D&D 5E Countering Rest Spells (Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, et al)

[tetrasodium]

When it comes to dealing with spell like tiny hut you only have a few options.

1) Ban it. Easy to do, just say "I don't allow that spell." I do it for a handful of spells, tiny hut doesn't happen to be one of them.

2) Modify it. Giving it hit points is one option. I briefly considered saying that no attacks (melee or ranged) could affect a creature outside the hut but decided against it since I don't mind firing arrows at the bear outside camp.

3) Complain about it. You're entitled, but it doesn't solve anything. WOTC is not going to change the spell for you. I doubt anyone official ever reads these threads. To me, it's just boring after a while.

4) Figure out alternate tactics. I gave a few, most of which could be done without using any magic at all. Blocking entrances is as simple as stone or wood, poison can be alchemical and so on. I think people greatly underestimate the lengths people will go to when protecting themselves and how much they would prepare for invasion from hostile forces. People spent thousands of man hours and countless gold building castles in a never ending arms race. Assuming magic is a known part of the campaign world why wouldn't people have pre-planned counters to magic?

But there are also very simple magical counters. Dispel magic, shape stone, rock to mud. Cast Thaumaturgy and start singing "This is the song that never ends" at triple volume so they can't sleep. Heck, gather a few buddies and cast fog cloud. Either the people rush out to attack before they've recovered (which is what you want anyway) or they give you hours to build up the box o' death.

ahem.... WotC does listen to the community & occasionally makes changes, adds things, or releases/modifies UA content, in addition to regularly releasing the ALPG/ALBR/etc. Lets widen the discussion back to the spells pretty unanimously condemned Cook & Book, Tiny Hut, & go away incapacitated for a spawnkill in 10 rounds

That alone negates the vast majority of your 4 points & is something that you keep ignoring bot in this thread and the one it forked off of. In AL many of the group/gm trust dynamics go away entirely with tables full of people who mostly don't know each other. Someone also mentioned Teleport circle because it comes with two free teleport sigil sequences known, those are "determined by the dm" , but that might as well say "by the player" in an AL game. The problem with all of these spells is not so much figuring out a way to counter or modify them so they aren't broken as the damage done to the game in doing so & the fact that there are kinds of games where the GM "can't implement new rules"; that fact keeps going over the heads of a lot pf people that keep simply saying "well just do x.."

In my game cook & book is a total nonissue, but the result is common magic items that protect against it & nearly every set of magic metal armor having the braindead obvious protective enchantment built in.... It's worse that I need to regularly include one or both of those or it becomes obvious that I'm just laying down plot armor on NPCs to thwart what should have been the entirely predictable result of the cook & book. Someone else's game might just ban the spell or do things like say the spell ends if the target moves more than 60 feet from where they got hit by it, eliminate the ability to dash & use Bonus actions to deal 20d8 of fire damage with it by making it use an action rather than bonus action.... The fact remains that in 3.5 you had lots of DoT/Bleed type effects & even then the damage was much lower on the 3.5 heat metal.

The 3.5Banish was similar in that it was limited to extraplanar creatures only & lacked an insane "returns to be spawnkilled after 10 rounds of being incapacitated after you finish the big threat's allies & buff/recover yourselves".

What is so galling about all of these spells is how absurdly predictable their abuses should have been that making them deliberately broken is easier to believe than the idea of WotC being that bad at sanity checking. Yea they are very unlikely to release a 5.5 because of these kinds of issues, but a simple "we made this UA during lunch at the bar" that gives alternate versions of various problem spells is not impossible to imagine & would allow a GM to simply say "we are using these this game" rather than hearing "Man, you have a lot of house rules..." once they start adding house rules of their own in addition to fixing things that are by all appearances broken by design.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Warning: this is a tangent for this thread. If the player can abuse the Tiny Hut while they are "on the offensive", could you find ideas on how to exploit it to the max as the BBEG who know the heroes are going to enter his throne room and challenge his reign of tyranny? I'd be very interested to see what people in this thread could come up with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The impact of rests amplifies it yes, but 4e had rest based mechanics & nonfragile tiny hut

The 4e L.Tiny Hut, like every prior ed, offered NO protection to the occupants beyond being opaque but letting you see out - it was still just a magic tent, not a bunker.
In 4e the impact of long rests was far less than in 5e, having less impact on encounter difficulty, and virtually none on class balance.

the key difference is that they removed the fact that the 4e tiny hut was -EXPENSIVE-.

Cost was relative in 3e & 4e, wealth/level guidelines ballooned with level. So ritual costs were noticeable, when first acquired, but relatively cheap, then trivial, as you advanced.

In 5e, there is no wealth/level, so cost as a balancing factor is fraught.

The key difference in the spell is that the 5e version offers complete protection to those within.

 

[Oofta]

ahem.... WotC does listen to the community & occasionally makes changes, adds things, or releases/modifies UA content, in addition to regularly releasing the ALPG/ALBR/etc. Lets widen the discussion back to the spells pretty unanimously condemned Cook & Book, Tiny Hut, & go away incapacitated for a spawnkill in 10 rounds

View attachment 116807
That alone negates the vast majority of your 4 points & is something that you keep ignoring bot in this thread and the one it forked off of. In AL many of the group/gm trust dynamics go away entirely with tables full of people who mostly don't know each other. Someone also mentioned Teleport circle because it comes with two free teleport sigil sequences known, those are "determined by the dm" , but that might as well say "by the player" in an AL game. The problem with all of these spells is not so much figuring out a way to counter or modify them so they aren't broken as the damage done to the game in doing so & the fact that there are kinds of games where the GM "can't implement new rules"; that fact keeps going over the heads of a lot pf people that keep simply saying "well just do x.."

In my game cook & book is a total nonissue, but the result is common magic items that protect against it & nearly every set of magic metal armor having the braindead obvious protective enchantment built in.... It's worse that I need to regularly include one or both of those or it becomes obvious that I'm just laying down plot armor on NPCs to thwart what should have been the entirely predictable result of the cook & book. Someone else's game might just ban the spell or do things like say the spell ends if the target moves more than 60 feet from where they got hit by it, eliminate the ability to dash & use Bonus actions to deal 20d8 of fire damage with it by making it use an action rather than bonus action.... The fact remains that in 3.5 you had lots of DoT/Bleed type effects & even then the damage was much lower on the 3.5 heat metal.

The 3.5Banish was similar in that it was limited to extraplanar creatures only & lacked an insane "returns to be spawnkilled after 10 rounds of being incapacitated after you finish the big threat's allies & buff/recover yourselves".

What is so galling about all of these spells is how absurdly predictable their abuses should have been that making them deliberately broken is easier to believe than the idea of WotC being that bad at sanity checking. Yea they are very unlikely to release a 5.5 because of these kinds of issues, but a simple "we made this UA during lunch at the bar" that gives alternate versions of various problem spells is not impossible to imagine & would allow a GM to simply say "we are using these this game" rather than hearing "Man, you have a lot of house rules..." once they start adding house rules of their own in addition to fixing things that are by all appearances broken by design.

So you choose "complain". There a whole thread over here for that if you want.

As far as some hypothetical future edition, I'm assuming they'll do surveys and gather feedback if it ever happens. In the meantime? They've stated that they aren't going to to errata for this existing rules unless it's a typo. You may not like how Tiny Hut works, but it's not a typo. If they haven't fixed it by now it's not going to happen.

If you're playing AL you do have to play by the rules, which is why I offer advice on some tactics the PC's opponents might use. But I don't own the thread, so feel free to complain away.

 

[Oofta]

Warning: this is a tangent for this thread. If the player can abuse the Tiny Hut while they are "on the offensive", could you find ideas on how to exploit it to the max as the BBEG who know the heroes are going to enter his throne room and challenge his reign of tyranny? I'd be very interested to see what people in this thread could come up with.

I don't know if it's really a tangent. If a party faces a spell knowing what they could do can advise what happens the other way around.

Dispel magic is an obvious solution. Dimension door would work, as would stone shape and a variety of other spells. Other than that, similar tactics to the ones I listed.

 

[Nebulous]

Warning: this is a tangent for this thread. If the player can abuse the Tiny Hut while they are "on the offensive", could you find ideas on how to exploit it to the max as the BBEG who know the heroes are going to enter his throne room and challenge his reign of tyranny? I'd be very interested to see what people in this thread could come up with.

You could have two 3rd level spellcasters block the exits, preventing any escape from the PCs while the BBEG pounds on them. I personally don't like the idea of exploiting the cheesy aspect of that spell though! And if the BBEG looks like he's getting weak then the casters can pop out and mop up whoever is left.

 

[Maxperson]

An expensive material component would ensure that it's only used when the spell is the most abusive or disruptive it can be.

This doesn't bother me. I'm okay with it being used every once in a while in a emergency or as a great tactic. It's when it's used all the time that I get bothered by it. I'm not attached to my monsters and NPCs, so if the players kick some ass once in a while it's all good.

 

[uzirath]

On the mid-combat bunker idea, which has never occurred to any of my players before, has anyone tried adjusting the spell so that nobody can go in or out? It would still allow for a bunker, but the PCs couldn't fire arrows out of it and if anyone crossed the boundary (from inside to outside), it would dismiss the spell. Could still allow for a relatively safe mid-combat defense, but it might limit some of its versatility. Moreover, if any foes were included in the area upon casting, they could leap for the perimeter to cancel it. Might create some more tactical fun.

Obviously this wouldn't resolve the RAW perspective for AL.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

On the mid-combat bunker idea, which has never occurred to any of my players before, has anyone tried adjusting the spell so that nobody can go in or out? It would still allow for a bunker, but the PCs couldn't fire arrows out of it and if anyone crossed the boundary (from inside to outside), it would dismiss the spell. Could still allow for a relatively safe mid-combat defense, but it might limit some of its versatility. Moreover, if any foes were included in the area upon casting, they could leap for the perimeter to cancel it. Might create some more tactical fun.

Obviously this wouldn't resolve the RAW perspective for AL.

Not bad.

I would probably add a clause that say that if a creature/spell/object comes from the inside to the outside, the walls of the magic tent are permeable until the start of the creature's next turn.

 

[tetrasodium]

@Tony Vargas good catch on the 4e version & thanks, my 4e experience was limited. Given that, making the 5e version a no cost ritual star trek type energy/force shield is even more egregious.

So you choose "complain". There a whole thread over here for that if you want.

As far as some hypothetical future edition, I'm assuming they'll do surveys and gather feedback if it ever happens. In the meantime? They've stated that they aren't going to to errata for this existing rules unless it's a typo. You may not like how Tiny Hut works, but it's not a typo. If they haven't fixed it by now it's not going to happen.

If you're playing AL you do have to play by the rules, which is why I offer advice on some tactics the PC's opponents might use. But I don't own the thread, so feel free to complain away.

No, I choose to explain why your "solutions" are terrible, you just keep ignoring the problems with your solutions & continue on suggesting them as if nothing happened.