Tactical Wall of Force deployment

[Renduaz]

Recently I've been thinking about some of the untapped potential of Wall of Force, at a time when I was imagining various tactical formations and moved that might be used by Arcanist squads, and came up with several interesting, largely defensive Wall of Force arrangements, depicted here (https://i.imgur.com/PgQUoJM.jpg) ( Please ignore my atrocious illustration skills ). While hemispherical domes and spheres are great when you just need instant shelter from attacks, you're completely enclosed and can't really counterattack from them either, not without disintegrating the wall entirely, so I came up with defensive structures that use the contiguous 10 10-by-10 foot panels feature of the spell, almost in Fortnite-esque fashion to create a few options. Since the panels must be contiguous, it's actually more tricky than you might think.

Note: In order to make use of some of these structures, you'll need a swift way of elevating yourself vertically by about 5-7 feet or so ( If you're medium-sized ) so you can aim over the 10-foot walls, which might be accomplish by creating a mound with Mold Earth, or carrying a platform/ladders/retractable ladders around in a bag of holding or normal bags, along with other ways. But I'd say it might not be too complicated at the point in which you have a 5th-level spell anyway. Lastly, before casting the spell, you want to tell your party to clump up in the center of your structures, creating the panels around you.

1. Starting from the top left, we have a classic tower with a single one-directional open panel accomplished by erecting 4 vertical panels in a square on the ground, 3 more second-story panels on the 'back' and 'sides', another panel for a ceiling, and then a single second-story space left exposed to create the rather large "window", for a total of 8 panels used. It does require elevation. Requires elevation.

2. The second depiction from the top is an 'Arena' model which funnels enemies at ground level into a single opening, with the fundamental layout of 7 panels being shown to the right, with the empty 'gate' space from which enemies might stream in as shown by the arrow. To make the entryway more limited in height and thus more resembling an actual gate, you can add 3 second-story panels, contiguous to the structure, as shown to the left, for an overall of 10 panels used.

3. The bottom left structure is an odd one, and probably my favorite, though it can be a double-edged sword. Nicknamed the 'Sniper Nest' and comically appearing like a flipped open box, what you want to do is create the 4 panels horizontally to the ground, as depicted, but with a spacing of around 1 foot, maybe even 2 or 3 ( Depending on some variables ) above it, so they're essentially hovering in the air, then use 5 additional panels to shelter the empty center, where you're standing in, with a roofed tower, and finally a ramp that cuts diagonally at an angle from the ground to one of the walls ( Lowest point ) in the tower for a total of 10 panels, pushing you and your party above it. Now keep in mind that since the panels from which the tower walls stretch up are themselves 1 or more feet above ground, doing so won't completely cut you off from the ground ( As it would've been if the ramp was angled from the lowest point of a wall to the highest point of an opposite wall, unlike sloping down from the lowest point of a wall toward the ground ), but rather provide you with some squeezing space to crawl/crouch under the horizontal panels and back up, at least as far as you can get without sliding. So from a side view, it would look like this (https://i.imgur.com/YmUYR00.png), wherein blue are the force panels and brown is the ground. Red is the only way in which you could make a diagonal panel if the tower actually touched the ground, and you'd obviously just get stuck in the triangle if you pushed yourself upward. But since the horizontal panel are still leaving a 1/2/3 ( Make it enough so it's comfortable ) feet high space from the ground, then the diagonal blue line sloping down to the ground is what you actually want to do.

And basically what it does is offer you full aerial protection, while you're flinging spells at creature's feet/bottoms from the crawling space of the 4 horizontal panels, or shooting a bow for that matter ( As said, you should adjust crawl-space height for comfort ) and being able to retreat back into the safety of the tower at will. If an enemy wants to get inside, they'll need to be small enough to crawl/crouch though and basically funnel themselves into your structure. Also, if you are only planning to use spells for example, you could make the horizontal panels canted downward toward the exterior, so that distance to the ground at the rim is like only a few inches, even as the inner space is large and cozy. So basically this (https://i.imgur.com/R3hII7Y.png) floating like 1 inch or 1 feet above the ground level, with the party inside of it. Lastly, it does not require elevation in any iteration.

4. I call the last one to the bottom right 'Testudo', which offers a more omnidirectional facing than the classic tower, with the 6 panels arranged vertically on the ground as depicted, 2 more panels providing roofing for the central portion whenever you need to take cover, and 2 more panels canted upwards stretching like wings from the sides of that roof for even more central coverage, for a total of 10 panels. The two 'spearhead' walls at the flanks offer a practically panoramic view of a battlefield, and if you stand around where the black dots are, then you get overhead coverage from the force wings too. With ladders or even a mere Jump spell, you could of course also get up on the roof itself if you need to, though naturally you'll be more exposed.

