If the kings guard, the best of the best, are level 2 then why hasn’t this kingdom been overtaken by another yet? Why is it that only after the party kills them do other kingdoms (whos top tiers are also level 2 btw) think about trying to overtake the land?
Technically level 1 adventurers are canonically extremely powerful people who could realistically take on threats to entire towns or villages in groups of about 4. So an army of CR 2 guards being able to defend the king isn't as unreasonable as it sounds at face value, a dragon isn't the threat the kingsguard is there to take care of, that's what adventurers are for
@@eslin2845 It hasn't been overtaken, because the neighbours' armies are of the same level distibution? If we are not speaking about various diplomatic agreeements and treaties, that the party breaks completely.
@@ViZet85 whats stopping a random evil wizard (cr3) recruiting few ogres to take over the kingdom then? Nah it doesnt make sense whatsoever and its literally a bait by a "fed up with murderhobos" DM.
@aidanpalmer1075 by everything you do having more resistance to it. You burn more calories just standing up as an obese person than a thin person. That said, there *is* a limit, and a fit person can definitely lift more than a couch potato, so basing it on strength *is* the way to go, but I think the PHB assumes your character is at least fit enough to be an adventurer, obese or not.
as a halfling rouge that is 30 pounds, carrying less than 10 pounds means that i get daggers and my shortsword and leather armor- oops, that's more than i can carry!
for the verbal component on spells: while i agree that you cant whisper your spells, i dont believe you must be yelling them out. casting spells at normal speaking volume is more appropreate. i.e. the guy sitting 5 feet away from you can hear you fine but the guy in next room likely wont unless its dead quiet, the rooms echo, and paying attention.. most spells are said to be chanted, but theres no reason you cant chant at any volume. and im pretty sure theres no written rule on given volume, but they are supposed to be audible so having it at normal speaking volume as the minimum is fine. i hate it when people say "spells are loud".. like, dude.. a wizard learning new spells isnt going to be screaming at the top of his lungs in his study.. i mean, could you imagine what stryxhaven would sound like if that was the case? nah, look at harry potter. in the classrooms they just spoke the spells normally. thats more how it should be
I agree, but I also consider that the spell, even something like Detect Magic in the example, will cause some reaction to the environment (like a form of light, sound, or whatever), that will also make it clear that someone nearby is casting a spell, even if the caster didn't yell the verbal component. Plus, allowing stealth-casting downplays the need of Subtle Spell, since that's the point of the feature. How I tend to do as a DM: If there's absolutely no sorcerers in my players' party, I may allow it along with a stealth check, but otherwise, I don't allow stealth-casting
I think spells that deal damage should be considered loud, but more utility-based spells could be cast along with a Stealth check to see if it's sufficiently silent. Adds a risk-reward factor that could result in the spell failing to go off and/or others noticing.
'Monsters cant have class levels'. Sure it's easy to balance encounters when every creature is a cookie cutter, but by the end of the campaign a lot of go-to encounters are going to be dull or repetitive. However imagine how much more engaging a monster is to deal with when it has a couple class features ontop of its innate abilities; for example a zombie hoard with a few levels of barbarian, but they only rage while aware of something living, that'd make escort or stealth quests quite a bit more tense compared to their usual shambling obstacle nature.
that reminds me of a very violent webcomic, "goblinscomic", where a group of golbien got tired of being fodder for rookie adventurers and just DECIDED to have Class Levels. so they actually became a Cleric, a Monk, a Barbarian and a fighter.
I usually do that by reflavoring some lower level npcs like guards as using the gladiator stat block for captains and bandit captain for the regular guards, or if they're group enemies typically, I'll give them pack tactics, town guards get battle master maneuvers as well. Just little bits that make them seem more competent and believable, but still not on par with the uber-party of nigh unkillable demi-gods. Action economy is a bitch though, so zerg rushing the party is also a viable option. If you're surrounded it doesn't matter your AC when two or three attacks each from eight people are coming your way, eventually one beats it or crits.
@@alpharius2omegaboogaloo384Really? I think it’s way cooler than the god stuff. It means that a paladin who betrays their god for the sake of their oath is a possibility which is sick.
@@disc9632right but the oath is to a diety who supplies the power. And surely timeless gods are constant and can’t change their mind about what you should do?
Why would a human king not have class levels? If bandit or orc leaders can have CR, why not a king? One should assume royalty has access to the best education in the land.
There are so many stories where we see a Prince train fighting styles under castle guards, it makes no sense that as soon as they become a king they lose it all. They might go rusty or never see an actual combat in their lives, but they at least have the basics of swinging a sword and using a shield. And in a setting where Magic is rare but known, it only makes sense that a KING OF THE LAND has enough money and contacts to get a few for themselves for protection. Am I supposed to believe that they will buy jeweled necklaces for their queen, but won't get a Ring of Protection or Boots of Speed?
