# Fireball vs. Wind Wall



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 10, 2004)

Would you say that a _Wind Wall_ deflects the bead produced by the _Fireball_ spell?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Would you say that a _Wind Wall_ deflects the bead produced by the _Fireball_ spell?



Does Wind Wall work against spells?  I don't think so.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 11, 2004)

Only if you can deflect or snatch the bead with the Deflect/Snatch Arrow feats.    


Actually, one sec.. lemme check something.


OKay, yeah - having looked at both Fireball and Wind Wall, I would say that the bead would be deflected upwards and away harmlessly.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 11, 2004)

That'd be quite the shooter marble.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Would you say that a _Wind Wall_ deflects the bead produced by the _Fireball_ spell?




No.  _Wind wall_ affects arrows and bolts (and causes a 30% chance for "normal" ranged weapons), flying creatures, papers, loose materials, garments, and gasses.

The bead of a _fireball_ (which is almost entirely flavor text anyway) is none of those things.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> No.  _Wind wall_ affects arrows and bolts (and causes a 30% chance for "normal" ranged weapons), flying creatures, papers, loose materials, garments, and gasses.
> 
> The bead of a _fireball_ (which is almost entirely flavor text anyway) is none of those things.



Except that when fired at an arrow slit, you have to make a ranged attack roll to get it into the room.  That suggests to me that it's an actual pellet that is affected by obstacles to missile fire.  It's a pellet that "blossoms into a fireball" upon contact, but a pellet nonetheless.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 11, 2004)

> The bead of a fireball (which is almost entirely flavor text anyway) is none of those things.



  I disagree with you on the bead being almost entirely flavor text.  If the bead intersects a solid object before reaching its target, it detonates prematurely.  If the caster is trying to have the bead pass thru a narrow area, such as an arrowslit, he has to make a ranged touch attack or the bead strikes the rim and goes off early.  The bead has a function beyond pure fluff.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Only if you can deflect or snatch the bead with the Deflect/Snatch Arrow feats.



If the _Fireball_ were targetted at the monk, then I'd certainly rule he could snatch the pellet.  Which would then explode upon contact with his hand.  If the _fireball_ isn't aimed at the monk, then no.  No more than Snatch Arrows lets you grab normal arrows that are aimed at somebody/where else.

That being the case, then, how would you rule it?

edit:  Duh, the rest of your post answers that.  Nevermind.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 11, 2004)

Regardless, to answer the initial question, the pellet -- be it flavor or not -- is a magical effect.  Wind Wall doesn't help.

Going along the same lines, I don't think Deflect/Snatch Arrow would work against magical effects.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Regardless, to answer the initial question, the pellet -- be it flavor or not -- is a magical effect.  Wind Wall doesn't help.



Why do you say this?  Nowhere in the spell description is such mentioned.  It claims to be ineffective against huge boulders and siege weapons.  It says nothing about magical effects.  _Fireball_ creates a small pebble, and fires it at a set point, at which point it "blossoms into a fireball."  The pebble can't bypass an arrow slit any more than a non-magical arrow can.  Why is it able to ignore a wall of wind?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Why do you say this?  Nowhere in the spell description is such mentioned.  It claims to be ineffective against huge boulders and siege weapons.  It says nothing about magical effects.  _Fireball_ creates a small pebble, and fires it at a set point, at which point it "blossoms into a fireball."  The pebble can't bypass an arrow slit any more than a non-magical arrow can.  Why is it able to ignore a wall of wind?



Why do I say fireball is a magical effect?  Because it's a spell?

Additionally, the spell can be dispelled, right?  Can the pebble be dispelled?  I think the logical conclusion is yes.  Which leads to the idea that the pebble is magic.

Granted, Wind Wall on a fireball is a neat idea, but it doesn't seem tofollow the RAW.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 11, 2004)

> the pellet -- be it flavor or not -- is a magical effect. Wind Wall doesn't help.



_"Gases, most gaseous breath weapons, and creatures in gaseous form cannot pass through the wall"_

A _Cloudkill_ cloud, a green dragon's breath, or a gaseuous creature can't pass the wall - and the Wind Wall protects agains all of them, even though they're all magical effects.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> If the _Fireball_ were targetted at the monk, then I'd certainly rule he could snatch the pellet.  Which would then explode upon contact with his hand.




That would be such a great in game moment.

Monk: *catches the bead* HA!

The Monk would have just enough time to realize what he'd caught, look horrified, and then explode. 

And on topic...its a good question. I think I'd rule that Wind Wall doesn't effect the fireball. Yes, I know that you need a ranged touch attack in a special case, but that's only in ONE case. Looking at the description of Wind Wall, the Fireball doesn't fit any of the descriptions(IMO, of course) used as examples to what are effected and how. So, I'd say no. But I'd be willing to change this ruling with a convincing argument.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 11, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> _"Gases, most gaseous breath weapons, and creatures in gaseous form cannot pass through the wall"_
> 
> A _Cloudkill_ cloud, a green dragon's breath, or a gaseuous creature can't pass the wall - and the Wind Wall protects agains all of them, even though they're all magical effects.



Okay, caveat: unless otherwise noted.  I think that's clear enough, though.


----------



## Wonko the Sane (Dec 11, 2004)

> The Monk would have just enough time to realize what he'd caught, look horrified, and then explode.




...which (IMO) would deny him his Evasion ability too, since it explodes in/on his hand.


----------



## Wonko the Sane (Dec 11, 2004)

This is making me wonder that since you have to make a ranged touch attack to "hit" an arrow slit, would it be unreasonable to make a ranged touch attack to hit someone with the bead, and thus deny them a Reflex save altogether (as per most other touch attack spells)?  I think it makes fireball a little better, especially at higher levels.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Except that when fired at an arrow slit, you have to make a ranged attack roll to get it into the room.






			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> If the bead intersects a solid object before reaching its target, it detonates prematurely. [...] The bead has a function beyond pure fluff.




Gee whiz, I wonder what I could possibly have had in mind when I wrote "*almost* entirely flavor text"?


Jeff


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Looking at the description of Wind Wall, the Fireball doesn't fit any of the descriptions(IMO, of course) used as examples to what are effected and how.



My thought is that the pellet produced by the _Fireball_ spell is like a sling stone with a special power.  The spell shoots the pellet off (you don't need a sling), and upon reaching a certain point (or contact with a solid object), it explodes in a fireball.  I'm basing this on the fact, if fired at an arrow slit, it requires a ranged touch attack to enter the room, or it explodes against the wall.  This indicates, to me, that it is not infallibly directed or propelled.  It's basically a normal missile with a range of 400' + 40'/level, until it comes into contact with a solid object, or reaches the designated detonation range.