So, all of these have obvious advantages and disadvantages. Many of these are optimal at mostly open battlefields, though there's also nothing you from making a Testudo in a large cave or a Tower facing incoming enemies from a corridor, so there are quite a few suitable situations. Most of these fare pretty well against grounded melee creatures, but Testudo can grant you sheltered spots from a lot of ranged attacks, as will a Tower, and flying melee creatures will be forced to enter crammed quarters by both. The Sniper Nest on the other hand is ideal for thwarting any and all flying attacks and mobility, but leads to aiming difficulties in non-flat terrain, or at least if you don't have the high ground. Everything except the Sniper Nest could be potentially scaled or jumped over by enemies ( though again, being forced to fight in a very crammed arena might work to either their or your favor ), but it might not be too easy depending on which creature it is. A standard high jump from 10 feet back is 3+Strength modifier, so with a +5 mod it's 8, though a creature with arms might grab onto the ledge with 1 and a half it's height extra jump distance. But it will require fairly good strength, and in the likelihood that they used up all their movement, you could always try knocking them off, or even have someone else in your party cast some spells that would stop/deter creatures from trying to climb the walls.

Secondly, these defensive structures tend to be highly susceptible to AOE affects like say, Alchemist's Fire or Cloudkill, so it might not be too wise to use it against enemies with extensive AOE capabilities. You also don't want to use it against enemy spellcasters with Disintegrate, but that should just be taken for granted when it comes to any kind of long-lasting magical effect. So overall it tends to be a good idea whenever you find yourself facing, or surrounded by large hordes of creatures without drastic AOE or dispelling capabilities, and still want to make a stand for it rather than retreat. And while I haven't really talked about it because I don't want to make it too dependent, if you have two spellcasters with Wall of Force, then you can just forget about the contiguousness problem altogether. You can just have one caster make the canted vertical walls and another make the roof hovering a few inches above for a classic WW2 bunker with a slit for arrows/spells/spears/swords, or structures with 20 feet high walls, and so on.

With that in mind, does anyone else have some favorite tactical formations or spells in D&D they like to use? I need to expand my list.

[Frozenstep]

I'll have to look at these some more later, but one thing you mentioned I will correct: Wall of Force specifically states it's immune to dispel magic, so that isn't any worry.

[MaxWilson]

Recently I've been thinking about some of the untapped potential of Wall of Force, at a time when I was imagining various tactical formations and moved that might be used by Arcanist squads, and came up with several interesting, largely defensive Wall of Force arrangements, depicted here (https://i.imgur.com/PgQUoJM.jpg) ( Please ignore my atrocious illustration skills ). While hemispherical domes and spheres are great when you just need instant shelter from attacks, you're completely enclosed and can't really counterattack from them either, not without dispelling the wall entirely, so I came up with defensive structures that use the contiguous 10 10-by-10 foot panels feature of the spell, almost in Fortnite-esque fashion to create a few options. Since the panels must be contiguous, it's actually more tricky than you might think.

The requirement is not just "contiguous", but "flat and contiguous".

"You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a Sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels."

I think the structures you are proposing here are illegal, since they are not flat. The way I read the spell, you can create a long, low wall or a tall, skinny one or anything in between, but you could not create for instance a cube.

[Renduaz]

I'll have to look at these some more later, but one thing you mentioned I will correct: Wall of Force specifically states it's immune to dispel magic, so that isn't any worry.

That's true, I was confusing it with Disintegrate. Fixed.


The requirement is not just "contiguous", but "flat and contiguous".

"You can form it into a hemispherical dome or a Sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels."

I think the structures you are proposing here are illegal, since they are not flat. The way I read the spell, you can create a long, low wall or a tall, skinny one or anything in between, but you could not create for instance a cube.

That could be true, though for some reason I had the impression that only the panels themselves were flat, here (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5s5jep/how_to_handle_wall_of_force_ridiculousness/) for example someone talks about forming a cube with it and nobody raises any questions. Oh well, I guess it's still going to be interesting to hear about other tactics. Reading the wording now, seems like it is true, apparently I've missed it.

[MaxWilson]

That could be true, though for some reason I had the impression that only the panels themselves were flat, here (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5s5jep/how_to_handle_wall_of_force_ridiculousness/) for example someone talks about forming a cube with it and nobody raises any questions.

