Quote from: Hemlock;1065319In 2nd edition, it basically just created a hut. It protected against attacks to the same extent a regular wooden hut would protect against attacks.

You're confusing two different spells. In both 1st and 2nd edition, the hut was just a globe that protects against the elements. It's Leomund's secure shelter that actually creates a physical structure. Both are in the 2e PH, but only the hut is in the 1e PH (it first appeared in a Dragon article, then UA).

Quote from: Pat;1065365You're confusing two different spells. In both 1st and 2nd edition, the hut was just a globe that protects against the elements. It's Leomund's secure shelter that actually creates a physical structure. Both are in the 2e PH, but only the hut is in the 1e PH (it first appeared in a Dragon article, then UA).

Thanks for the correction.

My table used it as a dome of invulnerability right in front of the boss castle we were besieging. The poor newbie GM felt helpless to respond. It's one of those spells that came out the worse in edition translation. Several others in 5e are: Goodberry, Find Familiar, Find Steed, Color Spray (for the worse), etc.

Use your ban hammer versus rewriting. It's better as it is laser focused correction and thus less disruptive. Or you could use the older edition versions, too. I like 5e, but it's the only WotC D&D I will play. And even then, it's better to make the game yours.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1065394My table used it as a dome of invulnerability right in front of the boss castle we were besieging. The poor newbie GM felt helpless to respond. It's one of those spells that came out the worse in edition translation. Several others in 5e are: Goodberry, Find Familiar, Find Steed, Color Spray (for the worse), etc.

Use your ban hammer versus rewriting. It's better as it is laser focused correction and thus less disruptive. Or you could use the older edition versions, too. I like 5e, but it's the only WotC D&D I will play. And even then, it's better to make the game yours.

That's how my group uses it too.

Let's see, the last few times:

Last time: PC got killed by a trap at the doorstep of the enemy base; they used Revive and brought him back, then slept in a pool of his blood literally against the enemy's door using the Hut. Enemy could do nothing but add extra traps for the siege that came the next day.

Time before that: slept in a pile of sewage (this is all in the sewers) by casting the Hut slightly above it. (I was playing it as having a floor that supports you and stays fixed to a point in space.)

It's not OP per se, but it breaks my immersion when it's used like this... and there's nothing the world can do to stop it unless they're hyper prepared which is a corner case.

I can't blame them for using it because I'm ruthless with wandering monster checks while they sleep.

By the description that is exactly what it is. A dome of invulnerability as it specifically says "all other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it" AND stops spells and effects can not extend through the dome or be cast through it.

It is effectively what the Chevalier in the D&D cartoon created sometimes.

In a way it is more powerful than Wall of Force as not even Disintegrate can destroy the dome. Wall of Force though can be shaped to make bridges, domes, cubes, etc.

I'm legit interested in this topic. I mean, in hundreds of games across four editions I can not think of a single time where this particular spell was used.  Absolutely, I should say, the name is far more evocative than the spell itself. Invisible dome/sphere? Meh. I want an actual tiny hut, motherfucker!  

Carry on...

If it is any consolation. One iteration did require you have a tiny hut. :confused:

I will agree that Crawford (and WotC in general) would have better served their own interests by approaching most rules questions with a canned/boilerplate response roughly being, "Didn't we say rulings over rules was going to hold sway with this edition? If we accidentally wrote another drown-healing into our rules, let us know and we'll update the text. Otherwise, what makes sense (and doesn't break the game wide open) is the ruling of the day." OTOH I also think Crawford gets the brunt of people's frustrations even for things he genuinely can't solve (like a fanbase which has mutually irreconcilable desires for what the game should be and be about).

Quote from: Hemlock;1065319In 2nd edition, it basically just created a hut. It protected against attacks to the same extent a regular wooden hut would protect against attacks.

I see nothing in the 5E spell text to indicate that the 5E version is any different. Unlike Wall of Force, there is no "immune to all damage" clause. It appears to just create a construct out of magical force, like Bigby's Hand, but one which you can go inside of and rest in and be comfortable--but there's no reason to think it cannot be destroyed as easily as a regular hut. Against determined attackers, at most it should buy you some time to wake up and get ready (or flee) before monsters tear the walls down.

The spell could have used some clarity, but overall it was built with the supposed rulings over rules level of rigor -- the DM is supposed to adjudicate how and when the hut should fail, and inventive players and monsters up against players who thought it would be total immunity should be able to find ways around it.

I would have loved the text to have literally said, "two to three rounds of concerted effort by a reasonable force of opponents will breach the walls of this hut, but not without alerting the inhabitants to the action (DM determines what qualifies as reasonable force)."

Quote from: Omega;1065426By the description that is exactly what it is. A dome of invulnerability as it specifically says "all other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it" AND stops spells and effects can not extend through the dome or be cast through it.

5E has the exact same rule about all total cover, including from a regular wooden shack. That language doesn't imply indestructibility, just total cover as long as the barrier persists. If it were otherwise, the "immune to all damage" clause of Wall of Force would be redundant.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1065462I would have loved the text to have literally said, "two to three rounds of concerted effort by a reasonable force of opponents will breach the walls of this hut, but not without alerting the inhabitants to the action (DM determines what qualifies as reasonable force)."

That's not bad, but I'd like to have some actual in-world descriptive text in there as well for the DM to reference. Add this bit and I'd go along with it:

The hut is as strong as a sturdy wooden hut with a locked door. Two to three rounds of concerted effort by a reasonable force of opponents will generally breach the walls of this hut, but not without alerting the inhabitants to the action (DM determines what qualifies as reasonable force).

On the other hand, in other parts of the game, when a spell summons something that can be attacked and destroyed, it gives you HP and AC for it, like with a spider's webbing or a net.

But it doesn't here...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065544On the other hand, in other parts of the game, when a spell summons something that can be attacked and destroyed, it gives you HP and AC for it, like with a spider's webbing or a net.

But it doesn't here...

Isn't that a circular argument? If I cite something created by a spell but which doesn't explicitly say it can be destroyed (say, trinkets from Prestidigitation, cubes of ice from Shape Water, a blade from Shadow Blade) are you going to claim that the thing must be indestructible because no HP and AC are listed?

Surely you wouldn't argue that a Prestidigitation trinket can withstand infinite force without damage?

Because the spell doesn't say, it's up to the DM to make a judgment call. In the case of Leomund's Tiny Hut, I would judge it reasonable to make it sturdy enough to do its job of giving you a safe place to hunker down for the night. I make this judgment based on theme, precedent from AD&D, and the level of the spell (3rd level ritual clearly shouldn't be as powerful as a 5th level non-ritual).

Quote from: Hemlock;1065555Isn't that a circular argument? If I cite something created by a spell but which doesn't explicitly say it can be destroyed (say, trinkets from Prestidigitation, cubes of ice from Shape Water, a blade from Shadow Blade) are you going to claim that the thing must be indestructible because no HP and AC are listed?

Surely you wouldn't argue that a Prestidigitation trinket can withstand infinite force without damage?

Because the spell doesn't say, it's up to the DM to make a judgment call. In the case of Leomund's Tiny Hut, I would judge it reasonable to make it sturdy enough to do its job of giving you a safe place to hunker down for the night. I make this judgment based on theme, precedent from AD&D, and the level of the spell (3rd level ritual clearly shouldn't be as powerful as a 5th level non-ritual).

Except in 5e trinkets and other objects like real huts, doors etc are covered by the rules and do have HP, however few those may be. Tiny hut and wall of force have no HP as they are, well, barriers of magic. Wall of force specifically says it can not be damaged. Forcecage works much the same. 5e rules specifically say no creature or object or spell can pass through.

There is nothing to indicate it has HP or even dispellable. Though the description only states spells cannot pass through. So Dispell and possibly Disintegrate may work. YMMV.

Quote from: Omega;1065584Wall of force specifically says it can not be damaged. Forcecage works much the same. 5e rules specifically say no creature or object or spell can pass through.

There is nothing to indicate it has HP or even dispellable. Though the description only states spells cannot pass through. So Dispell and possibly Disintegrate may work. YMMV.

Yes, Forcecage and Wall of Force specifically mention their non-destructible quality. Trinkets and objects have rules (albeit broad-brushed ones). LTH is silent on the matter. Barring additional information or a cohesive argument for one specific side or the other, I do not see strong evidence that the hut ought to be considered more towards one of those two ends. In other words, I don't see the silence (the 'nothing to indicate') as an argument in either direction.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1065606Yes, Forcecage and Wall of Force specifically mention their non-destructible quality. Trinkets and objects have rules (albeit broad-brushed ones). LTH is silent on the matter. Barring additional information or a cohesive argument for one specific side or the other, I do not see strong evidence that the hut ought to be considered more towards one of those two ends. In other words, I don't see the silence (the 'nothing to indicate') as an argument in either direction.

True. But that "No object can enter" part means that a tree can fall on the thing and it is not going to penetrate. It is not the Shield spell which just bumps up your AC and totally stops Magic Missiles. Or mage Armor which just adds AC.

Keep in mind that as written, while the dome is apparently invulnerable. The ground it is on is not and anyone can dig their way under and inside. Or just move earth the ground out from under the PCs and drop them in a hole which would end the spell. And so on.

Quote from: Omega;1065584Except in 5e trinkets and other objects like real huts, doors etc are covered by the rules and do have HP, however few those may be.

So, where specifically are "the rules" for the HP of the ice produced by Shape Water?

Is that a reference to the DMG object HP rules? (A cube of ice is not an object per se.) Why wouldn't you apply those same rules to Leomund's Tiny Hut? Seems like a circular argument to me: if you assume that anything which has no listed HP is invulnerable, then of course having no HP listed makes things invulnerable.

I don't think that assumption is appropriate though.

YMMV.