I guess this means you can also pour acid on the occupants. Boiling oil, boiling water. Actually dirt doesn't even count as an object so you could bury the people inside. Or just pee on them while you wait.
An entity is a living, self aware, thinking creature. A human is an entity, a demon is an entity, a very small number of legendary weapons have a personality and consciousness- and would be considered an entity. A red dragon fiery breath is as much an entity as the gas flame I cooked my diner on.
Entity (noun)
"A thing with distinct and independent existence."
It is a term often used to refer to discrete elements. It has nothing to do with creatures or intelligence. You will often find it used in programming and video game development.
The dragon's breath is an "entity" because it has a unique representation that separates it from everything else. Raindrops are typically non-entities because they are treated as a part of the larger weather phenomenon, but if singled out, it becomes an entity.
I guess this means you can also pour acid on the occupants. Boiling oil, boiling water. Actually dirt doesn't even count as an object so you could bury the people inside. Or just pee on them while you wait.
Dirt and fluids are objects, or many objects, if treated as such. Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification.
"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."
Water does not really fall under the definition of an object. Neither does dirt. Since we are going off of definitions I would say that the part of a breath weapon that is hurting you is as much an object as water. An acid breath weapon is as much an object as acid from a bucket. Fire breath as much an object as an ignited flammable fluid. The dragons breath could be considered a very harmful kind of wind. Wind would be stopped.
"Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification." Is the dragons breath not isolated from the environment?
The designers are advocating that a dragon's breath weapon is neither magical, nor physical, nor environmental, and thus can enter the Hut. But they give no reference for why the dragon's breath fails to qualify as any of these; and they fail to give reference for why a dragon's breath is unique compared to any other creature.
What, from the text of 5e itself, not from the claims of designers, makes the breath attack of a dragon unique compared to the breath attack of any other creature?
What, from the text of 5e itself, makes the breath attack of a dragon not fit into any category of magical, physical, or environmental?
The key here is that a dragon's breath weapon is stated to be an exemption, but no evidence has been provided to support the statement, so we are left with comparing what we know, with what we have been told, and finding that they don't align.
I confess to having no idea why the designers of 5e decided that a level 3 spell should create an impregnable fortress. In previous editions the only things Leomund's Tiny Hut stopped were vision and bad weather (the 4th level Leomund's Secure Shelter created a stone hut).
Pantagruel666, I don't think they decided that; they just didn't bother consider how Tiny Hut was written prior to publishing. Just like Bag of Holding vs Handy Haversack, with the Bag having poor size description, and the Haversack being functionally worse, while being rarer.
The designers are advocating that a dragon's breath weapon is neither magical, nor physical, nor environmental, and thus can enter the Hut. But they give no reference for why the dragon's breath fails to qualify as any of these; and they fail to give reference for why a dragon's breath is unique compared to any other creature.
What, from the text of 5e itself, not from the claims of designers, makes the breath attack of a dragon unique compared to the breath attack of any other creature?
What, from the text of 5e itself, makes the breath attack of a dragon not fit into any category of magical, physical, or environmental?
The key here is that a dragon's breath weapon is stated to be an exemption, but no evidence has been provided to support the statement, so we are left with comparing what we know, with what we have been told, and finding that they don't align.
What makes you think it isn't physical? The tweet you're referring to (which is from one designer who may not have had anything to do with the spell, and most certainly isn't a Sage Advice entry) says the breath isn't an object, not that it isn't physical. Also, the tweet is self-evidently wrong. There's no serious question that a dragon turtle's steam breath consists of millions of objects, like clouds in general do, since each individual molecule of water would count as an object. It's unlikely to count as an object in gestalt, just as your DM's eyebrows should go all the way up if you throw flour in the air and then try to declare the entire dust cloud a single object for some rules purpose, but it is a group of objects, none of which can penetrate the hut for the same reason an Echo Knight's Echo (which is certainly a non-physical object) can't penetrate the hut.
Related: this is why I would never permit a conjuration wizard at my table to conjure anything that isn't solid - liquids, gases, and plasmas are fundamentally hordes/swarms of objects without qualifying as objects in gestalt, just as an adventuring party is a group of creatures, not one creature.
"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."
Water does not really fall under the definition of an object. Neither does dirt. Since we are going off of definitions I would say that the part of a breath weapon that is hurting you is as much an object as water. An acid breath weapon is as much an object as acid from a bucket. Fire breath as much an object as an ignited flammable fluid. The dragons breath could be considered a very harmful kind of wind. Wind would be stopped.
"Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification." Is the dragons breath not isolated from the environment?
(1) The only difference between a cube of water and an ice cube is how strongly the individual molecules are bound together. Fluids with very high viscosity can be handled like a solid, but they are still fluids. A Snowball is simply compacted snowflakes, but it is still an object.
(2) In D&D elemental Acid and Fire are not literal acid and fire. The elemental planes are composed of fundamental elements, which manifest as solid, liquid, gas, and etc. It is canonically very different than anything that exists in the real world.
(3) Yes, it is isolated, thus it is an entity. However, it is not a "physical force", because it is not a "stream of ice particles" or something as such. It is a stream of "cold energy", or the equivalent. It's a fantasy element that does not exist in the real world.
The designers are advocating that a dragon's breath weapon is neither magical, nor physical, nor environmental, and thus can enter the Hut. But they give no reference for why the dragon's breath fails to qualify as any of these; and they fail to give reference for why a dragon's breath is unique compared to any other creature.
What, from the text of 5e itself, not from the claims of designers, makes the breath attack of a dragon unique compared to the breath attack of any other creature?
What, from the text of 5e itself, makes the breath attack of a dragon not fit into any category of magical, physical, or environmental?
The key here is that a dragon's breath weapon is stated to be an exemption, but no evidence has been provided to support the statement, so we are left with comparing what we know, with what we have been told, and finding that they don't align.
(1) It's not magical, because it is not a spell and not stated as being magical. (2) It's not environmental, because it is not an effect of the environment. (3) It is not "physical", because it is "energy". (4) The dragon's breath weapon is not unique compared to other creatures that have energy breath weapons. Any such creature would have the same ability.
The catch is that the description of most Dragon Breath Weapons limits itself to describing the effect in game terms. It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to give more depth to their world by explaining fire breath as a "stream of combustible gases or liquids", but doing so is not RAW, but rather a houserule.
It is a combination of circumstances which produces an unusual, but valid result, which the game designers have explicitly acknowledged.
The only thing failing here is an attempt by players to fit the rules to their expectations, rather than adjusting their expectations to fit the rules.
Edit: The gap in LTH's protection is very likely to have been an oversight, but it is one that the designers don't seem to have any intention of correcting.
Pantagruel666, yes, it would have been trivial to just copy and paste for the Hut, the same as it would have to copy and paste for the Bag of Holding.
The fact they didn't could be due to one or multiple factors, for example: (perception of) copyright infringement (this doesn't make sense or seem likely, but is possible); hubris (the idea that their writing was superior to earlier editions); laziness (just not bothering to check earlier editions); another possibility not listed here.
Sadly, we will likely never know the reason, because knowing it would be disadvantageous to rules management staff.
A major consideration for 5e was to prioritize ease of entry and playability. Where 3.5e tried to be comprehensive, and ultimately became bloated, 5e is intended as a guide for the DM and players with the explicit intention of encouraging the DM to interpret the rules and fill in gaps as necessary for their table.
Rather than laziness, it's a shift in responsibility.
The expectation of concrete rules creates problems that can't actually be solved in a world that isn't bound by natural laws. Magic may as well be synonymous with contradiction.
After viewing/participating in this discussion again (since it seems to come up at least once every few months somewhere), I have to say that it would really be best if Tiny Hut was one of those spells with added/heightened effects from casting at higher levels.
Personally, I would say at level 3: creates a dome with floor [worded as such for clarity] that intersects with already present objects + prevents the effects of weather (such as high wind, rain/snow/hail, extreme heat/cold, flooding, sandstorms, etc) from entering, + clears the interior of said weather effects at time of casting, + maybe imposes disadvantage on Perception checks to spot the dome, + maybe disadvantage on attempts to harm the occupants (attacks, spells, etc), + maybe requires successful Strength save (or maybe Athletics check) for creatures to enter [DC likely equal to 10 + spellcasting modifier].
If cast at higher levels, could block entry from things originating outside entirely, or just make it far more difficult.
So, basically, if cast at a level for ritual casting, would only protect from weather (with slight protection against possible pests looking to escape said weather). Then requiring upcasting to protect against attacks. Not to mention, make sure the language used would be clear about attacks.
A major consideration for 5e was to prioritize ease of entry and playability. Where 3.5e tried to be comprehensive, and ultimately became bloated, 5e is intended as a guide for the DM and players with the explicit intention of encouraging the DM to interpret the rules and fill in gaps as necessary for their table.