My reading of the Reddit thread is that nobody thought it was relevant to point out that you can't make a cube, since the poster would have just said, "Well, then it should have been a sphere." That thread was all about casting spells through the wall, not the legal shapes for the wall.


Oh well, I guess it's still going to be interesting to hear about other tactics. Reading the wording now, seems like it is true, apparently I've missed it.

I guess you could still do crenellations and stuff. You've got me thinking about potential uses for unusual shapes and positionings/angles, at any rate.

[Renduaz]

My reading of the Reddit thread is that nobody thought it was relevant to point out that you can't make a cube, since the poster would have just said, "Well, then it should have been a sphere." That thread was all about casting spells through the wall, not the legal shapes for the wall.



I guess you could still do crenellations and stuff. You've got me thinking about potential uses for unusual shapes and positionings/angles, at any rate.

I think you could actually do everything I describe but with a Wall of Stone rather than Wall of Force, which on the downside is more breachable. Wall of Stone's Description explicitly lets you make "crenellations, battlements, and so on." from flat panels, without stating that the whole needs to be flat. But then again, 180hp per wall is pretty good.

[MaxWilson]

I think you could actually do everything I describe but with a Wall of Stone rather than Wall of Force, which on the downside is more breachable. Wall of Stone's Description explicitly lets you make "crenellations, battlements, and so on." from flat panels, without stating that the whole needs to be flat. But then again, 180hp per wall is pretty good.

Yep, Wall of Stone is a very interesting spell. If it weren't for the requirement to "merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone" it would be a top-notch.

[Renduaz]

Yep, Wall of Stone is a very interesting spell. If it weren't for the requirement to "merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone" it would be a top-notch.

I'm pretty sure there's a way around that, if you can bring along what is essentially a flat frame of the shape that your structure's foundations are going to be arrayed in ( So for example, if it's a cube, then 4 10 feet long, 6 inch thick 'bars'/planks of stone that are placed on the ground accordingly, with the wall merging on top of them, and it's clearly solidly supported since it's the same as just erecting walls on the ground, except for the fact that it's now just going to be 6 inches higher due to the foundations. And if you were to make roofs, then these would be supported by the walls created out of the foundations as part of the whole structure. Granted, the bars might be a bit heavy ( though relatively not too much ) to carry around and cumbersome, but you could also opt for 8 5-feet long bars, for example. You would also need to spend some extra time arraying them.

[MaxWilson]

I'm pretty sure there's a way around that, if you can bring along what is essentially a flat frame of the shape that your structure's foundations are going to be arrayed in ( So for example, if it's a cube, then 4 10 feet long, 6 inch thick 'bars'/planks of stone that are placed on the ground accordingly, with the wall merging on top of them, and it's clearly solidly supported since it's the same as just erecting walls on the ground, except for the fact that it's now just going to be 6 inches higher due to the foundations. And if you were to make roofs, then these would be supported by the walls created out of the foundations as part of the whole structure. Granted, the bars might be a bit heavy ( though relatively not too much ) to carry around and cumbersome, but you could also opt for 8 5-feet long bars, for example. You would also need to spend some extra time arraying them.

I'm not sure how wide you're envisioning these "bars" as, but assuming they're about a foot wide, that means you're carrying around 4 * 10 * 0.5 = 20 cubic feet of stone, so roughly 2600 lb. of stone, and even then you can only make structures which put most or all of their weight on those "bars". So e.g. you won't be able to summon up a stone cage around the party on the fly during a hard combat.

That sounds pretty inconvenient compared to what we'd really like to do, which is to create stone walls anytime, anywhere, in any contiguous shape.

I think the spell is basically designed for spelunking/dungeoneering scenarios.

[Renduaz]

I'm not sure how wide you're envisioning these "bars" as, but assuming they're about a foot wide, that means you're carrying around 4 * 10 * 0.5 = 20 cubic feet of stone, so roughly 2600 lb. of stone, and even then you can only make structures which put most or all of their weight on those "bars". So e.g. you won't be able to summon up a stone cage around the party on the fly during a hard combat.

That sounds pretty inconvenient compared to what we'd really like to do, which is to create stone walls anytime, anywhere, in any contiguous shape.

I think the spell is basically designed for spelunking/dungeoneering scenarios.

Does it really matter how much weight is placed on the bars if the bars themselves are on solid ground? We could probably even have paper-thin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OEIqwVF8dc) or slightly thicker stone 'strip's, manufactured beforehand with Stone Shape/Fabricate and so forth, and merge the walls with them. They're going to solidly support the walls because the ground itself is basically doing all the work in supporting them. Once the walls merge with the strips, it's no different than if you had just erected stone walls on any given flat ground. We're just placing down the stone strips to keep up the 'pretense' and satisfy the clause of merging and resting upon existing stone, as opposed to existing earth or steel or whatever.

