There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.
The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
And that relates to the ridiculous tactics I mentioned above. The DM should not suddenly populate the adventure with monsters with a burrowing speed or dispel magic as a spell to thwart the hut. The DM has to accept that this is the method the party has chosen to heal itself. The party has provided the solution to TPKs the DM was worried about; don't undo that work by fighting LTH at every turn.
There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.
The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
And that relates to the ridiculous tactics I mentioned above. The DM should not suddenly populate the adventure with monsters with a burrowing speed or dispel magic as a spell to thwart the hut. The DM has to accept that this is the method the party has chosen to heal itself. The party has provided the solution to TPKs the DM was worried about; don't undo that work by fighting LTH at every turn.
"suddenly populate the adventure with monsters with a burrowing speed or dispel magic as a spell" -- who does this?
It is a low level spell that has to be, in some way, weaker than the higher level spells that do similar things. It has no bottom. Knowing that doesn't suddenly change the Tomb of Annihilation to include a bunch of Dune Sandworms, lol.
Just because someone has done it to you doesn't mean the rest of us would. It is insulting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.
The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
Also as long as folks realize whether LTH has a floor or not is a subject of some debate among even knowledgeable DMs. Dome vs Hemisphere among other issues ... and is thus a DM call that may well be ruled differently in different games.
In addition, as a suggestion to the DM to provide the characters with a safe place to rest with little risk in order to compensate for lack of healing within a party ... it is a decent suggestion, and whether or not it has a floor is entirely up to the DM and whether they make use of whether or not it has a floor is also up to the DM. :) ... so no, everyone being "aware that LTH has no floor" is a ruling that would be relevant for your game and for DMs who might rule it similarly to how you do.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
According to Jeremy Crawford it does. Any given DM can make whatever ruling they want at their own table though
edit: tried to link the Twitter post but it isn't working, you can search it though. First he said it doesn't, then he responded to his own tweet to say he was wrong and it does have a floor.
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind.
This is also the case for DnD 100% of the time in actual play at the table. It only isn't the case here on forums because no one is the DM with infinite power over the rules, so one can only debate the Rules As Written.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
According to Jeremy Crawford it does. Any given DM can make whatever ruling they want at their own table though
edit: tried to link the Twitter post but it isn't working, you can search it though. First he said it doesn't, then he responded to his own tweet to say he was wrong and it does have a floor.
There is no twitter, and I would have to be paid unreasonable sums to use anything owned by the psychopathic POS *@#(^@$%@ for where you are trying to reference.
Also, Crawford's social media is not official rules, and an appeal to authority outside the scope of the system.
But, more than anything else...
It was a bit of a joke (if you look at either of the last two forever threads about LTH, you'll see I can argue either way). I rule it has no bottom (and even explicitly state so) at my tables, and I am firm believer that a DM can make up their own damn mind about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
Because D&D has more rules lawyers.
Really.
There is exactly one kind of player I am unfair to in any game I have ever run: someone who stops play to argue during game time over some rule or ruling they didn't like. And I don't do it sneakily -- I tell them I am being pointedly unfair, why I am being fair, and I repeat it every time I do it. It is a table rule of mine -- you can argue after the game session. YOu may even win. But you do not argue during the game, and once I do make a final call, it is a final call.
If that isn't enough, they can find another game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.
The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.
as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.
Also as long as folks realize whether LTH has a floor or not is a subject of some debate among even knowledgeable DMs. Dome vs Hemisphere among other issues ... and is thus a DM call that may well be ruled differently in different games.
In addition, as a suggestion to the DM to provide the characters with a safe place to rest with little risk in order to compensate for lack of healing within a party ... it is a decent suggestion, and whether or not it has a floor is entirely up to the DM and whether they make use of whether or not it has a floor is also up to the DM. :) ... so no, everyone being "aware that LTH has no floor" is a ruling that would be relevant for your game and for DMs who might rule it similarly to how you do.
