SpellObjectEnthusiast
Explorer
Can Forcecage, and other conjured magical effects, be attacked and destroyed?
Forcecage, unlike its little brother Wall of Force, it is not explicitly immune to damage. If a Forcecage is an Object, it should have Hit Points and an AC, as all objects do.
But is it an object? Bigby's Hand counts as an Object, despite being composed only of magical force. Wall of Stone and Wall of Water create objects. All of these are specifically called out in the spell descriptions.
To turn down the scale a bit lets look at another spell - Shadow blade. Shadow blade creates a "sword of solidified gloom", which functions exactly as an object in terms of wielding it. Could someone attack a Shadow Blade and try to destroy it? It does not have explicit HP or AC, but if it counts as an object, these should be implied (and could be calculated using the guidelines in the rules). If I dropped a Shadow Blade on the ground and crush it with a Maul, if it is an object, it should take damage and possibly be destroyed. If it functions exactly as a weapon in all other regards, why would it not be considered a weapon for this purpose? Despite this, it is not given an explicit AC or HP number in the spell description, nor called out specifically as being an object. Its object status is implied.
I would argue that many other spell effects, such as Spiritual Weapon, Floating Disk, Wall of Thorns, or Grasping Vine, also create Implied objects. 5e doesn't have a separation of flavor text and rules text in spells. A sentence like "You create a wall of tough, pliable, tangled brush bristling with needle-sharp thorns" is just as much rules text and the sentences that follow it. If a spell says it creates water - it creates water. Water exists, and behaves like water. If a spell says it creates flame, the flame exists, is hot, sheds light, and burns stuff.
Forcecage creates "An immobile, Invisible, cube-shaped prison composed of magical force". But, being made of magical force doesn't automatically make something immune to damage, nor does being made of magical force disqualify something as being an Object, as shown with the fact that Bigby's hand is an object and can be destroyed.
With all that said - my argument is that spells which create effects that are functionally implied to be objects can be attacked and damaged in the same way as any other object. So, a Fireball could ignite a Wall of Thorns, a Maul could crush a Floating Disk, given a high enough damage roll (and most likely VERY upcasted slot), a Shatter spell could destroy a Forcecage.
Forcecage, unlike its little brother Wall of Force, it is not explicitly immune to damage. If a Forcecage is an Object, it should have Hit Points and an AC, as all objects do.
But is it an object? Bigby's Hand counts as an Object, despite being composed only of magical force. Wall of Stone and Wall of Water create objects. All of these are specifically called out in the spell descriptions.
To turn down the scale a bit lets look at another spell - Shadow blade. Shadow blade creates a "sword of solidified gloom", which functions exactly as an object in terms of wielding it. Could someone attack a Shadow Blade and try to destroy it? It does not have explicit HP or AC, but if it counts as an object, these should be implied (and could be calculated using the guidelines in the rules). If I dropped a Shadow Blade on the ground and crush it with a Maul, if it is an object, it should take damage and possibly be destroyed. If it functions exactly as a weapon in all other regards, why would it not be considered a weapon for this purpose? Despite this, it is not given an explicit AC or HP number in the spell description, nor called out specifically as being an object. Its object status is implied.
I would argue that many other spell effects, such as Spiritual Weapon, Floating Disk, Wall of Thorns, or Grasping Vine, also create Implied objects. 5e doesn't have a separation of flavor text and rules text in spells. A sentence like "You create a wall of tough, pliable, tangled brush bristling with needle-sharp thorns" is just as much rules text and the sentences that follow it. If a spell says it creates water - it creates water. Water exists, and behaves like water. If a spell says it creates flame, the flame exists, is hot, sheds light, and burns stuff.
Forcecage creates "An immobile, Invisible, cube-shaped prison composed of magical force". But, being made of magical force doesn't automatically make something immune to damage, nor does being made of magical force disqualify something as being an Object, as shown with the fact that Bigby's hand is an object and can be destroyed.
With all that said - my argument is that spells which create effects that are functionally implied to be objects can be attacked and damaged in the same way as any other object. So, a Fireball could ignite a Wall of Thorns, a Maul could crush a Floating Disk, given a high enough damage roll (and most likely VERY upcasted slot), a Shatter spell could destroy a Forcecage.