[MaxWilson]

Does it really matter how much weight is placed on the bars if the bars themselves are on solid ground? We could probably even have paper-thin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OEIqwVF8dc) or slightly thicker stone 'strip's, manufactured beforehand with Stone Shape/Fabricate and so forth, and merge the walls with them. They're going to solidly support the walls because the ground itself is basically doing all the work in supporting them. Once the walls merge with the strips, it's no different than if you had just erected stone walls on any given flat ground. We're just placing down the stone strips to keep up the 'pretense' and satisfy the clause of merging and resting upon existing stone, as opposed to existing earth or steel or whatever.

I think if you go for paper-thin stone you're in danger of breaking it when you transport it or when the weight of your wall lands on it, but even setting that aside, the fact that it constrains the shape is (to me) the more serious issue. Wall of Stone would be a first-rate spell if you could just conjure up a labyrinth whenever you needed it, but if you have to run around tossing up stone strips everywhere you want the labyrinth to go first, it is rather less useful on the fly.

It could still be useful for more permanent structures, anything where you've got a few minutes to an hour to work with, especially if the ground is still solid enough to support the stone without cracking the initial "strips". E.g. probably not on sod or sand but maybe on hard-packed dirt. But it's not as good as it would be without that restriction.

[Aimeryan]

Wall of Stone only needs to be resting on some other stone by my reading; you would not need anything complex to support it. It would work perfectly well in a cave, in an urban environment, on a mountain, etc. Grass fields are your bane, here. Making an artificial veneer of stone floor on the fly (via thin strips resting on the ground) sounds like an interesting way of making it work. Combat usage would be not be viable unless the area has been prepared before hand, although, maybe with enough minions ready to lay out the strips it could work.

With Wall of Force you can still make 'gates' and 'windows', which can be used tactically. Note also, depending on your reading of 'physical', you can still send purely magical spells through the wall - this can be both a bane and a boon, but since you are the one choosing when to use the spell...

[Renduaz]

I think if you go for paper-thin stone you're in danger of breaking it when you transport it or when the weight of your wall lands on it, but even setting that aside, the fact that it constrains the shape is (to me) the more serious issue. Wall of Stone would be a first-rate spell if you could just conjure up a labyrinth whenever you needed it, but if you have to run around tossing up stone strips everywhere you want the labyrinth to go first, it is rather less useful on the fly.

It could still be useful for more permanent structures, anything where you've got a few minutes to an hour to work with, especially if the ground is still solid enough to support the stone without cracking the initial "strips". E.g. probably not on sod or sand but maybe on hard-packed dirt. But it's not as good as it would be without that restriction.

I think we could probably find the right compartments for it during travel, or making it somewhat thicker if need be, but also at that point most parties have something like a bag of holding anyway so in that case there wouldn't be a problem at all. Also, the wall never 'lands' on it - there isn't any fall or elapsed time. When you cast the spell, the entire wall both appears instantenously and merges with the existing stone instantenously. In other words, no different than if you had just magically and instantly transformed your strip into a full-fledged wall.

I agree, it's less ideal than it could be, but still a pretty good compromise for a spell that would otherwise only work in places with existing stone. I doubt you'd need any more than a minute though ( Judging by how certain actions and object interactions work in DND ) to simply array a couple of your strips around yourself in order. I also think it can be much more durable - Printer paper is 0.1mm thick, but if we make a 10 by 1 strip of granite 1mm thick, it only goes up to 4lbs.


Wall of Stone only needs to be resting on some other stone by my reading; you would not need anything complex to support it. It would work perfectly well in a cave, in an urban environment, on a mountain, etc. Grass fields are your bane, here.

With Wall of Force you can still make 'gates' and 'windows', which can be used tactically. Note also, depending on your reading of 'physical', you can still send purely magical spells through the wall - this can be both a bane and a boon, but since you get to choose when to use it...

Yes, we're mostly discussing how to accomplish it in places where your ground is better defined as soil, or an urban environment with wooden floors, and so on, or various unfamiliar environments ( Say, crystal ground ) and so on, which is where the stone strips come in.

[Aimeryan]

Yes, we're mostly discussing how to accomplish it in places where your ground is better defined as soil, or an urban environment with wooden floors, and so on, or various unfamiliar environments ( Say, crystal ground ) and so on, which is where the stone strips come in.

