So you get two level 9+ casters (druid/sorcerer/wizard/Dao Genie warlock/level 17+ artificer) who both have wall of stone. Caster A creates a 100-foot-tall, 10-foot-wide wall over the enemy, and then Caster B creates, at the top of that "wall," a 5'x10'x10' block by laying all the panels on top of each other. Then comes the best part: Caster A drops concentration on the pillar-wall thingy. Since D&D doesn't follow Minecraft physics, the 85,000 lb. block falls 110 feet and lands on the enemy. (That weight is assuming that the wall is granite, and it's rounding the weight of granite to 170 lbs./cubic ft. for convenience. 170 is on the low end, anyway.) Now... how much damage would that do?
(Side note: I'll be the DM when this happens. And yes, I was the one to suggest the possibility to the players. I'm not too concerned.)
By RAW, Falling damage doesn't account for weight. The block of stone, and the target, if hit, would both take half of the 10d6 fall damage for falling 100ft. (5d6 for each). The creature would presumably get a pretty easy Dexterity Save to avoid being crushed. (DC10~12?)
Overall, it's not a good use of two 5th level spells.
However, if you want to homebrew fall damage, I recommend incrementing the damage die for each size tier. (Medium d6, Large d8, Huge d10, Gargantuan d12)
So, you could say that it would do 5d12 damage with the same Dex DC. Decent potential damage for a 5th level spell, but not a great investment.
If you ignore the damage sharing, you could leave it at 10d12, which is good damage for two 5th level spells, but still probably difficult to land.
If you really want the players to try this trick, then you could let the Save DC be based on their Spell DC, which isn't really reasonable, but would make it viable mechanically.
As DM, it is up to you to choose how far to stray from RAW, but if you stray too far, it may come back to bite you later.
Okay, thanks for the info. I didn't know where the rules were (or if they existed, which they obviously don't) for dropping objects on people. Personally, as a DM for fairly inexperienced players, I want them to be able to do stuff that's just cool. Cone of cold isn't quite as cool as dropping a 5'x10'x10' block of stone on someone from 110 feet up. I'd probably go with full damage and give it a reasonable-but-not-too-easy DC for the save.
Wouldn't it be falling 110 feet, though? And the block is 10x10 feet... that's Large. So 11d8 for two casters' 5th level slot, instead of 8d8 cold in one cone of cold. Maybe I'll just set it as d10s.
Now... what if the enemy under the block were held? Double dice, or just no save? It's not an attack roll, but still... dropping 42.5 tons on someone's paralyzed head.... Same goes for being blinded or unable to get out of the way.
You can find the optional rules for "Creatures falling on other Creatures" on page 170 of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. In principle, it should apply to Objects as well. That uses DC 15.
If you base it purely on size, a 10×10×10 cube would be considered large, but previous editions had charts that also included weight ranges. 85,000lbs would be equivalent to a Gargantuan creature.
If the support wall is 100ft tall, then the Block is only falling 100ft. The height of the block doesn't contribute to the distance. Technically, you could say it falls 95 feet, since that's approximately when it could impact a medium creature.
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
Having three casters might get around even this.
First caster conjours first supportive wall of stone. Second caster conjours supported wall of stone. Third caster belatedly conjours second supportive wall of stone. First caster can drop concentration. Second caster maintains concentration for 10 minutes (and, by this time, is probably far, far away). Third caster drops concentration.
Keep it at 10d6 per RAW. Otherwise it can turn the game into just finding ways to drop things on people. After this they’ll start looking for and probably finding ways to drop bigger, heavier things, and want to do even more damage. Keep it inefficient, impractical and fairly weak.
Keep it at 10d6 per RAW. Otherwise it can turn the game into just finding ways to drop things on people. After this they’ll start looking for and probably finding ways to drop bigger, heavier things, and want to do even more damage. Keep it inefficient, impractical and fairly weak.
Agree with this. Physics is fun, but it literally is a waste of time for the most part unless you want Polymorph Sperm Whale to become everyone’s primary attack.
You can find the optional rules for "Creatures falling on other Creatures" on page 170 of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. In principle, it should apply to Objects as well. That uses DC 15.
If you base it purely on size, a 10×10×10 cube would be considered large, but previous editions had charts that also included weight ranges. 85,000lbs would be equivalent to a Gargantuan creature.
If the support wall is 100ft tall, then the Block is only falling 100ft. The height of the block doesn't contribute to the distance. Technically, you could say it falls 95 feet, since that's approximately when it could impact a medium creature.
I am familiar with the Creatures Falling onto Other Creatures rules. DC 15 sounds about right.
