# D&D 5E Wall of Force options



## Samloyal23

Okay, a Wizard casts *Wall of Force* to defend himself from attack, creating a dome over his location. What spells from the published materials can he use against an enemy located outside of the dome? I just need a solid list of standard options.


----------



## Krachek

None, 
best option : pop corn and take a seat!


----------



## LordEntrails

Until he dismisses it about all he can do is move earth to dig him/herself out.


----------



## jgsugden

The Wall of Force is essentially a glass bubble that can't be broken.  You can see targets through it, but you're subject to the targeting rule: To target a creature, object or point of origin yuou must have a clear path to that target.  So, you are looking for spells that either ignore the cover restriction for targeting, or that do not have a target at all.  Additionally, a spell’s effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn’t included in the spell’s area. 

Sacred Flame is one spell that can target through a Wall of Force due to the clause in the final sentence.  The target gains no benefit from cover for the saving throw.  This has been explicitly confirmed by Jeremy Crawford.  It is a bit difficult for a wizard to cast this spell, but interestingly a paladin (Oath of Redemption of 17th level with the Blessed Warrior Fighting Style) can pull this trick off.  For the wizards, you're generally going to be looking at multiclass, homebrew/3rd party (Mystic Theurge), the new Divinely Favored feat, Spell Sniper (Cleric), etc...  

I've seen arguments that Raulothim's Psychic Lance should also bypasses the restriction.  The argument is based upon the idea that if you utter the creature's name, the creature just becomes the target without using the normal rules for targeting.  However, I consider that a stretch, and even if true, the spell describes the psychic energy as coming from your forehead in a shimmering lance, so I consider this a loser as well - but your DM has grounds to rule otherwise, even if weak grounds.

Detect Thoughts is range self, so it works on you.  From there, it can be argued that you can use it to read the surface thoughts of creatures within 30 feet of you. The spell says you can read the surface thoughts of a creature you can see, but does not require you to target them - for surface thoughts.  To probe deeper you need to target them clearly.  However, I believe this runs afoul fo the 'unblocked straight line' requirement for the effect of a spell.  However, there have been some debates there.  Regardless, it is concentration so there is difficulty there in having 2 concentrartion spells.

Gift of Gab also theoretically does not require the targeting rules and is range self, but is range 5'.  Again, the unblocked straight line requirement seems to prohibit this to me.


----------



## Plaguescarred

Normally  to target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover, but some exception exist, such as _Sacred Flame_, which says the target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw. It's also been confirmed by the Dev in a Podcast that it was intended to work that way https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3



> There are spells that create exceptions to this rule about needing a path clear of obstruction. One cantrip [that breaks] this rule is _sacred flame_. _Sacred flame_ is one of the low level spells that has this text: "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." [...] So, they're getting no benefit from cover [...] and that includes total cover. So *sacred flame is one of the few spells that allows you to target somebody even if they're behind total cover*. [...] You can be looking through the window in the tower and cast it on someone outside. ... The narrative reason for that, the reason I wrote it that way, is that _sacred flame_ is coming down from above the person. The idea is the cleric is calling this divine energy down on the target and it is not actually shooting out from the cleric, it's coming down. [Which is an exception] and in the game the exceptional always beats the general.


----------



## Samloyal23

I would imagine you can summon things and have them appear outside the dome, no? Conjure Minor Elementals says things appear anywhere you can see within range.


----------



## Nefermandias

Samloyal23 said:


> I would imagine you can summon things and have them appear outside the dome, no? Conjure Minor Elementals says things appear anywhere you can see within range.



There's still the issue that both Conjure Minor Elementals and Wall of Force requires concentration.


----------



## Salmakia

That's an interesting thought on Conjuration spells though... would something like Tidal Wave work? You're conjuring the wave outside the Wall of Force & the spell doesn't require concentration.


----------



## Salmakia

Also on that note, could you cast Steel Wind Strike from within a Wall of Force? The spell sort of implies that you're teleporting between each attack.


