D&D General Has Tiny Hut actually affected your game? Or has it otherwise mattered?

[THEMNGMNT]

I have one player who used it in a previous campaign and I am pretty sure I'll ban it from future campaigns...along with Rope Trick. Just leads to some dumb play that isn't fun and breaks my sense of immersion.

 

[jayoungr]

I've had multiple cases where I was running a published adventure that called for an attack during a Long Rest. That obviously gets negated by Tiny Hut.

 

[Mort]

I've had multiple cases where I was running a published adventure that called for an attack during a Long Rest. That obviously gets negated by Tiny Hut.

Example? These are the kind of situations I'm curious about.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

No, never.

The ability to get a LR uninterrupted while the enemies get 8 hours of preparation around the Tiny Hut to be ready to alpha strike the party when the TH stops have had much less impact on my games than urban campaigns, where PCs expect get back home each night in highly civilized, highly secure environment, and get fully operational on the next day...

 

[Maxperson]

I have seen Tiny Hut completely trivialize DM plans for having the environment conditions matter (e.g. heat/cold), but this is no more gamebreaking than say Goodberry or Dancing Lights completely trivializing food/drink and non-magical darkness.

I have never seen it matter for avoiding random encounters during rests. If enemies were going to attack during a rest then those enemies always either a) have dispel magic, or b) set up an ambush once Tiny Hut drops.

Some of us aren't adversarial when we DM, so they don't always have dispel and aren't always able to set up an effective ambush.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, never.

The ability to get a LR uninterrupted while the enemies get 8 hours of preparation around the Tiny Hut to be ready to alpha strike the party when the TH stops have had much less impact on my games than urban campaigns, where PCs expect get back home each night in highly civilized, highly secure environment, and get fully operational on the next day...

To me that's in the same vein as targeting downed PC's to prevent yo-yo healing [by killing the PC's]. I can certainly do that as DM, but it doesn't seem many are, or that the drawbacks to such approaches are necessarily better. It's mostly just trading one problem for another.

I don't believe that a long rest in hostile territory should typically make the enemies 10x harder than not long resting. I don't think tiny hut is particularly more noticable than camping PC's, so if you'd let them get by with long resting and not consolidating the whole encampment then i don't think it's logical tiny hut results in different behavior.

 

[cbwjm]

Never came up in my games, I'd changed it so that it only hedged out vermin and weather but was otherwise permeable. I don't think I even needed to let my players know that I'd changed it (I'd have allowed them to select something else if they didn't like the changes).

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Some of us aren't adversarial when we DM, so they don't always have dispel and aren't always able to set up an effective ambush.

How are Dispel Magic or setting up an ambush "adversarial"? That's a pretty crazy conclusion to draw that if a DM puts a challenge in front of the players then they are somehow adversarial

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To me that's in the same vein as targeting downed PC's to prevent yo-yo healing [by killing the PC's]. I can certainly do that as DM, but it doesn't seem many are, or that the drawbacks to such approaches are necessarily better. It's mostly just trading one problem for another.

I don't believe that a long rest in hostile territory should typically make the enemies 10x harder than not long resting. I don't think tiny hut is particularly more noticable than camping PC's, so if you'd let them get by with long resting and not consolidating the whole encampment then i don't think it's logical tiny hut results in different behavior.

I understood the problem with tiny hut being used to rest in the middle of the courtyard of an enemy castle or some other obviously unsuitable place to force the DM to give the party a LR, and not just 'let's skip a random encounter risk while having a regular rest' -- which is I think the intended effect of the spell. If your group tried to abuse LTH, then you'd see more DM doing exactly that.

 

[Maxperson]

How are Dispel Magic or setting up an ambush "adversarial"? That's a pretty crazy conclusion to draw that if a DM puts a challenge in front of the players then they are somehow adversarial

If it's every time, it's absolutely the DM being adversarial to the players and just acting to give his creatures the counter to the players actions. The enemy wouldn't be able to do that anywhere near 100% of the time.

If it's sometimes, when it makes sense independent of player actions for the NPCs to have dispel or be able to set up an effective ambush, then it's not adversarial.