I absolutely hate how this spell was written.... It is the only invulnerable item/thing in the game.
A dispel magic spell brings the hut down automatically. Creatures can burrow underneath the dome. It takes a minute to cast. There was never anything invulnerable about this spell and it can really only be cast when you are already reasonably safe (ya need an uninterrupted minute to get it up.) It was designed to move play along once long rests become a major concern for characters, about 4th level and up.
You could leave the spell as it was and become a little creative to discourage players from abusing it.
The source material you just quoted does not ever use the word 'Hemisphere', nor does it use the word 'floor'. Jeremy Crawford clarified this, as linked earlier in the thread. Digging under it is possible but repeatedly doing so is either a dick move on the DM's part or a sign that the players are too stupid to live, depending on how feasible it is for burrowing creatures to exist in a given area.
The source material and the Players Handbook list the rangeas hemisphere then the description labels it a dome. There is no description of a hemisphere in the Players handbook, just sphere, cylinder, cone etc ...
I pretty much hate this spell. It's overpowered for a 3rd level spell; it essentially functions as an invulnerable (not even Night Hags can penetrate it via dreams) fort which the PCs can fire out of but monsters cannot fire into (except for dragon breath, if you except the ruling that dragon's breath itself is neither magical nor an object).
However, as has been remarked in multiple threads and posts, it's not unassailable. It can be brought down by more than one spell. It can be buried under debris or rocks....but this is not the challenge you might think. The wording of the spell means that the PCs inside the hut can exit it any any point; this means a shapeshifting PC can exit through the floor of the dome and, if they've assumed the shape of a creature with burrowing speed, dig an escape tunnel away from/around the debris.
I think there are two easy ways to make this spell a bit less overpowered. First, remove the ritual tag. Second, as with find familiar, require a material component that represents a real but not crippling or unrealistic expense (a model hut or house that costs XX gp).
Why would anything with even a semblance of intelligence hang around the dome if arrows are flying out of it? Animals are not ignorant.
Any kind of sentient being would just set up watch out side the dome and wait for someone to come out.
If anyone inside the dome can alter their shape and burrow away why couldn't they just do that without the dome.
If your worried about someone using it during combat remember the casting time. It is far longer than a few combat turns. The casting effectively takes the caster out of the combat until the spell goes up, if he gets to finish the cast without being disturbed.
As for ritual spells. Just outlaw all ritual spells if you do not like them.
Oh, I've waited them out. Had a coven of hags with a customized spell list use plant growth and dispel magic from a distance. And the hags had allies with ranged weapons.
Or just discuss it with the players if you feel they're abusing it. I know some consider it heresy to communicate with the players about choices they're making that are adversely affecting the game, but I think talking about it and finding a solution that satisfies both the players' desire to have the occasional night without the horses hell rampaging through their camp every half hour as well as the gaming need to have interesting stuff happen at night.
So talk to them. Maybe the spell only works once and then needs to recharge for three nights, so they have to be careful of when to use it. Or perhaps the spellcaster has to maintain concentration throughout it's "up time", so they'll start the next day with their caster having (another) level of exhaustion. I wouldn't impose these penalties without discussing the problem first though, and if the players have a good mindset, they'll agree there's a problem with it and be willing to compromise so it doesn't degrade the game.
As an example, I was running Rime of the Frostmaiden and told the party that it would have a substantial survivalist element. One of them had already decided to be a Druid, and was going through their spell lost and found Goodberry, which neither of us knew existed before, saw that it would be Gah! I just gently brought up that since survival was a substantial part of this module and having a spell that essentially removes any and all need for food for two days in exchange for a first level slot once every two days would remove a large chunk of the tone and even enjoyment of the game. She thought for a second, and agreed. She offered a compromise; she'd keep the spell, but it would only be used in emergencies. I was fine with that - if the party got to the point, they'd have other problems as well, and I'd be considering Deus Ex Machina-ing a solution for their food anyway.
Just communicate with your party. Talk about your concerns, and they might self regulate anyway. That way, you don't have to ban the spell, or become antagonistic in your attempts to "unbreak" the game.
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.
Or just discuss it with the players if you feel they're abusing it. I know some consider it heresy to communicate with the players about choices they're making that are adversely affecting the game, but I think talking about it and finding a solution that satisfies both the players' desire to have the occasional night without the horses hell rampaging through their camp every half hour as well as the gaming need to have interesting stuff happen at night.
