Other than casting time what is the real advantage of Globe? As written tiny hut seems much more powerful. For that matter why couldn't I use a tiny hut as an invulnerable archer's nest?
The Tiny Hut doesn't have a bottom. It's a dome "around and above" only. This means things can still get in from underneath - it's just a bit more difficult depending on the creature. Also you can turn it into an archer's nest - if you were inside when it went up - as both you and your arrows were inside and have free passage out.
The thing is - it's a lower level spell and can be dispelled easier as a result.
Note the different casting times. While tiny hut could certainly be used as an archer's nest, it's something that requires more preparation than many encounters get.
As to whether tiny hut has a floor, there seems to be no consensus. Check out these links (and links and links) and talk to your DM.
That said, tiny hut was made more powerful in 5e for somewhat unclear reasons (we want to make it so long rests can't be disrupted by 90% of wandering monsters? Who thought that was a good idea?). In previous editions, it was mostly protection from weather (I would be tempted to make the spell destructible, possibly with a damage threshold).
I agree, Tiny Hut really shrinks a DMs narrative toolbox when a wizard is in the party, without really giving a player something cool/flashy to do. “We don’t need to set watch, suck it” is a crappy design philosophy for a low level ritual. Sure there are ways around it for truly determined ambushers, but a lot of traditional D&D encounters come off the table :/
That said, the Critical Role crew tend to use it in some unnecessarily complicated and dramatic way, so it has its moments :p
I agree, Tiny Hut really shrinks a DMs narrative toolbox when a wizard is in the party, without really giving a player something cool/flashy to do. “We don’t need to set watch, suck it” is a crappy design philosophy for a low level ritual.
It's actually worse than that, because if the DM does send something against the party that can get through the hut, it's probably a TPK, because things organized enough to note "There's a tiny hut here, we should send someone out to dispel it" are also organized enough to note "and while we're at it, we should send enough force to kill whatever is hiding inside".
So yeah, globe of invulnerability was designed to be able to drop as needed in combat to neuter enemy spellcasters. Tiny hut was designed to spend several non-combat minutes creating a safe place to spend a long rest.
I know you said "other than the casting time," but the casting time is a big deal. 10 minutes is 100 rounds of combat. Other than that the main differences is that globe moves with you and only blocks incoming spells, but not out going spells. Hut stays put, provides total cover from the outside, and let's objects go out, but not spells.
Globe of invulnerability doesn't work against magical effects, only spells, which vastly limits the class of foe it's useful against (though 5e is not helpful about what effects are magical and what are not; it lacks the Ex/Su distinction of 3e).
That sage advice is singularly incoherent. In any case, I realize what they did with Tiny Hut is what they did with a lot of spells that had multiple variants in 3e: they combined them. In this case, they seem to have combined it with Secure Shelter.
I think the confusion is in the description of the spell saying dome, as spells can only be as described in the PHB. "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere." So he initially said it didn't have a floor because of the dome part and forgot he wrote the spell types, hence the "read your own book" comment lol.
It's worth noting that the Hut is hardly invisible. DMs tend to hate any spell that allows the players a means of securing an uninterrupted rest, I've seen complaints about everything from Rope Trick on up to the Magnificent Mansion. In my own games, I don't tend to hassle my players' rests unless they do something unusually stupid, but if I were to try and pick on them through a Hut or such?
Something can find the hut and set up outside of it, and unless the players are keeping a watch even through the Hut or check carefully when it drops they might run into it. Or just wake up to find a hundred zombies clawing at the dome with maybe thirty seconds' duration left on it. One never knows, after all.
Something can find the hut and set up outside of it, and unless the players are keeping a watch even through the Hut or check carefully when it drops they might run into it. Or just wake up to find a hundred zombies clawing at the dome with maybe thirty seconds' duration left on it. One never knows, after all.
There's no question that there is opposition that can deal with a tiny hut (if you want to be mean, just pile stuff on top of the hut; Move Earth would work nicely), but it's a completely different type of encounter -- it's not a wandering monster, it's an organized faction with the ability and desire to deal with intruders, and most likely such a faction will just collect overwhelming force, then dispel the hut and TPK the party.
...or it's a group of hungry wolves prowling around the hut in search of the meal they know is in there. Or the aforementioned horde of zombies piling up against the shelter towards the brains they can smell inside. Or an owlbear displeased with the unexpected intrusion in its territory and trying to figure out the dome while the characters wonder WTF to do.
Tiny Hut simply requires a bit more creativity than "you suddenly wake up and see Shelly the life cleric already halfway down the hydra's throat. What do you do?"
...or it's a group of hungry wolves prowling around the hut in search of the meal they know is in there. Or the aforementioned horde of zombies piling up against the shelter towards the brains they can smell inside. Or an owlbear displeased with the unexpected intrusion in its territory and trying to figure out the dome while the characters wonder WTF to do.
Tiny Hut simply requires a bit more creativity than "you suddenly wake up and see Shelly the life cleric already halfway down the hydra's throat. What do you do?"
At which point the PCs are fully rested, fully equipped, awake, and in a tactically superior position, which means you need vastly larger forces to be a problem, not to mention that most bestial threats simply aren't going to camp out waiting for the PCs to pop out -- it's the sentient threats that are likely to go to the effort.
This is not an issue of 'creativity'. This is an issue of 'this spell deletes a certain class of encounter'.
So does a weapon of warning. Or the Alarm spell. Or a guard animal. Or simply setting a watch.
A lot of this seems like complaints of "I can't ambush my party in their sleep and kill a PC or two before everybody wakes up!" That's not generally going to be a thing anyways for any party that's remotely competent outside of bizarre circumstances, and Bizarre Circumstances can apply with or without a Tiny Hut. Even if somebody does the thing where a critter can destroy the hut by dealing one damage to it, a'la some houserules I've seen for "making Tiny Hut less broken/cheesy", generally means people are going to be aware that their shelter's been breached.
And really...how much fun is it to be murdered in your sleep in the first place? Should we really be doing that to players?
And really...how much fun is it to be murdered in your sleep in the first place? Should we really be doing that to players?
People should be taking interesting precautions against that, not using a one and done spell. The main point of attacks during sleeping is to force precautions and occasionally deny long rests.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Other than casting time what is the real advantage of Globe? As written tiny hut seems much more powerful. For that matter why couldn't I use a tiny hut as an invulnerable archer's nest?
Leomund’s Tiny Hut
Globe of Invulnerability
The Tiny Hut doesn't have a bottom. It's a dome "around and above" only. This means things can still get in from underneath - it's just a bit more difficult depending on the creature. Also you can turn it into an archer's nest - if you were inside when it went up - as both you and your arrows were inside and have free passage out.
The thing is - it's a lower level spell and can be dispelled easier as a result.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Also, the Globe just blocks spells, not creatures/objects. But the Globe allows you to cast out of it, while the Hut blocks spells in both directions.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Note the different casting times. While tiny hut could certainly be used as an archer's nest, it's something that requires more preparation than many encounters get.
As to whether tiny hut has a floor, there seems to be no consensus. Check out these links (and links and links) and talk to your DM.
That said, tiny hut was made more powerful in 5e for somewhat unclear reasons (we want to make it so long rests can't be disrupted by 90% of wandering monsters? Who thought that was a good idea?). In previous editions, it was mostly protection from weather (I would be tempted to make the spell destructible, possibly with a damage threshold).
I agree, Tiny Hut really shrinks a DMs narrative toolbox when a wizard is in the party, without really giving a player something cool/flashy to do. “We don’t need to set watch, suck it” is a crappy design philosophy for a low level ritual. Sure there are ways around it for truly determined ambushers, but a lot of traditional D&D encounters come off the table :/
That said, the Critical Role crew tend to use it in some unnecessarily complicated and dramatic way, so it has its moments :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's actually worse than that, because if the DM does send something against the party that can get through the hut, it's probably a TPK, because things organized enough to note "There's a tiny hut here, we should send someone out to dispel it" are also organized enough to note "and while we're at it, we should send enough force to kill whatever is hiding inside".
So yeah, globe of invulnerability was designed to be able to drop as needed in combat to neuter enemy spellcasters. Tiny hut was designed to spend several non-combat minutes creating a safe place to spend a long rest.
I know you said "other than the casting time," but the casting time is a big deal. 10 minutes is 100 rounds of combat. Other than that the main differences is that globe
moves with you andonly blocks incoming spells, but not out going spells. Hutstays put,provides total cover from the outside, and let's objects go out, but not spells.[Edit]guess they have immobility in common.
The globe does not actually go with you though.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wait... Well then. I guess it is almost a one way antimagic field for 2 levels lower, so I guess not being mobile is to balance that.
Globe of invulnerability doesn't work against magical effects, only spells, which vastly limits the class of foe it's useful against (though 5e is not helpful about what effects are magical and what are not; it lacks the Ex/Su distinction of 3e).
That is incorrect, it states it is a hemisphere which has a bottom. That was asked in sage advice as well and was cleared up.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/24/does-leomunds-tiny-hut-have-a-floor/
Not that it really matters much, just in case you have someone try to burrow under to get inside that was outside when it was cast is a no go.
That sage advice is singularly incoherent. In any case, I realize what they did with Tiny Hut is what they did with a lot of spells that had multiple variants in 3e: they combined them. In this case, they seem to have combined it with Secure Shelter.
I think the confusion is in the description of the spell saying dome, as spells can only be as described in the PHB. "A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere." So he initially said it didn't have a floor because of the dome part and forgot he wrote the spell types, hence the "read your own book" comment lol.
It's worth noting that the Hut is hardly invisible. DMs tend to hate any spell that allows the players a means of securing an uninterrupted rest, I've seen complaints about everything from Rope Trick on up to the Magnificent Mansion. In my own games, I don't tend to hassle my players' rests unless they do something unusually stupid, but if I were to try and pick on them through a Hut or such?
Something can find the hut and set up outside of it, and unless the players are keeping a watch even through the Hut or check carefully when it drops they might run into it. Or just wake up to find a hundred zombies clawing at the dome with maybe thirty seconds' duration left on it. One never knows, after all.
Please do not contact or message me.
There's no question that there is opposition that can deal with a tiny hut (if you want to be mean, just pile stuff on top of the hut; Move Earth would work nicely), but it's a completely different type of encounter -- it's not a wandering monster, it's an organized faction with the ability and desire to deal with intruders, and most likely such a faction will just collect overwhelming force, then dispel the hut and TPK the party.
...or it's a group of hungry wolves prowling around the hut in search of the meal they know is in there. Or the aforementioned horde of zombies piling up against the shelter towards the brains they can smell inside. Or an owlbear displeased with the unexpected intrusion in its territory and trying to figure out the dome while the characters wonder WTF to do.
Tiny Hut simply requires a bit more creativity than "you suddenly wake up and see Shelly the life cleric already halfway down the hydra's throat. What do you do?"
Please do not contact or message me.
At which point the PCs are fully rested, fully equipped, awake, and in a tactically superior position, which means you need vastly larger forces to be a problem, not to mention that most bestial threats simply aren't going to camp out waiting for the PCs to pop out -- it's the sentient threats that are likely to go to the effort.
This is not an issue of 'creativity'. This is an issue of 'this spell deletes a certain class of encounter'.
So does a weapon of warning. Or the Alarm spell. Or a guard animal. Or simply setting a watch.
A lot of this seems like complaints of "I can't ambush my party in their sleep and kill a PC or two before everybody wakes up!" That's not generally going to be a thing anyways for any party that's remotely competent outside of bizarre circumstances, and Bizarre Circumstances can apply with or without a Tiny Hut. Even if somebody does the thing where a critter can destroy the hut by dealing one damage to it, a'la some houserules I've seen for "making Tiny Hut less broken/cheesy", generally means people are going to be aware that their shelter's been breached.
And really...how much fun is it to be murdered in your sleep in the first place? Should we really be doing that to players?
Please do not contact or message me.
People should be taking interesting precautions against that, not using a one and done spell. The main point of attacks during sleeping is to force precautions and occasionally deny long rests.