Looking over 5E's list of ritual spells, I see a few clear categories:
many low level spells with interesting non-combat services that a caster might otherwise not afford to spend a slot on during an adventure. Ritual puts them into active play.
Leomund's Indestructible Bunker, which ought to be in category #1 but was written incorrectly (IMO).
two spells that provide vital party transportation and would otherwise be an annoying spell slot tax during water adventures.
a quartet of mid-level spells that gather information from forces of the multiverse. Same reason as category #1.
two high level between-adventures spells primarily limited by material cost: 1000gp per casting.
Then there's Rary's Telepathic Bond. Its benefits are directly useful in combat and it lasts an hour. It's a convenient buff, but not a necessary one. It operates on a group of mortals, without benefit of divine energy. And it's free.
If it were a non-ritual spell, maybe with longer duration, I think a lot of players would choose to cast this spell using a slot because it's really useful for an adventuring party. So why did they make it a ritual?
Rary's Telepathic Bond is arguably more useful out of combat than in combat; it enables easy communication while being stealthy or splitting up the party. The situations where secret communication is useful mid-combat are much more limited. Also, message - which is a cantrip - is often an acceptable substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond.
Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't an indestructible bunker, by the way. It's not going to stop, say, a dragon's breath, or a flood or mudslide.
Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't an indestructible bunker, by the way. It's not going to stop, say, a dragon's breath, or a flood or mudslide.
Leo's bunker states all other creatures and objects are barred so yes it it is physically inviolate. Objects and people inside when cast can pass through so you can fire out at will with weapons attacks (so no landslide damage but you may be buried under it leading to problems when it runs out and the ceiling of rubble crashes on you.
Leo's bunker states spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it so yes it stops dragon breath, lizard breath, bad breath, basilisk vision, possession etc.
You can make the inside opaque to those outside so they are blind to you. Fear the hut of rogues.
What does stop it? Duration elapsing (8 hours) or dispel magic or antimagic shell.
Well where do you want to draw the line on objects - a mass of objects moving as group at some point not being an object but a series of objects not affected because they are in a group? JC's reply is a link to a guide on determining damage to destroy an object. To me that's not the intent or the spells wording either, no means no. If water doesn't pass through or gas as "the atmosphere is comfortable and dry despite the weather outside" but you believe a thrown amount of water would? That's your interpretation and to me is to out of place with what the spells trying to do which is create a safe zone to sleep in but you can go another route, I will disagree.
Lets check dragons? Well the abilities are 'magical' but specifically: MM page 86, dragons are magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breathweapons. So for me the dragon, the titular epitome of a D&D magical fantasy world not having a magic breath? Seems wrong to me. Another way of looking at it, if only spells were magical, what could constitute as a magical effect to necessitate the differential being stated to you, is Kraken lightning non magical for you? That's heading toward the tangents of the past that 'fireballs aren't magic they summon fire that's non magical', or call lightning summoning non magical lightning. Sure at the table you could rule either way but objects are still individually an object, magic isn't just spells and the bunker is a bunker, sure it lasts longer than wall of force, its a one way wall which is better in some ways than wall of force but you know what its not? Something you can cast immediately like wall of force or at a distance and that's its limitation, oh and the caster has to stay inside it or it ends immediately.
Your interpretation makes a bigger difference later with antimagic shell which is supposed to stop magic dead including mindflayer mindblasts, all breath weapons, gazes, beholder rays etc. etc. In other words it locks non physical brutes down, at the cost of having to have a mage stripped of magic having to close to melee (or very close)
Well where do you want to draw the line on objects
At "discrete item."
a mass of objects moving as group at some point not being an object but a series of objects not affected because they are in a group?
Depends on whether you're talking about a bunch of discrete individual items or not. A rock slide is a lot of discrete objects. A mudslide or avalanche isn't.
JC's reply is a link to a guide on determining damage to destroy an object.
It's a section of the DMG simply titled "Objects", and he's unambiguously saying that definition of objects applies in every context. The question he was answering wasn't about breaking objects at all.
If water doesn't pass through or gas as "the atmosphere is comfortable and dry despite the weather outside" but you believe a thrown amount of water would?
Yes. A tidal wave or a bucket of water isn't part of the atmosphere or weather.
That's your interpretation and to me is to out of place with what the spells trying to do which is create a safe zone to sleep in but you can go another route, I will disagree.
The spell does in fact create a fairly safe and comfortable space to sleep in. It's just not an impenetrable bunker.
