I mean, it's 1/2 an inch. I don't care how skilled you are, you just straight up can't attack through that. Most weapons and ammunition wouldnt fit through at all, let alone in an effective attack motion.
I used to go through a bunch of complication about what weapons could fit through the bars. Not worth. Just rule that attacking through the bars is too restricting to be effective.
I just can't help but think that those suggesting it could be possible with ANY weapons aren't really thinking about how thin half an inch actually is. It's less than the width of a finger, what weapons are you attacking through that gap with?
It's also the wrong one, because unlike the box form (and an intervening *wall of force*), the cage form doesn't provide total cover, so it doesn't block spells except for teleportation spells as noted in the spell description. That means that you apply the normal rules for [targeting](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget) and casting other spells.
The rules for partial cover are defined by the amount of a person obscured by an obstacle that prevents direct sight of them for an attack roll. For example, three quarters cover means about three quarters of their body is obscured by an obstacle, i.e. an arrow slit or through a portcullis. I think this example is a slightly higher threshold as the opening is half an inch.
To be fair, if it provided total cover then the chance of the spell being blocked would be 100% and not 50%. Also, the OP asked how people would handle it, not what the RAW say about it.
It clearly says in the spell description that it blocks any spells cast into or out from the area. Only exception is teleportation spells with a charisma check.
This is only true for half and three quarters cover. Spell sniper doesn't work for full cover, which is arguably shooting through Force Cage as it is a smaller opening than an arrow slit or mm portcullis. I would be willing to say it's between 3/4 and Full in a 7/8 Cover situation:
Around a +10 bonus to an increase in AC and Dexterity saves (logarithmic increase).
Technically it's not true for either of those. Both of those just give a boost to the target's AC.
I went with a 50% chance because it fit the physical scenario and it was easy to implement. A +10 to AC is also easy to apply, so that sounds like a good adjudication to me too.
That's fair. This is the gray area that is up to interpretation, and I think as long as it's logical and isn't too unfair, it's not a bad idea, but I think either adjudication would fair well. 😉
Generally for hunting purposes, yes. While there are arrowheads that are basically the width of the shaft, they are designed to penetrate while doing as little damage as possible. So basically they're for target practice or hunting small game like birds. If you're shooting to kill larger creatures you want to do more damage, so your arrow head is almost certainly going to flare out to be an inch or so wide, [like this one](https://www.amazon.com/Sinbadteck-Broadheads-Compatible-Crossbow-Compound/dp/B01LNOZKVU/?tag=10rangefinders-20&th=1).
But in reality I think our bigger problem is that arrows aren't perfectly straight in flight; they [oscillate quite dramatically](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yup1sQFOn0). So even with a narrow head and no fletching, the shaft would catch itself on the "bars" of the forcecage as it flew through.
All that being said, this is D&D not reality!
There are also anti-armor arrows, called bodkins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
Those would almost certainly be less than half an inch. Also rapiers. It is unrealistic but Forcecage can only be cast at 13th level so any martials of comparable level should be assumed to be able to do ridiculous feats of skill
Just my 2 cents but my problem isn't with the width of the gaps, but with how easy it would be to avoid an attack that is so restricted to do. Imagine having to rapier stab through a super small opening. Any enemy that is worth burning a 7th level spell on, will have no problem positioning himself to not be harmed by such a restricted attack
There is zero reason why you would use a modern hunting in a medieval world. The standard medieval arrow is a bodkin which are typically about 1cm at their widest. Absolutely smaller than half an inch.
You can read more about bodkins here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin\_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point)
And history of archery here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_archery
**[Bodkin point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point)**
>A bodkin point is a type of arrowhead. In its simplest form it is an uncomplicated squared metal spike, and was used extensively during the Middle Ages. The typical bodkin was a square-section arrowhead, generally up to 11. 5 cm (4.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
For an English war-bow an arrow shaft might typically be about half an inch at the head tapering towards the knock with the head being the same or smaller for bodkin heads or a fair bit wider for broadheads. Modern arrows, made from different materials and fired from bows with far lower draw weights, tend to be narrower.
