D&D 5E Leomund's Tiny Hut -- how to lower casting time?

[Werebat]

Looks to me like Leomund's Tiny Hut would be a totally OMG battlefield control spell if only that pesky ten-minute casting time could be brought down. It essentially creates a wall of force that the party can move through freely, but no one else can. Pressure your DM into allowing ranged attacks and spells to pass through, and you're IN!

Now, how to lower the casting time to one round?

 

[the Jester]

Seriously? You're looking to take a 3rd level spell that is entirely better than a 5th level spell except for the casting time, and lower the casting time while (I presume) keeping it a third level spell?

That would be a big fat "No Way" from me, as a dm. That long casting time is absolutely a must for keeping the spell balanced. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[abelmort]

The casting time is 1 minute in the PHB. It is only 10 minutes if you cast it as a ritual.

I agree with the Jester, lowering the cast time would make it overpowered. That being said, having your allies have to defend you while you concentrate on casting a spell for 10 rounds (to save you all from being overrun by a horde of enemies) could make for a fun encounter.

 

[kerbarian]

You might be able to do it with Glyph of Warding. It would take even longer to set up, it wouldn't be mobile, and it would cost you 200 gp each time. You'd also have to ignore the (arguably fluff) description that "you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures." But if you do have it set up, you could speak a word (not even taking an action) and have the Hut instantly spring up around you.

It's really more of a BBEG tactic than a player one, come to think of it .

 

[Werebat]

Seriously? You're looking to take a 3rd level spell that is entirely better than a 5th level spell except for the casting time, and lower the casting time while (I presume) keeping it a third level spell?

That would be a big fat "No Way" from me, as a dm. That long casting time is absolutely a must for keeping the spell balanced. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I'm looking for a way to do it via RAW. If the DM would like to break RAW in order to prevent it from working, well, he's free to cheat if he wants -- a *CREATIVE* DM would come up with ways to challenge players who used this tactic, but I guess there's no rules that say DMs have to be creative.

I'm liking what I see with Glyph of Warding! There are pesky details about the glyph being dispelled if cast "on an object" and then moved, but there is no such restriction against glyphs cast "on a surface", such as a table (thus, the TABLE could be moved after it is cast on it).

So if it were cast on the SURFACE of a 10X10 sheet of vellum, say, then the vellum could be folded up and transported safely and thrown down to the ground when needed -- instant super wall of force!

Since the PCs can move through the hut with their equipment, it stands to reason that they can make melee attacks through the hut. Since arrows and other ammo are equipment, it stands to reason that they can be fired through the hut's magical wall. And if we allow these things, we really must allow casters to cast spells through the hut's wall, just to be fair.

Since the DM has such wide discretion in 5e to interpret the rules as he wants, then it makes it pretty easy for the entire group of players to pressure him into making the interpretations that it wants him to make.

5e looks like it's gonna be COOL!

 

[kerbarian]

I'm liking what I see with Glyph of Warding! There are pesky details about the glyph being dispelled if cast "on an object" and then moved, but there is no such restriction against glyphs cast "on a surface", such as a table (thus, the TABLE could be moved after it is cast on it).

So if it were cast on the SURFACE of a 10X10 sheet of vellum, say, then the vellum could be folded up and transported safely and thrown down to the ground when needed -- instant super wall of force!

Since the PCs can move through the hut with their equipment, it stands to reason that they can make melee attacks through the hut. Since arrows and other ammo are equipment, it stands to reason that they can be fired through the hut's magical wall. And if we allow these things, we really must allow casters to cast spells through the hut's wall, just to be fair.

If you can fold it up and carry it with you, it's pretty clearly an object.

Also, "we really must allow [X], just to be fair" is not exactly a RAW argument .

 

[the Jester]

I'm looking for a way to do it via RAW. If the DM would like to break RAW in order to prevent it from working, well, he's free to cheat if he wants -- a *CREATIVE* DM would come up with ways to challenge players who used this tactic, but I guess there's no rules that say DMs have to be creative.

Fair enough. We haven't seen the final rules for scrolls, so it's possible that they won't require the full casting time. And other magic items might allow what you want, sort of. That said...

I'm liking what I see with Glyph of Warding! There are pesky details about the glyph being dispelled if cast "on an object" and then moved, but there is no such restriction against glyphs cast "on a surface", such as a table (thus, the TABLE could be moved after it is cast on it).

I think your interpretation of a surface is very dubious, to be honest. A sheet of vellum is an object. So is a table. In the context of the spell, I think it's pretty evident that a "surface" is something like a wall, floor or ceiling- that is to say, something that is suitable for drawing on, but is not an object.

Since the PCs can move through the hut with their equipment, it stands to reason that they can make melee attacks through the hut. Since arrows and other ammo are equipment, it stands to reason that they can be fired through the hut's magical wall. And if we allow these things, we really must allow casters to cast spells through the hut's wall, just to be fair.

I'll agree that creatures in the hut when it is formed can make weapon attacks through it. But the spell specifies that

Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it.

Since the DM has such wide discretion in 5e to interpret the rules as he wants, then it makes it pretty easy for the entire group of players to pressure him into making the interpretations that it wants him to make.

That certainly might work with certain DMs, and for groups of a certain mindset or playstyle. And I do think that it's good for DMs to listen to the players' point of view. But I have to come down pretty hard against the notion of the players pressuring the DM into calling things how they want. I wouldn't want to play under such a DM, and I wouldn't want that kind of group.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Sounds like you want to start an arms race with your DM, good luck with that!

 

[Werebat]

I think your interpretation of a surface is very dubious, to be honest. A sheet of vellum is an object. So is a table. In the context of the spell, I think it's pretty evident that a "surface" is something like a wall, floor or ceiling- that is to say, something that is suitable for drawing on, but is not an object.

You say that a table is an object. But on page 245 of the 5e Player's Handbook, under the description of the Glyph of Warding spell, it clearly states -- AND I QUOTE -- "...either upon a surface (such as a table or section of floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed..."

So the surface of a table is a surface, as is the surface of a sheet of vellum that can be folded -- NOT "closed"!

 

[Agamon]

You say that a table is an object. But on page 245 of the 5e Player's Handbook, under the description of the Glyph of Warding spell, it clearly states -- AND I QUOTE -- "...either upon a surface (such as a table or section of floor or wall) or within an object that can be closed..."

So the surface of a table is a surface, as is the surface of a sheet of vellum that can be folded -- NOT "closed"!

*blinks*

I'm not really sure what to say here, expect that I'm glad none of the 20 or people I've played D&D with this past year play the game like this.

The table's not an object? Okay, Brian van Hoose.