Exactly. Martial training for princes is a part of the necessary skill set to become king, at least in loosely medieval, European settings. Kings and princes leading their troops on the battlefield is a trope so common it’s almost a default. Level zero humans are known as “commoners” for a reason.
I think this is a counterpoint to the idea that a king or ruler should automatically be a major boss battle. No, just because he's king doesn't mean he is automatically the highest level in the land. However, he should be trained as benefits the flavor and story. To give examples from Game of Thrones, Robert Baratheon would be a mid-level fighter with advanced age penalties. He legitimately won a duel against Rhaegar for the crown, but that was many years ago. Joffery would be a level 1 fighter as he was trained as a knight but had no experience. John Snow would be a high level paladin by the end. However, Danerys would have classes only as a noble, as she had no combat training.
The only thing I would disagree with is the final bit. In many cultures, it was traditional for Kings to be trained as knights or priests. You would make perfect sense for the king to be a low-level fighter, druid, or cleric. While your average guard would be level 1 and 2, it makes perfect sense for them to have high level adventurers at their command. No, the fight with the King should not be automatically a huge struggle for the party unless they are a living God or something, but there is no need to exaggerate the other direction either.
Exactly! And if sorcerers are granted magic by right of their arcane bloodline , kings kept power because they claimed that the gods gave there bloodline the divine right to rule ,,,, and divine soul sorcerers are a thing ,,, it would be pretty natural for the strongest divine soul sorcerer in the kingdom to be the king or queen.
Low-level is acceptable, but assumption that any royal is very powerful is quite frequent and completely wrong. And it is a correct thing to do, because a king's power is almost never in blade or spells - it is about being a king and having kingdom resources at your disposal.
6:20 You absolutely can put ten war hammers in a backpack. What are you smoking? Packs are not that small and war hammers are not that big! This DM has clearly never gone camping and only thinks about medieval weapons in video game and hollywood form where warhammers are basically an anvil on a stick. A real warhammer is quite small, arguably smaller than a camp axe but certainly comparable in size to one. Sure that would basically fill a modern day school kid's backpack, but you'd still be able to do it. And if it's a proper rucksack as any modern hiker, soldier, or ancient adventurer would have, you could fit those ten hammers in there along with a sleeping bag, tent, a few packed rations, and a fucking inflatable life raft. Would it be heavy? Not really! 10 warhammers, assuming average weight, would be about 18 - 22 pounds. I carry more than that in a grocery bag every time I go shopping.
A war hammer is a pole arm. About as long as an adult human is tall. There may or may not be a mass/encumbrance issue. There will definitely be a physics/balance problem if you try to put six in a backpack.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm Not all war hammers are pole arms. There are plenty of historical examples of 2-3 foot war hammers. Not saying that storing and handling a bunch of 30 inch weirdly balanced sticks wouldn't be awkward, but you could easily stuff a bunch in a large backpack.
To the first guy not ignoring spell components, I don’t either as a player and it’s super fun and makes you think of creative solutions! I had a sorcerer in one game and we were kidnapped, locked in a cave, and had all our equipment taken. After we freed ourselves, I scrounged for components, most notably, bat guano. DM thought I went made saying “I look for bat crap on the walls”, he gave me a nature check to find some, and BAM I could cast fireball again :)) DMs make the world and think of out of the box scenarios for players, players should put the same effort with out of the box solutions
It's kinda dumb to lock spells behind components though cause depending on the setting, you can just not get to use any spells you have or wait forever depending on the type of component.
Having your carry weight be tied ONLY to your body weight is BULLSHIT I’m actually tilted about that one Now, having your carry weight START there and go up or down based on your STR score, I’m ok with But if you’re gonna sit there and tell me the gnome with 20str can’t outlift the human with 8 STR, you’re out of your god damn mind
6:07 This is a horrible rule for small races. A kobold weight is on average 25-35 punds. The 1/4 rule would make a kobold unable to wear common clothes and have an empty backpack as those 2 items are 3 and 5 pounds respectively. At 35 pounds the quarter weight is 8.75 and i don't know many tables that round up.
I do spell whispering simply because i grew up watching "The Sword in the Stone" from Disney. In it Merlin would whisper spells so it just made sense to me years later.
I really wasn't a fan of most of the spellcasting answers, but especially this one. It really feels like the guy is trying to force his opinion to become a fact on that one, especially once he mentioned BG3, a video game which altho based on 5e doesn't always follow the rules as written. BG3 is not a DnD rulebook, it's made by people who were reading the DnD rulebook in order to make decisions for their own game and therefore is entirely based on their subjective interpretation much like any tabletop DnD campaign. Looking at BG3 like it's an example of what the rulebook intended is like looking at a drawing of a bird and saying "yeah that's what a bird is supposed to be!" The drawing is an artistic interpretation of a bird, not a bird. BG3 is an interpretation of DnD, it is not DnD.
All 3 of those can have good things and can have bad things. Critical thinking is vital, and, what's more important, what's fun for you and your table.
