Hey! Love the video Anto! These are truly my favorite kind of videos to see, love seeing peoples takes (and taking notes aggressively the whole time!!!)
"DC20" is a good name for a general SYSTEM - like "d20" or "2d20" or "BRP" etcetera. But a specific GAME needs a name that evokes the core activity of that game. In this case, something that conjures up images of heroic fantasy.
I've been following DC20 on and off for the past several months and it is a system I plan on getting. For your video, it would be nice to know in the beginning of your review which test version you have are referencence. Unless I missed it, I did not hear you mention that this is an unfinished product until the end of your video. I know there have been a few updates already. Unless something has changed, I would add that I truly like the mana points instead of spell slots concept. In fact, I might implement something like that in my 5e campaign. For me personally, I'm undecided on how I feel about the damage system in DC20. I think I will like the fact that you do more damage on the better hit roll you make, but having an initial flat damage per weapon type is one I will need to play a bit before deciding. I love the racial concept. Half-dwarf or half-dragon born anyone? Much more options, and I love options.
I was working from the latest test version, which is 0.6.2 I believe? The mana points system is just lovely. Much more user friendly than spell slots too. There is a spell points system variant rule in 5e, but it's clearly a conversion of the slots system so the numbers aren't as simple or elegant as DC20's implementation, but it is potentially a better fit for some tables than spell slots.
@@IcarusGamesfor me mana points feel like a more natural implementation of magic than spell slots. It still has the same function of spell slots but has more flexibility. Mana has always been what people use to cast magic in most fantasy settings and it makes sense why because it’s basically just a castors stamina so the more experienced castor the more mana he has to draw from. It also has functionally the same limiting factor as spell slots but in a way that feels idk cleaner is how I would put it.
I feel like a lot of the things that make DC20 stand out are similar in concept to pf2e but taken to a further extreme. Rolling x amount above or below the DC, 4 action system, the minimalist statblock looks essentially like pf2e removed the flavour text and put all the mechanics into traits. I feel like this only would appeal to people who think pf2e is too crunchy (which is mostly said by people who haven't actually tried it in my experience) but that still agree with it's general design philosophy
Yeah it's got a lot in common with the core principles of PF2. And there are people who find PF2 too crunchy after play - I'm one of them! All the extra crunch ended up being a real hindrance to my playstyle even though I like a lot about the core system, and my group and I ultimately ended up switching back to 5e.
As one of my favourite RPGtubers said "DnD players are too busy trying to homebrew their game into pathfinder to be aware there are a ton of other games out there"
I had an image in my head as you described using actions to get a big hit. It looked like an anime final boss fight. The hero is positioned to to strike. He's fully concentrated on this attack. His muscles are bulging. The other pary memebers are giving what little energy they have left to power up the hero. The hero yells as he strikes. All the color fades and it just the outlines with all the power being released in this attack. All you see is the heroes face and the big bads face as what looks like the hero cleaves him in two. And them you say if only incould still roll for damage. We cut back to the anime where the big bad has a small scratch on his cheek because you rolled a 1. Yeah im good with not rolling for damage.
I agree with the monster presentation point. However, I do think that a statblock should be as condensed as possible and a LOT of the information provided in a 5e statblock is really unnecessary or redundant, so I really think that 5e statblocks are bad. For instance, it is obvious that melee attacks cannot reach creatures who are not adjacent (with a few exceptions, but it's only the exceptions where additional information is needed). I really like the way Nimble 5e presents monster statblocks. It is easily understandable, but still a real quick read because everything unnecessary was left out. If you know that you can ignore some parts of the statblocks, you should really leave the thing out that is ignored anyway. I also see where you come from with your other points, but I think that the way you presented your other criticism is inappropriate because you never actually played the game, so it is actually likely that many points you listed as "dislike" will move to "like" when you actually play the game.
Thanks 😊 I appreciate it! Might play the YT game with title/thumbnail to get people in the door, but I try and give as unbiased a look as is possible wherever I can (though totally unbias is impossible in anything)
My table is moving to Tale of the Valiant. They had no idea who they were till i pointed out monsters in our games i had used from Kobold Press. I think we'll like the move. but i'm not surprised 90% of the ttrpg community just dont know who the alternatives are.
I'm sure ToV will do perfectly fine in the medium term because it's Kobold Press and they've got some resources behind them, but I do imagine most folks will just use their stuff and adapt it to 5e games. From the stuff I've seen of it, the only reason to wholesale switch seems to be if you explicitly don't want to play a WotC game, and most players don't care that much. I took a VERY cursory look through my copy of the creature codex but all the monsters I chose to compare to 5e didn't blow me away as being justified to use them over their 5e counterparts (save for the art, a lot of the art in that book is spectacular), but I've not done a deep dive read to say definitively that I wouldn't want to use it - I just wasn't encouraged to deep dive by my first look. All that to say, who cares what I thought about ToV?! If you and your group are enjoying it that's awesome! I'm always pro-people finding systems to have more fun with 😊
You do roll for damage. Your d20 roll is a roll for success and damage amount at the same time. It's great. Wish he'd given it another name though still.
If DC20 was just like so many other d20 games, people would complain that there's nothing different about it and they can just go play game X (5e). Too bad.
I have been following dc20 since its inception, and i absolutely agree with the name and PLEASE let me roll dice for damage! I need the click clacks to appease the goblin brain!
Having played DC 20 I think the you dont roll for damge is a incomplete statment In dc20 your damge roll and roll too hit are the same roll 1 d20 plus prime The reason this d20 roll is your dmg roll is becouse evry by 5 you deal more dmg meaning on a dc 12 your roll of 17 will feel like a awsome dmg roll
I overall think this game is interesting, but that prime attribute rule must be the dumbest rule i heard recently it totally make no sense, unless i interpreted it wrong
Whichever attribute is highest is the one you add to your attack rolls, basically. Means you can build a smart fighter or a charismatic wizard without being mechanically penalized in combat on your most common rolls.
@@davidez4640 you don't use it for all rolls. There's a bunch of skill checks and saves and other rolls which call for specific stats, the prime stat is used as the modifier for your to hit roll in combat.
@IcarusGames so for some things you can use you main stat, la casting spells with strength, which by the way makes no sense, but for others you don't? I can't use, say intelligence for stealth, or dexterity for intimidation? This makes even less sense, as it uses 2 totally opposite methods arbitrarily
I vehemently disagree about the name. Firstall, he’s the Dungeon Coach. Secondly, it’s Difficulty Class, which is familiar. Also, the name’s spreading like wildfire, so it’ll be known. As far as flat damage goes, it’s great. It’s more predictable, faster and it’s an awesome thing.
It's doing amazingly well on KS and I'm so stoked for Coach! Whether or not it will be known long term really remains to be seen and greatly depends on post KS retail distribution, and we've got a long way to go before we see how that plays out. The Avatar RPG was the most successful TTRPG KS ever at the time of its launch and I never hear people talk about it now. (I had to go and double check whether it was even available for retail yet because I couldn't even remember when the KS was)
Mathematically it is nonsense to use more than one advantage, since every point beyond the first has diminished returns. And I am pretty sure that the power gamers will figure that out fast and then eve reprimand players who waste their action points in such manner. Not sure what the multiple attack penalty is, but it might be better to make a second attack with advantage instead of trying to make a sigle hit with 3 advantages work. Anyway, I wish Dungeon Coach the best, but I am done with D&D and derivates. That is why MCDM and Daggerheart are also probably a decade too late to get me interested. And Tales o the Valiant is even more so too little too late.
I don't think you're mathing quite right. Chance of rolling well with three dice is much higher than two. Let's say rolling a 14 or higher is good, you have a 35% chance with one die. Adding another gives you a 52% chance, adding a third gives you a 72% chance.. 4 is 82%. So yes it's diminishing, but it's still a huge boost if you need it.
@@markbyrd7710 The probability of 2d20 to hit a 14 is about 5% higher than you provided. That is not a good sign when you want to correct other people one maths to get such basic calculations wrong. Anyway, you agree with me on the important point that there are diminishing returns, so how am I wrong? If you think it is worth wasting you action points that way, then have fun. Like I said, I probably won't be playing that game anyway. But you will see people reprimand you for this, especially if the base difficulty is lower, then it will be even more reasonable to use two attacks or if the difficulty is higher then the diminishing returns will be much more severe. So good for you to having picked a difficulty that might be the sweet spot where it could be useful.
@Drudenfusz it's technically a smaller percentage increase, therefore diminishing, but that increase is still substantial if you need to hit something. I did the math right on the other three, but you want to call out my typo as if it helps your argument.. ok. Yes higher difficulties will be harder to hit... that's not me picking a sweet spot, I just picked a standard "good" roll. You'll have static modifiers and such as well that will add to this. I think if you asked anyone, they'd say they'd rather roll 3 or 4 dice to succeed on something if the odds are already attacked against them. And it's optional! You don't have to use all of your actions for one thing.
@@markbyrd7710 Look, you came at me telling me my mathing is not quite right, so don't complain if I demonstrate that you should better not come at people when your understanding is really not all that. Sure, you did the maths on the other ones correct, but it is funny that the crucial point that makes my point was wrong. And no, you did not picked a standard good roll, you picked a high bar. 14 is with modifiers a standard DC, but without as something that the die has to meet it is high. So, again, don't talk to me or better anyone else ever again about maths. You are clearly out of your depth here. Leave that to people who understand maths and/or game design!
Once you actually start playing DC20, you will realise you don’t really miss rolling for damage. The “by 5s” system and all the different class/mechanical features that affect damage makes it really fun calculating damage for my players
Also a part that was very much glazed over, is the math simplicity. The fact that most 'roll for damage' systems have SUCH a swing in dmg makes the balance just about impossible. Ex. DMG 249 improvised dmg table, shows "being submerged in lava, or hit by a crashing flying fortress" as 18d10 which at the 50% area is like 100 dmg, at the ~10% range is 70, and the 90% is like 130. taking out the top and bottom 10%, you have 60 points of damage between them, basically 2 rolls within the normal ranges, 1 could be 2x the other. That's just not really mathematically something you can fix with 'more hp'. So you have an issue of 'predictability', like we've all had the situation where you do an obscene amount of dmg, but you have 0 CLUE if that was a lot for this creature, because maybe you have a veng paladin that can just smites every big target, so now everything has a bit more HP to make up for that so there's an actual back and forth in combat. "oh you did a lot of damage... for YOU, but this meat tank has to have enough HP to survive at least 1 super smite from big boy back there so that's barely a dent". If you normalize and reduce overall dmg then you make it so you can all have a FEEL for how much hit's hurt, like yeah the 2h warrior's melee should hit harder, and 1 or 2 more dmg seems lame, unless you realize that's like a 30% boost, and it's easy to see your big boy churn out 8 dmg in a round and be like 'dang man', but then next round churn out 6 and be like 'well those are similar numbers so I'm helping too'. In 5E Damage per round can just be vastly different class by class, I've seen some where some classes are ~40 and others are 160+, add in variability of dice and you just have too much overall variance that balancing becomes a pipe dream.
@@TheDairidAlso, rolling 18d10 is going to incur a minute or more of just summing up numbers. You don't realize how much of your session that kind of stuff takes until it's gone.
@@miked.9364 how is it D&D by spreadsheet? Resolving attacks is pretty darn simple. I attack a goblin with a spear, spending an extra action to use the spear maneuver (+1 damage and gain reach). The spear has a base damage of 2. I get 16 for my attack roll. The goblin's physical defense is 9, so I beat it by 5 (heavy hit, +1 damage). 2 base damage + 1 from maneuver + 1 from heavy = 4 damage.
@@miked.9364 I guess you should just try it before making a judgment call😁smh . At my table, it’s kind of a group activity, everyone calling out the different damage modifiers. Rather than just one person tallying up dice rolls
I totally agree on the name. Ive been following this system from the beginning, and it wasnt until recently that i realized it wasnt just a code name like "one dnd"
I've run a few oneshots of DC20, at first I was skeptic with the damage system but now I actually like it more than 5e, rolling a 19 on the dice matters now and combat is a bit faster too. Also the biggest selling point to me is how much fun a lvl 1 or lvl 2 game can be unlike dnd where is very easy to kill a lvl 1 player with a random crit. Good video in any case, keep it up!
For your negatives, play it and see what you actually think. Sometimes, we don't like things in concept because it's different but in practice it sings.
I'm regularly reminded by my players how their views on some stuff in PF2E changed after they encountered specific mechanics/problems on the field, so I absolutely concur with that statement.
Yeah, the complaints about no rolling for damage and multiple check penalty are actually selling points to me. You're streamlining your rolls and letting players prioritize what they spend their resources on second to second.
I'm one of those weirdos who loves granularity and tactical decisions, so I'll personally be sticking with PF2e (but do I ever agree that there are just SO MANY rules for everything in PF2e). I'll likely be picking up DC20 (or whatever it might be named later) just as a form of support, and perhaps to give a try with now and then. I mean, it did manage to take a design element I hated: Advantage/Disadvantage and turn it into something that isn't just an on/off button, so kudos to that design choice! I'll be watching how the system does, and I really do wish it all the success. It's cool to see systems branching out into their own thing.
A little late to the video, but I have to say you made some pretty compelling points. Especially about the name (should've sounded a bit more "epic"), stacking disadvantage (gives players bad vibes - similar to PF2e, from my experience), and about the dice removal (most of us love rolling dice - many are even dice goblins. But this was not as bad for me as the MCDM one, where there's only the damage dice). But I must also say, that the system is still evolving, and I'm excited what will come out of this. Cheers for the review
Agree on the naming. Lack of rolling for damage. I like that it asks was that extra dice roll necessary. I disagree on the multiattack penalty completely. "Make options more interesting." Right because every player reads their character sheet or even class details. I think we forget this as our groups mature. Because players usually get better about it, but some players play systems like violins and some play it like a pipe on pipe drumming.
Really agree with the name change. I understand the attachment but it really shouldve changed before the Kickstarter and the next best time will be before the official release. On a similar note, i think all the art and writing will play a huge role in its success yet we know almost nothing. For a wider audience it may be the deciding factor to even give it a chance. So many people i know gain interest in a game because of an appealing character design, interesting piece of lore or just being able to play a silly little guy or a cool lady. Seriously the Ribbets from DaggerHeart got multiple people i know to check it out despite not being big into critical role.
Yeah, the dressing of a game makes a HUGE impact on adoption, and from what I've seen of DC20 so far, the dressing is far from bad by any means. The art I've seen is quite nice, and the trade dress of the pages is what you'd expect from this kind of product, but it doesn't come together to tell one unified story. All this may change for the final thing, but so far it feels very much like a mechanics-first project, and everything else is being made to accompany that, which is absolutely fine, but I think a stronger unified direction of tone for the no-mechanical writing and art goes a long way to helping people get excited by the game. I think Daggerheart has exactly the opposite problem from what I've read of it. The art and non-mechanical text say one thing about the kind of game it is, but the mechanics don't live up to that or execute on it IMO, so it falls very flat.
Idk man I feel I don’t vibe with your group of players’ preferences. Maybe we just have different table preferences. I hate rolling damage rolls and I am so happy that DC20 and MCDM RPG decided to toss it. It’s completely pointless and a waste of time. The exciting part was finding out whether you hit. Damage rolls ain’t exciting, it’s just routine. Now perhaps, the real root of the issue is that DC20’s degrees of success ain’t exciting enough. If rolling higher than the minimum DC is just slightly more damage with every increment then yeah they could really do better. PF2 spells had great degrees of success and rolling saving throws was usually exciting. I also found it very odd why your players don’t like the multiple attack penalty. My table loves it because the worst possible most boring thing about 5th edition was martial’s spending their turn just spamming attacks and doing nothing else interesting. PF2 was such a breath of fresh air as it gave you options of doing other things on your turn as well as a mechanical INCENTIVE to do something else other than attacking. But perhaps your players are just not as tactically minded as mine are. Perhaps your players just wants to switch off their brains and blindly attack with all their actions without making any tactical decisions. Then yeah 5e is built for that. Long as they’re having fun and the boredom hasn’t caught up yet.
I hope he changes the name for the kickstarter, 100% agree there. TLDR Action Point system is awesome. example fun fighter turn at end. I disagree about the multi action penalty though. and it feels kind of like you do too qhen you mentioned the acption point system being some thing you really liked. So this need to start this way for scaling during levels (ie at 5th lvl fighters can att twice without penalty) Also even without MAP just attacking 4 times is not only boring, but not necessarily the best thing to do in any given scenario with everything you can do with a turn. Example turn: 1st lvl orc figther 1st action+1 stanima to attack grunt and trip or expose(adv), or knock back into wall (extra dmg) 2nd action grapple 3rd action thrunt grunt at caster who is messing with you (dealing dmg to both on impact) 4th action move and get in casters face ready to mess him up. edit: added tldr
I got the alpha a few months ago and played it with my friends. We had a lot of fun, but we're the kind of players that like complex games and damage dice, so we're sticking with pathfinder. That being said, I'm backing up the Kickstarter on day one because it's a great system!
Please play this game!! Options are super intuitive and flexible, combat feels fast and rewarding, and it’s very easily homebrewed if you find rules you don’t vibe with!
I have been following DC20 for quite a while now (since its announcement in DC's patreon) and my view of the game is mostly positive. (I would like to make clear my bias in favor of this system). When it comes to the damage system, I do not mind it. I like damage dice, and I would not be unhappy if the game brought it in, but after playing in person with a group I had lots of fun and did not even think about damage dice while we were playing. I also think I had the benefit in my game of GMing for people who are largely fresh minds and do not have the preset idea of using damage dice all the time. I do think that the success in 5s system is really good and I do think it is the one thing that keeps the static damage from feeling stale or unfun. It also is something I enjoy in all aspects as it adds excitement to high rolls. I am currently playing in a 5e game and sometimes the only reason why I might get super excited for rolling high is that enemy AC or a DC may be set higher than typical since we fight many enemies that are just hard to hit with an average roll on the die. The maneuver and mana systems are some of the best things I have seen in rpgs because they work to make a single action feel really impactful instead of just wanting to hit as many times as possible. This also starts to go into the Multiple Attack Penalty, because in my opinion the maneuvers and spell augmenting system are already incentive enough to not waste all my actions on a lot of attacks or spells. There is also that the benefit of the monk and dual wielding combat benefits directly interact with the penalty, so if you took that out you would need to find replacements for the goodies of these styles. The Multiple Check Penalty system doesn't bother my too much, but it is also not a solution I enjoy. One thing not mentioned in the video, but I really enjoy, is the talent/multiclassing system. The talent system is enjoyable because they operate like 5e feats while also occurring more often. In the alpha there are not very many of them, but that is made up for by the multiclassing system. This allows a player to use a multiclass talent to obtain any first level class feature from any other class without halting main class progression. As you get higher level you can steal higher level class features. Apologies if this was too long, but if anyone does read through all of it, I hope my commentary added something meaningful. Edit: The name is a hindrance and I wish it had a more evocative title.
I've said this to Coach, but *I* don't mind the no damage roll so much, because I have experience with other systems where you don't roll for damage (often dice pool systems), but it IS a hurdle that a lot of 5e-first players will run into and need to get over, and unless you have a group actively unhappy with their current system, every hurdle could be one to many for any system when it comes to reasons not to try it out or switch and to just stick with what you know and already play.
@@IcarusGames I agree and no damage dice is probably a bigger hurdle than other things due to the perception that it is something being taken away rather than an additive mechanic like so many other things in the system.
Yeah the no dmg dice can be a hurdle to players who are used to it, but the extra dmg from rolling high makes up for it. What I think helped my group was dual explaining that with the extra damage high roll rule, and running a quick mock combat to show them. We've been playing only 5e for 7 years, but the loved the couple of mini campaigns I've run for them.
It’s a system I’ll pick up… Mostly to steal the bits I like and merge into 5e tbf. Same with the other systems coming out. Not sure I’m ready to try and convince people to switch wholesale.
I think your premise is flawed, because nothing will "convert" 5e players who have never tried anything else and who are happy with 5e. All these other games being created will attract either gamers who have already broken free from WotC (or who were never slaves to them in the first place), or 5e players who have started to feel dissatisfied. So arguing from the point of view of the satisfied 5e player who doesn't want to give up things like rolling for damage is meaningless - nothing is going to convince that person to change anyway. I do agree about the name being lackluster, though. ;)
As a long street fighter, gang attack survivor and had my share with professional martial artists. It makes no sense you get disadvantage on a second attack, in fact, it is quite the opposite. When you feel pain from one attack, it lowers your defense which makes it easier to land the next attack. This is why both street fighters and pro keep their distance and look to land one single attack and this is also why when you see fights, the first person to land a hit pops off. So mechanically, it is a bad mechanic, and realistically it is quite the opposite what happens IRL. If you want to keep this realistic, then either each attack after the first is with advantage or each attack reduces the target's AC for the next attack until the end of their turn. I also have to bring up reactions, these are also unrealistic. As I stated, people fighting in melee distance keep themselves away from each other. To hit someone, you have to get into the enemy's hitting range, this in fact can provoke an attack of opportunity, not moving away from a foe that is in fact not in range to attack you. The closest Attack of Opportunity that reassembles D&D or DC20 is after escaping a grapple. And it is important to say this, but Attack of Opportunities turn a battlefield into a chest game, and not something like a dynamic combat. Attack of Opportunities prevents recreating a fight from Pirates of the Caribbean. Imagine how boring Pirates of the Caribbean would be if none of them could move and also notice how they never get attacked when they reposition. I've been trying to remove it, but a lot of people feel like they need this mechanic, even though it is the source of why most people hate combat. I feel like they really need to consult a street fighter and a martial fighter for combat, because the issues they want to solve are pretty simple if you understand the nature of fights and can help improve their systems to something more natural and obviously fun.
They did say it was a placeholder name, but there was a LOT of confusion around it when they first announced the campaign as it went from no one knowing this was a thing, to suddenly seeing professionally marketing for "the MCDM RPG", so I still think they should have named the game before crowdfunding it 😂
They called it the MCDM RPG because they knew that if they were to call it anything else, let’s say XYZ, that name would be completely meaningless because everyone would just ask “what’s XYZ?” and get a reply “it’s the MCDM RPG”. So they decided to skip a step and just name it MCDM RPG as a placeholder for now. I think it was a really sensible decision because they are in an incredible unique spot of being pretty much famous in the D&D space. Matt Colville is as much a house name as Matt Mercer, so leveraging his celebrity status makes a lot of sense. Dungeon Coach though… no offense… doesn’t have the same pull.
@@jltheking3 Problem is it will ALWAYS be the MCDM RPG to a lot of people now. I don't blame them for leveraging their name recognition one bit, it was a very sensible choice, but can't say I'm a huge fan of the move to go to crowdfunding and say "our game doesn't have a name, we're not going to give you a playtest packet during the game to try to see if you like it, just trust us because Matt Colville's name is on the cover".
