The description of the Sphere of Annihilation magic item states, in part:

This 2-foot-diameter black sphere is a hole in the multiverse, hovering in space and stabilized by a magical field surrounding it.

The sphere obliterates all matter it passes through and all matter that passes through it. Artifacts are the exception. Unless an artifact is susceptible to damage from a sphere of annihilation, it passes through the sphere unscathed. Anything else that touches the sphere but isn't wholly engulfed and obliterated by it takes 4d10 force damage.

Let's say I have a normal wall made of bricks. Each brick is smaller than 2 feet, but the wall itself is bigger than 2 feet.

If I move the Sphere of Annihilation into the wall, does it instantly create a 2-foot hole in the wall? Or does it do 4d10 force damage to the wall repeatedly, every turn, until some bricks some loose to make a hole in the wall?

It seems to me that a wall is not "wholly engulfed" and thus would take the force damage until bricks come loose or start to crumble. The idea of a "thing" is a little nebulous; if the bricks were just stacked in a pile without being formed into a wall, I'd probably let individual bricks in a pile be annihilated.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Why are you asking the same question with different phrasings? \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Feb 6 at 19:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your other question about the same item: Does Sphere of Annihilation pass through a wall? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Feb 6 at 21:42
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Novak As stated, the questions turn in part on the "idea of a 'thing'", or, in 5e, 'what is an object'? How the sphere interacts with a pile of bricks might be different from how it interacts with a mortared brick wall which might be different from how it interacts with a solid stone slab. Personally I would be fine with asking this as one question with sub-parts, but we do advise querents to have just one question per post. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Feb 6 at 22:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Novak The two questions seemed different in my mind when I was in the paradigm of "the sphere needs to deal enough damage to the object before it is 'wholly obliterated,' and therefore it's not clear if it actually makes a hole in the wall or not from a mere 4d10 force damage." But I understand now that it's really making a hole in the wall (guaranteed), and the 4d10 force damage is a way to represent that effect in HP, if you're tracking such things. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ira
    Feb 15 at 17:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Normally, to go through a large, strong, stone castle wall, you need to do a lot of damage to it. But with a Sphere of Annihilation, you can make a hole through the wall nearly instantly; in just a few rounds, you can make a passage for people to go through the wall, guaranteed. It will deal perhaps 16d10 force damage, but that might not be enough to entirely wreck the wall, representing the fact that part of the wall is still standing, even if it's quite useless at keeping people out or stopping people from looking through it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ira
    Feb 15 at 18:00

1 Answer 1


There's no contradiction. The rules say the Sphere moves right through the wall, destroying what it touches. That makes a hole. The rules also say that since the Sphere didn't completely envelope the entire wall, then having that hole made caused 4D10 damage. For a big thick wall that may not matter, but for other inanimate objects you can use the damage to determine whether it's destroyed. For example a Wall of Stone might just have a hole, but if you roll high enough damage a 10x10 section could collapse.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the answer! That makes sense! \$\endgroup\$
    – Ira
    Feb 6 at 22:15
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with this answer, but it could use some reference to rules or official advice. Or personal experience. I upvoted it and I would rule the same, but there is a room for improvement. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Feb 7 at 1:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mołot I feel like personal experience is for Q's like "how does this rule change work out". Some people write how they think it would work, but you really need someone who's tried it. As far as rules reference, I paraphrased and think it reads better. The top answer to the duplicate Q has quotes and it just feels more awkward to me. Take a look and see if you agree. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 7 at 22:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .