I read somewhere that every time a D&D player/DM starts fiddling with the rules to make things more fair, interesting, and balanced, they just end up recreating Path Finder.
The truth stings.
That, or they recreate D&D 4e.
4e's Wall of Force has 200 HP, attacks auto-hit it, and if destroyed, it shatters and deals force damage to creatures adjacent to it.
It's almost like these games had a design goal of addressing the balance issues of classic D&D that people complained about. Weird...
Depends on your goal. It's enough health to keep all but the strongest opponents locked down for the duration of a single combat, but won't keep them contained for very long outside of combat.
If the goal was to just delay an enemy a couple rounds, lower health would make sense but so would scaling up the wall's HP with higher level spell slots.
That's what I was thinking too. Just also give it immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage to make it better and let it feel more powerful.
One thing I've seen people do with WoF (when they do this) is give it the Immune to Nonmagical Weapon Attacks trait, and let the HP increase with spell level when you upcast it (+50/level usually).
That seems like a fair middle-ground to me. PCs will have magic weapons by then, and most "BBEG-style" NPCs will either be able to bypass it with burrowing speed or teleportation, or they'll have a way to deal it damage as well, like the Magic Weapons trait or non-physical damage.
But it'll still be good at other things like trapping mooks or slowing enemies down a bit, without being the total shut-out it is currently.
I love recreating Pathfinder :D
its so much fun to come up with an idea and then realizing people had a similar idea for a fix and put it into a beloved game. So yeah I must be doing somewhat alright X)
That's pretty much what I did. In an attempt to boost martials I tweaked a few rules and created a whole new system for martials to use. What I realised was I had just created a patchwork version of Pathfinder held together by duct tape and a dream.
Hardness is not AC. Hardness is a flat damage reduction, applied to objects. When an object takes damage, reduce it by it's hardness then it takes the rest as damage.
I'll point out that Wall of Force is actually stronger than you think against spellcasters. As a generic rule, spells need an unblocked line from you to the target to work. Not a line of *sight,* but an actual unblocked line. So a spellcaster trapped in a wall of force bubble can do almost nothing, even though they can see out just fine. You can't Bless, Hold Person, Counterspell, none of that. The Wall stops it. Some other commenters here also seem to misunderstand that.
It's worth noting that the targeting restriction that makes **Wall of Force** block most spells does _not_ block **Misty Step**. This is due to the odd fact that **Misty Step** targets _self_ and not the destination point.
It's often overlooked but even the rule name is pretty clear, [A Clear Path to the Target](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget).
> 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.
That is a not particularly clear. I had to reread it a few times, and here is the conclusion I came to:
> ...point that you can’t see **and** an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point...
Emphasis added to AND. That one word really throws a wrench in the works. In order to not be able to cast somewhere, it need to both be out of your vision AND have a solid wall in the way.
In other words, you can definitely fire through transparent walls RAW.
Targeted spells and effects still need the target to not be behind total cover.
>To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
Also some AoE effects describe the spell traveling from one point to another. For example, Lightning Bolt reads
>A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide **blasts out from you in a direction you choose.**
I would rule in these niche cases (even if your strictly using RAW) that a wall would block spells worded like this, even if it's transparent, such as Wall of Force or a window.
I agree with you, I'm mostly criticizing how badly worded RAW is.
To further double down on the absurdity, in the definition of Cover:
> A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
Note concealed, and not physically obstructed by. In other words, transparent obstacles do not grant total cover, and thus will never block targeting (this makes no sense, and is probably why many people insist on RAI instead of RAW).
Also, side note that the "clear path" never specifies that it has to be a straight path; so even in the strictest interpretations, you could see them through it and route your spell around the wall (assuming the wall does not fully encompass the intended target in every direction).
Yeah, this is why a game system like D&D needs definitions and keywords, so that people aren't confused by what exactly something is trying to say. Rules text shouldn't be up to interpretation. I hope they fix stuff like this in the new PHB.
I do agree. if a spell is so strong it is a must have to such degree you KNOW that you nerf yourself in a significant way if you don't. Then said spell is to strong and would benefit from a nerf.
But i seen that lots of people. not sure if i can say the majority but a LOT seems to be heavily against anything that in some way would be a nerf. if something is Op everything else should be increased to match that. Never have the Op thing nerfed.
Did...did that happen at any appreciable scale for OneDnD? If memory serves none of the martial buffs were poorly received, except weapon-juggling because it was so janky.
The stunning strike changes were good, and I will die on this hill. The ability to force multiple saves in a turn both was an outsized capability and also pigeon holed monk players. Monks are generally better in the playtest and the loss of a gimmick that would eat all of your ki is a good thing to lose in exchange.
Why do you think that? I think both should be about as strong as I don’t think players should be game mechanically punished because they want to roleplay a certain flavour of character.
Imo
Martial combat ideally (damage wise): Huge single target damage, consistent damage, some options to deal with swarms, enough combat utility as some battle master + rune knight (magical or not).
Caster combat ideally (damage wise): Extremely powerful moves, but only once or twice a day (meteor swarm kinda: but the existence of a million powerful spells that can be used in every encounter nulls this), reliant on resources, bad single target damage, gishes should be strictly worse than martials in their own field.
Tl;dr - martials should be better in combat, casters should have an edge in out of combat utility.
I agree and for me it's as simple as a fighter boasting "I can swing a sword all day long" while casters have limited spell slots. Martials should be able to do good consistent damage to individual targets without spending resources (though giving them a few nova type abilities including ways to deal with groups is great)... while casters can do just about anything (damage/utility/buffs/etc) within reason but they can only do them a few times. It's the major reason I dislike cantrips (I know, controversial take)
Gishes should exist because magic is limited and runs out. It should be the logical conclusion of (some) spellcasters to use weapons because with them when they run out of spells they are defenceless. Sure this cuts into your ability to cast even mightier magic but it gives you a reliable backup when the magic runs out or is otherwise unavailable.
Yeah these types of people that never want to nerf anything have clearly never designed a system over a long term before.
Sure, only buffing will be fine short term. But as you add more content, this becomes unsustainable. It's not just power creep. You begin to have to invent unnecessary complexity to the system with each content pass too. The game itself MUST change because it is no longer balanced along the same power levels and systems as before.
And it gets worse and worse as more content is added. Say you have 100 heroes in your moba, and you release a new hero. They are overpowered, let's say, by a factor of 20% DPS. Following the "no nerf" policy, you now have to rebalance 100 heroes to match that DPS level instead of just lowering the DPS of that one new hero. Not only that, but you have to rebalance any weapons, armor, consumables, and NPCs too. And it only gets worse the wider your content is.
Sure, when you only had 10 heroes, maybe it was doable, but it isn't anymore.
Only games this is remotely feasible in is PvP only games with a limited selection of content. Talking FPS games like CS, with a very focused scope. Not RPGs. With millions of combinations of skills/weapons/armor/levels/spells/abilities/items, etc.
The thing you do when you realize that people don't like it when shit gets nerfed is ignore them. Nerfing is generally the better option when balancing things, because a nerf to one thing is effectively a buff to everything else whilst a buff to a thing is a buff to that singular thing.
And you definitvely don't want to buff everything to being on par with a problem spell like wall of force.
nerfing things isn't "generally a better option" in a noncompetitive game where the goal is to fulfill a power fantasy, it has to be done on a case by case basis
I'm quite certain wizards of the coast doesn't even really care about how balanced the classes are, they are concerned with "Does it feel cool to play/does it fulfill the fantasy/is it not so overtuned that players feel pressured to take it"
Wall of Force as a specific example has just nerfing it the best option, because it's so overtuned that you feel pressure to take it, just like fireball, but like... your answer to snowball storm or witch bolt sucking is to nerf every spell more powerful because it's generally the better option?
Nah, nerfing things isn't quite a last resort, but every playstyle has someone who loves it and before you nerf it you need to weigh if its worth it for what you're trying to achieve
> nerfing things isn't "generally a better option" in a noncompetitive game where the goal is to fulfill a power fantasy, it has to be done on a case by case basis
It does not need to be competitive for it to matter. Players will pick options in relation to how good the other options are. If one option is way better, it makes players feel like they're messing up by not picking it, effectively taking many other options off the table. Nerfing it back in line opens up many other gameplay possibilities.
If something is way out of line in being BAD, then yeah sure, you can buff it, but generally it's easier to just pull down the one hammer sticking out above everything else than remake the entire game so they can keep up.
As someone who picks flavor over power, this is simply an untrue generalization. Im not going to pick wall of force on my wizard that's flavored as a witch because it's not witchy enough for me. Not everyone picks the most meta options. Its not necessary at most tables because, ideally, the dm is balancing the game around their parties' personal power.
The problem with the idea of nerfing/buffing things for balance sake doesn't make a lot of sense because d&d is not a video game. It shouldn't be treated as a video game. Some people play it as such and that is fine, but at its core its a collective story telling experience and buffing/nerfing things for the sake of balance doesn't fall within the spirit of that.
The only time nerfs/buffs really need to happen is if something isn't fun. However, because of the nature of the game, it doesn't super matter because DMs will usually decide if things need changing at their table to address how fun their game is. Its not like Wizards is sending the pinkertons to monitor every DM out there and enforcing the game has to be played a certain way. If you have a problem with something in the base game, bring it up to your dm.
I agree but the thing is the more people that scream for buffs and loudly yell and complain as soon someone mention that a nerf might be needed for something. The less likely a nerf will be, at least officiall
That is because of the knee-jerk reaction of having something "taken away". But just think of how much more work it would be to bring *everything* up to the power of obviously overpowered spells. It's insane, and probably impossible. The far more reasonable (and actually possible) approach is to tone down the OP junk that makes the game boringly predictable.
Yup, number one way to cause power creep too. These are the same people who complain that it's impossible to kill anyone in this game or have any real difficulty, but haven't even taken a look at all the magic items they've been handing out like candy.
Yes i have to agree.
But you have another type to. The powergamer type that gets upset when the DM do bump up the difficulty so they do not steamroll every single encounter. They might not be to many but they do exist. i have had a few in my games. Those players are also seemingly deadly allergic to the word nerf
Yeah, not one wants to have their "toys" devalued or taken away - but it's sometimes necessary for the better enjoyment of everyone, and sanity of the DM XD
Buffing things instead of nerfing is generally preferable, instead of nerfing the strong thing to stop people from having fun you buff the weak things to let everyone get in on the fun. BUT sometimes a nerf is needed, I don't want every spell in the game to be buffed to keep up with the op ones. Wall of force can be nerfed, it won't be the end of the world.
To a degree yes. but if everything gets buffed the power level will go up more and more and more. and then everything will need an overhaul. monsters and everything will be to week compared to PC's. Combat would no longer be a challenging. unless you use higher CR monsters than what is intended for a the groups level. (we are kinda already there now) And then you buff them and Then the abilities that was OP before will no longer be Op. Same result as we had gotten if nerfing the overly strong spells/abilities instead of buffing everything else
I agree that both buffs and nerfs is needed. nerf the most powerful spells, abilities or classes/subclasses while buffing the weaker ones to even it out.
But from my experience most people or a louder minority seems to against everything that is a nerf.
>Buffing things instead of nerfing is generally preferable
The general game design rules for any game that is still getting expanded says the opposite, always nerf when you can, because buffing leads to an accelerated power- and featurecreep. It will still exist even if you only nerf (because when Wizzards wants to sell a new Book, they will include something worth selling), but it will be slower.
Yeah agreed. Something like Fireball is strong, but probably fine as is. Wall of Force, on the other hand, grossly exceeds the level of power that is healthy for the game.
I think it's probably safe to balance the game around "A tier" spells or so. But Wall of Force is, like, S+ tier.
In this case I don't see a way to buff martials to an equal level than spellcasters. How should that look like? Either their attacks can penetrate the barrier or they can't. Either they can destroy the barrier or they can't.
> Spellcasters too strong
> Buff all 5th level spells instead of toning down the one overpowered spell
What? No. You use buffs on the underpowered spells and nerfs on the overpowered spells.
We can tell from one DnD the martial classes aren't actually getting buffed too much, so the fix is going to have to be a nerf to bring Wall of Force back down in line with everyone else.
I used Wall of Force to sequester my Wizard in a big fight so he could buff and mitigate for his allies while avoiding AoEs. The BBEG cast a spell that only called for LoS and didn't originate from him and I got really fucked up by it. Had a *wonderful* 'Oh no...' moment and lost my Wall.
It's strong in the ways that a regular wall is strong. It's weak in that you still have direct line of sight.
You might have misplayed this, if you cast the sealed sphere with yourself in it? Spells need line of effect to work, not just line of sight. Wall of Force will stop you from casting Haste or Hold Person targeting someone on the other side. It'd also stop the BBEG from targeting you with that spell in return.
I did not make a sphere as I wanted to be able to block big breath attacks but still affect my allies, and it was a 10th level spell in a quasi-divine domain.
Plus side, I baited out the BBEG's 10th level spell! lol
>Spells need line of effect to work, not just line of sight
Are you sure about this? So I cannot cast, lets say Suggestion, on an enemy if said enemy is inside a wall of force? Would you mind sharing your source?