Lets check dragons? Well the abilities are 'magical' but specifically: MM page 86, dragons are magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breathweapons. So for me the dragon, the titular epitome of a D&D magical fantasy world not having a magic breath? Seems wrong to me.
The Sage Advice answer explains why.
Another way of looking at it, if only spells were magical, what could constitute as a magical effect to necessitate the differential being stated to you, is Kraken lightning non magical for you?
I never said only spells are magical. I said the rules tell you if something is magical. A Kraken's Lightning Storm explicitly says it magically creates bolts of lightning. A dragon's breath doesn't say it magically exhales fire.
That's heading toward the tangents of the past that 'fireballs aren't magic they summon fire that's non magical', or call lightning summoning non magical lightning.
Good thing the game defines spells as "discrete magical effects" then.
Your interpretation makes a bigger difference later with antimagic shell which is supposed to stop magic dead including mindflayer mindblasts, all breath weapons, gazes, beholder rays etc. etc. In other words it locks non physical brutes down, at the cost of having to have a mage stripped of magic having to close to melee (or very close)
Antimagic Field is meant to turn off magic, and it does exactly that. It's not meant to protect against everything that's not a weapon attack.
This isn't my interpretation of the rules. It's how the lead ruler designer of the game has officially ruled.
Your facts are compelling. The definition of magic is as you stated O.R. The definition of objects, discrete objects less so. I accept that, but the bunker is still the bunker, as that's what it was intended to be. (for me) Also no way I will ever call a dragons breath non magical :)
Back up to the thread topic, Rarys telepathic bond along with many other spells is an old edition spell with a reskin and alterations to integrate it. in 3rd ed RTB used to last 10 minutes a level, but you had more spells per level then and no rituals, bringing it forward we have a reduced timer (for when you would have access to it) but the ritual allows you to refresh it, being honest, like many of the ritual spell choices it seems some were picked a little because they introduced rituals to overcome the lower level lack of spells available to be cast then tried to find choices that weren't precisely combat related, or healing at later levels. They would speed play by aiding the party (identify and detect magic prime examples at level one) and otherwise prevent difficult decisions - (do I have to cast one of my two spells at first on detect magic?) by offering an alternative. In RTB's case should we split the party / how do we organise this plan with moving parts whilst sneaking up to these marauders? (without costing the poor casters only 5th level slot and making it hard for the first strike from stealth types to be able to cajole him into using his big spell of the day (at 9th) for them to go nuts.)
Amusingly enough back then there were two Leo spells: hut, which was just a barrier to keep the weather out, and Shelter which summoned a house which couldnt be damaged except by siege weapons or greater force, cut to 5th and shelter disappears and we have Leo's hut getting suspiciously improved defences. The intent is one spell instead of two, its a bunker, g night, sleep tight.
Rituals themselves I hope to see more off as at present there are 11 first, 8 second, 6 third, 1 fourth, 4 fifth and 2 sixth. Unfortunately its unlikely there will be more. If RTB wasn't a ritual it would cut down on the number available, and require its duration to be increased possibly at the expense of concentration so that's "perhaps" why its a ritual, Foobar can you think of other spells that would make better rituals?
Rituals themselves I hope to see more off as at present there are 11 first, 8 second, 6 third, 1 fourth, 4 fifth and 2 sixth. Unfortunately its unlikely there will be more. If RTB wasn't a ritual it would cut down on the number available, and require its duration to be increased possibly at the expense of concentration so that's "perhaps" why its a ritual, Foobar can you think of other spells that would make better rituals?
My rules for good ritual spells:
is chosen less than average as a prepared spell for adventuring days (or is mandatory on some days and useless the rest of the time)
won't be spammed 5+ times per day if it doesn't expend a slot
For starters, I'd make Magic Circle a ritual (and cut its slotted casting time to 1 action). The 5E version is immobile and less functional than its ancestor. It deserves a break.
RTB should be 8 hours, non-ritual.
BTW, 4E had a ship-load of rituals because every single one cost money to use.
the bunker is still the bunker, as that's what it was intended to be. (for me)
The ancestral versions of LTH didn't block projectiles, spells, environmental objects, or even enemy creatures. They merely provided weather resistance and concealment. That makes for a terrible slot spell and an excellent ritual spell. See: AD&D Wiki, 3E SRD, 4E Wiki.
Whether or not it keeps out a forest fire, LTH should never have been an asymmetric barricade, foxhole, or sniper nest.
is chosen less than average as a prepared spell for adventuring days (or is mandatory on some days and useless the rest of the time)
won't be spammed 5+ times per day if it doesn't expend a slot
Here's the rules the guidelines the developers consider:
Is this going to break the game if you can cast it an unlimited number of times? (e.g. Cure Wounds.)
Is this going to break the world if you can cast it an unlimited number of times? (e.g. Create Food and Water)
Is this going to be annoying at the game table if someone chooses to cast it all the time?
Hence Rary's Telepathic Bond can be a ritual.
I personally don't think the "won't be spammed" rule is a good one. The whole point of rituals is that you can cast them at will. Why wouldn't you let someone cast Unseen Servant 8 times a day?
For starters, I'd make Magic Circle a ritual (and cut its slotted casting time to 1 action). The 5E version is immobile and less functional than its ancestor. It deserves a break.
RTB should be 8 hours, non-ritual.
No way. Even if it costs money, a 1 action Magic Circle would be gamebreaking in the encounters where it applies. You'd be able to trivially trap multiple enemies with an inverted circle and the defensive buff is too powerful to give out on demand. The spell is balanced around having to either foresee combat or stall/incapacitate your enemies for one minute.
Not a fan of making Telepathic Bond 8 times as good to satisfy an arbitrary rule about not spamming rituals either.
Foobar, I like your work around for RTB, if you prefer to run that at a table and everyones good with it, go for it. LTH was just a shelter, LSS was a cottage that had bells and whistles of spells on it and was more of a block bunker, so I guess since they didn't make the LTH have a damage pool they just went and mashed them together into a WoW bubble-adin field and no more LSS.
What about tiny servant? happy with the 8 hour duration and non ritual or better as a ritual (with shorter duration?)
Is this going to break the game if you can cast it an unlimited number of times? (e.g. Cure Wounds.)
Is this going to break the world if you can cast it an unlimited number of times? (e.g. Create Food and Water)
Is this going to be annoying at the game table if someone chooses to cast it all the time?
Good point, "don't be annoying" is a better rule than "don't spam". I would say that recasting RTB for 10 minutes every hour during exploration is annoying, whereas spamming Unseen Servants during a base camp montage is not.
I played an 8 strength cleric that used Tenser's Floating Disk to carry her backpack once and it wasn't an issue at all. The time scale for dungeoneering is usually minutes and it takes a couple of hours of play time to get through an hour of in-game time (unless the party stops for a short rest.) During overland travel you're usually using a time scale of hours. I just bought an hourglass with my starting gold and the DM knew I'd cast the spell every hour. It was just something we assumed was always happening, like the Ranger taking a minute after every fight to scavenge half of their used ammunition.
I ran into way more issues with the spell's limitations (e.g. can't cross extreme height differences) than the actual casting time and duration.
These, however, are environmental and prevented from passing through as the intoerior is comfortable warm and dry irrespective of the outside environmental conditions.
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
These, however, are environmental and prevented from passing through as the intoerior is comfortable warm and dry irrespective of the outside environmental conditions.
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
The actual text of tiny hut doesn't mention the environment at all. It's comfortable and dry, "regardless of the weather." InquisitiveCoder already addressed this four years ago. Forest fires, explosions, mudslides, etc. are not weather. Creativity is good, but I'm not willing to call "literally making up text that doesn't exist" creative in a positive sense.
These, however, are environmental and prevented from passing through as the intoerior is comfortable warm and dry irrespective of the outside environmental conditions.
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
The actual text of tiny hut doesn't mention the environment at all. It's comfortable and dry, "regardless of the weather." InquisitiveCoder already addressed this four years ago. Forest fires, explosions, mudslides, etc. are not weather. Creativity is good, but I'm not willing to call "literally making up text that doesn't exist" creative in a positive sense.
It is pretty much up to the DM what they decide Leomund's Tiny Hut is good against and what it isn't. However, some of these environmental disasters are prevented from entering because of the other line in the Tiny Hut spell " All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it.".
Mud slides, landslides, snow banks, ash, falling trees, liquids, and gases could all be considered objects. Although the statement was made above that these are not objects because they are not discrete items. However, each is a description for a collective that is made up of many objects.
Could a swarm of rats get through a Tiny Hut just because it isn't a discrete creature? Why should a land slide which is a movement of dirt and rocks each of which is a discrete object be allowed through a Tiny Hut just because we use a term to describe the behaviour of the objects in aggregate?
If rocks are kept out, if ice is kept out, why would water be allowed to enter? If water is kept out why would steam be allowed to enter? Chunks of ice, water and steam are composed of exactly the same discrete objects.
Anyway, a RAW reading of Tiny Hut would tend to keep everything out while maintaining a comfortable and dry atmosphere. However, as always, it is a DM call as to how they want to run it. As long as they let the players know how it works then there aren't any issues.
P.S. The DMG contains the following definition it uses for objects to assign hit points/AC and utilize the specific rules in the DMG.
"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."
However, if you use this definition for object, then anything composed of two or more objects is not an object and so would not be blocked by the Hut. Using this definition a wagon could go through a tiny hut. A barbell composed of two weights and a bar, three discrete objects, could be thrown through it. Arguably, some of the "objects" listed are composed of other objects - a chair is made from pieces of wood bound together in some way.
Anyway, the problem still lies with every object being a composite of many discrete objects and if a DM wants to allow these through a Tiny Hut they need to decide the level of granularity they want to apply. Just because a general word describing a collection of objects is used to describe it doesn't justify one passing through the Tiny Hut and the other being blocked. At what point do giants throwing rocks become the equivalent of a land slide that could pass through a Tiny Hut?
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
... Creativity is good, but I'm not willing to call "literally making up text that doesn't exist" creative in a positive sense.
I was referring to having the DM create problems for players that use Tiny Hut inappropriately, not changing the text. For instance, sleeping characters may find themselves suddenly enveloped in a cave in , protected by the tiny hut until it ends. or enemies might flood the chamber they are in with water or magma. There still needs to be a way to stop people from using it as a snipers nest, dragons breath or not and there have been a few suggestions on other boards that cover that well.
Looking over 5E's list of ritual spells, I see a few clear categories:
Then there's Rary's Telepathic Bond. Its benefits are directly useful in combat and it lasts an hour. It's a convenient buff, but not a necessary one. It operates on a group of mortals, without benefit of divine energy. And it's free.
If it were a non-ritual spell, maybe with longer duration, I think a lot of players would choose to cast this spell using a slot because it's really useful for an adventuring party. So why did they make it a ritual?
Rary's Telepathic Bond is arguably more useful out of combat than in combat; it enables easy communication while being stealthy or splitting up the party. The situations where secret communication is useful mid-combat are much more limited. Also, message - which is a cantrip - is often an acceptable substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond.
Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't an indestructible bunker, by the way. It's not going to stop, say, a dragon's breath, or a flood or mudslide.
Leo's bunker states all other creatures and objects are barred so yes it it is physically inviolate. Objects and people inside when cast can pass through so you can fire out at will with weapons attacks (so no landslide damage but you may be buried under it leading to problems when it runs out and the ceiling of rubble crashes on you.
Leo's bunker states spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it so yes it stops dragon breath, lizard breath, bad breath, basilisk vision, possession etc.
You can make the inside opaque to those outside so they are blind to you. Fear the hut of rogues.
What does stop it? Duration elapsing (8 hours) or dispel magic or antimagic shell.
D&D has a specific definition for what constitutes objects. An object is "a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone." Liquids, gasses, forest fires, mundane explosions and mudslides aren't discrete items. Neither is a dragon's breath, which also isn't magical. Something is magical only if the game says it is, or if it's a spell, spell attack, magic item, or fueled by spell slots.
Leomund's Tiny Hut is certainly not a dispellable, longer-lasting Wall of Force.
Well where do you want to draw the line on objects - a mass of objects moving as group at some point not being an object but a series of objects not affected because they are in a group? JC's reply is a link to a guide on determining damage to destroy an object. To me that's not the intent or the spells wording either, no means no. If water doesn't pass through or gas as "the atmosphere is comfortable and dry despite the weather outside" but you believe a thrown amount of water would? That's your interpretation and to me is to out of place with what the spells trying to do which is create a safe zone to sleep in but you can go another route, I will disagree.
Lets check dragons? Well the abilities are 'magical' but specifically: MM page 86, dragons are magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breathweapons. So for me the dragon, the titular epitome of a D&D magical fantasy world not having a magic breath? Seems wrong to me. Another way of looking at it, if only spells were magical, what could constitute as a magical effect to necessitate the differential being stated to you, is Kraken lightning non magical for you? That's heading toward the tangents of the past that 'fireballs aren't magic they summon fire that's non magical', or call lightning summoning non magical lightning. Sure at the table you could rule either way but objects are still individually an object, magic isn't just spells and the bunker is a bunker, sure it lasts longer than wall of force, its a one way wall which is better in some ways than wall of force but you know what its not? Something you can cast immediately like wall of force or at a distance and that's its limitation, oh and the caster has to stay inside it or it ends immediately.
Your interpretation makes a bigger difference later with antimagic shell which is supposed to stop magic dead including mindflayer mindblasts, all breath weapons, gazes, beholder rays etc. etc. In other words it locks non physical brutes down, at the cost of having to have a mage stripped of magic having to close to melee (or very close)
At "discrete item."
Depends on whether you're talking about a bunch of discrete individual items or not. A rock slide is a lot of discrete objects. A mudslide or avalanche isn't.
It's a section of the DMG simply titled "Objects", and he's unambiguously saying that definition of objects applies in every context. The question he was answering wasn't about breaking objects at all.
Yes. A tidal wave or a bucket of water isn't part of the atmosphere or weather.
The spell does in fact create a fairly safe and comfortable space to sleep in. It's just not an impenetrable bunker.
The Sage Advice answer explains why.
I never said only spells are magical. I said the rules tell you if something is magical. A Kraken's Lightning Storm explicitly says it magically creates bolts of lightning. A dragon's breath doesn't say it magically exhales fire.
Good thing the game defines spells as "discrete magical effects" then.
Antimagic Field is meant to turn off magic, and it does exactly that. It's not meant to protect against everything that's not a weapon attack.
This isn't my interpretation of the rules. It's how the lead ruler designer of the game has officially ruled.
Your facts are compelling. The definition of magic is as you stated O.R. The definition of objects, discrete objects less so. I accept that, but the bunker is still the bunker, as that's what it was intended to be. (for me) Also no way I will ever call a dragons breath non magical :)
Back up to the thread topic, Rarys telepathic bond along with many other spells is an old edition spell with a reskin and alterations to integrate it. in 3rd ed RTB used to last 10 minutes a level, but you had more spells per level then and no rituals, bringing it forward we have a reduced timer (for when you would have access to it) but the ritual allows you to refresh it, being honest, like many of the ritual spell choices it seems some were picked a little because they introduced rituals to overcome the lower level lack of spells available to be cast then tried to find choices that weren't precisely combat related, or healing at later levels. They would speed play by aiding the party (identify and detect magic prime examples at level one) and otherwise prevent difficult decisions - (do I have to cast one of my two spells at first on detect magic?) by offering an alternative. In RTB's case should we split the party / how do we organise this plan with moving parts whilst sneaking up to these marauders? (without costing the poor casters only 5th level slot and making it hard for the first strike from stealth types to be able to cajole him into using his big spell of the day (at 9th) for them to go nuts.)
Amusingly enough back then there were two Leo spells: hut, which was just a barrier to keep the weather out, and Shelter which summoned a house which couldnt be damaged except by siege weapons or greater force, cut to 5th and shelter disappears and we have Leo's hut getting suspiciously improved defences. The intent is one spell instead of two, its a bunker, g night, sleep tight.
Rituals themselves I hope to see more off as at present there are 11 first, 8 second, 6 third, 1 fourth, 4 fifth and 2 sixth. Unfortunately its unlikely there will be more. If RTB wasn't a ritual it would cut down on the number available, and require its duration to be increased possibly at the expense of concentration so that's "perhaps" why its a ritual, Foobar can you think of other spells that would make better rituals?
My rules for good ritual spells:
For starters, I'd make Magic Circle a ritual (and cut its slotted casting time to 1 action). The 5E version is immobile and less functional than its ancestor. It deserves a break.
RTB should be 8 hours, non-ritual.
BTW, 4E had a ship-load of rituals because every single one cost money to use.
The ancestral versions of LTH didn't block projectiles, spells, environmental objects, or even enemy creatures. They merely provided weather resistance and concealment. That makes for a terrible slot spell and an excellent ritual spell. See: AD&D Wiki, 3E SRD, 4E Wiki.
Whether or not it keeps out a forest fire, LTH should never have been an asymmetric barricade, foxhole, or sniper nest.
Here's the rules the guidelines the developers consider:
Hence Rary's Telepathic Bond can be a ritual.
I personally don't think the "won't be spammed" rule is a good one. The whole point of rituals is that you can cast them at will. Why wouldn't you let someone cast Unseen Servant 8 times a day?
No way. Even if it costs money, a 1 action Magic Circle would be gamebreaking in the encounters where it applies. You'd be able to trivially trap multiple enemies with an inverted circle and the defensive buff is too powerful to give out on demand. The spell is balanced around having to either foresee combat or stall/incapacitate your enemies for one minute.
