So the party loves to use Leomund's Tiny Hut and are currently going to be traveling in the desert. They plan to travel at night and rest during the day. So I have some questions.
1) I have creatures similar to Purple Worm, a Sand Worm, can this creature burrow in from beneath through the sand?
2) If a sandstorm comes during the daytime, would it be enough to completely cover the hut with sand? if so, what happens when the spell ends?
3) If a party member exits the hut and gets into an encounter and the creature grapples the party member, what if the PC tries to re-enter the hut?
This brings another question, it says PC's are allowed to enter and exit at will. What happens when they leave and grab a sword and try to re-enter. Does the sword enter with them?
Because it says - Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it. Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it.
It says All other objects and creatures are barred from passing through it. So if the sword was on the outside just because the PC can exit and enter can they bring it back in?
So the party loves to use Leomund's Tiny Hut and are currently going to be traveling in the desert. They plan to travel at night and rest during the day. So I have some questions.
1) I have creatures similar to Purple Worm, a Sand Worm, can this creature burrow in from beneath through the sand?
2) If a sandstorm comes during the daytime, would it be enough to completely cover the hut with sand? if so, what happens when the spell ends?
3) If a party member exits the hut and gets into an encounter and the creature grapples the party member, what if the PC tries to re-enter the hut?
This brings another question, it says PC's are allowed to enter and exit at will. What happens when they leave and grab a sword and try to re-enter. Does the sword enter with them?
Because it says - Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it. Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it.
It says All other objects and creatures are barred from passing through it. So if the sword was on the outside just because the PC can exit and enter can they bring it back in?
I'll give a shot at answering, although I don't have a perfect knowledge of the rules:
1) There have been innumerable threads dedicated to or hijacked by the argument over whether Tiny Hut includes a floor or is just a dome over a surface. As a DM you will need to make this call on your own, but your players should understand what your decision is.
2) I'd guess this is up to you, but I could imagine a sand storm moving enough sand to cover the entire hut. Yet again, this has to be a judgement call on how thick this layer might be, how much might just sluff off the domed shape, or even whether the sand below the hut might be removed by the storm to a certain extent.
3) I would assume that the party member would have to break the grapple to be able to move in the first place, I believe the grappled condition states that it reduces speed to 0.
For the sword question, the wording seems to indicate that if the object was not in the hut when it was created, then it would not be able to enter. I had not noticed that before. This would seem to mean that a character could never leave the hut to bring any outside object back into the hut.
You are the DM do as you will no judgement here. But this is how I would rule this and why after getting all this information from other DMs.
1. I do not believe that the Tiny Hut spell in either case has a floor. For two reasons. One, The spell reads that only the atmosphere inside the Hut is comfortable, it does not in any way imply the floor. Two because this is a low-level spell. I believe 2nd level. Wall of force (which is what a Tiny Hut is based on in a certain sense) which can be shaped by the caster is a 5th level spell. Since the Hut can last 8 hours we also assume somehow breathable air is created inside during that time. It's a spell that needs lots of rewriting in my opinion.
2. Yes a sandstorm can bury the Hut.
3. According to the spell if a party member other than the caster leaves and comes back that is fine. But I would rule that they cannot bring in anything new, grappled or picked up objects, save if they were to put it in a bag of holding or portable hole.
Those are just my takes from the long yet entertaining discussion on the link to my post about it. This spell needs some retooling in my opinion, as it breaks some heavy rules all at once.
Hope this helps. Just remember when in doubt you are the one making the ruling. Just make sure you are reasonable. As Dungeon Master you don't need to be fair.
So the party loves to use Leomund's Tiny Hut and are currently going to be traveling in the desert. They plan to travel at night and rest during the day. So I have some questions.
1) I have creatures similar to Purple Worm, a Sand Worm, can this creature burrow in from beneath through the sand?
2) If a sandstorm comes during the daytime, would it be enough to completely cover the hut with sand? if so, what happens when the spell ends?
3) If a party member exits the hut and gets into an encounter and the creature grapples the party member, what if the PC tries to re-enter the hut?
as others have said, disputed. Just make a ruling and tell your players ahead of time which way it works.
A realistic sandstorm is unlikely to move enough sand in a mere eight hours to cover a 10' dome. A cinematic sandstorm (or a malicious creature such as a dao casting move earth) can do whatever. When the spell ends, the sand falls on the occupants, burying them with undefined effects.
The PC has speed 0 due to being grappled and therefore cannot re-enter the hut, as doing so requires the ability to move. However, a PC who is able to move trying to re-enter the hut must leave behind anything that was not in the hut when the spell was cast.
I would rule they are still subject to creepy crawlies under the sand. I can say that because I have a similar encounter basis planned, lol.
When the spell ends, it collapses in on them unless thee sand is wet.
Going to depend on the power of the sand storm. Most storms only move s much as three feet, insofar as Earth, but if you want to swallow them whole go for it. Just remember that sand is granular and can vary from powdery to heavy particulate.
As noted, no moving when grappled. But let's say they get used as a battering ram -- the ram part won't be stopped, but the rammers will.
As for the floor thing...
Slip in a woven reed mat about 12' to a side that folds up. If they lay that down, then put the hut on top, it acts as a floor beneath an immovable object, and should give them a sense of feeling safe.
until the critters eat the mat...
bwahahahahahahahahahaha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The area of the hut is defined as a sphere. The top half is above ground and the bottom below it. No creatures can pass through the sphere unless they were allowed during the casting of the spell.
There would have to be a heck of a lot of sand around in order to burry the hut. Even then, it probably wouldn't inconvenience the party a whole lot.
No on the sword.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Is there any difference between the PHB Leomund's Tiny Hut as written on DDB and Tiny Hut as written on DDB, beyond the title and attribution to PHB and Basic Rules respectively? Specifically, does the stat section mention it being a hemisphere in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Because it doesn't in Tiny Hut but Leomund's Tiny Hut does in my physical book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Is there any difference between the PHB Leomund's Tiny Hut as written on DDB and Tiny Hut as written on DDB, beyond the title and attribution to PHB and Basic Rules respectively? Specifically, does the stat section mention it being a hemisphere in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Because it doesn't in Tiny Hut but Leomund's Tiny Hut does in my physical book.
They are the same. Only 'Leomund's' is removed from the latter to account for worlds where Leomund never existed to have developed the spell.
That's interesting then, because in that case DDB never actually references it being a hemisphere, and even more interesting because Crawford distinguishes between a dome and a hemisphere - changing his ruling according to which he sees as being the case - done no floor, hemisphere with a floor. It's interesting that DDB misses out what Crawford sees as being crucial to interpreting the rules.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
1) The Tiny Hut's spell description is a dome in the shape of a hemisphere. Rules as Written, it has a floor. Rules as Intended, it has a floor. That is why the word hemisphere was used in the range section of the spell's description. A Purple Worm (since it's a desert it could be Ashworms/Thunderherders) can burrow beneath it. Since whoever is in the Tiny Hut when it is formed can freely pass through it, you can then rule that they fall through the floor. Or the monsters can just wait until the spell ends.
2) Depending on the severity of the sandstorm, it could bury the hut, but the peak is 10' above the ground so it would have to be a very severe sandstorm. When the spell ends the sand will either be packed tight enough that it remains in a dome shape or the sand will collapse onto the players. Your choice.
3) If the player character is grappled by a creature their movement speed is zero and they can't re-enter the hut until the grapple is broken. They can then reenter and not be followed.
4) RAW the sword can not be brought in unless it is put in a bag of holding, portable hole or something similar. But is the party really going to look outside, see a sword that wasn't there before and actually walk outside the hut to get it?
If you really want to take the Tiny Hut away from the characters a Dispel Magic by an enemy caster would remove it. You can also use a non-magical, non-object to penetrate the Tiny Hut. A lot of people rule that a dragon's breath or natural poisonous gas qualifies for that.
That's interesting then, because in that case DDB never actually references it being a hemisphere, and even more interesting because Crawford distinguishes between a dome and a hemisphere - changing his ruling according to which he sees as being the case - done no floor, hemisphere with a floor. It's interesting that DDB misses out what Crawford sees as being crucial to interpreting the rules.
Ok, so, looking at it through game mechanics, the purpose of the hut is to provide a space that a party (5 to 7 people) can use to rest and recover in safety and relative comfort. THe underlying basis is "I want to not be rained on" if you go way back, but over time and editions it has changed to be much more practical a spell.
This perspective highlights a couple things -- one is that the hut is a smart decision by players in the wilds, the other is that it is intended and designed to establish a degree of safety.
Ergo, if a floor provides safety, then it likely has a floor.
If the weapon is a belonging that was dropped after a bad tumble, then going out to get it would likely be fine.
A big enough creature capable of swallowing a 20' diameter sphere could probably gobble the whole thing, but otherwise would need to find a way to disrupt the magic.
A sandstorm could potentially cover it. Personally, I would be interested in what created that sandstorm!
A grapled person could enter, and it would block the grappling thing -- however, a grappled person isn't going to be able to get in there easily.
Now you may note that this response is different from my previous one.
The reason is strictly the way one approaches the rules. Previously it was influenced by the aforementioned thread, lol, but also that's a "rules as written" style response, which isn't always int he best interest of the game or in line with the goal of the rule.
This response looks at it from a broad, contextual purpose viewpoint around the nature of why the spell exists and all that stuff.
In both cases, however, one thing to keep in mind at all times is that every single spell that players use is available to monsters, and monsters are generally supposed to be smarter and stronger than PCs (so there's, like, y'know, a challenge).
Since a ruling should apply equally to both sides of the divide there, if it is ruled that a player can do something, then a monster can do it as well. If a standard spell does something for players, then it does it for monsters as well.
EDIT:
So, a hemisphere is an imprecise term that can also mean any portion of a sphere (3/4, 1/4, 4/7ths, pick your size) because English is imprecise that way and trying to rely on "maths" is turning to an area outside the normal scope of common knowledge.
Arguing that a book that has been superseded at least four times by later publications is the final authority when DDB exists is foolish, inconstant, and facile. Go for it, but I find that line of reasoning to be unreasonable and lacking. This is not to say that DDB is perfect, but DDB updates with changes, such as the removal of certain books as Legacy, and is the most current basic ruleset. I don't give a rats ass what conventions there might have been established within the forums, that's just a simple fact.
The creation of DDB by a prior company involved a contractual agreement that ultimately lead to the purchase of the property, in no small part because they were using intellectual property and had to agree to licensing terms that were normative for the time (meaning, they had to post the rules as they were written to the best of their ability). That was noted and shared fairly widely -- enough that someone who didn't give a damn about it at the time was aware of it. Even excusing that, it has been maintained for a year and change now by its current owners, who have produced some fairly key works, and is officially noted as the primary portal for D&D going forward.
Relying on Crawford is an error, and actually undercuts the assertion that the final word is the published book that has been superseded, because no matter what he said when he wrote it, anything after publication is poisoned fruit. In terms of logic, relying on him is an appeal to an authority, and requires acceptance of that authority on the part of all concerned (which I do not). I mean, by that same exact token, I could turn to Cook, who has written far more rules for D&D and use his decisions on such. It is a hollow structure, and unworthy of effective practical use.
I teased a bit previously, but ultimately the spell has an intent in design and purpose, and was not clear, and, per the RAW, anything that is not clear is up to the DM.
Which means there can be as many different answers to the question as their are DMs, and none of them are wrong because they are all falling within RAW.