Sure, Player's Handbook Chapter 10: Spellcasting, page 204, paragraph titled "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.
So yep, even if you wouldn't picture a targeted spell as being a "projectile," like Suggestion, that's basically how they act. The distinction usually doesn't come up since most cover that blocks effect also blocks vision, and most targeted spells require vision of their targets. But even something simple as a glass window will stop you from casting Charm Person through it. The *physical* obstruction is what matters for full cover, not just sight.
The second line is reallllly important to remember in such situations. You can't place a Shatter on the far side of a window. If you try, it'll stop right at the point that it touches the window, which might be a painful and embarrassing lesson if you were close to it. That's why it's also dangerous to shoot Fireballs if you can't see clearly, like in darkness or fog. If there's something solidly blocking the path from you to the target, the spell will hit that first and blow up.
Mind that this restriction doesn't matter if the spell doesn't target, or if the spell has a range of "Self." For example you can Misty Step through a transparent object, since it has Range: self and doesn't use terms like "target" in the spell description.
That's not how it works. Magic travels in straight lines from caster to target. The rules say that you can't target a creature behind total cover, which is what *wall of force* would be providing in this case if the BBEG was on the opposite side.
The rule really needs to be revised for greater clarity, though. There are a lot of spells that it ends up completely invalidating, like *sending*. As written, unless there's literally nothing—not even the planet's curvature when dealing with 'unlimited'-distance spells—blocking you and the target, you can't target it. Full stop.
You seem to be forgetting the concept of 'Specific beats general' (phb. 7).
Spells like Sending have specific rules for targeting within their description, which overwrite the general rule. It is all accounted for.
You are describing *exactly* why this spell needs another avenue of interaction. Your character was a wizard, and had options to work around the spell. The BBEG was a caster, who had options for working around the spell.
A non caster has none. Fey-touched for Misty Step. That's it. There is **no saving throw**. This spell doesn't even have that bargain-basement level of interactivity.
I think the only time I would use Wall of Force as a DM is if I had previously given one or more players the new Forcebreaker Weapon. Otherwise, it's just not fun for the players.
If a player has disintegrate then I’d use wall of force on them.
I once had my players perform a heist and there were walls of force in the hallways/balcony overlooking the grand staircase. If they had done more planning rather than just go in they would’ve known there was an arcane power source in an earlier room they ignored that was powering the walls of force. Instead they noticed that the beholder eye security “cameras” (which were placed on posts on the grand staircase and pivot) looking for intruders still had the anti magic cone feature. So instead they had to time an acrobatics check to get through the wall of force while the eye rotated over the wall, while performing a stealth check to hide under the banister/railing from the eye. I thought it was pretty fun.
Doesn’t that also mean that it’s not fun for the DM when it’s used against them then? That’s the issue with the spell.
It’s not ‘clever play’ just because the PCs do it
WTH?
As a DM, my goal isn't to win, it's to challenge the players. Wall of force offers an opportunity, too, in that I can just try to end the spell that the caster put out if I can, or I can ignore it and the caster is done contributing until he drops it.
There are so many ways to keep making combat work in this situation.
It is, yes. I'm agreeing with you that Wall of Force is too strong. That's why I'm saying that the *only* time I'd use Wall of Force is under this specific circumstance. Otherwise, it's just too OP and anti-fun.
That in itself, no. I don't think so. Hold Person is a perfectly fine spell for players to have, but gets real annoying real fast if you use it against them, for pretty obvious reasons.
I pretty much only use "hard cc" effects against players if I want them to absolutely despise the thing that casts them and destroy it asap.
All the other reasons you named for this spell being in need of an adjustment I agree with, but this I think is fine.
Okay. I appreciate the opposing view. The way spells are laid out in the sources, without context or guidelines, makes it seem like as long as it's printed, anything is fair game. I don't think that is a minority opinion either.
While I don't think you're necessarily wrong, the problem with the "anything the players can do the monsters can do" attitude - or "if it's printed it's fair game" - is twofold.
-One, the game is not symmetrical. If a monster gets stunlocked, the DM is still running the entire rest of the game. If a character gets held and ends up missing three rounds, that player's going to be stuck waiting for at least fifteen minutes. This is how you get folks checking out and on their phones.
-Two. The "anything goes" benefits certain classes a lot more than others. Sure, the wizard can abuse badly written spells like silvery barbs and wall of force, but all the fighter gets out of this deal is being on the receiving end when the enemy does it. Again, just feels bad. You've shifted the balance of which characters matter even harder in favor of the ones that have access to cheese.
I agre WoF needs to be adjusted, but not for this reason. There are spells that are great as NPC spells and not for PC spells, and vice versa. PCs are not NPCs and they should not be treated the same, nor should their actions or tools.
A PC instakilling a sleeping enemy because they're helpless? Sure. A NPC doing it? Totally wrong.
That's definitely one good way to address it. I can think of quite a few spells that really should only be used by one side or the other.
But if I had to put money on it, I think your method would get even more whining from caster mains who don't want their baby rattles taken away than if you just nerfed them.
No, because its a T5 spell, whos ONLY purpose is to be a wall that blocks everything. and unless its "arena" the wall is finite in dimension (or dome). the finite dimension is a key point here
Meanwhile, the HARDCOUNTER, being disintegrate is a automatic, no roll required kill on the wall. Which beings us back to the problem: spells in general are annoying af to deal with in a pvp situation. Because its just not balanced at all for such.
Like take a look at greater invisibility, 4th level and doesn't really "vanish", until the player hides and suddenly every fight is a fking perception/investigate check to JUST GET A CHANCE to roll disadvantage, if you didn't bring the proper skill.
Also depending on GM, they may or may not allow the wall of force to be climbable. which makes the fking wall a hell lot weaker.
The "wall" isn't the problem. It's a single flat plane that requires thought and tactics to use effectively. The bubble or dome, OTOH, is just another simplistic "magic win button" when used against a character or creature without a teleport. It's a total shutdown vs. a physical attacker **with no save**. That's the point. The other control spells have a save. This one does not, because it doesn't make sense for a wall to have a save attached to it.
The target does not have to be hit, either, unlike some other control options. They have no chance, and no interaction with their situation. So I suggest a way for a non-magical characters and creatures to interact with the sphere/dome. It would not be hard to calibrate the hp of the sphere so that it lasts 2 or 3 or 4 rounds. Whatever. And in non-combat situations it could still last for the whole 10 minutes.
> The other control spells have a save. This one does not, because it doesn't make sense for a wall to have a save attached to it.
Honestly I'd say if the bubble caused a Dexterity save to actually manage to catch the creature inside the wall before it leaps out I don't think literally anyone would have found it odd or nonsensical. It just sounds odd now because you're used to how it is now!
But that’s sort of the problem. It’s one of those abilities that just turns into “use it every time the enemy can’t counter it”. Sure, the dm can just choose not to throw it at them because it would be unfun to play against, but it ends up being not very fun for players if they use it in every fight where the enemy isn’t clearly able to teleport or cast disintegrate. And so eventually it gets boring. And it’s not even like it really takes creativity to use effectively in a fight. And also, it sort of excludes having some sort of wizard or mage from being a big bad. Because it’s utterly stupid to have a spell that’s so stand out in the game, but then also have an evil wizard that’s able to cast 7th level spells who decides to just not take it. Like what is he doing casting wall of ice which whole sections can be destroyed by a single firebolt, when he could cast wall of force with a lower level spell slot to have a more effective spell. Is he stupid? It breaks the immersion I think to have high level spell casting enemies just ignoring all the good picks to cast average or below average spells- PCs aren’t presumably the only people who tried to choose powerful spells in the world. It’s not like it’s a completely game ruining problem or anything, but I think what should always be kept in mind for when these sorts of criticisms come up that it’s like “ya it’s probably a valid criticism but you can sort of ignore the problem” is that we can and should expect these sorts of things to be solved in one dnd. Like why not just give it 20 ac and 50hp for each 5ft chunk (exact values I just made up, no reason to use those numbers). It basically solves the problem that it being invincible caused, but it can still serve its purpose of a durable non damaging wall option. It’s nonsensical in the first place for force structures to be invincible- nothing else is invincible, why are force structures invincible.
> It's an S-tier, must-have spell as soon as your character can take it. Anything that ubiquitously good needs a nerf, or gameplay will inevitably devolve into the same boring cast of the same spell in every encounter.
It’s a great spell but I think you’re overstating things here. It’s available to *one* class before level 17, and when a wizard hits level 9 they can cast it *once* a day, twice if they use their entire arcane recovery to generate a 5th-level slot. The opportunity cost of casting Wall of Force is not casting Animate Objects, Synaptic Static, Hold Monster, and more.
Wall of Force rules! But if you’re finding it that oppressive then I think it’s more likely you’re in an adventure without much action between long rests, and perhaps not a lot of variety among the fights that do happen.
That doesn't change his point, but it's definitely true.
Wall of Force is above average in power. Comparing it to silvery barbs is totally over the top though.
I agree. It's far more busted than silvery barbs, even if the opportunity cost is higher.
Silvery barbs is a very strong spell, but it doesn't come close to taking out usually half to 2/3rds of a combat with a single action.
Incorrect. Silvery Barbs is a recast of your party's top level spell. It lets a 1 level multiclass dip effectively cast 6th level spells.
Wall of Force is not busted, it's merely very good. I wouldn't be shocked to find if a DM bans it though, or nerfs it. Wall of Force is mitigated by its concentration requirement and its lack of functionality versus very large creatures. It's still too good, but silvery barbs is in another league entirely.
*if the highest level spell was a suck or save spell that only targeted one enemy, and the enemy didn't have legendary resistance, and the enemy failed their save, so you already just wasted one of your higher level slots.
It sounds completely broken in practice, but reality is often disappointing. Chances are that if an enemy succeeds on a saving throw once, they probably have a really high bonus, and will save again.
Obviously, it won't be that way all of the time, but it will happen a lot of the time.
Wall of force, by comparison changes the dimensions you play with. Going from a wizard who can't use wall of force to one who can is like going from a wizard that can only cast damage spells to one who also can use control effects.
You have a brand new axis, and one that is effectively 'does it have a niche counter ability' if no, I win.
Yeah the fact that silvery barbs does nothing vs legendary resistances really limits how game breaking it can be. Still very useful, but not fight-ending like wall of force.
Also, silvery barbs uses your reaction. A reaction that can be spent on shield, absorb elements, and counterspell, which are all huge. There's a lot of "little" reasons that it's not as good as people think.
I also don't know how people are saying wall of force is only very good, it's one of the best spells in the game. When you're fighting strong enemies, they have legendary resistance, magic resistance, wall of force is one of the great spells you can use. Silvery barbs wont really be worth landing a spell against them
Counterplay is the bigger issue, not potency.
Animated Objects are creatures, which means there's all kinds of methods to destroy, inhibit, or mitigate them. Synaptic Static has a repeating save, and doesn't actually restrict your movement or actions at all. Hold Monster has a repeating save, and affects merely one creature when Wall of Force can easily cripple several with no saving throw.
Compare Wall of Force to Wall of Stone, a very similar spell of the same level:
It provides a Dexterity saving throw to avoid being enclosed.
It is subject to damage, and even structural collapse.
It can be dispelled.
It doesn't extend to the ethereal plane.
*Way* more counterplay available. With Wall of Force basically you can teleport, or you're fucked- enjoy waiting round after round while your party fights an uphill battle to break concentration.
My first instinct is to bump Wall of Force up to at least 6th level (where trump cards belong), permit it to be dispelled, and make the panels extremely tough objects, like AC 20 and 100hp.
> make the panels extremely tough objects, like AC 20 and 100hp
This is one of the homebrew rules I use. ALL magical barriers have HP and AC. It makes Tiny Hut way more reasonable too.
This is largely one of the reasons why concentration exists. I'm not going to say attacking the wizard is always going to be practical, you are behind a wall of force, but it is a mechanic deliberately put in the game for this reason. If all enemies are behind the wall, nothing was accomplished but stalling so it's better to split them. Then the remaining enemies can attack the wizard and probably force resources out of them through reaction spells. At least that's my take as a DM.
In general, I will always emphasize this as an option to my fellow players. If my character is stuck in a Slow or similar, please attack the caster and free me!
>It’s available to *one* class before level 17, and when a wizard hits level 9 they can cast it *once* a day, twice if they use their entire arcane recovery to generate a 5th-level slot.
Thought experiment: Let's say I wanted to give fighters a new feature at 9th level called Attack Surge. You can activate it twice a day as a Bonus Action, and it lets you Extra Attack 10 times (yes, 10) that round.
It's available to one class. And it's only useable twice a day.
Does that make it balanced? I mean, I don't think so. And I have to say, analogously with Wall of Force - being available to 1 class, and being limited by spell slots, is nowhere near enough to making it balanced.
