Animate Dead or Tiny Servant?

[Merudo]

I've recently watched Bilbron's video gushing over Tiny Servants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFe5xNwCLo0), and I'm not exactly seeing the appeal?

The big problem with Tiny Servant (which he mentions, but quickly glosses over) is the extreme vulnerability of the servants : with 10HP and 15AC, a Tiny Servant will be lucky to survive a single hit or AoE.

A Tiny Servant does ~5 damage when it hits (with +5 to hit). It seems wasteful to spend a level 3 slot for a servant that might at best do 5-10 damage before quickly dying to a stray hit.

Sure, Tiny Servants can manipulate objects, set up traps, use potions on teammates, etc. but so can Skeletons created from Animate Dead.

Animate Dead (Skeleton) seems a much better version than Tiny Servant, for the following reasons:


Skeletons can use short bows from afar, dramatically extending their survivability on the battlefield.
Skeletons have 10 strength instead of 4, and aren't tiny, so they can manipulate much heavier objects.
Skeletons last 24 hours without recasting, while Tiny Servants only last 8.
Skeletons can be maintained very efficiently: with a level 3 slot, it is possible to reasserts control over four skeletons.
Skeletons can receive THP from Inspiring Leader, while Tiny Servants cannot.


There are a few flaws of Animate Dead, but they are not so bad:


It requires bones, but according to the recent Sage Advice, bones from any creature will do.
Tiny Servant have +2AC (but -3HP), and a +5 to hit instead of the Skeleton's +4.
Some parties might be opposed to the spell.


Given this, I can't imagine taking Tiny Servant over Animate Dead.

[Amnestic]

Walking around with a flock of skeletons in town is probably going to go poorly. Having a tiny coin with arms and legs in your pocket less so.

Tiny isn't also solely a con, it also gives them an advantage in infiltration. Skeletons have only a 60' command radius, Tiny Servant is 120'. You can make a tiny servant out of a silver coin to potentially bypass some resistances.

[x3n0n]

To be fair, "my party and/or the village we're walking through won't dig this" is a real thing. A satchel full of silver pieces is much less conspicuous (and less offensive to most NPCs) than an entourage of skeletons. The consequences of failing to reassert are also far less predictable than just letting the TSs fall back to sleep.

Also, you can do the crazy "upcast and/or multi-cast to make dozens" thing with no real risk. Not as trivial with AD.

True blindsight is also relevant with obscurement.

I think they each have real advantages over the other.

[Segev]

Walking around with a flock of skeletons in town is probably going to go poorly. Having a tiny coin with arms and legs in your pocket less so.

Tiny isn't also solely a con, it also gives them an advantage in infiltration. Skeletons have only a 60' command radius, Tiny Servant is 120'. You can make a tiny servant out of a silver coin to potentially bypass some resistances.

I am constantly reminding myself that Tiny goes all the way down in size in 5e, and I still didn't think of tiny servant being cast on a coin. I like this idea. It's up there with remembering that a spider doesn't have to be fist-sized to be a familiar; it can be your common everyday house spider of less than an inch, or even a few millimeters.

[diplomancer]

Animate Dead is a brute force spell; sure, you can do damage and you can soak HPs, but that's pretty much the best you can do with it.

Tiny Servant lags in those categories, but they are far more versatile and reward creative thinking, and doesn't have any penalty for "ickiness" (quite the contrary, Tiny Servants are a definite crowd-pleaser, see the success of Beauty and the Beast).

[Bilbron]

I've recently watched Bilbron's video gushing over Tiny Servants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFe5xNwCLo0), and I'm not exactly seeing the appeal?

The big problem with Tiny Servant (which he mentions, but quickly glosses over) is the extreme vulnerability of the servants : with 10HP and 15AC, a Tiny Servant will be lucky to survive a single hit or AoE.

A Tiny Servant does ~5 damage when it hits (with +5 to hit). It seems wasteful to spend a level 3 slot for a servant that might at best do 5-10 damage before quickly dying to a stray hit.

Sure, Tiny Servants can manipulate objects, set up traps, use potions on teammates, etc. but so can Skeletons created from Animate Dead.

Animate Dead (Skeleton) seems a much better version than Tiny Servant, for the following reasons:


Skeletons can use short bows from afar, dramatically extending their survivability on the battlefield.
Skeletons have 10 strength instead of 4, and aren't tiny, so they can manipulate much heavier objects.
Skeletons last 24 hours without recasting, while Tiny Servants only last 8.
Skeletons can be maintained very efficiently: with a level 3 slot, it is possible to reasserts control over four skeletons.
Skeletons can receive THP from Inspiring Leader, while Tiny Servants cannot.


There are a few flaws of Animate Dead, but they are not so bad:


It requires bones, but according to the recent Sage Advice, bones from any creature will do.
Tiny Servant have +2AC (but -3HP), and a +5 to hit instead of the Skeleton's +4.
Some parties might be opposed to the spell.


Given this, I can't imagine taking Tiny Servant over Animate Dead.

First of all, thanks for watching the video and starting this thread!

Moving on, I don't buy the "they're totally vulnerable to AOE" thing at all... it would be interesting to hear these arguments applied to the highly regarded "Animate Objects" spell. Think of how they are deployed relative to Animate Dead... with AD your retinue is huge and obvious, but with TS they are IN YOUR PACK. So you can Nova on a guy before he even knows you HAVE any summons. In my last battle, I swarmed 22x of them out of my pack at my enemy, and raked him for 90ish damage before he even knew he might need an AOE.

You also have to be somewhat tactical. As I've said, I'm a big believer in using Round 1 to be defensive and assess. If you attack with ALL of your TS in Round 1 and they get blown away, I'd say you got what you deserved. I recommend a more sensible deployment, against appropriate enemies, and perhaps going to Plan B if turns out they have every round AOE options, or they have a persistent damage Aura or some such.

Animate Dead is just so clunky, comes with so many RP repercussions (my party flipped out when I suggested it, the RP aspects were too much for them). I do love Skeletons and their ranged attack... it's a great spell! But I prefer Tiny Servant.

[Eldariel]

Animate Dead is the best 3rd level spell in the game, except for perhaps Conjure Animals (and only Lore Bard has to make that choice anyways so it's kinda moot - they have enough concentration spells that they probably are better served by Animate Dead). It absolutely breaks combat in Tier 2 and lets you walk around with a ghastly retinue. The RP implications are an issue and you might need to keep your host in a dump outside the city (use Mold Earth to dig them a hole, seal it, and tell them to defend themselves if someone not in your retinue approaches them). Around level 5 spells you finally get Seeming, which more or less solves this issue and at the same time also gives you a great source of survivability through obscurity: it's very hard for any would-be assassins or whatever to target you without True Seeing if you're one in a horde of random-looking people that look different every day.