Arguing that your ruling is the only real ruling is arguing that other people are not able to make a ruling at their tables. THe pretext of the questions is long abandoned, and personally I think they should just make it a sphere that is equally bisected by the plane of the surface they are standing on (because holy cow there are some cool things you can do with that).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That's interesting then, because in that case DDB never actually references it being a hemisphere, and even more interesting because Crawford distinguishes between a dome and a hemisphere - changing his ruling according to which he sees as being the case - done no floor, hemisphere with a floor. It's interesting that DDB misses out what Crawford sees as being crucial to interpreting the rules.
If you look at the range section of DDB there is a sphere. DDB was not created by WotC, it was just purchased by them.
Jeremy Crawford made a mistake with his original ruling because he missed the word hemisphere. He then corrected it after rereading the spell.
Yes, but it's not a sphere, it's a hemisphere. And DDB fr was under strict rules as to how they could do things - nearly everything was done under strict instruction from WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Is there any difference between the PHB Leomund's Tiny Hut as written on DDB and Tiny Hut as written on DDB, beyond the title and attribution to PHB and Basic Rules respectively? Specifically, does the stat section mention it being a hemisphere in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Because it doesn't in Tiny Hut but Leomund's Tiny Hut does in my physical book.
They are the same. Only 'Leomund's' is removed from the latter to account for worlds where Leomund never existed to have developed the spell.
That's interesting then, because in that case DDB never actually references it being a hemisphere, and even more interesting because Crawford distinguishes between a dome and a hemisphere - changing his ruling according to which he sees as being the case - done no floor, hemisphere with a floor. It's interesting that DDB misses out what Crawford sees as being crucial to interpreting the rules.
A dome is a hemisphere, not a sphere. Around and above (but no mention of below) is a hemisphere, not a sphere. They do not use the specific word 'hemisphere' but do not use the word 'sphere' either (symbol but not word)... and they do describe a hemisphere for the effect.
Tiny Hut literally does not mention hemisphere on DDB, at all, it only has a diagram of a sphere. In the text it mentions a dome (not a hemisphere), which Crawford distinguishes from a hemisphere as one having a floor and one not. This was all in the text you've quoted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yes, but it's not a sphere, it's a hemisphere. And DDB fr was under strict rules as to how they could do things - nearly everything was done under strict instruction from WotC.
Of course it's a sphere in DDB. Sphere is one of the five Area of Effect source descriptions found on page 204 of the Player's Handbook. Hemisphere is not. Why would they code that in for one single spell? I've read that Cloud of Daggers has a "crit damage" field on DDB and it's impossible for that spell to crit. It doesn't matter what DDB states, the PHB is the official rule source and it has hemisphere in the description. Rules as Written the Tiny Hut has a floor. Rules as Intended the Tiny Hut has a floor.
If you are the DM and you want to take that floor away because you don't like your players having a secure place to rest and you don't want to bother with Dispel Magic on it, then you are free to do that. It doesn't change the RAW or the RAI.
If you want to use DDB and ignore the PHB you can also do that, it's your game. But then it is a sphere. The "floor" would be the ground and if something burrowed away the ground under the Hut, because it is now a sphere and not a hemisphere, the "floor" wouldn't disappear. There would be a floating orb, because it is immovable, with the bottom half filled with dirt.
Btw where is this information that WotC strictly controlled DDB's creation coming from?
Jeremy Crawford made a mistake with his original ruling because he missed the word hemisphere. He then corrected it after rereading the spell.
Jeremy Crawford read the spell correctly the first time and made a mistake on his second pass; a hemisphere does not have a base. Also, I suspect he was actually influenced by someone else reading the spell, not him rereading the spell. Finally, neither version of the ruling ever made it into SAC, and JC says all kinds of random stuff, so I wouldn't put a lot of weight on what he said.
I always pictured it as a dome of force, which is half above, and half below ground. Nothing should be able to dig under it and enter.
