That's because they exist in the real world. They don't have experience with liquid atmospheres and make the assumption that they are writing for humans that live in an oxygen environment.
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?"
I guess you could think of it a semipermeable indestructible membrane that filters out larger environmental factors. Rain may not get through but flame as a breath attack at very high pressure can make it through the pores, same as high pressure acid, poison, etc.
I would let them do that if they’re able to get the hut created before combat.
You can seal LTH in the Runes of Warding and set the trigger as codeworld (you an set RoW to trigger from anything, the limit is your imagination and foresight at the time of actually casting it). This way you can cast your Leoumndus Tiny Bunker of Doom it in combat without even spending action or spell slot. Of course it would cost you 200 gold to pull this, so not the trick you can pull every battle. Bring a ranged weapon you're proficient with to shoot people from within so you don't waste your turn just sitting inside while iother casters in your party jump in and out and martials just shoot enemies from within like you but actually competently.
If you mean Glyph of Warding, you can't carry those around - it breaks when you move it 10 feet.
Still works if you lure an enemy into an area you have prepared, but that can be a challenge in and of itself and then the easy combat is just the payoff.
1. the dome shape allows tunnels to be made or creatures that travel through the ground. (to me its pretty clear the hut is a dome. The hemisphere portion refers to the area specified in the spell. That's the area for determining who or what is inside the spells area and if they have left it.)
2.The big one to me is dispel magic. a crew that doesn't set up a watch will have a chance at being woken up with the spell gone. Every ability should have its time to shine but it should also have some encounters to show its weakness. a arcane trickster type enemy could wreck a careless group. that may be to tricky and seem unfair to pc's if used more than once. Just add one monster or npc that can cast dispel magic and balance issues are solved.
3. A stealthy character casting counter spell when they set up the dome. while planning or setting up pcs tend to make a lot of noise and a ritual cast of tiny hut is not quiet. sometimes enemies have one job that they sit and watch and wait.
4. any thing the players do an npc can do. have the enemies learn or have the players come across a permanent dome(wish or dm magic) or one created by a glyph of warding and something they need to get to with-in the time limit.
5. ready monster actions. When a player appears out side the dome, trigger a ready action. Single attacks or spells only work but it negates heavy reliance on the only one side being able to hide inside.
WotC should bring Supernatural and Extraordinary descriptors for innate abilities (innate spellcasting can be left as spells, there's no need for spell-like abilities to return).
There is already clarification that all abilities which are magical will explicitly state in their description that magic is being used.
So, no mention of "magically" doing something, then the ability shouldn't be considered magical.
A dragon's breath weapon is considered an object because its a spray of fire/lightning/acid..
Incorrect. It is not an “object” any more than sunlight is an object. It’s just another natural effect.
Uhm, none of those things are even remotely like sunlight. If fire, lightning and acid in your gaming world works like they do in the real world, they most certainly are objects.
If you're going to argue that a breath weapon isn't a magical effect, that would by default mean that it's made of nonmagical matter and therefore an object. And therefore be barred from passing through the spell's barrier.
The breath weapon is not a magical effect (it's not JC's tweet, it's the definition in the SAC, which is RAW), and it's not an object either, is gaz an object ? Even burning one ? Is an arc fo lightning an object ? And I would like to see people try to justify that it's "weather". Tiny Hut is a funny spell, but the definition is fairly precise,
Object (Merrian-Webster): : something material that may be perceived by the senses. Gas, burning gas, an arc of lightning are not material.
All of those can be percieved by the senses, and they are material. At least if we go by real world physics and since you quote a real world dictionary, you must also use real world physics.
Object (Merrian-Webster): : something material that may be perceived by the senses. Gas, burning gas, an arc of lightning are not material.
Gas is not material? Some of them you can smell, some you can see with the naked eye, some you can taste, and if they're hot or cold enough or propelled with sufficient force you can feel them. And if it's burning, it's fuel for the fire. Fire can't feed on something immaterial.
The fact that you can perceive them does not make them material. Are you really arguing that gas is an object ?
Gas *is* an object according to the definition you provided.
Uhm, none of those things are even remotely like sunlight. If fire, lightning and acid in your gaming world works like they do in the real world, they most certainly are objects.