Thank you. Yes, my suggestion about LTH relates to the DM that asked the question in this thread, and wasn't intended to broadly state a universal ultimate protection for every party. The OP was asking for ideas to help his group, and I didn't want the DM to feel that he had to thwart LTH just because tactics exist that will (dispel magic) or sometimes can (burrowing if the DM rules it has no floor) bypass its protection.
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
The DM/GM are free to rule however they wish and run the game to the rules they prefer. However, D&D, like most RPGs is a shared story environment. It is also a very popular one so that there can be many players who have either played with different DMs, are DMs themselves, or who have also read the rules. In these circumstances, the players have enough knowledge about the shared world to expect their actions to work in a certain way.
A rogue can sneak attack (even on another creature's turn if they get a chance to attack), a paladin can smite (and can choose to do so after seeing whether they hit or miss and if it is a crit, they can do that on every attack on their turn if they have the spell slots) - these are expectations that the players have based on specific class rules.
Problems develop when the DM makes a ruling that disagrees with the rules that they didn't tell the players about in advance (rogues don't get to sneak attack on someone else's turn or paladin's can only smite once/turn). Both of those rulings are house rules that the players deserve to be aware of before they choose the characters they want to play. However, there are many times when a DM may make a ruling or even just adjust basic game play in a way that doesn't agree with the rules and thus breaks the player expectations.
Often this can happen when the players know the rules better than the DM, DMs are human, they make mistakes, they might want to run their game the way it is written but actually aren't aware of the rules.
e.g the DM has their NPC cleric or allows a character cleric to cast Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians on the same turn - is this because the DM has house ruled that spellcasters get to be a lot more powerful and that sorcerers can cast fireball and quicken a second one? Or is this just because the DM is unaware of or doesn't understand the bonus actions spellcasting rule?
The first case is a house rule that the players should know about, the latter just a mistake on the DMs part.
Most of the time, if the DM hasn't let the players know in advance, it is just the DM making a mistake in understanding the rules. If they want to continue playing that way, fine, if they want to adjust play to follow the rules, also fine.
However, as AEDorsay pointed out, most of the time, it is better to have these discussions after the game. If the DM is open to it, the players can comment that the decision is not how the rules usually work, and if the DM wants to change it at the time then fine, but it is never worth arguing about it during the game even if the player knows the DM is misinterpreting it.
I'd also add that I would NEVER consult a developer of an RPG during a game to adjust a ruling (either as a player or DM in response). The opinions of a developer are of no more specific value than any other DM (I believe that JC has even said that - one of the reasons for some of the inconsistencies in his twitter responses is that he often answered how he would run it in the moment if he was DMing it - not how the rules might or might not say it should be resolved. This is also why the Sage Advice Compendium contains only a small fraction of the twitter comments made by D&D designers).
Finally, I have seen this in other RPGs as well. Any RPG with an extensive rule set (GURPS, Rolemaster etc) can be open to the same sorts of discussions if the DM/GM and players have equal access and knowledge of the rules. However, far more people play and run D&D than any other system so you get folks playing who also DM and may be far more familiar with the rules than the current DM. Back seat DMing happens and it is something that DMs who are also players often need to keep an eye on :)
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
Yeah... I tend to use legendary resistances as a broader get out bs card for things like that. Spend a LR to smash a wall of force or tiny hut with an attack ect...
Certain combat ending spells shouldn't be used on bosses and some systems like PF2E have things where spells that can end combat on their own only work on lower level enemies. The protection 5e gives to bosses to avoid being shut down too easily is legendary resistance but some spells bypass that system and it leads to cheese. It's a better solution than giving everything dispel in my opinion.
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
Yeah... I tend to use legendary resistances as a broader get out bs card for things like that. Spend a LR to smash a wall of force or tiny hut with an attack ect...
Certain combat ending spells shouldn't be used on bosses and some systems like PF2E have things where spells that can end combat on their own only work on lower level enemies. The protection 5e gives to bosses to avoid being shut down too easily is legendary resistance but some spells bypass that system and it leads to cheese. It's a better solution than giving everything dispel in my opinion.