@@IcarusGamesI think MCDM was in a weird spot because they haven’t yet nailed down their game mechanics. Not even the basic foundational resolution mechanics were nailed down at the time the kickstarter went live. I think they were afraid that they would end up doing a pivot again and needing to be accountable to their backers. Because that’s a running theme of their past kickstarters. They kickstart something very specific, but halfway throughout the development they pivoted for whatever reason and that disappoints their backers and causes outrage of them not fulfilling Kickstarter promises. I could give you a whoooooole list of MCDM Kickstarter controversies but that would make this a very long comment. I think they wanted to avoid controversy again. They know from their past projects that they just can’t help themselves but to do big pivots post funding. That’s why in all their videos about their RPG they keep stressing that everything is subject to change. They chose that name very intentionally I think. They weren’t trying to get funding for a specific system. They were getting a blank cheque from their backers to do whatever they wanted with. And they got a blank cheque of a million dollars indeed.
I am a big fan of economizing time taken to play your turn by integrating the damage dice into the hit roll. Your dice roll still counts. In fact, it counts more. And exploding damage is awesome. It's genius. Stop it!
These systems are catered to dnd veterans rather than casual players, which are the majority. Therefore the benefits they tout will never reach mainstream appeal. For example, veterans know just how slow dnd is and how frustrating it is to roll a critical with all 1s, but casuals just want to roll a bunch of dice.
I've recently discovered Powered by the Apocalypse games, which have completely ruined 5e for me. My wife and I are going to start playing City of Mist and next year the same publisher (Son of Oak) is releasing a fantasy version called Legend in the Mist with an updated system. Can't overstate how excited I am to play it. Highly recommend the PbtA ruleset and games.
totally agree on the name. Totally disagree on the damage dice Totally disagree on the removal of multiple attack penalty. Damage dice would slow the game down, and induce more randomness, its cool to know as a barbarian that whenever I hit this creature I WILL kill it as my greatsword does enough, stuff like this lets players be way more tactical in my opinion. Tactics and strategies in DnD often suffer from how hard it is to evaluate what the outcome of a turn probably will be, while its easier in DC20. Multiple attack penalty removal would have insane knock on effects, how good would a help action be to be as good as a normal attack? maybe it could work if you made enemies with 25AC or something, that would make granting help good, but I think allowing a character to stand still and hit 4 times would make most combats a slugfest. Also imagine how bad it would feel to have to move if that were the case, if an enemy stops 10 ft from you and you waste 25% of your output because you have to take a step closer. (also DnD players would be used to being able to move, and strike twice on their turn as they can now without penalty (move, attack, adv, attack)) Opportunity attacks is a meh for me, it does force the DM and player to consider what they are holding, if a player wants to be able to attack its so easy to become a martial anyways with the multiclassing system, they can do that at lvl 2.. Statblocks I kinda agree on, I wish there were a small monster manual that came with the system. (Come on @TheDungeonCoach, make the discord community make it as a fun collaborative thing!)
Also the multi attack penalty is great...imo only because it goes both ways...sure I can make 4 attacks, likely most not hitting, or I can take a versatile weapon (gives +2 to attack while going two handed.) can make one attack with triple advantage, be a orc or half orc get the brutal damage bonus, and get a help action from the bard, and use a smith or weapon thing and just be nearly guaranteed a good solid hit when it counts...his other options are good...they are great.
I am sure the system itself is great. Me, personally, I really don't like the name (not inspiring at all) and the art style (too childish). Because of those two things alone, I would never try it (unless somebody runs it for me, of course), and that's a shame 'cause I'm sure it plays very well
Before even watching this video, a ‘D&D Killer’ needs to break away from the mold; NOT be a comparable knock off with a charismatic RUclipsr explaining his ideas everyday that constantly give himself ‘chills’ for ideas already done by others way before… Don’t get me wrong, some cool and creative idea’s! But it’s to similar to the mainstream TTRPG’s and use all the basics still (action points, attributes & AC), these are 50 year old concepts that are not needed with clever modern TTRPG’s. :/ Glad they broke away from Spell-slots and went with resource system at least… 🤷♂️
I completely get where you're coming from. Realistically though, any game that hopes to bring down D&D is going to be coming at it from a place of familiarity because the makers are trying to poach an existing userbase, and different is scary. Why would the customer play a COMPLETELY different mechanical system to tell the same story? At least that's the thinking behind a lot of these systems - familiar but tweaked to siphon off that existing customer base. I think that's why you see significantly more mechanical innovation and a lot more interesting stuff happening in genres outside of heroic/high fantasy because the people making those games aren't trying to compete with D&D so they just get to make the cool thing for its own sake. "D&D Killers" is just the broad term being given to all these systems popping up since the OGL fiasco. None of them are going to do it. Daggerheart was the only system that stood even a small chance and that system doesn't know what it wants to be so unless they manage to change a lot about it, D&D will continue to be king for the foreseeable.
Seems like a great system if you’re a player who never intends to run a game in their life and a terrible system for the DM. Feels like a flesh golem, just pieced together from different systems and 5E homebrew.
I only see a system that is quite a baby between 5e and Pathfinder 2. I rather play pf2 then a rip off of pf2. I dont think there is enough thinks unique about DC20 to really want to play it over the other systems.
I'll defend "one roll resolution" (not rolling for damage) in the sense that it speeds up play - specially in person - so you while you're not rolling all that many dice chances are you're going to be making more times on average, aka, making more decisions and impact Also I don't think adjusting HP would be too little work, this sort of thing usually has a certain exponential component to it which could lead to quite a lot of work to refactor Ironically my deal breaker with DC20 is the low number damage, I know everything is low but it's a question of presentation - it simply doesn't entice as much, even TTRPG players who are more likely to get the point may not feel as enticed, because it's a human thing to like big numbers
It’s not a universally human thing. HP inflation from 3e to 4e and 5e was a stealth ‘marketing’ tactic of WotC, as a form of people-pleasing. I was raised on Basic D&D, where everything had lower hp. (And all weapons just did one d6 hit die of dmg. And thru my historic research, I’m familiar with how Chainmail and OD&D had even less. Originally, one ‘hit’ by a weapon was one hit point. So DC20 is going back to the roots.
I wonder if that could be solved by simply multiplying everything by 10, the way pinball machines and early video games did. Instead of doing 1 damage, you do 10. And instead of monsters having 4 HP, they have 40. Everything *feels* bigger, but nothing has changed, and everything has nice round numbers at the end. Pinball learned this early on, and it could be a lesson worth stealing.
Eh ive met people who hate the big numbers in DnD because its just more math to do. Hard to tell how many people find it unappealing because they are likely to just not play
I agree with the name(I am fine with it, but its a bit of a thorn), disagree with the damage system, I just got it and am super excited to have my attack roll matter not just in a boolean way.
Also I think the multiple attack penalty kinda brings way more to the table than just promoting different actions, it adds a layer of design to interact, circumvent and use it - think like this, without it forcing a failure on an enemy because of teamwork causing penalties wouldn't be as effective
Heres the thing, no game is going to beat D&D by trying to out D&D, D&D. (Except Pathfinder, but thats cause 4th edition was too much a departure). The games that even got close to it, went a different route. First was Runequest that went with not just a percentile route and open ended character creation and unique experience mechanic, but a unique take on fantasy, Call of Cthulhlu was an even bigger success. Next was Vampire the Masquerade. So what made D&D last, it was the first on site, and smarter businesses decisions made, and it got recued at a critical moment. Had WoTC just let TSR die and D&D just fade into the ether, we wouldnt be talking about D&D. Every other RPG company is a small business, they dont have the capital to compete with D&D, when RQ or Vampire came close, D&D had that market penetrarion and name recognition to license its brand to get a fast injection of capital. For another game to successfully replace D&D, the company that owns it has to die, and D&D needs to go down with it and not get rescued. When you have a multi billion dollar company going against an at best 7 figure company, there is no real competition, with in the US (in other countries its either Call of Cthulhu or their home grown RPG). Heck, even Cyberpunk 2077 didnt make a huge impact on Cyberpunk Red.
You are 100% right. And SO MANY of these D&D Heartbreakers still aren't available in FLGS even years after release, and if the only place someone can get your game is direct from your site, it's never going to be popular with the masses. You need to be on shelves and widely available online so even stand the smallest hope.
Ever since I read Pathfinder 2e, I have always said that my perfect system would be a hybrid between it and 5e. PF2e had a lot of clever reinventions of the classic systems that were right up my alley as a player/designer, but it also made choices I didn't like (many deeply rooted that made them not easily adapted or changed) and seemed so mechanically cumbersome. Also weirdly strict in some areas. 5e meanwhile I thought was very well streamlined and I felt the books did such a good job of evoking flavor and inspiration (especially the monster manual), but I still wanted a bit more personalization/customization in my options. I think I will have to now check this out to see how it strikes that balance for me.
Mechanically it does feel like it lands as a blend between those two systems quite nicely. Takes a lot of the core concepts of PF2, but doesn't bring the mechanical bloat, and then brings a lot of the best parts of 5e along too.
It's interesting to hear your perspective! I haven't heard anyone talk poorly about the name, not rolling for damage, or the layout of the stat blocks. I happen to disagree with you on all of those things, haha! It's good to know that some people feel the way you do as I try to get more people to try DC20.
So weird to me that you keep referring back to 5thEd when there are much more similar things in earlier (better) versions of D&D. I feel sorry for people whose experience of D&D is limited to 5th Ed which seems to me to be the worst parts of 3 and 4 with barely any of the good bits (not that they were ever the bet system).
I mean, 5e is the current version of the game, and by far the most popular the game has ever been 🤷♂️ I got started playing 3rd edition and enjoyed it, and although there are elements of 3/3.5 I preferred to 5e, I don't think I'd choose to go back to it over 5e. I've played a bunch of heroic fantasy systems, and read a lot more besides, but I still come back to 5e. There are a lot of benefits to playing the most supported system, and despite what some folks like to say, 5e is a good core system with a lot of flexibility to make it your own. When I want to play games that aren't heroic fantasy, I look to other systems though, and there's an absolute ton of non-D&D games I'm looking forward to covering on the channel in the coming months that aren't heroic fantasy.
I think you are making many unsubstanciated assumptioms about what 5th ed players like. All the things that you assume 5th ed planer hate, would be very popular in my group.
I base my view on what the folks I've played with and the many people I've spoken with over the course of time doing this say, but I wouldn't for one second believe that 5e players (or any group) are monolithic in their views. There's also the added nuance of what a player thinks they will like on first hearing about it vs experiencing it in play can be quite different, but you have to actually convince them to play for them to experience a game at all.
The MCDM RPG, more than any other player in the space at the moment knows exactly what it wants to be, and all their design decisions are based around that. So if you want that style of game, the MCDM RPG will be THE game for you, but otherwise it won't be a good fit. It's like the exact opposite of daggerheart, which doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, and very few of it's mechanics are in service to the things it says it's trying to do.
It might be a mess at the moment (I've not read any of the playtest material), which is to be expected this early in the process. It's the problem I had with them seeking crowdfunding so early with basically nothing to show for it.
Hey Anto, I'd be super interested in seeing you take a look at how Distal (my game!) handles its monster stat block. I'm glad I'm not the only one losing my mind when saying "natural language is a good thing, actually?"
It suffers a problem that a LOT of D&D heartbreakers suffer from in some way; the primary audience is people already familiar with D&D style TTRPGs in some way. Because of this, there's a lot of presumed knowledge going on in the system which can make it hard for a brand new TTRPG player to get involved. One of the things I always point out when I'm consulting with publishers is that if they want real long term success they should be making sure their products are accessible to a truly brand new customer because it's something a lot of them forget about. Even 5e suffers from this problem on the GM side of things.
Couldn’t disagree more with your issues (aside from monster prevention). The “5s” system puts so much stress on 1 roll. It means a lot to roll high and the group feels it. Stacked disadvantage is cool not just because it encourages u to use techniques and maneuvers but it requires you to interact with your party to be inventive to overcome disadvantage. Which I think is consistent with the philosophy of the system.
