Second statement is a subjective opinion posited as fact. None of your arguments are defensible for your statement of "fact" regarding the power level of this spell. I fully accept that your opinion is yours to keep and cherish, but I do find fault in your attempt to sell it as authoritative fact. It's power level is directly tied to the willingness of a DM to allow for spell interactions that don't exist.
The primary problem isn't with any spell interactions (those are just gravy), it's with the fact that it's a selective wall of force. - Doesn't prevent creatures from entering the area of effect, just prevents them from moving through the dome. Two different methods with the same outcome. Already detailed how to enter the area of effect without Dispel Magic, not gonna wear out a keyboard doing it again. BTW, dispel will work every time, no roll needed, unless cast using a spell slot of 4th level or higher. Ritual...dispel...done.
This is the 4th time you've shifted goal posts to state either a core problem, or a new primary problem. And you're still trying to sell water to a fish. The issues you bring up are already debunked and you still try to sell it as fact.
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. - What is the cost of gaining a new 3rd level spell, transcribing it into a spellbook, and then gathering necessary components, if any? Also, would a person choose this spell over another 3rd level spell like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Slow? If there are other spells that the caster would choose at 3rd level, it is not overpowered... Check the DMG for some guidance if you need.
No counters other than dispel magic. - If by "counters", you mean other ways to defeat it, or otherwise undermine (pun intended) it's effectiveness.... burrowing, teleportation, dimension door, ethereal movement, incorporeal movement...
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". - Yet this does restrict the occupants. Caster is tethered, or spell fails. Party, and equipment must be present when cast to move through the dome, otherwise, they tunnel like everyone else. Also, since when is the party's mobility a problem for the DM? I think there have been enough examples pressed to you about how this isn't a problem.
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. -Again, not a force wall, a dome. Architechtural roof. No floor. Access point is on the bottom. Force Wall can be made into a hemisphere (dome with a floor) and a sphere (ball). Seems like a circular argument at this point.
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?
Why yes, it can bring the entire coven, dispel the hut, and murder the party.
The problem is that Tiny Hut is not a perfectly fine spell, it actually replicates multiple higher level spells such as private sanctum and wall of force, which puts it at around a 7th level spell. - Replication of a spell is a function of Wish. If you feel that this spell is on par with 7th level spells, take a look at what spells are most currently selected for 7th level spell slots and then assess if they are more or less likely to be chosen over Der Hut. If you honestly think that someone will choose to gain, scribe and prep components for Der Hut over any 7th level spell, ritual or not, I'd like that insight. Either I'm missing something that your perspective sheds light on, or your hyperbolic statements are just that.
Top of the list for determining if a spell is too powerful, per the DMG: Creating a Spell - "If a spell is so good that a caster would want to use it all the time, it might be too powerful for its level." By my assessment, if a player is allowed spell interactions (as you said - gravy) that aren't supposed to exist, and they are allowed to cheese encounters because of DMs that think this is an insurmountable obstacle, they will definitely choose this spell, and abuse this spell, time and again. This is what makes things too powerful and all brokey. Not poor game design, not blaming some nebulous person behind the scenes. It's our fault as DMs that these things are allowed to be abused. This is why I keep trying to convince you to stop adding spell interactions/functions that don't exist.
If, just maybe, the spell in question were used as intended, per the description given, without all of the homebrewed problems that "exist", then I'm guessing the caster would not select it as a go-to spell for tactical exploitation. I mean, one Bulette up under the dome-piece and it's donesies for somebody. (see how I chose a large creature that a party of level 5 adventurers might encounter in the wilds that has a burrow speed)
[Edit:] After all, a DM can allow GFB or BB to work with Shadow Blade. This makes either of those two cantrips, as you put it, wildly overpowered. They could allow for the interaction with Steel Wind Strike and Shadow Blade. This doesn't make the spell overpowered to the rest of the community, only to the DM that allows it to interact in that manner.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Personally I think that Tiny Hut should be a level 5 spell, or removed all together. In general I think that spells that makes resting and exploring trivial should either be much higher level or removed all together, such as to emphasize Skills, Tools and other classes, such as Rangers.