Since any other sling stone or thrown pebble would be deflected by the _Wind Wall_, I see no reason why the pellet created by the _Fireball_ spell shouldn't.  Yes, the pellet is magical in nature, but _Wind Wall_ can affect magical objects/substances as well as non-magical ones, so I see no problem.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 11, 2004)

Hmm, actually, here's a thought. If a Wind Wall CAN effect a Fireball, it wouldn't actually deflect it at all. Instead, by the description of Fireball, it would simply explode.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> My thought is that the pellet produced by the _Fireball_ spell is like a sling stone with a special power. [...] Since any other sling stone or thrown pebble would be deflected by the _Wind Wall_, I see no reason why the pellet created by the _Fireball_ spell shouldn't.




It sounds as if you've already made up your mind to make a house rule and are seeking validation by making spurious arguments designed specifically to fit the conclusion you've already decided to reach.

You really don't need validation.  It's your game.  House rule away.


Jeff


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Hmm, actually, here's a thought. If a Wind Wall CAN effect a Fireball, it wouldn't actually deflect it at all. Instead, by the description of Fireball, it would simply explode.



I could see that as a possible ruling as well.  You'd be ruling that the _Wind Wall_ is "solid" enough to trigger the _fireball_, as if it had struck a solid wall.

I hadn't considered that the _Wind Wall_ might be solid enough for that.  What if you fired a _Fireball_ at the surface of a lake?  Would it explode upon hitting the surface of the water, or penetrate and explode underwater when it hits the bottom?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Since any other sling stone or thrown pebble would be deflected




Actually, a sling stone or a thrown pebble would only be deflected if by "deflected" you mean "suffer a 30% miss chance."

If your argument is thus based on a _fireball_ pellet being similar to a sling stone, your own argument fails, because a 30% miss chance is irrelevant to a _fireball_ pellet.


Jeff


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I could see that as a possible ruling as well.  You'd be ruling that the _Wind Wall_ is "solid" enough to trigger the _fireball_, as if it had struck a solid wall.
> 
> I hadn't considered that the _Wind Wall_ might be solid enough for that.  What if you fired a _Fireball_ at the surface of a lake?  Would it explode upon hitting the surface of the water, or penetrate and explode underwater when it hits the bottom?



 Well, I'd only rule that the Fireball would explode on impacting the Wind Wall if I ALSO ruled that the Wind Wall could effect the Fireball. If the Fireball isn't effected at all by Wind Wall, then there's no reason to think it would explode.

As for water, that's arguably a "material body"(as the spell description mentions) so yes, a Fireball would on the surface.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> It sounds as if you've already made up your mind to make a house rule and are seeking validation by making spurious arguments designed specifically to fit the conclusion you've already decided to reach.



It sounds as if you've decided to make a lot of assumptions and express them snidely in an effort to feel superior.







> You really don't need validation.



I suppose it's a good thing that I didn't ask for any, then.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> It sounds as if you've decided to make a lot of assumptions and express them snidely in an effort to feel superior.I suppose it's a good thing that I didn't ask for any, then.




Ah.  Somebody's a little defensive.  I'll just be over _here_.


Jeff


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> As for water, that's arguably a "material body"(as the spell description mentions) so yes, a Fireball would on the surface.



I was merely curious how you'd rule in this case, since the two scenarios are similar.  Ruling that the _fireball_ explodes on the surface means that you're interpreting "material body" as something that is not necessarily solid.  In the case of the lake, you're allowing that the "material body" can be a liquid.  Thus, there's a logical progression to ruling that a _Wind Wall_ can also serve as a "material body" even though it, too, is not a solid object.


----------



## Scion (Dec 11, 2004)

the boards are very testy tonight.. I have been feeling it for awhile and been a bit snappy too.. very unfortunate..

Just that time of year? Many here are probably in the throes of finals and such.. and last minute holiday shopping


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I was merely curious how you'd rule in this case, since the two scenarios are similar.  Ruling that the _fireball_ explodes on the surface means that you're interpreting "material body" as something that is not necessarily solid.  In the case of the lake, you're allowing that the "material body" can be a liquid.  Thus, there's a logical progression to ruling that a _Wind Wall_ can also serve as a "material body" even though it, too, is not a solid object.



 Its probably not completely accurate, but then again, its really all based off the the What If of Fireballs interacting with Wind Wall. More me thinking out loud. 

But I think Jeff Wilder's got a point. Even IF the bead is like a pebble, there wouldn't be any effect on the Fireball as a 30% miss chance doesn't in any way effect the Fireball.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Actually, a sling stone or a thrown pebble would only be deflected if by "deflected" you mean "suffer a 30% miss chance."
> 
> If your argument is thus based on a _fireball_ pellet being similar to a sling stone, your own argument fails, because a 30% miss chance is irrelevant to a _fireball_ pellet.



You make a good point that a _Fireball_ pellet is neither an arrow nor a crossbow bolt, which are the only objects which are completely negated by a _Wind Wall_.  Other normal projectiles suffer a 30% miss chance, not complete negation.

I'm not sure your follow-up assertion is as definite as you make it out to be, though.  The question then becomes, what does a 30% miss chance mean to an AoE spell?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> The question then becomes, what does a 30% miss chance mean to an AoE spell?




I'm almost afraid to answer, but what the hell.  I just picked up my comics, so I'm feeling optimistic.

According to the rules, as I've said, a miss chance is irrelevant to an area of effect spell.  A miss chance is relevant only when there is an attack roll, which despite its own outcome, might still miss the target.

The only way a miss chance can affect a _fireball_ would be, for example,  a situation in which an arrow slit was in the area of a _darkness_ spell, because you have to roll an attack roll to hit the arrow slit.

In any event, I still maintain it doesn't matter.  A rules-based argument doesn't get so far as to ask the "miss chance/AoE" question, because _wind wall_ is specific about what it affects.  And a _fireball_ pellet isn't one of those things.

If the question were about _acid arrow_, it'd be a closer call.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 11, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> In any event, I still maintain it doesn't matter.  A rules-based argument doesn't get so far as to ask the "miss chance/AoE" question, because _wind wall_ is specific about what it affects.  And a _fireball_ pellet isn't one of those things.



This is where I disagree.  The pellet from the _fireball_ is, IMO, a normal missile.  Thus, it suffers a 30% miss chance.  That does, however, take us into murkier waters rules-wise, since the rules do not take into account the possibility that an AoE spell might be subject to a 30% miss chance.  And I can understand why they don't.  _Fireball_, and the fact that it produces a pellet, makes it unique as far as AoE's go, which usually simply target an Area and have done with it.

