Why Spellcasters suck vs melee characters

[Asmotherion]

By the way this reads alot like a PVP scenario. Either way,

3 SS fighters will kill a typical single classed caster before he even gets a turn.



I wonder why the caster gets to optimize his spells but the "average martial" is stuck being average and unoptimized. Your anti-martial pro-caster bias is really shining through in this comparison.



One thing I find rather comical in these comparisons is that a large chunk of supposed caster supremacy is due to looking at a single encounter at very high levels and having the caster dump all their strongest resources into it. That's just not how the game is played.

The other part of caster supremacy is really an artifact of the melee vs ranged discussion. Range is typically superior to melee (at least until you look at a party that has a melee character already in it). That's perhaps the biggest advantage casters have over melee martials.

Not that your PVP scenarios prove anything, but they are fun to analyze -

Let's take your example here. 5 Level X+3 Barbarians vs Level X Caster. Let X = 4. I'd love to know what caster at level 4 can beat 3 level 7 barbarians. I'd love to know what caster at level 6 can beat 5 level 9 barbarians. Heck, I'd love to know what level 8 caster can beat 5 level 11 barbarians.

And even later when I think some casters could win, it depends on the caster. I don't think a cleric could win that at all. A bard would be highly questionable. Druid is a more fair fight. A high level wizard, i think that's really the only caster that could pull this off and it would have to be high level.

Let's talk about the Fighter vs the caster 2 levels lower. I'm going to use the SS version as I think you are mostly seeing the benefits of ranged over melee in your comparison. A level 7 CE + SS +Battlemaster Fighter can do over 30 DPR to a Level 5 Wizard using shield, and has a good chance of being able to use a superiority dice on damage while still using precision. Wizard on average will have 32 hp. That is, the fighter has a good chance of 1 turning the wizard and will with near certainty 2 turn him.

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

And that's without putting in the effort to give you a strategy were you actually fight them.

In Melee, I'd love to see 3 Barbarians try to Down a Paladin with Heroism for example. Or a Hexblade with Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke.

Spells always trump mundane options, as long as you put the effort to strategise around them. A mundane has limited options which revolve around combat, and no matter your build, it will always result in "you have x ways to deal damage, and limited to no control or movement options".

Optimising or not the mundane, in any of the examples is irrelevant to the result. When I say Average, I mean "not an oddly specific build made exactly in order to counter X strategy". Which, again, is irrelevant, as the Caster has the luxury of not being a one-trick ponny, wile the Mundane does not.

Again, I never mentioned PVP. I'm not puting words in your mouth, so stop trying to do that to me. It's rude and insulting.

Unless you have no idea that NPC encounters can include 3 Barbarians?

Oh, and by the way, I made it an extra point to prove you wrong by just mentioning 1st and 2nd level spells. You know, for extra credit against the whole "Use all their highest resourses" supposed point. Which, btw, shows your own Bias against Casters (of the reverce of which you accuse me consistantly, without proving your point in the slightest).

[Frogreaver]

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

sounds like you are playing with some supped up version of invisibility - that can't efficiently be kept up all day anywyas.

And that's without putting in the effort to give you a strategy were you actually fight them.

Or their strategy to fight the caster...

In Melee, I'd love to see 3 Barbarians try to Down a Paladin with Heroism for example. Or a Hexblade with Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke.

Wait - you think 3 Barbarians can't down a Paladin that's getting 5 temp hp (or less) a round??? And why are you changing it to 3 instead of 5? And why are you talking about a Paladin instead of a full caster?

Also, why wouldn't said Barbarians, knock the hex blade to the ground, grapple him, and then take away his weapon/implement/component pouch. At that point they can just suffocate him by putting a bag over his head.

Spells always trump mundane options, as long as you put the effort to strategise around them. A mundane has limited options which revolve around combat, and no matter your build, it will always result in "you have x ways to deal damage, and limited to no control or movement options".

See my above example...

Optimising or not the mundane, in any of the examples is irrelevant to the result. When I say Average, I mean "not an oddly specific build made exactly in order to counter X strategy". Which, again, is irrelevant, as the Caster has the luxury of not being a one-trick ponny, wile the Mundane does not.

Like you do with casters.

Again, I never mentioned PVP. I'm not puting words in your mouth, so stop trying to do that to me. It's rude and insulting.

Unless you have no idea that NPC encounters can include 3 Barbarians?

If you are having classed NPC's fight PC's then it's technically not PvP but it's essentially the same thing as PVP. There's no real difference there.

[Unoriginal]

I've said I wouldn't reply in this thread anymore, but heck.

No, man, you're plain wrong here. All DMs I know, including myself, will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to "not favor the caster" and "Favor the Mundane" specifically.

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

Invisibility disables no one. All Invisibility does is give the invisible one advantage on one attack (with the invisibility being dispelled if they start attacking or casting spells), give disadvantage to their opponents' attacks, making the invisible one a non-valid target for some abilities (most of them spells), and let the invisible one attempt the Hide action wherever. Any group of characters with PC classes is more than capable of handling a singular, lower opponent who uses Invisibility (or even Greater Invisibility, for that matter), no matter which classes. In fact they can also handle a singular, higher-level opponent who uses Invisibility.

So you're not only contradicting yourself on the whole "will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to 'not favor the caster'" thing, you're showing plainly to all that you are, indeed, blatantly biased toward casters.



Also just saying, but anyone calling non-magic-using classes the "mundane" show how much disrespect they have for those classes. NO D&D adventurer is mundane.

[johnny_sokko]

This whole conversation, while it is interesting, seems so pre 5e.

Consider the five martial arts classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
Two of them are explicit spell casters at the class level. Monk ki is explicitly magical and half of the Monk subclasses explicitly cast spells. Fighter has both a spell casting subclass and a non-casting magical subclass. Only Barbarian doesn't have a spell casting subclass and Barbarian has magical subclasses.

Consider the six full casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Four of six (Bard, Cleric, Warlock and Wizard) have martial arts subclasses. And these subclasses are often the most talked about in optimization discussions.

What is the real relevance of a martial vs spell caster conversation in a version of the game where almost every class has both martial arts and spell casting options and where non-spell casting, non-magical characters are actually a very small part of the character selection space?

[Frogreaver]

This whole conversation, while it is interesting, seems so pre 5e.

Consider the five martial arts classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
Two of them are explicit spell casters at the class level. Monk ki is explicitly magical and half of the Monk subclasses explicitly cast spells. Fighter has both a spell casting subclass and a non-casting magical subclass. Only Barbarian doesn't have a spell casting subclass and Barbarian has magical subclasses.

Consider the six full casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Four of six (Bard, Cleric, Warlock and Wizard) have martial arts subclasses. And these subclasses are often the most talked about in optimization discussions.

What is the real relevance of a martial vs spell caster conversation in a version of the game where almost every class has both martial arts and spell casting options and where non-spell casting, non-magical characters are actually a very small part of the character selection space?

Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

[johnny_sokko]

Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

I agree that's a meaningful division in the 5e context, but it's not the discussion in this thread. Martials (in this thread) do not cast spells and do not have any form of magic other than items. For example, at some point flying came up. There are members of both groups that can fly. But in the thread discussion it was clear that no 'non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.' who could fly was relevant to the conversation. So it becomes a tautology. Situations that require a spell obviously can't be handled by characters that don't cast spells. Moreover, it's not a discussion of classes at all, but a discussion of subclasses, and so irrelevant to the meaningful division of classes you have presented.

I don't find a discussion of that small group of subclasses particularly informative (though it is at least interesting).

[Frogreaver]

I agree that's a meaningful division in the 5e context, but it's not the discussion in this thread. Martials (in this thread) do not cast spells and do not have any form of magic other than items. For example, at some point flying came up. There are members of both groups that can fly. But in the thread discussion it was clear that no 'non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.' who could fly was relevant to the conversation. So it becomes a tautology. Situations that require a spell obviously can't be handled by characters that don't cast spells. Moreover, it's not a discussion of classes at all, but a discussion of subclasses, and so irrelevant to the meaningful division of classes you have presented.

