Quote from Xukuri >>

Always enjoy being told I'm not "really" playing D&D. A helpful, constructive stance.

Beyond responding to that bit of crap:

See Pantagruel's response. No one - no one - is saying tiny hut's ability to protect from the elements is bad or overpowered. No one is saying their campaign worlds, whether homebrewed or official content, are so safe as to negate the need for the tiny hut spell. You are responding, for the most part, to straw men.

You are correct, in part.

Someone did, in fact, say Tiny Hut is overpowered. 

The rest is correct-ish, and it is proper to say to me that it was unfair to state whining about tracking food for a week is means you haven't really played D&D.

but so is a lot of the "this spell's problem is" stuff. WHich was kind of the point, illustrated.

But a lot of the arguments here (mine included) have a lot of little subtle statements that are essentially arguing that if you don't do this, then you aren't doing it right.

Nevertheless, I do apologize. I had not realized it wouldn't be read in the absurdist sense I was trying to pull off, and I failed my persuasion check.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Xukuri >>

Always enjoy being told I'm not "really" playing D&D. A helpful, constructive stance.

Beyond responding to that bit of crap:

See Pantagruel's response. No one - no one - is saying tiny hut's ability to protect from the elements is bad or overpowered. No one is saying their campaign worlds, whether homebrewed or official content, are so safe as to negate the need for the tiny hut spell. You are responding, for the most part, to straw men.

 

You are correct, in part.

Someone did, in fact, say Tiny Hut is overpowered. 

The rest is correct-ish, and it is proper to say to me that it was unfair to state whining about tracking food for a week is means you haven't really played D&D.

but so is a lot of the "this spell's problem is" stuff. WHich was kind of the point, illustrated.

But a lot of the arguments here (mine included) have a lot of little subtle statements that are essentially arguing that if you don't do this, then you aren't doing it right.

 

Nevertheless, I do apologize. I had not realized it wouldn't be read in the absurdist sense I was trying to pull off, and I failed my persuasion check.

 

 

I'm wading into this. Please understand I'm terrible at making my points sometimes and might need to clarify myself. 

I personally believe that tracking everything is important to a good campaign. Resource management is crucial in keeping the PCs balanced. Without it then the game lacks a certain risk factor. Yes, your characters can die in combat but they should be afraid of the elements as well. To me, the nuts and bolts need to be there too. How many arrows did you just use in combat? How much rations were consumed in the journey? I used to run all my games like this. Hell, I still want to run games like this. But I currently have a group that cares about the powers and what class they are going to multi into next. They actually seem irritated when I question them about repairs or supplies.

However, I think DnD is whatever you make it. There is no wrong way to run the game in the end. If a DM in one group says they don't care about the supplies. Great that is for her/his game. I would never argue with another DM on how to run the game. If I played in a group that made trolls immune to fire, I would not question it. I'll be confused, but the DM wants to run the game and I'm willing to play in it, so be it. I have agreed to the terms.

Like AEDorsay I come from old school roots. I personally love that type of game. But I also have taken games over the years and house-ruled a few things to change it up to fit my play style (as many have I'm sure). I'm currently trying to do an overhaul that I am happy with of 5e. It gives me what I want and also keeps all the core stuff In the books for my players who invested the money.

My frustration with spells like Lemond's Tiny hut is they way they are written. And when a DM takes license with how it works there is a lot of pushback from players. Both sides think it works their way. Then you have to come to some agreement with your players instead of reading it and going, "Yes, that is what the spell says". I have already spilled my guts on that spell in another post I did. I will leave it that I have my way I'm doing it but in no way is that how other DMs should see it. I love the spell I just think it needs a rewrite.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Someone did, in fact, say Tiny Hut is overpowered.

 The spell is overpowered, but it's entirely from the fact that an impenetrable force wall that your allies can pass through at will is beyond the power level of a third level ritual, by a lot. The rest of what it does is a non-problem.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Someone did, in fact, say Tiny Hut is overpowered. 

 

Nevertheless, I do apologize. I had not realized it wouldn't be read in the absurdist sense I was trying to pull off, and I failed my persuasion check.

First, I didn't think anyone was arguing that tiny hut is overpowered simply because it protects from the elements (something it's done in all of its incarnations). If someone did, I missed it and I was wrong to assert that.

I do happen to think it's overpowered because it keeps everything out. Everything, and short of dispel magic or an antimagic field, it's invulnerable (as are any creatures in it. Further, Once it's up, it can easily be kept in place in perpetuity thanks to the ritual tag: all the caster needs to do is start recasting it 11 minutes before expiration date, and they're good. The hut, unlike in previous editions, has no AC, no hit points, no way of being brought down unless the enemy just happens to have a caster with dispel magic available during the encounter. This IS vastly overpowered for a spell gained at 5th level, IMNSHO.

And I'll apologize in turn for not getting your intended tone. No harm no foul.