People that change rules based on realism to the detriment of specific classes (martials, it’s always the martials who get screwed over) never think about that a level 1 wizard with a tiny dagger can stop the freaking Tarrasque from moving by poking it slightly as it moves past if they have the Sentinel feat.
Let players choose how they fail instead of crit fails (for skill checks) is one I've been doing instead. "nat 1? How do you want to ASTRONOMICALLY fail that stealth check?" It leads to HILARIOUS fail upwards moments. "Well I heard you could put black beans in a lot of different things to add nutrients into them without impacting flavor. I tried that with breakfast. It has now backfired louder than our cleric's car when they pulled into the driveway."
0:58 for clerics, Druids, and warlocks that makes some sense but paladins just either get a new subclass or can renegotiate their oath because paladins don’t get power from a god but from an oath they give themselves (basically a jjk binding vow)
Its also lore that warlocks patrons give up a part of their power permanently to the warlocks. They cannot revoke that power, but they could deny giving more.
oh, i just remembered that old game "Dungeon Siege". in THAT game, it was possible to drink PART of a potion, and same the rest for later, and that happened automatically! AND you could combine several partly-full potions to conserve inventory space! als, "coin weight" reminds me of several old D&D PC games by SSI, where it was worthwhile to go to a store and make change, converting your copper coins into silver, and so on.
I just played some DS2 today. Partially drinking potions is a wonderfully convenient feature. I haven't yet played another game that scratches the same itch. I don't play DS1 but combining Potion isn't in DS2.
You could really only drink part of a potion. They're about 30ml of liquid (an ounce per the DMG) so you'd struggle to do much past just down the whole thing
I don't understand why people are so against letting players attempt to do their spells quietly. Just let them roll for it! Subtle Spell is automatic. There's no risk. So no, it's not invalidated if you let your players roll to be sneaky casting a spell. They're taking a risk of losing a spell slot or getting caught. Especially if it's a difficult check. Maybe they'll get tired of failing their spells and look forward to takeing that feat. Or maybe they'll succeed every now and then and make cool moments. D&D is a game of taking risks. That's the whole point. If they're asking to do something that's a bit against the rules as written just make it a difficult role with penalties for failure and let them decide if it's worth it. And remember, if there's a feat in the book for what they're trying to do, those feats are automatic. They are not made useless by letting a player do something similar with a chance of failure attached.
Its hilarious that half of these are just DMs who don't even know the rules... Finding a good DM is truly a miracle, because most of them are like the ones in this vid.
Honestly I feel like most rules lawyer DMs just miss the point of playing DnD entirely. A good DM follows the rules and doesn't homebrew in something just to make it faster or easier, but rather because it makes better sense for the type of campaign they're trying to run or makes more sense to the story. The rules DO also dictate story beats, and they're restrictive on roleplay because there's stuff you simply can't do because rules prevent it. So if there's certain types of moments you want to open up, you have to alter some of the rules. Some of the rules are also just not that fun, I personally don't like forcing all spells to have components because it's really just not fun to have to keep track of components and definitely not fun to be useless when I run out of those components and just have to say "sorry guys I don't have a handful of bat shit can't cast fireball even tho I have the spell slot to do it". The game at its core is about having fun, and as a DM your job is also creating fun not just enforcing rules. TL;DR there are a lot of good reasons to enforce a rule as it's written, but doing it just because you think the way others play their game is dumb just isn't good enough for me.
So with the potion, I do something similar at my table. You can drink a potion as a bonus action, however because you are chugging it super fast, I flavor it as it spilling and you have to roll to see how much you would actually get. But if you drink it as an action, you are taking your time to actually drink it and thus you get maximum healing. It’s worked pretty well at my table.
0:45 - ...There are seriously people who think that players _shouldn't_ lose their granted powers as punishment for defying the higher being that grants them those powers?
The problem is that it just doesn't work in D&D, because there you are defined by your special class abilities. I actually had something like that happen to me in The Dark Eye, but that one is a skill-based system where you don't get completely crippled if you lose your special powers, unlike D&D. That doesn't mean it can't be done entirely. In earlier editions, Paladins, who fall from grace, would become fighters. 5e even suggests a class change as one of the possible consequences for breaking your oath. But just taking away class powers is too punishing in this system. Depending on the character, they could become practically useless.
Warlocks shouldn't lose their powers on betraying their patron, since their whole schtick is that they made a bargain for eldritch knowledge. Once they know that knowledge, they can't take it back, but they shouldn't get more secrets without groveling if they stab their patron in the back
Flanking. It gives advantage too easily. Characters should have to obtain it through other methods which aren't virtually free. In the same vein, you can't take the help action in my game out of initiative unless you can describe how you're helping in a way that directly assists the recipient's personal ability to complete the task. Example, giving a boost over a wall counts, but helping someone look for something by also searching is just you making your own check. In combat though, if you want to use your action to give someone advantage, go for it. Since you have to make an actual decision and deal with actual consequences, it's fine there. But I'm not going to always give you free advantage on every ability check out of combat just for not splitting the party, and the same goes for in-combat for just positioning like a not-dummy without the use of action economy
Well, adv on flanking makes sense. Each round takes 6 seconds in-game, so imagine having to block/dodge/parry two people attacking you from opposite sides at the same time within 6 seconds.