If something can see/discern the Hut, I suppose it can be dispelled. Any DM should be able to get the players into a fight they are needed in, or create some other situation out of the hut. If you start getting attacked in it, they're not going to use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the party loves to use Leomund's Tiny Hut and are currently going to be traveling in the desert. They plan to travel at night and rest during the day. So I have some questions.
1: No. Tiny Hut has a floor.
2: Doubtful.
3: The player would have to break the grapple before they can move.
4: I don’t think so.
I'll give a shot at answering, although I don't have a perfect knowledge of the rules:
1) There have been innumerable threads dedicated to or hijacked by the argument over whether Tiny Hut includes a floor or is just a dome over a surface. As a DM you will need to make this call on your own, but your players should understand what your decision is.
2) I'd guess this is up to you, but I could imagine a sand storm moving enough sand to cover the entire hut. Yet again, this has to be a judgement call on how thick this layer might be, how much might just sluff off the domed shape, or even whether the sand below the hut might be removed by the storm to a certain extent.
3) I would assume that the party member would have to break the grapple to be able to move in the first place, I believe the grappled condition states that it reduces speed to 0.
For the sword question, the wording seems to indicate that if the object was not in the hut when it was created, then it would not be able to enter. I had not noticed that before. This would seem to mean that a character could never leave the hut to bring any outside object back into the hut.
First I asked some questions about the Tiny hut and Lemund's tiny Hut spell. We beat it to death here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/180950-tiny-hut-spell-and-area-of-effect-sphere-spells
You are the DM do as you will no judgement here. But this is how I would rule this and why after getting all this information from other DMs.
1. I do not believe that the Tiny Hut spell in either case has a floor. For two reasons. One, The spell reads that only the atmosphere inside the Hut is comfortable, it does not in any way imply the floor. Two because this is a low-level spell. I believe 2nd level. Wall of force (which is what a Tiny Hut is based on in a certain sense) which can be shaped by the caster is a 5th level spell. Since the Hut can last 8 hours we also assume somehow breathable air is created inside during that time. It's a spell that needs lots of rewriting in my opinion.
2. Yes a sandstorm can bury the Hut.
3. According to the spell if a party member other than the caster leaves and comes back that is fine. But I would rule that they cannot bring in anything new, grappled or picked up objects, save if they were to put it in a bag of holding or portable hole.
Those are just my takes from the long yet entertaining discussion on the link to my post about it. This spell needs some retooling in my opinion, as it breaks some heavy rules all at once.
Hope this helps. Just remember when in doubt you are the one making the ruling. Just make sure you are reasonable. As Dungeon Master you don't need to be fair.
I live my life like a West Marches campaign, A swirling vortex of Ambitions and Insecurities.
Is now a bad time to mention that ...
Nah.
I would rule they are still subject to creepy crawlies under the sand. I can say that because I have a similar encounter basis planned, lol.
When the spell ends, it collapses in on them unless thee sand is wet.
Going to depend on the power of the sand storm. Most storms only move s much as three feet, insofar as Earth, but if you want to swallow them whole go for it. Just remember that sand is granular and can vary from powdery to heavy particulate.
As noted, no moving when grappled. But let's say they get used as a battering ram -- the ram part won't be stopped, but the rammers will.
As for the floor thing...
Slip in a woven reed mat about 12' to a side that folds up. If they lay that down, then put the hut on top, it acts as a floor beneath an immovable object, and should give them a sense of feeling safe.
until the critters eat the mat...
bwahahahahahahahahahaha
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The area of the hut is defined as a sphere. The top half is above ground and the bottom below it. No creatures can pass through the sphere unless they were allowed during the casting of the spell.
There would have to be a heck of a lot of sand around in order to burry the hut. Even then, it probably wouldn't inconvenience the party a whole lot.
No on the sword.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Range: Self (10-foot-radius hemisphere)
Whether this means it has a floor is disputed, but a hemisphere is clearly not a sphere.
I could be wrong but
looks like a sphere to me.
