TheRPGSite

I run D&D 5e games, and one of the spells where the vagueness of the rules actually haunts it is with the spell Leomund's Tiny Hut. There are so many circumstances that it can take place in that it inevitably leaves the DM scratching his head about how to deal with it.

For example, for a long time I wondered if it had a -bottom-, and apparently it does, per a clarification by Crawford. Okay, accepted. But is the Hut "fixed" to a point, or is it just laying on the ground? Do the PC's who are inside the Hut when it is cast get supported by the Hut's force, or is it only because it's flat against the ground that they don't fall out from under it?

Let's pose a scenario: the party wizard casts Leomund's Tiny Hut at the edge of a cliff. The party goes to sleep. The cliff then collapses.

What happens?

Does the Tiny Hut fall like any other object? Does it just float, fixed in place forever? Does it float and support the party members inside, like a small ship? Or does it float and let the party members fall through it to their doom, since it lets objects and creatures pass out of it?

What if you cast it in outer space? The Hut says that the atmosphere is comfortable and dry, but does it CREATE atmosphere? If there's poison gas outside, does it go inside too? If you light a fire inside the hut, does the fire create smoke or is the air still magically "clean"? Aaaaaaaah.

I've recently taken to looking at how things were done in prior editions to at lease see what spirit is animating various spells and abilities, since it can help cast light on how to handle it in 5e.

So for you guys that remember the older editions, what can you tell me about this?

In 1st edition, the spell was much less powerful. It was just the equivalent of a good shelter. It didn't protect against attacks and wasn't implied to have a floor. It basically just regulated the temperature some and provided shelter against wind and sun. (Although interestingly, rope trick which was 2nd level was roughly just as powerful as the current version.)

QuoteLeomund's Tiny Hut (Alteration)
Level: 3          Components: V, S, M
Range: 0         Casting Time: 3 segments
Duration: 6 turns/level            Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: 10' diameter sphere

Explanation/Description: When this spell is cast, the magic-user causes an opaque sphere of force to come into being around his or her person, half of the sphere projecting above the ground or floor surface, the lower hemisphere passing through the surface. This field causes the interior of the sphere to maintain at 70' F. temperature in cold to 0" F., and heat up to 105" F. Cold below 0" lowers inside temperature on a 1 for 1 basis, heat above 105' raises the inside temperature likewise. The tiny hut will with- stand winds up to 50 m.p.h. without being harmed, but wind force greater than that will destroy it. The interior of the tiny hut is a hemisphere, and the spell caster can illuminate it dimly upon command, or extinguish the light as desired. Note that although the force field is opaque from positions outside, it is transparent from within. In no way will Leomund's Tiny Hut provide protection from missiles, weapons, spells, and the like. Up to 6 other man-sized creatures can fit into the field with its creator, and these others can freely pass in and out of the tiny hut without harming it, but if the spell caster removes himself from it, the spell will dissipate. The material component for this spell is a small crystal bead which will shatter when spell duration expires or the hut is otherwise dispelled.

Quote from: jhkim;1065039In 1st edition, the spell was much less powerful. It was just the equivalent of a good shelter. It didn't protect against attacks and wasn't implied to have a floor. It basically just regulated the temperature some and provided shelter against wind and sun. (Although interestingly, rope trick which was 2nd level was roughly just as powerful as the current version.)

Interestingly enough, using the 1e version of a tiny hut can be a great way to melt huge amounts of ice in a short time. If the hut moves with the caster (it is centered on him, right?), you could slowly use it to bore through glaciers.

No, it mentions the caster can leave the area (and it dissipates if he does).

And Rope Trick only lasted 20 minutes per level of the caster in 1e, so not really meant for resting.

Why are you worried about it?  Not being snarky: just decide what it does in your campaign and do that.  Unless you're running tournament games or your players are off playing tournament games, say "Guys, Leomund's Tiny Hut works this way..." and have done with.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065031For example, for a long time I wondered if it had a -bottom-, and apparently it does, per a clarification by Crawford. Okay, accepted. But is the Hut "fixed" to a point, or is it just laying on the ground? Do the PC's who are inside the Hut when it is cast get supported by the Hut's force, or is it only because it's flat against the ground that they don't fall out from under it?

Let's pose a scenario: the party wizard casts Leomund's Tiny Hut at the edge of a cliff. The party goes to sleep. The cliff then collapses.
What happens?

Does the Tiny Hut fall like any other object? Does it just float, fixed in place forever? Does it float and support the party members inside, like a small ship? Or does it float and let the party members fall through it to their doom, since it lets objects and creatures pass out of it?

What if you cast it in outer space? The Hut says that the atmosphere is comfortable and dry, but does it CREATE atmosphere? If there's poison gas outside, does it go inside too? If you light a fire inside the hut, does the fire create smoke or is the air still magically "clean"? Aaaaaaaah.

1: It creates a hemisphere of force. A dome. No floor. Ignore half of what Crawford or Mearls says on rules questions. Because half the time they apparently dont even know what the hell they themselves wrote. It is immobile and you would fall out of it if the ground gives out or is cast on an unstable surface.

2-3:In older editions it was a sphere of force, also no floor. If you cast it while falling you'd fall right out of it since it is immobile. Same for the new version. You'd fall out of it.

4: It does not say it creates an atmosphere. Only that it is comfortable and dry. So I would say that it would protect you from the heat or cold of space. But not provide air. Same if you cast it underwater. It does not say it creates a bubble of air or displaces water so youd have a comfy water-filled dome and the water in it would be fresh. Or it does create a air. 50/50.

5: Treat it like a normal or closed container. Making a fire in it will fill it with smoke if the smoke doesnt just drift out. And if air cannot get in then guess what? Everyone suffocates no matter. Or it creates air and everyone is fine and any smoke is scrubbed, no gasses can get in, or are eliminated on entry.

X: Make a ruling that makes sense to you based on what makes sense from the description. And then stick to that.

If you say "Yes it has a floor AND creates/scrubs air" then stick to it and accept that the spell is more potent like that. Or say "No it does not create a floor. But does create/scrub the air." And then accept the spell has some functions but isnt as functional.

Or you could say it creates a sphere like the original and needs a surface as otherwise you fall out of it.

Same with Goodberry. The description says it creates "up to 10" berries. You can read that as "creates 1d10" berries, or that it can not create more than 10. Or you could revert it to the playtest in that you actually had to have berries, any sort, to cast the spell on and each berry provided only enough for one meal. Not a whole day. This is where WOTC ignored our feedback and made a spell overpowered. Tiny Hut was not in the playtest so cant say how it may have changed. If any.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1065045Why are you worried about it?  Not being snarky: just decide what it does in your campaign and do that.  Unless you're running tournament games or your players are off playing tournament games, say "Guys, Leomund's Tiny Hut works this way..." and have done with.

I'm fine with making changes, but I want to know how it's "supposed" to be before I start tinkering with something. Maybe there was a good reason it was set up how it was and I didn't know? Etc.

This is also one area where it affects the game a lot and can put the PCs in danger, so I don't want to just make changes that affect them for the worse all willy nilly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065065I'm fine with making changes, but I want to know how it's "supposed" to be before I start tinkering with something. Maybe there was a good reason it was set up how it was and I didn't know? Etc.

This is also one area where it affects the game a lot and can put the PCs in danger, so I don't want to just make changes that affect them for the worse all willy nilly.

Stop.  This sounds like such a good idea in your head, very plausible way to approach the game, etc.  Instead, pretend that you don't have the internet, and that the only way to get an answer from someone else is to write a letter with a self-addressed stamped envelope for the reply.  If something bugs you enough that you'd write that letter and pay for the return answer any probably wait six weeks for it, then go ahead and worry it to the bone.  Otherwise, take your best stab at how you think it is supposed to be and what the consequences for changing might be, and then rule on that.

You'll get a few wrong.  You'll get a few right.  The more you do it, the better your rate will be.  And you'll also learn that getting one wrong isn't the end of the world.

Agree with Steven.

Also if you want to run a viable game DO NOT LISTEN TO CRAWFORD. Seriously. He seems to fart out the worst possible answer to any query. Often he seems not to have read the stuff he comments on.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1065094Stop.  This sounds like such a good idea in your head, very plausible way to approach the game, etc.  Instead, pretend that you don't have the internet, and that the only way to get an answer from someone else is to write a letter with a self-addressed stamped envelope for the reply.  If something bugs you enough that you'd write that letter and pay for the return answer any probably wait six weeks for it, then go ahead and worry it to the bone.  Otherwise, take your best stab at how you think it is supposed to be and what the consequences for changing might be, and then rule on that.

You'll get a few wrong.  You'll get a few right.  The more you do it, the better your rate will be.  And you'll also learn that getting one wrong isn't the end of the world.

It's amazing you have to even say this, but it's true. When I first started playing D&D in junior high, I didn't even know Dragon magazine existed, or that you could ask anyone other than some high school kids how to adjudicate rules. And fuck those guys, they were mean to us anyway, so we literally made up everything. I threw out literally 20 spiral notebooks a few years ago when I moved, filled with hundreds if not close to a thousand pages of rules variants, monster stats, character classes, dungeon maps and write ups, adventures, NPCs, all sorts of crap. That was all written in a period of 2-3 years when I first started, 95% of it purely out of my own head. Now I see threads on various messageboards, much like this, asking for simple rules advice that my junior high self would decide in half a second, but is now deliberated upon ad infinitum by a bunch of educated professionals who rarely seem to play anymore. I'm not even calling anyone out, I do it myself, too...