Were I the DM (which I'm not, in the scenario where this will come up for me, but for the further sake of this discussion), I might suggest the pellet veer 30% off-course, for instance.  This could result in a _fireball_ detonating too early (by hitting the ground before it gets to its intended destination), detonating above its target (and thus possibly having a smaller effective area), or detonating off to the right of left of its target, possibly hitting a portion of its intended targets, but not others.

Or another way to rule might be to simply apply the 30% to the negation effect.  So that the _fireball_ pellet has a 30% chance of being carried up and away harmlessly like an arrow or bolt, and a 70% chance of pushing through the _Wind Wall_ without any deviation in its course.


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Dec 11, 2004)

Good question!  The fireball/water thing has always been a point of debate for our group.

If Wind Wall is able to push the fireball pellet away, then it means it's exerting more force on the pellet than the pellet is exerting on it (at least we think we have our physics right here).  So it is, in effect, acting as a solid object would on the pellet.  If you decide Wind Wall will affect the pellet, then we think it would detonate.

The question then becomes, does Wind Wall affect the pellet?  You raised the intriguing question whether the pellet would detonate on the surface of water or at the bottom of the lake/whatever.  The rules of underwater combat in the DMG say:



> Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descripter are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a spellcraft check (DC 20 + Spell level).  If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but *otherwise the spell works as described*.




As long as the spellcraft check is made, the pellet should not detonate upon contact with water.  

AND . . . just because we know someone's going to bring it up   , the DMG also says:



> The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell.  If the caster has made a spellcraft check to make the firespell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell's line of effect.  For example a fireball cast underwater  cannot be targeted at creatures above the surface.




BUT!!!  That rule is only for targeting a specific creature, or area.  It doesn't mean (as far as we can tell) that striking the surface, from below or above, counts as striking an object.

More fuel for the fire (Aren't we clever . . .   )

R and J from Three Haligonians


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Dec 11, 2004)

Oh Oh!!  And one more point!  T just walked in and made this point:

If a wizard cast Delayed Blast Fireball, the bead can then be interacted with by anyone else who happens to be around.  If, say, a monk picks up the bead he can throw it, using the rules of a grenade-like weapon.  Hell, several rogues could play hacky-sack with it!

So, it would fall under "other ranged weapon" in the description of  Wind Wall, and therefore be subject to the 30% miss chance.

What's the difference between a bead from a delayed blast fireball, and the bead from a plain, ol' regular fireball.

R, J, and now T, from Three Haligonians


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 11, 2004)

> Delayed Blast Fireball
> Evocation [Fire]
> Level: Sor/Wiz 7
> Duration: 5 rounds or less; see text
> ...





by the _rules_ i think that the fireball would _likley_ ignore the wind wall [because it does not specificly affect spells] and definitly would _not_ detonate against the wind wall.

_Flavor_ wise, which is what makes magic magical IMHO , i would say since wind is the dominating element [air] it would defect the spell pellet upward, leaving the fireball to explodes when it goes its predetermind distance. .


----------



## Sejs (Dec 11, 2004)

_"A creature can pick up and hurl the bead as a thrown weapon (range increment 10 feet)."_

... I wonder what happens if you miss.  Where does the bead and it's subsequent firebally offspring end up?


----------



## Jarrod (Dec 11, 2004)

One thing to remember about the fireball "bead" is that it is a specific exception to the Line of Effect rule. 

From the SRD: An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect.

So normally you would have to have a 1' square hole in a wall. Fireball allows you to cast the spell through a smaller hole, but you have to make an attack roll. You can cast a Fireball through an arrow slit, but not a Lightning Bolt.

Why? 'cause that's how it worked in earlier editions; but that's not really the point.

As to whether a Wind Wall would deflect the bead. IMO, no, as the bead is an explanation for why you can send a Fireball down a mouse hole. It's an artifact of earlier flavor text.


----------



## cmanos (Dec 11, 2004)

I wopuld rule that a Wind Wall doesn't afect the fireball.  IMHO, the 'bead' is insubstantial.  I';d have to consider if the wind wall would be sufficiently solid for the fireball to explode prematurely.

Sure, a monk could try and deflect it.  As soon as his hand douched it it would explode, and I would deny him the evasion for being at the dead center of the blast.

Just my ruling, you can make up whatever house rules you like.


----------



## Caliban (Dec 11, 2004)

I don't think that the fire ball bead is a "normal projectile", and it certainly isn't a sling bullet.   You only have to make an attack roll with it under certain circumstances, otherwise it goes exactly where you want it to go and explodes. 

I could see a 30% chance of it hitting a piece of debris in the wind wall as it passes through, but that would be a judgement call based on the situation you cast the wind wall.


----------



## Vrecknidj (Dec 11, 2004)

Here's an option from an old, old WotC product (The Primal Order).  The DM could assign relative values to the Wind Wall spell and the Fireball spell (both are usually 3rd level spells, so let's assume they both are, for now).  Since the spells are of equal power (unless one is being cast with a metamagic feat to enhance it), there's no modifier from the spell itself.

Now the DM looks at the two casters.  Suppose, for example, that the Fireball's caster is an evoker, maybe the DM would give him a +1.  (Same, by the way, if the Wind Wall caster were an evoker, since both spells are evocation.)

The DM adds up any modifiers, and has the two make caster level checks.  The one with the higher result overcomes the other (i.e. my magic over-powers your magic).  The DM could rule that for every 5 ranks in Spellcraft, the individual gets a +1 to the roll, similarly with Knowledge (arcana), or whatever.

This allows both Jeff and Pendragon to be right, sometimes.  If the person tossing the fireball is 17th level and is an evoker and has tons of ranks in those skills, he might have faced this defense before, and has learned how to overcome it.  The measly 8th level wizard facing him hasn't ever thought that someone could figure out how to circumvent his Wind Wall defense.

Contrarily, if the person tossing the Fireball is a new-to-the-game 5th level wizard, trying to impress his other 5th level friends by tossing a Fireball at the powerful mage, he doesn't consider that the powerful mage has spent years crafting adequate defenses to this, and puts up a Wind Wall with just the right gusts to prevent the Fireball from affecting him.

This allows for some variation in the story-telling, it allows for the chance that the weaker of the two wil overcome the more powerful (as the story will sometimes allow), but usually favors the better prepared and more skillful.

Dave


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 11, 2004)

Anything that would stop the line of effect of the Fireball spell would detonate it.

So, water would detonate it. Water is considered "a material body" in this case.

A Wind Wall would not because it does not stop line of effect.

It would also not stop the "bead" of a Delayed Blast Fireball. It would still go to its destination, just like the bead from a Fireball would go to its destination.

Nothing in the rules states that these beads are actually missiles of any type.

So, a Monk could not deflect one. He could impact the Fireball bead and it would go off. He could also impact the Delayed Blast Fireball bead, but it would still continue on its way to its destination unless the act of him touching it detonates it. Nothing in the description of Delayed Blast Fireball indicates that you can prevent the bead from arriving at its destination short of detonating it (or dispelling it, etc.).

