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

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed and but I see getting around encounters as a legitimate strategy. Not a fan of using the hut as a bunker but have never seen it in game.

As a player, absolutely, 100%. If the DM has set their game up such that you can do things like this with Tiny Hut, then absolutely go nuts with it. But if (general) you as a DM are bothered by the players doing that... using legitimate and intelligent strategy with the tools at their disposal because it seemingly goes against some internal belief (general) you have about how D&D is "supposed" to play... then you either remove the spell, work as strategically back at the players as they are doing to you, or just get over it.

 

[Burnside]

I was a player in both Tomb of Annihilation and Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus and it was pretty clutch in both campaigns due to its ability to ameliorate hostile environmental conditions in both settings, allowing for safe long rests without deleterious effects (mosquito-born disease in ToA, for example).

Over both (multi-year) campaigns, we were able to use it effectively in a combat situation exactly once, when we had the benefit of advance intelligence that we'd need to defend a specific space against enemies would would be teleporting in, and we had time to prepare.

 

[touc]

I use the A5E version as I prefer the original design (no need for tents) before it became a force field.* I had an old D&D group once use it to cut through a wall of fire and pre-A5E it was the "lazy man's" method of finding a safe zone to rest in a mega-dungeon rather than strategizing (and risking) finding a haven. It's not really a big deal because if an intelligent adversary finds the hut, they can do all sorts of nasty and annoying stuff, including but not limited to: burying your hut so you suffocate when it expires, making tons of noise so you can't rest (as the hut doesn't block sound), dispelling it, setting up traps outside, and anything else that hours might allow.

* My D&D group and I talk about any rules modifications first, and we liked the idea the Hut (as a repeatable ritual) was more suited to defeating the elements than an impenetrable force field.

 

[Teemu]

Yeah I've seen it used in my 5e games and it has been very powerful. Personally I think the best way to weaken it without making it useless is to remove the ability to cast it as a ritual. It's fine if higher level parties can afford to burn the 3rd-level spell slot or even use a scroll, but lowish to mid level parties shouldn't have access to it as a ritual in my opinion.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

As a player, absolutely, 100%. If the DM has set their game up such that you can do things like this with Tiny Hut, then absolutely go nuts with it. But if (general) you as a DM are bothered by the players doing that... using legitimate and intelligent strategy with the tools at their disposal because it seemingly goes against some internal belief (general) you have about how D&D is "supposed" to play... then you either remove the spell, work as strategically back at the players as they are doing to you, or just get over it.

A DM that is getting upset by a stratagem of the players should engage in some introspection as to why? I am not claiming that I have always done this, but I have learned that any kind of arms race with the players is not a good idea.
I get that Tiny Hut can negate some overland travel challenges but are random encounters at night really an interesting thing to do?

 

[Epic Meepo]

Players can occasionally pull some silly stuff with tiny hut, but if you really want to see why the impenetrable forcefield version of the spell is bad game design, give it to an NPC defending a dungeon the PCs have to clear. Now you have a bunker filled with hallway after hallway of impenetrable forcefields that don't inconvenience any of the dungeon's defenders. And that's not some super-optimized, high-level strategy. That's just a mid-level mage saying, "Hey, I have this spell designed to protect us when we Long Rest, and this dungeon is where we take our Long Rests, so..."

 

[James Gasik]

Players can occasionally pull some silly stuff with tiny hut, but if you really want to see why the impenetrable forcefield version of the spell is bad game design, give it to an NPC defending a dungeon the PCs have to clear. Now you have a bunker filled with hallway after hallway of impenetrable forcefields that don't inconvenience any of the dungeon's defenders. And that's not some super-optimized, high-level strategy. That's just a mid-level mage saying, "Hey, I have this spell designed to protect us when we Long Rest, and this dungeon is where we take our Long Rests, so..."

Well, except that the caster has to stay inside the hut or the spell ends.

 

[tetrasodium]

A DM that is getting upset by a stratagem of the players should engage in some introspection as to why? I am not claiming that I have always done this, but I have learned that any kind of arms race with the players is not a good idea.
I get that Tiny Hut can negate some overland travel challenges but are random encounters at night really an interesting thing to do?

There are two sides to that scenario you note, but you present it as if one is incapable of being unreasonable and the other is incapable of being justified in saying no.

Wotc themselves should have made some introspection and asked a more fundamental question during 5.024 first. That question would have been something along the lines of "are there situations where the gm is justified in halting a rest the players should not be taking & should they have functional tools for doing so -OR- should players be able to eliminate all of the tools for the gm to do so?"

Unfortunately all of this tiny but talk has been because wotc made choices that answer that question with "there probably are not situations to justify trusting the gm with that power so players should be able to trivially disarm the GMs toolbox on that matter" with a chaser of "your the gm you fix it"whispered under their breath after loudly telling players "tell your story,"

You need only look at how frequently this thread has posts in it amounting to chest thumping about not having problems with it while noting how they removed or hanged the spell to get there at their table for evidence of how true they is

 

[Benjamin Olson]

As a DM I like when the players have tiny hut because it means I don't have to come up with as many encounters during long rests. Since a rational DM, if there is regular tiny hut usage, will change their prep to only have mid-rest encounters that are interesting even with a tiny hut or that anticipate some situation where the PCs don't bother with it (resting at an inn, for example) the effect on the game is unlikely to be readily apparent.

 

[Maxperson]

This is why I tell people to run high power, high fantasy, high magic games.

The setting where the PCs have all powerful unbeatable magic.....and the whole world has sharp sticks....it not a great setting. Sure the players love it "nahnah, nobody, even a God can break into our Tiny Hut! HAHAHAHAH!".


But also tons that can cast dispel magic....or worse.

Why must a stone giant be a spellless target? How about a stone giant magic user of some sort? Maybe just a stone giant SpellSmasher!

Or I can just ban the few spells don't don't work for me.