Quote from Meddros >>

I personally believe that tracking everything is important to a good campaign. Resource management is crucial in keeping the PCs balanced. Without it then the game lacks a certain risk factor. Yes, your characters can die in combat but they should be afraid of the elements as well. To me, the nuts and bolts need to be there too. How many arrows did you just use in combat? How much rations were consumed in the journey?

Like AEDorsay I come from old school roots. I personally love that type of game. But I also have taken games over the years and house-ruled a few things to change it up to fit my play style (as many have I'm sure). I'm currently trying to do an overhaul that I am happy with of 5e. It gives me what I want and also keeps all the core stuff In the books for my players who invested the money..

 
[snipped quote for the parts I'm responding to]

Again, ideally, I'd also be running a campaign that required detailed tracking of resources: torches, arrows, food, etc. But much of it comes down to time and what's fun for everyone, not just me. We play twice a month, if we're lucky; I simply would rather not spend that precious time counting arrows or tracking food portions. If we played every week, reliably, and would be for the foreseeable future, then I'd probably move the game towards that grittier approach.

Also, I have deep old school roots. Started playing 1E in 1981, when I was in junior high. Played that version through college, took a decade or so break from the game, then ran a revival 1E game from the early aughts through 2014. Jumped on the 5E bandwagon in 2017 and haven't really looked back.

Like you, I'm considering doing an extensive overhaul of 5E to make it less superhero-y and video game-y and grittier.

Quote from Greenstone_Walker >> 

Yep. The rest of the party is going to become well aquainted with the, ummm, "hygiene" realities of living in a small space.

Additionally, the party need to plan ahead for those 8 hours. If they run out of drinking water then they can't just go outside and collect more water and bring it in. They had better enjoy a cold meal, because they can't cook food inside the hut.

 

Why? The smoke and heat from the fire would have no adverse effect on the party.

This thrills me little heart, lol.

5e has been out a decade, and a lot of folks are building out private rulesets.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

This thrills me little heart, lol.

5e has been out a decade, and a lot of folks are building out private rulesets.

 
I've said it elsewhere in the forums, but reading through MCDM's Flee, Mortals! book, as well as seeing TTRPGs like Shadowdark (a melding of OSR and 5E) being wildly successful, the lack of creativity and smart, intentional game design in 5E becomes painfully apparent. After playing 5E for 6 years, I feel almost forced to come up with a heavily revised/houseruled version of the game to address both the broken aspects of the RAW as well as tailor the game to be closer to what I want from it.

Quote from Xukuri >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

This thrills me little heart, lol.

5e has been out a decade, and a lot of folks are building out private rulesets.

 
I've said it elsewhere in the forums, but reading through MCDM's Flee, Mortals! book, as well as seeing TTRPGs like Shadowdark (a melding of OSR and 5E) being wildly successful, the lack of creativity and smart, intentional game design in 5E becomes painfully apparent. After playing 5E for 6 years, I feel almost forced to come up with a heavily revised/houseruled version of the game to address both the broken aspects of the RAW as well as tailor the game to be closer to what I want from it.

 

 
Shadowdark is on the list of one of my Co-Dm's future projects, so I've glanced at it. Not quite my style or flavor (I go through too many different genres in a campaign), and I already had versions of the Flee, Mortals stuff, which a different DM is using routinely. 

I have been building worlds since before D&D existed, lol, and it just helped me guide that creation and inspired me to go into my fields, where I do it not only for gaming for real life, lol.

I have always done a house rules book since 92, because it keeps me honest, but I have never poured so much into a single effort as I have for this next world -- which I expect will have at least a half dozen long term campaigns (two to four years each). Assuming I live that long, of course, lol.

I don't think Shadowdark is for me, either - it's a bit too stripped down - but in reading/watching some reviews of it, there are definitely parts worth plundering for a heavily houseruled game.

People if you wish to try other systems fine.

But this thread is not for that.

As for tiny hut being overpowered because it keeps everything out... No its not even the spell for that. The hamster ball is and thats barely 1 spell level above it. Anti life shell is level 2 and does the very same shit but better as it is 1 action cast and moves with you.

All the best spells in the game are level 5 and down. After that its abusive spells.

Now count this much before saying everyone plays this and that. Because right now if i check all the homebrews on bg3 and the homebrews from forum section... Everyone wants more spell slots on wizards. That should tell you something about the state of mind of players. So before saying players wants this or that... Thinks twice. Because as far as i am concerned... What players want is to be abusively powerful. Thats why they never talk about provisions until you do as a dm. They are trying to gain an advantage by not having to think about it.

As for players iritated by your way of playing...

Its your game, didnt you tell them about it ? If yes then you shouldnt stop playing it like you want. When it comes to it most players settles for common sense. So as long as it makes sense they should not be irritated about it.

Antilife Shell is 5th level, not 2nd level. It doesn't stop undead and constructs. Affected creatures can cast spells or make attacks with ranged or reach weapons through the barrier.

This is a good example why Tiny Hut is too powerful. If Tiny Hut had similar restrictions, which is more like the 3.5e version,  it would be fine.

