# Is Wall of Thorns as utterly broken as it seems to be?



## IndyPendant (Aug 21, 2005)

> Wall of Thorns
> Conjuration (Creation)
> Level: Drd 5, Plant 5
> Components: V, S
> ...



Druid cast this spell for the first time today.  And I ruled it blocked LoS but not AoE.  --And then, shortly afterward, jaw dropped, called wrapup cuz the enemy could do nothing.  They were fighting Salamanders!  And two nobles!  (Who btw had already used up their dispels.)

And we discussed the spell.  And I decided to rule that a) it did not block LoS or AoE at all, and b) it would be treated as a plant for the purposes of calcing HPs and how things like fire affected it, but still not actually be a plant.  And I'm not even sure I like that as balanced.

But...am I missing something?  Why haven't I been warned about this spell?  Basically, it's a shapeable AoE Resilient Sphere.  Even if it doesn't block LoS, it's almost impossible for anything to move through it as written.  If you're in it, you're pretty much stuck right where you are, permanently.  You have to have a 20 Str, and roll a nat20, just to move 5'--and you take damage just for trying?!?  Spell resistance doesn't apply, it lasts for a minimum of 1.5 *hours*, no save...

Cast this spell, and everyone stays right where they are.  You can't even burn it up, RAW, cuz it's pretty much immune to fire, even magical fire.  The salamanders were instantly made helpless by...a bunch of brush.

I mean, seriously.  Wtf?  Am I missing something here?  How exactly is this spell not through-the-stratosphere overpowered?


----------



## Grogtar (Aug 21, 2005)

Well unfortuantly I cant offer much help. A few things though :

1. Its a druid or Plant Domain spell. Pretty damn restricted. As a GM friend of mine says "Dont attack a druid in the forest"

2. You can allways just jump / fly / teleport over it. Hell, maybe you can climb it. Its got those long, usefull thorns you know.

3. Its 5th level. 5th level spells are very, very ugly. I mean look at Cloudkill (totally sick) or perhaps Wall of Force.

Having said those things. I wouldnt allow it. I'd say "I think thats just a bit over the top in terms of spells. Im going to say thats not available in setting. If you want to work out somthing similar, we can, but for now its off limits"

<edit - another idea>


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 21, 2005)

I don't see any reason the _Wall of Thorns_ would block line of sight or line of effect, though a DM might ad hoc a House Rule that it did so, based on his own personal thought on how the wall might look.

The spell isn't really overpowered.  Compare it to _Wall of Force_ which does no damage, but is completely immune to harm save for a Rod of Cancellation or _Disintegrate_.  _Wall of Force_ even blocks ethereal travel, which the _Wall of Thorns_ certainly does not.

How does one get out of the Wall?  A wizard/sorcerer _teleports_ out.  _Teleport_ is also a 5th-level spell, and the description of _Wall of Thorns_ mentions nothing about interfering with spellcasting, even in the very center of the thorns.  Or he might attempt to _dispel_ the _Wall_ entirely.

A cleric could _dispel_ the _Wall_.  If he has the Travel domain, he might also _teleport_ out of the _Wall_.  I would also rule that the Travel cleric's _freedom of movement_ domain power is effective against the _Wall_, allowing him to expend rounds of the Travel domain power to completely ignore the wall's inhibition to movement.  And if 5th-level spells are being slung around, the cleric is likely to have better than a 25 AC, so he's probably not going to take damage.

Fighters and barbarians likewise probably have greater than 25 AC, so they won't be taking damage from the spell.  They might also have a high enough strength to make a feasible attempt to break out.  If not, and they don't have a _helm of teleportation_ or any other such nifty item, they're stuck.

Druids of level 2+ and rangers of level 7+ are immune to the spell thanks to _Woodland Stride (Ex)_.

Rogues and monks are screwed.  But then, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Some spells are going to be more deadly versus certain classes.

Now, from the other side of it, most "melee brute" critters are A) going to have a good deal of natural armor, and possibly an AC of 25 or better (negating the damage of the spell) and very high strengths, meaning they can possibly push through the wall.

All this having been said, it's a good spell, particularly if you shape it to try and catch as many foes as possible within it right from the get-go.  But it's not particularly overpowered, IMO.


----------



## Bauglir (Aug 21, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Fighters and barbarians likewise probably have greater than 25 AC, so they won't be taking damage from the spell.



Excluding dex & dodge bonuses?  At around level 9-10 (since WoT is a 5th level spell) it's possible certainly but I wouldn't say probable.  Especially for the barbarian.  Even with a high strength they will likely be stuck in the wall for at least a few rounds, getting pummeled by ranged spells and attacks from the druid's party.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Druids of level 2+ and rangers of level 7+ are immune to the spell thanks to _Woodland Stride (Ex)_.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Woodland Stride (Ex)
> 
> Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. *However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.*



(Emphasis mine)


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 21, 2005)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Excluding dex & dodge bonuses?  At around level 9-10 (since WoT is a 5th level spell) it's possible certainly but I wouldn't say probable.  Especially for the barbarian.  Even with a high strength they will likely be stuck in the wall for at least a few rounds, getting pummeled by ranged spells and attacks from the druid's party.



The spell doesn't exclude natural armor or deflection bonuses.  So fighting types are going to have armor + deflection (rings of protection) + natural armor (amulets of natural armor).  I'd definltely say probable.

Note that _Wall of Thorns_, in its own description, notes that it isn't actually a plant.  Unlike _Entangle_, it doesn't use actual plant material to create an effect.  i.e. it's _not_ terrain magically manipulated to impede motion (such as an _entangle_ spell creates.)  It's a spell that impedes movement.  Normally, then, Woodland Stride wouldn't come into play.