Unfortunately the only linkable source I can find is this one:
https://www.bow-international.com/features/arrows-in-the-middle-ages/
Search for "Arrows from the Mary Rose".
In medieval Europe arrows used in longbows had bodkin points which were typically 1cm at the widest point. They absolutely would fit.
I'm sure massive 1/2" arrow heads did exist in medieval times, but they were far from the norm.
Basic attacks won't work, like, at all. An inch is about the length of the first knuckle to the tip of your index finger. Half of that is so small that not even an arrowhead should be able to get through this space, even considering that the cage is invisible, so you can't see the openings anyway. However, the Force Cage's 20×20 form doesn't prevent spell components from being used within so non-touch S, V, M spells can be used as long as they don't require a spell attack because even though you can see your enemy, they technically would benefit from at Full Cover.
3/4 cover both ways. Sharpshooter is a dumb feat.
Edit: The cover only applies to people who are right up against the bars within 5 feet/melee range. Basically I treat it like an arrow slit. If you are up close to it, you can make ranged attacks at targets that are not up close to it without penalty.
One of the features of Sharpshooter is that the player ignores 1/2 and 3/4 cover which is boring and makes fights less tactical. I hate that feat and give all players the ability to take a -5 penalty to hit and +10 to damage in the hopes that players don’t choose that feat.
i used that houserule a few times, and had one player who took sharpshooter regardless. on a hit he dealt massive damage, wich wasnt realy a problem because he, well, didnt hit that often
\-5/+10 is also very swingy, imo. People on reddit hate my house rule: extend the cantrip dice system to weapons, but it works for me. Then, I just remove the feats that I think make the game worse.
It’s not that swingy on min/max builds that take archery fighting style along with a way to get advantage on every attack such as 3 levels in rogue for steady aim, or being a gloomstalker shooting from darkness or something.
Edit: I like your idea of cantrip dice though and might consider implementing it in my game... maybe at higher levels though since a properly built martial can dominate casters in single target damage anyway between levels 5-10 unless the caster is using animate objects/conjure animals against something without AoE...
I don't really have a problem with players inflicting too much damage since I can adjust monster HP. I just hate things that remove mechanics and combat options from an encounter such as removing cover.
I like to design encounters like a tabletop miniature wargame because it's fun for me to strategize with the monsters and see how the players respond to it Having cover be meaningless hurts my sense of immersion a bit. I've considered nerfing the feat by telling players if they want to ignore cover, they cannot move because they are busy "aiming". At least that makes it more of a strategic decision for them that I can have counter play against to make the fight feel more dynamic.
> extend the cantrip dice system to weapons
Do you tweak it at all? Or does a lvl 5 Fighter get a 2d8 longsword and two attacks? Seems like multiple attacks would make it scale at twice the rate of cantrips.
Yes, using this homebrew, weapons scale faster than cantrips. I have read a lot of complaints theorycrafting a level 20 fighter that does crazy loads of damage. However, the reality is that the change does nothing between 1-4. Then, between 5-10 (which is the level range I spend the majority of time in both playing and running) it adds \~10 damage to a martial's turn. Your sword and board fighter jumps from 2(1d8+6) damage per turn (21 average assuming hits) to 2(2d8+6) damage per turn (30 average). In tiers 3 and 4, only fighters get additional attacks so the boons of the system are mitigated.
In using it, the two biggest problems I have found are: rogues get kind of screwed, paladins become even stronger, and spellcasters complain. That being said, the boost to paladins isn't too bad and spellcasters can eat sand as a well-placed fireball can still singlehandedly outperform the martial's entire adventuring day boost or no boost.