I'm going to start taking my own advice and just channeling that inner 12 year old: do whatever makes your game the most fun.

Paradoxically such discussions are more useful--both as reader and participant--once you've developed the attitude that you don't need them.  I think this is because it means that your own style has then developed enough to filter through such content for ideas, without being unduly swayed by things that do not fit.

The spell says a dome; nothing about a floor or another hemisphere under the surface you're on. It's immobile, so if the ground disappears under it, it stays where it was cast and everything else falls from within it. (For a creature that cannot pass through it, they could stay perched on top of it, but at risk of sliding off if they move too far off center for whatever reason.) I don't think a liquid or a gas count as objects, so smoke would emerge from it and fresh air would enter as needed; but it would negate strong winds, precipitation or uncomfortable temperatures (anything categorized as weather).

Quote from: rawma;1065236The spell says a dome; nothing about a floor or another hemisphere under the surface you're on. It's immobile, so if the ground disappears under it, it stays where it was cast and everything else falls from within it. (For a creature that cannot pass through it, they could stay perched on top of it, but at risk of sliding off if they move too far off center for whatever reason.) I don't think a liquid or a gas count as objects, so smoke would emerge from it and fresh air would enter as needed; but it would negate strong winds, precipitation or uncomfortable temperatures (anything categorized as weather).

That's the thing. It says "hemisphere" in the range for some reason...

Good advice guys.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065240That's the thing. It says "hemisphere" in the range for some reason...

Good advice guys.

exactly. A hemisphere. A dome. Essentially a dome-style tent. No floor.

(http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/ColumbiaSportswear2/OU9658_842_f)

And bemusingly in one of Crawford's Q&As he has also said that "No. It does not create a floor."

But...

That means that anything that can DIG can get into the thing. Hence why the original extended into the ground you were standing on.

Personally I reverted it back to being a sphere centered on the caster. So they need to be standing on some solid surface or they will fall right out of it.

Crawford said that, but he reversed himself later and said it did have a floor.

Basically, the spell is designed to let the PCs get a long (8hr) rest without being disturbed by wandering monsters. That's it. Don't worry about the details. It's a 5th Ed cludge to simplify things. If you don't like things to be simplified in that way, just ban the spell. It's really not worth worrying about how the details actually work in your world because it's not designed to be taken apart and studied in any depth whatsoever. It might as well just say, "When the wizard casts this spell the party gets a long rest. 8 hours pass without wandering monster checks."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1065247Crawford said that, but he reversed himself later and said it did have a floor.

That is what I meant earlier. You can not trust what he says as he can and will contradict himself.

Quote from: Omega;1065262That is what I meant earlier. You can not trust what he says as he can and will contradict himself.

So you've never gone back on a ruling because it sounded better than it played out?  Methinks you're ascribing more importance to what the man says than it should be.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065263So you've never gone back on a ruling because it sounded better than it played out?  Methinks you're ascribing more importance to what the man says than it should be.

He claims to be describing the intent of the written rules when they were written. Obviously this is false.

Quote from: S'mon;1065265He claims to be describing the intent of the written rules when they were written. Obviously this is false.

He also says your mileage may vary.  It sounds like people want to hate on him by actively looking for an excuse to do so.

Yes, he makes bad calls.  EVERYONE does.

For me, Tiny Hut is the Platonic ideal of a tent. It provides survivable, often comfortable shelter from the environment. Being magic, it is more sturdy than a canvas, rope, and wood spar tent.

It is a great example of a spell that solves a common, but not extraordinary problem for the party.

Holy crap! I have missed threads like these!

Talking about the nuance of spell use from 1e! ahh the memories. This is BBS-era gold!

Unfortunately, it's Leonmunds Hut... c'mon, this isn't hard. It doesn't defy gravity. It's a semi-neutral safe environmental zone. Pretty easy.

We should do a good ol' fashioned 1e Wish thread!!!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065267He also says your mileage may vary.  It sounds like people want to hate on him by actively looking for an excuse to do so.

Yes, he makes bad calls.  EVERYONE does.

He's paid to do it, is terribly sloppy and inconsistent, and display worse basic coherency than a 14 year-old novice GM making rulings.  His "contribution" is a net negative, by a rather large amount.  As in, the whole world of 5E would be a better place if WotC had simply not done the column at all.  That's not replacing him with someone better (as easy as that would be) but simply not doing the activity.

Quote from: tenbones;1065277Holy crap! I have missed threads like these!

Talking about the nuance of spell use from 1e! ahh the memories. This is BBS-era gold!

Unfortunately, it's Leonmunds Hut... c'mon, this isn't hard. It doesn't defy gravity. It's a semi-neutral safe environmental zone. Pretty easy.

We should do a good ol' fashioned 1e Wish thread!!!

Well, from the way the spell is worded in the book, and without any historical context to draw on, to me it sounds like some sort of Star Wars force field bubble.

Here's the actual text of the spell:

QuoteA 10-foot-radius dome appears around you and up to nine Medium or smaller creatures in the area. The spell fails if there is a creature larger than Medium or more than nine creatures. The spell ends if you leave its area.

The dome is immobile. Until the spell ends, you can make the inside be dimly lit or dark. The outside is opaque of any color you choose, but is transparent on the inside.

Creatures and objects in the dome's area when you cast the spell can move through it freely. Everything else is unable to enter. Spells and other magical effects can't pass the barrier of the dome on either end. The dome's atmosphere is always comfortable and dry, no matter the outside weather.

Note though that the range for the spell says "hemisphere."

I do admit though that thinking of it as just a magical tent makes a lot of sense... it just seems like the actual text is vague enough to support a lot of other interpretations. Which I guess was the point? But my first blush reading of it, and a lot of other people's, is basically that it's an iron bunker.

I mean, it even sounds like you can fire out of it (objects can move out of it), but Crawford says you can't.

If you just take it as it's written, then all the questions about how it has breathable air, IF it does, whether it has a bottom or whether it supports weight on it, come up.

Thing is. It is kinda vague. You can read it a few different ways. Has a floor? Doesn't have a floor?

Honestly. If it is intended to work like the original then it should have a floor if it is jyst a hemisphere now. The original kept out tunneling pests. If there is no floor field to the hut then anything can just dig under. Which brings up its own problems. They should have left it as a sphere needing a surface to cast it on. As is it is too dodgy.

Quote from: tenbones;1065277Unfortunately, it's Leonmunds Hut... c'mon, this isn't hard. It doesn't defy gravity. It's a semi-neutral safe environmental zone. Pretty easy.

The 1e version is fairly straightforward. The 5e version...eeeee not so much so due to the wording. Hence here we are.

So, using the Cliff Test - if the cliff fell out from under the person in the tent... one could say "You drop into freefall with the rocky debris... your Leomunds Tiny Hut dissipates the moment you leave it."

Easy peasy.

Quote from: jhkim;1065039In 1st edition, the spell was much less powerful. It was just the equivalent of a good shelter. It didn't protect against attacks and wasn't implied to have a floor. It basically just regulated the temperature some and provided shelter against wind and sun. (Although interestingly, rope trick which was 2nd level was roughly just as powerful as the current version.)

In 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.

It's not Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Fortress.

Does it have a floor? It doesn't matter much, but as a DM I'm inclined to say, "I like the idea of PCs being protected from the cold and wet, but the spell appears to be rigid, and I don't think a rigid invisible floor provides a good mental image (and it raises too many questions about the structure's balance). Therefore: it's a roof and walls, not a floor. Bring tarps to sleep on if you want to get dry. But I won't hassle you about sleeping on convex surfaces or the walls not quite reaching the floor--I'll treat it as an occluded sphere in practice. The walls go down until they hit the floor, and if you cast it while floating in wildspace it's a complete sphere." If players felt strongly that it should be the other way I would shrug and say, "Okay, fine. If you think it's cooler that way, I'm down with that."

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.

It's not Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Fortress.

Does it have a floor? It doesn't matter much, but as a DM I'm inclined to say, "I like the idea of PCs being protected from the cold and wet, but the spell appears to be rigid, and I don't think a rigid invisible floor provides a good mental image (and it raises too many questions about the structure's balance). Therefore: it's a roof and walls, not a floor. Bring tarps to sleep on if you want to get dry. But I won't hassle you about sleeping on convex surfaces or the walls not quite reaching the floor--I'll treat it as an occluded sphere in practice. The walls go down until they hit the floor, and if you cast it while floating in wildspace it's a complete sphere." If players felt strongly that it should be the other way I would shrug and say, "Okay, fine. If you think it's cooler that way, I'm down with that."

It was used a lot in my last campaign, and I ran it as you describe. Certainly no floor - there is zero indication of a floor in the spell description - and unlike Wall of Force it was not invulnerable. I used Athletics check opposed to caster Arcana for enemies trying to force their way in. This did get some grumbling from players used to 3e caster supremacy.