Once it arrives at its destination, the Delayed Blast Fireball bead then becomes an object (if you chose the delayed version). But, nothing in the description of the spell indicates that it is an object before that happens. Before then, it is magic, not an object, not a missile.

You cannot assume that the bead is an object before it arrives at its destination just because it is an object once it gets there.


Btw, even if the bead of a Delayed Blast Fireball could be affected by the Wind Wall, that does not mean that the bead of a Fireball could. They are two different spells and you cannot use the properties of the one to assume the properties of the other with the exception that you can use some of the properties of the Fireball spell for the Delayed Blast Fireball spell because Delayed Blast Fireball explicitly states that. But, you cannot assume in the opposite direction.


----------



## Praeden (Dec 15, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Why do you say this?  Nowhere in the spell description is such mentioned.  It claims to be ineffective against huge boulders and siege weapons.  It says nothing about magical effects.  _Fireball_ creates a small pebble, and fires it at a set point, at which point it "blossoms into a fireball."  The pebble can't bypass an arrow slit any more than a non-magical arrow can.  Why is it able to ignore a wall of wind?




Last bit first - the two situations are rather different.  A gaseous creature would be able to go through an arrow slit, but not a Wind Wall.  A catapult projectile would go through a Wind Wall, but not an arrow slit.

Secondly, the spell description is very specific about what it affects.  Small/light creatures and objects, gases, and normal projectiles.  Everything else is unaffected.  So it is quite right to say that any spell which doesn't produce one of the things on the list is unaffected.  The list is sufficiently clear that it isn't necessary to list all the things that are _unaffected_ by the spell.  The only reason that they specifically rule out large missiles is simply to clarify what is meant by a normal missile.

I think that a glowing bead that shoots from your fingertip and then explodes is sufficiently far from most people's idea of a 'normal missile' that the designers didn't feel the need to include additional clarification.  That it can travel more than one thousand feet instantaneously should be proof enough of that.  The fact that you sometimes need to make attack rolls for it does not automatically make it a normal missile.

As a happy side-effect, the rulings become a lot easier if you take this view.   

This reminds me of a similar ruling I was once asked to make.  I might start another thread, see if we can turn this into a regular feature!


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 15, 2004)

Well, there definitely seems to be a general consensus that _Fireball_ trumps _Wind Wall_.  As far as my particular reason for originally asking the question, I'm not sure whether this consensus is good or bad.  We'll have to see when we play this Thursday.

Thanks for the opinions everyone.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 15, 2004)

Just to throw an oar in, my gut reaction is to rule that the fireball pellet *would* be deflected upwards by the wind wall, since the fireball description specifically allows the fireball pellet to be affected by things before it reaches its normal range for explosion (unlike any other spell that I can think of).


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 15, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> affected by things before it reaches its normal range for explosion (unlike any other spell that I can think of).




Just about _every_ spell is affected by things within its normal range.  It's called "line of effect."  As pointed out by someone earlier, _fireball_ is a strange exception to Line of Effect, but that doesn't mean it differs from spells in any given other way.


Jeff


----------



## Tatsukun (Dec 15, 2004)

I hate to stir up the waters any more, but what about other spells? 

Does a windwall stop a magic missile? 

I would say no. Or rather that it could effect it, but the 30% miss chance wouldn't make any difference because a MM always hits. 

Melf's Acid arrow? 

I would say yes, as it is an arrow. 

Acid splash? 

I would say yes, with a 30% miss chance. 

All and all, this makes Windwall MUCH more useful (or maybe it's that we have just discovered how useful it was meant to be all along). 

 -Tatsu


----------



## ARandomGod (Dec 15, 2004)

I'd orignially say no, wind wall has no effect. 

I'd be perfectly willing to say yes, however, and give it a 30% miss chance. But, doing either (the yes or the 30%) would to me also imply an ability to target and potentially hit (ranged touch attack) a person with the pellet. A hit target I would say gets no save. A nice effect... (And not unprecedented, see Meteor Swarm)

Now, what would I say a 30% miss chance would mean? Well... it would obviously have a 30% miss on that ranged touch I meantioned in conjunction, but that's a little beside the point. I'd say that there is a 30% chance that the fireball would explode in a random square 5 ft away from the square it was intended to explode in. Not generally something that's going to matter much, certainly, but still an effect.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 15, 2004)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> All and all, this makes Windwall MUCH more useful (or maybe it's that we have just discovered how useful it was meant to be all along).




You don't think that _automatically_ causing arrows and bolts to miss -- no matter how bad-ass the archer, no matter how magical the bow and ammo -- is powerful enough?


Jeff


----------



## Nail (Dec 15, 2004)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> All and all, this makes Windwall MUCH more useful (or maybe it's that we have just discovered how useful it was meant to be all along).



Wind wall is a good 3rd level spell...if you've got more than 2 3rd level slots.  Otherwise _Obscuring Mist_ does an adequate job filling that role.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 15, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Just about _every_ spell is affected by things within its normal range.  It's called "line of effect."




blocking line of effect is a different kettle of fish entirely. I can block line of effect for any other spell and the spell just doesn't affect its target. Fireball is the only spell where there is a possibility of premature detonation due to blocked line of effect.

That's different enough for me to take notice.

Cheers


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 16, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> That's different enough for me to take notice.




It's more than that.  Apparently it's different enough for you to extrapolate to other rules where there no indication that was the intent.  We all notice the difference ... it's how far we're willing to say it goes that distinguishes the opinions here.


Jeff


----------



## reanjr (Dec 16, 2004)

Since Wind Wall affects certain magical effects, and fireball isn't mentioned in any specificity, I'd probably have it affected, though the spell description only states that it is deflected upwards, not that the object moves directly up.  So I'd let it travel in its current direction but be deflected an equal number of feet up into air.  If this deflection is greater than 20 feet, then it is harmless, though lower amounts would still hit the ground.  For simplification, you can reduce the ground radius of the fireball by 5 ft. for every 5 ft. it went upward.

As far as RAW, I think it is certainly implied that the fireball would go right through.  I just think it makes for a better game if it is deflected.  Rewarding players for out of box thinking is always good.


----------



## Praeden (Dec 16, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Since Wind Wall affects certain magical effects, and fireball isn't mentioned in any specificity, I'd probably have it affected.




Since only gaseous spell effects are affected, and fireball isn't a gaseous spell effect, I don't follow your reasoning.  Furthermore, the fact that fireball isn't mentioned is a strong argument _against_  fireball being affected.  You don't seriously expect them to list all the spells that aren't affected do you?