I have never encountered a situation like this, where players try to avoid a boss fight with spells like TH, but as a general idea I would feel that it's justified to wreck it, because the DM probably spent quite a bit of time to prepare for the fight, and now they are just sitting in a Hut. If it's a common and socially accepted occurrence, then I think LR is a good resource to bypass it.
If it's not generally accepted to do this, then I'd probably just give the players a little lesson on consequences.
So if the players go into a Tiny Hut in the middle of a boss fight, I'd probably just have the boss make some sort similar barrier around the Tiny Hut to make sure they stay there for the full duration and then have the boss thank them wholeheartedly and complete some nasty thing where they leave for 8 hours and come back more powerful than originally. :P
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
Yeah... I tend to use legendary resistances as a broader get out bs card for things like that. Spend a LR to smash a wall of force or tiny hut with an attack ect...
Certain combat ending spells shouldn't be used on bosses and some systems like PF2E have things where spells that can end combat on their own only work on lower level enemies. The protection 5e gives to bosses to avoid being shut down too easily is legendary resistance but some spells bypass that system and it leads to cheese. It's a better solution than giving everything dispel in my opinion.
I have never encountered a situation like this, where players try to avoid a boss fight with spells like TH, but as a general idea I would feel that it's justified to wreck it, because the DM probably spent quite a bit of time to prepare for the fight, and now they are just sitting in a Hut. If it's a common and socially accepted occurrence, then I think LR is a good resource to bypass it.
If it's not generally accepted to do this, then I'd probably just give the players a little lesson on consequences.
So if the players go into a Tiny Hut in the middle of a boss fight, I'd probably just have the boss make some sort similar barrier around the Tiny Hut to make sure they stay there for the full duration and then have the boss thank them wholeheartedly and complete some nasty thing where they leave for 8 hours and come back more powerful than originally. :P
Personally, I try not to break the rules to force things to turn out as intended. If I am running a game, then I know the resources the characters have and if they use LTH or Wall of Force or Banishment and "win" the encounter then I shouldn't be surprised to see them in play and, to be honest, that was what I (as DM) intended to be possible within the range of outcomes.
I don't need to have the BBEG use legendary resistances to break a wall of force or otherwise adjust rules or give the BBEG special powers on the fly to avoid some cool idea of the players. If the players have a cool idea and a bad guy loses then props to the players. There are always more bad guys. On the other hand, if an opponent has unusual abilities before the encounter then the players can expect to see them in play.
Finally, if the DM is allowing Tiny Hut to become a factor in combat then they are either misreading Tiny Hut or the party is facing unintelligent opponents. Tiny Hut takes a minute to cast, it won't be cast in combat though it could be cast before combat. However, the caster MUST remain inside or the hut disappears and the spells can not pass through the Tiny Hut. The bottom line is that the caster of Tiny Hut is out of the combat.
Other than that, intelligent opponents won't keep attacking the outside of a Tiny Hut while being attacked. The classic tactics are to bring down a ceiling or cover the hut with heavy items so that when it ends the creatures inside are likely to be crushed - giving them a different kind of problem to face. Tiny Hut really becomes a trap if players plan to use it for fighting. This is especially true once opponents have Dispel Magic or other options to just get rid of the hut altogether.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And that relates to the ridiculous tactics I mentioned above. The DM should not suddenly populate the adventure with monsters with a burrowing speed or dispel magic as a spell to thwart the hut. The DM has to accept that this is the method the party has chosen to heal itself. The party has provided the solution to TPKs the DM was worried about; don't undo that work by fighting LTH at every turn.
"suddenly populate the adventure with monsters with a burrowing speed or dispel magic as a spell" -- who does this?
It is a low level spell that has to be, in some way, weaker than the higher level spells that do similar things. It has no bottom. Knowing that doesn't suddenly change the Tomb of Annihilation to include a bunch of Dune Sandworms, lol.
Just because someone has done it to you doesn't mean the rest of us would. It is insulting.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Also as long as folks realize whether LTH has a floor or not is a subject of some debate among even knowledgeable DMs. Dome vs Hemisphere among other issues ... and is thus a DM call that may well be ruled differently in different games.