I am entirely unfamiliar with previous editions (except for a very basic understanding of THAC0), so I did not know that. That does make sense, though.
Yeah I don't know where I was getting 110 ft.
I know they automatically fail, I was wondering how others would rule the possibility of extra damage.
Keep it at 10d6 per RAW. Otherwise it can turn the game into just finding ways to drop things on people. After this they’ll start looking for and probably finding ways to drop bigger, heavier things, and want to do even more damage. Keep it inefficient, impractical and fairly weak.
Agree with this. Physics is fun, but it literally is a waste of time for the most part unless you want Polymorph Sperm Whale to become everyone’s primary attack.
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
That's an interesting point... maybe... I don't know. Keeping it at 10d6, which is probably the better way to go, would be doing the same amount of damage as one 5th level fireball, for two slots, to 1-4 creatures instead of a bunch, and of a much worse damage type (nonmagical bludgeoning). And they'd probably have to get rid of the boulder later, too.
So... Not strategically a very good plan, if it works by RAW at all. One of the casters who'd be doing this is going to be an Evoker focused almost exclusively on ice and cold stuff, so he might not even want to do this. He might also think it's the coolest thing in the world. I really have no idea. The other caster, a druid, might.... As of yet, I haven't told the wizard about eh combo, just the other two players. I'll just have to let them know how I'll rule it before they try it. I think the way I would lean is to let the block stay in existence, but only do the 10d6 nonmagical bludgeoning, with a DC 15 Dex save to take a reaction to move out of the way. If they positioned it right, though, the rogue could get an OA and pile on a Sneak Attack with extra psychic damage (homebrew subclass). Hmm.... I don't think they'd think of that, though.
Thanks for the input!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
So you get two level 9+ casters (druid/sorcerer/wizard/Dao Genie warlock/level 17+ artificer) who both have wall of stone. Caster A creates a 100-foot-tall, 10-foot-wide wall over the enemy, and then Caster B creates, at the top of that "wall," a 5'x10'x10' block by laying all the panels on top of each other. Then comes the best part: Caster A drops concentration on the pillar-wall thingy. Since D&D doesn't follow Minecraft physics, the 85,000 lb. block falls 110 feet and lands on the enemy. (That weight is assuming that the wall is granite, and it's rounding the weight of granite to 170 lbs. for convenience. 170 is on the low end, anyway.) Now... how much damage would that do?
(Side note: I'll be the DM when this happens. And yes, I was the one to suggest the possibility to the players. I'm not too concerned.)
Nope, the wall is a Magical materia in a stony shape. Since it's an Evocation spell the spell only turns the Magic Essentia ( which now I forgot what name it have ) into a Magic stony. That Magic stony thing, after you break the concentration, it disappears / dismisses. The other wall above the other, I think it remains there, due to the fact it dosen't follows the usual Gravity laws.
I coukld be right or perhaps wrong about this, but I think it's what is supposed to happen.
So you get two level 9+ casters (druid/sorcerer/wizard/Dao Genie warlock/level 17+ artificer) who both have wall of stone. Caster A creates a 100-foot-tall, 10-foot-wide wall over the enemy, and then Caster B creates, at the top of that "wall," a 5'x10'x10' block by laying all the panels on top of each other. Then comes the best part: Caster A drops concentration on the pillar-wall thingy. Since D&D doesn't follow Minecraft physics, the 85,000 lb. block falls 110 feet and lands on the enemy. (That weight is assuming that the wall is granite, and it's rounding the weight of granite to 170 lbs. for convenience. 170 is on the low end, anyway.) Now... how much damage would that do?
(Side note: I'll be the DM when this happens. And yes, I was the one to suggest the possibility to the players. I'm not too concerned.)
Nope, the wall is a Magical materia in a stony shape. Since it's an Evocation spell the spell only turns the Magic Essentia ( which now I forgot what name it have ) into a Magic stony. That Magic stony thing, after you break the concentration, it disappears / dismisses. The other wall above the other, I think it remains there, due to the fact it dosen't follows the usual Gravity laws.
I coukld be right or perhaps wrong about this, but I think it's what is supposed to happen.
The entire point of the combo is that the first wall disappears when the first caster drops concentration. And the spell very much follows gravity rules. If it didn't, it wouldn't need to be "solidly supported by existing stone."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Most of the falling damage rules, if not all, are intended for determining what happens to a creature who falls, not a block of granite.
At the end of chapter 5 in the DMG are some charts and rules for Traps. This sounds like a creative use of a spell or spells to improvise a very deadly trap.