It's getting a lot of love. I like a lot of the concepts going on in the system, I just don't think any system that's "like D&D" is going to pull me away from actual D&D at this point - there are a lot of benefits to playing the most supported game in the world!
@Icarus: You NEED to get into game development because you see beyond the cliché confines of limited minded games centered around the 50 year old throne holder (D&D), that being said. I would be honored to have you sign an NDA to see if my 6-year in the making TTRPG breaks away from that mold enough for you to feel drawn to it conceptually! No hard feelings either way - but I know by watching your content that if you so choose, you won’t regret it! - Great review! (:
I appreciate the kind words ☺️ I've been designing stuff for 5e for years (in my mind I don't see the point in trying to break the mould and make my own heroic fantasy system when most people are playing D&D, I'd rather just come to them), but I had started working on a horror game just before I got ill at the tail end of last year. I don't have the bandwidth to check out anything new right now, my schedule is pretty packed through most of this year, but best of luck with your system!
That stat block you showed is a nightmare. As a DM for over 40 years I have no interest in using a system that can't produce a stat block that has the bare minimum explanation of each number in it. Some of the numbers shown don't even have a two letter abbreviation for the game statistic the stat is referencing. The system also isn't really going to be fully done for probably another 12-18 months and I really don't want to have a core rulebook just really sitting around waiting for the over necessary books to be finished. I know the game is including some basic monsters at the entry tier but it would be hard to even use those if this is what the stat blocks look like.
On the statblock, I hate having to have a dictionary of abilities on the side while working out what a creature can actually do. I do have to give the points to 5E there, it is just so easy to understand even if you know next to nothing about abilities and special moves beforehand, and allows for slight modifications of common abilities on the fly. Yeah, some of them are a bit vague or can be misinterpreted, but that is more of a word choice problem rather than systematic problem.
I think you and your group should try to think about the damage dice different for example, if I am swinging a sword, I am simultaneously swinging to hit my target and damage my target and you should think about the system like that
The thing about the multiple attack penalty is that it is not a multiple attack penalty, is a multiple check penalty. It means that if you make two attacks, or cast two spells, or jump two times, or hide two times, or faint two times or whatever you do two times, you get disadvantage. Is not about "one option beeing cooler", is about encouraging variety for everyone. Plus, you can take an extra action to cancel de penalty, so is not about "you can't do it" or "you can do it but it's gonna be bad", it's about "hey, it cost more to do it right, is it still worth it?", and that's a whole new and interesting choice. (In my opinion obviously)
Thanks a lot for the video! Happy to see coverage for other RPGs out there ❤ I admit I’ve never really heard of or checked out this system but this video has made me really curious to check it out when the kickstarter goes live. Thanks for the coverage!
One of the worst things of D&D 5e is precisely its natural language exactly with the example you gave: "an attack with a melee weapon" and a "melee weapon attack" don't mean the same in D&D 5e. Or take Sharpshooter for example: the first 2 bullet points apply to thrown weapons but the last one doesn't. Just because of these small things. Perhaps it's not an issue with monster stat blocks (although I'm thinking about natural weapons and the like...), but it is nonetheless annoying in 5e... Great video! Thank you for sharing info about DC20! I managed to pledge yesterday to get early bird goodies :P
There's definitely spots where the natural language has caused problems, and that's one of the things I hope gets tightened up in the upcoming core book changes.
People getting so worked up over not rolling for damage is so silly to me. Rolling dice is not the game, it's just the system we use to play the game. If you just want to roll dice, you might as well play yahtsee. Just like all dnd memers always talking about being dice goblins... Dice really don't matter other than that they should be balanced. As a DM I've always used average damage, it speeds up the monotony so nicely. The game is about being cool heroes, Dungeon Coach really focuses his game design in a very delibirate way, which I find commendable. The rest of the criticisms are probably fair, although maybe require playtesting for a proper verdict.
I've played and enjoyed plenty of games where you don't roll for damage. Outside of the d20 ecosystem its super common. But DC20 isn't marketing itself to those people who are already familiar with those games and concepts. It's specifically going for 5e players as the target audience, which means the majority of potential customers for DC20 will have only ever played 5e and no other system, so taking *anything* away from them is going to meet resistance. *I* know the benefits of not rolling for damage, both from a speed of play perspective and also from a game design perspective, but if you've only ever played 5e it can feel like you're just rolling fewer dice, and for a lot of people rolling dice is part of their fun - the variance they introduce does matter and is a key part of the fun.
@@IcarusGames Yes, your point is very valid. People do think it's important, but in most cases they won't actually feel that way once they're playing. I believe it happens a lot in games (video games too) where people attribute the positives of a game to systems which aren't actually the thing that they like about it. For instance, rolling a lot of dice is fun because it will result in high damage, not because rolling dice is fun. But many people will then think: "I love rolling tons of dice" over thinking: "I love doing a lot of damage". There is a point to be made about anticipation, but then it becomes a trade-off, which is a much deeper discussion of course. For marketing purposes he might do the system as is primarily with an options for rolling dice, much like average damage for DMs, but the other way around. That way you would at least not turn people off that believe they won't enjoy a system without rolling for damage.
@@Dabedidabe Oh 100% in most cases once people try a system where you don't roll for damage, they won't miss it, and that's consistently the response you see given by publishers when they get the "criticism" about dropping damage rolls. My argument is by that point you've probably lost the customer though. Most folks aren't particularly interested in learning new systems, and every new heroic fantasy system has to justify itself against D&D - "why would I play this instead of continuing to play D&D, which I already know and enjoy". So instead of reactionary messaging around the lack of damage rolls ("once you try it you won't miss it") I encourage publishers to focus on why not having damage rolls is better and the FUN parts of that choice. In DC20's case, Coach has done that on the KS by focusing more on the fun of the attack roll mattering more and rolling high being a big deal, which immediately reframes the "lack" of a damage roll before someone reads the rules.
@@Galinarig I've played and enjoyed plenty of games. But some people just aren't interested in playing other systems, and that's totally valid. But I've seen too many indie games frame their pitch as basically "you should play this because it isn't D&D" or "here's why it's not like D&D" through the years, and all that does is alienate the people who are quite happy playing their D&D campaigns. That's not to say that's what DC20 is doing BTW, just a broader industry observation!
Thanks for your feedback on the game! It is hard to get 5E players to change their thoughts of the Game. Only Rule I heard you miss, if multiple players help one person, the dice degrades from D8 to D6 to D4. But the Help Mechanic feels really powerful with rolling High meaning more. Especially with Big Hits ignoring damage resistance.
My goal isn't to get anyone to change their thoughts on 5e, or really any other game! I want people to enjoy the games their playing, and sometimes another system is a better fit, but definitely not always. For all the flak it gets, 5e does a lot of things really well and there's for sure benefits to playing the most supported system in the world.
I'm finding it very interesting that a lot of the new ideas being brought up in these D&D killers are already a core part of my gaming experience. I primarily run the Fantasy Flight's Warhammer 40k systems and they have a great system for degrees of success and failure on rolls, a language system with different levels of proficiency, and a magic system that doesn't use slots or points but that contains escalating risk and has spells that naturally improve as you level up your caster ability.
As soon as you move our of the d20 heroic fantasy/D&D style game you find all these kinds of mechanics was more frequently. Every game I've seen in the last year with "revolutionary" new mechanics is only really "revolutionary" for bring a system popular in another genre to a D&D style game.
i disagree with small stat blocks hindering the 5e stats confused me when i started running it but shadowdark or ose simplicity clicked with me immediatly
It's definitely going to be a personal taste thing, for sure. I know for a lot of people who start off by running 5e then switch to the OSR style statblock the latter is easy to parse because they have that foundation built up from reading longer statblocks and the assumed knowledge is there. A lot of OSR games in my experience have areas where they rely on that assumed knowledge of veteran players that wouldn't be present in someone picking up the game whose never played a TTRPG before (that's obviously not always the case though!). 5e statblocks don't presume a lot of pre-existing knowledge of the reader, which is why they repeat so many full rules across monsters for example, and I prefer that approach because it means 90% of the time all the info you need (sans spells) is right there in the stat block. It was my biggest problem after running PF2 for a year - having to constantly cross reference things mentioned in monster stat blocks because it wasn't fully written in the statblock itself.
23:24 Dragon Warriors (1986) has a similar system for languages: a character can speak a language at three levels of fluency; Basic, Intermediate, and Fluent with a chance of misunderstanding for the first two. Languages themselves are categorised as; Simple, Undemanding, Complex, and Abtruse - the complexity determining how hard it is to add a level of fluency. Languages can be related to each other, either Closely, or Distantly, which can affect the ability to learn one similar to one that's already known to an Intermediate or Fluent level. I've used that in games of various systems for the last 38 years - as a GM it makes you think about history and geography as part of the worldbuilding.
I don't think I would necessarily want a system with that much complexity in all my games, but if I was running a really exploration focused game where the juice came from going to new places and meeting new people, incorporating language into the mechanics in that more in depth way could be a great way to further that fantasy!
@@IcarusGames >> "...exploration focused game where the juice came from going to new places and meeting new people..." That's the crux of most of my campaigns! When I run my preferred low magic settings so spells like "Tongues" don't exist so this sort of thing is important. Drives character interaction with NPCs as they try to find language tutors, or are forced to hire a translator to tag along with them.
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey! Love the video Anto! These are truly my favorite kind of videos to see, love seeing peoples takes (and taking notes aggressively the whole time!!!)
Sounds like he needs a play through :)
the one con i agreed with is the name, this really needs a better name
"DC20" is a good name for a general SYSTEM - like "d20" or "2d20" or "BRP" etcetera. But a specific GAME needs a name that evokes the core activity of that game. In this case, something that conjures up images of heroic fantasy.
I've been following DC20 on and off for the past several months and it is a system I plan on getting. For your video, it would be nice to know in the beginning of your review which test version you have are referencence. Unless I missed it, I did not hear you mention that this is an unfinished product until the end of your video. I know there have been a few updates already. Unless something has changed, I would add that I truly like the mana points instead of spell slots concept. In fact, I might implement something like that in my 5e campaign. For me personally, I'm undecided on how I feel about the damage system in DC20. I think I will like the fact that you do more damage on the better hit roll you make, but having an initial flat damage per weapon type is one I will need to play a bit before deciding. I love the racial concept. Half-dwarf or half-dragon born anyone? Much more options, and I love options.
I was working from the latest test version, which is 0.6.2 I believe?
The mana points system is just lovely. Much more user friendly than spell slots too. There is a spell points system variant rule in 5e, but it's clearly a conversion of the slots system so the numbers aren't as simple or elegant as DC20's implementation, but it is potentially a better fit for some tables than spell slots.
@@IcarusGamesfor me mana points feel like a more natural implementation of magic than spell slots. It still has the same function of spell slots but has more flexibility. Mana has always been what people use to cast magic in most fantasy settings and it makes sense why because it’s basically just a castors stamina so the more experienced castor the more mana he has to draw from. It also has functionally the same limiting factor as spell slots but in a way that feels idk cleaner is how I would put it.
I feel like a lot of the things that make DC20 stand out are similar in concept to pf2e but taken to a further extreme. Rolling x amount above or below the DC, 4 action system, the minimalist statblock looks essentially like pf2e removed the flavour text and put all the mechanics into traits. I feel like this only would appeal to people who think pf2e is too crunchy (which is mostly said by people who haven't actually tried it in my experience) but that still agree with it's general design philosophy
Yeah it's got a lot in common with the core principles of PF2.
And there are people who find PF2 too crunchy after play - I'm one of them! All the extra crunch ended up being a real hindrance to my playstyle even though I like a lot about the core system, and my group and I ultimately ended up switching back to 5e.