Yup, edited my post to include some discussion on this; the use of a cheap minions to lay out the strips could make it workable in one round, given enough minions nearby and ready. Otherwise, it would be workable if you have a little time to prepare the area before combat.

Also, have you considered the possibility that only some of the wall need merge with stone that is solidly supported (i.e., by the ground)? A mere token of stone - a single stone beer mat, maybe - might do the job.

[Renduaz]

Yup, edited my post to include some discussion on this; the use of a cheap minions to lay out the strips could make it workable in one round, given enough minions nearby and ready. Otherwise, it would be workable if you have a little time to prepare the area before combat.

Unseen Servants for one should definitely be capable of assisting with that, at little spell slot cost. Needless to say that any undead or bound creatures you're traveling with could also help, but most of all your best bet would actually just be to enlist your party to lay them down if they're on board with the idea. I think you really shouldn't need more than 4 to array any shape you want in a round or less, seeing as how those strips are extremely lightweight, only need to be put down on the ground within a 20-30 feet radius at best usually, with each strip being right next to the other.

As for that possibility, I think that would be pushing it into a more gray area. Since as soon as that wall appears, most of it is going to be in direct contact with the ground ( something other than stone ), so it could be argued that the wall ( in it's entirety ) is not being supported by existing stone, but rather by other matter directly. I mean otherwise it doesn't have to be a beer mat, it could literally just be a tiny speck place on the ground. But that really stretches it, because then the wall is going to be partially resting on something other than stone directly as soon as it is created.

[MaxWilson]

I think we could probably find the right compartments for it during travel, or making it somewhat thicker if need be, but also at that point most parties have something like a bag of holding anyway so in that case there wouldn't be a problem at all. Also, the wall never 'lands' on it - there isn't any fall or elapsed time. When you cast the spell, the entire wall both appears instantenously and merges with the existing stone instantenously. In other words, no different than if you had just magically and instantly transformed your strip into a full-fledged wall.

I think if this were true, the spell would not have to say

It [the wall] must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.

In the extreme case (for the sake of making the point), if you have a paper-thin stone sheet lying on top of a lawn, I do not think you can create a stone monolith growing out of that paper sheet--the foundations will not support the wall. The paper-thin stone sheet cannot support the wall, so the spell cannot be cast in that situation.

If your DM rules differently then the spell becomes more useful, but I think it is still quite inconvenient even then. It's great if you're adventuring in a fairly rocky area though, like a cave or a canyon.

[jh12]

We're just placing down the stone strips to keep up the 'pretense' and satisfy the clause of merging and resting upon existing stone, as opposed to existing earth or steel or whatever.

The clause doesn't say resting upon existing stone, it says the Wall of Stone must "merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." Throwing down a couple of strips of stone does not provide a solid support for a wall any more than throwing down a couple of pebbles would.


Also, have you considered the possibility that only some of the wall need merge with stone that is solidly supported (i.e., by the ground)? A mere token of stone - a stone beer mat, maybe - might do the job.

It's not the stone that the Wall of Stone merges with that needs to be solidly supported, it's that the existing stone that the Wall of Stone merges with need to be a solid support for the Wall of Stone.

[Renduaz]

I think if this were true, the spell would not have to say

It [the wall] must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.

In the extreme case (for the sake of making the point), if you have a paper-thin stone sheet lying on top of a lawn, I do not think you can create a stone monolith growing out of that paper sheet--the foundations will not support the wall. The paper-thin stone sheet cannot support the wall, so the spell cannot be cast in that situation.

If your DM rules differently then the spell becomes more useful, but I think it is still quite inconvenient even then. It's great if you're adventuring in a fairly rocky area though, like a cave or a canyon.

I think it's pretty self-evidently true, the spell description itself tells us that A nonmagical wall of solid stone "springs into existence", and that it only does so in the first place if it can merge with existing stone. So basically, extra matter which springs into existence merged with other matter - Semantically identical to just adding extra matter to something.

And couldn't the 'paper-thin' ( Or 1mm thin ) sheet be said to solidly support the wall though, if that wall grows out of it instantly and the ground supports it's weight? What makes us say that a 10 foot long,10 foot wide, 5 foot thick basin would 'solidly' support such a wall? If you placed that basin over a taut rope, it would immediately flip and fall down. It doesn't have any inherent stability, it only stabilizes when pulled down by gravity onto something underneath it. The ground supports it, and in turn it supports is placed on it, so I don't see the difference. Sure, when it comes to things dropping down a distance to hit a surface, even if it's a tiny distance, there's the problem of breaking, but that doesn't happen with the spell.


