Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Can a Wall spell be unsupported, e.g. to make an archway ?

share|improve this question
See… for a more general discussion of this question; your answer will vary by your playstyle. – mxyzplk May 21 '12 at 1:17
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Kind of, based on the provisions of the 2.5 dimensions of D&D.


A wall fills a specified number of contiguous squares within range, starting from an origin square.

Each square of the wall must share a side—not just a corner—with at least one other square of the wall, but a square can share no more than two sides with other squares in the wall (this limitation does not apply when stacking squares on top of each other).

You can shape the wall however you like within those limitations. A solid wall, such as a wall of ice, cannot be created in occupied squares.

Therefore, the original rules presume a 2d landscape. Walls, however, extend for a length in the vertical dimension as a function of their spell. There is no restriction that the contiguous squares be the bottom-most square, therefore there is no rule against it.

There is also no rule for it, as the wording deals only with two (and a half) dimensions. As the verticality of the wall is not a function of its dimensionality, but rather its power wording... this is one of those "ask your GM" grey areas that isn't much fun at all in this game.

share|improve this answer
@BrianBallsunStanton The thing is the Rules Compendium section on Wall has the section ... "the squares can be lined up horizontally or stacked vertically" ... to me, stacking implies you must start from the ground – SteveC May 20 '12 at 20:24
Yes, however as some powers have heights... and those heights may or may not count as limits... this is one of those annoying edge cases. – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 20 '12 at 20:30
Blast ... or maybe burst :-) – SteveC May 20 '12 at 21:22
To add a little more confusion, some walls, such as 'Wall of Ice', are Conjurations, and Conjurations do not have to be supported by a solid surface. To me, the line 'You can shape the wall however you like within those limitations' is the key - the limitations do not forbid it and in fact do not presume 2 dimensionality either. – Ananisapta May 21 '12 at 13:29
Yeah. The rules are very poorly written to cover these edge cases. – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 21 '12 at 13:34

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.