Not a fan of making Telepathic Bond 8 times as good to satisfy an arbitrary rule about not spamming rituals either.
Foobar, I like your work around for RTB, if you prefer to run that at a table and everyones good with it, go for it. LTH was just a shelter, LSS was a cottage that had bells and whistles of spells on it and was more of a block bunker, so I guess since they didn't make the LTH have a damage pool they just went and mashed them together into a WoW bubble-adin field and no more LSS.
What about tiny servant? happy with the 8 hour duration and non ritual or better as a ritual (with shorter duration?)
Good point, "don't be annoying" is a better rule than "don't spam". I would say that recasting RTB for 10 minutes every hour during exploration is annoying, whereas spamming Unseen Servants during a base camp montage is not.
I played an 8 strength cleric that used Tenser's Floating Disk to carry her backpack once and it wasn't an issue at all. The time scale for dungeoneering is usually minutes and it takes a couple of hours of play time to get through an hour of in-game time (unless the party stops for a short rest.) During overland travel you're usually using a time scale of hours. I just bought an hourglass with my starting gold and the DM knew I'd cast the spell every hour. It was just something we assumed was always happening, like the Ranger taking a minute after every fight to scavenge half of their used ammunition.
I ran into way more issues with the spell's limitations (e.g. can't cross extreme height differences) than the actual casting time and duration.
These, however, are environmental and prevented from passing through as the intoerior is comfortable warm and dry irrespective of the outside environmental conditions.
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
The actual text of tiny hut doesn't mention the environment at all. It's comfortable and dry, "regardless of the weather." InquisitiveCoder already addressed this four years ago. Forest fires, explosions, mudslides, etc. are not weather. Creativity is good, but I'm not willing to call "literally making up text that doesn't exist" creative in a positive sense.
It is pretty much up to the DM what they decide Leomund's Tiny Hut is good against and what it isn't. However, some of these environmental disasters are prevented from entering because of the other line in the Tiny Hut spell " All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it.".
Mud slides, landslides, snow banks, ash, falling trees, liquids, and gases could all be considered objects. Although the statement was made above that these are not objects because they are not discrete items. However, each is a description for a collective that is made up of many objects.
Could a swarm of rats get through a Tiny Hut just because it isn't a discrete creature? Why should a land slide which is a movement of dirt and rocks each of which is a discrete object be allowed through a Tiny Hut just because we use a term to describe the behaviour of the objects in aggregate?
If rocks are kept out, if ice is kept out, why would water be allowed to enter? If water is kept out why would steam be allowed to enter? Chunks of ice, water and steam are composed of exactly the same discrete objects.
Anyway, a RAW reading of Tiny Hut would tend to keep everything out while maintaining a comfortable and dry atmosphere. However, as always, it is a DM call as to how they want to run it. As long as they let the players know how it works then there aren't any issues.
P.S. The DMG contains the following definition it uses for objects to assign hit points/AC and utilize the specific rules in the DMG.
"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."
However, if you use this definition for object, then anything composed of two or more objects is not an object and so would not be blocked by the Hut. Using this definition a wagon could go through a tiny hut. A barbell composed of two weights and a bar, three discrete objects, could be thrown through it. Arguably, some of the "objects" listed are composed of other objects - a chair is made from pieces of wood bound together in some way.
Anyway, the problem still lies with every object being a composite of many discrete objects and if a DM wants to allow these through a Tiny Hut they need to decide the level of granularity they want to apply. Just because a general word describing a collection of objects is used to describe it doesn't justify one passing through the Tiny Hut and the other being blocked. At what point do giants throwing rocks become the equivalent of a land slide that could pass through a Tiny Hut?
Up to DM call ...
DMs need to be a little more creative when making the limitations of Leomund's Tiny Hut apparent.
... Creativity is good, but I'm not willing to call "literally making up text that doesn't exist" creative in a positive sense.
I was referring to having the DM create problems for players that use Tiny Hut inappropriately, not changing the text. For instance, sleeping characters may find themselves suddenly enveloped in a cave in , protected by the tiny hut until it ends. or enemies might flood the chamber they are in with water or magma. There still needs to be a way to stop people from using it as a snipers nest, dragons breath or not and there have been a few suggestions on other boards that cover that well.
In your game make it they way you want…. You explained your argument as to why. You dont need an official update of D&D to play it they way you want.