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> though the spell description only states that it is deflected upwards, not that the object moves directly up.  So I'd let it travel in its current direction but be deflected an equal number of feet up into air.  If this deflection is greater than 20 feet, then it is harmless, though lower amounts would still hit the ground.  For simplification, you can reduce the ground radius of the fireball by 5 ft. for every 5 ft. it went upward.




Considering that the bead can travel more than 1000 feet instantaneously, you might not see much vertical deflection as it passed through the Wind Wall anyway.  Don't forget that a light, fast-moving object could have comparable momentum to a slower, heavier object like a boulder, and hence also be unaffected.  Not necessarily relevant when talking about magic, but seeing as you are thinking about a vector treatment...



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> As far as RAW, I think it is certainly implied that the fireball would go right through.  I just think it makes for a better game if it is deflected.  Rewarding players for out of box thinking is always good.




Okay, house ruling it is another matter.  I guess it all comes down to whether you're willing to treat the bead as a normal missile.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 16, 2004)

Defiler said:
			
		

> I guess it all comes down to whether you're willing to treat the bead as a normal missile.



Yep. 

My argument was that the bead doesn't do anything, movement or speed-wise, that an arrow fired from a composite longbow can't do.  It's merely the fact that it explodes when reaching its destination (or coming into contact with a "material body") that differentiates it from a bead fired from a really powerful slingshot.  As such, it should be treated so by the _Wind Wall_ spell.

Clearly, others believe that the very fact that the bead has been created by a spell is enough to disqualify it from being a "normal missile," and therefore it is exempt from the effects of passing through the _Wind Wall_.


----------



## TheBaron (Dec 16, 2004)

*Fireball VS. Wind Wall*

I for one enjoy innovative uses of spells. I think creativity is part of magic, However there is a fine line when you try to keep everything balanced.

By standard core rules and arguable house ruling. The answer to this Debate is yes and no for both.

Core standards
Wind Wall is described as a barrier & wall. The force of wind is enough to produce a solid barrier effect. Up to effect of deflecting incoming objects some partially others totally. The bead of a fireball is physically tangible otherwise it would not impact upon solid objects

Yes cause solid object meets semi-solid object. requirements sufficiently met.

No because this requires DM comes up with a house rule on how to handle the effect of this innovative use. This can lead to problems in setting precedence for many more uses as well as opening up a chain of other innovative uses.

House ruling standards
 Force/sonic magical or natural can produce same effect as a solid object.  Thus powerful wind produces a wall like effect 
I would argue for fireball spells component Bat Guano is giving the bead it's solid nature. 

Yes- cause solid object meets semi-solid object. requirements sufficiently met. Use is not out of balance. Both spells are in 3rd level respective range and the wind wall spell does not make fireball worthless, just more challenging.

No-For same reason as above no ruling. 

Saying yes opens up how to handle the effect. I would categorize fireball with the same rating as "any other normal ranged weapon". I would require a ranged touch attack with the 30%  miss chance. A miss whether to hit or by miss chance resulting in the fireball being deflected upwards. I would subtract height of the wall from distance of the spell to verify where it explodes.

Ex. target is 100ft away. Wall is  50 ft in front of target & 30 ft high.(caster 5th) Hits wall at 50ft travels 30ft up  and continues 20 ft to reach it's 100ft range limit and explodes 30ft away from target radius of ball is 20ft and misses target by 10ft.  

Course wizard could target destination further away or move up and possibly negate a wind walls effect. Depending on how smart wizard is or how strategic the wind wall person is. 

Well Thats all time I have for now.
The Baron~


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 17, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> My argument was that the bead doesn't do anything, movement or speed-wise, that an arrow fired from a composite longbow can't do.




Of course it does.  For one thing, it can fly hundreds of feet without a range increment.  For another, it can somehow thread its way through a grand melee without the need for any sort of attack roll or check for detonation.

The only way that the _fireball_ bead differs from any other spell is that it has a special effect that allows it to get past line of effect rules in certain situations.


----------



## dvvega (Dec 17, 2004)

> For another, it can somehow thread its way through a grand melee without the need for any sort of attack roll or check for detonation.




Umm it can't thread its way out anything. It must be targetted as in "I send the bead to that square" and if anything is in the way ... boom!!

So any melee in the way will cause a permature explosion.

D


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 17, 2004)

dvvega said:
			
		

> So any melee in the way will cause a permature explosion.




That's not true.  A melee is not a "solid body."  A melee no more blocks _fireball_ than it does line of sight (or line of effect) for any other spell, unless there's a house rule otherwise.


----------



## Praeden (Dec 17, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> That's not true.  A melee is not a "solid body."  A melee no more blocks _fireball_ than it does line of sight (or line of effect) for any other spell, unless there's a house rule otherwise.




Precisely.  If it doesn't block line of effect, it can't affect the movement of the bead.

As for the bead being a normal missile, no-one (apart from jeff) seems willing to discuss the range issue.  My wizard can send this thing 920 feet away, instantaneously, without having to consider range increments, or make an attack roll.  If he fires his longbow or throws his dagger, these things come into play.  Anyone want to tell me why all these missiles fall into the same category?


----------



## Praeden (Dec 17, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> My argument was that the bead doesn't do anything, movement or speed-wise, that an arrow fired from a composite longbow can't do.




Can an arrow fired from a composite longbow travel over 1000 feet without a range increment?  Sorry to keep harping on about it, but this part of my argument keeps getting ignored.   



> Clearly, others believe that the very fact that the bead has been created by a spell is enough to disqualify it from being a "normal missile," and therefore it is exempt from the effects of passing through the _Wind Wall_.




No, if someone would counter my range argument, I'd hop over to your side of the fence quite cheerfully.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 17, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> Core standards
> Wind Wall is described as a barrier & wall. The force of wind is enough to produce a solid barrier effect. Up to effect of deflecting incoming objects some partially others totally. The bead of a fireball is physically tangible otherwise it would not impact upon solid objects




This is a poor assumption on your part.

The bead of a fireball can be intangible and detonates on impact because of magic, we don't know.

The bead of a fireball could be magic and not physical at all and detonates on impact because of magic, we don't know.

But, to say that it is definitely "physically tangible" is an assumption not based in the rules.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 17, 2004)

Defiler said:
			
		

> Can an arrow fired from a composite longbow travel over 1000 feet without a range increment?  Sorry to keep harping on about it, but this part of my argument keeps getting ignored.



The range increment bit is meaningless, as far as I can tell.  All that matters is maximum distance.  And an arrow can indeed be fired 1000 ft. with the proper feats and bow.

