Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 7880726" data-attributes="member: 6804070">Now this discussion is back to being useful. Thanks to all for that.A couple of thoughts, having counters to counters to actions is good. It allows creativity and variety. Is tiny hut too powerful? Sure, it might be more powerful thatn most spells of it's level, but it is very situational and can be countered without expanding resources (though it can also be countered by using resources). So no, I'm still fine with it.Well, you stick with this (apparently) because of the way you envision being able to shoot out, or that if the front of the bolt/arrow sticks out you are fine. But, it would be just as easy to say the entire bolt/arrow has to be outside the dome in order for it to be fired accurately. That's all fine to rule it either way. It really doesn't make it that much more deadly imo. It can still be countered with the simple expediency of leaving, or covering it, or anything else mentioned.Now, to get out of the white room fallacies, have my players ever used it as a fortification? Nope. And I will be fine the first time they do. But then the creatures will start to counter it. And they will have to think of something new. Versatility is fine. Isn't that what makes the game fun?So what if the castle defenders use a hut to reinforce the gate? Do the attackers have no options? Come on, imo it seems everyone that thinks its too powerful feel that things always work out the same way, and if it's not as the DM intended it is somehow wrong. I love it when my players "go off the rails". Of course, I don't think of it that way because I don't run adventures with a pre-determined story or outcome.</blockquote>

Verification