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

[Asisreo]

I would like to point out that a party cannot benefit from the effects of a long rest before a 24-hour period since the last one.

There's also this point that someone in this thread pointed out that I find very strange: That an enemy cannot ambush the hutters because all of them can see through it. Well, it's true that theoretically everyone can see through it but for a long rest to be beneficial you need at least 6-hours of sleep for everyone meaning that unless there's an elf in the party or you decide to all keep watch at once for a 2-hour period then all go back to sleep (why would you do that?) Then you'll only have one pair of eyes up while resting. This is assuming the common 4-player party and not these apparently common 9-player parties I'm hearing about in this thread.

If you're in a monster's lair, you're under the monster's rules meaning if they got darkvision then their lair will probably be pitch-black (why waste resource making the room dimly lit when you just give your monsters torches to be lit only when they NEED to see well?). Of course, an elf could use their darkvision to stay aware and have some sort of visibility, but they still suffer the -5 PP so ambushes aren't out of the question.

I've also heard that players can just step up whenever the enemies get randy after seeing you pitch your magical tent. Sure, they can but that player forfeits the long-rest benefits when they do. So, for instance, if an enemy on patrol catches your hut 2 hours in, your party could do ranged attacks to counter them, but now the party has to restart their rest with a 2 hour hangover where they' probably have to recast leomund's. But surely by then the enemies know they're there and will be trying to ambush them while the wizard takes 10 mins to ritual cast. I mean, the purple hut shot an arrow at Turgo 6 hours ago. I don't have to be a Nilbog to know that ain't right.

DM's should have multiple encounter before getting to the BBEG of the lair, right? Must likely, at that tier, SOMEBODY has a way to cast Dispel Magic. Probably the BBEG himself? Picture this: Regar the idiot stumbles upon this giant green dome and investigates it. swip an arrow comes out. "Oh shoot, better tell boss!" He thinks as he sprints away from the hut. "Duh, boss. This arrow came outta this weird green mound" "hmm? Where?" "Down da hallway past the armory boss" the boss casts a divination spell to check (clairvoyance?) "Follow me, and put everyone on alert to flee on my command (or die while protecting me to aid my escape)" after buffing himself preparing for a fight, he stealths towards the hut. "Now!" Practically everyone in the party is surprised, BBEG uses this surprise chance to cast dispel magic while the 20 goblins, 10 hobgoblins and 5 bugbears all charge into the room from behind the entrance to the room. All while the buffed BBEG targets the priority enemy, probably overwhelmed by the number. Oops, you're all captured and imprisoned to be sold off to the boss's boss as slaves, good luck.

I don't think this was unfair to the players either. As soon as they saw an enemy flee from the arrow attack, that was their cue to move or get screwed. Not only that, but they weren't even killed in the end so they have an escape problem that only FURTHERS the plot.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The real solution, that trumps all the others, is ask your players not to be cheesy munchkins.

If they can’t handle that, go watch a nerdy show or something. No dnd is better than bad dnd.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Or, they correctly gauged that most groups wouldn’t experience any problems from these spells.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or, they correctly gauged that most groups wouldn’t experience any problems from these spells.

Spoken like someone who has never run AL games to a significant degree. Why bother with hit points, ability caps & arrays, or the need for pc's to make hit rolls when most groups could just make do without problems b removing those constraints

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Spoken like someone who has never run AL games to a significant degree. Why bother with hit points, ability caps & arrays, or the need for pc's to make hit rolls when most groups could just make do without problems b removing those constraints

I have, and I simply told the group, “Hey, I don’t want to make the game adversarial, but that is what results when the players start cheesing the system. Let’s not go down that road.”

And they stopped trying to cheese the system.

Of course, rope trick isn’t especially cheesy, it just allows a short rest in dangerous terrain.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course, rope trick isn’t especially cheesy, it just allows a short rest in dangerous terrain.

The player can do so consistently, which allows them to avoid a significant portion of the game. That's a big gooey helping of cheese.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The player can do so consistently, which allows them to avoid a significant portion of the game. That's a big gooey helping of cheese.

Eh, see my first post.

 

[Maxperson]

Eh, see my first post.

Why would I ask my players to play their PCs stupidly? It would be complete in game nonsense for the party to not use the spell in those situations. The spell is the problem, not the players.

 

[Nebulous]

the enemies get randy after seeing you pitch your tent.

hahaha. I'm sorry, i couldn't ignore the innuendo in the misspelling, it's too funny

 

[Bacon Bits]

Why would I ask my players to play their PCs stupidly? It would be complete game nonsense for the party to not use the spell in those situations. The spell is the problem, not the players.

It's the velvet glove. "If you can't play with your toys nicely, you won't play with them at all." It's telling the players that they can choose between a useful and convenient effect that they use conservatively, or the DM will alter the spell or spells to fit how the players [ab]use them which probably means moderately overcorrecting them.