D&D 5E Leomund's Tiny Hut

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's the fun of overcoming a challenge (language barrier) by trivial means (in this case, a 1st-level spell, possibly cast ritually from a spellbook). Does that reach agreement?

Yes, I fully agree with that.

Is there broad agreement, or full consensus, on exactly what "trivial" means, to all DMs and to all players, in the context of trivial and non-trivial challenges, or what constitutes trivially overcoming a challenge? And is there equal agreement on whether that's a good thing, or a situational thing, or badwrongfun?

I don't think there is broad agreement. You are using the word "trivial" in a much looser sense than myself or Saeviomagy. In math, for example, a trivial solution is "a solution or example that is ridiculously simple and of little interest," like giving zero as a solution to a complex homogenous linear equation--it's true for ALL homogenous linear equations regardless of the details of the problem.

Killing a ranged enemy who has no ranged attacks himself, is determined to chase you, and is slower than you is a trivial problem (although some players would want to play it out anyway--apparently it's not of little interest to them) no matter how many HP the enemy has or how terrifying his melee attacks are. A lopsided combat however, is not trivial by my usage of the word even if it's ridiculously easy, because it hasn't been solved. (The details still matter.) I might think it's boring and too easy, but I wouldn't call it trivialized unless I know in advance exactly how it is going to go. At that point I would be fully comfortable with the player (not even the DM) simply narrating the combat: "As the orc chief is growling and threatening at us from across the ravine, I gesture, and meteors rain from the sky, killing him and all of his men. All die! O the embarrassment."

 

[Tormyr]

For me, trivial encounters fall below the Easy threshold for encounter XP budget.

 

[Riley37]

Your example was weathertop as a trivial combat encounter.

Hey now. Sometimes debate reaches agreement, sometimes it produces interesting and useful results without reaching agreement; friction always produces heat and only sometimes produces light. But IMO it's more likely to produce light if you address the things I actually said, and not some preposterous distortion of what I said.

What I actually said: "By that logic, the DM of the "Lord of the Rings" campaign was an utter failure, in every combat scene from Moria onwards, since the PCs demonstrated that they could win direct armed conflicts at Weathertop - and that was with Aragorn as the party's only expert stabber, before the addition of Legolas "and my bow", Gimli "and my axe", and Boromir."

Notice, that does NOT say that the encounter at Weathertop was trivially easy. It was not. Before Weathertop, the PC team had zero experience of winning armed encounters; "we fight them and win" had no precedent. And, as you say, Aragorn had to drive off (or disable) the attackers *without* taking unacceptable losses among his untrained comrades.

The idea that Aragorn might have forgotten to use fire, though, is laughable, given Aragorn's background. "ferrō flammāque" and all that.

Anyways, Aragorn demonstrated at Weathertop that he was sufficiently skilled in arms, to drive off four ringwraiths. Then, at Rivendell, Legolas, Gimli and Boromir join the party. From Rivendell onwards, any armed fight against any lesser foe, such as bands of wolves or orcs, can be handwaved as "okay, you stab them repeatedly, we know how that ends".

The Balrog was beyond the set of challenges that Aragorn and his team could handle by "insert pointy end". You could use THAT to poke a hole in *what I actually said*. Would you like to edit your post?

"My original meaning was that if the DM reruns the same or a substantially similar encounter with the expectation that next time they will somehow get a better story result, then everyone involved will be disappointed."

Now THAT's an interesting statement. As in, exploring it might lead to some posts which help EnWorlders run (or play) better game sessions. What if the DM runs a substantially similar encounter with the expectation of getting an *equal* story result, and finds that adequate for satisfaction?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The idea that Aragorn might have forgotten to use fire, though, is laughable, given Aragorn's background. "ferrō flammāque" and all that.

Translation please? What is "all that"?

 

[travathian]

It can also be used to block rivers if you have enough wizards. Wizards wade into river, all cast Tiny Hut. The water in their huts can freely flow out, but the water upstream is blocked.

hahahahha, oh man, this is awesome. Redirect a river into a town.

This makes me think of another possibility. If the city actually has a sewer system, using a couple of these to block the exits, hehe

Can't the Tiny Hut be dispelled automatically using dispel magic from 120' away?

Yes.

No shamans, witch-doctors, priests, warlocks, oathbreaker paladins, druids, bards, or sorcerers in the invading army?

Primary casters can at 5th level. Orc Eye of Gruumsh can only cast 2nd level spells, giving them access to 3rd level spells likely bumps them up to CR4. Probably the same for gnolls. Goblins and kobolds are right screwed. Higher CR humanoids typically have spellcasters of sufficient power to have dispel. Assuming they have access to the spell, and haven't used it already that day, of course they can take it down.

 

[Riley37]

Translation please? What is "all that"?

"ferrō flammāque" is "(with) flame and iron", with "iron" implying iron weapons such as swords.

