So if I use elemental wall, "(water) would you count it as a barrier or not (to bullets) I would say sort of, as I would envision a rolling torrent of water as the wall, aldeady there is visual modifiers and actual bullets lose lethatlity around 3-4 feet deep in calm water. I would give it a barrier equal to half force rounded up instead of full force though, just wanted to get opinions to see if most people would go along with this or if I am going to get GMs that slam me with a No :3

Modern bullets lose lethality more like in 3-4 inches of water. Remember, at the speed a bullet is going when it hits water, it might as well be hitting solid concrete. The mythbusters demonstrated this quite effectively.

So give it full force. Even if the bullet gets through the water wall, it's going to be fragmented into pieces going who-knows which-a-way, and it will have shed a significant, possibly majority, of its power, getting through.

Depends on the type of firearm. Supersonic slugs (up to .50 cal) disintegrated in less than 90cm of water, while slower bullets (pistol rounds) managed to make it to around 2.4 meters before becoming non-lethal, and shotguns couldn't be measured (reference).

I don't think there's gonna be an easy answer for this one, though based on the Mythbusters episode I'd say it's more effective against the bigger guns than the smaller, and flechette rounds might even be less impacted.

from what you both said It seems to me that it could get very complicated if you wanted to get picky with it, but you can say submachineguns and up treat water walls as full barriers anything weaker ( and slower) treat it has F/2? It seems to me that shotguns just would not be able to pass through it. unless you are using slug ammunition

I would just say give it full Barrier rating and have done with it.

I agree. Give it a barrier rating equal to it's full Force, and be done with it.

If you want to get REALLY fancy?

Physical projectiles: barrier rating equals Force (bullets, arrows, etc slow down FAST in water)
Lasers: penalty to attacker DP equal to half Force (the beam refracts as it crosses the wall)
Sonic attacks: provides no protection at all (Sound propagates through water just fine)
Electrical attacks: barrier rating equal to Force times two, or zero to targets actually inside the Wall (as the attack grounds out through the wall ...)

I assume you are asking about water because it is conspicuously not listed in either set of examples, and because it isn't technically "solid". But if you look at the elements that are NOT solid, and determine what about them makes them not count as solid, it seems pretty simple to figure out where water falls.

Fire is superheated gas: such gas offers almost no resistance against bullets or projectiles, and is pretty much no different than firing through normal atmosphere. Likewise for smoke, diffuse particulates suspended in the air aren't going to significantly impede ballistic or projectile flight. Other magical elements I would group in this category are Sound, Light, Electricity, and Blast, as they all lack physical components and are instead comprised of energy moving through the medium of the atmosphere.

Solids, liquids, and solids acting as liquids (such as sand), shoulld all count as Solid Walls.

Gases, gas-suspended solids or liquids (such as smoke or mist), and elements comprised of energy (such as Sound, Blast, Light, and Electricity) should all count as Non-Solid Walls.

So my final breakdown is as follows.

Solid - Earth, Ice, Water, Sand, Metal, Acid
Not Solid - Fire, Smoke, Blast, Light, Sound, Electricity

~Umi

Addendum - For the sake of completeness, hypothetical elements comprised of liquid or solid suspended gas (in essence Foams) would be difficult to class. Some foams are remarkably solid, others are remarkably not. It depends largely on the material the gas is suspended in. Light and frothy sea foam, or foam off the top of a beverage, isn't going to stop anything. Something thicker like industrial or structural foam would of course be on par with a wall of water or sand. It's a question of ratios, ultimately.

Last time I got into magical theory was 2nd ed with the good old Grimoire which is in a box somewhere, so forgive me if I'm off track here but:

I'm assuming this would be a akin to a Physical Barrier [element] spell? Adding the elemental effect means anyone attempting to pass through the barrier suffers the effects as described, whether they get through or not (the fire burns, the water batters the intruder, etc). Very speculative.

Look at existing spells. What spells have similar effects, how well do they work, and what do the Drain codes look like? Are you reinventing the wheel or making cold fusion in your kitchen?

Ditto Pax and ShadowDragon. It's probably *not* fair to take away significant powers of the spell.

I do agree that, in a different system, it would be neat to have flavored barriers with different effects. In such a system, non-solid or semi-solid Barriers would have Drain codes or other compensations for this major loss in functionality.

Elemental Wall does, in effect, work a lot like a Physical Barrier with an added Elemental Aura. Anyone coming into contact takes appropriate elemental damage, whether they get through or not.

Assuming you're using one of the Solid Wall elements, the basic barrier portion operates just like Physical Barrier - one point of Armor and Structure per spellcasting hit. It has a couple extra perks though. Physical Barriers are translucent and impose only a -1 visibility modifier, but Elemental Walls are opaque and have a modifier determined by the GM. Obviously a wall of Electricity isn't going to block vision much, but a wall of Earth sure will. So for the opage Solid Elemental Walls, which ideally should completely block vision of what is behind them, you also impede spellcasting - which Physical Barrier does not.

However, one thing Elemental Wall lacks is regeneration. Physical Barrier explicitly mentions that it refreshes its Structure at the beginning of every Combat Turn. The wording for Elemental Wall has no equivalent clause.

~Umi