However, from the _Wall of Thorns_ description: "Creatures with the ability to pass through overgrown areas unhindered can pass through a wall of thorns at normal speed without taking damage."  Woodland Stride allows druids and rangers to pass through overgrown areas unhindered.  Thus, by _Wall of Thorns_' own description, Woodland Stride immunizes druids and rangers against it.

Seems crystal clear to me.  Woodland Stride trumps _Wall of Thorns_, intentionally so.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 21, 2005)

Yep, the "Creatures with the ability to pass through overgrown areas unhindered can pass through a wall of thorns at normal speed without taking damage." part cannot mean much else.

About the line of sight issues, I would probably let more than 5 ft. block line of sight and line of effect.

That part about magical fire is a bit silly, tho. So, a bunch of _Fireballs_ or a _Meteor Swarm_ do nothing against it, unless you apply them throughout a period of 10 minutes!?

Also the time to cut through it seems a bit excessive... that's longer than you would need to get through an iron or stone wall.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 21, 2005)

It's a druid spell what do you expect? Something balanced?


----------



## Asmo (Aug 21, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> It's a druid spell what do you expect? Something balanced?




The sound of a bitter DM ?   

Asmo


----------



## Philip (Aug 21, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> That part about magical fire is a bit silly, tho. So, a bunch of _Fireballs_ or a _Meteor Swarm_ do nothing against it, unless you apply them throughout a period of 10 minutes!?




I always read it that once you set the wall on fire with magical fire, you have to wait for 10 nminutes until the wall is competely burned down. One fireball, and then a long wait....


----------



## IndyPendant (Aug 21, 2005)

The biggest differences between Wall of Force and Wall of Thorns tho is a) Wall of Force must be a flat plane, b) WoF doesn't restrict movement other than crossing the barrier, c) WoF doesn't damage you for *trying* to move, and d) WoF lasts for just over a minute, not *hours* of permanent trappage.

No, upon further thought, I think I would change the spell in this manner:

1) It does not block LoS or LoE, even if by RAW it was intended to.

2) Once set aflame, it burns like normal plants would.  (This one raises alarm bells in me however: I have visions of trapping people in there and then burning them alive by setting fire to the spell.  So looking for other ideas here.)

3) You can take a full-round action to push 5' through the thick plants, plus an extra 5' for every 5 points you beat a DC 20 Str check.  Attempting this causes damage as normal for the spell.

4) If at least 5' of plants separate you and your target, your target has cover vs your attacks.

The rest of the spell descript (including 10 min chopping for 1' safe path) is as is.

What do you think?


----------



## anon (Aug 21, 2005)

#1 and #4 seem to contradict each other a bit.  A huge all of dense vines which doesn't block Line of Sight but does provide cover at >5 feet?

Though I do personally think that Wall of Thorns is fine as is.

Wall of Force in my experiences with it has been essentially in impossible barrier.  With that as a comparison I think Wall of Thorns is fine.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 21, 2005)

Like Wall of Force and a number of other 5th and 6th level spell, some critters/people are going to have problems against the Wall of Thorns.

Grunt style monsters are often SOL.  And they should be.  They are much more powerful than any typical classed humanoid of similar CR in a fair fight.  Only the very brave or very foolish fight such things fairly.

PCs NPCs (classed humanoids) should have tactics for dealing with such inconveniences.  There are several 2nd & 3rd level spells that can help avoid or reduce the effect of the WoT.  There are oodles of higher level spells that do so.  If you do not have some emergency potions/scrolls, and you are going up against a 9th+ level spellcaster, you are not getting any sympathy from me.

A lot of people on these boards cannot seem to wrap their minds around the idea that a good tactician plans for the possibility of temporarily being forced on the defensive.

If those salamanders used up their dispels and the PC held onto a 5th level spell for just right moment, that is a well-earned victory.


----------



## Grogtar (Aug 21, 2005)

Ridley, I agree with you to an extent. However I think there is a large differences between the two spells in question (Wall of Force and Wall of Thors)

Force is 1 round per level, Thorns 10 mins per level. Making force only usefull for slowing the fight a touch, maybe some battlefield control. But thorns can essutnally END a battle for anyone cought on the other side. Think of a dungeon you run into a mob you dont want to fight - just wall of thorns, and put the encounter off for 2 hours.

The numbers for the damage mitigation on thorns are ludicrous. I dont expect 10th or 12th level fighters to have those AC or Str numbers. Hell, I barely expect 14th or 18th level fighters to have that AC. And making a DC 25 Str Check is 20th level stuff.

I think the question is "Why is this so much better than Wall of Force?" - and its a good question.

It does dmg to those even attempting to pass through it. It has a stupid long durationg. You could shape it to your desire, even to box in someone. You can cast it "on" someone, and force them to either wait at least an hour and a half or die trying to get out. And most importantly - there is no down side.


----------



## Tumbler (Aug 21, 2005)

I don't think it is particularly overpowered, but I do love the idea of spring attacking rangers running through the thing, attacking, and running back.  That said, I'm in a 9th level Dragonlance party right now, and most of the characters would have little trouble with this spell.  The Minotaur fighter has AC higher than 25 and generally make a 20 Str Check.  The Elf wizard can fly or dimension door out.  The cleric could summon a celestial dire badger to dig a tunnel out.  My kender might be screwed, but he could ride the elf out or just sit back and use his wand of wonder on the thing until something happened to it.  It doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.  

As for the duration, delaying a combat 9 rounds vs 90 minutes only really effects rememorization of spells.  9 rounds is plenty of time to heal and buff to heart's content.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Aug 21, 2005)

In that case, your expectations of PC abilities don't map very well to the core rules.

