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

[Derren]

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.

How can there be a discussion when you dismiss all uses which can be described as problematic with "never seen it, not a problem, no need to address it"?
Tiny Hut can be used for more than just a resting spell which makes it far more powerful than a 3rd level spell, or especially a ritual.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The big problem with your ideas is they all have some combination of how adversarial & blatantly obvious the near/completely adversarial gm vrs players application of plot armor level solutions along with the fact that many of them set dangerous precedents or devolve into full on calvinball. When I pointed that out with the most glaring throw paint solution you complained that there were other solutions here. A bit frustrated in arguing past you I humored your request & spelled it out for each & every one of your solutions only to have you refuse to accept the problems or engage in discussion. Also don't forget that people other than myself pointed out these kind of things.

It's fine to say that you wanted a "discussion", but you need to be willing to engage in one & accept that not every disagreement is because the other person is a bad gm who should just do x.

Even in this example you set precedent that a makeshift siege engine/portable wall can be thrown together rather quickly to result in a very functional creation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Nope. I’ve no need to limit the spell. The world responds to what the players do. The world moves on without them. The world knows common level 3 spells and their basic effects.

I don’t change a word of the spell. I’ve never needed to. I don’t go out of my way at all wrt the spell. Why would I?

Enemies aren’t stupid. They can take cover and wait out the PCs. They can sound alarms. They don’t build strongholds with a bunch of one way hallways with no way out if an enemy blocks a doorway. They aren’t so out of touch with eachother that they won’t hear an alarm.

I also challenge my players, and so dispel Magic isn’t an uncommon spell.

 

[Asisreo]

And what about mine? Do you really think the fact that Leomund's take 11 minutes (re-checked) to cast and having a patrol in a dungeon find them within that time unrealistic enough to be adversarial? Honestly, I find removing a spell from a wizard's spell list more adversarial.

 

[Oofta]

Even in this example you set precedent that a makeshift siege engine/portable wall can be thrown together rather quickly to result in a very functional creation.

What, exactly is impossible for a group of a couple of dozen hobgoblins to throw together a makeshift oversized shield in a couple of hours with plenty of resources?

I and a half-dozen teenagers built a raft in a couple of hours when I was younger. Get some wood, lash it together. Throw in some smaller logs perpendicular to the thing and it would have functioned as my portable wall. It's clumsy, pointless in combat, definitely not an engineering marvel. But it blocked line of sight so that they could approach the hut which is all it needed to do.

 

[Oofta]

How can there be a discussion when you dismiss all uses which can be described as problematic with "never seen it, not a problem, no need to address it"?
Tiny Hut can be used for more than just a resting spell which makes it far more powerful than a 3rd level spell, or especially a ritual.

I'm not dismissing. I've given advice on how I handle it. My advice is dismissed out of hand.

I'm sorry you have an issue I have never seen in any game ever whether I was a DM or player. I was just trying to help.

The big problem with your ideas is they all have some combination of how adversarial & blatantly obvious the near/completely adversarial gm vrs players application of plot armor level solutions along with the fact that many of them set dangerous precedents or devolve into full on calvinball. When I pointed that out with the most glaring throw paint solution you complained that there were other solutions here. A bit frustrated in arguing past you I humored your request & spelled it out for each & every one of your solutions only to have you refuse to accept the problems or engage in discussion. Also don't forget that people other than myself pointed out these kind of things.

It's fine to say that you wanted a "discussion", but you need to be willing to engage in one & accept that not every disagreement is because the other person is a bad gm who should just do x.

Even in this example you set precedent that a makeshift siege engine/portable wall can be thrown together rather quickly to result in a very functional creation.

I refused to respond to a post that started with and continued to be full of insults and put-downs. I don't see a need to respond to someone who can't disagree in a civil fashion.

The option you have such a problem is was under the category of pre-planned counters. So yes, in a world where tiny hut like spells exist tactics specifically to counter them would be developed. Especially if countered by a genius level monster that knows and understands the tactics of a hostile force.

How to run a genius level opponent is a whole other topic, but the fact that they seem to be one step ahead of the party and anticipate their tactics should be part of the challenge. I see nothing wrong with throwing the equivalent of Tucker's kobolds at the group now and then, especially if it's a boss monster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

The repeated assertion that the spell is not a problem, at all, seems at odds with that goal. But maybe that's not really you, so much as thread-reply-cycles and topic drift.

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.

Now, to be clear, by 'countermeasures' you don't mean adversarial-DMing tactics specifically to counter the 'broken' spell, but just enemies who happened to be set against the party, and would've been the same enemies, hut or no hut, who happened to be intelligent, applying countermeasures of their own based on their perception or knowledge of the spell.

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.

Was it a 'because it's there' reaction to finding the hut, or were the party in hobgoblin territory on some mission contrary to their interests?

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.

Just to further understand the set-up and situation: this was a longish period of travel, in which the party took a long rest each night? And had a not-unrealistic number of encounters in the 16 hrs of travel &c not protected by Da Hut, each day?

 

[Oofta]

The repeated assertion that the spell is not a problem, at all, seems at odds with that goal. But maybe that's not really you, so much as thread-reply-cycles and topic drift.