I don't find a discussion of that small group of subclasses particularly informative (though it is at least interesting).

I think you are wrong. The OP talked about a Paladin seemingly in the melee character category. This discussion isn't about whatever you are claiming it is about.

[Asmotherion]

I've said I wouldn't reply in this thread anymore, but heck.





Invisibility disables no one. All Invisibility does is give the invisible one advantage on one attack (with the invisibility being dispelled if they start attacking or casting spells), give disadvantage to their opponents' attacks, making the invisible one a non-valid target for some abilities (most of them spells), and let the invisible one attempt the Hide action wherever.

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you?

Again, as I said in previous posts, Win is not the same as Kill. If all you need to win is bypass a potential obstacle, you still Win the encounter.

Spell caster tends to mean full caster - martial tends to mean non full caster that primarily relies on attacks during combat.

Which is also why I use the term Mundane (aka NON-Magical) instead of Martial; A Martial Character can be anything from non-caster to full caster and everything in between.

Finally, if you think I am biased, see the title (and thus premise) of the tread. I'm simply debunking the illogical premice. Maybe, with a slightly exagerative tone (though, I stand by my statement; I'd rather face 5 (NPC since apparently I need to emphasise this, so my words are not taken out of context) Barbarians as a Caster than a Single (Again, NPC) Caster as a Barbarian.

[Gignere]

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you?.

This was true in prior editions, but in 5e unless you take the hide action and beat passive perceptions, everyone knows where you are. So they can attack you just at disadvantage.

[Frogreaver]

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you?

Again, as I said in previous posts, Win is not the same as Kill. If all you need to win is bypass a potential obstacle, you still Win the encounter.

Invisibility doesn't make you hidden and undectable. They will know what square you are in unless you hide. Since there are 5 of them they will have a pretty good chance of at least 1 being able to locate what square you are in even if you are hidden.

Which is also why I use the term Mundane (aka NON-Magical) instead of Martial; A Martial Character can be anything from non-caster to full caster and everything in between.

Which isn't what the rest of the thread is about...

Finally, if you think I am biased, see the title (and thus premise) of the tread. I'm simply debunking the illogical premice. Maybe, with a slightly exagerative tone (though, I stand by my statement; I'd rather face 5 (NPC since apparently I need to emphasise this, so my words are not taken out of context) Barbarians as a Caster than a Single (Again, NPC) Caster as a Barbarian.

Barbarian has a good chance of beating a lower level caster at most level ranges. Caster has no chance of beating 5 barbarians of higher level. Caster might can run away - but that's hardly "winning" the encounter.

This was true in prior editions, but in 5e unless you take the hide action and beat passive perceptions, everyone knows where you are. So they can attack you just at disadvantage.

And with reckless attack it won't even be at disadvantage!

[Unoriginal]

Oh really. So, if a caster makes himself invisible and the opponent has no clue which square they occupy, they can't get far enough away from them in a 1 hour duration? Cool story.

Or am I interpreating what a 1 hour Invisibility does completelly wrong, according to you?

How does the opponent "ha[ve] no clue which square [the invisibile caster] occup[ies]"? Did they cast the spell before their opponent was within hearing range and then stayed out of hearing range the whole time?

Again, as I said in previous posts, Win is not the same as Kill. If all you need to win is bypass a potential obstacle, you still Win the encounter.

And making a caster flee and avoid the confrontation isn't bypassing a potential obstacle?

Finally, if you think I am biased, see the title (and thus premise) of the tread.

Yes, the OP of this thread was just as biased and incorrect as you are.

I'm simply debunking the illogical premice.

You've debunked nothing, though. You stated similarly illogical arguments that opposes the OP's own.

(though, I stand by my statement; I'd rather face 5 (NPC since apparently I need to emphasise this, so my words are not taken out of context) Barbarians as a Caster than a Single (Again, NPC) Caster as a Barbarian.