The clause doesn't say resting upon existing stone, it says the Wall of Stone must "merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." Throwing down a couple of strips of stone does not provide a solid support for a wall any more than throwing down a couple of pebbles would.



It's not the stone that the Wall of Stone merges with that needs to be solidly supported, it's that the existing stone that the Wall of Stone merges with need to be a solid support for the Wall of Stone.

Yes, I know what it says. The problem with a pebble is that it would be immediately wedged down, and magically created stone will then be resting upon and supported by soil rather than existing non-magical stone. With the strip though, magical stone only bears down on non-magical stone, which in turn bears down on the ground, so you could say it's being solidly supported by existing stone.

As for your seeming distinction, can you please define 'solid support' for me? We all know what the definition of 'solid' is, which a stone strip definitely falls under. As for 'support' in this context:

"something that holds something firmly or carries its weight, especially from below to stop it from falling: "

The only way I can conceptualize a distinction between the stone strip and say, a wide stone basin in that definition ( When it comes to a wall that is immediately created and merged ) is in regards to how much the foundations are going to be sinking ( or 'falling' ) into the soil or how much more pressure is going to be placed on a surface area I guess if you have a crystalline floor for example, but even with a wide stone basin, the addition of extra matter in the form of stone walls is going to result in a mathematically observable degree of sinking or extra pressure, and RAW doesn't really give us any approved or unapproved ranges in that regard.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's pretty self-evidently true, the spell description itself tells us that A nonmagical wall of solid stone "springs into existence", and that it only does so in the first place if it can merge with existing stone. So basically, extra matter which springs into existence merged with other matter - Semantically identical to just adding extra matter to something.

That's not in dispute, or at least I don't dispute it. What I'm saying is that the existing foundation has to be strong enough to bear the weight of the wall you're going to create. Do you disagree?


And couldn't the 'paper-thin' ( Or 1mm thin ) sheet be said to solidly support the wall though, if that wall grows out of it instantly and the ground supports it's weight?

Again, that depends on what it's resting on. If the ground is rough enough (e.g. sod) that the wall's weight would cause the paper-thin stone to crack, that isn't "solidly supporting" the wall.

P.S. I'm not a structural engineer and I may be wrong about how foundations work.

[Renduaz]

That's not in dispute, or at least I don't dispute it. What I'm saying is that the existing foundation has to be strong enough to bear the weight of the wall you're going to create. Do you disagree?



Again, that depends on what it's resting on. If the ground is rough enough (e.g. sod) that the wall's weight would cause the paper-thin stone to crack, that isn't "solidly supporting" the wall.

But the issue here is that it can't crack, because the additional matter ( wall ) merges with it when the spell is cast, not dropped on it. Let me illustrate to you in contrast a support that wouldn't be viable with a merger, because it's structurally shape dependent - let's say you put down a smooth ball of stone on crystalline ground, and cast ( You couldn't, but let's act as if you did for a second ) the wall of stone on it. You now have a square stone wall being held aloft by a ball, which is instantly going to flip and crash, just as if you were to place such a fusion of a slab on top of a ball on your desk. Ergo, not a soild support. Same goes for balancing the wall on the tip of a triangle - even if they instantly merge, gravity and the laws of physical are going to result in an instant crack.

But a strip which matches the dimensions and shape of the wall is a completely solid support when merged with the wall in full. They are in perfect unison.

[jh12]

The problem with a pebble is that it would be immediately wedged down, and magically created stone will then be resting upon and supported by soil rather than existing non-magical stone. With the strip though, magical stone only bears down on non-magical stone, which in turn bears down on the ground, so you could say it's being solidly supported by existing stone.

I didn't realize your plan relies on being able to lay out a series of stone strips in exactly the shape and dimension of the magical wall to follow. And all in six seconds, no less. That's a more magical feat than the wall itself.

By the way, how do you know the ground will support a freestanding wall with no foundation? What keeps your wall from tipping over? A 10 foot wall is pretty high, and a 6 inch wall is pretty narrow.

[Mellack]

Sorry, but a 1mm strip of stone ten feet long is going to break long before you ever get it laid out. It doesn't have the structural integrity to support its own weight. If you tried to pick it up without supporting it along the whole length it will break, probably in several places.

[Renduaz]

I didn't realize your plan relies on being able to lay out a series of stone strips in exactly the shape and dimension of the magical wall to follow. And all in six seconds, no less. That's a more magical feat than the wall itself.

By the way, how do you know the ground will support a freestanding wall with no foundation? What keeps your wall from tipping over? A 10 foot wall is pretty high, and a 6 inch wall is pretty narrow.

