As you said, its advice....doesn't mean its wrong or should be tossed out without consideration. In this case, people have made very reasonable arguments as to why Leomund's would have or not have a floor. For such a circumstance, some people would like to know what WOTC's interpretation is. Are they able to throw it out....of course, but when you have such a stalemate, having at least some measure of official response can be useful.
D&D 5E Does Leomund's Tiny Hut block Scrying?
As you said, its advice....doesn't mean its wrong or should be tossed out without consideration. In this case, people have made very reasonable arguments as to why Leomund's would have or not have a floor. For such a circumstance, some people would like to know what WOTC's interpretation is. Are they able to throw it out....of course, but when you have such a stalemate, having at least some measure of official response can be useful.
I can't image why anyone would rule that Leomund's Tiny Hut would hedge out all effects such as scrying, teleportation and such. The spell is already super powerful for its level. Having it hedge out divination would both devalue Nondetection at the same level, and Mordenkainin's Private Sanctum at a level higher. It seems clear that the intention was to stop line of effect spells, much like a brick wall would, not edge out all possible magic.
It kind of reminds me of the argument over Nondetection where people where saying that it doesn't prevent you from being revealed by many divination spells because the you are not the target. Turns out, most divination spells have a range of "Self" and thus would not be blocked by nondetaction.
It kind of reminds me of the argument over Nondetection where people where saying that it doesn't prevent you from being revealed by many divination spells because the you are not the target. Turns out, most divination spells have a range of "Self" and thus would not be blocked by nondetaction.
"Stalemate" implies that there is some need to reach a consensus here, which there isn't. However, for folks who put weight on SA's recommendations, it is indeed useful to have that information in the discussion, which is why I didn't complain when it was first brought up, even though I find it weird that anyone would treat a Twitter feed--a medium specifically designed to encourage hot takes over careful thought--as some sort of authoritative rules source.
Where I start complaining is statements like, "You folks can question all you like... if you consider Sage Advice to be part of the game, your RAW Huts have floors. If you want to rule otherwise, you're ruling against Sage Advice. It really is not that complex," as if the only complexity that matters is what Sage Advice says.
Last edited:
ccs
41st lv DM
In any case in which there is an ambiguity about Tiny Hut(5e), the correct answer is the one that makes the spell less powerful.
Bzzzt. Try again.
The correct answer is "Whatever the DM says the correct answer is."
And that answer doesn't extend beyond your table.
So go ask your DM
MarkB
Legend
Where it gets confusing is that you're visualising taking a hollow sphere and cutting it in half. But nothing in the definition of a sphere assumes that it's hollow. I'm sure you'll agree that if you cut a solid sphere in half, it will have a flat plane.
So, if you're talking about a hollow hemisphere, do you start with a hollow sphere and then cut it in half? Or do you start with a solid hemisphere and then hollow it out?
Lucas Blackstone
Explorer
I don't think the spell is too powerful ( many 3rd level spells are powerful, but in different ways ) or steps on the toes of nondetection if you rule it as blocking scry. I always assumed it had a bottom before any clarifications via Sage Advice because it seemed obvious to me that the intent for the spell was to keep things out and a hemisphere without a bottom wouldn't keep things out.
As for scrying or teleportation working inside, I would say the magic effects of both spells ( if being cast from outside ) would count as extending through it for sure and therefore are prevented. The spell starts outside the hut, and the destination ( for teleports ) and sensor ( for scrying ) appear inside the hut. That's a magical effect extending inside even though there is no physical connection between the two. I would also disallow Sending on the same premise.
As for scrying or teleportation working inside, I would say the magic effects of both spells ( if being cast from outside ) would count as extending through it for sure and therefore are prevented. The spell starts outside the hut, and the destination ( for teleports ) and sensor ( for scrying ) appear inside the hut. That's a magical effect extending inside even though there is no physical connection between the two. I would also disallow Sending on the same premise.
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
So would you allow Someone to teleport in to a building that had no visible windows or doors.? Because if you look at the description of Tiny Hut it can be applied to a normal building. The only magic inside the hut is the magical climate control. Nothing inside the hut prevents magic. The barrier itself, from the description acts exactly like a normal wall with the exception that only certain people can cross the threshold. Walls don’t let spells through them nor do they allow people to move through them. That seems like a serious nerf to teleport if you need a direct unobstructed line to wherever you teleport. You can teleport in to a field on the other side of the continent but not into a building if the doors happen to be closed.
I could actually use this argument to see the opposite side of what you intended. If the force dome works just like a normal wall, why not just say so "this dome blocks attacks and effects like a normal solid wall".
You could argue that the reason they call out the "can't cast spells through" is because walls do not block certain effects like teleport, but this effect does block.
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
Possibly but I find that a stretch. If it could do what you say, it would specify just like it does in Private Sanctum. Private Sanctum specifies exactly what can and can't be cast inside or through the barrier. Why would they make the descriptions different if both spells do the same thing? They call out 'can't cast through' because there's lots of spells that need line of effect or line of sight and if they didn't specifically use those words, spells like magic missile would pass through because it needs a direct line from A to B and aoe spells like fireball and fog cloud would bleed into the Hut even if their point of origin was outside the hut. So, to me, that's the reason they call it out. Teleport and scry don't happen to need line of sight or line of effect.
Besides, They pretty much say 'this works like a normal wall.' They just don't use that specific word 'wall'. They use the word 'dome'. Which is like a wall, but curved. They also say it's made out of force and not something like wood or stone.
Then they give you examples of what walls (or domes) are good at:
"All other creatures are barred from passing through it." Walls bar creatures from passing through them
"Spells and magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it." You cannot cast a spell or magical effect through a wall.
It also gives you the exception to the rules - or the way it doesn't act like a curved wall: "Creatures and objects within the dome when the spell is cast can move through it."
It doesn't give you the exception of 'bars teleportation' and 'prevents divination spells' the way that Private Sanctum does.
That's probably the most thoroughly I can describe my interpretation.