I know communicating on forums can be difficult. When I say I don't have a problem ... that's all. It's not an issue in my game or other games I've been involved with. That does not mean it can't be a problem for other people.

So I was attempting to explain why I didn't hit the issue.

Now, to be clear, by 'countermeasures' you don't mean adversarial-DMing tactics specifically to counter the 'broken' spell, but just enemies who happened to be set against the party, and would've been the same enemies, hut or no hut, who happened to be intelligent, applying countermeasures of their own based on their perception or knowledge of the spell.

Yep. I think people sometimes underestimate how much effort is put into defenses and figuring out counter strategies. When Leomund originally created the hut (or whatever wizard it was in your world), it was probably much more effective because people didn't know how to deal with it.

Much like WW I with trench warfare. For quite a while it made for a very static battlefield with soldiers sniping at each other ineffectively from their trench to the enemy's trench. Then someone started developing strategies like mass attacks at multiple points or putting armor on tractors to create tanks or mustard gas.

Was it a 'because it's there' reaction to finding the hut, or were the party in hobgoblin territory on some mission contrary to their interests?

There was a war going on, the hobgoblins were part of the enemy army.

Just to further understand the set-up and situation: this was a longish period of travel, in which the party took a long rest each night? And had a not-unrealistic number of encounters in the 16 hrs of travel &c not protected by Da Hut, each day?

In that particular case, they had been travelling several days with only a few incidents. They were trying to get closer to a secret base and had decided to take the route through the wild lands to avoid as many patrols as possible. They had actually had a few skirmishes with other patrols before trying to get a night's rest.

 

[tetrasodium]

And what about mine? Do you really think the fact that Leomund's take 11 minutes (re-checked) to cast and having a patrol in a dungeon find them within that time unrealistic enough to be adversarial? Honestly, I find removing a spell from a wizard's spell list more adversarial.

I
The first time not especially, the seventh of seventh time though.... Also a "Patrol" implies tucker's kobolds) & invade the enemy fortress as the only valid type of gameplay. I've tried explaining thatforcing every type of game & every adventure to fit those molds in order to claim the spell is not an issue as written more than once & keep seeing people say to just run those types of examples Here are a couple examples that might seem strange to have patrols in, especially ones so frequent that they would stumble on the ritual casting of tiny hut with enough regularity to be a challenge

The borders between nations demonstrate the impact of generations of conflict. Forests and farmlands scorched by fire and magic are still recovering. Ruined cities have yet to be reclaimed, along with shattered villages and abandoned fortresses. These deserted sites now provide shelter for brigands or are haunted by the restless spirits of those who died in anguish.

Sharn began where Dura stands, but the city has left it behind in many ways. Many nowadays consider the oldest quarter of Sharn to be a blight on the City of Towers. The place is full of cracked and crumbling stonework, abandoned lift shafts, and everbright lanterns that have burned out and never been restored. Dura is riddled with poverty and crime; it's easily the most dangerous section of the city. But it also holds opportunities you can't find anywhere else. If you're looking for smuggled goods or a place to lie low, head to Dura.

Khyber's Gate is part of the ruins of a goblin city that was abandoned thousands of years ago. No one knows how deep it goes. The monstrous inhabitants of the district have no love for treasure hunters or adventurers, and it's a dangerous place to explore.

In the days immediately following the Mourning, many assumed that the mist would continue to spread. Intense panic slowly turned to curiosity as it became clear that the border had stabilized. Over the last four years, people have ventured into the mist for many reasons. Some sought to plunder the abandoned treasures of the richest nation in Galifar. Others hoped to find lost loved ones, or some explanation for the disaster. Few of these explorers have returned, and those survivors all tell tales of a land twisted in unpredictable and inexplicable ways.

so on & so forth the point is made

@Oofta for someone who doesn't "see a need to respond to someone who can't disagree in a civil fashion. " you sure do it often while refusing to admit that there are problems with the spell itself.. also that " group of a couple of dozen hobgoblins to throw together a makeshift oversized shield in a couple of hours with plenty of resources" through that together quickly enough using resources they had on hand while doing a wilderness patrol* & had results effective enough to offset the fact that your PCs just safely completed a short rest, will do so again, and can just say "ok long rest then" if you say only 2 short rests/long rest or somesuch. I explained the precedent setting problems in more detail earlier but you are so unwilling to accept any disagreement that you ignore it & keep saying things like "It's not an issue in my game or other games I've been involved with". to imply that anyone who does have a problem with it is a bad gm.

*I think we can both agree that lumber & carpentry equipment are not standard issue for a wilderness patrol & you've just declared that even modest effort in a place where supplies are to be expected should be phenomenally effective

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was a war going on, the hobgoblins were part of the enemy army.

Cool, brings the whole thing together.

In that particular case, they had been travelling several days with only a few incidents. They were trying to get closer to a secret base and had decided to take the route through the wild lands to avoid as many patrols as possible. They had actually had a few skirmishes with other patrols before trying to get a night's rest.

Now, a significant issue some folks have with Da Hut is that it can be used by players to 'break' the 6-8 encounter work-day that theoretically balances both classes and encounter difficulties. In this example, there's no such work-day being established, in the first place, you had a series of no/single/trivial encounter days of travel, and a more nearly significant several-encounter day culminating in the Hut-siege.