Assuming standard PC wealth and standard array stats, a 12th level fighter will typically have:
Str 22 (15+3 lvl +4 item). A 12th level barbarian will typically have Str 30 (15+2 1/2 orc +3 level +4 item +6 rage). So, the check is very difficult but not impossible for the fighter and only moderately difficult for the 12th level barbarian. By 20th level, strength is more likely to be around 31 (15+5 level +5 book +6 belt) for the fighter and 41 for the raging barbarian.

Similarly, excluding dodge and dexterity bonuses to AC, a 12th level fighter will often have:
+3 fullplate, +3 shield (animated if he uses a two handed weapon), +1 ring of protection. (And if he doesn't have +3 armor and shield, he will when the cleric casts magic vestment on them). That's AC 27 right there. A barbarian will often be slightly lower: +3 mithral breastplate, +3 animated shield, +1 ring of protection=AC 24. If he's raging, knock two points off of that, so he'll take a little bit of damage but not much. By 20th level, either character can be expected to have ACs between 35 and 42.

Also keep in mind that there are several other counters to the spell other than the mentioned teleport. Freedom of Movement (the big one for divine casters), blink, dimension door (the big one for arcane casters), gaseous form, etc would all work to enable a character to evad the spell. Flight would be very effective as well. A rogue or monk with sufficient ranks in balance could even, in theory, balance on top of the wall of thorns as long as they weren't in the effect when it went off (if they were, the monk has to have an ally with dimension door, freedom of movement, etc, or abundant step out of the wall and the rogue will need help from his allies or use magic device). (And, if all else fails, the trapped creatures can always pull out bows and fire back just as effectively as their enemies can fire at them).

The real vulnerable group is monsters without magical or special abilities or ranged attacks. A fiendish tyranosaurus or a hydra is almost guaranteed to be delayed for quite a while. Similarly, a group of high HD zombies will be shredded. But such monsters are supposed to have an achilles heel and are just as helpless against PCs with bows and mass fly.



			
				Grogtar said:
			
		

> The numbers for the damage mitigation on thorns are ludicrous. I dont expect 10th or 12th level fighters to have those AC or Str numbers. Hell, I barely expect 14th or 18th level fighters to have that AC. And making a DC 25 Str Check is 20th level stuff.


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 22, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> In that case, your expectations of PC abilities don't map very well to the core rules.
> 
> Assuming standard PC wealth and standard array stats, a 12th level fighter will typically have:
> Str 22 (15+3 lvl +4 item). A 12th level barbarian will typically have Str 30 (15+2 1/2 orc +3 level +4 item +6 rage). So, the check is very difficult but not impossible for the fighter and only moderately difficult for the 12th level barbarian. By 20th level, strength is more likely to be around 31 (15+5 level +5 book +6 belt) for the fighter and 41 for the raging barbarian.
> ...




This is not true of PCs at 1st level because that's when this spell is available to druids.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Aug 22, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> This is not true of PCs at 1st level because that's when this spell is available to druids.




They're talking about Wall of Thorns, a 5th level druid spell, which is available at 9th level and up.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> This is not true of PCs at 1st level because that's when this spell is available to druids.




Wall of Thorns available to 1st-level PCs?

I don't think so - unless you're talking about the Greenbond Summoning feat (which is, by itself, ridiculously overpowered)?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I don't think so - unless you're talking about the Greenbond Summoning feat (which is, by itself, ridiculously overpowered)?




Well, that's how I'd get access to Wall of Thorns as a 1st level druid!  

-Hyp.


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 22, 2005)

DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> They're talking about Wall of Thorns, a 5th level druid spell, which is available at 9th level and up.




Greenbound summoning.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> Greenbound summoning.




Which is a problem with Greenbond Summoning, and not the spell itself.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 22, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> Greenbound summoning.



It strikes me as a bit backwards to claim that _Wall of Thorns_, a core spell in the PH and SRD, is overpowered because of its interaction with a non-core feat.  Rather, it seems more appropriate to note the non-core feat is the overpowered element, granting a high-level spell to druids far before they were intented to have access to it.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 22, 2005)

Pretty obvious, really. 
The spell is some weird still, even though.

Where is that feat from, BTW? Not overly familiar with druid feats.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2005)

It's an FR feat from a recent book.  The author originally submitted it as a metamagic feat which could be applied spontaneously to a Summon Nature's Ally spell, but it was changed to a general feat (for reasons no one can really explain).


----------



## likuidice (Aug 22, 2005)

*Damage reduction*

Any creature forced into or attempting to move through a wall of thorns takes *slashing* damage per round of movement equal to 25 minus the creature’s AC. Dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC do not count for this calculation. (Creatures with an Armor Class of 25 or higher, without considering Dexterity and dodge bonuses, take no damage from contact with the wall.)

Damage reduction should be effective against this damage, allowing the more lightly armoured barbarian to ignore some of it, or monsters with innate damage reduction to wade through, or even an item that grants damage reduction/magic, as it's listed only as slashing damage, not magical slashing damage.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 22, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's an FR feat from a recent book.




Maybe Waterdeep? Don't have that yet...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Rhun (Aug 22, 2005)

likuidice said:
			
		

> Damage reduction should be effective against this damage, allowing the more lightly armoured barbarian to ignore some of it, or monsters with innate damage reduction to wade through, or even an item that grants damage reduction/magic, as it's listed only as slashing damage, not magical slashing damage.




I was thinking along these same lines, and I believe the Salamanders in question DO have damage resistance. Combined with their AC, I would have ruled that they take no damage from moving through the WoT, although they still would have had to make their strength checks to do so.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 22, 2005)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If those salamanders used up their dispels and the PC held onto a 5th level spell for just right moment, that is a well-earned victory.




word. Wall of thorns is an excellent tactical spell. That doesn't qualify as "broken".