Less homebrew and more variant rule, but I’ve recently stopped rocking Flanking at our table. It just made getting advantage in combat too easy and nullified actions and class/subclass features. I’ve also found that it’s made combat harder as the PCs inherently hit less often, making things over all more fun!
@@OrtegaSauce not criticising the flanking rule and how WOTC implemented it. We’ve just found that games and combat are more enjoyable without constantly having to optimise your position and allows for features like reckless attack, the help action, and the kobolds pack tactics, really shine and feel good.
A house rule I've heard as an alternative to advantage is to give a +2 bonus on the attack roll. Rewards you for your positioning while giving things like pack tactics or reckless attack a chance to shine.
I personally prefer the arcane focus variant rule because neither I nor my party enjoy keeping track of too much inventory. If ran properly, the focus negates the requirement for a material component- and that’s the key idea. Should something happen to the PC(s) focus/foci, they’ll have to perform the spell the old fashioned way by scrounging up material components. It’s great to keep in mind should the party, or at least a member, get imprisoned.
I'm pretty sure that permanent injuries are not a popular homebrew rule. Sure there are some who do this but I haven't seen it much and I doubt it's much more popular than I think. 5e players tend to hate real adversity to begin with, so it's hard to imagine that such a harsh rule would be tolerated by a significant number of them. What is popular is bonus action healing potions and I don't like it (even though the group where I'm a player uses it). I can be convinced to buff the effect that half the HP regained is the minimum you can get back from them, but I still insist on an action to take it. I have mixed feelings about weight. On one hand, I want to use it, but on the other, it's just too much of a pain to do so normally. Tracking individual weight of everything and having to think of the weight of items that aren't conveniently listed in the books. I think an abstract system, like in Ryuutama and Pathfinder 2e would be much more practical. If I ever GM 5e again (or even other editions), I might take the latter for it. Also, as someone pointed out, I'm pretty sure that you don't have to yell your magic spells out loud. Just speaking normally is enough (and already pretty loud when you have to quiet). And of course, there's again plenty of "on my table, we always roll dice, even if there's only possible outcome"... sigh.
-permanent injuries are part of some other systems and when integrated from the very beginning (and as long as they are fair, working for both sides) they can make a system feel dangerous and tactical approaches more meaningful given, many systems have magical or surgical ways to reverse those "permanent" injuries, making it more about cost and access to resources but still, depending on the setting and the level of danger the group wants I can totally see this -when it comes to Potions, I personally would change it slightly: a Quick Action for half the healing and a following Quick Action for the other half. doing anything inbetween makes you waste the second half. you can move and use Standard Action before the first and after the second Quick Actions all the same, but those two have to be back to back to be done fully. Enemy attacks you inbetween? sorry, had to defend yourself and the Potion fell or got knocked out of your hand. don't wanna deal with this? drink it normally with your standard action then -Encumberance is always a slowdown, making Inventory management harder and is a pretty polarizing topic with many groups I encountered over the years. personally I am for it because realism can make it feel more immersive, but I totally get why people hate it and streamline it away
In all honestly without it being a bonus action, healing potions are basically just not a feature of the game. At most levels the types of potions that can be afforded are just not particularly useful.
As a response to the 20s or 1s not critical resulting, a DM can make the rolls add flavor to the action, like bypassing a trap trigger while keeping it armed, speaking so well not only does the guard let them pass he actually likes them and is a future ally (or speak so horribly they make an enemy possibly), etc. OR just add/subtract extra to the roll, like a free +/- 5 or 10, just to show how lucky or cursed the attempt was.
Heavy criticals and critical fumbles. I know they are popular from a story point of view, but just from a game design point of view they make the game worse by making extremes more extreme.
My table tried the penalty for going unconscious as a means of upping the stakes and incentivising early healing, but all it served to do was kneecap the tanks. We revoked it pretty quickly.
I believe RAW only paladins lose powers if they fail the source of their power, and it's is their oath, not their god. For warlocks it's exactly a popular house rule, and for druids I'm not sure if it's even a popular one To clarify, I'm not saying that it's wrong way to rule it, but it's not "fallowing RAW over doing it the way that is popular in community" but quite opposite
Yeah, Rules as Written Paladins are the only one who can mechanically lose their power. Warlocks learn things, they're not on a constant Wifi connection. What the patron has already given them is theirs. Druids on the other hand I feel like they *should* lose their powers if they go out of their way to destroy nature, but this isn't mechanically represented.
