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

[tetrasodium]

I gave advice. Take it or leave it. When you last "countered" my arguments you were insulting, suddenly the party in the hut doubled in size, the only way to block exits was a wall of force, etc.

No the party in the hut was the exact size the spell allows and I called the reason out in the very first paragraph* of that post. You still continue insinuating gm failure & fail to accept that your "advice" itself is insulting by way of insinuating poor gm'ing abilities on the part of anyone who is not part of the "most people" who don't share your opinion of the spell being "not broken". I'm also not the only one to point out the adversarial & setting credibility stretching problems in your "solutions"... you just ignore them all and demand your poor solutions be given undue levels of merit while pointing out their blatant flaws.

*The first paragraph really burries that reasoning deep in the post so I can see how you'd miss that

 

[Maxperson]

For someone that has such problems with absolutes, I was just pointing out that you talk in absolutes yourself. The spell isn't "broken" for most people. If it's broken for you perhaps it's something you could fix if you were willing to listen to how other people approach it. Or not.

Yes. For me it is absolutely broken. Your point?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This thread is up to page 8 now and you've not even attempted to address criticisms about why your solutions are lacking, unrealistic, or shortsighted & instead blame the gm.

Of course any DM-implementable solution could be turned around as 'blaming' every DM that doesn't implement it.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. For me it is absolutely broken. Your point?

That I disagree? That if you can't ban it (because AL) you should either just accept it or at least attempt to implement some of the advice others have given? That a lot of other people have found solutions so therefore the problem isn't insoluble?

But you can lead a horse to water and all that. Have a good one.

 

[Oofta]

No the party in the hut was the exact size the spell allows and I called the reason out in the very first paragraph* of that post. You still continue insinuating gm failure & fail to accept that your "advice" itself is insulting by way of insinuating poor gm'ing abilities on the part of anyone who is not part of the "most people" who don't share your opinion of the spell being "not broken". I'm also not the only one to point out the adversarial & setting credibility stretching problems in your "solutions"... you just ignore them all and demand your poor solutions be given undue levels of merit while pointing out their blatant flaws.

*The first paragraph really burries that reasoning deep in the post so I can see how you'd miss that

The entire post is one put-down and insult after another. If you're ever willing to discuss like an adult let me know. Your entire post changes parameters (9 people! Only way to block exits is wall of force! Poison is only possible with a spell!).

Some people have figured out how to resolve the issue for their games. If you continue to have an issue but completely resistant to discussing possible ways of dealing with it then yes, it's your problem not mine.

 

[tetrasodium]

The entire post is one put-down and insult after another. If you're ever willing to discuss like an adult let me know. Your entire post changes parameters (9 people! Only way to block exits is wall of force! Poison is only possible with a spell!).

Some people have figured out how to resolve the issue for their games. If you continue to have an issue but completely resistant to discussing possible ways of dealing with it then yes, it's your problem not mine.

The spell allows an absurd nine people to fit in the dome & safely enjoy a long rest, I even pointed that out when using that absurdly large nine person group in the post. The fact that you are complaining that I'd spotlight that absurdity & cling to be a better gm "advice" rather than admit it was at best a poor design choice & address any of the other points where a smaller & more standard 3-6 person group could be different but really won't change speaks volumes about your avoidance of any evidence to the spell being problematic. What you call "insult" is simply acknowledging how poorly designed the spell is & how tone deaf your "solutions" are

 

[Oofta]

View attachment 117022
The spell allows an absurd nine people to fit in the dome & safely enjoy a long rest, I even pointed that out when using that absurdly large nine person group in the post. The fact that you are complaining that I'd spotlight that absurdity & cling to be a better gm "advice" rather than admit it was at best a poor design choice & address any of the other points where a smaller & more standard 3-6 person group could be different but really won't change speaks volumes about your avoidance of any evidence to the spell being problematic. What you call "insult" is simply acknowledging how poorly designed the spell is & how tone deaf your "solutions" are

What does total capacity have to do with anything?

If there are 9 people in the party, then as a DM it's on me to build encounters to challenge them appropriately. The number of people in the party has no relevance.

 

[tetrasodium]

What does total capacity have to do with anything?

If there are 9 people in the party, then as a DM it's on me to build encounters to challenge them appropriately. The number of people in the party has no relevance.

If it's so irrelevant, why complain so strongly about using a party that size rather than just saying that it fitting nine people is irrelevant to begin with & continuing on? The fact that nine people are able to turn an open air courtyard into a safer more defensible position than a barricaded arcane locked 10x10 broom closet they could not even fit in after one person spends ten whole minutes is a problem. They don't need to decide who needs the hut most & why will be guarding from outside the impenetrable vision blocking bunker because it holds the entire gaggle of a reasonably sized party and all their henchmen/pets or an absurdly large party. Also the fact that it has nine pairs of eyes able to see out of the third level ritually castable wall of force dome causes problems for more than one of your "solutions". So I direct you back to that post where you can admit the hut holding so many and being so much more protective than the 3.5 hut is problematic then continue trying to address the criticism leveled at your often poor and/or adversarial "solutions" to an overly munchkiny spell.

 

[LordEntrails]

Well, after decades of playing D&D these types of spells don't bother me as a DM or player. In every edition they are easy to "counter" as a DM if needed. But why would I need to in most cases? So what if the players have a safe place to get a long rest? Resources, including long rests, are something I've already accounted for during adventure design. Maybe the princess is dead if they take too many long rests. Or the ritual summoning the elemental prince is completed, maybe the orc tribe has up and left the area.

To me, it's a lot like saying flying PCs break the game. No, not really. It's a fantasy game with magic. These are things that yes they should be accounted for in the adventure design, but they should also be encouraged. Creativity, resourcefulness, and thinking outside the mundane are great fun.

Using a spell like tiny hut as a redoubt or to block doors? Go for it. Maybe it makes a fight much easier than I planned. So what? It doesn't hurt my feelings when the players are creative and "beat me". Because I don't play D&D as a competitive game. It's not me versus them. Winners and losers are not determined by PC success. They are determined by if myself and the players had fun. Were we entertained? Was it time well spent? If yes, then we all won, even if their was a TPK, or the monsters were a pushover.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, after decades of playing D&D these types of spells don't bother me as a DM or player. In every edition they are easy to "counter" as a DM if needed. But why would I need to in most cases? So what if the players have a safe place to get a long rest? Resources, including long rests, are something I've already accounted for during adventure design. Maybe the princess is dead if they take too many long rests. Or the ritual summoning the elemental prince is completed, maybe the orc tribe has up and left the area.

To me, it's a lot like saying flying PCs break the game. No, not really. It's a fantasy game with magic. These are things that yes they should be accounted for in the adventure design, but they should also be encouraged. Creativity, resourcefulness, and thinking outside the mundane are great fun.

Using a spell like tiny hut as a redoubt or to block doors? Go for it. Maybe it makes a fight much easier than I planned. So what? It doesn't hurt my feelings when the players are creative and "beat me". Because I don't play D&D as a competitive game. It's not me versus them. Winners and losers are not determined by PC success. They are determined by if myself and the players had fun. Were we entertained? Was it time well spent? If yes, then we all won, even if their was a TPK, or the monsters were a pushover.

If fly were ritually castable nonconcentration spell with an 8 hour duration or Aarakocra had fly+hover in any armor I'm pretty sure we can both agree that people would say wotc messed up hardcore on par with spells like tiny hut banish or cook & book as you saw in the thread that this silly one forked off from.