# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Tiny Hut and mundane ways to combat it

## 5eNeedsDarksun

Hi All,
The thread on limiting rests started me thinking about the Tiny Hut spell and mundane ways that foes could counteract it. 


Despite not explicitly needing sleep during a long rest, characters do need to be doing things that are restful.  I'm thinking the din of, for example, an orc army gathering outside while beating drums and chanting would preclude rest.  I suppose 2 characters alternating the ritual casting of silence could provide rest for others in this case, provided they chose a point just outside the hut and left an area for them to complete the Verbal part of the spell.

Crawford confirms that dragon breath (not a spell) can penetrate the hut, so if enough fuel was available it would be reasonable to turn the thing into an oven with conventional fire; in a forest, just falling enough trees on it could work as a way to create enough fuel.

Other thoughts?

----------


## Boci

> Crawford confirms that dragon breath (not a spell) can penetrate the hut


  That seems like Crawford pretending the rules say stuff they don't, as he has been known to do at least a few times, since the spell says:

  "Spells and other magical effects"

  So doesn't seem particularly relevant that it isn't a spell, what matters is whether its a magical or not. I guess it wouldn't be impossible the rules don't treat the breath weapon as magical, but that is a little wierd. Are all breath wepaons non-magical then, or just a dragons?

  But yeah, if its found by a group with enough resources and manpower, they can probably mess it up. Burying its should be pretty effect. How much dirt can 20 able bodies humanoids shovel on top in 6 hours? Or the fire idea.

----------


## Keltest

> That seems like Crawford pretending the rules say stuff they don't, as he has been known to do at least a few times, since the spell says:
> 
>   "Spells and other magical effects"
> 
>   So doesn't seem particularly relevant that it isn't a spell, what matters is whether its a magical or not. I guess it wouldn't be impossible the rules don't treat the breath weapon as magical, but that is a little wierd. Are all breath wepaons non-magical then, or just a dragons?
> 
>   But yeah, if its found by a group with enough resources and manpower, they can probably mess it up. Burying its should be pretty effect. How much dirt can 20 able bodies humanoids shovel on top in 6 hours? Or the fire idea.


A surprising number of high level monsters do not have magical attacks. A dragon's breath weapon not being magical isn't that absurd. Nothing specifically identifies it as such.

----------


## VonKaiserstein

In a word- vermin.

Have a trap earlier in the dungeon drop a few hundred fleas on the party members, or have the inhabitants of the dungeon leave stagnant water all over the place so mosquitoes are everywhere.  Any creatures in the hut when it's formed stay in the hut- and unless the party wants to enter combat, destroying the rest, it is perfectly plausible to declare the rest ineffective because of all the bites and irritations.  

If you want a really high magic solution, you could train a gelatinous cube to desire to eat magic. During the night, it attempts to eat the hut. engulfing it completely.  This is of course no problem for the rest itself- but when the hut is canceled, the characters begin their day engulfed in a gelatinous cube.

----------


## Boci

> A surprising number of high level monsters do not have magical attacks. A dragon's breath weapon not being magical isn't that absurd. Nothing specifically identifies it as such.


  Sure, nothing identifies it as magical, but what is identified explicitly as magical without being a spell? A nagpa's corruption and paralysis are not mentioned as being magical, neither is a yagnoloth's teleport. Are they not magical then, because nothing says they are?

----------


## Keltest

> Sure, nothing identifies it as magical, but what is identified explicitly as magical without being a spell? A nagpa's corruption and paralysis are not mentioned as being magical, neither is a yagnoloth's teleport. Are they not magical then, because nothing says they are?


Does it matter? I don't think anything keys off of nonmagical paralysis or teleportation.

----------


## Boci

> Does it matter? I don't think anything keys off of nonmagical paralysis or teleportation.


  Yes it does. Magic resistance, dispel magic, does anti-magic field block or supress it? ect, ect

----------


## Sigreid

My favorite counter is for enemies to start playing Jenga, stacking heavy stuff on the hut.

----------


## Catullus64

Giant Badgers, and lots' of em. They'll tunnel right under the dome. If they're clever, they'll even tunnel out a pit underneath it and then drop the bottom out from underneath.

Ok, sure, there's plenty of other burrowing creatures more threatening than badgers. Off the top of my head there's Ankhegs, Bulettes, Earth Elementals and Umber Hulks. None of which are as funny as the giant badger swarm.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> In a word- vermin.


"Nine creatures of Medium size or smaller can fit inside the dome with you. The spell fails if its area includes a larger creature or more than nine creatures."

----------


## Catullus64

> "Nine creatures of Medium size or smaller can fit inside the dome with you. The spell fails if its area includes a larger creature or more than nine creatures."


Well, shoot. Fleas really are a hard counter then, aren't they?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Well, shoot. Fleas really are a hard counter then, aren't they?


I was going to say. That interpretation means that either
a) _tiny hut_ is useless
b) D&D inns have _way_ better cleanliness standards that medieval ones...or even a lot of lower-end modern ones (cf bed bugs, since those can be in your stuff).

----------

On a more serious note, one thing about _tiny hut_ is that while it protects the _people_, it doesn't do much if the party has significant amounts of stuff, such as a cart or wagon, riding horses, etc. Under the most generous interpretation possible (10' radius is really a square 20' on a side, straight walls), you've got 16 squares. You can fit 4 large creatures in there _period_. And most people aren't going to be comfortable with less than about 2 squares, so 4 medium characters is 8 _comfortable_ squares, aka half the room. So for overland travel (where you're most likely to have mounts, carts, etc), all of that's going to be safely munchable outside the hut. Inside a dungeon it's better, but also more vulnerable to the various other methods proposed here.

----------


## Sorinth

Fire is certainly my go-to option for most humanoid enemies if they know an enemy is inside the dome. Although I do like the OP's war drum beating causing enough noise that it becomes impossible to rest.

----------


## LudicSavant

> Fire is certainly my go-to option for most humanoid enemies if they know an enemy is inside the dome. Although I do like the OP's war drum beating causing enough noise that it becomes impossible to rest.


I once had a rival adventuring party hire a local harpy tribe to harass the PCs as they trekked through the desert.  They wouldn't engage unless someone was separated from the group by song, and any time they tried to rest in their tiny hut they'd wake them up.

----------


## da newt

"The human body is inhabited by millions of tiny living organisms, which, all together, are called the human microbiota. Bacteria are microbes found on the skin, in the nose, mouth, and especially in the gut. We acquire these bacteria during birth and the first years of life, and they live with us throughout our lives."  Without the beneficial microbes in our gut, out digestive systems do not function properly.


So if a microbe (tiny living organism) qualifies as a creature, LTH can't ever be cast successfully per RAW.

----------


## greenstone

> So doesn't seem particularly relevant that it isn't a spell, what matters is whether its a magical or not. I guess it wouldn't be impossible the rules don't treat the breath weapon as magical, but that is a little wierd. Are all breath wepaons non-magical then, or just a dragons?


The idea is, there is a difference between the magical effects of spells and items, and the background magic of the world (dragon flight and breath, invisibility of faeries, animation of elementals, stuff like that).

As for tiny hut, the first thing that smart attackers are going to do is cover it in mud or paint so that those inside can't see out. Then they cover it in rocks so that when the spells ends, rocks fall and everyone dies. For bonus pain, they cover the hut in a bonfire and keep it fed for a few hours.

Or, better still, they just leave. 

When the PCs exit the hut 8 hours from now, rested, recovered, fed, cleaned, and ready for the new day, they find an already-completed evil ritual(TM) and the evil bad guys(TM) 20 miles away (along with all of their treasure!).

If you want to squick the players, remind them that the caster can't leave the hut. For the next 8 hours, all their *cough* ablutions *cough* are going to be in front of everyone else. It will be like using the toilet in a Dragon spaceship.

----------


## Boci

> The idea is, there is a difference between the magical effects of spells and items, and the background magic of the world (dragon flight and breath, invisibility of faeries, animation of elementals, stuff like that).


  If this your interpretations, or is this coming from a book / a designer?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If this your interpretations, or is this coming from a book / a designer?


It's in the Safe Advice Compendium. So official dev interpretation. And dragon's breath weapons are one of the examples used of "background magic" things that don't count as mechanically magical.

----------


## Boci

> It's in the Safe Advice Compendium. So official dev interpretation. And dragon's breath weapons are one of the examples used of "background magic" things that don't count as mechanically magical.


  Wow, that sounds like a mess. So dragon breath weapons are background magic, which means they aren't magical for the purpose of the rules. But is specifies dragon breath weapons, so other non-dragon breath weapons might still be magical...does it give any other help or guidelines, or is it just completely arbitrarily up to the DM?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Wow, that sounds like a mess. So dragon breath weapons are background magic, which means they aren't magical for the purpose of the rules. But is specifies dragon breath weapons, so other non-dragon breath weapons might still be magical...does it give any other help or guidelines, or is it just completely arbitrarily up to the DM?


The full quote from the SAC:




> *Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?* If you cast _antimagic field_, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical  or nonmagical effects, you might ask yourself, Will this protect me against a dragons breath? The breath weapon of a typical dragon isnt considered magical, so antimagic field wont help you but armor of invulnerability will.
> You might be thinking, Dragons seem pretty magical to me. And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says theyre magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
>  the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverses physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
>  the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
> 
> In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, its referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
>  Is it a magic item?
>  Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell thats mentioned in its description?
>  Is it a spell attack?
> ...


So yes, there is guidance for the general case and the answers are actually both fairly self-evident AND consistent.

----------


## Boci

> So yes, there is guidance for the general case and the answers are actually both fairly self-evident AND consistent.


  That's better, but I stand by my statement that this is a mess. Not only is it in Sage Advice Compendium, which already reeks of retcon, but by this system there's a yugoloth that gets non-magical teleporting and a nagpa has a area of effect wisdom save negates paralysis that is apparently non-magical. This sounds like a mess to me.

  Edit: Like, the fiend warlock's hurl through hell's ability isn't magical following the check list. Its not a spell, it not a spell attack, and it isn't called magical. I dunno about you, but hurling a creature through hell for 6 seconds sounds pretty magical to me.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Fleas really are a hard counter then, aren't they?


It seems to be clearly written that way; hard in both the sense it just fizzles a 3rd-level slot and in the stares from the table you spring that sort of thing on.




> That interpretation means that [...]


In fairness, it really only means bards and wizards (and kings) are cleaner and we knew that once we saw Prestidigitation was a cantrip.

----------


## nalgarryn

> the fiend warlock's hurl through hell's ability isn't magical following the check list. Its not a spell, it not a spell attack, and it isn't called magical. I dunno about you, but hurling a creature through hell for 6 seconds sounds pretty magical to me.


From 3.x we had (Ex), (Su), and (Sp) for Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-like, the latter two being magical in nature and suppressed within an anti-magic field. (At least, suppressed if they had an active duration, if they had a duration of instantaneous they wouldn't be undone, _per se_). In 5e we lose these distinctions and instead only have explicitly magical things and all the supernatural _inherent_ and all the extraordinary _inherent_  aspects of a creature get smushed into one non-magical category (as per the Sage Advice).

In your example the Warlock has access to what is essentially the supernatural power of their Patron, however that ability is intrinsic to the nature of the patron, and therefore not dispellable. Although it is a bit of a pivot, since in 3.x the breath weapon was (Su) and therefore not usable within an anti-magic field.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm

I would defeat the Tiny Hut in similar ways listed above. It would be very tempting to do a total party wipe, and even trying to avoid it I might accidentally cause it. Generally speaking, it is a poor strategic move to place yourself in one small compact area in the midst of your enemies and sit there for 8 hours. The odds of a random housecat finding your bubble are playing with it are not zero, and the odds of something even worse becoming interested in it are much higher. Basically it is a guarantee that you're going to immediately be in combat. It doesn't really matter if you're surrounded by Kobolds at that point, since they'll have had time to create difficult terrain (not a magical act) and to erect defenses and take cover (also not a magical act) and to summon additional allies (still not a magical act). So being surrounded by 20 kobolds, all armed with ranged weapons and behind cover, doesn't bode well for your party. Sure they are sensitive to light but they also have pack tactics. Throw in one Kobold "shaman" with some caster levels (including Darkness) and your party is in trouble.

----------


## Tanarii

> Giant Badgers, and lots' of em. They'll tunnel right under the dome. If they're clever, they'll even tunnel out a pit underneath it and then drop the bottom out from underneath.
> 
> Ok, sure, there's plenty of other burrowing creatures more threatening than badgers. Off the top of my head there's Ankhegs, Bulettes, Earth Elementals and Umber Hulks. None of which are as funny as the giant badger swarm.


Was it ever stablished if the hut has a force field across the bottom?  I know there was a Crawford tweet, but I don't think it ever made it to the SAC.  Edit: Double checked, it didn't.

----------


## Boci

> From 3.x we had (Ex), (Su), and (Sp) for Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-like, the latter two being magical in nature and suppressed within an anti-magic field. (At least, suppressed if they had an active duration, if they had a duration of instantaneous they wouldn't be undone, _per se_). In 5e we lose these distinctions and instead only have explicitly magical things and all the supernatural _inherent_ and all the extraordinary _inherent_  aspects of a creature get smushed into one non-magical category (as per the Sage Advice).
> 
> In your example the Warlock has access to what is essentially the supernatural power of their Patron, however that ability is intrinsic to the nature of the patron, and therefore not dispellable. Although it is a bit of a pivot, since in 3.x the breath weapon was (Su) and therefore not usable within an anti-magic field.


  Except we don't. Because a yeth hounds baying is called magical, yet a nilbog's nilgobism (save or be charmed when you try and attack it) and mocking word are not. There is no rhyme or reason to this, since surely a yeth hound's baying is inherent too, right? A shadar-kais shadow spear magically returns to hand on a miss, and yet misty escape, shadow jump and the decay effect of the spiked chain is not magical.