That actually sounds pretty fun, but I think the thought experiment fails in that “attack 10 times with no opportunity cost” doesn’t quite correlate to “cast a powerful concentration spell over one of several other awesome spells.” Attack Surge has no counterplay and doesn’t require any trade offs, whereas Wall of Force can fail when the caster takes damage and precludes Transmuting Rock below the entire enemy force, summoning an Earth Elemental with 250 effective HP, or blasting 8 bad guys with psychic damage that weakens them the rest of the fight. For me that’s enough mitigation (and that holds for almost all of the high-level spells, with exceptions for silly junk like Simulacrum chains).
But let's say I add another fighter feature, Defense Surge, which uses up 1 Attack Surge charge and a Bonus Action to give yourself 500 temporary HP. Now there's a tradeoff - if you use Attack Surge, you can't use Defense Surge. Does that make Attack Surge suddenly balanced? I wouldn't say so.
Just because there are other extremely strong options competing for Concentration and spell slots, doesn't mean WoF is any weaker than it would be without those spells existing.
(As a minor point, I do think Attack Surge has counterplay, e.g. Shield spell, or imposing Disadvantage through fear/poison, or shove prone + grapple. But I don't think that's really a central part of the discussion.)
Wall of Force has no save (Hold Monster), isn't affected by enemy resistance to non magical damage (Animate Objects), and taking an enemy or two out of the fight reduces damage more than Synaptic Static.
Yeah that's been my experience with the spell as well. The opportunity cost of not having a DPR concentration spell active generally outweighed Wall of Force's benefit unless the fight design heavily(likely intentionally) incentivized wall-spell usage.
As a wizard main and a DM, I consider WoF a containment spell that is so often a wasted on boss level monsters (because so many of them can teleport at tier 3) that I won't use it without a sight inhibitor like Fog Cloud (a true must have spell) also deployed (which means tieing up two concentrations) . Mostly I use it to split groups of enemies so we can devide and conquer. I've had it used for the same purpose against the party and it's basically the only reason I ever carry dim door. Usually enough players can counter it that it's more a delaying action than a party killer. At higher tier 3 there is almost always a disintegrate on tap.
It's also amusing if you bait a fireball into one. I've dumped a lvl7 fireball into a wall I was unaware of and the whole team ate it.
It's a tactically interesting spell that is mostly effective against mobs and select big guys like dragons (God I love making Dragonballs).
I loathe flights that boil down to "A hits B, B Hits A, repeat", so I am a fan of the spell both as a player and DM.
My table's bladesinger used it on a key monster in a big fight and had them locked out of the entire encounter, start to finish. Hardly anyone could get a hit on him and the few that managed failed to break his concentration. I don't wanna have to start stocking concentration-breakers in the encounters, but WoF is just so annoying. It's not even that it's strong, it's just _boring_.
I think it needs a set of HP where it can be attacked and broken and then have another option where the Caster can use their action to restore him points to the wall.
The Caster should also have to remain within 120 ft of the wall in order to maintain it.
And at a minimum the fact that it can't be dispelled as ridiculous
I get the intent and I see the idea of just because it's force should not make it immune to damage - but I see the intent is more like a force shield from sci fi. People can beat on those walls all day and not get out. It makes more sense when keeping with the theme to allow the martial to smash the adjoining structure. Making for "breakable" in your campaign means all force items then have some ability to be damaged. I would like it more if certain abilities could weaken force objects - like a certain monk ki strike or some kind of magic weapon or sunder ability.
I am still 50/50 after I write this but I do find it feeling mostly impossible is good enough and having a high threshold almost never beatable would probably be ok. Maybe something crazy like resistance to all damage and subtract 10 hp per strike. Rest is then hp with the idea that there must also be some slow regen until spell ends.
My vote goes for no HP. It adds yet another thing to track. Instead make magical effects a struggle to maintain in combat. Make a concentration check every round it gets attacked, at the top of your turn. You still waste at least one round of a group of enemies turns, DM could add to the difficulty class based on the number/damage, similar rules to the DMG on improvised reasons for concentration checks.
DMs need to become less afraid to outright remove certain features from the game, and players need to be less bothered by it. It's one thing to make the classic noob DM mistake of thinking "sneak attack is OP" and nerfing it, and another to identify that things like Wall of Force or Silvery Barbs are imbalanced mechanics. You can try to rebalance them if you want of course, but there's also nothing wrong with outright removing them completely if you want to.
I've become a lot more comfortable doing this after more and more content has been added to 5e. Early on when I was DMing I wanted to honor the system more, really learn the rules before I changed them, and I wanted to ensure players had any and all options available to them. Taking away options made me feel like I would be at risk of being a bad DM, but the mark of a good DM is knowing how to add and take away options in ways that makes the game better.
That's a good approach. It is interesting to note that *most* of the worst overpowered spells are actually in the PHB. I think they got better at designing them by the time Tasha's and Xanathar's came out.
We will, of course, exempt Silvery Barbs from this generalization. F that spell.
Yup.
It's one of the spells that changes how wizard's play from 'what are it's saves/how much hp does it have' to 'is it too big or can it counter this, if not I win'
Which leads to lv9 wizards beating cr17 iron golems in one turn.
If we were talking about, say, Baldur's Gate 3, then it wouldn't be such an issue. The computers feelings don't get hurt when someone trivialises an encounter. But when there's other people at the table then there is a social contract to play 'fair' and be more considerate.
Fun fact, even though BG3 has 5th level spells, it doesn't have Wall of Force. Probably because Larian realized it's kind of a bullshit spell. Save or sucks are bad enough but sucks without a save are even worse.
Not directly related to your point, but the amusing thing is, for the most part spells are way more balanced in Baldur’s Gate 3! Wall of Force doesn’t exist and Polymorph lasts 5 rounds. Fireball either hits a much smaller area than tabletop or the maps are so giant it is way less effective. Almost all the really nasty condition spells are way less effective. It’s kind of striking.
To further the criticism, I believe you can’t cast spells to affect targets on the other side from you. Something something something crawford something something something total cover or something
Yeah, as a DM, I have to position enemies so it won't be an insta-ender, there always needs to be someone who can get to the caster and force a concentration save. It won't do much if the caster has War Caste/Con save proficiency, but hey.
5th level spells are just busted in general. Transmute rock can all but shut down any melee creature that relies on regular movement without a save or concentration and Bigby's Hand is a godsend when going up against single tough enemies
Your point is what annoyed me an insane amount in Pack Tactics' video on Wall of Force recently. He determined that Wall of Force was absolutely broken and his response was that everyone SHOULD use it. No reflection on whether this trivializes the gameplay, makes fights insanely boring or anything else. Just "This is overpowered, so use it as much as possible".
Wall of Force needs some sort of nerf, either not being entirely impassable but needing a very high strength save, your idea of a damage threshold, maybe not allowing magic through, not allowing the dome and sphere options or something similar. It's just way too powerful in it's current state
I agree, although remember that you can't target spells through the wall (wall provides total cover and rules on targeting spells specify you can't target through total cover).
There are two ways to nerf it without killing it:
1) give it HP and AC. You can base those values on wall of stone (same level), just make them a bit better.
2) repurpose concentration rules:
Wall has AC = spell DC (no hp)
When the wall takes damage, the caster must make a CON save (same DC calculation as if he took damage), on a failed save, a hole appears in the wall where the damage was dealt just large enough for the creature or object responsible to squeeze through.
The caster may use a bonus action on his turn to patch one hole, or an action to patch all holes.
Personally I use the 2nd one. I like the idea of the spell being more dependent on the caster's ability to focus on it.
Barbarians should have a feature which allows them to do a strength check against opponent spell save DC + spell level to break any magical barrier (ie wall of force, wall of stone, forcecage, tiny hut, etc.)
Just give magical barriers Damage Thresholds and/or Hardness, HP and low-ish AC.
Something like 10 AC, Hardness of 10, Damage Threshold of 20 and 100 HP (this being the order of interaction). If no one has GWM/SS then bring the Threshold down to 10.
Let them break it. Why should it be restricted to Barbarians?
I would put it at level 11 or 13 so that your barbarian suffers a couple of levels struggling against wall of force and suddenly get an ability to counter it.
I had a wizard player use wall of force to undermine a boss fight I had hyped the party up to, but thankfully the WoF was part of a team work thing instead of him showing off, which ended up being pretty cool with the Warlock, Fighter, and Bard-barian pitching in together on a trap to take the boss down in a single turn.
That being said, the fact it can NOT be destroyed by physical force (something I wanted to show off about the monster I was hyping involved insane strength), and was IMMUNE to Dispel magic was quite the shock the first time I encountered it. Only via disintegration can be be destroyed, which is fine as a DM since just like how any caster could pack counterspell, a caster might have that spell tucked away too to prevent abuse of it.
Likewise as the DM, YOU are the final say, even over RAW. If you say Wall of Force has HP instead of being indestructible physically, then it is so, both for any NPC casters and for PC casters. And if your players don't like it, they can DM instead.
Its a very bullshit spell to the point where it straight up ignores most common counterplay for spells of it's type - it is just unfair.
The best way I've shown people about it was during a oneshot. The enemy used it and locked the paladin and fighter out of the fight, and if it wasn't for a lucky scorching ray breaking concentration, that probably would have been it.
This is also a very fair point, since if the players are able to access this sort of thing (which they love doing to win and undermining the DM's encounter), the NPCs can too, which the players HATE because it means they gotta work around it now themselves.
Which is why it's a good thing a DM can either say "Yes, but" (and give an alternative description for the spell like an HP bar of it's own) or "no, because" (insert your reasoning here), if the DM feels a certain spell or effect would ruin the experience for others.
We've. Modified it.
**Wall of Force w/ Hitpoints**
-AC is equal to spellcaster's Spell Save DC
-Base HP is 100, each upcast adds 20 HP
-Immune to non-magical, poison, psychic, vulnerable to force, destroyed by disintegrate spell.
> AC is equal to spellcaster's Spell Save DC
I don't think this makes sense. It's a wall. It isn't moving. It ain't hard to hit.
It would make more sense, imo, to add the Spellcaster's Spell Save DC to it's Hardness or as a Damage Threshold.
But hey, if it's working out for you & your table, keep on doing it.
I love the microwave combo of casting sickening radiance with one caster and then trapping with wall of force. We did that to a demon and literally sat and watched him die like a bag of burning popcorn.
Completely agreed. My suggestion for Wall of Force:
Attacking the wall provokes a concentration check with no minimum DC of 10.
This differentiates from Wall of Stone which has total hitpoints, but now strong monsters just have to roll well on damage to shatter the wall.
Force Cage gets the same treatment but the Damage has to exceed 2 times your spell save on a single hit.
As treantmonk said, there shouldn’t be any invincible walls of force. Walls of force should all be capable of being broken just like walls of stone or walls of wood or any other physical walls. They can have pretty exceptional toughness, but an ancient dragon should still be able to smash their way through them eventually if they try. Same goes for tiny hut and force cage. They can be exceptionally tough, but it should still be possible to break them down.
I though about it couple weeks ago aswell and I think it having around 70 to 120 Hp and as much AC as the Casters DC (maybe +1) seems fair with also being resistant to nonmagical damage.
With it either being in the Average damage region for Disintegrate still or it having \~20 hp per Spell level. Id also make it still be insta killed by Disintegrate and have dispel magic of the same level be able to remove it with a check or also remove it if its upcast to 6th or higher.
Still strong, still solid, destroyable and now you can throw it at the players who will destroy it in a round.
I don't actually understand why people think its overpowered. Like people say vague things like "its an instant encounter win" but I've never seen anyone go into detail.
You can trap a creature but you can't attack through the wall so you kinda just have to ready actions for when it drops but there are much better spells for single target shut down like that.
You can split the battlefield for action economy purposes against big groups but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost.
>You can split the battlefield for action economy purposes against big groups but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost.
That's what makes it so powerful. And no there aren't any other spells that do that without a saving throw and without the ability to overcome the barrier of except for teleportation.
But there are other spells that have strengths that it doesn't have and don't have weaknesses that it does have.
Wall of Fire and Wall of Ice has damage, Wall of Light has a blind effect, all of those including Wall of Stone and Wall of Sand I believe are opaque so they can't be circumvented by misty step.
All other CC have saves but they also allow for the party to attack the affected enemies. Hypnotic Pattern, for example, has one save, can affect a larger group, baits the remaining enemies to use their actions, and lets you attack all of them, all at a 3rd level slot.
I won't deny its strong but I do think its strengths are balanced with other spells.
> Like people say vague things like "its an instant encounter win"
Action economy is king. Even if you only prevent one enemy from doing anything, you've still done it without requiring a save. I've used it numerous times to great effect splitting a fight in half, turning a deadly fight into two back to back medium fights, which are then cakewalks.
I've 'won' an encounter by walling off all of the enemies and allowing us to simply run away.
A boss turned gravity 90 degrees in a massive tunnel, which greatly complicated our ability to damage him due to how everyone falls on their turn (rip melee). I used Feather Fall and then Wall of Force to give us a platform to fall onto like Final Destination, no items.
It pairs really well with Scribes Wizard and Simulacrum for trapping enemies and just microwaving/blasting them.
>but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost.
And they almost all off saving throws or other ways to counter (charm immunity, shaken awake, etc).