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

Grogtar said:
			
		

> Ridley, I agree with you to an extent. However I think there is a large differences between the two spells in question (Wall of Force and Wall of Thors)




Wall of Thors?  Well hell, that _is_ an overpowered spell. 



			
				Grogtar said:
			
		

> Force is 1 round per level, Thorns 10 mins per level. Making force only usefull for slowing the fight a touch, maybe some battlefield control. But thorns can essutnally END a battle for anyone cought on the other side. Think of a dungeon you run into a mob you dont want to fight - just wall of thorns, and put the encounter off for 2 hours.




Keep in mind that you will be at least 9th level before being able to throw this spell around (FR feats aside).  If you need buffing time, what are you going to want?  An impassable barrier, or something that most competent CR 9 and up creatures can pass right through?  Is it great against mobs?  Yep.  Will mobs try and swarm their way through a wall of thorns?  Not unless they are really stupid.  They'll spend their time cutting it away or burning it.  So it  probably buys you maybe 10 minutes, if the goons on the other side don't have access to Dispel Magic, Fly, Teleport, D-door, Freedom of Movement, etc.  Should this spell be an effective wall to goons and minions?  If it"s not then I'd want my fifth level spell back.



			
				Grogtar said:
			
		

> The numbers for the damage mitigation on thorns are ludicrous. I dont expect 10th or 12th level fighters to have those AC or Str numbers. Hell, I barely expect 14th or 18th level fighters to have that AC. And making a DC 25 Str Check is 20th level stuff.




As has been pointed out, those AC's are easily reachable by those levels.  The strength check is a little rough, but for those who will be trying the strength check, they'll have a good shot at it.  A wizard trying to move through with a strength check gets what he deserves.



			
				Grogtar said:
			
		

> I think the question is "Why is this so much better than Wall of Force?" - and its a good question.




That answer is easy.  It isn't. 



			
				Grogtar said:
			
		

> And most importantly - there is no down side.




How about, "it's a slot you could've used on Flamestrike."

*shrug*  Wall spells are meant to be crowd control.  There are numerous ways around it, and it's fantastic against mooks.  Sounds pretty much good to me.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

likuidice said:
			
		

> Damage reduction should be effective against this damage, allowing the more lightly armoured barbarian to ignore some of it, or monsters with innate damage reduction to wade through, or even an item that grants damage reduction/magic, as it's listed only as slashing damage, not magical slashing damage.



 DR only applies against wall of thorns if you don't consider wall of thorns to be a spell.  DR doesn't apply.

IMO, spells that don't allow saves or SR are to be monitored very closely.  Spells of less than 8th (maybe 7th) level that don't allow saves or SR and that can directly affect opponents (meaning, be cast on them in their area) are by definition broken.  I think a good fix to this is to allow a save and/or SR if the wall erupts around the opponents, just like blade barrier.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> DR only applies against wall of thorns if you don't consider wall of thorns to be a spell.  DR doesn't apply.




If a spell specifies a damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), it is normal damage (which DR is effective against).  The thorns deal *slashing* damage.  Every DR except for DR/slashing is effective.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> If a spell specifies a damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), it is normal damage (which DR is effective against). The thorns deal *slashing* damage. Every DR except for DR/slashing is effective.



 It doesn't matter what kind of damage it specifies, unless it is energy damage and then resist energy and the like applies.  As for DR, let me quote the relevant sentence, "The creature takes normal damage from ... spells...."  It's crystal clear with no gray area.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what kind of damage it specifies, unless it is energy damage and then resist energy and the like applies.  As for DR, let me quote the relevant sentence, "The creature takes normal damage from ... spells...."  It's crystal clear with no gray area.




So stabbing someone with a dagger created with major creation gets past DR?  Good to know.

_Edit - Check out Ring of Blades from Complete Arcane, and the bludgeoning damage you can deal with Meteor Swarm.  Also, ask yourself why they bother to describe the type of damage (bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing), if it doesn't matter in the slightest._


----------



## mikebr99 (Aug 22, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Maybe Waterdeep? Don't have that yet...
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Lost Empires of Faerun... 1st word explains where this feat should end up. 


Mike


----------



## Pickaxe (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> DR only applies against wall of thorns if you don't consider wall of thorns to be a spell.  DR doesn't apply.




Does DR apply to the attacks of a summoned monster?

--Axe


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> So stabbing someone with a dagger created with major creation gets past DR? Good to know.



 Is the spell dealing the damage?



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> _Edit - Check out Ring of Blades from Complete Arcane, and the bludgeoning damage you can deal with Meteor Swarm. Also, ask yourself why they bother to describe the type of damage (bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing), if it doesn't matter in the slightest._



  The bludgeoning damage from meteor swarm or ice storm bypasses DR because they're spells.  As for why they describe the type of damage, I don't know.  Perhaps some creature might take extra damage from it.  Perhaps there's another reason.

Ask yourself what happens if you cast ice storm on a creature and fail to overcome it's SR.  Does the bludgeoning damage still apply?  If it's a spell like I say, then it does not.  If you say the bludgeoning is not a spell then the SR is irrelevant for that portion, right?  Otherwise, you have a glaring inconsistency.  So, which is it?  Does SR apply to the whole ice storm or not?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

Pickaxe said:
			
		

> Does DR apply to the attacks of a summoned monster?



 Is the spell dealing the damage?

If I bull rush you off a cliff and I don't have magical natural weapons, does your DR/magic apply to the fall? According to your implied hidden meaning in the question you asked, you'd rule that the DR/magic does apply.


