A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2
You can get A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2 now at Gumroad
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 65
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    This is a classic "rulings, not rules" situation. Where you can and can't put a LTH is up to your DM.

    I like to use the "Which ruling can be abused the most - don't take that viewpoint" approach.

    If LTH is immobile with respect to things like ships, a wizard could destroy the strongest ship ever built by teleporting into the hold, casting LTH, and then teleporting back out, if there was a strong wind and the ship was under sail.

    If LTH is mobile with respect to things like wagons, then armies would use them as tanks.

    Therefore, neither of those things work, because it's magic and it doesn't have to make sense. A LTH on the deck of a ship moves with the ship, a LTH on a large wagon slides off. Perhaps the weight of the thing carrying the LTH has to be at least 10 tons. If you can tame a 10-ton dragon, you're probably past the point where LTH is a big advantage in combat anyway.

    Also, it's a plausible ruling that the things that were within LTH when it was cast (other than the caster) cannot be separated into two things, one inside the hut and one outside - so firing arrows from within LTH won't work. The archer has to step outside, fire, and then step back inside.

    LTH can be used to block narrow passes, or narrow straits. To cast underwater you need Water Breathing in some form, but if cast in a passage only 10' wide, or in water not much greater than 10' deep, it's a nice plug.
    This ... is my signature finishing move!

    "It's never good when you make a fiend cringe" - MadGrady

    According to some online quiz, I'm a 6th level TN Wizard. They didn't give me full XP for all the monsters I've defeated while daydreaming.
    http://easydamus.com/character.html

    I am a Ranger Archetype: Gleaming Warden (thx to Ninja Prawn)

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Immobile is a relative term. We can use the term to describe houses in our world, but a flood can certainly change that in a heart-beat.

    In the end, it's a DM's call. But I personally would allow players to cast it on a moving ship with no repercussions. The cinematic imagery of a party using a force-field like spell in a last stand against a school of sahuagin is just to appealing.
    Last edited by xroads; 2018-10-04 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Fixed grammar

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Leomunds tiny hut is not the only spell to use the word immobile ...

    Forcecage (level 7) - An immobile, invisible, cube-shaped prison
    Globe of Invulnerability (level 6) - An immobile, faintly shimmering barrier

    Forcecage and Globe of Invulnerability are then much less useful perhaps on a moving ship.


    Also, if you cast a wall spell does it move? Most of the wall spells are cast on a solid surface so if that surface is moving then presumably the spell will move as well. However, wall of force is cast at a point in space BUT it can be free floating or resting on a surface. If it is resting on a surface does a wall of force move with that surface but is otherwise immobile if cast free floating at a point in space?

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    How much of an impact would it be to give the caster the option - if the wall or effect fits (more or less) entirely "on" a surface, you can anchor it to that surface. Wall of Fire (oops?), or something like Hunger of Hadar (big oops) can sit on the deck of the ship, or "on the water" leaving a hazard for pursuers.
    Why yes, Warlock is my solution for everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2018

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    There's a remarkably applicable situation in one of Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere novels, where the state in question (Leomunds Tiny Hut here) is immobile relative to the planets gravity well except when used/cast while in a reference frame with sufficiently high momentum (e.g. a high speed train).
    While a hard cutoff point will presumably be explored in later novels, this approach could easily allow your DM to set his/her own boundary conditions, explaining why it can be used on a ship but not a horse without "breaking" any of their own internal logic/immersion.
    Also, as a houserule perhaps allow it to be cast at a higher level to allow it to move relative to an object chosen upon casting? With progressively higher spell slots allowing faster movement?
    In any case this seems fairly controversial and will most likely be coming down to a direct ruling of some sort from your DM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2017

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onos View Post
    this approach could easily allow your DM to set his/her own boundary conditions, explaining why it can be used on a ship but not a horse without "breaking" any of their own internal logic/immersion.
    In other words, the frame of reference is wherever it would make sense to place a battle mat.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    While I appreciate your muse in exploring these kinds of questions, I also think that you are overthinking it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keravath View Post
    Leomunds tiny hut is not the only spell to use the word immobile ...
    Forcecage (level 7) - An immobile, invisible, cube-shaped prison
    Globe of Invulnerability (level 6) - An immobile, faintly shimmering barrier
    And, I think more to the point, being rather selective about which of the number of times an absolute is referenced in the rules which would cause redonkulous repercussions if applied like a physical law. 'Immobile', 'indestructible', 'impenetrable', 'no,'... these absolutes show up a lot in the game book, and some of them lend themselves to truly staggering insanity if they were truly absolute.

    One from a previous edition: in 3.0 D&D, magic weapons could only be broken by being struck by weapons with higher pluses. I know at least one player in my first 3.0 group suggested using +1 weapons we'd outgrown as structural members with which to support infinitely heavy things (which could never break the weapons, since they weren't +2 items). I think there's even an online term for that for 3e: tippyverse--take the game rules at face value and extrapolate from there.

    Usually resolving these things involves arguments akin to schoolyard debates over what happens if the Juggernaut (an unstoppable force) runs into the Blob (an immovable object) -- there is no one right answer.

    My personal preferred solution is to remember that D&D magic is almost always anthropocentric (secondary definition: "interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences") -- magic doesn't work on physical levels, but on human-perspective ones. Heat Metal doesn't provide a set amount of joules of thermal energy into a defined mass of elementally-metal material, it heats one metal 'object' to a certain temperature (or at least to a state where it does a certain amount of damage to a person touching it, I supposed depending on the specific heat of the given metal, that too would require different temperatures). Likewise, LTH is immobile-- from the perspective of the pseudo-medieval individual who would be defining it as immobile. Of course, what that is is also up for debate, but at least it is a starting point.

    I certainly wouldn't rule that the hut would go shooting off into the void (possibly through the ground) as the planet that the PCs may or may not be on moves past the reference frame. I don't even like deciding if the 'world' the PCs are on is a scientifically accurate 'planet' in 'space' or not until the PCs are doing farflung enough adventures to where it becomes relevant. "Round 'Earth', flat 'Earth,' turtles all the way down? Cold vacuum of space or aether and Phlogiston-filled stars stapled to crystal spheres? You'll have to wait until you're able to go check to know for sure."

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    My personal preferred solution is to remember that D&D magic is almost always anthropocentric (secondary definition: "interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences") -- magic doesn't work on physical levels, but on human-perspective ones.
    I like that. Kind of like of the house I mention above. A house is typically considered immobile from our viewpoints. But in truth, a houses foundation frequently moves. And freak events like mudslides or earthquakes could shift and/or move a house.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by xroads View Post
    I like that. Kind of like of the house I mention above. A house is typically considered immobile from our viewpoints. But in truth, a houses foundation frequently moves. And freak events like mudslides or earthquakes could shift and/or move a house.
    I like the idea that a mudslide or earthquake of a scale that would move a house would also dispel / break enchantment anything which required immobility inside its area.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    I would think about any ruling that allows this to anchor a ship. Is that a benefit you would like to convey? I also would be reticent to allow LTH to damage a ship as the Hut stays anchored and ship is tossed to and fro. I would be scared to give so much power to the spell myself.

    I would lend myself either to let it attach to very large ships, but not to wagons, etc. Or to just let the spell fall off like it would on the ancient dragon.

    I don't think the power level of the spell should be taken into account and not convey vastly more power to my characters than I intended.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    So if your on a boat moving let's say 30 feet per turn and the deck is covered in enemy and you cast cloud of daggers at the Kell does the spell move across the ship damaging all in it's path with no save? Spell states you fill the air so no point of reference for itv to be lock to
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    So if your on a boat moving let's say 30 feet per turn and the deck is covered in enemy and you cast cloud of daggers at the Kell does the spell move across the ship damaging all in it's path with no save? Spell states you fill the air so no point of reference for itv to be lock to
    Please ask that separately.
    While I don't see why the caster can't perceive a point over the deck of a ship as "fixed" since he also is on the ship, I understand the point you are driving at.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Please ask that separately.
    While I don't see why the caster can't perceive a point over the deck of a ship as "fixed" since he also is on the ship, I understand the point you are driving at.
    I wasn't trying to be obtuse or derail the thread. I figure this is more about how spells interact with the world.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    So what I’m understanding from reading this thread, as a DM of a high seas campaign, is I should be *very* worried about the possibility of a player using Leomund’s Tiny Hut to total most sailing vessels?
    Homebrew!
    5e: Expanded Inspiration Uses

    Spoiler: 3.5/P Stuff. Warning: OLD
    Show

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    So what I’m understanding from reading this thread, as a DM of a high seas campaign, is I should be *very* worried about the possibility of a player using Leomund’s Tiny Hut to total most sailing vessels?
    No. As a DM, the spell does whatever you want it to do. If you say that the spell move with the ship, it moves with the ship. If you say that the ship counts as object inside the hut, and thus can pass through, that's what happens.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Abeir-Toril is stationary, the gods move the celestial bodies at their whim. +12 in religion over here.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    So what I’m understanding from reading this thread, as a DM of a high seas campaign, is I should be *very* worried about the possibility of a player using Leomund’s Tiny Hut to total most sailing vessels?
    I think that's where we (by which I mean the DM) decides just how immovable or invulnerable they want the Tiny Hut to be. Even the D&D-historic poster child for immovability, the immovable rod, has limits to its immovability (8000 lbs, or DC 30 Strength check). If you want a random stowaway/saboteur wizard to be able to devastate a moving vessel by casting the spell below decks or right in front of the ship, declare the immovability and invulnerability to be paramount. If you consider that outside the power level or tone of 3rd level wizard spells, declare that there is a limit to one or the other, and that limit is below the force of a fast moving, massive vessel.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganymede View Post
    In other words, the frame of reference is wherever it would make sense to place a battle mat.
    This is a very succinct way of putting what I would have tried to say.

    I will, however, still express my reasoning. To me, the spell should be stationary with respect to its immediate environment. If you're trying to use it as a mobile archery platform, it probably will fail unless your idea of "mobile platform" approaches "make that house-sized building get up and move."

    Most of the worst exploits, though, are still obviated by the clause requiring the caster to stay inside it. Even if it's a really big wagon-platform, stretching this leeway to its limits, you're not really doing more than using it to travel in comfort and safety. The worst exploit possible is probably as something charging through enemy lines so that people can use it like a tank to shoot out of and lean in and out of. At which point destroying the wagon underneath is going to suffice. You can't have it protect what's supporting it very well, after all.

    I'd probably put my limits higher, though, since "Tiny Hut Tanks" aren't a standard battle tactic in war. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    So what I’m understanding from reading this thread, as a DM of a high seas campaign, is I should be *very* worried about the possibility of a player using Leomund’s Tiny Hut to total most sailing vessels?
    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    No. As a DM, the spell does whatever you want it to do. If you say that the spell move with the ship, it moves with the ship. If you say that the ship counts as object inside the hut, and thus can pass through, that's what happens.
    As JackPhoenix says, here, Lonely Tylenol, you only need to be concerned if you rule it that way. If you rule it as being stationary on the boat's deck, then it's fine.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The worst exploit possible is probably as something charging through enemy lines so that people can use it like a tank to shoot out of and lean in and out of. At which point destroying the wagon underneath is going to suffice. You can't have it protect what's supporting it very well, after all.
    Plus, you don't even have to destroy the wagon. Since most games take place inside of dungeons of one type or another, just throw in a few narrow corridors or cliffs. Suddenly, the tactic loses it's appeal.
    Last edited by xroads; 2018-10-05 at 01:28 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Doesn't it just say "immobile" not "immovable"? That is to say it does not and cannot move on it's own, but that doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be moved. The real question is the Immovable Rod (though it has parameters for it's ability to hold things)!

