"If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports." I don't think you can make a tower 100 feet high and certainly don't think you could then balance another wall on top. I'm dubious about using the thinner walls for horizontals.
Anyway, all this just leaves a 20 ft drop but, in the real-world, this could still be fatal.
Something I realize often is that "in the real world" comparisons are not very applicable, especially in situations like this. Yes, you're right, it would be fatal... but a normal person has 4 hit points.
The intention, surely, of the spell Wall of Stone it to conjure a Wall of Stone, not a 100 foot tall, 6 inch thick tower, and that's before you try to balance a second "wall" on the top.
I suspect that the ideas currently being proposed are about as far away from RAI as you can get.
previously:
"If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports." I don't think you can make a tower 100 feet high and certainly don't think you could then balance another wall on top. I'm dubious about using the thinner walls for horizontals.
A supported horizontal wall made of 10 thinner 10 * 20 ft panels could measure 50 * 40 ft while a horizontal wall made of 9 six-inch thick 10 * 10 ft panels could measure 30 * 30 ft.
Support might be from a decagon of 20ft tall, 10ft wide panels with the shape having dimensions of around 30 ft as, effectively, the diameter of an approximate circle. This could make for an effective container though this brings the problem that "If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall." Alternatively, a square composed of two wall sections per side might work which could have an advantage of being able to be bisected by the two spare panels. Creatures seeing the bisecting wall appear might all swap sides and remain contained.
On my three caster sequence, I'd go octagon, roof, decagon, drop octagon, drop decagon and, literally, drop roof. With some opponents, you might start with the decagon and work inwards to the octagon which could further serve to worry those inside. You wouldn't be able to see the target location for the third spell but otherwise, this might work.
Anyway, all this just leaves a 20 ft drop but, in the real-world, this could still be fatal.
"If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports." I don't think you can make a tower 100 feet high and certainly don't think you could then balance another wall on top. I'm dubious about using the thinner walls for horizontals.
A supported horizontal wall made of 10 thinner 10 * 20 ft panels could measure 50 * 40 ft while a horizontal wall made of 9 six-inch thick 10 * 10 ft panels could measure 30 * 30 ft.
Support might be from a decagon of 20ft tall, 10ft wide panels with the shape having dimensions of around 30 ft as, effectively, the diameter of an approximate circle. This could make for an effective container though this brings the problem that "If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall." Alternatively, a square composed of two wall sections per side might work which could have an advantage of being able to be bisected by the two spare panels. Creatures seeing the bisecting wall appear might all swap sides and remain contained.
On my three caster sequence, I'd go octagon, roof, decagon, drop octagon, drop decagon and, literally, drop roof. With some opponents, you might start with the decagon and work inwards to the octagon which could further serve to worry those inside. You wouldn't be able to see the target location for the third spell but otherwise, this might work.
Anyway, all this just leaves a 20 ft drop but, in the real-world, this could still be fatal.
2 casters using their 9th levels for just this, very inefficient combo? Sure. Have at it.
Given this is far worse than a single cast of meteor swarm or any of the other combos that can be done (even low level ones). Go for it.
The character level is 9, not the spell level. Wall of stone is a 5th level spell.
Whoops.
In my defense I'm sick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Always remember the general rule for this kind of thing.
Spells not designed for combat are NOT better than damaging spells of the same level. (i.e., those that do not clearly describe the damage)
Even if you use two spells to do it, it should not be a better deal than 2 spells of the same level.
In general for these kinds of things I require a to hit and a save., failure on either = no damage, success on both = no more than the expected damage for a spell(s) of the exact same level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The character level is 9, not the spell level. Wall of stone is a 5th level spell.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
The intention, surely, of the spell Wall of Stone it to conjure a Wall of Stone, not a 100 foot tall, 6 inch thick tower, and that's before you try to balance a second "wall" on the top.
I suspect that the ideas currently being proposed are about as far away from RAI as you can get.
previously:
"If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports." I don't think you can make a tower 100 feet high and certainly don't think you could then balance another wall on top. I'm dubious about using the thinner walls for horizontals.
A supported horizontal wall made of 10 thinner 10 * 20 ft panels could measure 50 * 40 ft while a horizontal wall made of 9 six-inch thick 10 * 10 ft panels could measure 30 * 30 ft.
Support might be from a decagon of 20ft tall, 10ft wide panels with the shape having dimensions of around 30 ft as, effectively, the diameter of an approximate circle. This could make for an effective container though this brings the problem that "If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall." Alternatively, a square composed of two wall sections per side might work which could have an advantage of being able to be bisected by the two spare panels. Creatures seeing the bisecting wall appear might all swap sides and remain contained.
On my three caster sequence, I'd go octagon, roof, decagon, drop octagon, drop decagon and, literally, drop roof. With some opponents, you might start with the decagon and work inwards to the octagon which could further serve to worry those inside. You wouldn't be able to see the target location for the third spell but otherwise, this might work.
Anyway, all this just leaves a 20 ft drop but, in the real-world, this could still be fatal.
"If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports." I don't think you can make a tower 100 feet high and certainly don't think you could then balance another wall on top. I'm dubious about using the thinner walls for horizontals.
A supported horizontal wall made of 10 thinner 10 * 20 ft panels could measure 50 * 40 ft while a horizontal wall made of 9 six-inch thick 10 * 10 ft panels could measure 30 * 30 ft.
Support might be from a decagon of 20ft tall, 10ft wide panels with the shape having dimensions of around 30 ft as, effectively, the diameter of an approximate circle. This could make for an effective container though this brings the problem that "If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall." Alternatively, a square composed of two wall sections per side might work which could have an advantage of being able to be bisected by the two spare panels. Creatures seeing the bisecting wall appear might all swap sides and remain contained.
On my three caster sequence, I'd go octagon, roof, decagon, drop octagon, drop decagon and, literally, drop roof. With some opponents, you might start with the decagon and work inwards to the octagon which could further serve to worry those inside. You wouldn't be able to see the target location for the third spell but otherwise, this might work.
Anyway, all this just leaves a 20 ft drop but, in the real-world, this could still be fatal.
Whoops.
In my defense I'm sick.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No, you’re fine.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Always remember the general rule for this kind of thing.
Spells not designed for combat are NOT better than damaging spells of the same level. (i.e., those that do not clearly describe the damage)
Even if you use two spells to do it, it should not be a better deal than 2 spells of the same level.
In general for these kinds of things I require a to hit and a save., failure on either = no damage, success on both = no more than the expected damage for a spell(s) of the exact same level.