The reason people think the dome is invulnerable is because Mike Mearls said so.

The spell also talks about attacks and spells not being able to get inside, so it SEEMS like it's resistant to them; if it can stop them from going in, why can't it stop them from affecting it? It goes against the "identity" of the spell, though I agree this is dumb.

Logically the best counter to the "hemisphere of invulnerability" interpretation of 5e LTH used during a major siege is every army walks around with a means to cast Dispel, or when they see one bury it with vast amounts of garbage so that the LTH party is smothered upon spell end. Either way the party's "Save Point Right In Front of the Boss' Lair" is destroyed, as such threats MUST be dealt with -- GMs have a means to deal via setting, but it shifts priorities noticeably.

But that's the thing: The older edition version steps less upon the setting as a lifesaver among hostile weather. The newer edition version creates a setting impact crater that I may or may not want to deal in my campaign. Hence why spells always had GM advisory discussions (there were some major stinkers in early editions, too) to always take them on a case-by-case basis. This is part of the negative nature of exception-based design.

The problem comes from a false sense of cross-table compatibility obligation that has nowadays solidified into a form of RAW/Org Play traditional law. Thankfully 5e is "spearheading a pushback" to that false obligation, but it is slow going. It takes GMs to proudly say, "No, fuck that noise, not on my table," to walk back these exploitable goofs.

Let it go about the game design, these authors are mostly throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what stick so they can pull home a paycheck to feed their family. Stop trying to scry their true motives or complex intent; own your table's campaign with confidence. It's just a hobby game with imaginary stakes on the line.

I think the reading that the hut is invulnerable is a reasonable interpretation of the literal word - but GMs need to decide for themselves what is best rather than trying to interpret the holy text.

I personally didn't like how it worked in my last campaign, so I'll probably just disallow the spell for my current campaign going forward.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065673The reason people think the dome is invulnerable is because Mike Mearls said so.

The spell also talks about attacks and spells not being able to get inside, so it SEEMS like it's resistant to them; if it can stop them from going in, why can't it stop them from affecting it? It goes against the "identity" of the spell, though I agree this is dumb.

A regular wooden hut also stops attacks and spells going through it, because that's just how total cover works in 5E. That doesn't mean a regular wooden hut is immune to damage. You just have to tear apart the hut before you can hurt anything inside.

Quote from: Hemlock;1065686A regular wooden hut also stops attacks and spells going through it, because that's just how total cover works in 5E. That doesn't mean a regular wooden hut is immune to damage. You just have to tear apart the hut before you can hurt anything inside.

um. Nooooo. The dome stops all spells. Lightning bolt. Meteor Swarm. Disintegrate might be able to destroy it and by the rules Dispel can cancel it. But otherwise no it is not a real hut made of wood. Its a force dome. By the wording you can drop a mountain on the thing and its going to not penetrate it.

Might be able to smoke them out though.

Quote from: Omega;1065741um. Nooooo. The dome stops all spells. Lightning bolt. Meteor Swarm. Disintegrate might be able to destroy it and by the rules Dispel can cancel it. But otherwise no it is not a real hut made of wood. Its a force dome. By the wording you can drop a mountain on the thing and its going to not penetrate it.

Reread the spell rules. You cannot cast Lightning Bolt or Meteor Swarm or Disintegrate though total cover, including a regular wooden hut. Emphasis mine:

QuoteTargets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below).

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of Origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065766Might be able to smoke them out though.

Dig a hole under the dome and yes. Otherwise seems to filter out the air. But it is vague there really on what exactly that means.

In the end. Make a ruling or alteration to the spell and stick to it.

Quote from: Omega;1065741um. Nooooo. The dome stops all spells. Lightning bolt. Meteor Swarm. Disintegrate might be able to destroy it and by the rules Dispel can cancel it. But otherwise no it is not a real hut made of wood. Its a force dome. By the wording you can drop a mountain on the thing and its going to not penetrate it.

Um. Yessss. A regular hut stops things from penetrating, right up until it is breached. You are assuming your position in the justification/defense of said position.

Look, I don't care. The spell has plenty of other limitations (not least of which is all the monsters in the dungeon just lying in wait for it to come down. And obviously, if mAcular Chaotic is correct and Mearls clarified that the dome is invulnerable, then (for those who care about the tweeted clarifications) then that is the rule of the day. But I (and clearly others) feel that there is ambiguity in the wording, and you haven't really given a good defense of position that there isn't.

I thought about it and here is my take on it:

It's invulnerable, but it is fixed to a point and it doesn't support you. So you can fall through it.

It apparently (according to a Mearls tweet) doesn't stop dragon's breath. Which is hilarious to me, because that's such an obvious attack -- but a close reading of the spell reveals that it only stops "attacks" and "spells and magical effects." So what this means is that natural elements aren't stopped by the dome, which further tells me that things like smoke and gas still make it in: the only thing the dome keeping things "comfortable and dry" means is that it stops rain and is like having an air conditioner.