----------



## schporto (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Is the spell dealing the damage?
> 
> If I bull rush you off a cliff and I don't have magical natural weapons, does your DR/magic apply to the fall? According to your implied hidden meaning in the question you asked, you'd rule that the DR/magic does apply.




Yes DR applies when I fall.  Regardless of wether you use a magic weapon to push me over or I jump.  I still get my DR at the bottom of the fall.  The earth is causing the damage and will not bypass DR/magic.  I'd rule it to bypass DR/bludgeoning though.

And I agree with PickAxe.  A summoned monster bypasses damage as the monster.  Its a conjuration spell.  So is Wall of Thorns.  Therefore the thorns are present.  The only part that sorta confuses this is the whole 'its not a normal plant' part.

As for SR & DR mixing, I see it like making your save vs. fireball.  You now take 1/2 damage.  But I still have energy resistance 10, so knock that off the damage too.  
-cpd


----------



## andargor (Aug 22, 2005)

Uh oh, the whole spell dealing damage vs. DR discussion again... 

Andargor


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

andargor said:
			
		

> Uh oh, the whole spell dealing damage vs. DR discussion again...
> 
> Andargor




Whee! 

And to answer your question infinity, no, I do not think that a dagger created via Major Creation bypasses DR.  However, anytime a spell lists the damage it deals as piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning, I assume that to be more than a mistake and treat it as the only thing it could be (IMO), normal nonmagical damage.  So yes, that could lead to a wizard casting Ice Storm on a Drow, beating its spell resistance, and then having the bludgeoning damage it deals potentially negatable by DR.  You see this as inconsistency, I do not.


----------



## maggot (Aug 22, 2005)

Back on the topic of Wall of Thorns, I do find it over the top.  It is not just a wall like wall of force, it can trap creatures inside it.  Your 9th level fighter might be able to make a DC25 strength check, sure, and he might not take any damage doing that, but he will only move 5' with his full round action.  You can't use fly against the wall of thorns if you are already inside it.

Our druid liked to use wall of thorns to trap opponents and then a wall of fire in the same spot to slowly roast them.  Archery against the trapped creatures is also quite effective.  We house ruled the spell after an opposing druid wrecked the party with this one spell.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> And to answer your question infinity, no, I do not think that a dagger created via Major Creation bypasses DR. However, anytime a spell lists the damage it deals as piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning, I assume that to be more than a mistake and treat it as the only thing it could be (IMO), normal nonmagical damage. So yes, that could lead to a wizard casting Ice Storm on a Drow, beating its spell resistance, and then having the bludgeoning damage it deals potentially negatable by DR. You see this as inconsistency, I do not.



 If you rule it that way, then I agree it's not inconsistent.    I woulda thunk that it would be obvious, though, that SR applies to both the bludgeoning and cold damage from an ice storm.  It doesn't say "SR: see text" or anything like that.  It's just "SR: Yes" and therefore SR applies to the whole spell, not some undefined portion of it that's up to DM whim.



			
				andargor said:
			
		

> Uh oh, the whole spell dealing damage vs. DR discussion again...



 I looked in my calendar and it said it was time.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If you rule it that way, then I agree it's not inconsistent.    I woulda thunk that it would be obvious, though, that SR applies to both the bludgeoning and cold damage from an ice storm.  It doesn't say "SR: see text" or anything like that.  It's just "SR: Yes" and therefore SR applies to the whole spell, not some undefined portion of it that's up to DM whim.




You misunderstand me.  The wizard must beat the creature's SR before the creature can be affected at all.

Oddly enough, there are _very_ few spells that specify a damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), most of which are conjurations (I think).  Take from that what you will.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Aug 22, 2005)

Is the spell more or less powerful if it blocks LoE and LoS ?

When it was used in a game I was playing, more than 5' provided full cover.  
We decided that we still needed to get through it. So after healing and some buffs, we resumed the fight - hardly game breaking.  The opponents who could not escape, tried a round of movement then waited it out.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 22, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> You misunderstand me. The wizard must beat the creature's SR before the creature can be affected at all.



 So, then you are being inconsistent.


SR blocks spells.
DR does not block spells.
Ice storm cannot both be a spell and not be a spell at the same time.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, then you are being inconsistent.
> 
> 
> SR blocks spells.
> ...




Sure it can.  Take any of the Summon Monster spells, for instance.  Or pretty much the entire school of conjuration.


----------



## Nail (Aug 23, 2005)

Besides, consistancy is hardly an iron-clad feature of the present rule-set.


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is a problem with Greenbond Summoning, and not the spell itself.




The same issue arose with Persistent Spell. WoTC still had to nerf the core cleric spells that Persistent affected. Although they didn't finish the job. How can they, that would be mean that their favourite classes would be balanced.


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 23, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> So stabbing someone with a dagger created with major creation gets past DR?  Good to know.
> 
> _Edit - Check out Ring of Blades from Complete Arcane, and the bludgeoning damage you can deal with Meteor Swarm.  Also, ask yourself why they bother to describe the type of damage (bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing), if it doesn't matter in the slightest._




Because the designers didn't play test their product at all and got their rules mixed up?


----------



## beaver1024 (Aug 23, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Besides, consistancy is hardly an iron-clad feature of the present rule-set.




What? This is unpossible. I mean we got this new and improved 3.5 and everything.


----------



## Nail (Aug 23, 2005)

Something tells me you have concerns with 3.5e.  You and *dcollins* should start a thread.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 23, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> Because the designers didn't play test their product at all and got their rules mixed up?




Yes yes, "My hat of D02 know no limits!  Raargh, I hate druids!  Raaa!  WotC are evil and stupid! Graaarrr!" 

Don't you have anything to contribute to the discussion besides druid bashing and rants?

I seem to recall you having some rather interesting arguements in the Druid thread a couple of months ago, do you have anything more like that for this thread?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 23, 2005)

beaver, do you want some cheese with that whine?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 23, 2005)

And let's get back on topic, folks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And let's get back on topic, folks.
> 
> -Hyp.
> (Moderator)




Right.  I think it's been shown that Wall of Thorns is strong, but has it's weaknesses.  Getting caught in one unprepared _can_ be deadly; being properly prepared for one makes it a useless waste of time.  It's easily countered by other fifth-level spells.

It seems okay to me.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 23, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Right.  I think it's been shown that Wall of Thorns is strong, but has it's weaknesses.  Getting caught in one unprepared _can_ be deadly; being properly prepared for one makes it a useless waste of time.  It's easily countered by other fifth-level spells.
> 
> It seems okay to me.




Same here.  The only thing that seems really strong to me is the Strength check.  Until I actually see this used in game, I'm going with:  Good (but not too good) 5th level spell.


----------



## Nail (Aug 23, 2005)

I'd say use determine it's power by using the "acid test": Use it against the PCs alot, and see how they feel about it.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 23, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'd say use determine it's power by using the "acid test": Use it against the PCs alot, and see how they feel about it.




Bah!  Every spell in the game would wind up banned or nerfed!


----------



## maggot (Aug 23, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Right.  I think it's been shown that Wall of Thorns is strong, but has it's weaknesses.  Getting caught in one unprepared _can_ be deadly; being properly prepared for one makes it a useless waste of time.  It's easily countered by other fifth-level spells.




Most spells are useless if you are prepared for them.  Is Finger of Death useless because of Death Ward?  Is Magic Missile useless because of Shield?

At a minimum Wall of Thorns will require another caster to cast dispel magic, thus trading the druid's action with the opponent's action (and dispel magic is by no means certain).

And what other fifth-level spells counter Wall of Thorns for all those trapped in its effect?

I put Wall of Thorns under the "over-powered and boring" column.  It can trap creatures without access to dispel or teleport, and then the druid can hammer the trapped creatures with archery or lower level spells.  Not a lot of fun whether it's monsters caught in the thorns, or PCs caught in the thorns.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> And what other fifth-level spells counter Wall of Thorns for all those trapped in its effect?




Fifth level spells?  Not many.  Plenty of lower level spells though.  Most of them have already been mentioned ...


----------



## maggot (Aug 24, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Fifth level spells?  Not many.  Plenty of lower level spells though.  Most of them have already been mentioned ...




Okay, I should have said "5th level or lower."

Spells mentioned here do not help everyone trapped, or simply don't work.  Someone mentioned fly, that doesn't help you if you are trapped.  Dimension door helps you if you are trapped, but it doesn't do much for your fighter friend who spends the next five rounds trying to make a DC 25 strength check so he can move 5' through the thorns.  Freedom of movement helps, but only one person.  A combination of FoM and DimDoor or multiple DimDoors might do the trick.

Dispel magic helps of course because that works against nearly anything.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> Okay, I should have said "5th level or lower."
> 
> Spells mentioned here do not help everyone trapped, or simply don't work.  Someone mentioned fly, that doesn't help you if you are trapped.  Dimension door helps you if you are trapped, but it doesn't do much for your fighter friend who spends the next five rounds trying to make a DC 25 strength check so he can move 5' through the thorns.  Freedom of movement helps, but only one person.  A combination of FoM and DimDoor or multiple DimDoors might do the trick.
> 
> Dispel magic helps of course because that works against nearly anything.




Well then, what exactly is your complaint?  That Wall of Thorns isn't completely useless against all classes equally?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 24, 2005)

andargor said:
			
		

> Uh oh, the whole spell dealing damage vs. DR discussion again...
> 
> Andargor




Wasn't this clarified in the FAQ, IIRC, for the crystal shard psionic powers.  I think they reiterated flat-out that spells bypass DR.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wasn't this clarified in the FAQ, IIRC, for the crystal shard psionic powers. I think they reiterated flat-out that spells bypass DR.



 They say it flat-out in the rules, too.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 24, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Sure it can.  Take any of the Summon Monster spells, for instance.  Or pretty much the entire school of conjuration.




Summon Monster doesn't do damage.  It summons a monster.  The monster is a normal monster of its type, and is therefore subject to DR, but is unaffected by SR unless it casts a spell or spell-like ability.  Any conjuration spell that does damage (spells that do damage spell out how much damage in their descriptions, so Major Creation is also not a spell that does damage) is unaffected by DR even if it is also unaffected by SR because while they may be called out to be specifically unaffected by SR, there is no such rule that says DR applies to conjurations.

It would make sense to say that a conjured thorn does damage as a regular pointed stick, because that would explain the slashing/piercing/bludgeoning types on certain spells, but the rules say that the conjured thorn does damage as a spell.  If you want to house rule otherwise, that's a house rule, but the RAW is clear.


----------



## andargor (Aug 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wasn't this clarified in the FAQ, IIRC, for the crystal shard psionic powers.  I think they reiterated flat-out that spells bypass DR.




Just a comment about recent rules fencing matches with Hyp and others on the subject. 

A sample in this thread.

EDIT: And Patryn of Elvenshae doesn't consider the FAQ as official... 

Andargor


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 24, 2005)

andargor said:
			
		

> A sample in this thread.




Speaking of which, I just dropped you a question about the Faithful Hound 

-Hyp.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Aug 24, 2005)

Since dim door gets the caster plus 1 target/three levels, it helps the fighter a whole lot--and potentially the whole party if you were clumped together. (And if you weren't you probably weren't all in the wall of thorns.



			
				maggot said:
			
		

> Spells mentioned here do not help everyone trapped, or simply don't work.  Someone mentioned fly, that doesn't help you if you are trapped.  Dimension door helps you if you are trapped, but it doesn't do much for your fighter friend who spends the next five rounds trying to make a DC 25 strength check so he can move 5' through the thorns.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2005)

andargor said:
			
		

> EDIT: And Patryn of Elvenshae doesn't consider the FAQ as official...




It's "official," it's just not Core.

And, for what it's worth, all the cool kids agree with me.


----------



## andargor (Aug 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's "official," it's just not Core.
> 
> And, for what it's worth, all the cool kids agree with me.




Are they parted in the middle too?  

And I'm not cool, I'm _hot_! 

Andargor


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Summon Monster doesn't do damage.  It summons a monster.  The monster is a normal monster of its type,




Except it's not.  What happens when you reduce a wolf to lower than 0hp?  Now, what happens when you reduce a _summoned_ wolf to lower than 0hp?

(And for what it's worth, even ruling that DR didn't help against wall of thorns, the wall deals a piddling amount of damage to those likely to attempt to move through it.)


----------



## maggot (Aug 24, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Well then, what exactly is your complaint?  That Wall of Thorns isn't completely useless against all classes equally?




My point is that no one has mentioned a 5th level or lower spell that is an effective counter against Wall of Thorns.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> My point is that no one has mentioned a 5th level or lower spell that is an effective counter against Wall of Thorns.




Dispel Magic, Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door ...

Those were already mentioned.  Are you saying those aren't effective counters to Wall of Thorns?


----------



## maggot (Aug 24, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Since dim door gets the caster plus 1 target/three levels, it helps the fighter a whole lot--and potentially the whole party if you were clumped together. (And if you weren't you probably weren't all in the wall of thorns.




A 9th level druid casts Wall of Thorns over nine 10' cubes.  That will fill an entire 30'x30' area.  It is entirely possible that a trapped spellcaster with dimension door is not within touch range of all other trapped characters.


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot, what exactly are you grasping for here?  An effective counter to wall of thorns for all classes?


----------



## lukelightning (Aug 24, 2005)

My druid loooooved the Wall of Thorns spell. It was an awesome "get rid of the lowly minions" spell to allow us to focus on the big tough boss monsters.  "Oh look, a room full of bugbears and some dire boars.  WALL OF THORNS! They all die.  Plus the fact that she could move through the wall like it wasn't there was awesome.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> A 9th level druid casts Wall of Thorns over nine 10' cubes. That will fill an entire 30'x30' area. It is entirely possible that a trapped spellcaster with dimension door is not within touch range of all other trapped characters.



 That makes no sense.  A nonspellcaster has no counter against any spell of any level.  There's no counter against a wall of force either, so is wall of force broken?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 24, 2005)

i think people object the spell because it does damage unlike wall of force, and has a longer duration, although its more passable then wall of force via magic. Also druids can pass through it like nothing, but can a wizard pass through his own wall of force like it wasn’t their? I’m just wondering...



it may be too powerfull, but i if it wasent as powerfull as it was i could think of other druid spells that would be better to take at level 9.


----------



## Scion (Aug 24, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's no counter against a wall of force either




Escape artist, DC 120, pass right through!


----------



## maggot (Aug 24, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.  A nonspellcaster has no counter against any spell of any level.  There's no counter against a wall of force either, so is wall of force broken?




Many times (especially outdoors) you can just run around or fly over a wall of force.  Wall of Force does not deny all movement like Wall of Thorns does.  And even if Wall of Force was used in a way that did this, it wouldn't apply to such a large section of the battle field.  And Wall of Force denies line of effect making it inappropriate for trap-and-zap tactics.

And then there is the fact that Wall of Thorns lasts 100 times longer than Wall of Thorns.

I've never had a problem with Wall of Force, it is a fine spell for its level.  Wall of Thorns, however, is completely over the top.


----------



## maggot (Aug 24, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> maggot, what exactly are you grasping for here?  An effective counter to wall of thorns for all classes?




For a 5th level spell that covers large portions of the battle field for long periods with NO SAVE, yes, it would need some kind of reasonalbe counter for it to be balanced at all.


----------



## Prism (Aug 24, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> For a 5th level spell that covers large portions of the battle field for long periods with NO SAVE, yes, it would need some kind of reasonalbe counter for it to be balanced at all.




There are a number of spells that cover large radius areas and offer no save. Rock to mud, solid fog, evards black tenticles, acid fog. They can all be very effective depending on the opponent. For example, solid fog, acid fog and rock to mud are better than black tenticles and wall of thorns against high strength opponents usually.

Dispel magic I would say is a reasonable counter


----------



## andargor (Aug 24, 2005)

Prism said:
			
		

> Rock to mud, solid fog, *evards black tenticles*, acid fog.




At first glance, I misread that...  

Andargor


----------



## Prism (Aug 24, 2005)

andargor said:
			
		

> At first glance, I misread that...
> 
> Andargor




Lol, I could edit it but I think I'll leave it as it is


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 25, 2005)

That Evard.  He wears a size 16, you know.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 25, 2005)

Its not so easy for the low armored types to escape this beast.  Note that at the minimum you get 18 10X10X5 blocks of thorny bush.  You can stack the blocks on top of each other to make one giant cube of thorns 30X30X10, and no mage can just fly out, nor will they probably be able to make their concentration check when they take damage moving around in the block casting spells (at least thats how I GMed it).  You can cast in ON folks and have them encased in a giant pile of thorns, not just blocking their path forward.