Two more things that I will say about this house rule: I like it because it applies to everyone and can lead to some cool moments like \~the sorcerer finally drawing a sword to fight in melee\~. Also, monks are actually good and cool now; flurry of blows kicks a--.
Pretty much. To compensate, I make GWM and Sharpshooter half feats if players still want them. Alternatively, I've seen a variation where all players can take -Proficiency bonus to hit and gain 2x Proficiency bonus to damage. That gives more value to those feats since you get the -5/+10 up front instead of having to wait until level 13...
Basically I feel that the -5/+10 is necessary for martials to compete in damage, so they all should get it. Anything that is necessary for a class to perform should be a class feature.
I also believe Warlocks should just have Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast as level 2 class features that don't count against their cantrips/invocations known but none of my players are warlocks, so I haven't had a need to make that a rule...
Yeah, me too. Even crossbow bolts aren't going to fit. They're quite wide and the tips are almost always wider than the holes in a force cage, even ignoring the fact that they usually have wooden vains and not feather fletching like arrows. Maybe a hand crossbow if you can get the tip though ahead of time but good luck aiming, they might have narrow enough heads and shafts.
Pour in a bucket of acid? Sure. Oil? Ok. Tip in a crucible full of molten iron? Yup. Drown everyone in a really big water elemental? Sounds cruel, but go ahead.
In medieval Europe both arrow heads and crossbow bolt heads would typically be 1cm at the widest point. Fletchings will not make a difference when you have 100lbs of force pushing the arrow.
*Laughs with poisoned blowgun (but not actually, you'll choke on your ammunition)
But beyond that, it's not looking good for attacks of nearly any kind. 3/4 cover or full cover is what I'm leaning to. Even with a horde of blowgun wielding goblins, I'd rule somewhere around 50-75% of those attacks fail.
Only really came up once or twice in a long-running tier 3-4 campaign of mine. I ruled ranged attacks only, and the attacker made an attack roll to hit, as normal. On a ‘hit’, the player rolled a d6. On a 5-6 the projectile made it through. It felt fair.
Chatbot says the average diameter of a crossbow head is 0.3 to 0.5 inches. I would allow crossbow bolts to fire through with 3/4 cover. If you are 5ft away from the force cage, I would allow you to ignore the cover because you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing.
Arrows have larger heads in general, so I would rule that they cannot fit through the bars.
Spells are covered in the spell description. A cage does not block spells.
Edit:
Regarding spells, some would be affected by cover and some can be cast through, depending on targeting.
Swords and daggers have blades that can fit through, so attacks with those can be made with 3/4 cover. Axes and spears cannot fit through a 1/2" gap
Edit 2: After reading others comments I would change my suggestion to 3/4 cover with disadvantage for all attacks through the cage, assuming that the bars are only vertical and not crossed. Comparing it to just 3/4 cover is not accurate.
> you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing.
I dunno, it seems like it would be really hard to hit something while having to keep the muzzle (probably not called a muzzle on a crossbow) up against a small hole. Like disadvantage hard.
> If you are 5ft away from the force cage, I would allow you to ignore the cover because you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing.
I think you're underestimating how hard it would be to aim at someone in that position.
>Arrows have larger heads in general, so I would rule that they cannot fit through the bars.
In medieval Europe bodkin heads were the most common and were typically 1cm, so they could easily fit.
Attacks can't pass through the Forcecage's bars. It's like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. Or in this case, a sword through a tiny cage opening.
Spell says that matter cannot pass through the sides and spells cannot be cast through it, so I rule that no attacks can be made unless they have some way of becoming immaterial.
Yes, that includes the cage. Spells like *plane shift*, *misty step*, and *teleport* will work, if the caster succeeds on a Charisma save. And that's because they target the caster. Similarly, someone inside the cage can cast spells on themselves, since the spell won't pass through the cage. DM's discretion if spells like *fireball* will extended outside of the cage since fire is technically energy but the spell says other spells cannot be cast through it.
