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.

 

[James Gasik]

Most problematic spells that have been with the game for a long time seem follow this particular trend that they only become problematic when they become easier to cast.

Light was once a 1st-level spell. Rarely used.

Goodberry has been a Druid spell for decades, but it always had this opportunity cost where you'd have to specifically go out of your way to have it, at the expense of other spells. 5e lets you prepare it and if you don't need it, you can use the spell slot for other things.

Create water has a similar history. I remember Dark Sun going out of it's way to nerf it because it would wreck the setting (which make sense), but at the time, I don't think I ever saw it used. Once 3e gave Clerics the ability to ditch needless spells for Cure spells, the opportunity cost went way down, much like Goodberry now.

Tiny Hut didn't really offer useful benefits for most situations in previous editions. Even when it was eventually powered up (I think in 4e), it wasn't used (mostly because Ritual casting was a pain in 4e, so only a few Rituals got much use). Ritual casting in 5e basically means it's a free spell that you don't even have to prepare, so it can get used more. If it cost you a Fireball, it probably wouldn't be used much.

Ultimately, camping in the wild is dangerous. Being interrupted by a night encounter used to be not only common, but the worst kind of encounter- if everybody takes a watch, there's the risk some not-so perceptive character will get ambushed. Then there's the inevitable checks to see who wakes up and can actually take part in the combat. Spellcasters won't have spell slots back, warriors might not have their armor- it's a real pain in the ass.

Things that mitigate this really should exist, one might say they need to in your typical D&D setting. But you run into this problem that if the spell can't actually prevent an ambush, then it's going to be used. So WotC said "hey, maybe it should prevent you from being snuck up on by Bugbears and strangled in your sleep, and give you time to respond". And that's great.

The problem is that it does more than that. I'm sure the anticipated play loop would be for the caster to immediately start casting spells, so the Hut would end on their turn. But like any open ended tool, somebody is going to find ways to use it outside of it's intended use.

Given the opportunity, gamers are going to game, and all that. "Hey, did you realize this thing is basically a level 3 Wall of Force that doesn't take a spell slot?"- yeah, someone is going to devote brain power to finding good uses for that.

Until it becomes a problem, however, it lurks unseen. If you don't routinely hit your players with ambushes for having the nerve to take long rests, or the players are just careful about where and when they rest, it's probably fine. Heck, even if all it does is prevent someone from dying in their sleep, also fine.

But when someone realizes it can be exploited, and lead to play patterns it wasn't intended to support, it is a big deal. You have to nerf it. Ban it. Have intelligent foes prepare for it's existence, despite the fact that it's not really something one should encounter super often in many games. It's like the time-honored chestnut of monsters dogpiling the healer, when in reality, most monsters don't use magical healing, and divine casters might not be all that super common. The game would become pretty lopsided if all enemies were ran as if they were ignorant of such things (though, amusingly, there are DM's who are happy to deny players such "basic information", lol).

I don't like that LTH can be a trap for the inexperienced, and that it can force a DM to worry about countermeasures for something that, realistically speaking, is a potent and sometimes vital exploration tool. In a world infested by dangerous monsters, you'd be foolish not to have some kind of portable fortification, be it an armored RV or a fortress in your pocket.

But ultimately, it's far from the only such thing in the game, and in the grand scheme of things, it's far from the worst thing players can do to warp the game with magic. One day, I might actually find myself in a high level game where I suddenly have to worry about things like Simulacrum, lol, and worries about LTH will seem like fond, nostalgic memories.