Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7048110" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I've seen this so often on these boards as of late?  I thought 5e was the nostalgia/legacy/unification (except for 4e) edition?  If that is the premise, shouldn't it be that it is assumed that standard, edition-spanning D&D tropes are carried forth?  Do we need a citation for everything that isn't explicated in the DMG, PHB, or MM (because there is a lot that is not!)?  I hope not.Regardless, even if we do, we easily have that:1)  Wall of Force text:  "Nothing can physically pass through the wall...<snip>...The wall also extends into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel through the wall."Coupled with the edition-spanning, legacy, is this not enough?  No?  Ok...2)  DMG 48 Ethereal Plane entry:"...solid objects on the overlapped plane don't hamper the movement of a creature in the Border EthereaL The exceptions are certain magical effects (including anything made of magical force) and living beings."I'm sure you're thankful for the legwork, so a gentlemanly "you're welcome" back to you.  No, it still doesn't make sense.  If there is no floor, it cannot be dry if you place it on snow or on the open soil/bedrock when precipitation is ongoing.  You'll have groundwater intrusion, melting snow, etc.  Unless you have a magical force floor...which you do...I presume you didn't follow the link.  Ok, here it is.  Jeremy Crawford's Twitter's clarification (of which he is talking to himself in the third person to make fun of himself for an erroneous statement - that being "there is no floor" - a few months prior):"Leomund's tiny hut does have a floor, Mr. Crawford (read your own book). The spell's range entry says the effect is hemispherical. #DnD"And yes, I do understand the intent of Leomund.  We're on a first name basis.  After running every edition for a gajillion hours total I ought to be.And this is all fair enough.  It says "color" not "colors" (same as always).  Its never been able to be camouflaged in a "multiple hues of the background blending in like a chameleon sense."  Its simple though.  In arctic tundra?  White.  In a desert?  Color of the sand (khaki or whatever).  Dense jungle?  Color of the canopy (dark green).  Dark stone?  Slate grey (or whatever).Again, you can adjudicate that how you'd like (the system doesn't help you).  I'd say an Arcana check (perhaps with Advantage with a Survival assist or Disadvantage if the backdrop is particularly not conducive) contested by Perception (with Advantage on the check if the observer comes in close proximity or Disadvantage if there is particularly hostile cover/concealment for an observer...eg a white-out on the tundra).That's fine.</blockquote>

Verification