Do you wish to try that encounter?

I'm sure there are people here willing to DM that. I would be, for starter.

[Dork_Forge]

Obviously, but nothing of that is something casters couldn't do, generally better. Polymorphed Giant Ape is a far better dragger than a Barbarian in most cases; Rogue/Pally are just damage dealers, which is not really unique to any class; maneuvers are kinda like discount spells in that they have lesser effects but still have saves and still do damage so there isn't really much they can do that spells couldn't do better, etc. Monk's Stunning Strike is an exception since it directly comboes great with spells and can be applied multiple times per turn. Of course, it is resource intensive.

I'd definitely generally prefer another big Concentration spell to anything a non-caster can do in the vast majority of the scenarios though. Comboing Concentration effects is great. This is where you get into the Wall of Force + Wall of Light or Cloud of Daggers or whatever-kinda stuff that just autokills ~80% of the monster manual (the exceptions can either disable the effects, teleport, are too large, or are durable enough to take it; add a third Concentration effect and you can disable most teleports as they require LoS in addition to ensuring sufficient damage for basically anything leaving only a handful of exceptions).

The Barbarian would have advantage whilst raging and could also potentially have expertise, so debatable the Giant Ape being flat better. Rogues and Paladins are far from just damage, I even gave examples of the Paladin. Maneuvers are far from "discount spells," you know, since they're not magical in any way and can be applied on hits like a Smite can, that statement is just showing your bias. You're an advocate of full casters, yet you are putting resource intensive down as a negative for stunning strike? You know that the spells most people mention in this argument cost slots right?

Shoving something in a wall of force with an effect can kill 80% of the monster manual? Seeing as this tactic is resource heavy, requires things to go your way and doesn't come online until level 9+ I'm not particularly surprised, though do you really think that is a tactic you could reliably do in a campaign?

Who mentioned a PVP scenario? How exactly in my post did you come to the conclusion I was mentioning a PVP scenario? Are you putting words in my mouth? Why are you doing that?

And, no, I mean that as long as the Caster has access to spells of their level, he can face on equal footing something of much higher level than him, as long as that opponent has no access to spellcasting.

Even a 1rst level sleep spell has high potential to end an encounter with a non-caster of much higher level, baring some very specific races that are immune to it.

And, Win does not mean Kill in D&D. Just saying. Make somethig unconsious; you win. Make something unwilling to keep fighting; you win. Block the path so something can't reach you; you win.

Even in an actual direct combat scenario, one has access to Levitation and Cantrips that provide Concealment and Cover early on, and generally be out of reach from the Melee character, wile blasting with Long Rane Cantrips, wile the other will probably be stuck unable to damage the Caster most of the time.

We are in a thread talking about player classes, you started talking about PC class vs PC class, PvP is a reasonable assumption since NPCs usually aren't made with player levels (though I did mention that possibility earlier), are you really surprised people concluded it was pvp? And if the NPCs are made with player levels... is there any meaningful difference?

On Sleep, see you're thinking about this like it is PvP even if you don't mean to. Sleep needs you to roll high enough, you won't be taking down 3 Barbarians with it (assuming only a +2 Con, avg 1st level Barbarian is 14hp, average roll on Sleep is 22.5) and then you haven't killed or meaningfully disabled them, any amount of damage or getting shook will wake them up.

Win doesn't have to mean kill, but you do need to meaningfully disable them if you aren't going to reach an amicable victory, so Hypnotic Pattern isn't going to do you any favour when the enemy come charging after you a minute later. I think you'd be hard pressed to actually provide many spells that provide the win conditions you're talking about.

You could certainly use Levitation in a scenario, provided there was only a single monster and they failed there save and didn't have ranged attacks. Doesn't that seem like a lot of conditions?

Invisibility disables any number of barbarians, no matter their level or build. Just saying.

And that's without putting in the effort to give you a strategy were you actually fight them.