@@K4rm4ttack Warlock should get some nasty curses and be on some supernatural hit list, but patrons aren't gods and they can't keep 24h personal tabs on you. (yours familiars can, other tokens make easy to scry on you) Oaths are sweared in name of something as witness/guarantor, even irl kingdoms were backed on divine authority. (this power need some source)
We use a homebrew(I invented it) that drinking small potion requires only a bonus action, and anything bigger requires either drinking it with an action or trying to drink it with bonus action and making Con saving throw to not choke and lose both your action, bonus action and get a incomplete effect of a potion
Ok this is a weird one because it's still not used very much in the game but alignment matters. I feel most tables ignore alignment and it's understandable when you consider restrictions in previous edition (IE Paladins must be lawful good). While I don't feel those restrictions are right, alignment should still matter for one simple reason and that is the state of one's soul. Unlike the real world the afterlife in D&D isn't just theoretical it's an actual place that can be visited and gods are beings whose blessings or curses have real tangible effects on the world. So while I don't hold players to a specific alignment (IE you don't have to be LG ALL the time) people and even the gods will start to take notice and if you keep acting chaotic you will get a reputation for being chaotic even if you think you are lawful. And should your character reach the pearly gates and die in a campaign, you will have to have a long discussion with the powers of the outer planes of where your soul is going to end up.
At our table, if someone rolls a nat 1, they have to roll again to see if anything happens. Pretty much on a 6 or higher they’re fine. 2-5 maybe you drop your weapon, and really only on another nat 1 does anything bad happen. Adds stakes, but most of the time nothing even happens. I haven’t dm’d much, but I did do a holiday one-shot for Christmas. One of the opponents I rolled for rolled a Nat 1. One of the players (who I play with at the other table so he knows this rule) asked if anything happened. Rolled again to see if anything did, and rolled another 1. In the spirit of the game, I described how this animated oven got so hot that it melted its door closed, causing it to not be able to attack again. It was fun, and it honored the very unlikely chance of rolling two natural 1s in a row lol.
That sounds... Really pointless and arbitrary. I get not having crits be an automatic success (They're supposed to be the best PLAUSIBLE outcome) but having them do nothing kind of defeats the whole point. And just out of curiosity, do you also ignore critical fails?
@@Czarro672 yes. If you pass the DC then you succeed. Even if you roll a 1. If you allow crit success on skills and saves you devalue the commitment a player makes to building a character that has a spell DC higher than their enemies' possible save. Why negate that by giving a get out of jail free card to their enemies? If the players don't prepare themselves properly to face a formidable enemy, why give them a way to ignore those consequences?
@@stevengrass6800The whole point of rolling dice is to add luck. It's not "Devaluing" anything, because you can always Crit Fail just as you can always Crit Success.
I've got a few: 1. Rolled stats. I know this isn't entirely homebrew but there's so many homebrew versions that I think I can talk about it here. More often than not, I find rolled stats to be rather punishing especially with how sparse ASIs normally are. More importantly, it creates very unnecessary disparities between party members and can heavily limit what a player will choose depending on their luck. I know I can have my players just reroll until they get decent stuff, but that just takes a lot of time, will still leave disparities, and kind of defeats the point of having rolled stats. I personally use a slightly buffed standard array. 2. No auto-success or fails on 20s and 1s outside attack rolls. I find this to undermine both player and enemy/NPC competence in an unfun way. For the most part, if a nat 20 doesnt cut it I won't ask for a roll. However, I might occasionally ask for one with the disclaimer that it's impossible to succeed to see how well they do i.e does the king take the offer as a joke or insult. 3. Not handwaving spell components. I won't be as harsh to say you alert everyone in a five mile radius, but it's gonna pretty obvious to anyone who can see or hear you that you are casting a spell. I even go an extra step to say casting while deafened or restrained makes verbal or somatic components respectively more difficult to perform (must make spellcasting ability check before the spell goes through, DC is based on the level of the spell).
I use a standard action for potions. However, I also allow the players to purchase, for 500 gp, a bandolier they can place 5 potions in that they can drink as a bonus action. I then have them write down which potions are in the bandolier, because that's actually fair. Edit: I also use a backpack sheet. Having players show me on the sheet where everything goes on the backpack helps stop people being packmules.
I have a Homebrew I'm going to try soon that will attempt to bridge the gap between the two ways people see natural 20's outside of combat. I called them Fate Breaker dice. (Technically they're coin flips but I'm going to use D6's rolling for odd/even). So, with Fate Breaker dice, skill checks outside of combat are still not automatic successes. However, the DM will define a value above 20 for the check. Like, 25 if it's something you're really not supposed to be able to do, or 30 for something that's genuinely rule breaking. If you roll a natural 20 for a skill check outside of combat but still don't succeed, even with your modifiers, you can roll Fate Breaker dice which will add points to your check. Every even that you roll will add one point to your check. But if any one of them are odd you fail. The DM can have the player roll them one at a time if they don't want them to know how difficult the check actually is, or if you want it to be way more difficult then you can only give them one fate roll, and it's up to them to gamble on how many Fate dice they want to try. Lore wise, I will probably just explain it as a God stepping in and making the action a reality. Could make for some fun story elements. If the character isn't religious then it could be some nosy trickster type God who is taking a liking to them. I understand both sides of the argument. Player shouldn't be able to brute force their way around the rules, but it is really fun when wacky things you can't really explain happen. Hopefully Fate Breaker dice can satisfy both opinions.