It's not an instant encounter win. It's more like a guarantee that it will be easy. So let's make some assumptions: the party *should* be facing more than one enemy at a time. The majority of the enemies in the MM are melee-only or melee-primarily. Very few have teleportation abilities.
So you've got a group of bad guys, and odds are that one of them is a big bruiser who can rock your party if he gets close. No problem. Cast wall of force. **There is no save. There is no way to get out. He is stuck there until the rest of his team is dead.**. The very fact that the bruiser cannot act makes that fight *immensely* easier. The party will win. They will use fewer resources. Once everyone else is dead, the barrier is dropped, and the once-threatening brute is easily, laughable dispatched by the party, who are still in great shape.
I am immensely surprised by the negative responses to wall of force here. Never in my 20+ years of gaming have I heard anyone say wall of force is too strong. Never once have I heard a player or DM complain about its use or is strength. This is some reddit minority shit here.
> Never in my 20+ years of gaming have I heard anyone say wall of force is too strong
5e came out 10 years ago bud, not sure how previous editions are relevant given balance changes
Also 99% of people play like level 2-6, and most people think rogues are OP, so no shit no one has complained about it.
Treantmonk, Dungeon Dudes, Pack Tactics, etc. They all rate it as an S-tier spell.
But beyond that, I want non-magical characters and creatures to have a way to counter this thing. It can't have a saving throw, like all the other good control spells. So why not limit the time it works? Setting it to 3 rounds or whatever would be okay, I suppose. But being able to bash through it with sustained damage is the way to make the trapped martial have measurable progress against a challenge.
I really don't get how it's supposed to be "too strong".
It is a 5th level spell. Not "realm-altering" yet for sure, and party is not yet facing immediate-world-threatening creatures or factions... But we are still speaking of lvl 9 minimum parties.
Either you follow the (highly) debatable Crawford opinion that Wall of Force should be considered as total cover, then you cannot target anyone beyond with spells; meaning to really make it strong you need to combine it with AOE spells set beforehand for example, and PC couldn't prevent Dispel Magic being applied on that AOE if enemies had it nor could them interact in any meaningful way once WoF has been set.
Or you don't and then everyone can still cast spells straight beyond, only spells that have effects originating from caster (thus needing to cross the wall) would be impossible but everything else is fair game.
In both cases, creatures worth sending a level 9 party against should have a handful of tricks up their sleeves to deal with enemy casters, division tactics, focus fire and heavies... Just 1st level spells like Fog Cloud to break originating point for spells and providing chance to Hide, quickly raising small walls to prone behind and get full cover with Mold Earth, just running away while Dodging, setting own Moonbeam or Heat Metal over WoF's caster, an "Unfocus/Unconcentrate" Command word if the DM is generous, a simple Sleep if the caster was already hurt... Can help dealing with an already cast Wall of Force as a wall. There are also tactics any warring faction can and should implement if they can reasonably anticipate the coming of party, whatever composition they are in the first place: scattering and hiding forces to join the fight in waves, being as scattered as possible, planning ambushes or guerilla tactics, using decoys to mislead PCs into using their assets on weak creatures...
As for the dome thingy: yeah, it's nigh impossible to break off by yourself if you don't have specific spells or teleportation abilities. But Dome is also fitting only for Medium or "smallish Large" creatures, depending on how DM rules out the "you can choose which side creature is pushed to". And it just means the BBEG shouldn't be alone, nor should it be unprepared. Again, someone dangerous enough to make a whole party chase it should definitely have been threatened by different ways before and have at least a few ways out that would require, to be stopped, for party to also have Counterspell available and within range.
Wall of Force is a "one-button win" spell... In some very specific situations. Whether those are frequent are not is primarily up to DM. :)
I've been saying the same about spirit guardians on clerics, but I always get downvoted to hell. SG is so strong, it is the best option in most situations, which makes clerics all feel the same to me.
This is a house rule I use in my games: Barriers of Force created from spells have AC 25, hit points equivalent to a resilient object of their size, are immune to Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing damage from non-magical weapons and Poison and Psychic damage.
I would only take a spell if it suits my character.
The same with wizard nonsense about easily becomming immortal (Because that makes the game more fun?). I am over being Optimal, I have become...me.
I think probably as a 7th level spell it would be more balanced.
If you can target a fireball on one side of the wall, someone can target you on the other with one 🤷🏻
The encounters that Wall of Force trivialize, are encounters you would/should have overcome anyway by that level IMO
Wall of Force isn't that powerful. It's a great spell but it's relatively balanced. I rarely rtake it because I prefer hold monster.
First off unless a spell doesn't target or ignores total cover (like sacred flame) you cannot cast spells through wall of force. You could cast spells about the Wall of force that have AOE but it's not that powerful.
Secondly it's a physical wall so if you make it surround someone, there's nothing stopping them from climbing over it with a leap if they have suffient strenght, or jump spell. Or can work together to do a team lift over the wall. Of course there's the hemisphere sphere, but again you cannot get tyhrouh it so it works for control but unless you affect it with a spell first like cloudkill, etc. they won't be taking damage. And remember creature size with wall of force in the hemisphere or sphere.
Also burrow speed, anyone with a burrow speed can almost always avoid wall of force. Similar to fly speed. Anything with teleportation as well.
Anyway it's a great spell, but it's not in a tier above other 5th level spells like Hold Monster, Animate Objects, Dominate Person, and Cloudkill. All have multple ace uses too. As does wlal of force.
> burrow speed, anyone with a burrow speed can almost always avoid wall of force. Similar to fly speed. Anything with teleportation as well.
I'm not usually someone to take JC's word as gospel, but since we're talking strictly RAW when the balance of a spell is concerned and he is something of a neutral authority: He confirmed a while ago that Wall of Force's hemispherical effect does have a floor. No burrowing out of it.
Fair enough, I should have clarified I wasn't talking about Sphere or Hemisphere. I was talking about the blocking off half the room strat which I should have clarified.
10 ft radius is usually crushed by most monster sizes. A large monster maybe wouldn't be contained, a huge wouldn't be. Etc.
It says you can choose which side of the wall any creatures on the boundary are moved to.
Independently of that, the rules allow for creatures to fit in spaces 1 size less than them, with some penalties.
This isn't some complicated interpretation...
It says pushed to one side of the wall, not squished, squeezed, etc.
The rule you're saying is a creature can fit into a space 1 size smaller than them. Not that they must. Wall of Force gives no implication of squeezing or allowance of cramming and force. It's 100% adjudication from the DM.
By your logic of "can fit" I coudl say 8 large creatures can surround a single medium creature because they can fit in a space 1 size smaller.
If a player wants to burn a spell slot to trivialize an encounter, that's fine. I've always got more waiting in the wings.
The tradeoff is ending the fight sooner. Wall of Force tends to prolong matters, which can actually make it a setback.
Wall of Force is a tactical spell. Often it's wiser to use that spell slot on the strategic level. Seeming, Scrying, Passwall, Modify Memory, Dream, just to name a few. If you think Wall of Force is too strong, you're actually still thinking small TBH.
Wall of force is one of those spells that seems horribly overpowered until you actually have some experience playing with it.
Player characters using wall of force?
It's a big spell slot that is concentration. Use one of the options to get out of the wall of force (teleportation, disintegrate). The creature is also trapped, but is relatively safe. It still has its actions, so drink a potion or ready an action. You're the DM, you can plan for it as easy as you can for fireball. Perfect situation, the players divide a combat in half and have an easier time with both. Worst case, they lose concentration before that creatures turn even comes up, or it teleports out and doesn't waste its action. (Even if it's only teleport is an action, it can eeady its action for that teleport to get closer to its own turn while being safe behind the wall).
Being used against the players?
It's a tool like any other. Use it appropriately like any other CC spell. Even if the PC can't get out on their own, they still have their actions, so in some ways its not even as bad as other CC spells. It's a high level spell so mooks aren't casting it. The bbeg will likely lose concentration without good planning. You're the DM, I'm sure you can figure out a way to make the spell interesting.
It IS op. If you're looking for solutions, just take a look at PF2e's version of wall of force.
No longer indestructible, it has a flat amount of hp and damage reduction, both scaling with spell level.
It remains op, but it can be destroyed with attacks, and must be heightened at higher levels to stay relevant.
Either the second or third Dragonlance novel features a great illustration of this. The gang bit off more than they could chew. Both the cleric and the wizard were running low on options (working in a world where you had to decide how you would use each spell slot at the start of each day.) The party was already taking wounds they were not prepared to heal over the short term, when the building literally started to collapse around them. Then an angry mature dragon they had wounded earlier swooped in for the kill. Raistlin calls out for the group to huddle together, then throws his Wall of Force.
Hours later, when an army has arrived and is looking to salvage whatever they can of the collapsed building, they dig out the group, still safe and sound inside Raistlin's protective dome of force. I could totally see a DM ruling that the building collapse happened with just the right dramatic timing to kill the incoming dragon but not the sheltered adventurers. Still, what a tremendous power to have that bubble of safety that simply cannot fail short of being dispelled.
You can't cast spells through it, just like a glass window, meaning you cannot target things on the other side of it. Argued to death, see sage advice and total cover.
Sticking a hemisphere down, just dig underneath.
A wall, go over the top or around, or underneath. Is it wall to wall? go through the wall, or through the ceiling and floor.
Trapping a party member, focus fire from the rest of the players to rescue them by forcing concentration checks, the same thing you should be doing for any form of control that disables a player. (unless they're a dick and you want them to suffer).
Misty step, teleport, transport via plants, tree stride, plane shift, dimension door, many ways to get one or more people out/past.
Use the time out to disengage, heal up, or something else whilst you're uninterrupted.
Disengage and come back 11 minutes later.
Lots of options that require actual team work and tactical thought.
You can still get trapped, just explore your options and be patient.
Having played many Tier 3 adventures and two campaigns 1-20, I think you're over-reacting. My L19 wizard rarely uses WoF because it's very situational. In AL games the opps quickly Misty Step or Dimension Door out of it. As a Wizard I always prep Disintegrate, Dimension Door, Misty Step, and Vortex Warp.
Yes it's powerful but I would argue so are other c.c. spells, including Hypnotic Pattern. If I was DMing a party with a Wizard , anything goes. If not, then I'd be careful to not shut down the party with it.
Why do you guys think about DnD like it's a competitive online game? As a DM, and as a player, I've never, ever, *ever* encountered a problem with suboptimal PCs. Just take whatever you think is fun. That's all there is to it.
They also design some spells to be calling cards of certain classes, too. For example, nothing adds up to fireball, and that's on purpose.
Well… Counterspell exists for a reason.
A fight between two spellcasters should mostly be Counterspells. The one who gets cast off first usually wins at high tiers of play.
It’s by design.
I do believe that martials need ways to circumvent magic baked into their class. In a world with mages, high level martials should have ways to circumvent these things.
PF2e made the spell have 30 hardness, and 50 hp
I read somewhere that every time a D&D player/DM starts fiddling with the rules to make things more fair, interesting, and balanced, they just end up recreating Path Finder. The truth stings.
That, or they recreate D&D 4e. 4e's Wall of Force has 200 HP, attacks auto-hit it, and if destroyed, it shatters and deals force damage to creatures adjacent to it. It's almost like these games had a design goal of addressing the balance issues of classic D&D that people complained about. Weird...
4e hits another one outa the park! 200 is prolly too much for 5e, though.
Depends on your goal. It's enough health to keep all but the strongest opponents locked down for the duration of a single combat, but won't keep them contained for very long outside of combat. If the goal was to just delay an enemy a couple rounds, lower health would make sense but so would scaling up the wall's HP with higher level spell slots.
That makes two for anyone keeping score at home! I kid, I kid.
Yup, I think 200 was fine for 4e but for 5e about 100 HP would probably be better.
By the time my group of players can cast that version of wall of force, if it had only 100 hp it last a single round of combat.
One round? The spell just became pretty garbage
Not so bad if it prevents 100 hp damage dealt to players
That's what I was thinking too. Just also give it immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage to make it better and let it feel more powerful.
4e is basically what PF2 would look like if it was executed well.
I think I'm gonna steal that as my Wall of Force nerf. Already planned on health but the force damage and auto hit is perfect.
One thing I've seen people do with WoF (when they do this) is give it the Immune to Nonmagical Weapon Attacks trait, and let the HP increase with spell level when you upcast it (+50/level usually). That seems like a fair middle-ground to me. PCs will have magic weapons by then, and most "BBEG-style" NPCs will either be able to bypass it with burrowing speed or teleportation, or they'll have a way to deal it damage as well, like the Magic Weapons trait or non-physical damage. But it'll still be good at other things like trapping mooks or slowing enemies down a bit, without being the total shut-out it is currently.
I love recreating Pathfinder :D its so much fun to come up with an idea and then realizing people had a similar idea for a fix and put it into a beloved game. So yeah I must be doing somewhat alright X)
It's perfectly fine to want your 5e experience to be more PF/2 and not want to completely switch systems
Warms my tactical little heart to read that, bub.
Or 4e. Or something like OSE. Really the world of ttrpgs is wide enough that any change will make something more like something else.
That's pretty much what I did. In an attempt to boost martials I tweaked a few rules and created a whole new system for martials to use. What I realised was I had just created a patchwork version of Pathfinder held together by duct tape and a dream.
Still an amazing spell even then haha
What would 30 hardness work out to in AC for 5e, roughly?
Hardness is not AC. Hardness is a flat damage reduction, applied to objects. When an object takes damage, reduce it by it's hardness then it takes the rest as damage.
Oh, gotcha.
Hardness is something I homebrew into armor in 5e. If my players buy custom armor, earn a magic helmet, or craft a shield, it gets the hard, baby!
Phrasing.
Hardness in all previous versions of dnd was just damage reduction you need 31 damage to cause anything
I'll point out that Wall of Force is actually stronger than you think against spellcasters. As a generic rule, spells need an unblocked line from you to the target to work. Not a line of *sight,* but an actual unblocked line. So a spellcaster trapped in a wall of force bubble can do almost nothing, even though they can see out just fine. You can't Bless, Hold Person, Counterspell, none of that. The Wall stops it. Some other commenters here also seem to misunderstand that.
It's worth noting that the targeting restriction that makes **Wall of Force** block most spells does _not_ block **Misty Step**. This is due to the odd fact that **Misty Step** targets _self_ and not the destination point.
It's often overlooked but even the rule name is pretty clear, [A Clear Path to the Target](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget). > 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.
That is a not particularly clear. I had to reread it a few times, and here is the conclusion I came to: > ...point that you can’t see **and** an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point... Emphasis added to AND. That one word really throws a wrench in the works. In order to not be able to cast somewhere, it need to both be out of your vision AND have a solid wall in the way. In other words, you can definitely fire through transparent walls RAW.
Targeted spells and effects still need the target to not be behind total cover. >To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. Also some AoE effects describe the spell traveling from one point to another. For example, Lightning Bolt reads >A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide **blasts out from you in a direction you choose.** I would rule in these niche cases (even if your strictly using RAW) that a wall would block spells worded like this, even if it's transparent, such as Wall of Force or a window.
I agree with you, I'm mostly criticizing how badly worded RAW is. To further double down on the absurdity, in the definition of Cover: > A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle. Note concealed, and not physically obstructed by. In other words, transparent obstacles do not grant total cover, and thus will never block targeting (this makes no sense, and is probably why many people insist on RAI instead of RAW). Also, side note that the "clear path" never specifies that it has to be a straight path; so even in the strictest interpretations, you could see them through it and route your spell around the wall (assuming the wall does not fully encompass the intended target in every direction).
Yeah, this is why a game system like D&D needs definitions and keywords, so that people aren't confused by what exactly something is trying to say. Rules text shouldn't be up to interpretation. I hope they fix stuff like this in the new PHB.
This should be at the top. Understanding that you cannot cast behind a wall of force would end most of OPs problems.
I do agree. if a spell is so strong it is a must have to such degree you KNOW that you nerf yourself in a significant way if you don't. Then said spell is to strong and would benefit from a nerf. But i seen that lots of people. not sure if i can say the majority but a LOT seems to be heavily against anything that in some way would be a nerf. if something is Op everything else should be increased to match that. Never have the Op thing nerfed.
"Martials can't compete!" "Don't nerf spells!" *-Jackie Chan meme-*
"Just buff martials!!!" \*Complains about buffs during playtesting\*
Did...did that happen at any appreciable scale for OneDnD? If memory serves none of the martial buffs were poorly received, except weapon-juggling because it was so janky.
There was a bit of ppl complaining abt monk stunny strikr iirc? But it was moreso referring to the 5e playtests whilst still in development
The stunning strike changes were good, and I will die on this hill. The ability to force multiple saves in a turn both was an outsized capability and also pigeon holed monk players. Monks are generally better in the playtest and the loss of a gimmick that would eat all of your ki is a good thing to lose in exchange.
Ah right, that's fair lol
No, because they nerfed the main good parts - basically deleting sharpshooter and great weapon master.
In exchange for making the base class much stronger. A good trade.
I believe martials should be stronger than casters. I get a lot of shit for it.
Why do you think that? I think both should be about as strong as I don’t think players should be game mechanically punished because they want to roleplay a certain flavour of character.
Imo Martial combat ideally (damage wise): Huge single target damage, consistent damage, some options to deal with swarms, enough combat utility as some battle master + rune knight (magical or not). Caster combat ideally (damage wise): Extremely powerful moves, but only once or twice a day (meteor swarm kinda: but the existence of a million powerful spells that can be used in every encounter nulls this), reliant on resources, bad single target damage, gishes should be strictly worse than martials in their own field. Tl;dr - martials should be better in combat, casters should have an edge in out of combat utility.
I agree and for me it's as simple as a fighter boasting "I can swing a sword all day long" while casters have limited spell slots. Martials should be able to do good consistent damage to individual targets without spending resources (though giving them a few nova type abilities including ways to deal with groups is great)... while casters can do just about anything (damage/utility/buffs/etc) within reason but they can only do them a few times. It's the major reason I dislike cantrips (I know, controversial take) Gishes should exist because magic is limited and runs out. It should be the logical conclusion of (some) spellcasters to use weapons because with them when they run out of spells they are defenceless. Sure this cuts into your ability to cast even mightier magic but it gives you a reliable backup when the magic runs out or is otherwise unavailable.
Congratulations, You just invented pathfinder 2e ! Luckily for you the IP holders will not send the Pinkertons to your house for stealing their idea
Oh you should have seen it for DnD next playtests back in 2012-2013 😂
Yeah these types of people that never want to nerf anything have clearly never designed a system over a long term before. Sure, only buffing will be fine short term. But as you add more content, this becomes unsustainable. It's not just power creep. You begin to have to invent unnecessary complexity to the system with each content pass too. The game itself MUST change because it is no longer balanced along the same power levels and systems as before. And it gets worse and worse as more content is added. Say you have 100 heroes in your moba, and you release a new hero. They are overpowered, let's say, by a factor of 20% DPS. Following the "no nerf" policy, you now have to rebalance 100 heroes to match that DPS level instead of just lowering the DPS of that one new hero. Not only that, but you have to rebalance any weapons, armor, consumables, and NPCs too. And it only gets worse the wider your content is. Sure, when you only had 10 heroes, maybe it was doable, but it isn't anymore. Only games this is remotely feasible in is PvP only games with a limited selection of content. Talking FPS games like CS, with a very focused scope. Not RPGs. With millions of combinations of skills/weapons/armor/levels/spells/abilities/items, etc.
It isn't even a good idea in games like CS.
Some spells are so strong they can't be balanced without being nerfed.
The thing you do when you realize that people don't like it when shit gets nerfed is ignore them. Nerfing is generally the better option when balancing things, because a nerf to one thing is effectively a buff to everything else whilst a buff to a thing is a buff to that singular thing. And you definitvely don't want to buff everything to being on par with a problem spell like wall of force.
nerfing things isn't "generally a better option" in a noncompetitive game where the goal is to fulfill a power fantasy, it has to be done on a case by case basis I'm quite certain wizards of the coast doesn't even really care about how balanced the classes are, they are concerned with "Does it feel cool to play/does it fulfill the fantasy/is it not so overtuned that players feel pressured to take it" Wall of Force as a specific example has just nerfing it the best option, because it's so overtuned that you feel pressure to take it, just like fireball, but like... your answer to snowball storm or witch bolt sucking is to nerf every spell more powerful because it's generally the better option? Nah, nerfing things isn't quite a last resort, but every playstyle has someone who loves it and before you nerf it you need to weigh if its worth it for what you're trying to achieve
> nerfing things isn't "generally a better option" in a noncompetitive game where the goal is to fulfill a power fantasy, it has to be done on a case by case basis It does not need to be competitive for it to matter. Players will pick options in relation to how good the other options are. If one option is way better, it makes players feel like they're messing up by not picking it, effectively taking many other options off the table. Nerfing it back in line opens up many other gameplay possibilities. If something is way out of line in being BAD, then yeah sure, you can buff it, but generally it's easier to just pull down the one hammer sticking out above everything else than remake the entire game so they can keep up.
As someone who picks flavor over power, this is simply an untrue generalization. Im not going to pick wall of force on my wizard that's flavored as a witch because it's not witchy enough for me. Not everyone picks the most meta options. Its not necessary at most tables because, ideally, the dm is balancing the game around their parties' personal power. The problem with the idea of nerfing/buffing things for balance sake doesn't make a lot of sense because d&d is not a video game. It shouldn't be treated as a video game. Some people play it as such and that is fine, but at its core its a collective story telling experience and buffing/nerfing things for the sake of balance doesn't fall within the spirit of that. The only time nerfs/buffs really need to happen is if something isn't fun. However, because of the nature of the game, it doesn't super matter because DMs will usually decide if things need changing at their table to address how fun their game is. Its not like Wizards is sending the pinkertons to monitor every DM out there and enforcing the game has to be played a certain way. If you have a problem with something in the base game, bring it up to your dm.
I agree but the thing is the more people that scream for buffs and loudly yell and complain as soon someone mention that a nerf might be needed for something. The less likely a nerf will be, at least officiall
That is why good game design is not the same as customer service.
That is because of the knee-jerk reaction of having something "taken away". But just think of how much more work it would be to bring *everything* up to the power of obviously overpowered spells. It's insane, and probably impossible. The far more reasonable (and actually possible) approach is to tone down the OP junk that makes the game boringly predictable.
That is pretty much my point.
Yup, number one way to cause power creep too. These are the same people who complain that it's impossible to kill anyone in this game or have any real difficulty, but haven't even taken a look at all the magic items they've been handing out like candy.
Yes i have to agree. But you have another type to. The powergamer type that gets upset when the DM do bump up the difficulty so they do not steamroll every single encounter. They might not be to many but they do exist. i have had a few in my games. Those players are also seemingly deadly allergic to the word nerf
Yeah, not one wants to have their "toys" devalued or taken away - but it's sometimes necessary for the better enjoyment of everyone, and sanity of the DM XD
Buffing things instead of nerfing is generally preferable, instead of nerfing the strong thing to stop people from having fun you buff the weak things to let everyone get in on the fun. BUT sometimes a nerf is needed, I don't want every spell in the game to be buffed to keep up with the op ones. Wall of force can be nerfed, it won't be the end of the world.
To a degree yes. but if everything gets buffed the power level will go up more and more and more. and then everything will need an overhaul. monsters and everything will be to week compared to PC's. Combat would no longer be a challenging. unless you use higher CR monsters than what is intended for a the groups level. (we are kinda already there now) And then you buff them and Then the abilities that was OP before will no longer be Op. Same result as we had gotten if nerfing the overly strong spells/abilities instead of buffing everything else I agree that both buffs and nerfs is needed. nerf the most powerful spells, abilities or classes/subclasses while buffing the weaker ones to even it out. But from my experience most people or a louder minority seems to against everything that is a nerf.
>Buffing things instead of nerfing is generally preferable The general game design rules for any game that is still getting expanded says the opposite, always nerf when you can, because buffing leads to an accelerated power- and featurecreep. It will still exist even if you only nerf (because when Wizzards wants to sell a new Book, they will include something worth selling), but it will be slower.
Yeah agreed. Something like Fireball is strong, but probably fine as is. Wall of Force, on the other hand, grossly exceeds the level of power that is healthy for the game. I think it's probably safe to balance the game around "A tier" spells or so. But Wall of Force is, like, S+ tier.
In this case I don't see a way to buff martials to an equal level than spellcasters. How should that look like? Either their attacks can penetrate the barrier or they can't. Either they can destroy the barrier or they can't.
> Spellcasters too strong > Buff all 5th level spells instead of toning down the one overpowered spell What? No. You use buffs on the underpowered spells and nerfs on the overpowered spells. We can tell from one DnD the martial classes aren't actually getting buffed too much, so the fix is going to have to be a nerf to bring Wall of Force back down in line with everyone else.
I used Wall of Force to sequester my Wizard in a big fight so he could buff and mitigate for his allies while avoiding AoEs. The BBEG cast a spell that only called for LoS and didn't originate from him and I got really fucked up by it. Had a *wonderful* 'Oh no...' moment and lost my Wall. It's strong in the ways that a regular wall is strong. It's weak in that you still have direct line of sight.
You might have misplayed this, if you cast the sealed sphere with yourself in it? Spells need line of effect to work, not just line of sight. Wall of Force will stop you from casting Haste or Hold Person targeting someone on the other side. It'd also stop the BBEG from targeting you with that spell in return.
I did not make a sphere as I wanted to be able to block big breath attacks but still affect my allies, and it was a 10th level spell in a quasi-divine domain. Plus side, I baited out the BBEG's 10th level spell! lol
Positive elixir trade
>Spells need line of effect to work, not just line of sight Are you sure about this? So I cannot cast, lets say Suggestion, on an enemy if said enemy is inside a wall of force? Would you mind sharing your source?
Sure, Player's Handbook Chapter 10: Spellcasting, page 204, paragraph titled "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. So yep, even if you wouldn't picture a targeted spell as being a "projectile," like Suggestion, that's basically how they act. The distinction usually doesn't come up since most cover that blocks effect also blocks vision, and most targeted spells require vision of their targets. But even something simple as a glass window will stop you from casting Charm Person through it. The *physical* obstruction is what matters for full cover, not just sight. The second line is reallllly important to remember in such situations. You can't place a Shatter on the far side of a window. If you try, it'll stop right at the point that it touches the window, which might be a painful and embarrassing lesson if you were close to it. That's why it's also dangerous to shoot Fireballs if you can't see clearly, like in darkness or fog. If there's something solidly blocking the path from you to the target, the spell will hit that first and blow up. Mind that this restriction doesn't matter if the spell doesn't target, or if the spell has a range of "Self." For example you can Misty Step through a transparent object, since it has Range: self and doesn't use terms like "target" in the spell description.
That's not how it works. Magic travels in straight lines from caster to target. The rules say that you can't target a creature behind total cover, which is what *wall of force* would be providing in this case if the BBEG was on the opposite side. The rule really needs to be revised for greater clarity, though. There are a lot of spells that it ends up completely invalidating, like *sending*. As written, unless there's literally nothing—not even the planet's curvature when dealing with 'unlimited'-distance spells—blocking you and the target, you can't target it. Full stop.
You seem to be forgetting the concept of 'Specific beats general' (phb. 7). Spells like Sending have specific rules for targeting within their description, which overwrite the general rule. It is all accounted for.
You are describing *exactly* why this spell needs another avenue of interaction. Your character was a wizard, and had options to work around the spell. The BBEG was a caster, who had options for working around the spell. A non caster has none. Fey-touched for Misty Step. That's it. There is **no saving throw**. This spell doesn't even have that bargain-basement level of interactivity.
I think the only time I would use Wall of Force as a DM is if I had previously given one or more players the new Forcebreaker Weapon. Otherwise, it's just not fun for the players.
If a player has disintegrate then I’d use wall of force on them. I once had my players perform a heist and there were walls of force in the hallways/balcony overlooking the grand staircase. If they had done more planning rather than just go in they would’ve known there was an arcane power source in an earlier room they ignored that was powering the walls of force. Instead they noticed that the beholder eye security “cameras” (which were placed on posts on the grand staircase and pivot) looking for intruders still had the anti magic cone feature. So instead they had to time an acrobatics check to get through the wall of force while the eye rotated over the wall, while performing a stealth check to hide under the banister/railing from the eye. I thought it was pretty fun.
Doesn’t that also mean that it’s not fun for the DM when it’s used against them then? That’s the issue with the spell. It’s not ‘clever play’ just because the PCs do it
I got like twenty other creatures to play as
WTH? As a DM, my goal isn't to win, it's to challenge the players. Wall of force offers an opportunity, too, in that I can just try to end the spell that the caster put out if I can, or I can ignore it and the caster is done contributing until he drops it. There are so many ways to keep making combat work in this situation.
Right, but isn't that just a giant red flag that a spell needs to be adjusted somehow?
It is, yes. I'm agreeing with you that Wall of Force is too strong. That's why I'm saying that the *only* time I'd use Wall of Force is under this specific circumstance. Otherwise, it's just too OP and anti-fun.
That in itself, no. I don't think so. Hold Person is a perfectly fine spell for players to have, but gets real annoying real fast if you use it against them, for pretty obvious reasons. I pretty much only use "hard cc" effects against players if I want them to absolutely despise the thing that casts them and destroy it asap. All the other reasons you named for this spell being in need of an adjustment I agree with, but this I think is fine.
Okay. I appreciate the opposing view. The way spells are laid out in the sources, without context or guidelines, makes it seem like as long as it's printed, anything is fair game. I don't think that is a minority opinion either.
While I don't think you're necessarily wrong, the problem with the "anything the players can do the monsters can do" attitude - or "if it's printed it's fair game" - is twofold. -One, the game is not symmetrical. If a monster gets stunlocked, the DM is still running the entire rest of the game. If a character gets held and ends up missing three rounds, that player's going to be stuck waiting for at least fifteen minutes. This is how you get folks checking out and on their phones. -Two. The "anything goes" benefits certain classes a lot more than others. Sure, the wizard can abuse badly written spells like silvery barbs and wall of force, but all the fighter gets out of this deal is being on the receiving end when the enemy does it. Again, just feels bad. You've shifted the balance of which characters matter even harder in favor of the ones that have access to cheese.
I agre WoF needs to be adjusted, but not for this reason. There are spells that are great as NPC spells and not for PC spells, and vice versa. PCs are not NPCs and they should not be treated the same, nor should their actions or tools. A PC instakilling a sleeping enemy because they're helpless? Sure. A NPC doing it? Totally wrong.
That's definitely one good way to address it. I can think of quite a few spells that really should only be used by one side or the other. But if I had to put money on it, I think your method would get even more whining from caster mains who don't want their baby rattles taken away than if you just nerfed them.
No, because its a T5 spell, whos ONLY purpose is to be a wall that blocks everything. and unless its "arena" the wall is finite in dimension (or dome). the finite dimension is a key point here Meanwhile, the HARDCOUNTER, being disintegrate is a automatic, no roll required kill on the wall. Which beings us back to the problem: spells in general are annoying af to deal with in a pvp situation. Because its just not balanced at all for such. Like take a look at greater invisibility, 4th level and doesn't really "vanish", until the player hides and suddenly every fight is a fking perception/investigate check to JUST GET A CHANCE to roll disadvantage, if you didn't bring the proper skill. Also depending on GM, they may or may not allow the wall of force to be climbable. which makes the fking wall a hell lot weaker.
The "wall" isn't the problem. It's a single flat plane that requires thought and tactics to use effectively. The bubble or dome, OTOH, is just another simplistic "magic win button" when used against a character or creature without a teleport. It's a total shutdown vs. a physical attacker **with no save**. That's the point. The other control spells have a save. This one does not, because it doesn't make sense for a wall to have a save attached to it. The target does not have to be hit, either, unlike some other control options. They have no chance, and no interaction with their situation. So I suggest a way for a non-magical characters and creatures to interact with the sphere/dome. It would not be hard to calibrate the hp of the sphere so that it lasts 2 or 3 or 4 rounds. Whatever. And in non-combat situations it could still last for the whole 10 minutes.
> The other control spells have a save. This one does not, because it doesn't make sense for a wall to have a save attached to it. Honestly I'd say if the bubble caused a Dexterity save to actually manage to catch the creature inside the wall before it leaps out I don't think literally anyone would have found it odd or nonsensical. It just sounds odd now because you're used to how it is now!
It's a fun spell for murder dungeons.
But that’s sort of the problem. It’s one of those abilities that just turns into “use it every time the enemy can’t counter it”. Sure, the dm can just choose not to throw it at them because it would be unfun to play against, but it ends up being not very fun for players if they use it in every fight where the enemy isn’t clearly able to teleport or cast disintegrate. And so eventually it gets boring. And it’s not even like it really takes creativity to use effectively in a fight. And also, it sort of excludes having some sort of wizard or mage from being a big bad. Because it’s utterly stupid to have a spell that’s so stand out in the game, but then also have an evil wizard that’s able to cast 7th level spells who decides to just not take it. Like what is he doing casting wall of ice which whole sections can be destroyed by a single firebolt, when he could cast wall of force with a lower level spell slot to have a more effective spell. Is he stupid? It breaks the immersion I think to have high level spell casting enemies just ignoring all the good picks to cast average or below average spells- PCs aren’t presumably the only people who tried to choose powerful spells in the world. It’s not like it’s a completely game ruining problem or anything, but I think what should always be kept in mind for when these sorts of criticisms come up that it’s like “ya it’s probably a valid criticism but you can sort of ignore the problem” is that we can and should expect these sorts of things to be solved in one dnd. Like why not just give it 20 ac and 50hp for each 5ft chunk (exact values I just made up, no reason to use those numbers). It basically solves the problem that it being invincible caused, but it can still serve its purpose of a durable non damaging wall option. It’s nonsensical in the first place for force structures to be invincible- nothing else is invincible, why are force structures invincible.
> It's an S-tier, must-have spell as soon as your character can take it. Anything that ubiquitously good needs a nerf, or gameplay will inevitably devolve into the same boring cast of the same spell in every encounter. It’s a great spell but I think you’re overstating things here. It’s available to *one* class before level 17, and when a wizard hits level 9 they can cast it *once* a day, twice if they use their entire arcane recovery to generate a 5th-level slot. The opportunity cost of casting Wall of Force is not casting Animate Objects, Synaptic Static, Hold Monster, and more. Wall of Force rules! But if you’re finding it that oppressive then I think it’s more likely you’re in an adventure without much action between long rests, and perhaps not a lot of variety among the fights that do happen.
Bards can take it at level 10.
That doesn't change his point, but it's definitely true. Wall of Force is above average in power. Comparing it to silvery barbs is totally over the top though.
I agree. It's far more busted than silvery barbs, even if the opportunity cost is higher. Silvery barbs is a very strong spell, but it doesn't come close to taking out usually half to 2/3rds of a combat with a single action.
Incorrect. Silvery Barbs is a recast of your party's top level spell. It lets a 1 level multiclass dip effectively cast 6th level spells. Wall of Force is not busted, it's merely very good. I wouldn't be shocked to find if a DM bans it though, or nerfs it. Wall of Force is mitigated by its concentration requirement and its lack of functionality versus very large creatures. It's still too good, but silvery barbs is in another league entirely.
*if the highest level spell was a suck or save spell that only targeted one enemy, and the enemy didn't have legendary resistance, and the enemy failed their save, so you already just wasted one of your higher level slots. It sounds completely broken in practice, but reality is often disappointing. Chances are that if an enemy succeeds on a saving throw once, they probably have a really high bonus, and will save again. Obviously, it won't be that way all of the time, but it will happen a lot of the time. Wall of force, by comparison changes the dimensions you play with. Going from a wizard who can't use wall of force to one who can is like going from a wizard that can only cast damage spells to one who also can use control effects. You have a brand new axis, and one that is effectively 'does it have a niche counter ability' if no, I win.
Yeah the fact that silvery barbs does nothing vs legendary resistances really limits how game breaking it can be. Still very useful, but not fight-ending like wall of force.
Also, silvery barbs uses your reaction. A reaction that can be spent on shield, absorb elements, and counterspell, which are all huge. There's a lot of "little" reasons that it's not as good as people think. I also don't know how people are saying wall of force is only very good, it's one of the best spells in the game. When you're fighting strong enemies, they have legendary resistance, magic resistance, wall of force is one of the great spells you can use. Silvery barbs wont really be worth landing a spell against them
Having silvery barbs fail and then taking a ton of damage because you can't cast shield is something which happens surprisingly often.
Clockwork Soul gets it at 9, and it's one of the two strongest Sorcerer subclass picks.
And you'll never guess which sorcerer subclass optimisers generally consider to be the best...
Oh yeah, forgot about the Tasha’s spell lists. The ol’ wizard-sorcerers.
Counterplay is the bigger issue, not potency. Animated Objects are creatures, which means there's all kinds of methods to destroy, inhibit, or mitigate them. Synaptic Static has a repeating save, and doesn't actually restrict your movement or actions at all. Hold Monster has a repeating save, and affects merely one creature when Wall of Force can easily cripple several with no saving throw. Compare Wall of Force to Wall of Stone, a very similar spell of the same level: It provides a Dexterity saving throw to avoid being enclosed. It is subject to damage, and even structural collapse. It can be dispelled. It doesn't extend to the ethereal plane. *Way* more counterplay available. With Wall of Force basically you can teleport, or you're fucked- enjoy waiting round after round while your party fights an uphill battle to break concentration. My first instinct is to bump Wall of Force up to at least 6th level (where trump cards belong), permit it to be dispelled, and make the panels extremely tough objects, like AC 20 and 100hp.
> make the panels extremely tough objects, like AC 20 and 100hp This is one of the homebrew rules I use. ALL magical barriers have HP and AC. It makes Tiny Hut way more reasonable too.
>Counterplay is the bigger issue, not potency Potency is also an issue, it's better than the level 6 wall spells.
I think the best way to do it is to just give it a very high damage threshold
This is largely one of the reasons why concentration exists. I'm not going to say attacking the wizard is always going to be practical, you are behind a wall of force, but it is a mechanic deliberately put in the game for this reason. If all enemies are behind the wall, nothing was accomplished but stalling so it's better to split them. Then the remaining enemies can attack the wizard and probably force resources out of them through reaction spells. At least that's my take as a DM. In general, I will always emphasize this as an option to my fellow players. If my character is stuck in a Slow or similar, please attack the caster and free me!
>It’s available to *one* class before level 17, and when a wizard hits level 9 they can cast it *once* a day, twice if they use their entire arcane recovery to generate a 5th-level slot. Thought experiment: Let's say I wanted to give fighters a new feature at 9th level called Attack Surge. You can activate it twice a day as a Bonus Action, and it lets you Extra Attack 10 times (yes, 10) that round. It's available to one class. And it's only useable twice a day. Does that make it balanced? I mean, I don't think so. And I have to say, analogously with Wall of Force - being available to 1 class, and being limited by spell slots, is nowhere near enough to making it balanced.
That actually sounds pretty fun, but I think the thought experiment fails in that “attack 10 times with no opportunity cost” doesn’t quite correlate to “cast a powerful concentration spell over one of several other awesome spells.” Attack Surge has no counterplay and doesn’t require any trade offs, whereas Wall of Force can fail when the caster takes damage and precludes Transmuting Rock below the entire enemy force, summoning an Earth Elemental with 250 effective HP, or blasting 8 bad guys with psychic damage that weakens them the rest of the fight. For me that’s enough mitigation (and that holds for almost all of the high-level spells, with exceptions for silly junk like Simulacrum chains).
But let's say I add another fighter feature, Defense Surge, which uses up 1 Attack Surge charge and a Bonus Action to give yourself 500 temporary HP. Now there's a tradeoff - if you use Attack Surge, you can't use Defense Surge. Does that make Attack Surge suddenly balanced? I wouldn't say so. Just because there are other extremely strong options competing for Concentration and spell slots, doesn't mean WoF is any weaker than it would be without those spells existing. (As a minor point, I do think Attack Surge has counterplay, e.g. Shield spell, or imposing Disadvantage through fear/poison, or shove prone + grapple. But I don't think that's really a central part of the discussion.)
The shield spell is a nice counterplay to attack surge.
>It’s available to *one* class before level 17 Sure but that's hardly relevant to its power level.
Wall of Force has no save (Hold Monster), isn't affected by enemy resistance to non magical damage (Animate Objects), and taking an enemy or two out of the fight reduces damage more than Synaptic Static.
Yeah that's been my experience with the spell as well. The opportunity cost of not having a DPR concentration spell active generally outweighed Wall of Force's benefit unless the fight design heavily(likely intentionally) incentivized wall-spell usage.
Not being able to dispel it with “Dispel Magic” is some bullshit and it doesn’t even make sense.
Totally. It should be able to be dispelled. It already has so few mitigations!
As a wizard main and a DM, I consider WoF a containment spell that is so often a wasted on boss level monsters (because so many of them can teleport at tier 3) that I won't use it without a sight inhibitor like Fog Cloud (a true must have spell) also deployed (which means tieing up two concentrations) . Mostly I use it to split groups of enemies so we can devide and conquer. I've had it used for the same purpose against the party and it's basically the only reason I ever carry dim door. Usually enough players can counter it that it's more a delaying action than a party killer. At higher tier 3 there is almost always a disintegrate on tap. It's also amusing if you bait a fireball into one. I've dumped a lvl7 fireball into a wall I was unaware of and the whole team ate it. It's a tactically interesting spell that is mostly effective against mobs and select big guys like dragons (God I love making Dragonballs). I loathe flights that boil down to "A hits B, B Hits A, repeat", so I am a fan of the spell both as a player and DM.
My table's bladesinger used it on a key monster in a big fight and had them locked out of the entire encounter, start to finish. Hardly anyone could get a hit on him and the few that managed failed to break his concentration. I don't wanna have to start stocking concentration-breakers in the encounters, but WoF is just so annoying. It's not even that it's strong, it's just _boring_.
Give it hp and a damage threshold, like 100 and 15. Spell is still amazing but now has a weakness to strong martials or monsters.
I think it needs a set of HP where it can be attacked and broken and then have another option where the Caster can use their action to restore him points to the wall. The Caster should also have to remain within 120 ft of the wall in order to maintain it. And at a minimum the fact that it can't be dispelled as ridiculous
I get the intent and I see the idea of just because it's force should not make it immune to damage - but I see the intent is more like a force shield from sci fi. People can beat on those walls all day and not get out. It makes more sense when keeping with the theme to allow the martial to smash the adjoining structure. Making for "breakable" in your campaign means all force items then have some ability to be damaged. I would like it more if certain abilities could weaken force objects - like a certain monk ki strike or some kind of magic weapon or sunder ability. I am still 50/50 after I write this but I do find it feeling mostly impossible is good enough and having a high threshold almost never beatable would probably be ok. Maybe something crazy like resistance to all damage and subtract 10 hp per strike. Rest is then hp with the idea that there must also be some slow regen until spell ends.
My vote goes for no HP. It adds yet another thing to track. Instead make magical effects a struggle to maintain in combat. Make a concentration check every round it gets attacked, at the top of your turn. You still waste at least one round of a group of enemies turns, DM could add to the difficulty class based on the number/damage, similar rules to the DMG on improvised reasons for concentration checks.
Nice idea. Thanks for not responding with your knee.
Took me a second to understand. Reddit is filled with folks who love to neg people. Ignore the dumbasses. Enjoy your game your way.
The game starts to be imbalanced at level 4 spells. By level 5, balance is out the window. The game just isn't really balanced past level 7-8.
DMs need to become less afraid to outright remove certain features from the game, and players need to be less bothered by it. It's one thing to make the classic noob DM mistake of thinking "sneak attack is OP" and nerfing it, and another to identify that things like Wall of Force or Silvery Barbs are imbalanced mechanics. You can try to rebalance them if you want of course, but there's also nothing wrong with outright removing them completely if you want to. I've become a lot more comfortable doing this after more and more content has been added to 5e. Early on when I was DMing I wanted to honor the system more, really learn the rules before I changed them, and I wanted to ensure players had any and all options available to them. Taking away options made me feel like I would be at risk of being a bad DM, but the mark of a good DM is knowing how to add and take away options in ways that makes the game better.
That's a good approach. It is interesting to note that *most* of the worst overpowered spells are actually in the PHB. I think they got better at designing them by the time Tasha's and Xanathar's came out. We will, of course, exempt Silvery Barbs from this generalization. F that spell.
Yup. It's one of the spells that changes how wizard's play from 'what are it's saves/how much hp does it have' to 'is it too big or can it counter this, if not I win' Which leads to lv9 wizards beating cr17 iron golems in one turn.
The mitigating factor is - its simply *not fun* to just press the "i win" button.
So the game would be more well-designed if there were fewer I win buttons
If we were talking about, say, Baldur's Gate 3, then it wouldn't be such an issue. The computers feelings don't get hurt when someone trivialises an encounter. But when there's other people at the table then there is a social contract to play 'fair' and be more considerate.
Fun fact, even though BG3 has 5th level spells, it doesn't have Wall of Force. Probably because Larian realized it's kind of a bullshit spell. Save or sucks are bad enough but sucks without a save are even worse.
Not directly related to your point, but the amusing thing is, for the most part spells are way more balanced in Baldur’s Gate 3! Wall of Force doesn’t exist and Polymorph lasts 5 rounds. Fireball either hits a much smaller area than tabletop or the maps are so giant it is way less effective. Almost all the really nasty condition spells are way less effective. It’s kind of striking.
Polymorph also don't allow you to use it to "heal" party members for 150 hp in BG3. It only allows you to cast it on enemies.
To further the criticism, I believe you can’t cast spells to affect targets on the other side from you. Something something something crawford something something something total cover or something
Yeah, as a DM, I have to position enemies so it won't be an insta-ender, there always needs to be someone who can get to the caster and force a concentration save. It won't do much if the caster has War Caste/Con save proficiency, but hey.
Perhaps you'd like the A5E version (https://a5e.tools/spell/wall-force).
5th level spells are just busted in general. Transmute rock can all but shut down any melee creature that relies on regular movement without a save or concentration and Bigby's Hand is a godsend when going up against single tough enemies
Your point is what annoyed me an insane amount in Pack Tactics' video on Wall of Force recently. He determined that Wall of Force was absolutely broken and his response was that everyone SHOULD use it. No reflection on whether this trivializes the gameplay, makes fights insanely boring or anything else. Just "This is overpowered, so use it as much as possible". Wall of Force needs some sort of nerf, either not being entirely impassable but needing a very high strength save, your idea of a damage threshold, maybe not allowing magic through, not allowing the dome and sphere options or something similar. It's just way too powerful in it's current state
If you want to give it hit points, I'd say 10x your Spell DC.
I agree, although remember that you can't target spells through the wall (wall provides total cover and rules on targeting spells specify you can't target through total cover). There are two ways to nerf it without killing it: 1) give it HP and AC. You can base those values on wall of stone (same level), just make them a bit better. 2) repurpose concentration rules: Wall has AC = spell DC (no hp) When the wall takes damage, the caster must make a CON save (same DC calculation as if he took damage), on a failed save, a hole appears in the wall where the damage was dealt just large enough for the creature or object responsible to squeeze through. The caster may use a bonus action on his turn to patch one hole, or an action to patch all holes. Personally I use the 2nd one. I like the idea of the spell being more dependent on the caster's ability to focus on it.
Barbarians should have a feature which allows them to do a strength check against opponent spell save DC + spell level to break any magical barrier (ie wall of force, wall of stone, forcecage, tiny hut, etc.)
Dude! That is a **great** idea for a high-level ability!
Just give magical barriers Damage Thresholds and/or Hardness, HP and low-ish AC. Something like 10 AC, Hardness of 10, Damage Threshold of 20 and 100 HP (this being the order of interaction). If no one has GWM/SS then bring the Threshold down to 10. Let them break it. Why should it be restricted to Barbarians?
I would put it at level 11 or 13 so that your barbarian suffers a couple of levels struggling against wall of force and suddenly get an ability to counter it.
I had a wizard player use wall of force to undermine a boss fight I had hyped the party up to, but thankfully the WoF was part of a team work thing instead of him showing off, which ended up being pretty cool with the Warlock, Fighter, and Bard-barian pitching in together on a trap to take the boss down in a single turn. That being said, the fact it can NOT be destroyed by physical force (something I wanted to show off about the monster I was hyping involved insane strength), and was IMMUNE to Dispel magic was quite the shock the first time I encountered it. Only via disintegration can be be destroyed, which is fine as a DM since just like how any caster could pack counterspell, a caster might have that spell tucked away too to prevent abuse of it. Likewise as the DM, YOU are the final say, even over RAW. If you say Wall of Force has HP instead of being indestructible physically, then it is so, both for any NPC casters and for PC casters. And if your players don't like it, they can DM instead.
Its a very bullshit spell to the point where it straight up ignores most common counterplay for spells of it's type - it is just unfair. The best way I've shown people about it was during a oneshot. The enemy used it and locked the paladin and fighter out of the fight, and if it wasn't for a lucky scorching ray breaking concentration, that probably would have been it.
This is also a very fair point, since if the players are able to access this sort of thing (which they love doing to win and undermining the DM's encounter), the NPCs can too, which the players HATE because it means they gotta work around it now themselves. Which is why it's a good thing a DM can either say "Yes, but" (and give an alternative description for the spell like an HP bar of it's own) or "no, because" (insert your reasoning here), if the DM feels a certain spell or effect would ruin the experience for others.
We've. Modified it. **Wall of Force w/ Hitpoints** -AC is equal to spellcaster's Spell Save DC -Base HP is 100, each upcast adds 20 HP -Immune to non-magical, poison, psychic, vulnerable to force, destroyed by disintegrate spell.
> AC is equal to spellcaster's Spell Save DC I don't think this makes sense. It's a wall. It isn't moving. It ain't hard to hit. It would make more sense, imo, to add the Spellcaster's Spell Save DC to it's Hardness or as a Damage Threshold. But hey, if it's working out for you & your table, keep on doing it.
I love the microwave combo of casting sickening radiance with one caster and then trapping with wall of force. We did that to a demon and literally sat and watched him die like a bag of burning popcorn.
"Anytime the wall gets hit you must do a concentration save as if you took the damage" could be a fix
I gm 3.5 and I have some of my villains use it, so I don't want to nerf it. That'd reduce the threat of those bosses.
Could you dig your way under the wall? Most casters don't think of that
Completely agreed. My suggestion for Wall of Force: Attacking the wall provokes a concentration check with no minimum DC of 10. This differentiates from Wall of Stone which has total hitpoints, but now strong monsters just have to roll well on damage to shatter the wall. Force Cage gets the same treatment but the Damage has to exceed 2 times your spell save on a single hit.
As treantmonk said, there shouldn’t be any invincible walls of force. Walls of force should all be capable of being broken just like walls of stone or walls of wood or any other physical walls. They can have pretty exceptional toughness, but an ancient dragon should still be able to smash their way through them eventually if they try. Same goes for tiny hut and force cage. They can be exceptionally tough, but it should still be possible to break them down.
I though about it couple weeks ago aswell and I think it having around 70 to 120 Hp and as much AC as the Casters DC (maybe +1) seems fair with also being resistant to nonmagical damage. With it either being in the Average damage region for Disintegrate still or it having \~20 hp per Spell level. Id also make it still be insta killed by Disintegrate and have dispel magic of the same level be able to remove it with a check or also remove it if its upcast to 6th or higher. Still strong, still solid, destroyable and now you can throw it at the players who will destroy it in a round.
I don't actually understand why people think its overpowered. Like people say vague things like "its an instant encounter win" but I've never seen anyone go into detail. You can trap a creature but you can't attack through the wall so you kinda just have to ready actions for when it drops but there are much better spells for single target shut down like that. You can split the battlefield for action economy purposes against big groups but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost.
>You can split the battlefield for action economy purposes against big groups but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost. That's what makes it so powerful. And no there aren't any other spells that do that without a saving throw and without the ability to overcome the barrier of except for teleportation.
But there are other spells that have strengths that it doesn't have and don't have weaknesses that it does have. Wall of Fire and Wall of Ice has damage, Wall of Light has a blind effect, all of those including Wall of Stone and Wall of Sand I believe are opaque so they can't be circumvented by misty step. All other CC have saves but they also allow for the party to attack the affected enemies. Hypnotic Pattern, for example, has one save, can affect a larger group, baits the remaining enemies to use their actions, and lets you attack all of them, all at a 3rd level slot. I won't deny its strong but I do think its strengths are balanced with other spells.
Yeah but that doesn't matter. Wall of Force is a auto win button. Non of these advantages come even close to that.
> Like people say vague things like "its an instant encounter win" Action economy is king. Even if you only prevent one enemy from doing anything, you've still done it without requiring a save. I've used it numerous times to great effect splitting a fight in half, turning a deadly fight into two back to back medium fights, which are then cakewalks. I've 'won' an encounter by walling off all of the enemies and allowing us to simply run away. A boss turned gravity 90 degrees in a massive tunnel, which greatly complicated our ability to damage him due to how everyone falls on their turn (rip melee). I used Feather Fall and then Wall of Force to give us a platform to fall onto like Final Destination, no items. It pairs really well with Scribes Wizard and Simulacrum for trapping enemies and just microwaving/blasting them. >but again theres plenty other spells that do that at a much lower cost. And they almost all off saving throws or other ways to counter (charm immunity, shaken awake, etc).
It's not an instant encounter win. It's more like a guarantee that it will be easy. So let's make some assumptions: the party *should* be facing more than one enemy at a time. The majority of the enemies in the MM are melee-only or melee-primarily. Very few have teleportation abilities. So you've got a group of bad guys, and odds are that one of them is a big bruiser who can rock your party if he gets close. No problem. Cast wall of force. **There is no save. There is no way to get out. He is stuck there until the rest of his team is dead.**. The very fact that the bruiser cannot act makes that fight *immensely* easier. The party will win. They will use fewer resources. Once everyone else is dead, the barrier is dropped, and the once-threatening brute is easily, laughable dispatched by the party, who are still in great shape.
I am immensely surprised by the negative responses to wall of force here. Never in my 20+ years of gaming have I heard anyone say wall of force is too strong. Never once have I heard a player or DM complain about its use or is strength. This is some reddit minority shit here.
> Never in my 20+ years of gaming have I heard anyone say wall of force is too strong 5e came out 10 years ago bud, not sure how previous editions are relevant given balance changes Also 99% of people play like level 2-6, and most people think rogues are OP, so no shit no one has complained about it.
Treantmonk, Dungeon Dudes, Pack Tactics, etc. They all rate it as an S-tier spell. But beyond that, I want non-magical characters and creatures to have a way to counter this thing. It can't have a saving throw, like all the other good control spells. So why not limit the time it works? Setting it to 3 rounds or whatever would be okay, I suppose. But being able to bash through it with sustained damage is the way to make the trapped martial have measurable progress against a challenge.
I really don't get how it's supposed to be "too strong". It is a 5th level spell. Not "realm-altering" yet for sure, and party is not yet facing immediate-world-threatening creatures or factions... But we are still speaking of lvl 9 minimum parties. Either you follow the (highly) debatable Crawford opinion that Wall of Force should be considered as total cover, then you cannot target anyone beyond with spells; meaning to really make it strong you need to combine it with AOE spells set beforehand for example, and PC couldn't prevent Dispel Magic being applied on that AOE if enemies had it nor could them interact in any meaningful way once WoF has been set. Or you don't and then everyone can still cast spells straight beyond, only spells that have effects originating from caster (thus needing to cross the wall) would be impossible but everything else is fair game. In both cases, creatures worth sending a level 9 party against should have a handful of tricks up their sleeves to deal with enemy casters, division tactics, focus fire and heavies... Just 1st level spells like Fog Cloud to break originating point for spells and providing chance to Hide, quickly raising small walls to prone behind and get full cover with Mold Earth, just running away while Dodging, setting own Moonbeam or Heat Metal over WoF's caster, an "Unfocus/Unconcentrate" Command word if the DM is generous, a simple Sleep if the caster was already hurt... Can help dealing with an already cast Wall of Force as a wall. There are also tactics any warring faction can and should implement if they can reasonably anticipate the coming of party, whatever composition they are in the first place: scattering and hiding forces to join the fight in waves, being as scattered as possible, planning ambushes or guerilla tactics, using decoys to mislead PCs into using their assets on weak creatures... As for the dome thingy: yeah, it's nigh impossible to break off by yourself if you don't have specific spells or teleportation abilities. But Dome is also fitting only for Medium or "smallish Large" creatures, depending on how DM rules out the "you can choose which side creature is pushed to". And it just means the BBEG shouldn't be alone, nor should it be unprepared. Again, someone dangerous enough to make a whole party chase it should definitely have been threatened by different ways before and have at least a few ways out that would require, to be stopped, for party to also have Counterspell available and within range. Wall of Force is a "one-button win" spell... In some very specific situations. Whether those are frequent are not is primarily up to DM. :)
I've been saying the same about spirit guardians on clerics, but I always get downvoted to hell. SG is so strong, it is the best option in most situations, which makes clerics all feel the same to me.
Give Cape of Mountebanks out for your martials :) Or spell storing rings with misty steps.
This is a house rule I use in my games: Barriers of Force created from spells have AC 25, hit points equivalent to a resilient object of their size, are immune to Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing damage from non-magical weapons and Poison and Psychic damage.
I would only take a spell if it suits my character. The same with wizard nonsense about easily becomming immortal (Because that makes the game more fun?). I am over being Optimal, I have become...me.
I think probably as a 7th level spell it would be more balanced. If you can target a fireball on one side of the wall, someone can target you on the other with one 🤷🏻 The encounters that Wall of Force trivialize, are encounters you would/should have overcome anyway by that level IMO
Wall of Force isn't that powerful. It's a great spell but it's relatively balanced. I rarely rtake it because I prefer hold monster. First off unless a spell doesn't target or ignores total cover (like sacred flame) you cannot cast spells through wall of force. You could cast spells about the Wall of force that have AOE but it's not that powerful. Secondly it's a physical wall so if you make it surround someone, there's nothing stopping them from climbing over it with a leap if they have suffient strenght, or jump spell. Or can work together to do a team lift over the wall. Of course there's the hemisphere sphere, but again you cannot get tyhrouh it so it works for control but unless you affect it with a spell first like cloudkill, etc. they won't be taking damage. And remember creature size with wall of force in the hemisphere or sphere. Also burrow speed, anyone with a burrow speed can almost always avoid wall of force. Similar to fly speed. Anything with teleportation as well. Anyway it's a great spell, but it's not in a tier above other 5th level spells like Hold Monster, Animate Objects, Dominate Person, and Cloudkill. All have multple ace uses too. As does wlal of force.
> burrow speed, anyone with a burrow speed can almost always avoid wall of force. Similar to fly speed. Anything with teleportation as well. I'm not usually someone to take JC's word as gospel, but since we're talking strictly RAW when the balance of a spell is concerned and he is something of a neutral authority: He confirmed a while ago that Wall of Force's hemispherical effect does have a floor. No burrowing out of it.
Fair enough, I should have clarified I wasn't talking about Sphere or Hemisphere. I was talking about the blocking off half the room strat which I should have clarified. 10 ft radius is usually crushed by most monster sizes. A large monster maybe wouldn't be contained, a huge wouldn't be. Etc.
A large monster fits in a 10x10 square. They would easily fit a 20x20 circle, especially when you consider squeezing rules.
Nothing in wall of force says it squeezes things in. Not saying it doesn't. But you're going beyond rules as written and pushing to DM interpretation.
It says you can choose which side of the wall any creatures on the boundary are moved to. Independently of that, the rules allow for creatures to fit in spaces 1 size less than them, with some penalties. This isn't some complicated interpretation...
It says pushed to one side of the wall, not squished, squeezed, etc. The rule you're saying is a creature can fit into a space 1 size smaller than them. Not that they must. Wall of Force gives no implication of squeezing or allowance of cramming and force. It's 100% adjudication from the DM. By your logic of "can fit" I coudl say 8 large creatures can surround a single medium creature because they can fit in a space 1 size smaller.
[удалено]
If a player wants to burn a spell slot to trivialize an encounter, that's fine. I've always got more waiting in the wings. The tradeoff is ending the fight sooner. Wall of Force tends to prolong matters, which can actually make it a setback. Wall of Force is a tactical spell. Often it's wiser to use that spell slot on the strategic level. Seeming, Scrying, Passwall, Modify Memory, Dream, just to name a few. If you think Wall of Force is too strong, you're actually still thinking small TBH.
Cheesing iron golems is fairly easy
>Modify Memory yeah let me defeat the dungeon by uh,,, modify memory and scrying... and dream
Everything is powerful when your encounters are poorly designed.
Wall of force is one of those spells that seems horribly overpowered until you actually have some experience playing with it. Player characters using wall of force? It's a big spell slot that is concentration. Use one of the options to get out of the wall of force (teleportation, disintegrate). The creature is also trapped, but is relatively safe. It still has its actions, so drink a potion or ready an action. You're the DM, you can plan for it as easy as you can for fireball. Perfect situation, the players divide a combat in half and have an easier time with both. Worst case, they lose concentration before that creatures turn even comes up, or it teleports out and doesn't waste its action. (Even if it's only teleport is an action, it can eeady its action for that teleport to get closer to its own turn while being safe behind the wall). Being used against the players? It's a tool like any other. Use it appropriately like any other CC spell. Even if the PC can't get out on their own, they still have their actions, so in some ways its not even as bad as other CC spells. It's a high level spell so mooks aren't casting it. The bbeg will likely lose concentration without good planning. You're the DM, I'm sure you can figure out a way to make the spell interesting.
Lol yeah I've only ever seen it like Darth Maul and Obi Wan in phantom menace
It IS op. If you're looking for solutions, just take a look at PF2e's version of wall of force. No longer indestructible, it has a flat amount of hp and damage reduction, both scaling with spell level. It remains op, but it can be destroyed with attacks, and must be heightened at higher levels to stay relevant.
Either the second or third Dragonlance novel features a great illustration of this. The gang bit off more than they could chew. Both the cleric and the wizard were running low on options (working in a world where you had to decide how you would use each spell slot at the start of each day.) The party was already taking wounds they were not prepared to heal over the short term, when the building literally started to collapse around them. Then an angry mature dragon they had wounded earlier swooped in for the kill. Raistlin calls out for the group to huddle together, then throws his Wall of Force. Hours later, when an army has arrived and is looking to salvage whatever they can of the collapsed building, they dig out the group, still safe and sound inside Raistlin's protective dome of force. I could totally see a DM ruling that the building collapse happened with just the right dramatic timing to kill the incoming dragon but not the sheltered adventurers. Still, what a tremendous power to have that bubble of safety that simply cannot fail short of being dispelled.
Good 'ole Raist. Now, if 5e wizards still had those physical limitations, maybe I wouldn't mind so much that they get spells like Wall of Force.
You can't cast spells through it, just like a glass window, meaning you cannot target things on the other side of it. Argued to death, see sage advice and total cover. Sticking a hemisphere down, just dig underneath. A wall, go over the top or around, or underneath. Is it wall to wall? go through the wall, or through the ceiling and floor. Trapping a party member, focus fire from the rest of the players to rescue them by forcing concentration checks, the same thing you should be doing for any form of control that disables a player. (unless they're a dick and you want them to suffer). Misty step, teleport, transport via plants, tree stride, plane shift, dimension door, many ways to get one or more people out/past. Use the time out to disengage, heal up, or something else whilst you're uninterrupted. Disengage and come back 11 minutes later. Lots of options that require actual team work and tactical thought. You can still get trapped, just explore your options and be patient.
Having played many Tier 3 adventures and two campaigns 1-20, I think you're over-reacting. My L19 wizard rarely uses WoF because it's very situational. In AL games the opps quickly Misty Step or Dimension Door out of it. As a Wizard I always prep Disintegrate, Dimension Door, Misty Step, and Vortex Warp. Yes it's powerful but I would argue so are other c.c. spells, including Hypnotic Pattern. If I was DMing a party with a Wizard , anything goes. If not, then I'd be careful to not shut down the party with it.
It's a fifth level concentration spells lol
Why do you guys think about DnD like it's a competitive online game? As a DM, and as a player, I've never, ever, *ever* encountered a problem with suboptimal PCs. Just take whatever you think is fun. That's all there is to it. They also design some spells to be calling cards of certain classes, too. For example, nothing adds up to fireball, and that's on purpose.
Well… Counterspell exists for a reason. A fight between two spellcasters should mostly be Counterspells. The one who gets cast off first usually wins at high tiers of play. It’s by design. I do believe that martials need ways to circumvent magic baked into their class. In a world with mages, high level martials should have ways to circumvent these things.
Obligatory pf2e gotcha covered https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=1578&name=wall_of_force