D&D 5E High-level no-save spells in practice

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why ask when there's already a system to handle it? It's a game where men in skirts run around shooting fireballs, and you think the inability to force cage a dragon ruins the believability of the game? Right.

Because there isn't a system to handle it. PHB 191 explicitly disavows MM size categories as expressions of a creature's actual size. Forcecage is explicitly based off of a creature's actual size and not just "the space it controls in combat." Ergo I need to make something up, instead of shoehorning in an inappropriate stat in a situation it wasn't meant for.

 

[DaveDash]

Because there isn't a system to handle it. PHB 191 explicitly disavows MM size categories as expressions of a creature's actual size. Forcecage is explicitly based off of a creature's actual size and not just "the space it controls in combat." Ergo I need to make something up, instead of shoehorning in an inappropriate stat in a situation it wasn't meant for.

There is a system to handle it, that makes the game consistent for all players, without it being emdws game of cops and robbers, join today to learn how the rules may be changed on a whim!"

There is no size for a Dragon, or any other creature in the game, except for the space they control in combat. You can either use that and provide a consistent set of rules for your players, or you can decide willy nilly on the fly and provide uncertainty, slow the game down as you hum and ho, and potentially annoy players with your ad-hoc decisions.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hey Dave,

Clearly we're talking past each other at this point, since you've said the same thing twice in a row and if I responded I'd just be repeating post #11. Happy gaming to you.

-Max

 

[TheMadGent]

There is a system to handle it, that makes the game consistent for all players, without it being emdws game of cops and robbers, join today to learn how the rules may be changed on a whim!"

There is no size for a Dragon, or any other creature in the game, except for the space they control in combat. You can either use that and provide a consistent set of rules for your players, or you can decide willy nilly on the fly and provide uncertainty, slow the game down as you hum and ho, and potentially annoy players with your ad-hoc decisions.

I categorically disagree. The game is built to require some amount of ad-hoc/GM Fiat rulings.

More pertinent to forcecage, we have huge creatures (frost, cloud, and storm giants) who are explicitly too tall to fit in a 20x20x20 ft. cube, if you go by the listed heights on page 153 of the MM.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I categorically disagree. The game is built to require some amount of ad-hoc/GM Fiat rulings.

More pertinent to forcecage, we have huge creatures (frost, cloud, and storm giants) who are explicitly too tall to fit in a 20x20x20 ft. cube, if you go by the listed heights on page 153 of the MM.

Good find! However, keep in mind that the spell doesn't restrict Forcecage to orientations parallel to the floor, and a 20' cube when tilted on its edge is 28' tall, or 34' tall if you balance it on a corner. I think I'd let a Cloud Giant fit in there, probably a Storm Giant too.

Still, that is an excellent little chart.

 

[DaveDash]

I categorically disagree. The game is built to require some amount of ad-hoc/GM Fiat rulings.

More pertinent to forcecage, we have huge creatures (frost, cloud, and storm giants) who are explicitly too tall to fit in a 20x20x20 ft. cube, if you go by the listed heights on page 153 of the MM.

Of course it is, I am not disagreeing its a valid approach. You can throw the rulebook out completely if you want and play completely by your imagination.

I strongly strongly strongly disagree with this approach, and it will have unintended consequences. You want to start ruling by imagination rather than using the built in grid system? Fine, I can already think of numerous ways that will badly break such a ruling, and since you've started ruling this way, it would be incredibly inconsistent of you to start making things up case by case. This is the reason since 3rd edition there has been a grid system in place, instead of relying on this particular factor being up to the DM.

I also strongly disagree with it for balance reasons. Force cage may seem strong on paper, but I don't see it come up that often. High level Arcanes are not anywhere near as broken as they used to be. You can either let the Wizard player feel powerful once per day (and out of the 4-8 other encounters he has, he's probably not going to be able to Force cage all of them, high level slots are VERY limited), or you can screw him over.
Meanwhile, high level martials in this game are complete and utter killing machines, who aren't limited to being badass 1/day. Put a fly spell on them and they can faceroll a Dragon quite easily.