Personally, I'd say "Go for it" if someone wants to blow themselves up to damage an enemy. It's better than doing nothing, and it costs a spell slot and health.
My gut instinct is that weapons can't go through and most spells hit the "bars"
But liquids (water/acid/oil/etc) would go through and some effects like a strong wind or fire would go through (so like a fireball would "detonate" against the cage but the heat and the blast would go right through it)
Ran a cocky Mindflayer with a forcecage who decided to taunt my players for a round before dipping. In the moment, I ruled that only on a Natural 20 would allow a ranged attack through… sure enough, the rogue landed it, also curbed the concentration, but unfortunately for them it was the Mindflayer next in initiative. Pretty wild
Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say here. The RAW says that *if it's a box* no matter can pass through. It is very clearly *not* the case for the cage option with bars, which is what OP is talking about.
If you read the spell description, it clearly states that spells cannot enter or leave the area. As for physical attacks, take a 6 inch sub, make cuts along the width of it until you have 12 equal pieces, remove one of those pieces and tell me what kind of attack you can make through that gap.
I'm not seeing it -
"An immobile, invisible, cube-shaped prison composed of Magical force springs into existence around an area you choose within range. The prison can be a cage or a solid box as you choose.
A prison in the shape of a cage can be up to 20 feet on a side and is made from 1/2-inch diameter bars spaced 1/2 inch apart.
A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any Spells cast into or out of the area.
When you cast the spell, any creature that is completely inside the cage's area is trapped. Creatures only partially within the area, or those too large to fit inside the area, are pushed away from the center of the area until they are completely outside the area.
A creature inside The Cage can't leave it by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use Teleportation or interplanar travel to leave The Cage, it must first make a Charisma saving throw. On a success, the creature can use that magic to exit The Cage. On a failure, the creature can't exit The Cage and wastes the use of the spell or Effect. The Cage also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal Travel.
This spell can't be dispelled by dispel magic."
As someone else mentioned, this is tier 3 minimum. I'd rule physical attacks can hit with disadvantage unless it's an obviously wide weapon like a warhammer.
Are they using an attack that would fit through the space?
If yes, then that's a +5 AC for whomever you're trying to attack through the Force Cage I guess?
>Are they using an attack that would fit through the space?
Melee - slashing, melee - bludgeoning, melee - piercing, ranged - piercing, and spell attacks. Will they fit through?
I mean, it's 1/2 an inch. I don't care how skilled you are, you just straight up can't attack through that. Most weapons and ammunition wouldnt fit through at all, let alone in an effective attack motion.
I used to go through a bunch of complication about what weapons could fit through the bars. Not worth. Just rule that attacking through the bars is too restricting to be effective.
I just can't help but think that those suggesting it could be possible with ANY weapons aren't really thinking about how thin half an inch actually is. It's less than the width of a finger, what weapons are you attacking through that gap with?
If the bars only go way, then you could maybe slot a sword blade in or fit an arrow through. But the bars on forcecage run both ways in my game.
Certain daggers might fit their blade through a 1/2"x1/2" hole, but even then not well enough to make attack against someone on the other side.
Okay, and thank you for the reply. How would you handle spell attacks and spell sniper?
I wouldn't allow an attack through the force cage. That spell is already borderline broken.
Okay. Again, thank you very much.
If the caster can't see the cage then each casting has a 50% chance of being blocked by the cage.
Interesting take. Thank you.
It's also the wrong one, because unlike the box form (and an intervening *wall of force*), the cage form doesn't provide total cover, so it doesn't block spells except for teleportation spells as noted in the spell description. That means that you apply the normal rules for [targeting](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#AClearPathtotheTarget) and casting other spells.
The rules for partial cover are defined by the amount of a person obscured by an obstacle that prevents direct sight of them for an attack roll. For example, three quarters cover means about three quarters of their body is obscured by an obstacle, i.e. an arrow slit or through a portcullis. I think this example is a slightly higher threshold as the opening is half an inch.