Look it over for ideas on how much damage it should do and other things like save DCs.
Hope this helps.
That's a good thought. I'll give those guidelines a look. Thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
Or, if this topic was in the Rules section, then somebody would argue that that part of the spell only applies during the initial casting.
After the spell is cast then any such restrictions no longer apply.
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
Or, if this topic was in the Rules section, then somebody would argue that that part of the spell only applies during the initial casting.
After the spell is cast then any such restrictions no longer apply.
;-)
Yep, it's open to debate and DM interpretation.
The wall has conditions that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone" but the description then says that "If you maintain your concentration on this spell for its whole duration, the wall becomes permanent".
A DM can rule as to whether the conditions for the spell effect to remain in force for that first ten minutes include it remaining solidly supported by existing stone or whether concentration is the only condition.
I'd certainly judge that the intent of Wall of Stone, in that was that "It must ... merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone", is explicitly that it cannot be used as a bludgeoning weapon. That's why I think the condition was written and that's what I'd tend to stick by.
Perhaps a more conventional way of using wall of stone so as to set up a future fall would be to conjure a leaning wall to any format that the DM would consider to still be solidly supported and then let time, erosion and finally the weather to get the wall to eventually topple down.
In the meantime, I think that the wall is intended for construction and control rather than a done in 12 seconds mass destruction.
I'm also unsure whether an initially conjured wall of stone maintained by concentration would qualify as supplying solid support of existing stone. Wall of Stone has a condition of merging and being solidly supported by existing stone and, arguably, a conjuration that could disappear with a simple slip of the mind may not qualify.
Otherwise, if the only restriction is maintaining support until the supported wall can become permanent:
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
Having three casters might get around even this.
First caster conjours first supportive wall of stone. Second caster conjours supported wall of stone. Third caster belatedly conjours second supportive wall of stone. First caster can drop concentration. Second caster maintains concentration for 10 minutes (and, by this time, is probably far, far away). Third caster drops concentration.
This feels very much in the realms of “this isn’t properly covered RAW”. You can probably string together some rules which are similar to the proposed plan but I don’t think you are gonna find a match here.
I would consider carefully if this is a can of worms you want to open. Creative play is good but at the same time be careful about making “rocks fall and everyone dies” a valid strategy. It opens a lot of doors to abuse cases. Either cap the damage at a reasonable, yet rewarding amount, or make it hard to setup.
A step or two extra and you can have people dropping things from way up high and casting enlarge reduce on it on the way down and then things get real tricky.
this also kinda depends on your players and if they will temper their uses of creative stuff in a fun way rather than a disruptive way.
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.
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.
One, I don't think they'll use this very often, so I'm not too concerned about abuse.
Two, I'm really the only one of the four of use that really knows the game... basically they don't know things exist if I don't tell them. So they won't figure out ways to enlarge the block, and I doubt that they'll come up with other combos... but a druid and a wizard can be a killer combo if done right. The other player is a rogue, and the fourth party member is a ranger (who will kind of be controlled by everyone, but I'll do the roleplaying).
Three, I'm 100% certain that none of them would play disruptively.
(Edit: And on my second point, I'm perfectly fine telling them what spells, subclasses, etc. do, and we just play for fun anyway. None of them cares enough about, or has the time for, reading the PHB or the Basic Rules, anyway.)
Hey if it’s all fun, you aren’t worried about abuse cases, then by all means it sounds like your set and ready to go. If it’s using two 5th level slots I would consider looking at the damage a 5th level does and modelling it after two of those together. Maybe plus a bit if they came up with it or some additional effect for creativity.
"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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Based on the combined suggestions here, I think I might go with a DC 15 Dex save. On a success you can use your reaction to move up to your speed to get out of the way, and on a failed save the amount of (nonmagical) bludgeoning damage it deals is 12-14 dice, either d8s or d10s. (I say it that way because "somewhere from 12d8 to 14d10" just sounds weird.)
Anyway, thank you all for your time and consideration. I appreciate the advice, and even just for giving me the space to write (well, type) through my thoughts so I can more clearly solidify how I want to go about this. Thanks again!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So you get two level 9+ casters (druid/sorcerer/wizard/Dao Genie warlock/level 17+ artificer) who both have wall of stone. Caster A creates a 100-foot-tall, 10-foot-wide wall over the enemy, and then Caster B creates, at the top of that "wall," a 5'x10'x10' block by laying all the panels on top of each other. Then comes the best part: Caster A drops concentration on the pillar-wall thingy. Since D&D doesn't follow Minecraft physics, the 85,000 lb. block falls 110 feet and lands on the enemy. (That weight is assuming that the wall is granite, and it's rounding the weight of granite to 170 lbs./cubic ft. for convenience. 170 is on the low end, anyway.) Now... how much damage would that do?