Tiny Servant, on the other hand, is only nominally a 3rd level spell. One Servant for a slot for 8 hours is kinda whatever. Where Tiny Servant gets good is when you begin having 4th/5th level slots to spare. It upcasts insanely (1 > 3 is a tripling and 3 > 5 is still a 66% improvement) well while Animate Dead upcasts terribly (4 > 5 is only a 25% increase and 5 > 6 a 20% one) but has an incredible value on level 3.


They also fulfill different roles. Tiny Servant is much stealthier and about the thing itself while Animate Dead is as much about equipment and tools as about the bodies themselves. I generally wouldn't use both due to slot expenditure unless I had a lot of slots to spare (very high level and little need for all those 3-5 slots in combat) but either can get you a retinue strong enough to annihilate most things without AOE and still force AOE-users to conserve AOE or waste it on fireball formation units (Skeleton is obviously awesome due to ranged attack; Zombie is kinda nice with armor and unholy toughness but still generally you primarily want Skeletons).

[Dork_Forge]

First of all, thanks for watching the video and starting this thread!

Moving on, I don't buy the "they're totally vulnerable to AOE" thing at all... it would be interesting to hear these arguments applied to the highly regarded "Animate Objects" spell. Think of how they are deployed relative to Animate Dead... with AD your retinue is huge and obvious, but with TS they are IN YOUR PACK. So you can Nova on a guy before he even knows you HAVE any summons. In my last battle, I swarmed 22x of them out of my pack at my enemy, and raked him for 90ish damage before he even knew he might need an AOE.

You also have to be somewhat tactical. As I've said, I'm a big believer in using Round 1 to be defensive and assess. If you attack with ALL of your TS in Round 1 and they get blown away, I'd say you got what you deserved. I recommend a more sensible deployment, against appropriate enemies, and perhaps going to Plan B if turns out they have every round AOE options, or they have a persistent damage Aura or some such.

Animate Dead is just so clunky, comes with so many RP repercussions (my party flipped out when I suggested it, the RP aspects were too much for them). I do love Skeletons and their ranged attack... it's a great spell! But I prefer Tiny Servant.

Them being in your pack doesn't mean anything if they're creatures, besides maybe providing them a degree of cover. With only 10hp, a below average roll of Fireball will kill them on a succcess. Realistically any degree of aoe has a high mortality rate against Tiny Servants, and it's a team game, so the enemy doesn't need to know you even have Tiny Servants to want to AOE.

Just in case a counter to this is 'Counterspell!' a large variety of non spell aoes will achieve the same thing, and since they're crammed into a back pack, if the aoe hits you, it hits them.

Your example: 22 Tiny Servants is such a massive investment of slots (far more than is typical for TS use iirc) that you'd most likely have been better off doing, well a great deal of anything else. If you're getting away with things like this regularly, that says more about your DM rather than the effectiveness of the strategy.

[Bilbron]

Them being in your pack doesn't mean anything if they're creatures, besides maybe providing them a degree of cover. With only 10hp, a below average roll of Fireball will kill them on a succcess. Realistically any degree of aoe has a high mortality rate against Tiny Servants, and it's a team game, so the enemy doesn't need to know you even have Tiny Servants to want to AOE.

Just in case a counter to this is 'Counterspell!' a large variety of non spell aoes will achieve the same thing, and since they're crammed into a back pack, if the aoe hits you, it hits them.

If they're in your closed backpack, the Fireball has no Line of Effect and wouldn't cause any damage to them at all, no? Then they're just 1x IWO away from swarming.


Your example: 22 Tiny Servants is such a massive investment of slots (far more than is typical for TS use iirc) that you'd most likely have been better off doing, well a great deal of anything else. If you're getting away with things like this regularly, that says more about your DM rather than the effectiveness of the strategy.I was Rest Tricking so had blown all of my slots except for the ones I needed for Death Ward and Non-Detection. When I'm not Rest Tricking, I'd just blow my "dead" slots from Multiclassing, so typically 5x, 6x, 7x, or 10x.

[ImproperJustice]

I find the blind sense, larger command radius, climbing ability, and built in utility of TS to be a much, much better use overall.

The simple joy of animating a lock, carrying a chain to go and secure himself to doors, bars, or other things is fairly amusing.

Dispatching a torch to go light things on fire or be a target for Pyrotechnics is fun.

A Grappling Hook ascending itself.

Or an oil flask with a healing potion in one hand and acid on the other. Works great with the torch buddy.

I really like the coin idea though.

[da newt]

"If they're in your closed backpack, the Fireball has no Line of Effect and wouldn't cause any damage to them at all, no? Then they're just 1x IWO away from swarming."

My PC wears a full body suit that entirely covers his body (like any $25 spandex Spider-man costume) - therefor he is immune to all spell effects because they require a 'Line of Effect.' - really? BS.

[x3n0n]

"If they're in your closed backpack, the Fireball has no Line of Effect and wouldn't cause any damage to them at all, no? Then they're just 1x IWO away from swarming."

My PC wears a full body suit that entirely covers his body (like any $25 spandex Spider-man costume) - therefor he is immune to all spell effects because they require a 'Line of Effect.' - really? BS.

Even if we disagree with the particulars, there is a reasonable argument here.

Replace "closed backpack" with "closed chest that you're carrying around", and it sounds not so crazy. (Edit: And it proceeds a very "movie" visual; fireball explodes, wizard opens chest, and flood of angry silverware storms out.)

Then you're left arguing about "how enclosed does it need to be to provide total cover?" Bodysuit: not good enough. Chest: I'd argue yes. Backpack: maybe not. Discuss with DM until you agree on how elaborate (and heavy) your enclosure needs to be to satisfy your goals.

[Dork_Forge]

If they're in your closed backpack, the Fireball has no Line of Effect and wouldn't cause any damage to them at all, no? Then they're just 1x IWO away from swarming.

Line of effect is regards to targeting and points of origin, the point of origin is not in the backpack, at best the backpack would provide total cover:


A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

Emphasis mine, they're still vulnerable to aoe under the only rules that would protect them, that's before common sense rulings by DMs step in. I don't see any reason, rules or rulings, to let this kind of strategy happen on a regular basis, especially when aoe is so common on so many different types of monster.


I was Rest Tricking so had blown all of my slots except for the ones I needed for Death Ward and Non-Detection. When I'm not Rest Tricking, I'd just blow my "dead" slots from Multiclassing, so typically 5x, 6x, 7x, or 10x.

Rest Tricking? I assume you mean just using leftover slots like one would do with Goodberry? Even then that's a huge investment, I assume this is a very high level game.


Even if we disagree with the particulars, there is a reasonable argument here.

Replace "closed backpack" with "closed chest that you're carrying around", and it sounds not so crazy. (Edit: And it proceeds a very "movie" visual; fireball explodes, wizard opens chest, and flood of angry silverware storms out.)

Then you're left arguing about "how enclosed does it need to be to provide total cover?" Bodysuit: not good enough. Chest: I'd argue yes. Backpack: maybe not. Discuss with DM until you agree on how elaborate (and heavy) your enclosure needs to be to satisfy your goals.

Same as above, total cover doesn't protect from being included in an aoe, it's actually worse than half and three quarters cover, since it provides no benefit to Dex saves.

[MaxWilson]

Animate Dead is the best 3rd level spell in the game, except for perhaps Conjure Animals (and only Lore Bard has to make that choice anyways so it's kinda moot - they have enough concentration spells that they probably are better served by Animate Dead). It absolutely breaks combat in Tier 2 and lets you walk around with a ghastly retinue. The RP implications are an issue and you might need to keep your host in a dump outside the city (use Mold Earth to dig them a hole, seal it, and tell them to defend themselves if someone not in your retinue approaches them). Around level 5 spells you finally get Seeming, which more or less solves this issue and at the same time also gives you a great source of survivability through obscurity: it's very hard for any would-be assassins or whatever to target you without True Seeing if you're one in a horde of random-looking people that look different every day.

Tiny Servant, on the other hand, is only nominally a 3rd level spell. One Servant for a slot for 8 hours is kinda whatever. Where Tiny Servant gets good is when you begin having 4th/5th level slots to spare. It upcasts insanely (1 > 3 is a tripling and 3 > 5 is still a 66% improvement) well while Animate Dead upcasts terribly (4 > 5 is only a 25% increase and 5 > 6 a 20% one) but has an incredible value on level 3.

They also fulfill different roles. Tiny Servant is much stealthier and about the thing itself while Animate Dead is as much about equipment and tools as about the bodies themselves. I generally wouldn't use both due to slot expenditure unless I had a lot of slots to spare (very high level and little need for all those 3-5 slots in combat) but either can get you a retinue strong enough to annihilate most things without AOE and still force AOE-users to conserve AOE or waste it on fireball formation units (Skeleton is obviously awesome due to ranged attack; Zombie is kinda nice with armor and unholy toughness but still generally you primarily want Skeletons).

Great summary! (Edit: although Animate Dead upcasts better than you think it does. It's +2 per additional level, not +1.)

I probably wouldn't cast both on the same day but I would consider learning Tiny Servant, even as a Necromancer, for occasions when bodies aren't available or undead are unacceptable. I don't think Tiny Servant ever really better per se than Animate Dead, except against e.g. psychic damage-heavy creatures like Mind Flayers and Star Spawn, but it can be good enough to make you not want to put up with the downsides of Animate Dead in the current scenario.

Tiny Servant can be pretty neat with a source of temp HP like an Artillerist in the party (Necro 6/Artillerist 3/Warlock 11 can spam Tiny Servants for days), even moreso with a heavy obscurement source like Darkness or Pyrotechnics.

The way I see it, going for max Animate Dead is wartime behavior, for crushing an enormous military threat. If you're just trying to break your grandmother out of modron jail or whatever, Tiny Servant is a convenient, no-concentration use of a couple of spell slots to get unobtrusive, semi-stealthy minions who might even be able to steal the keys for you, whereas Animate Dead is closer to a declaration of war on the modrons so you can hammer down the front door.


If they're in your closed backpack, the Fireball has no Line of Effect and wouldn't cause any damage to them at all, no? Then they're just 1x IWO away from swarming.


I would not allow a simple cloth covering to provide total cover against Fireball.

RAW, you can't put 22 Tiny creatures in the same space as a Medium creature in the first place so the scenario can't happen. DM ruling, I'd consider letting you cram them all in there, but they'd have all the penalties for Squeezing Into A Smaller Space (e.g. disadvantage on Dex saves) and I'd also rule that extracting themselves from that tangle of creatures takes an action, just like breaking a grapple but with autosuccess. But RAW it's just straight up not possible.

[Segev]

Avoid the "can they survive a fireball in a backpack?" question by having a bag of holding. Unless the DM is going to have your bag of holding be destroyed every time you're caught in a fireball without you using it to store your tiny servants, they should be fine in there. Just as easy to open a bag and have them swarm out as it is a backpack or chest.

[Dork_Forge]

Avoid the "can they survive a fireball in a backpack?" question by having a bag of holding. Unless the DM is going to have your bag of holding be destroyed every time you're caught in a fireball without you using it to store your tiny servants, they should be fine in there. Just as easy to open a bag and have them swarm out as it is a backpack or chest.

This doesn't really change anything, nothing says the backpack is destroyed, the rules say it doesn't provide the Tiny Servants with any meaningful protection from aoe. Looking at the Bag of Holding, I see no reason why it wouldn't be exactly the same case there too.

[x3n0n]

Emphasis mine, they're still vulnerable to aoe under the only rules that would protect them, that's before common sense rulings by DMs step in.
...
Same as above, total cover doesn't protect from being included in an aoe, it's actually worse than half and three quarters cover, since it provides no benefit to Dex saves.

Thanks for clarifying. I would argue that there is some degree of enclosure that might get you to a favorable "common sense ruling" by a DM. Vis a vis:


Avoid the "can they survive a fireball in a backpack?" question by having a bag of holding. Unless the DM is going to have your bag of holding be destroyed every time you're caught in a fireball without you using it to store your tiny servants, they should be fine in there. Just as easy to open a bag and have them swarm out as it is a backpack or chest.

I had not thought of that in this context. Nesting a BoH inside my backpack has always been a goal, and this is another good reason. :)


This doesn't really change anything, nothing says the backpack is destroyed, the rules say it doesn't provide the Tiny Servants with any meaningful protection from aoe. Looking at the Bag of Holding, I see no reason why it wouldn't be exactly the same case there too.

Reading Bag of Holding and Handy Haversack, they describe each other as containing an extradimensional space. That seems like "not enclosed within" the AoE. No?

[MaxWilson]

Same as above, total cover doesn't protect from being included in an aoe, it's actually worse than half and three quarters cover, since it provides no benefit to Dex saves.

That interpretation makes no sense to me. I think you're misunderstanding the intent of "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." It's just saying that you can AoE someone around a corner by targeting somewhere with line of sight to the thing you want to destroy around the corner. It's not saying that AoEs go through total cover like castle walls as if they weren't there, but are partially blocked by partial cover.

I'd just say "normally, karma protects worn items from damage unless the creature wearing them is dead or dying, but karma from one creature refuses to protect other creatures from damage, even indirectly. So the backpack gets treated as not being worn, takes the full 28 HP of damage and burns open, and everything inside is subject to the full AoE and may take 28 HP as well. But if you have a metal chest tough enough to withstand 28 HP of damage, it will provide total cover as long as it is intact."

It's not a perfectly satisfactory ruling but it's no less illogical than the fact that Fireballing a dragon all over does the exact same damage as Fireballing the tip of its tail. D&D AoEs are just inherently weird.



There are a few flaws of Animate Dead, but they are not so bad:

It requires bones, but according to the recent Sage Advice, bones from any creature will do.