Top of the list for determining if a spell is too powerful, per the DMG: Creating a Spell - "If a spell is so good that a caster would want to use it all the time, it might be too powerful for its level."
Which, at least for a wizard, is a no-brainer. If you don't take the spell, you're nerfing yourself for no reason. So yes, it's too powerful for its level, at least as a ritual spell (remove the ritual tag and it's at least a decision).
There are other spells like that, such as find familiar, but that one's a notable problem as well.
Personally I think that Tiny Hut should be a level 5 spell, or removed all together. In general I think that spells that makes resting and exploring trivial should either be much higher level or removed all together, such as to emphasize Skills, Tools and other classes, such as Rangers.
I feel like this is a good faith proposition. I can get behind your reasoning for wanting to limit the spell to showcase other classes and their utility. I might point out that if a party has the skills, tools and classes that you mentioned, they would trivialize resting, exploring and wilderness survival. Not that this is a problem, that's what these things are designed to do. Rangers and outlanders are there so that someone can use them to make survival in the wilderness easier. I might also point out, that if these mundane (non-magical) resources exist and are used and relied upon, the party might not choose a spell like Tiny Hut, simply because there wouldn't be a need and the resources required to procure it could be used better elsewhere.
Which, at least for a wizard, is a no-brainer. If you don't take the spell, you're nerfing yourself for no reason. So yes, it's too powerful for its level, at least as a ritual spell (remove the ritual tag and it's at least a decision).
There are other spells like that, such as find familiar, but that one's a notable problem as well.
Have you ever considered that the primary reason that people take this spell is because of the ritual tag? Otherwise, it would eliminate other choices that, as you put it, would be even bigger nerfs to themselves. Which would then make it as a less desireable choice. And we might call that underpowered and broken and "needing some love" (a la. Beastmaster Ranger). As I pointed out above, this spell is chosen because it is designed to do one thing well. If there weren't a need for it, why would it be chosen? If your party is allowed to use it tactically too often, or at all, they will assume incorrectly, that it is designed as a tactical resource. It's not. It's tag clearly reads Utility. Not Warding, not Control, not damage type listed. Utility. I feel like this is a no-brainer, and also, not the first time this has been mentioned. If the DM allows a spell to do something that it's not supposed to, that spell is only overpowered in that game, not in the rest of D&D. Railing for the whole of D&D to change something because it is abused or misused at, I'm assuming a hypothetical table, since you've banned it at yours.
Another variable to possibly consider might be the people that would try to abuse a spell's effect. If a DM has players that try to "Win D&D" by cheesing the rules, don't change the rules. Solve an actual problem and find different players.
I've not noticed any "problems" with Find Familiar and that is a topic for another thread. If you would like to discuss that, please create a new one instead of trying to distract from the subject here.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It doesn't matter what level you make the tiny hut spell its still a ritual spell since thus costs no spell slots. the only limit you place on the spell at that point is what level a caster gets to cast it at.
Once a caster gets to cast it, it will never cost them anything except time and materials.
Now if you just do not like ritual spells just say so.
Now if you just do not like ritual spells just say so.
My take on ritual spells is that they should be spells that would not make it on to the list if you had to spend a spell slot on them.
This is the reason that these spells *have* the ritual tag at all. It's what balances them with the other spells of their perspective levels. Otherwise, they would be underpowered for their level, and likely never chosen. A scant number of them could be used primarily during combat to any type of "glorious" effect. Strangely enough, Tiny Hut makes the list. So, by your admission, it's in the right place.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This is the reason that these spells *have* the ritual tag at all. It's what balances them with the other spells of their perspective levels. Otherwise, they would be underpowered for their level, and likely never chosen. A scant number of them could be used primarily during combat to any type of "glorious" effect. Strangely enough, Tiny Hut makes the list. So, by your admission, it's in the right place.
A spell doesn't have to be a combat spell to be worth a spell slot. Tiny Hut, as written in 5e, is good enough to be worth a spell slot (the 3e version... I would totally make a ritual).
A spell doesn't have to be a combat spell to be worth a spell slot. - Maybe go back and refresh your memory about some of your argument about this spell's use as a defensible position in a combat encounter. We are in a discussion about how it is unbalanced because it forces DMs to take a limited approach to hurting PCs. Y'know, in combat.
