This spell was used by one of my PC's in my last session. He used it well to trap a dragon allowing them to grab the artifact they were there for and flee. To me, the spell seems pretty powerful mostly because of the lack of any sort of save and the ability to completely trap a creature in a sphere. I was wondering if any other players or especially DM's have had problems with it and what people's opinions on it are. Is it over powered, or is it just situationally useful?
The spell is concentration and only lasts 10 minutes...so at best they have delayed the encounter til the dragon is freed and pursues, and since it’s most likely faster than the party it will probably catch them fairly quickly.
I mean, no dragon worth its salt would come up against two level 10+ Wizards without its own tricks as well. This is why DMing is fun, especially when the PCs think they have stumbled across a cheap trick.
My favourite is minions, lair attacks, focus fire, and dragon spellcasting. Nothing sucks more than readying a spell and losing concentration before you even cast it hahaha
Better yet, a well timed Counterspell on the Wall of Force and end two level 5 spells at once 🙂
You need to cast the sickening radiance first, and of course the adversaries are going to be totally unable to counter this... :p
Why?
The Wall of Force only blocks "physical" objects, and so provides Total Cover vs. physical creatures/objects/weapons... but you can see through it, and doesn't indicate that it blocks spells (and especially not spells that aren't trying to fling something through the wall). I'm aware that spells need a clear path to their target (including a target point of origin), but the Wall doesn't have any language which suggests it creates an obstacle for vision or non-physical magic?
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
Wall of Force
An invisible wall of force springs into existence at a point you choose within range. The wall appears in any orientation you choose, as a horizontal or vertical barrier or at an angle. It can be free floating or resting on a solid surface. You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel. In any form, the wall is 1/4 inch thick. It lasts for the duration. If the wall cuts through a creature's space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice which side).
Nothing can physically pass through the wall. It is immune to all damage and can't be dispelled by dispel magic. A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly, however. The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall.
The Wall of Force only blocks "physical" objects, and so provides Total Cover vs. physical creatures/objects/weapons...
The spell doesn't say it only blocks physical objects; it says nothing can physically pass through it. That's no different from any other source of total cover, and total cover blocks spells.
If the PC created a wall then the dragon could just fly over it.
Did they create a sphere around the dragon while it was flying? If so, taking a combatant out of the fight for 10 minutes is a great use of a 5th level spell slot.
The Wall of Force only blocks "physical" objects, and so provides Total Cover vs. physical creatures/objects/weapons...
The spell doesn't say it only blocks physical objects; it says nothing can physically pass through it. That's no different from any other source of total cover, and total cover blocks spells.
Where does it say it provides Total Cover?
Would you rule that a Wind Wall provides Total Cover, including against Spells? If not for Wind Wall, why yes for Wall of Force?
The Wall of Force only blocks "physical" objects, and so provides Total Cover vs. physical creatures/objects/weapons...
The spell doesn't say it only blocks physical objects; it says nothing can physically pass through it. That's no different from any other source of total cover, and total cover blocks spells.
Where does it say it provides Total Cover?
Would you rule that a Wind Wall provides Total Cover, including against Spells? If not for Wind Wall, why yes for Wall of Force?
Because Wall of Force says "nothing can physically pass through the wall" and Wind Wall says nothing even remotely similar? The only difference between a Wall of Force and a 1/4-inch thick wall of adamantine is you can see through the Wall of Force (presumably; a very strict reading of the text would indicate that light can't pass through it either, so it *should* block vision, even if the wall itself is invisible).
Wall of Force does not say "nothing except spell effects can physically pass through the wall," so spell effects can't physically pass through the wall.
A “wall” (a brick wall, whatever) blocks everything. Sight, gasses, physical objects, magic, etc. And they provide total cover; we know that from the total cover section. I dispute none of that.
But not every magical wall is a wall in the fullest sense, you just agreed as much re: Wind Wall. Wind Wall describes the small set of things that it does function as a wall for (things it blocks): gasses. For everything else? vision, spells, physical objects? It’s not a wall, just wind in the shape of a wall.
Wall of Force is the same. It describes a small set of things it functions as a wall for: physical things. For everything else? Vision, spells? It’s not a wall, just force in the shape of a wall.
