Optimization Leomunds tiny hut.... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Shaofoo

2015-05-27, 11:35 PM

Indeed, the only problem that I have with the spell is that it lacks clarity on what exactly could bring it down. Here's how i envision using it:

army #1 is beseiging army #2. Army #1 has a few 5th level casters that accompany a few siege weapons to the front lines. The caster casts it around a siege weapon to ensure that the crew is safe from all incoming fire once set up, allowing them to fire at will and come back unscathed with little risk.

Except that the hut isn't a wall of force. An enemy can walk up to you at any time while setting up either the hut itself or after you cast the hut and setting up the weapon. Especially in a large scale war the enemy will see you setting up and send infantry to take you down, the hut might be good for a hit, maybe a couple at best but certainty you aren't getting an hour's worth of free time to set up in there as the enemy pounds impotently from the outside.

Alternatively, could you use two casters and cast it as a ritual to allow the casters to progress invulnerable 10 feet every 11 minutes? A tag-team of casters with a few mooks could walk right up to a castle's door with a battering ram.

I can't imagine any situation where advancing 10 feet every 11 minutes is somehow good. This also treats the Hut again as some invincible force field that can't be destroyed.

Does this mean that the spell is broken? absolutely not. It just means that the players can be creative with it, and that the enemy needs to get creative in how they solve the problem (running soldiers up to the bubble with big tower shields to wait until they get encompassed in the next bubble isn't a bad way to foil the second plan, for example).

The enemy doesn't need to be more creative than "hit hut with weapon". You can be creative as much as you want but the enemy doesn't need to think about it more than hit it until it is no more.

Actually, the spell is quite clear on what amount of damage can take it down: None. It says right there: "All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it". "All" includes battering rams, ballista bolts, hurled boulders, pyroclastic magma flows, etc.

So what you are saying is that the force field can take no damage at all, a simple punch will bring it down.

Cause barring stuff from passing through it isn't the same as preventing all damage.

A brick walls bars creatures and objects from passing through it as well.

A phalanx in a choke point can also bar creatures and objects from passing through it.

I am sure you won't find anyone saying that either of those things are invulnerable to damage.

The only thing is that the hut allows those who was in at the time of casting to go in and out but otherwise it behaves as a solid dome.

Hence why we need errata to show what it can block cause I would allow that any siege weapon hit or the like to instantly break through the hut without stopping. I personally can't find the hut to be more durable than a normal tent.

ruy343

2015-05-28, 12:40 AM

Hence why we need errata to show what it can block cause I would allow that any siege weapon hit or the like to instantly break through the hut without stopping. I personally can't find the hut to be more durable than a normal tent.

I counter that by stating that it is, after all, a level 3 spell. It should have some measure of durability. In fact, the idea that it is invulnerable to physical damage doesn't seem too crazy to me, because it must be stationary. It is easily countered through a variety of ways, and it has a longer casting time. Therefore, I don't see it as broken.

If you want to ban the spell at your table because you have a crazy, refuse-to-negotiate player, then be my guest. However, the spell is fine, even if you can think of creative uses for it. Grease, my personal favorite spell, has many potential uses out of combat, and in combat, that make it quite powerful, but those applications require creativity, which is something that should be encouraged in such a game.

Shaofoo

2015-05-28, 01:33 AM

I counter that by stating that it is, after all, a level 3 spell. It should have some measure of durability. In fact, the idea that it is invulnerable to physical damage doesn't seem too crazy to me, because it must be stationary. It is easily countered through a variety of ways, and it has a longer casting time. Therefore, I don't see it as broken.

Sorry this is broken because if it was immune to damage then this spell is a better Wall of Force because not only is Wall of Force of a higher level but Wall of Force isn't two way, if you bubble yourself then you are trapped there while the Hut you can move in and out if you want to, and the Hut lasts longer and Wall of Force is a Concentration spell.

Also you seem to ignore the fact that the Hut doesn't have an immune to damage which the Wall of Force does have. Just cause the bubble acts like a solid object doesn't mean that it is immune to damage.

If you want to ban the spell at your table because you have a crazy, refuse-to-negotiate player, then be my guest.

No need to ban the spell, as a DM I have full control over what happens. I will state that unless an effect says otherwise (see Wall of Force saying it is immune to damage) then every solid thing can be damaged, no exceptions. The Hut acts like a solid object so it can be damaged and there is no text that prevents damage. If the player continues to complain then I will ask that he should make a game then where he can set all the rules he wants, he wishes to game the system he can make the game himself and I'll be more than happy to use the Hut in his world.

However, the spell is fine, even if you can think of creative uses for it.

Sorry, hiding behind a bubble isn't very creative. Moving at a snail's pace to turtle up isn't creative. Setting up cover for artillery isn't creative.

Especially when you constantly like to pretend that the Hut will provide perfect cover that can't be dealt with in anyway by the enemy.

You don't need to be very creative when your answer is hide behind a shell.

Grease, my personal favorite spell, has many potential uses out of combat, and in combat, that make it quite powerful, but those applications require creativity, which is something that should be encouraged in such a game.

Grease has explicit battle uses in the text. You create a field of grease that is difficult terrain and anyone who starts his turn in the field, enters the field or is in the field's effect when the spell is cast must make a check or fall prone.

Grease does have out of battle uses but those are on an as need basis, it is a battle spell in this version. The Hut is an utilitarian spell that people are trying to find the workaround to make it a battle spell and a better version of Wall of Force.

Gwendol

2015-05-28, 06:08 AM

All you have to do is burrow under it. It is only a dome after all.

coredump

2015-05-28, 07:25 AM

My reading is that it is basically invulnerable. Wall of Force takes 1 round, LTH takes 10 rounds to cast. That is a *huge* difference in a game based on small unit skirmishes.

The Dome says nothing can get through, that makes it very different from a brick wall. Things go through a brick wall all the time. The spell does not allow for exceptions.

OTOH, its only 10' tall, you will be very limited with what 'siege weapons' you can protect.

Similarly, trying to 'turtle forward' will be difficult since you just don't get that many spell slots. You will need almost as many LTH casters as you have soldiers. Not to mention the 9 soldiers need to be in the location when you cast the spell. At best that leaves them exposed for a few rounds, at worst it leaves them exposed for the full minute.
And it will always leave that caster exposed..... as a primary target for an entire army....

Mr.Moron

2015-05-28, 08:00 AM

It's a tent that has no weight, keeps you dry & warm regardless of weather, and that can't be spoiled and blocks hostile magic. That's how I treat it and that's more than enough. Any readings that might treat it like a bunker, an invulnerable fallout shelter, an indestructible blockade or anything else that roughly amounts to "lol. I solve the entire problem with a single spell lot.", I simply see as overreach.

There are is already plenty of good functionality for spell casters out there, they don't also need their tent spell for tenting to be an 8-hour, no-concentration, "Can't touch this".

Shaofoo

2015-05-28, 08:20 AM

My reading is that it is basically invulnerable. Wall of Force takes 1 round, LTH takes 10 rounds to cast. That is a *huge* difference in a game based on small unit skirmishes.

It is easy to be able to cast if everyone keeps the heat off you. You also aren't a sitting duck while casting you just have to spend your action so you can move around and even do a bonus action if you have something to use that on. If you need 10 rounds to be able to set up an invincible force field then I am sure the party will want to cooperate with you.

Of course you will then say ranged attacks or surprised back attacks and all that good stuff.

The Dome says nothing can get through, that makes it very different from a brick wall. Things go through a brick wall all the time. The spell does not allow for exceptions.

First of all, tell me something that can get through a brick wall that doesn't involve either etheral travel or a sufficient use of force. Tell me something that you can design a brick wall so that they can pass unimpeded. Cause to me nothing can get through a brick wall without either using some trickery with ghost travel or smashing through, neither of which was part of the design of building a brick wall (unless the room in question is meant to only be traversed by ghost people)

Second, okay nothing can get THROUGH the dome... what about attacks that target the dome itself? I can smash the dome itsef and destroy it then. Nothing says that it can't be damaged either unlike the Wall of Force so basically if you target the Hut itself you are able to smash it.

OTOH, its only 10' tall, you will be very limited with what 'siege weapons' you can protect.

Similarly, trying to 'turtle forward' will be difficult since you just don't get that many spell slots. You will need almost as many LTH casters as you have soldiers. Not to mention the 9 soldiers need to be in the location when you cast the spell. At best that leaves them exposed for a few rounds, at worst it leaves them exposed for the full minute.
And it will always leave that caster exposed..... as a primary target for an entire army....

It wasn't my idea, thank the people trying to find creative use for the Wall of Force mk2, Leomund edition.

coredump

2015-05-28, 03:51 PM

It is easy to be able to cast if everyone keeps the heat off you. You also aren't a sitting duck while casting you just have to spend your action so you can move around and even do a bonus action if you have something to use that on. If you need 10 rounds to be able to set up an invincible force field then I am sure the party will want to cooperate with you. How many DnD combats last more than 10 rounds? How many last that long without a TPK when one conjurer has decided to not take part in the combat for 10 rounds, and others have decided protecting one member is more important than killing the bad guys.

The party is either close to the enemy, which means targeting the caster is easy.
Or the party is far from the enemy, which means the LTH isn't very useful.

Just what scenario are you envisioning that LTH is a useful combat spell...??

First of all, tell me something that can get through a brick wall that doesn't involve either etheral travel or a sufficient use of force. Of course it relies on 'sufficient' force... no kidding. Getting through a rice paper wall requires 'sufficient force'.
That is why no one ever says about a paper wall or a brick wall "All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it." Because it is obviously not true, there are a *lot* of objects that are not 'barred' from passing through a brick wall.

But LTH *does* use that phraseology, and it does not present any exceptions. Nor does it provide any mechanism for damaging the dome.

Nothing says that it can't be damaged either unlike the Wall of Force so basically if you target the Hut itself you are able to smash it. And nothing says that touching it will both hands doesn't give you 1 million gp... so maybe that is true too.

Chronos

2015-05-28, 03:53 PM

Vogonjeltz

2015-05-28, 04:23 PM

Shining Wrath

2015-05-28, 04:48 PM

The spell is poorly written and needs errata. If it is indestructible, it should say so. If it is not, it should have hit points and AC.

It is explicitly a dome, though, so as someone pointed out, it can burrowed under. Alchemist's fire will cause speedy mass exodus. One bullette can ruin your entire night's sleep.

EDIT: The dome is immovable. This means that if someone casts Move Earth or Stone to Mud, they can remove the ground upon which the party stands or sleeps, and the party will drop into the hole / sink into the mud - but the dome will not.

Now you are at a severe tactical disadvantage as your enemies stand around the edge of the hole and hurl death down at you, with the Tarrasque's Contact Lens hovering benignly above the massacre.

Talakeal

2015-05-28, 05:01 PM

I dont have my book on me, could someone clarify something for me?

Does the spell simply block entry, or does it conjure a barrier which blocks entry?

If it is the former I would imagine is impossible to destroy, if it is the latter and it lacks the wall of forces invulnerability clause I would say it is indeed possible.

Shaofoo

2015-05-28, 07:13 PM

Boulders or siege weapons can go right through a brick wall. Why the restriction against smashing through? That's the whole point. Because it's possible to smash through a brick wall, siege weapons can go through it. If it's not possible for them to go through a tiny hut, that must mean that the tiny hut can't be smashed.

You are obfuscating the true point here.

A brick wall is not designed to be able to be smashed by boulders or a siege weapon. Saying that boulders and siege weapons can go through a brick wall is saying that by design brick walls should allow the passage of siege weapons and boulders.

A brick wall will not let a siege weapon or boulder pass through itself unless that weapon or boulder deals enough damage to destroy the wall. At no point can you find a boulder or siege weapon phase through a brick wall because the point of a brick wall is to prevent stuff from getting in no matter what. The fact that some items can circumvent that is irrelevant.

If you touch a ballista bolt to a brick wall by your definition the brick wall should crumble immediately because brick walls allow the passage of siege weapons.

So being able to smash through and preventing the entry of anything are two different things. A brick wall prevents entry unless you use enough force. Nothing in the spell says that the Hut is immune to damage so it should also be smashed through like a brick wall.

I dont have my book on me, could someone clarify something for me?

Does the spell simply block entry, or does it conjure a barrier which blocks entry?

If it is the former I would imagine is impossible to destroy, if it is the latter and it lacks the wall of forces invulnerability clause I would say it is indeed possible.

It creates a dome of force, an actual tangible object of force.

Talakeal

2015-05-28, 07:53 PM

That's a really weird spell; it creates a tangible wall of force but allows some people to walk through it freely. Looking at it from RAW I would say you can attack it, but I have no idea how much damage it would take. RAI I think it is probably invincible, but that is certainly an OP interpretation.

CNagy

2015-05-28, 08:19 PM

A brick wall is not designed to be able to be smashed by boulders or a siege weapon. Saying that boulders and siege weapons can go through a brick wall is saying that by design brick walls should allow the passage of siege weapons and boulders.

Phasing has nothing to do with anything. If I tell you that a brick wall bars anything from moving through it, and then a wrecking ball goes through the brick wall, then I've clearly just been proven wrong. The book says the hut bars any other creatures and objects from passing through the dome--either the book says what it means and thus physical force will not damage the hut, or the book is lying about what the hut can do.

Leomund's Tiny Hut can be taken down with a Dispel Magic or destroyed with Disintegrate. It can be suppressed with an Antimagic Field. Move Earth can push the people in the hut out of it (sadly, it cannot crush them against the hut walls/ceiling because they can pass through it). There may be other ways, but those are the only ones off the top of my head.

Edit: Force Cage has similar wording, and does not list how it can be damaged.

Shining Wrath

2015-05-28, 09:19 PM

Phasing has nothing to do with anything. If I tell you that a brick wall bars anything from moving through it, and then a wrecking ball goes through the brick wall, then I've clearly just been proven wrong. The book says the hut bars any other creatures and objects from passing through the dome--either the book says what it means and thus physical force will not damage the hut, or the book is lying about what the hut can do.

Leomund's Tiny Hut can be taken down with a Dispel Magic or destroyed with Disintegrate. It can be suppressed with an Antimagic Field. Move Earth can push the people in the hut out of it (sadly, it cannot crush them against the hut walls/ceiling because they can pass through it). There may be other ways, but those are the only ones off the top of my head.

Edit: Force Cage has similar wording, and does not list how it can be damaged.

As I pointed out, the hut is immobile. That is true in 3D. If you remove the earth below the hut with Move Earth, the party sinks as much as 20' in 10 minutes (2' per minute). If you then cease concentrating, the earth returns to where it was. Obviously, in less than a minute there is a gap large enough to attack through, and after 3 minutes the party has no cover at all

Dispel Magic is lower level, but if you can catch an entire party sleeping with Move Earth, you can bury them alive.

Mr.Moron

2015-05-28, 09:27 PM

As I pointed out, the hut is immobile. That is true in 3D. If you remove the earth below the hut with Move Earth, the party sinks as much as 20' in 10 minutes (2' per minute). If you then cease concentrating, the earth returns to where it was. Obviously, in less than a minute there is a gap large enough to attack through, and after 3 minutes the party has no cover at all

Dispel Magic is lower level, but if you can catch an entire party sleeping with Move Earth, you can bury them alive.

Exactly how many NPCs & Monsters have Move Earth anyway? I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head. It can't be many. I'm not sure how relevant this is outside the realm of PvP and Homebrew. Both of which are valid things but probably not the best lens through which to view baseline content without making an explicit call out about doing so.

Chronos

2015-05-28, 10:10 PM

Most NPCs don't have Move Earth, but most do have or can easily obtain a shovel. Going underneath the dome by some means or another is clearly allowed.

Shaofoo

2015-05-29, 12:07 AM

How many DnD combats last more than 10 rounds? How many last that long without a TPK when one conjurer has decided to not take part in the combat for 10 rounds, and others have decided protecting one member is more important than killing the bad guys.

The party is either close to the enemy, which means targeting the caster is easy.
Or the party is far from the enemy, which means the LTH isn't very useful.

Just what scenario are you envisioning that LTH is a useful combat spell...??

Not every combat has to end in death, it is you that says that if I am engaged by the enemy I must kill them and not say hold the position.

But that is besides the point I did not make up that scenario so I don't want to hear it any more. LTH isn't a combat spell at all

Of course it relies on 'sufficient' force... no kidding. Getting through a rice paper wall requires 'sufficient force'.
That is why no one ever says about a paper wall or a brick wall "All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it." Because it is obviously not true, there are a *lot* of objects that are not 'barred' from passing through a brick wall.

Fun experiment: I have a piece of paper and I poked through it with my finger, by your logic pieces of paper must allow fingers to pass through it, it is not barred from passing. Yet I take another piece of paper and I softly poke it and the paper doesn't break then why does that happen if by your definition a finger can poke through a paper by being virtue of a finger.

But LTH *does* use that phraseology, and it does not present any exceptions. Nor does it provide any mechanism for damaging the dome.

Neither does a brick wall or rice paper have stats on damaging it either. You are saying that because it doesn't say anything about how damage affects it then it isn't affected by damage.

If that is true then Wall of Force should've omited the immune to damage since without it it would've taken no damage anyway

You are saying that LTH is a better spell than Wall of Force.

And nothing says that touching it will both hands doesn't give you 1 million gp... so maybe that is true too.

So you have an actual point with this or you just felt like throwing that bit of nothing, cause you are the one saying that because it doesn't say anything about taking damage that it can't take damage. Almost like they didn't meant the utilitarian spell to be used in any situation where it takes damage.

Phasing has nothing to do with anything. If I tell you that a brick wall bars anything from moving through it, and then a wrecking ball goes through the brick wall, then I've clearly just been proven wrong. The book says the hut bars any other creatures and objects from passing through the dome--either the book says what it means and thus physical force will not damage the hut, or the book is lying about what the hut can do.

So you are saying that if a wrecking ball goes at a snail's pace that the brick wall should break up anyway? Not the amount of force that the wrecking ball is doing but that by being virtue of a wrecking ball that is what causes it to break up.

You are saying that by design choice brick walls are to be destroyed by wrecking balls. The architect will construct a brick wall so that it will break up if you apply a wrecking ball to it no matter what. A massive fortress designed to withstand enemy attacks, except wrecking balls.

Besides this means nothing, forget attacking through what about attacking the field itself, there is a difference. Nothing can pass through a field but nothing says about taking damage from anything either. As I said before letting pass through and taking damage are two different things.

Kryx

2015-05-29, 01:45 AM

Most NPCs don't have Move Earth, but most do have or can easily obtain a shovel. Going underneath the dome by some means or another is clearly allowed.
The whole time they're digging the party is shooting them with arrows.

I don't understand why this argument was even presented..

Gwendol

2015-05-29, 01:48 AM

The whole time they're digging the party is shooting them with arrows.

I don't understand why this argument was even presented..

Through the ground? I'd like some of those arrows!

Kryx

2015-05-29, 04:28 AM

Through the ground? I'd like some of those arrows!
Oh, you suggested that the enemy is making a prison tunnel under the ground? That would take far longer than the hut exists. I assumed you meant the enemy was digging next to the dome.

Gwendol

2015-05-29, 04:56 AM

Oh, you suggested that the enemy is making a prison tunnel under the ground? That would take far longer than the hut exists. I assumed you meant the enemy was digging next to the dome.

It depends on the circumstances. It's not very hard to provide the diggers with total cover. Or just use burrowing.

Kryx

2015-05-29, 05:07 AM

It depends on the circumstances. It's not very hard to provide the diggers with total cover. Or just use burrowing.
Sure, in the rare cases the attackers may have burrowing speed or some kind of intricate tunnels.

However in most circumstances they would have to walk up to the dome and dig. It isn't a viable strategy.

pwykersotz

2015-05-29, 05:25 AM

Sure, in the rare cases the attackers may have burrowing speed or some kind of intricate tunnels.

However in most circumstances they would have to walk up to the dome and dig. It isn't a viable strategy.

By my (very fast, might be off a bit) count in the Monster Manual, there are around 17 monsters with Burrow speeds. A few of them are dragons. Burrowing seems to be worth a mention based on that alone, even if it's not the absolute most common way to bypass the hut.

Kryx

2015-05-29, 05:37 AM

By my (very fast, might be off a bit) count in the Monster Manual, there are around 17 monsters with Burrow speeds. A few of them are dragons. Burrowing seems to be worth a mention based on that alone, even if it's not the absolute most common way to bypass the hut.

It's worth a mention, but <5% of monsters is not a "solution" in regards to an "overpowered when read in this way" spell.

CNagy

2015-05-29, 06:17 AM

So you are saying that if a wrecking ball goes at a snail's pace that the brick wall should break up anyway? Not the amount of force that the wrecking ball is doing but that by being virtue of a wrecking ball that is what causes it to break up.

You are saying that by design choice brick walls are to be destroyed by wrecking balls. The architect will construct a brick wall so that it will break up if you apply a wrecking ball to it no matter what. A massive fortress designed to withstand enemy attacks, except wrecking balls.

Besides this means nothing, forget attacking through what about attacking the field itself, there is a difference. Nothing can pass through a field but nothing says about taking damage from anything either. As I said before letting pass through and taking damage are two different things.

You don't understand the concept of absolute statements, it seems. Your examples of things that "bar" other things (brick walls, phalanxes) do not "bar" movement, they attempt to impede movement.

But if the Word of God on something is "this bars all creatures and objects from passing through" then there is no such thing as sufficient level of force necessary to move through. You've been told, ultimately, that nothing gets through by a source authorized to actually dictate that to be the case.

How exactly do you imagine things get damaged? An immoveable barrier that cannot be breached--giving way to heavy blows is exactly something not allowed by its own properties.

Shaofoo

2015-05-29, 06:46 AM

You don't understand the concept of absolute statements, it seems.

Nah I understand it just fine. Thanks anyway

Your examples of things that "bar" other things (brick walls, phalanxes) do not "bar" movement, they attempt to impede movement.

bar

tr.v. barred, bar·ring, bars

To obstruct or impede; block: barred the access route.

to disallow entry into (a place) by means of a physical barrier at the entry point <the bikeway was barred by a huge fallen tree>
Synonyms bar, barricade, blockade, block (off), guard, wall (off)
Related Words curtain (off), screen (off); dike, fence, gate, hedge; bolt, lock; obstruct

im·pede

delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.

Sooo... you just said the same thing like exactly the same thing. So by your use of words both brick walls and phalanxes are immune to damage, so thanks for that.

But if the Word of God on something is "this bars all creatures and objects from passing through" then there is no such thing as sufficient level of force necessary to move through. You've been told, ultimately, that nothing gets through by a source authorized to actually dictate that to be the case.