Tiny Hut, as written in 5e, is good enough to be worth a spell slot (the 3e version... I would totally make a ritual). - We are not comparing Tesla to Edsel, try keeping in context. Changing the rules of the argument doesn't turn up as good faith discussion. Balancing spells requires that we compare other spells of it's level, in it's edition. We are talking about one 3rd level spell vs other 3rd level spells in 5e D&D. So the main contenders for 3rd level spell examples might include Fireball, Slow and Lightning Bolt, I'm sure you're familiar.
You've made a few objections to this spell because it makes combat difficult for a subjectively victimized DM. So, I'm having some trouble understanding why you're circling back on previous statements. One of the OP's main objections was the abuse of the spell, in a dangerous, force-on-force, contest of violence.
Tiny Hut is wildly overpowered for its level, particularly given that it's a ritual. It's not a spell you cast in combat, but if you have the opportunity to prepare it tends to be an automatic win button against any foes that don't have dispel magic.
The easy fix is to just revert it to what it did in previous editions: Leomund's Tiny Hut (level 3) protects from weather, Leomund's Secure Shelter (level 4) creates a (lockable) building, with all the normal limitations and vulnerabilities of buildings (for example, you can't walk through the wall, attack, and walk back).
For plenty of situations being able to infinitely stall the monsters is a win button.
And this next one, I'm gonna need some help with here. In good faith: How do you rate Tiny Hut as equal to, or greater than, spells like Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Slow, or any number of 3rd level spells, if it didn't have the ritual tag? 'Cause I'm of the mindset, and I'm willing to guess that there are several others here, that the ritual tag on this spell is the its only saving grace, and the majority reason why it's chosen. If the party has a different means to survive comfortably in the wilderness, I've not seen a caster take it to do something the party can already do. I've not seen a caster take a spell that duplicates another class function. Spells cost gold, class features and abilities come with the level.
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. - This circles back to the non-combat spell issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
When you turn a spell into a ritual, that indicates that your intent is "I want the problem this spell solves (when cast ritually) to cease to exist". The problem the classic spell solved was bad weather, and, well, by level 5 deciding "I'm done with weather-related storylines" is not ridiculous. The problem the 5e spell solves is "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" (all the solutions people talk about for monsters with neither capability will get the monsters slaughtered by PCs doing pop-out attacks from the dome), which does... not seem like an appropriate problem to solve with a ritual.
A non-ritual spell is saying "If you're willing to pay the price, you can make this problem go away". A lot of spells are like that; they're situationally useful but very strong when they actually become relevant. I'm not convinced that solving "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" is appropriate even for a third level slot, but at least it isn't "this problem completely goes away at level 5".
Now, for the combat use: tiny hut is generally only usable offensively in situations where the PCs are lying in wait or engaged in area denial, because of the 1 minute casting time, and is of limited value against spellcasters (though simply forcing an enemy to cast dispel magic instead of fireball is worth a spell slot). This is fairly rare in a convenient dungeon crawl, but it does happen, and being able to do pop-out attacks from a bunker is a quite large tactical advantage.
When you turn a spell into a ritual, that indicates that your intent is "I want the problem this spell solves (when cast ritually) to cease to exist". The problem the classic spell solved was bad weather, and, well, by level 5 deciding "I'm done with weather-related storylines" is not ridiculous. The problem the 5e spell solves is "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" (all the solutions people talk about for monsters with neither capability will get the monsters slaughtered by PCs doing pop-out attacks from the dome), which does... not seem like an appropriate problem to solve with a ritual.
A non-ritual spell is saying "If you're willing to pay the price, you can make this problem go away". A lot of spells are like that; they're situationally useful but very strong when they actually become relevant. I'm not convinced that solving "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" is appropriate even for a third level slot, but at least it isn't "this problem completely goes away at level 5".
Now, for the combat use: tiny hut is generally only usable offensively in situations where the PCs are lying in wait or engaged in area denial, because of the 1 minute casting time, and is of limited value against spellcasters (though simply forcing an enemy to cast dispel magic instead of fireball is worth a spell slot). This is fairly rare in a convenient dungeon crawl, but it does happen, and being able to do pop-out attacks from a bunker is a quite large tactical advantage.