----------



## Mort

Salmakia said:


> Also on that note, could you cast Steel Wind Strike from within a Wall of Force? The spell sort of implies that you're teleporting between each attack.




Seems to be DMs call on that one.


Crawford seems to have UNOFFICIALLY stated that the caster is teleporting between strikes.


----------



## Clint_L

Samloyal23 said:


> Okay, a Wizard casts *Wall of Force* to defend himself from attack, creating a dome over his location. What spells from the published materials can he use against an enemy located outside of the dome? I just need a solid list of standard options.



It's intentionally written to prevent this sort of use, for good reason. It's possible someone could find ways around it by parsing RAW very carefully, but as a DM I would probably rule against it, because it would likely create a broken situation and is likely players trying to metagame and pull off shenanigans. Have to see the context, though.

The _sacred flame_ exception would be very hard to pull off and not very powerful, so that would be okay. Maybe a multi-class cleric 10/Wizard 9/10 could get away with a Divine Intervention while in the force dome, and the deity could attack the target? If they could make that roll, I'd let 'em have it!


----------



## MNblockhead

A bit off topic, but based on the discussion so far, how would y'all rule about the magic item _Cube of Force_. Since face 5 states "spell effects can't pass through the barrier", many may be tempted to read that as a caster being able to sling spells if faces 1-4 are activate (face 6 is "nothing can pass through").  But given the clear path rule, is that reading incorrect? Does this just apply to area of effect spells cast by casters outside the cube of force targeting an area just outside the cube of force?

Either way, I find Cube of Force to way too potentially game changing to only be "rare".


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere. Need to find a way round the concentration issue though.


----------



## Stalker0

MNblockhead said:


> Either way, I find Cube of Force to way to potentially game changing to only be "rare".



I agree, it’s way too strong for rare, very rare at minimum, I can even respect the case for legendary. There are just way too many ways to turn off hold swathes of combat encounters with it


----------



## Hussar

I find the bigger problem is that the wizard englobes the baddie inside the wall of force and then the rest of the party drops psychic spells on the target.  Does that work?

Another issue I've had is they've summoned stuff around the baddie, then dropped the wall of force to keep it inside with the summoned stuff.


----------



## Storyteller Hero

A damaging ranged/AoE spell plus a fragile ceiling to cave in heavy material over the dome, making the dome an effective trap for the domed mage unless they can teleport out, phase through the rubble, dig themselves a tunnel, etc. --- it's a gamble but if the domed mage didn't prepare the right spells, they're potentially doomed the moment the Wall of Force ends.


----------



## Clint_L

Hussar said:


> I find the bigger problem is that the wizard englobes the baddie inside the wall of force and then the rest of the party drops psychic spells on the target.  Does that work?
> 
> Another issue I've had is they've summoned stuff around the baddie, then dropped the wall of force to keep it inside with the summoned stuff.



Option 1 would depend on the wording of the specific spells, but Wall of Force is designed to make that tactic difficult. Without going through every spell, my suspicion is that the party would be out of luck.

Option 2 would _definitely_ work though, and would be hilarious.

There are definitely tons of ways to use Wall of Force offensively (I like the cave-in strategy above). It is just designed to prevent the lazy tactic of being able to sit inside it and pew pew with impunity.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Clint_L said:


> Option 1 would depend on the wording of the specific spells, but Wall of Force is designed to make that tactic difficult. Without going through every spell, my suspicion is that the party would be out of luck.



There are quite a few summonish spells that say nothing about "seeing" the target location. The only drawback is they are (so far as I can find) all concentration. But if we are not talking about the wizard who is concetrating on the wall, then they can be used by either side.


----------



## Clint_L

Paul Farquhar said:


> There are quite a few summonish spells that say nothing about "seeing" the target location. The only drawback is they are (so far as I can find) all concentration. But if we are not talking about the wizard who is concetrating on the wall, then they can be used by either side.



He asked abut dropping "psychic spells" on the target.

Edit: though thinking more about it, I don't think you can summon inside a Wall of Force once it is up. It counts as "total cover," and the rules on total cover are clear: unless the spell description specifically stipulates otherwise, you cannot cast a spell targeting something behind total cover. In this case, they would be trying to target a summoning spell behind total cover. It would be like trying to cast it into a closed building from outside.