Rather than laziness, it's a shift in responsibility.
The expectation of concrete rules creates problems that can't actually be solved in a world that isn't bound by natural laws. Magic may as well be synonymous with contradiction.
This subforum, perhaps more than any other, struggles with looking at the simplified 5e rules through the lens of the comprehensive 3.5/4e mindset.
Memnosyne, reliability is still needed in rules, which means some things must be concrete. In this case, can a Tiny Hut block attacks from outside? Instead, we are told it blocks objects, and spells, and the effects of weather, but are given no guidance about things that effectively duplicate weather, thus these discussions. This is especially troublesome given just how dominate combat is in 5e.
Memnosyne, reliability is still needed in rules, which means some things must be concrete. In this case, can a Tiny Hut block attacks from outside? Instead, we are told it blocks objects, and spells, and the effects of weather, but are given no guidance about things that effectively duplicate weather, thus these discussions. This is especially troublesome given just how dominate combat is in 5e.
Of course. The basic mechanics for the game are well defined. Things like Tiny Hut represent a very, very small portion of the total ruleset, and shows up disproportionately in the forums.
In fact, the circumstances where Tiny Hut can be bypassed are so uncommon as to be largely irrelevant. Most players are going to be casting Tiny Hut as a ritual, which means that either it will be interrupted, or the players are somewhere safe enough that a short/long rest is all but guaranteed. Even when not cast as a ritual, it takes 1 minute, which means that it won't show up in combat spontaneously.
Ergo, either the players are casting it when they are expecting to have a short/long rest, or they are anticipating a future conflict.
In either case, the players are telegraphing their intentions at a narratively convenient moment. If the DM intends to disrupt the players, then they have a perfect opportunity to foreshadow the consequences and resolve any issues before it actually happens.
Poor communication between the DM and Party is a much bigger issue than ambiguous rules.
This subforum, perhaps more than any other, struggles with looking at the simplified 5e rules through the lens of the comprehensive 3.5/4e mindset.
No, this subforum looks at rules through the lens of "what do the rules say". It's not a problem when the rule for X is "there is no rule for X". It's a problem when the rule for X is incomprehensible or nonsensical.
That’s nothing to do with the discussion of something outside passing through to the inside.
It is relevant to the discussion, though. In addition to the spell preventing creatures, objects, spells, and magical effects from entering, I see people in this thread using the line about the atmosphere being comfortable and dry as a defense against dragon's breath as though even if the breath weapon is not prevented from entering, it is suddenly neutralized by that line of text from the spell's description. What if someone inside casts tidal wave or fog cloud? Does the part about the atmosphere being dry cause those spells to fail? Of course not. And the same is true for dragon breath inside the hut.
So just to be clear, you understand that we are talking about a dragon standing outside the hut and breathing on it? The effect of someone inside the hut casting a spell is not only completely off topic, it has utterly no relevance to the actual discussion.
An entity is a living, self aware, thinking creature. A human is an entity, a demon is an entity, a very small number of legendary weapons have a personality and consciousness- and would be considered an entity. A red dragon fiery breath is as much an entity as the gas flame I cooked my diner on.
Entity (noun)
"A thing with distinct and independent existence."
It is a term often used to refer to discrete elements. It has nothing to do with creatures or intelligence. You will often find it used in programming and video game development.
The dragon's breath is an "entity" because it has a unique representation that separates it from everything else. Raindrops are typically non-entities because they are treated as a part of the larger weather phenomenon, but if singled out, it becomes an entity.
I guess this means you can also pour acid on the occupants. Boiling oil, boiling water. Actually dirt doesn't even count as an object so you could bury the people inside. Or just pee on them while you wait.
Dirt and fluids are objects, or many objects, if treated as such. Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification.
Are you seriously claiming that when I breath out my breath is a living, thinking, fully independent creature?
The designers are advocating that a dragon's breath weapon is neither magical, nor physical, nor environmental, and thus can enter the Hut. But they give no reference for why the dragon's breath fails to qualify as any of these; and they fail to give reference for why a dragon's breath is unique compared to any other creature.
What, from the text of 5e itself, not from the claims of designers, makes the breath attack of a dragon unique compared to the breath attack of any other creature?
What, from the text of 5e itself, makes the breath attack of a dragon not fit into any category of magical, physical, or environmental?
