D&D General Has Tiny Hut actually affected your game? Or has it otherwise mattered?

[bloodtide]

If it's every time, it's absolutely the DM being adversarial to the players and just acting to give his creatures the counter to the players actions. The enemy wouldn't be able to do that anywhere near 100% of the time.

If it's sometimes, when it makes sense independent of player actions for the NPCs to have dispel or be able to set up an effective ambush, then it's not adversarial.

This is why I tell people to run high power, high fantasy, high magic games.

The setting where the PCs have all powerful unbeatable magic.....and the whole world has sharp sticks....it not a great setting. Sure the players love it "nahnah, nobody, even a God can break into our Tiny Hut! HAHAHAHAH!".

Why would a stone giant with no spells have dispel magic? There are tons of enemies that won't have or just plain can't cast it.

But also tons that can cast dispel magic....or worse.

Why must a stone giant be a spellless target? How about a stone giant magic user of some sort? Maybe just a stone giant SpellSmasher!

 

[AlViking]

This is why I tell people to run high power, high fantasy, high magic games.

The setting where the PCs have all powerful unbeatable magic.....and the whole world has sharp sticks....it not a great setting. Sure the players love it "nahnah, nobody, even a God can break into our Tiny Hut! HAHAHAHAH!".


But also tons that can cast dispel magic....or worse.

Why must a stone giant be a spellless target? How about a stone giant magic user of some sort? Maybe just a stone giant SpellSmasher!

Superhero movies would be boring if there were no supervillains.

 

[James Gasik]

This is why I tell people to run high power, high fantasy, high magic games.

The setting where the PCs have all powerful unbeatable magic.....and the whole world has sharp sticks....it not a great setting. Sure the players love it "nahnah, nobody, even a God can break into our Tiny Hut! HAHAHAHAH!".


But also tons that can cast dispel magic....or worse.

Why must a stone giant be a spellless target? How about a stone giant magic user of some sort? Maybe just a stone giant SpellSmasher!

Sure, but you're still having to make modifications to the game or focus on enemies who can use magic a lot more. The game as presented has many, many monsters who don't use magic, so it's still a case of: inexperienced DM runs game out of box, is stymied by low level spell effects vs. experienced DM nerfs or "effectively" nerfs player strategies by having the world react to them behind the scenes..

I don't think the onus of dealing with the problem WotC created should have to be on the DM in the first place.

 

[TwoSix]

Our twilight cleric got it as a domain spell at 5th level, and has pretty much cast religiously (pun intended) every long rest.

Ironically, at that time we were being pursued by a bunch of angry bandits, who had tried to ambush us in the past; LTH absolutely turned the tide the next time the bandits tried to ambush us at night. Since then, the DM hasn't really bothered attempting any "during a rest" encounters.

We've used it defensively a few times; set up the LTH as a bunker, then the rogue would engage and kite back the monsters to our bunkered up kill zone. Doesn't work on smarter enemies, worked great when we were trying to save our home town from hill giants.

I also had it used as a combination of safe zone and block; I once had a party cast in front of a door leading to a demonic meth lab. They opened the door and cast a fireball in, the equipment and flammable catalysts all exploded and took out everyone in the lab, and the few survivors were stuck in the room and burned to death while the party was unscathed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't have any issue with a DM removing certain spells from a particular game, if it thematically makes sense and better experience to see them removed. Like the "exploration-focused" game that removes Goodberry and Create Food and Water and Tiny Hut and the other features, spells, and abilities that trivialize the issues that come with exploration. Condensing spell lists is never a bad idea in my opinion.

That being said... if (general) you as a DM allow a spell like Tiny Hut to be taken, but then get annoyed by its use because the players are using it to avoid trouble... then (general) you should absolutely play your monsters intelligently where they have Dispels at their disposal, or if they see the Hut out in the open and the party staying within it then the monsters should immediately set up guard details around it so they can attack the group when the Hut falls. There is ZERO reason to think "Oh, I can't be a meanie DM!" when the players are purposefully using a spell to "get out of jail free" from the encounters they should be having to deal with. To me it's silly to just give up and think "Well, I messed up letting them use this horrible spell and now there's nothing I can do. Woe is me!"

Nuh uh... if the party is trying to use the spell as their own personal "I win!" button... then I as a DM should 100% be giving them back a taste of their own medicine and feel no guilt about it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have seen Tiny Hut completely trivialize DM plans for having the environment conditions matter (e.g. heat/cold), but this is no more gamebreaking than say Goodberry or Dancing Lights completely trivializing food/drink and non-magical darkness.

weather and environmental conditions while resting is the one thing i think LTH ought to be allowed and expected to trivialize.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't have any issue with a DM removing certain spells from a particular game, if it thematically makes sense and better experience to see them removed. Like the "exploration-focused" game that removes Goodberry and Create Food and Water and Tiny Hut and the other features, spells, and abilities that trivialize the issues that come with exploration. Condensing spell lists is never a bad idea in my opinion.

That being said... if (general) you as a DM allow a spell like Tiny Hut to be taken, but then get annoyed by its use because the players are using it to avoid trouble... then (general) you should absolutely play your monsters intelligently where they have Dispels at their disposal, or if they see the Hut out in the open and the party staying within it then the monsters should immediately set up guard details around it so they can attack the group when the Hut falls. There is ZERO reason to think "Oh, I can't be a meanie DM!" when the players are purposefully using a spell to "get out jail free" from the encounters they should be having to deal with. To me it's silly to just give up and think "Well, I messed up letting them use this horrible spell and now there's nothing I can do. Woe is me!"

Nuh uh... if the party is trying to use the spell as their own personal "I win!" button... then I as a DM should 100% be giving them back a taste of their own medicine and feel no guilt about it.

Agreed and but I see getting around encounters as a legitimate strategy. Not a fan of using the hut as a bunker but have never seen it in game.

 

[Chaltab]

I have never encountered Tiny Hut being a problem in my games, no.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed and but I see getting around encounters as a legitimate strategy. Not a fan of using the hut as a bunker but have never seen it in game.

My personal take is that LTH is quite useful and powerful, I simply don't see that as a problem. It's certainly affected our games, but player-facing options should affect gameplay; that's the point of having choices!

 

[SteveC]

In the campaign I'm playing in right now, I have it and have used it to allow for a long rest. I've never used it for in-combat purposes and I suspect that my DM would ban it at that point.

As a fellow DM, I work with my friend who's running, and we have a conversation about when long rests are appropriate and that's pretty much when we take them. That's the answer to this issue, and virtually any other abusive spell situation: talk with your DM and make it fun for the group and the DM.