Yeah, I don't see this as a problem with the spell. If you (the royal you) can't figure out a way around Tiny Hut equals free, unmolested long rest EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. then you (again, the royal you) as the DM aren't working hard enough to make the world seem dangerous.
As for the combat gimmick, clever use of a (generally speaking) non-combat spell should get rewarded after its first use. Subsequent uses (again, if the DM is doing their part to make the world and the party's adversaries dangerous) should likely be punished. That is to say, not all adversaries are stupid video game NPCs with pre-programmed pathing instructions.
Again, the spell is fine. If you feel the party is abusing it you have choices beyond the ban hammer though if that's how you run your table feel free.
Yeah, I don't see this as a problem with the spell. If you (the royal you) can't figure out a way around Tiny Hut equals free, unmolested long rest EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. then you (again, the royal you) as the DM aren't working hard enough to make the world seem dangerous.
I place monsters based on what is situationally appropriate, not what negates the PCs.
Well, I take most of the Tiny Hut literally... so it is a dome, which means half sphere, no floor, so you could tunnel into it. Further, only creatures and objects cannot get into the dome, and it blocks spells or magical effects. The interior keeps also only weather effects out. So, just bulding a bonfire around the dome, might get interesting effects, the flames can get into the dome. The dome should also not block flooding, as the rising water is not an object and also not a weather effect.
I know, this interpretation might be controversial, but I think, fair.
Can you misty step, teleport or dimension door OUTof a Tiny hut?
Like if I have taken my 8 hours rest, wake up next morning an see enemies waiting outside my hut. Would i be able to just misty step out, 30' away, or use dimension door and just get out ?
I would assume the answer is no, because "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it."
Tiny Hut, as written in 5e, is good enough to be worth a spell slot
The only logic I can see behind using a spell slot on tiny hut is on the assumption you're taking a long rest immediately after casting it, so you get the slot back -- at which point it might as well be a ritual that doesn't cost a slot at all
Otherwise no, I can't see the wizard I am currently playing burning a 3rd-level slot on it. If I want a spell that allows the party to be "able to do pop-out attacks from a bunker", rope trick is already there and at a lower level
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)
Can you misty step, teleport or dimension door OUTof a Tiny hut?
Like if I have taken my 8 hours rest, wake up next morning an see enemies waiting outside my hut. Would i be able to just misty step out, 30' away, or use dimension door and just get out ?
I would assume the answer is no, because "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it."
Your assumption is based on the idea that teleportation spells project a magical effect. They don't. Misty step requires that you see the spot that you land, D-Door only requires that you, at a minimum, be able to describe it (via polar direction and distance). Otherwise the spell does NOT prevent teleportation into or out of it's area of effect. Unlike other, more powerful spells. Now if you were to attempt to cast a fireball through the dome-proper, blocked. Try to cast bless inside the dome to also include someone outside of it, blocked.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
A lot of the discussion seems to miss one point. The only effect of Tiny Hut is to limit the options for the encounters available to the DM when the party is taking a long rest in a location where they can cast Tiny Hut.
If the party was going to get through the night without anything significant happening anyway then Tiny Hut is irrelevant.
The fact that the characters have defenses when they are resting only matters if the DM is adjudicating encounters while the party is resting. Most of the time, in my experience, there aren't realistically that many encounters during a long rest unless the party has explicitly chosen a dangerous location for resting.
In addition, Tiny Hut can't be used to chain long rests since the party is limited to one long rest every 24 hours. Resting, fighting for 10 minutes then popping up another Tiny Hut doesn't do anything useful unless the party plans to sit in place casting Tiny Hut repeatedly for at least the next 16 hours.
Finally, as mentioned frequently, Tiny Hut has vulnerabilities.
In addition, although enterprising characters who can factor in the casting time or can lead creatures to the location of the hut might be able to use it as a secure hiding place for ranged attacks, it isn't that powerful. The tactic is limited to unintelligent opponents who would allow the characters to continue firing at them from inside the hut instead of running away - and even a lot of unintelligent opponents will have a sense of self preservation and will run away when being attacked by something they can't really see and can't harm.
