Just a quick mechanics question for my fellow DM's;
Leomund's Tiny Hut. The spell says it creates an immobile dome of force around the party. This is all good, my party casts it every night before resting to prevent unwanted intrusions and battles.
However, the spell does not specifically state that the ground inside the dome is part of it. My question is this; if a creature with a burrow speed was able to deduce where the dome was and go underground, would it be able to pop up on the inside?
The game specifically uses the terms sphere and domes in different places (mostly within spell descriptions). That indicates to me they are different. Since a dome doesn't specifically have to have a floor, I would read it that it typically doesn't. I would say that a burrowing creature could get inside. However, you could choose to play with domes having floors.
I would point out that using this knowledge to constantly assail the party with burrowing foes is one of those things that would count as an ******* DM move. Once, maybe twice, as an "oh shit!" water cooler moment, sure. Or if the party was explicitly informed/aware that the area they were traveling in was home to burrowing threats (or discovered this fact the hard way after failing to do their due research).
But using the knowledge that Leomund's Tiny Hut has a weakness to essentially invalidate the spell every other rest will simply mean the party stops casting it, and whoever took it thinking they had a cool little personal mini-fortress is going to be pissed at wasting a spell known/acquired on something they didn't know their DM was going to essentially soft-ban.
I absolutely hate how this spell was written. Essentially it is a ritual based Wall of Force spell that can be cast as early as 5th level for pure casters. My issue is that unlike Wall of Force it does not come with text on how to bring it down. It is the only invulnerable item/thing in the game. Even your Holy Hand Grenade/Instant Fortress has AC and HPs. Because of this, I replaced the text of the spell with one that indicated that the walls of the dome had an AC of 18 and 25HPs. When the spell reaches 0 HPs the spell ends and no longer keeps anything out. Although there was some whining about altering the spell at first, I explained that the party was not going to surprised by the actions of a monster pummeling their Hut down, and most importantly that I as DM was entitled to change anything I felt necessary in the rules.
I would be wary of giving it such meager HP, though. A Tiny Hut that can be brought down in one round of basic attacks from an ordinary pack of wolves is no deterrent whatsoever for most foes. At that point what you have is less of a Tiny Hut and more of an oddly kajiggered, strangely super-visible Alarm spell. 'Shelter' spells are already often considered niche choices and poor uses for spell acquisitions; a Tiny Hut that one CR2 critter can break in one multiattack seems super limited.
I would perhaps, instead, examine why I'm inclined to give the Hut such a weak shell and what it is I'm actually after, were I making such a change. Am I trying to make it effectively impossible to rest safely in hostile territory, mandating a watch and caution even with the spell? If so, why am I allowing players to take the spell in the first place? It's easier simply to state that there is no such spell as Leomund's Tiny Hut in my game, and players who don't want to wake up being strained through something's intestines had best be prepared to maintain a strict night watch at my table.
I absolutely hate how this spell was written. Essentially it is a ritual based Wall of Force spell that can be cast as early as 5th level for pure casters. My issue is that unlike Wall of Force it does not come with text on how to bring it down. It is the only invulnerable item/thing in the game. Even your Holy Hand Grenade/Instant Fortress has AC and HPs. Because of this, I replaced the text of the spell with one that indicated that the walls of the dome had an AC of 18 and 25HPs. When the spell reaches 0 HPs the spell ends and no longer keeps anything out. Although there was some whining about altering the spell at first, I explained that the party was not going to surprised by the actions of a monster pummeling their Hut down, and most importantly that I as DM was entitled to change anything I felt necessary in the rules.
It is vulnerable to dispel magic and disintegrate. And as discussed in this thread, it can be dug under.
I think giving it as much hp as a wood shed is too much of a nerf.
The source material you just quoted does not ever use the word 'Hemisphere', nor does it use the word 'floor'. Jeremy Crawford clarified this, as linked earlier in the thread. Digging under it is possible but repeatedly doing so is either a dick move on the DM's part or a sign that the players are too stupid to live, depending on how feasible it is for burrowing creatures to exist in a given area.
This is a ritual spell though, and any spell caster with the Ritual feature, including the Feat, can add it to their Ritual Book. I often see Warlocks pulling out this bad boy because it is one of the best ritual spells at any level, and perhaps the compelling reason to go Tome instead of Chain or Blade.
Moreover by description it is more potent than it's parent spell, Wall of Force, because it absolutely stops any spell, effect, or attack from entering the Hut. A Drow Raiding Parties Darkness spells will not cross it, nor will a Red Dragon's Breath. Whilst the spells Dispel Magic and Disintegrate are potentially valid options to potentially bring a Hut down, the wording of the Hut spell does not mention either as an option to remove it. The wording of the spell does not care if a mountain is dropped on the Hut, for the duration of the spell it will hold, the wording of the spell does not care if the Hut is suddenly transported to the Elemental Plane of Fire, the internal temperature remains constant. As such this spell is too much for me.
I do allow player characters to possess the spell, but it is not an impregnable fortress. It is the travel equivalent of locking your door at an inn, no more or less. I also reintroduced the 3.x spell Leomund's Secure Cottage which "conjures" a reasonably large house from local materials, which includes Arcane Locks on the Door and Windows and even on the Chimney. That one even comes with bread and a pot of soup!
Tiny Hut is a two way spell. The party has to leave it’s safety in order to do anything about any opponents who are setting up an ambush outside of it for when the spell expires after 8 hours. On top of that the spell ends if the caster leaves the hut for any reason.
It’s balanced and it doesn’t need to be nerfed. If my players pick it up I’ll burrow underneath it once or twice and I’ll have whoever they’re hiding from set up a nasty, nasty ambush for them during the 8 hour break that the intelligent monsters have to set up an ambush once or twice. And other than that I’ll let them use it to take long rests in relative peace and quiet. The two or three times in a campaign when they’re caught off guard when they think they’re safe and it turns out that they’re not safe is enough to challenge them and make them re-think their assumptions.
Heh. Why bother possessing the spell if it's the equivalent of 'locking the door at the inn'?
Leomund's Tiny Hut is a third-level spell available only to bards, wizards, and warlocks who take Pact of the Tome and also Book of Ancient Secrets. The last of those three needs to locate a written record of the spell and spend time and a not-insignificant 300gp transcribing it into their Book of Shadows. The first of those choices needs to expend an extremely valuable known spell selection on the hut - a selection they get rarely and which is problematic to trade out later. A bard that takes Tiny Hut is a bard that has mis-selected their spell. Only wizards have "free" access to Leomund's Tiny Hut, in a manner that would allow players to make frequent use of it. No other caster can obtain the spell at all.
Claiming the spell creates a shelter that is not realistically much more durable than a basic tent seems a bit much when only wizards or warlocks are liable to have it at all, and the warlock has to pay a stiff premium to obtain it. I understand not wanting it to be a perfect fortress, that does seem a bit odd, but I can also say that as a player, I wouldn't bother with Tiny Hut in a campaign where it had only 25HP even if I was a wizard or a Tome warlock. At that point it feels more like Leomund's Ramshackle Outhouse.
I'm not familiar with Secure Cottage, sadly. The questions I have would be whether Secure Cottage is also a ritual spell or whether it requires the higher-level spell slot it no doubt takes up, and whether you would allow your players to 'Upgrade' their Tiny Hut into a Secure Cottage, or if the intent is for them to skip magical shelter/protection altogether until they get into Major Arcana?
That is the area of the spell, not the spell's effect. The spell's effect says creatures can not pass through the dome, not that they can't enter the area.
Tweets are helpful in knowing what the creators intended, but are not official rule sources (and even he is clearly unsure of how it should be ruled).
Actually it does. Look at the Area of the spell. it says hemisphere in the details... not the description. But the spell description says its a Sphere in the area... lol well has a symbol in the dndbeyond area.
Actually it does. Look at the Area of the spell. it says hemisphere in the details... not the description. But the spell description says its a Sphere in the area... lol well has a symbol in the dndbeyond area.
This doesn't really add anything to the discussion. 1) you can check the source (already linked in the thread) and it does not reference a sphere at all. DDB doesn't have a symbol for hemisphere, but it is. 2) The spell's area of effect does not change the effect of the description which says "dome" repeatedly.
I've always considered Tiny Hut as being intended to be useful enough to drastically reduce danger when camping, but not as intended to be completely invulnerable and unassailable. If players in a hostile environment can find just 1 minute of time to set up Tiny Hut before being surrounded by wyverns or something, I don't think they should be able to say, "Well, this thing is completely invulnerable and the enemy can't even dig through it, so let's all just take a long rest and we can teleport away".
It's a place of respite. the new spell in the "lost tower of kwalish" has a 3rd level spell: Galder's Tower
10 minutes to cast, lasts 24 hours and its basically a stone/wood version of the daern's instant fortress. Much worse than 10ft tiny hut.
there comes a time, when DMs should not worry about assailing the pcs during sleep. animals aret going to bite a dome... so why give it hps? If a enemy comes by who wants to dispel it... then they do...but whats the big deal on it? I've used it under water to escape the water 'dry inside', lol. Maybe they use it as a chance to escape by giving the wizard respite enough to teleport circle? good for them. Sure cant attack it, cast spells thru it. meant for rest and get 8 hrs peace. arcane lock on a door in a dungeon has practically the same as it makes the door really hard to open.
rest spells exist... find other ways to give the pcs content...instead of being a mean dm? lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello all!
Just a quick mechanics question for my fellow DM's;
Leomund's Tiny Hut. The spell says it creates an immobile dome of force around the party. This is all good, my party casts it every night before resting to prevent unwanted intrusions and battles.
However, the spell does not specifically state that the ground inside the dome is part of it. My question is this; if a creature with a burrow speed was able to deduce where the dome was and go underground, would it be able to pop up on the inside?
I look forward to your thoughts!
My 2 copper:
The game specifically uses the terms sphere and domes in different places (mostly within spell descriptions). That indicates to me they are different. Since a dome doesn't specifically have to have a floor, I would read it that it typically doesn't. I would say that a burrowing creature could get inside. However, you could choose to play with domes having floors.
Also, I found this:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/805828810889248768
While some argue with him, he is one of those very knowledgable people on the subject.
That is perfect! Thank you!
I would point out that using this knowledge to constantly assail the party with burrowing foes is one of those things that would count as an ******* DM move. Once, maybe twice, as an "oh shit!" water cooler moment, sure. Or if the party was explicitly informed/aware that the area they were traveling in was home to burrowing threats (or discovered this fact the hard way after failing to do their due research).
But using the knowledge that Leomund's Tiny Hut has a weakness to essentially invalidate the spell every other rest will simply mean the party stops casting it, and whoever took it thinking they had a cool little personal mini-fortress is going to be pissed at wasting a spell known/acquired on something they didn't know their DM was going to essentially soft-ban.
Please do not contact or message me.
I absolutely hate how this spell was written. Essentially it is a ritual based Wall of Force spell that can be cast as early as 5th level for pure casters. My issue is that unlike Wall of Force it does not come with text on how to bring it down. It is the only invulnerable item/thing in the game. Even your Holy Hand Grenade/Instant Fortress has AC and HPs. Because of this, I replaced the text of the spell with one that indicated that the walls of the dome had an AC of 18 and 25HPs. When the spell reaches 0 HPs the spell ends and no longer keeps anything out. Although there was some whining about altering the spell at first, I explained that the party was not going to surprised by the actions of a monster pummeling their Hut down, and most importantly that I as DM was entitled to change anything I felt necessary in the rules.
Very true, Rule 0 is sacrosanct.
I would be wary of giving it such meager HP, though. A Tiny Hut that can be brought down in one round of basic attacks from an ordinary pack of wolves is no deterrent whatsoever for most foes. At that point what you have is less of a Tiny Hut and more of an oddly kajiggered, strangely super-visible Alarm spell. 'Shelter' spells are already often considered niche choices and poor uses for spell acquisitions; a Tiny Hut that one CR2 critter can break in one multiattack seems super limited.
I would perhaps, instead, examine why I'm inclined to give the Hut such a weak shell and what it is I'm actually after, were I making such a change. Am I trying to make it effectively impossible to rest safely in hostile territory, mandating a watch and caution even with the spell? If so, why am I allowing players to take the spell in the first place? It's easier simply to state that there is no such spell as Leomund's Tiny Hut in my game, and players who don't want to wake up being strained through something's intestines had best be prepared to maintain a strict night watch at my table.
Please do not contact or message me.
It is vulnerable to dispel magic and disintegrate. And as discussed in this thread, it can be dug under.
I think giving it as much hp as a wood shed is too much of a nerf.
[Edited for spelling]
Digging under is not possible. The area of effect is a hemisphere, not a dome. It does have a floor.
This doesn't show well in DnDbeyond's spell description (Leomund's Tiny Hut), but it's in the source material.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
The source material you just quoted does not ever use the word 'Hemisphere', nor does it use the word 'floor'. Jeremy Crawford clarified this, as linked earlier in the thread. Digging under it is possible but repeatedly doing so is either a dick move on the DM's part or a sign that the players are too stupid to live, depending on how feasible it is for burrowing creatures to exist in a given area.
Please do not contact or message me.
The source material specifically says dome and does not mention a floor.
In the PHB it says "Range: Self (10-foot-radius hemisphere)", which means that the hut does have a floor.
Jeremy Crawford confirmed that on Twitter.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
This is a ritual spell though, and any spell caster with the Ritual feature, including the Feat, can add it to their Ritual Book. I often see Warlocks pulling out this bad boy because it is one of the best ritual spells at any level, and perhaps the compelling reason to go Tome instead of Chain or Blade.
Moreover by description it is more potent than it's parent spell, Wall of Force, because it absolutely stops any spell, effect, or attack from entering the Hut. A Drow Raiding Parties Darkness spells will not cross it, nor will a Red Dragon's Breath. Whilst the spells Dispel Magic and Disintegrate are potentially valid options to potentially bring a Hut down, the wording of the Hut spell does not mention either as an option to remove it. The wording of the spell does not care if a mountain is dropped on the Hut, for the duration of the spell it will hold, the wording of the spell does not care if the Hut is suddenly transported to the Elemental Plane of Fire, the internal temperature remains constant. As such this spell is too much for me.
I do allow player characters to possess the spell, but it is not an impregnable fortress. It is the travel equivalent of locking your door at an inn, no more or less. I also reintroduced the 3.x spell Leomund's Secure Cottage which "conjures" a reasonably large house from local materials, which includes Arcane Locks on the Door and Windows and even on the Chimney. That one even comes with bread and a pot of soup!
Tiny Hut is a two way spell. The party has to leave it’s safety in order to do anything about any opponents who are setting up an ambush outside of it for when the spell expires after 8 hours. On top of that the spell ends if the caster leaves the hut for any reason.
It’s balanced and it doesn’t need to be nerfed. If my players pick it up I’ll burrow underneath it once or twice and I’ll have whoever they’re hiding from set up a nasty, nasty ambush for them during the 8 hour break that the intelligent monsters have to set up an ambush once or twice. And other than that I’ll let them use it to take long rests in relative peace and quiet. The two or three times in a campaign when they’re caught off guard when they think they’re safe and it turns out that they’re not safe is enough to challenge them and make them re-think their assumptions.
Professional computer geek
It's been discussed extensively here and here. TLdr: Tiny Hut is not vulnerable to burrowing.
Heh. Why bother possessing the spell if it's the equivalent of 'locking the door at the inn'?
Leomund's Tiny Hut is a third-level spell available only to bards, wizards, and warlocks who take Pact of the Tome and also Book of Ancient Secrets. The last of those three needs to locate a written record of the spell and spend time and a not-insignificant 300gp transcribing it into their Book of Shadows. The first of those choices needs to expend an extremely valuable known spell selection on the hut - a selection they get rarely and which is problematic to trade out later. A bard that takes Tiny Hut is a bard that has mis-selected their spell. Only wizards have "free" access to Leomund's Tiny Hut, in a manner that would allow players to make frequent use of it. No other caster can obtain the spell at all.
Claiming the spell creates a shelter that is not realistically much more durable than a basic tent seems a bit much when only wizards or warlocks are liable to have it at all, and the warlock has to pay a stiff premium to obtain it. I understand not wanting it to be a perfect fortress, that does seem a bit odd, but I can also say that as a player, I wouldn't bother with Tiny Hut in a campaign where it had only 25HP even if I was a wizard or a Tome warlock. At that point it feels more like Leomund's Ramshackle Outhouse.
I'm not familiar with Secure Cottage, sadly. The questions I have would be whether Secure Cottage is also a ritual spell or whether it requires the higher-level spell slot it no doubt takes up, and whether you would allow your players to 'Upgrade' their Tiny Hut into a Secure Cottage, or if the intent is for them to skip magical shelter/protection altogether until they get into Major Arcana?
Please do not contact or message me.
That is the area of the spell, not the spell's effect. The spell's effect says creatures can not pass through the dome, not that they can't enter the area.
Tweets are helpful in knowing what the creators intended, but are not official rule sources (and even he is clearly unsure of how it should be ruled).
The spell does what it says and nothing more.
Actually it does. Look at the Area of the spell. it says hemisphere in the details... not the description. But the spell description says its a Sphere in the area... lol well has a symbol in the dndbeyond area.
Ah 2019. A good year (relatively at least). Managed to cover every angle of the discussion in a single day.
This doesn't really add anything to the discussion. 1) you can check the source (already linked in the thread) and it does not reference a sphere at all. DDB doesn't have a symbol for hemisphere, but it is. 2) The spell's area of effect does not change the effect of the description which says "dome" repeatedly.
I've always considered Tiny Hut as being intended to be useful enough to drastically reduce danger when camping, but not as intended to be completely invulnerable and unassailable. If players in a hostile environment can find just 1 minute of time to set up Tiny Hut before being surrounded by wyverns or something, I don't think they should be able to say, "Well, this thing is completely invulnerable and the enemy can't even dig through it, so let's all just take a long rest and we can teleport away".
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It's a place of respite. the new spell in the "lost tower of kwalish" has a 3rd level spell: Galder's Tower
10 minutes to cast, lasts 24 hours and its basically a stone/wood version of the daern's instant fortress. Much worse than 10ft tiny hut.
there comes a time, when DMs should not worry about assailing the pcs during sleep. animals aret going to bite a dome... so why give it hps? If a enemy comes by who wants to dispel it... then they do...but whats the big deal on it? I've used it under water to escape the water 'dry inside', lol. Maybe they use it as a chance to escape by giving the wizard respite enough to teleport circle? good for them. Sure cant attack it, cast spells thru it. meant for rest and get 8 hrs peace. arcane lock on a door in a dungeon has practically the same as it makes the door really hard to open.
rest spells exist... find other ways to give the pcs content...instead of being a mean dm? lol