see the ULTRA LOUD MAGIC thing is just stupid and boring and basically forces players to play blaster mages. because no ones going to play a mind mage who tries to sneakily cast charms and illusions because no guard is going to be fooled into the following the the half naked catfolk away from his post if he just heard the crazy man down the street screaming his head off and filling the night with bright flashing lights 12 seconds before. seriously what do people have against the quiet caster? yeah, maybe they cant cast boom boom spells softly but not every spell needs to be screamed into a megaphone for it to work. gandalf, radagast, harry potter, merlin, harry dresden, howl, allanon, all these super power wizards have cast quietly before. its not that hard to do, hell even just have them roll a stealth check against passive perception to see if anyone notices and youll see an uptick in clever casters now that they dont have to scream I AM CASTING A SPELL, I, THE GUY STANDING AROUND THE CORNER AM CURRENTLY CASTING A SPELL THAT DOES A THING, I HOPE NO ONE NOTICES I AM CASTING A SPELL OR MOST OF ITS EFFECT WILL BE RUINED.
Flanking cheapens advantage to the point that it’s not even worth being creative trying to get it any other way and that’s really unfun . Also it makes reckless attack useless
+2 bonus flanking is infinitely better than the official variant rule. especially if you apply it to enemies too. Like sure you can seek to flank something tanky you’re struggling hit, but you’d better hope you don’t get caught between him and his friend
TIL a bunch of homebrew rules are popular: - Ignoring spell components - critical fumble rules - Not losing power when a paladin acts against their oath. - Ignoring weight entirely - The 1/4 your body weight thing (Shouldn't STR change the fraction?) - Tracking ammo - Tracking travel
I’m pretty sure there’s a rule regarding verbal spell components that says you have to cast the spell in a normal speaking voice What’s that like as far as mechanics go? Well, that’s for the DM to decide, and how far that can be heard can vary based on background noise A big open smithing floor with forges billowing and hammers hitting anvils galore is going to have a normal speaking voice inaudible than an open field in the middle of the night
1:13 i don't know if it's even codified in 5th Edition, but in the 3e and 3.5 era, the DMG spelled out explicitly that a potion is 1 fluid ounce (that's an eighth of a cup, or 2 tablespoons). It's more than a single normal swallow for most people, perhaps, but it's hardly the same as "chugging a drink." Also, for many of these: I'm not entirely clear on the 5th Edition RAW, but in the days of the best D&D rule set, natural 20 always succeeded and natural 1 always failed on attack rolls and saving throws, but for skill checks and other ability checks, never. It was entirely reasonable to use a skill and not have to roll, if the DC of the check is no higher than 1 less than the character's total modifier.
I have a rule that actually does incentivise people to care about knock outs without punishing them in the fight that it happens in. Because if its aplied in combat it hits the people most vulnerable to debuffs most . Martials. Disadvantage on all attacks is SUCH A COMMON condition and makes any fighter or similar half as effective. The rule itself is that anybody that suffers 2 failed death saves needs to make a dc 15 con save. Sometimes multiple ones are made. A total of 9 or below leads to a -2 to everything that involves a d20. including DCs. (My games exhaustion 2 levels of it in this case, keeps it fair against casters too) a total between 10 and 14 has you suffer a -1 . a success leads to no penealty. It means that the party is incentivised heavyly to keep people healthy enought that they dont drop unconcious while the enemy has still leftover attacks. I tend to not split multiattacks below 3 attacks so it happens that i send a single attack at a freshly downed party member pretty regularly. As such fights where the party nearly lost someone are leaving semi permanent marks on them requiring them to have downtime to recover from such instances. Keeps the party members way more human IMO. A retreat and retry are way more common then blind barb style gameplay of running in despite the party being very clearly not in a place to continue fighting.
How I conceptualize Warlocks is that they sell their soul, so basically whatever power they currently have, it’s theirs, and can’t be taken from them, however the patron can stop granting powers, and the warlock basically needs to Multiclass in order to progress leveling Also, with Druids, i don’t think it’s that nature grants them power like a patron or deity, but rather Druids harness magic like sorcerers and wizards harness the arcane weave. I headcanon it that if low-ish level Druid’s land gets razed, they may lose some of their powers, but high-level Druids cultivate their own home for their magical natural prowess that resides in them, and therefore that cultivation can sprout out of them Paladins do canonically have Oathbreaker, but I also headcanon that a Paladin switching oaths can happen (like from vengeance to redemption, or from the crown to conquest) because having a one-size-fits-all “you broke your tenants” paladin subclass is kinda arbitrary, because not all Oathbreaker are the same Honestly the concern with cleric is the most agreeable. There really is no “Oathbreaker” equivalent for cleric, and all of their power is borrowed, like a paladin’s, so it kinda leaves the cleric to, theoretically, do whatever they want, and even go against their tenants
The problem with the spell stuff is in BG3 they will say spells quieter if you're sneaking. Goku has shot Kamehameha out of his feet with no hand movements. And Gohan did the ssem thing with one arm, no movement, and did it quietly. I. Not saying spells should be whispered, but they aren't shouted either. With charm spells, the verbal tends to be whatever you're saying. You don't castna spell and then talk.