Objection right there.

It seems you do not understand how D&D argumentation works at all.

If you are going to throw Word of God around then you must provide proof.

Because Word of God means that Mearls or someone who has worked directly with the book has directly stated their intent on how it is supposed to work.

Which means that unless you have a Twitter or some other link having a direct quote from a producer saying their piece of mind on LTH then you can't claim word of God; you certainly aren't authority on D&D that's for sure.

People used to think Crossbow Expert worked with having two Hand Crossbows until we were told we were wrong.

So please, proof.

How exactly do you imagine things get damaged?

Duh, they take damage to their HP and get destroyed when they reached 0 HP. Personally I like a shatter effect. See not that hard.

Or you are saying that inanimate objects can't be destroyed?

An immoveable barrier that cannot be breached

Good job moving the goal posts around dude.

breach

noun
1.
the act or a result of breaking; break or rupture.

So NOW you are saying that it cannot be broken when before you said that nothing goes through it. Now please tell me where does it say in the spell that nothing can BREACH the Hut. Sure things can be barred from entering but nothing about it can be breached.

So proof please.

--giving way to heavy blows is exactly something not allowed by its own properties.

Nope, see above. By its properties it acts like any object.

Nothing says that properties are inviolable truths. Armor is supposed to protect you from harm yet there are cases where attacks can either slip through or punch through armor yet by your definition a person should be encased in a protective invulnerable bubble because you can't violate the armor's property.

CNagy

2015-05-29, 07:27 AM

Nah I understand it just fine. Thanks anyway.

It's pretty clear that you don't. Trotting out the dictionary is fine except for the part where you gloss over the word "attempt," as in the outcome is still in question. As in the attempt could fail.

The book's absolute use of the word bar means that the outcome is not in question. That it doesn't matter if it is a person or a boulder or a greatsword or a dragon. That's why it is a Word of God issue; the book tells you it does this, to assume that at some level it doesn't do this (talk about attacking the barrier all you want, it amounts to attempting to pass through the barrier with force) is to assume the book just forgot to tell you all of the details.

Shining Wrath

2015-05-29, 08:46 AM

It's worth a mention, but <5% of monsters is not a "solution" in regards to an "overpowered when read in this way" spell.

Grab or build a section of wall roughly the size of a double door. Station archers on the flanks for enfilading fire if anyone emerges from LTH. Walk up to "arms reach plus 6 inches" from LTH. One guy holds wall up; two or three commence digging.

You'll have a hole big enough to roll alchemist's fire under the hut in minutes.

Shaofoo

2015-05-29, 12:15 PM

Trotting out the dictionary is fine except for the part where you gloss over the word "attempt," as in the outcome is still in question. As in the attempt could fail.

The book says bar and I gave definition of bar. Your best rebuttal is basically "But the spell still says bar!", you just stated the same thing without saying anything new.

The book's absolute use of the word bar means that the outcome is not in question.

Burden of proof is on you, you must show me proof that what you are saying is true. You will have to point to the book where is says that all spells are absolute and cannot be overriden by other effects.

That it doesn't matter if it is a person or a boulder or a greatsword or a dragon.

You heard it here folks, the Hut is an invulnerable fallout shelter and better than Wall of Force.

Hell the casting time isn't even an issue if you prepare long enough, you have a full hour and can even plant multiples as you see fit. Not like the Wall of Force and its pesky concentration requirement. A Munchkin's paradise.

That's why it is a Word of God issue;

The book isn't the Word of God, the book is RAW. The Word of God is a direct quote from a maker of the book, not a quote from the book.

You do realize that the book is written by more than Mearls and Crawford, if you look at the begining of the book you will see a bunch of people credited with writing, rule development, editing, and additional contributors; which all amounts to saying "I wrote in this book".

You can't declare word of God because you don't know what Mearls or Crawford really said what. Only by them saying directly then you can say Word of God.

the book tells you it does this, to assume that at some level it doesn't do this

The book says it does this but it is never absolute.

The Wall of Force is immune to damage because they wanted the only thing to take out a Wall of Force is disintegrate.

There is no additional quantifiers that the spell says so you can't say that it is absolute when I can point to another spell that acts like it and is absolute.

You can trot out the word bar all you want, in the end you have nothing to back you up besides a feverent desire to have your invulnerable force field.

(talk about attacking the barrier all you want, it amounts to attempting to pass through the barrier with force)

So then you can't attack the barrier because reasons that you fail to disclose. I can attack the barrier and choose not to go through it. I am making force AGAINST the barrier but not necessarily THROUGH the barrier. See I am attacking the force field and there is nothing that states what happens when the force field is attacked. I don't attempt to pass through enemies when I attack them.

is to assume the book just forgot to tell you all of the details.

Yeah, especially considering that other like spells abound more on what happens when you attack the wall and this one doesn't definitely the book is missing information. The book isn't infallible and errors are in it as I am sure that any material made by man is to be. I am sure the reason that they didn't abound is that they never meant it to be used in any situation where it would take damage.

It's pretty clear that you don't.

I just say your first thing last because it is clear that it is you who is having trouble... or rather not trouble but just trying so hard to keep your version of the spell against all logic and reasoning. You are the one saying that spells should be obeyed by the word always and forever and nothing can break a spell's word, even when the spell itself lacks information. So you are saying that objects created by Creation are invulnerable to all damage because the spell lacks such descriptions as to what happens when the object in question takes damage. A sheet of paper made by Creation is invulnerable to all damage.

Mr.Moron

2015-05-29, 12:56 PM

Grab or build a section of wall roughly the size of a double door. Station archers on the flanks for enfilading fire if anyone emerges from LTH. Walk up to "arms reach plus 6 inches" from LTH. One guy holds wall up; two or three commence digging.

You'll have a hole big enough to roll alchemist's fire under the hut in minutes.

This is still really contrived though. It's a huge coordinated effort that requires intelligent adversaries with resources and organization skills. It's not a matter of the "Can the hyper-bunker version of LTH be defeated?", the answer is obviously yes. It's more than the hyper-bunker version of LTH is grossly out of scale with other effects available for the same cost, and regardless of relative value has great potential to be degenerate.

Shining Wrath

2015-05-29, 01:28 PM

This is still really contrived though. It's a huge coordinated effort that requires intelligent adversaries with resources and organization skills. It's not a matter of the "Can the hyper-bunker version of LTH be defeated?", the answer is obviously yes. It's more than the hyper-bunker version of LTH is grossly out of scale with other effects available for the same cost, and regardless of relative value has great potential to be degenerate.

LTH does give the ability for a party to camp safely in, e.g, goblin country and just shoot the little buggers if they try to sneak up on them. I agree that it's overpowered for its level.

I think the solution is to ban the ability to fire through the walls. Perhaps passing through the walls requires an action, so you can exit to use the bathroom, but an arrow will pause for 6 seconds, which is enough time for all but the lowest Int creatures to step aside.

Shaofoo

2015-05-29, 01:51 PM

The best solution is just taking the 3.x version of Tiny Hut

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/tinyHut.htm

It only allows elements out and keeps a temperate temperature, anything else that isn't caused by the weather isn't blocked by the Hut so you can't use it as a hyper fortress. Also prevents ridiculous logic like saying that Creation items are immune to damage because the spell doesn't say so.

Vogonjeltz

2015-05-29, 04:17 PM

Or you are saying that inanimate objects can't be destroyed?

To clarify, the objects that are made of force have no hp at all, they're simply immune to damage. Disintigrate destroys them because that is a specific property of the disintigrate spell, not because it's dealing damage.

So they are not "like any object", they are unique.

However, even if they were "like any object" as you claim, the DMG admonishes DMs to "Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does." Walls of Force that are immune to all damage, so common sense tells us that nothing can damage it. A convenient tautology.

Shaofoo

2015-05-29, 05:15 PM

To clarify, the objects that are made of force have no hp at all, they're simply immune to damage. Disintigrate destroys them because that is a specific property of the disintigrate spell, not because it's dealing damage.

All right, now provide proof that you didn't crib from the Wall of Force spell description. Because the spell description clearly states that the Wall of Force itself is immune to damage and that only the Wall of Force can be destroyed with Disintegrate. The ruling of Wall of Force should never be used to dictate what other effects do or don't do unless the effect itself references it (see Disintegrate).

So unless you have some other proof that says that force objects are immune to damage and that only disintegrate can deal with them then you are utterly wrong, you can't use a spell to call the rulings outside the spell itself. You can't say Cone of Cold should slow people as well because Ray of Frost slows and they both deal cold damage.

So they are not "like any object", they are unique.

There are not unique, they are normal force objects. The change in material doesn't make them special

However, even if they were "like any object" as you claim, the DMG admonishes DMs to "Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."

Depends on the sword, an iron sword would probably break like you said but a sword made of harder stuff like adamantine or even a magic sword could probably cut through stone without damaging the sword itself. Now I would say that such an action is horribly ineffective in cutting through stone but if the player wants to and they had such a tool then they could do it. It isn't the most effective by a long shot but they could do it if they had a special sword. Besides we can't cut through a stone wall but what when we face off an earth elemental, should swords shatter on it as well?

Walls of Force that are immune to all damage, so common sense tells us that nothing can damage it. A convenient tautology.

You do realize you just repeated yourself there. Yes the WALL OF FORCE is immune to all damage and thus cannot be damaged by all. I have no problems with the WALL OF FORCE not being dealt damage because this is written in the spell itself. This is about LEOMUND'S TINY HUT. You cannot use one spell to describe another spell.

If you need to use another spell to describe the Hut then the spell is badly written and needs to be errata'd. This isn't even about if I am right or wrong, no one at this point is right because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Hut can or cannot take damage, of course common sense should dictate that the Hut shouldn't supplant the Wall of Force since the Hut has many benefits that the Wall of Force does not have and the casting time can be circumvented considering that the Hut lasts for 8 hours so you can place as many huts as you need while the Wall of Force you are limited to one since it ties up your concentration.

So my point is that basically, true common sense should say that 5 > 3. That is all.

darkscizor

2015-05-29, 07:23 PM

Two words: Antimagic Field.

Chronos

2015-05-29, 09:29 PM

Brick walls do not bar wrecking balls from moving through them. This does not mean that every wrecking ball in existence must always pass through every brick wall in existence. It just means that they can. But they can't pass through LTH.

And LTH is not superior in every way to Wall of Force: LTH allows creatures who started off inside of it to pass through. This makes LTH completely useless for Wall of Force's primary use, to trap creatures. They're different spells, which do different things, useful in different circumstances.

Shaofoo

2015-05-30, 06:15 AM

Brick walls do not bar wrecking balls from moving through them.

So you are saying that by design of the builder of the brick wall, he will construct a brick wall so that if you touch a wrecking ball with it then the brick wall will be destroyed?

Let me use another example

A locked door is supposed to remain locked unless someone has the key to open it. If you have the key then you open it because it was designed to be opened with the key. Now there are other ways that the door can be opened, lets say a lockpick, if you can open the door with a lockpick does this mean that whoever made the door meant the door to be opened by lockpicks? Obviously not.

This does not mean that every wrecking ball in existence must always pass through every brick wall in existence.

You can't say that a brick wall doesn't prevent the passage of a wrecking ball then say that brick walls do prevent the passage of a wrecking ball. You can't make reality work in arbitrary rules. It is like saying the air doesn't bar my passage yet sometimes not all air will allow me to pass so I will at some point collide with the air. How will I know which air will block my passage unless this is in some chaotic reality where rules are null and void.

It just means that they can. But they can't pass through LTH.

Okay, now please tell me the actual battle mechanics of your reasoning? Does the Hut have infinite HP or is it immune to damage (which it can't because it doesn't say so). Please tell me how would you resolve it if someone attacked a Hut, do you go "Eh, don't bother you couldn't bring it down even on your best day? Well okay... well nothing happens, trust me, nothing happens at all"

And LTH is not superior in every way to Wall of Force:

I never said it was, I said that it is superior to Wall of Force because the things that makes it better than Wall of Force are much more than the things WoF makes the Hut better. (Especially since they both share damage immunity AND the Hut doesn't share WoF's weakness to Disintegrate)

LTH allows creatures who started off inside of it to pass through.

I would actually say this is a point to the Hut's favor since you can get out and in besides the caster.

This makes LTH completely useless for Wall of Force's primary use, to trap creatures.

First of all, proof that is the true primary use of Wall of Force, that might be your primary use but I would like some proof that is the generally accepted use, not you taking your personal views and passing it off as everyone's views.

Second yes you can use the Wall in more uses than the Hut, that doesn't mean that the Hut is somehow a weaker choice. If you need a dome of protection then the Hut is far and away the best choice. You might as well say that Chain Lightning is a useless spell because you can't use it to trap creatures like WoF.

You might as well say that Charger is a superior feat to Polearm Mastery because Charger lets you attack after a Dash where Polearm Mastery doesn't let you do that.

They're different spells, which do different things, useful in different circumstances.

Except when the spells overlap the Hut is better than the Wall of Force that is the problem. And they do overlap, you can't deny this.

Actually, I should just ask for battle mechanics, what kind of properties are you assigning to the Hut? Cause barring passage is not an actual battle mechanic. Battle logs please.

Talakeal

2015-05-30, 12:07 PM

I would say that Wall of Force's primary use is to create an obstruction. It CAN trap a creature, along with other terrain, but I would mot say that is its primary use, unlike Force Cage.

Looking back at previous editions, Leomunds Tiny Hut has not changed much over the years and I an wondering why the issue is just now coming up.

Aside from a note that hurrican force winds will destroy it, there is no mention in any edition of a way to destroy the sphere of force, nor is there any referance to it being indestructible.

Looking at the higher level spell Leomunds Secure Shelter it says that it has a durability equal to a stone wall and can be destroyed by anything that would destroy a stone building. As the shelter is also made out of force that lends cedance that the Tiny Hut can also be destroyed, atleast in earlier editions.

SharkForce

2015-05-30, 06:46 PM

it's coming up now because in 5th edition, the tiny hut stops objects and people from passing through unless they were inside when the spell was cast. for example, to grab from the PF version:

"Missiles, weapons, and most spell effects can pass through the hut without affecting it, although the occupants cannot be seen from outside the hut"

there is no mention of it preventing creatures from coming through either. basically the only thing it stopped in earlier editions was weather, and so nobody needed to try and break it for the most part.

Anderlith

2015-05-30, 08:05 PM

It's tiny hut... if it has any durability/HP it would be that of a hut wall, basically really low. That being said, as a DM I wouldn't care if it was invulnerable & I would rule that it was invulnerable unless I as DM say that whatever attacking the hut was able to break through. I get the whole metagame of using it as an indestructible barrier but honestly I don't see a party using this enough or in creative enough ways to derail games I run.

Chronos

2015-06-01, 09:20 AM

Quoth Shaofoo:

So you are saying that by design of the builder of the brick wall, he will construct a brick wall so that if you touch a wrecking ball with it then the brick wall will be destroyed?
No, that's exactly what I'm not saying, and I don't know where you get the impression that I am saying it. Wrecking balls can go through brick walls. They don't always do so (for instance, they won't if they're swung very gently, or if they're far enough away that they don't make contact), but under the right circumstances, they can. Wrecking balls cannot, however, go through LTH, regardless of the circumstances.

Shaofoo

2015-06-01, 01:57 PM

No, that's exactly what I'm not saying, and I don't know where you get the impression that I am saying it. Wrecking balls can go through brick walls. They don't always do so (for instance, they won't if they're swung very gently, or if they're far enough away that they don't make contact), but under the right circumstances, they can.

Any matter can go through any matter if you give it enough force, you can shoot a blade of grass through a brick wall as well if you put enough force. Anything that has matter could in theory be given enough force so that their momentum can shatter a brick wall. Saying that a wrecking ball can go through a brick wall is disingenuous because you are stating an absolute truth, a law if you will. So if you want to say a wrecking ball can be given enough momentum to smash through a brick wall is fine, saying it passes through means that the brick wall being there and not being there was the same thing for a moving wrecking ball regardless of how much momentum it has.

Wrecking balls cannot, however, go through LTH, regardless of the circumstances.

So then why can't the above be placed in here since barring movement is also a property that can be applied to a brick wall or are you just really wanting to keep your hyper fortress?

And ignoring the damage argument as well? So do Huts just not take damage because of a property that is inherent to all matter. Any matter will bar the passing of other matter because different matter cannot occupy the same space, by your logic because all matter can bar the passage of other matter then all matter is immune to damage since this is an absolute property that cannot be violated. Or rather the only way to damage anything is with fission or fusion reactions where matter can be altered at an atomic level.

Elbeyon

2015-06-01, 02:05 PM

It's magic/a game. Logic doesn't strictly apply. It never did. The laws of the game are the rules in the books.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-06-01, 02:20 PM

So was it my imagination did somebody say they could punch out a LSH because the description doesn't you cant?

Lightning bolt doesn't say i cant smack it back at the caster either so i guess i can

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-01, 03:14 PM

Grease does have out of battle uses but those are on an as need basis, it is a battle spell in this version. It is useful for deep frying taters at Leomund's Tiny Bar-B-Q Hut.
Their special this week is molten-magma-roasted Tarrasque.
Two choices of sauce are Original and Extra Spicey.
Two-for-one ales during jousting season.

This thread's discussion has been almost as entertaining as the first live act to appear at the Hut. This coincided with the first recorded use of Leomund's Not-So-Tiny Hook.

Come and try the bar-b-q, and don't forget to tip your waitress! :smallbiggrin:

As described in this thread, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384908-Leomund-s-Tiny-Hut-combat-stronghold) you could use it to watch something like a medieval hockey match, from behind the glass.

Eight hours, party can see out, others can't see in, party can move through the walls freely, others can't. Short of a Dispel Magic, nothing is getting through there. You can camp out in the middle of a raging battle between two massive armies and watch the action around you safely, and even pop out for an attack and retreat back in before the end of your turn. Or just head over to the Bar-B-Q hut for another round of roasted Tarrasque.

Shaofoo

2015-06-01, 04:33 PM

It's magic/a game. Logic doesn't strictly apply. It never did. The laws of the game are the rules in the books.

Except there are no rules when it comes to damaging a Hut. If there were rules then we wouldn't be having this conversation and Munchkin loving dream.

So was it my imagination did somebody say they could punch out a LSH because the description doesn't you cant?

Lightning bolt doesn't say i cant smack it back at the caster either so i guess i can

Sorry dude, you got it backwards.

You can't do anything unless it specifically says you can.

Any and all actions are prohibited unless the text says you can do it. Not the other way around

So you can't punch a Hut because the spell won't let you. You just can't punch it at all, the action doesn't even happen. You say you punch it and the DM basically throws a big stink eye at you and slaps you across the face for suggesting something so stupid, try it again and they'll have to surgically remove the fist from your face.

Elbeyon

2015-06-01, 07:55 PM

Except there are no rules when it comes to damaging a Hut. If there were rules then we wouldn't be having this conversation and Munchkin loving dream.

Sorry dude, you got it backwards.

You can't do anything unless it specifically says you can.

Any and all actions are prohibited unless the text says you can do it. Not the other way around

So you can't punch a Hut because the spell won't let you. You just can't punch it at all, the action doesn't even happen. You say you punch it and the DM basically throws a big stink eye at you and slaps you across the face for suggesting something so stupid, try it again and they'll have to surgically remove the fist from your face.Exactly. There are no rules. Damaging the hut isn't a rules discussion because there is nothing to discuss (within the confines of the book's rules).

Now, homebrew is always an answer if people have issues with how the spell works.

Shaofoo

2015-06-01, 09:52 PM

Exactly. There are no rules. Damaging the hut isn't a rules discussion because there is nothing to discuss (within the confines of the book's rules).

Now, homebrew is always an answer if people have issues with how the spell works.

Except that the hut can be damaged because it is an object and can be interacted with as with the bar passage text. And as an object that can be interacted with and without the immunity to damage modifier as Wall of Force does then it does take damage.

By saying that because it doesn't give rules as to how damage behaves on it then you open the whole can of worms when other items don't say how damage affects them so that means that damage doesn't affect them.

It is much more logical to say that objects take damage unless said otherwise than saying objects don't take damage unless said otherwise.

This isn't a rules discussion, this is a common sense discussion.

Elbeyon

2015-06-01, 10:03 PM

This isn't a rules discussion I'm glad we agree?

Shaofoo

2015-06-01, 10:08 PM

I'm glad we agree?

If you do then you should agree that by common sense all objects should take damage unless stated otherwise, not all objects do not take damage unless stated otherwise.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-06-02, 10:29 AM

This is part of the reason I dont post all that much. There are a constat stream of inane conversations where somebody is obviously ng and just keeps going.

I dont want to throw the A word around sonce this isnt a forum like tg but really. I even got an answer on my blatant mockery of a lightning bolr example. Of course. I cant knock back lightning bolt I.shouldn't to change text color when im beating sarcasm into my phone screen so im going to get charged with aaggravated assault

Just like its dumb to assume you can punch down a LSH because the rules say that your specific name and SSN couldnt do it while you start making your own rectal pulled house rules on what HP it must have which arent listed either because GUESS WHAT your not meant to punch it down

Talakeal

2015-06-02, 10:45 AM

I think one of the big problems with this spell is that it has a sort of "red herring" in the text.

As the wall allows those who were inside during the casting to pass though it freely as if it wasn't there, it also includes a clause stating that other people and objects cannot pass through it freely.

This has nothing to do with whether or not it can be destroyed, it is merely clarifying that the ability to pass through the wall freely only applies to that which was inside during the casting.

Now, whether or not a force construct can be destroyed is another issue, one which the rules don't have a clear answer for afaik. Wall of force states that it can't (except by disintegrate) but it doesn't say whether or not that it a unique property of wall of force or simply a property of all force constructs. There is no generic rule here, only a specific one.

So really there is no RAW answer, only a RAI.

I personally believe that it probably can be destroyed RAI by going back to previous editions where it could be blown over by strong winds and stronger spells of the same type did have specific durability's, and it granted cover to those within, but that only show's the spells legacy, the 5E writers could have been thinking something completely different, and is most certainly not RAW on the issue.

Battlebooze

2015-06-02, 02:49 PM

Shining Wrath

2015-06-02, 03:08 PM

If you do then you should agree that by common sense all objects should take damage unless stated otherwise, not all objects do not take damage unless stated otherwise.

How many HP does it have?

A mountain can be damaged with a pickaxe. Attack mountain, remove chunk of rock. It just takes most of forever to destroy a good-sized mountain with a pickaxe.

So granting for the sake of argument that the object LTH can be damaged, does it have 5 HP (destroyed trivially), 500 HP (destroyed with effort), or 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 HP (not gonna happen)?