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

As for tiny hut being overpowered because it keeps everything out... No its not even the spell for that. The hamster ball is and thats barely 1 spell level above it. Anti life shell is level 2 and does the very same shit but better as it is 1 action cast and moves with you.

Both spells are much much worse protection than Tiny Hut.

Resilient Sphere

• Protects one person.
• Does not allow occupants to move out, attack, and move back in.
• Lasts for one minute.

Antilife shell

• Protects only the caster (it affects your allies just as much as your enemies).
• Has no effect on missiles.
• Has no effect on vision.
• Lasts for one hour.

so.... not being able to move, not being able to be cast as an action and rendering useless your character as he can't even come out of their without losing the spell is better ? also, the fact you can just dispel magic the tiny hut is better how ? you guys...

seriously people tiny hut is nowhere near the abusive spell you think it is...

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

so.... not being able to move, not being able to be cast as an action and rendering useless your character as he can't even come out of their without losing the spell is better ?

Yes when it protects the entire party, not just the caster? If Tiny Hut only worked on the caster, there would be no significant issue with it. If Tiny Hut was just a solid barrier both ways (anyone inside, other than the caster, is trapped for the duration), again, probably not a big deal. The issue is when it's an impenetrable barrier for everyone except the occupants.

Just replace Tiny Hut with Galder's Tower and you accomplish most of the purpose of the spell, without the problems.

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

so.... not being able to move, not being able to be cast as an action and rendering useless your character as he can't even come out of their without losing the spell is better ? also, the fact you can just dispel magic the tiny hut is better how ? you guys...

seriously people tiny hut is nowhere near the abusive spell you think it is...

 Yes, Resilient Sphere allows you to move, Leomund's Tiny Hut does not. It can also be cast quicker.

They both effectively remove the Caster from a battle. 

Resilient Sphere only protects the party, Leomund's Tiny Hut covers the entire party. Tiny Hut allows them to essentially become invulnerable since they can leave, shoot an enemy them return to safety. It also lasts 480x times as long, and is only a 3rd level spell as opposed to 4th and can be cast as a ritual. It is also not vulnerable to Disintegrate, unlike Resilient Sphere.

Antilife Shell is an even worse  comparison; weapons can get through it. It just stops a creature from entering within 10' of you. It's also an even higher level spell.

Also, resilient sphere does not allow anything to pass through it, in or out. Tiny hut allows objects that were within it when it was cast to exit; party members can used ranged weapons through the tiny hut's walls while enemy combatants cannot fire projectiles into the hut.

Quote from Xukuri >>

Also, resilient sphere does not allow anything to pass through it, in or out. Tiny hut allows objects that were within it when it was cast to exit; party members can used ranged weapons through the tiny hut's walls while enemy combatants cannot fire projectiles into the hut.

 whatever... honestly, if you think your players are abusing it from your games, thne just ban it.
i've seen players do this often and honestly, again, everytime it was not their fault, but mine (aka the dm) for giving them time to do such a thing.
also, if your monsters are stupid enough to just stand there doing nothing about it. then again, its your fault as a DM for letting it happen like that.

so again... a spell is as abusive as the DM who hand waves things for sake of gaining time...

yes, i dont hand wave travelling, yes i count the time and days the players uses for their jobs, yes i am checking encumberance and yes i do count VSM for spells.
and no, no players have ever abused the spells because of those rules. and yes i have even made items way more powerful then this spell. 

if you guys dont want that spell, then just ban it. problem solved.

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

i've seen players do this often and honestly, again, everytime it was not their fault, but mine (aka the dm) for giving them time to do such a thing.
also, if your monsters are stupid enough to just stand there doing nothing about it. then again, its your fault as a DM for letting it happen like that.

so again... a spell is as abusive as the DM who hand waves things for sake of gaining time...

 ...you don't let your players have the 1/11 minutes they need cast the spell? That'd be really problematic in terms of rests and whatnot. It also suggests the idea of playing peep-oh with the monsters attacking whenever they start casting the spell. You do you, but that's not a game I'd appreciate as a player, or as a DM for that matter. If you're not going to let them have the benefits of the spell, just ban the thing.

Honestly though, the only reason to have the spell in the game is to handwave away night time encounters when the DM doesn't have the courage to just ignore nighttime encounters. If the players are disliking nighttime encounters... just don't do them. If they enjoy them...then Tiny Hut is a negative in the game. Either they ignore the spell so they can have their fun encounters...or they feel compelled to use it because their character would even though the player doesn't want to.

I've never really had a problem with it.

In a very dangerous place, there is not enough time to cast it.

In an occasionally  dangerous place, the danger can just go elsewhere or wait it out. If the party wants to get cheeky and try to pop out, attack, and run back in, I can introduce them to my good friend Readied Action.

In a place that's not dangerous, it doesn't really change anything.

Yes, looking for a safe spot to rest can be a good exploration motivator. But it's hardly the only one. And this is hardly the only spell that trivializes a small subset of the game. Just let the party have their win. There are a million other ways to challenge them.