D&D 5E Leomund's Tiny Hut

[Ilbranteloth]

We actually changed it to be more like the earlier editions in that you can attack from within and without. Creatures can't pass, but objects and spells can. A 50 mph gust of wind will destroy it.

We did modify it so that it's invisible from the outside, so it still makes a safer camp, but not impenetrable. Sounds and light don't exit it, and it keeps you warm, so it still works very well.

The basic problem we had is that it pretty much eliminated anything interesting from happening when camping out at night. Seemed way overpowered for a low level spell. At least that was our take on it. Other groups probably don't want to bother with potential night-time encounters, in which case it's great as written.

The players had fun when they realized (on their own) that they had to walk through the several inches of snow that had fallen the night before when they left. Cartoon body-shape in the snow!

Ilbranteloth

 

[Saeviomagy]

My goals of play are the same as what the Basic Rules say: To have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Players who are cognizant of this don't typically make choices that impact the fun of the table or the quality of the story. This is my stock answer to concerns over abuse of mechanics such as the ones over which the OP or others seem to be concerned: It's self-correcting when the players know the goals of play in the Basic Rules.

If the DM repeatedly presents scenarios which can be trivialized in ways the players have already demonstrated, isn't the DM failing at fulfilling the goals of play?

 

[iserith]

If the DM repeatedly presents scenarios which can be trivialized in ways the players have already demonstrated, isn't the DM failing at fulfilling the goals of play?

They'd all have a hand in that, I should think: The DM for presenting the same old nail and the players for using the same old hammer.

 

[travathian]

My goals of play are the same as what the Basic Rules say: To have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Players who are cognizant of this don't typically make choices that impact the fun of the table or the quality of the story.

Your goals of play seem to be completely arbitrary and you seem ridiculously hung up on them. How does using this tactic impact the fun at the table? If the party feels this is a valuable and useful tool in their arsenal, who are you to say they aren't having fun? And quality of story? Doesn't that fall on your side of the fence, not the players?

 

[iserith]

Your goals of play seem to be completely arbitrary and you seem ridiculously hung up on them. How does using this tactic impact the fun at the table? If the party feels this is a valuable and useful tool in their arsenal, who are you to say they aren't having fun? And quality of story? Doesn't that fall on your side of the fence, not the players?

My goals of play are based upon what the Basic Rules say they are and the group's consensus about what constitutes a good time and a quality story. They are thus not arbitrary. If a player is not sure something will be fun for other people, he or she can ask. As for story, that's a product of the choices made during play and how they all shake out (among other things) and is therefore everyone's responsibility, not just the DM's. That is, if they want to achieve the goals of play.

As for being "hung up" on them, I offered a response to concerns about abuse, people asked for more information, and I answered. It's as simple as that.

 

[Celtavian]

Leomind's Tiny Hut cannot be cast that easily in battle.

It may be a near perfect rest place for a night, it would not be hard to set up an ambush as soon as the players leave it. You cannot cast spells out of it or attack out of it. Not sure where that is coming from. You have to move in and out of it to do so. You can't sit inside it and cast spells or shoot weapons out of it. It's a very limited defensive option. I don't see why occasionally using it effectively is a problem.

 

[Riley37]

If the DM repeatedly presents scenarios which can be trivialized in ways the players have already demonstrated, isn't the DM failing at fulfilling the goals of play?

If the PCs have already demonstrated that they can use swords to stab monsters to death, it is, by your logic, a DM failure to present the PCs with further encounters with stabbable monsters.

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.

The players at my table seem happy with repeated resolvable-by-stabbing challenges, so long as there's an interesting backstory which leads them to the stabbing, perhaps some minor tactical variations such as terrain or monsters with unusual abilities, and then interesting rewards and consequences after the stabbing is accomplished. YMMV.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If the PCs have already demonstrated that they can use swords to stab monsters to death, it is, by your logic, a DM failure to present the PCs with further encounters with stabbable monsters.

I guess you missed the word "trivialize" in my post. Feel free to edit your post now that I have pointed it out.

 

[Dausuul]

Leomind's Tiny Hut cannot be cast that easily in battle.

It may be a near perfect rest place for a night, it would not be hard to set up an ambush as soon as the players leave it. You cannot cast spells out of it or attack out of it. Not sure where that is coming from. You have to move in and out of it to do so. You can't sit inside it and cast spells or shoot weapons out of it. It's a very limited defensive option. I don't see why occasionally using it effectively is a problem.

Indeed. I'm not seeing the abuse potential. Sure, for one round, you can step out, shoot, and step back inside unharmed. Do it again the next round, and you'll eat a bunch of readied attacks. Even the dumbest enemy can figure that one out.

What else can you do with it? Someone in the first page of the thread suggested blocking a bridge to stop an army's progress. You could do that; you could also collapse the bridge by mundane means, and then you wouldn't have to sit there recasting the spell every 8 hours. And either way, you only delay the army till it finds another way across the river. They won't just sit there for eternity going "Duh, bridge no work."

The spell does have some neat uses to create a temporary obstacle or escape battle. That's fine. Players should be allowed to come up with clever and unexpected solutions to problems. It's only an issue if they can use the spell to trivialize a broad class of problems, and I don't see where LTH can do that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You cannot cast spells out of it or attack out of it. Not sure where that is coming from.

Cannot cast spells out of it, no. But the spell does say that "creatures and objects" within the spell at the time of casting can move in and out freely. Arrows, bolts, sling stones, etc. are objects. So with a ranged weapon--or a reach weapon, I suppose--you could attack out of it by RAW. Me, I'll probably add an "objects can only pass through if carried by a living being" house rule, but it is a house rule.