I think Wall of Force confuses people because it is transparent, but it is nevertheless intended to act as total cover and block targeting, and the designers have been clear about that (c.f. Jeremy Crawford's comments re. Wall of Force and Sacred Flame).

I took option 2, above, to be about summoning something _first_ and place the Wall of Force around it and the target _second_, which is totally legitimate and clever, as far as I can see.

Edit 2: I think Wall of Force in general creates a lot of situations that may be counterintuitive, so this spell is a prime candidate for a DM setting aside RAW and doing what feels right in the story. I think it is clear that the intent of the spell is to stop almost anything getting through it, but whether or not you include spells that seem to start from inside it, like a summon spell, is reasonably up to DM discretion and I can't see most players having a problem with the ruling either way.


----------



## jgsugden

Stalker0 said:


> I agree, it’s way too strong for rare, very rare at minimum, I can even respect the case for legendary. There are just way too many ways to turn off hold swathes of combat encounters with it



It is a high risk tool.  The fighter in one of the games I run is using it and using it well.  They often make it so that creatures can't pass through it, but spells and objects can ... and that proved to be a problem when they were knocked unconcious and the only healer nearby could only heal with a touch.  Even unconcious, the cube stayed up and forced him to roll the dice on death saves.  

It is a powerful tool, and as such will be iconic for the user.  It will make them feel powerful - but that power comes with a risk.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Clint_L said:


> Edit: though thinking more about it, I don't think you can summon inside a Wall of Force once it is up. It counts as "total cover," and the rules on total cover are clear: unless the spell description specifically stipulates otherwise, you cannot cast a spell targeting something behind total cover. In this case, they would be trying to target a summoning spell behind total cover. It would be like trying to cast it into a closed building from outside.



If you look at the wording for Moonbeam, it says_ "A silvery beam of pale light shines down in a 5-foot-radius, 40-foot-high cylinder centered on a point within range."_ It doesn't say anything about having to "target" the point, you certainly don't have to see the point, and the effect does not originate from the caster.


----------



## Clint_L

According to Crawford's _sacred flame_ ruling the spell has to specifically "ignore cover," which _moonbeam_ does not do, according to the wording of the spell. I don't think _moonbeam_ would work with RAW; to me, it also seems intuitively like it shouldn't work because it would be going right through the _wall of force_, which is against the clear intent of the spell. This is assuming the dome or globe version of the spell.

DMs can rule however they want, but I think the design intent of _wall of force_ is clearly that it is supposed to be all but impenetrable, so as a DM I would be very hesitant to let players get around it as I think it could then become very easy to cheese the spell. I don't even like the _sacred flame_ ruling very much. YVMV.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Clint_L said:


> it shouldn't work because it would be going right through the _wall of force_, which is against the clear intent of the spell.



It doesn't go through the wall - the spell description says the effect comes *down*, same as _Sacred Flame_.

And if you place the effect at point in mid air over the top of the wall and above the target, the effect extends downwards 20 feet.

You can also move the beam as a bonus action, and there is nothing to indicate this movement is impeded by any sort of barrier.

But the rest the rules are open to interpretation. It doesn't need to ignore cover since it doesn't need to be targeted.


----------



## Hussar

I guess my issue is with spells that don't really need a line of effect from the caster to the target.  You can see the target and presumably sound can penetrate - there's nothing stating you can't hear inside a wall of force.  So, if I drop a wall of force around the target and then Banishment, would that work?  After all, I just need to see the baddy.  What about Phantasmal Killer?  Again, I just need to see it.

The problem I have with Wall of Force, isn't that it ties up one of the party's casters.  It's that if you have a few casters in the group - then you can get around the negatives of the Wall pretty easily and more or less autokill anything that cannot teleport.