Critical success/failures on attack only; Skill checks only get critical failures since a 1 on a lockpicking means you could break your lockpicks or a 1 on a CHA means you fart loudly while talking. But such things only happen on a failed check. Ie, if you role a 1 on Stealth but still pass the check with your modifiers, then you pass while if you don't pass with your modifiers you trip and people notice. Health Potions; I change their nature. Their not potions, their more like gummies. You pop one in and get Temp HP rather then literal HP back. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense that you can throat a bottle and large holes in your body close. But to discourage rampant HP gummy doping during combat, stronger gummies may cause levels of exhaustion if too many are used in a short amount of time. Enforcing encumbrance; Not only do I enforce item weights but I also don't give out Bags of Holding, like at all. The industrious players end up making the smart choice to buy a wagon and places to store things. Making players think about all the crap they're hauling around is a good thing.
The one comment about Nat 20’s and Nat 1’s critting only on attack rolls is my least favorite thing. For an example, I was in a fight where everyone had to make a constitution saving throw against like a DC 24. EVERYONE failed it, and it made us blind and deaf at the same time. So for a whole turn players were fumbling around trying to figure out what they could do, and the effect only ended when you saved, not even after a specific amount of time would it naturally end (and yes, spells could have ended it, too, but tell that to the cleric who has to use six whole rounds to remove the debuffs of six people). When someone did eventually get a Nat 20, the DM said it still failed because “Nat 20’s only succeed on attack rolls.” We had to take a huge pause in the game because we had to tell him that it was gonna be a TPK if even a Nat 20 didn’t save someone from the effect, and he was already targeting the cleric since he unblinded himself to be able to do something, so if our only source of ending the effect dies then we all just die. That’s why I hate that rule because it makes the game less fun. Obviously out of combat a Nat 20 shouldn’t warrant you whatever you want if you do something insane, but IN COMBAT let a Nat 20 do its thing and let you succeed.
so, your entire party neglected an important save stat, and thats the rules fault? nah mate. thats why parties are suposed to have varied skill sets and take precautions.
@ I’m saying it doesn’t make it *fun*. And sometimes parties DON’T do that, MATE. Tell me who’s supposed to be the CON Save person when you’ve got 2 Rogues, a Cleric, Ranger, Warlock, and Druid on a team. I would expect the DM to throw stuff were weak to, but not something that we’ll all instantly fail and not be able to do anything about it.
@@Zephyris101 lmfao, Ive been running tables longer then you have likely been alive, especially with your complete lack of understanding the *basic* rules. anyone with 6 months experience understand why crits dont work for skill checks or saves. You dont reward lazy/poor party comp.
Any rules variations that allow Pact of the Tome Warlocks to gain The Book of Ancient Secrets Eldritch Invocation at level 3 rather than level 5, mostly by some sort of home-brewed delay to choosing 2nd level Eldritch Invocations. This may sound a bit niche but in the games I’ve played it has come up every single time there is a Tome Warlock in the party so I’m assuming it’s not just a me problem. If anyone has ever played with a Tome Warlock you may have noticed that they behave like bower birds at a blue light disco collecting ritual spells as soon as they get the chance. For a caster with limited spell slots these ritual spells improve the utility and survivability of your character immensely. There are 11 x 1st level and 6x 2nd level ritual spells across all classes in the player’s handbook. There is a significant advantage to collecting as many of these as soon as possible. Part of the issue is the way the rules are written. BoAS specifies Pact of the Tome as the prerequisite but no minimum class level. Because many campaigns start at level 3 it is easy to choose your patron and pact boon, choose BoAS as one of your Eldritch Invocations because you meet the prerequisite and completely miss the rules as written order in which these features are acquired. A dip into Tome Warlock is already strong for a sorcerer, bard or paladin character. Allowing these characters to cast all the ritual spells is overpowered after just 3 levels.
that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story. If you cant do the thing, dont do the thing champ.
* (Healing Potions As A Bonus Action): Never made sense to me; like the video guy said, you can't chug a potion in less than 6 seconds while fighting / moving / being attacked. Unlike the video guy, I use the same logic for all of combat - no max healing if you drink a potion in combat. I do allow them to restore max health under certain circumstances though - namely, if you drink them during a rest (encourages more use of short rest). * (Spell Components): I track all of them! No whispering them, no hiding gestures, no ignoring material components. You want to ignore such things, you need to take the features for those. * (Nat 20 auto-success / Nat 1 auto-failure): I don't like auto-anything. Instead, I just have nat 20s / nat 1s affect the end result (a nat 20 means a better result than what you'd otherwise get, a nat 1 means a worse result). I have this apply to attack rolls as well.
