If the party wants to sit in the dome for eight hours while their enemies gather and plan for the moment when it drops, they're welcome to, but that's far from an "automatic win button"
For plenty of situations being able to infinitely stall the monsters is a win button.
I really do not believe this is an overpowered spell. This is one of those spells that is rarely prepared for a wizard and seldom taken for a bard. In most cases, it is taking 11 minutes of casting time and if you are the kind of DM who does not like that your players are able to rest free from danger, why would you allow them the 11 minutes it takes to put the dome up? Fireball their bouncy booties while they are casting and interrupt the process. No fireball? Spear the wizard in the back. By the time they can use this, dispel magic will have long since been a thing too. If you do not have enemies that can use dispel magic, can you, as the DM, not introduce some? What is the problem with allowing the party to have an undisturbed rest in the first place? If you have a dungeon that lacks ‘infinite spawn points’, can you not address mid-dungeon slumbers in some other way? Perhaps the monsters moved on, or set up traps (goblins hello), or send for aid (Rohan will answer!), or any number of easily imagined answers to a little long rest dome. This is not so much a balancing issue as it is creating a problem where there is none issue.
I really do not believe this is an overpowered spell. This is one of those spells that is rarely prepared for a wizard and seldom taken for a bard. In most cases, it is taking 11 minutes of casting time and if you are the kind of DM who does not like that your players are able to rest free from danger, why would you allow them the 11 minutes it takes to put the dome up?
There are plenty of times when someone can manage 11 minutes but can't manage 8 hours. In any case, if your DM doesn't mind you resting free of risk, the spell doesn't need to exist.
I really do not believe this is an overpowered spell. This is one of those spells that is rarely prepared for a wizard and seldom taken for a bard. In most cases, it is taking 11 minutes of casting time and if you are the kind of DM who does not like that your players are able to rest free from danger, why would you allow them the 11 minutes it takes to put the dome up?
There are plenty of times when someone can manage 11 minutes but can't manage 8 hours. In any case, if your DM doesn't mind you resting free of risk, the spell doesn't need to exist.
So in your estimation, a DM that does not mind a resting party cannot also scoop up an opportunity when one presents itself?
If the party wants to sit in the dome for eight hours while their enemies gather and plan for the moment when it drops, they're welcome to, but that's far from an "automatic win button"
For plenty of situations being able to infinitely stall the monsters is a win button.
It's not "infinite", it's eight hours. And if you're trying to prevent an enemy from getting past you, the dome doesn't stop anyone from going around or even over it -- it only stops creatures coming into it
Are there very specific scenarios where that might be enough? Sure. There are specific scenarios where catnap might be exactly what you need too, when you only have 10 minutes to spare but need a short rest to get slots and class features back. That doesn't make it overpowered
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So in your estimation, a DM that does not mind a resting party cannot also scoop up an opportunity when one presents itself?
Yes. If you don't mind a resting party, you aren't going to take that sort of opportunity.
The core problems with Tiny Hut are
Ritual tag. Delete that, and at least there's a cost to using it.
No counters other than dispel magic.
Doesn't restrict the occupants. If it was just a two-way wall that trapped the PCs until the spell ended, much less problematic. Or even just "if you leave, you can't return".
Dig under it if thats all you can get a rabid dog to do.
It does restrict the occupants. The caster can not leave or the spell ends. The occupants can not fire out of it nor cast spells through it. They have to go outside of it to do that.
And you can always put something heavy on top of it. Dome goes away the heavy object falls. If no one is watching from inside then they could get hurt. If they are watching why would they let you do that? They would step outside and try to stop you.
As for it being a ritual spell. Well that really doesn't effect anything about the spell. It sounds like you just do not want any caster to have any ritual spells.
As for a cost. Well it does require a material component. Just make it use up that component in your world.
So in your estimation, a DM that does not mind a resting party cannot also scoop up an opportunity when one presents itself?
Yes. If you don't mind a resting party, you aren't going to take that sort of opportunity.
The core problems with Tiny Hut are
Ritual tag. Delete that, and at least there's a cost to using it.