In Melee, I'd love to see 3 Barbarians try to Down a Paladin with Heroism for example. Or a Hexblade with Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke.

Spells always trump mundane options, as long as you put the effort to strategise around them. A mundane has limited options which revolve around combat, and no matter your build, it will always result in "you have x ways to deal damage, and limited to no control or movement options".

Optimising or not the mundane, in any of the examples is irrelevant to the result. When I say Average, I mean "not an oddly specific build made exactly in order to counter X strategy". Which, again, is irrelevant, as the Caster has the luxury of not being a one-trick ponny, wile the Mundane does not.

Again, I never mentioned PVP. I'm not puting words in your mouth, so stop trying to do that to me. It's rude and insulting.

Unless you have no idea that NPC encounters can include 3 Barbarians?

Oh, and by the way, I made it an extra point to prove you wrong by just mentioning 1st and 2nd level spells. You know, for extra credit against the whole "Use all their highest resourses" supposed point. Which, btw, shows your own Bias against Casters (of the reverce of which you accuse me consistantly, without proving your point in the slightest).

You may be referring to Greater Invisibility here, which is a 4th level spell and still doesn't do what you claim. Being invisible does nothing for you in terms of disabling anyone, funnily enough it's actually more a hindrance to enemy casters since many spells require you to see the target.

You're clearly using a different definition to most of us here, a Paladin is a martial character. This topic usually refers to fullcasters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard and usually Warlock) vs everyone else (including Paladins, Rangers and I'd say Artificers too).

I think you should reevaluate your position with Paladins etc. falling on the martial side of things before you continue.

The way you talk about 1st and 2nd level spells not being the highest resources also just shows that you're likely talking about casters 5+. The examples you gave have already fallen flat, you haven't proven anyone wrong thus far.

This whole conversation, while it is interesting, seems so pre 5e.

Consider the five martial arts classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
Two of them are explicit spell casters at the class level. Monk ki is explicitly magical and half of the Monk subclasses explicitly cast spells. Fighter has both a spell casting subclass and a non-casting magical subclass. Only Barbarian doesn't have a spell casting subclass and Barbarian has magical subclasses.

Consider the six full casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Four of six (Bard, Cleric, Warlock and Wizard) have martial arts subclasses. And these subclasses are often the most talked about in optimization discussions.

What is the real relevance of a martial vs spell caster conversation in a version of the game where almost every class has both martial arts and spell casting options and where non-spell casting, non-magical characters are actually a very small part of the character selection space?

Just wanted to mention that Totem Barbarians get a couple of ritual spells.

[Valmark]

To be honest, while Asmotherion's statement does feel like an overstatement, a wizard can use Wall Of Force to make an almost completely sealed off area of 10x20 or a completely sealed off sphere of 10x10 and drop MFHs in it to kill the enemies inside or at least severely weaken them. If they don't teleport. And if they can't burrow for the 10x20 case.

Force Cage would work better but it's also higher leveled.

[Segev]

Just for the record, if a creature turns invisible, it still needs to use a Hide action to make other creatures lose track of its location (at least to enough degree that they can't attack it at disadvantage).

A goblin could theoretically hide as a bonus action given the obscurement necessary, no invisibility needed. This would be more effective than a wizard with dumped dex and no training in Stealth trying to use invisibility to sneak away.

[Unoriginal]

To be honest, while Asmotherion's statement does feel like an overstatement, a wizard can use Wall Of Force to make an almost completely sealed off area of 10x20 or a completely sealed off sphere of 10x10 and drop MFHs in it to kill the enemies inside or at least severely weaken them. If they don't teleport. And if they can't burrow for the 10x20 case.

That combo requires the Wizard to have Action Surge, so to actually be a Fighter/Wizard multiclass.

It's also unlikely to work against several opponents.

[Gignere]

Just for the record, if a creature turns invisible, it still needs to use a Hide action to make other creatures lose track of its location (at least to enough degree that they can't attack it at disadvantage).