It stops "objects," and some people split hairs on that to extend even to molecules of air, but it can't be stopping air or you'd suffocate inside. It also isn't stopping natural elements like flames or gas. So I'm interpreting "objects" to mean things you can keep in your inventory or have a discrete form, like a sword or a rock. Something like a wave of water would rush right on through the dome.

So, you can hide in the dome to be safe from arrows or sword strikes, but it won't save you from someone trying to smoke you out or digging a hole under it to make you fall through it.

I also noticed that other spells from previous editions like "Leomund's Secure Shelter" are gone from 5e, which makes me think they decided to collapse them all into Leomund's Tiny Hut for simplicity's sake -- which is why the dome is so strong; it's taking on the qualities of the other spells it ate up.

I'm tempted to split them out again back to separate spells because the image of conjuring up a lodge out of the blue is really cool. But for now I'm satisfied with the Hut having these weaknesses.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1065817Um. Yessss. A regular hut stops things from penetrating, right up until it is breached. You are assuming your position in the justification/defense of said position.

Look, I don't care.

There is no reading of the spell that comes out with "Spell hits dome and destroys it."

Apparently you care enough to pipe up about it.

Man, you guys really hate your players, trying to find ANY excuse to screw them over.  I'm going glad I run my own games my way... Yikes.

Although I don't generally like approaching spells or any rule interpretation from a game purpose point of view, this is probably an exception; do you want players to be able to take a long rest pretty much any time they want with no real downside? If you do, then stop worrying about this spell and let parties do that as often as they want, with or without this spell. If you don't, then make a long rest take a week or more, require the amenities of home/town/whatever to gain the benefit of a long rest, or just forbid it in the negative psychic landscape of the dungeon/hostile fortress/wilderness/other adventuring locale. Looking for ways to cheat anyone who took this spell because of a good faith reading of what it's supposed to do is just being a bad GM. Once you approve or deny the long rest for free potential, the stakes in any interpretation are relatively low; avoid a level of exhaustion from exposure to the elements, keep the smokepowder for your guns dry, impress an NPC contact with your arcane prowess, whatever else--it's not things that will undercut the game the way "long rest after every encounter, no matter how trivial" would.

Quote from: rawma;1065908Although I don't generally like approaching spells or any rule interpretation from a game purpose point of view, this is probably an exception; do you want players to be able to take a long rest pretty much any time they want with no real downside? If you do, then stop worrying about this spell and let parties do that as often as they want, with or without this spell. If you don't, then make a long rest take a week or more, require the amenities of home/town/whatever to gain the benefit of a long rest, or just forbid it in the negative psychic landscape of the dungeon/hostile fortress/wilderness/other adventuring locale. Looking for ways to cheat anyone who took this spell because of a good faith reading of what it's supposed to do is just being a bad GM. Once you approve or deny the long rest for free potential, the stakes in any interpretation are relatively low; avoid a level of exhaustion from exposure to the elements, keep the smokepowder for your guns dry, impress an NPC contact with your arcane prowess, whatever else--it's not things that will undercut the game the way "long rest after every encounter, no matter how trivial" would.

What if you don't want a long rest to be trivial AND they're in a place that has no hospitable places to rest for an extended period of time?

Like a megadungeon, but not the kind where you go back up and out every time. If you just say "you need to be back in town" then it's the same as saying they can't rest at all.

The Hut would provide a chance to rest in relative shelter but not being bulletproof if it's interpreted the right way.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065922What if you don't want a long rest to be trivial AND they're in a place that has no hospitable places to rest for an extended period of time?

Like a megadungeon, but not the kind where you go back up and out every time. If you just say "you need to be back in town" then it's the same as saying they can't rest at all.

The Hut would provide a chance to rest in relative shelter but not being bulletproof if it's interpreted the right way.

The dungeon can include various locations in which a long rest could be taken; the 5e Starter Set has such a room in the last dungeon, if I recall correctly. You can always include at an appropriate point some sort of divine intervention that grants the benefits of a long rest, be it a magical fountain or a wish-granting genie. But if the players are guaranteed that they can choose to take a long rest whenever they want, then you've lost control of the game. (Although you can utilize other considerations to discourage over-frequent long rests, such as a slowly advancing Doom Which Will Consume All That The Heroes Value.)

In the first campaign I played in long ago, it was only possible to rest in some hospitable place - back in town or with a friendly NPC in their home. We never played in a megadungeon that parties lived in for long periods, but there were lengthy forays across the wilderness, and knowing or finding places you could rest, especially to relearn spells, was a major consideration. An NPC willing to host the party long enough to recover was a valuable resource; consider Elrond and Beorn in The Hobbit. Unlike the usual questgiver NPC, that was an NPC with whom sensible players cultivated an ongoing relationship.