No counters other than dispel magic.
Doesn't restrict the occupants. If it was just a two-way wall that trapped the PCs until the spell ended, much less problematic. Or even just "if you leave, you can't return".
That is just silly thinking. I do not mind if my players find a way to avoid danger and rest, but if an opportunity does present itself, I generally roll for it. Not having that chance does not get me in a twist and having it merely is an opportunity to present a challenge. This is a false dilemma fallacy - there are more than two options available than just being frustrated by the existence of this spell or being asleep at the wheel.
Time is a resource, therefore the spell already carries a cost.
Or any other option I listed in my first response? Or any other consequences to a leisurely party not yet stated?
Again, this is a ‘make a problem to fix a problem’ type of thinking. There is nothing wrong with a party being shielded from harm for 8 hours.
As for it being a ritual spell. Well that really doesn't effect anything about the spell. It sounds like you just do not want any caster to have any ritual spells.
Ritual spell means it doesn't cost a spell slot and, for wizards, doesn't count against your number of prepared spells. I am not generally opposed to ritual spells, I just expect them to be weaker than non-ritual spells of the same level. For example, I wouldn't object to Galder's Tower being ritual, even though it does a lot of the same things as Tiny Hut, because it lacks the problematic features of the hut.
Time is a resource, therefore the spell already carries a cost.
Or any other option I listed in my first response? Or any other consequences to a leisurely party not yet stated?
Again, this is a ‘make a problem to fix a problem’ type of thinking. There is nothing wrong with a party being shielded from harm for 8 hours.
90% of the time, the party can find a place to be safe without needing something like tiny hut. The other 10% of the time, there's a reason I want the party being in danger.
Do you also take away their tents just to cause a problem?
Tents are not invulnerable shields that the party can walk in and out of and enemies can't. If Tiny Hut just created a physical hut as an object (destructible, any methods the party has to get in/out are also available to enemies) it would be fine.
If the party wants to sit in the dome for eight hours while their enemies gather and plan for the moment when it drops, they're welcome to, but that's far from an "automatic win button"
For plenty of situations being able to infinitely stall the monsters is a win button.
Luckily, as the DM you create the situations the players are in.
If the players are abusing this, all you need to do is introduce consequences for it. The enemy redoubles the defenses. The enemy leaves the dungeon with the treasure while the party is literally sleeping on the job. The BBEG does his own 8-hour ritual and now there are two BBEGs.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM. You can do anything in response to this. Step 1 is to ask the players to be reasonable and mature and consider that at-will long rests make it more difficult to challenge them, and that overcoming challenge is fun. If that doesn't work, Step 2 is to punish them mercilessly every time they abuse it.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM.
Overpowered does not mean unbeatable. It means 'more powerful than it should be given the cost to acquire and use it'. One of the 'omnipotent DM' problems with it is that it actually produces TPKs, because it means any fight is against something powerful enough to deal with a tiny hut, and most things capable enough to do that will just kill a 5th level party where most of them are asleep.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM.
Overpowered does not mean unbeatable. It means 'more powerful than it should be given the cost to acquire and use it'. One of the 'omnipotent DM' problems with it is that it actually produces TPKs, because it means any fight is against something powerful enough to deal with a tiny hut, and most things capable enough to do that will just kill a 5th level party where most of them are asleep.
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic. If you would like more creative options, there are many burrowing monsters and there are goblins that can set traps. There are any number of other options out there to address Tiny Hut without issue. Any monster that is a caster can easily have dispel magic shuffled into their spell list if the DM is willing to expend even the smallest unit of mental energy.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM.
Overpowered does not mean unbeatable. It means 'more powerful than it should be given the cost to acquire and use it'. One of the 'omnipotent DM' problems with it is that it actually produces TPKs, because it means any fight is against something powerful enough to deal with a tiny hut, and most things capable enough to do that will just kill a 5th level party where most of them are asleep.
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic. If you would like more creative options, there are many burrowing monsters and there are goblins that can set traps. There are any number of other options out there to address Tiny Hut without issue. Any monster that is a caster can easily have dispel magic shuffled into their spell list if the DM is willing to expend even the smallest unit of mental energy.