As one of my favourite RPGtubers said "DnD players are too busy trying to homebrew their game into pathfinder to be aware there are a ton of other games out there"
I had an image in my head as you described using actions to get a big hit. It looked like an anime final boss fight. The hero is positioned to to strike. He's fully concentrated on this attack. His muscles are bulging. The other pary memebers are giving what little energy they have left to power up the hero. The hero yells as he strikes. All the color fades and it just the outlines with all the power being released in this attack. All you see is the heroes face and the big bads face as what looks like the hero cleaves him in two. And them you say if only incould still roll for damage. We cut back to the anime where the big bad has a small scratch on his cheek because you rolled a 1. Yeah im good with not rolling for damage.
Agree with the issue of the name. Hopefully that get's looked at when the Kickstarter happens.
I agree with the monster presentation point. However, I do think that a statblock should be as condensed as possible and a LOT of the information provided in a 5e statblock is really unnecessary or redundant, so I really think that 5e statblocks are bad. For instance, it is obvious that melee attacks cannot reach creatures who are not adjacent (with a few exceptions, but it's only the exceptions where additional information is needed). I really like the way Nimble 5e presents monster statblocks. It is easily understandable, but still a real quick read because everything unnecessary was left out.
If you know that you can ignore some parts of the statblocks, you should really leave the thing out that is ignored anyway.
I also see where you come from with your other points, but I think that the way you presented your other criticism is inappropriate because you never actually played the game, so it is actually likely that many points you listed as "dislike" will move to "like" when you actually play the game.
Great breakdown. You made some great points. I hope we get to see your thoughts after playing it as well. Well done.
Finally, a balanced review, not just glazing. Props to you bruh.
Thanks 😊 I appreciate it! Might play the YT game with title/thumbnail to get people in the door, but I try and give as unbiased a look as is possible wherever I can (though totally unbias is impossible in anything)
The punishment of doing the same thing over and over is to promote varied turns and you can attack twice with no penalty if you use 3 action points
My table is moving to Tale of the Valiant. They had no idea who they were till i pointed out monsters in our games i had used from Kobold Press. I think we'll like the move. but i'm not surprised 90% of the ttrpg community just dont know who the alternatives are.
I'm sure ToV will do perfectly fine in the medium term because it's Kobold Press and they've got some resources behind them, but I do imagine most folks will just use their stuff and adapt it to 5e games. From the stuff I've seen of it, the only reason to wholesale switch seems to be if you explicitly don't want to play a WotC game, and most players don't care that much.
I took a VERY cursory look through my copy of the creature codex but all the monsters I chose to compare to 5e didn't blow me away as being justified to use them over their 5e counterparts (save for the art, a lot of the art in that book is spectacular), but I've not done a deep dive read to say definitively that I wouldn't want to use it - I just wasn't encouraged to deep dive by my first look.
All that to say, who cares what I thought about ToV?! If you and your group are enjoying it that's awesome! I'm always pro-people finding systems to have more fun with 😊
DC20 sounds like it's going to be a Superhero system
You do roll for damage. Your d20 roll is a roll for success and damage amount at the same time. It's great.
Wish he'd given it another name though still.
If DC20 was just like so many other d20 games, people would complain that there's nothing different about it and they can just go play game X (5e). Too bad.
Rolling for damage is bad, it feels bad, it never feels good, I need to roll good on the attack die and the damage die, for it to feel good
I really do not know a thing about dc20.
The point is, 5e is so bad that the real 5e killer is 5e itself
I have been following dc20 since its inception, and i absolutely agree with the name and PLEASE let me roll dice for damage! I need the click clacks to appease the goblin brain!
You absolutely can't underestimate the appeal of the click clacks! More dice is more better is a real thing!
I think the no damage dice keeps this unique.
Having played DC 20
I think the you dont roll for damge is a incomplete statment
In dc20 your damge roll and roll too hit are the same roll 1 d20 plus prime
The reason this d20 roll is your dmg roll is becouse evry by 5 you deal more dmg meaning on a dc 12 your roll of 17 will feel like a awsome dmg roll
I did mention the hit roll and by 5s system in the video 😊
@@IcarusGames indeed and great video also fully agree about the name thing
I overall think this game is interesting, but that prime attribute rule must be the dumbest rule i heard recently it totally make no sense, unless i interpreted it wrong
Whichever attribute is highest is the one you add to your attack rolls, basically. Means you can build a smart fighter or a charismatic wizard without being mechanically penalized in combat on your most common rolls.
@@IcarusGames so what's the point of having stats in the first place if you can use your highest one for all rolls? I'm confused
@@davidez4640 you don't use it for all rolls. There's a bunch of skill checks and saves and other rolls which call for specific stats, the prime stat is used as the modifier for your to hit roll in combat.
@IcarusGames so for some things you can use you main stat, la casting spells with strength, which by the way makes no sense, but for others you don't? I can't use, say intelligence for stealth, or dexterity for intimidation? This makes even less sense, as it uses 2 totally opposite methods arbitrarily
I vehemently disagree about the name. Firstall, he’s the Dungeon Coach. Secondly, it’s Difficulty Class, which is familiar. Also, the name’s spreading like wildfire, so it’ll be known.
As far as flat damage goes, it’s great. It’s more predictable, faster and it’s an awesome thing.
It's doing amazingly well on KS and I'm so stoked for Coach!
Whether or not it will be known long term really remains to be seen and greatly depends on post KS retail distribution, and we've got a long way to go before we see how that plays out.
The Avatar RPG was the most successful TTRPG KS ever at the time of its launch and I never hear people talk about it now. (I had to go and double check whether it was even available for retail yet because I couldn't even remember when the KS was)
Mathematically it is nonsense to use more than one advantage, since every point beyond the first has diminished returns. And I am pretty sure that the power gamers will figure that out fast and then eve reprimand players who waste their action points in such manner. Not sure what the multiple attack penalty is, but it might be better to make a second attack with advantage instead of trying to make a sigle hit with 3 advantages work.
Anyway, I wish Dungeon Coach the best, but I am done with D&D and derivates. That is why MCDM and Daggerheart are also probably a decade too late to get me interested. And Tales o the Valiant is even more so too little too late.
I don't think you're mathing quite right. Chance of rolling well with three dice is much higher than two. Let's say rolling a 14 or higher is good, you have a 35% chance with one die. Adding another gives you a 52% chance, adding a third gives you a 72% chance.. 4 is 82%. So yes it's diminishing, but it's still a huge boost if you need it.
@@markbyrd7710 The probability of 2d20 to hit a 14 is about 5% higher than you provided. That is not a good sign when you want to correct other people one maths to get such basic calculations wrong. Anyway, you agree with me on the important point that there are diminishing returns, so how am I wrong? If you think it is worth wasting you action points that way, then have fun. Like I said, I probably won't be playing that game anyway. But you will see people reprimand you for this, especially if the base difficulty is lower, then it will be even more reasonable to use two attacks or if the difficulty is higher then the diminishing returns will be much more severe. So good for you to having picked a difficulty that might be the sweet spot where it could be useful.
@Drudenfusz it's technically a smaller percentage increase, therefore diminishing, but that increase is still substantial if you need to hit something. I did the math right on the other three, but you want to call out my typo as if it helps your argument.. ok. Yes higher difficulties will be harder to hit... that's not me picking a sweet spot, I just picked a standard "good" roll. You'll have static modifiers and such as well that will add to this. I think if you asked anyone, they'd say they'd rather roll 3 or 4 dice to succeed on something if the odds are already attacked against them. And it's optional! You don't have to use all of your actions for one thing.
@@markbyrd7710 Look, you came at me telling me my mathing is not quite right, so don't complain if I demonstrate that you should better not come at people when your understanding is really not all that. Sure, you did the maths on the other ones correct, but it is funny that the crucial point that makes my point was wrong. And no, you did not picked a standard good roll, you picked a high bar. 14 is with modifiers a standard DC, but without as something that the die has to meet it is high. So, again, don't talk to me or better anyone else ever again about maths. You are clearly out of your depth here. Leave that to people who understand maths and/or game design!
@@Drudenfusz yikes.. it's going to be ok.
I agree with the name point. I dissagree with all the other complaints. I'm really eager to play DC20.
Once you actually start playing DC20, you will realise you don’t really miss rolling for damage. The “by 5s” system and all the different class/mechanical features that affect damage makes it really fun calculating damage for my players
Also a part that was very much glazed over, is the math simplicity. The fact that most 'roll for damage' systems have SUCH a swing in dmg makes the balance just about impossible.
Ex. DMG 249 improvised dmg table, shows "being submerged in lava, or hit by a crashing flying fortress" as 18d10 which at the 50% area is like 100 dmg, at the ~10% range is 70, and the 90% is like 130. taking out the top and bottom 10%, you have 60 points of damage between them, basically 2 rolls within the normal ranges, 1 could be 2x the other. That's just not really mathematically something you can fix with 'more hp'.
So you have an issue of 'predictability', like we've all had the situation where you do an obscene amount of dmg, but you have 0 CLUE if that was a lot for this creature, because maybe you have a veng paladin that can just smites every big target, so now everything has a bit more HP to make up for that so there's an actual back and forth in combat. "oh you did a lot of damage... for YOU, but this meat tank has to have enough HP to survive at least 1 super smite from big boy back there so that's barely a dent".
If you normalize and reduce overall dmg then you make it so you can all have a FEEL for how much hit's hurt, like yeah the 2h warrior's melee should hit harder, and 1 or 2 more dmg seems lame, unless you realize that's like a 30% boost, and it's easy to see your big boy churn out 8 dmg in a round and be like 'dang man', but then next round churn out 6 and be like 'well those are similar numbers so I'm helping too'.
In 5E Damage per round can just be vastly different class by class, I've seen some where some classes are ~40 and others are 160+, add in variability of dice and you just have too much overall variance that balancing becomes a pipe dream.
@@TheDairidAlso, rolling 18d10 is going to incur a minute or more of just summing up numbers. You don't realize how much of your session that kind of stuff takes until it's gone.
@@miked.9364 how is it D&D by spreadsheet? Resolving attacks is pretty darn simple. I attack a goblin with a spear, spending an extra action to use the spear maneuver (+1 damage and gain reach). The spear has a base damage of 2. I get 16 for my attack roll. The goblin's physical defense is 9, so I beat it by 5 (heavy hit, +1 damage). 2 base damage + 1 from maneuver + 1 from heavy = 4 damage.
@@miked.9364 if adding 1 damage because you chose to use a special attack is spreadsheets to you, I'm not sure what to say
@@miked.9364 I guess you should just try it before making a judgment call😁smh . At my table, it’s kind of a group activity, everyone calling out the different damage modifiers. Rather than just one person tallying up dice rolls
Thanks for covering DC20! I hope you get the opportunity to play this system soon!
I totally agree on the name. Ive been following this system from the beginning, and it wasnt until recently that i realized it wasnt just a code name like "one dnd"
I've run a few oneshots of DC20, at first I was skeptic with the damage system but now I actually like it more than 5e, rolling a 19 on the dice matters now and combat is a bit faster too. Also the biggest selling point to me is how much fun a lvl 1 or lvl 2 game can be unlike dnd where is very easy to kill a lvl 1 player with a random crit. Good video in any case, keep it up!
@@miked.9364good job. You attacked 1 of his points on why it's better. How about you tackle the other 2?
Awesome. Looking forward to the DC20 Kickstarter. It seems to be what I was looking for. 👍🏻
June 4th
For your negatives, play it and see what you actually think. Sometimes, we don't like things in concept because it's different but in practice it sings.
I'm regularly reminded by my players how their views on some stuff in PF2E changed after they encountered specific mechanics/problems on the field, so I absolutely concur with that statement.