Until the LTH spell tells us how many HP the object has, arguing that all objects can be damaged is pointless. And any answer about the number of HP from 1 to infinity is an arbitrary, homebrew answer. You can type until your fingers fall off about what "makes sense" as a total # of HP, but it's still a homebrew patch to a problem spell.

It's a badly written spell. Either the hut cannot be damaged, only dispelled; or it should have HP. If it can't be damaged it should say so. If it has HP it should say so.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 03:16 PM

This is part of the reason I dont post all that much. There are a constat stream of inane conversations where somebody is obviously ng and just keeps going.

Sooo, why do you post then if you don't want people to reply to you?

I dont want to throw the A word around sonce this isnt a forum like tg but really. I even got an answer on my blatant mockery of a lightning bolr example. Of course. I cant knock back lightning bolt

I knew you were being sarcastic with a bad joke, hence I also retaliated with my own bad joke, sorry I didn't find your joke funny at all that I thought to bring my own joke to bring about my own bad humor.

I.shouldn't to change text color when im beating sarcasm into my phone screen so im going to get charged with aaggravated assault

So are you saying a joke now or not? Is this sarcasm?

Just like its dumb to assume you can punch down a LSH because the rules say that your specific name and SSN couldnt do it while you start making your own rectal pulled house rules on what HP it must have which arent listed either because GUESS WHAT your not meant to punch it down

I guess first of all... calm down? I can't tell if you are being serious or not now. I mean seriously take a couple of deep breaths and come back with a more reasonable post, you aren't in a time limit here so you can proofread your own post before you actually post it so it doesn't seem that you wrote it with your face in a fit of hysteria.

Second, it is interesting that you say you aren't supposed to punch it down... in what way do you mean that you can't punch it down? Are you saying that the actual physical action of someone bringing a fist to the Hut is impossible to do in reality. I mean you can say that you can't use Cure Wounds to cure a Zombie because it says so in the description that you can't do it. You are basically saying that if someone was next to the Hut that it will be physically impossible for them to bring a fist to the hut and strike it. I mean if you meant to say that a person can't break through the Hut with just their hand is one thing but you are saying that the person is incapable of bringing a hand against the Hut as if it was violating a law of nature. I mean what about a Monk who only knows how to fight with fists? Why can't he break through a Hut?

Maybe try to elaborate your post next time and be on topic instead of going on a ramble about Social Security.

Now, whether or not a force construct can be destroyed is another issue, one which the rules don't have a clear answer for afaik. Wall of force states that it can't (except by disintegrate) but it doesn't say whether or not that it a unique property of wall of force or simply a property of all force constructs. There is no generic rule here, only a specific one.

The description of the Wall of Force specifically states that the Wall of Force is immune to damage not that because it is a force construct therefore it is immune to damage. If Wall of Ice says that Wall of Ice is immune to damage I don't think you should suddenly believe that all ice is immune to damage as well.

I personally believe that it probably can be destroyed RAI by going back to previous editions where it could be blown over by strong winds and stronger spells of the same type did have specific durability's, and it granted cover to those within, but that only show's the spells legacy, the 5E writers could have been thinking something completely different, and is most certainly not RAW on the issue.

I say that it should be destroyed because I subscribe to the theory that anything can be damaged and destroyed unless said otherwise. Wall of Force is immune to being destroyed except by Disintegrate because it says so, it is an exception to the rule. Creatures and objects take damage from anything unless it says otherwise. Of course the question is how durable it should be.

The GM in my current game has been forcing my bard to make "concentration" Con saves to reinforce his LTH when it gets hit with magical attacks. I don't have a problem with this, it seems to be a pretty good compromise in our play so far.

I would've said that if it takes any damage then the bard should be forced to make a Concentration check to make it hold but at least this is a lot better than the other people saying that ancient dragons and archdemons and nuclear blasts being impotent to bring down the Hut.

Talakeal

2015-06-02, 03:27 PM

Sooo, why do you post then if you don't want people to reply to you?

I knew you were being sarcastic with a bad joke, hence I also retaliated with my own bad joke, sorry I didn't find your joke funny at all that I thought to bring my own joke to bring about my own bad humor.

So are you saying a joke now or not? Is this sarcasm?

I guess first of all... calm down? I can't tell if you are being serious or not now. I mean seriously take a couple of deep breaths and come back with a more reasonable post, you aren't in a time limit here so you can proofread your own post before you actually post it so it doesn't seem that you wrote it with your face in a fit of hysteria.

Second, it is interesting that you say you aren't supposed to punch it down... in what way do you mean that you can't punch it down? Are you saying that the actual physical action of someone bringing a fist to the Hut is impossible to do in reality. I mean you can say that you can't use Cure Wounds to cure a Zombie because it says so in the description that you can't do it. You are basically saying that if someone was next to the Hut that it will be physically impossible for them to bring a fist to the hut and strike it. I mean if you meant to say that a person can't break through the Hut with just their hand is one thing but you are saying that the person is incapable of bringing a hand against the Hut as if it was violating a law of nature. I mean what about a Monk who only knows how to fight with fists? Why can't he break through a Hut?

Maybe try to elaborate your post next time and be on topic instead of going on a ramble about Social Security.

The description of the Wall of Force specifically states that the Wall of Force is immune to damage not that because it is a force construct therefore it is immune to damage. If Wall of Ice says that Wall of Ice is immune to damage I don't think you should suddenly believe that all ice is immune to damage as well.

I say that it should be destroyed because I subscribe to the theory that anything can be damaged and destroyed unless said otherwise. Wall of Force is immune to being destroyed except by Disintegrate because it says so, it is an exception to the rule. Creatures and objects take damage from anything unless it says otherwise. Of course the question is how durable it should be.

I would've said that if it takes any damage then the bard should be forced to make a Concentration check to make it hold but at least this is a lot better than the other people saying that ancient dragons and archdemons and nuclear blasts being impotent to bring down the Hut.

I amnot sure why you quoted me just to say the same thing using slightly different words, I agree that the Wall of Force has no bearing on LTH by RAW, but if someone is trying to mine it for evidence for their interpreation of RAI they could do so either way.

As to anything being able to be destroyed, I dont agree with that. Leomunds tiny hut might not have any sort of tangible essence to be destroyed, similar to a magnetic or gravitational field. For example, I would say that you most certainly could break down an anti-life shell or an alarm spell despite them having very similar properties to a LTH. But again, this is purely in the realm of RAI as there is no RAW answer.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 03:27 PM

How many HP does it have?

A mountain can be damaged with a pickaxe. Attack mountain, remove chunk of rock. It just takes most of forever to destroy a good-sized mountain with a pickaxe.

Sure but a mountain is much much bigger than the 10 feet of space that the Hut occupies therefore it should be much more durable than the Hut. But then again you can dig through a mountain with a pickaxe and enough time, according to people you can't breach through a Hut even with a nuclear blast where as you could level a mountain with a big enough blast.

Until the LTH spell tells us how many HP the object has, arguing that all objects can be damaged is pointless.

So you are saying that unless said otherwise then all objects are immune to damage? You are basically opening the can of worms that lets me say that a piece of paper made by Creation is immune to damage because the spell neglects to actually mention how damage affects it.

And any answer about the number of HP from 1 to infinity is an arbitrary, homebrew answer. You can type until your fingers fall off about what "makes sense" as a total # of HP, but it's still a homebrew patch to a problem spell.

Actually no need my friend, the DMG comes with an answer for you. Since it is a large object the DMG reccomends the Hut having 1d10 or 5d10 HP (or 27 average) and maybe an AC of 13 (it is closest to what I believe a force construct would have). If you want proof see pages 246 and 247 of the DMG.

So by RAW I believe this is as close to an answer as we are gonna get. And this is homebrew because this is DMG and up to the DM to decide so basically not much use in the large scheme of things.

As to anything being able to be destroyed, I dont agree with that. Leomunds tiny hut might not have any sort of tangible essence to be destroyed, similar to a magnetic or gravitational field.

If it bars the passage then it has to be tangible enough for it to affect in a moment of time greater than one instant. You can't say that it acts like a solid object and yet not have any solid presence. A magnetic and gravitational field affects objects but doesn't restrict them by impeding their passage. You can't hit a magnetic or a gravitational field with an object because there is nothing physical about them to affect it yet the Hut does prevent movement by being a physical obstacle so therefore it can be destroyed because it has a physical presence that can be interacted with.

For example, I would say that you most certainly could break down an anti-life shell or an alarm spell despite them having very similar properties to a LTH. But again, this is purely in the realm of RAI as there is no RAW answer.

Actually according to the wording of the Antilife shell, it just only helps in being unable to reach the warded creature. You can totally hit a creature with Antiilife shell using a reach weapon, a ranged weapon or a spell as the spell says so. So you can't break down an antilife shell with weapons or spells because the shell lets those effects pass through since it doesn't bar the passage. The only way you can actually try to break down an antilife shell is with your fists, natural weapons or a living weapon.

And alarm just alerts the presence of a creature in a specific area, I don't think you can destroy an alarm spell since there is nothing physical to destroy it since it doesn't bar passage and kinda pointless because the mage who casted it will be aware of you anyway.

Shining Wrath

2015-06-02, 03:47 PM

Sure but a mountain is much much bigger than the 10 feet of space that the Hut occupies therefore it should be much more durable than the Hut. But then again you can dig through a mountain with a pickaxe and enough time, according to people you can't breach through a Hut even with a nuclear blast where as you could level a mountain with a big enough blast.

So you are saying that unless said otherwise then all objects are immune to damage? You are basically opening the can of worms that lets me say that a piece of paper made by Creation is immune to damage because the spell neglects to actually mention how damage affects it.

Actually no need my friend, the DMG comes with an answer for you. Since it is a large object the DMG reccomends the Hut having 1d10 or 5d10 HP (or 27 average) and maybe an AC of 13 (it is closest to what I believe a force construct would have). If you want proof see pages 246 and 247 of the DMG.

So by RAW I believe this is as close to an answer as we are gonna get. And this is homebrew because this is DMG and up to the DM to decide so basically not much use in the large scheme of things.

If it bars the passage then it has to be tangible enough for it to affect in a moment of time greater than one instant. You can't say that it acts like a solid object and yet not have any solid presence. A magnetic and gravitational field affects objects but doesn't restrict them by impeding their passage. You can't hit a magnetic or a gravitational field with an object because there is nothing physical about them to affect it yet the Hut does prevent movement by being a physical obstacle so therefore it can be destroyed because it has a physical presence that can be interacted with.

Actually according to the wording of the Antilife shell, it just only helps in being unable to reach the warded creature. You can totally hit a creature with Antiilife shell using a reach weapon, a ranged weapon or a spell as the spell says so. So you can't break down an antilife shell with weapons or spells because the shell lets those effects pass through since it doesn't bar the passage. The only way you can actually try to break down an antilife shell is with your fists, natural weapons or a living weapon.

And alarm just alerts the presence of a creature in a specific area, I don't think you can destroy an alarm spell since there is nothing physical to destroy it since it doesn't bar passage and kinda pointless because the mage who casted it will be aware of you anyway.

Until you can supply a number, it is homebrew to say it is possible to destroy it. A toothpick? A greatsword? The Tarrasque? Divine entities? What's needed? EDIT: The answer of "27 HP" and "AC 13" is plausible, but it is still a ruling, not a rule.

It's a problem spell. You can keep spouting hypotheticals about paper and what have you, but this spell needs a revision.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 03:58 PM

Until you can supply a number, it is homebrew to say it is possible to destroy it. A toothpick? A greatsword? The Tarrasque? Divine entities? What's needed? EDIT: The answer of "27 HP" and "AC 13" is plausible, but it is still a ruling, not a rule.

It came from the DMG, not me. If you say that everything in the DMG is a ruling and not a rule that is fine since the DMG is just a DM helper guide.

It's a problem spell. You can keep spouting hypotheticals about paper and what have you, but this spell needs a revision.

I always said that the spell needed errata. But by saying that the Hut is immune to damage because it doesn't say anything then by that logic anything that is created by a spell that doesn't have stats is immune to damage as a result. You can't just say the Hut is okay and Creation is not even though both lack descriptions on how damage affects the objects they produce. That is why I have a problem with people treating this as a hyper fortress because it opens the door to abuse besides the easily abusable Hut.

Vogonjeltz

2015-06-02, 04:25 PM

All right, now provide proof that you didn't crib from the Wall of Force spell description. Because the spell description clearly states that the Wall of Force itself is immune to damage and that only the Wall of Force can be destroyed with Disintegrate. The ruling of Wall of Force should never be used to dictate what other effects do or don't do unless the effect itself references it (see Disintegrate).

So unless you have some other proof that says that force objects are immune to damage and that only disintegrate can deal with them then you are utterly wrong, you can't use a spell to call the rulings outside the spell itself. You can't say Cone of Cold should slow people as well because Ray of Frost slows and they both deal cold damage.

1) On destroying it, I looked at the Disintegrate entry and read: "The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force." In this case the wall is a mere example, the actual thing is "a creation of magical force" which the Leomund's Tiny Hut most certainly is.

2) The spell says nothing can pass through it, that is an absolute immunity to harm as to damage it a thing must be capable of passing through it. That's how damaging objects works.

There are not unique, they are normal force objects. The change in material doesn't make them special

Normal force objects is an oxymoron, they're by definition abnormal.

Depends on the sword, an iron sword would probably break like you said but a sword made of harder stuff like adamantine or even a magic sword could probably cut through stone without damaging the sword itself. Now I would say that such an action is horribly ineffective in cutting through stone but if the player wants to and they had such a tool then they could do it. It isn't the most effective by a long shot but they could do it if they had a special sword. Besides we can't cut through a stone wall but what when we face off an earth elemental, should swords shatter on it as well?

If we were to say that this is some unusual stone-cutting sword, then yes, it would be common sense that one could cut stone with it. But normal swords don't, they would (eventually) shatter on stone before making headway. You're looking for an exception to the rule, there isn't one for Leomund's Tiny Hut, it provides a universal absolute: Nothing can pass through.

You do realize you just repeated yourself there. Yes the WALL OF FORCE is immune to all damage and thus cannot be damaged by all. I have no problems with the WALL OF FORCE not being dealt damage because this is written in the spell itself. This is about LEOMUND'S TINY HUT. You cannot use one spell to describe another spell.

If you need to use another spell to describe the Hut then the spell is badly written and needs to be errata'd. This isn't even about if I am right or wrong, no one at this point is right because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Hut can or cannot take damage, of course common sense should dictate that the Hut shouldn't supplant the Wall of Force since the Hut has many benefits that the Wall of Force does not have and the casting time can be circumvented considering that the Hut lasts for 8 hours so you can place as many huts as you need while the Wall of Force you are limited to one since it ties up your concentration.

So my point is that basically, true common sense should say that 5 > 3. That is all.

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that nothing can pass through proves it is immune to all damage. They could have wasted page space repeating that fact in the same manner as wall of force, but they don't need to because their readers are rational thinking beings capable of comprehending that fact.

Also contrary to your assertion, the caster of Leomund's Tiny Hut can really only cast one, because the spell ends if the caster leaves the hut.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 04:48 PM

2) The spell says nothing can pass through it, that is an absolute immunity to harm as to damage it a thing must be capable of passing through it. That's how damaging objects works.

Citation needed please, please point to the DMG, PHB or MM where it says that the definition of damaging anything in the D&D world means passing through it. Cause of course you will try to spin it to your desires.

In fact I'll do you one better, lets go to the dictionary and see what does damaging means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damaging

Hmmm there is a lot to go through, mind pointing out where does it say that damaging means going through the object? Feel free to use other dictionaries to give the definition of damaging.

I mean because by your logic a creature that is stuck outside in the cold and taking cold damage means that the weather is going through the creature

If you inject a creature with poison does that means that you are going through the creature with poison?

If you use the greatest fear that a creature has and cause psychic damage, are you going through that creature as well?

I mean how does necrotic damage work in objects? How can the withering of structures translate to going through them?

Damage is more than just slamming at stuff.

Normal force objects is an oxymoron, they're by definition abnormal.

A force object is an object made of force, there is nothing normal or abnormal beyond the properties of force. Normal and abnormal are social constructs meaningless in this discussion

If we were to say that this is some unusual stone-cutting sword, then yes, it would be common sense that one could cut stone with it. But normal swords don't, they would (eventually) shatter on stone before making headway.

Hence why I said that if it was a normal iron sword then you would shatter it but a sword made of much sterner stuff would cut through, not even a specialized stone cutting weapon, just an adamantine one would be enough

You're looking for an exception to the rule, there isn't one for Leomund's Tiny Hut, it provides a universal absolute: Nothing can pass through.

I already said my point that all matter will block all matter so by your logic because nothing can pass through matter normally then all matter is immune to damage because you say so. Mind showing me the proof that what you say is true in the game?

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that nothing can pass through proves it is immune to all damage.

You are the one drawing absolutes here, not me. All matter cannot pass through other matter unless enough force is put on it. By stating a law that all objects has as absolute you are saying that all matter is immune to damage as if it is true for the Hut it should be true for all.

They could have wasted page space repeating that fact in the same manner as wall of force, but they don't need to because their readers are rational thinking beings capable of comprehending that fact.

So then why write the wall of force with immunity to damage if it was so obvious then? Why did Wall of Force needed clarification but the Hut didn't need even though the hut is much more ambiguous than the Wall. Mind explaining this further because you are backing the perfect example of a contradition, it is like neglecting to put damage rolls for Chain Lightning because Lightning Bolt having damage rolls is good enough.

Also contrary to your assertion, the caster of Leomund's Tiny Hut can really only cast one, because the spell ends if the caster leaves the hut.

The caster can cast as many as he needs, he just needs to go to the edge of the Hut and cast another one. There is nothing that can say that two huts can overlap one another so you can say that you can layer a very long Hut. So yeah I am still correct in saying you can have as many as you need.

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-02, 04:51 PM

The GM in my current game has been forcing my bard to make "concentration" Con saves to reinforce his LTH when it gets hit with magical attacks. I don't have a problem with this, it seems to be a pretty good compromise in our play so far. Tip of the cap to your GM.
Shining Wrath

A mountain can be damaged with a pickaxe. Attack mountain, remove chunk of rock. It just takes most of forever to destroy a good-sized mountain with a pickaxe. The dwarves on the chain gang get to pick away at the mountain when they break the clan laws and are still serving their sentences. :smallcool:

An thought on LTH: it's the D&D equivalent of a one way check valve that keeps the rain out.

Added comments:

... the DMG comes with an answer for you. Since it is a large object the DMG recommends the Hut having 1d10 or 5d10 HP (or 27 average) and maybe an AC of 13 (it is closest to what I believe a force construct would have). If you want proof see pages 246 and 247 of the DMG. Not a bad way to resolve.

Nitpick to Vogon about point 2:

2) The spell says nothing can pass through it, that is an absolute immunity to harm as to damage it a thing must be capable of passing through it. That's how damaging objects works.
Thunder damage doesn't necessarily pass through.
Bludgeoning damage likewise.
Force damage, maybe and maybe not.
Does lightning need to "pass through" to zap something with electrical force/energy?
Fire damage uses heat ... etc ..
Radiant Damage ... it falls from up there to down here and damages things. It doesn't need to pass through.

Acid ... hmmm. You might be on better ground there with the slashing and piercing that do have to "pass through" to apply hurts.

OK, you can't poison Leomund's Tiny Hut. That one I'll grant you with certainty. :-)

Second nit pick

Normal force objects is an oxymoron, they're by definition abnormal.
They are by definition magical. Magic is normal in the multiverse of D&D, so it isn't abnormal ... whatever it is.

Shining Wrath

2015-06-02, 05:04 PM

It came from the DMG, not me. If you say that everything in the DMG is a ruling and not a rule that is fine since the DMG is just a DM helper guide.

I always said that the spell needed errata. But by saying that the Hut is immune to damage because it doesn't say anything then by that logic anything that is created by a spell that doesn't have stats is immune to damage as a result. You can't just say the Hut is okay and Creation is not even though both lack descriptions on how damage affects the objects they produce. That is why I have a problem with people treating this as a hyper fortress because it opens the door to abuse besides the easily abusable Hut.

Unless your reading is incorrect, because LTH is different than most objects, being a pure magic item that can still be passed through by certain creatures and their possessions. A large object made of pure magic may very well have more or fewer HP than a large object made of metal or wood. An object that is semi-permeable may very well have a different AC than objects which are solid.

In other words, 27 HP, 13 AC is a plausible houserule, but it is very much a houserule, not a direct reading from the DMG with no other allowable interpretations.

Kevan

2015-06-02, 05:06 PM

A force object is an object made of force, there is nothing normal or abnormal beyond the properties of force.

Why would you assume that you can attack force? When I read Leomund's Tiny Hut, I assumed that it created a dome of force, not an object shaped like a dome made of something called force. Force, as I understand it, can't be attacked. If I described the earth's gravity as: "A sphere of force that pushes all creatures and objects toward the center of the earth," would I be able to attack that sphere to fly?

Or, is Leomund's Tiny Hut something different from normal forces? And if so, do you have some evidence to make you believe this is the case?

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 05:38 PM

Unless your reading is incorrect, because LTH is different than most objects, being a pure magic item that can still be passed through by certain creatures and their possessions. A large object made of pure magic may very well have more or fewer HP than a large object made of metal or wood. An object that is semi-permeable may very well have a different AC than objects which are solid.

In other words, 27 HP, 13 AC is a plausible houserule, but it is very much a houserule, not a direct reading from the DMG with no other allowable interpretations.

The AC I'll give that I just thought of it being made of glass. You can give whatever AC you want (even an AC of 23 if you want it to think it was made of Adamantine)

The HP was a direct reading because the DMG says that all large objects have either 1d10 HP for fragile objects or 5d10 for sturdy ones, that one is a direct reading from the DMG and without any wiggle room.

So basically the AC is up in the air but by RAW in the DMG it should have 5d10 HP as it is for a Large sturdy object

Why would you assume that you can attack force?

Because I can interact with it physically so I can try to swing my sword at it. If I can't attack it then that means that I can't affect it and since the only way by affecting me is physically therefore I can attack it because I can attack anything that is physically there.

When I read Leomund's Tiny Hut, I assumed that it created a dome of force, not an object shaped like a dome made of something called force. Force, as I understand it, can't be attacked.

Please explain your definition of force for better reference. Because force can mean mass times acceleration, it could mean the damage done as explained in the PHB, it could even mean the fundamental being inside of all of us as said by space hippies.

But force as a material is basically energy that is able to exist in a solid state. Hence the Hut is made of force the material.