  The nagpa I mentioned, with the area of effect paralysis negated by a wisdom save? They have the wizard subtype. Yet the paralysis apparently isn't magical?

----------


## Keravath

> Was it ever stablished if the hut has a force field across the bottom?  I know there was a Crawford tweet, but I don't think it ever made it to the SAC.  Edit: Double checked, it didn't.


As far as I know it hasn't been clarified, leaving the decision as to whether it has a floor or not up to the DM. Otherwise, I've seen folks argue both ways based on what they think a hemisphere is or should be in this context.

----------


## Sigreid

> Was it ever stablished if the hut has a force field across the bottom?  I know there was a Crawford tweet, but I don't think it ever made it to the SAC.  Edit: Double checked, it didn't.


I personally believe it does, however; that means that since people pass freely from the inside to out, if something did tunnel up from below it, the party would tumble down into the shaft, ending the spell when the casting character did.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Except we don't. Because a yeth hounds baying is called magical, yet a nilbog's nilgobism (save or be charmed when you try and attack it) and mocking word are not. There is no rhyme or reason to this, since surely a yeth hound's baying is inherent too, right? A shadar-kais shadow spear magically returns to hand on a miss, and yet misty escape, shadow jump and the decay effect of the spiked chain is not magical.
> 
>   The nagpa I mentioned, with the area of effect paralysis negated by a wisdom save? They have the wizard subtype. Yet the paralysis apparently isn't magical?


You can have several sources of power and several ways of expressing power.

Lore-wise, the question isn't "is it magical?", it's "is it interracting with the Weave or not?"

A Nagpa is a Wizard by training and a cursed Shadowfell vulture-person by circumstences. If they cast a spell, they're interacting with the Weave as with any other wizard spell. If they use their paralysis power, they're not interacting with the Weave despite still doing something fantastical.

Same thing with a Dragon. Using a sorcerer spell? Weave, therefore magical. Using their breath? No Weave, therefore fantastical. Flying? No weave, therefore fantastical.

----------


## Boci

> You can have several sources of power and several ways of expressing power.
> 
> Lore-wise, the question isn't "is it magical?", it's "is it interracting with the Weave or not?"
> 
> A Nagpa is a Wizard by training and a cursed Shadowfell vulture-person by circumstences. If they cast a spell, they're interacting with the Weave as with any other wizard spell. If they use their paralysis power, they're not interacting with the Weave despite still doing something fantastical.
> 
> Same thing with a Dragon. Using a sorcerer spell? Weave, therefore magical. Using their breath? No Weave, therefore fantastical. Flying? No weave, therefore fantastical.


  Firstly the weave is FR only, there are multiple D&D worlds, so its pretty messy for core rules like that to reference setting specific lore.

  Secondly, still not consistent. A storm giant quintessent can magically conjure a gust of wind, but does not use magic when throwing thunderbolts, or coalescing wind into a javelin. Another interesting case is the fey warlock's Dark Delirium, which require the target to "make a Wisdom saving throw against your warlock spell save DC". Which technically isn't magic by strict reading of the not-RAW guidelines (not a spell attack), but sounds like it should be, and the feypact warlock monster has a pact related ability that is explicitly magical.

----------


## Phhase

> . Are all breath wepaons non-magical then, or just a dragons?


5E is hamstrung by its desire for simplicity here, but dragonbreath is historically an (Ex) Extraordinary ability. That means it's just about nonmangical/could be used in an antimagic field.

----------


## Boci

> 5E is hamstrung by its desire for simplicity here, but dragonbreath is historically an (Ex) Extraordinary ability. That means it's just about nonmangical/could be used in an antimagic field.


  Nope, it was supernatural:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm

  I'm fine with changing it from effectively supernatural to effectively extraordinary, I just wish the rules governing it weren't a mess.

----------


## Sigreid

> Nope, it was supernatural:
> 
> https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm
> 
>   I'm fine with changing it from effectively supernatural to effectively extraordinary, I just wish the rules governing it weren't a mess.


I believe the game is suffering from having gone through a few teams with vastly different ideas writing rules.

----------


## Boci

> I believe the game is suffering from having gone through a few teams with vastly different ideas writing rules.


  Yeah, what we effectively have here is the 3.5 system of spells / supernatural abilities / extraordinary abilities, with spell-like abilities effectively dropped (though you could maybe argue that componentless spell casting counts as SPA, but its pretty rare in the system), except that whilst 3.5 clearly indicated which category an ability belonged to, 5e has a semi-official, coherent set of guidelines that produce very not coherent results.

----------


## Tanarii

> I personally believe it does, however; that means that since people pass freely from the inside to out, if something did tunnel up from below it, the party would tumble down into the shaft, ending the spell when the casting character did.


Interesting.  I've never seen that put forth as part of a discussion on if the floor has a force field, but I agree that'd make tunneling a great option.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Hi All,
> The thread on limiting rests started me thinking about the Tiny Hut spell and mundane ways that foes could counteract it. 
> 
> 
> Despite not explicitly needing sleep during a long rest, characters do need to be doing things that are restful.  I'm thinking the din of, for example, an orc army gathering outside while beating drums and chanting would preclude rest.  I suppose 2 characters alternating the ritual casting of silence could provide rest for others in this case, provided they chose a point just outside the hut and left an area for them to complete the Verbal part of the spell.
> 
> Crawford confirms that dragon breath (not a spell) can penetrate the hut, so if enough fuel was available it would be reasonable to turn the thing into an oven with conventional fire; in a forest, just falling enough trees on it could work as a way to create enough fuel.
> 
> Other thoughts?



As noted by you and others, building a bonfire on top of it, burrying it under heavy stuff or digging under it all work (even if the DM think the Tiny Hut has a floor, the PCs would fall through it if you dig under them), but in case the LTH is somewhere it can't be done (ex: stone floor and the enemies don't have anything available to cover the dome), simply having a large group of enemy camping outside, maybe with their own palissade in case the PCs try attacking them, with a sentry ready to alert everyone the moment the dome disappear would be an efficient tactic.

You're also right to point out the enemies outside can simply work to disrupt the rest. 

Basically, any besieging tactic will work: don't let the besieged group go out, break their morale, don't let them rest and try digging under it.

----------


## Gignere

> As noted by you and others, building a bonfire on top of it, burrying it under heavy stuff or digging under it all work (even if the DM think the Tiny Hut has a floor, the PCs would fall through it if you dig under them), but in case the LTH is somewhere it can't be done (ex: stone floor and the enemies don't have anything available to cover the dome), simply having a large group of enemy camping outside, maybe with their own palissade in case the PCs try attacking them, with a sentry ready to alert everyone the moment the dome disappear would be an efficient tactic.
> 
> You're also right to point out the enemies outside can simply work to disrupt the rest. 
> 
> Basically, any besieging tactic will work: don't let the besieged group go out, break their morale, don't let them rest and try digging under it.


Its kinda hard to do normal siege or bury the hut tactics, since the party can freely range attack outside from within the hut and with advantage to boot. Even if they dont have range attackers nothing stops them from hopping in and out or swinging their weapons through the hut. 

You would need to constantly attack them for what over an hour (AFB so just guessing) to disrupt a long rest, very unlikely for any normal siege tactics to work. 

Burrowing/sapping is likely to work though but unless they creatures have a burrow speed it would take hours if not days just to mine/sap the tiny hut, at least if the enemies start far enough away without alerting the party.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Its kinda hard to do normal siege or bury the hut tactics, since the party can freely range attack outside from within the hut and with advantage to boot. Even if they dont have range attackers nothing stops them from hopping in and out or swinging their weapons through the hut.


That's not much different from besieging a building where the defenders can attack while protected.

Yes, it is difficult, but it's doable. 




> You would need to constantly attack them for what over an hour (AFB so just guessing) to disrupt a long rest, very unlikely for any normal siege tactics to work.


Depends how the DM rules it, but personally I rule you can't have a Long Rest if the environment is too uncomfortable for you to rest, and the enemies outside can make enough noise every X minutes to ruin that possibility.




> Burrowing/sapping is likely to work though but unless they creatures have a burrow speed it would take hours if not days just to mine/sap the tiny hut, at least if the enemies start far enough away without alerting the party.


On dirt or snow it would indeed take hours, but if the PCs try to Long Rest with Leomund's Tiny Hut, the enemies will have that time.

However, you're absolutely right on a point: the PCs attacking with advantage due to seeing the enemies while the enemies can't see through the dome is a big tactical asset.

As a result, one of the first (if not THE first) anti-Leomund's Tiny Hut's tactics that should be used by the enemies is to take paint, tar, mud or any other opaque liquid and throw it on the dome until the PCs can't see through it.

That, and if possible have ranged attackers with a "attack whoever pokes out of the dome" ongoing order.

----------


## Gignere

> That's not much different from besieging a building where the defenders can attack while protected.
> 
> Yes, it is difficult, but it's doable. 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends how the DM rules it, but personally I rule you can't have a Long Rest if the environment is too uncomfortable for you to rest, and the enemies outside can make enough noise every X minutes to ruin that possibility.
> 
> 
> ...


I think the paint/mud tactics would be up to DM interpretation. It is a dome of force does it even have friction? Without friction paint/mud wont stick and it will slide right off. However a silent image of a fog cloud or paint should work until the PCs interact with it, to at least cancel out the advantage. 

Even if the paint/tar/mud tactics worked as ruled by the DM, all that does is cancel advantage, the PCs can still attack normally through the hut. The enemies still cant attack them. 

When I use tiny hut we still had rotating watches so it would be next to impossible for enemies to sneak up to the hut.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> But yeah, if its found by a group with enough resources and manpower, they can probably mess it up. Burying its should be pretty effect. How much dirt can 20 able bodies humanoids shovel on top in 6 hours? Or the fire idea.


 Snow. A blizzard/avalanche. I did this to a party a few months back (posted about it somewhere on these forums) and that turned into a pretty neat battle when all was said and done.  



> Giant Badgers, and lots' of em.


 If directed by NPC druid, yes.  :Small Smile:  Love this idea.  



> Well, shoot. Fleas really are a hard counter then, aren't they?


 Here we go. This is why we can't have nice things.  :Small Frown: 



> On a more serious note, one thing about _tiny hut_ is that while it protects the _people_, it doesn't do much if the party has significant amounts of stuff, such as a cart or wagon, riding horses, etc. Under the most generous interpretation possible (10' radius is really a square 20' on a side, straight walls), you've got 16 squares. You can fit 4 large creatures in there _period_. And most people aren't going to be comfortable with less than about 2 squares, so 4 medium characters is 8 _comfortable_ squares, aka half the room. So for overland travel (where you're most likely to have mounts, carts, etc), all of that's going to be safely munchable outside the hut. Inside a dungeon it's better, but also more vulnerable to the various other methods proposed here.


 As I read the spell ... "Nine creatures of Medium size or smaller..." so no large creatures.  :Small Wink:  "The spell fails if its area includes a larger creature or more than nine creatures"



> So if a microbe (tiny living organism) qualifies as a creature, LTH can't ever be cast successfully per RAW.


 Which actually means that 'real world biology is not operative in D&D land, not that the spell can't be case. (And if you look at Stone giants, real world biology seriously isn't at work, as well as adult blue dragons, etc).   



> It's in the Safe Advice Compendium. So official dev interpretation. And dragon's breath weapons are one of the examples used of "background magic" things that don't count as mechanically magical.


 Sage Advice Compendium.  Safe Advice Compendium is kept in the library at the thieves guild as instructional material for safecrackers ...  :Small Big Grin: 



> Firstly the weave is FR only, there are multiple D&D worlds,


 Not quite.  Suggest you take another look at Chapter 10 in the PHB about spellcasting and the weave of magic.  It is explicitly stated that "the worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places" and goes from there.  "The weave" and "fabric of magic" are terms used to describe what it is that various spell casters manipulate to achieve magical effects ... 



> I believe the game is suffering from having gone through a few teams with vastly different ideas writing rules.


 Concur.

----------


## Boci

> Not quite.  Suggest you take another look at Chapter 10 in the PHB about spellcasting and the weave of magic.  It is explicitly stated that "the worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places" and goes from there.  "The weave" and "fabric of magic" are terms used to describe what it is that various spell casters manipulate to achieve magical effects ...


  Maybe it is mentioned, but that's just fluff, not enough to base a mechanical difference on as to whether or not something is magical for the purpose of whether or not Magic Resistance applies to a save or not. A DM who known nothing about FR and the weave, not an insane proposition, won't know what to do with a single line of fluff like that.

----------


## Sorinth

> When I use tiny hut we still had rotating watches so it would be next to impossible for enemies to sneak up to the hut.


Keep in mind they don't really need to sneak up to the hut. Once they know it's dangerous and they need to deal with it most creatures will be able to use/create cover of their own. For example they turn over a table to create cover and then once close enough lob flasks of oil and other combustibles at the dome from behind the total cover of the table. The enemies cover might not be as good/strong/resistant as the players but chances are it won't matter because the "dungeon" can bring more resources to bear.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> A DM who known nothing about FR and the weave, not an insane proposition, won't know what to do with a single line of fluff like that.


 Quite the contrary.  You don't need to know anything about the FR to find that useful.  As a case in point: me, in 5th edition. "the weave" was utterly foreign to me (it never came up as a topic in play in my AD&D FR days) and I, as a player new to 5e after a decade-long lay off from D&D, found that side bar in chapter 10 very useful. 

Also, be advised: as soon as someone says "that's just fluff" in the dismissive manner that you used there, they lose credibility with me in re 5e.   That distinction was explicitly made in 4e, but was not in 5e.  (This of course has led to a variety of questions being raised by people more familiar with previous editions, of course, when led to SAC among other things).

----------


## Segev

Since free-flowing liquids seem not to be objects in their own right, as long as the boiling water or oil doesn't come from a spell, it looks to me like they would not be excluded by the dome of force. Per the RAW readings I am seeing here, at least. 

