D&D 5E (2014) The Dangers of Overreliance on Leomund's Tiny Hut (3rd Level Spell)

[Mordhau]

If a case has to be made for why it's not a bad spell then it's a bad spell.

 

[Lyxen]

* I've made so many house rules that I ended up writing my own book of D&D rules. Printed, stitched, bound, the whole deal. Quite fun, actually.

Good if you had fun, in 3.5 we had 20 pages on the websites dedicated to house rules, and it was a real pain to manage especially as each new book came out and had to be vetoed and examined for stupid combos...

Fortunately, 5e has finally made this clear again, and the DM has the means to shut up annoying rules lawyers: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

Can't be clearer...

 

[iserith]

-Checks SRD-

-Casts Tiny Hut-

But seriously, I never had an issue with Tiny Hut. It's the players conveying to me that being jumped in the middle of the night isn't something that want to do. So I let them spend the resources to have that not happen. Same way that in their games they let me get a bag of holding early so I don't have to interact with encumbrance

I think this is backwards. Why is the DM presenting content the players don't like such that they spend resources or acquire items to avoid that content? Are the DM and players even talking to each other about what they like and don't like?

If I'm presenting a game where the threat of nighttime encounters is important to the setting or theme - or encumbrance is similarly important - then I'm going to take away Leomund's tiny hut and bags of holding altogether since they are in conflict with that setting or theme. They don't exist in the world or are at least hard to acquire.

But at the same time, I'm not going to present a game like this to the players if nighttime encounters or dealing with decisions related to encumbrance is something the players don't actually like! Why on earth would I?

 

[ECMO3]

If I'm presenting a game where the threat of nighttime encounters is important to the setting or theme - or encumbrance is similarly important - then I'm going to take away Leomund's tiny hut and bags of holding altogether since they are in conflict with that setting or theme. They don't exist in the world or are at least hard to acquire.

That is fine if you present that as part of the social contract at the begining of the game. It is not fine if you say you are playing a RAW game and then decide 6 months into a campaign when players make 5th level that you are not going to allow a core and popular spell from the PHB.

 

[iserith]

That is fine if you present that as part of the social contract at the begining of the game. It is not fine if you say you are playing a RAW game and then decide 6 months into a campaign when players make 5th level that you are not going to allow a core and popular spell from the PHB.

Why would anyone do that? Are we really talking about an appreciable number of people who engage in this sort of behavior? It seems like a non-concern to me.

And who takes 6 months to get to 5th level?

 

[Vaalingrade]

.I doubt that even the rare games that actually have an effective Session 0 have questions like 'Are you okay being deleted in your sleep' or 'do you enjoy pointless beancounting'. The first time it's going to come up is either once the DM deploys it or the PCs take the counter.

 

[Azuresun]

That is fine if you present that as part of the social contract at the begining of the game. It is not fine if you say you are playing a RAW game and then decide 6 months into a campaign when players make 5th level that you are not going to allow a core and popular spell from the PHB.

I just deal with that by explaining that "if something seems too good to be true, it probably is", and some things may be adjusted if I think it's necessary as a catch-all rule that's easier than writing up a big document.

Because there is trust between me and the players, I explain my reasoning with with words, and the players understand that I won't be a dick who will have them ambushed by 20 assassins the session after I rule that Tiny Hut is not Wall Of Force Plus, that's usually okay. If it's not, then we use words to talk.

.I doubt that even the rare games that actually have an effective Session 0 have questions like 'Are you okay being deleted in your sleep' or 'do you enjoy pointless beancounting'. The first time it's going to come up is either once the DM deploys it or the PCs take the counter.

Careful, someone could break a leg falling down that gigantic, yawning excluded middle.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Good if you had fun, in 3.5 we had 20 pages on the websites dedicated to house rules, and it was a real pain to manage especially as each new book came out and had to be vetoed and examined for stupid combos...

Fortunately, 5e has finally made this clear again, and the DM has the means to shut up annoying rules lawyers: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

Can't be clearer...

Well, that's what addenda are for. Although, I have 40 years of D&D books next to my desk so I haven't had any surprises in a while.

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. Characrters play a role in a story.

In stories, some tools are more useful for certain things than other tools. Some tools give you great protections. However, if there is a tool in a game, it is often there for a reason.

In most of the games I experience, Tiny Hut comes into play. So much so, it is an assumption on my part that once PCs hit 5th level, I'll see the hut either as protection for my PC in the game at night, or as something the PCs will use to protect themselves in the games I run.

As a DM, I do nothing special to account for it. Wandering monsters will come across it and treat it as I think they would based upon their intellect and knowledge. Crafty and magic savvy enemies might set up an ambush, but a T-Rex might bash at it a few times before leaving.

I have never, not even for a second, found this approach problematic or disruptive.

Remember that our heroes are ... well ... heroes. They should feel like they can do things that matter. This spell is an example of being able to do something very useful and powerful that makes heroes feel like they're more than a typical peasant. It is a good thing.

I will say that if I were to redesign this edition I would make a couple small changes:

• I'd move it to 4th level as a spell. It would be better to have the PCs not have quick access to this at 5th and 6th level. I'd like to stretch the time without this protection a bit - but not much.
• I'd clarify that it has a floor.
• I'd give it an AC and hps, as well, so that it can be beaten down with a lot of effort. This isn't about making it less effective - this ia about adding the "Star Trek shields are failing" scenarios to the game. It would likely have a regeneration ability that would continue to function, even after it is pierced.
• I'd reduce the casting time to 3 rounds. This is a spell that I want PCs to not be able to cast casually in combat, but allowing them to struggle to get it up in combat when you need that defense is a good dramatic option. 3 rounds strikes me as the right sacrifice to get your shields up.
• I'd require that nothing block the shape of the sphere. You need to have a break in the dungeon, in the trees, in the hillside, etc... to make room for it. That makes it a "goal" to find a safe place to camp in some environments.