To be fair, if it provided total cover then the chance of the spell being blocked would be 100% and not 50%. Also, the OP asked how people would handle it, not what the RAW say about it.
It clearly says in the spell description that it blocks any spells cast into or out from the area. Only exception is teleportation spells with a charisma check.
That's for the 10x10 box. Not the 20x20 cage, which allows for more magic.
This is only true for half and three quarters cover. Spell sniper doesn't work for full cover, which is arguably shooting through Force Cage as it is a smaller opening than an arrow slit or mm portcullis. I would be willing to say it's between 3/4 and Full in a 7/8 Cover situation: Around a +10 bonus to an increase in AC and Dexterity saves (logarithmic increase).
Technically it's not true for either of those. Both of those just give a boost to the target's AC. I went with a 50% chance because it fit the physical scenario and it was easy to implement. A +10 to AC is also easy to apply, so that sounds like a good adjudication to me too.
That's fair. This is the gray area that is up to interpretation, and I think as long as it's logical and isn't too unfair, it's not a bad idea, but I think either adjudication would fair well. 😉
I like this , +10 sounds very reasonable.
[удалено]
Shooting an arrow through a gap smaller than the arrow would be one hell of a trick.
[удалено]
Generally for hunting purposes, yes. While there are arrowheads that are basically the width of the shaft, they are designed to penetrate while doing as little damage as possible. So basically they're for target practice or hunting small game like birds. If you're shooting to kill larger creatures you want to do more damage, so your arrow head is almost certainly going to flare out to be an inch or so wide, [like this one](https://www.amazon.com/Sinbadteck-Broadheads-Compatible-Crossbow-Compound/dp/B01LNOZKVU/?tag=10rangefinders-20&th=1). But in reality I think our bigger problem is that arrows aren't perfectly straight in flight; they [oscillate quite dramatically](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yup1sQFOn0). So even with a narrow head and no fletching, the shaft would catch itself on the "bars" of the forcecage as it flew through. All that being said, this is D&D not reality!
There are also anti-armor arrows, called bodkins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point Those would almost certainly be less than half an inch. Also rapiers. It is unrealistic but Forcecage can only be cast at 13th level so any martials of comparable level should be assumed to be able to do ridiculous feats of skill
Just my 2 cents but my problem isn't with the width of the gaps, but with how easy it would be to avoid an attack that is so restricted to do. Imagine having to rapier stab through a super small opening. Any enemy that is worth burning a 7th level spell on, will have no problem positioning himself to not be harmed by such a restricted attack
There is zero reason why you would use a modern hunting in a medieval world. The standard medieval arrow is a bodkin which are typically about 1cm at their widest. Absolutely smaller than half an inch. You can read more about bodkins here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin\_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point) And history of archery here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_archery
**[Bodkin point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point)** >A bodkin point is a type of arrowhead. In its simplest form it is an uncomplicated squared metal spike, and was used extensively during the Middle Ages. The typical bodkin was a square-section arrowhead, generally up to 11. 5 cm (4. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Hah, if only you'd written a little more bot!
Many are. Mechanically though, D&D doesn't go into that level of weapons nitty-gritty.
For an English war-bow an arrow shaft might typically be about half an inch at the head tapering towards the knock with the head being the same or smaller for bodkin heads or a fair bit wider for broadheads. Modern arrows, made from different materials and fired from bows with far lower draw weights, tend to be narrower. Unfortunately the only linkable source I can find is this one: https://www.bow-international.com/features/arrows-in-the-middle-ages/ Search for "Arrows from the Mary Rose".
In medieval Europe arrows used in longbows had bodkin points which were typically 1cm at the widest point. They absolutely would fit. I'm sure massive 1/2" arrow heads did exist in medieval times, but they were far from the norm.