And how would you keep the atmosphere out while letting creatures in?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Is there any difference between the PHB Leomund's Tiny Hut as written on DDB and Tiny Hut as written on DDB, beyond the title and attribution to PHB and Basic Rules respectively? Specifically, does the stat section mention it being a hemisphere in Leomund's Tiny Hut? Because it doesn't in Tiny Hut but Leomund's Tiny Hut does in my physical book.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's interesting then, because in that case DDB never actually references it being a hemisphere, and even more interesting because Crawford distinguishes between a dome and a hemisphere - changing his ruling according to which he sees as being the case - done no floor, hemisphere with a floor. It's interesting that DDB misses out what Crawford sees as being crucial to interpreting the rules.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/823774362293542912?lang=en
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're the DM. You have the final ruling.
1) The Tiny Hut's spell description is a dome in the shape of a hemisphere. Rules as Written, it has a floor. Rules as Intended, it has a floor. That is why the word hemisphere was used in the range section of the spell's description. A Purple Worm (since it's a desert it could be Ashworms/Thunderherders) can burrow beneath it. Since whoever is in the Tiny Hut when it is formed can freely pass through it, you can then rule that they fall through the floor. Or the monsters can just wait until the spell ends.
2) Depending on the severity of the sandstorm, it could bury the hut, but the peak is 10' above the ground so it would have to be a very severe sandstorm. When the spell ends the sand will either be packed tight enough that it remains in a dome shape or the sand will collapse onto the players. Your choice.
3) If the player character is grappled by a creature their movement speed is zero and they can't re-enter the hut until the grapple is broken. They can then reenter and not be followed.
4) RAW the sword can not be brought in unless it is put in a bag of holding, portable hole or something similar. But is the party really going to look outside, see a sword that wasn't there before and actually walk outside the hut to get it?
If you really want to take the Tiny Hut away from the characters a Dispel Magic by an enemy caster would remove it. You can also use a non-magical, non-object to penetrate the Tiny Hut. A lot of people rule that a dragon's breath or natural poisonous gas qualifies for that.
If you look at the range section of DDB there is a sphere. DDB was not created by WotC, it was just purchased by them.
Jeremy Crawford made a mistake with his original ruling because he missed the word hemisphere. He then corrected it after rereading the spell.
Ok, so, looking at it through game mechanics, the purpose of the hut is to provide a space that a party (5 to 7 people) can use to rest and recover in safety and relative comfort. THe underlying basis is "I want to not be rained on" if you go way back, but over time and editions it has changed to be much more practical a spell.
This perspective highlights a couple things -- one is that the hut is a smart decision by players in the wilds, the other is that it is intended and designed to establish a degree of safety.
Ergo, if a floor provides safety, then it likely has a floor.
Now you may note that this response is different from my previous one.
The reason is strictly the way one approaches the rules. Previously it was influenced by the aforementioned thread, lol, but also that's a "rules as written" style response, which isn't always int he best interest of the game or in line with the goal of the rule.
This response looks at it from a broad, contextual purpose viewpoint around the nature of why the spell exists and all that stuff.
In both cases, however, one thing to keep in mind at all times is that every single spell that players use is available to monsters, and monsters are generally supposed to be smarter and stronger than PCs (so there's, like, y'know, a challenge).
Since a ruling should apply equally to both sides of the divide there, if it is ruled that a player can do something, then a monster can do it as well. If a standard spell does something for players, then it does it for monsters as well.
EDIT:
So, a hemisphere is an imprecise term that can also mean any portion of a sphere (3/4, 1/4, 4/7ths, pick your size) because English is imprecise that way and trying to rely on "maths" is turning to an area outside the normal scope of common knowledge.
Arguing that a book that has been superseded at least four times by later publications is the final authority when DDB exists is foolish, inconstant, and facile. Go for it, but I find that line of reasoning to be unreasonable and lacking. This is not to say that DDB is perfect, but DDB updates with changes, such as the removal of certain books as Legacy, and is the most current basic ruleset. I don't give a rats ass what conventions there might have been established within the forums, that's just a simple fact.