So, no, I don't personally find Tiny Hut to be an issue at all. The ONLY effect it has is to somewhat constrain the encounter types that could affect the characters while taking a long rest. For example, dinosaurs and unintelligent undead in Chult might wander past the hut and not pay it any attention. On the other hand, undead might smell something enticing and remain in the area searching for it - attracting more and more as time goes on - there could be hundreds of undead outside the hut by morning. On the other hand, the characters could attack the undead which would leave bodies to attract more creatures and if it happened often enough it would disrupt the long rest.
This brings us back to philosophy :) ... why have a meaningless random encounter during a long rest unless it has the potential to cause lasting effects? Is it worth having the players roll initiative, roll several attacks, take up 30-60 minutes of game play time to resolve an attack during a long rest that isn't going to last long enough to disrupt it? And if you aren't going to run these because they are essentially a useless waste of game time - what difference does Tiny Hut make?
The hut does block any form of teleportation. Including misty step and ethereal movement into or out of the dome. Though you could ethereal move under the dome.
You can not stand inside the dome and fire out of it either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One cantrip gains access. Mold Earth.
How does that make it overpowered?
One guy opens the bottom and the next throws in a fire ball spell. Sort of like dropping a grenade into a tank.
Wall of force is for combat. Tiny hut is for convenience out of combat.
This is the 4th time you've shifted goal posts to state either a core problem, or a new primary problem. And you're still trying to sell water to a fish. The issues you bring up are already debunked and you still try to sell it as fact.
Top of the list for determining if a spell is too powerful, per the DMG: Creating a Spell - "If a spell is so good that a caster would want to use it all the time, it might be too powerful for its level." By my assessment, if a player is allowed spell interactions (as you said - gravy) that aren't supposed to exist, and they are allowed to cheese encounters because of DMs that think this is an insurmountable obstacle, they will definitely choose this spell, and abuse this spell, time and again. This is what makes things too powerful and all brokey. Not poor game design, not blaming some nebulous person behind the scenes. It's our fault as DMs that these things are allowed to be abused. This is why I keep trying to convince you to stop adding spell interactions/functions that don't exist.
If, just maybe, the spell in question were used as intended, per the description given, without all of the homebrewed problems that "exist", then I'm guessing the caster would not select it as a go-to spell for tactical exploitation. I mean, one Bulette up under the dome-piece and it's donesies for somebody. (see how I chose a large creature that a party of level 5 adventurers might encounter in the wilds that has a burrow speed)
[Edit:] After all, a DM can allow GFB or BB to work with Shadow Blade. This makes either of those two cantrips, as you put it, wildly overpowered. They could allow for the interaction with Steel Wind Strike and Shadow Blade. This doesn't make the spell overpowered to the rest of the community, only to the DM that allows it to interact in that manner.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Personally I think that Tiny Hut should be a level 5 spell, or removed all together. In general I think that spells that makes resting and exploring trivial should either be much higher level or removed all together, such as to emphasize Skills, Tools and other classes, such as Rangers.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Which, at least for a wizard, is a no-brainer. If you don't take the spell, you're nerfing yourself for no reason. So yes, it's too powerful for its level, at least as a ritual spell (remove the ritual tag and it's at least a decision).
There are other spells like that, such as find familiar, but that one's a notable problem as well.
I feel like this is a good faith proposition. I can get behind your reasoning for wanting to limit the spell to showcase other classes and their utility. I might point out that if a party has the skills, tools and classes that you mentioned, they would trivialize resting, exploring and wilderness survival. Not that this is a problem, that's what these things are designed to do. Rangers and outlanders are there so that someone can use them to make survival in the wilderness easier. I might also point out, that if these mundane (non-magical) resources exist and are used and relied upon, the party might not choose a spell like Tiny Hut, simply because there wouldn't be a need and the resources required to procure it could be used better elsewhere.
