Tiny Hut in combat

[Bilbron]

People are really down on this and consider it game-breaking. Personally, I can cast Tiny Hut in combat (I have a 3rd level Svirfneblin Spell Gem) and I never do. I don't think it's as great as people make it out to be (this whole "Arcane Abeyance breaks the game unless you homebrew it to work only on 1-action casts" stuff gets on my nerves).

It's one battle per day, will generally cause a retreat and merely delay an encounter, can be taken down easily with Dispel Magic, and even if I didn't have that spellcasting fundamental, I can think of all sorts of ways to attack people inside, most obviously by just setting an ambush for when it drops. It's mostly good against weak or dumb enemies, and why would I need an "ultimate defense" against clowns like that?

As such, I feel like if I used my Spell Gem or Arcane Abeyance for TH, you just won't use it very often, as it's more of a "back pocket panic button" option. I prefer to use my SG or AA for something that can impact ANY combat and that I will use every day (like Haste, Slow, or Major Image).

Open to arguments against. What makes TH in combat so fearsome?

[P. G. Macer]

Leomund’s Tiny Hut has a casting time of one minute, i.e. ten rounds. Unless you’re a Level 10+ Chronurgy Wizard (and even then it’s debatable, as you allude to), you’re not usually casting it in combat, your spell gem being the exception rather than the rule.

The reason it’s so highly touted is for its out-of combat utility, namely it’s ability as a ritual spell to be a resourceless secure long rest ability. Many DMs are hesitant to fully exploit the spells weaknesses (Dispel magic, enemies swarming around the hut, triggering cave-ins in dungeons), for the not-entirely-unjustified reason of fearing a player “mutiny” (more likely a torrent of complaints and arguments than the players outright leaving).

Having a secure long rest also means that the party is essentially having combat on their own terms, with full resources.

Referring back to your context, does your table primarily do Combat as Sport or Combat as War? I imagine that an instant long rest (barring some niche circumstances like dispel magic) would be much more useful in the latter play style, e.g. if you’re ambushed while low on resources, though as most of my experience is with the former I can’t say for sure.

The reason LTH is so fearsome in combat, therefore, is that it allows combat to be delayed by up to 8 hours, letting the party fight on their terms.

[Bilbron]

Leomund’s Tiny Hut has a casting time of one minute, i.e. ten rounds. Unless you’re a Level 10+ Chronurgy Wizard (and even then it’s debatable, as you allude to), you’re not usually casting it in combat, your spell gem being the exception rather than the rule.

The reason it’s so highly touted is for its out-of combat utility, namely it’s ability as a ritual spell to be a resourceless secure long rest ability. Many DMs are hesitant to fully exploit the spells weaknesses (Dispel magic, enemies swarming around the hut, triggering cave-ins in dungeons), for the not-entirely-unjustified reason of fearing a player “mutiny” (more likely a torrent of complaints and arguments than the players outright leaving).

Having a secure long rest also means that the party is essentially having combat on their own terms, with full resources.

Referring back to your context, does your table primarily do Combat as Sport or Combat as War? I imagine that an instant long rest (barring some niche circumstances like dispel magic) would be much more useful in the latter play style, e.g. if you’re ambushed while low on resources, though as most of my experience is with the former I can’t say for sure.

The reason LTH is so fearsome in combat, therefore, is that it allows combat to be delayed by up to 8 hours, letting the party fight on their terms.

Well, I think everyone agrees that it's great for long rests (though something of a luxury as guard protocols should be something everyone is used to, but hey, it's a ritual so why not?). I'm talking about using it as a combat tactic to provide a staging ground for party members to fire ranged weapons from and dart into for healing.

[Gignere]

Well, I think everyone agrees that it's great for long rests (though something of a luxury as guard protocols should be something everyone is used to, but hey, it's a ritual so why not?). I'm talking about using it as a combat tactic to provide a staging ground for party members to fire ranged weapons from and dart into for healing.

Yeah if you can cast this with an action or even not I’ve ritual cast tiny hut after our scout successfully found enemies and once cast lured them back to the area with tiny hut and it is absolutely encounter breaking having the tiny hut, automatic advantage for all your range attacker as the hut is opaque from the outside.

For the melees they can use it as a quick break if they get overwhelmed. Other spell casters can run out cast and run back in for perfect safety.

[Sigreid]

For combat I can see it being useful for a siege warfare situation. i.e. you're laying siege to a castle and you get some wizards to set up some tiny huts within range of walls to use as archer strike points or medical safe zones. Though you'd have to have everyone who was going to use that hard point inside the radius during casting.

[Bobthewizard]

As an action, it's amazing in combat. Not to protect the whole party, but to force the enemy to attack your tanks.

When combat starts, you cast your main concentration spell. Next round, get close to any allied archers and other spell casters and cast LTH. You all can shoot arrows out of the hut. Others can step out, cast their spells, and then return. Meanwhile your melee characters keep the enemy from retreating.

[greenstone]

Like a lot of magic, the hut's effectiveness depends on how smart the foes are. Against an undead horde or a number of wild animals, it's a great tactic.

It is also a two-edged sword.

Sure, your archers can hide inside the hut and shoot out, right up until the enemies cover the hut with mud, leaving the archers blinded. If no-one is outside the hut then the attackers can play whack-a-mole.

People can leave the hut, attack, and duck back in, which is a nice tactic until their foes grapple them.

In any case, the caster of the spell certainly isn't leaving the hut.

Perhaps the attackers cover the hut in alchemists fire or acid. Those leaving the dome are now subject to damage.

Finally, the attackers can just run away.

[Bilbron]

Like a lot of magic, the hut's effectiveness depends on how smart the foes are. Against an undead horde or a number of wild animals, it's a great tactic.

It is also a two-edged sword.

Sure, your archers can hide inside the hut and shoot out, right up until the enemies cover the hut with mud, leaving the archers blinded. If no-one is outside the hut then the attackers can play whack-a-mole.

People can leave the hut, attack, and duck back in, which is a nice tactic until their foes grapple them.

In any case, the caster of the spell certainly isn't leaving the hut.

Perhaps the attackers cover the hut in alchemists fire or acid. Those leaving the dome are now subject to damage.

Finally, the attackers can just run away.

Agreed... it's usefulness in combat seems overrated to me and I can't bring myself to fill my Spell Gem with it. I want something I'll want to cast in any combat.

[Gale]

Like a lot of magic, the hut's effectiveness depends on how smart the foes are. Against an undead horde or a number of wild animals, it's a great tactic.

It is also a two-edged sword.

Sure, your archers can hide inside the hut and shoot out, right up until the enemies cover the hut with mud, leaving the archers blinded. If no-one is outside the hut then the attackers can play whack-a-mole.

People can leave the hut, attack, and duck back in, which is a nice tactic until their foes grapple them.

In any case, the caster of the spell certainly isn't leaving the hut.

Perhaps the attackers cover the hut in alchemists fire or acid. Those leaving the dome are now subject to damage.

Finally, the attackers can just run away.

Seems strange to assume the attackers have bountiful mud available to cover the hut with, let alone alchemist fire or acid. Significantly covering a 10 ft. radius area with enough mud to obscure the tiny hut to point where archers inside are blinded would probably take multiple rounds. Maybe several people with buckets of mud could obscure the hut enough in a single round to impose disadvantage on attacks from within or act as partial cover for those outside, but this seems like an unrealistic scenario. On another note, there aren't actually any rules that state that alchemist fire or acid can be used as a trap. Both items merely state that if you successfully hit something with either substance then that thing takes damage, but nothing that comes into contact with the effected person or objects takes damage. It's not unreasonable to rule otherwise, but it should be noted.

Enemies could grapple their foes to prevent them from running back in the hut, yes. But grappling isn't particularly powerful, especially since it takes an action. Denying your enemy from doing what they would actually want to do, attack, is pretty powerful. Action economy is king in D&D, and if you can force your enemies to waste their turns trying to sabotage your hut or grapple mages running out to cast their spells then it's still a net bonus.