I also think Crawford is full of it when he claims a dragon's breath weapon is not a "magical effect," for the record.

----------


## Boci

> Quite the contrary.  You don't need to know anything about the FR to find that useful.  As a case in point: me, in 5th edition. "the weave" was utterly foreign to me (it never came up as a topic in play in my AD&D FR days) and I, as a player new to 5e after a decade-long lay off from D&D, found that side bar in chapter 10 very useful. 
> 
> Also, be advised: as soon as someone says "that's just fluff" in the dismissive manner that you used there, they lose credibility with me in re 5e.   That distinction was explicitly made in 4e, but was not in 5e.  (This of course has led to a variety of questions being raised by people more familiar with previous editions, of course, when led to SAC among other things).


  But you needed a Sage Advice Compendium article before anything could be done with it. This SAC article wasn't "clarifying" it was adding. Without that article, how could you ever guessed that the Nagpa's mass paralysis was meant to be non-magical from the use of the word "weave" in chapter 10 of the PHB?

  And even with it, the result are still janky. Yeth hounds baying is magical, yet a nilbog's nilgobism and mocking word are not. Warlocks go from Hurl Through Hell definitely not magical to Dark Delirium, not magical by strict reading of the guidelines SAC since its uses spell save and not spell attack, and then the monster feypact warlock has an explicitly magical pact based ability. Illusionist wizards can create a duplicant of themselves, which isn't magical by the SAC guidllines, and that storm giant I mentioned who can non-magical creature thunderbolts and coalesce wind into a javaline, but need to use magic to produce a gust of wind.

  You're more than welcome to say I've lost all credibility with you, but if you don't see how the above is an inconsistent mess than you've lost credulity with me.

----------


## Keltest

> But you needed a Sage Advice Compendium article before anything could be done with it. This SAC article wasn't "clarifying" it was adding. Without that article, how could you ever guessed that the Nagpa's mass paralysis was meant to be non-magical from the use of the word "weave" in chapter 10 of the PHB?
> 
>   And even with it, the result are still janky. Yeth hounds baying is magical, yet a nilbog's nilgobism and mocking word are not. Warlocks go from Hurl Through Hell definitely not magical to Dark Delirium, not magical by strict reading of the guidelines SAC since its uses spell save and not spell attack, and then the monster feypact warlock has an explicitly magical pact based ability. Illusionist wizards can create a duplicant of themselves, which isn't magical by the SAC guidllines, and that storm giant I mentioned who can non-magical creature thunderbolts and coalesce wind into a javaline, but need to use magic to produce a gust of wind.
> 
>   You're more than welcome to say I've lost all credibility with you, but if you don't see how the above is an inconsistent mess than you've lost credulity with me.


Does it SAY its magical? No? Then its not magical in a way that can be interacted with by magic-affecting abilities. Thats all the SAC is actually saying there. Nothing is added.

You can find the fact that it isnt magic nonsensical, but its pretty straightforward.

----------


## Boci

> Does it SAY its magical? No? Then its not magical in a way that can be interacted with by magic-affecting abilities. Thats all the SAC is actually saying there. Nothing is added.
> 
> You can find the fact that it isnt magic nonsensical, but its pretty straightforward.


  I didn't say it wasn't straightforward, I said it was an inconsistent mess. I explicitly acknowledged that the guidelines were themselves coherent. Its the results from following them I have problem with.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yeth hounds baying is magical, yet a nilbog's nilgobism and mocking word are not. Warlocks go from Hurl Through Hell definitely not magical to Dark Delirium, not magical by strict reading of the guidelines SAC since its uses spell save and not spell attack, and then the monster feypact warlock has an explicitly magical pact based ability. Illusionist wizards can create a duplicant of themselves, which isn't magical by the SAC guidllines, and that storm giant I mentioned who can non-magical creature thunderbolts and coalesce wind into a javaline, but need to use magic to produce a gust of wind.


Indeed. 

I don't see any problem.

----------


## Keltest

> I didn't say it wasn't straightforward, I said it was an inconsistent mess. I explicitly acknowledged that the guidelines were themselves coherent. Its the results from following them I have problem with.


Do you think you should be able to dispel a skeleton then? Should a dragon entering an antimagic field immediately collapse under its own weight? Should an elf suddenly pass out and die due to extreme lack of sleep? I'd wager you would say "no" to all of those, so the argument here is one of degrees.

----------


## Boci

> Indeed. 
> 
> I don't see any problem.


  You're not curious why the storm giant uses background magic to make thunderbolts and wind javalins, but has to use magic magic to make a gust of wind, or why one fey's ability is magic but another's isn't?

  Okay fair enough, you don't have to be, but I am, and on a presentation level, if we're going to have a distribution of abilities being spell / magic / background magic, I feel there was a better way to present it.




> Do you think you should be able to dispel a skeleton then? Should a dragon entering an antimagic field immediately collapse under its own weight? Should an elf suddenly pass out and die due to extreme lack of sleep? I'd wager you would say "no" to all of those, so the argument here is one of degrees.


  Those aren't abilities. The "argument of degrees" is that "abilities are different to static effect". And dragon flying is bringing real world physics into it. It has wings, it can fly, has always been good enough for the game, and even today there are at least a few people who don't know why that wouldn't work in our real life.

  I'm not against the existence of impossible abilities that aren't magical, I accepted them in 3.5. The difference was 3.5 had a much clearer presentation on them, and it felt more consistent.

  And since you're advocating for the system as presented, may I then ask, is Dark Delirium magical? Its not a spell attack, but it uses the warlock's spell save DC, which isn't on the check list. So is it magical, or not?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

5e has been out for eight years now.
How big of a mess can it be, if Boci is just noticing it now?

A group that plays regularly together will hobble together a set of understandings that enables them to parse the interactions.

Rulings not Rules is problematic, only if one wants a single answer to any question, and desire every group to play the same way.

I would hazard a guess, that many people that play 5e are primarily concerned about their own game making sense and being fun, and are less concerned about others needing to play in the exact same fashion.

In regards to the Hut, foes can cover the dome, set watchers, light a fire to possibly smoke the party out, (depending on how the comfortable atmosphere clause is interpreted), or just generally disrupt the occupants of the Hut rest.

----------


## Keltest

> And since you're advocating for the system as presented, may I then ask, is Dark Delirium magical? Its not a spell attack, but it uses the warlock's spell save DC, which isn't on the check list. So is it magical, or not?


Not in the game term sense. Its just a power youre given by your patron. Neither is a paladin's auras, for example.

Frankly, I think the warlock's various patron powers not being traditional magic makes a lot of sense. These are theoretically beings powerful enough to offer a limited warping of reality on your behalf. Why should they obey the normal rules?

----------


## Segev

> 5e has been out for eight years now.
> How big of a mess can it be, if Boci is just noticing it now?
> 
> A group that plays regularly together will hobble together a set of understandings that enables them to parse the interactions.
> 
> Rulings not Rules is problematic, only if one wants a single answer to any question, and desire every group to play the same way.
> 
> I would hazard a guess, that many people that play 5e are primarily concerned about their own game making sense and being fun, and are less concerned about others needing to play in the exact same fashion.
> 
> In regards to the Hut, foes can cover the dome, set watchers, light a fire to possibly smoke the party out, (depending on how the comfortable atmosphere clause is interpreted), or just generally disrupt the occupants of the Hut rest.


Boci isn't complaining about the 5e that has been out and in common use for eight years. He is objecting to the relatively obscure, somewhat nonsensically arbitrary errata posing as "clarification" in Crawford's personal blog.

----------


## Boci

> Not in the game term sense. Its just a power youre given by your patron. Neither is a paladin's auras, for example.
> 
> Frankly, I think the warlock's various patron powers not being traditional magic makes a lot of sense. These are theoretically beings powerful enough to offer a limited warping of reality on your behalf. Why should they obey the normal rules?


  Then why does the warlock of the archfey pact related ability specify its magic? I get that NPCs and PC are statted different, but surely "is a warlock's pact magical or not?" should stay the same, right?

  And then there's this:

"Beginning at 10th level, your patron teaches you how to turn the mind-affecting magic of your enemies against them. You are immune to being charmed, and when another creature attempts to charm you, you can use your reaction to attempt to turn the charm back on that creature."

  So if a creature charms a feypact warlock with an ability not stated to be magic, can the warlock reflect it? They charmed, but the ability also says "mind-affecting magic"?

  As I said, I don't object to the system or the ideas here, just the presentation and the inconsistencies of it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> You're not curious why the storm giant uses background magic to make thunderbolts and wind javalins, but has to use magic magic to make a gust of wind, or why one fey's ability is magic but another's isn't?


Depends what you mean by "curious". I'm interested in the difference, but I know the Watsonian explanation (some powers interact with the Weave, others don't, and some creatures have both) and the Doylist explanation (it's more or less arbitrary and based on what the writer for that monster/class think should be countered by anti-magic measures or not, plus on what they think is cool).

To use a comic book example, I don't see a problem with a Kryptonian having both heat vision when powered by a yellow sun and the capacity to cast spells from having studied magic. 




> And since you're advocating for the system as presented, may I then ask, is Dark Delirium magical? Its not a spell attack, but it uses the warlock's spell save DC, which isn't on the check list. So is it magical, or not?


"Spell save DC" is something of a misnomer, as even a Battle Master's maneuvres use the calculation to see what the DC to resist them is, for example.

However, I have to check something before giving you an answer...

----------


## Keltest

> Then why does the warlock of the archfey pact related ability specify its magic? I get that NPCs and PC are statted different, but surely "is a warlock's pact magical or not?" should stay the same, right?


Why? Should a wizard's weapon attacks be magical because they come from a wizard?

----------


## Boci

> Why? Should a wizard's weapon attacks be magical because they come from a wizard?


  This isn't a warlock's weapon attack, this is the warlock's pact. A pact is a pact. Giving different abilities to make a NPCs stat profile easier for the DM / more useful in a fight is fine, but why would you change whether or not the pact is magical based on whether its a PC or an NPC. You're comparing weapons to spells, I'm comparing pacts to pacts.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Not in the game term sense. Its just a power youre given by your patron. Neither is a paladin's auras, for example.
> 
> Frankly, I think the warlock's various patron powers not being traditional magic makes a lot of sense. These are theoretically beings powerful enough to offer a limited warping of reality on your behalf. Why should they obey the normal rules?


Yeah. The thinking that mortal spells (aka "magic") are the sum total of all forms of power is an exquisitely mortal self-deception. And a very _wizardly_ conceit. But a flawed one. Mortal spells (including things like dispel magic and antimagic field, both of whose names are part of that hubristic conceit) are but one tiny fragment of all the ways a world can be fantastic (ie not possible in Earth reality). "Magic" is a tiny subset of "Fantastic". Any given creature may have both. And most do:

* Most of the Barbarian's subclass abilities, including Ancestral Barb's Spirit Shield are not magical. Only the powers that explicitly call out spells + the Storm Barb's aura are magical. Even the Beast Barb's transformation is not magical.
* Bardic inspiration is not magical.
* Divine Intervention _may_ (or may not, depending on exactly what aid is granted) be magical, but since it's direct divine intervention, it likely bypasses _antimagic field_ and kin. Blessed Strikes is also not magical but deals radiant damage.
* Etc.

----------


## Keltest

> This isn't a warlock's weapon attack, this is the warlock's pact. A pact is a pact. Giving different abilities to make a NPCs stat profile easier for the DM / more useful in a fight is fine, but why would you change whether or not the pact is magical based on whether its a PC or an NPC. You're comparing weapons to spells, I'm comparing pacts to pacts.


So, you have two options here. You can either decide that because the warlock class description says that the pact unlocks magical abilities that all warlock pact abilities are magical, in which case its a solved issue, or you can choose not to do that, in which case theres still no problem because nothing says every ability granted by the pact must be magical.

In other words, I think youre confusing yourself for no reason.

----------


## Boci

> And a very _wizardly_ conceit.


  Actually several schools of wizardry grant non-magical abilities. Like the illusion's Illusory Self or the conjuration's Benign Transportation.




> So, you have two options here. You can either decide that because the warlock class description says that the pact unlocks magical abilities that all warlock pact abilities are magical, in which case its a solved issue, or you can choose not to do that, in which case theres still no problem because nothing says every ability granted by the pact must be magical.
> 
> In other words, I think youre confusing yourself for no reason.


  So we're back to inconsistency. Sure, I get it, either one works, but this has both fluff and mechanical implications, so it would be nice if I could have more to do on here.

  If the system was presented better, I'd have no problem with it. But it isn't.

----------


## Keltest

> Actually several schools of wizardry grant non-magical abilities. Like the illusion's Illusory Self or the conjuration's Benign Transportation.


Well boom, there you go. If a wizard can learn to do it, why cant a warlock patron do it?

----------


## Boci

> Well boom, there you go. If a wizard can learn to do it, why cant a warlock patron do it?


  The fact that PhoenixPhyre (entirely reasonably) assumed that wizards wouldn't be able to do it, kinda demonstrates why I dislike the system as presented in 5e.

  For the umpteenth time, not against the system as a whole, it worked in 3.5. It seems to be handled worse here.

----------


## Keltest

> The fact that PhoenixPhyre (entirely reasonably) assumed that wizards wouldn't be able to do it, kinda demonstrates why I dislike the system as presented in 5e.
> 
>   For the umpteenth time, not against the system as a whole, it worked in 3.5. It seems to be handled worse here.


I mean you keep calling it worse, but you dont seem to be able to settle on why its worse. Its not because its harder to figure it out, you just dont seem to personally care where the line was drawn. That doesnt really make it "worse" it just means you dont like it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> This isn't a warlock's weapon attack, this is the warlock's pact. A pact is a pact. Giving different abilities to make a NPCs stat profile easier for the DM / more useful in a fight is fine, but why would you change whether or not the pact is magical based on whether its a PC or an NPC. You're comparing weapons to spells, I'm comparing pacts to pacts.


Right, so the PC Warlock version says:




> Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular.


But it also says:




> *Otherworldly Patron*
> At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice. Your choice grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.


With the 14th lvl one being Dark Delirium for the Archfey Warlock. Those features are explicitly different from the Pact Magic feature and the Mystic Arcanum one, which both are explicitly magical. 

The NPC Warlock versions says: 




> Warlocks of the archfey gain their powers through magical pacts forged with lords of the Feywild.


While the statblock precises the Warlock of the Archfey has Innate Spellcasting, Spellcasting, AND a Reaction-based Misty Step that recharges on a 5-6 with a Short or Long Rest that is not magical.


So, to summarize:

Warlocks (both PC and NPC ones) have:

-Pact Magic/Spellcasting thanks to their magical pacts.

-Magic powers that are not part of their regular spellcasting limits.

-Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical).

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Actually several schools of wizardry grant non-magical abilities. Like the illusion's Illusory Self or the conjuration's Benign Transportation.


Yes? Wizards are absolutely nothing if not inconsistent. Claiming themselves to be the masters of magic when they can't even cast basic healing spells. The point is that this idea that magic === fantastic abilities is stupid and flawed. And it's the sort of thing that wizards, who themselves have the bare minimum of abilities _other_ than casting spells and related features would come up with.




> I mean you keep calling it worse, but you dont seem to be able to settle on why its worse. Its not because its harder to figure it out, you just dont seem to personally care where the line was drawn. That doesnt really make it "worse" it just means you dont like it.


This. So much this. It's all "I don't like it so it's bad." Personally, I think that the 3e conceit that you could neatly categorize every ability into nice little buckets caused (and still causes, just look at the 3e forums) more arguments than 'ok, here are some basic heuristics' does. And the same goes for most "keyword-based" rules--all it does is cause more inconsistencies and "loopholes". Because nothing's so nicely categorizable as that.

----------


## Boci

> I mean you keep calling it worse, but you dont seem to be able to settle on why its worse. Its not because its harder to figure it out, you just dont seem to personally care where the line was drawn. That doesnt really make it "worse" it just means you dont like it.


Huh? Yes I have. Its worse because its inconsistent, harder to figure out, and isn't self-evidently part of the system from the get go like it was in 3.5. This has been my stance since the get go. I haven't been calling it worse just because I disliked it.

  PhoenixPhyre made the entirely reasonable assumption that wizard's wouldn't get non-magical powers. They're wizards after all. But the rules don't support this, and that leaves me wondering just how intentional these rules where.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> PhoenixPhyre made the entirely reasonable assumption that wizard's wouldn't get non-magical powers. They're wizards after all. But the rules don't support this, and that leaves me wondering just how intentional these rules where.


NO, I didn't make that assumption. At all. You're entirely reading something in that isn't there.

----------


## Boci

> So, to summarize:
> 
> Warlocks (both PC and NPC ones) have:
> 
> -Pact Magic/Spellcasting thanks to their magical pacts.
> 
> -Magic powers that are not part of their regular spellcasting limits.
> 
> -Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical).


  Yeah, this is not true. Warlock of the archey has "Bewildering Word", which stats "The warlock utters a magical bewilderment,"

  So no, both PC and NPC warlocks do not have "-Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical)."

  Are you starting to see my problem with this?

----------


## Keltest

> Huh? Yes I have. Its worse because its inconsistent, harder to figure out, and isn't self-evidently part of the system from the get go like it was in 3.5. This has been my stance since the get go. I haven't been calling it worse just because I disliked it.
> 
>   PhoenixPhyre made the entirely reasonable assumption that wizard's wouldn't get non-magical powers. They're wizards after all. But the rules don't support this, and that leaves me wondering just how intentional these rules where.


Its not inconsistent, at least not any more than any other rule is. Rogues are a martial character so they should get extra attack, right? Warlocks are casters so they should get 9th level spells. Dwarves are medium so they should have a 30 foot move speed. Etcetera. Inconsistent would be something that is purportedly magical but not shut down by an antimagic field.

Its also not any harder to figure out. Its pretty binary: does it say its magical? yes/no. And the fact that you have spells and effects that key off of magic would indicate that yes, its self-evidently part of the system from the get go.




> Yeah, this is not true. Warlock of the archey has "Bewildering Word", which stats "The warlock utters a magical bewilderment,"
> 
>   So no, both PC and NPC warlocks do not have "-Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical)."
> 
>   Are you starting to see my problem with this?


That falls under the umbrella of "magic power that is not part of their regular spellcasting limits." So no, I do not see your problem with this.

As best I can tell all youre having trouble with is figuring out why the line was drawn where it was, to which I ask, why does it matter? If it bothers you that much, move the line at your table. As it is, its not hurting anyone or anything.

----------


## Boci

> That falls under the umbrella of "magic power that is not part of their regular spellcasting limits." So no, I do not see your problem with this.


  And just as you happily told me that disliking something doesn't make it worst, just because you see a problem with it doesn't mean there isn't one.

  So we're going to have to agree to disagree.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yeah, this is not true. Warlock of the archey has "Bewildering Word", which stats "The warlock utters a magical bewilderment,"


The Warlock of the Archfey having magical bewilderment does not disprove anything. Bewildering Word is one of the  "magic powers that are not part of their regular spellcasting limits". 




> So no, both PC and NPC warlocks do not have "-Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical)."


The Warlock of the Archfey has a non-magical Misty Step. So yes, both PC and NPC Warlocks have "-Otherworldly capacities that are neither spells nor magic according to the check list (but still fantastical)."


Stating that this NPC Warlock does not have such capacities is ignoring a key part of both my previous post and the monster statblock itself, then claiming inconsistency. 




> Are you starting to see my problem with this?


I do not.

----------


## Keltest

> And just as you happily told me that disliking something doesn't make it worst, just because you see a problem with it doesn't mean there isn't one.
> 
>   So we're going to have to agree to disagree.


Well traditionally you would elaborate on why my perception of the lack of an issue here is incorrect in an attempt to explain yourself better. Youre claiming a contradiction that I dont see is there. Simply repeating that its there, and I just have to trust you, doesnt really do anything.

----------


## Boci

> Well traditionally you would elaborate on why my perception of the lack of an issue here is incorrect in an attempt to explain yourself better. Youre claiming a contradiction that I dont see is there. Simply repeating that its there, and I just have to trust you, doesnt really do anything.


  I've explained myself multiple times, and repeatedly compared the 5e system unfavourable to the 3.5 system which clearly marked each ability as being *Su* or *Ex* that was present from the first book. If you don't share this issue with me, that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. But I don't know how much clearer I can make things.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> If the system was presented better, I'd have no problem with it. But it isn't.


What is magic, and the interactions between spells and magic is a topic that is deserving of more space being devoted to it in both the PHB and DMG.

The salient issue with the 3x style of notation is that it requires a large design team to implement and also locks in a style of play, due to the rigid structure.

Changing  an Extraordinary ability to being a Supernatural ability in 3e, results in a host of interaction changes, that resonates throughout the interlocking system.

5Es design avoids this issue by being decentralized.

Dispel Magic and a Fiend-locks Hurl Through Hell only interact together if someone has Readied an Action to cast Dispel Magic on the warlock.  In real life games, I doubt this would come up.

My expectation is that curious minds, will ask questions, ponder the issue, and wind up with a conclusion.

Centralized design vs Decentralized design, both have strengths and weaknesses.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I've explained myself multiple times, and repeatedly compared the 5e system unfavourable to the 3.5 system which clearly marked each ability as being *Su* or *Ex* that was present from the first book. If you don't share this issue with me, that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. But I don't know how much clearer I can make things.


All that the 3.5 system did was cause even more arguments. Because it didn't do so consistently in any sort of fashion. And various parts of the game contradicted other parts.

Keywords make more of a mess, not less of a mess, because they have to be kept in tight sync. Which is a losing battle. If they're not synced carefully they cause _extra_ confusion.




> Dispel Magic and a Fiend-locks Hurl Through Hell only interact together if someone has Readied an Action to cast Dispel Magic on the warlock.  In real life games, I doubt this would come up.


I agree with the rest of the post. However, a Readied Dispel Magic wouldn't work here by default, since readied actions happen _after_ their trigger and the ability is both instantaneous and has no observable precursors (ie no components). A better example might be using Hurl Through Hell inside an AMF.

As another, side note--I have seen AMF cast _once_ in almost 10 years of playing 5e. And that was by me, as a DM. Dispel Magic has come up a small handful of times. Considerations around AMF (specifically) or Dispel Magic are, in my mind, extreme edge cases.

----------


## Keltest

> I've explained myself multiple times, and repeatedly compared the 5e system unfavourable to the 3.5 system which clearly marked each ability as being *Su* or *Ex* that was present from the first book. If you don't share this issue with me, that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. But I don't know how much clearer I can make things.


Yes. There are two states in 5e: Magical and Nonmagical. They dont come with a handy bolded tag which, I guess is slightly inconvenient from the perspective of somebody coming from 3e where everything can be figured out just from keywords, but 5e doesnt have ANY text written like that, you already have to read the whole thing to get the whole effect. Do you just not like reading the entire description for an ability?

----------


## Unoriginal

Also worth noting that the Bewildering Word stuff was *added* in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foe because that book's writers wanted the caster NPCs to have impossible-to-counterspell magic attacks.

----------


## Boci

> Yes. There are two states in 5e: Magical and Nonmagical.


  Untrue, there's 3. Spells, Magic and Nonmagic. You can't counterspell magical. Technically you can argue there's 4, with componentless casting, but that's a very niche one.

  As for "don't you read the whole ability?" yes of course I did. And having read the whole ability, I would have granted advantage on the save vs. Dark Delirium if the target had Magic Resistance. I might still do so, I'm not sure.




> As another, side note--I have seen AMF cast _once_ in almost 10 years of playing 5e. And that was by me, as a DM. Dispel Magic has come up a small handful of times. Considerations around AMF (specifically) or Dispel Magic are, in my mind, extreme edge cases.


  As it just so happens my group would have quite possibly died last session had I known and followed this guidelines last session. They were level 11 and got ambush by a star spawn larva mage, and the warlock used dispel magic on plague of worms, because he was not making that save with disadvantage.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> I agree with the rest of the post. However, a Readied Dispel Magic wouldn't work here by default, since readied actions happen _after_ their trigger and the ability is both instantaneous and has no observable precursors (ie no components). A better example might be using Hurl Through Hell inside an AMF.
> 
> As another, side note--I have seen AMF cast _once_ in almost 10 years of playing 5e. And that was by me, as a DM. Dispel Magic has come up a small handful of times. Considerations around AMF (specifically) or Dispel Magic are, in my mind, extreme edge cases.


Good catch, and more evidence to show that the conceptual discomfort that Boci is expressing, largely is not going to have real world impacts.

I do think the Crawford position of Dispel Magic only works on spells has impacted the use of Dispel Magic, as well as the fact that 5e has moved away from things having concurrent layers of Magical Effects via the Concentration mechanic.

Dispel Magic was fairly crucial in AD&D up to 3e, because of magical layering.

----------


## Boci

> Good catch, and more evidence to show that the conceptual discomfort that Boci is expressing, largely is not going to have real world impacts.


  Literally could have resulted in a TPK in my last session has I been using these guidelines. Coincidence? Maybe. But a pretty strong rebuke to the "its all theoretical" line of thinking.

----------


## Keltest

> Untrue, there's 3. Spells, Magic and Nonmagic. You can't counterspell magical. Technically you can argue there's 4, with componentless casting, but that's a very niche one.


Spells are always magic, so "counterspellable" is not on the same axis as "dispellable"

----------


## Boci

> Spells are always magic, so "counterspellable" is not on the same axis as "dispellable"


  According to Thunderous Mojo it is, because Crawford has apparently clarified that Dispel Magic only works on spells.

----------


## Keltest

> According to Thunderous Mojo it is, because Crawford has apparently clarified that Dispel Magic only works on spells.


Antimagic field then. The point is, something targeting exclusively spells doesnt need to worry about magic versus nonmagic because spells are always magic.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> 5e has been out for eight years now.
> How big of a mess can it be, if Boci is just noticing it now?


 It has caused no problems at the tables where I play, but it has cropped up in the analysis posts on various internet sites.  
I think that the Sage Advice explanation covers some stuff, but may not satisfy everyone with previous edition experience.

----------


## Boci

> It has caused no problems at the tables where I play, but it has cropped up in the analysis posts on various internet sites.  
> I think that the Sage Advice explanation covers some stuff, but may not satisfy everyone with previous edition experience.


  The problem with this take is, my players didn't play much 3.5 or PF, and yet I guarantee that when I tell them the plague of worms shouldn't have been dispellable, they will not say, "Yeah that makes sense." I can remember the conversation:

  PCs - "These worms are murdering us. The DC is more than 18 and now we're rolling with disadvantage"

  Me - "Yeah, this is a tough enemy"

  PC - "Can we kill the worms?"

  Me - "No, they have no HP or defences listed, they are fluff to explain why you are restrained and blinded taking 5d8 necrotic damage at the start of your turn, save ends."

  Warlock - "Okay, he conjured the worms, so dispel magic will work right?"

   Now if I had said "well actually it's not called magic and isn't a spell" I doubt the warlock would have nodded and said "yeah that makes perfect sense", and its certainly not because of all the 3.5 he played, he's barely touched that edition.

----------


## Willie the Duck

Re: Tiny Hut -- 

As others have mentioned, the primary non-magical checks against it are:
BurrowersInability to bring large creatures into areaAbility to cover dome with obscuring objects (subject to DM interpretation)Ability to cover dome with environmental hazards (fire, rocks)Ability to take actions which might disrupt rest cycles (subject to DM interpretation)Also just massing troops around corner for when Hut goes down 
People have brought up that the PCs can attack anyone coming up with rocks/fire/obscuring agents. This is certainly true, but I wanted to mention that most PC responses require line of sight/are mitigated by full cover. Enemies advancing behind mantlets to set up a more permanent wall behind which people can work can be a real problem. 

As to fleas and microorganisms, obviously the game did not intend to go down to that level of granularity, and I'm content that that's not an oversight, so much as not wasting wordspace to defeat every over-literal interpretation. 

Re: the definition of magic -- 

D&D is not built with a central frame to which it consistently adheres. There are other games like GURPS, Hero System, Fate, or similar which have central pillars of conceit upon which all other things are hung. They tend not to sell as well/attract an audience as well as dog's breakfast systems like D&D, 90s White Wolf WoD, WEG Star Wars, and similar. Probably not specifically because of the lack of central frame, but not having to adhere  to a formula or central mechanism opens up the devs to any option that floats by (which sometimes are good ones which would have to be rejected if being dogmatic to a requirement). Does that mean that there are inconsistencies, incongruities, and places where interactions are unclear and subject to interpretation? Of course it does. Is that a problem? Well, if there was a lot of tournament play, perhaps (same reason I never want to play Magic: the Gathering competitively). Otherwise, it will depend on the group, and I haven't found many groups out in the wild that can't adjudicate for their own table which monster abilities work in anti-magic situations. And there's the primary rub/real issue, I think. I know 5e leaned heavily into that notion, encoded in the rulings over rules mantra, and I know that rubbed some people the wrong way (for many reasons, including disliking the notion of inexact rules, or just believing it an rhetorical dodge around imperfect output). It certainly is possible that they leaned too far in. I certainly think the game could have survived some consistently-defined bolded-or-underlined terms. That said; when it comes to making a game that serves people (particularly new-to-D&D-ers) that want a fun experience of fantasy-raced heroes battling ogres and dragons with swords and spells vs. making a game that serves gamers looking for perfect rules consistency, symmetry, and inarguability; I'm glad the defer to the former.

I've seen 3e brought up in response to this, and I've always found it odd. 3e always seemed to me like a veneer of consistency plastered over the same mish-mash of ideas and mechanisms that D&D has always had, excepting the primary conceit of the D20-mechanism as default arbiter. Certainly in play it always seems to end up with just as many situations requiring DM arbitration as any other D&D. Beyond that, 3e has a whole host of problems of its' own that people one sub-forum over are bemoaning to this day, some of which I believe came about because the devs were keeping their eye on the consistency ball more and making these grand mechanisms work rather than focusing on enjoyable play experience (specific to anti-magic, I'm thinking of checking and recalculating all derived stats when your character is hit by a _Dispel Magic_, part of the balance of monks/certain other builds being how well they function in non-magical situations which may almost never show up, the nightmare of a _Disjunction_ going off, epic CR monsters that were intended to be an unstoppable threat but turn to mush if you can trap them in an AMF, and similar). In my mind, 3e's (unsuccessful) bid for consistency caused as many problems as it solved. Which is not to say I think all its' ideas were bad/could work in 5e. Normal/Ex./Spell-like/Supernatural tags would work fine in 5e. Honestly, any technical jargon system which was tag-based rather than exhaustive-exclusive/categorical could work, so long as it got out of the way when people didn't care/need them. 




> As for tiny hut, the first thing that smart attackers are going to do is cover it in mud or paint so that those inside can't see out. Then they cover it in rocks so that when the spells ends, rocks fall and everyone dies. For bonus pain, they cover the hut in a bonfire and keep it fed for a few hours.
> 
> *Or, better still, they just leave.*


Emphasis added. This is always the best response to questions of Tiny Huts, 5 minute workdays, and the like. If the PCs rest too frequently, it is likely that the situation they are facing will change. That, if anything, is the central premise/game pressure of D&D. It used to also include torches and rations to help with the enforcing the theme, but in general if the PCs never feel they can't go recharge, it is entirely reasonable that they will attempt to do so.




> Maybe it is mentioned, but that's just fluff


As others have mentioned, fluff is a game mechanic distinction in MtG and D&D 4e, and not elsewhere. 




> What is magic, and the interactions between spells and magic is a topic that is deserving of more space being devoted to it in both the PHB and DMG.


It is, but also not too much, lest the game become more about the mechanics of the game than about the playing of the game.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> when I tell them the plague of worms shouldn't have been dispellable


 Given that I was referring to dragon breath, I honestly don't care as I've never seen that spell/ability used at the table.  
What splat book is that from? I just did a quick search in my r20 compendium and it comes up with 'no results found' - my sources in r20 are PHB, DMG, MM, SCAG, XGTE, TCoE, Volo's, Fizban's, Mord's (the original).

----------


## Boci

> Given that I was referring to dragon breath, I honestly don't care as I've never seen that spell/ability used at the table.  
> What splat book is that from? I just did a quick search in my r20 compendium and it comes up with 'no results found' - my sources in r20 are PHB, DMG, MM, SCAG, XGTE, TCoE, Volo's, Fizban's, Mord's (the original).


  Its an ability of the Star Spawn Larva Mage. Most recently reprinted in Monsters of the Multiverse, and that before that in (edit incoming) Mords.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Its an ability of the Star Spawn Larva Mage. Most recently reprinted in Monsters of the Multiverse, and that before that in (edit incoming)


  OK, I'll check my star spawn, I have used a few of them in the game so  I think they were in the original Mord's. Thanks. Yeah, it's in there.
Hmm, it's not a spell, so I don't think that a Paladin's Cleansing Touch removes it.  
That's a right nasty ability.  :Small Eek:

----------


## Boci

> OK, I'll check my star spawn, I have used a few of them in the game so  I think they were in the original Mord's. Thanks. Yeah, it's in there.


  I'll tell my players about this next time we meet, hopefully on Thursday. One of them has like 2 games in pathfinder, both years ago, I doubt he would know the distinction between supernatural and extraordinary abilities, or even that they were a thing, and the other two have never even touched any edition that isn't 5e. So if they say "that's stupid" its safe to conclude it might not just be previous edition bias causing issues with the 5 way of handling it. If however non of them have an issue with it, then sure I'll be willing to admit that maybe the system is more intuitive than I was giving it credit for.




> Hmm, it's not a spell, so I don't think that a Paladin's Cleansing Touch removes it.  
> That's a right nasty ability.


  Yeah, its definitely not a spell, no argument there, my players accepted that as well (the warlock wanted to counter it, but accepted he counld't). However when I tell them its not magical and therefor cannot be dispelled, I think they'll take issue with that.

----------


## Keltest

> I'll tell my players about this next time we meet, hopefully on Thursday. One of them has like 2 games in pathfinder, both years ago, I doubt he would know the distinction between supernatural and extraordinary abilities, or even that they were a thing, and the other two have never even touched any edition that isn't 5e. So if they say "that's stupid" its safe to conclude it might not just be previous edition bias causing issues with the 5 way of handling it. If however non of them have an issue with it, then sure I'll be willing to admit that maybe the system is more intuitive than I was giving it credit for.


I mean, like I said, you can have opinions on any specific instance, thats not unreasonable. I think Star Spawns being this entirely alien means it makes sense that they dont use magic in any traditional sense, but thats just a matter of degrees at that point.

----------


## Boci

> I mean, like I said, you can have opinions on any specific instance, thats not unreasonable. I think Star Spawns being this entirely alien means it makes sense that they dont use magic in any traditional sense, but thats just a matter of degrees at that point.


  Again, to me its not "is it magical / isn't it?" It's presentation. I've been playing this game for years and I never not noticed it, and if the players who have only ever played 5e, but have multiple games under their belt with it, will be surprised to learn that Plague of Worms and Hurl Through Hell aren't magical, then I think its reasonable to claim that 5e hasn't presented this aspect of the game that well.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yeah, its definitely not a spell, no argument there, my players accepted that as well (the warlock wanted to counter it, but accepted he counld't). However when I tell them its not magical and therefor cannot be dispelled, I think they'll take issue with that.


Would your players object to not being able to dispel a Dragon's Frightful Presence?

----------


## Boci

> Would your players object to not being able to dispel a Dragon's Frightful Presence?


  Probably not, because "dragons are scary" doesn't sound magical, but "worms that cannot be interacted with as creatures appear out of nowhere and infest you" do.

  I'll be able to tell you for certain on Thursday night.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Literally could have resulted in a TPK in my last session has I been using these guidelines. Coincidence? Maybe. But a pretty strong rebuke to the "its all theoretical" line of thinking.


It actually isnt.

Your group followed what my expectation wasyour group considered the situation at hand, and came to satisfactory resolution.

There was no need to appeal to the higher wisdom of a designer to resolve the issue.
You had it covered.

Ultimately the game comes down to the decisions you make, not what Jeremy Crawford, or Gary Gygax, or Monte Cook tell you.

----------


## Boci

> It actually isnt.
> 
> Your group followed what my expectation wasyour group considered the situation at hand, and came to satisfactory resolution.


  Because I had no idea the rule/guidline even existed. Yeah I agree, problematic rules aren't a problem if you don't know they exist.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Yeah, its definitely not a spell, no argument there, my players accepted that as well (the warlock wanted to counter it, but accepted he counld't).  However when I tell them its not magical and therefor cannot be dispelled, I think they'll take issue with that.


 Why would they do that? Star spawn are from another reality, and they do weird stuff.  That 'recharge' thing is like dragonbreath, but unlike dragonbreath it is persistent.  The way to deal with it is to end up making the save. (Which design wise I am not sure I have a lot of love for, but it's like a grapple from a monster...make a save to get out of it).   


> I mean, like I said, you can have opinions on any specific instance, thats not unreasonable. I think Star Spawns being this entirely alien means it makes sense that they dont use magic in any traditional sense, but thats just a matter of degrees at that point.


 Yes, similar to the point I was trying to articulate.

----------


## Boci

> Why would they do that? Star spawn are from another reality, and they do weird stuff.  That 'recharge' thing is like dragonbreath, but unlike dragonbreath it is persistent.  The way to deal with it is to end up making the save. (Which design wise I am not sure I have a lot of love for, but it's like a grapple from a monster...make a save to get out of it).    Yes, similar to the point I was trying to articulate.


  Well haven't spoken to my players yet, but just told me friend this. They've DMed 5e for years, never DMed 3.5 or PF, played one game but didn't know what supernatural and extraordinary meant (I checked). And their response to "Is Hurl Through Hell magical" was - "it has to be" and when I explained why not they commented:

*"They're even careful to use the word transport

Not teleport

Like they intentionally engineered the ability that way

But like. Yeah, even kn a worldbuilding level, taking into consideration natural law

Only magic can move you between realms"*

  and when I explained the line of thinking, and the arguments put forth in this thread they said:

*"....what?!

But they don't. Nowhere in the rules have I read that"*

  So yeah. Like it, hate it, personal choice, but this this aspect of the game is NOT as obvious to people as some posters in this thread is claiming. Even new players / DMs who had little to no experience with previous editions are being surprised by it.




> The way to deal with it is to end up making the save. (Which design wise I am not sure I have a lot of love for, but it's like a grapple from a monster...make a save to get out of it).


  Or you/your allies can kill the monsters grappling/restraining you, which isn't an option for Plague of Worms, and this I feel will be a core reason behind my players rejection of "nope, not magical, can't dispel it" stance.

----------


## animorte

> then I think its reasonable to claim that 5e hasn't presented this aspect of the game that well.


I am going to second this. I can definitely see the arguments for these things not being inherently magical (or spells). There are good points to be made, but I dont think the concept of that third structure has been clearly laid out enough to separate it from spells and magic, aside from just saying, its not those things.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Because I had no idea the rule/guidline even existed. Yeah I agree, problematic rules aren't a problem if you don't know they exist.


The focus for 5e is different from 3e, it is not about system mastery.
Jeremy Crawford, has stated  that _even_ the Sage Advice Column is just his opinion, and should not be Weaponized and used against DMs.

The text and your groups thoughts on the text were enough.

Keltests preferred method of resolution vis a vis Magic, and your own groups can co-exist in the same system.

Now let us imagine, that more strident guidance was given, satisfying only a single groups point of view.  One group is happy, and one group is looking for a  RPG system that better fits their vision.

As I stated before, I do agree that PHB and DMG should examine the issue of magical interactions in greater depth.

----------


## Boci

> The focus for 5e is different from 3e, it is not about system mastery.


  This point has been echoed repeated in this discussions, but doesn't seem relevant to my friend who started with 5e and has only ever DMed 5e, multiple games across multiple years, and their response to finding this out now was literally "...what?"

----------


## NichG

This sounds like another argument for better metaphysics fluff being really essential...

For example: 

- There are energies which behave in conceptually-reinforcing manners, and which are just part of the underlying physics of the setting. Generally speaking, anything that would remove even one of these forces from being accessible would act, at minimum, as an unresistable disintegration as the balance of these forces is as much responsible for rocks being stable as for dragon fire (which means that in practice, such effects are beyond even the scope of what can be accomplished by magic or the acts of deities - maybe some sort of Far Realm Elder Evil or emplaced artifact could do such things, but even a 9th level spell shouldn't be able to 'turn off elemental fire in an area' any more than 'turn off the nuclear strong force' would be reasonable for a spell to do)

- Schools of practice of magic as an art or technique involve some sort of interface that connects the movements and behaviors of these energies to will of the practitioner. The purpose of this is that the will determines the form and pattern of energies, which selects the effect. The exertion of will to shape the effect initially is much greater than what is required to maintain the shape once it has been formed, which is why some spell effects can even persist without concentration - it's the pattern of energies that makes the effect, not the will itself. And that pattern of energies would have the same effect if it occurred naturally without having will behind it.

- Enchanted items take a snapshot of that will and freeze it into the item along with the interface.

- That interface and process of will guiding energy into pattern is the thing which is susceptible to disruption. Antimagic fields, etc are signal jammers that emit sufficient noise that the will of a caster is drowned out within the area. Dispel effects 'spike' the energy patterns in such a way that they tend to return to their natural equilibria, losing any inertia in their (passive) shaping - basically after a dispel, another 'large expenditure of will' is needed to return to the previous state, something which magic items build up on their own over time because the structures to do so have been frozen into the item. Disjunctions can actually burn out the interface itself.

- Some effects or properties exhibited naturally by creatures use this same construct of connecting will to energy - those can be dispelled, suppressed by AMFs, etc, have an interface structure, have the same need for a spike of will and (sometimes) a slow trickle to maintain, etc. 

- Some effects or properties exhibited naturally by creatures are rather based on the presence of aspected energies - even complicated interleaved patterns of such comparable to the sorts of things that spells do - and those properties work without having to be specifically shaped and molded by will. As a result, such things do not get suppressed by AMFs, cannot be dispelled, etc. This is why undead don't just de-animate in an AMF. Similarly, this is why its best to use something like a bound elemental or trapped soul or similar thing to power a golem rather than relying purely on spells to animate objects or even item-crafting types of techniques, as that way you can have golems who can't just be trivially dispelled. 

- Dead magic areas, unlike AMFs, are places where the stuff that makes up the 'interface' very quickly evaporates or becomes drained away. 

Anyhow, something like that...

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Who cares what Crawford said, if your group found a resolution that was satisfying?

You brought up 3e as an example of what you found was good design, so people responded accordingly.

Now you are stating, whoopssome of us only started playing in 5e, and just found out that Jeremy Crawford has posted a bunch of things online, that Crawford himself has distanced himself from.

You are welcome to grab the feeling of dissatisfaction from the jaws of victory, but why?

----------


## Boci

> Who cares what Crawford said, if your group found a resolution that was satisfying?


  I don't. I care that people in this thread have stated this is how it was from the beginning and that its stupid to think otherwise, and my point has been the presentation is lacking. I also take issue with the repeatedly made claim this this is an issue because of 3.5. I take issue with the multiple posters asking "Why would your players object to this ruling?" as if they are wrong to do so.

  As I have said before, I don't think its wrong to have fantastical abilities that aren't magical. But if people who got into 5e without ever playing 3.5 first, have been DMing and playing 5e for years, haven't realised this distinction exists, then its not well presented. And that has always been what I opposed, regardless of what other people try to make my argument out to be.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Or you/your allies can kill the monsters grappling/restraining you, which isn't an option for Plague of Worms, and this I feel will be a core reason behind my players rejection of "nope, not magical, can't dispel it" stance.


Yeah, it's an outlier, but then that monster is CR 16 so I guess it needed nastier abilities. Problem is, with the new Mord's WoTC has chosen to double down on the 'that's not a spell' when the stuff was originally for the NPC a spell .... which I think is probably more frustrating for you and your table.  


> I am going to second this. I can definitely see the arguments for these things not being inherently magical (or spells).  
> There are good points to be made, but I dont think the concept of that third structure has been clearly laid out enough to separate it from spells and magic, aside from just saying, its not those things.


 That's a fair criticism, particularly as we take a look at their choices in the new Mord's ...

----------


## Boci

> Yeah, it's an outlier, but then that monster is CR 16 so I guess it needed nastier abilities. Problem is, with the new Mord's WoTC has chosen to double down on the 'that's not a spell' when the stuff was originally for the NPC a spell .... which I think is probably more frustrating for you and your table.


  No, you're misunderstandanding. A spell that isn't a spell is fine, *as long as it is still magical*.

  This is the sticking point. As I said, the warlock was fine with not being able to counter the ability. They accepted no questions or complaining, and I don't have an issue with that either.

  The issue here, for me, and my friend who got into 5e, and quite possibly my players (that pending), is that there are abilities that sound magical to players, even new ones with minimal 3.5 experience, and yet aren't, and *this isn't explained well*.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> and *this isn't explained well*.


 It isn't explained any better in the new Mord's, for my money.

----------


## Boci

> It isn't explained any better in the new Mord's, for my money.


  Then it continues to be a problem. I was just clarifying because you seem stuck on the word "spell", which has never been an issue for me or any group I know. "Not all magic is a spell" is fine. "Hurl Through Hell isn't magical" that stumped me, and my friend who only DMs 5e.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I was just clarifying because you seem stuck on the word "spell",


 Nope, you seem to have me confused with someone else, or have utterly missed my earlier point.

----------


## Boci

> Nope, you seem to have me confused with someone else, or have utterly missed my earlier point.


  You definitely mentioned the 'that's not a spell' thing. I was clarifying that wasn't relevant to me or my group.

----------


## animorte

> You definitely mentioned the 'that's not a spell' thing. I was clarifying that wasn't relevant to me or my group.


Either way, I agreed with you and Korvin agreed with me, so




> I am going to second this.





> That's a fair criticism

----------


## Reach Weapon

> I personally believe it does, however; that means that since people pass freely from the inside to out, if something did tunnel up from below it, the party would tumble down into the shaft, ending the spell when the casting character did.


I don't know that necessarily follows, as the wording I see is "can pass" which would usually indicate it's voluntary, rather than automatic.

(Not to derail the the extended tangent this topic has included.)

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> "Not all magic is a spell" is fine. "Hurl Through Hell isn't magical" that stumped me, and my friend who only DMs 5e.


That is the interesting aspect of 5e, the system works, regardless of the interpretation used.

Hurl Through Hell, certainly strikes me as magic.  Yet even if one took the view that the ability was not magical, the system still functions, though specific interactions will vary between the interpretations.

----------


## Boci

> That is the interesting aspect of 5e, the system works, regardless of the interpretation used.
> 
> Hurl Through Hell, certainly strikes me as magic.  Yet even if one took the view that the ability was not magical, the system still functions, though specific interactions will vary between the interpretations.


  Not really unique to 5e. A 3.5 DM could make dragonbreath work through an anti-magic field and the system would still work.

----------


## Imbalance

Just $.02, but I agree with Boci about the concept of what is magic vs. spells being poorly presented.  Likewise, I would never have known about it if not for this forum.  I came to accept it, or at least a version of it, when I sought to learn what would happen should a beholder gaze upon another beholder:  should they both fall?  In light of the really well hidden explanation, I think not.

As for tiny hut, I haven't arrived at the opportunity to have an elder black pudding slowly drip down onto the dome, but I have plans.

----------


## OvisCaedo

> Would your players object to not being able to dispel a Dragon's Frightful Presence?


To be honest, and it might just be me on this, I actually DON'T think a dragon's frightful presence should be something nonmagical. (I'm aware it was also EX in 3.5, mind you). Nonmagical fear effects just... don't seem to me like they should exist. At least, against players. 

A great martial warrior being brave and reckless and charging into danger is about as iconic and natural as you can get; having a high wisdom save is not nearly so guaranteed. It's a number overriding what SHOULD be a personality trait. And with how crippling the "frightened" condition is to melee martials in 5e, it kind of matters a lot more than 3.5's mere "shaken" did even if that felt similarly illogical to have some characters be susceptible to.

A character can be played to be valiant in the face of danger and risk all the time, constantly facing dire threats, and then a dragon shows up and "oh wow whoa that's way too scary i don't want to approach that"

----------


## Keltest

> To be honest, and it might just be me on this, I actually DON'T think a dragon's frightful presence should be something nonmagical. (I'm aware it was also EX in 3.5, mind you). Nonmagical fear effects just... don't seem to me like they should exist. At least, against players. 
> 
> A great martial warrior being brave and reckless and charging into danger is about as iconic and natural as you can get; having a high wisdom save is not nearly so guaranteed. It's a number overriding what SHOULD be a personality trait. And with how crippling the "frightened" condition is to melee martials in 5e, it kind of matters a lot more than 3.5's mere "shaken" did even if that felt similarly illogical to have some characters be susceptible to.
> 
> A character can be played to be valiant in the face of danger and risk all the time, constantly facing dire threats, and then a dragon shows up and "oh wow whoa that's way too scary i don't want to approach that"


I mean the counterpoint to that is that if they were actually that brave, they would have a good wisdom save. Just like you aren't a professional doctor at level 1 with +2 to medicine from proficiency. If the mechanics of your character don't support the fiction, you probably built it wrong.

----------


## Boci

> I mean the counterpoint to that is that if they were actually that brave, they would have a good wisdom save. Just like you aren't a professional doctor at level 1 with +2 to medicine from proficiency. If the mechanics of your character don't support the fiction, you probably built it wrong.


  So clerics and druids are universally braver than fighters? Even if the fighter spends a feat on proficiency, divine casters already get that, and they will have the higher wisdom score. That doesn't seem like a good approach. Whether or not you are brave should be a fluff thing. It's "I'm going to do the right thing, even if the consequences for me are unpleasant" vs. "I recognise this is wrong, but if I try to do something about it that could end badly for me, so, sucks to be those peasants?" It's roleplay, your wisdom save modifier shouldn't be dictating it.

----------


## OvisCaedo

Wisdom saves and scores correspond to a LOT of things that have nothing to do with bravery. Bravery against the mundane is a very tiny portion of what it contains. You're only brave if you're also highly resistant to (almost) all forms of mental manipulation by magic? When also, such a score isn't even asked for against 99% of terrifying monsters and situations, just... dragons, Baphomet, Borborgymos (a drunk giant??), Red Abishai, and the Tarrasque?

I guess the Tarrasque at least IS supposed to be that terrifying. Supposedly. Maybe not if you're a druid or cleric apparently.

edit: this is WAY off topic though so, I should drop it!

----------


## diplomancer

> Wisdom saves and scores correspond to a LOT of things that have nothing to do with bravery. Bravery against the mundane is a very tiny portion of what it contains. You're only brave if you're also highly resistant to (almost) all forms of mental manipulation by magic? When also, such a score isn't even asked for against 99% of terrifying monsters and situations, just... dragons, Baphomet, Borborgymos (a drunk giant??), Red Abishai, and the Tarrasque?
> 
> I guess the Tarrasque at least IS supposed to be that terrifying. Supposedly. Maybe not if you're a druid or cleric apparently.


Being frightened is really not a choice. Even what you do when you're frightened many times isn't a choice either. But if you want a bit more granularity to the condition, I'd have another Wisdom save to approach the creature you're frightened of, or maybe give high-level martials a class feature that allows them to approach opponents even if they're frightened of them.

----------


## Boci

> Being frightened is really not a choice. Even what you do when you're frightened many times isn't a choice either. But if you want a bit more granularity to the condition, I'd have another Wisdom save to approach the creature you're frightened off, or maybe give high-level martials a class feature that allows them to approach opponents even if they're frightened of them.


  OvisCaedo's problem isn't "martials aren't immune to frightened", it's "martials can be given the frightened condition through non-magical means". If its magic, then that sucks, but it doesn't say anything about your character if magic makes you feel something.

----------


## Lord Vukodlak

What if... we removed Tiny Huts barrier capabilities and the spell simply provided a warm dry place for players to rest, as a bonus the caster can move in and out freely he just can't have more then one up at a time.

----------


## diplomancer

> OvisCaedo's problem isn't "martials aren't immune to frightened", it's "martials can be given the frightened condition through non-magical means". If its magic, then that sucks, but it doesn't say anything about your character if magic makes you feel something.


But whether you get frightened by something _shouldn't_ have anything to do with whether the fear is magical or not. And saying "it should be my decision" feels odd, because that's simply not how fear works. Saying "my character is brave, he never gets scared" is somewhat akin to saying "my character is a great archer, he never misses his target"

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> What if... we removed Tiny Huts barrier capabilities and the spell simply provided a warm dry place for players to rest, as a bonus the caster can move in and out freely he just can't have more then one up at a time.


That, or made Tiny Hut (and all the "force barrier" effects like _wall of force_ or _force cage_) have HP and a damage threshold. A passing giant or dragon should be able to smash down your little hut or burst through the barrier by main force. Maybe not effortlessly, but it shouldn't require one particular spell only found on two lists at high levels.

----------


## NichG

> So clerics and druids are universally braver than fighters? Even if the fighter spends a feat on proficiency, divine casters already get that, and they will have the higher wisdom score. That doesn't seem like a good approach. Whether or not you are brave should be a fluff thing. It's "I'm going to do the right thing, even if the consequences for me are unpleasant" vs. "I recognise this is wrong, but if I try to do something about it that could end badly for me, so, sucks to be those peasants?" It's roleplay, your wisdom save modifier shouldn't be dictating it.


That's different than whether you are affected by fear though. It's a trite saying, but 'courage is feeling afraid and doing the right thing anyhow'.

There are a lot of improvements that could be made to the fear system (and in general things that exert mental controls on characters), so if this really really bothers you I think it makes more sense to do that bit right than to end up having to make things magical or supernatural that don't have to be. Also generally making fear more common rather than restricted to a few monstrous sources or active intimidation circumstances.

Like e.g. a number of things could call for a morale check - an ally of equal or higher HD being killed, an enemy demonstrating any ability or power that vastly outclasses one side of a fight, etc. A failed morale check means you have to choose between 'fight, flight, or give in to fear'. If you choose to fight, you voluntarily give up the right to take measured, careful actions, suffer disadvantage for any defensive rolls you're making, but you can be aggressive against the enemy normally. If you choose flight, you voluntarily give up the right to take any aggressive actions against the enemy but you can defend yourself and retreat normally. If you choose to give into fear, or if you do not sustain your 'fight' or 'flight' decision, you have disadvantage on all rolls and have a 50% chance of losing your action each round. Make things to 'fix' failed morale be common actions in the system people can take (Charisma-based ability check is all it takes, for example), or have certain events in the flow of battle automatically give a second check to recover morale (your side takes down an enemy commander, etc).

