Level Up (A5E) What spells count as a Haven

CatalystShot

Villager
Hey, I'm just wondering what the actual spells are that can create a Haven besides Tiny Hut. And do the spells need to say that it's a Haven for it to count?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
So this is a little bit of a thinker, but we can answer it.

Short answer: Magnificent Mansion would also be a haven.

Long answer: In the spell section there's a sidebar (also mentioned elsewhere):
While journeying adventurers can only recover from fatigue or strife on a long rest when they have access to a haven: a place to sleep without the reasonable risk of attack or harm from the elements, such as an inn.

Tiny Hut specifies that it's a haven- if it didn't some folk might think "you're sleeping on the ground, out in the wild; it's not a haven." I probably would make that call too, if not for the fact that Tiny Hut is SPECIFICALLY called out as being a haven.

Magnificent Mansion doesn't state that it's a haven- but it doesn't need to because it meets the criteria of any other haven, like an inn. Safe, comfortable, a great place to rest and recover.

Were there any other spells you wondered about re: havens? I think Mansion is the only other. I hope you're not thinking Rope Trick 😅
 

CatalystShot

Villager
So this is a little bit of a thinker, but we can answer it.

Short answer: Magnificent Mansion would also be a haven.

Long answer: In the spell section there's a sidebar (also mentioned elsewhere):
While journeying adventurers can only recover from fatigue or strife on a long rest when they have access to a haven: a place to sleep without the reasonable risk of attack or harm from the elements, such as an inn.

Tiny Hut specifies that it's a haven- if it didn't some folk might think "you're sleeping on the ground, out in the wild; it's not a haven." I probably would make that call too, if not for the fact that Tiny Hut is SPECIFICALLY called out as being a haven.

Magnificent Mansion doesn't state that it's a haven- but it doesn't need to because it meets the criteria of any other haven, like an inn. Safe, comfortable, a great place to rest and recover.

Were there any other spells you wondered about re: havens? I think Mansion is the only other. I hope you're not thinking Rope Trick 😅
Thank you for your answer. I didn't even consider rope trick, lol.
 

steels12

Explorer
So this is a little bit of a thinker, but we can answer it.

Short answer: Magnificent Mansion would also be a haven.

Long answer: In the spell section there's a sidebar (also mentioned elsewhere):
While journeying adventurers can only recover from fatigue or strife on a long rest when they have access to a haven: a place to sleep without the reasonable risk of attack or harm from the elements, such as an inn.

Tiny Hut specifies that it's a haven- if it didn't some folk might think "you're sleeping on the ground, out in the wild; it's not a haven." I probably would make that call too, if not for the fact that Tiny Hut is SPECIFICALLY called out as being a haven.

Magnificent Mansion doesn't state that it's a haven- but it doesn't need to because it meets the criteria of any other haven, like an inn. Safe, comfortable, a great place to rest and recover.

Were there any other spells you wondered about re: havens? I think Mansion is the only other. I hope you're not thinking Rope Trick 😅
I do disagree with Tiny Hut being a haven, if only for the reasons that it is easily dispelled, and interestingly it differs from 5e's tiny hut in that ANY creature or object can pass through it, making it ripe for an ambush of just about any type. However, I also play with a more brutalist style of travel, when level-appropriate. Taking away from this, and specifically the wording in Tiny Hut that says "...provides shelter and can be used as a safe haven..." it seems that the primary concern of what makes a haven "legitimate" is its protection from the environment. I always tell my party that a space only counts as a haven if your characters legitimately feel safe from the local hostilities, so Tiny Hut might work if the only concern is the environment, but if you try and use even Magnificent Mansion in the middle of the boss' lair, would you reasonably feel that your character would actually no longer be "on edge".
Once again, I play a bit more brutalist than a lot of DMs, but by this standard I would argue that while very few spells directly provide an option for a haven, many spells can be used to indirectly create a haven by dealing with the hazards that prevent a haven. I could imagine using a high level Major Image to, say, feign the cave that your party is hiding in is actually just a seamless rock wall, could do the trick. Hope that helps!
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
I do disagree with Tiny Hut being a haven, if only for the reasons that it is easily dispelled, and interestingly it differs from 5e's tiny hut in that ANY creature or object can pass through it, making it ripe for an ambush of just about any type. However, I also play with a more brutalist style of travel, when level-appropriate. Taking away from this, and specifically the wording in Tiny Hut that says "...provides shelter and can be used as a safe haven..." it seems that the primary concern of what makes a haven "legitimate" is its protection from the environment. I always tell my party that a space only counts as a haven if your characters legitimately feel safe from the local hostilities, so Tiny Hut might work if the only concern is the environment, but if you try and use even Magnificent Mansion in the middle of the boss' lair, would you reasonably feel that your character would actually no longer be "on edge".
Once again, I play a bit more brutalist than a lot of DMs, but by this standard I would argue that while very few spells directly provide an option for a haven, many spells can be used to indirectly create a haven by dealing with the hazards that prevent a haven. I could imagine using a high level Major Image to, say, feign the cave that your party is hiding in is actually just a seamless rock wall, could do the trick. Hope that helps!

I think you're saying that you acknowledge Tiny Hut is a haven.. because of course it is, the spell specifically calls it out as being a haven, but you don't like the idea that it is one.
I run fairly "tough" games as well and can see this as being an irritant, but the spell in a5e was altered to require a sculpture of a protective deity worth 200gp, which is consumed. That certainly allows the DM to limit its use by pretty much as much as they want- how many 200gp idols of this deity are readily available? How big are they, are they bulky? And going by a5e's treasure/character/level this is a decent investment of gold per use.