If a group of characters can move 30 feet, knock back and fire longbows and crossbows ( Twice, with bonus actions ), say something as an interaction, or cast spells as actions, I didn't think that laying out those strips in the ground ( Which are already manufactured in the shape and dimension of the upcoming wall ) might be too much of a magical feat. Could certainly be two, three rounds though depending on complications.

As for the next question, well, I don't. But our strip foundations are 1 foot wide, not 6 inches at any rate. The same question equally applies to a foundation of pure stone though - a 6 inch thick, and 10 feet, or 20 feet wall for that matter isn't a natural formation, so theoretically there's still nothing stopping the surface area at the bottom from a cracking under it's own weight and tipping over, yet the 10-by-10 panel is the classic Wall of Stone usage. But unlike a free-standing wall, there's actually a pretty good reason why my structures probably won't tip over:

They aren't free-standing walls. They have structural support from the sides. I'm putting down my strips in order to make merged squares, diamonds and other enclosed shapes, not just a single wall with nothing but air on all sides.


Sorry, but a 1mm strip of stone ten feet long is going to break long before you ever get it laid out. It doesn't have the structural integrity to support its own weight. If you tried to pick it up without supporting it along the whole length it will break, probably in several places.

Coin-thick granite might not be too flimsy, but I can see structural integrity problems at 10 feet if held from the bottom, so that's certainly a possible flaw. I suppose they might have to be reduced down to 8 5 feet strips for example, which then can be held from the top and rested against the ground if need be, or lifted up slightly wit ha full arm grasp. If for some reason it's still annoying, then you could increase thickness to 2mm 5 feet strips of 5lbs each. And yes, twice the strips will probably take a few rounds ( at least, without minions ) to put down.

[jh12]

But our strip foundations are 1 foot wide, not 6 inches at any rate.

Then your strip foundations will crack as soon as the wall forms and not be able to solidly support the wall.

[Renduaz]

Then your strip foundations will crack as soon as the wall forms and not be able to solidly support the wall.

If that's the case then making them 6 inches would be even simpler, which brings us back to the general question of whether a 10-by-10 wall ( Or better yet in our case, square/enclosed frame ) could rest on the ground or any surface at all, which I don't see why not since that is the classic use of the spell. I can see problems with the surface area of a single wall either way, as I said, but a square is pretty much the standard foundation for buildings. The spell only creates the 10 by 10 panels whose bottom merges with the software, if they're not self-sustaining, then they won't be sustained anywhere.

[jh12]

If that's the case then making them 6 inches would be even simpler

No it wouldn't, because the only way that would work is if you laid out the strips in exactly the layout that the wall will appear. That's not going to happen by just eyeballing it.

[Mellack]

Coin-thick granite might not be too flimsy, but I can see structural integrity problems at 10 feet if held from the bottom, so that's certainly a possible flaw. I suppose they might have to be reduced down to 8 5 feet strips for example, which then can be held from the top and rested against the ground if need be, or lifted up slightly wit ha full arm grasp. If for some reason it's still annoying, then you could increase thickness to 2mm 5 feet strips of 5lbs each. And yes, twice the strips will probably take a few rounds ( at least, without minions ) to put down.

Still far too thin. Tile is at least 6mm thick, and it generally isn't sold in pieces longer than 24 inches (two feet) because it breaks too much. To get 5 foot long pieces that don't have to be very carefully handled would need still thicker.

[Aimeryan]

I'm still of the thought that the wall need not be supported by stone along its entirety. In fact, the spell implicitly states this is not the case:


Thus, you can use this spell to bridge a chasm or create a ramp.

As such, you only need some token of stone to technically fulfil the conditions, as long as the wall is otherwise solidly supported.

[MaxWilson]

I'm still of the thought that the wall need not be supported by stone along its entirety. In fact, the spell implicitly states this is not the case:

As such, you only need some token of stone to technically fulfil the conditions, as long as the wall is otherwise solidly supported.

That's not in dispute. As long as the ramp is solidly supported on both ends by existing stone, of course you can have a ramp between them.

[jh12]

As such, you only need some token of stone to technically fulfil the conditions, as long as the wall is otherwise solidly supported.

No, the spell specifically says that the wall must "be solidly supported by existing stone." A token of stone does not provide a solid support for the wall, even where they touch, and doesn't fulfill the conditions of the spell, technically or otherwise.

[Slayn82]

The rule of being solid supported on stone exists because otherwise you could cause cave-ins easily with this spell, or sink boats and break carriages.