A goblin could theoretically hide as a bonus action given the obscurement necessary, no invisibility needed. This would be more effective than a wizard with dumped dex and no training in Stealth trying to use invisibility to sneak away.

Wizard builds almost never dump dex, almost always number 2 or at most 3rd ability. Too important since its AC, initiative, and physical combat bonus.

[Valmark]

That combo requires the Wizard to have Action Surge, so to actually be a Fighter/Wizard multiclass.

It's also unlikely to work against several opponents.

Why does it need AS? One can just cast in two different rounds.

And yeah, it has a limit but it can still kill a good amount of them or at least weaken them enough to mop'em up afterwards. It depends on the specific scenario- that's why I said Asmotherion's statement was an exaggeration.

[Unoriginal]

Why does it need AS? One can just cast in two different rounds.

You let people cast spells in a space that's enclosed by a Wall of Force?

And yeah, it has a limit but it can still kill a good amount of them or at least weaken them enough to mop'em up afterwards.

How do you contain more than 3 people in the spell's AoE?

[Valmark]

You let people cast spells in a space that's enclosed by a Wall of Force?

How do you contain more than 3 people in the spell's AoE?

Only Forcecage shaped like a box stops spells from being cast- that said, I don't allow spells like, for example, Scorching Ray from hitting inside for obvious reasons.

If you don't let spells be cast inside Wall Of Force at all you are either nerfing or boosting the spell depending on the situation.

Wall Of Force shaped like a sphere (or an emisphere, I'm thinking only about the ground atm) has a radius of 10 feet, so it can hold something like twelve Medium creatures (ignoring potential fliers), while if you use the ten panel version you can close a 10x20 rectangle, containing eight creatures (ignoring potential fliers) with a closed ceiling but an open ground (which is why I said no burrowing).

Obviously this assume the enemies are close enough together- that is true for all AoEs. I did say it's possible depending on the situation.

[Waazraath]

No, man, you're plain wrong here. All DMs I know, including myself, will try to read a spell in a less than favorable way, and are generally inclined to "not favor the caster" and "Favor the Mundane" specifically. Still, does not change anything.

... really...? Everybody is busy reading spells in the least favourable way, not to favor the caster?? I really must have not been paying attention, or am stuck in some alternative realty.

In the past on this forum, mostly past weeks, I've seen people argue on how they would hit 5 creaturers with their 5x5 cantrip, how a wizard should have more money than other classes cause "they can use spells to make more money", see people pretent invisibility makes them undetectable and being a win button, seen people argue the power of the lvl 1 caster because they have max. 3 sleeps for 6-8 encounters, seen people argue that rules on material and somatic components should be handwaived, assuming that 'charm' is some kind of social "I win" button instead of a liability with the possible of fierce repercussions, seen familiars counted as automatic advantage buttons, seen people get really annoyed when somebody brings up the fact that in a world with a lot of magic people might, you know, actually have defenses against said magic...

but everybody is "favoring the 'mundanes'"?! Blimey.

[Frogreaver]

I've always wondered, unless you put a lid on wall of force, how do you keep medium sized or larger enemies from just climbing out?

[Unoriginal]

I've always wondered, unless you put a lid on wall of force, how do you keep medium sized or larger enemies from just climbing out?

I mean you can make the wall of force a closed space.

[Frogreaver]

I mean you can make the wall of force a closed space.

Lowers the area it covers quite a bit to put a lid on it though.

[Unoriginal]

Lowers the area it covers quite a bit to put a lid on it though.

Sure, but if it's needed it's needed. Otherwise as you said you can just get out of it.

[Valmark]

I've always wondered, unless you put a lid on wall of force, how do you keep medium sized or larger enemies from just climbing out?

Yeah my 10x20 thing was because I was considering putting a lid on it. You could also make a 10x10 version with tall walls but at that point you can make the sphere/emisphere version.

In a room where you don't need to box or with low enough ceilings it's less of an issue.

Obviously the sphere/emisphere version has no such problem, though it's not shapeable.

[Gtdead]

but everybody is "favoring the 'mundanes'"?! Blimey.

To be fair, he said DMs, not everyone. Which I kind of agree with. Some very simple examples are, how many DMs will allow magic missile shenanigans, or won't try to control summoning spells? The job of optimizers is to read the abilities in the most favorable way while the job of the DM is to do the opposite so he can create meaningful encounters without some player ****ting all over his attempts.

[Asisreo1]

Yeah my 10x20 thing was because I was considering putting a lid on it. You could also make a 10x10 version with tall walls but at that point you can make the sphere/emisphere version.

In a room where you don't need to box or with low enough ceilings it's less of an issue.

Obviously the sphere/emisphere version has no such problem, though it's not shapeable.

Interesting. I never really thought about it, but you're actually unable to capture any creature larger than medium in a hemispherical wall of force.

Since a large creature's space is a 10×10ft square on a grid but a 10ft radius sphere cuts through it, using Wall of Force on anything as basic as a Troll or Hill Giant is doomed to fail

Edit: this is wrong, but the principal is right. Yes, a 10ft radius hemisphere is large enough horizontally to fit a 10ft square. That part is wrong. However, the height of the creature's space is also 10ft high, making a 1000ft^3 cube. However, a hemisphere has a single point where it goes 10ft high, the rest slopes downward. Basically, the hemisphere cuts through the cube just barely at their point, making it impossible to completely trap a large creature in a 10ft radius hemisphere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, he said DMs, not everyone. Which I kind of agree with. Some very simple examples are, how many DMs will allow magic missile shenanigans, or won't try to control summoning spells? The job of optimizers is to read the abilities in the most favorable way while the job of the DM is to do the opposite so he can create meaningful encounters without some player ****ting all over his attempts.

The bold is why I dislike optimizers. At least the ones that think that way.

The job of everyone is to read the abilities in the way that promotes the fun of the table as a whole and avoids arguments. If the DM is gunning to nerf abilities or the players are trying to break things, they're doing it wrong. I strongly dislike loophole hunting and literalistic readings in an attempt to "prove" something with the rules. Because that's just outsourcing your contention and hiding behind rules to be obnoxious.

[Unoriginal]

To be fair, he said DMs, not everyone. Which I kind of agree with. Some very simple examples are, how many DMs will allow magic missile shenanigans, or won't try to control summoning spells? The job of optimizers is to read the abilities in the most favorable way while the job of the DM is to do the opposite so he can create meaningful encounters without some player ****ting all over his attempts.

Trying to "read the abilities in the most favorable way" isn't an optimizer tactic, it's a rule lawyer tactic.

Also that doesn't mean that the DM is favoring non-magic characters.

And third a DM doesn't have to "do the opposite", they can just say "no" when the player is blatantly trying to read the abilities "the most favorable way" rather than having an ounce of intellectual honesty.

The bold is why I dislike optimizers. At least the ones that think that way.

The job of everyone is to read the abilities in the way that promotes the fun of the table as a whole and avoids arguments. If the DM is gunning to nerf abilities or the players are trying to break things, they're doing it wrong. I strongly dislike loophole hunting and literalistic readings in an attempt to "prove" something with the rules. Because that's just outsourcing your contention and hiding behind rules to be obnoxious.

Also this.

[Valmark]

Interesting. I never really thought about it, but you're actually unable to capture any creature larger than medium in a hemispherical wall of force.

Since a large creature's space is a 10×10ft square on a grid but a 10ft radius sphere cuts through it, using Wall of Force on anything as basic as a Troll or Hill Giant is doomed to fail.

An hill giant is Huge, says internet (not at the books right now).

A Large square's diagonal is... 14 something. Homewever you can place the sphere or emisphere so that the center is the same as the square, so you'd have half diagonal (7 something) fit into the radius (10 feet). Looks like Large creatures fit, depending on the height of the creature.

Or just use the ten panel version.

No Huge. Best I can come up with makes it bothersome for the Huge creature to get out, but no way to seal it (using the ten panel version).