Despite what is written in the MM and PHB, in no case would I let someone cast Animate Dead on a small pile of chicken bones and have six armored sized skeletons with shortbows and arrows appear. I'd say, "Come on, man. You need six bodies to make six skeleton archers, or at least something pretty close to six, and they'll have the languages, armor and weapon proficiencies they had in life. Do not try to tell me that you seriously expect this tiny pile of chicken bones to produce skeleton archers. You want six skeletons, go rob some graves or kill some bandits or hobgoblins or something."

If they insisted on proceeding, I'd give them a skeletal chicken, just like Animate Dead says I might. "The DM has the creature's game statistics."

[Segev]

This doesn't really change anything, nothing says the backpack is destroyed, the rules say it doesn't provide the Tiny Servants with any meaningful protection from aoe. Looking at the Bag of Holding, I see no reason why it wouldn't be exactly the same case there too.


Reading Bag of Holding and Handy Haversack, they describe each other as containing an extradimensional space. That seems like "not enclosed within" the AoE. No?

That's more or less my reasoning. Even if you rule that the backpack is unable to provide cover in a meaningful/useful fashion against an AoE, being on a different plane with the portal to the plane the AoE is happening on closed should be pretty insulating.

[Dork_Forge]

Thanks for clarifying. I would argue that there is some degree of enclosure that might get you to a favorable "common sense ruling" by a DM. Vis a vis:

I agree that talking things out with a DM is the best course of action, but it looked like it was being presents as a straight RAW option, which just shouldn't work.



Reading Bag of Holding and Handy Haversack, they describe each other as containing an extradimensional space. That seems like "not enclosed within" the AoE. No?

They descirbe each other as that, but rules are so thin on the ground it's really just rulings at this point. The reading of the actual item just makes it seem like it acts like a backpack apart from the excpetions it gives, I'd be more likely to let a player do these things with a bag of holding, but I wouldn't stand behind it as RAW.

I'd also shut the player down hard if they tried to abuse rest mechanics and object interaction though, team games require trust and that kind of RAW abuse doesn't inspire it in me as a DM for anything but a one off use.


That interpretation makes no sense to me. I think you're misunderstanding the intent of "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." It's just saying that you can AoE someone around a corner by targeting somewhere with line of sight to the thing you want to destroy around the corner. It's not saying that AoEs go through total cover like castle walls as if they weren't there, but are partially blocked by partial cover.

I'd just say "normally, karma protects worn items from damage unless the creature wearing them is dead or dying, but karma from one creature refuses to protect other creatures from damage, even indirectly. So the backpack gets treated as not being worn, takes the full 28 HP of damage and burns open, and everything inside is subject to the full AoE and may take 28 HP as well. But if you have a metal chest tough enough to withstand 28 HP of damage, it will provide total cover as long as it is intact."

It's not a perfectly satisfactory ruling but it's no less illogical than the fact that Fireballing a dragon all over does the exact same damage as Fireballing the tip of its tail. D&D AoEs are just inherently weird.


To clarify, I'm not saying that it makes logical sense, I'm saying that RAW the backpack doesn't seem to provide any actual protection from being AOE'd. I only reduced it to this level because sometimes people will still try to propogate strategies on niche or abusive readings of RAW, and they only really stand back when you take that away from them.

Had I thought of your approach of creatures sharing a space first, I'd have just used that instead (very good catch btw). The point was to provide a rules based reason for 'no, that's ridiculous, they all burn to death' since it was relying on strict rules reading to make something stupid happen to begin with.

Personally I'd let this fly every now and then, with one or two TS, trusting the player to just not abuse a favourable ruling.


That's more or less my reasoning. Even if you rule that the backpack is unable to provide cover in a meaningful/useful fashion against an AoE, being on a different plane with the portal to the plane the AoE is happening on closed should be pretty insulating.

I'd agree with that, but I'd also argue that they aren't getting out of there and doing anything any time soon. In my actual games I'm actually pretty accommodating for working things out players want to do (it's one of my favourite uses for inspiration), but when things like this are being recommended I take a less favourable approach so people don't get diappointed when they try it/DMs don't get gried when it's brought to their table.

[x3n0n]

I'd agree with that, but I'd also argue that they aren't getting out of there and doing anything any time soon. In my actual games I'm actually pretty accommodating for working things out players want to do (it's one of my favourite uses for inspiration), but when things like this are being recommended I take a less favourable approach so people don't get diappointed when they try it/DMs don't get gried when it's brought to their table.

I feel like there are multiple things going on here.

Based on your response, I think you agree that the metaphysics of having them off-plane means they aren't fried, and presumably the bag holder could open it and get them (one?) out the same way you could reach into a BoH or HH for a hammer or a sword or a potion. I mean, that's what they're for?

However, allowing something like that could make minionmancy even more powerful than it already is, so you'd prefer not to embrace a tactic that would keep pre-animated minions safe from AoEs while still easily accessible at encounter speed.

Is that fair?

[Hael]

RAW a fireball needs to be able to reach you and it includes words like (fire spreads around corners). Suppose there was an adamantium human sized jar. If I hid behind it and the fireball was centered on the opposite side, RAW I would still be hit as it goes around. If I walked into the Jar and the top was open, then it could still reach me.

However if I closed the lid then RAW I am not affected.

I interpret that the same way for tiny servant in a backpack, as there is nothing in RAW about object density or protection.

My DM house rules it by considering facing. If the fireball is behind my character, my backpack and it’s contents are going to take the full kinetic energy of the blast. If it’s in front of me, it’s as above as the pc shields the sealed contents.

[Damon_Tor]

Tiny servants can be created out of custom-crafted objects, which means they can serve as actuators inside of complex machines.

In combat, this usually means building them into your armor, or into your Iron Defender/Homunculus, and then getting them to toss Magic Stones from their protected shoulder-mounted turret or having them operate your Spell Storing Item. It's relatively simple to design a mechanism that only opens when the TS is taking it's action, and so they have full cover unless an enemy is willing to ready an action to attack right as the device opens to fire. Indeed, this is the basis for the TSAR.

Of course this sort of tactic invites the DM to make use of the "break an item" rules against your TSAR. But that's okay, that's exactly what those rules are for, and I find those rules to be mostly fair.

[MaxWilson]

Tiny servants can be created out of custom-crafted objects, which means they can serve as actuators inside of complex machines.

In combat, this usually means building them into your armor, or into your Iron Defender/Homunculus, and then getting them to toss Magic Stones from their protected shoulder-mounted turret or having them operate your Spell Storing Item. It's relatively simple to design a mechanism that only opens when the TS is taking it's action, and so they have full cover unless an enemy is willing to ready an action to attack right as the device opens to fire. Indeed, this is the basis for the TSAR.

Of course this sort of tactic invites the DM to make use of the "break an item" rules against your TSAR. But that's okay, that's exactly what those rules are for, and I find those rules to be mostly fair.