Quote from: tenbones;1065315So, using the Cliff Test - if the cliff fell out from under the person in the tent... one could say "You drop into freefall with the rocky debris... your Leomunds Tiny Hut dissipates the moment you leave it."

Easy peasy.

Yeah.  It's static.  It doesn't move.  It says so in the description.  Someone drops the cliff (somehow, Stone to Mud comes to mind...) and you die.  Cuz you fell out of the 'tent'.  What's the big problem here?

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.

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.

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 original AD&D version was fairly limited. A really strong wind could blow it away and it provided no protection at all from attacks. It was literally just a magic tent with central heating/cooling. And even that had its limitations. It also lasted 6 turns per level of the caster.

2e changed a few particulars, takes hurricane winds to blow it away, duration 4 hours per level, and specifically stating spells and missiles can pass through it without dispelling it. But it does obscure vision seeing inside it, and is dispellable.

The 3e version was huge with a 20ft radius sphere. Duration was now 2 hours per level. Its element and temperature protections were overall the same as the 2e version. And same for attacks and spells passing through it. But it does provide total cover. No mention of it being dispellable in the desc.

Apparently does not exist in the 4e core book.

The 5e version is radically different and I agree its too potent in this form even with it being only a dome.

Is there a reason I can't see new posts here? The forum is telling me new replies are appearing, but I only see rawma's last reply to me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1066306Is there a reason I can't see new posts here? The forum is telling me new replies are appearing, but I only see rawma's last reply to me.

Maybe my advice is so wise and important that fate has conspired to keep it before you.

Or you could try clearing your browser's cache.

But if you see this then you've presumably resolved the issue, so I guess just carry on.

You know, I think in decades of playing D&D in almost every edition, I've never once had a game where anyone had this spell.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1066545You know, I think in decades of playing D&D in almost every edition, I've never once had a game where anyone had this spell.

Me too, until I started playing 5E. Almost immediately in medium level play (7the level+) people were using it. BTB, it's just too good not to. When you're out in the wilderness it effectively lets you get a long rest, even if you're surrounded by enemies who are literally banging on the surface of the "hut" to get in! You only have to cast it (10 mins casting time, I think) and you're invulnerable to almost anything for 8 hours!
Very silly spell as written, but does exactly what it was intended to.

It (previous to 5e) was one of those spells that made un-fun the focusing on those things that might necessitate it.

There's a certain type of gameplay one might have gravitated towards if you got into gaming right when the 1e AD&D Wilderness Survival Guide was published (or maybe being a camper/scout/etc. in real life). If you found the part of Hexcrawling that was fun was rolling  the random weather rolls and seeing whether the party was going to be able to make any progress during the day in monsoon season, or they were going to have hunker down and try desperately to keep a fire going. Much like the counting torches and managing encumbrance mini-game or the dungeon-crawl part of old school play, it can be a lot of fun, if you treat it as a challenge to overcome/puzzle to solve.

That's the kind of play where you might want LTH. The problem is, LTH instantly resolves that type of play. Are you going to survive the night without temperature/weather related issues? Let me see... yes! Yes you are, because you have this spell. Well now that kind of gaming isn't fun, so why do it? And if no one is doing that kind of gaming, then why learn the spell?

5e's ranger gets similar criticism. It makes the wilderness/exploration part of the game a non-issue (and thus unfun, so why play a ranger?), and/or negates penalties and problems the DM wouldn't have remembered to impose if there wasn't a ranger in the party.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1066545You know, I think in decades of playing D&D in almost every edition, I've never once had a game where anyone had this spell.

I have seen it in use and used it myself. It is a useful utility spell that in its original format was reasonable and could come in handy in various situations. Have not yet seen anyone take it in 5e. But wizards have been rare in my groups so far.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1066552It (previous to 5e) was one of those spells that made un-fun the focusing on those things that might necessitate it.

There's a certain type of gameplay one might have gravitated towards if you got into gaming right when the 1e AD&D Wilderness Survival Guide was published (or maybe being a camper/scout/etc. in real life). If you found the part of Hexcrawling that was fun was rolling  the random weather rolls and seeing whether the party was going to be able to make any progress during the day in monsoon season, or they were going to have hunker down and try desperately to keep a fire going. Much like the counting torches and managing encumbrance mini-game or the dungeon-crawl part of old school play, it can be a lot of fun, if you treat it as a challenge to overcome/puzzle to solve.

That's the kind of play where you might want LTH. The problem is, LTH instantly resolves that type of play. Are you going to survive the night without temperature/weather related issues? Let me see... yes! Yes you are, because you have this spell. Well now that kind of gaming isn't fun, so why do it? And if no one is doing that kind of gaming, then why learn the spell?

5e's ranger gets similar criticism. It makes the wilderness/exploration part of the game a non-issue (and thus unfun, so why play a ranger?), and/or negates penalties and problems the DM wouldn't have remembered to impose if there wasn't a ranger in the party.

I would not say the older iterations of the hut totally solved the issues of weather. Note that up to 3e the spell started to falter under extreme conditions, especially heat and cold. Also the AD&D version could be blown away by 50mph winds. and oddly enough by the description may actually NOT keep out rain or snow as it does not stop arrows or attacks.

2e clarified that yes it does stop rain, dust etc, but not projectiles or attacks. And bumped up the wind resistance to 75mph winds. (which you had to look up somewhere.)

3e is pretty much the same as 2e for what it stops and clarifies its wind resistance limit as 75mph.

5e is effectively a new spell with a similar name. Much like Goodberry.

It is also a ritual which means you can cast it for free forever.

Hmm, yeah. I guess the "long rest" feature is what suddenly makes it TOO useful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1067094Hmm, yeah. I guess the "long rest" feature is what suddenly makes it TOO useful.

YMMV perhaps. The AD&D version lasted 1 hour per level, And a MU needed to be level 5 to cast it so 5 hours right out the gate. But. It was just a tent and not a defensive fort. 2e bumped it up to 4x that so one casting at level 6 and it lasts a whole day. But is still really limited. 10 hours for the 3e version when you pick it up. But otherwise the same spell.

But the 5e version as it exists is a mess even with its minor weakness of being able to be dug into or dispelled. Personally though Rope Trick is probably a better option as in 5e it is undetectable by many scrying methods and stops attacks. But is rather short lived at a mere hour. Good for a short rest at least.

I have ask, are we really out to kill all the players for wanting to rest and recover in the middle of a dungeon, so that they can play some more?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067237I have ask, are we really out to kill all the players for wanting to rest and recover in the middle of a dungeon, so that they can play some more?

Do you really not see a problem with an invincible way to spam rests?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067238Do you really not see a problem with an invincible way to spam rests?

Yup. It's the portable recharge to the 15-minute workday nova. It's broken, or a setting impact crater, if read as invulnerable.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067238Do you really not see a problem with an invincible way to spam rests?

No, because the average gamer is not going to abuse it that way.  Not in my experience, anyway.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067238Do you really not see a problem with an invincible way to spam rests?

If you wanted to make it rarely used but allow it in extremis, I suppose you could add an expensive material component that got used up during the casting - powdered diamond or angel's blood or something

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067237I have ask, are we really out to kill all the players for wanting to rest and recover in the middle of a dungeon, so that they can play some more?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067238Do you really not see a problem with an invincible way to spam rests?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067244No, because the average gamer is not going to abuse it that way.  Not in my experience, anyway.

First, characters Chris, characters. Killing players is a pretty extreme reaction on any board. :p

Secondly, if people aren't abusing it, then no one will be out to kill them over it. This becomes a non-issue in both directions. There are lots of things that are non-problematic if they are never used (yet that really isn't a successful critique of criticism of them, either, since they would be a problem if they were used).

That said, the very nature of the hut as invincible makes it such that it facilitates PC death, because the only counter to them it's use are extreme/likely lethal. Under normal circumstances (without LTH), the standard ways of getting in a Long Rest (or night's rest, if we are talking general D&D and not 5e specifically) all have soft counters -- 1) leaving the dungeon entirely to sleep in the wilderness or town requires extensive travel, might itself not be totally secure, and gives the dungeon inhabitants time to change the situation in-dungeon. 2) finding a bolt hole/empty room and posting watch runs a risk of discovery, a fight (with some party members out of armor), and the rest not being successful, 3) magic gateways like rod of security, demiplanes, planar travel, rope trick (in other editions where it might last long enough), etc. are serious magic items or spells. So, lots of costs or counters well below ultimate consequences. With LTH, the options at the DM's disposal are 1) put a huge ambush right outside the dome waiting for it to come down, 2) pile rocks on top/flood the room/other things which will probably kill the party, or 3) some creature/spell which can get through the spell (teleporters, and the like).

If the hut is merely a hut (Leomunds's Secure Shelter from other editions) there's room for measures in between. If opponents discover the shelter, they can take steps to deal with it, and the party can perform countermeasures. The all-or-nothing nature of LTH encourages party wipes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067237I have ask, are we really out to kill all the players for wanting to rest and recover in the middle of a dungeon, so that they can play some more?

No. No one here is so far making such a claim. The issue is that the 5e version is so radically different and is a game changer by its wording. Pre 5e it was just a tent made of magic. Good for wilderness travel and not much else. A way to lighten your pack load. A servicable utility spell. The 5e version is an impenetrable force dome.

Yes it has its limitations. As I keep mentioning. But its power is a bit out of sync with its level. It acts more like Wall of Force stuck in dome mode with minour environ control and a light added. Tiamat could blast it with all five heads and not effect it. And I would not know this or be blathering on and on in this thread if a player had not pointed that out while I was DMing Rise of Tiamat.

I agree with you that the average player will not think to abuse it as its weaknesses are notable. But it can be exploited to make the allready nearly impossible to break long rest just short of impossible to break.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1067260That said, the very nature of the hut as invincible makes it such that it facilitates PC death, because the only counter to them it's use are extreme/likely lethal.

The all-or-nothing nature of LTH encourages party wipes.

Somewhere in between more like. Monsters can prep at their leisure while the PCs hold up. Problem is the PCs can leave and re-enter their little fortress and try to disrupt that. But if the monsters stay out of sight and set traps and ambushes instead the PCs may be in for some trouble. But that might not lead to a TPK. Monsters might take the party hostage if they have the upper hand. Could be a viable way to pressgang adventurers into solving a problem for the monsters.

Piling rocks is probably the biggest threat. If the monsters can find any loose rocks to pile up enough to crush or at least pin the party. But that and flooding the area might be impossible in some circumstances.

The monsters cant teleport into the dome as even that is prevented. But they can dispell it if they have a caster on hand. Or as noted early on. Just use earth/stone mover spells to drop the party out from under it. And one player thought up a really deadly counter to the hut using just move earth or stoneshape.

But the really deadly problem with using this spell in the wrong place are oozes who can just envelop the dome and wait. I actually had to remind a party of exactly this once when they discussed using the hut to rest in an area they knew a black pudding was active. They opted to retreat as best they could and use the hut outside and actually had a great idea of camouflaging it so they were less likely to be discovered.

But the game is LITTERED with save or die effects.  Charm, Flesh to Stone, the original Disintegrate, Power Word: Kill, Sleep...  What is one more?

And what happened to trusting your friends?

Quote from: Omega;1067424Somewhere in between more like. Monsters can prep at their leisure while the PCs hold up. Problem is the PCs can leave and re-enter their little fortress and try to disrupt that. But if the monsters stay out of sight and set traps and ambushes instead the PCs may be in for some trouble. But that might not lead to a TPK. Monsters might take the party hostage if they have the upper hand. Could be a viable way to pressgang adventurers into solving a problem for the monsters.

Piling rocks is probably the biggest threat. If the monsters can find any loose rocks to pile up enough to crush or at least pin the party. But that and flooding the area might be impossible in some circumstances.

The monsters cant teleport into the dome as even that is prevented. But they can dispell it if they have a caster on hand. Or as noted early on. Just use earth/stone mover spells to drop the party out from under it. And one player thought up a really deadly counter to the hut using just move earth or stoneshape.

But the really deadly problem with using this spell in the wrong place are oozes who can just envelop the dome and wait. I actually had to remind a party of exactly this once when they discussed using the hut to rest in an area they knew a black pudding was active. They opted to retreat as best they could and use the hut outside and actually had a great idea of camouflaging it so they were less likely to be discovered.

Yes, it's possible to do all this, but not without breaking immersion and making it obvious that all these random goblins or Umber Hulks are going way way way way far out of their way to break this Hut with superior knowledge of what they're dealing with than they normally would.

It makes it so the GM has to go so far out into left field to deal with it that it always stands out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067435Yes, it's possible to do all this, but not without breaking immersion and making it obvious that all these random goblins or Umber Hulks are going way way way way far out of their way to break this Hut with superior knowledge of what they're dealing with than they normally would.

It makes it so the GM has to go so far out into left field to deal with it that it always stands out.

Yes, it is a setting crater; its impact is larger than it should for its level and past value. That said, if such a spell does exist and is considered common enough to be in the PHB, then I would assume the setting would have acclimatized to it by then. Otherwise the world would be rendered safe by such an impact, so life MUST adapt to survive, just like if any common magic becomes common technology.

So yeah, it's crap setting design, one of many I have with the vast majority of WotC design in general. You could fiddle with it, dial back to old values, or laser ban removal (harms the least amount of surrounding tissue). I don't find accomodating my setting to bad (inflexible) design a worthwhile option.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067434But the game is LITTERED with save or die effects.  Charm, Flesh to Stone, the original Disintegrate, Power Word: Kill, Sleep...  What is one more?

And what happened to trusting your friends?

Think I'll quote someone from upthread.

QuoteNo, because the average gamer is not going to abuse it that way. Not in my experience, anyway.

And we are discussing 5r Tiny Hut and comparing it to prior. Quite a few 5e spells work differently now.

What exactly are you arguing here? That the spell is not overpowered?
YOU are the one who incessantly bitches that casters in 5e are overpowered and now are bitching because someone wants to lower that power? Make up your mind!

And apparently you did not read any of the discussion? Really? What the hell?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067435Yes, it's possible to do all this, but not without breaking immersion and making it obvious that all these random goblins or Umber Hulks are going way way way way far out of their way to break this Hut with superior knowledge of what they're dealing with than they normally would.

It makes it so the GM has to go so far out into left field to deal with it that it always stands out.

How is it breaking immersion??? We arent saying ALL monsters should do this. But any observant monster will likely realize the PCs are holed up and treat it just like coming across the party holed up in a barricaded room. They DO something about it. Hell even Gronan had that anecdote about the party nearly getting killed exactly because of that.

That isnt even getting into predator monsters that might well stake out the spot and wait to ambush. They might get bored and leave. They might not.

Think these things through before just sweeping it all away because "my precious immersion!".

Having used the 5E version both as a player and a GM, I didn't find that it was game-breaking. It just was off in tone from what I'd prefer.

It was a very useful spell that became our go-to choice when long resting once we got it, but I didn't find it to be game-breaking.

I see it mostly as a simplifier. Usually, the party is able to get *somewhere* to long rest - finding some bolt-hole and fortifying it. The logic of the spell here is that the logistics of going back to a bolt-hole, fortifying it, posting guards, etc. is largely busy-work that isn't very interesting. If their long rest is disrupted, that generally means that they're just going to retreat even further and try again to long rest. The logic is that all this retreating and fortifying isn't very interesting, so it's replaced by a simpler option.

Quote from: Omega;1067452How is it breaking immersion??? We arent saying ALL monsters should do this. But any observant monster will likely realize the PCs are holed up and treat it just like coming across the party holed up in a barricaded room. They DO something about it. Hell even Gronan had that anecdote about the party nearly getting killed exactly because of that.

That isnt even getting into predator monsters that might well stake out the spot and wait to ambush. They might get bored and leave. They might not.

Think these things through before just sweeping it all away because "my precious immersion!".

OK, let's imagine a pretty typical D&D adventuring ground: a giant network of caves. You'll have various cave monsters: ropers, stirge, darkmantles, cloakers, chokers, gelatinous cubes, etc., etc.

In such a scenario LTH being so invincible completely removes all tension from the trek through the area and turns it into a foregone conclusion, even if it's several levels deep.

The solution that the baddies will every so often be a smart wizard or something and Dispel it or get together to collapse the cave on them is going to either happen so rarely that it might as well not exist as an answer or beggar disbelief when monsters that have no business doing such a thing do it.

So we're left with it just being a free "refresh" button. What's the point?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067455OK, let's imagine a pretty typical D&D adventuring ground: a giant network of caves. You'll have various cave monsters: ropers, stirge, darkmantles, cloakers, chokers, gelatinous cubes, etc., etc.

In such a scenario LTH being so invincible completely removes all tension from the trek through the area and turns it into a foregone conclusion, even if it's several levels deep.

The solution that the baddies will every so often be a smart wizard or something and Dispel it or get together to collapse the cave on them is going to either happen so rarely that it might as well not exist as an answer or beggar disbelief when monsters that have no business doing such a thing do it.

So we're left with it just being a free "refresh" button. What's the point?

OK scenario for you.  Players are in a 'megadungeon' or something large, dangerous and underground, and they're running low on resources, wizard is down to one spell, cleric is empty, hit points need recover.  So they pop Tiny Hut.  Are you going to be a dick and force them to walk ALL the way to the beginning, running into more monsters?  Or are crush them for using a spell to take a 'long rest' and recover their spells for the day (remember you can recover spells every 24 hours in 5e.)  Meaning that you're punishing them for going into the dungeon in the first place.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067456OK scenario for you.  Players are in a 'megadungeon' or something large, dangerous and underground, and they're running low on resources, wizard is down to one spell, cleric is empty, hit points need recover.  So they pop Tiny Hut.  Are you going to be a dick and force them to walk ALL the way to the beginning, running into more monsters?  Or are crush them for using a spell to take a 'long rest' and recover their spells for the day (remember you can recover spells every 24 hours in 5e.)  Meaning that you're punishing them for going into the dungeon in the first place.

If the players are deeeeeeeep in a dungeon and are running low on resources, wizard is down to one spell, cleric is empty, hit points need to recover then the players fucked up hard. Letting them fuck up hard with no consequences takes all of the fun out of a game. For a standard dungeon crawl the players should always be weighing "should I turn back or head deeper in" if it's a no-brainer then that takes a lot of the strategic fun out.

Quote from: Daztur;1067457If the players are deeeeeeeep in a dungeon and are running low on resources, wizard is down to one spell, cleric is empty, hit points need to recover then the players fucked up hard. Letting them fuck up hard with no consequences takes all of the fun out of a game. For a standard dungeon crawl the players should always be weighing "should I turn back or head deeper in" if it's a no-brainer then that takes a lot of the strategic fun out.

Yeah, I get it.  You hate your players.

'No consequences', so most dungeons never get explored past two or three rooms then, because your players are terrified that you'll screw them over if they have bad rolls or miscalculate their resources.  What if a teleport trap puts them somewhere out of reach of an easy exit?  What if a random encounter (which by the by is UNAVOIDABLE because it's RANDOM) takes more out of them then they want on the way out, but because they are having bad luck with dice don't want to run the risk of another and killing them, ENDING THE CAMPAIGN.  Yes, they can make new characters and jump right in, but it's still a NEW campaign every time that happens, especially if you make them start at level 1 again (Which is fine, I mean, it's a new party, who are braving the depths of the Caves of Chaos, after all.)

I'm sorry, but you're reaction is a bit too harsh in my opinion.  If they have to use the Tiny Hut spell in MY anecdotal experience, it's because THEY HAVE TO.  Something went wrong, probably unexpectedly so, and I don't feel the need to punish them for things that just end up out of their control.

Maybe that makes me a coddle DM, so be it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067458Yeah, I get it.  You hate your players.

'No consequences', so most dungeons never get explored past two or three rooms then, because your players are terrified that you'll screw them over if they have bad rolls or miscalculate their resources.  What if a teleport trap puts them somewhere out of reach of an easy exit?  What if a random encounter (which by the by is UNAVOIDABLE because it's RANDOM) takes more out of them then they want on the way out, but because they are having bad luck with dice don't want to run the risk of another and killing them, ENDING THE CAMPAIGN.  Yes, they can make new characters and jump right in, but it's still a NEW campaign every time that happens, especially if you make them start at level 1 again (Which is fine, I mean, it's a new party, who are braving the depths of the Caves of Chaos, after all.)

I'm sorry, but you're reaction is a bit too harsh in my opinion.  If they have to use the Tiny Hut spell in MY anecdotal experience, it's because THEY HAVE TO.  Something went wrong, probably unexpectedly so, and I don't feel the need to punish them for things that just end up out of their control.

Maybe that makes me a coddle DM, so be it.

It makes you an asshole for constantly impugning other DMs motives, is what it does.

Look. In my games, players choose how deep they want to go, and YES, it's up to them how they deal with it. They could just try to find a relatively safe spot or do an ordinary Long Rest. The problem is LTH makes it braindead, and in this kind of game that pretty much destroys the entire point of playing.

The way I avoid players going back after 2-3 rooms is by structuring the dungeon so they often have to keep going forward to get anywhere. Maybe there's a ritual they need to stop and there's time pressure, maybe the way back up is actually harder than going forward, etc. It's solveable. What isn't solveable is when LTH negates the entire challenge of dungeon crawling. At that point why not just only do "set piece" battles? Which is fine, but a different game.

I don't hate my players. I want my players to have fun. Fun comes from excitement and tension. There's no tension when they can refill their health and resources at the drop of a hat (and will do so if given the chance). My job is to be the brakes and force them to explore more interesting options for the greater good of the game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067434But the game is LITTERED with save or die effects.  Charm, Flesh to Stone, the original Disintegrate, Power Word: Kill, Sleep...  What is one more?
And what happened to trusting your friends?

And you have repeatedly complained about how unfair OSR gaming supposedly is. And 5e has altered nearly all those effects to remove 'roll poorly on a single dice roll and die' effects. So I am not sure what your point is, unless you are literally just being contrary.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1067442Yes, it is a setting crater; its impact is larger than it should for its level and past value. That said, if such a spell does exist and is considered common enough to be in the PHB, then I would assume the setting would have acclimatized to it by then. Otherwise the world would be rendered safe by such an impact, so life MUST adapt to survive, just like if any common magic becomes common technology.

If makes you wonder why anyone with access to spellcasting (or money enough to hire a spellcaster) would ever be sleeping in a castle surrounded by sentries, or a stone crypt underground, or whatnot. Certainly why wouldn't they layer this on top of whatever other defenses they have. In which case everyone in the business of attacking people in their homes (be they assassins or adventurers) should be wandering around with as many countermeasures to this specific spell as they can. It's like the Hulking Hurler of 3rd edition - It does effectively infinite damage, which is fine because there are many ways around that (mirror image, insubstantiality, illusions, etc.), but then why are dragons and giants the top of the food chain, and not illusionists and ghosts?

Quote from: jhkim;1067454Having used the 5E version both as a player and a GM, I didn't find that it was game-breaking. It just was off in tone from what I'd prefer. ... Usually, the party is able to get *somewhere* to long rest - finding some bolt-hole and fortifying it. The logic of the spell here is that the logistics of going back to a bolt-hole, fortifying it, posting guards, etc. is largely busy-work that isn't very interesting. If their long rest is disrupted, that generally means that they're just going to retreat even further and try again to long rest. The logic is that all this retreating and fortifying isn't very interesting, so it's replaced by a simpler option.

As someone who enjoys some of the logistics game, this is the biggest issue. It is much like the 5e ranger, where their presence pretty much makes sure you will not be doing any wilderness adventures, because their base powers are to make all the penalties to wilderness travel nonexistent, making it as boring as walking down the sidewalk.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067456OK scenario for you.  Players are in a 'megadungeon' or something large, dangerous and underground, and they're running low on resources, wizard is down to one spell, cleric is empty, hit points need recover.  So they pop Tiny Hut.  Are you going to be a dick and force them to walk ALL the way to the beginning, running into more monsters?  Or are crush them for using a spell to take a 'long rest' and recover their spells for the day (remember you can recover spells every 24 hours in 5e.)  Meaning that you're punishing them for going into the dungeon in the first place.

No one has suggested suddenly removing this spell from player's arsenals mid-dungeon. This would be a house-rules-made-while-starting-the-campaign scenario. Thus players wouldn't go deeper into the megadungeon than they had the resources to handle. And they would plan their spell and resource composition to match. And they could still find bolt holes and defend them, or use teleport to go home. All the things they would do if the wizard fell victim to a monster or trap.

QuoteYeah, I get it. You hate your players.

Every time I think you have turned a corner, you once again disappoint me (once Gronan left, you seemed to be doing better). I have dedicated entirely too much pity towards you, and it has never been rewarded. Here you have sacrificed the capacity to convince anyone other than yourself because you couldn't delay for yourself the gratification of your perennial self-congratulatory self-ascribed position of only-decent-person-amongst-monsters. This is one of the major reasons, as far as I can tell, no one around here thinks of you as a functional adult. If you cannot actually find a way that others are doing something wrong, or that you or what you stand for are genuinely the victim, deliberately misconstruing the words of others as though they are sadistic or horrible only makes you look desperate. Given that people have repeatedly declared that we all see through this show, it amazes me that you continue it.

Wait, Gronan left? Why?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067484Wait, Gronan left? Why?

Officially, it was someone making some comments against religion or being religious or something (Gronan's wife is an... Episcopalian I think?... minister). The actual statement seemed entirely too much of an random offhand statement for it to have been the whole of it. He clearly hadn't been perfectly happy here for a while. I saw him and Chirine Ba Kal over on another site (which I think they both abandoned for Chirine's personal site soon after) and they both talked about, 'actually talking about gaming again.' Read into that what you will.

I believe that he withdrew from at least one other forum too, The Ruins of Murkhill, IIRC.  Here we go:  https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39104-Video-There-is-no-quot-D-amp-D-Community-quot-Just-a-Marketing-Scheme-by-Hasbro-amp-SJW-Entryism&p=1043806&viewfull=1#post1043806 and his departure  https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39085-Questioning-chirine-ba-kal-part-III&p=1043807&viewfull=1#post1043807

Has the OP reached a conclusion on how to use Leomund's Tiny Hut in his campaign?   The spell doesn't strike me as one of the poorly thought out ones in 5e.  Look at Banishment or Hypnotic Pattern for those.

Quote from: Franky;1067492I believe that he withdrew from at least one other forum too, The Ruins of Murkhill, IIRC.  Here we go:  https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39104-Video-There-is-no-quot-D-amp-D-Community-quot-Just-a-Marketing-Scheme-by-Hasbro-amp-SJW-Entryism&p=1043806&viewfull=1#post1043806 and his departure  https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39085-Questioning-chirine-ba-kal-part-III&p=1043807&viewfull=1#post1043807

Has the OP reached a conclusion on how to use Leomund's Tiny Hut in his campaign?   The spell doesn't strike me as one of the poorly thought out ones in 5e.  Look at Banishment or Hypnotic Pattern for those.

Yes, I'm keeping most of its invincibility, but drawing out what I believe are the implications in the spell as RAW.

1) It stops attacks and magical effects. OK, no attacks or spells.

2) It makes the atmosphere dry and comfortable; so it has a decent heating, like a temperature controlled room, and doesn't let the rain in. However, it doesn't CREATE atmosphere, nor does it "purify" it so toxic fumes become clean.

3) It is an immobile force field fixed to a point that the players can move through, so that means while it has a bottom that stops things from coming up INTO it, the bottom doesn't actually support the players on it.

4) It stops attacks and magical effects, but not environmental ones; per #1 it doesn't produce oxygen, so it has to let oxygen through, and Crawford stated it doesn't stop fire either. From this we can infer that it stops "objects" from entering, but "object" as defined here is very specific to something you can have in your inventory or some sort of discrete entity, not things like smoke or molecules.

So to wrap it up, it still gives you a powerful defense for resting but isn't invulnerable. Intelligent bad guys with some time have relatively simple ways to get around it without having to collapse an entire cave on you, but it'll stop random monsters from barging on you in your sleep. You're safe from owlbears but not hobgoblins.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067458Yeah, I get it.  You hate your players.

'No consequences', so most dungeons never get explored past two or three rooms then, because your players are terrified that you'll screw them over if they have bad rolls or miscalculate their resources.  What if a teleport trap puts them somewhere out of reach of an easy exit?  What if a random encounter (which by the by is UNAVOIDABLE because it's RANDOM) takes more out of them then they want on the way out, but because they are having bad luck with dice don't want to run the risk of another and killing them, ENDING THE CAMPAIGN.  Yes, they can make new characters and jump right in, but it's still a NEW campaign every time that happens, especially if you make them start at level 1 again (Which is fine, I mean, it's a new party, who are braving the depths of the Caves of Chaos, after all.)

I'm sorry, but you're reaction is a bit too harsh in my opinion.  If they have to use the Tiny Hut spell in MY anecdotal experience, it's because THEY HAVE TO.  Something went wrong, probably unexpectedly so, and I don't feel the need to punish them for things that just end up out of their control.

Maybe that makes me a coddle DM, so be it.

No I don't. I'm actually a huge softie as a DM who's always willing to at least halfway to make their crazy schemes work.

That's why I like playing with uncompromising rulesets, never fudging dice rolls and stuff like either detailed dungeons or random encounter tables to take the decision of "what critters will the players meet next" out of my hands so that my softie nature is balanced by the rules and things get to a fun midpoint.

My players go fairly deep into dungeons but they're always debating with each other when they should head back since they know that there's a trade off: short trips in and out mean less treasure and more wandering monsters, going in deep means more treasure but more danger.

For unaviodable random encounters my players aren't dumb enough to automatically attack everything they randomly encounter. And I'm not going to have every random encounter fight to the death and chase the PCs across the dungeon.

As far as ending a campaign, I don't think I've ever had a TPK. Had one guy lose a character in one session, roll up a new guy in the same session and lose him too but that's really rare and he was taking a lot of risks and being point man both times.

If the players know the DM won't bail them out if they fuck up and that encounters won't be balanced then they'll be more careful and not end up in a position where they need to be bailed out. Especially if they have a softie DM like me (who's willing to give their goofball plans a good chance of actually working).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1067495Yes, I'm keeping most of its invincibility, but drawing out what I believe are the implications in the spell as RAW.

1) It stops attacks and magical effects. OK, no attacks or spells.

2) It makes the atmosphere dry and comfortable; so it has a decent heating, like a temperature controlled room, and doesn't let the rain in. However, it doesn't CREATE atmosphere, nor does it "purify" it so toxic fumes become clean.

3) It is an immobile force field fixed to a point that the players can move through, so that means while it has a bottom that stops things from coming up INTO it, the bottom doesn't actually support the players on it.

4) It stops attacks and magical effects, but not environmental ones; per #1 it doesn't produce oxygen, so it has to let oxygen through, and Crawford stated it doesn't stop fire either. From this we can infer that it stops "objects" from entering, but "object" as defined here is very specific to something you can have in your inventory or some sort of discrete entity, not things like smoke or molecules.

So to wrap it up, it still gives you a powerful defense for resting but isn't invulnerable. Intelligent bad guys with some time have relatively simple ways to get around it without having to collapse an entire cave on you, but it'll stop random monsters from barging on you in your sleep. You're safe from owlbears but not hobgoblins.

This sounds entirely reasonable.  And probably very much like how I would use it.    I'd allow certain spells/magical effects to be cast on it, like dispel magic, for example.

There is definitely an oddity in assumptions here. I certainly don't recall us talking about Leomunds Tiny Fortress.

As someone who GMs more than he plays I have no problems with players dedicating a spell slot so they can get a good, safe, night sleep... though I'm not adverse to smarter beasties taking advantage of laxity if it makes sense.

But players dropping a Tiny Hut right in front of the Big Bad, or Slavering Hordes, or what have you to get a long rest while taunting the bad guys?   That would be a problem, and one I'd see to with a furious vengence using every tool at my disposal... and as the GM I get to make the call about what works and what doesn't, so most of the player-centric arguments posted in this thread about how impervious the Hut is would probably be ignored.

Because that sort of behavior is anti-fun outside of certain genre-type play.


Cutting away the bullshit, that is what this thread is about, isn't it?   No one is complaining (except maybe the ranger) about PCs tromping through the woods using LTH to avoid getting mauled by wolves in the night or other obviously intended uses. They're arguing about the feasibility of setting it up for a convienent Long Rest in mid-dungeon crawl, or right before they fight the Big Boss so they can Alpha-strike every fight, reducing the challenge of the game to the bare minimum.

Solutions:

 Every time the players cast LTH, end the game session.  One problem with the 15min adventuring day is that characters are forced to endure long bouts of boredom while the spell casters rest up and re-memorize. Great for the casters, not so great for the Rogue who's poisoned blade is going to have to be re-poisoned, or the fighter who's got plenty of fight left in him. What do they do for the seven or eight days the party actually takes to clear 'Castle Doomstone', instead of the day it should have taken?  

Dispel Magic:  Not only should this work, by a strict reading of the spell in 5E (if I got it right, and I think I do...) it should actually be quite easy, as LTH is only a 3rd level spell.  Start using more intelligent monsters, and always include at least one 'caster' enemy who can be called up to deal with any pesky magic domes that his minions find.  If the players abuse the spell, abuse the counter-spell.

Ambushs:  The party is in a fixed location doing a fixed thing for a fixed length of time.  If they use it unwisely, even relatively weak monsters can set up brutal ambushes just out of sight of the dome for when the spell ends.


The problem isn't the spell nearly so much as its players abusing it thinking they've found a cheat code for the game.  But as a GM I am not a computer, forced to blindly accept cheating behavior due to limitations of my coding (well......), so the solution is as it has always been: To GM against the problem behavior until it stops.  This was the classic solution to Shadowrun snipers (to start sniping the PCs in every fight...), its the solution to most problems in the game.

Quote from: Spike;1067598Cutting away the bullshit, that is what this thread is about, isn't it?   No one is complaining (except maybe the ranger) about PCs tromping through the woods using LTH to avoid getting mauled by wolves in the night or other obviously intended uses. They're arguing about the feasibility of setting it up for a convienent Long Rest in mid-dungeon crawl, or right before they fight the Big Boss so they can Alpha-strike every fight, reducing the challenge of the game to the bare minimum.

Quote from: Spike;1067598The problem isn't the spell nearly so much as its players abusing it thinking they've found a cheat code for the game.  But as a GM I am not a computer, forced to blindly accept cheating behavior due to limitations of my coding (well......), so the solution is as it has always been: To GM against the problem behavior until it stops.  This was the classic solution to Shadowrun snipers (to start sniping the PCs in every fight...), its the solution to most problems in the game.

My opinion:  If as GM, you don't like LTH, then just disallow the spell - or weaken it to your tastes.

But if you give players the spell, then it's not cheating for them to use the spell to it's maximum effect. It's good play, in my opinion. Sane characters shouldn't be trying to give monsters a fair chance to kill them - they should be trying to kill monsters unfairly with the least risk to their own lives. If they have a very powerful resource, then they should be using it to maximum effect, and reducing challenge to the bare minimum.

I've had natural consequences to PCs using the spell, which can include ambushes and other enemy preparations during the time that they rest. But that's not me trying to punish the players for bad behavior, trying to stop their cheating - that's me making the game better and more interesting for them.

Quote from: jhkim;1067651My opinion:  If as GM, you don't like LTH, then just disallow the spell - or weaken it to your tastes.

I am pretty sure everyone engaging in this thread in a serious manner is discussing this. How they think the spell should work in their campaign, as stipulated ahead of time, before their players get to select the spell, much less use it.

QuoteBut if you give players the spell, then it's not cheating for them to use the spell to it's maximum effect. It's good play, in my opinion. Sane characters shouldn't be trying to give monsters a fair chance to kill them - they should be trying to kill monsters unfairly with the least risk to their own lives. If they have a very powerful resource, then they should be using it to maximum effect, and reducing challenge to the bare minimum.

First of all, agreed. The word cheating is not appropriate. Cheating is rolling a 5 and saying it was a 19. Nothing here is cheating. Whether it is allowed is another question (and again, part of the pre-established table consensus).