Yeah, the complaints about no rolling for damage and multiple check penalty are actually selling points to me. You're streamlining your rolls and letting players prioritize what they spend their resources on second to second.
I love all the things you criticized/didn't like 😅💜
Gogo DC20 💜💜💜
The monster stat block will change for certain.
I'm one of those weirdos who loves granularity and tactical decisions, so I'll personally be sticking with PF2e (but do I ever agree that there are just SO MANY rules for everything in PF2e). I'll likely be picking up DC20 (or whatever it might be named later) just as a form of support, and perhaps to give a try with now and then. I mean, it did manage to take a design element I hated: Advantage/Disadvantage and turn it into something that isn't just an on/off button, so kudos to that design choice!
I'll be watching how the system does, and I really do wish it all the success. It's cool to see systems branching out into their own thing.
A little late to the video, but I have to say you made some pretty compelling points. Especially about the name (should've sounded a bit more "epic"), stacking disadvantage (gives players bad vibes - similar to PF2e, from my experience), and about the dice removal (most of us love rolling dice - many are even dice goblins. But this was not as bad for me as the MCDM one, where there's only the damage dice). But I must also say, that the system is still evolving, and I'm excited what will come out of this. Cheers for the review
Agree on the naming.
Lack of rolling for damage. I like that it asks was that extra dice roll necessary.
I disagree on the multiattack penalty completely. "Make options more interesting." Right because every player reads their character sheet or even class details. I think we forget this as our groups mature. Because players usually get better about it, but some players play systems like violins and some play it like a pipe on pipe drumming.
Really agree with the name change. I understand the attachment but it really shouldve changed before the Kickstarter and the next best time will be before the official release.
On a similar note, i think all the art and writing will play a huge role in its success yet we know almost nothing. For a wider audience it may be the deciding factor to even give it a chance. So many people i know gain interest in a game because of an appealing character design, interesting piece of lore or just being able to play a silly little guy or a cool lady. Seriously the Ribbets from DaggerHeart got multiple people i know to check it out despite not being big into critical role.
Yeah, the dressing of a game makes a HUGE impact on adoption, and from what I've seen of DC20 so far, the dressing is far from bad by any means. The art I've seen is quite nice, and the trade dress of the pages is what you'd expect from this kind of product, but it doesn't come together to tell one unified story.
All this may change for the final thing, but so far it feels very much like a mechanics-first project, and everything else is being made to accompany that, which is absolutely fine, but I think a stronger unified direction of tone for the no-mechanical writing and art goes a long way to helping people get excited by the game.
I think Daggerheart has exactly the opposite problem from what I've read of it. The art and non-mechanical text say one thing about the kind of game it is, but the mechanics don't live up to that or execute on it IMO, so it falls very flat.
I’ve been playing dnd5e, and DC20 just feels soooooo refreshing compared to dnd. The switch is going to happen very soon … 4th of june ;)
Idk man I feel I don’t vibe with your group of players’ preferences. Maybe we just have different table preferences.
I hate rolling damage rolls and I am so happy that DC20 and MCDM RPG decided to toss it. It’s completely pointless and a waste of time. The exciting part was finding out whether you hit. Damage rolls ain’t exciting, it’s just routine.
Now perhaps, the real root of the issue is that DC20’s degrees of success ain’t exciting enough. If rolling higher than the minimum DC is just slightly more damage with every increment then yeah they could really do better. PF2 spells had great degrees of success and rolling saving throws was usually exciting.
I also found it very odd why your players don’t like the multiple attack penalty. My table loves it because the worst possible most boring thing about 5th edition was martial’s spending their turn just spamming attacks and doing nothing else interesting. PF2 was such a breath of fresh air as it gave you options of doing other things on your turn as well as a mechanical INCENTIVE to do something else other than attacking.
But perhaps your players are just not as tactically minded as mine are. Perhaps your players just wants to switch off their brains and blindly attack with all their actions without making any tactical decisions. Then yeah 5e is built for that. Long as they’re having fun and the boredom hasn’t caught up yet.
I hope he changes the name for the kickstarter, 100% agree there.
TLDR
Action Point system is awesome. example fun fighter turn at end.
I disagree about the multi action penalty though. and it feels kind of like you do too qhen you mentioned the acption point system being some thing you really liked.
So this need to start this way for scaling during levels (ie at 5th lvl fighters can att twice without penalty)
Also even without MAP just attacking 4 times is not only boring, but not necessarily the best thing to do in any given scenario with everything you can do with a turn.
Example turn: 1st lvl orc figther
1st action+1 stanima to attack grunt and trip or expose(adv), or knock back into wall (extra dmg)
2nd action grapple
3rd action thrunt grunt at caster who is messing with you (dealing dmg to both on impact)
4th action move and get in casters face ready to mess him up.
edit: added tldr
I got the alpha a few months ago and played it with my friends. We had a lot of fun, but we're the kind of players that like complex games and damage dice, so we're sticking with pathfinder. That being said, I'm backing up the Kickstarter on day one because it's a great system!
Level Up Advanced 5th Edition is the best 5e version I've ever run.
A5e does some presentation things that I like, but nothing else about it has jumped out at me from the little bit I've looked into it.
Please play this game!!
Options are super intuitive and flexible, combat feels fast and rewarding, and it’s very easily homebrewed if you find rules you don’t vibe with!
I have been following DC20 for quite a while now (since its announcement in DC's patreon) and my view of the game is mostly positive. (I would like to make clear my bias in favor of this system).
When it comes to the damage system, I do not mind it. I like damage dice, and I would not be unhappy if the game brought it in, but after playing in person with a group I had lots of fun and did not even think about damage dice while we were playing. I also think I had the benefit in my game of GMing for people who are largely fresh minds and do not have the preset idea of using damage dice all the time.
I do think that the success in 5s system is really good and I do think it is the one thing that keeps the static damage from feeling stale or unfun. It also is something I enjoy in all aspects as it adds excitement to high rolls. I am currently playing in a 5e game and sometimes the only reason why I might get super excited for rolling high is that enemy AC or a DC may be set higher than typical since we fight many enemies that are just hard to hit with an average roll on the die.
The maneuver and mana systems are some of the best things I have seen in rpgs because they work to make a single action feel really impactful instead of just wanting to hit as many times as possible. This also starts to go into the Multiple Attack Penalty, because in my opinion the maneuvers and spell augmenting system are already incentive enough to not waste all my actions on a lot of attacks or spells. There is also that the benefit of the monk and dual wielding combat benefits directly interact with the penalty, so if you took that out you would need to find replacements for the goodies of these styles. The Multiple Check Penalty system doesn't bother my too much, but it is also not a solution I enjoy.
One thing not mentioned in the video, but I really enjoy, is the talent/multiclassing system. The talent system is enjoyable because they operate like 5e feats while also occurring more often. In the alpha there are not very many of them, but that is made up for by the multiclassing system. This allows a player to use a multiclass talent to obtain any first level class feature from any other class without halting main class progression. As you get higher level you can steal higher level class features.
Apologies if this was too long, but if anyone does read through all of it, I hope my commentary added something meaningful.
Edit: The name is a hindrance and I wish it had a more evocative title.
I've said this to Coach, but *I* don't mind the no damage roll so much, because I have experience with other systems where you don't roll for damage (often dice pool systems), but it IS a hurdle that a lot of 5e-first players will run into and need to get over, and unless you have a group actively unhappy with their current system, every hurdle could be one to many for any system when it comes to reasons not to try it out or switch and to just stick with what you know and already play.
@@IcarusGames I agree and no damage dice is probably a bigger hurdle than other things due to the perception that it is something being taken away rather than an additive mechanic like so many other things in the system.
Yeah the no dmg dice can be a hurdle to players who are used to it, but the extra dmg from rolling high makes up for it.
What I think helped my group was dual explaining that with the extra damage high roll rule, and running a quick mock combat to show them. We've been playing only 5e for 7 years, but the loved the couple of mini campaigns I've run for them.
It’s a system I’ll pick up…
Mostly to steal the bits I like and merge into 5e tbf.
Same with the other systems coming out.
Not sure I’m ready to try and convince people to switch wholesale.
I'll definitely be switching to DC20 upon full release! Been looking forward to it for long time now!
I think your premise is flawed, because nothing will "convert" 5e players who have never tried anything else and who are happy with 5e.
All these other games being created will attract either gamers who have already broken free from WotC (or who were never slaves to them in the first place), or 5e players who have started to feel dissatisfied.
So arguing from the point of view of the satisfied 5e player who doesn't want to give up things like rolling for damage is meaningless - nothing is going to convince that person to change anyway.
I do agree about the name being lackluster, though. ;)
As a long street fighter, gang attack survivor and had my share with professional martial artists. It makes no sense you get disadvantage on a second attack, in fact, it is quite the opposite. When you feel pain from one attack, it lowers your defense which makes it easier to land the next attack. This is why both street fighters and pro keep their distance and look to land one single attack and this is also why when you see fights, the first person to land a hit pops off. So mechanically, it is a bad mechanic, and realistically it is quite the opposite what happens IRL. If you want to keep this realistic, then either each attack after the first is with advantage or each attack reduces the target's AC for the next attack until the end of their turn.
I also have to bring up reactions, these are also unrealistic. As I stated, people fighting in melee distance keep themselves away from each other. To hit someone, you have to get into the enemy's hitting range, this in fact can provoke an attack of opportunity, not moving away from a foe that is in fact not in range to attack you. The closest Attack of Opportunity that reassembles D&D or DC20 is after escaping a grapple. And it is important to say this, but Attack of Opportunities turn a battlefield into a chest game, and not something like a dynamic combat. Attack of Opportunities prevents recreating a fight from Pirates of the Caribbean. Imagine how boring Pirates of the Caribbean would be if none of them could move and also notice how they never get attacked when they reposition. I've been trying to remove it, but a lot of people feel like they need this mechanic, even though it is the source of why most people hate combat.
I feel like they really need to consult a street fighter and a martial fighter for combat, because the issues they want to solve are pretty simple if you understand the nature of fights and can help improve their systems to something more natural and obviously fun.
In fairness to the MCDM RPG, I'm fairly sure they said it was a placeholder name while they settle and sort out the logistics of the actual name.
They did say it was a placeholder name, but there was a LOT of confusion around it when they first announced the campaign as it went from no one knowing this was a thing, to suddenly seeing professionally marketing for "the MCDM RPG", so I still think they should have named the game before crowdfunding it 😂
Yes. It will be the “Matt Coleville Roleplaying Game”
They called it the MCDM RPG because they knew that if they were to call it anything else, let’s say XYZ, that name would be completely meaningless because everyone would just ask “what’s XYZ?” and get a reply “it’s the MCDM RPG”. So they decided to skip a step and just name it MCDM RPG as a placeholder for now.
I think it was a really sensible decision because they are in an incredible unique spot of being pretty much famous in the D&D space. Matt Colville is as much a house name as Matt Mercer, so leveraging his celebrity status makes a lot of sense.
Dungeon Coach though… no offense… doesn’t have the same pull.
@@jltheking3 Problem is it will ALWAYS be the MCDM RPG to a lot of people now. I don't blame them for leveraging their name recognition one bit, it was a very sensible choice, but can't say I'm a huge fan of the move to go to crowdfunding and say "our game doesn't have a name, we're not going to give you a playtest packet during the game to try to see if you like it, just trust us because Matt Colville's name is on the cover".
@@IcarusGamesI think MCDM was in a weird spot because they haven’t yet nailed down their game mechanics. Not even the basic foundational resolution mechanics were nailed down at the time the kickstarter went live.
I think they were afraid that they would end up doing a pivot again and needing to be accountable to their backers. Because that’s a running theme of their past kickstarters. They kickstart something very specific, but halfway throughout the development they pivoted for whatever reason and that disappoints their backers and causes outrage of them not fulfilling Kickstarter promises.