Here you again run into the issue that a Tiny creature can't share a space with a Medium creature, only with up to 3 other Tiny creatures. Sometimes RAW is dumb and should be ignored, but if a DM lets you do something that's illegal by RAW, they may also impose restrictions that aren't there in RAW, such imposing Squeezing Into A Smaller Space penalties on those TSARs (disadvantage on attacks, etc.), or not letting a bajillion TSARs in your armor all operate the same Spell Storing Item, or not letting them have total cover against certain attacks that are powerful enough to break whatever mechanism is being used to shield them from view, potentially including Fireball.

Just something to bear in mind.

[Merudo]

RAW, you can't put 22 Tiny creatures in the same space as a Medium creature in the first place so the scenario can't happen. DM ruling, I'd consider letting you cram them all in there, but they'd have all the penalties for Squeezing Into A Smaller Space (e.g. disadvantage on Dex saves) and I'd also rule that extracting themselves from that tangle of creatures takes an action, just like breaking a grapple but with autosuccess. But RAW it's just straight up not possible.

True, although the DMG (p.271) provides an optional "Climb onto a Bigger Creature" that could apply to the Tiny creatures:



If one creature wants to jump onto another creature, it can do so by grappling. A Small or Medium creature has little chance of making a successful grapple against a Huge or Gargantuan creature, however, unless magic has granted the grappler supernatural might.

As an alternative, a suitably large opponent can be treated as terrain for the purpose of jumping onto its back or clinging to a limb. After making any ability checks necessary to get into position and onto the larger creature, the smaller creature uses its action to make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the target's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If it wins the contest, the smaller creature successfully moves into the target creature's space and clings to its body. While in the target's space, the smaller creature moves with the target and has advantage on attack rolls against it.


However, a strict reading would make this rule only apply to "opponents", and not to a Wizard and its friendly Tiny Servants.

[Segev]

True, although the DMG (p.271) provides an optional "Climb onto a Bigger Creature" that could apply to the Tiny creatures:

With zero optional rules, you can grapple your tiny creatures then tie them to you, perhaps with some sort of special compartment to keep them in, and they now move with you even if they technically occupy other spaces than yours by the RAW. Or you could have them use you as an intelligent mount. Nothing says only one creature can mount any given steed.

[Merudo]

Moving on, I don't buy the "they're totally vulnerable to AOE" thing at all... it would be interesting to hear these arguments applied to the highly regarded "Animate Objects" spell. Think of how they are deployed relative to Animate Dead... with AD your retinue is huge and obvious, but with TS they are IN YOUR PACK.

Animated Objects (tiny) have 20HP, 18AC, and can fly. The increase HP and AC makes them much less vulnerable to melee and ranged attacks, and the extra mobility means you can easily position them to avoid AOEs.

I do agree Animated Objects is overrated though - especially when comparing them to Animate Dead.

The "hold the TS in your backpack" idea doesn't seem to work by RAW - as MaxWilson explained you can't have tiny creatures share the same space as a (friendly) medium creature.

[Merudo]

With zero optional rules, you can grapple your tiny creatures then tie them to you, perhaps with some sort of special compartment to keep them in, and they now move with you even if they technically occupy other spaces than yours by the RAW.

A tiny creature can't share the same space as a medium creature, full stop, unless another rule says it can.

The grappling rules say nothing about two creature sharing the same space.



Or you could have them use you as an intelligent mount. Nothing says only one creature can mount any given steed.


I guess this could work?

You need to have the "appropriate anatomy" to serve as a mount, but maybe being able to carry a backpack would qualify?

[MaxWilson]

True, although the DMG (p.271) provides an optional "Climb onto a Bigger Creature" that could apply to the Tiny creatures:

However, a strict reading would make this rule only apply to "opponents", and not to a Wizard and its friendly Tiny Servants.

And even then, even if the DM lets you ignore the Medium creature they've climbed onto, that still doesn't let you fit 22 Tiny creatures in the same 5' space. You'd still be limited to 4 Tiny creatures.


With zero optional rules, you can grapple your tiny creatures then tie them to you, perhaps with some sort of special compartment to keep them in, and they now move with you even if they technically occupy other spaces than yours by the RAW. Or you could have them use you as an intelligent mount. Nothing says only one creature can mount any given steed.

If we're going to play that game... nothing says a rider moves into its mount's space. I don't think there's even anything that says the rider moves when the mount moves.

Certainly there's nothing that says 22 riders can share the same mount in a 5' space.

[JackPhoenix]

And even then, even if the DM lets you ignore the Medium creature they've climbed onto, that still doesn't let you fit 22 Tiny creatures in the same 5' space. You'd still be limited to 4 Tiny creatures.

8. Creature's space is a cube, and there are 8 2.5' cubes in 5' cube. Assuming 4 of them can fly or there's something they can climb on around.

[Segev]

If we're going to play that game... nothing says a rider moves into its mount's space. I don't think there's even anything that says the rider moves when the mount moves.

I'm not "playing a game," here. I'm looking at the rules and expecting consistency. If you're suggesting the RAW have the rider be in a space adjacent to the mount on the 2D battlemap, so be it, but that doesn't change that the tiny servant riding a willing master moves with him.

And yes, it does specify under the mount rules that a rider moves with his mount.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not "playing a game," here. I'm looking at the rules and expecting consistency. If you're suggesting the RAW have the rider be in a space adjacent to the mount on the 2D battlemap, so be it, but that doesn't change that the tiny servant riding a willing master moves with him.

And yes, it does specify under the mount rules that a rider moves with his mount.

Okay, maybe I'm blind. I'm not saying your wrong because sometimes I am blind, but what am I missing here? Where does it outright say that the rider moves with the mount, instead of it just being something so obvious that obviously no one plays any other way?


Mounted Combat
A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules.

Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can't mount it if you don't have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.

If an effect moves your mount against its will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you're knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.

If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.

Controlling a Mount
While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

It would of course be totally silly to have mounting a horse act like "assuming control of a remote-operated horse", especially since opportunity attacks against that horse can somehow target the rider (operator) even if the rider is far away. But I can't see anything in the rules as written that explicitly addresses it.

Am I blind?

Anyway, 22 Tiny Servants somehow straggling along in a cloud 5' thick around a human aren't exploitable in the sense Bilbron is hoping for (no cover vs. Fireballs, too visible to surprise enemies). My point: RAW can't get you there, and DMs who override RAW will take steps at the same time so you don't get to that place because it's an absurd place to wind up (see above RE: Spiderman costumes).

[Eldariel]

The removal of fine and diminuitive and colossal size categories is something I never understood. By RAW Tiamat fits into a Forcecage just because it doesn't specify it's different from the default 20'. Similarly, a cat and a mosquito are apparently approximately the same size and take approximately the same space. Thanks 5e.

[diplomancer]

The removal of fine and diminuitive and colossal size categories is something I never understood. By RAW Tiamat fits into a Forcecage just because it doesn't specify it's different from the default 20'. Similarly, a cat and a mosquito are apparently approximately the same size and take approximately the same space. Thanks 5e.

Not true for Gargantuan. PHB says a Gargantuan creature occupies a 20'×20' space or larger. So the space occupied by any Gargantuan creature is at least 20×20, but maximum size is up to the DM.

[BerzerkerUnit]

The removal of fine and diminuitive and colossal size categories is something I never understood. By RAW Tiamat fits into a Forcecage just because it doesn't specify it's different from the default 20'. Similarly, a cat and a mosquito are apparently approximately the same size and take approximately the same space. Thanks 5e.

I believe the more reasonable assessment is that most tiny creatures don't require hard rules unless swarming when size is likely to be medium or larger. Since hit points are an abstraction, a swarm of cats and swarm of bees will both be medium, but one will be hundreds or thousands and the other might be couple dozen or so.

I'm unclear whether Tiamat has the descriptor, but there's a subtyping for some creatures "titanic" that clearly outlines their size as much larger than 20x20. Tarrasque has it, a few others I believe. If the description says Tiamat is 60 feet long, just say force cage fails or have her misty step out. I'm pretty sure she has 20 levels of sorcerer casting anyway.

[Eldariel]

Not true for Gargantuan. PHB says a Gargantuan creature occupies a 20'×20' space or larger. So the space occupied by any Gargantuan creature is at least 20×20, but maximum size is up to the DM.

Yes, but "or larger" is something that has to be specified. 20'x20' is the default unless something else is specified and there's nothing specified for Tiamat, wherefore it defaults to 20'/20'.


I'm unclear whether Tiamat has the descriptor, but there's a subtyping for some creatures "titanic" that clearly outlines their size as much larger than 20x20. Tarrasque has it, a few others I believe. If the description says Tiamat is 60 feet long, just say force cage fails or have her misty step out. I'm pretty sure she has 20 levels of sorcerer casting anyway.

Tiamat as in RoT is just a CR30 derp that has Divine Word as its only spell and no mention of size beyond Gargantuan. They really made her a loser.

[BerzerkerUnit]

More the point:

I play a conjurer. Currently level 7.

I animate a crock pot and a pair of Crossbows. I fill the pot with a gallon of drow sleep poison using Minor Conjuration.

I cast Wall of Sand and have the minions stand in it and shoot out. The crock pot carries the ammo, all doused in the poison, the crossbows load each other and fire each round.

I took metamagic adept with extend spell. I cast Tiny Servants twice right before sleeping and extend them for 16 hours of up time. Servants stand guard while we rest and I have an 8 hour day with them after.

I have also worn an animated helmet that wielded my wand of magic missiles like a bazooka on my shoulder, firing missiles every round.

The spell is very versatile. My general thinking is: Are you a Necromancer? If yes, keep it as a back up. If not, definitely take it.

[Segev]

Okay, maybe I'm blind. I'm not saying your wrong because sometimes I am blind, but what am I missing here? Where does it outright say that the rider moves with the mount, instead of it just being something so obvious that obviously no one plays any other way?


Mounted Combat
A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules.

Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can't mount it if you don't have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.

If an effect moves your mount against its will while you're on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you're knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.

If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.

Controlling a Mount
While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

It would of course be totally silly to have mounting a horse act like "assuming control of a remote-operated horse", especially since opportunity attacks against that horse can somehow target the rider (operator) even if the rider is far away. But I can't see anything in the rules as written that explicitly addresses it.

Am I blind?

I'll acknowledge it doesn't say it where I thought it did in that, however, see the part I took the liberty of bolding.

While I'll also grant it doesn't say so in so many words, the basic English definition of "ride" and "rider" covers moving with that which a rider is riding.

The google definition of "ride" is:

sit on and control the movement of (an animal, especially a horse), typically as a recreation or sport.
be carried or supported by (something with a great deal of momentum).

And while I'm sure a serious pedant could try to twist that into saying that definition 1 doesn't say you move with what you're sitting on and controlling, and definition 2 requires what you're "carried or supported by" to have "a great deal of momentum," and thus potentially make a rider not move until the steed reaches sufficient speed, I think that we are safe in leaning on the common understanding of the verb "ride" in the English language and the obvious meaning of both definitions.

So, where the rules state that you are riding the steed is where they state you move when it moves.

Do the rules ever say anything you are carrying moves with you? I'm pretty sure they assume the verb "carry" conveys that.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, but "or larger" is something that has to be specified. 20'x20' is the default unless something else is specified and there's nothing specified for Tiamat, wherefore it defaults to 20'/20'.

As a computer programmer I'd say it defaults to undefined / unspecified.



Do the rules ever say anything you are carrying moves with you? I'm pretty sure they assume the verb "carry" conveys that.

Agreed, which brings us back from that tangent (RAW doesn't even say the rider moves!) to the subject of whether the RAW says the rider enters the mount's space (it doesn't) and whether that overrides the RAW on how many creatures can be in a space (it doesn't).

Since you can't get 22 Tiny creatures in a backpack by RAW, and DMs who deliberately override RAW on that aren't IMO going to let you abuse RAW on backpacks and total cover either, there's no viable pathway that will let you abuse Tiny Servant by sticking 22 of them in a backpack to be safe from Fireballs/etc. (total cover) until they jump out and annihilate whatever poor shmuck didn't know they were there.

Do you disagree with that conclusion, or are you discussing something else?

[Segev]

As a computer programmer I'd say it defaults to undefined / unspecified.

Really? Most computer programmers I know (myself included) tend to specify a default value that has to be overridden if there's an exception, which would leave "20 ft. or larger" defaulting to 20 feet if not specified as larger.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Yes, but "or larger" is something that has to be specified. 20'x20' is the default unless something else is specified and there's nothing specified for Tiamat, wherefore it defaults to 20'/20'.



Tiamat as in RoT is just a CR30 derp that has Divine Word as its only spell and no mention of size beyond Gargantuan. They really made her a loser.

Revisiting her statblock, I don't see it.

You forcecage her. What does this accomplish besides delaying the actual fight? A thing you absolutely want to do while you deal with the army of Abishai and cultists she absolutely has in the throne room or organizing the legendary hoard, etc.

Being extremely generous, let's assume you have 2 Sharpshooters in your party. They can hang out outside of her breath range and attempt to pepper her with arrows. Did they bring enough arrows to deal 600 damage while you deal with that army of adds? Is one a ranger? She ignores every spell the ranger uses, no hunter's mark, no hex, no eldritch blast, etc.

As a Wizard, cleric, etc, you have your 9th level, 8th level, and 2 6th level slots left to do something to her, she will ignore everything else. Note: you're cage is giving her a +2 to saves due to cover. Your animated object swarm won't bypass Immunities and will all die in the first breath. Magic missile, up to Bigby's hand, all ignored. Sunbeam, one of the handful of spells she won't be outright immune to, you're now in her breath range.

If you have a barbarian or fighter, they're getting into melee to try and beat down that 600+hp as well, making them vulnerable to her 6 attacks per round. And if one of them gets dropped low enough she might slay them outright.


I agree, she is not the best designed boss but it definitely isn't because she's a chump.

In my ideal Tiamat fight she's rising out of a volcano or fissure and you've spent the campaign getting allies to occupy other sides so your party can focus on one head at a time. Periodically her wings and tail emerge and risk squandering your actions (poisoning or knocking back).

Not enough allies and it's like fighting multiple ancient dragons at once, but that's me.

[MaxWilson]

Really? Most computer programmers I know (myself included) tend to specify a default value that has to be overridden if there's an exception, which would leave "20 ft. or larger" defaulting to 20 feet if not specified as larger.

Really.

In C++ uninitialized values are undefined at runtime (whatever happens to be in that memory location when you get out from malloc), because a core value of C++ is that you only pay for what you use, and automatic initialization would sometimes make you pay for something you don't need (you're planning to initialize it before using it).

In C# it's undefined for local variables and therefore IIRC a compiler error if you try to use it without explicitly assigning it later. (It might be a warning-as-error, I forget, but if so I don't know what happens if you ignore the warning because at work we never do.) For static variables it's implicitly initialized for you.

In F# it's a compiler error.

In other languages, it depends, but C++ has influenced my thinking here. "Compiler error" in this case means "cannot publish MM or Rise of Tiamat in current form, send it back to the author for clarification," which I wish WotC had done in oh so many ways but clearly didn't happen. :)

Specifically I wish WotC spent less time specifying game mechanics like "Size Category: Huge, with 10' reach on melee attack A" and "as an action you can create XYZ condition on a creature you can see within 60' unless they succeed on a DC 16 Dex save," and more time describing things from an in-character perspective, like "a snake 60' long and 3' thick in the middle" and "you wink and spend a few minutes of conversation flirting with an NPC to endear yourself to them" and "you hurl a bead of light which explodes into a huge ball of fire when it strikes, badly burning those who fail to turn away in time". Why? Because when a DM has to extrapolate a ruling for a situation, I want them to rule based on what makes sense diagetically (in character, "the bead of light hits an invisible wall between you and your target and unexpectedly explodes in your face!") instead of pointing to the wording of RAW and either shrugging helplessly or having to start from scratch.

In order for "natural language" rules to work, you have to give us descriptions in natural language, not just game jargon, WotC!

[Dork_Forge]

I feel like there are multiple things going on here.

Based on your response, I think you agree that the metaphysics of having them off-plane means they aren't fried, and presumably the bag holder could open it and get them (one?) out the same way you could reach into a BoH or HH for a hammer or a sword or a potion. I mean, that's what they're for?

However, allowing something like that could make minionmancy even more powerful than it already is, so you'd prefer not to embrace a tactic that would keep pre-animated minions safe from AoEs while still easily accessible at encounter speed.

Is that fair?


Yes, I agree being offplane protects them, I also believe that a strict reading of RAW could also leave them vulnerable should any DM choose to go RAW instead (like how Crawford recommends DMs tame Warlock abuse by interpretting Pact Magic slots to be useless for anything buy Warlock spells).

This is purely a counter to people trying to abuse RAW with silly things like this, in my own games I'd just say no and I don't think any of my players would question it, I think they'd know they were pushing it asking for more than one ot begin with.

For the record the way I'd handle that if for some reason I allowed it to occur in the first place would be:

-Person holding bag IWO to open the flap
-Objects climb out as an action on their own unless the bag holder uses an action to remove a single one

The whole allowing them to pop out under normal IWO is just another way it falls down for me tbh, as soon as they become TS they are no longer objects and climbing out of a Bag of Holding whilst in a pile at the bottom of it is a non trivial task to a coin sized creature.


RAW a fireball needs to be able to reach you and it includes words like (fire spreads around corners). Suppose there was an adamantium human sized jar. If I hid behind it and the fireball was centered on the opposite side, RAW I would still be hit as it goes around. If I walked into the Jar and the top was open, then it could still reach me.

However if I closed the lid then RAW I am not affected.

I interpret that the same way for tiny servant in a backpack, as there is nothing in RAW about object density or protection.

My DM house rules it by considering facing. If the fireball is behind my character, my backpack and it’s contents are going to take the full kinetic energy of the blast. If it’s in front of me, it’s as above as the pc shields the sealed contents.

I mean that RAW argument can also get reduced down as far as 'is there any gaps in your pack whatsover? Fire pours through' Since I imagine D&D packs being buckle down flaps or maybe cinch top style, I can't imagine it being a complete seal like your lid example.

Of course this is only for the internet, actual tables the DM doesn't need to justify something so much like this.


Yes, but "or larger" is something that has to be specified. 20'x20' is the default unless something else is specified and there's nothing specified for Tiamat, wherefore it defaults to 20'/20'.

This only matters when whiterooming how to kill her, a DM would look at the size and then just decided how much space she occupies, which will likely be literally anything above 20/20


Tiamat as in RoT is just a CR30 derp that has Divine Word as its only spell and no mention of size beyond Gargantuan. They really made her a loser.

How is she a derp? Her statblock is formidable and the party fighting her would be 14th level. Even if you could somehow face her without any minions AND with full resources, it's not an easy to win fight, if you can win at all.


Really? Most computer programmers I know (myself included) tend to specify a default value that has to be overridden if there's an exception, which would leave "20 ft. or larger" defaulting to 20 feet if not specified as larger.

If it defaults to 20ft. without a prompt, wouldn't it always be 20ft because it would never prompt for a value?

[Segev]

If it defaults to 20ft. without a prompt, wouldn't it always be 20ft because it would never prompt for a value?

If you're asking about programming, you override it in the code, or prompt directly by telling the code to ask.

If you're asking about writing a D&D statblock, the override would happen by simply writing what size the monster is in terms of space occupation. "Gargantuan (40 ft square), for example. Or write it in the description or the special features section.

I think I must have missed something in what you're asking. Did either of those answer your question?

[Dork_Forge]

If you're asking about programming, you override it in the code, or prompt directly by telling the code to ask.

If you're asking about writing a D&D statblock, the override would happen by simply writing what size the monster is in terms of space occupation. "Gargantuan (40 ft square), for example. Or write it in the description or the special features section.

I think I must have missed something in what you're asking. Did either of those answer your question?

No you answered perfectly, my own coding experience is very little and primarily around automating tasks that took too long for what they were.

I like the solution for statblocks, ideally they'd have implemented it.

[MaxWilson]

No you answered perfectly, my own coding experience is very little and primarily around automating tasks that took too long for what they were.

I like the solution for statblocks, ideally they'd have implemented it.

Not just for Gargantuan monsters either. I'd have liked Giant Constrictor Snakes for example to be "Huge (60' long, 3' thick)" instead of "Huge" (15' x 15'). That's how I run them but it's annoying that important stats like actual size are missing from the MM.



