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

[LordEntrails]

Bzzzzt! Nope. I'm saying that the players also have effective options that they can use in response to what the dragons come up with.

That's the whole friggin point. Monsters and PCs all have options. Its not about winning. How many times do I have to say that? Options to actions are exactly...

Wait, you're not listening are you? Ah well.

I give what I get. I didn't start that tone.

That's not acceptable behavior. You should be civil with everyone or simply chose not to engage with them.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the whole friggin point. Monsters and PCs all have options. Its not about winning. How many times do I have to say that? Options to actions are exactly...

And I don't really have much issue with the hut, as I have said multiple times.

Wait, you're not listening are you? Ah well.

Since I've repeatedly said that my issue is primarily with Rope Trick, right back at you.

 

[Oofta]

Not really a lot new here to respond to.

Dragons
I brought up a dragon because it was mentioned in another thread that a dracolich (who didn't have dispel magic apparently) could do nothing while the party got a long rest. I pointed out the various things they could do, all of which were declared to be "pointless" for one reason or another with no supporting justification. Well, other than "I said it wouldn't work so therefore I've already shown you that it wouldn't work."

So I gave details on how I would run a black dragon. Darkness so the party couldn't see and then bury the hut in whatever's handy. The response, of course is that's ridiculous and that the party would just counter it somehow. Again, no details or options given*. IMHO they have the option of leaving the hut before they get a long rest which is what the dragon wants or they're going to be buried under tons of crud. The only counter was that "they'll figure something out because they're smart like me".

The hut is also supposedly a great spot to prep, and under certain circumstances it might be. But usually prep only takes a few actions, the hut takes 11 minutes. Not really seeing the benefit.

Oh, and grabbing the NPC wizard was a joke, although I still think in many cases dragons will have allies or other resources that could be brought to bear.

The Home Depot
This one kind of cracks me up to be honest. In my campaign I had a couple dozen hobgoblins build a temporary, makeshift wall so that they could approach the hut without being targeted by ranged attacks. This temporary wall was somehow transformed into an impenatrable engineering marvel that would require the resources of a small army and weeks to build. Or something. I'm still not sure, but I was envisioning something similar to what a few teenagers threw together as a raft years ago. But I get it. It's not like the wood needed to build it grows on trees. Wait, that's not right. Okay, hobgoblins never carry anything sharp enough to chop up small diameter wood. Wait, that can't be. Oh, right. The counter was "it's not possible, there's no Home Depot down the road."

In some cases raw materials will not be available, or the enemy won't be organized enough to build defenses, mobile or otherwise. Fine. In those cases they don't, come up with a different option. But I think a well provisioned unit will have adequate supplies for making camp including items not listed in the MM as weapons.

If in an enemy's home base, I think people greatly underestimate the thought and preparation put into defenses. Their lives depended on it after all.

My opinion on Tiny Hut
It's a decent spell and reasonably useful. I'm going to run it as intended in future campaigns - that you can't make ranged attacks outside the hut from inside. But beyond that, resting for 8 hours in an immobile encampment when the enemy knows you're there is generally going to be a really bad idea.

The very first time it was used, I hadn't thought about how to counter it and it was a bit problematic. Which is why I was attempting to offer advice and solicit other people's opinions on what could be done. "Nothing" IMHO is not a realistic option. Want to stick with the "Nothing can be done"? That's your option.

Rope trick has the same major issue the hut does. Time. The enemy knows there are invaders somewhere so they're going to be on high alert, double patrols, perhaps enact some extra defenses.

*BTW if the party does come up with some good counters, fantastic! I love it when players creatively overcome obstacles.

 

[Maxperson]

My opinion on Tiny Hut
It's a decent spell and reasonably useful. I'm going to run it as intended in future campaigns - that you can't make ranged attacks outside the hut from inside.

The spell explicitly says that any objects, which include arrows and such, that are inside the Hut when cast, can pass through freely. That means that you can attack with them. What makes you think the spell doesn't intend what it explicitly states is true?

Rope trick has the same major issue the hut does. Time. The enemy knows there are invaders somewhere so they're going to be on high alert, double patrols, perhaps enact some extra defenses.

No they don't. They have no idea if the invaders are there or have left.

 

[Oofta]

The spell explicitly says that any objects, which include arrows and such, that are inside the Hut when cast, can pass through freely. That means that you can attack with them. What makes you think the spell doesn't intend what it explicitly states is true?

The intent of the spell has been clarified in a tweet. Objects can be moved through the wall but that's different than passing freely.

I like that ruling, don't really care if it's a house rule I'm going to run it as intended.