In addition, as a suggestion to the DM to provide the characters with a safe place to rest with little risk in order to compensate for lack of healing within a party ... it is a decent suggestion, and whether or not it has a floor is entirely up to the DM and whether they make use of whether or not it has a floor is also up to the DM. :) ... so no, everyone being "aware that LTH has no floor" is a ruling that would be relevant for your game and for DMs who might rule it similarly to how you do.
According to Jeremy Crawford it does. Any given DM can make whatever ruling they want at their own table though
edit: tried to link the Twitter post but it isn't working, you can search it though. First he said it doesn't, then he responded to his own tweet to say he was wrong and it does have a floor.
On a sidenote: This whole Tiny Hut issue and the Tarrasque vs Clay Golem thing etc. are one reason why I feel like DnD is like a video game/board game in comparison to many other systems. But I don't know if it's just a target demographic/culture thing or an innate part of the game itself.
These kind of feel very similar to talk about bugs and bug exploits and debate about whether it's an exploit or a part of the game.
It feels really strange that these need to be discussed at all in a tabletop RPG. I don't encounter this in other systems either.
There's no situation with other systems where I would feel the need to google consult the developers mid-game. But I do that in DnD. 😅 In other systems I've played, I feel like as the GM I have infinite power over the rules, so I just wing it and the players don't mind. In DnD, I feel like I need to be "sure" of the rules and players are more eager to be rules lawyers too. I wonder why.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
This is also the case for DnD 100% of the time in actual play at the table. It only isn't the case here on forums because no one is the DM with infinite power over the rules, so one can only debate the Rules As Written.
There is no twitter, and I would have to be paid unreasonable sums to use anything owned by the psychopathic POS *@#(^@$%@ for where you are trying to reference.
Also, Crawford's social media is not official rules, and an appeal to authority outside the scope of the system.
But, more than anything else...
It was a bit of a joke (if you look at either of the last two forever threads about LTH, you'll see I can argue either way). I rule it has no bottom (and even explicitly state so) at my tables, and I am firm believer that a DM can make up their own damn mind about it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Because D&D has more rules lawyers.
Really.
There is exactly one kind of player I am unfair to in any game I have ever run: someone who stops play to argue during game time over some rule or ruling they didn't like. And I don't do it sneakily -- I tell them I am being pointedly unfair, why I am being fair, and I repeat it every time I do it. It is a table rule of mine -- you can argue after the game session. YOu may even win. But you do not argue during the game, and once I do make a final call, it is a final call.
If that isn't enough, they can find another game.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Thank you. Yes, my suggestion about LTH relates to the DM that asked the question in this thread, and wasn't intended to broadly state a universal ultimate protection for every party. The OP was asking for ideas to help his group, and I didn't want the DM to feel that he had to thwart LTH just because tactics exist that will (dispel magic) or sometimes can (burrowing if the DM rules it has no floor) bypass its protection.
The DM/GM are free to rule however they wish and run the game to the rules they prefer. However, D&D, like most RPGs is a shared story environment. It is also a very popular one so that there can be many players who have either played with different DMs, are DMs themselves, or who have also read the rules. In these circumstances, the players have enough knowledge about the shared world to expect their actions to work in a certain way.
A rogue can sneak attack (even on another creature's turn if they get a chance to attack), a paladin can smite (and can choose to do so after seeing whether they hit or miss and if it is a crit, they can do that on every attack on their turn if they have the spell slots) - these are expectations that the players have based on specific class rules.
Problems develop when the DM makes a ruling that disagrees with the rules that they didn't tell the players about in advance (rogues don't get to sneak attack on someone else's turn or paladin's can only smite once/turn). Both of those rulings are house rules that the players deserve to be aware of before they choose the characters they want to play. However, there are many times when a DM may make a ruling or even just adjust basic game play in a way that doesn't agree with the rules and thus breaks the player expectations.
Often this can happen when the players know the rules better than the DM, DMs are human, they make mistakes, they might want to run their game the way it is written but actually aren't aware of the rules.
e.g the DM has their NPC cleric or allows a character cleric to cast Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians on the same turn - is this because the DM has house ruled that spellcasters get to be a lot more powerful and that sorcerers can cast fireball and quicken a second one? Or is this just because the DM is unaware of or doesn't understand the bonus actions spellcasting rule?