So a brave warrior might be one who ends up struck by fear, chooses to fight anyhow, and accepts the greater risk to themselves that disadvantage creates. The player can't choose 'I am not affected', but they can choose how they're affected in order to depict different character attitudes.

----------


## Boci

> But whether you get frightened by something _shouldn't_ have anything to do with whether the fear is magical or not. And saying "it should be my decision" feels odd, because that's simply not how fear works. Saying "my character is brave, he never gets scared" is somewhat akin to saying "my character is a great archer, he never misses his target"


  Sure, its not how love, obsession, greed and peace of mind works either though, and yet players get to decide when their characters get feel that, unless of course magic is involved. Comparing "how your character feels" to "hitting a mark with an arrow" feels odd to me.




> So a brave warrior might be one who ends up struck by fear, chooses to fight anyhow, and accepts the greater risk to themselves that disadvantage creates. The player can't choose 'I am not affected', but they can choose how they're affected in order to depict different character attitudes.


  Yes, but they physically can't approach the target. And it is a bit arbitrary. Dragons are pretty powerful, but there are more powerful creatures that don't induce the frightened condition.

  And if players can choose not to be effected by desire for revenge, greed, obsession, love, it does stand out a bit that fear is apparently the one emotion they don't get to control.

  Making fear effect explicitly magical solves this problem.

----------


## NichG

> Yes, but they physically can't approach the target. And it is a bit arbitrary. Dragons are pretty powerful, but there are more powerful creatures that don't induce the frightened condition.
> 
>   And if players can choose not to be effected by desire for revenge, greed, obsession, love, it does stand out a bit that fear is apparently the one emotion they don't get to control.
> 
>   Making fear effect explicitly magical solves this problem.


Whereas I think it would be entirely reasonable to have, say, a creature that is - nonmagically - so beautiful that its presence is distracting to people, or a feat or class ability that lets someone non-magically insult someone so much that they take a penalty for ignoring the insult. Or to have a weapon that causes so much pain with its injuries that its hard to concentrate on things like fighting skillfully or casting spells or aiming a bow - not such that 'you can't do the thing' but such that 'it becomes harder to do the thing'. The trick is to make it so those things do not force action, but rather present the player with a choice - you can act as the force is trying to push you to do, or you can refuse the force at the cost of having to put forth effort to do so that distracts you from other things you're trying to accomplish.

I probably wouldn't make blank-slate 'greed' or 'love' effects like that, because those things depend on details more than something like fear. But someone who has been starved for a week having some kind of risk of a mental penalty associated with refusing food? Sure.

----------


## Boci

> Whereas I think it would be entirely reasonable to have, say, a creature that is - nonmagically - so beautiful that its presence is distracting to people, or a feat or class ability that lets someone non-magically insult someone so much that they take a penalty for ignoring the insult. Or to have a weapon that causes so much pain with its injuries that its hard to concentrate on things like fighting skillfully or casting spells or aiming a bow - not such that 'you can't do the thing' but such that 'it becomes harder to do the thing'. The trick is to make it so those things do not force action, but rather present the player with a choice - you can act as the force is trying to push you to do, or you can refuse the force at the cost of having to put forth effort to do so that distracts you from other things you're trying to accomplish.


  Sure, I'm not saying that's a terrible way to play the game, but currently those things don't exist in 5e, so it stands out that it only happens for fear. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for consistency here, which would mean either removing/not having non-magical fear, or adding other non-magical emotions.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sure, I'm not saying that's a terrible way to play the game, but currently those things don't exist in 5e, so it stands out that it only happens for fear. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for consistency here, which would mean either removing/not having non-magical fear, or adding other non-magical emotions.


There are absolutely non-magical charms out there. Run a bunch of monsters with them. More in 3PP, but I'm pretty sure its' a stock thing.

----------


## NichG

> Sure, I'm not saying that's a terrible way to play the game, but currently those things don't exist in 5e, so it stands out that it only happens for fear. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for consistency here, which would mean either removing/not having non-magical fear, or adding other non-magical emotions.


I mean, I'd also say that 'everything that isn't part of our natural world = magic' (or even 'supernatural') isn't something that should be reinforced by the game or setting design. You don't want there to be an effect that is 'only real world stuff works in this area' because then that's a hard counter to undead, constructs, elementals, abberations, ... really most of the entities in the game.

----------


## Boci

> I mean, I'd also say that 'everything that isn't part of our natural world = magic' (or even 'supernatural') isn't something that should be reinforced by the game or setting design. You don't want there to be an effect that is 'only real world stuff works in this area' because then that's a hard counter to undead, constructs, elementals, abberations, ... really most of the entities in the game.


  Sure, and you're entitled to that approach, but likewise OvisCaedo is entitled to think that non-magical frightened shouldn't be a thing in the game.




> There are absolutely non-magical charms out there. Run a bunch of monsters with them. More in 3PP, but I'm pretty sure its' a stock thing.


  If the DM agrees with that sure, but you might be surprised how many DMs run all charms as magical, given how you don't seem to be have considered this possibility.

----------


## Azuresun

> What if... we removed Tiny Huts barrier capabilities and the spell simply provided a warm dry place for players to rest, as a bonus the caster can move in and out freely he just can't have more then one up at a time.


No no, it's far simpler to have squads of burrowing creatures, every random encounter having a level 5 wizard on speed dial, and no army in the world making this invulnerable selective Wall of Force a cornerstone of their military strategy. That's much less work than a single application of the nerf bat to a poorly written and exploitable spell.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Boci

So had the session, and brought up the topic. They weren't as opposed to the idea as I thought they might be, and I did clarify that we weren't going redo the fight or anything, so it would only be going forwards. They didn't seem to have strong feelings on the matter one way or the other, and we ultimately decided to stick to the current method, whereby we're largely (but not exclusively) considered fantastical abilities to count as magical. There's just didn't seem to be a benefit to changing this. Magic resistance is probably the biggest mechanical difference, and it seemed neutral, monsters are more likely to have magical resistance, but they were also more likely to have non-magical abilities to bypass it. Antimagic field didn't even come up, and yeah the warlock didn't like the idea of losing their ability to interact these abilities via dispel magic.

  This seemed to be the issue, and what the conversation ultimately focused on. Is there any disadvantage to an ability being non-magical? No, its all buffs. Weapon damage being non-magical can be a drawback, but abilities? We couldn't think of a single example of when this would be a drawback. And it seemed like PCs were trading to ability to interact with these abilities via dispel magic for nothing. That is a small amount of interaction yes, but its still something, for no mechanical gain. And on the fluff side, none of us saw an advantage to making "fantastical abilities that aren't magical" more common. Several posters in this thread seemed to like this idea, and that's fine, but that comes down to taste, there's no inherent advantage one way or the other.

  At the same time of course, and we acknowledged this when we discussed it, there are always going to be edge cases. Colossus slayer definitely isn't magical, but what about open palm monk? Tranquillity is magical by the guidelines, but Quivering Palm, and we agreed that was some cool fluff to preserve, though in regards to this game it was all rhetorical, we won't reach level 17.

  The warlock pacts abilities remain an issue for me. I am leaning towards making them magical, though I understand it would be kinda cool for a 14th level+ feypact warlock to be facing a creature with magic resistance, and then use Dark Delirium and they wouldn't get advantage on their save. Still, that niche case, and I would allow the 10th level ability to effect to apply to all charms, so its not like there isn't some trade off in it for them.

----------


## Damon_Tor

> Well, shoot. Fleas really are a hard counter then, aren't they?


One casting of any first-level AoE damage spell should clear a whole party of fleas. It won't clear out internal parasites (full cover) so a better bet would be to infect the whole party with hookworms or something similar. But of course anything which teleports the party will clear all parasites from those creatures, as they get left behind. Anything we treat as a creature for the purposes of Tiny Hut would also be treated as a creature for the purposes of these other spells as well.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

9 Adventurers living off Iron Rations and Lembras bread is going to make a stench similar to 9 Marines living off MREs and Pemmican bars.

A Tiny Hut will keep you dry and warm, but does not come equipped with air freshener.

At some point during a long rest someone is going to need to use the latrine.ambush.

----------


## animorte

> 9 
> A Tiny Hut will keep you dry and warm, but does not come equipped with air freshener.


Prestidigitation exists though. I would be legitimately surprised if that many didnt have at least one with the needed cantrip.

----------


## Keltest

> Prestidigitation exists though. I would be legitimately surprised if that many didnt have at least one with the needed cantrip.


"High School Locker Room Axe Cloud" is not a substantially better odor. Presto cleans things, but it doesn't wash them.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Prestidigitation exists though. I would be legitimately surprised if that many didnt have at least one with the needed cantrip.


Interestingly enough, a strict reading of Prestidigitation, _could_ preclude using the Cantrip as air freshener.

The 1st bullet point of Prestidigitation states:
*You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint musical notes, or an odd odor.*

Most English speakers would not classify odd odors as generally being pleasant.  A Rat Bastard DM could state that one could make a fishy smell to cover the smell of a certain campfire sequence from Blazing Saddles.

I doubt most DMs would rule this waybut one never knows for sure.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Interestingly enough, a strict reading of Prestidigitation, _could_ preclude using the Cantrip as air freshener.
> 
> The 1st bullet point of Prestidigitation states:
> *You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint musical notes, or an odd odor.*
> 
> Most English speakers would not classify odd odors as generally being pleasant.  A Rat Bastard DM could state that one could make a fishy smell to cover the smell of a certain campfire sequence from Blazing Saddles.
> 
> I doubt most DMs would rule this waybut one never knows for sure.


Ok, I have to know. If there are odd odors... What would an even odor be?

----------


## stoutstien

> Ok, I have to know. If there are odd odors... What would an even odor be?


Anything you smell using only one nostril?

----------


## animorte

> The 1st bullet point of Prestidigitation states:
> *You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint musical notes, or an odd odor.*


According to the third point, it also cleans things (which admittedly may not work on biological substances): *You instantaneously clean or soil an object no larger than 1 cubic foot.*




> Most English speakers would not classify odd odors as generally being pleasant.


Odd isnt necessarily associated with pleasant or otherwise. Its just unfamiliar or unexpected. Id be willing to bet a lavender scented bubble bath would be wildly out of place amidst some smelly adventures.  :Small Tongue: 




> Anything you smell using only one nostril?


I like this logic, though I think it would be the other way around.

----------


## Witty Username

> "High School Locker Room Axe Cloud" is not a substantially better odor. Presto cleans things, but it doesn't wash them.


I believe you are conflating not bathing, and the cloudkill spell.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Prestidigitation exists though. I would be legitimately surprised if that many didnt have at least one with the needed cantrip.


That's good for 'just got inside from the outdoor nastiness' but not good for 'have to sleep in that nastiness.'

It's the difference between a Tide pen and a tent, basically.

----------


## animorte

> That's good for 'just got inside from the outdoor nastiness' but not good for 'have to sleep in that nastiness.'
> 
> It's the difference between a Tide pen and a tent, basically.


Agreed. But I think using a tent in this analogy is far off the mark since a tent doesnt actually clean anything. Its just shelter. Maybe you mean a tide pen and a wash cycle? Or a wet cloth vs a hot soapy shower.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Agreed. But I think using a tent in this analogy is far off the mark since a tent doesnt actually clean anything. Its just shelter. Maybe you mean a tide pen and a wash cycle? Or a wet cloth vs a hot soapy shower.


Oh no, I was saying that Tiny Hut was the tent, entirely different function than Prestidigitation.

Though irl given the choice I'd choose Prestidigitation every time and probably in game, I've never felt the need to take Tiny Hut.

----------


## animorte

> Oh no, I was saying that Tiny Hut was the tent, entirely different function than Prestidigitation.
> 
> Though irl given the choice I'd choose Prestidigitation every time and probably in game, I've never felt the need to take Tiny Hut.


Ah, makes more sense. Ive used it a couple times, but its rarely stood out as a necessity.

----------


## Keltest

> I believe you are conflating not bathing, and the cloudkill spell.


Not when there are 6 people in the space I'm not.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I think the solution I'm going to go with is as follows:

All "force constructs" have the following characteristics unless they otherwise have hit points/etc defined. They have AC = 10 + spell level. They have a damage threshold of 2*level. They have hit points = 10 * spell level[1].

So tiny hut? 12 AC, damage threshold of 4, 20 HP. Wall of force (at 5th level)? 15 AC, DT 10, 50 HP. Force cage (at 7th level)? 17 AC, DC 14, 70 HP.

[1] Was going to be 5x level with resistance to all damage, but that seemed like extra work.

----------


## Segev

Honestly, if nerfing _tiny hut_ because it's too potent a combat effect, I would just revert it to earlier editions' rules: the field doesn't keep out creatures or objects, just weather. You can even be generous in interpreting "weather" to extend to allowing a pseudo-igloo to pack itself in around the force dome in a blizzard, while leaving it possible to hurl an ice javelin of magic through it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Honestly, if nerfing _tiny hut_ because it's too potent a combat effect, I would just revert it to earlier editions' rules: the field doesn't keep out creatures or objects, just weather. You can even be generous in interpreting "weather" to extend to allowing a pseudo-igloo to pack itself in around the force dome in a blizzard, while leaving it possible to hurl an ice javelin of magic through it.


For me, it's less about tiny hut and more about the other force spells. The "nerfing" of tiny hut is more a convenient side effect of nerfing wall of force and force cage to make them not so obnoxious.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Ok, I have to know. If there are odd odors... What would an even odor be?


You ever been in a room for a long while, left, then came back and suddenly noticed there is a smell in that room you didn't notice before despite (or rather, because) the time you spent there? 

That's what I'd call an even odor. Your mind doesn't register it because it's a continuous, uneventful exposure.