Anyone with eight hours and mold earth can just bury the whole hut
The idea that tiny hut is some impregnable trump card the party can play is just kind of ridiculous to me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic.
All of which are smart enough to not bother a hut until they can collect adequate reinforcements to win against likely occupants. A Tiny Hut isn't an unbeatable barrier, it's a "you must be this tall to attack".
If it's a 10th level party inside the hut, sure, someone who cracks the hut without knowing what's inside gets an unpleasant surprise, but a 5th level party, or a party that has made themselves well known, is just telling the monsters how much force they need to bring.
The core problem with Tiny Hut isn't that it's unbeatable. It's that it severely limits options for the DM, and "force wall that my party can walk through and yours can't" is just not a 3rd level spell effect.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM.
Overpowered does not mean unbeatable. It means 'more powerful than it should be given the cost to acquire and use it'. One of the 'omnipotent DM' problems with it is that it actually produces TPKs, because it means any fight is against something powerful enough to deal with a tiny hut, and most things capable enough to do that will just kill a 5th level party where most of them are asleep.
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic. If you would like more creative options, there are many burrowing monsters and there are goblins that can set traps. There are any number of other options out there to address Tiny Hut without issue. Any monster that is a caster can easily have dispel magic shuffled into their spell list if the DM is willing to expend even the smallest unit of mental energy.
Anyone with eight hours and mold earth can just bury the whole hut
The idea that tiny hut is some impregnable trump card the party can play is just kind of ridiculous to me
Agreed. I am having a hard time even thinking of a scenario where Tiny Hut could not be beaten by a motivated DM, while still remaining a challenge that the party can overcome. Just punch in ‘burrow’ into the movement type on the monsters page and you get all kinds of options at every CR rating that no-sell a Tiny Hut in one turn without even needing dispel magic.
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic.
All of which are smart enough to not bother a hut until they can collect adequate reinforcements to win against likely occupants. A Tiny Hut isn't an unbeatable barrier, it's a "you must be this tall to attack".
If it's a 10th level party inside the hut, sure, someone who cracks the hut without knowing what's inside gets an unpleasant surprise, but a 5th level party, or a party that has made themselves well known, is just telling the monsters how much force they need to bring.
What scenario have you encountered that paralyzed you as a DM? What is that ‘10% of the time’ that could not handle a dome?
What scenario have you encountered that paralyzed you as a DM? What is that ‘10% of the time’ that could not handle a dome?
None, because I ban the spell (though it would have completely negated night hag harass, if my hags had been inclined to work that way). I'm running Curse of Strahd, and sure, if the party decided to rest in the wilderness I could have Strahd show up, dispel the hut, and let them be eaten by wolves, but that's quite heavy handed, and you're not supposed to need an appearance by the CR 15 boss to worry PCs about sleeping in the wilderness.
What scenario have you encountered that paralyzed you as a DM? What is that ‘10% of the time’ that could not handle a dome?
None, because I ban the spell (though it would have completely negated night hag harass, if my hags had been inclined to work that way). I'm running Curse of Strahd, and sure, if the party decided to rest in the wilderness I could have Strahd show up, dispel the hut, and let them be eaten by wolves, but that's quite heavy handed, and you're not supposed to need an appearance by the CR 15 boss to worry PCs about sleeping in the wilderness.
Banning a perfectly fine spell is not heavy handed? Would you ban protection from good and evil or magic circle? Both of these spells prevent the night hag’s haunting ability. Further, can you think of no solution for a hag to address this? There is nothing that a monster infamous for their devious intellect could come up with? Can a hag not think of something that might lure the party out from the hut voluntarily? Can it, with its penchant for deal-making, find no one to leverage who can pop the party’s super bubble, then prevent the necessary safety to cast the spell? I suppose a night hag would be defeated by a dome if the DM cannot be bothered to be a DM. I obviously do not know how your hags work, but my hags use their brain, are currently badgering my players in my game, and the party has not even identified the hags yet.
The onus is on you to present challenges to the party. If you want to give them a challenge that presses their ability to get a rest, can you really not think of a way to do this without wiping out your own game? You are running CoS. You could beat a Tiny Hut with a CR 3 Phantom Warrior in your current game using the monsters available there. You are just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. Arguing for the sake of it. Justifying your own decision to limit your player’s options. This is not a real problem or even an inconvenience. My players use it most of the time and it has never been a problem for me. In fact, I could get past my party’s tiny hut with a night hag if that were the one I were using because
one of the hags in my game is an adopted NPC that gets to lounge in the tiny hut with them most nights.
For plenty of situations being able to infinitely stall the monsters is a win button.
I really do not believe this is an overpowered spell. This is one of those spells that is rarely prepared for a wizard and seldom taken for a bard. In most cases, it is taking 11 minutes of casting time and if you are the kind of DM who does not like that your players are able to rest free from danger, why would you allow them the 11 minutes it takes to put the dome up? Fireball their bouncy booties while they are casting and interrupt the process. No fireball? Spear the wizard in the back. By the time they can use this, dispel magic will have long since been a thing too. If you do not have enemies that can use dispel magic, can you, as the DM, not introduce some? What is the problem with allowing the party to have an undisturbed rest in the first place? If you have a dungeon that lacks ‘infinite spawn points’, can you not address mid-dungeon slumbers in some other way? Perhaps the monsters moved on, or set up traps (goblins hello), or send for aid (Rohan will answer!), or any number of easily imagined answers to a little long rest dome. This is not so much a balancing issue as it is creating a problem where there is none issue.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
There are plenty of times when someone can manage 11 minutes but can't manage 8 hours. In any case, if your DM doesn't mind you resting free of risk, the spell doesn't need to exist.
So in your estimation, a DM that does not mind a resting party cannot also scoop up an opportunity when one presents itself?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's not "infinite", it's eight hours. And if you're trying to prevent an enemy from getting past you, the dome doesn't stop anyone from going around or even over it -- it only stops creatures coming into it
Are there very specific scenarios where that might be enough? Sure. There are specific scenarios where catnap might be exactly what you need too, when you only have 10 minutes to spare but need a short rest to get slots and class features back. That doesn't make it overpowered
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes. If you don't mind a resting party, you aren't going to take that sort of opportunity.
The core problems with Tiny Hut are
There is no bottom on it.
Dig under it if thats all you can get a rabid dog to do.
It does restrict the occupants. The caster can not leave or the spell ends. The occupants can not fire out of it nor cast spells through it. They have to go outside of it to do that.
And you can always put something heavy on top of it. Dome goes away the heavy object falls. If no one is watching from inside then they could get hurt. If they are watching why would they let you do that? They would step outside and try to stop you.
As for it being a ritual spell. Well that really doesn't effect anything about the spell. It sounds like you just do not want any caster to have any ritual spells.
As for a cost. Well it does require a material component. Just make it use up that component in your world.
That is just silly thinking. I do not mind if my players find a way to avoid danger and rest, but if an opportunity does present itself, I generally roll for it. Not having that chance does not get me in a twist and having it merely is an opportunity to present a challenge. This is a false dilemma fallacy - there are more than two options available than just being frustrated by the existence of this spell or being asleep at the wheel.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Ritual spell means it doesn't cost a spell slot and, for wizards, doesn't count against your number of prepared spells. I am not generally opposed to ritual spells, I just expect them to be weaker than non-ritual spells of the same level. For example, I wouldn't object to Galder's Tower being ritual, even though it does a lot of the same things as Tiny Hut, because it lacks the problematic features of the hut.
90% of the time, the party can find a place to be safe without needing something like tiny hut. The other 10% of the time, there's a reason I want the party being in danger.
Do you also take away their tents just to cause a problem?
Tents are not invulnerable shields that the party can walk in and out of and enemies can't. If Tiny Hut just created a physical hut as an object (destructible, any methods the party has to get in/out are also available to enemies) it would be fine.
Luckily, as the DM you create the situations the players are in.
If the players are abusing this, all you need to do is introduce consequences for it. The enemy redoubles the defenses. The enemy leaves the dungeon with the treasure while the party is literally sleeping on the job. The BBEG does his own 8-hour ritual and now there are two BBEGs.
It's just bizarre to me to complain about something that's overpowered when it is matched against an omnipotent DM. You can do anything in response to this. Step 1 is to ask the players to be reasonable and mature and consider that at-will long rests make it more difficult to challenge them, and that overcoming challenge is fun. If that doesn't work, Step 2 is to punish them mercilessly every time they abuse it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Overpowered does not mean unbeatable. It means 'more powerful than it should be given the cost to acquire and use it'. One of the 'omnipotent DM' problems with it is that it actually produces TPKs, because it means any fight is against something powerful enough to deal with a tiny hut, and most things capable enough to do that will just kill a 5th level party where most of them are asleep.
CR 1/4 Pixies, CR 5 mezzoloths, CR 4 babaus, and CR 2 priests have dispel magic. If you would like more creative options, there are many burrowing monsters and there are goblins that can set traps. There are any number of other options out there to address Tiny Hut without issue. Any monster that is a caster can easily have dispel magic shuffled into their spell list if the DM is willing to expend even the smallest unit of mental energy.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Anyone with eight hours and mold earth can just bury the whole hut
The idea that tiny hut is some impregnable trump card the party can play is just kind of ridiculous to me
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All of which are smart enough to not bother a hut until they can collect adequate reinforcements to win against likely occupants. A Tiny Hut isn't an unbeatable barrier, it's a "you must be this tall to attack".
If it's a 10th level party inside the hut, sure, someone who cracks the hut without knowing what's inside gets an unpleasant surprise, but a 5th level party, or a party that has made themselves well known, is just telling the monsters how much force they need to bring.
The core problem with Tiny Hut isn't that it's unbeatable. It's that it severely limits options for the DM, and "force wall that my party can walk through and yours can't" is just not a 3rd level spell effect.
Agreed. I am having a hard time even thinking of a scenario where Tiny Hut could not be beaten by a motivated DM, while still remaining a challenge that the party can overcome. Just punch in ‘burrow’ into the movement type on the monsters page and you get all kinds of options at every CR rating that no-sell a Tiny Hut in one turn without even needing dispel magic.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
What scenario have you encountered that paralyzed you as a DM? What is that ‘10% of the time’ that could not handle a dome?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
None, because I ban the spell (though it would have completely negated night hag harass, if my hags had been inclined to work that way). I'm running Curse of Strahd, and sure, if the party decided to rest in the wilderness I could have Strahd show up, dispel the hut, and let them be eaten by wolves, but that's quite heavy handed, and you're not supposed to need an appearance by the CR 15 boss to worry PCs about sleeping in the wilderness.
Banning a perfectly fine spell is not heavy handed? Would you ban protection from good and evil or magic circle? Both of these spells prevent the night hag’s haunting ability. Further, can you think of no solution for a hag to address this? There is nothing that a monster infamous for their devious intellect could come up with? Can a hag not think of something that might lure the party out from the hut voluntarily? Can it, with its penchant for deal-making, find no one to leverage who can pop the party’s super bubble, then prevent the necessary safety to cast the spell? I suppose a night hag would be defeated by a dome if the DM cannot be bothered to be a DM. I obviously do not know how your hags work, but my hags use their brain, are currently badgering my players in my game, and the party has not even identified the hags yet.
The onus is on you to present challenges to the party. If you want to give them a challenge that presses their ability to get a rest, can you really not think of a way to do this without wiping out your own game? You are running CoS. You could beat a Tiny Hut with a CR 3 Phantom Warrior in your current game using the monsters available there. You are just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. Arguing for the sake of it. Justifying your own decision to limit your player’s options. This is not a real problem or even an inconvenience. My players use it most of the time and it has never been a problem for me. In fact, I could get past my party’s tiny hut with a night hag if that were the one I were using because
one of the hags in my game is an adopted NPC that gets to lounge in the tiny hut with them most nights.
It is only a problem if you make it a problem.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing