火墙：什么是“坚固的表面”？-Walloffire:What'sa'solidsurface'?

7  

The rules are weirdly slippery on what a "solid surface" is.

Note that several "Wall of X" spells (ice, thorns, force) use similar language, as do monster attacks that create walls of stuff.

请注意,几个“墙上的X”法术(冰,荆棘,力量)使用类似的语言,怪物攻击也会产生相似的语言。

There are several cases of rules text using "solid surface" and "creature" as if they're distinct, which would imply that the surface can't be part of a creature. What makes it less clear is that the effect is usually the same either way, so "creature or solid surface" could just be inclusive language.

有几种规则文本使用“固体表面”和“生物”就好像它们是不同的,这意味着表面不能成为生物的一部分。不太清楚的是,效果通常是相同的,因此“生物或固体表面”可能只是包容性语言。

For example, the Otyugh can bash creatures "into each other or a solid surface", for the same amount of damage.

例如,对于相同数量的伤害,Otyugh可以将生物“打入彼此或”固体表面“。

The catapult spell hurls an object in a straight line, "stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface." But if it would hit a creature, and the creature fails its Dex save, "the object strikes the target and stops moving."

弹射器法术将物体直线投掷,“如果撞击固体表面,则提前停止。”但如果它击中了一个生物,并且该生物未能通过它的Dex保存,“该物体击中目标并停止移动。”

You can break a Staff of the Magi "over your knee or against a solid surface"; the effect is the same, including the damage that you take for being in the center of the blast.

你可以“在膝盖上或坚固的表面上打破魔法师的职员”;效果是一样的,包括你在爆炸中心受到的伤害。

Melf's minute meteors is a tricky case. The meteor can be directed at a point you choose; it explodes when it "reaches its destination or impacts against a solid surface". This has a small functional effect: the meteors otherwise don't respect cover, so if a creature doesn't count as a "solid surface" then hiding under a big creature won't protect you from meteors coming down from above. Common sense says that it should protect you, so I lean toward "solid surface" being inclusive of creatures in this case.

Melf的分钟流星是一个棘手的案例。流星可以指向你选择的点;当它“到达目的地或撞击坚固的表面”时会爆炸。这有一个小的功能效果:流星否则不尊重覆盖,所以如果一个生物不算作“坚实的表面”,那么藏在一个大生物下将不会保护你免受从上面下来的流星的影响。常识说它应该保护你,因此在这种情况下我倾向于“固体表面”包含生物。

So how do you rule on this?

One additional issue for the Wall spells is that "solid" implies that the surface isn't going to change shape during the duration of the spell. This matters mostly for Ice and Thorns, because they're rigid. If you cast a Wall of Ice on the back of a dragon, can the dragon shake it off? Does the wall flex as the dragon moves or does it splint the dragon in place? What happens if it tries to fly?

Wall法术的另一个问题是“固体”意味着在法术持续期间表面不会改变形状。这对冰和荆棘来说很重要,因为它们很僵硬。如果你在龙的背面投下了一面冰墙,龙可以将它甩掉吗?当龙移动时,墙壁会弯曲还是将龙夹在原地?如果它试图飞行会发生什么?

Another is that some of the walls do damage; if you allow a Wall of Fire to stick to a creature then that's 5d8 fire damage per turn, no save, for 10 turns.

另一个是一些墙壁造成损坏;如果你允许一道火焰墙坚持一个生物,那么每回合造成5d8点火焰伤害,没有保存,持续10回合。

Allowing walls to be used this way would introduce a lot of complexity that you might or might not want to deal with.

允许以这种方式使用墙将引入许多您可能或可能不想处理的复杂性。

2  

Lacking a specific definition of a term in the rules, default to common language. The OED definition of solid:

缺乏规则中术语的特定定义,默认为通用语言。 OED对固体的定义:

Firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid. ‘the stream was frozen solid’

坚固稳定的形状;不是液体或液体。 '溪流冻结了'

Consider how this affects the game play in two ways: by basic procedure, and for solid surface disappearing.

考虑一下这会如何影响游戏玩法:基本程序和固体表面消失。

Default to Basic Procedure

The English definition of 'solid" implies a certain amount of rigidity as well. Further discussion of the terms will spiral into the semantics and debates of precise meaning, but we can short circuit that with the basic rules D&D procedure for adventuring:

“实体”的英文定义也意味着一定程度的刚性。对这些术语的进一步讨论将成为精确意义的语义和争论的缩影,但我们可以通过基本规则来简化冒险的D&D程序:

1. The DM describes the environment.

DM描述了环境。

2. The players describe what they want to do.

球员描述他们想做什么。

3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

DM叙述了他们行为的结果。

This is especially the case where the rule are defaulting the ambiguities of plain English. E.g. the effect of casting a wall of fire targeting the surface of a dragon's back is dictated by the interpretation of solid surface by the DM.

特别是在规则违反普通英语含糊不清的情况下。例如。铸造围绕龙背面的火焰墙的效果取决于DM对固体表面的解释。

Xanathar's Guide to Everything Optional Rule for Invalid Targets

In the event the GM rules that the chosen surface does not count as a solid surface for the purposes of the spell, XGtE has a spellcasting section that offers optional guidance about ruling on casting spells at invalid targets.

如果GM规定所选择的表面不算作法术目的的固体表面,XGtE有一个施法部分,提供关于在无效目标上施法法术的可选指导。

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.

如果你对某人或某个不受该咒语影响的东西施放咒语,该目标没有任何反应,但如果你使用一个法术位来施放该咒语,那么该插槽仍会被消耗掉。

Solid Surface Disappears (Target Becomes Invalid)

For less ambiguous cases, e.g. ice melting, Jeremy Crawford offered a clarifying tweet. When the target of a spell (e.g. an ice bridge) no longer becomes a valid target (because it melted), the spell effecting it is suppressed. So the wall of flame is gone until the target becomes valid again or the duration runs out.

对于不太模糊的情况,例如冰融化,杰里米克劳福德提供了澄清的推文。当一个咒语(例如冰桥)的目标不再成为有效目标(因为它融化)时,影响它的法术被抑制。因此,火焰墙一直消失,直到目标再次生效或持续时间耗尽。