In any case, as it turns out the point was moot for our party.  Last night our seven member team of 8th-level PCs ambushed a goblin army.  In the surprise round, the cleric threw up a _Wind Wall_ which served admirably to deflect the army's missile fire.  The DM ruled that the _Fireball_ spell is unaffected by the _Wind Wall_, so our party wizard stood behind the _Wind Wall_ and blasted the army with _Fireball_ after _Fireball_.  I'd been concerned about enemy spellcasters throwing _Fireballs_ back at us, (which is why I posed the question of _Wind Wall_ possibly blocking _Fireball_,) but it turns out they didn't have that kind of firepower.

I didn't anticipate the several enemy leaders that drank potions of _Invisibility_, nor the flying super-bugbears, nor the _Cones of Cold_ and _Javelins of Lightning_ that were thrown around.  But hey, no plan can take everything into account versus an enemy we'd never fought before!   

All in all, the plan worked like a charm, and our party destroyed the entire goblin army.  It was a fantastic combat that lasted the entire session long (the DM had all 150+ goblin enemies set up on the gaming table when we got there!  Our ranger was _not_ thrilled with the idea of us "ambushing" them.  )

Many thanks to everyone who's chimed in on this thread.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 17, 2004)

If fireball was a conjuration effect I might consider wind wall having an effect as an evocation that bead is almost certainly not a physical bead but some bead of energy which wouldn't be effected by wind.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 17, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I'm almost afraid to answer, but what the hell.  I just picked up my comics, so I'm feeling optimistic.



 OT but since it seems your in my neck of the woods where do you pick up your comics?


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 17, 2004)

cmanos said:
			
		

> IMHO, the 'bead' is insubstantial.



I would agree with this. I see no reason to believe that the "bead" is a solid object. Though not entirely flavor text, I don't think the "bead" is meant to follow any of the rules for missiles.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 17, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> The only way that the _fireball_ bead differs from any other spell is that it has a special effect that allows it to get past line of effect rules in certain situations.




Only way? You forget that it can suffer premature detonation (does that sound rude?) and that is a way in which it clearly differs from other spells.

Cheers


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 17, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Only way? You forget that it can suffer premature detonation (does that sound rude?) and that is a way in which it clearly differs from other spells.




I think that was covered pretty adequately when I said it was an exception to line of effect rules.


Jeff


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 17, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> OT but since it seems your in my neck of the woods where do you pick up your comics?




A small shop called Isotope on Noriega, between 23rd and 24th Avenues (in The City).  Great shop ... if you make it up here, you should come by.


Jeff


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 18, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I think that was covered pretty adequately when I said it was an exception to line of effect rules.




I assumed that you were talking there about the benefit that it can shoot through holes which would otherwise block line of effect (e.g. you can fireball through an arrow slit and out the other side, but not use a lightning bolt).

Cheers


----------



## Gez (Dec 19, 2004)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> I hate to stir up the waters any more, but what about other spells?




Just my opinions/house rules, but:

_Fireball_: a small physical bead. Definitely smaller and lighter than a sling bullet. Always deflected.
HOWEVER: _fireball_'s area of effect, once the bead detonates, is *not* deflected by the wind wall. There's no blast nor pressure in the explosion (there was a thread about that) so it is a proof that the flames are a magical effect that doesn't care about atmospheric conditions.
_Magic missile_: raw energy that strikes unerringly and can pierce dimensional barriers (force effects extends in the ethereal, remember). Never deflected.
_Melf's acid arrow_: create physical matter (corrosive liquid). Deflected like arrows.
_Acid splash_: likewise.
_Lightning bolt_: not affected.


----------



## Gez (Dec 19, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> If fireball was a conjuration effect, I might consider wind wall having an effect; as an evocation, that bead is almost certainly not a physical bead, but some bead of energy which wouldn't be effected by wind.




Added some commas and semi-colons to try to parse out the meaning better.

I disagree with you. A spell do not need to a conjuration to be a physical thing. Look at _fireball_'s material component -- this is the bead. A bit of sulfur and bat guano rolled into a tiny bead, and when you cast the spell, you throw that bead.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 19, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I disagree with you. A spell do not need to a conjuration to be a physical thing. Look at _fireball_'s material component -- this is the bead. A bit of sulfur and bat guano rolled into a tiny bead, and when you cast the spell, you throw that bead.




That's a possible interpretation, but that is not what the spell description explicitly says. The material component is a "tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur". And the preceding description says that you "point your finger" and a "glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit". Could the two be the same? Yes. Could they not be the same? Also yes.


----------



## TheBaron (Dec 21, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is a poor assumption on your part.
> 
> The bead of a fireball can be intangible and detonates on impact because of magic, we don't know.
> 
> ...




I don't make it a practice to assume. My opinion is based on rationalization and deductive reasoning. We don't know how magic works as it's a fantasy concept, but with the above stated reasoning tools we can make a determination and Opinion. 

I think your opinion is in poor taste. Primarily due to the fact that they are argumentative as they are stated with no rationalization, facts or reasoning. Nor is anything stated to support your own claims. This is not to flame you for stating your opinion, but to illustrate that your attempt to eviscerate my post is not being part of a solution, but perpetuance of ignorance by stating opinion without fact or reasoning.

I stand by my assumptions supported by my original post.

A. the spell has a material component of bat guano. It is not far fetched to believe that the magic uses this tiny resin ball as the a material component to fuel the fire burst.

B. Even to concede the bead was pure magic. The magic in terms of fireball is still has physical qualities as it is an Energy form (magical) otherwise it would not be hampered by physical objects and affect solely the prime material plane. 


Because it is magic there is always the potential for it to ignore laws of physics and it being "magic" a fantasy concept one could Assume the bead is somehow magically non physical till a "rule mechanic" (physical barrier) affects the spell or it reaches it's destination, but I think that is Poor assumption as it is only supported by conjecture.


----------



## Vexed (Dec 21, 2004)

I would have to say a wind wall would have the percentage chance to stop the bead.  If solid objects can cause the bead to detonate prematurely, then I would say its possible a wind wall could prove to have enough resistance to either A) cause it to erupt or b) deflect it from its intended target.  Regardless if it’s a physical bead or a bead of "energy", as physical objects can stop it from its intended target.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 21, 2004)

Vexed said:
			
		

> If solid objects can cause the bead to detonate prematurely [...] Regardless if it’s a physical bead or a bead of energy", as physical objects can stop it from its intended target.




(1) Solid objects can also block any spell's line of effect.  That says nothing about whether the effect blocked is physical, energistic, or magical.  All the "premature detonation" of a _fireball_ amounts to is a narrow exception to line of effect rules.

(2) A wall of wind (or a _wind wall_) is not a solid object.

(3) The spell is explicit in what it stops and deflects, and _fireball_ just doesn't qualify.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There's nothing wrong with deciding that a _wind wall_ can stop or deflect a _fireball_ ... in fact, I think it's not bad, since it weakens an overused spell, and strengthens an underused spell.  But that decision is definitely a house rule; it relies on several major assumptions about _fireball_ (and _wind wall_) that just aren't supported in those spells' descriptions.