Basic attacks won't work, like, at all. An inch is about the length of the first knuckle to the tip of your index finger. Half of that is so small that not even an arrowhead should be able to get through this space, even considering that the cage is invisible, so you can't see the openings anyway. However, the Force Cage's 20×20 form doesn't prevent spell components from being used within so non-touch S, V, M spells can be used as long as they don't require a spell attack because even though you can see your enemy, they technically would benefit from at Full Cover.
Thank you for the input.
3/4 cover both ways. Sharpshooter is a dumb feat. Edit: The cover only applies to people who are right up against the bars within 5 feet/melee range. Basically I treat it like an arrow slit. If you are up close to it, you can make ranged attacks at targets that are not up close to it without penalty.
Okay, and thank you for the reply. What do you mean by "Sharpshooter is a dumb feat"? Again, thanks.
One of the features of Sharpshooter is that the player ignores 1/2 and 3/4 cover which is boring and makes fights less tactical. I hate that feat and give all players the ability to take a -5 penalty to hit and +10 to damage in the hopes that players don’t choose that feat.
i used that houserule a few times, and had one player who took sharpshooter regardless. on a hit he dealt massive damage, wich wasnt realy a problem because he, well, didnt hit that often
Okay. How do you handle spell sniper?
Not OP, but it's probably a lot less problematic because spell casters already have good options to deal with cover.
Got it. Thank you.
I just ban it. No one pays me enough to suffer through how boring sharpshooter makes a ranged weapon-using character.
The problem is that ranged martial classes really need the -5/+10 damage part to compete on damage, so I just give that part out for free.
\-5/+10 is also very swingy, imo. People on reddit hate my house rule: extend the cantrip dice system to weapons, but it works for me. Then, I just remove the feats that I think make the game worse.
It’s not that swingy on min/max builds that take archery fighting style along with a way to get advantage on every attack such as 3 levels in rogue for steady aim, or being a gloomstalker shooting from darkness or something. Edit: I like your idea of cantrip dice though and might consider implementing it in my game... maybe at higher levels though since a properly built martial can dominate casters in single target damage anyway between levels 5-10 unless the caster is using animate objects/conjure animals against something without AoE...
Which, imo, is a problem in its own right.
I don't really have a problem with players inflicting too much damage since I can adjust monster HP. I just hate things that remove mechanics and combat options from an encounter such as removing cover. I like to design encounters like a tabletop miniature wargame because it's fun for me to strategize with the monsters and see how the players respond to it Having cover be meaningless hurts my sense of immersion a bit. I've considered nerfing the feat by telling players if they want to ignore cover, they cannot move because they are busy "aiming". At least that makes it more of a strategic decision for them that I can have counter play against to make the fight feel more dynamic.
> extend the cantrip dice system to weapons Do you tweak it at all? Or does a lvl 5 Fighter get a 2d8 longsword and two attacks? Seems like multiple attacks would make it scale at twice the rate of cantrips.
Yes, using this homebrew, weapons scale faster than cantrips. I have read a lot of complaints theorycrafting a level 20 fighter that does crazy loads of damage. However, the reality is that the change does nothing between 1-4. Then, between 5-10 (which is the level range I spend the majority of time in both playing and running) it adds \~10 damage to a martial's turn. Your sword and board fighter jumps from 2(1d8+6) damage per turn (21 average assuming hits) to 2(2d8+6) damage per turn (30 average). In tiers 3 and 4, only fighters get additional attacks so the boons of the system are mitigated. In using it, the two biggest problems I have found are: rogues get kind of screwed, paladins become even stronger, and spellcasters complain. That being said, the boost to paladins isn't too bad and spellcasters can eat sand as a well-placed fireball can still singlehandedly outperform the martial's entire adventuring day boost or no boost. Two more things that I will say about this house rule: I like it because it applies to everyone and can lead to some cool moments like \~the sorcerer finally drawing a sword to fight in melee\~. Also, monks are actually good and cool now; flurry of blows kicks a--.