Oh yes, fire and especially lightning are totally objects, totally material the both of them, you can grab them anytime you want, sure, by any definition and in any world. Alright, if that's your position, fine, I'll stick to mine.
The definition of an object, *your* defintition of an object, I might add, is not that "you can grab them anytime you want". But yes, both fire and lightning is material. Fire is mostly made out of gasses and lightning is plasma and electrons. Again, this is just basic physics.
Serious question, what do you think gasses are if they're not objects?
Serious question, what do you think gasses are if they're not objects?
Substances. "Objects" require ability to sustain shape.
There's no definition of objects that require them to be able to sustain shape. For example, the previously quoted Merriam-Webster gives us this as a definition for substance; "physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence". Either way, gasses still are material.
Also if LTH didn't pass gasses through it would be a deathtrap slowly suffocating people stuck within.
I'm not arguing anything about LTH, I'm pointing out the faulty definitions being thrown around. And obviously LTH has an air supply that lasts for 8 hours. ;)
I'm not arguing anything about LTH, I'm pointing out the faulty definitions being thrown around. And obviously LTH has an air supply that lasts for 8 hours. ;)
That'd have to be some magical air recycling effect, because a volume that size doesn't have enough breathable air to sustain 9 people for 8 hours (keep in mind that it's not just a volume of fresh air being available, every time someone breathes in and out a little bit of that fresh air is replaced with carbon dioxide).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not arguing anything about LTH, I'm pointing out the faulty definitions being thrown around. And obviously LTH has an air supply that lasts for 8 hours. ;)
That'd have to be some magical air recycling effect, because a volume that size doesn't have enough breathable air to sustain 9 people for 8 hours (keep in mind that it's not just a volume of fresh air being available, every time someone breathes in and out a little bit of that fresh air is replaced with carbon dioxide).
Well, this is obviously on of the cases where this is appropriate. ;)
Uhm, none of those things are even remotely like sunlight. If fire, lightning and acid in your gaming world works like they do in the real world, they most certainly are objects.
Oh yes, fire and especially lightning are totally objects, totally material the both of them, you can grab them anytime you want, sure, by any definition and in any world. Alright, if that's your position, fine, I'll stick to mine.
The definition of an object, *your* defintition of an object, I might add, is not that "you can grab them anytime you want". But yes, both fire and lightning is material. Fire is mostly made out of gasses and lightning is plasma and electrons. Again, this is just basic physics.
Neither fire not lightning is an object, neither of them is material. If you are in the real world, fire is a chemical reaction, it's not even the element which partake of it, whereas lightning is just an electrostatic discharge. Alghough both can be accompanied by the transformation of matter, the matters in question are not the process. In a fantasy world, fire is the essence of the plane of fire and lightning the essence of the plane of lightning (or air if you don't have para-elemental planes). None of this is material.
Again, according to the definition you provided, "Gas, burning gas, an arc of lightning" are very much material. Gasses and burning gasses consists of atoms, which are matter. Arcs of lightning are electrons, which have mass and therefor are material. Fire or flames consists of gasses. What fire is in a fantasy world is A: up to the creator of said fantasy world and B: not what we are talking about.
Serious question, what do you think gasses are if they're not objects?
Neither lightning nor fire are are actually gasses, or liquids or solids, actually. These can burn, or conduct electricity but they are not themselves the reaction.
That doesn't really answer the question, but nice deflecting.
As for gasses, it is debatable whether anything else than solid qualifies for them. I agree that the Webster definition is certainly ambiguous in that respect, but if you look at a wider range of dictionaries, you get the fact that they need to be relatively stable object.
Anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
An object is anything that has a fixed shape or form, that you can touch or see, and that is not alive.
A specific,individual,materialentity,especiallyonethat is notliving or notsentient.
So for me, no, liquids and gasses are not objects.
That is strange because, again, according to your own definitions, gasses, flames and burning gasses fit some or most of those descriptions. Dictionary definitions aside, real world physics tells us that you are wrong.
Also, the question wasn't what you don't think what gasses and liquids are, I asked what you *do* think gasses are. Would you please answer the actual question?
Uhm, none of those things are even remotely like sunlight. If fire, lightning and acid in your gaming world works like they do in the real world, they most certainly are objects.