Jeff


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> I don't make it a practice to assume. My opinion is based on rationalization and deductive reasoning. We don't know how magic works as it's a fantasy concept, but with the above stated reasoning tools we can make a determination and Opinion.




If you don't make it a practice to assume, why are you doing so in this case?



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> I think your opinion is in poor taste. Primarily due to the fact that they are argumentative as they are stated with no rationalization, facts or reasoning. Nor is anything stated to support your own claims. This is not to flame you for stating your opinion, but to illustrate that your attempt to eviscerate my post is not being part of a solution, but perpetuance of ignorance by stating opinion without fact or reasoning.




First off, you do not know what you are talking about here. I did state a lot of facts and reasoning. You will find them on page 2 of this thread. Please go read them in detail before you (again) make assumptions not based in fact.

My answer is based on the rules as stated, not based on assumptions about the two spells that are never listed in the rules.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> I stand by my assumptions supported by my original post.




Fine, but they are still assumptions and still not supported by the rules as written.

You want those in your game, fine.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> A. the spell has a material component of bat guano. It is not far fetched to believe that the magic uses this tiny resin ball as the a material component to fuel the fire burst.




The bead "streaks from the pointing digit" of the caster. It might be that the bat guano is accumulated on the end of his finger and then fired, but the spell does not tell us that explicitly.

Strike one.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> B. Even to concede the bead was pure magic. The magic in terms of fireball is still has physical qualities as it is an Energy form (magical) otherwise it would not be hampered by physical objects and affect solely the prime material plane.




It is NOT hampered by physical objects. It detonates prematurely when it comes in contact with physical objects.

That is a property of the spell and says NOTHING about the physical properties of the bead.

Since we are NOT told the physical properties of the bead, we cannot assume that it is a "normal missile". To do so is the height of hubris when you are strictly discussing rules.

Strike two.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> Because it is magic there is always the potential for it to ignore laws of physics and it being "magic" a fantasy concept one could Assume the bead is somehow magically non physical till a "rule mechanic" (physical barrier) affects the spell or it reaches it's destination, but I think that is Poor assumption as it is only supported by conjecture.




The only conjecture here is that anyone who thinks that Wind Wall affects the bead of a Fireball is assigning properties to that bead which we have not been given.

In a rules forum, this is assumption and speculation and not supported by the rules.

Strike three.


The only way a Wind Wall can deflect a Fireball is if the bead is both a physical object AND it is a "normal missile".

The only way a Wind Wall can prematurely detonate a Fireball is if the Wind Wall is a "material body" that interupts line of effect for spells.

Since none of these are stated in the spell description of Fireball or Wind Wall (or anywhere else in the rules), you cannot ASSUME that this is what happens in a rules forum.

It is wishful thinking and not directly supported by the rules.


----------



## TheBaron (Dec 21, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> (1) Solid objects can also block any spell's line of effect.  That says nothing about whether the effect blocked is physical, energistic, or magical.  All the "premature detonation" of a _fireball_ amounts to is a narrow exception to line of effect rules.
> 
> (2) A wall of wind (or a _wind wall_) is not a solid object.
> 
> ...



Very well put Jeff.  I like what you said about the weakening and strengthening of the repsective spells. I however don't think the assumptions made are Major and I don't feel they unfairly stretch the mechanics or effects of either spell. 

I can concede the point on it not being within core rules only in the strictest interpretation of the text.

I think the fundamental issue that determines the difference of legal or house rule is another matter of debate.

 I feel that a reasonable amount of interpretation needs to be allowed as no text can fully cover all possible scenario's. I also don't think it's in spirit of Magic. I feel it shuns creativity & ingenuity to confine a spells use to text only.

Naturally there is a fine line and one needs to balance interpretaion with game mechanics, Spirit of the spell and precendence it sets on both those levels, But I guess I digress into that matter of another debate that everyone experiences when they play a roleplaying game. Vision vs. rules and how to balance them. 
The Baron~


----------



## TheBaron (Dec 21, 2004)

I'm not going to sully this board with argumentative diatribes. Feel free to contact me privatly if you truly wish to continue such exchanges. I will attempt to comment constructively on most of your statments.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> My answer is based on the rules as stated, not based on assumptions about the two spells that are never listed in the rules.
> 
> Fine, but they are still assumptions and still not supported by the rules as written.
> 
> ...



This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation. 

I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity. 
The Baron


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 22, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity.
> The Baron



Conformity is the ultimate goal of any ruleset.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 22, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation.




Your slant here is amusing.

This is a rules forum. Someone asked a question on the rules. It is fairly clear what the rule is if you do not throw a bunch of "extraneous interpretive stuff" which is not written in the rules into the mix.

Nobody is saying to not be creative and do what you want in your game.

We are merely stating what the rule is based on what is written.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity.




You do not want conformity in rules??? What?

Again, you miss the point completely in your sidestep attempt here (i.e. not a discussion of the rules, but merely a side conversation) to justify your weakening position here.

The rules are fairly specific about how spells interact with each other. There is a reason for why game mechanics such as "line of effect" are carefully specified.

There is no possible way to list every way in which spells interact, so the designers listed a general set of rules. The rule on line of effect is that it goes until stopped by something that stops it. Fireball explicitly states what stops its line of effect: "material body or solid barrier".

We know that a Wind Wall is not a solid barrier. It is made of gas. It cannot be solid unless the spell states that it is solid.

So, we have to determine if it is a material body. Typically, the word material means something composed of matter (i.e. corporeal). Well, air is composed of matter and it obviously does not stop a Fireball. A Wind Wall is composed of air, so it too would appear on the surface to not stop a Fireball.

Now, there are specific rules about Fire spells and water which would indicate that even liquids would not be a "material body" EXCEPT for the fact that there are specific rules about Fire spells and water. In other words, they had to add in special rules about water and fire because the phrase "material body" was not sufficient.

From this, is becomes apparent that "material body" means something with some minimum amount of solidity. For example: a creature, an ooze, a sheet of paper, Solid Fog, etc.

Liquids by themselves and gases by themselves do not quality as a "material body" unless there is another rule (like the fire spells in water rules) to indicate otherwise.

Hence, Wind Wall is ruled out.


Likewise, there is nothing to indicate that a bead from a Fireball is a normal missile in any way shape or form. In fact, the opposite is indicated.


Finally, we have several examples of spells that ARE affected by Wind spells such as Fog Cloud and Gaseous Form. If a gas-like spell states that it is affected by Wind, it is. If it does not, it is not.