I could give you a whoooooole list of MCDM Kickstarter controversies but that would make this a very long comment.
I think they wanted to avoid controversy again. They know from their past projects that they just can’t help themselves but to do big pivots post funding. That’s why in all their videos about their RPG they keep stressing that everything is subject to change.
They chose that name very intentionally I think. They weren’t trying to get funding for a specific system. They were getting a blank cheque from their backers to do whatever they wanted with.
And they got a blank cheque of a million dollars indeed.
I am a big fan of economizing time taken to play your turn by integrating the damage dice into the hit roll. Your dice roll still counts. In fact, it counts more. And exploding damage is awesome. It's genius. Stop it!
These systems are catered to dnd veterans rather than casual players, which are the majority. Therefore the benefits they tout will never reach mainstream appeal. For example, veterans know just how slow dnd is and how frustrating it is to roll a critical with all 1s, but casuals just want to roll a bunch of dice.
I've recently discovered Powered by the Apocalypse games, which have completely ruined 5e for me. My wife and I are going to start playing City of Mist and next year the same publisher (Son of Oak) is releasing a fantasy version called Legend in the Mist with an updated system. Can't overstate how excited I am to play it. Highly recommend the PbtA ruleset and games.
totally agree on the name.
Totally disagree on the damage dice
Totally disagree on the removal of multiple attack penalty.
Damage dice would slow the game down, and induce more randomness, its cool to know as a barbarian that whenever I hit this creature I WILL kill it as my greatsword does enough, stuff like this lets players be way more tactical in my opinion. Tactics and strategies in DnD often suffer from how hard it is to evaluate what the outcome of a turn probably will be, while its easier in DC20.
Multiple attack penalty removal would have insane knock on effects, how good would a help action be to be as good as a normal attack? maybe it could work if you made enemies with 25AC or something, that would make granting help good, but I think allowing a character to stand still and hit 4 times would make most combats a slugfest. Also imagine how bad it would feel to have to move if that were the case, if an enemy stops 10 ft from you and you waste 25% of your output because you have to take a step closer.
(also DnD players would be used to being able to move, and strike twice on their turn as they can now without penalty (move, attack, adv, attack))
Opportunity attacks is a meh for me, it does force the DM and player to consider what they are holding, if a player wants to be able to attack its so easy to become a martial anyways with the multiclassing system, they can do that at lvl 2..
Statblocks I kinda agree on, I wish there were a small monster manual that came with the system. (Come on @TheDungeonCoach, make the discord community make it as a fun collaborative thing!)
Also the multi attack penalty is great...imo only because it goes both ways...sure I can make 4 attacks, likely most not hitting, or I can take a versatile weapon (gives +2 to attack while going two handed.) can make one attack with triple advantage, be a orc or half orc get the brutal damage bonus, and get a help action from the bard, and use a smith or weapon thing and just be nearly guaranteed a good solid hit when it counts...his other options are good...they are great.
I am sure the system itself is great. Me, personally, I really don't like the name (not inspiring at all) and the art style (too childish). Because of those two things alone, I would never try it (unless somebody runs it for me, of course), and that's a shame 'cause I'm sure it plays very well
I agree with the name.
Before even watching this video, a ‘D&D Killer’ needs to break away from the mold; NOT be a comparable knock off with a charismatic RUclipsr explaining his ideas everyday that constantly give himself ‘chills’ for ideas already done by others way before…
Don’t get me wrong, some cool and creative idea’s! But it’s to similar to the mainstream TTRPG’s and use all the basics still (action points, attributes & AC), these are 50 year old concepts that are not needed with clever modern TTRPG’s. :/ Glad they broke away from Spell-slots and went with resource system at least… 🤷♂️
I completely get where you're coming from. Realistically though, any game that hopes to bring down D&D is going to be coming at it from a place of familiarity because the makers are trying to poach an existing userbase, and different is scary. Why would the customer play a COMPLETELY different mechanical system to tell the same story? At least that's the thinking behind a lot of these systems - familiar but tweaked to siphon off that existing customer base.
I think that's why you see significantly more mechanical innovation and a lot more interesting stuff happening in genres outside of heroic/high fantasy because the people making those games aren't trying to compete with D&D so they just get to make the cool thing for its own sake.
"D&D Killers" is just the broad term being given to all these systems popping up since the OGL fiasco. None of them are going to do it. Daggerheart was the only system that stood even a small chance and that system doesn't know what it wants to be so unless they manage to change a lot about it, D&D will continue to be king for the foreseeable.
Seems like a great system if you’re a player who never intends to run a game in their life and a terrible system for the DM. Feels like a flesh golem, just pieced together from different systems and 5E homebrew.
I only see a system that is quite a baby between 5e and Pathfinder 2. I rather play pf2 then a rip off of pf2. I dont think there is enough thinks unique about DC20 to really want to play it over the other systems.
I'll defend "one roll resolution" (not rolling for damage) in the sense that it speeds up play - specially in person - so you while you're not rolling all that many dice chances are you're going to be making more times on average, aka, making more decisions and impact
Also I don't think adjusting HP would be too little work, this sort of thing usually has a certain exponential component to it which could lead to quite a lot of work to refactor
Ironically my deal breaker with DC20 is the low number damage, I know everything is low but it's a question of presentation - it simply doesn't entice as much, even TTRPG players who are more likely to get the point may not feel as enticed, because it's a human thing to like big numbers
It’s not a universally human thing. HP inflation from 3e to 4e and 5e was a stealth ‘marketing’ tactic of WotC, as a form of people-pleasing.
I was raised on Basic D&D, where everything had lower hp. (And all weapons just did one d6 hit die of dmg.
And thru my historic research, I’m familiar with how Chainmail and OD&D had even less. Originally, one ‘hit’ by a weapon was one hit point. So DC20 is going back to the roots.
I wonder if that could be solved by simply multiplying everything by 10, the way pinball machines and early video games did. Instead of doing 1 damage, you do 10. And instead of monsters having 4 HP, they have 40. Everything *feels* bigger, but nothing has changed, and everything has nice round numbers at the end. Pinball learned this early on, and it could be a lesson worth stealing.
Eh ive met people who hate the big numbers in DnD because its just more math to do. Hard to tell how many people find it unappealing because they are likely to just not play
I agree with the name(I am fine with it, but its a bit of a thorn), disagree with the damage system, I just got it and am super excited to have my attack roll matter not just in a boolean way.
Nice content. And you like Fleetwood Mac...Are you Single? LOL Cheers!
DIsagree with your negatives except the name. It is objectively a terrible name.
How can it be the next of something that hasn't existed yet? Up to now there has been no "D&D Killers".
Also I think the multiple attack penalty kinda brings way more to the table than just promoting different actions, it adds a layer of design to interact, circumvent and use it - think like this, without it forcing a failure on an enemy because of teamwork causing penalties wouldn't be as effective
Oh my god yes the name is horrible. That is definitely my biggest issue with it right now.
Heres the thing, no game is going to beat D&D by trying to out D&D, D&D. (Except Pathfinder, but thats cause 4th edition was too much a departure). The games that even got close to it, went a different route. First was Runequest that went with not just a percentile route and open ended character creation and unique experience mechanic, but a unique take on fantasy, Call of Cthulhlu was an even bigger success. Next was Vampire the Masquerade. So what made D&D last, it was the first on site, and smarter businesses decisions made, and it got recued at a critical moment. Had WoTC just let TSR die and D&D just fade into the ether, we wouldnt be talking about D&D. Every other RPG company is a small business, they dont have the capital to compete with D&D, when RQ or Vampire came close, D&D had that market penetrarion and name recognition to license its brand to get a fast injection of capital.
For another game to successfully replace D&D, the company that owns it has to die, and D&D needs to go down with it and not get rescued. When you have a multi billion dollar company going against an at best 7 figure company, there is no real competition, with in the US (in other countries its either Call of Cthulhu or their home grown RPG). Heck, even Cyberpunk 2077 didnt make a huge impact on Cyberpunk Red.
You are 100% right.
And SO MANY of these D&D Heartbreakers still aren't available in FLGS even years after release, and if the only place someone can get your game is direct from your site, it's never going to be popular with the masses. You need to be on shelves and widely available online so even stand the smallest hope.
Other than the shared ancestry, every other one of these rule changes sound terrible to me.
Ever since I read Pathfinder 2e, I have always said that my perfect system would be a hybrid between it and 5e. PF2e had a lot of clever reinventions of the classic systems that were right up my alley as a player/designer, but it also made choices I didn't like (many deeply rooted that made them not easily adapted or changed) and seemed so mechanically cumbersome. Also weirdly strict in some areas. 5e meanwhile I thought was very well streamlined and I felt the books did such a good job of evoking flavor and inspiration (especially the monster manual), but I still wanted a bit more personalization/customization in my options.
I think I will have to now check this out to see how it strikes that balance for me.
Mechanically it does feel like it lands as a blend between those two systems quite nicely. Takes a lot of the core concepts of PF2, but doesn't bring the mechanical bloat, and then brings a lot of the best parts of 5e along too.
It's interesting to hear your perspective! I haven't heard anyone talk poorly about the name, not rolling for damage, or the layout of the stat blocks. I happen to disagree with you on all of those things, haha! It's good to know that some people feel the way you do as I try to get more people to try DC20.
Ok, just gonna say it. Anyone with a Fleetwood Mac album cover on their shelf like this MUST BE the best game reviewer, ever!😊
It's not just the cover, it's the full vinyl 😉
And it's definitely improved my criticism powers by at least 13%
So weird to me that you keep referring back to 5thEd when there are much more similar things in earlier (better) versions of D&D. I feel sorry for people whose experience of D&D is limited to 5th Ed which seems to me to be the worst parts of 3 and 4 with barely any of the good bits (not that they were ever the bet system).
I mean, 5e is the current version of the game, and by far the most popular the game has ever been 🤷♂️
I got started playing 3rd edition and enjoyed it, and although there are elements of 3/3.5 I preferred to 5e, I don't think I'd choose to go back to it over 5e. I've played a bunch of heroic fantasy systems, and read a lot more besides, but I still come back to 5e. There are a lot of benefits to playing the most supported system, and despite what some folks like to say, 5e is a good core system with a lot of flexibility to make it your own.
When I want to play games that aren't heroic fantasy, I look to other systems though, and there's an absolute ton of non-D&D games I'm looking forward to covering on the channel in the coming months that aren't heroic fantasy.
I think you are making many unsubstanciated assumptioms about what 5th ed players like. All the things that you assume 5th ed planer hate, would be very popular in my group.
I base my view on what the folks I've played with and the many people I've spoken with over the course of time doing this say, but I wouldn't for one second believe that 5e players (or any group) are monolithic in their views.
There's also the added nuance of what a player thinks they will like on first hearing about it vs experiencing it in play can be quite different, but you have to actually convince them to play for them to experience a game at all.
Yes DC20 is absolutely better than Tales of the Valiant, Daggerheart and especially MCDM’s not so well going efforts. I highly recommend DC20. ❤
I do think dc20 is the correct evolution of 5e. However, I also think mcdm have a cool thing going. It's just a different system.
The MCDM RPG, more than any other player in the space at the moment knows exactly what it wants to be, and all their design decisions are based around that. So if you want that style of game, the MCDM RPG will be THE game for you, but otherwise it won't be a good fit.
It's like the exact opposite of daggerheart, which doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, and very few of it's mechanics are in service to the things it says it's trying to do.
Mcdm rpg feels like a mess
It might be a mess at the moment (I've not read any of the playtest material), which is to be expected this early in the process. It's the problem I had with them seeking crowdfunding so early with basically nothing to show for it.