(Side note: I'll be the DM when this happens. And yes, I was the one to suggest the possibility to the players. I'm not too concerned.)
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
By RAW, Falling damage doesn't account for weight. The block of stone, and the target, if hit, would both take half of the 10d6 fall damage for falling 100ft. (5d6 for each). The creature would presumably get a pretty easy Dexterity Save to avoid being crushed. (DC10~12?)
Overall, it's not a good use of two 5th level spells.
However, if you want to homebrew fall damage, I recommend incrementing the damage die for each size tier. (Medium d6, Large d8, Huge d10, Gargantuan d12)
So, you could say that it would do 5d12 damage with the same Dex DC. Decent potential damage for a 5th level spell, but not a great investment.
If you ignore the damage sharing, you could leave it at 10d12, which is good damage for two 5th level spells, but still probably difficult to land.
If you really want the players to try this trick, then you could let the Save DC be based on their Spell DC, which isn't really reasonable, but would make it viable mechanically.
As DM, it is up to you to choose how far to stray from RAW, but if you stray too far, it may come back to bite you later.
Okay, thanks for the info. I didn't know where the rules were (or if they existed, which they obviously don't) for dropping objects on people. Personally, as a DM for fairly inexperienced players, I want them to be able to do stuff that's just cool. Cone of cold isn't quite as cool as dropping a 5'x10'x10' block of stone on someone from 110 feet up. I'd probably go with full damage and give it a reasonable-but-not-too-easy DC for the save.
Wouldn't it be falling 110 feet, though? And the block is 10x10 feet... that's Large. So 11d8 for two casters' 5th level slot, instead of 8d8 cold in one cone of cold. Maybe I'll just set it as d10s.
Now... what if the enemy under the block were held? Double dice, or just no save? It's not an attack roll, but still... dropping 42.5 tons on someone's paralyzed head.... Same goes for being blinded or unable to get out of the way.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
You can find the optional rules for "Creatures falling on other Creatures" on page 170 of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. In principle, it should apply to Objects as well. That uses DC 15.
If you base it purely on size, a 10×10×10 cube would be considered large, but previous editions had charts that also included weight ranges. 85,000lbs would be equivalent to a Gargantuan creature.
If the support wall is 100ft tall, then the Block is only falling 100ft. The height of the block doesn't contribute to the distance. Technically, you could say it falls 95 feet, since that's approximately when it could impact a medium creature.
Paralyzed creatures automatically fail Strength/Dexterity Saving Throws.
Wall of stone states that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." A DM could certainly judge that, when the conditions for the spell disappear, the wall disappears,
Having three casters might get around even this.
First caster conjours first supportive wall of stone.
Second caster conjours supported wall of stone.
Third caster belatedly conjours second supportive wall of stone.
First caster can drop concentration.
Second caster maintains concentration for 10 minutes (and, by this time, is probably far, far away).
Third caster drops concentration.
Keep it at 10d6 per RAW. Otherwise it can turn the game into just finding ways to drop things on people. After this they’ll start looking for and probably finding ways to drop bigger, heavier things, and want to do even more damage. Keep it inefficient, impractical and fairly weak.
Agree with this. Physics is fun, but it literally is a waste of time for the most part unless you want Polymorph Sperm Whale to become everyone’s primary attack.
Thats 50-80 tons of weight.
I am familiar with the Creatures Falling onto Other Creatures rules. DC 15 sounds about right.
I am entirely unfamiliar with previous editions (except for a very basic understanding of THAC0), so I did not know that. That does make sense, though.
Yeah I don't know where I was getting 110 ft.
I know they automatically fail, I was wondering how others would rule the possibility of extra damage.
Yeah, I agree with both of you there.
That's an interesting point... maybe... I don't know. Keeping it at 10d6, which is probably the better way to go, would be doing the same amount of damage as one 5th level fireball, for two slots, to 1-4 creatures instead of a bunch, and of a much worse damage type (nonmagical bludgeoning). And they'd probably have to get rid of the boulder later, too.