The creation of DDB by a prior company involved a contractual agreement that ultimately lead to the purchase of the property, in no small part because they were using intellectual property and had to agree to licensing terms that were normative for the time (meaning, they had to post the rules as they were written to the best of their ability). That was noted and shared fairly widely -- enough that someone who didn't give a damn about it at the time was aware of it. Even excusing that, it has been maintained for a year and change now by its current owners, who have produced some fairly key works, and is officially noted as the primary portal for D&D going forward.
Relying on Crawford is an error, and actually undercuts the assertion that the final word is the published book that has been superseded, because no matter what he said when he wrote it, anything after publication is poisoned fruit. In terms of logic, relying on him is an appeal to an authority, and requires acceptance of that authority on the part of all concerned (which I do not). I mean, by that same exact token, I could turn to Cook, who has written far more rules for D&D and use his decisions on such. It is a hollow structure, and unworthy of effective practical use.
I teased a bit previously, but ultimately the spell has an intent in design and purpose, and was not clear, and, per the RAW, anything that is not clear is up to the DM.
Which means there can be as many different answers to the question as their are DMs, and none of them are wrong because they are all falling within RAW.
Arguing that your ruling is the only real ruling is arguing that other people are not able to make a ruling at their tables. THe pretext of the questions is long abandoned, and personally I think they should just make it a sphere that is equally bisected by the plane of the surface they are standing on (because holy cow there are some cool things you can do with that).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yes, but it's not a sphere, it's a hemisphere. And DDB fr was under strict rules as to how they could do things - nearly everything was done under strict instruction from WotC.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Tiny Hut literally does not mention hemisphere on DDB, at all, it only has a diagram of a sphere. In the text it mentions a dome (not a hemisphere), which Crawford distinguishes from a hemisphere as one having a floor and one not. This was all in the text you've quoted.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Of course it's a sphere in DDB. Sphere is one of the five Area of Effect source descriptions found on page 204 of the Player's Handbook. Hemisphere is not. Why would they code that in for one single spell? I've read that Cloud of Daggers has a "crit damage" field on DDB and it's impossible for that spell to crit. It doesn't matter what DDB states, the PHB is the official rule source and it has hemisphere in the description. Rules as Written the Tiny Hut has a floor. Rules as Intended the Tiny Hut has a floor.
If you are the DM and you want to take that floor away because you don't like your players having a secure place to rest and you don't want to bother with Dispel Magic on it, then you are free to do that. It doesn't change the RAW or the RAI.
If you want to use DDB and ignore the PHB you can also do that, it's your game. But then it is a sphere. The "floor" would be the ground and if something burrowed away the ground under the Hut, because it is now a sphere and not a hemisphere, the "floor" wouldn't disappear. There would be a floating orb, because it is immovable, with the bottom half filled with dirt.
Btw where is this information that WotC strictly controlled DDB's creation coming from?
Jeremy Crawford read the spell correctly the first time and made a mistake on his second pass; a hemisphere does not have a base. Also, I suspect he was actually influenced by someone else reading the spell, not him rereading the spell. Finally, neither version of the ruling ever made it into SAC, and JC says all kinds of random stuff, so I wouldn't put a lot of weight on what he said.
Well whatever way you want to interpret the rules it's GM dick move to easily defeat the hut by merely digging under it.
I suppose the same could be said of the sword. Just dig a hole under the hut and throw the sword in.
For me that makes no sense and I will never rule in favor of no floor in my game.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I always pictured it as a dome of force, which is half above, and half below ground. Nothing should be able to dig under it and enter.
If something can see/discern the Hut, I suppose it can be dispelled. Any DM should be able to get the players into a fight they are needed in, or create some other situation out of the hut. If you start getting attacked in it, they're not going to use it.