"and all that", in context, means "and the associated cultural package deal". Tolkien was a scholar of heroic stories. I'd bet long odds he was familiar with Virgil's Aeneid, in which "fire and iron" tend to go hand-in-hand as weapons of war. I imagine that Aragorn fighting at night would generally wield a sword in one hand and a torch in the other; works against wolves, works against wraiths, works against any opponent that isn't otherwise illuminated.

 

[Saeviomagy]

What I actually said: "By that logic, the DM of the "Lord of the Rings" campaign was an utter failure, in every combat scene from Moria onwards, since the PCs demonstrated that they could win direct armed conflicts at Weathertop - and that was with Aragorn as the party's only expert stabber, before the addition of Legolas "and my bow", Gimli "and my axe", and Boromir."

Notice, that does NOT say that the encounter at Weathertop was trivially easy. It was not. Before Weathertop, the PC team had zero experience of winning armed encounters; "we fight them and win" had no precedent. And, as you say, Aragorn had to drive off (or disable) the attackers *without* taking unacceptable losses among his untrained comrades.

Ah yes, my mistake. The point sort of stands though - the "dm" didn't get a trivial encounter and then continue on with similar encounters: he got an encounter that nearly killed a party member, radically changed party makeup, then kept running encounters that the players had to flee from or think through.
Note that the dm gave up on having ring wraiths on horseback..

The idea that Aragorn might have forgotten to use fire, though, is laughable, given Aragorn's background. "ferrō flammāque" and all that.

I never took that to literally be poking people with a flaming stick, rather burning buildings and fields.

Anyways, Aragorn demonstrated at Weathertop that he was sufficiently skilled in arms, to drive off four ringwraiths. Then, at Rivendell, Legolas, Gimli and Boromir join the party. From Rivendell onwards, any armed fight against any lesser foe, such as bands of wolves or orcs, can be handwaved as "okay, you stab them repeatedly, we know how that ends".

Yeah, with the death of boromir for a start. I don't agree that hordes of orcs and wargs were a lesser or even substantially similar challenge to 4 foes whom you effectively play death tag with.

The Balrog was beyond the set of challenges that Aragorn and his team could handle by "insert pointy end". You could use THAT to poke a hole in *what I actually said*. Would you like to edit your post?

Nah, I think I'm good anyway.

"My original meaning was that if the DM reruns the same or a substantially similar encounter with the expectation that next time they will somehow get a better story result, then everyone involved will be disappointed."

Now THAT's an interesting statement. As in, exploring it might lead to some posts which help EnWorlders run (or play) better game sessions. What if the DM runs a substantially similar encounter with the expectation of getting an *equal* story result, and finds that adequate for satisfaction?

It's my opinion that the spells in d&d that trivialize certain things (flight, safe resting, carrying capacity, overland travel) serve a purpose in that they allow fast forwarding through scenarios that might be interesting the first time, but not the second. They allow the story to evolve to more interesting things, and actively fighting against them so that you can present yet another spiked pit trap is counter productive.

 

[Tormyr]

Primary casters can at 5th level. Orc Eye of Gruumsh can only cast 2nd level spells, giving them access to 3rd level spells likely bumps them up to CR4. Probably the same for gnolls. Goblins and kobolds are right screwed. Higher CR humanoids typically have spellcasters of sufficient power to have dispel. Assuming they have access to the spell, and haven't used it already that day, of course they can take it down.

Dispel Magic can be added to any spell caster that has it on their class spell list without changing the CR of the creature. Additionally, any of the NPC casters can be used and reskinned as orc, kobold, goblin, etc.

 

[Riley37]

Dispel Magic can be added to any spell caster that has it on their class spell list without changing the CR of the creature. Additionally, any of the NPC casters can be used and reskinned as orc, kobold, goblin, etc.

When a bullywug can Dispel Magic, then maybe you haven't changed the CR; meh, I don't care about CRs. You've changed the game setting and the range of reasonable default expectations.

"In previous generations, our people never tossed around third-level spells. Then some adventurers started using magical huts, and later that year, every tribe's shaman could dispel magic. But we never get any other third-level spells; just that one. Baffling, hunh?"

 

[Riley37]

It's my opinion that the spells in d&d that trivialize certain things (flight, safe resting, carrying capacity, overland travel) serve a purpose in that they allow fast forwarding through scenarios that might be interesting the first time, but not the second. They allow the story to evolve to more interesting things, and actively fighting against them so that you can present yet another spiked pit trap is counter productive.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree, but I think we've reached the level of YMMV.

If a spell is all about allowing its caster (and their allies) a safe rest, that the spell should provide *a safe rest*, no less, no more.

LTH has parameters which MIGHT produce a safe rest (but not necessarily), and which can also be used to produce many different things which are NOT a safe rest (such as eight hours of harassing sniper fire from a relatively-safe firing spot, or a river dam, etc.).

There's a history of top-down rulers providing item A which is to be used for purpose B; and people want outcome C more than they want purpose B, and they discover that item A is also useful for outcome C, and so that's what they use it for. Pesky people, wanting things other than what their rulers want.