I watched the party Vicious Mockery the baddy to death and there was nothing that could be done about it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> I guess my issue is with spells that don't really need a line of effect from the caster to the target.  You can see the target and presumably sound can penetrate - there's nothing stating you can't hear inside a wall of force.  So, if I drop a wall of force around the target and then Banishment, would that work?  After all, I just need to see the baddy.  What about Phantasmal Killer?  Again, I just need to see it.
> 
> The problem I have with Wall of Force, isn't that it ties up one of the party's casters.  It's that if you have a few casters in the group - then you can get around the negatives of the Wall pretty easily and more or less autokill anything that cannot teleport.
> 
> I watched the party Vicious Mockery the baddy to death and there was nothing that could be done about it.



Vicious Mockery is targeted, and thus, RAW, it can't be used through a wall of force. "Is psionic" isn't a rule in 5e.


----------



## Samloyal23

Salmakia said:


> Also on that note, could you cast Steel Wind Strike from within a Wall of Force? The spell sort of implies that you're teleporting between each attack.



Do you need to teleport out of the dome? Bamf 5 feet away inside of it.


----------



## Hussar

Paul Farquhar said:


> Vicious Mockery is targeted, and thus, RAW, it can't be used through a wall of force. "Is psionic" isn't a rule in 5e.




But the target is simply, someone you can see. The wall doesn’t block sight. Why would it block the effect?


----------



## Samloyal23

It seems like instead of a defense for the caster the Wall of Force is more like a prison that protects the BBEG from the wizard in the party. What good is it?


----------



## Hussar

Samloyal23 said:


> It seems like instead of a defense for the caster the Wall of Force is more like a prison that protects the BBEG from the wizard in the party. What good is it?




Well it lets the other three or four PCs freely murderize the baddy. Basically it’s an I win spell.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> But the target is simply, someone you can see. The wall doesn’t block sight. Why would it block the effect?



Because rulz. It's described above. "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." The wall of force counts as total cover, as per sage advice.


----------



## Hussar

Paul Farquhar said:


> Because rulz. It's described above. "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." The wall of force counts as total cover, as per sage advice.



Thank you.  That's exactly the thing I was looking for.  Excellent.  As always, RTFM.  Two big thumbs up.


----------



## cwallach

Lets say that Moonbeam is cast (by another PC) prior to Wall of Force.  Can the Moonbeam then be moved if the Wall of Force is between the Moonbeam and its caster?


----------



## Stalker0

So if you use the “can’t target” criteria as what wall of force blocks or doesn’t, unfortunately that includes most Simmons as well.

Conjure animals for example targets a square. Well that targeting would be blocked by WoF just as much as a creature target would, so you can’t conjure the animal past the wall


----------



## MNblockhead

jgsugden said:


> It is a high risk tool.  The fighter in one of the games I run is using it and using it well.  They often make it so that creatures can't pass through it, but spells and objects can ... and that proved to be a problem when they were knocked unconcious and the only healer nearby could only heal with a touch.  Even unconcious, the cube stayed up and forced him to roll the dice on death saves.
> 
> It is a powerful tool, and as such will be iconic for the user.  It will make them feel powerful - but that power comes with a risk.



For me, like a lot of oh-crud-what-have-I-gotten-myself-into moments in 5e is that I play with a very skilled group of veteran players. When I started playing with this group, I hadn't run any TTRPG for a couple decades.  There is this great blog and series of books that came out of that blog called "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing" that gives tips for running monsters. It would love a similar series that did deep dives in to magic items and spells.


----------



## Clint_L

Paul Farquhar said:


> It doesn't go through the wall - the spell description says the effect comes *down*, same as _Sacred Flame_.
> 
> And if you place the effect at point in mid air over the top of the wall and above the target, the effect extends downwards 20 feet.
> 
> You can also move the beam as a bonus action, and there is nothing to indicate this movement is impeded by any sort of barrier.
> 
> But the rest the rules are open to interpretation. It doesn't need to ignore cover since it doesn't need to be targeted.