Hey Anto, I'd be super interested in seeing you take a look at how Distal (my game!) handles its monster stat block. I'm glad I'm not the only one losing my mind when saying "natural language is a good thing, actually?"
Agree on name being boring. Sounds like a math equation.
BTW I love the Fleetwood Mac Album on the shelf. 😊
Sounds like DC20 might not be as user friendly for noobs.
It suffers a problem that a LOT of D&D heartbreakers suffer from in some way; the primary audience is people already familiar with D&D style TTRPGs in some way.
Because of this, there's a lot of presumed knowledge going on in the system which can make it hard for a brand new TTRPG player to get involved.
One of the things I always point out when I'm consulting with publishers is that if they want real long term success they should be making sure their products are accessible to a truly brand new customer because it's something a lot of them forget about. Even 5e suffers from this problem on the GM side of things.
Couldn’t disagree more with your issues (aside from monster prevention). The “5s” system puts so much stress on 1 roll. It means a lot to roll high and the group feels it. Stacked disadvantage is cool not just because it encourages u to use techniques and maneuvers but it requires you to interact with your party to be inventive to overcome disadvantage. Which I think is consistent with the philosophy of the system.
I feel like DC20 would be an interesting game to try but it sounds quite crunchy and I am worried that the system plays very slow.
Great video, i agree with everything, i´m trying to like this system but a lot of peple dont like sadly.
It's getting a lot of love. I like a lot of the concepts going on in the system, I just don't think any system that's "like D&D" is going to pull me away from actual D&D at this point - there are a lot of benefits to playing the most supported game in the world!
@@IcarusGames Well if people can find people to play they will play
@Icarus: You NEED to get into game development because you see beyond the cliché confines of limited minded games centered around the 50 year old throne holder (D&D), that being said. I would be honored to have you sign an NDA to see if my 6-year in the making TTRPG breaks away from that mold enough for you to feel drawn to it conceptually! No hard feelings either way - but I know by watching your content that if you so choose, you won’t regret it! - Great review! (:
I appreciate the kind words ☺️
I've been designing stuff for 5e for years (in my mind I don't see the point in trying to break the mould and make my own heroic fantasy system when most people are playing D&D, I'd rather just come to them), but I had started working on a horror game just before I got ill at the tail end of last year.
I don't have the bandwidth to check out anything new right now, my schedule is pretty packed through most of this year, but best of luck with your system!
Great review!
That stat block you showed is a nightmare. As a DM for over 40 years I have no interest in using a system that can't produce a stat block that has the bare minimum explanation of each number in it. Some of the numbers shown don't even have a two letter abbreviation for the game statistic the stat is referencing. The system also isn't really going to be fully done for probably another 12-18 months and I really don't want to have a core rulebook just really sitting around waiting for the over necessary books to be finished. I know the game is including some basic monsters at the entry tier but it would be hard to even use those if this is what the stat blocks look like.
On the statblock, I hate having to have a dictionary of abilities on the side while working out what a creature can actually do. I do have to give the points to 5E there, it is just so easy to understand even if you know next to nothing about abilities and special moves beforehand, and allows for slight modifications of common abilities on the fly. Yeah, some of them are a bit vague or can be misinterpreted, but that is more of a word choice problem rather than systematic problem.
I think you and your group should try to think about the damage dice different for example, if I am swinging a sword, I am simultaneously swinging to hit my target and damage my target and you should think about the system like that
The thing about the multiple attack penalty is that it is not a multiple attack penalty, is a multiple check penalty.
It means that if you make two attacks, or cast two spells, or jump two times, or hide two times, or faint two times or whatever you do two times, you get disadvantage.
Is not about "one option beeing cooler", is about encouraging variety for everyone.
Plus, you can take an extra action to cancel de penalty, so is not about "you can't do it" or "you can do it but it's gonna be bad", it's about "hey, it cost more to do it right, is it still worth it?", and that's a whole new and interesting choice. (In my opinion obviously)
The name thing is just silly. But i do agree that the stat blocks were hard to understand. Otherwise, im excited for DC20!!!
Thanks for the discussion. Allen, in his homebrew mindset, took off with this and made the D&D 6e we all wanted in his DC20 RPG...
Thanks a lot for the video! Happy to see coverage for other RPGs out there ❤
I admit I’ve never really heard of or checked out this system but this video has made me really curious to check it out when the kickstarter goes live. Thanks for the coverage!
Algorithm sent you.
I watched.
Insta-subscribed.
One of the worst things of D&D 5e is precisely its natural language exactly with the example you gave: "an attack with a melee weapon" and a "melee weapon attack" don't mean the same in D&D 5e. Or take Sharpshooter for example: the first 2 bullet points apply to thrown weapons but the last one doesn't. Just because of these small things. Perhaps it's not an issue with monster stat blocks (although I'm thinking about natural weapons and the like...), but it is nonetheless annoying in 5e...
Great video! Thank you for sharing info about DC20! I managed to pledge yesterday to get early bird goodies :P
There's definitely spots where the natural language has caused problems, and that's one of the things I hope gets tightened up in the upcoming core book changes.
@@IcarusGames Hopefully they will! Thanks for taking the time to reply to my message! Notice me senpai xD
The damage rolling aspect is so much less of an issue when you actually play the game. I would give it a chance on that account.
DM are players too and if they are not having fun you are going to have a short campaign.
You should watch some of the play throughs or participate in one of Coach's playthrough
People getting so worked up over not rolling for damage is so silly to me. Rolling dice is not the game, it's just the system we use to play the game. If you just want to roll dice, you might as well play yahtsee. Just like all dnd memers always talking about being dice goblins... Dice really don't matter other than that they should be balanced. As a DM I've always used average damage, it speeds up the monotony so nicely. The game is about being cool heroes, Dungeon Coach really focuses his game design in a very delibirate way, which I find commendable.
The rest of the criticisms are probably fair, although maybe require playtesting for a proper verdict.
I've played and enjoyed plenty of games where you don't roll for damage. Outside of the d20 ecosystem its super common. But DC20 isn't marketing itself to those people who are already familiar with those games and concepts.
It's specifically going for 5e players as the target audience, which means the majority of potential customers for DC20 will have only ever played 5e and no other system, so taking *anything* away from them is going to meet resistance.
*I* know the benefits of not rolling for damage, both from a speed of play perspective and also from a game design perspective, but if you've only ever played 5e it can feel like you're just rolling fewer dice, and for a lot of people rolling dice is part of their fun - the variance they introduce does matter and is a key part of the fun.
@@IcarusGames Yes, your point is very valid. People do think it's important, but in most cases they won't actually feel that way once they're playing.
I believe it happens a lot in games (video games too) where people attribute the positives of a game to systems which aren't actually the thing that they like about it. For instance, rolling a lot of dice is fun because it will result in high damage, not because rolling dice is fun. But many people will then think: "I love rolling tons of dice" over thinking: "I love doing a lot of damage". There is a point to be made about anticipation, but then it becomes a trade-off, which is a much deeper discussion of course.
For marketing purposes he might do the system as is primarily with an options for rolling dice, much like average damage for DMs, but the other way around. That way you would at least not turn people off that believe they won't enjoy a system without rolling for damage.
@@Dabedidabe Oh 100% in most cases once people try a system where you don't roll for damage, they won't miss it, and that's consistently the response you see given by publishers when they get the "criticism" about dropping damage rolls.
My argument is by that point you've probably lost the customer though. Most folks aren't particularly interested in learning new systems, and every new heroic fantasy system has to justify itself against D&D - "why would I play this instead of continuing to play D&D, which I already know and enjoy".
So instead of reactionary messaging around the lack of damage rolls ("once you try it you won't miss it") I encourage publishers to focus on why not having damage rolls is better and the FUN parts of that choice. In DC20's case, Coach has done that on the KS by focusing more on the fun of the attack roll mattering more and rolling high being a big deal, which immediately reframes the "lack" of a damage roll before someone reads the rules.
@@IcarusGames Life is too short to play only one game system out of thousands that exist.
@@Galinarig I've played and enjoyed plenty of games. But some people just aren't interested in playing other systems, and that's totally valid.
But I've seen too many indie games frame their pitch as basically "you should play this because it isn't D&D" or "here's why it's not like D&D" through the years, and all that does is alienate the people who are quite happy playing their D&D campaigns.
That's not to say that's what DC20 is doing BTW, just a broader industry observation!
Cze and Peku are awesome. I support their work as a Patron too.
Thanks for your feedback on the game! It is hard to get 5E players to change their thoughts of the Game.
Only Rule I heard you miss, if multiple players help one person, the dice degrades from D8 to D6 to D4. But the Help Mechanic feels really powerful with rolling High meaning more. Especially with Big Hits ignoring damage resistance.
My goal isn't to get anyone to change their thoughts on 5e, or really any other game! I want people to enjoy the games their playing, and sometimes another system is a better fit, but definitely not always. For all the flak it gets, 5e does a lot of things really well and there's for sure benefits to playing the most supported system in the world.
Great Video Anto. Your Patreon Patron Agile Monk.
The only DnD Killer will be Hasbrowiz
I'm finding it very interesting that a lot of the new ideas being brought up in these D&D killers are already a core part of my gaming experience. I primarily run the Fantasy Flight's Warhammer 40k systems and they have a great system for degrees of success and failure on rolls, a language system with different levels of proficiency, and a magic system that doesn't use slots or points but that contains escalating risk and has spells that naturally improve as you level up your caster ability.
As soon as you move our of the d20 heroic fantasy/D&D style game you find all these kinds of mechanics was more frequently. Every game I've seen in the last year with "revolutionary" new mechanics is only really "revolutionary" for bring a system popular in another genre to a D&D style game.
i disagree with small stat blocks hindering the 5e stats confused me when i started running it but shadowdark or ose simplicity clicked with me immediatly
It's definitely going to be a personal taste thing, for sure. I know for a lot of people who start off by running 5e then switch to the OSR style statblock the latter is easy to parse because they have that foundation built up from reading longer statblocks and the assumed knowledge is there.
A lot of OSR games in my experience have areas where they rely on that assumed knowledge of veteran players that wouldn't be present in someone picking up the game whose never played a TTRPG before (that's obviously not always the case though!).
5e statblocks don't presume a lot of pre-existing knowledge of the reader, which is why they repeat so many full rules across monsters for example, and I prefer that approach because it means 90% of the time all the info you need (sans spells) is right there in the stat block. It was my biggest problem after running PF2 for a year - having to constantly cross reference things mentioned in monster stat blocks because it wasn't fully written in the statblock itself.
I thought that DC20 would have been great for the way you have talked about how you like to play.
There's a heap here that I really like and I'm excited to see the final implementation of the rules!
Want !
23:24 Dragon Warriors (1986) has a similar system for languages: a character can speak a language at three levels of fluency; Basic, Intermediate, and Fluent with a chance of misunderstanding for the first two. Languages themselves are categorised as; Simple, Undemanding, Complex, and Abtruse - the complexity determining how hard it is to add a level of fluency. Languages can be related to each other, either Closely, or Distantly, which can affect the ability to learn one similar to one that's already known to an Intermediate or Fluent level. I've used that in games of various systems for the last 38 years - as a GM it makes you think about history and geography as part of the worldbuilding.
I don't think I would necessarily want a system with that much complexity in all my games, but if I was running a really exploration focused game where the juice came from going to new places and meeting new people, incorporating language into the mechanics in that more in depth way could be a great way to further that fantasy!
@@IcarusGames >> "...exploration focused game where the juice came from going to new places and meeting new people..." That's the crux of most of my campaigns! When I run my preferred low magic settings so spells like "Tongues" don't exist so this sort of thing is important. Drives character interaction with NPCs as they try to find language tutors, or are forced to hire a translator to tag along with them.