Suffice to say, the baddie cast this completely clogging up a room and a half in a dungeon and the PC's AND the baddie (i hadn't read it fully beforehand) stood around for over an hour waiting for it to wear off.

DS


----------



## Nail (Aug 26, 2005)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> ... the baddie cast this completely clogging up a room and a half in a dungeon and the PC's AND the baddie (i hadn't read it fully beforehand) stood around for over an hour waiting for it to wear off.



 No one had a _DD_, eh?  That must have been a fun moment.

PC1: "Errr....guys?  Can anyone move?"

PC2: "Nope."

BBEG: "Me neither.....so, anyone know some bad jokes?....."

PC1: "Sure!  One day a BBEG walked into a bar....."


----------



## Jarrod (Aug 26, 2005)

Mmmm... you know, I think I'll point this out to my wife. 

As for overpowered Druid spells, how about Quill Blast? Oy!


----------



## Jhulae (Aug 26, 2005)

How, honestly, is this spell more overpowered than Web (which is a 2nd level spell), connsidering this is a 5th?

Web is almost impossible to get out of if you miss your saving throw (unless you have a flame source and want to take damage, FoM, or any of the other spells to disrupt this one).  A wizard actually *can't* fly out of a web, and still has to make concentration checks.  The time is just as long (10 min/level), it covers a huge area..

I don't see it being broken at all, especially since there are more classes that have more abilities to render the spell useless (Rangers can't just ignore web like they can this spell..).


----------



## werk (Aug 26, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'd say use determine it's power by using the "acid test": Use it against the PCs alot, and see how they feel about it.




SO happy that my players agreed to help an apprentice druid defend his grove against a crew of gray druids(they think there is only one).  Should be fun


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 26, 2005)

Just a quote for those folks who believe that slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage dealt by a spell bypasses damage reduction.  This quote doesn't disprove that position, but it is interesting. 



			
				Complete Adventurer said:
			
		

> *Invocation of the Knife*: Beginning at 2nd level, Daggerspell mages develop a strong mystical connection between their arcane spellcasting abilities and the daggers that they wield. Whenever a daggerspell mage casts an arcane spell that deals energy damage, he can turn half of the damage dealt by the spell into magic slashing damage rather than energy damage. Energy resistance does not apply to this damage, but damage reduction might. This power does not affect a creature's ability to resist the affected spell with a saving throw or spell resistance.
> Using this ability does not require an action; its use is part of the action required to cast the affected spell. Only spells with a duration of instantaneous can be modified by this ability.




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2005)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> How, honestly, is this spell more overpowered than Web (which is a 2nd level spell), connsidering this is a 5th?




1. You can keep trying to get out of a web with no ill consequences if you fail your roll.  The thorns damage you when you do anything in them (successful or not).

2. You have to have walls or trees or somesuch to anchor a web to, you can create a block of thorns in the middle of anywhere.

3. You can use a DEX or a STR roll to get out of a web vs. STR only to move through thorns.

4. You only need DC10 to move around in a web once you are unstuck, you need DC25 to move around in the block of thorns.

5. You get a 20' radius glob of web regardless of what level you are.  You get 2 10X10X10 cubes of thorn per level, with a minimum of 18 of the suckers.

Very different!
DS


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 26, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> No one had a _DD_, eh?  That must have been a fun moment.




I had to fudge a little bit to keep the party rogue alive.  He was hiding under a desk when the baddie cast it.  The desk area was where the baddie was standing so he left that little alcove free of thorns (although the way out of the room was blocked by the mass of thorns).

I had to somehow pretend that over the course of 1+ hours the baddie who was stuck in a little 10X10 area with a desk in it never thought to look under the desk and the rogue was completely silent and unmoving the whole time.

The baddie was a half-dragon sorcerer who would have eaten the rogue for breakfast.

I have a sort-of-standing rule that I only let the PC's die in climactic battles or when they do something stupid.  After the spell was cast I decided it was stupid on MY part for bringing that combat to a 1 hour pause while everyone stood around and that the best way I could deal was to "fast forward" time and continue the battle.

D "Wall of Thorns ruined my encounter" S


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 26, 2005)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> 1. You can keep trying to get out of a web with no ill consequences if you fail your roll.  The thorns damage you when you do anything in them (successful or not).
> 
> 2. You have to have walls or trees or somesuch to anchor a web to, you can create a block of thorns in the middle of anywhere.
> 
> ...




I just wanted to point out two things (perspective-wise):

1. Web is a 2nd level spell, Wall of thorns is a 5th level spell.  Wall of thorns should be better than Web.  By a lot.

2. I'm fairly certain that the volume that web can cover (if you could get a whole sphere of it) is around 33,500 cubic feet.  Cut that in half, and you get 16,750, just a little under the 18,000 cubic feet that you get with a minimal casting of Wall of Thorns.


----------



## Squire James (Aug 27, 2005)

It is my opinion that they mismatched the DC.  The save DC of a 5th level spell is normally less than 25, and here the spell is wanting an ABILITY check that high!  I think the DC 25 was originally thought to be a save or skill check, but they couldn't think of what it would be so they fell back to a Strength check.

A DC 18 Str check or DC 28 Escape Artist check should do the trick.  Their movement's pretty restrictive even if they make the roll.


----------



## Jhulae (Aug 27, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I just wanted to point out two things (perspective-wise):
> 
> 1. Web is a 2nd level spell, Wall of thorns is a 5th level spell.  Wall of thorns should be better than Web.  By a lot.
> 
> 2. I'm fairly certain that the volume that web can cover (if you could get a whole sphere of it) is around 33,500 cubic feet.  Cut that in half, and you get 16,750, just a little under the 18,000 cubic feet that you get with a minimal casting of Wall of Thorns.




Exactly my point, Icy.


----------