I think the fear that enemies will lie in wait to attack your party or might ruin the hut somehow is overstated. These aren't good uses of their actions, and while they do them, they will get peppered with arrows from the party members inside. If you're worried about grapples then remember no one really needs to leave the hut. Just give everyone ranged weapons and have them spam them until the enemies are dead. Running away doesn't help either if they don't have cover as bows have pretty great range. Even if they do find cover I would consider having a couple rounds of uncontested damage a huge win. If they run away entirely then you might just consider that a win too, unless the DM has them come back with friends.

I think there's certainly counters to Tiny Hut and it won't always be an automatic fight winner, but if you can drop it whenever you want as an action then it will definitely get some use more often than not. Most enemies won't be prepared to deal with it unless your DM is metagaming. But as always, your mileage may vary.

[Gignere]

Also the ones staying outside of the hut is generally the ones that want the enemy to not be running away like the fighter/barbarian or ranger. They’ll love to be grappled.

Using mud or alchemist fire as a counter is pretty damn stupid because the enemies are spending their action to put mud on the hut while taking reckless GWM or smites or action surged attacks from the tanks.

If that’s the counter the PCs will win for sure.

[MrCharlie]

Also the ones staying outside of the hut is generally the ones that want the enemy to not be running away like the fighter/barbarian or ranger. They’ll love to be grappled.

Using mud or alchemist fire as a counter is pretty damn stupid because the enemies are spending their action to put mud on the hut while taking reckless GWM or smites or action surged attacks from the tanks.

If that’s the counter the PCs will win for sure.

Object interactions are free, and the DM determines the limit of them, and how much mud would be required to negate vision out of the hut. That said, the general point remains-unless the PCs are turtling in the hut, it's hard to imagine practical counterplay, and throwing mud at the hut is no exception.

In general, the true counterplay to the hut is twofold. First, use context to determine an appropriate environmental or narrative penalty, if appropriate. It won't always be appropriate, but occasionally it is plausible that the enemy will have alchemists fire, or enough manpower to bury the hut or collapse the tunnels. And/Or run and go get 30 buddies to pound your party into paste, because you've created a fortification, not a tank, and in general most DnD dungeons have more enemies in the entire dungeon than the PCs are expected to fight at once.

Second, don't give the party broken magic items that let them cast it as an action, or modify such magic items so that they can't cast it as an action but do the rest of their effects as written. If it's a problem, remove it.

As a DM I usually go for the first solution, should I find that the PCs are trivializing encounters. If the PCs are exploiting powerful tactics, that's fine, they can have their fun, but I'll challenge those tactics either by creating more complicated encounters, or by simply giving them narrative options to accomplish greater victories at higher risk, which stress their power more.

[Bilbron]

Object interactions are free, and the DM determines the limit of them, and how much mud would be required to negate vision out of the hut. That said, the general point remains-unless the PCs are turtling in the hut, it's hard to imagine practical counterplay, and throwing mud at the hut is no exception.

In general, the true counterplay to the hut is twofold. First, use context to determine an appropriate environmental or narrative penalty, if appropriate. It won't always be appropriate, but occasionally it is plausible that the enemy will have alchemists fire, or enough manpower to bury the hut or collapse the tunnels. And/Or run and go get 30 buddies to pound your party into paste, because you've created a fortification, not a tank, and in general most DnD dungeons have more enemies in the entire dungeon than the PCs are expected to fight at once.

Second, don't give the party broken magic items that let them cast it as an action, or modify such magic items so that they can't cast it as an action but do the rest of their effects as written. If it's a problem, remove it.

As a DM I usually go for the first solution, should I find that the PCs are trivializing encounters. If the PCs are exploiting powerful tactics, that's fine, they can have their fun, but I'll challenge those tactics either by creating more complicated encounters, or by simply giving them narrative options to accomplish greater victories at higher risk, which stress their power more.

It's great against weak enemies or creatures, but you don't need this because there are a million ways to beat weak enemies. It can be good against strong but dumb enemies, but even an animal isn't going to poke its nose into a wall that shoots it with arrows for very long. It's not great against smart enemies who can create reasonable countertactics. Note also that it basically takes the caster off the board and takes spells out of the equation (through barrier, anyway), and even if it's a Cleric with healing, such are not totally renewable resources and can be exhausted via attrition. Note also that it removes all mobility/maneuverability and gives your enemies a fixed area to tactically attack.

Dispel Magic just takes it right off the board, but other things that come to mind if DM not available are Heavy Obscurement (don't have to get fancy with mud, just cast Fog Cloud or Darkness or something), just taking similar cover out of line of sight (or set up line of sight barricades or even total cover) and then both just play the waiting game (the idea that enemies will just sit there for PCs to pick off from inside the Hut is pretty outlandish and would require a contrived scenario with a highly constrained environment to work in that way), dropping persistent AOE over the hut which affects anyone who steps out of it (e.g. Cloudkill, which will also provide Heavy Obscurement), start sealing them in with Stone Shape, permanent Walls of Stone, etc., setting traps, employing misdirection because you have to leave the Hut sometime and they can influence when you do, collecting/mending arrows shot from inside the Hut and shoot them back in, coordinating attacks on single targets that leave the Hut, etc.

Honestly just seems like a slightly different Rope Trick to me and I can already cast that without the bells and whistles required for TH, so honestly not sure what all the fuss is about. This also reminds me that hardly any players/DMs ever truly take into account the power of attrition. When I see a strong enemy make a strong action, my typical response is "not bad, son, but how many times can you do that? Let's see who's got the juice."

Also, it's not that easy for Clerics to cast it. Can't use Spell Gem unless they have wizards spells; can't use RoSS because it doesn't reduce casting time to 1 action. That leaves Arcane Abeyance, which 1. most tables I suspect nerf AA by allowing it to affect only 1-action casts; and 2. is unweildy with that 1-hour duration and once per long rest thing, you'd have to use it strategically and not as a panic button.

[Gale]

I wouldn't say the Wizard is useless while inside the hut. They can still buff their allies with Fly, Haste, Polymorph, etc. or even send their Owl familiar out to scorch enemies with Dragon's Breath; and of course we can't forget the light crossbow either.

Enemies can try and figure out a counterattack, but as a player I would be hard pressed to come up with an immediate counter strategy if my DM used a Tiny Hut on me. Besides the obvious Dispel Magic I don't think my party would be able to come up with anything quickly other than running away and coming back later with a better plan.

I'm not sure if I would consider Darkness or Cloudkill to really be counters to Tiny Hut as they have shorter duration than the hut's beefy 8 hour runtime. Anyone trying to fight from inside could just wait them out. Although, Cloudkill or Wall of Stone could be a good ways to divide and conquer if your party has melee combatants who were preferring to stay outside the hut. Otherwise they seem like a waste unless the people casting it are planning to run off and get back up.

In any case, I really do think that the fear of enemies coming up with elaborate counter strategies to a Tiny Hut is overstated. It doesn't quite make sense to me to be honest. If the party casts Tiny Hut then immediately starts attacking their foes then they won't really have time to setup traps, find cover, get backup, etc. You only need a couple of melee combatants outside the hut to discourage the enemies from trying most of those things. Even if you do the bare minimum and use the Tiny Hut to protect your party as everyone receives buffs I think that's a huge advantage in terms of action economy that you otherwise wouldn't have had.

One could even argue that Dispel Magic isn't a great counter to it. Yes, it immediately gets rid of it. But it forces an enemy spellcaster to do something other than try and harm your party and eats one of their spell slots. Also, unless the spellcaster takes their turn right after you cast Tiny Hut then there is a good chance that you'll still be wasting several other enemies turns. Either way, I don't see Dispel Magic as a great reason why a spell is bad. For one, it won't be a factor in every fight; and two, Fly and Haste can likewise be dispelled just as easily but no one rates them as poor combat options despite being arguably worse. (Although, I will admit it's easier to Counterspell Dispel Magic if you're not stuck in a hut.)

Tiny Hut doesn't need to win every encounter by itself to be a great combat option. I will admit, it's definitely not as great when facing powerful spellcasters. But it should be killer in early game or against monstrous enemies who aren't trying too hard to strategize and don't innately have counters to it. It's an invincible force field that you can potentially conjure with a mere action. Even with the limitations it has you should be able to make good use of it at least some of the time, especially if you plan ahead with the party about how you want to use it.

I really think this is a case of "don't knock it until you tried it."

[Bilbron]

Besides the obvious Dispel Magic I don't think my party would be able to come up with anything quickly other than running away and coming back later with a better plan.

I'm not sure if I would consider Darkness or Cloudkill to really be counters to Tiny Hut as they have shorter duration than the hut's beefy 8 hour runtime. Anyone trying to fight from inside could just wait them out.

In any case, I really do think that the fear of enemies coming up with elaborate counter strategies to a Tiny Hut is overstated. It doesn't quite make sense to me to be honest. If the party casts Tiny Hut then immediately starts attacking their foes then they won't really have time to setup traps, find cover, get backup, etc. You only need a couple of melee combatants outside the hut to discourage the enemies from trying most of those things. Even if you do the bare minimum and use the Tiny Hut to protect your party as everyone receives buffs I think that's a huge advantage in terms of action economy that you otherwise wouldn't have had.

One could even argue that Dispel Magic isn't a great counter to it. Yes, it immediately gets rid of it. But it forces an enemy spellcaster to do something other than try and harm your party and eats one of their spell slots. Also, unless the spellcaster takes their turn right after you cast Tiny Hut then there is a good chance that you'll still be wasting several other enemies turns. Either way, I don't see Dispel Magic as a great reason why a spell is bad. For one, it won't be a factor in every fight; and two, Fly and Haste can likewise be dispelled just as easily but no one rates them as poor combat options despite being arguably worse. (Although, I will admit it's easier to Counterspell Dispel Magic if you're not stuck in a hut.)

Tiny Hut doesn't need to win every encounter by itself to be a great combat option. I will admit, it's definitely not as great when facing powerful spellcasters. But it should be killer in early game or against monstrous enemies who aren't trying too hard to strategize and don't innately have counters to it. It's an invincible force field that you can potentially conjure with a mere action. Even with the limitations it has you should be able to make good use of it at least some of the time, especially if you plan ahead with the party about how you want to use it.

I really think this is a case of "don't knock it until you tried it."

I'm not saying it's not good. I'm weighing its opportunity cost as too high. It's great against enemies you don't need it against, and bad against strong enemies who can often (if not usually) come up with strategic plans. And even if they don't and just run away? Wow, anti-climactic finish to the dramatic use of a Spell Gem or Arcane Abeyance.

Any other spell can also be Dispelled, true. But many affect several targets, so would require several Dispels to fully negate (e.g. Slow, Hypnotic Pattern). Some are unlikely to be dispelled, like Major Image before they detect the illusion. Some aren't necessarily likely to be noticed to be Dispelled, like Haste. There are approaches which mitigate the fact that any 3rd level spell can technically Dispelled, whereas Tiny Hut confers total perfect cover for the group and essentially begs for a Dispel Magic (or just fleeing, as mentioned before).

Again, it's not a bad spell by any means. If I could cast it regularly in combat, I certainly would. But evaluating in the context of opportunity cost vs. a Haste/Slow/Major Image (my favorites), it falls short. Though I might certainly leverage it (or Magic Circle) as part of an organized plan with setup.

[Azuresun]

I just applied a precision nerf--it keeps out weather, but it doesn't stop attacks or creatures moving inside the dome. That seems much less work than needing to always bring along highly specific counters to stop it making encounters into complete jokes.

And it brings the spell in line with the clearly intended use (wilderness shelter), rather than having "Selective Wall of Force + group Greater Invisibility" being a level 3 spell. I don't view it as some test of my manhood to "adapt" to broken spells--just apply the nerf, then use the time saved for more productive things.

[Porcupinata]

I just applied a precision nerf--it keeps out weather, but it doesn't stop attacks or creatures moving inside the dome. That seems much less work than needing to always bring along highly specific counters to stop it making encounters into complete jokes.

And it brings the spell in line with the clearly intended use (wilderness shelter), rather than having "Selective Wall of Force + group Greater Invisibility" being a level 3 spell. I don't view it as some test of my manhood to "adapt" to broken spells--just apply the nerf, then use the time saved for more productive things.

I regret that 5e combined Leomunds Tiny Hut (which used to do exactly what you say, just stopping weather) and Leomund's Sturdy Shelter (a higher level spell which conjured an actual stone cottage with door, windows, and chimney) into a single spell. Unfortunately, doing so put the physical blocking of the higher level spell into the lower one and at the same time took away their weak points making it a smooth one-way forcefield that ended up more powerful than either of the original spells were.

[Xervous]

How many categories does tiny hut trivialize that a flying party with a fog cloud does not cover? Readied attacks still get a shot, non-withdraw movement back to safety will still provoke and you’ll generally only be at risk from readied spells. Seems to be mostly things with pointy sticks and no great threats beyond melee.

Also note the critical clause here that the caster of Tiny Hut can’t leave the hut or the spell ends. Summons and powerful ally boosting concentration effects are still valid options, but you’re folding on the greater portion of your options to stay mostly immobile holding up the barrier.

[Eldariel]

Hut is great when, for whatever reason, the enemy can't retreat. Perhaps you're fighting at McGuffin site or ritual site or whatever; thus retreat means campaign defeat for the enemy. Perhaps you're simply fighting in a dungeon deadend and thus enemy has nowhere to go. Perhaps you're fighting inside a building or next to a cliff or whatever. Perhaps other allies can cut off any possible escape paths.

Either way, taking multiple rounds of attacks especially if there are any Longbow Sharpshooters inside the hut means even if enemy disengages, many are probably going to die at zero risk to the party. 600' takes a while to reach even for relatively fast creatures (Dragon dashing at 160' a turn still takes ~3 rounds of attacks from the long range types - and at that point is potentially weakened enough for a Dimension Door approach to finish them off).


Overall, I'd say it's really strong. It's a non-Concentration defense that can only be broken by dispelling it, and this game includes a lot of things that can't dispel. For such things it's at worst a forced retreat and that can be enough to achieve strategic victory but if you have long range capability and perhaps are restricting enemy movements also (say, Wall of Force or something to prevent their escape and to keep them in range), it's just a shooting range where you can kill anything without Dispel or some teleportative means of escape, no matter how powerful.

[Gignere]

Hut is great when, for whatever reason, the enemy can't retreat. Perhaps you're fighting at McGuffin site or ritual site or whatever; thus retreat means campaign defeat for the enemy. Perhaps you're simply fighting in a dungeon deadend and thus enemy has nowhere to go. Perhaps you're fighting inside a building or next to a cliff or whatever. Perhaps other allies can cut off any possible escape paths.

Either way, taking multiple rounds of attacks especially if there are any Longbow Sharpshooters inside the hut means even if enemy disengages, many are probably going to die at zero risk to the party. 600' takes a while to reach even for relatively fast creatures (Dragon dashing at 160' a turn still takes ~3 rounds of attacks from the long range types - and at that point is potentially weakened enough for a Dimension Door approach to finish them off).


Overall, I'd say it's really strong. It's a non-Concentration defense that can only be broken by dispelling it, and this game includes a lot of things that can't dispel. For such things it's at worst a forced retreat and that can be enough to achieve strategic victory but if you have long range capability and perhaps are restricting enemy movements also (say, Wall of Force or something to prevent their escape and to keep them in range), it's just a shooting range where you can kill anything without Dispel or some teleportative means of escape, no matter how powerful.

Another great place to drop a tiny hut is a lair. Most creatures would probably not want to retreat from their lair. I had one group where I dropped a tiny hut in a beholder’s lair, we were level 6 and we totally trivialized the encounter.

Druid just conjured animals, while the clerics would move in and out of the hut to cast or range attack.

The rogue just basically got free sneak attacks and the only one outside was the barbarian grappling and attacking the beholder. Although I couldn’t leave the hut but I contributed with my familiar and buff haste on the barbarian.

It tried to run away but with 10 flying giant owls a barbarian grappling it. We made short work of it. At the end the only one that even got hurt was the barbarian, we lost a few giants owls to the random eye beams but hey so what.