Really? If I have a ticking clock set to go off in a minute, then it goes off in a minute. Clocks measure time, that is their only purpose.
If I have barbarian, a cleric, and a rogue fighting gnolls.... how long until their hp hits zero? Can you give me a definitive time on that? No, you can't. You'd need a lot more information. You'd need levels, feats, abilities, actual HP values, AC values, to hit values, what types of gnolls, how many of them are there, what abilities do they have, what is the terrain, what is the environment... and even then you could not tell me with 100% accuracy when the fight would end, because none of that takes into account the d20 and how misses and critical hits would change the flow of battle.
A combat is not a ticking clock. Yes, there is an endpoint, but that's like saying your bank account is a ticking clock because it can run out of money. That isn't what the phrase means.
It only creates urgency in the fact that the players have limited hp and eventually an infinite tide of monsters will take them out. Also because they probably don't want to waste time on fights that have no reward or purpose. It therefore makes decisions more difficult because they are forced to rush, to avoid getting dragged into combat.
None of that makes the actual content of the exploration harder. As I have explained, many times already. All you are doing is punishing players via the combat pillar for things that they are doing in the exploration pillar. Then seemingly patting yourself on the back for making a good exploration pillar because of it.
If you are making a sandwich, being attacked by ninjas would make making that sandwich more difficult, not because making the sandwich is difficult, but because fighting ninjas is difficult. It doesn't make for a harder sandwich recipe.
I have, and Jeremy Crawford talked about magical projectiles, like fireball. But, he did specify this
If you can't read the Twitter it says "Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't cast it at someone or something behind total cover."
So, does the spell say otherwise? It certainly seems so since the spell states "The servant springs into existence in an unoccupied space on the ground within range." There is no requirement to even have line of sight to the space it is appearing in, let alone any sort of line of effect. And it is "springing into existence" not traveling anywhere. Since spells always do what they say, a spell that does not say you need to see your target doesn't need you to see the target, just like Shatter and a few other spells.
Oh noes! Fingers are pointing at me because I said a DM might make a ruling! The horror and shock, the pure shame I must feel. How dare I ever say that DMs might make a call different than the one you think is right.
Because, shockingly for how you guys keep trying to rake me over the coals of ultimate shame... that's all I did. I acknowledged that a DM might see this as a grey area. So, point all the fingers at me that you want. I fully admit that I am guilty of declaring that a DM might make a ruling you disagree with. Not that I would. Not that anyone I know ever has. Just that based on other issues that have come up involving a similar grey area, that it could be possibly something a DM might rule.
If you have no interest in changing your mind, why do you keep posting? See, I actually do want to create some understanding, and I find examples help by turning vague ideas into more concrete sets that people find it easier to wrap their heads around.
Because if fighting monsters is an exploration challenge, then what's the combat pillar of the game? Do we have two pillars, exploration and social? If so, man do the designers have egg on their faces from talking about a non-existent combat pillar.
Oh, the monster doesn't want to fight and we talk instead? Great, we generally refer to talking to NPCs (which a monster is) the social pillar of the game. Which, again, is not the exploration pillar of the game, because those are supposed to be different pillars.