A Gust of Wind will pass right through a Wall of Fire. Neither the Gust of Wind nor the Wall of Fire will be significantly affected (i.e. games mechanics-wise) by the other spell. The air moved by the Gust of Wind might be warmed up by the Wall of Fire (GM dependent), but not enough to cause damage. The Wall of Fire may or may not be fanned (GM dependent on what "fan large fires" in Gust of Wind means), but the Wall of Fire spell explicitly specifies that it is affected by Cold, not Wind (there are no fire spells affected by wind rules like there is a fire spells affected by water rules). You cannot blow out a Wall of Fire with a Gust of Wind, nor can you stop a Gust of Wind with a Wall of Fire, because the rules concerning the magic of these two spells do not specifically affect each other. It is irrelevant that a strong normal wind can blow out a normal fire.


So, you have little beyond "interpretive license" and each GM is free to rule as he pleases to support your position. That is fine for a given game, but that is not the rule. That is a house rule.

"GMs should be free to do what they want" doesn't mean jack in a rules forum. It is a side discussion, not a rules discussion.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 22, 2004)

Everybody remember to play nice and be civil, won't you?

Many thanks


----------



## Vexed (Dec 23, 2004)

i think there is always an exception to any rule.  Circumstance can present a scenario where it changs the effect of a rule.  

I thnk of when people, for example, email the sage for him to elaborate on a stated rule and get more or less of what they expect.  IF that is taken as "cannon" or rules then this would be an example of questioning or asking info regarding a spell can be different from what is "printed" when its is questioned. (i.e. revisions are done becuase of these things) So perhaps this could be having its effect or wording changed, vs perception of what is written.

I do see the point with the rules printing vs dm ruling.

good thread : )


----------



## TheBaron (Dec 24, 2004)

Hookay I understand this is a rules forum, but from my understanding and what I've seen of posts rules are open to debate and interpretation within this forum or am I incorrect?

I think asking if a scenario is possible within rules and asking what the rule is are two different things. If I want to know what the rule is I can go to SRD or refer to my books or I might ask here if I don't have time to do that research myself. 
If I want feedback as to whether something is possible within the rules I'm going to ask other people how they interpret the rule.

House rules from my view are when your making a ruling that changes the mechanics of a rule.  I don't think anything is being changed about either spells text or how they work. We are just determining the parameters of their effects. They both still work the same way far as their effects were just determining if it's possible there could be other scenarios possible based on those effects.

<We know that a Wind Wall is not a solid barrier. It is made of gas. It cannot be solid unless the spell states that it is solid.

So, we have to determine if it is a material body. Typically, the word material means something composed of matter (i.e. corporeal). Well, air is composed of matter and it obviously does not stop a Fireball. A Wind Wall is composed of air, so it too would appear on the surface to not stop a Fireball.>

If interpretation of text is allowed and we are allowed to try to deterimine whether wind wall is material or solid. I don't think it's far fetched to view the force of wind wall described as a "barrier" within text as semi solid for purposes of qualifying as solid for contact purposes.  Air can't be felt, but Wind can be felt.

I think the fact that the firey bead explodes upon impact of a solid barrier is enough to determine it is material or solid in nature.

If we are not allowed to determine all possible paramters of these spells outside of what is written within the text. Then I would have to conced it's not within rules as it does not clearly state in text anywhere. 

The Baron~
P.S. I appologize for not maintaining the integrity of others. I let my ego get the best of me and behaved like a savage.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 24, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> If interpretation of text is allowed and we are allowed to try to deterimine whether wind wall is material or solid. I don't think it's far fetched to view the force of wind wall described as a "barrier" within text as semi solid for purposes of qualifying as solid for contact purposes.  Air can't be felt, but Wind can be felt.




To be more precise, I would state that the Wind Wall might be considered a material body in this case (it is still not a solid barrier).

However, if you rule this way (i.e. the Wind Wall is a material body), the Fireball would have to detonate as soon as it hits the Wind Wall. It still would not be deflected.

Also, if you rule this way, than a caster readying a Gust of Wind could force a Fireball to detonate right away as it leaves the finger of the caster.

However, both of these are a real stretch since Fireball does not state that it is affected by Wind and none of the other rules state that either.

PS. And actually, air can be felt. If I remove all of the air from around you, you would feel the lack of that air around you real fast. Air has pressure. Air has temperature. It can be felt without it moving.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> I think the fact that the firey bead explodes upon impact of a solid barrier is enough to determine it is material or solid in nature.




As we discussed before, this is total speculation on your part.

In fact, the bead is not even "firey". It is glowing and pea sized, but nothing indicates that it is on fire.

Just because it triggers against a solid object does not mean that it too is a solid object.

Light falling on a solar panel triggers the creation of electricity, but just because the solar panel is solid does not make the light striking it solid.

It's magic. We do not know that the bead is solid. The bead could be just magical light. We don't know one way or the other.

What we do know is that the bead detonates when it contacts something solid.



			
				TheBaron said:
			
		

> If we are not allowed to determine all possible paramters of these spells outside of what is written within the text. Then I would have to conced it's not within rules as it does not clearly state in text anywhere.




It is not that you cannot determine those parameters. It is that you cannot assume what those parameters are and still state that you are following the rules.

If you consider the bead to be a "normal missile" but it does not act like a normal missile, I would question why you consider it to be that way.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 24, 2004)

TheBaron said:
			
		

> Hookay I understand this is a rules forum, but from my understanding and what I've seen of posts rules are open to debate and interpretation within this forum or am I incorrect?
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> House rules from my view are when your making a ruling that changes the mechanics of a rule.




Exactly. The rules forum is about the actual rules and also sussing out amongst friends possible interpretations of the rules.

House Rules is for new or different mechanics.

Occasionally I see people get a little zealous in declaring "you're house ruling!!!" when actually it is just a discussion around the boundaries of existing rules, or thinking about interactions between a couple of rules which may not be spelt out.

Cheers,


----------



## Cyberzombie (Dec 30, 2004)

I know I shouldn't be performing thread necromancy like this, but this has to be the SILLYEST attempt to use flavour text to break the rules that I have ever seen.  Wind wall taking out fireball, indeed.  Yeah, I'm really sure that the authors of 3e intended a spell available to clerics with the Air domain at 3rd character level to be able to take out a 3rd level spell.  What_ever!_


----------



## IanB (Dec 30, 2004)

I would just like to add that inexpensive material components should never be considered as a factor in a debate like this, because it leads to the very strange situation of a fireball cast by a caster with the Eschew Material Components feat behaving differently than one cast by a caster without the feat.

And I'll second the notion that if the fireball missile was a tangible object with mass, surface area, inertia, etc, to allow the wind to affect it, the spell would be of the conjuration school, not evocation.


----------

