Видео

How come the knight can attack without disadvantage when he's using his crossbow when is dexterity is less than 13. "He's got a feat" What's the feat? It's right here *Holds up a piece of paper* "This paper just says 'I can do whatever I want'" Correct, that's the feed he has. It's not available for players, you don't meet the requirements. "What are the requirements?" Be the DM.

It all boils down to the Simulator vs. Emulator argument. If players are seeking a simulation of combat, I usually point them twords the 40k style games.

I would assume the heavy cross bow disadvantage thing is more so dm fiat. As in the dm should notice the discrepancy and act accordingly. In short. Yes the knoght does have disadvantage with the heavy crossbow.

Good video. I am currently running a campaign, a prewritten one, which was written for the 2014 rules. My players all switched over to 2024 rules for their characters a few weeks ago and I have been having to upscale the encounters ever since. Last week they had an encounter that should have been "Deadly" to six level ten characters, the four level eight characters in my game barely broke sweat, the monsters need to be upscaled too. Because players have all the details and skills and traits to play with and make their characters awesome, and generally, they only have to worry about one character at a time, to keep up DM's need monster stats to be simple and easy to use, as well as powerful enough for the players to have to be out of breath now and again. I don't mind making a big stat block for a special NPC, but I don't want to have to rely on that in off the cuff situations, so tough monsters need to be available with small stat blocks too. That, and the DM never cheats, so any monsters they use are all fair game, that is the primary rule of DM'ing, isn't it?

The source of "things should work the same" is usually 3.5, where many monsters were built with the same spells and feats and rules as PCs. They did have some unique abilities, but largely the edition billed things as working the same

Just did this one shot for my party and had blast

I have no idea why they made fighting styles feats.

D&D is a asymmetrical game. Monsters should have options that the PCs don't get, and vice versa.

I think some of it may be about logic, I would accept most of this but would screw my nose up the first time I read something, guess if it would work even though it made no sense and move on.

The knight is not stupid as the rules... to handle an heavy weapon you do not need dexterity, you need strenght. He is smarter than the rule creators :)

Plsyed 3e back in the 90's and started 5e a year or teo ago. DM'ing for my first time though so this was helpful.

Yeah, the monsters are not designed around an attempt to make them follow a logical, consistent world build view but as match ups for the assumed power of the PCs at the level they are expected to be used against.

Actor plus mask and many faces is amazing, check out season 2 of dungeons of drakkenheim, Shadows of drakkenheim, they have a gray old one Warlock who took actor in mask of many faces and the shenanigans felt almost endless.

My ranger cant wait to pick up a couple of those drow shortswords that dont require a bonus action to coat to do 3d6 poison

There is an obvious reason for this - the players have classes. Obviously the monsters have something like classes and abilities too. However, DMs can't make and track character sheets for 14 different monsters. So they have to choose something else instead. Something that matches the damage and versatility of the players while surprising them with new and interesting challenges. Hence: monsters can do things players can't

Going to be eternally salty that the messed up my attack with divine smite added then misty-step the fuck away combo for my paladin.

One thing I dislike about 5e that 4e got right was spells in the monster stat block. In 4e, monsters did not use player spells or powers. Whatever powers they had were succinctly in the statblock. In 5e, there might be a spell you have to look up and the details are in a separate book.

Unironically i like when dms run with player rules, as it makes the fights feel more fair. If my character dies, it will be to an enemy with the same potential i had.

The idea that monsters should be built using the same rules as PCs comes from 3.X (so 2000-2008) in which all monsters did follow the same design rules as PCs (albeit with a few monster-exclusive features/traits and "monster classes" but even these tools were given to us in "Savage Species"). 4e and 5e returned to the design asymmetry that was present in all previous editions (under TSR), but given how widely popular 3.X (and by extension Pathfinder 1e) was - this concept has permeated the mental zeitgeist of D&D players.

Having the passive at least makes the justification for why a weapon doesn't deal as much damage in the hero's hands as opposed to the enemies. Hard disagree on this video

I never look at the screen when I wash RUclips. Until I have a question My question this time was: What is a Durgar Dad Bod

You don’t understand D&D game design. D&D monsters do not follow the same rules as player characters. They never have, and it’s not cheating.

