Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So one of my players acquired third level spells and thought he found a truck sized loophole in Leomund's Tiny Hut. Here's a link to the spell for reference:
[link]http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/tinyHut.htm [/link]
I agreed with him that he could put up the sphere and use ranged weapons and spells from within and receive total concealment.
His next claim was that he could keep opponents out of the sphere. His justification was that it is a bubble of force that protects against weather and therefore protects against physical entry except for ranged weapons and spells. I told him that was incorrect - people can pass in and out. He then questioned why there is the limitation on up to 9 people in the sphere, despite the fact that a 20' radius sphere is larger than 9 squares on the battlemat. I told him that if more than 9 people entered the structure, the spell would fail.
Finally, he played with the lighting in the hut. The hut is opaque, so turning the light off means it gets dark inside. Again, I don't have a problem with this, but my position is that if it's dark inside, then you can't see outside to use missile attacks.
Here's my question: how sound are my arguments. I don't mind players using spells creatively, but I have a real issue with a 3rd level spell creating a one-sided wall of force or a one-sided darkness.
Well, from the standpoint of realism concerning vision from inside to outside, consider a darkened room with a tinted or two-way mirror. The darkened room is dark enough that people outside, in brighter light, can't really see inside very well, while those inside are in relative darkness, but can see through the window quite well (I picture a police line-up room). As for the 3rd level spell issue, I'd refer you to Blacklight, a 3rd level spell from the Spell Compendium that creates a sphere of total darkness through which the caster can see normally. Granted, only the caster can see through it and not the whole party, but it's total darkness, which makes everyone else in the area effectively blind, which severely hurts the caster's enemies (and possibly allies). Tiny Hut is not a one-sided wall of force, and I agree with the idea that after more than 9 people enter the area, the spell would fail. From the spell description, you wouldn't even have to lower the interior light level, because it says the spell is always transparent from within, and alway opaque from outside, constantly granting total concealment to those within against any outside enemy. It effectively is one-sided darkness, but only at range, and it is not mobile. It seems pretty well in line with other 3rd level effects like Blacklight or Invisibility Sphere to me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
From the spell description, you wouldn't even have to lower the interior light level, because it says the spell is always transparent from within, and alway opaque from outside, constantly granting total concealment to those within against any outside enemy.
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the light issue, what happened was that the caster was in the sphere casting spells at enemies outside. An enemy entered the sphere, so the caster turned off the lights inside to hide from the enemy. He argued that the sphere would be dark because it is opaque from the outside. I didn't have an issue with that, but then the player claimed that the character could still see the enemies outside the sphere. I realize it's reasonable to be in darkness and see enemies outside, but my sense of the sphere is that the ability to adjust light is more about creating light when it is dark outside; not creating darkness when it is light outside. It seemed a little much to have concealment from a range and from foes within the sphere.
To be able to see enemies outside the sphere, light energy would have to be able to penetrate the sphere to project the image of the enemy on the PC's retina. If light energy does not enter the sphere, nothing can be seen outside the sphere, as you 'see' courtesy of the light waves reflecting off the enemy, in this case, and being projected on your retina.
Therefore, he has to choose. Do light waves enter the sphere from the outside or do they not? If yes, then those inside can see those outside, but when the lights are off inside, if it is light outside, those inside can see what is inside. If light waves do not enter the sphere from the outside, then those inside cannot see those outside, and if the lights are off inside, it is completely dark.
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the light issue, what happened was that the caster was in the sphere casting spells at enemies outside. An enemy entered the sphere, so the caster turned off the lights inside to hide from the enemy. He argued that the sphere would be dark because it is opaque from the outside. I didn't have an issue with that, but then the player claimed that the character could still see the enemies outside the sphere. I realize it's reasonable to be in darkness and see enemies outside, but my sense of the sphere is that the ability to adjust light is more about creating light when it is dark outside; not creating darkness when it is light outside. It seemed a little much to have concealment from a range and from foes within the sphere.
I can see your point, and after a more thorough reading, I agree with you. Total concealment against foes outside the sphere is fine. But in order to be able to see everything clearly outside the sphere while inside it, the natural lighting conditions outside the sphere must apply inside (though the caster can provide dim illumination if it is naturally dark outside the sphere), because light would have to be able to pass through the sphere in order for those inside to see outside of it. So if this sphere was placed in a well-lit environment, I would have to agree that attacks made inside the sphere suffer no concealment miss chance unless the area is already darkened.
|
The telling turn of the phrase is, "you can light the interior dimly, or extinguish the light." A darkness effect from this, IMHO, is an assumption. You are extinguishing the aforementioned dim light, not all light.
The simplest assumption, then, is the light from outside the 'hut still penetrates. The darkness of night also penetrates at night, and can be negated by a dim lighting effect. Assuming a darkness effect is beyond the simple explanation of the spell as written.
I almost wish there was a body of common law precedence to the RAW somewhere. As a snide aside, please noone assume the prior sentence is an accusation of ruleslawyry in any way/shape/form.
So, do the people arguing that light has to enter the dome in order for people inside to see what's going on outside also have a problem with invisible people being able to see anything? How do you feel about darkvision? There's no light at all, but people can still see...
I feel that this is a level of real-world examination to which D&D (and most game systems, really) does not stand up to close scrutiny. The spell as described, and, IMO, intended by the authors, works within a fairly broad description. Dome keeps out weather, can't be seen into, can be seen out of, and you can turn the light off inside it. Add any more detailed analysis into exactly how it works and next thing you know, you're wondering why a lvl 0 gnome farmer is more intimidating than a lvl 1 half-ord barbarian.
|
|
Some people play yachtzee. Some people go duck hunting. Some people do puzzles, and glue them when they're done, and put them on the wall.
And some people go over RAW spells and rules with a fine toothed comb ad nauseum. To each his own.
But it's nice to have a place to do it where (mostly) everyone's civil, and respectful even if your opinion seems crack-induced, and everybody has at least half a hemisphere of gray matter to their names.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And it's particularly helpful to think about how things work from a realism and game balance perspective. As has been discussed above, allowing a darkness effect to be created inside the sphere seems both out of flavor and out of balance. Yeah, we don't know how the spell actually works, but we have to theorize with the tools that we are given.
Throwing hands up and saying "I can't analyze this! It's all make believe" doesn't help at all. Not at the table and not on these boards.
This is one of those spells that people have decided to be pedantic about. I think the spell functions quite well as written, and adjudicating the spell sounds like a matter of common sense. Those people who are unecessarily complicating the spell should worry about something else.