system.
The direction that fire normally goes is irrelevant. Spider climb is irrelevant (it doesn't change gravity). Reverse gravity is far more relevant, and I definitely wouldn't object to a wall of fire extending from the ceiling when gravity is reversed.
I've been trying hard and there's no way I can justify, within the bounds of RAW and common definitions for English words, allowing the wall to be horizontal.
Given how magic works in 5e, mechanically...
The orientation of the spell is subject to the DM's interpretation. Does the fire function like fire, or magic flames? It isn't defined.
What if the spell is cast on the bottom of an airship? GM has to decide.
Time for y'all to drop the argument over the exact interpretation of English.