Characters should always use whatever tactics are available to them to maximize their survival and success. Players should not be criticized for using what is allowed at the table in the ways that best enable their characters to succeed. There are, however, such things as soft bans or table consensus no-go zones. A great example was 3e D&D and Wall of Iron and Fabricate. We all knew that there was a weak spot in the rules where those two spells could be combined to garner the PCs enough wealth (up until they destroy the iron market or crash the whole economy) which could be converted (via WBL) into untold power. Obviously there would have been other ways to fix this problem (like I said, crater the economy, get rid of magic item purchases, send angry iron miners out after the PCs, etc.), but instead we had a kind of unspoken truce where the DM wouldn't get rid of either spell, so long as no one did specifically that with them. In that way, I can totally get behind a 'this spell is for traipsing through the woods and avoiding bears at night, not dropping before the BBEG fight' kind of ruling (again, if it is pre-established). In effect, the characters never really had the option (so they are not failing to use an option at their disposal), because the players have established that this is a no-man's-land.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1067660First of all, agreed. The word cheating is not appropriate. Cheating is rolling a 5 and saying it was a 19. Nothing here is cheating. Whether it is allowed is another question (and again, part of the pre-established table consensus).

Characters should always use whatever tactics are available to them to maximize their survival and success. Players should not be criticized for using what is allowed at the table in the ways that best enable their characters to succeed. There are, however, such things as soft bans or table consensus no-go zones. A great example was 3e D&D and Wall of Iron and Fabricate. We all knew that there was a weak spot in the rules where those two spells could be combined to garner the PCs enough wealth (up until they destroy the iron market or crash the whole economy) which could be converted (via WBL) into untold power. Obviously there would have been other ways to fix this problem (like I said, crater the economy, get rid of magic item purchases, send angry iron miners out after the PCs, etc.), but instead we had a kind of unspoken truce where the DM wouldn't get rid of either spell, so long as no one did specifically that with them. In that way, I can totally get behind a 'this spell is for traipsing through the woods and avoiding bears at night, not dropping before the BBEG fight' kind of ruling (again, if it is pre-established). In effect, the characters never really had the option (so they are not failing to use an option at their disposal), because the players have established that this is a no-man's-land.

I agree that is also a reasonable option separate from banning or weakening the spell. Just talk to the players and say what you want.

Though in this case, I think weakening the spell is relatively easy to get that kind of use. It can be secure from any casual intrusion or attack, but can be collapsed by intelligent, concerted effort.

I think its a fairly simple call that Fabricate simply doesn't work on magically conjured materials. I'm sure if I wanted to sit down with the spell list I could work out some really fancy sounding metaphysical leagalese that would explain exactly why such combinations shouldn't work, but that might risk accidentally wrecking other, more acceptable synergies...

however, as I'm not really familiar with 5E yet, I had to look up Wall of Iron in the PHB... and couldn't find it. But Wall of Stone, which I recall as working more or less identically in previous editons (except for being, you know, Stone...) has a modest duration in 5E. Assuming I can find WoI in, I dunno, Volo's or something (seriously, 'Players Companion' may sound boring, but i never have to wonder what's in the book...so no learning curve for grabbing the right book... christ, I'm getting old...), I'm going to assume that it too is not a permanent hunk of iron cluttering the landscape.

So, Fabricate away. You've got about two hours before the Lynch Mob of angry weapon merchants and npc adventurers start forming.

Quote from: Spike;1067598As someone who GMs more than he plays I have no problems with players dedicating a spell slot so they can get a good, safe, night sleep... though I'm not adverse to smarter beasties taking advantage of laxity if it makes sense.

But players dropping a Tiny Hut right in front of the Big Bad, or Slavering Hordes, or what have you to get a long rest while taunting the bad guys?   That would be a problem

• Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual, so it can be cast without a spell slot by taking extra time. And a character with the Ritual Caster feat (for wizard spells) can learn to use it.
• It takes a minute to cast even with a spell slot, and that's ten rounds, so you're probably not going to taunt someone.
• Bonus observation about the stuff I didn't quote: if you did use a spell slot, you could make dispel magic a little more difficult by using a higher level spell slot.

Quote from: rawma;1067700

• Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual, so it can be cast without a spell slot by taking extra time. And a character with the Ritual Caster feat (for wizard spells) can learn to use it.
• It takes a minute to cast even with a spell slot, and that's ten rounds, so you're probably not going to taunt someone.
• Bonus observation about the stuff I didn't quote: if you did use a spell slot, you could make dispel magic a little more difficult by using a higher level spell slot.

Well, yes? I mean... I did most of my D&D playing in AD&D and 3E, I played two sessions of 4 and so far have mostly just sniffed my 5E books, so I'm gonna forget Rituals are a thing now.

And yes, I probably did get very mildly hyperbolic about about using the word 'taunt', to put the LTH debate into the silliest possible light regarding 'bad player tricks'.

From the quick glance I gave many hours ago: as a third level spell, Dispel Magic simply... works. Perfectly. Casting LTH as a fourth level spell appears to call for a reasonably likely to succeed check, but Dispel can ALSO be cast at higher levels.

Quote from: Spike;1067701Well, yes? I mean... I did most of my D&D playing in AD&D and 3E, I played two sessions of 4 and so far have mostly just sniffed my 5E books, so I'm gonna forget Rituals are a thing now.

It's pretty significant for Leomund's Tiny Hut, because the wizard doesn't have to commit a spell slot to it (and more so in earlier editions where spells had to be chosen up front).

QuoteFrom the quick glance I gave many hours ago: as a third level spell, Dispel Magic simply... works. Perfectly. Casting LTH as a fourth level spell appears to call for a reasonably likely to succeed check, but Dispel can ALSO be cast at higher levels.

Even with perfect knowledge of the rules, the difficulty in using Dispel Magic is committing to use a 3rd level spell slot with the possibility that it may not work because the spell was cast at a higher level, not that it might fail against the lowest level casting of Leomund's Tiny Hut. I have cast Mass Cure Wounds as an 8th level spell to make Counterspell hard (4th tier play seems to be mostly a battle of Counterspells). If you're going to cast Leomund's Tiny Hut to take a long rest, it probably makes sense to cast it with the highest remaining spell slot; it goes up quickly and might fend off a Dispel Magic. But maybe you want the spell slot in case there is a fight before the long rest is done, so LTH does not completely negate interesting choices.

Quote from: Spike;1067671I think its a fairly simple call that Fabricate simply doesn't work on magically conjured materials. I'm sure if I wanted to sit down with the spell list I could work out some really fancy sounding metaphysical leagalese that would explain exactly why such combinations shouldn't work, but that might risk accidentally wrecking other, more acceptable synergies...

however, as I'm not really familiar with 5E yet, I had to look up Wall of Iron in the PHB... and couldn't find it. But Wall of Stone, which I recall as working more or less identically in previous editons (except for being, you know, Stone...) has a modest duration in 5E. Assuming I can find WoI in, I dunno, Volo's or something (seriously, 'Players Companion' may sound boring, but i never have to wonder what's in the book...so no learning curve for grabbing the right book... christ, I'm getting old...), I'm going to assume that it too is not a permanent hunk of iron cluttering the landscape.

So, Fabricate away. You've got about two hours before the Lynch Mob of angry weapon merchants and npc adventurers start forming.

1: er... 5e Fabricate doesn't quite work that way? It specifically states you can not fabricate items that need finer degree of crafting. gems, weapons, jewelry, etc unless the caster has the attendant tool profs.

2: Right. No wall of Iron spell. So far. Xanithar'd Guide did add in Wall of Water, Wall of Sand  and Wall of Light. So far all the "Wall" spells have a duration of 10 minutes except for Wall of Fire.

3: The fabricate mage still has to acquire the materials and have the appropriate skills. Otherwise their "goods" may be more likely laughed at. BUT. This could be an interesting way for a monster race to aquire basic weapons. Hooking up with a fabricate crazed mage.

X: And bemusingly fabricate actually ended up being a brilliant ploy an NPC used. He produced alot of swords and equipment for an army that was going to war with a neighboring country the mage was allied with. The army sallies fourth confident of a win as they are better armed by far. Expecting a massacre. And the mage drops essentially a wide area Dispell on them. And all the weapons and gear unraveled into their component parts. The enemy routed and the mage presented things such that it appeared he had blanketed the area with some sort of disintegrate spell so they never knew what really happened.

And one player I was in a campaign with had a habit of having his wizard cast dispell on equipment bought. Apparently because one of his characters had been wearing fabricated gear and it popped when he was hit with a dispell. Which was where I got the idea for the mage above. Thanks Haas!

Quote from: spon;1065261Basically, the spell is designed to let the PCs get a long (8hr) rest without being disturbed by wandering monsters. That's it. Don't worry about the details. It's a 5th Ed cludge to simplify things. If you don't like things to be simplified in that way, just ban the spell. It's really not worth worrying about how the details actually work in your world because it's not designed to be taken apart and studied in any depth whatsoever. It might as well just say, "When the wizard casts this spell the party gets a long rest. 8 hours pass without wandering monster checks."

100% this. Leomund's tiny hut - and rope trick - in 5e are quite broken. If you want any semblance of challenge or resouce attrition, best to remove them from your game.

