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

[Mort]

The most recent one was in a supplemental side aventure to Descent into Avernus called Encounters in Avernus:
View attachment 420970

Interesting,

That would technically foil the initial ambush.

But, for this to make narrative sense, the abishais have clearly been observing the party. So now they know the groups schtick. They can simply wait until the next long rest (what 1 day?) and ambush them as the caster is casting tiny hut (it takes 11 minutes, plenty of time for the Abishais) which will likely be just as effective, likely more so because the group will be caught even more unaware (unless the DM allowed a weapon of warning in, just don't).

 

[lall]

My PCs use it for visual privacy from other party members. They have Dispel Magic, but they don’t want to see that.

 

[GrimCo]

Never. Neither did other often cited offenders like Rope trick or Silvery barbs. Exploration, survival or dungeon crawling aren't part of my games, or my group's game in general. And since our setting runs in lower levels, where level 5 characters are regional heroes, and level 10-12 are among strongest individuals in the setting, i'm fine with PCs having their mobile bunker.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, the game just re-upped the spell's use in these new books when it had the chance to depower it... so obviously none of the game's designers think it's as much of an issue as some of the folks here do. Which means there's only one solution-- remove or change the spell yourself. It's as simple as that.

Now of course if someone is going to come back with "Well, I spent $60, I shouldn't HAVE to!"... the answer of course is "Yes, you absolutely should." Because apparently you didn't do your due diligence. You spent your $60 even though you could have seen the book still had this issue in it. And thus you could have chosen not to buy it. But since you did choose to buy it, then yes you DO have to remove or change that spell if you don't want it in your game. You weren't buying the Player's Handbook you thought you were owed... you bought the Player's Handbook WotC chose to produce. Warts and all. If you didn't want those warts or expected someone else to remove those warts... you shouldn't have paid your money for it.

 

[Horwath]

maybe favorite rework(if it's needed at all, I think the spell is fire)
is to make it as Leomunds secret lodge from 3.5e

you make a sturdy 20by20by20ft cottage made out of masonry, no matter how it looks on the outside.
Lodge blends into surrounding and can only be found with Survival check made with disadvantage while being within 30ft from it. DC equals your spell DC. You can deactivate and reactivate this effect with a Bonus action.
Door and windows are Arcane locked with Alarm and you have Unseen servant inside with Mending and Prestidigitation to clean and maintain your gear.
otherwise it's a normal, strong build stone building that makes inside temperature one band hotter or cooler than outside.

Lodge lasts for 24hrs or (optional); if you spend 5000GP it is permanent.

 

[AlViking]

Well, the game just re-upped the spell's use in these new books when it had the chance to depower it... so obviously none of the game's designers think it's as much of an issue as some of the folks here do. Which means there's only one solution-- remove or change the spell yourself. It's as simple as that.

Now of course if someone is going to come back with "Well, I spent $60, I shouldn't HAVE to!"... the answer of course is "Yes, you absolutely should." Because apparently you didn't do your due diligence. You spent your $60 even though you could have seen the book still had this issue in it. And thus you could have chosen not to buy it. But since you did choose to buy it, then yes you DO have to remove or change that spell if you don't want it in your game. You weren't buying the Player's Handbook you thought you were owed... you bought the Player's Handbook WotC chose to produce. Warts and all. If you didn't want those warts or expected someone else to remove those warts... you shouldn't have paid your money for it.

If I refused to purchase a rulebook that had anything in it I disagreed with, I would never buy a rulebook.

Meanwhile over decades of play across multiple editions, I don't recall LTH ever causing a significant disruption in the game. For that matter, I rarely see it cast. If it did cause an issue I would change it or ban it like a do a handful of other things I don't care for. We have always made the game our own with small tweaks and adjustments even though the game never told us specifically what to do to make it our own because everyone will have different ideas on what that is.

Some people state that new players can't figure out how to adjust things, or should explicitly be told what to do. I call BS. The rules have always been a platform and starting point for a game, people starting play today are no less capable than when I picked up that blue box set long ago. The only way to figure out what changes you want to make to the game to make it your own is to play the game and figure out what doesn't work for you and your players.

 

[Pamphylian]

It is interesting to see the change between TSR editions and 5e in Tiny Hut: (e.g. here) - what is now impervious was once vulnerable to the extremes of temperature, wind, missiles, etc. Interesting partly because, unlike many spells, which get weaker in the WotC era, the "survival" spells (Tiny Hut, but also e.g. Create Food and Water) get quite a bit stronger.

In any case, I'm not sure it is particularly adversarial to concoct elaborate pains for parties using tiny hut to sleep in the dungeon or whatever in a 5e world. Evolutionary speaking, dungeon denizens would surely recognize a Tiny hut as a big dangerous issue, containing immense danger, akin to a malignant tumor, and would have methods, more or less primitive, for dealing with it. Those that didn't surely would have died out long ago to parasitizing adventuring parties. The arms race presumably has been built into the historical structure of the world.

 

[CleverNickName]

Honestly?

Tiny Hut is extremely problematic in white-room game theory analysis, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen that spell actually get used in the game. And I've been playing for decades.

 

[Zardnaar]

Honestly?

Tiny Hut is extremely problematic in white-room game theory analysis, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen that spell actually get used in the game. And I've been playing for decades.

Generally requires a wizard.

Not seeing them much nowadays. New campaign 3/6 are talking about what they're playing. 0 wizards so far in an easy NPC arcane game.