    Semantics aside, I had always imagined this spell sort of "anchoring" itself to a location it is manifested at. So when cast on a ship or vehicle, it appears and cannot move from the precise location of that vehicle. On stationary ground, same thing, cannot move from that precise location of ground. If the caster is in a location where it cannot "anchor" to something (like outer space somehow) it is fixed to those precise coordinates in space, but only in those circumstances.

    That's how I'd rule it unless the player had an interesting and not gamebreaking (no Tiny Huts as Icebergs) other usage in mind for it, then I might consider allowing it depending on the context.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Life would be so much easier if people viewed D&D primarily as a game, and any implied metaphysical system as secondary narrative fluff to make the game better.

    So, whenever there's a conflict, ask yourself: "Would this make the game better for all the players?"

    - Does it make a certain tactic overpowered to the point it's the only one that makes sense?
    - Does it make a class at a certain level incredibly powerful compared to others?
    - Does it trivialize an entire portion of the game?
    - Is it better than explicit abilities, spells, or powers granted to characters at higher levels?

    The answer to those is 'NO, that does not make the game better'.
    So, make a ruling in the spirit of 'making it a good game' first.
    THEN make up whatever BS 'metaphysics' or explanations that sound good.

    D&D does not have to be perfect, or absolutely internally consistent, or completely explained.
    It has to be good enough to handle some small contradictions while remaining fun.

    Gameplay >>>>> Metaphysical consistency
    Fun >>>>>>>>> Winning internet arguments
    Last edited by Beelzebubba; 2018-10-05 at 01:56 PM.
    I swear, 1 handed quarterstaves are 5e's spiked chain. - Rainbownaga
    The Warlock is Faust: the Musical: The Class. - toapat

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    No. As a DM, the spell does whatever you want it to do. If you say that the spell move with the ship, it moves with the ship. If you say that the ship counts as object inside the hut, and thus can pass through, that's what happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    I think that's where we (by which I mean the DM) decides just how immovable or invulnerable they want the Tiny Hut to be. Even the D&D-historic poster child for immovability, the immovable rod, has limits to its immovability (8000 lbs, or DC 30 Strength check). If you want a random stowaway/saboteur wizard to be able to devastate a moving vessel by casting the spell below decks or right in front of the ship, declare the immovability and invulnerability to be paramount. If you consider that outside the power level or tone of 3rd level wizard spells, declare that there is a limit to one or the other, and that limit is below the force of a fast moving, massive vessel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    As JackPhoenix says, here, Lonely Tylenol, you only need to be concerned if you rule it that way. If you rule it as being stationary on the boat's deck, then it's fine.
    Sorry for alarming you all, I wasn’t clear. Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
    Homebrew!
    5e: Expanded Inspiration Uses

    Spoiler: 3.5/P Stuff. Warning: OLD
    Show

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    Sorry for alarming you all, I wasn’t clear. Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
    Oh, great, now we have to consider interactions of alarm with relativistic space!?

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Oh, great, now we have to consider interactions of alarm with relativistic space!?
    Nonono, silly. Not alarm, tongues.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Or worse, absolute space:

    “You cast Leomund’s Tiny Hut during sundown?”

    “...Yes?”

    “Alright. The moment the hut springs into being, it plows into the ground at Mach speeds, crushing everyone inside to death instantly. A magnitude 4 earthquake is felt for miles. In about three hours, someone in Chult is about to have a very bad day.”
    Last edited by Lonely Tylenol; 2018-10-05 at 07:26 PM. Reason: Close your quotes
    Homebrew!
    5e: Expanded Inspiration Uses

    Spoiler: 3.5/P Stuff. Warning: OLD
    Show

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubba View Post
    Life would be so much easier if people viewed D&D primarily as a game, and any implied metaphysical system as secondary narrative fluff to make the game better.