If it was just “a wall of force,” there’d be no need to describe blocking physical objects. Just like Wall of Stone doesn’t need to do so... it’s a Wall. It blocks everything walls do, because it doesn’t describe a limited set of things it blocks.
there’s nothing about “invisible force,” shaped like a wall or otherwise, which plainly should provide cover from or block spells. Floating Disk doesn’t, Tiny Hut only does because it says so, Mage Armor doesn’t, Shield doesn’t, Force Cage only does because it says so...
only two of seven layers of Prismatic Wall blocks spells, and only because they say they do, and it’s about as much a real“Wall” as Wall of Force is? I just think you’re reading too many additional benefits to “force” that you wouldn’t also provide to other magical walls made of wind, fire, light, etc.
A “wall” (a brick wall, whatever) blocks everything. Sight, gasses, physical objects, magic, etc. And they provide total cover; we know that from the total cover section. I dispute none of that.
But not every magical wall is a wall in the fullest sense, you just agreed as much re: Wind Wall. Wind Wall describes the small set of things that it does function as a wall for (things it blocks): gasses. For everything else? vision, spells, physical objects? It’s not a wall, just wind in the shape of a wall.
Wall of Force is the same. It describes a small set of things it functions as a wall for: physical things. For everything else? Vision, spells? It’s not a wall, just force in the shape of a wall.
If it was just “a wall of force,” there’d be no need to describe blocking physical objects. Just like Wall of Stone doesn’t need to do so... it’s a Wall. It blocks everything walls do, because it doesn’t describe a limited set of things it blocks.
there’s nothing about “invisible force,” shaped like a wall or otherwise, which plainly should provide cover from or block spells. Floating Disk doesn’t, Tiny Hut only does because it says so, Mage Armor doesn’t, Shield doesn’t, Force Cage only does because it says so...
only two of seven layers of Prismatic Wall blocks spells, and only because they say they do, and it’s about as much a real“Wall” as Wall of Force is? I just think you’re reading too many additional benefits to “force” that you wouldn’t also provide to other magical walls made of wind, fire, light, etc.
You have a liberal view of the spell, and many of us consider it to block all forms of magic like any other wall. For us, the term “physically” for us doesn’t encompass a certain type of attack in DnD - it means nothing can pass through it, not spell attacks either. It is considered much like a wall of stone, total cover.
I don’t necessarily think either is wrong. Your view empowers spellcasters - 10 minutes of cantrips is enough to kill almost any non-casting bad guy. I just find that far too loose to allow in my games.
Wall of Force is the same. It describes a small set of things it functions as a wall for: physical things. For everything else? Vision, spells? It’s not a wall, just force in the shape of a wall.
This is the part where you're most significantly incorrect. It's been pointed out to you, but you're refusing to engage with the distinction. The spell unequivocally does not say that "physical things cannot pass through it." It says that no thing can physically pass through it. If whatever you're trying to do involves any kind of physical transfer, Wall of Force blocks it. That's the definition of cover (at least, half and three-quarters, as I'm about to explain). The only thing to suggest a Wall of Force wouldn't provide full cover is that, in contrast to half and three-quarters cover, which use words like "block" or "cover," which are about physical obstruction, the description of full cover uses the word "conceal," which is about vision. I think this is an oversight, and full cover should apply to any full-body physical obstruction, just as half and three-quarters, but I know you like to get nitpicky about precise language, so I thought I'd bring it up. If you want to adhere to a strict reading of the text and maintain that a waist-high invisible adamantine wall provides half cover but that a full-height invisible adamantine wall provides only three-quarters cover, despite there being no conceivable way for anything to physically pass through it because it doesn't conceal anything, I will not argue with you. It's dumb and pedantic, but it's technically correct.
But, that does bring us to my next point, whereupon I express that a similarly attentive reading of the spell indicates it does, in fact, conceal things as well. I sequestered it into a parenthetical before, but I'll make a bigger point out of it and say that at my table, I take the line that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" literally. Light can't pass through it either. It's invisible, which means it doesn't reflect light, but nothing can physically pass through it, so it doesn't transmit light either; the only way to resolve that is to say that what you see when you look at it is absolute darkness, but because I find that kind of boring, I toss the invisible part and describe it as shimmering prismatic light. I expect this isn't RAI, but it is RAW, and I think it's cool, so it's what I do.