Up to you.

 

[Ti-bob]

Any big creatures with a long tail are immune to Forcecage ;-) hehe

Good! Tails are the way of the Nature to overcame Magic...

 

[SigmaOne]

[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] Comparing emdw45's style of play to "cops and robbers" is way off-base and insulting to many of us... accuse the person of DM fiat if you like, but there is no back and forth as you imply. D&D 5e clearly gives the DM the the authority to adjudicate what seems most reasonable at their own table. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine; we've already figured out that the two of you have very different play styles. That's why there exists more than one table --- so we don't all have to sit at the same one. You can interpret the rules as you like, I can interpret the rules as I like, and as always, the DM decides --- as has been the case in every edition of D&D, explicitly or implicitly. I get that some people have crappy DMs and so this doesn't work for everyone. We can't all be so fortunate to have a reasonable DM running our table, and we don't have to agree with every decision a DM makes even when we think they're great DMs. But 5e has been very much about empowering the DM to make it their game, and explicitly so, with the understanding that the DMs goal and responsibility is to try to ensure that everyone has a good time. Hard-and-fast cannot-be-broken rules as you describe them are for board games. The DM is far more than a simple referee whose job it is to interpret rules and ensure they're followed. Rules for roleplaying games are simply a framework for building an enjoyable experience. That's how it is at my table, anyway... and cops and robbers it is not.

 

[DaveDash]

[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] Comparing emdw45's style of play to "cops and robbers" is way off-base and insulting to many of us... accuse the person of DM fiat if you like, but there is no back and forth as you imply. D&D 5e clearly gives the DM the the authority to adjudicate what seems most reasonable at their own table. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine; we've already figured out that the two of you have very different play styles. That's why there exists more than one table --- so we don't all have to sit at the same one. You can interpret the rules as you like, I can interpret the rules as I like, and as always, the DM decides --- as has been the case in every edition of D&D, explicitly or implicitly. I get that some people have crappy DMs and so this doesn't work for everyone. We can't all be so fortunate to have a reasonable DM running our table, and we don't have to agree with every decision a DM makes even when we think they're great DMs. But 5e has been very much about empowering the DM to make it their game, and explicitly so, with the understanding that the DMs goal and responsibility is to try to ensure that everyone has a good time. Hard-and-fast cannot-be-broken rules as you describe them are for board games. The DM is far more than a simple referee whose job it is to interpret rules and ensure they're followed. Rules for roleplaying games are simply a framework for building an enjoyable experience. That's how it is at my table, anyway... and cops and robbers it is not.

You may find it in insulting but that's what it is. You're using your imagination to come up with a rule that directly screws over a player. I'm sorry, but that is cops and robbers.

"It's tail is to big to fit in the cage"
"But I waited for a moment for it to curl up when it was turning"
"No you didn't, it's wings were outspread"
"But there's nothing in the rules that actually says how big a Dragon is, and it's wings can poke out the bars of the cage regardless?"
"Nope, I'm going to fall back on the rules when it suits me and say that a Dragon is too big to fit in force cage"
"What about other huge monsters then?"
"Don't worry, I'll make that one up on the fly when it suits me".

I can't say how much I strongly disagree with this.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The simple fact of the matter is that at the point where the wizard says "I'm casting forcecage", the DM should say "the dragon is larger than the size of the forcecage, so it's not going to be able to trap it. Are you sure you want to cast that?", at which point the wizard casts something else (or tricks the dragon into squeezing somewhere - I'm reminded of various legends about evil genies being tricked into bottles). I mean ideally that should have come up some time before (and probably been used to the players advantage at least once).

There should never be a point where the player says "I cast X" and the DM says "Aha! The spell doesn't work how you expect, due to a difference in opinion on the rules!", because frankly that's just being a jerk.