Have you ever considered that the primary reason that people take this spell is because of the ritual tag? Otherwise, it would eliminate other choices that, as you put it, would be even bigger nerfs to themselves. Which would then make it as a less desireable choice. And we might call that underpowered and broken and "needing some love" (a la. Beastmaster Ranger). As I pointed out above, this spell is chosen because it is designed to do one thing well. If there weren't a need for it, why would it be chosen? If your party is allowed to use it tactically too often, or at all, they will assume incorrectly, that it is designed as a tactical resource. It's not. It's tag clearly reads Utility. Not Warding, not Control, not damage type listed. Utility. I feel like this is a no-brainer, and also, not the first time this has been mentioned. If the DM allows a spell to do something that it's not supposed to, that spell is only overpowered in that game, not in the rest of D&D. Railing for the whole of D&D to change something because it is abused or misused at, I'm assuming a hypothetical table, since you've banned it at yours.
Another variable to possibly consider might be the people that would try to abuse a spell's effect. If a DM has players that try to "Win D&D" by cheesing the rules, don't change the rules. Solve an actual problem and find different players.
I've not noticed any "problems" with Find Familiar and that is a topic for another thread. If you would like to discuss that, please create a new one instead of trying to distract from the subject here.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It doesn't matter what level you make the tiny hut spell its still a ritual spell since thus costs no spell slots. the only limit you place on the spell at that point is what level a caster gets to cast it at.
Once a caster gets to cast it, it will never cost them anything except time and materials.
Now if you just do not like ritual spells just say so.
My take on ritual spells is that they should be spells that would not make it on to the list if you had to spend a spell slot on them.
This is the reason that these spells *have* the ritual tag at all. It's what balances them with the other spells of their perspective levels. Otherwise, they would be underpowered for their level, and likely never chosen. A scant number of them could be used primarily during combat to any type of "glorious" effect. Strangely enough, Tiny Hut makes the list. So, by your admission, it's in the right place.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
A spell doesn't have to be a combat spell to be worth a spell slot. Tiny Hut, as written in 5e, is good enough to be worth a spell slot (the 3e version... I would totally make a ritual).
My only argument with ritual spells is there are not more at higher level.
None at 4th level.
Maybe in the future a few could be added or created.
You've made a few objections to this spell because it makes combat difficult for a subjectively victimized DM. So, I'm having some trouble understanding why you're circling back on previous statements. One of the OP's main objections was the abuse of the spell, in a dangerous, force-on-force, contest of violence.
And this next one, I'm gonna need some help with here. In good faith: How do you rate Tiny Hut as equal to, or greater than, spells like Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Slow, or any number of 3rd level spells, if it didn't have the ritual tag? 'Cause I'm of the mindset, and I'm willing to guess that there are several others here, that the ritual tag on this spell is the its only saving grace, and the majority reason why it's chosen. If the party has a different means to survive comfortably in the wilderness, I've not seen a caster take it to do something the party can already do. I've not seen a caster take a spell that duplicates another class function. Spells cost gold, class features and abilities come with the level.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Hm. Quoting is turning into a giant mess. Anyway:
When you turn a spell into a ritual, that indicates that your intent is "I want the problem this spell solves (when cast ritually) to cease to exist". The problem the classic spell solved was bad weather, and, well, by level 5 deciding "I'm done with weather-related storylines" is not ridiculous. The problem the 5e spell solves is "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" (all the solutions people talk about for monsters with neither capability will get the monsters slaughtered by PCs doing pop-out attacks from the dome), which does... not seem like an appropriate problem to solve with a ritual.
A non-ritual spell is saying "If you're willing to pay the price, you can make this problem go away". A lot of spells are like that; they're situationally useful but very strong when they actually become relevant. I'm not convinced that solving "wandering monsters that don't have dispel magic and can't pass through stone" is appropriate even for a third level slot, but at least it isn't "this problem completely goes away at level 5".
Now, for the combat use: tiny hut is generally only usable offensively in situations where the PCs are lying in wait or engaged in area denial, because of the 1 minute casting time, and is of limited value against spellcasters (though simply forcing an enemy to cast dispel magic instead of fireball is worth a spell slot). This is fairly rare in a convenient dungeon crawl, but it does happen, and being able to do pop-out attacks from a bunker is a quite large tactical advantage.