The key here is that a dragon's breath weapon is stated to be an exemption, but no evidence has been provided to support the statement, so we are left with comparing what we know, with what we have been told, and finding that they don't align.
Actually the designers haven’t said that in any official publication that I am aware of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess this means you can also pour acid on the occupants. Boiling oil, boiling water. Actually dirt doesn't even count as an object so you could bury the people inside. Or just pee on them while you wait.
Entity (noun)
"A thing with distinct and independent existence."
It is a term often used to refer to discrete elements. It has nothing to do with creatures or intelligence. You will often find it used in programming and video game development.
The dragon's breath is an "entity" because it has a unique representation that separates it from everything else. Raindrops are typically non-entities because they are treated as a part of the larger weather phenomenon, but if singled out, it becomes an entity.
Dirt and fluids are objects, or many objects, if treated as such. Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification.
"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."
Water does not really fall under the definition of an object. Neither does dirt. Since we are going off of definitions I would say that the part of a breath weapon that is hurting you is as much an object as water. An acid breath weapon is as much an object as acid from a bucket. Fire breath as much an object as an ignited flammable fluid. The dragons breath could be considered a very harmful kind of wind. Wind would be stopped.
"Once a physical thing is isolated from the rest of the environment, it gains a new classification."
Is the dragons breath not isolated from the environment?
Memnosyne, let me try putting the topic this way:
The designers are advocating that a dragon's breath weapon is neither magical, nor physical, nor environmental, and thus can enter the Hut. But they give no reference for why the dragon's breath fails to qualify as any of these; and they fail to give reference for why a dragon's breath is unique compared to any other creature.
What, from the text of 5e itself, not from the claims of designers, makes the breath attack of a dragon unique compared to the breath attack of any other creature?
What, from the text of 5e itself, makes the breath attack of a dragon not fit into any category of magical, physical, or environmental?
The key here is that a dragon's breath weapon is stated to be an exemption, but no evidence has been provided to support the statement, so we are left with comparing what we know, with what we have been told, and finding that they don't align.
I confess to having no idea why the designers of 5e decided that a level 3 spell should create an impregnable fortress. In previous editions the only things Leomund's Tiny Hut stopped were vision and bad weather (the 4th level Leomund's Secure Shelter created a stone hut).
Pantagruel666, I don't think they decided that; they just didn't bother consider how Tiny Hut was written prior to publishing. Just like Bag of Holding vs Handy Haversack, with the Bag having poor size description, and the Haversack being functionally worse, while being rarer.
What makes you think it isn't physical? The tweet you're referring to (which is from one designer who may not have had anything to do with the spell, and most certainly isn't a Sage Advice entry) says the breath isn't an object, not that it isn't physical. Also, the tweet is self-evidently wrong. There's no serious question that a dragon turtle's steam breath consists of millions of objects, like clouds in general do, since each individual molecule of water would count as an object. It's unlikely to count as an object in gestalt, just as your DM's eyebrows should go all the way up if you throw flour in the air and then try to declare the entire dust cloud a single object for some rules purpose, but it is a group of objects, none of which can penetrate the hut for the same reason an Echo Knight's Echo (which is certainly a non-physical object) can't penetrate the hut.
Related: this is why I would never permit a conjuration wizard at my table to conjure anything that isn't solid - liquids, gases, and plasmas are fundamentally hordes/swarms of objects without qualifying as objects in gestalt, just as an adventuring party is a group of creatures, not one creature.
(1) The only difference between a cube of water and an ice cube is how strongly the individual molecules are bound together. Fluids with very high viscosity can be handled like a solid, but they are still fluids. A Snowball is simply compacted snowflakes, but it is still an object.
(2) In D&D elemental Acid and Fire are not literal acid and fire. The elemental planes are composed of fundamental elements, which manifest as solid, liquid, gas, and etc. It is canonically very different than anything that exists in the real world.
(3) Yes, it is isolated, thus it is an entity. However, it is not a "physical force", because it is not a "stream of ice particles" or something as such. It is a stream of "cold energy", or the equivalent. It's a fantasy element that does not exist in the real world.
(1) It's not magical, because it is not a spell and not stated as being magical.
(2) It's not environmental, because it is not an effect of the environment.
(3) It is not "physical", because it is "energy".
(4) The dragon's breath weapon is not unique compared to other creatures that have energy breath weapons. Any such creature would have the same ability.
The catch is that the description of most Dragon Breath Weapons limits itself to describing the effect in game terms. It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to give more depth to their world by explaining fire breath as a "stream of combustible gases or liquids", but doing so is not RAW, but rather a houserule.
It is a combination of circumstances which produces an unusual, but valid result, which the game designers have explicitly acknowledged.
The only thing failing here is an attempt by players to fit the rules to their expectations, rather than adjusting their expectations to fit the rules.
Edit: The gap in LTH's protection is very likely to have been an oversight, but it is one that the designers don't seem to have any intention of correcting.
It would have been trivial to just copy and paste the description from prior editions, so it's hard to see how it was an accident.
The Echo Knight's echo also cannot enter the hut because it is a magical effect.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Pantagruel666, yes, it would have been trivial to just copy and paste for the Hut, the same as it would have to copy and paste for the Bag of Holding.
The fact they didn't could be due to one or multiple factors, for example: (perception of) copyright infringement (this doesn't make sense or seem likely, but is possible); hubris (the idea that their writing was superior to earlier editions); laziness (just not bothering to check earlier editions); another possibility not listed here.
Sadly, we will likely never know the reason, because knowing it would be disadvantageous to rules management staff.
A major consideration for 5e was to prioritize ease of entry and playability. Where 3.5e tried to be comprehensive, and ultimately became bloated, 5e is intended as a guide for the DM and players with the explicit intention of encouraging the DM to interpret the rules and fill in gaps as necessary for their table.
Rather than laziness, it's a shift in responsibility.
The expectation of concrete rules creates problems that can't actually be solved in a world that isn't bound by natural laws. Magic may as well be synonymous with contradiction.
After viewing/participating in this discussion again (since it seems to come up at least once every few months somewhere), I have to say that it would really be best if Tiny Hut was one of those spells with added/heightened effects from casting at higher levels.
Personally, I would say at level 3: creates a dome with floor [worded as such for clarity] that intersects with already present objects + prevents the effects of weather (such as high wind, rain/snow/hail, extreme heat/cold, flooding, sandstorms, etc) from entering, + clears the interior of said weather effects at time of casting, + maybe imposes disadvantage on Perception checks to spot the dome, + maybe disadvantage on attempts to harm the occupants (attacks, spells, etc), + maybe requires successful Strength save (or maybe Athletics check) for creatures to enter [DC likely equal to 10 + spellcasting modifier].
If cast at higher levels, could block entry from things originating outside entirely, or just make it far more difficult.
So, basically, if cast at a level for ritual casting, would only protect from weather (with slight protection against possible pests looking to escape said weather). Then requiring upcasting to protect against attacks. Not to mention, make sure the language used would be clear about attacks.
This subforum, perhaps more than any other, struggles with looking at the simplified 5e rules through the lens of the comprehensive 3.5/4e mindset.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Memnosyne, reliability is still needed in rules, which means some things must be concrete. In this case, can a Tiny Hut block attacks from outside? Instead, we are told it blocks objects, and spells, and the effects of weather, but are given no guidance about things that effectively duplicate weather, thus these discussions. This is especially troublesome given just how dominate combat is in 5e.
Of course. The basic mechanics for the game are well defined. Things like Tiny Hut represent a very, very small portion of the total ruleset, and shows up disproportionately in the forums.
In fact, the circumstances where Tiny Hut can be bypassed are so uncommon as to be largely irrelevant. Most players are going to be casting Tiny Hut as a ritual, which means that either it will be interrupted, or the players are somewhere safe enough that a short/long rest is all but guaranteed. Even when not cast as a ritual, it takes 1 minute, which means that it won't show up in combat spontaneously.
Ergo, either the players are casting it when they are expecting to have a short/long rest, or they are anticipating a future conflict.
In either case, the players are telegraphing their intentions at a narratively convenient moment. If the DM intends to disrupt the players, then they have a perfect opportunity to foreshadow the consequences and resolve any issues before it actually happens.
Poor communication between the DM and Party is a much bigger issue than ambiguous rules.
No, this subforum looks at rules through the lens of "what do the rules say". It's not a problem when the rule for X is "there is no rule for X". It's a problem when the rule for X is incomprehensible or nonsensical.
So just to be clear, you understand that we are talking about a dragon standing outside the hut and breathing on it? The effect of someone inside the hut casting a spell is not only completely off topic, it has utterly no relevance to the actual discussion.
Are you seriously claiming that when I breath out my breath is a living, thinking, fully independent creature?
Actually the designers haven’t said that in any official publication that I am aware of.