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

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh indeed, the problem is not with finding ways to counter it so much as the blatant cranking of the munckin dial past 11 on the spell in so many ways that it makes them all but certain to be deliberate choices. While there are indeed many ways to counter or just ban the spell, doing so stretches believeability & rushes down an adversarial gm vrs players road. None of that was unsaid in the original thread or this thread, they are just the elephant being continually ignored by people saying "just do x".

Nah. Plenty of us are saying, the spell works fine as is. If you are letting your PCs get away with using it as a fortification reliably, that’s on you as a DM.

 

[Derren]

Nah. Plenty of us are saying, the spell works fine as is. If you are letting your PCs get away with using it as a fortification reliably, that’s on you as a DM.

No, this is just the players using a spell as written.
If you as DM feel the need to limit a spell its a good sign that there is something wrong with it.

 

[Oofta]

No, this is just the players using a spell as written.
If you as DM feel the need to limit a spell its a good sign that there is something wrong with it.

Except I don't need to limit it. I just need to have the enemy respond intelligently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except I don't need to limit it. I just need to have the enemy respond intelligently.

Are there any spells you don't need to have the enemy "respond intelligently?"

I mean, it just seems like intelligent enemies should generally respond (or be proactive) intelligently. And less or non-intelligent ones, not so much, of course.

 

[Oofta]

Are there any spells you don't need to have the enemy "respond intelligently?"

I mean, it just seems like intelligent enemies should generally respond (or be proactive) intelligently. And less or non-intelligent ones, not so much, of course.

I was just responding to

If you as DM feel the need to limit a spell its a good sign that there is something wrong with it.

I don't limit the spell. It's situationally useful, but I've never had an issue, nor have I seen it be an issue in AL games.

 

[Asisreo]

Are there any spells you don't need to have the enemy "respond intelligently?"

I mean, it just seems like intelligent enemies should generally respond (or be proactive) intelligently. And less or non-intelligent ones, not so much, of course.

If someone casted invisibility in my game, yeah I could have it that monsters no longer have functioning senses of hearing and make it more powerful inadvertently, or I could just use the spell as it is intended to function where creatures have disadv. On attack rolls and invisible players can hide in the open.

I do play all my monsters "intelligently" aka "they want to achieve their goals and also not die." If a bunch of killing invaders tried to set up camp in my own home, I'm not letting them get away with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't limit the spell. It's situationally useful, but I've never had an issue, nor have I seen it be an issue in AL games.

So, you started a thread titled "Countering Rest Spells (Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, et al)" because there's no need to counter such spells? And you don't need to have enemies respond intelligently - because, if you did, then using intelligent enemies whenever the spell comes up would be countering it, and you don't do that?

I mean, yes, Da Hut is only situationally useful - it's useful in the situation where you'd like to take a long rest earlier than the DM has offered you a viable opportunity to do so. A situation that occurs, for instance, when said DM is trying to pace his campaign to the 6-8 encounter day in which your wizard is going to theoretically balance with lower-class-Tier PCs in the same party.
...of course, if you don't use pacing for that purpose, it would never be an issue...

I do play all my monsters "intelligently" aka "they want to achieve their goals and also not die." If a bunch of killing invaders tried to set up camp in my own home, I'm not letting them get away with it....
If someone casted invisibility in my game, yeah I could have it that monsters no longer have functioning senses of hearing and make it more powerful inadvertently, or I could just use the spell as it is intended to function where creatures have disadv. On attack rolls and invisible players can hide in the open.

Invisibility was one of the other spells I was thinking of, actually. Intelligent enemies, confronted with an enemy capable of becoming invisible, could adapt their guard routines to make their territory harder to infiltrate - doors kept closed, light materials scattered about to make invisible foot-steps immediately evident, noise-making 'traps', guard-dogs (or other creatures with acute senses other than sight), etc... Similarly, Gaseous Form is another 3rd-level, spell like Tiny Hut, and it could be countered by intelligent enemies hermetically sealing areas they don't want infiltrated.

Common practices?

 

[Oofta]

So, you started a thread titled "Countering Rest Spells (Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, et al)" because there's no need to counter such spells?

I started the thread because some people have an issue with the spell and thought I'd give some free advice. It may well be worth what you paid for it for you, feel free to take it or leave it.

I've never had a problem with it, I was explaining why and was soliciting other ideas on how to handle it. That's pretty much it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I started the thread because some people have an issue with the spell and thought I'd give some free advice. I've never had a problem with it, I was explaining why and was soliciting other ideas on how to handle it.

So, advice based on how you never experienced nor addressed the problem, yourself?

Are you surprised that some folks have dismissed such advice, because it seems set up to be taken as some sort of 'splaing, really.

Now, if your approach was "I've had this problem, and I solved it by...."

 

[Oofta]

So, advice based on how you never experienced nor addressed the problem, yourself?

Are you surprised that some folks have dismissed such advice, because it seems set up to be taken as some sort of 'splaing, really.

Now, if your approach was "I've had this problem, and I solved it by...."

I've had players cast tiny hut plenty of times. I've just dealt with it with what I considered appropriate counter measures, some of which are in my original post.

In one example the group used the hut on a regular basis traveling wild and hostile territory and it generally worked well (kept the riff-raff/animals out). But a decent-sized hobgoblin patrol was a different issue. The hobgoblins are organized, militaristic and intelligent so they built a makeshift "siege engine/portable wall" to get close to the hut. They started to block off the view from one direction when the party had to sally forth.

One other note on this. I was hoping to have a discussion of ideas on how to deal with what some people find a problematic spell. There's no one answer, I know I certainly don't have all the answers. But I would rather at least try to help others make their game better than just throw up my hands and claim defeat.