Yeah, I don't see this as a problem with the spell. If you (the royal you) can't figure out a way around Tiny Hut equals free, unmolested long rest EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. then you (again, the royal you) as the DM aren't working hard enough to make the world seem dangerous.
As for the combat gimmick, clever use of a (generally speaking) non-combat spell should get rewarded after its first use. Subsequent uses (again, if the DM is doing their part to make the world and the party's adversaries dangerous) should likely be punished. That is to say, not all adversaries are stupid video game NPCs with pre-programmed pathing instructions.
Again, the spell is fine. If you feel the party is abusing it you have choices beyond the ban hammer though if that's how you run your table feel free.
I place monsters based on what is situationally appropriate, not what negates the PCs.
I would interpret water and fire as objects
Quick question.
Can you misty step, teleport or dimension door OUT of a Tiny hut?
Like if I have taken my 8 hours rest, wake up next morning an see enemies waiting outside my hut.
Would i be able to just misty step out, 30' away, or use dimension door and just get out ?
I would assume the answer is no, because "Spells and other magical effects can't extend through the dome or be cast through it."
The only logic I can see behind using a spell slot on tiny hut is on the assumption you're taking a long rest immediately after casting it, so you get the slot back -- at which point it might as well be a ritual that doesn't cost a slot at all
Otherwise no, I can't see the wizard I am currently playing burning a 3rd-level slot on it. If I want a spell that allows the party to be "able to do pop-out attacks from a bunker", rope trick is already there and at a lower level
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)
Your assumption is based on the idea that teleportation spells project a magical effect. They don't. Misty step requires that you see the spot that you land, D-Door only requires that you, at a minimum, be able to describe it (via polar direction and distance). Otherwise the spell does NOT prevent teleportation into or out of it's area of effect. Unlike other, more powerful spells. Now if you were to attempt to cast a fireball through the dome-proper, blocked. Try to cast bless inside the dome to also include someone outside of it, blocked.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
A lot of the discussion seems to miss one point. The only effect of Tiny Hut is to limit the options for the encounters available to the DM when the party is taking a long rest in a location where they can cast Tiny Hut.
If the party was going to get through the night without anything significant happening anyway then Tiny Hut is irrelevant.
The fact that the characters have defenses when they are resting only matters if the DM is adjudicating encounters while the party is resting. Most of the time, in my experience, there aren't realistically that many encounters during a long rest unless the party has explicitly chosen a dangerous location for resting.
In addition, Tiny Hut can't be used to chain long rests since the party is limited to one long rest every 24 hours. Resting, fighting for 10 minutes then popping up another Tiny Hut doesn't do anything useful unless the party plans to sit in place casting Tiny Hut repeatedly for at least the next 16 hours.
Finally, as mentioned frequently, Tiny Hut has vulnerabilities.
In addition, although enterprising characters who can factor in the casting time or can lead creatures to the location of the hut might be able to use it as a secure hiding place for ranged attacks, it isn't that powerful. The tactic is limited to unintelligent opponents who would allow the characters to continue firing at them from inside the hut instead of running away - and even a lot of unintelligent opponents will have a sense of self preservation and will run away when being attacked by something they can't really see and can't harm.
So, no, I don't personally find Tiny Hut to be an issue at all. The ONLY effect it has is to somewhat constrain the encounter types that could affect the characters while taking a long rest. For example, dinosaurs and unintelligent undead in Chult might wander past the hut and not pay it any attention. On the other hand, undead might smell something enticing and remain in the area searching for it - attracting more and more as time goes on - there could be hundreds of undead outside the hut by morning. On the other hand, the characters could attack the undead which would leave bodies to attract more creatures and if it happened often enough it would disrupt the long rest.
This brings us back to philosophy :) ... why have a meaningless random encounter during a long rest unless it has the potential to cause lasting effects? Is it worth having the players roll initiative, roll several attacks, take up 30-60 minutes of game play time to resolve an attack during a long rest that isn't going to last long enough to disrupt it? And if you aren't going to run these because they are essentially a useless waste of game time - what difference does Tiny Hut make?
The hut does block any form of teleportation. Including misty step and ethereal movement into or out of the dome. Though you could ethereal move under the dome.
You can not stand inside the dome and fire out of it either.