Although on a related note, if you rule that arrows pass freely if you fire an arrow at an enemy can they just pick it up and fire it back? Might be a use for a literal strawman.

No they don't. They have no idea if the invaders are there or have left.

I assume monsters are intelligent based on their stats. Bunch of their buddies die, it's possible the enemy might still be present because there are magical ways of hiding. They're going to be on high alert for a while in my game.

 

[Maxperson]

The intent of the spell has been clarified in a tweet. Objects can be moved through the wall but that's different than passing freely.

Right. Just like the spell having a bottom was also clarified. You don't really get to claim that you are running the spell as intended while cherry picking only the things intended that you like.

I like that ruling, don't really care if it's a house rule I'm going to run it as intended.

Clearly! You run the spell as a 7 day spell. House rules are not something you shy away from. Nor should you. Nor is that a bad thing. I house rule the hell out of D&D.

Although on a related note, if you rule that arrows pass freely if you fire an arrow at an enemy can they just pick it up and fire it back? Might be a use for a literal strawman.

I've not had that come up yet, but yes those arrows would be able to pass back through the Hut wall. Assuming of course that the arrow didn't break. I have a 50% break rate for arrow fired.

I assume monsters are intelligent based on their stats. Bunch of their buddies die, it's possible the enemy might still be present because there are magical ways of hiding. They're going to be on high alert for a while in my game.

Sure. High alert makes sense. They just aren't going to know whether the enemy is there or not.

 

[Oofta]

Right. Just like the spell having a bottom was also clarified. You don't really get to claim that you are running the spell as intended while cherry picking only the things intended that you like.

Clearly! You run the spell as a 7 day spell. House rules are not something you shy away from. Nor should you. Nor is that a bad thing. I house rule the hell out of D&D.

The first time I heard about the hut having a bottom was sometime during the lifetime of this thread. But yes, I pick and choose rules based on tweets. Just like I pick and choose some rules from the official publications.

If I were running AL, I'd follow the official Sage Advice. At home I make a call. For example, I disagree with the official advice on Shield Master so I don't use it.

Sure. High alert makes sense. They just aren't going to know whether the enemy is there or not.

True, but they know the enemy hasn't been defeated and that there magical ways of hiding.

Depending on the situation and terrain they might even be able to track the party to where they disappeared. For example if they have guard dogs that can track by scent or the group just does rope trick over a pile of dead bodies. Again, very situational.

 

[Big J Money]

The intent of the spell has been clarified in a tweet.

Question: Do these clarifications ever make it into an errata? On the one hand, I'd like to keep track of rules clarifications from WotC. On the other hand, unless it's in a single reference I can keep, I'm not going to bother. I have PTSD from trying to memorize all the errata in the 3 and 3.5 era, and I would rather just play RAW than to resort to my memory these days.

 

[Oofta]

Question: Do these clarifications ever make it into an errata? On the one hand, I'd like to keep track of rules clarifications from WotC. On the other hand, unless it's in a single reference I can keep, I'm not going to bother. I have PTSD from trying to memorize all the errata in the 3 and 3.5 era, and I would rather just play RAW than to resort to my memory these days.

Only rarely, and I'd be surprised if any more do.

There was at least one back when 5E was first released, the rule that you needed a free hand to use ammunition was added to the ammunition entry under equipment. The only reason I remember was because there were ... contentious ... arguments that because the rules didn't specifically state you needed a free hand you could just fire dual hand crossbows all day long without dropping either.

 

[Maxperson]

The first time I heard about the hut having a bottom was sometime during the lifetime of this thread. But yes, I pick and choose rules based on tweets. Just like I pick and choose some rules from the official publications.

If I were running AL, I'd follow the official Sage Advice. At home I make a call. For example, I disagree with the official advice on Shield Master so I don't use it.

That's about how I do it, except for AL. I won't touch AL.

My point is just that if you are going to pick this intent, but not that intent, and then alter the duration of the spell to a week, you can't really claim to be using the spell as intended.

For my game, I will allow arrows to be fired out, and then back in if possible. It makes no sense for the arrows to be freely allowed in and out if inside when cast, but then somehow prevented from being shot out. I will be tossing that intended feature right out of the Hut. The other intended feature, the floor I will be putting in. The spell is intended to be a safe space if you are inside.

True, but they know the enemy hasn't been defeated and that there magical ways of hiding.

Depending on the situation and terrain they might even be able to track the party to where they disappeared. For example if they have guard dogs that can track by scent or the group just does rope trick over a pile of dead bodies. Again, very situational.

True enough.