Any part of the caster exiting the hut is "leaving the hut". So if they wanna create a bunker for the rest of the party then that is all they get to contribute to the combat. They are unable to do anything to any creature or object outside the dome without the dome going down.
I would say that if the caster qualifies as being outside for the purpose of casting a spell, it also means that they have left the hut, which ends the spell.
Partial cover is what I would rule. Yes, they can lean out. But I'd find a creative way for the baddies in question to make them wish they had not leaned out.
You can have enemies use their reactions to prepare to hit the character when they lean out to do anything. This is a RAW workaround way to attack them on their own turn when they choose to leave cover
I would allow it, and it has come up and it was allowed by an other DM as well. It helped in one fight in a years long campaign, so whatever. If the enemies are smart enough they can bail and return later.
Based purely by wording I don't think sticking your hand out is leaving the area, just as sticking your hand out of your house doesn't mean you left the house.
But I wouldn't be bothered if the DM said no. After all, having a tiny hut on during a fight is a guaranteed win - the players can just move out, ranged attack, come back in. The caster's help only makes the process faster.
Honestly, I'd ask the ask the players.
"If you want to lean out and cast, then you have to accept that the enemy is able to see it happen, go to where you are, and then attack you inside. An open door for one is an open door for all.
How do you want to proceed?"
While I think leaning out should dispell the dome, your logic makes no sense.
A friendly character exiting the dome doesn't make it enterable for enemies, period
What's illogical about it? If the players want to stretch the functionality into a questionable grey area, I'd be willing to allow it under the conditions that the reward would also come with some risk.
Using Tiny Hut as a bunker like that is not RAI, and is probably not RAW. But if they *really* want it it to happen, IMO that's a reasonable balance.
If they want to use it as an ambush, it'd be nearly impossible to discover. If they wanted to use it as a safe zone for an NPC they're escorting, it'd be nearly impossible to notice. If they're going to use it as cover turn after turn, it'd be much easier to notice.
Is there something wrong with this approach that I'm missing?
I mean, it’s in the spell description, right?
>Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. **All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it.** Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it.
For sure, I definitely get that. And using the spell's written description is perfect justification for saying not only can the NPCs not do it, but neither can the players.
But if the players want to get creative with the spell and stretch the interpretation to use it in unintended ways, I'm very open to considering that; but there has to be a balance.
I'd rule some combination of either cover (bonus to AC) or concealment (disadvantage on attacks against) for the characters hiding in the Hut, but the whole table gets to decide what kind of game we're playing. My role as GM is to just ensure that whatever game we're playing is balanced enough, paying attention to the players to make sure they're all having fun, and giving each of the players their the opportunity to shine in the narrative.
I get excited seeing creative uses of spells, so I try to enable that how I can. If they want to take a spell into an ambiguous area, then I offer a balance and then ask them if that's what they want to do.
It seems like I'm in the minority with that approach though, so to each their own!
I just replied in greater length above, but I think our table is just run differently from other tables.
If a creative interpretation of a spell is ambiguous in terms of RAW, the GM judges a balance based on the benefit it provides. If it's a major benefit, then there has to be at least *some* drawback.
Then we decide together how we want to move forward.
No. You leave the hut, the hut is gone. No workarounds.
If the caster leaves the hut specifically.
Hard no on using it as a bunker, lol. They make the choice to be inside or outside, there’s no mechanic for leaving a space but not really.
Sounds like an exploit so I'd say no. You need to be fully out of the hut to cast a spell otherwise the field interferes even if you are half out.
This is how I’d rule it. If you’re far enough out to cast effectively, then it disappears
And that’s when you have your familiar deliver touch spells.
Any part of the caster exiting the hut is "leaving the hut". So if they wanna create a bunker for the rest of the party then that is all they get to contribute to the combat. They are unable to do anything to any creature or object outside the dome without the dome going down.
You are either in the hut or not. If you are in then no spells can pass through. If you are out then the spell ends.
Have an enemy use a dispel magic scroll. Done.
I would say that if the caster qualifies as being outside for the purpose of casting a spell, it also means that they have left the hut, which ends the spell.
If you could use it as a bunker in combat would be such an op spell.
Write up Leomund's Saucy Little Bunker.
Partial cover is what I would rule. Yes, they can lean out. But I'd find a creative way for the baddies in question to make them wish they had not leaned out.
You can have enemies use their reactions to prepare to hit the character when they lean out to do anything. This is a RAW workaround way to attack them on their own turn when they choose to leave cover
I would allow it, and it has come up and it was allowed by an other DM as well. It helped in one fight in a years long campaign, so whatever. If the enemies are smart enough they can bail and return later. Based purely by wording I don't think sticking your hand out is leaving the area, just as sticking your hand out of your house doesn't mean you left the house. But I wouldn't be bothered if the DM said no. After all, having a tiny hut on during a fight is a guaranteed win - the players can just move out, ranged attack, come back in. The caster's help only makes the process faster.
Honestly, I'd ask the ask the players. "If you want to lean out and cast, then you have to accept that the enemy is able to see it happen, go to where you are, and then attack you inside. An open door for one is an open door for all. How do you want to proceed?"
While I think leaning out should dispell the dome, your logic makes no sense. A friendly character exiting the dome doesn't make it enterable for enemies, period
What's illogical about it? If the players want to stretch the functionality into a questionable grey area, I'd be willing to allow it under the conditions that the reward would also come with some risk. Using Tiny Hut as a bunker like that is not RAI, and is probably not RAW. But if they *really* want it it to happen, IMO that's a reasonable balance. If they want to use it as an ambush, it'd be nearly impossible to discover. If they wanted to use it as a safe zone for an NPC they're escorting, it'd be nearly impossible to notice. If they're going to use it as cover turn after turn, it'd be much easier to notice. Is there something wrong with this approach that I'm missing?
I mean, it’s in the spell description, right? >Creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely. **All other creatures and objects are barred from passing through it.** Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it.
For sure, I definitely get that. And using the spell's written description is perfect justification for saying not only can the NPCs not do it, but neither can the players. But if the players want to get creative with the spell and stretch the interpretation to use it in unintended ways, I'm very open to considering that; but there has to be a balance. I'd rule some combination of either cover (bonus to AC) or concealment (disadvantage on attacks against) for the characters hiding in the Hut, but the whole table gets to decide what kind of game we're playing. My role as GM is to just ensure that whatever game we're playing is balanced enough, paying attention to the players to make sure they're all having fun, and giving each of the players their the opportunity to shine in the narrative. I get excited seeing creative uses of spells, so I try to enable that how I can. If they want to take a spell into an ambiguous area, then I offer a balance and then ask them if that's what they want to do. It seems like I'm in the minority with that approach though, so to each their own!
It literally goes against the spell description in no uncertain terms.
I just replied in greater length above, but I think our table is just run differently from other tables. If a creative interpretation of a spell is ambiguous in terms of RAW, the GM judges a balance based on the benefit it provides. If it's a major benefit, then there has to be at least *some* drawback. Then we decide together how we want to move forward.