    So, whenever there's a conflict, ask yourself: "Would this make the game better for all the players?"

    - Does it make a certain tactic overpowered to the point it's the only one that makes sense?
    - Does it make a class at a certain level incredibly powerful compared to others?
    - Does it trivialize an entire portion of the game?
    - Is it better than explicit abilities, spells, or powers granted to characters at higher levels?

    The answer to those is 'NO, that does not make the game better'.
    So, make a ruling in the spirit of 'making it a good game' first.
    THEN make up whatever BS 'metaphysics' or explanations that sound good.

    D&D does not have to be perfect, or absolutely internally consistent, or completely explained.
    It has to be good enough to handle some small contradictions while remaining fun.

    Gameplay >>>>> Metaphysical consistency
    Fun >>>>>>>>> Winning internet arguments
    I agree. You will admit, however, that taking such a sensible approach removes the fun from two other games:
    Overthinking Things on the Internet
    Arguing on the Internet
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    Or worse, absolute space:

    “You cast Leomund’s Tiny Hut during sundown?”

    “...Yes?”

    “Alright. The moment the hut springs into being, it plows into the ground at Mach speeds, crushing everyone inside to death instantly. A magnitude 4 earthquake is felt for miles. In about three hours, someone in Chult is about to have a very bad day.”
    So that's how the second sundering happened: someone was careless with LTH.

    That explains a lot.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    As a player I wouldn't try casting tiny hut on a boat. Leaves too many questions in the air and up to DM fiat. I can imagine some of the dm's I had going in multiple directions with the ruling and I'm generally not interested in breaking a fairly expensive ship in two testing how much of a jerk my DM is feeling. Also I tend to pick tiny hut for camping purposes. If a place has a bed, some walls, and I don't expect to be personally overrun by enemies before I even have time to cast mage armor then I don't generally cast it. I enjoy playing my wizards to a certain level of paranoid. (You would be too if you knew just what dangers infest the universe) But popping down a hut every time we clear a dungeon room or while sleeping in an inn in a place we haven't given everyone a reason to slit our throats in our sleep just cause I can is probably only inviting a magic arms race that I'd rather delay for when I absolutely need an ace in the hole.

    As a dm I vote the battlemap method. If a place is big enough to be it's own environment it's probably big enough to avoid most of the worst abuses. Though If I was especially worried the players were trying to make a mobile pillbox for their archers I might be tempted to say that the hut's beneficial effects only work on things also grounded to that anchoring mass. Sailing a boat up to an enemy with a prepared tiny hut on the deck would block unwanted intrusion and projectiles from people that board the boat but not necessarily from other boats. How do I justify this? ... Well I don't really. It's game play concerns. You're gonna force me... uh.. the spell creates a barrier but also radiates out through the medium of the ground... so anything past the constantly flowing water past the hull of the boat... doesn't get affected. And of course flying creatures inherit their properties the energies radiating up from whatever predominant terrain below them... so for the most part the ocean floor and not the boat with the tiny hut.

    Still not happy? Fine. Tiny hut doesn't work on a boat or any moving object aside from the planet itself. It lasts far longer than most spells of it's level. The spell itself isn't powering the effect but coercing the local leylines and elemental planar energy waves that matter is composed of into doing it for you. And to do so the hut has to be static to those forces. Stop making me invent make believe physics.
    Sparxs Plays: My friend's Youtube gaming channel where you can watch us.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbj...9MQHA/featured

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Even if you can't cast it on a ship to cause damage, casting it immediately in front of a ship should have a similar result. (Note, however, that it would be akin to striking a reef: likely damaging the ship, and perhaps causing it to sink, but not destroying it instantly or ripping it in half.)

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Is Leomund's Tiny hut *truly* Immobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    If you are standing still on a moving ship, without moving an inch yourself, are you immobile?
    Yes.

    It's relative.

    I'm on a planet that is moving, am I unable to be immobile?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •