D&D 5E Leomund's Tiny Hut

[FormerlyHemlock]

One might imagine a single use of the spell in this fashion wouldn't be abuse. When it grows tiresome and no longer entertaining through abuse, then it's a problem for achieving the goals of play.

You're begging the question by tacking on "through abuse." Which of your goals does it conflict with? It conflicts with none of mine.

It's certainly possible that sitting in a fortress could grow tiresome, and tiresome activities should not be gamed out. Once they've got a hut up, the player's are moderately secure against attack, and they control everything within their line of sight up to the limits of their effective range. At that point, monsters need to give up, tunnel under, fly over, or go around. That's not abuse, that's just the reality of siege warfare. If I as a DM make the players roll every single attack roll against whoever is in their hut, the responsibility for tiresome play is on me, not on the players. Outcomes which are not in doubt, or with no meaningful consequence for failure and no restriction on repeated attempts, should not be rolled. They should just be narrated.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. If you're just saying that you expect players to be sensitive to other players' feelings (including boredom/shyness/envy/etc.) on the social level, that's a valid point. If you're saying that you enjoy running certain kinds of games and expect your players to play along, that is also a valid point. Those things apply equally to Leomund's Tiny Hut, Action Surge, and Fireball. None of these things are cheesey in the same way as Crossbow Expert cheese (tendentious reading of the Crossbow Expert feat to grant maximal advantage to the player who takes it), they're just features of the way the 5E universe works, and they all have potential to make other characters feel left out or to make certain types of encounters easy when played a certain way. That's not abusive, but it's valid for you to dislike them anyway and want to exclude them from certain types of games.

TLDR; it isn't abusive for a PC to use the tools they have to stay alive.

 

[KarinsDad]

Per the Basic Rules, the goals of play - the only way to "win" at D&D - are to have a good time together and create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Players who understand that and act in good faith don't abuse game mechanics to negatively impact the game experience or else they risk "losing" at D&D. Players who want to abuse game mechanics are the problem - not the game mechanics themselves. So I don't worry about spells like this being a problem because my players aren't a problem.

No game rules can protect us from players who want to act in bad faith.

Yeah, those BadWrongFun players. Shame on them.

 

[iserith]

TLDR; it isn't abusive for a PC to use the tools they have to stay alive.

It is in my view abusive to use the tools they have in an advantageous way that also causes the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. It's not enough to choose the most optimal thing to do or to do "what my character would do." Those things must also lead to a good time for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. If they do not, then the players are well-advised to choose to do something else that does. If spamming a particular ability or cheesing the heck out of it makes for fun at a particular table and leads to exciting, memorable stories, however, then order up an extra large side of spam and cheese.

Interestingly enough, "staying alive" isn't a goal of play according to the Basic Rules and it calls out character death specifically as an example of something that can happen while still achieving the goals of play.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It is in my view abusive to use the tools they have in an advantageous way that also causes the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. It's not enough to choose the most optimal thing to do or to do "what my character would do." Those things must also lead to a good time for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. If they do not, then the players are well-advised to choose to do something else that does. If spamming a particular ability or cheesing the heck out of it makes for fun at a particular table and leads to exciting, memorable stories, however, then order up an extra large side of spam and cheese.

I don't know what your goals of play are, and you haven't said, but at the risk of repeating myself: if casting Fireball or Leomund's Tiny Hut or using Action Surge turns the game into something the DM doesn't want to run, or that other players don't want to play, then that's a problem on the social level. It can be resolved by eschewing the tactic in question ("I'll roll up a life cleric instead of an evoker because Nate likes to play Conan-cleaving-through-the-horde") and that's a very mature and thoughtful thing to do. That doesn't make the tactic abusive, but it's valid for you to dislike it and want to exclude it from your table, whatever that tactic may be. YMMV.

BTW, Darwin says: any PCs whose life goals don't strongly encourage "staying alive" are probably already long dead.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not only would I not veto this, but I wouldn't even pull out the "correct" countermeasures at first. The invading hobgoblin army (for example) has never seen one of these huts before--it's a new development, and it should take a while for them to develop a tactical doctrine to use against it. Eventually they will learn to simply leave a screening force in place and bypass it (just like any other fortification), but at least initially it will stop them cold.

I agree with you up to this point.

Unless you're playing in an abnormally low-magic world, this is the sort of things a militant society should have experience dealing with. LTH isn't that high level, and there are other spells that can create blockades or fortifications. Any army that's fought more than a few battles should already have contingencies in place for this sort of thing.

Again, that wouldn't be true for a low-magic setting, in which case, more power to you. Or, well, less. But I don't think it takes a high-magic one for the hobgoblins to be prepared for this sort of thing; a standard campaign should do it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree with you up to this point.

Unless you're playing in an abnormally low-magic world, this is the sort of things a militant society should have experience dealing with. LTH isn't that high level, and there are other spells that can create blockades or fortifications. Any army that's fought more than a few battles should already have contingencies in place for this sort of thing.