Oh yes, fire and especially lightning are totally objects, totally material the both of them, you can grab them anytime you want, sure, by any definition and in any world. Alright, if that's your position, fine, I'll stick to mine.
The definition of an object, *your* defintition of an object, I might add, is not that "you can grab them anytime you want". But yes, both fire and lightning is material. Fire is mostly made out of gasses and lightning is plasma and electrons. Again, this is just basic physics.
Neither fire not lightning is an object, neither of them is material. If you are in the real world, fire is a chemical reaction, it's not even the element which partake of it, whereas lightning is just an electrostatic discharge. Alghough both can be accompanied by the transformation of matter, the matters in question are not the process. In a fantasy world, fire is the essence of the plane of fire and lightning the essence of the plane of lightning (or air if you don't have para-elemental planes). None of this is material.
Again, according to the definition you provided, "Gas, burning gas, an arc of lightning" are very much material. Gasses and burning gasses consists of atoms, which are matter.
And again, you have no understanding of physics. While gasses or liquids or solids might be burning, the fire is just the chemical reaction itself. Just read: "Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products."
It's a process, you cannot be less material than this.
Now you are just cheryy picking. from your favourite dictionary: "fuel in a state of combustion (as on a hearth)". Or, if you just want to go quote-fishing on wikipedia: "A flame (from Latin flamma) is the visible, gaseous part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermicreaction taking place in a thin zone. Very hot flames are hot enough to have ionized gaseous components of sufficient density to be considered plasma."
Arcs of lightning are electrons, which have mass and therefor are material.
But I know that, somehow, you will not read this properly.
Thank you for quoting something that clearly shows that you are wrong. You know thta plasma and those electrons your quote talks about? Guess what, those are material objects. XD
Fire or flames consists of gasses.
No it does not. Solid and liquids can burn too, without going to a gaseous state first. But again, the fire is NOT the material that is burning.
I never said that solids and gasses can't burn. Can you please stop deflecting? Again, this is basic physics.
What fire is in a fantasy world is A: up to the creator of said fantasy world and B: not what we are talking about.
So we are not talking about objects in a fantasy world in addition to reality. It's too bad that you are wrong on both counts then.
Not really. Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong.
Serious question, what do you think gasses are if they're not objects?
Neither lightning nor fire are are actually gasses, or liquids or solids, actually. These can burn, or conduct electricity but they are not themselves the reaction.
That doesn't really answer the question, but nice deflecting.
Nice ignorance of physics, doubled with a nice "not reading anything that might make me learn something because it contradicts my view of the world".
Again, could you please answer the actual question?
As for gasses, it is debatable whether anything else than solid qualifies for them. I agree that the Webster definition is certainly ambiguous in that respect, but if you look at a wider range of dictionaries, you get the fact that they need to be relatively stable object.
Anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
An object is anything that has a fixed shape or form, that you can touch or see, and that is not alive.
A specific,individual,materialentity,especiallyonethat is notliving or notsentient.
So for me, no, liquids and gasses are not objects.
That is strange because, again, according to your own definitions, gasses, flames and burning gasses fit some or most of those descriptions. Dictionary definitions aside, real world physics tells us that you are wrong.
Please cultivate yourself a bit, your view of natural process is basic school level at best. And again, back to reading classes above.
I'm merely pointing out that according to your very own definitions, liquids and gasses should count as objects. And if not, what are they?
Also, the question wasn't what you don't think what gasses and liquids are, I asked what you *do* think gasses are. Would you please answer the actual question?
And then, in addition to going back to basic school for basic physics, please go back to reading. I have put the answer in bold above. If you want a bit more, you can go here.
Well, regarding as to what most schools and the link you provided clearly state that you are wrong on this subject, the question still stands. What do you think that gasses and liquids actually are?
And I'm just going to leave you with this little tidbit: "While I might agree on the fact that, in reality, gas is material "
1) Note that, often, it's touch or see. But it's a different topic. First, invisibility only works on creatures, not objects, and at least in 5e there are mutually exclusive, you are one or the other. But assuming that you could cast invisibility on an object, it would indeed still be an object when invisible.
2) This is where the discussion about gas being an object is getting ridiculous. Gas is not a thing. Would you allow someone to cast animate object on air ? Or water in a river ? I certainly would not because, although the definitions vary a lot from one dictionary to another, when you think about am object, a gas or a liquid are certainly not what you think about and they certainly are not in the list of examples from any dictionary.
1) You can cast an illusion to render an object virtually invisible, if we're looking for ways to get around limitations on the Invisibility spell for such purposes.
2) I might, if they asked for it. The real question is what kind of "creature" the result would be. Let's say I'm flexible and the object to be animated is a wave of water or a gust of wind, to determine the dimensions - the creatures still wouldn't become solids, so their usefulness would be very limited (though for some specific purposes this might be extra convenient) and they'd arguably be very easy to destroy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is indeed a bizarre discussion. All matter has 3 (keep it to 3 for simplicity's sake) states: Solid, Liquid, Gas.
So, by some in this thread, a rock would be considered an 'object' and would bounce off the hut. But apply heat to that rock until it becomes a liquid (lava), and since it can't hold a shape anymore, it is no longer an 'object' and suddenly it CAN go through the hut? It is made of the same STUFF, but in a different state because the electrons in one are moving around faster than in the other.
So if a liquid isn't an object or a material... what DO you call it? What noun in the english language is it assigned to?
Lightning is not a process. It's matter in a state... specifically AIR (a gas) that is Ionized and HOT. There are such things as vacuum tubes, where electricity jumps through a vacuum to transfer a charge from one end to the other. Same PROCESS, but not lightning because of the lack of a material.
I think if there is this much discussion about it, this line of thought is impractical for use. Even if your right that some things natural can pass through (which doesn't appear to be a natural reading or RAI to me) Players would feel cheated and it would not be fun. In this instance your better off using an anti-magic field or dispel magic. Maybe Arcanist's Magic Aura could trick the spell into allowing an Npc to enter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's because they exist in the real world. They don't have experience with liquid atmospheres and make the assumption that they are writing for humans that live in an oxygen environment.
"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 guess you could think of it a semipermeable indestructible membrane that filters out larger environmental factors. Rain may not get through but flame as a breath attack at very high pressure can make it through the pores, same as high pressure acid, poison, etc.
If you mean Glyph of Warding, you can't carry those around - it breaks when you move it 10 feet.
Still works if you lure an enemy into an area you have prepared, but that can be a challenge in and of itself and then the easy combat is just the payoff.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Not if you carry them in a Bag of Holding which is an extradimensional immobile space.
Yeah I try to be a "say yes" kind of guy, but the answer to that particular shenanigan is no
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Every ability in dnd has some weakness.
1. the dome shape allows tunnels to be made or creatures that travel through the ground. (to me its pretty clear the hut is a dome. The hemisphere portion refers to the area specified in the spell. That's the area for determining who or what is inside the spells area and if they have left it.)
2.The big one to me is dispel magic. a crew that doesn't set up a watch will have a chance at being woken up with the spell gone. Every ability should have its time to shine but it should also have some encounters to show its weakness. a arcane trickster type enemy could wreck a careless group. that may be to tricky and seem unfair to pc's if used more than once. Just add one monster or npc that can cast dispel magic and balance issues are solved.
3. A stealthy character casting counter spell when they set up the dome. while planning or setting up pcs tend to make a lot of noise and a ritual cast of tiny hut is not quiet. sometimes enemies have one job that they sit and watch and wait.
4. any thing the players do an npc can do. have the enemies learn or have the players come across a permanent dome(wish or dm magic) or one created by a glyph of warding and something they need to get to with-in the time limit.
5. ready monster actions. When a player appears out side the dome, trigger a ready action. Single attacks or spells only work but it negates heavy reliance on the only one side being able to hide inside.
There is already clarification that all abilities which are magical will explicitly state in their description that magic is being used.
So, no mention of "magically" doing something, then the ability shouldn't be considered magical.
Uhm, none of those things are even remotely like sunlight. If fire, lightning and acid in your gaming world works like they do in the real world, they most certainly are objects.
All of those can be percieved by the senses, and they are material. At least if we go by real world physics and since you quote a real world dictionary, you must also use real world physics.
Gas *is* an object according to the definition you provided.
The definition of an object, *your* defintition of an object, I might add, is not that "you can grab them anytime you want". But yes, both fire and lightning is material. Fire is mostly made out of gasses and lightning is plasma and electrons. Again, this is just basic physics.
Serious question, what do you think gasses are if they're not objects?
Substances. "Objects" require ability to sustain shape.
Also if LTH didn't pass gasses through it would be a deathtrap slowly suffocating people stuck within.
There's no definition of objects that require them to be able to sustain shape. For example, the previously quoted Merriam-Webster gives us this as a definition for substance; "physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence". Either way, gasses still are material.
I'm not arguing anything about LTH, I'm pointing out the faulty definitions being thrown around. And obviously LTH has an air supply that lasts for 8 hours. ;)
That'd have to be some magical air recycling effect, because a volume that size doesn't have enough breathable air to sustain 9 people for 8 hours (keep in mind that it's not just a volume of fresh air being available, every time someone breathes in and out a little bit of that fresh air is replaced with carbon dioxide).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, this is obviously on of the cases where this is appropriate. ;)
Ignoring the parts where I proved you wrong and instead reaching for straws?
Again, according to the definition you provided, "Gas, burning gas, an arc of lightning" are very much material. Gasses and burning gasses consists of atoms, which are matter. Arcs of lightning are electrons, which have mass and therefor are material. Fire or flames consists of gasses. What fire is in a fantasy world is A: up to the creator of said fantasy world and B: not what we are talking about.
That doesn't really answer the question, but nice deflecting.
That is strange because, again, according to your own definitions, gasses, flames and burning gasses fit some or most of those descriptions. Dictionary definitions aside, real world physics tells us that you are wrong.
Also, the question wasn't what you don't think what gasses and liquids are, I asked what you *do* think gasses are. Would you please answer the actual question?
You have neither proof nor evidence and it is quite clear from everything that you have posted that you are the one not understanding physics.
Now you are just cheryy picking. from your favourite dictionary: "fuel in a state of combustion (as on a hearth)". Or, if you just want to go quote-fishing on wikipedia: "A flame (from Latin flamma) is the visible, gaseous part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermic reaction taking place in a thin zone. Very hot flames are hot enough to have ionized gaseous components of sufficient density to be considered plasma."
I never said that solids and gasses can't burn. Can you please stop deflecting? Again, this is basic physics.
Not really. Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong.
Well, regarding as to what most schools and the link you provided clearly state that you are wrong on this subject, the question still stands. What do you think that gasses and liquids actually are?
And I'm just going to leave you with this little tidbit: "While I might agree on the fact that, in reality, gas is material "
Invisible objects are still objects. A wizard wearing a ring of invisibility is still a person.
An invisible box is still an object.
"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
1) You can cast an illusion to render an object virtually invisible, if we're looking for ways to get around limitations on the Invisibility spell for such purposes.
2) I might, if they asked for it. The real question is what kind of "creature" the result would be. Let's say I'm flexible and the object to be animated is a wave of water or a gust of wind, to determine the dimensions - the creatures still wouldn't become solids, so their usefulness would be very limited (though for some specific purposes this might be extra convenient) and they'd arguably be very easy to destroy.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is indeed a bizarre discussion. All matter has 3 (keep it to 3 for simplicity's sake) states: Solid, Liquid, Gas.
So, by some in this thread, a rock would be considered an 'object' and would bounce off the hut. But apply heat to that rock until it becomes a liquid (lava), and since it can't hold a shape anymore, it is no longer an 'object' and suddenly it CAN go through the hut? It is made of the same STUFF, but in a different state because the electrons in one are moving around faster than in the other.
So if a liquid isn't an object or a material... what DO you call it? What noun in the english language is it assigned to?
Lightning is not a process. It's matter in a state... specifically AIR (a gas) that is Ionized and HOT. There are such things as vacuum tubes, where electricity jumps through a vacuum to transfer a charge from one end to the other. Same PROCESS, but not lightning because of the lack of a material.
So what is it then?
I think if there is this much discussion about it, this line of thought is impractical for use. Even if your right that some things natural can pass through (which doesn't appear to be a natural reading or RAI to me) Players would feel cheated and it would not be fun. In this instance your better off using an anti-magic field or dispel magic. Maybe Arcanist's Magic Aura could trick the spell into allowing an Npc to enter.