The first case is a house rule that the players should know about, the latter just a mistake on the DMs part.
Most of the time, if the DM hasn't let the players know in advance, it is just the DM making a mistake in understanding the rules. If they want to continue playing that way, fine, if they want to adjust play to follow the rules, also fine.
However, as AEDorsay pointed out, most of the time, it is better to have these discussions after the game. If the DM is open to it, the players can comment that the decision is not how the rules usually work, and if the DM wants to change it at the time then fine, but it is never worth arguing about it during the game even if the player knows the DM is misinterpreting it.
I'd also add that I would NEVER consult a developer of an RPG during a game to adjust a ruling (either as a player or DM in response). The opinions of a developer are of no more specific value than any other DM (I believe that JC has even said that - one of the reasons for some of the inconsistencies in his twitter responses is that he often answered how he would run it in the moment if he was DMing it - not how the rules might or might not say it should be resolved. This is also why the Sage Advice Compendium contains only a small fraction of the twitter comments made by D&D designers).
Finally, I have seen this in other RPGs as well. Any RPG with an extensive rule set (GURPS, Rolemaster etc) can be open to the same sorts of discussions if the DM/GM and players have equal access and knowledge of the rules. However, far more people play and run D&D than any other system so you get folks playing who also DM and may be far more familiar with the rules than the current DM. Back seat DMing happens and it is something that DMs who are also players often need to keep an eye on :)
Yeah...
I tend to use legendary resistances as a broader get out bs card for things like that. Spend a LR to smash a wall of force or tiny hut with an attack ect...
Certain combat ending spells shouldn't be used on bosses and some systems like PF2E have things where spells that can end combat on their own only work on lower level enemies. The protection 5e gives to bosses to avoid being shut down too easily is legendary resistance but some spells bypass that system and it leads to cheese. It's a better solution than giving everything dispel in my opinion.
I have never encountered a situation like this, where players try to avoid a boss fight with spells like TH, but as a general idea I would feel that it's justified to wreck it, because the DM probably spent quite a bit of time to prepare for the fight, and now they are just sitting in a Hut. If it's a common and socially accepted occurrence, then I think LR is a good resource to bypass it.
If it's not generally accepted to do this, then I'd probably just give the players a little lesson on consequences.
So if the players go into a Tiny Hut in the middle of a boss fight, I'd probably just have the boss make some sort similar barrier around the Tiny Hut to make sure they stay there for the full duration and then have the boss thank them wholeheartedly and complete some nasty thing where they leave for 8 hours and come back more powerful than originally. :P
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Personally, I try not to break the rules to force things to turn out as intended. If I am running a game, then I know the resources the characters have and if they use LTH or Wall of Force or Banishment and "win" the encounter then I shouldn't be surprised to see them in play and, to be honest, that was what I (as DM) intended to be possible within the range of outcomes.
I don't need to have the BBEG use legendary resistances to break a wall of force or otherwise adjust rules or give the BBEG special powers on the fly to avoid some cool idea of the players. If the players have a cool idea and a bad guy loses then props to the players. There are always more bad guys. On the other hand, if an opponent has unusual abilities before the encounter then the players can expect to see them in play.
Finally, if the DM is allowing Tiny Hut to become a factor in combat then they are either misreading Tiny Hut or the party is facing unintelligent opponents. Tiny Hut takes a minute to cast, it won't be cast in combat though it could be cast before combat. However, the caster MUST remain inside or the hut disappears and the spells can not pass through the Tiny Hut. The bottom line is that the caster of Tiny Hut is out of the combat.
Other than that, intelligent opponents won't keep attacking the outside of a Tiny Hut while being attacked. The classic tactics are to bring down a ceiling or cover the hut with heavy items so that when it ends the creatures inside are likely to be crushed - giving them a different kind of problem to face. Tiny Hut really becomes a trap if players plan to use it for fighting. This is especially true once opponents have Dispel Magic or other options to just get rid of the hut altogether.