Quote from: Omega;1068166And one player I was in a campaign with had a habit of having his wizard cast dispell on equipment bought. Apparently because one of his characters had been wearing fabricated gear and it popped when he was hit with a dispell. Which was where I got the idea for the mage above. Thanks Haas!

The spell is instantaneous duration, so there is no spell left on the item fabricated to dispel. Dispel magic also doesn't make you pop back to the last place you teleported from, and doesn't negate damage from an instantaneous fireball cast rounds before, either.

Quote from: rawma;1068175The spell is instantaneous duration, so there is no spell left on the item fabricated to dispel. Dispel magic also doesn't make you pop back to the last place you teleported from, and doesn't negate damage from an instantaneous fireball cast rounds before, either.

I believe in the example the Dispel works on the Conjured 'Wall of Iron' that is THEN Fabricated into weapons, which is currently making rounds as a 'free money hack' for D&D, though one that seems to be 'previous editions only' at the moment.

He's not dispelling the fabrications (which, even if it worked, would only result in holding chunks of unworked iron, not 'disintigrations'), he's dispelling the Wall of Iron that was Fabricated.


Of course, as discussed, 5E appears to lack Wall of Iron, and even if it had it, its now got a duration measured in Turns, not permanent, which solves any number of shenanigans.... to include that idiot-ball tactic the Gaming Den brought here (five years ago?) of having a Demon fill the dungeon up with Walls of Ice rather than actually fighting the party, at least in part.

Quote from: rawma;1068175The spell is instantaneous duration, so there is no spell left on the item fabricated to dispel. Dispel magic also doesn't make you pop back to the last place you teleported from, and doesn't negate damage from an instantaneous fireball cast rounds before, either.

The DM was running such that something made with magic could be un-made with a high enough dispell. We were all ok with that.

eh. Guess I was wrong.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1067489Officially, it was someone making some comments against religion or being religious or something (Gronan's wife is an... Episcopalian I think?... minister). The actual statement seemed entirely too much of an random offhand statement for it to have been the whole of it. He clearly hadn't been perfectly happy here for a while. I saw him and Chirine Ba Kal over on another site (which I think they both abandoned for Chirine's personal site soon after) and they both talked about, 'actually talking about gaming again.' Read into that what you will.

He also was in denial that SJWs and political correctness were creeping into RPGs. He is not the only one I have seen with that sort of "its not real" mindset.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1068171100% this. Leomund's tiny hut - and rope trick - in 5e are quite broken. If you want any semblance of challenge or resouce attrition, best to remove them from your game.

It really is the best solution if those campaign elements are desired. Just quoting so this people don't forget that it's a kludge made to wave away an older element of play. If you want that element, don't use the kludge.

It isnt even a kludge. If you poke through 5e you see alot of utterly ham-handed attempts to "fix" things the designers think the players think is boring. Usually by just adding "invincible" to whatever. Long rest? Cant break it. Rope Trick? Cant detect it or fire into it, Tiny Hut? Tell Tiamat to go twiddle her thumbs while we get a nap. And so on.

Quote from: Omega;1068250It isnt even a kludge. If you poke through 5e you see alot of utterly ham-handed attempts to "fix" things the designers think the players think is boring. Usually by just adding "invincible" to whatever. Long rest? Cant break it. Rope Trick? Cant detect it or fire into it, Tiny Hut? Tell Tiamat to go twiddle her thumbs while we get a nap. And so on.

Um.  Hate to break it to ya, but...  It doesn't really matter how much you rest, but Tiamat is going to do a number on the characters. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1068254Um.  Hate to break it to ya, but...  It doesn't really matter how much you rest, but Tiamat is going to do a number on the characters. :D

When the hut ends. Sure. Before that? Unless she dispells it or undermines it. No.

Is it the most brilliant thing to do when facing a goddess? Probably not.

Quote from: Omega;1068264When the hut ends. Sure. Before that? Unless she dispells it or undermines it. No.

Is it the most brilliant thing to do when facing a goddess? Probably not.

Depends on how much nova it recharges for your party. A few paladins almost out of smite? Probably the best choice is to refresh the nova. :p

(Yeah, I thought the Short/Long Rest Sage Advice ruling - requiring a 1+ hour, or 8+ hours, combat to break your rest -- was profoundly stupid. I immediately ignored it. There is a lot of WotC-isms worth ignoring, both from RAW text and RAI Sage Advice.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1068311Depends on how much nova it recharges for your party. A few paladins almost out of smite? Probably the best choice is to refresh the nova. :p

(Yeah, I thought the Short/Long Rest Sage Advice ruling - requiring a 1+ hour, or 8+ hours, combat to break your rest -- was profoundly stupid. I immediately ignored it. There is a lot of WotC-isms worth ignoring, both from RAW text and RAI Sage Advice.)

I ignored that too. It just made no sense. Any interruption to a Long Rest in my games cancels it, if it's combat. If it's just taking a walk or something, then sure, you can do it.

In pre-3e editions rest varied depending on the edition.
In BX you just needed rest to allow you to refresh or change your spell loadout. Casters still had to spend an hour memorising their spells. Each full day of rest healed 1d3 damage. Any interruption meant no healing for that day.
But more importantly during a dungeoncrawl the party had to take a 10 minute breather for every 50 minutes of exploration or suffer a -1 to to hit and damage rolls till they did.
In 2e had the same caster rest requirements as AD&D, get some sleep, in the morning do any refreshing. And spells took longer based on their level. 10 minutes per spell level per spell. A Caster needing to refresh their whole array could take a long long time! 340 minutes for a level 10 mage. 1620 minutes for a level 20. That is 27 hours.
Normal rest which allowed for walking and riding, healed 1 hp per day of rest, 3 if the character stayed bedridden. +CON bonus if a whole week bedridden 21+CON bonus.
Did not see at a glance anything on needing to rest regularly during dungeon crawls though.

Quote from: Omega;1068250It isnt even a kludge. If you poke through 5e you see alot of utterly ham-handed attempts to "fix" things the designers think the players think is boring. Usually by just adding "invincible" to whatever. Long rest? Cant break it

Of course you can.

Quote. Rope Trick? Cant detect it or fire into it, Tiny Hut? Tell Tiamat to go twiddle her thumbs while we get a nap. And so on.

Ten minutes to cast it.  

It's sounding like you don't know the rules you're bashing very well.

Quote from: Mistwell;1068369Of course you can.

Ten minutes to cast it.  

It's sounding like you don't know the rules you're bashing very well.

1: Requires one full hour of continuous combat or strenuous activity to break a long rest.

2: Casting time... 1 minute. That is 10 rounds. Admittedly that is a long time in combat. But it is doable, moreso if prepped before all hell literally breaks loose.

3: It's sounding like you don't know the rules you're citing very well.

Quote from: Spike;1068185eh. Guess I was wrong.

To be fair. Wall of Stone can actually be made permanent in 5e. If the caster keeps concentrating on it for the full duration. Once made real it can not be dispelled. A quick glance at the PBB walls and the ones in Xanithar shows that is the only one that can be made to not vanish when over.

Quote from: Omega;1068356In pre-3e editions rest varied depending on the edition.
In BX you just needed rest to allow you to refresh or change your spell loadout. Casters still had to spend an hour memorising their spells. Each full day of rest healed 1d3 damage. Any interruption meant no healing for that day.
But more importantly during a dungeoncrawl the party had to take a 10 minute breather for every 50 minutes of exploration or suffer a -1 to to hit and damage rolls till they did.
In 2e had the same caster rest requirements as AD&D, get some sleep, in the morning do any refreshing. And spells took longer based on their level. 10 minutes per spell level per spell. A Caster needing to refresh their whole array could take a long long time! 340 minutes for a level 10 mage. 1620 minutes for a level 20. That is 27 hours.
Normal rest which allowed for walking and riding, healed 1 hp per day of rest, 3 if the character stayed bedridden. +CON bonus if a whole week bedridden 21+CON bonus.
Did not see at a glance anything on needing to rest regularly during dungeon crawls though.

I loved the 2e time length. It really made mages a reservoir of power, but tempered that they would prefer to conserve resources still -- instead of busting their dam of spells. So those extra low level slots were good for emergency lateral incidental spells.

However, due to the speed of rods, cross-class of potions, etc. making magic items to hoard & spread around to allies made A LOT of sense. Twenty-seven hours is a very long time to recharge your memory slots, so blowing your load is just outright dangerous. Now suddenly you had a strategic resources game: planning which tactical magically charged items to make, share, and store; figuring out which other classes could get stuff done without "all magic, all the time," etc.

Oh well, WotC 'liberated' the wizard and kids rarely see the old management style and its fun challenge. :o

Quote from: Omega;10683721: Requires one full hour of continuous combat or strenuous activity to break a long rest.

2: Casting time... 1 minute. That is 10 rounds. Admittedly that is a long time in combat. But it is doable, moreso if prepped before all hell literally breaks loose.

3: It's sounding like you don't know the rules you're citing very well.

Also nothing stops the other eight (of the nine medium) creatures (&objects) within the dome from moving freely, leaving and reentering the 5e hut. Just the caster can't move out of it because it will cancel the spell. But wait!, there's new and improved, risk-free Find Familiar, so no real restrictions, yay! Oh yes, it is very abusable. :p