D&D 5E The Dangers of Overreliance on Leomund's Tiny Hut (3rd Level Spell)

[S'mon]

First, can you give a reference in the current ruleset? If not this is a DM call.

Second, the ghost sinks into the ground and comes up from underneath. Unless you give the hut a floor that it does not state that it has.


A hemisphere is literally half of a sphere. Half of a hollow sphere does not include a "floor".


Umm ... magic anyone? This is not a physical structure, it's a magical one.



Good to know you can derive intent of not only a fictional character, but the WOTC design team.

It's a hollow hemisphere and does not state it has a floor. That's all the rules say ... feel free to add to the rules all you want.



Imagine you're walking through a forest. You look over and there's a tent. One of those big family size 10 foot tall, 20 foot diameter tents in a small clearing. Do you think you would notice it, even if it was green?

That's a hut colored green. Why would you not see it? Even if it was covered in brush? If you have someone in the party that can apply camoflauge and if your party takes the time to apply it then you need to determine a DC based on the skill used to do the camoflauge. But it's still a pretty dang huge structure.

Admittedly it's going to depend on distance and all sorts of other environmental factors. I would rule that all you can change the color of the hut to a single monochromatic color. It doesn't say it has chameleon-like powers, or that it can have camaflouge-like markings. You can't make it invisible.

IMHO you are making a useful spell highly overpowered. That's your prerogative, but to paraphrase The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means".

I'd say he was making an overpowered spell (3rd level spell, should be 6th) even more overpowered (should be about 8th).

Edit: Even my most powergamery players have never tried arguing that the spell creates a floor. It's
bad enough when people adduce text from level 6 Wall of Force spell and claim it's relevant to a level
3 LTH spell.

But I think the important thing about this spell is not exactly what it does, but that it reduces enjoyment - specifically my enjoyment - at the table. I've not banned it but I definitely wish the designers had either not included it, or done a much better job in designing the 5e version.

 

[S'mon]

I disagree with #2, and we may differ somewhat on #1 as well though it's hard to tell from what you've written.

I think changing the color is not sufficient to supply camouflage; I think the most I'd allow is a Survival check to find a place where the variations in coloration which the tent can supply are sufficient to mask it, somewhat. In other words, I'd probably impose Perception checks on any enemy trying to spot the thing, with a DC of either 12 or the PC's Survival roll, whichever is lower, and only if there is a suitable (naturalistic or dark) place to put it. I don't think it's possible to hide it better than DC 12ish, given the constraints.

RE: #1, based on historical usage of the spell in AD&D, and the wording of Leomund's Tiny Hut vs. Wall of Force/Forcecage in 5E, I would rule that the hut is not indestructible. It prevents physical travel through it while it exists, just like a stone wall does, but unlike a Wall of Force it can be brought down by sufficient force. Leomund's Tiny Hut is not Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Fortress; it is what it is designed to be, Leomund's Portable Secure House. For simplicity, I'd say it's as robust as six inches of stone wall from Wall of Stone. That's AC 15 and 180 HP, which is plenty to make it useful and give you time to pull out some weapons/whatever even if a giant does start trying to huff and puff his way into the hut; but it's now just a resting place, and not an invulnerable stronghold.

I suspect, based on discussion so far and the type of questions that you're asking, that you probably rule differently; but I am only guessing.

I don't generally rule that force effects take damage, but I certainly rule they are not infinitely
powerful unless indicated by the spell (Wall of Force is very strong). Trying to force your way
through a LTH seems a good case for opposed STR/Athletics vs INT/Arcana rolls - I take a hint from 4e which handled this stuff well, treating martial & arcane as equally viable sources of power, rather
than from 3e which tended to assume caster/magic supremacy.

 

[S'mon]

I like the 4e version I just googled - http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Leomund's_Tiny_Hut - arguably the casting cost makes it a bit underpowered given that anyone can pass through it.

 

[MarkChevallier]

A dome covers a hemispherical area, a hemisphere is not a dome.

This isn't complex stuff - look them up in a dictionary. I am not making an argument, I am explaining that a mistake has been made in interpretation.

To use a simple illustration;

Get a glass bowl and turn it upside down. This is quite literally a dome. Then turn it back around for ease of use and fill it with water. The water fills a space which is a hemisphere.

The glass is the force effect and the water is the environmental effect (maintenance of comfortable conditions).

Now use ONE word to describe the area of the spell in its entirety?

That's right, it's a hemisphere - there is no other word for it.

HOWEVER - at no point however did a glass 'floor' suddenly appear on the bowl because we used the word hemisphere to describe the area taken up by the combination of the entirely different force (glass) and environmental (water) elements of the spell.

The glass bowl is still a dome, and one with no 'floor'.

I cannot see how it can be any clearer... (pun intended...)

As I made clear in my earlier post you are factually incorrect to assert that a hemisphere - half a sphere - must have a floor. A sphere is hollow using the only consistent definition, that from geometry. You might imagine a solid sphere (a closed 3 dimensional disc in geometric terms) but half of that would have no interior, no room for people to occupy, it would be solid if you want to retain coherency with your definitions. Time to admit that it's your personal preference (and clearly that of the writer, too, so you have other arguments too) that it has a floor, not any kind of natural reading of the spell.

Edited: just realised I misread your post. Please ignore my mistaken ramblings.

 

[pemerton]

A dome covers a hemispherical area, a hemisphere is not a dome.

This isn't complex stuff

I don't see how any of this bears on the question of whether or not the word "hemisphere" appears in the spell text. You said that "the wording is very clear - with no mention of hemisphere". But there is such a mention: the range of the spell is described as a 10' R hemisphere.