Again, that wouldn't be true for a low-magic setting, in which case, more power to you. Or, well, less. But I don't think it takes a high-magic one for the hobgoblins to be prepared for this sort of thing; a standard campaign should do it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was speaking for myself and my campaign, because there is in fact an invading hobgoblin army (about 6000 strong) that the PCs have been putting off dealing with. And it is, in point of fact, an abnormally low-magic world. There are no friendly NPCs who can cast Raise Dead or Remove Curse or Greater Restoration; the most powerful friendly spellcaster was killed off along with the kingdom's army in the opening scene of the campaign; I've told my players that there pretty much aren't any NPCs above third or fourth level. (There are monsters above third or fourth level, as always--beholders and vampire wizards and dragons with spellcasting abilities and such. And if they access wildspace via their captured lifejammer, which they don't know how to use, they will find high-level NPCs there. But at home there are none still living.)

I agree with you that a standard campaign will probably be ready for this tactic, and even in my own campaign the hobgoblins will probably take only minutes or hours (depending on the quality of the leader in question) to conceptualize it as "just another kind of strong point" and treat it accordingly.

 

[iserith]

I don't know what your goals of play are, and you haven't said, but at the risk of repeating myself: if casting Fireball or Leomund's Tiny Hut or using Action Surge turns the game into something the DM doesn't want to run, or that other players don't want to play, then that's a problem on the social level. It can be resolved by eschewing the tactic in question ("I'll roll up a life cleric instead of an evoker because Nate likes to play Conan-cleaving-through-the-horde") and that's a very mature and thoughtful thing to do. That doesn't make the tactic abusive, but it's valid for you to dislike it and want to exclude it from your table, whatever that tactic may be. YMMV.

BTW, Darwin says: any PCs whose life goals don't strongly encourage "staying alive" are probably already long dead.

My goals of play are the same as what the Basic Rules say: To have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Players who are cognizant of this don't typically make choices that impact the fun of the table or the quality of the story. This is my stock answer to concerns over abuse of mechanics such as the ones over which the OP or others seem to be concerned: It's self-correcting when the players know the goals of play in the Basic Rules.

A character's goal may be to stay alive. A player's goal, if he or she goes with those suggested by the Basic Rules, is to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. The character's death might lead to just that and thus I would say character goals are secondary to player goals.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My goals of play are the same as what the Basic Rules say: To have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Players who are cognizant of this don't typically make choices that impact the fun of the table or the quality of the story. This is my stock answer to concerns over abuse of mechanics such as the ones over which the OP seems to be concerned: It's self-correcting when the players know the goals of play in the Basic Rules.

A character's goal may be to stay alive. A player's goal, if he or she goes with those suggested by the Basic Rules, is to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. The character's death might lead to just that and thus I would say character goals are secondary to player goals.

If the OP was concerned about abuses, I didn't notice it. I just saw someone saying, "Wow, this is really awesome and powerful!" to which my reply is the same one that I would give in-character to a PC: "It's definitely nice to have, but the enemy has a mind too. Don't count on your plans always working." And then I'd point out some of the weaknesses to him, such as immobility, sapping, dispelling, and encirclement/siege. If you count on that spell to stop an army, you'd better have a backup plan. It's the same as any other innovation in warfare.

Won't you feel dumb if you're counting on this spell to stop the bad guys forever, and they either bury you in rubble or simply form turtles (testudos) and bypass you? (Depending on logistics.) But if they don't, then you get to be awesome today.

 

[iserith]

If the OP was concerned about abuses, I didn't notice it. I just saw someone saying, "Wow, this is really awesome and powerful!" to which my reply is the same one that I would give in-character to a PC: "It's definitely nice to have, but the enemy has a mind too. Don't count on your plans always working." And then I'd point out some of the weaknesses to him, such as immobility, sapping, dispelling, and encirclement/siege. If you count on that spell to stop an army, you'd better have a backup plan. It's the same as any other innovation in warfare.

Won't you feel dumb if you're counting on this spell to stop the bad guys forever, and they either bury you in rubble or simply form turtles (testudos) and bypass you? (Depending on logistics.) But if they don't, then you get to be awesome today.

If the OP wasn't, others seemed to be based on their responses, so my post is directed at them and anyone who has concerns about potential abuse.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Absolutely impenetrable by any force" plus "has volume on Prime Material Plane" is a combination inherently abusable in a variety of niche situations. If what you want is "Guaranteed Safe Rest Place", then a spell which creates a pocket dimension or extraplanar venue is much less likely to be game-breaking in siege warfare etc.

Though it might have it's own issues, of course.

Anything wrong with reverting it to a more classic-D&D form, where it merely protects from weather & prying eyes?

TLDR; it isn't abusive for a PC to use the tools they have to stay alive.

It may be abusive for the players to use the tools the PC have to trivialize a challenge (or each other).

It depends on how you approach the game. If you approach it as, well, a game, then 'abuse' is a possibility. If you approach it as an immersive simulation with the RAW as laws of physics, then there is no abuse, there are only good and bad choices.