If I described the earth's gravity as: "A sphere of force that pushes all creatures and objects toward the center of the earth," would I be able to attack that sphere to fly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles.

Gravity doesn't act in a sphere, it acts individually between all objects. You can't have a field of gravity because gravity doesn't exist in an area, it only exists as the effect between two objects have on one another. And if it was a field it would extend to infinity because every single object in the universe affects one another.

Unless you knew about all of that, which in case you are still wrong because gravity doesn't interact with me physically, it doesn't have a physical component I can actually say it exists in this space. Therefore I can't attack the gravity because it doesn't exist in a physical space that I can interact with. So no you can't fly because you attack the gravity anymore that you can light the way by attacking the darkness.

Or, is Leomund's Tiny Hut something different from normal forces? And if so, do you have some evidence to make you believe this is the case?

Burden of proof is on you, not me. I gave my reasoning above and you have yet to disprove me. You have to counter my previous arguments before you can demand more proof.

Kevan

2015-06-02, 06:42 PM

Because I can interact with it physically so I can try to swing my sword at it. If I can't attack it then that means that I can't affect it and since the only way by affecting me is physically therefore I can attack it because I can attack anything that is physically there.

Gravity interacts with you physically. It can physically move you through space, or prevent you from entering an area, much like Leomund's Tiny Hut. This doesn't mean you can attack it with a sword. You could affect it by other means. In the case of gravity, with another gravitational field. In the case of Leomund's Tiny Hut, with Dispel Magic.

Please explain your definition of force for better reference. Because force can mean mass times acceleration, it could mean the damage done as explained in the PHB, it could even mean the fundamental being inside of all of us as said by space hippies.

I meant mass times acceleration, but can you attack any of these examples?

But force as a material is basically energy that is able to exist in a solid state. Hence the Hut is made of force the material.

Where did you get this definition? What book is it in?

Unless you knew about all of that

I did. Gravity being an infinite sphere doesn't change my argument.

gravity doesn't interact with me physically

Maybe you're using the word physically in a different way than I am, but I would say that gravity can physically hold a person down. I'm unsure what you mean by this.

it doesn't have a physical component I can actually say it exists in this space. Therefore I can't attack the gravity because it doesn't exist in a physical space that I can interact with.

This is a little unclear, but I agree it doesn't have a material component. Or, in other words, that it isn't an object. Is this what you're trying to say? If that's the case, this is true of all forces. And since the spell description says that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a force, I think it should also apply to it as well.

Burden of proof is on you, not me. I gave my reasoning above and you have yet to disprove me. You have to counter my previous arguments before you can demand more proof.

If Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't a physical object that can be attacked, what exactly is your argument? If if can't be attacked, and nothing can pass through it, doesn't it act like the OP says?

Chronos

2015-06-02, 06:55 PM

Quoth Shaofoo:

Any matter can go through any matter if you give it enough force, you can shoot a blade of grass through a brick wall as well if you put enough force. Anything that has matter could in theory be given enough force so that their momentum can shatter a brick wall.
Yes, exactly, this is a way in which things made of matter are different from things not made of matter. The statement "nothing can pass through X" is false, if X is anything made of matter, because anything can if it hits it hard enough. However, if X is a Leomund's Tiny Hut, then the spell description tells us that that statement is true.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 09:17 PM

Gravity interacts with you physically. It can physically move you through space, or prevent you from entering an area, much like Leomund's Tiny Hut.

I sincerely thought for a moment that maybe bringing up the actual definition of gravity was gonna be overkill.

I would like some proof that somehow gravity acts like a barrier that prevents the passage of matter. Like tell me something that was stopped by a barrier of gravity.

This doesn't mean you can attack it with a sword.

Good cause I said you can't since gravity doesn't have a physical component

You could affect it by other means. In the case of gravity, with another gravitational field.

Gravity isn't affected by other gravitational fields. All gravitational fields on all objects affects you equally and thus the net effect of the force is what the body in question will move towards but the force between two bodies is not diminished with the addition of a third body, it just takes into account the third body and adds the forces, adding bodies does not add or diminish the initial attraction between the first two bodies, it does affect the net result.

In the case of Leomund's Tiny Hut, with Dispel Magic.

And a good hammer, or other damage types

I meant mass times acceleration, but can you attack any of these examples?
What is there to attack, they are ill formed with lack of proof.

Where did you get this definition? What book is it in?

If you are trying to justify this with actual real life proof then I am sorry but force as a material only exists in D&D fantasy land. So I can't really provide proof that it exists anymore that I can provide proof that midichlorians exist in real life or prove that warp drives exist.

Force as a damage type by the book is pure magic energy, so I assume that much is true is for a material. Force as a material is made of pure magic energy. Not mass times acceleration.

I did. Gravity being an infinite sphere doesn't change my argument.

Well gravity not being a sphere actually does change your argument a whole lot. Or rather you can't just say that the force of gravity exists in an empty space, it is the interaction between two objects. There is no gravity if there is only one object in the universe.

Maybe you're using the word physically in a different way than I am, but I would say that gravity can physically hold a person down. I'm unsure what you mean by this.

Physically means that I can touch the actual force of gravity. This is why you can't directly affect the force of gravity

This is a little unclear, but I agree it doesn't have a material component. Or, in other words, that it isn't an object. Is this what you're trying to say? If that's the case, this is true of all forces. And since the spell description says that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a force, I think it should also apply to it as well.

Okay, so by your logic the Hut shouldn't prevent movement like a barrier because since the Hut is made of force it doesn't have a physical component so therefore it can't bar movement because it isn't physically there, yet the spell description says that it does bar movement so it should have a physical component that I can interact with.

So either the force in the Hut is made of a material called force that does have a physical component or the spell is flat out wrong.

If Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't a physical object that can be attacked, what exactly is your argument? If if can't be attacked, and nothing can pass through it, doesn't it act like the OP says?

It can be attacked because there is an actual barrier to be formed. Considering that you are so keen on using the f=ma definition of force then I wonder how much m and a is there to the Hut to create a barrier, because as it stands the hut is immobile and a body at rest should have a = 0 and if you said that it isn't physically an object then that means that there isn't any mass so m = 0. So by your admision F = 0 * 0 = 0. Even if you want to say that the hut does have some mass it still doesn't have an acceleration component.

Now of course this is magic so justification on how magic works in real life is asinine but I just want you to know that in trying to be clever you just completely invalidated the entire Hut. The Hut cannot exist in our reality as you claim it unless there is some extra component that can actually cause it to add to the force itself. I say that when they say force it means that force is a material, not f = ma just like Wall of Force is not Wall of F=ma.

I would like to see your proof if you decide to refute me.

Yes, exactly, this is a way in which things made of matter are different from things not made of matter. The statement "nothing can pass through X" is false, if X is anything made of matter, because anything can if it hits it hard enough. However, if X is a Leomund's Tiny Hut, then the spell description tells us that that statement is true.

So you are saying that because it shares a property that all matter has between one another then it can't be violated because a spell says so. Even if nothing can pass it at all it doesn't mean that the spell itself is immune to damage since it definitely doesn't have that going for it unlike Wall of Force which does say that it is immune to damage. You can't just say if nothing can pass then it can't be damaged because there are ways to damage something without going through it, like fire, cold, necrotic and so on. You have no proof to assume that prevention of passage equals invulnerability to damage when there are non force damage as well.

Talakeal

2015-06-02, 09:20 PM

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 09:44 PM

Two important things:

First, you need to look at rules in context. Leomunds hut allows the caster and those who are with him during casting to pass through it freely, as if it wasn't even there. When it says other matter cannot pass through it this is an important distinction, as normal matter does not let the caster pass through it. It does not necessarily mean that it is invulnerable, merely that other matter does not have the caster's ability to walk right through it. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that it ISN'T invulnerable either.

Either it is vulnerable or it isn't vulnerable. You can't flip flop between these two things. You can damage it or you cannot. This is Leomund's Tiny Hut not Schrödinger's Tiny Hut.

Second, Force in D&D (and a lot of Sci-fi / fantasy) isn't really defined and is just treated as some sort of matter analogue that is made out of inexplicable energy. In the real world a "force field" is something like a gravity well or a magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field

You can discard the first one since it talks about fiction. So unless you have actual proof that Force fields in real life are made of magnetic or gravitational fields I would say that your version is as much real as my version of magic energies given physical manifestation.

I would like to see your proof that such things exist though.

Those can repel things and keep them out, but you can't "destroy" them. You might be able to destroy the source, but hitting the field itself does nothing to it because it isn't matter, it is just an energy field. So deeming a "force" construct in D&D to be indestructible is not unreasonable.

In fiction there are many cases where constructs made of force are destroyed, just basically any fiction where they say shields down. Energy fields are destroyed in fiction all the time, whether in scifi or fantasy it has happened before. If your world says that your force fields are all invulnerable fields is one thing but you can't just transplant that to mean all force fields everywhere, especially when examples abound (want one, see Harry Potter and the main bad guy bringing down a massive force field with his own magical powers)

I would imagine trying to push something through a wall of force (or similar spell) would be like trying to push two powerful magnets with a like attraction into one another.

I personally think that it is like rubbing yourself on a glass surface, or rather more like plexiglass since I imagine it does have a bit of a bounce.

There is certainly a force keeping them apart, but it isn't a tangible object and you can't smash the energy field with physical objects or anything else. The only thing you could do would be to move the object that creates the field.

The Hut is a tangible object because it bars the passage without resorting to magnets or gravity. It uses material made of pure magic to prevent passage. If you want to say that magic is immune to damage that is one thing but the Hut is an actual object in the actual space, it isn't gravity or magnets at work here.

Kevan

2015-06-02, 10:10 PM

I sincerely thought for a moment that maybe bringing up the actual definition of gravity was gonna be overkill.

I would like some proof that somehow gravity acts like a barrier that prevents the passage of matter. Like tell me something that was stopped by a barrier of gravity.

Everything inside the event horizon of a black hole is stopped by gravity.

Good cause I said you can't since gravity doesn't have a physical component

I agree, because it is a force, just like Leomund's Tiny Hut

Gravity isn't affected by other gravitational fields. All gravitational fields on all objects affects you equally and thus the net effect of the force is what the body in question will move towards but the force between two bodies is not diminished with the addition of a third body, it just takes into account the third body and adds the forces, adding bodies does not add or diminish the initial attraction between the first two bodies, it does affect the net result.

That's true. I guess I wasn't clear. I meant to say that you can change a gravitational force field by adding another gravitating object. I don't think this is really important to this argument, except to say that a gravitational force field can be altered even though it isn't a physical object.

And a good hammer, or other damage types

What is there to attack, they are ill formed with lack of proof.

That's what I'm trying to say. There is nothing to attack in Leomund's Tiny Hut because it is a force. It tells you what happens to objects that try to go through it, but you can't just hit it with a hammer. Just like the gravitational force, which tells you what happens to matter, but you can't just attack it.

If you are trying to justify this with actual real life proof then I am sorry but force as a material only exists in D&D fantasy land. So I can't really provide proof that it exists anymore that I can provide proof that midichlorians exist in real life or prove that warp drives exist.

Force as a damage type by the book is pure magic energy, so I assume that much is true is for a material. Force as a material is made of pure magic energy. Not mass times acceleration.

I was hoping for a reference in a D&D book. Is there some reason to believe that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a material made of force, and not just a force? Like gravity, or electromagnetism?

Well gravity not being a sphere actually does change your argument a whole lot. Or rather you can't just say that the force of gravity exists in an empty space, it is the interaction between two objects. There is no gravity if there is only one object in the universe.

A single object in empty space still has a force field. It would tell you how much an amount of mass that you placed anywhere in that field would accelerate.

Physically means that I can touch the actual force of gravity. This is why you can't directly affect the force of gravity

And why can you touch the actual force of Leomund's Tiny Hut? What makes that force different than the force of gravity?

Okay, so by your logic the Hut shouldn't prevent movement like a barrier because since the Hut is made of force it doesn't have a physical component so therefore it can't bar movement because it isn't physically there, yet the spell description says that it does bar movement so it should have a physical component that I can interact with.

So either the force in the Hut is made of a material called force that does have a physical component or the spell is flat out wrong.

No, I'm saying that it acts like an actual real life force and stops things from moving without having a physical component.

It can be attacked because there is an actual barrier to be formed. Considering that you are so keen on using the f=ma definition of force then I wonder how much m and a is there to the Hut to create a barrier, because as it stands the hut is immobile and a body at rest should have a = 0 and if you said that it isn't physically an object then that means that there isn't any mass so m = 0. So by your admision F = 0 * 0 = 0. Even if you want to say that the hut does have some mass it still doesn't have an acceleration component.

Now of course this is magic so justification on how magic works in real life is asinine but I just want you to know that in trying to be clever you just completely invalidated the entire Hut. The Hut cannot exist in our reality as you claim it unless there is some extra component that can actually cause it to add to the force itself. I say that when they say force it means that force is a material, not f = ma just like Wall of Force is not Wall of F=ma.

I would like to see your proof if you decide to refute me.

Well, the force at the dome must be infinite. It has to be large enough to accelerate an object of any speed and mass to zero before it gets through the barrier, otherwise an object could penetrate it, which is forbidden by the spell. And since the mass and velocity can be arbitrarily high, the force must be infinite. So, I agree that it couldn't exist in our world.

The force side of the equation is the force provided by the field, the ma side of the equation is the effect the force has on an object in that force field.

So you are saying that because it shares a property that all matter has between one another then it can't be violated because a spell says so. Even if nothing can pass it at all it doesn't mean that the spell itself is immune to damage since it definitely doesn't have that going for it unlike Wall of Force which does say that it is immune to damage. You can't just say if nothing can pass then it can't be damaged because there are ways to damage something without going through it, like fire, cold, necrotic and so on. You have no proof to assume that prevention of passage equals invulnerability to damage when there are non force damage as well.

I think he was saying that if it was matter something could get though it. In other words:

If a barrier is made of matter, than some object (of sufficient mass or velocity) could get through it. No object can get through Leomund's Tiny Hut. Therefore, Lemund's Tiny Hut isn't matter.

And if it's not matter, why could you attack it?

Kevan

2015-06-02, 10:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field

You can discard the first one since it talks about fiction. So unless you have actual proof that Force fields in real life are made of magnetic or gravitational fields I would say that your version is as much real as my version of magic energies given physical manifestation.

I would like to see your proof that such things exist though.

Literally every magnet has a magnetic field and every object has a gravitational field. These are both force fields.

I personally think that it is like rubbing yourself on a glass surface, or rather more like plexiglass since I imagine it does have a bit of a bounce.

It might be. I always imagined it to be very hard, with very little bounce.

The Hut is a tangible object because it bars the passage without resorting to magnets or gravity. It uses material made of pure magic to prevent passage. If you want to say that magic is immune to damage that is one thing but the Hut is an actual object in the actual space, it isn't gravity or magnets at work here.

So, it's a tangible object because it's a force that bars passage without resorting to magnets of gravity? The strong and weak forces both do this, they are no more tangible objects that magnetic fields or gravitational fields.

Why can't it use a force made of pure magic instead of a material?

Talakeal

2015-06-02, 10:57 PM

Either it is vulnerable or it isn't vulnerable. You can't flip flop between these two things. You can damage it or you cannot. This is Leomund's Tiny Hut not Schrödinger's Tiny Hut.

Um... the rules don't say explicitly whether it is vulnerable or not. It says that the caster (and other stuff near him when it is cast) can pass though it and that nothing else can. You can interpret that to mean that it is invulnerable if you like, but it does not say whether it is or not. Each individual DM will need to come up with a ruling for their own table until we get an unambiguous errata. I am not sure how an ambiguous rule that can be interpreted in multiple ways makes it "Schrödinger's Tiny Hut".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field

You can discard the first one since it talks about fiction. So unless you have actual proof that Force fields in real life are made of magnetic or gravitational fields I would say that your version is as much real as my version of magic energies given physical manifestation.

I would like to see your proof that such things exist though.
.

Ok, did you seriously not read your own link? The force fields (physics) section explicitly talks about both gravitational and electromagnetic fields as types of force fields.

In fiction there are many cases where constructs made of force are destroyed, just basically any fiction where they say shields down. Energy fields are destroyed in fiction all the time, whether in scifi or fantasy it has happened before. If your world says that your force fields are all invulnerable fields is one thing but you can't just transplant that to mean all force fields everywhere, especially when examples abound (want one, see Harry Potter and the main bad guy bringing down a massive force field with his own magical powers)

The Hut is a tangible object because it bars the passage without resorting to magnets or gravity. It uses material made of pure magic to prevent passage. If you want to say that magic is immune to damage that is one thing but the Hut is an actual object in the actual space, it isn't gravity or magnets at work here.

In Stark Trek they don't physically tear holes in the shields. They either launch attacks with sufficient force to penetrate the shields and damage the generators or they simply make the shields exert enough energy stopping their attacks that the batteries or worn down. I have seen them disrupt force fields temporarily, but never actually tear a hole in them, and when the disruption stops the force field repairs. Likewise I have seen them shoot things through a hologram (which they claim is a type of force field), but never leave any lasting damage on the hologram in the process.

The Hut is a tangible object because it bars the passage without resorting to magnets or gravity. It uses material made of pure magic to prevent passage. If you want to say that magic is immune to damage that is one thing but the Hut is an actual object in the actual space, it isn't gravity or magnets at work here.

Again, this is a perfectly valid interpretation, but there is zero evidence for it in the spell's description. I choose to believe it acts like a real life force field because it uses the term "force", but that is just my interpretation. It is just magic, it can be tangible or not.

But, let me say that an intangible force can indeed bar passage from an object, while a tangible object can NOT allow the caster to walk through it like it wasn't there, so I don't think your conclusion logically follows your reasoning.

Edit: And to clarify, I am not saying anything about what the Leomunds Tiny Hut is or isn't. I personally believe that it is an intangible and impenetrable field of energy , but that is just my interpretation of the rules given in the 5e PHB. I am also not saying that magnetic or gravitational fields are the only types of force fields or that Leomund's Tiny Hut uses any sort of real life force field to power itself, I am just using those as a metaphor because those are the closest thing we have in the real world to a "magical force field" as I see it.

coredump

2015-06-02, 11:13 PM

Talakeal

2015-06-02, 11:18 PM

It says that objects can't go through the dome.... its pretty clear.

This makes it *very* different from a wall of ice, or stone, or brick. Of course objects can go through a wall of brick... cars do it all the time; as can a bullet, or a wrecking ball, or sledge hammer, or..... No one, when referring to a wall of brick would say "All objects are barred from passing through it." Because, as shown, there are lots of objects that can pass through it.

Shafao seems to conflate the terms "can" and "always can".
A sledgehammer can go through a brick wall, that does not mean it always can go through a brick wall. But it *can't* go through LTH, period. Not sometimes, not ever.

Reading the sentence alone and out of context I agree; but the full quote is:

"Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other objects are barred from passing through it."

It is possible, even likely, that the second sentence only exists to contrast with the previous sentence, telling the reader that ONLY creatures and objects within the dome when the spell was cast can move through it freely while other things do not have this ability.

It also doesn't give any quantifiers about extreme examples. It doesn't say objects can NEVER pass through it NO MATTER WHAT NO EXCEPTIONS. I merely says other objects are barred from passing through it in casual language.

For instance, if I say "I cannot stick my hand through a brick wall," this is a true statement. However, if I where shot out of a cannon (or the wall had a convenient hole blasted in it first) that would provide a situation where I could stick my hand through a brick wall despite my previously true statement.

Also, even if you are reading it totally literally, it is completely possible to destroy something without passing through it. Simply hitting it and transforming energy into an object can destroy it without ever passing through it.

Again, I actually agree with you that it can't be destroyed by my reading of RAW, but that is far from the only valid interpretation.

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 11:45 PM

Everything inside the event horizon of a black hole is stopped by gravity.

That changes nothing, event horizon means that there is a point that the gravitational pull between both you and the black hole becomes stronger than whatever pull any other object could exert on you.

It still needs two to tango, there needs to be something else for an event horizon to exist. In fact if there is only two objects in the universe then the event horizon is infinite because there are only two objects in the universe to exert gravitational pull between one another and no other force can separate them because no other force exists.

There is no event horizon field that exists in a defined area because the event horizon is different between objects. I am sure the bigger the object the more

I agree, because it is a force, just like Leomund's Tiny Hut

Except it is not as per your definition of force

That's true. I guess I wasn't clear. I meant to say that you can change a gravitational force field by adding another gravitating object. I don't think this is really important to this argument, except to say that a gravitational force field can be altered even though it isn't a physical object.

You can't change the gravitational pull between both objects no matter how many objects you add. You only affect the net force that acts upon the object.

That's what I'm trying to say. There is nothing to attack in Leomund's Tiny Hut because it is a force. It tells you what happens to objects that try to go through it, but you can't just hit it with a hammer. Just like the gravitational force, which tells you what happens to matter, but you can't just attack it.

So you are saying that any act of force against the hut will pass through. You are then saying that if I were to hit the Hut with a hammer it will pass through because there is nothing physical for the hammer to hit.

I was hoping for a reference in a D&D book. Is there some reason to believe that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a material made of force, and not just a force? Like gravity, or electromagnetism?

The book calls it an immobile dome of force. Considering that it is made of magic I am going to assume that the force material is magic as well. If you want to say otherwise it is basically your word against mine. You are going to have to dig for proof yourself if you want to actually justify yourself there.

A single object in empty space still has a force field. It would tell you how much an amount of mass that you placed anywhere in that field would accelerate.

Yes it does have a force field since it is a mathematical construct, it doesn't mean that gravity will begin to exist on its own.

And why can you touch the actual force of Leomund's Tiny Hut? What makes that force different than the force of gravity?

So you are definitely saying that you can go through the Hut then.

No, I'm saying that it acts like an actual real life force and stops things from moving without having a physical component.

Except you need a physical component to have a force as per the f=ma, you need some m in there so saying that you can somehow create a force without a physical component is very impressive since you are saying that a * 0 =/= 0.

Well, the force at the dome must be infinite. It has to be large enough to accelerate an object of any speed and mass to zero before it gets through the barrier, otherwise an object could penetrate it, which is forbidden by the spell. And since the mass and velocity can be arbitrarily high, the force must be infinite. So, I agree that it couldn't exist in our world.

Yes it can't exist in our world. Ergo you can't say that the Hut is the f=ma version of force when it doesn't apply.

The force side of the equation is the force provided by the field, the ma side of the equation is the effect the force has on an object in that force field.

Mind explaining that to me again, because you kinda are saying to me that F =/= ma now. That Force and ma are somehow separate, explain that to me.