Tiny Hut being dispelable though wouldn't make it any less a haven than the inn that characters are staying in being set on fire by a dragon, or assassins attacking them in their sleep. These places are havens- but the characters aren't going to get that haven rest if said rest is interrupted by someone attacking the inn, or dispelling the tiny hut.
 

Ondath

Hero
I think one point that's often missed with Tiny Hut is its 200 GP cost for each casting. So yes, a 2nd level ritual spell does provide safe haven, but it requires you to spend 200 gold for every night you use it. Assuming a 4-man party, that means you're getting safe haven for 50 GP per night per person. It's way higher than what an inn would normally cost, so I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.
 

steels12

Explorer
I think you're saying that you acknowledge Tiny Hut is a haven.. because of course it is, the spell specifically calls it out as being a haven, but you don't like the idea that it is one.
I run fairly "tough" games as well and can see this as being an irritant, but the spell in a5e was altered to require a sculpture of a protective deity worth 200gp, which is consumed. That certainly allows the DM to limit its use by pretty much as much as they want- how many 200gp idols of this deity are readily available? How big are they, are they bulky? And going by a5e's treasure/character/level this is a decent investment of gold per use.

Tiny Hut being dispelable though wouldn't make it any less a haven than the inn that characters are staying in being set on fire by a dragon, or assassins attacking them in their sleep. These places are havens- but the characters aren't going to get that haven rest if said rest is interrupted by someone attacking the inn, or dispelling the tiny hut.

I think you're kind of missing my overall point, which is that just because a spell explicitly says it has the ability to be a haven is not an absolute ruling. 200gp cost aside, I don't think any DM would seriously let their party put down an A5e Tiny Hut in the middle of a dungeon and let their party go "neener neener, it says it's a haven, we get a long rest" because it just... Like there's nothing stopping the active threats of the dungeon from slaughtering your party. This would overall just be an argument of "necessary vs sufficient", but my intention is to INVERT that logic and say that just because a spell does not explicitly state itself as being "a haven" does not mean it cannot aid towards providing the necessary components FOR a haven, if that makes sense.

Ultimately, to me as a DM, it comes down to reasonability. Sure, at any point an in COULD be burned down, but there's no reasonable expectation that it would. That's why the mind-state of my party is what's paramount to me, I'm sure we've all been safe in our beds at home but RIDDLED with anxiety over something and that's ruined our own "long rest". But this is also why after a certain level I just stop having my party worry about travel unless they're in really high-tier areas. Even if they got caught by a group of bandits, what are a few 20-30 hp bandits going to do to a party of full level 10+ heroes? If anything I'd throw something like that in as a gag.
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
I think you're kind of missing my overall point, which is that just because a spell explicitly says it has the ability to be a haven is not an absolute ruling. 200gp cost aside, I don't think any DM would seriously let their party put down an A5e Tiny Hut in the middle of a dungeon and let their party go "neener neener, it says it's a haven, we get a long rest" because it just... Like there's nothing stopping the active threats of the dungeon from slaughtering your party. This would overall just be an argument of "necessary vs sufficient", but my intention is to INVERT that logic and say that just because a spell does not explicitly state itself as being "a haven" does not mean it cannot aid towards providing the necessary components FOR a haven, if that makes sense.

Ultimately, to me as a DM, it comes down to reasonability. Sure, at any point an in COULD be burned down, but there's no reasonable expectation that it would. That's why the mind-state of my party is what's paramount to me, I'm sure we've all been safe in our beds at home but RIDDLED with anxiety over something and that's ruined our own "long rest". But this is also why after a certain level I just stop having my party worry about travel unless they're in really high-tier areas. Even if they got caught by a group of bandits, what are a few 20-30 hp bandits going to do to a party of full level 10+ heroes? If anything I'd throw something like that in as a gag.
Did I miss your overall point? I thought the gist of what you were saying was: "yes the spell says it's a haven, but I don't think it should be a haven so I change the spell." Is that wrong?
You can change any feature/rule you like, it's your table!
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
I think one point that's often missed with Tiny Hut is its 200 GP cost for each casting. So yes, a 2nd level ritual spell does provide safe haven, but it requires you to spend 200 gold for every night you use it. Assuming a 4-man party, that means you're getting safe haven for 50 GP per night per person. It's way higher than what an inn would normally cost, so I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.
I'd probably make it a bulky item, and not have more than one available at a time. I'd hopefully be able to tell the wizard this ahead of time; hopefully they said at some point "I'm going to take Tiny Hut." I don't want to SURPRISE them with "sorry you don't have the 40lb reagent statue" while they're out in the wilds- but I also make sure the casters know to purchase costly reagents ahead of time; gold doesn't instantly convert into "a 500gp diamond" etc when they need it.
 

steels12

Explorer
Did I miss your overall point? I thought the gist of what you were saying was: "yes the spell says it's a haven, but I don't think it should be a haven so I change the spell." Is that wrong?
You can change any feature/rule you like, it's your table!

Thread topic: What spells count as a Haven
The end of my first post: "by this standard I would argue that while very few spells directly provide an option for a haven, many spells can be used to indirectly create a haven by dealing with the hazards that prevent a haven"

My post was essentially trying to make a substantive argument as to what are the sufficient qualities that comprise a haven and how those qualities can be replicated via spells without necessitating an absolutely explicit statement of "havenhood" from the spell description itself
 

Remove ads

Top