As a ttrpg designer myself I find the breaking the rules concept to be lazy and uninspiring. It dumbs down the DM process to make it more streamlined but in doing so it takes away from the need to be creative and original. This process ensures that the undesirable floats to the top along with the cream. If you're familiar with Tucker's Kobolds you'll get a sense of how to create challenge without breaking any rules or altering stat blocks on any creatures. I have designed my own challenges while allowing my players to gain monster abilities and it not break the game. Get creative, ffs even ai can design decent challenges for level 20 characters.

I don't mind if the enemies can do stuff the players can't but why the heck is a crossbow fired by a knight doing radiant damage?

How do you get 4 attacks with Dual Wielder and Nick? Surely it's Action (1) Nick (2) Dual Wielder Bonus Action (3)

Well from my comments, I think you know how I feel and you making pedantic excuses doesn't fix it for me.

🙋🏻 I'd be pissed if I got a weapon that did 6d10 dmg TO me and now it does only 1d8 dmg for me I'd be 🤬🤬🤬 and demanding what the hell form thr DM and they better give a fantastic explanationas to WHY‼️

Monsters can't cheat. Monsters do not need to follow the same rules the PCs do. That's not how this gane works. Also, rule #1: these rules are juat guidelines. Never let the rules prevent you from having fun. It is supposed to be fun. That is the whole point of a game. "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game." - Gary Gygax.

I knew the monster creation cr system was broken but I didn't know it was this Bad 😱

❌❌❌Unbelievable‼️ How many basic rules can monsters ignore❌❌❌ 🚫🚫🚫 Players do you see this ❓😵❓

And are we ignoring loading property of range weapons too for monsters

So an enlarge weapon for a monster dose one dice extra damageof the damage type per size difference, while an enlarged weapon for a PC dose 1d4 extra DMG?????😵

If the monster's are not following the guide rules why should players??

Dose that mean that the players get the heavy crossbow doing 2d10 damage now?? Do they need special bolts for it or normal ones??? Soo monsters can not just bend the rules but outright break them!?!?! That's just not right no matter what shit excuse you make up!

Have had many players be able to navigate the tomb using the poem, finding several secret passages and progress. Not sure why you think the original is hard to read. Its pretty straight forward. Not every module is meant for every player. The Tomb of Horrors is an extreme example and is meant for expert PLAYERS of the game. MOST players simply aren't up to the challenges presented here, which does lead to frustration on the part of many. But it is a master class on dungeon design, and demonstrates the extremes of the game to be sure. Not a bad video, but the background music while you're narrating is a bit overbearing and should be eliminated.

I personally as a dm think, that these changes are for the worse. Please hear me out. I dont think its a problem that the knight works that way. I think its a problem that I as a dm have no idea how these completely arbitrary rules work. If the knight had a feature that allows him to ignore the penatlies of heavy weapons, great. If he had a feat that ranged weapons deal an additional damage die, awesome. As it is, I dont have any idea of whats going on. Is the radiant damage coming from the knight? Is it tied to the weapon? Or both? What about a knight that picks up the crossbow of another one? Does it work like attunement? Does he wield a longbow with disadvantage? What about the longbows damage? And if the players defeat and loot them, does the crossbow deal 2d10 damage, or dis the knight just know how to wield it well? I think it is very bad design style to just invent arbitrary and unwritten rules in a statblock to circumvent clearly defined rules of the game. Imagine if the new knight had a strength of 15, a greatsword with +7 to atk and a damage of 3d4 +8. At some point, its just random nonsense that doesnt abide by the rules. And yes, you can make statblocks like that, but if you ignore rules like the stats affecting their abilities, then you can just ignore the stats completely and save yourself the time.

The fact that the numbers dont make sense is why I dropped 5e originally. I like to homebrew my own monsters and I minored in mathematics.

Can we just aknowledge for a moment that a knight can parry an attack with a crossbow?

I think the top-down approach better serves having a decently balanced game, and is one that 5e should adopt. I like these sections of text from the rules in PF2e for building monsters, especially as it relates to determining damage: > Creatures aren't built the same way PCs are. The rules for building them are more flexible, and their statistics are based on benchmark final numbers rather than combining each individual modifier together. This is called top-down design, in which you consider the design process as a whole and select the details that reflect your intended result, rather than building statistics from the bottom up and hoping the finished creature matches your vision. > Keep in mind that a creature using a weapon should have a damage value that feels right for that weapon. Extreme damage works well for two-handed weapons that use d10s or d12s for damage. On the other hand, a dagger uses only d4s, so a dagger wielder would need something like sneak attack to deal extreme damage, or you might compensate for the dagger's lower damage per Strike by giving the creature the ability to attack more efficiently or use other tricks. In PF2e, you simply use the tables which have columns to give you ranges from Low to Extreme, and adhere to roughly those numbers for that creature's level, with the understanding that creatures have the innate features which justify those statistics, even as they directly depart from the rules for a PC. In the section about creatures which use manufactured weapons, it even states that if you desire to build their damage from the ground up, to give them damage-boosting features like Weapon Specialization way before a PC does (or extra features like Sneak Attack). It's notable, however, that creatures don't ignore weapon traits, unless you specifically allow them to with a special ability. They play intimately with the core rules. As an example put in 5e terms, a creature couldn't simply have a multi-attack that features a crossbow, and would REQUIRE a special ability to bypass the loading property (because in PF2e, crossbows require a bespoke action to reload, taking 1 or more of your 3 actions to do so, unlike a bow which does not). Essentially, creatures adhere strongly to the core rules of the game, but their sheets do not adhere to the player-building rules and expectations. 5e could easily accomplish this with a monster table that's worth a damn.

Is draining kiss a perm reduction or did they miss out until long rest part?

I'm fine with different character creation rules for pcs and npcs. Things like hit dice, attributes, traits, etc. But imo items should behave the same ehichever character is weiling them. That includes magic itmes and mundane items, and epecially the properties of those items should be the same regardless of who weilds it.

I know JC mentioned that they did some heavy editing to "thin" out the new books. Otherwise they were going to be twice as many pages. Yet, passive information is crucial in MM's because maybe the NPC uses a club that is not already calculated in their stat block. Things like this actively happen. Maybe not every session but frequently enough that it needs to be included somewhere. Also I have never been a fan of breaking continuity. Some of the most poorly designed NPC's are ones that break this continuity. We don't need a 5 page backstory but the players have to buy into the lore why something is happening. I'm currently playing PF2 so different system but many of the NPC's have no continuity but exhibit everything you said is "ok." I find it to be just extremely poor design. If I am fighting a humanoid there are things I expect. When you start breaking those expectations and no plausible reason it breaks down the lore. For example, A level 1 caster casting a leveled spell 3 rounds in a row I may ignore or not notice. That same NPC dropping leveled spells every round for 7 to 10 rounds and I will notice (and begin questioning). Or casting higher level spells and they are just "fodder" will begin to make me wonder. For example we had a caster drop spells not from his school (example: Primal, Divine, Arcane for D&D) and it bugged me. We moved on but this topic brought up that feeling I had nearly 2 years ago.

In 3e through 5e, monsters have been especially asymmetrical compared to PCs. It was especially dramatic in 3e, despite that being the first edition where monsters used ability score modifiers for everything like PCs did. Because the original game wasn't designed with that approach in mind, and switching over to it without adjusting the rest of the game's assumptions to match meant that you suddenly got massively inflated hit points and useless combat maneuvers and other things. 5e monsters don't even remotely use PC ranges for most of their traits, and the game was designed around that. If people could handle that NPC fighters in 2014 had d8s for hit dice if they were human and d6s if they were halflings, rather than d10s like PCs, then they should be able to handle that NPC fighters in 2024 have damage ratings based around being functional threats. I understand wanting monsters to feel a bit like simulations of some objective reality, but it's a _tiny_ aesthetic benefit compared to the incredible amount of damage it did to game balance and flexibility in every edition that's tried it.

I dont know...I pretty much think a lot of those "topics" you seem to think were missing dont need to be in the DMG....conflict resoluton out of game? What are people...mentally challenged to the pt of not knowing how to talk to another human being? Not saying that 2014 was great but its issues arent the ones you raised by and large....and new one isnt better for including them.

My DM found the 5R player stuff neat but without better monsters he will not "upgrade" This brings some hope.

I don't care if they give a monster extra weapon damage mechanics. That may even need to be a necessity. My only problem with a 2d10+1d8 radiant crossbow is if you don't have something to specify why then it becomes a custom weapon and if I find a 2d10 heavy crossbow in a monster's hands and I kill him I'm taking his weapon and expect it to work the same for me as it did for him. If the stat block has an explanation for the difference I will still take the crossbow but then I won't expect the difference in damage to transfer.

great vid, love the more powerful monsters