I think he was saying that if it was matter something could get though it. In other words:

If a barrier is made of matter, than some object (of sufficient mass or velocity) could get through it. No object can get through Leomund's Tiny Hut. Therefore, Lemund's Tiny Hut isn't matter.

And if it's not matter, why could you attack it?

So then by your definition if I can't attack it because I can't physically affect it then I can go through it because it isn't there.

If there is no matter then there is no mass which means that all force is null as per your definition. You can claim gravity (which is also erronerous since something with no mass cannot exert a gravitational force) or magnets as much as you want but the fact is that by your reasoning the spell is false because by your justification I should be able to pass through it

Literally every magnet has a magnetic field and every object has a gravitational field. These are both force fields.

Force fields are do not exist in actual spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_%28physics%29

A force field only explains what would the force be between the origin particle and another particle if it was in a predetermined point in space in the field. It doesn't mean that if you were to put a particle in space that there is some force acting on nothing.

So, it's a tangible object because it's a force that bars passage without resorting to magnets of gravity? The strong and weak forces both do this, they are no more tangible objects that magnetic fields or gravitational fields.

Why can't it use a force made of pure magic instead of a material?

I said that force is pure magic made into material form.

Um... the rules don't say explicitly whether it is vulnerable or not. It says that the caster (and other stuff near him when it is cast) can pass though it and that nothing else can. You can interpret that to mean that it is invulnerable if you like, but it does not say whether it is or not. Each individual DM will need to come up with a ruling for their own table until we get an unambiguous errata. I am not sure how an ambiguous rule that can be interpreted in multiple ways makes it "Schrödinger's Tiny Hut".

The way you said it was basically saying sometimes invulnerable and sometimes not as if the Hut can exist in a state where both are true.

Ok, did you seriously not read your own link? The force fields (physics) section explicitly talks about both gravitational and electromagnetic fields as types of force fields.

Well if you truly meant that force fields do not really exist in space and time and are just mathematical constructs then I do apologize for misunderstanding you.

In Stark Trek they don't physically tear holes in the shields. They either launch attacks with sufficient force to penetrate the shields and damage the generators or they simply make the shields exert enough energy stopping their attacks that the batteries or worn down. I have seen them disrupt force fields temporarily, but never actually tear a hole in them, and when the disruption stops the force field repairs. Likewise I have seen them shoot things through a hologram (which they claim is a type of force field), but never leave any lasting damage on the hologram in the process.

Of course I never meant that you leave damage in an energy shield the same you would leave damage in a brick wall, but they aren't undefeatable.

Again, this is a perfectly valid interpretation, but there is zero evidence for it in the spell's description. I choose to believe it acts like a real life force field because it uses the term "force", but that is just my interpretation. It is just magic, it can be tangible or not.

So... you are saying that the Hut acts like a mathematical construct? I meat you tell me that I don't read my own links and then you come with the Hut acting like a real life force field which is

In physics a force field is a vector field that describes a non-contact force acting on a particle at various positions in space. Specifically, a force field is a vector field \vec{F}(\vec{x}), where \vec{F} is the force that a particle would feel if it were at the point \vec{x}.[1]

I mean what are you really saying here? Mind explaining me how does a real life force field somehow prevent movement when a force field is just used to study how does a particle behave in a space? I mean if you want to say math can be used to protect you then that is fine but at least be consistent.

A better explanation would be an example in real life where something was stopped by something that was considered to be a force field.

But, let me say that an intangible force can indeed bar passage from an object, while a tangible object can NOT allow the caster to walk through it like it wasn't there, so I don't think your conclusion logically follows your reasoning.

Note that the Hut cannot be an intangible force because according to this definition here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intangible

not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.

Where as tangible is

capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

I mean if I can't touch the Hut then how can it stop me? I mean does the Hut also dull the sense of touch as well? How does that work? I would think that you must somehow be able to touch the object for it to have any chance of stopping you.

Edit: And to clarify, I am not saying anything about what the Leomunds Tiny Hut is or isn't. I personally believe that it is an intangible and impenetrable field of energy , but that is just my interpretation of the rules given in the 5e PHB. I am also not saying that magnetic or gravitational fields are the only types of force fields or that Leomund's Tiny Hut uses any sort of real life force field to power itself, I am just using those as a metaphor because those are the closest thing we have in the real world to a "magical force field" as I see it.

Could you provide proof that someone was able to use magnets or gravity to form a barrier? I mean with a strong enough magnet you can repel stuff but I wouldn't call it a real life force field and mind you that such a field can definitely be defeated with enough force against the magnet. And the less we say about gravity the better.

And mind explaining to me again how does the definition of force field that I pulled help to your argument?

Shaofoo

2015-06-02, 11:52 PM

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 12:25 AM

Shaofoo

2015-06-03, 12:42 AM

Ok, so I am starting to get a bit lost on your argument. Are you saying that force fields don't exist because that is simply the name of the model we use to describe the effects of forces rather than the forces themselves? If so I think that pretty much boils down to semantics and a bit like arguing that a word is not the same as the thing that it represents.

Force fields do exist but not in the fictional barrier way, they exist as much as you can say that algebra and calculus exist in real life. If you have some proof that force fields do exist in real life the way that you say then please provide them because otherwise you have nothing at all.

Regardless of the terminology you want to use, an electromagnetic field is an example of a real life field which acts upon matter without itself being a tangible object, and it can indeed stop an object from passing through it and cannot be destroyed simply by hitting it.

Mind providing proof that such a phenomenon exists and can be reproduced in real life on a grand scale and isn't just conjecture based on theory?

While what you say is true, you can't hit an electromagnetic field to death and you can't really feel it and it could stop matter the problem is there is such a strong electromagnetic field that could actually be used to do what you say. Is there an actual strong electromagnetic force that was used to stop a person from moving or prevent an action.

I can say that I could design a ship that runs on sea water by taking in ambient sea water and absorbing the thermal energy until it is about to change state and dump the cold water back into the ocean. It is theoretically possible but not doable in our current reality.

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 01:04 AM

Force fields do exist but not in the fictional barrier way, they exist as much as you can say that algebra and calculus exist in real life. If you have some proof that force fields do exist in real life the way that you say then please provide them because otherwise you have nothing at all.

Mind providing proof that such a phenomenon exists and can be reproduced in real life on a grand scale and isn't just conjecture based on theory?

While what you say is true, you can't hit an electromagnetic field to death and you can't really feel it and it could stop matter the problem is there is such a strong electromagnetic field that could actually be used to do what you say. Is there an actual strong electromagnetic force that was used to stop a person from moving or prevent an action.

I can say that I could design a ship that runs on sea water by taking in ambient sea water and absorbing the thermal energy until it is about to change state and dump the cold water back into the ocean. It is theoretically possible but not doable in our current reality.

Ok, I think I get what you are trying to say; I was having some trouble following you and I think were talking past each other for a while.

I am not saying D&D "force fields" are possible in real life or that they are empowered by any known force. What I am saying is that by using terminology like force that they, in my mind, work similarly to other things which we use the term "force field" as a model to describe.

While I agree that an actual "force field" is just a model and doesn't literally exist, the phenomenon which it models certainly does, and that terms such as "magnetic field" and "gravitational field" are tossed around often enough that they are more or less synonymous with the phenomenon that they are commonly used to describe, i.e. a region where you are increasingly likely to have a quantum interaction with a particle that carries the relevant force.

Also, forgive me if my terminology is somewhat rusty, it has been almost a decade since physics class, I hope I am getting myself across.

Either way though, it doesn't really have an impact on whether or not you can destroy LTH, that still remains almost completely nebulous and ambiguous by RAW regardless of how one chooses to picture the hut.

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-03, 09:24 AM

Either way though, it doesn't really have an impact on whether or not you can destroy LTH, that still remains almost completely nebulous and ambiguous by RAW regardless of how one chooses to picture the hut. This leads us to other questions, like the following:

Could a tornado lift the hut and its occupants up and hurl them some distance away?

If it did, would they take falling damage? (And their little dog too! )

Would they be in Kansas anymore?

Could a Hurricane blow the hut away from where it was first conjured?

Would a flood wash the hut away, and all within in it, even though all of them remain inside and dry?

coredump

2015-06-03, 09:45 AM

Reading the sentence alone and out of context I agree; but the full quote is:

"Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. All other objects are barred from passing through it."

It is possible, even likely, that the second sentence only exists to contrast with the previous sentence, telling the reader that ONLY creatures and objects within the dome when the spell was cast can move through it freely while other things do not have this ability.
So what you are saying is that when they wrote "All other objects are barred from passing through it" what they really *meant* to write was "All other objects are barred from "freely" passing through it, they can still pass through, just not 'freely'."
I can't see that being at all likely, plus if we can start adding things into the rules, it opens up all sorts of potential issues. I see no supporting evidence that the writers were that far off between RAW and RAI.

It also doesn't give any quantifiers about extreme examples. It doesn't say objects can NEVER pass through it NO MATTER WHAT NO EXCEPTIONS. I merely says other objects are barred from passing through it in casual language. It does... it says "All", that is a pretty 'extreme' quantifier. When it doesn't list exceptions, how do we justify adding in exceptions?
Now, I could understand something 'extreme' as in 'absurdly unanticipated' being beyond the bounds of what they intended; so maybe a disintegrate spell, or a mountain collapsing on it, or something similar. But some guy with an axe? Magic missile? a few orcs? Not even close....

For instance, if I say "I cannot stick my hand through a brick wall," this is a true statement. However, if I where shot out of a cannon (or the wall had a convenient hole blasted in it first) that would provide a situation where I could stick my hand through a brick wall despite my previously true statement. You are still not 'sticking' your hand through a brick wall... at best a cannon is using a 'cannonball of flesh', and even then, not sure it would go through the wall.
But the LTH avoids much of this gamesmanship, by saying "all" objects are barred, so your hand, and your hand from a cannon, are equally barred. Now, you want to put your hand as the leading edge of a collapsing mountain....maybe then we can talk.

Also, even if you are reading it totally literally, it is completely possible to destroy something without passing through it. Simply hitting it and transforming energy into an object can destroy it without ever passing through it. Maybe.... on the other hand, maybe the LTH is flammable, maybe the LTH will open a door if you say 'open sayzme', maybe the LTH stops existing if you close your eyes, maybe the LTH is really an illusion, and if you disbelieve you can walk right through, maybe..... once folks are willing to add rules to how the spell operates based on what "may be"... all sorts of options open up.

Again, I actually agree with you that it can't be destroyed by my reading of RAW, but that is far from the only valid interpretation.I think I am normally very flexible is various rule interpretations. But I think in this case, this is the only 'valid' interpretation. True, if you squint really hard in a dark room, and imagine some slightly different works on the page... then you can argue a different interpretation.... but I don't find it a valid one. (with the caveat of a truly 'extreme' situation.)

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-03, 10:00 AM

So what you are saying is that when they wrote "All other objects are barred from passing through it" what they really *meant* to write was "All other objects are barred from "freely" passing through it, they can still pass through, just not 'freely'."
... skip a bit, brother ...
I think I am normally very flexible is various rule interpretations. But I think in this case, this is the only 'valid' interpretation. True, if you squint really hard in a dark room, and imagine some slightly different works on the page... then you can argue a different interpretation.... but I don't find it a valid one. (with the caveat of a truly 'extreme' situation.)
What are the odds that this loophole will be addressed by either an errata or official posting on WoTC cite any time soon?

The opening points in this thread called for that, and given this detailed examination of the in game impact, I'd say it's a fair request.

Kevan

2015-06-03, 10:04 AM

That changes nothing, event horizon means that there is a point that the gravitational pull between both you and the black hole becomes stronger than whatever pull any other object could exert on you.

It still needs two to tango, there needs to be something else for an event horizon to exist. In fact if there is only two objects in the universe then the event horizon is infinite because there are only two objects in the universe to exert gravitational pull between one another and no other force can separate them because no other force exists.

There is no event horizon field that exists in a defined area because the event horizon is different between objects. I am sure the bigger the object the more

The event horizon is independent of the object that would be trapped by it. It's an area of space that is so curved that nothing can move through it. It's not like gravity is strings connecting objects and pulling them together. The gravitational force field is there before the object that is affected by the force field arrives.

It is true that it needs a source. Leomund's Tiny Hut probably also needs a source, but that source doesn't have to be matter. Since Leomund's Tiny Hut is a spell, I'd expect the source to be whatever provides the energy for all spells. I guess it's called the Weave in Forgotten Realms.

Except it is not as per your definition of force

I still disagree. I see no reason it can't act like any natural force.

You can't change the gravitational pull between both objects no matter how many objects you add. You only affect the net force that acts upon the object.

The gravitational field at a point depends on sum of all the fields. Of course you can't change the force between two objects if you are only considering those two objects. You can certainly change the gravitational force on an object by adding more objects, though. I think we agree on this.

So you are saying that any act of force against the hut will pass through. You are then saying that if I were to hit the Hut with a hammer it will pass through because there is nothing physical for the hammer to hit.

No, just like if you swing a hammer at the sky there is no physical gravitational object to hit, but gravity still pushes the hammer back down. I think you might be saying that the dome is the source of the force that keeps things out? If you are saying this, I guess it might be something you could attack, but why assume this? The spell says it creates a dome of force, not an object that provides a force.

The book calls it an immobile dome of force. Considering that it is made of magic I am going to assume that the force material is magic as well. If you want to say otherwise it is basically your word against mine. You are going to have to dig for proof yourself if you want to actually justify yourself there.

I agree with this. The source of the force field in Leomund's Tiny Hut is magic. But doesn't this mean that you need magic to attack it, and not just a hammer?

Yes it does have a force field since it is a mathematical construct, it doesn't mean that gravity will begin to exist on its own.

It could continue to exist on its own. If, for example you annihilated the sun, the gravitational field at the earth would be the same for about eight minutes.

So you are definitely saying that you can go through the Hut then.

Nope, I'm not saying anything about going through it. I can't touch the matter beneath the surface of the earth, but it certainly prevents me from passing into the sky.

Except you need a physical component to have a force as per the f=ma, you need some m in there so saying that you can somehow create a force without a physical component is very impressive since you are saying that a * 0 =/= 0.

Yes it can't exist in our world. Ergo you can't say that the Hut is the f=ma version of force when it doesn't apply.

Decanter of Endless Water also cannot exist in our world because it is infinite. That doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply to it.

Mind explaining that to me again, because you kinda are saying to me that F =/= ma now. That Force and ma are somehow separate, explain that to me.

If I push on an object of mass m, and apply a force f, then the object will move with an acceleration of a. It doesn't mean that I am mass m or move with an acceleration of a. I'm applying the force, the object responds by accelerating based on it's mass.

So then by your definition if I can't attack it because I can't physically affect it then I can go through it because it isn't there.

If there is no matter then there is no mass which means that all force is null as per your definition. You can claim gravity (which is also erronerous since something with no mass cannot exert a gravitational force) or magnets as much as you want but the fact is that by your reasoning the spell is false because by your justification I should be able to pass through it

No, the gravitational field from the earth isn't something I can attack, but it still keeps me from going through it to the sky.

Photons have no mass and still provide a gravitational field. I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Force fields are do not exist in actual spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_%28physics%29

A force field only explains what would the force be between the origin particle and another particle if it was in a predetermined point in space in the field. It doesn't mean that if you were to put a particle in space that there is some force acting on nothing.

Both gravity and electromagnetism exist in spacetime. Every force field covers all of space if there is a particle there or not.

I said that force is pure magic made into material form.

But why does it need a material form, and not just a force?

Well if you truly meant that force fields do not really exist in space and time and are just mathematical constructs then I do apologize for misunderstanding you.

Force fields like these exist in space and time to me.

So... you are saying that the Hut acts like a mathematical construct? I meat you tell me that I don't read my own links and then you come with the Hut acting like a real life force field which is

In physics a force field is a vector field that describes a non-contact force acting on a particle at various positions in space. Specifically, a force field is a vector field \vec{F}(\vec{x}), where \vec{F} is the force that a particle would feel if it were at the point \vec{x}.[1]

I mean what are you really saying here? Mind explaining me how does a real life force field somehow prevent movement when a force field is just used to study how does a particle behave in a space? I mean if you want to say math can be used to protect you then that is fine but at least be consistent.

A better explanation would be an example in real life where something was stopped by something that was considered to be a force field.

Gravity stops me from moving into space.

Note that the Hut cannot be an intangible force because according to this definition here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intangible

not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.

Where as tangible is

capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

I mean if I can't touch the Hut then how can it stop me? I mean does the Hut also dull the sense of touch as well? How does that work? I would think that you must somehow be able to touch the object for it to have any chance of stopping you.

Leomund's Tiny Hut would be as tangible as gravity.

Could you provide proof that someone was able to use magnets or gravity to form a barrier? I mean with a strong enough magnet you can repel stuff but I wouldn't call it a real life force field and mind you that such a field can definitely be defeated with enough force against the magnet. And the less we say about gravity the better.

And mind explaining to me again how does the definition of force field that I pulled help to your argument?

The earth is currently providing a barrier that stops me from getting into space. I agree that it can be defeated, so I also agree that Leomund's Tiny Hut is stronger than the gravitational force of the earth, but it's also magic so I see no problem with that.

And why say less about gravity. Do you know another force that is more familiar?

The force field you linked can't be destroyed by attacking them. So, since Leomund's Tiny Hut is a force, it's just as hard to attack.

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-03, 10:21 AM

I agree with this. The source of the force field in Leomund's Tiny Hut is magic. But doesn't this mean that you need magic to attack it, and not just a hammer? Since there are a number of things immune to physical weapons (non magical) this line of reasoning makes sense.

one is still left with a decision on how much magic it takes to tear of disrupt the hut's force field.

What does it take to pull the plug on that dome shaped magnetic field (analogy)? (magic, not magnetic, for LTH).

Dispel magic has been suggested.

What else?

Kevan

2015-06-03, 10:59 AM

Since there are a number of things immune to physical weapons (non magical) this line of reasoning makes sense.

one is still left with a decision on how much magic it takes to tear of disrupt the hut's force field.

What does it take to pull the plug on that dome shaped magnetic field (analogy)? (magic, not magnetic, for LTH).

Dispel magic has been suggested.

What else?

Disintegrate says it automatically disintegrates a creation of magical force, so that would work.

coredump

2015-06-03, 11:09 AM

So you are saying that by property of a car, bullet, sledgehammer and so on that a brick wall will allow passage through those things because of the objects themselves.

You are saying that if I went 1 mph on a car it will shatter an intact brick wall because a car is supposed to go through a brick wall? No, I am not saying that. From what I can tell no one in this entire thread has said that. The only person even bringing it up is you, in an attempt to make the argument seem absurd without actually addressing what really *is* being said.

Just because a car *can* go through a brick wall, does not mean that it *always can* go through a brick wall. It means that it is 'possible' given the right conditions. (usually velocity)

That is why no one ever says "All objects are barred from going through a brick wall". Because we know that is false. Certain objects, if moving fast enough, will go through the brick wall.
But the spell for LTH *DOES* use those words. It very specifically states "All objects are barred from passing through it" The spell says nothing about "unless they are going fast enough" the spell says nothing about "unless they do X damage first" the spell simply says, in very clear terms, that "All objects are barred from passing through it"

Cause I did even say that a blade of grass can pass through a brick wall but there needs to be sufficient force behind it. Yes, you have said that several times. Doesn't mean it applies, doesn't mean it is true.

Sure it can't go through it but it can damage it because it doesn't say that the Hut can't take damage and as per the object rules in the DMG all objects should have HP. It never says that. You are adding words, and ignoring what is written there.
Some important passages:
"...the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object"
"Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."
"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone,"
"You can also give it immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities to specific types of damage."
etc.

You are applying rules that clearly are meant for mundane items like a brick wall or a bronze statue...not for a magical dome of force. You then apply a circular logic..... The object rules only apply if the object is destructible, you 'prove' the object is destructible by applying the Object rules.... convenient....

So... what is the HP and AC for a Fog Cloud? Or a Sphere of Darkness? Or Tensors Disk? Or Flaming Sphere? etc......

Shaofoo

2015-06-03, 11:52 AM

So what you are saying is that when they wrote "All other objects are barred from passing through it" what they really *meant* to write was "All other objects are barred from "freely" passing through it, they can still pass through, just not 'freely'."I can't see that being at all likely, plus if we can start adding things into the rules, it opens up all sorts of potential issues. I see no supporting evidence that the writers were that far off between RAW and RAI.

Yes because my interpretation that the Hut could be defetable is open for issues, not like your interpretation of the undefeatable hut and then I later said that Creation items are likewise immune to damage as well because the spell lacks any mention on what happens when you damage a item made from creation. Funny how you seem to ignore that.

It does... it says "All", that is a pretty 'extreme' quantifier. When it doesn't list exceptions, how do we justify adding in exceptions?

So you are saying that in the absence of rules then nothing can be added

Note that yes it does bar all just like a brick wall bars all. Nothing in our reality can go through a brick wall without either forcing themselves through it or finding a breach in the wall. It bars all because it acts like any object. And like I said a lot before, barring movement isn't the same as immunity to damage so you can have your bars as much as you want you still can't claim immunity to damage.

So again, yes the hut will prevent anything from passing through it, doesn't mean that the Hut is immune to damage that could represent that you can destroy it.

Now, I could understand something 'extreme' as in 'absurdly unanticipated' being beyond the bounds of what they intended; so maybe a disintegrate spell, or a mountain collapsing on it, or something similar. But some guy with an axe? Magic missile? a few orcs? Not even close....

So why isn't the latter be able when the former is plausible. You are saying that nothing short of a cataclysm or a specific spell three levels higher than the hut will be able to take out the hut because of reasons? Why can't damage take out the hut? Why is it only some exaggerated event can take out the hut.

You are still not 'sticking' your hand through a brick wall... at best a cannon is using a 'cannonball of flesh', and even then, not sure it would go through the wall.

If it has enough force you will go through a wall, you can propel air at enough force to shatter a wall.

But the LTH avoids much of this gamesmanship, by saying "all" objects are barred, so your hand, and your hand from a cannon, are equally barred. Now, you want to put your hand as the leading edge of a collapsing mountain....maybe then we can talk.

So you are saying that the only thing that can topple the Hut is force... a finite amount of force mind you. Mind explaining to me why is a collapsing mountain enough to shatter a Hut and not say a collapsing fortress?

Maybe.... on the other hand, maybe the LTH is flammable, maybe the LTH will open a door if you say 'open sayzme', maybe the LTH stops existing if you close your eyes, maybe the LTH is really an illusion, and if you disbelieve you can walk right through, maybe..... once folks are willing to add rules to how the spell operates based on what "may be"... all sorts of options open up.

Except I have proven within the DMG that the Hut is considered a Large Object so it should definitely have 5d10 HP and a variable to be determined AC. So if you want to say that the Hut is some indestructible force field then be my guest but the DMG has other things to say about the matter.

I think I am normally very flexible is various rule interpretations. But I think in this case, this is the only 'valid' interpretation. True, if you squint really hard in a dark room, and imagine some slightly different works on the page... then you can argue a different interpretation.... but I don't find it a valid one. (with the caveat of a truly 'extreme' situation.)

You only give into the extreme situation because you know it to be implausible. If you say that you can only break the Hut if you are able to run around the world in an hour is just up your alley in implausible scenarios.

You are wrong because you can damage the hut and barring isn't the same as immunity to damage. It would help if you had other sources from the book to back you up but as it stands you are trying to keep your hyper fortress by somehow touting a property of all matter as a source of invulnerability.

The event horizon is independent of the object that would be trapped by it. It's an area of space that is so curved that nothing can move through it. It's not like gravity is strings connecting objects and pulling them together. The gravitational force field is there before the object that is affected by the force field arrives.

Yes the gravitational force field is there because all objects in the universe affects all other objects with gravity. Yes you are being influenced by all the stars and celestial bodies right now. But gravity is still between two objects at a point in time not influencing an area. An event horizon is a theoretical space of no return, not an actual field that you can measure.

I still disagree. I see no reason it can't act like any natural force.

Because simple math, or do you believe that you can multiply any number by 0 and not end up with 0? Or is there some new form of math that I am not aware of that lets you be able to pull numbers against the formula.

No, just like if you swing a hammer at the sky there is no physical gravitational object to hit, but gravity still pushes the hammer back down. I think you might be saying that the dome is the source of the force that keeps things out? If you are saying this, I guess it might be something you could attack, but why assume this? The spell says it creates a dome of force, not an object that provides a force.

My definition of force is magic given physical shape. So when I said you could attack force I am saying that you are attacking a dome of magic given shape. If I meant the f=ma definition of force then I can't attack that at all.

I agree with this. The source of the force field in Leomund's Tiny Hut is magic. But doesn't this mean that you need magic to attack it, and not just a hammer?

If you want to say that magic can only defeat magic then be my guest.

It could continue to exist on its own. If, for example you annihilated the sun, the gravitational field at the earth would be the same for about eight minutes.

The gravitational field that the earth has will be the same regardless if the sun is there or not because the force between you and the earth is irrelevant whether the sun exists or not. If you removed the sun from existence then the gravitational force between the sun and the earth will exist for 8 minutes since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, including force, and then the earth will probably shoot forward because of the lack of pull from the sun, the gravitational force between the sun and the earth will cease to exist.

A force field as defined in the real world is just a mathematical model, nothing else. If you have other definitions as to how else can a force field be applied in real life then I would like to see them.

Decanter of Endless Water also cannot exist in our world because it is infinite. That doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply to it.

Depending on the interpretation, a Decanter of Endless Water is just a big vase with a portal linked to the Plane of Water inside where the portal can expand or retract as to control the flow of water. so it could obey the laws of physics in that it isn't really creating water but rather pulling from an effectively infinite source of water. But that is one interpretation so it can also just create water from nothing.

Of course I wonder what you mean that the Decanter still applies the laws of physics to it, besides creating water it still acts like a vase subject to whatever forces act upon it. I doubt you'll have people say that the Decanter can suddenly fly by itself unless magic is wild.

If I push on an object of mass m, and apply a force f, then the object will move with an acceleration of a. It doesn't mean that I am mass m or move with an acceleration of a. I'm applying the force, the object responds by accelerating based on it's mass.

If you are applying the force then you are providing your own mass and acceleration So in your case

m1a1 = m2a2

where

m1a1 is your mass and acceleration

m2a2 is the other object's mass and acceleration

You are your own mass and acceleration that you apply to the other object.

No, the gravitational field from the earth isn't something I can attack, but it still keeps me from going through it to the sky.

Photons have no mass and still provide a gravitational field. I don't know what you're trying to say here.

There is no such thing as a gravity field, only the gravitational force that you have between you and the earth. If you were to plot every single space that you could be in then you make a gravitational field based on the data but that doesn't mean that because you are in point a that somehow in point b there exists a gravitational force between you and the earth, the earth and you don't exert the mutual gravitational force in two different places.

Both gravity and electromagnetism exist in spacetime.Every force field covers all of space if there is a particle there or not.

Force fields cover whatever model you want to make, including a field with nothing in it at all.

But why does it need a material form, and not just a force?

By your definition it needs m, everything in the world has some m. Even energy has m as the often said e = mc^2. It has to exist as a material and needs mass. Otherwise m is 0 and therefore no force can exist as per the definition

Force fields like these exist in space and time to me.

You can model reality with a force field, that doesn't mean that reality is the model.

Gravity stops me from moving into space.

The earth stops you from moving into space because the earth's gravitational force is greater than anything else that can exert its force on you.

if you were to make a much more denser object next to the earth then you'd be pulled away from earth and into said object because the force of the new object is stronger than the earth itself.

Leomund's Tiny Hut would be as tangible as gravity.

So the Hut is intangible because gravity is intangible. So therefore it can't be attacked because there is nothing to attack it with. The only way gravity prevents movement is if the force acted on the object isn't able to overcome the direct force of gravity. If you were to move in any other direction that straight up then you'd be moving regardless of the force exerted.

The earth is currently providing a barrier that stops me from getting into space.

So then how come we are able to send men and objects into outer space? If it was a true barrier how come we don't see rockets collide with the sky? And if it was a barrier then it was somehow able to be breached by what exactly? Did the rockets just punch through the gravity wall?

Basically no, the gravitational force is not a barrier, it is a constant pull downward. it is less of a wall and more like a leash that pulls you downward, they were able to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth constantly so that is we have guys in space.

I agree that it can be defeated, so I also agree that Leomund's Tiny Hut is stronger than the gravitational force of the earth, but it's also magic so I see no problem with that.

So if you want to say magic then say magic, don't try to use F=ma to explain magic.

And why say less about gravity. Do you know another force that is more familiar?

Because gravity only exists between two objects. If you are talking about a field of gravity then you are saying that the hut should be an attractive force since all gravitational forces are about attraction towards one another. Mind showing me a gravitational field that somehow is repulsive?

The force field you linked can't be destroyed by attacking them. So, since Leomund's Tiny Hut is a force, it's just as hard to attack.

The force field I linked can't be attacked because it doesn't exist in real life because it is a model. I might as well say that I try to attack the 2 + 2 = 4 or that I try to damage the Pythagorean Theorem.

You should try to find some actual real life examples of force fields as you say cause as it stands, force fields are as real as theoretical physics, which are definitely real but I have yet to hear someone being stopped by theoretical physics.

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 12:03 PM

Shaofoo

2015-06-03, 12:13 PM

No, I am not saying that. From what I can tell no one in this entire thread has said that. The only person even bringing it up is you, in an attempt to make the argument seem absurd without actually addressing what really *is* being said.

Just because a car *can* go through a brick wall, does not mean that it *always can* go through a brick wall. It means that it is 'possible' given the right conditions. (usually velocity)

That is why no one ever says "All objects are barred from going through a brick wall". Because we know that is false. Certain objects, if moving fast enough, will go through the brick wall.

Yes so you do agree that objects can go through other objects if given the correct conditions, right?

But the spell for LTH *DOES* use those words. It very specifically states "All objects are barred from passing through it" The spell says nothing about "unless they are going fast enough" the spell says nothing about "unless they do X damage first" the spell simply says, in very clear terms, that "All objects are barred from passing through it"

But a brick wall doesn't say that either, we extrapolate it by using real life examples that indeed a brick wall will be affected if it takes enough damage. A brick wall bars everything unless it provides enough force. Also convenient that you gloss over the damage because as it stands, the field can still prevent anything from coming through but it can still take damage and be destroyed because like I said many times and you like to ignore, barring passage is not immunity to damage.

Yes, you have said that several times. Doesn't mean it applies, doesn't mean it is true.

So you are saying that a blade of grass given infinite force will not pass through a brick wall because of the properties of a blade of grass?

It never says that. You are adding words, and ignoring what is written there.
Some important passages:
"...the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object"
"Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."
"For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone,"
"You can also give it immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities to specific types of damage."
etc.
You are applying rules that clearly are meant for mundane items like a brick wall or a bronze statue...not for a magical dome of force.

Mind showing me where does it say that, cause I haven't read that part where it says that magical dome of forces are excluded from this interpretation. Citation needed please.

I am using the rules for objects, nowhere does it somehow exclude creations of magic, mind pointing where does it say that.

You then apply a circular logic..... The object rules only apply if the object is destructible, you 'prove' the object is destructible by applying the Object rules.... convenient....

All objects are destructible unless said otherwise. Wall of Force is immune to damage because it says so.

You say that the object is indestructible based on your extrapolation that preventing things from going through is the equivalent to immunity to damage, it is you who is being duplicitous here. Mind showing me where does it say that preventing things from going through = immunity to damage. I gave my reasoning and proof and you have done nothing but impotently quote it and give a false reading.

So... what is the HP and AC for a Fog Cloud? Or a Sphere of Darkness? Or Tensors Disk? Or Flaming Sphere? etc......

Easy

The HP and AC for a Fog Cloud is the same HP and AC for a normal cloud bank.

Sphere of Darkness has the same HP and AC as normal darkness, so in other words it can be destroyed immediately with a Magic Missile.

Tenser's Disk is the same as Leomund's hut, an impenetrable force field where nothing can affect it at all because anything made of magic is immune to all damage forever and ever no exceptions shut up I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalala.

Flaming Sphere has the same HP and AC as a same sized Fire Elemental.

Did I answer your questions?

Just in case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.

Basically besides the floating disc none of these things actually prevent movement or are actually targets of attack because darkness, fog or fire aren't actual objects. And the Disc is the same ruling as the Hut so take that as you wish.

So hopefully you have any more questions. And hopefully you'll finally come to why does prevent passage equals immunity to damage or can I assume you just wish not to talk about it because reasons?

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 12:48 PM

Kevan

2015-06-03, 01:16 PM

So why isn't the latter be able when the former is plausible. You are saying that nothing short of a cataclysm or a specific spell three levels higher than the hut will be able to take out the hut because of reasons? Why can't damage take out the hut? Why is it only some exaggerated event can take out the hut.

Dispel Magic can take out the hut.

Yes the gravitational force field is there because all objects in the universe affects all other objects with gravity. Yes you are being influenced by all the stars and celestial bodies right now. But gravity is still between two objects at a point in time not influencing an area. An event horizon is a theoretical space of no return, not an actual field that you can measure.

Gravity like all force fields, is an actual thing that you can measure. It has energy and so it gravitates. If you have a charged particle you feel gravity from, not only the particle, but also from the electric field. And if you annihilate the particle, the field continues to exist, at least temporarily.

My definition of force is magic given physical shape. So when I said you could attack force I am saying that you are attacking a dome of magic given shape. If I meant the f=ma definition of force then I can't attack that at all.

If you're changing the definition of a well defined thing I'm not sure this argument can continue. If this were the definition of force, then I understand how Leomund's Tiny Hut could be physically attacked. But without seeing this definition in a D&D book, I'm not going to use it.

If you want to say that magic can only defeat magic then be my guest.

If you want to say that magic can be defeated by physical attacks then be my guest. But don't be surprised when a fighter hacks through a lightning bolt, or a magic missile.

The gravitational field that the earth has will be the same regardless if the sun is there or not because the force between you and the earth is irrelevant whether the sun exists or not. If you removed the sun from existence then the gravitational force between the sun and the earth will exist for 8 minutes since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, including force, and then the earth will probably shoot forward because of the lack of pull from the sun, the gravitational force between the sun and the earth will cease to exist.

A force field as defined in the real world is just a mathematical model, nothing else. If you have other definitions as to how else can a force field be applied in real life then I would like to see them.

My point was that the force field of the sun exists even after the sun is destroyed, so it doesn't take two objects. As I said above, force fields a real things that have energy and gravitate.

Depending on the interpretation, a Decanter of Endless Water is just a big vase with a portal linked to the Plane of Water inside where the portal can expand or retract as to control the flow of water. so it could obey the laws of physics in that it isn't really creating water but rather pulling from an effectively infinite source of water. But that is one interpretation so it can also just create water from nothing.

Of course I wonder what you mean that the Decanter still applies the laws of physics to it, besides creating water it still acts like a vase subject to whatever forces act upon it. I doubt you'll have people say that the Decanter can suddenly fly by itself unless magic is wild.

I thought you were saying that because something can't exist in our universe that it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics. But, after reading this, I see that you don't believe that, so this point is unneeded.

If you are applying the force then you are providing your own mass and acceleration So in your case

m1a1 = m2a2

where

m1a1 is your mass and acceleration

m2a2 is the other object's mass and acceleration

You are your own mass and acceleration that you apply to the other object.

This is not correct. If I throw a baseball, do I then accelerate toward home plate? No, I apply a force, and the baseball accelerates toward home plate. It turns out that the baseball also applies a force to me, but this is different than the force I applied, in fact, it's opposite.

There is no such thing as a gravity field, only the gravitational force that you have between you and the earth. If you were to plot every single space that you could be in then you make a gravitational field based on the data but that doesn't mean that because you are in point a that somehow in point b there exists a gravitational force between you and the earth, the earth and you don't exert the mutual gravitational force in two different places.

I think I already answered this.

By your definition it needs m, everything in the world has some m. Even energy has m as the often said e = mc^2. It has to exist as a material and needs mass. Otherwise m is 0 and therefore no force can exist as per the definition

Photons have energy, but not mass. Electric fields have no mass and apply a force.

The earth stops you from moving into space because the earth's gravitational force is greater than anything else that can exert its force on you.

if you were to make a much more denser object next to the earth then you'd be pulled away from earth and into said object because the force of the new object is stronger than the earth itself.

Leomund's Tiny Hut's force is greater than everything that exerts force because nothing can pass through.

So the Hut is intangible because gravity is intangible. So therefore it can't be attacked because there is nothing to attack it with. The only way gravity prevents movement is if the force acted on the object isn't able to overcome the direct force of gravity. If you were to move in any other direction that straight up then you'd be moving regardless of the force exerted.

The first two sentences are exactly what I'm saying. (Assuming by attack you mean physical attack.) And the way Leomund's Tiny Hut prevents movement is because the force that acts at the dome is able overcome any force applied to an object trying to pass through it.

So then how come we are able to send men and objects into outer space? If it was a true barrier how come we don't see rockets collide with the sky? And if it was a barrier then it was somehow able to be breached by what exactly? Did the rockets just punch through the gravity wall?

Basically no, the gravitational force is not a barrier, it is a constant pull downward. it is less of a wall and more like a leash that pulls you downward, they were able to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth constantly so that is we have guys in space.

I said "I" was not able to pass the barrier. I don't have a space ship. I'm not saying that Leomund's Tiny Hut is the same shape and strength as gravity, I'm just saying that it's as difficult to physically attack as gravity. Leomund's Tiny Hut would have to be infinite at the dome, and zero everywhere else.

So if you want to say magic then say magic, don't try to use F=ma to explain magic.

But if magic creates a force, why assume that it doesn't act like an ordinary force. If magic created a rock should I make up a new definition of rock?

Because gravity only exists between two objects. If you are talking about a field of gravity then you are saying that the hut should be an attractive force since all gravitational forces are about attraction towards one another. Mind showing me a gravitational field that somehow is repulsive?

I'm not saying that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a gravitational force, I'm just saying that it acts like other forces. If you'd rather I used electromagnetic forces, so that there can be repulsive forces, I can do that.

The force field I linked can't be attacked because it doesn't exist in real life because it is a model. I might as well say that I try to attack the 2 + 2 = 4 or that I try to damage the Pythagorean Theorem.

You should try to find some actual real life examples of force fields as you say cause as it stands, force fields are as real as theoretical physics, which are definitely real but I have yet to hear someone being stopped by theoretical physics.

Gravitational fields from all objects, and electric fields from all charges, are both real life examples of force fields.

Kevan

2015-06-03, 01:26 PM

Basically besides the floating disc none of these things actually prevent movement or are actually targets of attack because darkness, fog or fire aren't actual objects. And the Disc is the same ruling as the Hut so take that as you wish.

So hopefully you have any more questions. And hopefully you'll finally come to why does prevent passage equals immunity to damage or can I assume you just wish not to talk about it because reasons?

But Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't say it creates an object. It creates a force, which tells you how objects react to it without giving you something to physically attack.

Shaofoo

2015-06-03, 02:33 PM

Ok, so would you object to my "force field" analogy if I said:

D&D never clearly defines what "force" means. In my opinion, when a spells says it creates something from "force" it is creating a phenomenon similar to those which are modeled by a "force field" in our reality such as gravity or electromagnetism and behave in much the same way. I am not saying they are gravity or magnetism or nuclear forces, just behave in a similar manner that can be modeled with a "force field". Thus a dome of force which blocks matter behaves in much the same way as a strong electro magnet repels like charges, albeit that it has a magical rather than electromagnetic source of energy which is effectively infinite and repels all matter rather than just that with an opposite charge.

So basically a repulsion field then?

Again, that is just how I feel it should be modeled, the rules are more or less silent on the actual nature of "force" to the point where 3.5 conjuration wizards could summon* of "force" and then leave them sitting around forever in one place like a stack of baseballs. Frankly I don't think the authors even have a solid consensus about the matter.

It could very well summon an object made of pure magic (in my system I call such a thing "ectoplasm" rather than force to avoid confusion, but that is neither here nor there) but there AFAIK there is nothing that implies that "force" must be such, or anything which says whether or not it is vulnerable or indestructible except that it can be destroyed by disintegrate. Nor does it list a weight, a texture, etc., which creates even more strange situations.

Well I assume that the authors left it blank for the DMs to basically fill it in since you can have magical sheets of glass or walls made of push, of course it probably did more harm than good in the large scale of things.

Gravity like all force fields, is an actual thing that you can measure. It has energy and so it gravitates. If you have a charged particle you feel gravity from, not only the particle, but also from the electric field. And if you annihilate the particle, the field continues to exist, at least temporarily.

You use a force field to measure the gravity between two objects but gravity is not a force field because gravity is not a construct.

If you're changing the definition of a well defined thing I'm not sure this argument can continue. If this were the definition of force, then I understand how Leomund's Tiny Hut could be physically attacked. But without seeing this definition in a D&D book, I'm not going to use it.

You are using a real life definition of force to give definition to a magical construct. I don't know how long we lasted that we were trying to justify magic by using real life laws.

If you want to say that magic can be defeated by physical attacks then be my guest. But don't be surprised when a fighter hacks through a lightning bolt, or a magic missile.

Magical Missiles and lightning bolts are not objects they are effects. You could attack the marbles created by a Delayed Blast Fireball as per the rules so indeed you can say that magic can be defeated by physical force (note that the marble still explodes anyway but you can attack it). You can't attack a sword blow (not the sword, the action the sword creates) either so I don't see what you were going with this.

Might I suggest turning down the snark

My point was that the force field of the sun exists even after the sun is destroyed, so it doesn't take two objects. As I said above, force fields a real things that have energy and gravitate.

Force goes as fast as the speed of light, remove that and the force disappears at about the same rate. Conversely you are saying that if there was only one object and I add the sun then there is no force created at all?

Please read the definition for gravity again before trying to obfuscate the point by trying to mask instantaneous points in time as absolute at all times.

Also it isn't a force field.

This is not correct. If I throw a baseball, do I then accelerate toward home plate? No, I apply a force, and the baseball accelerates toward home plate. It turns out that the baseball also applies a force to me, but this is different than the force I applied, in fact, it's opposite.

So you are saying that you can divorce Force from mass times acceleration and that m1a1 =/= m2a2?

Cause I can't really make heads or tails what you are trying to refute. You are saying that the force you apply to an object isn't the same as the force an object feels when it is applied to?

I think I already answered this.

You did but it goes against what I gave as proof, if you wish to continue saying it then be my guest but you are wrong by virtue of you not backing your claims. Mind actually posting some links that shows your views.

Photons have energy, but not mass. Electric fields have no mass and apply a force.

Electric fields are made from electrically charged matter that applies a force. The force itself might not have a mass but the thing producing the force does.

And I don't know why you brought up photons

Leomund's Tiny Hut's force is greater than everything that exerts force because nothing can pass through.

Good job, still doesn't explain the damage thing though. Mind explaining that to me.

The first two sentences are exactly what I'm saying. (Assuming by attack you mean physical attack.) And the way Leomund's Tiny Hut prevents movement is because the force that acts at the dome is able overcome any force applied to an object trying to pass through it.

Still no explanation as to the immunity to damage, especially damage from a non forceful source. So any non forceful damage will bring down the hut?

I said "I" was not able to pass the barrier. I don't have a space ship. I'm not saying that Leomund's Tiny Hut is the same shape and strength as gravity, I'm just saying that it's as difficult to physically attack as gravity. Leomund's Tiny Hut would have to be infinite at the dome, and zero everywhere else.

Still doesn't excuse your bad choice of words.

So you are saying that Leomund's Hut is a repulsion field as well

But if magic creates a force, why assume that it doesn't act like an ordinary force. If magic created a rock should I make up a new definition of rock?

According to the magical rock creating spells that create rocks and have specific rules for said specific rocks... yes.

Magic rock isn't the same as natural rock because there are specific rules.

And like I said Magical force as an object is magic made into physical shape. There is no such thing as a mundane force because you can't use gravity to create objects.

I'm not saying that Leomund's Tiny Hut is a gravitational force, I'm just saying that it acts like other forces. If you'd rather I used electromagnetic forces, so that there can be repulsive forces, I can do that.

It is magic, nuff said.

Gravitational fields from all objects, and electric fields from all charges, are both real life examples of force fields.

How about this, you find me your definition of force field and then we can continue this back and forth of what a force field is or is not cause I gave my proof and all I get from you is simple ignorance and denial.

Cause I said that a force field is a construct, a mathematical model, not something that exists in space time, what can you say to refute that?

Cause at this point it just seems that you want to extend this discussion artificially.

Throw me a link now.

But Leomund's Tiny Hut doesn't say it creates an object. It creates a force, which tells you how objects react to it without giving you something to physically attack.

The Hut says it creates a dome of force, a dome could either mean the shape it creates but there are definitions that a dome is an actual architectural object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome

So if it is that definition then a dome of force is an architectural structure made of force, an object of force.

Vogonjeltz

2015-06-03, 04:16 PM

Citation needed please,

I don't need a citation, that's how things are damaged, by separating their constituent molecules. If a thing can not be passed through by anything then it's molecules can not be budged, ergo it can not be damaged. This is just an application of logic.

You are the one asserting, without evidence, that it can be damaged. Prove that it can be damaged when it can't be passed through.

A force object is an object made of force, there is nothing normal or abnormal beyond the properties of force. Normal and abnormal are social constructs meaningless in this discussion

Normal in regards to objects, force is abnormal.

Hence why I said that if it was a normal iron sword then you would shatter it but a sword made of much sterner stuff would cut through, not even a specialized stone cutting weapon, just an adamantine one would be enough

Show me where it says anything about adamantine weaponry in 5th edition, as far as I can see this can only be a reference to 3.5, which does not apply to this discussion.

I already said my point that all matter will block all matter so by your logic because nothing can pass through matter normally then all matter is immune to damage because you say so. Mind showing me the proof that what you say is true in the game?

Matter isn't an immovable object, force is. Your base assumption here is faulty.

You are the one drawing absolutes here, not me. All matter cannot pass through other matter unless enough force is put on it. By stating a law that all objects has as absolute you are saying that all matter is immune to damage as if it is true for the Hut it should be true for all.

And, because we know that "all other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it" we know that there is no such thing as "enough force". And no, that doesn't mean anything at all regarding all matter (not that force objects are even made of matter, they're made of force).

So then why write the wall of force with immunity to damage if it was so obvious then? Why did Wall of Force needed clarification but the Hut didn't need even though the hut is much more ambiguous than the Wall. Mind explaining this further because you are backing the perfect example of a contradition, it is like neglecting to put damage rolls for Chain Lightning because Lightning Bolt having damage rolls is good enough.

Ask them, not me, I can't tell you what the authors were thinking. Perhaps they assumed readers would be using this information purely in good faith, rather than bad faith. Who can say except them? Clearly insofar as you are concerned it was an oversight not to restate the obvious, as you don't seem to accept that.

And given that Chain Lightning and Lightning Bolt have two totally different damage calculations, you've made a bad analogy.

The caster can cast as many as he needs, he just needs to go to the edge of the Hut and cast another one. There is nothing that can say that two huts can overlap one another so you can say that you can layer a very long Hut. So yeah I am still correct in saying you can have as many as you need.

As a matter of fact, no that doesn't work: "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or best cast through it." They can have as many as they need as long as they only ever need 1. So, no, your assertion is incorrect.

Thunder damage doesn't necessarily pass through.
Bludgeoning damage likewise.
Force damage, maybe and maybe not.
Does lightning need to "pass through" to zap something with electrical force/energy?
Fire damage uses heat ... etc ..
Radiant Damage ... it falls from up there to down here and damages things. It doesn't need to pass through.

Acid ... hmmm. You might be on better ground there with the slashing and piercing that do have to "pass through" to apply hurts.

OK, you can't poison Leomund's Tiny Hut. That one I'll grant you with certainty. :-)

I'd contend that in all cases these things needs must be able to move the hut or pass through it (vibrations in the case of bludgeoning and force, electrical current in the case of lightning, agitation of the molecules in the case of heat and radiant, etc...). Given that spells and objects are totally incapable of passing through, they simply can not affect it.

They are by definition magical. Magic is normal in the multiverse of D&D, so it isn't abnormal ... whatever it is.

Sorry the unstated wording there is: "abnormal, for an object"

Objects, normally, are not made of force. Unless you want to start arguing that >50% of the objects in the universe are made of force, I think we can stop this line here.

Well, the force at the dome must be infinite. It has to be large enough to accelerate an object of any speed and mass to zero before it gets through the barrier, otherwise an object could penetrate it, which is forbidden by the spell. And since the mass and velocity can be arbitrarily high, the force must be infinite. So, I agree that it couldn't exist in our world.

The force side of the equation is the force provided by the field, the ma side of the equation is the effect the force has on an object in that force field.

Unless of course the force is variable and reactive, only increasing to what is necessary to slow the impact to 0. Like the way Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) imposes a correspondingly large force to oppose any non-worthy creature from moving it. Then it wouldn't need to be infinite, just enough to counteract the applied force (which couldn't itself be infinite either).

However, that being said, I am pretty much on board with your point.

So, it's a tangible object because it's a force that bars passage without resorting to magnets of gravity? The strong and weak forces both do this, they are no more tangible objects that magnetic fields or gravitational fields.

Why can't it use a force made of pure magic instead of a material?

I was under the impression that prior editions of the game had force as basically just that, magical force that automatically pushes exactly as much as anything that comes into contact with it. Hence, impenetrable.

Kevan

2015-06-03, 04:50 PM

You use a force field to measure the gravity between two objects but gravity is not a force field because gravity is not a construct.

What definition of force field says that it has to be a construct? Gravity is in every way a force field. It is a field that exerts a force.

You are using a real life definition of force to give definition to a magical construct. I don't know how long we lasted that we were trying to justify magic by using real life laws.

I'm not trying to justify the magical part, just the properties of the force that is created. The same way I'd use real life definitions to assign properties to a chair created by magic.

Magical Missiles and lightning bolts are not objects they are effects. You could attack the marbles created by a Delayed Blast Fireball as per the rules so indeed you can say that magic can be defeated by physical force (note that the marble still explodes anyway but you can attack it). You can't attack a sword blow (not the sword, the action the sword creates) either so I don't see what you were going with this.

Might I suggest turning down the snark

Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't an object, it is a force field. So you can't attack it anymore than Magic Missile or Lightning Bolt.

Force goes as fast as the speed of light, remove that and the force disappears at about the same rate. Conversely you are saying that if there was only one object and I add the sun then there is no force created at all?

Please read the definition for gravity again before trying to obfuscate the point by trying to mask instantaneous points in time as absolute at all times.

Also it isn't a force field.

Saying some object exists after the thing that created it disappears does not imply that the the object doesn't exist after the thing that creates it appears.

I'm saying that the force can exist independent of the objects. Imagine an electron and positron annihilate each other. Some time later another electron is created and feels the electric force from this annihilation. These electrons never existed at the same time, but the second electron still felt the force from the first. How can you say that this force is only the interaction of the two electrons and not accept that the field is a real thing? Where was the energy when neither of these particle existed if not in the field? Also, so that you don't have to worry about what "same time" means, assume that they are annihilated and created at the same place.

So you are saying that you can divorce Force from mass times acceleration and that m1a1 =/= m2a2?

Cause I can't really make heads or tails what you are trying to refute. You are saying that the force you apply to an object isn't the same as the force an object feels when it is applied to?

If I exert a force, that force doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my mass or acceleration. It has to do with the mass and acceleration of the thing I'm exerting the force on. My mass time acceleration is absolutely not the same as the mass time acceleration of a baseball I threw.

Electric fields are made from electrically charged matter that applies a force. The force itself might not have a mass but the thing producing the force does.

And I don't know why you brought up photons

Electric fields are made from electrically neutral photons. Photons are the quanta of the electric field. They literally are the force field.

Good job, still doesn't explain the damage thing though. Mind explaining that to me.

Because it's a force, not an object. You'd have as much luck attacking a photon, or a graviton.

Still no explanation as to the immunity to damage, especially damage from a non forceful source. So any non forceful damage will bring down the hut?

What is non forceful damage? I guess Dispel Magic doesn't apply a force, and it can bring down the hut, so I might mean that. It's immune to damage because it is a force. Is there any other force that can be damaged?

Still doesn't excuse your bad choice of words.

So you are saying that Leomund's Hut is a repulsion field as well

Yes, Leomund's Tiny Hut repels things, and it is a force that has a value in space and time, so it is a repulsive force field.

According to the magical rock creating spells that create rocks and have specific rules for said specific rocks... yes.

Magic rock isn't the same as natural rock because there are specific rules.

And like I said Magical force as an object is magic made into physical shape. There is no such thing as a mundane force because you can't use gravity to create objects.

But there aren't any special rules about being attacked for the force created by Leomund's Tiny Hut. Shouldn't things that doesn't have a special rule act like natural equivalent?

I'm not saying gravity is the same as magic, I only brought up gravity because it is a force, so it shares the properties that all forces share with Leomund's Tiny Hut, which is also a force. Are you saying that the word dome implies an object is created? Why assume that, instead of assuming it is the shape of the force, when other forces aren't objects?

It is magic, nuff said.

I agree, it's magic so it can create a force that pushes in any direction with any strength
.

How about this, you find me your definition of force field and then we can continue this back and forth of what a force field is or is not cause I gave my proof and all I get from you is simple ignorance and denial.

Cause I said that a force field is a construct, a mathematical model, not something that exists in space time, what can you say to refute that?

Cause at this point it just seems that you want to extend this discussion artificially.

Throw me a link now.

It is a field, meaning it has a value at every point in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29

And it applies a force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

In the field article it lists gravity and electromagnetism as force fields.

Photons clearly exist in space and time, and they make up the electromagnetic force field.

The Hut says it creates a dome of force, a dome could either mean the shape it creates but there are definitions that a dome is an actual architectural object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome

So if it is that definition then a dome of force is an architectural structure made of force, an object of force.

I agree that if you take the word dome in the spell to mean an architecural object, then you could attack it. But I see no reason to do this since it says that it's a force, and not an object.

Kevan

2015-06-03, 04:55 PM

Unless of course the force is variable and reactive, only increasing to what is necessary to slow the impact to 0. Like the way Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) imposes a correspondingly large force to oppose any non-worthy creature from moving it. Then it wouldn't need to be infinite, just enough to counteract the applied force (which couldn't itself be infinite either).

However, that being said, I am pretty much on board with your point.

Of course. :smallsmile:

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 05:11 PM

Kevan

2015-06-03, 05:25 PM

Shaofoo

2015-06-03, 06:09 PM

I don't need a citation, that's how things are damaged, by separating their constituent molecules. If a thing can not be passed through by anything then it's molecules can not be budged, ergo it can not be damaged. This is just an application of logic.

Okay, now actually bring proof to the table and not your convenient definition. I would like to see some proof that what you are saying is true because somehow being unable to budge molecules and being impassible is the same thing. Especially with the application of non forceful damage like ice and fire. Mind explaining that to me?

You are the one asserting, without evidence, that it can be damaged. Prove that it can be damaged when it can't be passed through.

And you are asserting without evidence that it cannot be damaged. See it works both ways here

Normal in regards to objects, force is abnormal.

Social construct, as I already said, normal and abnormal are just social constructs.

Show me where it says anything about adamantine weaponry in 5th edition, as far as I can see this can only be a reference to 3.5, which does not apply to this discussion.

Sure I'll show you, it is right under the same page where you pulled that D&D defines damage as separating molecules. It was my interpretation just liek your damage definition is your interpretation

But like I said it is a DM ruling basically, the DM can also rule that an iron sword could cut through stone if he wanted to.

Matter isn't an immovable object, force is. Your base assumption here is faulty.

Force is an immovable object? Wow you learn something new every day

And, because we know that "all other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it" we know that there is no such thing as "enough force". And no, that doesn't mean anything at all regarding all matter (not that force objects are even made of matter, they're made of force).

Okay now prove that that means that being barred means that no force can go through it. And what about non forceful damage, what about them?

Ask them, not me, I can't tell you what the authors were thinking. Perhaps they assumed readers would be using this information purely in good faith, rather than bad faith. Who can say except them? Clearly insofar as you are concerned it was an oversight not to restate the obvious, as you don't seem to accept that.

I am not the one who wants the Hut to be some sort of impenetrable superbunker. It is funny that you are the one to talk about taking it in bad faith when it is you who wants to make your 3rd level invincible circle. And it is funy that you say that it is an oversight yet Leomund's Hut comes not only before Wall of Force in both alphabetical listing and level listing, you would think that it would be better to leave the workings of invulnerable force to an earlier spell so the people can learn it, don't you think? It is like plopping the tutorial in the middle of the game.

And given that Chain Lightning and Lightning Bolt have two totally different damage calculations, you've made a bad analogy.
And you have a better analogy dude, I would like to hear yours for real.

As a matter of fact, no that doesn't work: "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or best cast through it." They can have as many as they need as long as they only ever need 1. So, no, your assertion is incorrect.
Well maybe you are right.

I'd contend that in all cases these things needs must be able to move the hut or pass through it (vibrations in the case of bludgeoning and force, electrical current in the case of lightning, agitation of the molecules in the case of heat and radiant, etc...). Given that spells and objects are totally incapable of passing through, they simply can not affect it.

So I can say throw a vial of alchemist fire so that the splash damage gets the force, what then?

Sorry the unstated wording there is: "abnormal, for an object"

Objects, normally, are not made of force. Unless you want to start arguing that >50% of the objects in the universe are made of force, I think we can stop this line here.

Says you, maybe in your world force objects are rare enough to be abnormal but you can't speak to every world in existence.

Unless of course the force is variable and reactive, only increasing to what is necessary to slow the impact to 0. Like the way Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) imposes a correspondingly large force to oppose any non-worthy creature from moving it. Then it wouldn't need to be infinite, just enough to counteract the applied force (which couldn't itself be infinite either).

Until you get Hulk angry or are a mutant with magnet powers. Of course I am sure this is less trying to apply logic and more the writers wanting to write what they want. I mean Peter Parker gave birth to himself at one point. The point is that even absolute laws in fiction have been violated before if you have a writer that doesn't care enough.

I was under the impression that prior editions of the game had force as basically just that, magical force that automatically pushes exactly as much as anything that comes into contact with it. Hence, impenetrable.

I'll giove you another example with a force effect, Mage Armor.

It says that it is a made of magical force yet it just adds to your AC, how come it doesn't say the attack stops against the force since it is made of force.

What definition of force field says that it has to be a construct? Gravity is in every way a force field. It is a field that exerts a force.

My bad, I meant construct as a mathematical representation.

I'm not trying to justify the magical part, just the properties of the force that is created. The same way I'd use real life definitions to assign properties to a chair created by magic.

Only then by your definition such a chair would also be indestructible

Leomund's Tiny Hut isn't an object, it is a force field. So you can't attack it anymore than Magic Missile or Lightning Bolt.

Magic Missle and Lightning Bolts are effects that happen in an instant. And like I said you can attack a spell as long as it lasts more than one instant as you can with Delayed Fireball. So unless you are saying that the Tiny Hut is an effect and all effects are immune to damage because they can't be targeted

Saying some object exists after the thing that created it disappears does not imply that the the object doesn't exist after the thing that creates it appears.

Lets just say that you can't take the a moment in time as to represent the entire time frame of eternity. You can only represent that moment in time, not before or after.

I'm saying that the force can exist independent of the objects. Imagine an electron and positron annihilate each other. Some time later another electron is created and feels the electric force from this annihilation. These electrons never existed at the same time, but the second electron still felt the force from the first.

I wish to stop you right there, saying that the electrons never existed implies that there isn't a previous reference in time where such objects actually existed. You can't say that if you cool a hot object then the object was never hot before.

How can you say that this force is only the interaction of the two electrons and not accept that the field is a real thing? Where was the energy when neither of these particle existed if not in the field? Also, so that you don't have to worry about what "same time" means, assume that they are annihilated and created at the same place.

Note that you seem to disregard the conservation of matter and energy. The electrons ceased to exist as electrons but are still around as pure energy. The effects of the conversion to energy is still there so you can't say that the electrons never existed.

If I exert a force, that force doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my mass or acceleration. It has to do with the mass and acceleration of the thing I'm exerting the force on. My mass time acceleration is absolutely not the same as the mass time acceleration of a baseball I threw.

If you don't have either mass and you don't provide your own acceleration you cannot provide a Force. Saying otherwise means violating F = ma, simple as that.

Electric fields are made from electrically neutral photons. Photons are the quanta of the electric field. They literally are the force field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

The electric field is a component of the electromagnetic field. It is a vector field, and it is generated by electric charges or time-varying magnetic fields as described by Maxwell's equations.

BTW I searched for photon in that page and nothing comes up, mind providing some links as to your definition

Because it's a force, not an object. You'd have as much luck attacking a photon, or a graviton.

I don't know, depending on your knowledge that F =/= ma and that electric fields are made from not electric photons I think I might take my chances

What is non forceful damage? I guess Dispel Magic doesn't apply a force, and it can bring down the hut, so I might mean that. It's immune to damage because it is a force. Is there any other force that can be damaged?

Fire, Cold, Radiant, Necrotic, Thunder, Lightning. Basically any damage that doesn't come with the F = ma.

Yes, Leomund's Tiny Hut repels things, and it is a force that has a value in space and time, so it is a repulsive force field.

Well good to finally have an actual definition

But there aren't any special rules about being attacked for the force created by Leomund's Tiny Hut. Shouldn't things that doesn't have a special rule act like natural equivalent?

I did but I am wrong apparently because it isn't an object and blahblahblah

I'm not saying gravity is the same as magic, I only brought up gravity because it is a force, so it shares the properties that all forces share with Leomund's Tiny Hut, which is also a force. Are you saying that the word dome implies an object is created? Why assume that, instead of assuming it is the shape of the force, when other forces aren't objects?

I gave my reasoning, force is magic given physical shape. It has nothing to do with any real life physics or anything even remotely resembling physics in a passing glance, it is pure magic. You might as well try to realistically define how does Wish work in physics.

It is a field, meaning it has a value at every point in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29

And it applies a force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

A field is a mathematical representation of a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.[1] In more rigorous terms it is a mathematical representation of a physical quantity that can be represented as a function whose parameters include the position in space and the time instant (and possibly other parameters). For example, on a weather map, the surface wind velocity is described by assigning a vector to each point on a map. Each vector represents the speed and direction of the movement of air at that point.

Note that a field is a mathematical representation. It only has a value if X particle is in X space, not that it applies the entire force at all points in space. If the particle doesn't exist in a space then the field representation doesn't exist.

In the field article it lists gravity and electromagnetism as force fields.

Yes they are force fields, that still makes them mathematical representations and not actual real effects at all points.

Photons clearly exist in space and time, and they make up the electromagnetic force field.

And this is relevant why

I agree that if you take the word dome in the spell to mean an architecural object, then you could attack it. But I see no reason to do this since it says that it's a force, and not an object.

I said that it is an object made of force, force is magic made substance.

I believe there is nothing more to be said, basically all that can be said has be said. So if you want me to say it then okay the Hut is immune to all damage forever and ever, force was physics being disguised as magic or muppets and old people or something and my PHB has a missing page on damage and I am wrong forever and ever. Nothing more is there to be said. Why don't we think about ways on how we can use the Hut to its greatest effect like the OP clearly wanted. Lets break the game with a third level spell.

I don't think more can be said that isn't a long term urination competition.

The end result is that there is no true definition until either Word of God chimes in or we just agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

So here is your chance to say I am wrong forever and ever now.

Talakeal

2015-06-03, 06:29 PM

It is weird that the wikipedia article doesnt mention it, but the electromagnetic force is caused by the interactions of virtual photons.

Kevan

2015-06-03, 09:20 PM

Lets just say that you can't take the a moment in time as to represent the entire time frame of eternity. You can only represent
that moment in time, not before or after.

I wish to stop you right there, saying that the electrons never existed implies that there isn't a previous reference in time where
such objects actually existed. You can't say that if you cool a hot object then the object was never hot before.

Note that you seem to disregard the conservation of matter and energy. The electrons ceased to exist as electrons but are still
around as pure energy. The effects of the conversion to energy is still there so you can't say that the electrons never existed.
If you don't have either mass and you don't provide your own acceleration you cannot provide a Force. Saying otherwise means
violating F = ma, simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

The electric field is a component of the electromagnetic field. It is a vector field, and it is generated by electric charges or
time-varying magnetic fields as described by Maxwell's equations.

A field is a mathematical representation of a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.[1] In more
rigorous terms it is a mathematical representation of a physical quantity that can be represented as a function whose parameters
include the position in space and the time instant (and possibly other parameters). For example, on a weather map, the surface wind
velocity is described by assigning a vector to each point on a map. Each vector represents the speed and direction of the movement
of air at that point.

Note that a field is a mathematical representation. It only has a value if X particle is in X space, not that it applies the entire
force at all points in space. If the particle doesn't exist in a space then the field representation doesn't exist.
Yes they are force fields, that still makes them mathematical representations and not actual real effects at all points.

BTW I searched for photon in that page and nothing comes up, mind providing some links as to your definition

You can certainly talk about things happening before and after. A single electron can exist and then not exist. When an electron
comes into contact with a prositron, that electron ceases to exist. You can tell it doesn't exist becuase the charge it had is
gone. In it's place is a photon, which has no charge or mass, can't accelerate (it always goes at the speed of light), and can
apply forces to other particles. Matter is certainly not conserved, but the energy and momentum of the particles is carried by the
photon, which is what the electromagnetic force field is made out of. And now the force field is independant of the particles. A
photon could exist without any other particles in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

I don't know, depending on your knowledge that F =/= ma and that electric fields are made from not electric photons I think I might

take my chances

Is there anything I didn't cover above?

Fire, Cold, Radiant, Necrotic, Thunder, Lightning. Basically any damage that doesn't come with the F = ma.

I guess I didn't mean that Leomund's Tiny Hut can be destroyed by non force damage. I see no reason any of these would react with
the force from Leomund's Tiny Hut.

I gave my reasoning, force is magic given physical shape. It has nothing to do with any real life physics or anything even remotely
resembling physics in a passing glance, it is pure magic. You might as well try to realistically define how does Wish work in
physics.
I said that it is an object made of force, force is magic made substance.

You keep using this definition. Could you give a reference? Forces are well defined in real life, why not use this as a model for
what kind of properties Leomund's Tiny Hut has?

I believe there is nothing more to be said, basically all that can be said has be said. So if you want me to say it then okay the
Hut is immune to all damage forever and ever, force was physics being disguised as magic or muppets and old people or something and
my PHB has a missing page on damage and I am wrong forever and ever. Nothing more is there to be said. Why don't we think about
ways on how we can use the Hut to its greatest effect like the OP clearly wanted. Lets break the game with a third level spell.
I don't think more can be said that isn't a long term urination competition.
The end result is that there is no true definition until either Word of God chimes in or we just agree to disagree and go our
separate ways.
So here is your chance to say I am wrong forever and ever now.

whibla

2015-06-04, 02:36 PM

I'm not even sure what you're all arguing about now tbh, other than, semantics aside, whether the dome of force created by LTH can be damaged or not.

What does slightly suprise me, however, given all the other spells that have been mentioned in this thread, is that no-one has brought up the 'other' 5th level spell, Bigby's Hand.