How is she a derp? Her statblock is formidable and the party fighting her would be 14th level. Even if you could somehow face her without any minions AND with full resources, it's not an easy to win fight, if you can win at all.


No strategic mobility for one thing. No Teleport, not even a legendary move action. This limits her viability as a strategic threat, and therefore her suitability as a plot device to make Szass Tam and Elminster and everybody team up to prevent her from manifesting.

Compare to, say, Gobogeg or Ghroth the Harbinger from the Cthulhu book, or even Sul Khatesh from Rising From the Last War. Those are all credible threats to scare the pants off a bunch of archmages and liches and Chosen of Mystra--either you deal with the threat early while it's still small (hello PCs!) or you've got a planetary extinction event on your hands, or in Sul Khatesh's case at least a new boss who's the power behind every throne she cares to be and can't be perma-killed.

When I was new to 5E I thought the best way to beat Tiamat was a party of mostly Fighters, and that wizards couldn't do much against her. That turns out to be wrong. (I'm probably overestimating Sul Khatesh too, frankly - - it takes more work than Tiamat but as I consider I am starting to think of ways to beat her--just have to get her to use up her 1/day antimagic zone on a feint, which is not impossible.)

[Eldariel]

If it defaults to 20ft. without a prompt, wouldn't it always be 20ft because it would never prompt for a value?

E.g. Tarrasque's descriptive text gives its dimensions: "A scaly biped, the tarrasque is fifty feet tall and seventy feet long,"

Made a thread for Tiamat-stuff here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?630508-Killing-Tiamat-inside-a-Forcecage).

[x3n0n]

For the record the way I'd handle that if for some reason I allowed it to occur in the first place would be:

-Person holding bag IWO to open the flap
-Objects climb out as an action on their own unless the bag holder uses an action to remove a single one

The whole allowing them to pop out under normal IWO is just another way it falls down for me tbh, as soon as they become TS they are no longer objects and climbing out of a Bag of Holding whilst in a pile at the bottom of it is a non trivial task to a coin sized creature.

This makes sense to me; it was not the way I interpreted your earlier responses. Thanks. :)

[Ir0ns0ul]

Back to the topic:

Mechanically speaking, I believe both spells can be really versatile. I gave a pair of nets to my skellies and started fishing some enemies, restraining without impunity (thanks MaxWilson for the pro-tip)! Besides Undead Thralls, I believe the biggest advantage of AD over TS is the spell slot economy to reassert control over 24 hours and mixing up things with long-rests. You could do it with TS if you are an elf or something, but it’s more complex.


Avoid the "can they survive a fireball in a backpack?" question by having a bag of holding. Unless the DM is going to have your bag of holding be destroyed every time you're caught in a fireball without you using it to store your tiny servants, they should be fine in there. Just as easy to open a bag and have them swarm out as it is a backpack or chest.

From RP, going to town and party issues, I’m circumventing this with couple a Bag of Holding as well. One to store some spare dead bodies and another to keep my skeletons whenever we need to go town in order talk with the mayor. Otherwise, my campaign is heavily dungeon/forest crawling where moving along with a small undead army is not a big problem.

Fun fact: the first skeleton I have created from an evil elf archer bone was named Leprolas Graveleaf.

[Dork_Forge]

Not just for Gargantuan monsters either. I'd have liked Giant Constrictor Snakes for example to be "Huge (60' long, 3' thick)" instead of "Huge" (15' x 15'). That's how I run them but it's annoying that important stats like actual size are missing from the MM.

I've definitely been annoyed by lack of detail at times, I can also never find the comparison chart for sizes when I need it in a session, it's like the thing actively takes the Hide action at inopportune times.



No strategic mobility for one thing. No Teleport, not even a legendary move action. This limits her viability as a strategic threat, and therefore her suitability as a plot device to make Szass Tam and Elminster and everybody team up to prevent her from manifesting.

Compare to, say, Gobogeg or Ghroth the Harbinger from the Cthulhu book, or even Sul Khatesh from Rising From the Last War. Those are all credible threats to scare the pants off a bunch of archmages and liches and Chosen of Mystra--either you deal with the threat early while it's still small (hello PCs!) or you've got a planetary extinction event on your hands, or in Sul Khatesh's case at least a new boss who's the power behind every throne she cares to be and can't be perma-killed.

When I was new to 5E I thought the best way to beat Tiamat was a party of mostly Fighters, and that wizards couldn't do much against her. That turns out to be wrong. (I'm probably overestimating Sul Khatesh too, frankly - - it takes more work than Tiamat but as I consider I am starting to think of ways to beat her--just have to get her to use up her 1/day antimagic zone on a feint, which is not impossible.)


I think there's two different things going on here, the Tiamat as a world threat and the Tiamat as an encounter:

World Threat: Her immunities straight lock out the majority of the population from doing anything to her, this forces the hands of higher level NPCs to act, but arguably the real problem is how she'd start to rally and organise Chromatic dragons into a flight. An organised army of Evil dragons (probably backed by cultists and fiends that would cause havoc and tie up the forces that can't deal with her anyway. But then even if the likes of Elminster weren't needed (though imo htey would be), allowing the Sword Coast to fend for itself will lead to the deaths of thousands and wide spread destruction, which doesn't seem to be very good of Elminster (I assume the likes of Mordenkainen would have balance issues with an Evil god manifest in the world organising an army not seen since the Giant/Dragon war.

Player Threat: I've only read it a couple times in the module, but I don't think at party would be encountering her at full resources, but the situation she is encountered is a module problem (if it is a problem), not a statblock one. Her statblock is incredibly formiddable and I'd have to question how many organic parties of 14th level could actually beat her, because imo things like a Sharpshooter Bladesinger are most certainly not organic choices to make, which is a common example to both get the casting needed and extra attack. I don't think Tiamat really needs teleport, her base speed and how her statblock is configured mostly makes it irrelevant: She can dash 240ft a turn knowing that she can breath at the end of others turns, I'd wager a single dash would crush the hopes most parties have of kiting her.

If she can't get stuck in a Forcecage, I just don't see what you can really do against her as a Wizard besides buff allies or play martial.

[Damon_Tor]

Here you again run into the issue that a Tiny creature can't share a space with a Medium creature

You're the mount. EDIT: I see this has already been suggested.

[Damon_Tor]

I fill the pot with a gallon of drow sleep poison using Minor Conjuration.

A fluid doesn't qualify as an object under the definition given of that term: "an object is a discrete, inanimate item" the disqualifying word here is "discrete". This is also why you can't conjure something like a cloud of nerve gas.

[Merudo]

More the point:

I play a conjurer. Currently level 7.

I animate a crock pot and a pair of Crossbows.


Crossbows are small sized objects, like a lute. You can only animate tiny objects.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/running-the-game#HitPoints




I fill the pot with a gallon of drow sleep poison using Minor Conjuration.

You can't use Minor Conjuration to create liquids.