If I told you that I have created a hollow 10' R hemisphere, and invited you to step into it with me, would you expect my structure to have a floor or not? I imagine that such expectations are going to vary across individuals, but someone who did expect a floor wouldn't be crazy, nor in need of looking up the word "hemisphere" in a dictionary.

Equally, if I read a review of a new building (eg a hut) that described it as a dome, I wouldn't therefore assume that it had no floor. My primary thought would be that the building is circular at its base and curves from the ground up to its highest point in (more or less) the shape of a sphere. And the spell, after all, is called Leomund's Tiny Hut, not Leomound's Dome or Leomund's Roof. And a hut is suggestive of a building, which certainly doesn't rule out a floor.

Hence the point made by some posters upthread, that the use of "hemisphere" at one point in the text, and "dome" at another point, even if the words push in different directions - which is not itself clear - leaves the question of a floor somewhat unresolved. And hence my view that this question of adjudication is not primarily about semantics. It's about function, gameplay, ingame logic (eg why would Leomund design a spell one way rather than the other), etc. Naturally this will differ from table to table.

 

[pemerton]

While it's not necessarily overpowered, I find adjudicating it to be annoying. The metagame intent of the spell seems to be to allow PC groups to evade the dangers of camping in wilderness or dungeon. I don't really get why that is desirable. For one thing it encourages "15 minute adventuring day" and discourages any possibility of "6-8 encounters per adventuring day" since it encourages camping whenever resources are depleted.

I do think that a generous interpretation of the strength of the forcefield makes it overpowered compared to Wall of Force, the traditional benchmark for force spells, and allows abusive/creative treatments. I think overall it's a very poorly designed spell, comparable to 2e Stoneskin or 4e Moment of Glory in its detrimental effects on the game.

I think this is a much more profitable way of analysing the spell then trying to establish, on a semantic basis, whether or not the hut has a floor.

I agree that the metagame intent seems clear. Which is why I personally find the bulette, piles of rocks, etc "countermeasures" pretty irrelevant. Either one embraces the metagame intent and uses the spell as you describe, or else one rejects the metagame intent and hence doesn't include the spell in one's game (removing it, gentlemen's agreement to ignore it, whatever).

But "t-t for tat" GMing with the goal of defeating the metagame intent while leaving the spell itself part of the game just seems like a pursuit of the worst elements of Gygaxian adversarialism. It's up there with pits that trigger when the floor 8' to 10' in front of them is prodded. It doesn't seem to add much to the game.

(EDITED due to conflict with the profanity filter.)

 

[CydKnight]

Let's take two examples. A wiffle ball (a hollow plastic baseball) and a standard baseball. Cut both in half.

They both represent a hemispherical shape. However, the wiffle ball does not suddenly gain a "bottom". The baseball only has a bottom because it is a solid object.

The wiffle ball could form a dome above and around a miniature as the text for Leomund's Tiny Hut states. A baseball would just smush the miniature I spent hours painting into the dirt. That would make me quite sad. I don't like being sad.

We aren't talking about balls cut-in-half so this comparison only goes so far. A hemisphere can absolutely have a base (floor) while still being hollow. Your comparison here makes an assumption that a baseball like hemisphere would smush the miniature but the actual spell in question allows for creatures to enter and leave at will so I don't feel that it would smush.

 

[Caliburn101]

I don't see how any of this bears on the question of whether or not the word "hemisphere" appears in the spell text. You said that "the wording is very clear - with no mention of hemisphere". But there is such a mention: the range of the spell is described as a 10' R hemisphere.

If I told you that I have created a hollow 10' R hemisphere, and invited you to step into it with me, would you expect my structure to have a floor or not? I imagine that such expectations are going to vary across individuals, but someone who did expect a floor wouldn't be crazy, nor in need of looking up the word "hemisphere" in a dictionary.

Equally, if I read a review of a new building (eg a hut) that described it as a dome, I wouldn't therefore assume that it had no floor. My primary thought would be that the building is circular at its base and curves from the ground up to its highest point in (more or less) the shape of a sphere. And the spell, after all, is called Leomund's Tiny Hut, not Leomound's Dome or Leomund's Roof. And a hut is suggestive of a building, which certainly doesn't rule out a floor.

Hence the point made by some posters upthread, that the use of "hemisphere" at one point in the text, and "dome" at another point, even if the words push in different directions - which is not itself clear - leaves the question of a floor somewhat unresolved. And hence my view that this question of adjudication is not primarily about semantics. It's about function, gameplay, ingame logic (eg why would Leomund design a spell one way rather than the other), etc. Naturally this will differ from table to table.

You use the word 'semantics' to characterise what I say and then use precisely this yourself. I went to some length to point out the word hemisphere didn't appear in the spell description (and it doesn't) and also made it clear it is a standard term used only in defining range/area.

I gave you a perfectly simple example of why this is exactly so - but to you, it is significantly more important that the spell title includes the word 'hut', as you see it, by your own admission as 'suggestive' of a floor...

... in that spirit, should GMs start ruling that as it's 'Leomund's', no caster can legally enter the area of the spell without his permission, or that Mordenkainen's Sword has an inscription on it urging the caster to return the sword to the Archmage?

Any further discourse between the two of us on this particular point seems entirely fruitless. Let's leave it here.

 

[Caliburn101]

removed due to double post

 

[CydKnight]

Any further discourse between the two of us on this particular point seems entirely fruitless. Let's leave it here.

But that would mean that you get the last word which doesn't seem fair.