The spell neither says that something is traveling from you to the target area, like fireball does for example, nor does it highlight that all you need is a line of sight (like misty step does). So i would say this one is up to the individual DM.
Another option would be if Wall of Force would mention Full Cover, which it doesn‘t. So again i would say DM call.
I hear you that no thing can pass physically. In what way is selecting a point of origin for a spell a thing passing physically through the wall? Where is magic described as being generally physical?
By default, no thing can pass through a wall. If I instead say “no thing can pass PHYSICALLY through this wall,” I’m probably telling you something new... but it isn’t that physical movement through the wall is impossible (that was already true of all walls). It’s that things CAN pass through NOT physically. I mean, or it’s poor editing, and it’s a normal wall... but given that most other wall spells aren’t, except for the one made of stone, I’d say that it’s weird to read wall of force in a way that disregards that every other wall tells you what it DOES block, to help define what it doesn’t.
wall of force blocks things that would need to pass through physically, but not anything else. That’s magic, my dude. That’s light. That’s smells, and sounds, and temperatures, and auras of fear. All the things that a regular wall would presumably block with Total Cover, wall of force is telling you “I don’t block that, if it’s not physical.”
you cannot tell me that “Wind Wall blocks gas” tells you it doesn’t block magic, but “Wall of Force blocks physical” DOES tell you it blocks magic. You are changing your measuring stick if you read one one way and one the other. (most ) Magic isn’t gas, just like (most) magic isn’t physical.
And invisible force is not invisible adamantium, or any other substance. It’s “force,” not physical matter of or like any substance you offer. ... Im really not quite sure what you’re trying to say about half/three quarter/total cover... I don’t think wall of force provides any less than total cover against physical objects/things passing through physically, just because you can see through it? I’m just saying, it provides NO cover against things that are not physical. Vision, sound, (no physical) magic, odors, temperature, fear... it’s like the wall ain’t even there for all of that, it passes straight through.
Why does it have to? It clearly meets the criteria for cover, therefore it does. The spell doesn't have to point out the obvious consequences of its physical solidity any more than an adventure has to remind you that walls and doors provide cover. Whether things like light, sound, or energy can pass through a solid obstacle is irrelevant to its function as cover.
I hear you that no thing can pass physically. In what way is selecting a point of origin for a spell a thing passing physically through the wall? Where is magic described as being generally physical?
Total cover blocks spells. Total cover is a physical obstruction. Therefore physical obstructions block spells. Q.E.D.
Note that I didn't have to prove that magic is a physical phenomenon (however you choose to define that) for that last part to be true. Light isn't considered to be matter but it can still be blocked by a solid object.
Why does it have to? It clearly meets the criteria for cover, therefore it does. The spell doesn't have to point out the obvious consequences of its physical solidity any more than an adventure has to remind you that walls and doors provide cover. Whether things like light, sound, or energy can pass through a solid obstacle is irrelevant to its function as cover.
I hear you that no thing can pass physically. In what way is selecting a point of origin for a spell a thing passing physically through the wall? Where is magic described as being generally physical?
Total cover blocks spells. Total cover is a physical obstruction. Therefore physical obstructions block spells. Q.E.D.
Note that I didn't have to prove that magic is a physical phenomenon (however you choose to define that) for that last part to be true. Light isn't considered to be matter but it can still be blocked by a solid object.
It needs to clearly say one way or another if you want to avoid misunderstanding/discussion.
We are talking magic here, magic where already exceptions to your rule exist ( misty step for example). So if you want to exclude a spell, you need to be clear.
This spell was used by one of my PC's in my last session. He used it well to trap a dragon allowing them to grab the artifact they were there for and flee. To me, the spell seems pretty powerful mostly because of the lack of any sort of save and the ability to completely trap a creature in a sphere. I was wondering if any other players or especially DM's have had problems with it and what people's opinions on it are. Is it over powered, or is it just situationally useful?
The spell is concentration and only lasts 10 minutes...so at best they have delayed the encounter til the dragon is freed and pursues, and since it’s most likely faster than the party it will probably catch them fairly quickly.
one person casts wall of force another sickening radiance.
they both last 10 min so thats like 100 con saves. they only need to fail 6 to die outright.
A dragon's territory/hunting grounds extend for miles from its lair. They have merely delayed the inevitable.
Hold action: "I will hold my action to cast wall of Force when my friend finishes casting sickening radiance"
So sickening goes up then immediately after the wall.
The ol microwave trick
Truly, one of the most overpowered combos possible.
Of course, most spellcasters can escape it with teleportation or dispel magic.
Teleport yeah....dispel magic would end the radiance but not the wall I believe.
It's really good for most enemy types though as teleport/counterspell is fairly rare in most enemy types.
Wall of Force gets crazy good with these combos tho so that's cool
I mean, no dragon worth its salt would come up against two level 10+ Wizards without its own tricks as well. This is why DMing is fun, especially when the PCs think they have stumbled across a cheap trick.
My favourite is minions, lair attacks, focus fire, and dragon spellcasting. Nothing sucks more than readying a spell and losing concentration before you even cast it hahaha
Better yet, a well timed Counterspell on the Wall of Force and end two level 5 spells at once 🙂
Why?
The Wall of Force only blocks "physical" objects, and so provides Total Cover vs. physical creatures/objects/weapons... but you can see through it, and doesn't indicate that it blocks spells (and especially not spells that aren't trying to fling something through the wall). I'm aware that spells need a clear path to their target (including a target point of origin), but the Wall doesn't have any language which suggests it creates an obstacle for vision or non-physical magic?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The spell doesn't say it only blocks physical objects; it says nothing can physically pass through it. That's no different from any other source of total cover, and total cover blocks spells.
How?
If the PC created a wall then the dragon could just fly over it.
Did they create a sphere around the dragon while it was flying? If so, taking a combatant out of the fight for 10 minutes is a great use of a 5th level spell slot.
Where does it say it provides Total Cover?
Would you rule that a Wind Wall provides Total Cover, including against Spells? If not for Wind Wall, why yes for Wall of Force?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Because Wall of Force says "nothing can physically pass through the wall" and Wind Wall says nothing even remotely similar? The only difference between a Wall of Force and a 1/4-inch thick wall of adamantine is you can see through the Wall of Force (presumably; a very strict reading of the text would indicate that light can't pass through it either, so it *should* block vision, even if the wall itself is invisible).
Wall of Force does not say "nothing except spell effects can physically pass through the wall," so spell effects can't physically pass through the wall.
A “wall” (a brick wall, whatever) blocks everything. Sight, gasses, physical objects, magic, etc. And they provide total cover; we know that from the total cover section. I dispute none of that.
But not every magical wall is a wall in the fullest sense, you just agreed as much re: Wind Wall. Wind Wall describes the small set of things that it does function as a wall for (things it blocks): gasses. For everything else? vision, spells, physical objects? It’s not a wall, just wind in the shape of a wall.
Wall of Force is the same. It describes a small set of things it functions as a wall for: physical things. For everything else? Vision, spells? It’s not a wall, just force in the shape of a wall.
If it was just “a wall of force,” there’d be no need to describe blocking physical objects. Just like Wall of Stone doesn’t need to do so... it’s a Wall. It blocks everything walls do, because it doesn’t describe a limited set of things it blocks.
there’s nothing about “invisible force,” shaped like a wall or otherwise, which plainly should provide cover from or block spells. Floating Disk doesn’t, Tiny Hut only does because it says so, Mage Armor doesn’t, Shield doesn’t, Force Cage only does because it says so...
only two of seven layers of Prismatic Wall blocks spells, and only because they say they do, and it’s about as much a real“Wall” as Wall of Force is? I just think you’re reading too many additional benefits to “force” that you wouldn’t also provide to other magical walls made of wind, fire, light, etc.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You have a liberal view of the spell, and many of us consider it to block all forms of magic like any other wall. For us, the term “physically” for us doesn’t encompass a certain type of attack in DnD - it means nothing can pass through it, not spell attacks either. It is considered much like a wall of stone, total cover.
I don’t necessarily think either is wrong. Your view empowers spellcasters - 10 minutes of cantrips is enough to kill almost any non-casting bad guy. I just find that far too loose to allow in my games.