But yes, tactical uses of Walls is a pretty great topic. For instance, if you create bars, you can prevent movement through both sides while still allowing attacks to pass through, albeit both sides will have some degree of cover.

Creating an opaque wall, you can block Line of Sight, so it's a mundane way to protect against spells.

I once introduced necromancers who would fight from within a coach wagon. They would open the curtains and cast spells, or close them to get concealment and hide, so they would impose disadvantage to attackers, while getting +5 AC from cover and advantage on sex saves from the Wagon.

That made long range fighting them difficult, and forced the party to destroy the coach with fireballs before going melee.

[MaxWilson]

I once introduced necromancers who would fight from within a coach wagon.

Sounds familiar. :)



'Thank you. I'll not deny I am impressed by your mastery of six warrens, Quick Ben. In retrospect, you should have held back on at least half of what you command.' The man made to rise.

'But, Bauchelain,' the wizard replied, 'I did.'

[Corran]

.
I once introduced necromancers who would fight from within a coach wagon. They would open the curtains and cast spells, or close them to get concealment and hide, so they would impose disadvantage to attackers, while getting +5 AC from cover and advantage on sex saves from the Wagon.

That made long range fighting them difficult, and forced the party to destroy the coach with fireballs before going melee.
Sounds like a pretty hardcore battle.:smallbiggrin:

[Aimeryan]

That's not in dispute. As long as the ramp is solidly supported on both ends by existing stone, of course you can have a ramp between them.


No, the spell specifically says that the wall must "be solidly supported by existing stone." A token of stone does not provide a solid support for the wall, even where they touch, and doesn't fulfill the conditions of the spell, technically or otherwise.

The spell does not state what you say it states: for example, it does not state that both ends of the example bridge needs to be on stone - said bridge would be solidly supported by one side being stone and the other side being something else sturdy.

Furthermore, a token of stone would support a wall if it in turn is supported, thereby the wall is successfully touching stone that solidly supports it, as well as being solidly supported by non-stone (which is not forbidden).

[jh12]

The spell does not state what you say it states:

Sure it does. That's why I used the quotes.


Furthermore, a token of stone would support a wall if it in turn is supported,

No it wouldn't. Not only can a big wall of stone crush a little token of stone or drive the little token of stone into the ground, but a little token of stone can't resist the torque caused by the big wall of stone. You could remove your little token of stone and the structural integrity of the wall would be virtually completely unaffected (it might actually improve). That's an odd way to look at something that's supposed to be solidly supporting a wall.

You might as well just remove the requirement that it has to merge with and be supported by stone.

[Aimeryan]

No it wouldn't. Not only can a big wall of stone crush a little token of stone or drive the little token of stone into the ground, but a little token of stone can't resist the torque caused by the big wall of stone. You could remove your little token of stone and the structural integrity of the wall would be virtually completely unaffected (it might actually improve). That's an odd way to look at something that's supposed to be solidly supporting a wall.

You might as well just remove the requirement that it has to merge with and be supported by stone.

As previously mentioned, the wall merges with the stone - no crushing is taking place.

The way I look at the requirement is to ensure the terrain and situation is capable of support a mundane stone wall - the easiest way to do this is to have existing stone that would feasible support it. Realistically, the DM is going to be the one who says whether or not the wall can be supported - at that point the requirement for some stone to be present is more token than anything.

[jh12]

As previously mentioned, the wall merges with the stone - no crushing is taking place.

Merging with the wall will not keep the token stone from being crushed. At least, not if it's actually being used to support the wall.


The way I look at the requirement is to ensure the terrain and situation is capable of support a mundane stone wall - the easiest way to do this is to have existing stone that would feasible support it.

What in the text of the spell's description supports this view? I don't see anything at all.


Realistically, the DM is going to be the one who says whether or not the wall can be supported - at that point the requirement for some stone to be present is more token than anything.

Sure. The DM could also decide that the wall is made out of marshmallows.

[Aimeryan]

Sure. The DM could also decide that the wall is made out of marshmallows.

I'm good with that - who would willingly destroy a marshmallow wall?!

[MaxWilson]

Realistically, the DM is going to be the one who says whether or not the wall can be supported - at that point the requirement for some stone to be present is more token than anything.

I don't think most DMs are likely to buy into the suggestion of paper-think foundations for a wall, and anything that isn't paper-thin will be infeasibly heavy. Which brings us back to: it is too bad that Wall of Force and Wall of Stone both have inconvenient restrictions on their usage. The defensive shapes in the OP of this thread aren't really feasible to create with either spell.