So... Not strategically a very good plan, if it works by RAW at all. One of the casters who'd be doing this is going to be an Evoker focused almost exclusively on ice and cold stuff, so he might not even want to do this. He might also think it's the coolest thing in the world. I really have no idea. The other caster, a druid, might.... As of yet, I haven't told the wizard about eh combo, just the other two players. I'll just have to let them know how I'll rule it before they try it. I think the way I would lean is to let the block stay in existence, but only do the 10d6 nonmagical bludgeoning, with a DC 15 Dex save to take a reaction to move out of the way. If they positioned it right, though, the rogue could get an OA and pile on a Sneak Attack with extra psychic damage (homebrew subclass). Hmm.... I don't think they'd think of that, though.
Thanks for the input!
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Nope, the wall is a Magical materia in a stony shape. Since it's an Evocation spell the spell only turns the Magic Essentia ( which now I forgot what name it have ) into a Magic stony. That Magic stony thing, after you break the concentration, it disappears / dismisses. The other wall above the other, I think it remains there, due to the fact it dosen't follows the usual Gravity laws.
I coukld be right or perhaps wrong about this, but I think it's what is supposed to happen.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
The entire point of the combo is that the first wall disappears when the first caster drops concentration. And the spell very much follows gravity rules. If it didn't, it wouldn't need to be "solidly supported by existing stone."
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
That's a good thought. I'll give those guidelines a look. Thanks!
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Or, if this topic was in the Rules section, then somebody would argue that that part of the spell only applies during the initial casting.
After the spell is cast then any such restrictions no longer apply.
;-)
Yep, it's open to debate and DM interpretation.
The wall has conditions that "It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone" but the description then says that "If you maintain your concentration on this spell for its whole duration, the wall becomes permanent".
A DM can rule as to whether the conditions for the spell effect to remain in force for that first ten minutes include it remaining solidly supported by existing stone or whether concentration is the only condition.
I'd certainly judge that the intent of Wall of Stone, in that was that "It must ... merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone", is explicitly that it cannot be used as a bludgeoning weapon. That's why I think the condition was written and that's what I'd tend to stick by.
Perhaps a more conventional way of using wall of stone so as to set up a future fall would be to conjure a leaning wall to any format that the DM would consider to still be solidly supported and then let time, erosion and finally the weather to get the wall to eventually topple down.
In the meantime, I think that the wall is intended for construction and control rather than a done in 12 seconds mass destruction.
I'm also unsure whether an initially conjured wall of stone maintained by concentration would qualify as supplying solid support of existing stone. Wall of Stone has a condition of merging and being solidly supported by existing stone and, arguably, a conjuration that could disappear with a simple slip of the mind may not qualify.
Otherwise, if the only restriction is maintaining support until the supported wall can become permanent:
This feels very much in the realms of “this isn’t properly covered RAW”. You can probably string together some rules which are similar to the proposed plan but I don’t think you are gonna find a match here.
I would consider carefully if this is a can of worms you want to open. Creative play is good but at the same time be careful about making “rocks fall and everyone dies” a valid strategy. It opens a lot of doors to abuse cases. Either cap the damage at a reasonable, yet rewarding amount, or make it hard to setup.
A step or two extra and you can have people dropping things from way up high and casting enlarge reduce on it on the way down and then things get real tricky.
this also kinda depends on your players and if they will temper their uses of creative stuff in a fun way rather than a disruptive way.
As a DM I'd allow it
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.
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.
Two, I'm really the only one of the four of use that really knows the game... basically they don't know things exist if I don't tell them. So they won't figure out ways to enlarge the block, and I doubt that they'll come up with other combos... but a druid and a wizard can be a killer combo if done right. The other player is a rogue, and the fourth party member is a ranger (who will kind of be controlled by everyone, but I'll do the roleplaying).
Three, I'm 100% certain that none of them would play disruptively.
(Edit: And on my second point, I'm perfectly fine telling them what spells, subclasses, etc. do, and we just play for fun anyway. None of them cares enough about, or has the time for, reading the PHB or the Basic Rules, anyway.)
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Hey if it’s all fun, you aren’t worried about abuse cases, then by all means it sounds like your set and ready to go. If it’s using two 5th level slots I would consider looking at the damage a 5th level does and modelling it after two of those together. Maybe plus a bit if they came up with it or some additional effect for creativity.
"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.
Isn't that talking about a horizontal span?
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.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Based on the combined suggestions here, I think I might go with a DC 15 Dex save. On a success you can use your reaction to move up to your speed to get out of the way, and on a failed save the amount of (nonmagical) bludgeoning damage it deals is 12-14 dice, either d8s or d10s. (I say it that way because "somewhere from 12d8 to 14d10" just sounds weird.)
Anyway, thank you all for your time and consideration. I appreciate the advice, and even just for giving me the space to write (well, type) through my thoughts so I can more clearly solidify how I want to go about this. Thanks again!
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.