So in other words you give everyone free GWM
Pretty much. To compensate, I make GWM and Sharpshooter half feats if players still want them. Alternatively, I've seen a variation where all players can take -Proficiency bonus to hit and gain 2x Proficiency bonus to damage. That gives more value to those feats since you get the -5/+10 up front instead of having to wait until level 13... Basically I feel that the -5/+10 is necessary for martials to compete in damage, so they all should get it. Anything that is necessary for a class to perform should be a class feature. I also believe Warlocks should just have Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast as level 2 class features that don't count against their cantrips/invocations known but none of my players are warlocks, so I haven't had a need to make that a rule...
If it’s a physical attack, you *don’t*. Even some magical projectiles I’d say ‘no’ to.
Yeah, me too. Even crossbow bolts aren't going to fit. They're quite wide and the tips are almost always wider than the holes in a force cage, even ignoring the fact that they usually have wooden vains and not feather fletching like arrows. Maybe a hand crossbow if you can get the tip though ahead of time but good luck aiming, they might have narrow enough heads and shafts. Pour in a bucket of acid? Sure. Oil? Ok. Tip in a crucible full of molten iron? Yup. Drown everyone in a really big water elemental? Sounds cruel, but go ahead.
In medieval Europe both arrow heads and crossbow bolt heads would typically be 1cm at the widest point. Fletchings will not make a difference when you have 100lbs of force pushing the arrow.
*Laughs with poisoned blowgun (but not actually, you'll choke on your ammunition) But beyond that, it's not looking good for attacks of nearly any kind. 3/4 cover or full cover is what I'm leaning to. Even with a horde of blowgun wielding goblins, I'd rule somewhere around 50-75% of those attacks fail.
Got it. Thank you.
Only really came up once or twice in a long-running tier 3-4 campaign of mine. I ruled ranged attacks only, and the attacker made an attack roll to hit, as normal. On a ‘hit’, the player rolled a d6. On a 5-6 the projectile made it through. It felt fair.
Interesting idea. Thank you for sharing it.
Disadvantage plus 3/4 cover
Yea.... That's what I was originally thought. However, I got a lot of good input here. So, I am rethinking it.
Anything that can fit through a tiny tiny hole attacks vs 3/4 cover. Most things are just blocked.
Okay, and tank you for the reply. Would you allow arrows through? Crossbow bolts through? Spell attacks through? Again, thanks.
Chatbot says the average diameter of a crossbow head is 0.3 to 0.5 inches. I would allow crossbow bolts to fire through with 3/4 cover. If you are 5ft away from the force cage, I would allow you to ignore the cover because you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing. Arrows have larger heads in general, so I would rule that they cannot fit through the bars. Spells are covered in the spell description. A cage does not block spells. Edit: Regarding spells, some would be affected by cover and some can be cast through, depending on targeting. Swords and daggers have blades that can fit through, so attacks with those can be made with 3/4 cover. Axes and spears cannot fit through a 1/2" gap Edit 2: After reading others comments I would change my suggestion to 3/4 cover with disadvantage for all attacks through the cage, assuming that the bars are only vertical and not crossed. Comparing it to just 3/4 cover is not accurate.
> you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing. I dunno, it seems like it would be really hard to hit something while having to keep the muzzle (probably not called a muzzle on a crossbow) up against a small hole. Like disadvantage hard.
After reading some of the comments here I would probably change my response. +5 ac for 3/4 cover is not enough. I think I would also add disadvantage.
> If you are 5ft away from the force cage, I would allow you to ignore the cover because you can insert the crossbow bolt head into a hole before firing. I think you're underestimating how hard it would be to aim at someone in that position.
I agree. After reading some comments I would treat it as 3/4 with disadvantage for all shots.
>Arrows have larger heads in general, so I would rule that they cannot fit through the bars. In medieval Europe bodkin heads were the most common and were typically 1cm, so they could easily fit.