----------


## Witty Username

> I think the solution I'm going to go with is as follows:
> 
> All "force constructs" have the following characteristics unless they otherwise have hit points/etc defined. They have AC = 10 + spell level. They have a damage threshold of 2*level. They have hit points = 10 * spell level[1].
> 
> So tiny hut? 12 AC, damage threshold of 4, 20 HP. Wall of force (at 5th level)? 15 AC, DT 10, 50 HP. Force cage (at 7th level)? 17 AC, DC 14, 70 HP.
> 
> [1] Was going to be 5x level with resistance to all damage, but that seemed like extra work.


I feel like the wall of force numbers are really low, like a CR 4 encounter would break through that in a couple rounds low. Any thing work a damn to restrain would probably break out of that in less than an action.

----------


## Amnestic

> I feel like the wall of force numbers are really low, like a CR 4 encounter would break through that in a couple rounds low. Any thing work a damn to restrain would probably break out of that in less than an action.


From a quick glance I think this is _mostly_ accurate though from looking at statblocks it holds up an entire action even for some creatures of up to CR15+

Adult red dragons break through with 2 of their 3 attacks due to their fire rider on the bite, but even ancient silver dragons at CR21 need all three attacks (with average damage) to smash through. It definitely varies depending on the type of creature in question (Planetars tear through it, Iron Golems not so much) but it occupying their entire turn with no save seems...eh, pretty okay to me? 

If you drop it against a CR9 creature - so _Medium_ difficulty for the level you get the spell at - they've generally got around a ~75% hit chance and will break through in ~4 successful attacks, at roughly 2 attacks per turn, so 2-3 rounds, from a glance. I think that's about right?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> From a quick glance I think this is _mostly_ accurate though from looking at statblocks it holds up an entire action even for some creatures of up to CR15+
> 
> Adult red dragons break through with 2 of their 3 attacks due to their fire rider on the bite, but even ancient silver dragons at CR21 need all three attacks (with average damage) to smash through. It definitely varies depending on the type of creature in question (Planetars tear through it, Iron Golems not so much) but it occupying their entire turn with no save seems...eh, pretty okay to me? 
> 
> If you drop it against a CR9 creature - so _Medium_ difficulty for the level you get the spell at - they've generally got around a ~75% hit chance and will break through in ~4 successful attacks, at roughly 2 attacks per turn, so 2-3 rounds, from a glance. I think that's about right?


Holding an enemy for 2 or 3 rounds is about right. Particularly beefy enemies being able to bust right through is also right. Being stuck forever unless you can teleport or cast distintegrate is not ok.

----------


## Witty Username

> If you drop it against a CR9 creature - so _Medium_ difficulty for the level you get the spell at - they've generally got around a ~75% hit chance and will break through in ~4 successful attacks, at roughly 2 attacks per turn, so 2-3 rounds, from a glance. I think that's about right?


Medium encounter is not worth much, by book recommendations the loss condition for a medium encounters is spending resources. A 5th level slot at all is a loss.

Hm, looking at the CR 9 sampling, Abominable Yeti, 2 rounds (one if it rolls well) and chilling gaze* can be used through the wall.
Bone Devil, 2 rounds, would be 1 if it wasn't relying on poison damage
Clay Golem, 2 rounds, possibly 1 if hasted
Cloud giant, has misty step
Fire giant, 1 round, 80% chance to hit the wall, average damage is more than half the walls damage per swing.
Glabrezu, 2 rounds probably since its damage is spead across 4 attacks
Grey slaad, 2-3 rounds
Nycaloth, has teleport
Treant, 1 round due to siege monster
Young blue dragon, 2 rounds
Young silver dragon, 2 rounds

All assuming that the recharge attacks that monsters have don't effect objects, I don't know enough statblocks off hand to know if wording is for intention or simplicity. But put simply if it is ruled that breath attacks affect the wall, it will probably do less than nothing.


*This maybe personal table rules cropping in, for me line of effect is from either the point of origin used for the effect or the cas
user depending on what makes sense for the effect (fireball is a bead thrown by the caster that explodes, but flame strike is a column of flame raning from the sky), so some effects won't be required to pass through the wall, also gaze attacks don't use line of effects, since seeing the creature is sufficient to cause the effect.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Medium encounter is not worth much, by book recommendations the loss condition for a medium encounters is spending resources. A 5th level slot at all is a loss.
> 
> Hm, looking at the CR 9 sampling, Abominable Yeti, 2 rounds (one if it rolls well) and chilling gaze* can be used through the wall.
> Bone Devil, 2 rounds, would be 1 if it wasn't relying on poison damage
> Clay Golem, 2 rounds, possibly 1 if hasted
> Cloud giant, has misty step
> Fire giant, 1 round, 80% chance to hit the wall, average damage is more than half the walls damage per swing.
> Glabrezu, 2 rounds probably since its damage is spead across 4 attacks
> Grey slaad, 2-3 rounds
> ...


CR = level is always the wrong answer. It's actually the _least_ appropriate encounter possible. Solos should be CR = level + 2-4, group encounters tend to average around CR = level / 2.

But let's look at a more appropriate normal encounter for a group of 4 level 9 characters. Let's make this a Hard encounter. Threshold for a Hard is 6400 adjusted XP. Threshold for a Deadly is 9600. So let's shoot for a round 8k adjusted XP, with 5-6 monsters. That's a 2x multiplier, so 4k total XP.

5 monsters: 800 XP each. That's between CR 3 (700 XP) and 4 (1100 XP), so let's err on the side of being harder. CR 4. That comes out to 11000 adjusted XP, so slightly above deadly. Ok, that's fine.
6 monsters: 667 XP each. Let's say CR 3, for 8400 total adjusted XP.

*Spoiler: average offensive stats for a CR 3*
Show


Melee attack modifier: 5.
DPR: 20



*Spoiler: average offensive stats for a CR 4*
Show


Melee attack modifier: 5.5.
DPR: 22.



So let's say you manage to trap 2 of them away from the rest (divide and conquer). You could bubble one of them, but let's be generous.

2x CR 3s: Let's say Knights, to pick something right on guidance for a CR 3. +5 attack, Two attacks dealing 10 damage each on average (2d6+3).
They hit the wall on a 10, 50% of the time, critting for 4d6+3 (average 17). But note the damage threshold of 10 for the wall. That means that they only deal damage 50% of the time on a hit (since the have to roll above average to deal any damage, but when they do they deal their full damage). So their average damage per hit is only 6.5 (half of their average damage above 10, which is 13) and 17 on a crit, since I'm too lazy to math that out right now. That means each knight averages 8.2 DPR against the wall. That ends up being just over 6 rounds of them beating on the wall.

2x CR 4s: Let's look at a few of them that are right on guidance.
* Iron cobra: can't break the wall at all, max damage on a normal hit is 9 and the poison does nothing.
* Orc War Chief: Math gets more complicated. They average 30 DPR at +6, two hits dealing between 6 and 24 damage. Let's say average 15, effective 2/3 of the time. So average damage on a hit is 12. They hit 60% of the time. So (not counting crits), they deal an average of 14 DPR to the wall. About 2 rounds.
* Wereboar: Basically a knight with stronger defenses. Same offensive output. 6 rounds for a pair of them.

So seems right. You can trap smaller things quite well; bigger meaner things break through in a few rounds. But I'd say that a single action that denies 4 turns (2 rounds of 2 people) is _plenty_ worth it. It's just not a "ok, fight's over" spell any more. Which is exactly right.

----------


## Witty Username

A action to deny 2 rounds to 2 creatures a thing that can be done with 1st to 3rd level spells pretty easily though. And tend to allow more affects.

Hypnotic Pattern for example, will do that pretty easily in a 5 creature encounter.

Ditto with web and gives your martials advantage on all their attacks to boot.

I don't see a reason why anyone would take Wall of Force at that point, especially since wall of stone is right next to it with double the HP to break, and has more freedom of shape to better trap more things.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> A action to deny 2 rounds to 2 creatures a thing that can be done with 1st to 3rd level spells pretty easily though. And tend to allow more affects.
> 
> Hypnotic Pattern for example, will do that pretty easily in a 5 creature encounter.
> 
> Ditto with web and gives your martials advantage on all their attacks to boot.
> 
> I don't see a reason why anyone would take Wall of Force at that point, especially since wall of stone is right next to it with double the HP to break, and has more freedom of shape to better trap more things.


I'd say that, in general, by default, action denial is under-costed. Hypnotic Pattern is notoriously strong. And that's 2 rounds to 2 creatures _worst case_. If, instead, you catch a dozen goblins behind it, they're never breaking through. Oh, and no save.  HP offers a save.

As for wall of stone...transparency can be a boon. So you trade "can see through it" for being slightly easier to break. And upcasting better--every spell slot higher strengthens wall of force but doesn't do much for wall of stone. And as it stands, there's rarely a use for wall of stone. Now it's more an even trade.

Edit: in general, reliability should be a hard trade off for power. More reliable == less power. Or MUCH higher cost. As it stands, wall of force is more reliable, more powerful, and the same cost as wall of stone.

----------


## stoutstien

> A action to deny 2 rounds to 2 creatures a thing that can be done with 1st to 3rd level spells pretty easily though. And tend to allow more affects.
> 
> Hypnotic Pattern for example, will do that pretty easily in a 5 creature encounter.
> 
> Ditto with web and gives your martials advantage on all their attacks to boot.
> 
> I don't see a reason why anyone would take Wall of Force at that point, especially since wall of stone is right next to it with double the HP to break, and has more freedom of shape to better trap more things.


Well its party friendly and doesn't matter if the target has condition immunities. Wall of stone shouldn't be on the wizard's list to begin with. Much stronger cleric/druid vibe.

----------


## Witty Username

> As for wall of stone...transparency can be a boon. So you trade "can see through it" for being slightly easier to break. And upcasting better--every spell slot higher strengthens wall of force but doesn't do much for wall of stone. And as it stands, there's rarely a use for wall of stone. Now it's more an even trade.


Transparency can also be a detriment, for example, teleportation, Nycaloth can teleport to an area it can see, that means it cannot teleport through a wall of stone. Effects that rely on sight lines but not line of effect are also blocked out, gaze attacks for my table would work that way, also stuff involving the frightened condition and some other magical effects.
Blocking sight was a boon, so wall of stone is slightly easier to break incomparison (technically possible with damage, but its not an easy number for alot of monsters).

As a 9th level slot, the Wall of force will have 90 HP, a Wall of Stone has 30 HP per inch of thickness and averages 6 inches thick, which puts it at 180 HP. Even taking into account the damage threshold (which won't be all that impactful by this level), the wall of stone will take much longer to break. Upcasting doesnt matter if upcasting doesnt get you anywhere.

This feels like less a more even trade and more wall of stone is just the better spell.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Transparency can also be a detriment, for example, teleportation, Nycaloth can teleport to an area it can see, that means it cannot teleport through a wall of stone. Effects that rely on sight lines but not line of effect are also blocked out, gaze attacks for my table would work that way, also stuff involving the frightened condition and some other magical effects.
> Blocking sight was a boon, so wall of stone is slightly easier to break incomparison (technically possible with damage, but its not an easy number for alot of monsters).
> 
> As a 9th level slot, the Wall of force will have 90 HP, a Wall of Stone has 30 HP per inch of thickness and averages 6 inches thick, which puts it at 180 HP. Even taking into account the damage threshold (which won't be all that impactful by this level), the wall of stone will take much longer to break. Upcasting doesnt matter if upcasting doesnt get you anywhere.
> 
> This feels like less a more even trade and more wall of stone is just the better spell.


A damage threshold of 18 actually matters a whole lot. A team of dwarves with picks will chew through a wall of stone post-haste, because every hit counts. A team of dwarves with picks _can't scratch a wall of force_. And there really aren't that many monsters that scale mostly by bigger per-hit damage--most scale with more attacks. So basically against most things that _aren't_ dragons or giants (ie the things that should break through these walls real fast), wall of force is exponentially better. A vampire, for instance, can't hurt the wall of force on an average hit. (17 damage).

Take, for instance, a purple worm. Base attack is 3d8+9 piercing, then 3d6+9 from the stinger (ignoring the poison). A damage threshold of 18 means that the tail does no damage about half the time and the bite loses well over 10% of its potency.

I could see giving the wall of force a few extra resistances (say resistant to all non-bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage). Then you use wall of force against casters and wall of stone against brutes.

Although had I truly the power to change things, I'd say that wall of stone should have a long cast time (10 minutes at least) and a long duration (multiple hours, non-concentration). Let it be for the more permanent fortifications/battlefield prep. As it stands, you pick up wall of force and don't look back, unless you're picking up wall of stone for the fortification aspect. And all the other "wall of" spells (except maybe wall of fire?) are "yeah, don't bother" except in very unusual circumstances.

As it stands currently, _wall of force_ is just a hard "I win" against everything except beholders, one or two mage stat blocks and stuff that can teleport. And force cage is even worse, since it denies a lot of teleports as well.

----------


## NichG

It'd be an interesting gimmick if force constructs either are undamaged (self-repairing/self-reinstantiating) or pop entirely. So maybe instead of low DT and scaling hitpoints, give it a high-ish and scaling DT, but basically 'zero hitpoints'. Then Wall of Stone is what you use when you need to hold off a stronger foe, whereas Wall of Force is what you use to totally no-sell weaker foes, but it just gets popped instantly if there's anything stronger in the mix.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It'd be an interesting gimmick if force constructs either are undamaged (self-repairing/self-reinstantiating) or pop entirely. So maybe instead of low DT and scaling hitpoints, give it a high-ish and scaling DT, but basically 'zero hitpoints'. Then Wall of Stone is what you use when you need to hold off a stronger foe, whereas Wall of Force is what you use to totally no-sell weaker foes, but it just gets popped instantly if there's anything stronger in the mix.


That's an interesting idea. Or maybe force constructs don't have HP as a total, but have "per turn" HP. It's a similar idea, but spread across a full turn. There's precedent in the Swallow abilities (regurgitation is based on taking >X damage _per turn_). You could extend it to "per round" (effectively having less HP but healing to full at the start of the caster's turn) as a middle ground.

----------