It does need to be targeted: "centered on a point within range." The words "ignore cover" have a very specific meaning in D&D; they are specifically added to very few spells. _Sacred flame_ is one of those spells, _moonbeam_ is not. I think your ruling on _moonbeam_ would open the door to a _lot_ of other spells and create exactly the situation that _wall of force_ seems intended to prevent. Your campaign, though, so if that is comfortable for you, then there's no problem.


----------



## Stalker0

Clint_L said:


> It does need to be targeted: "centered on a point within range." The words "ignore cover" have a very specific meaning in D&D; they are specifically added to very few spells. _Sacred flame_ is one of those spells, _moonbeam_ is not. I think your ruling on _moonbeam_ would open the door to a _lot_ of other spells and create exactly the situation that _wall of force_ seems intended to prevent. Your campaign, though, so if that is comfortable for you, then there's no problem.



Yeah moonbeams target is blocked as easily as any other by wall of force.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

cwallach said:


> Lets say that Moonbeam is cast (by another PC) prior to Wall of Force.  Can the Moonbeam then be moved if the Wall of Force is between the Moonbeam and its caster?



There is nothing in the rules to prevent it. Wouldn't need to be prior, either. RAW, after it's cast the Moonbeam can be moved through anything.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Clint_L said:


> It does need to be targeted: "centered on a point within range."



Which doesn't need to be _through_ the wall. The target point can be _above_ the wall. The effect itself is not affected by the wall, only the placement point.


----------



## Clint_L

I'm not sure what you think is so special about _moonbeam._ It still can't target something that has total cover, which is what you are trying to do - you are trying to summon it _here_ and then move it _there_, to a new target. There's still nothing allowing that particular spell to ignore cover.

Is it that _wall of force_ is transparent? This was specifically addressed by Crawford, and it doesn't make a difference; it still counts as full cover. If it makes it easier to understand, imagine _wall of force_ as an adamantium dome in this situation. You can move _moonbeam_ on top of it all you want; it ain't getting through. According to RAW, anyway. Your campaign, your rules - if I was a player and you told me it was transparent so _moonbeam_ could go right through, I would be fine with it.


----------



## James Gasik

I was about to ask if a hemispherical wall of force had a floor, wondering if something could go under it, but then I remembered Crawford's "ruling" about tiny hut.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

James Gasik said:


> I was about to ask if a hemispherical wall of force had a floor, wondering if something could go under it, but then I remembered Crawford's "ruling" about tiny hut.



It doesn't have a floor, but I'm pretty sure solid ground counts as total cover.

What follows of, course, is "what about Earthquake?" If you go by the way @Clint_L rules, a Wall of Force should block the effect of the Earthquake spell, even though that makes no sense. But then, so would a brick wall.

Of course, the rules are actually far from clear if total cover can block the effects of an area spell, or just the positioning of the point of origin.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Clint_L said:


> I'm not sure what you think is so special about _moonbeam._



Nothing particularly. Most of it goes for other spells like Ice Storm, that are cylinders, directing the effect downwards. Firstly, if Sacred Flame ignores total cover because "the effect comes from above", then the same should be true for any spell effect that comes from above. They must have forgotten to mention it in the spell descriptions. Of course, it's probably more sensible to say that they ignore total cover between the caster and the target, but are affected by total cover above the target. In which case, a dome Wall of Force should block Moonbeam, Ice Storm _and_ Sacred Flame, but a simple wall blocks none of them.

Secondly, the point of origin for cylinders is not on the ground. In the case of Moonbeam, it's 20 feet above the ground. So long as the point 20 feet in the air isn't behind total cover you can target the spell effect there. Note: beware low ceilings!


----------



## James Gasik

Paul Farquhar said:


> It doesn't have a floor, but I'm pretty sure solid ground counts as total cover.
> 
> What follows of, course, is "what about Earthquake?" If you go by the way @Clint_L rules, a Wall of Force should block the effect of the Earthquake spell, even though that makes no sense. But then, so would a brick wall.
> 
> Of course, the rules are actually far from clear if total cover can block the effects of an area spell, or just the positioning of the point of origin.



I was thinking about Erupting Earth, actually.*  Also, could a brick wall really block Earthquake?  It tends to destroy them with the "Structures" bullet point, right?

*basically wondering if targeting a square outside the Wall would still cause the earth to erupt on the other side of it.  "Choose a point you can see on the ground within range. A fountain of churned earth and stone erupts in a 20-foot cube centered on that point."

As for the "floor", like I said, I didn't think Tiny Hut would have one either (a hemisphere only has one if it's solid, my thinking is that it's like a hollow glass sphere cut in half), but Crawford says it does, so...


----------



## Paul Farquhar

James Gasik said:


> Also, could a brick wall really block Earthquake? It tends to destroy them with the "Structures" bullet point, right?



RAW, in theory. The effect radiates out until it hits total cover, then stops (as per @Clint_L interpretation). The wall takes damage and may fall down, but there is no rules for the spell effect continuing on if the total cover is removed (and whose to say the rubble isn't total cover in any case). Of course, this is where any sensible DM would rule that the effect is transmitted through the ground, so the only "total cover" would be a void.

One might houserule "if effect X can travel through material Y, then Y does not provide cover". Using this rule, one might say X = Psychic damage, and Y = force effects, if one wanted to allow psychic damage spells to be useable through a Wall of Force.


----------



## James Gasik

Paul Farquhar said:


> RAW, in theory. The effect radiates out until it hits total cover, then stops (as per @Clint_L interpretation). The wall takes damage and may fall down, but there is no rules for the spell effect continuing on if the total cover is removed (and whose to say the rubble isn't total cover in any case). Of course, this is where any sensible DM would rule that the effect is transmitted through the ground, so the only "total cover" would be a void.
> 
> One might houserule "if effect X can travel through material Y, then Y does not provide cover". Using this rule, one might say X = Psychic damage, and Y = force effects, if one wanted to allow psychic damage spells to be useable through a Wall of Force.



So thinking about this, I notice that the rules for cover say:

A target with *total cover* can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, _although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect_. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

When, exactly, does the italicized section apply? (my guess is that this is talking about AoE's that would extend around cover, but I'm not 100% on that)

As for your proposed house rule, that seems logical.  If there is a glass wall between you and a target, a giant ape probably could still hit you with a 7d6 boulder!


----------



## Paul Farquhar

James Gasik said:


> When, exactly, does the italicized section apply?



Good question! The text in the description of Fireball says "The fire spreads around corners" but most spells don't indicate what they are blocked by. The text for Wall of Force says "Nothing can *physically* pass through the wall" which implies anything that isn't physical (such as Moonbeam) can pass through it.

I assume @Clint_L would take "some spells" to mean "when specifically mentioned in the spell description" which I think is none.


----------



## James Gasik

Paul Farquhar said:


> Good question! The text in the description of Fireball says "The fire spreads around corners" but most spells don't indicate what they are blocked by. The text for Wall of Force says "Nothing can *physically* pass through the wall" which implies anything that isn't physical (such as Moonbeam) can pass through it.
> 
> I assume @Clint_L would take "some spells" to mean "when specifically mentioned in the spell description" which I think is none.



So, just to clarify, a spell effect that goes _under _a Wall of Force could theoretically affect someone behind one, just as a spell effect that goes around one could?

I get that spells are largely written as if they resolve on a flat, 2D plane (barring oddities like cylinders), so this is probably a huge grey area at the moment- I know I've had some DM's give me funny looks when I use cone effects in 3 dimensions, and they've claimed that they don't believe that's the intent of the spell, though they are similarly baffled by the constant use of three dimensional spell effects (cones, spheres, and cylinders) in a game that has historically been very bad at dealing with the third dimension.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

James Gasik said:


> So, just to clarify, a spell effect that goes _under _a Wall of Force could theoretically affect someone behind one, just as a spell effect that goes around one could?



DM's call. I wouldn't assume your DM would automatically rule that way, since I don't think any spell descriptions explicitly state either effect. In terms of gameplay fun, I think it's better to give benefit of the doubt _against_ the Wall of Force.

If you have ever played Solasta, that makes quite a good job of mapping 3D spell effects to a grid.


----------