So talk to them. Maybe the spell only works once and then needs to recharge for three nights, so they have to be careful of when to use it. Or perhaps the spellcaster has to maintain concentration throughout it's "up time", so they'll start the next day with their caster having (another) level of exhaustion. I wouldn't impose these penalties without discussing the problem first though, and if the players have a good mindset, they'll agree there's a problem with it and be willing to compromise so it doesn't degrade the game.
As an example, I was running Rime of the Frostmaiden and told the party that it would have a substantial survivalist element. One of them had already decided to be a Druid, and was going through their spell lost and found Goodberry, which neither of us knew existed before, saw that it would be Gah! I just gently brought up that since survival was a substantial part of this module and having a spell that essentially removes any and all need for food for two days in exchange for a first level slot once every two days would remove a large chunk of the tone and even enjoyment of the game. She thought for a second, and agreed. She offered a compromise; she'd keep the spell, but it would only be used in emergencies. I was fine with that - if the party got to the point, they'd have other problems as well, and I'd be considering Deus Ex Machina-ing a solution for their food anyway.
Just communicate with your party. Talk about your concerns, and they might self regulate anyway. That way, you don't have to ban the spell, or become antagonistic in your attempts to "unbreak" the game.
I've always viewed Tiny Hut, Goodberry, and Create/Destroy Water as "I don't like book keeping" spells. If your game is destroyed by a lack of book keeping, perhaps the spells aren't the problem.
The PC's are asleep. Bandits can and would set traps around them for them to stumble into when they wake up for a pee.
Eidt: Historically, enemies have also been known to yell at each other at night to make sure the enemies don't sleep well / it invalidates their long rest.
Maybe elements of the game, like food, water, shelter and other things related to survival, that a class was built around, can contribute more to an adventure than just bookkeeping.
I often find complaints about alleged "bookkeeping" to be odd. The entirety of 5e is about bookkeeping - it's just that we use that information to help develop the story. How many spell slots, how much gold and you have, how many attacks you have, it's all bookkeeping, but important for their aspects of the game and so long as you implement consequences for how you use those resources, it can all very much contribite to the game.
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.
Just communicate with your party. Talk about your concerns, and they might self regulate anyway. That way, you don't have to ban the spell, or become antagonistic in your attempts to "unbreak" the game.
Normally, I'd be in favor of this. There are a number of factors in my particular situation/group that make this a likely non-starter.
My approach for the remainder the current campaign will be a mix. Sometimes they'll encounter foes who can (through dispel magic or other means) deal with the hut. Sometimes they'll encounter foes who either won't understand or see the hut and the party will have the choice whether to engage. Sometimes I'll use the barrier as a way to build atmosphere (such as last game session, a coven of night hags chose to not take down the hut but came right up to it and let the party know they know they're there and will be waiting for another opportunity to deal with them). Sometimes foes will try to use the party being pinned down in one location against them (bury them in boulders/dirt/snow, cast plant growth all around the hut and wait for the party to emerge and attack with ranged weapons).
Start of next campaign, though, I will be bringing it up and communicating some house rules about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A dispel magic spell brings the hut down automatically. Creatures can burrow underneath the dome. It takes a minute to cast. There was never anything invulnerable about this spell and it can really only be cast when you are already reasonably safe (ya need an uninterrupted minute to get it up.) It was designed to move play along once long rests become a major concern for characters, about 4th level and up.
You could leave the spell as it was and become a little creative to discourage players from abusing it.
Jeremy Crawford corrected his earlier ruling:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/823774362293542912?s=20&t=RpZPpxZRg2IQ4U7hvj46zA
The source material and the Players Handbook list the range as hemisphere then the description labels it a dome. There is no description of a hemisphere in the Players handbook, just sphere, cylinder, cone etc ...
I pretty much hate this spell. It's overpowered for a 3rd level spell; it essentially functions as an invulnerable (not even Night Hags can penetrate it via dreams) fort which the PCs can fire out of but monsters cannot fire into (except for dragon breath, if you except the ruling that dragon's breath itself is neither magical nor an object).
However, as has been remarked in multiple threads and posts, it's not unassailable. It can be brought down by more than one spell. It can be buried under debris or rocks....but this is not the challenge you might think. The wording of the spell means that the PCs inside the hut can exit it any any point; this means a shapeshifting PC can exit through the floor of the dome and, if they've assumed the shape of a creature with burrowing speed, dig an escape tunnel away from/around the debris.