"You create a Large hand of shimmering, translucent force .... The hand is an object that has AC 20 and hit points equal to your hit point maximum. If it drops to 0 hit points, the spell ends."

So:

No, LTH doesn't specify anything like the above (it doesn't really specify much of anything, which is pretty much the source of all contention regarding it), but it's not too great a stretch to use this as the basis for adjudicating any attempt to damage the hut. Certainly, as a force effect, AC 20 seems reasonable, and using the caster's max HP's as a proxy for the durability of the hut is, well ... not as good as basing it on their spell casting stat or something similar but it is ... simple. And clearly there's precedent.

Yeah, you could instead treat it like a wall of force, but LTH doesn't specify anything like that either.

In absence of any errata, or official clarification, I guess it comes down to the following questions: What makes most sense to you? What causes the least problems in your game?

Clearly not all force effects are indestructible by 'normal' means, and I'd be inclined to rule that unless they specify otherwise, a la Wall of Force, they are destructible. Futhermore, if destructible, the hit points of that force effect should be determined based on some metric of their caster.

Like most of my posts, just an opinion, based on a, to me, logical extension of RAW. And one that doesn't seem to seriously nerf LTH except for those that wish to use it as an immobile and invulnerable sally point on a battlefield. Ah well, can't please everyone...

Vogonjeltz

2015-06-04, 04:45 PM

Question, why do you assume that just because something cannot pass through something it cannot damage it?

Say, for example, I have a sturdy sheet of glass. If I pound on it with a hammer it will start to crack, but the hammer won't be passing through it. Eventually the glass will shatter, and at that point the hammer might pass through the space where the glass once was, but it never passed through the glass itself like a bullet or an ice pick might have.

The simple fact that it is possible to crack something all the way through but not break it entirely with a strong enough blow should be proof enough that breaking something does not require first passing through it.

Now, you might argue that kinetic energy needs to pass through something to break it (I am not sure if that is true or not), but energy is not an object, and the spell says nothing about stopping energy, only objects. Indeed, as you can see out of the hut it most certainly does not block light or sound.

Also, it just occured to me, how much air does the hut hold? If gas cant pass through it and you have a whole party in the dome I cant imagine it would take too long vefore they have to start sticking their heads out to breathe.

Arguably the hammer on glass example entails vibrations passing through the sheet of glass. If force allows nothing to pass through, then there can be no vibration.

Okay, now actually bring proof to the table and not your convenient definition. I would like to see some proof that what you are saying is true because somehow being unable to budge molecules and being impassible is the same thing. Especially with the application of non forceful damage like ice and fire. Mind explaining that to me?

And you are asserting without evidence that it cannot be damaged. See it works both ways here

The proof is in the wording. It doesn't work both ways as you haven't provided wording that states the hut can be damaged. All the evidence on force objects that exists suggests they can not be damaged. If you were to provide even one example of a force object being damaged then I might (might) be inclined to consider the possibility, but I have found no such thing to exist in my reading of the 5th edition books.

But like I said it is a DM ruling basically, the DM can also rule that an iron sword could cut through stone if he wanted to.

Sure, a DM could contradict common sense if they like. There's no reason to, but they definitely could.

Okay now prove that that means that being barred means that no force can go through it. And what about non forceful damage, what about them?

Are you also going to start saying you need the word "is" to be defined?

So I can say throw a vial of alchemist fire so that the splash damage gets the force, what then?

What do you mean? It deflects off the hut, no damage is dealt to the occupants.

Says you, maybe in your world force objects are rare enough to be abnormal but you can't speak to every world in existence.

I assumed we were talking about the 5th edition game universe, wherein there are no examples of normal (e.g. Purchasable equipment) objects made of force. The only examples of such objects come from impermanent very high level spellcasting, ergo they are abnormal using the rubric of the game rules. You are certainly within your rights as a DM to construct a game-world where everything is made out of force, somehow, and sticks around permanently, and is damagable by whatever, and I don't begrudge you that. But, you're tacitly altering the basic rules of the game in doing so and can not extrapolate such a personal creation to apply to every game world a priori.

Until you get Hulk angry or are a mutant with magnet powers. Of course I am sure this is less trying to apply logic and more the writers wanting to write what they want. I mean Peter Parker gave birth to himself at one point. The point is that even absolute laws in fiction have been violated before if you have a writer that doesn't care enough.

The Hulk consistently fails to lift Thor's Hammer (see: The Avengers). I don't know about Magneto, as he hasn't been shown in the same universe cinematically, although I'd imagine that he'd lose out to what is almost certainly a sentient hammer. That being said, yeah, comic book authors are always inconsistently applying the powers that their characters have as necessary for the demands of whatever story they want to tell.

I'll giove you another example with a force effect, Mage Armor.

It says that it is a made of magical force yet it just adds to your AC, how come it doesn't say the attack stops against the force since it is made of force.

It does, but it isn't a full body covering as evidenced by the fact that it only sets the base AC to 13, so it basically covers as much as a chain shirt without the encumberance (Dexterity modifier cap). It probably doesn't fully cover the Mage because that would be overpowered for a 1st level spell.

Talakeal

2015-06-04, 04:56 PM

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-04, 05:10 PM

Objects, normally, are not made of force. Unless you want to start arguing that >50% of the objects in the universe are made of force, I think we can stop this line here.
Let us confine ourselves to the multiverse (where magic works) not the universe (where so far as we know it doesn't) and we won't run down the rat hole of the nature of matter (since matter ~ energy, conservation of, etc ... that's physics, our universe, and a bit off topic for this discussion).

I was under the impression that prior editions of the game had force as basically just that, magical force that automatically pushes exactly as much as anything that comes into contact with it. Hence, impenetrable. We then get to 5e and Force as one of 10 kinds of damage, and is magical in nature. This clears it all up.

Or it doesn't. :smallbiggrin:

Battlebooze

2015-06-04, 05:55 PM

You guys have revealed the secret power of LTH.

LTH forces a Wisdom save against any neutral observer. If they fail, they lose all actions and begin to argue semantics with anyone nearby who also failed their saving throw. This effects continues, until one side wins the argument. Even the removal of the original LTH will not stop the discussion.

Talakeal

2015-06-04, 06:05 PM

The argument is about whether or not the hut is invulnerable; this isnt just semantics and can have a lot of impact on gameplay.

The semantic arguments are simply because people are trying to establish a common frame of referance to debate the huts invulnerability.

coredump

2015-06-04, 09:20 PM

@Vagonjeltz:

I already addressed the vibration issue. The spell only states that objects may not pass through it, it says nothing about vibrations or any other form of energy, and as you can explicitly see and hear out of the hut it is obvious that vibrations can travel through it.

But at some point we are creating so much extraneous theory to justify doing something never mentioned nor hinted at in the spell.

This is meant to keep players safe for a long rest. If it was that easy to take it down, don't you think they would have mentioned it? 5D10... my 5th level Paladin can do that in a single turn.

If the only recourse to justify doing something that was never mentioned...involves differentiating between 'barring objects' vs 'damage from vibrations' the discussion has veered fatally from the "plain English" design concept of 5E.

Whibla did give an example of a force construct that can be attacked and destroyed in the form of the bigby's hand spells. Yep.
1) LTH does not give AC or HP nor mention that it can be damaged nor destroyed. Bigby's does.
2) Bigby's nevers uses terminology saying that 'objects are barred' from passing through it. LTH does.

I am very comfortable saying that Bigby's can be damaged....

TrollCapAmerica

2015-06-04, 10:00 PM

I am glad I skipped ahead to "LSH dpesnt have HP" which is the end of the argument. instead of reading 30 posts with 8-12 part multiquotes of mini-Sheldons

Talakeal

2015-06-04, 10:18 PM

But at some point we are creating so much extraneous theory to justify doing something never mentioned nor hinted at in the spell.

This is meant to keep players safe for a long rest. If it was that easy to take it down, don't you think they would have mentioned it? 5D10... my 5th level Paladin can do that in a single turn.

If the only recourse to justify doing something that was never mentioned...involves differentiating between 'barring objects' vs 'damage from vibrations' the discussion has veered fatally from the "plain English" design concept of 5E.

Yep.
1) LTH does not give AC or HP nor mention that it can be damaged nor destroyed. Bigby's does.
2) Bigby's nevers uses terminology saying that 'objects are barred' from passing through it. LTH does.

I am very comfortable saying that Bigby's can be damaged....

Right, and I am arguing that in plain English "Objects are barred from passing through it" is not the same thing as "It is indestructible".

Note that I am not saying it CAN be damaged.

IMO it 100% cannot be damaged by anything short of a disintegrate spell as it is a spell effect rather than an object; however the actual RAW is silent on the matter and any argument you make one way or another will have to come down to your interpretation of it.

Also, I mentioned Bigby's because I was pointing Vogonjeltz to Whibla's earlier post because he stated that there were no examples of force objects that could be destroyed, not because I believe that the Bigby's spells have any say on how the Leomund's spells are resolved.

Speaking of which, this is all that damned Leomund's faults. His spells always have so dang many questions and loopholes that need answering; have you SEEN the number of nonsense limitations and specifications for his Tiny Chest in the 3E books?

KorvinStarmast

2015-06-05, 06:46 AM

Speaking of which, this is all that damned Leomund's faults. His spells always have so dang many questions and loopholes that need answering; have you SEEN the number of nonsense limitations and specifications for his Tiny Chest in the 3E books? Send your complaints on the back of a $20 bill to Lenard Lakofka. :smallbiggrin:

His prose, unlike this magical hut, was never impenetrable. :smallcool: That monthly column in Dragon provided a wealth of information for curious DM's and players.

whibla

2015-06-05, 07:34 AM

Right, and I am arguing that in plain English "Objects are barred from passing through it" is not the same thing as "It is indestructible".

Well said. In fact clearly the two are not synonymous (see below).

Note that I am not saying it CAN be damaged.

IMO it 100% cannot be damaged by anything short of a disintegrate spell as it is a spell effect rather than an object;

Another example of a 'similar' effect is Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, a 4th level spell. In the case of this spell however the description explicitly states it creates: "A sphere of shimmering force ... Nothing - not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects - can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there. The sphere is immune to all damage ... A Disintegrate spell targeting the globe destroys it..."

So here we have a higher level spell than LTH, with a significantly shorter duration (Concentration, up to 1 min vs. 8 hours), of a similar magical nature (force). Like Wall of Force it is explicit that it cannot be damaged, but it can be destroyed by means of a Disintegrate. Unlike Wall of Force it does not say it cannot be affected by a Dispel Magic. (Yeah, I realise it doesn't say it can either, but then 99.9% of spells do not say they can or cannot be affected by a Dispel Magic, because there's no need. Unless specifically called out, the default applies, and, by default, spells, or rather magical effects, are affected by Dispel Magic.)

I do take your point though, virtually every spell that specifies it creates an object then goes on to say it can be damaged, and how, while virtually every spell that doesn't specifiy it creates an object (thus presumably creating a spell effect instead) doesn't include anything in its description to say it can be damaged, or how. Not all spells, however, and in that 'cross-over', where spell effects, not objects can be damaged (c.f. Unseen Servant) lies the basis for differing interpretations.

however the actual RAW is silent on the matter and any argument you make one way or another will have to come down to your interpretation of it.

Again, well said. I'll just add, interpretation or house ruling due to 'balance' issues or abuses by munchkins.

Also, I mentioned Bigby's because I was pointing Vogonjeltz to Whibla's earlier post because he stated that there were no examples of force objects that could be destroyed, not because I believe that the Bigby's spells have any say on how the Leomund's spells are resolved.

And I mentioned Bigby's because I felt it offered a reasonable way to limit the potential for abuse of a spell that's seen significant creep since its inception. What started out as a spell to protect an adventuring party from the elements when they couldn't make it back to civilisation before tea time, and were too low level to cast the better version, is now, somehow, morphing into an indestructible artillery bunker, that renders its occupants immune to counter attack*. Not in my world!

Speaking of which, this is all that damned Leomund's faults. His spells always have so dang many questions and loopholes that need answering; have you SEEN the number of nonsense limitations and specifications for his Tiny Chest in the 3E books?

Honestly, I'd say those 'loopholes' still exist. I mean, who on earth thinks it's a good idea to leave an oppulent chest, worth 5000gp, just lying around, somewhere, on the Ethereal Plane. You call that hidden? At least in previous editions it was spelled out that there was always a chance that some dozy creature would come along and actually add something to the chest's contents.

Anyway, nice to see someone talking sense and debating rationally, having clearly thought about the issues, even if we don't necessarily agree on what the answer should be. Kudos.

*Actually, quite apart from a simple dispel magic, this 'immune to counter attack' is clearly rubbish. If an occupant fires an arrow out, the same arrow can be fired back in. Personally I can't see that as being a great deal of use, but the possibility exists anyway.

coredump

2015-06-05, 08:24 AM

I think we are missing some details.

A very large chunk of this thread revolved around LTH being susceptible to almost all damage. The assertion was made of a max of 5d10 hp. I think that is ludicrous based on the info we have.

If you are discussing something more extreme.... Like a disintegrate spell.... That's a very different situation. I have no issue with ruling that it can be disintegrated, or some other similarly drastic method.

whibla

2015-06-05, 01:07 PM

A very large chunk of this thread revolved around LTH being susceptible to almost all damage. The assertion was made of a max of 5d10 hp. I think that is ludicrous based on the info we have.

If you are discussing something more extreme.... Like a disintegrate spell.... That's a very different situation. I have no issue with ruling that it can be disintegrated, or some other similarly drastic method.

A large amount of this thread seems to have been devoted to real world physics, theoretical physics, science fiction physics, and how they relate to LTH / force effects in general. No comment! :smallsmile:

The main problem, as I see it, lies with the description of LTH. Pretty much every other force effect type spell either specifies that it creates an object, and gives that object's AC and Hit Points, or notes that the effect is immune to all damage. LTH does neither, leaving it very much in a grey area.

Clearly if the dome created by LTH is an object then it is not invulnerable, per se, as the DMG (pg.246) states: "the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools characters can destroy any destructible object." Hence, since the default for objects is that they are destructible unless stated otherwise (which the spell description doesn't) it can be damaged, and it can be destroyed. The question then becomes what's its AC, Hit Points, Resistances or special Immunities, and Damage Threshold. Personal preference aside, there is no 'correct' answer to any of these questions, other than the one your DM gives you.

On the other hand, if the dome is not an object but is instead a spell effect then all bets are off as there's a, somewhat understandable, lack of any definition of 'spell effect' as opposed to 'object'. But, given this lack of definition, for any spell that creates a durable spell effect, as opposed to an object, it behooves the authors to describe, thoroughly, how this effect can be interacted with, and how it interacts with 'game reality'. In the case of LTH they failed to do that. To be fair, LTH is not the only spell that suffers from this lack of clarity, Wall of Thorns being another one, in my opinion.

Anyway, this thread is getting long enough, without me adding further to the waffle index.

Vogonjeltz

2015-06-05, 04:23 PM

I already addressed the vibration issue. The spell only states that objects may not pass through it, it says nothing about vibrations or any other form of energy, and as you can explicitly see and hear out of the hut it is obvious that vibrations can travel through it.

Whibla did give an example of a force construct that can be attacked and destroyed in the form of the bigby's hand spells.

Also, iirc, in the comics Magneto cannot lift Mjolnir with his magnetic powers but he can use them to direct the hammer while someone else is holding it.

Your differentiation is flawed insofar as this is an "immobile dome", vibrating such a thing necessarily means moving it. Ergo, vibrating is impossible. So you're wrong to say that it only states that objects can't pass through it, it's clearly stating that it can't move, which categorically includes vibration being incapable of passing through it.

As to being able to see/hear while in the hut: Magic.

Let us confine ourselves to the multiverse (where magic works) not the universe (where so far as we know it doesn't) and we won't run down the rat hole of the nature of matter (since matter ~ energy, conservation of, etc ... that's physics, our universe, and a bit off topic for this discussion).

I confined my comments to the game universe, Shaofoo was interested in expanding the discussion to the multiverse of that universe (distinct from the multiverse of our universe in that the former is always imaginary), and I was acting to squash that red herring immediately.

So here we have a higher level spell than LTH, with a significantly shorter duration (Concentration, up to 1 min vs. 8 hours), of a similar magical nature (force). Like Wall of Force it is explicit that it cannot be damaged, but it can be destroyed by means of a Disintegrate. Unlike Wall of Force it does not say it cannot be affected by a Dispel Magic. (Yeah, I realise it doesn't say it can either, but then 99.9% of spells do not say they can or cannot be affected by a Dispel Magic, because there's no need. Unless specifically called out, the default applies, and, by default, spells, or rather magical effects, are affected by Dispel Magic.)

Oh the quibbling. I was not saying the dome can't be destroyed by disintegrate (in point of fact, I explicitly said it could be), but it can not be damaged, so in the colloquial sense it can not be destroyed by way of damage, disintegrate does not damage the dome, it destroys it because it's specifically said to be able to do so.

Talakeal

2015-06-05, 05:07 PM

To me a "plain english" reading of the word immobile means that something cannot be moved from place to place, not that it is absolutely fixed in position and structure and ignores all forms of momentun and vibration. Also, if you want to go for a super literal reading of the world immobile, the spell becomes useless as the dome remains absolutely fixed in space as the planet rotates out from under it almost instantly, taking the caster with it and thus ending the spell.

Also, saying that vibration cannot pass through it but you can still hear because "its magic" is an argument that works both ways, one could also say that they can still attack and destroy it despite not being able to move it or pass through it because "its magic". I imagine that is hardly a satisfying solution regardless of your point of view.

Again, I am not saying that you can destroy the hut, I dont believe you can, but I don't believe that an overly literal interpretation of the spell's description is the best way to go about arguing this, especially not with 5es "plain english" philosophy towards rules lawyering.

Althou, I actually havent seen it ever explicitly stated what they meant by "plain english", maybe they really did want the game to devolve into arguments over semantics, literal readings, and legalise rather than actually providing clearly defined game terms and keywords.

whibla

2015-06-05, 07:11 PM

Oh the quibbling. I was not saying the dome can't be destroyed by disintegrate (in point of fact, I explicitly said it could be), but it can not be damaged, so in the colloquial sense it can not be destroyed by way of damage, disintegrate does not damage the dome, it destroys it because it's specifically said to be able to do so.

I guess the bit that most people are struggling with is finding the bit that says LTH cannot be damaged. Perhaps you could point us to that text? I can see it in Wall of Force "It is immune to all damage"; I can see it in Otiluke's Resilient Sphere "The sphere is immune to all damage"; I can't find a similar entry in LTH. Part of the post that you quoted mentioned that things follow the default behaviour, unless specifically stated otherwise. The default for things is that they can be damaged. WoF and ORS specifically state that they cannot be damaged. LTH does not, ergo it can be damaged.

*This post may contain traces of Devil's Advocate. Contents should in no way be assumed to accurately reflect poster's actual opinion on the subject. Poster regrets use of third person pronoun to refer to himself.

coredump

2015-06-05, 10:19 PM

Clearly if the dome created by LTH is an object then it is not invulnerable, per se, as the DMG (pg.246) states: "the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools characters can destroy any destructible object."
Circular logic. You are saying it is not invulnerable because the DMG says you can destroy things that are destructible......

Hence, since the default for objects is that they are destructible unless stated otherwise (which the spell description doesn't) it can be damaged, and it can be destroyed.
You are assuming that there is a 'default' for objects to be destructible. You are assuming that being made of force would still follow that 'default'. You are assuming that objects made of Force do not have their own 'default'.
Finally, you are assuming that the authors decision to 'bar passage of all objects' has no effect on if the item is destructible or not.

But, given this lack of definition, for any spell that creates a durable spell effect, as opposed to an object, it behooves the authors to describe, thoroughly, how this effect can be interacted with, and how it interacts with 'game reality'. In the case of LTH they failed to do that. To be fair, LTH is not the only spell that suffers from this lack of clarity, Wall of Thorns being another one, in my opinion. I think saying that "All objects are barred from passing through" goes pretty far in describing how it interacts with other objects.

To me a "plain english" reading of the word immobile means that something cannot be moved from place to place, not that it is absolutely fixed in position and structure and ignores all forms of momentun and vibration. I agree. But then I also believe that delving into an argument about how an object can't pass through, but can stop and impart its energy in a fashion to damage the dome by vibrating the molecules...etc...etc.... also completely fails the "plain English" test.

whibla

2015-06-06, 06:05 AM

You are assuming that there is a 'default' for objects to be destructible.

Yes, in much the same way that I assume gravity causes attraction between two masses, time doesn't flow backwards, creatures can't walk through brick walls, and many many other things that everyone takes for granted, and, in reality, doesn't really think about because it's so obvious it never needs spelling out.

You are assuming that being made of force would still follow that 'default'. You are assuming that objects made of Force do not have their own 'default'.

Again, yes, because if they didn't there would be no need for certain spells to list their invulnerabilty as a specific exception.

Finally, you are assuming that the authors decision to 'bar passage of all objects' has no effect on if the item is destructible or not. I think saying that "All objects are barred from passing through" goes pretty far in describing how it interacts with other objects.

Yep.
1) LTH does not give AC or HP nor mention that it can be damaged nor destroyed. Bigby's does.
2) Bigby's nevers uses terminology saying that 'objects are barred' from passing through it. LTH does.

I am very comfortable saying that Bigby's can be damaged....

If your argument comes down to the fact that Bigby's (which can punch, crush and push creatures, which clearly aren't passing through the hand) can be damaged because it doesn't say that objects can't pass through it while Leomund's can't be damaged because it does say that objects can't pass through it you have some very strange ideas of how anything interacts...

I actually think that, with the removal of Leomund's Secure Shelter, the authors worded the spell description as they did to distinguish the 5th ed. version of LTH from all previous versions of the spell of the same name which all specified "Missiles, weapons, and most spell effects can pass through the hut without affecting it, although the occupants cannot be seen from outside the hut". What they didn't account for was people then interpreting their wording as somehow meaning it was invulnerable, when such was not the intention. Even LSS, while noting it was "as strong as a stone building ... resists flame and fire as if it were stone ... impervious to normal missiles" never claimed to be invulnerable to all damage. It never claimed to stop magic missiles passing straight through the walls either, but then, the authors apparently didn't feel it neccessary to add that bit... I wonder why...

Honestly, and I've said it before, whether people use damage thresholds, simple AC & Hit Points, or want to claim flat out invulnerabilty, until there is some 'official' clarification there is no right answer, other than what your DM tells you. If you are the DM, knock yourself out*

*I nearly have, banging my head on my desk** :smalleek:

**Which, incidentally, provided further evidence that objects are, by default, destructible.