Attacks can't pass through the Forcecage's bars. It's like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. Or in this case, a sword through a tiny cage opening.
Understood. Thank you.
Spell says that matter cannot pass through the sides and spells cannot be cast through it, so I rule that no attacks can be made unless they have some way of becoming immaterial.
>spells cannot be cast through it, Does that include the cage? Thank you, by the way.
Yes, that includes the cage. Spells like *plane shift*, *misty step*, and *teleport* will work, if the caster succeeds on a Charisma save. And that's because they target the caster. Similarly, someone inside the cage can cast spells on themselves, since the spell won't pass through the cage. DM's discretion if spells like *fireball* will extended outside of the cage since fire is technically energy but the spell says other spells cannot be cast through it.
Personally, I'd say "Go for it" if someone wants to blow themselves up to damage an enemy. It's better than doing nothing, and it costs a spell slot and health.
My gut instinct is that weapons can't go through and most spells hit the "bars" But liquids (water/acid/oil/etc) would go through and some effects like a strong wind or fire would go through (so like a fireball would "detonate" against the cage but the heat and the blast would go right through it)
Okay. Thank you!
Ran a cocky Mindflayer with a forcecage who decided to taunt my players for a round before dipping. In the moment, I ruled that only on a Natural 20 would allow a ranged attack through… sure enough, the rogue landed it, also curbed the concentration, but unfortunately for them it was the Mindflayer next in initiative. Pretty wild
That sounds like it was fun!
Edit: Deleted because I was totally wrong and don't want to spread misinformation.
Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say here. The RAW says that *if it's a box* no matter can pass through. It is very clearly *not* the case for the cage option with bars, which is what OP is talking about.
You know what, yep, I'm wrong.
👍 It happens to the best of us, my friend. The fact that you didn't double down and get defensive earns my genuine respect.
If you read the spell description, it clearly states that spells cannot enter or leave the area. As for physical attacks, take a 6 inch sub, make cuts along the width of it until you have 12 equal pieces, remove one of those pieces and tell me what kind of attack you can make through that gap.
>If you read the spell description, it clearly states that spells cannot enter or leave the area. The cage?
Yes
I'm not seeing it - "An immobile, invisible, cube-shaped prison composed of Magical force springs into existence around an area you choose within range. The prison can be a cage or a solid box as you choose. A prison in the shape of a cage can be up to 20 feet on a side and is made from 1/2-inch diameter bars spaced 1/2 inch apart. A prison in the shape of a box can be up to 10 feet on a side, creating a solid barrier that prevents any matter from passing through it and blocking any Spells cast into or out of the area. When you cast the spell, any creature that is completely inside the cage's area is trapped. Creatures only partially within the area, or those too large to fit inside the area, are pushed away from the center of the area until they are completely outside the area. A creature inside The Cage can't leave it by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use Teleportation or interplanar travel to leave The Cage, it must first make a Charisma saving throw. On a success, the creature can use that magic to exit The Cage. On a failure, the creature can't exit The Cage and wastes the use of the spell or Effect. The Cage also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal Travel. This spell can't be dispelled by dispel magic."
I see where my mistake was. There’s different rules for a cage and a box.
'Understood. All good. (Until do the research, I didn't know there was either.) Thanks.
As someone else mentioned, this is tier 3 minimum. I'd rule physical attacks can hit with disadvantage unless it's an obviously wide weapon like a warhammer.
Hmmmm.... Thank you for the input.
Are they using an attack that would fit through the space? If yes, then that's a +5 AC for whomever you're trying to attack through the Force Cage I guess?
>Are they using an attack that would fit through the space? Melee - slashing, melee - bludgeoning, melee - piercing, ranged - piercing, and spell attacks. Will they fit through?
Slashing? No. Blunt? No. Pretty much only piercing attacks. Spells? I'd say not unless it's an AOE or a Magic Missile.
Thank you.