I think there are two easy ways to make this spell a bit less overpowered. First, remove the ritual tag. Second, as with find familiar, require a material component that represents a real but not crippling or unrealistic expense (a model hut or house that costs XX gp).
Why would anything with even a semblance of intelligence hang around the dome if arrows are flying out of it? Animals are not ignorant.
Any kind of sentient being would just set up watch out side the dome and wait for someone to come out.
If anyone inside the dome can alter their shape and burrow away why couldn't they just do that without the dome.
If your worried about someone using it during combat remember the casting time. It is far longer than a few combat turns. The casting effectively takes the caster out of the combat until the spell goes up, if he gets to finish the cast without being disturbed.
As for ritual spells. Just outlaw all ritual spells if you do not like them.
Oh, I've waited them out. Had a coven of hags with a customized spell list use plant growth and dispel magic from a distance. And the hags had allies with ranged weapons.
Still hate the spell.
How about just a plain old magic user with dispel magic?
Just rule it does not have a bottom and the cantrip Mold Earth defeats it quick.
Or just discuss it with the players if you feel they're abusing it. I know some consider it heresy to communicate with the players about choices they're making that are adversely affecting the game, but I think talking about it and finding a solution that satisfies both the players' desire to have the occasional night without the horses hell rampaging through their camp every half hour as well as the gaming need to have interesting stuff happen at night.
So talk to them. Maybe the spell only works once and then needs to recharge for three nights, so they have to be careful of when to use it. Or perhaps the spellcaster has to maintain concentration throughout it's "up time", so they'll start the next day with their caster having (another) level of exhaustion. I wouldn't impose these penalties without discussing the problem first though, and if the players have a good mindset, they'll agree there's a problem with it and be willing to compromise so it doesn't degrade the game.
As an example, I was running Rime of the Frostmaiden and told the party that it would have a substantial survivalist element. One of them had already decided to be a Druid, and was going through their spell lost and found Goodberry, which neither of us knew existed before, saw that it would be Gah! I just gently brought up that since survival was a substantial part of this module and having a spell that essentially removes any and all need for food for two days in exchange for a first level slot once every two days would remove a large chunk of the tone and even enjoyment of the game. She thought for a second, and agreed. She offered a compromise; she'd keep the spell, but it would only be used in emergencies. I was fine with that - if the party got to the point, they'd have other problems as well, and I'd be considering Deus Ex Machina-ing a solution for their food anyway.
Just communicate with your party. Talk about your concerns, and they might self regulate anyway. That way, you don't have to ban the spell, or become antagonistic in your attempts to "unbreak" the game.
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.
I've always viewed Tiny Hut, Goodberry, and Create/Destroy Water as "I don't like book keeping" spells. If your game is destroyed by a lack of book keeping, perhaps the spells aren't the problem.
The PC's are asleep. Bandits can and would set traps around them for them to stumble into when they wake up for a pee.
Eidt: Historically, enemies have also been known to yell at each other at night to make sure the enemies don't sleep well / it invalidates their long rest.
Maybe elements of the game, like food, water, shelter and other things related to survival, that a class was built around, can contribute more to an adventure than just bookkeeping.
I often find complaints about alleged "bookkeeping" to be odd. The entirety of 5e is about bookkeeping - it's just that we use that information to help develop the story. How many spell slots, how much gold and you have, how many attacks you have, it's all bookkeeping, but important for their aspects of the game and so long as you implement consequences for how you use those resources, it can all very much contribite to the game.
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.
Normally, I'd be in favor of this. There are a number of factors in my particular situation/group that make this a likely non-starter.
My approach for the remainder the current campaign will be a mix. Sometimes they'll encounter foes who can (through dispel magic or other means) deal with the hut. Sometimes they'll encounter foes who either won't understand or see the hut and the party will have the choice whether to engage. Sometimes I'll use the barrier as a way to build atmosphere (such as last game session, a coven of night hags chose to not take down the hut but came right up to it and let the party know they know they're there and will be waiting for another opportunity to deal with them). Sometimes foes will try to use the party being pinned down in one location against them (bury them in boulders/dirt/snow, cast plant growth all around the hut and wait for the party to emerge and attack with ranged weapons).
Start of next campaign, though, I will be bringing it up and communicating some house rules about it.