This is the part where you're most significantly incorrect. It's been pointed out to you, but you're refusing to engage with the distinction. The spell unequivocally does not say that "physical things cannot pass through it." It says that no thing can physically pass through it. If whatever you're trying to do involves any kind of physical transfer, Wall of Force blocks it. That's the definition of cover (at least, half and three-quarters, as I'm about to explain). The only thing to suggest a Wall of Force wouldn't provide full cover is that, in contrast to half and three-quarters cover, which use words like "block" or "cover," which are about physical obstruction, the description of full cover uses the word "conceal," which is about vision. I think this is an oversight, and full cover should apply to any full-body physical obstruction, just as half and three-quarters, but I know you like to get nitpicky about precise language, so I thought I'd bring it up. If you want to adhere to a strict reading of the text and maintain that a waist-high invisible adamantine wall provides half cover but that a full-height invisible adamantine wall provides only three-quarters cover, despite there being no conceivable way for anything to physically pass through it because it doesn't conceal anything, I will not argue with you. It's dumb and pedantic, but it's technically correct.
But, that does bring us to my next point, whereupon I express that a similarly attentive reading of the spell indicates it does, in fact, conceal things as well. I sequestered it into a parenthetical before, but I'll make a bigger point out of it and say that at my table, I take the line that "nothing can physically pass through the wall" literally. Light can't pass through it either. It's invisible, which means it doesn't reflect light, but nothing can physically pass through it, so it doesn't transmit light either; the only way to resolve that is to say that what you see when you look at it is absolute darkness, but because I find that kind of boring, I toss the invisible part and describe it as shimmering prismatic light. I expect this isn't RAI, but it is RAW, and I think it's cool, so it's what I do.
sickening radiance
The spell neither says that something is traveling from you to the target area, like fireball does for example, nor does it highlight that all you need is a line of sight (like misty step does). So i would say this one is up to the individual DM.
Another option would be if Wall of Force would mention Full Cover, which it doesn‘t. So again i would say DM call.
I hear you that no thing can pass physically. In what way is selecting a point of origin for a spell a thing passing physically through the wall? Where is magic described as being generally physical?
By default, no thing can pass through a wall. If I instead say “no thing can pass PHYSICALLY through this wall,” I’m probably telling you something new... but it isn’t that physical movement through the wall is impossible (that was already true of all walls). It’s that things CAN pass through NOT physically. I mean, or it’s poor editing, and it’s a normal wall... but given that most other wall spells aren’t, except for the one made of stone, I’d say that it’s weird to read wall of force in a way that disregards that every other wall tells you what it DOES block, to help define what it doesn’t.
wall of force blocks things that would need to pass through physically, but not anything else. That’s magic, my dude. That’s light. That’s smells, and sounds, and temperatures, and auras of fear. All the things that a regular wall would presumably block with Total Cover, wall of force is telling you “I don’t block that, if it’s not physical.”
you cannot tell me that “Wind Wall blocks gas” tells you it doesn’t block magic, but “Wall of Force blocks physical” DOES tell you it blocks magic. You are changing your measuring stick if you read one one way and one the other. (most ) Magic isn’t gas, just like (most) magic isn’t physical.
And invisible force is not invisible adamantium, or any other substance. It’s “force,” not physical matter of or like any substance you offer. ... Im really not quite sure what you’re trying to say about half/three quarter/total cover... I don’t think wall of force provides any less than total cover against physical objects/things passing through physically, just because you can see through it? I’m just saying, it provides NO cover against things that are not physical. Vision, sound, (no physical) magic, odors, temperature, fear... it’s like the wall ain’t even there for all of that, it passes straight through.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Why does it have to? It clearly meets the criteria for cover, therefore it does. The spell doesn't have to point out the obvious consequences of its physical solidity any more than an adventure has to remind you that walls and doors provide cover. Whether things like light, sound, or energy can pass through a solid obstacle is irrelevant to its function as cover.
Total cover blocks spells. Total cover is a physical obstruction. Therefore physical obstructions block spells. Q.E.D.
Note that I didn't have to prove that magic is a physical phenomenon (however you choose to define that) for that last part to be true. Light isn't considered to be matter but it can still be blocked by a solid object.
It needs to clearly say one way or another if you want to avoid misunderstanding/discussion.
We are talking magic here, magic where already exceptions to your rule exist ( misty step for example). So if you want to exclude a spell, you need to be clear.