12:03 Commenting so I can find this video again. I could put it in my "Watch Later" Playlist, but I'm claiming that because I want to make a comment. I was already Subscribed and have liked the video already as well. It's only 4 hours old at this time, allegedly, so maybe asking viewers to "Like" a video actually works after all!
When I DM, players must have paper and ink to get a map from me. Players learn real quick to actually make sure they have those. Same with note taking.
I was going to say it’s not subtly(or else subtly spell wouldn’t exist)obviously but you’re not screaming at the top of your lungs that everyone and their mother can hear.I would say as long as you’re 60ft away they can’t hear you unless they have pretty good perception.
@@Muchez14yep the context also matters in combat or if there is stuff going on it would be harder to make out, even in a tavern at night it might be quite noisy so you could probably get away with it if you are not right in your targets face
@Muchez14 subtle spell completely removes the need for components. If someone was looking at you they'd still see you move your hands and mouth. Unless your character is a professional ventriloquist.
"Nat 20 on everything is an auto success, nat 1 on everything is an auto failure." I don't use it because it's not true, it's never been true. Nat 20/nat 1 have only EVER worked that way for attack rolls and Saving rolls, not for skill checks or anything else. If you nat 1 a perception but the total roll still meets or exceeds, per the rules YOU STILL SUCCEED AT THE SKILL.
i really don't think it makes sens for the guards of a castle in a kingdom to be CR2 only, unless that's the most peaceful dnd setting of all time, or for a king to be the same as a commoner, especially not in a medieval setting, there is no way a king was not trained in some kind of fighting when he grew up, or magic, SOMETHING
The no potions as bonus action. They refer to chugging a potion, how big do they think a potion is?! The DMG p139 states that most potions are about one ounce, or roughly 30ml. That's essentially a shot. Someone could absolutely down a shot and do other things in the space of 6 seconds! Also, the idea of one being able to carry 1/4 of your weight. So a human character at say 180lbs can carry 45lbs as a max? That excluses them from most armours! Even something stripped down like studded armour and a sword is 15lbs, giving them 30lbs to play with?! Really?! A kobold at 30lbs can carry 7.5lbs, so they can't have armour at all, and even a weapon is really limiting them. That's a ridiculous rule to implement
0:36 it is RAW to not role if your player can't succeed even with a nat 20, if a nat 20 is not a success then you should just tell them that isn't possible to do...
That's fair. But a nat 1 being an automatic failure goes along with this. I agree with RAW on it. It's ridiculous that the strongest barbarian in the world has a 5 percent chance of not being able to kick a door down, while the weakest person in the world has a 5 percent chance to kick down _the same door._
I mean thats what RP is for. Say the 30 strength barb rolls a nat one he runs up to smash through the door and trips and for the weakest dude the door had weak hinges and him barley pushing it knocks it off. Its less of a fail or success and more of a luck or unlucky thing@J05TI
You can get beyond 20 without getting a nat 20 with various stat boosts though. Saying that a nat 20 isn't an automatic success isn't saying it's impossible.
@@J05TI if a nat 1 is enough to pass the check after adding up the mods then you don't roll either. That's like asking for a roll to open a door... No you just succeed
Potions come in vials. Vials hold 4 ounces of fluid. Volumetrically, this is roughly the same as drinking two mouthfuls. People can EASILY drink that in 2 seconds. Pretty sure this is why bonus action potions became RAW. Also, basic guards being level 1 or 2? Okay. But, tenured military positions with combat experience, and nobles who famously train for self defense, should have class levels. The Captain of the Guard should be stronger than his subordinates. The royal knights should be actually strong enough to defend the land against threats. Hell, even just a basic knight NPC has a CR of 3 each.
Not homebrew but variant is using grids (yes using grids is variant despite it being a staple at every table) I play online and make every map, putting unique objects or interactions in each map like a dropped key in the wishing fountain and whatnot. Grids hide a lot of details which sucks plus constant grids keep players in a combat turn by turn kind of mindset with their movements and whatnot. With it off, they interact far more with the environment and get more immersed
I do still turn on grid for combat tho, much easier than pulling out rulers. I do have it pretty opaque to just be noticeable tho in case players wanna huck someone off a ledge and the lines are obscuring it
0:45 Uh... the question is "a popular _homebrew_ rule that you *_DON'T_* use". And this entry is describing _a homebrew rule that their table have made up._ "PCs of warlock classes (cleric, druid, pre-5E paladin, etc) don't lose their class features" is not a homebrew rule, *_it's the RAW._* Neither of the two D&D 5E editions has any rules for warlock classes losing all their power and becoming a glorified muggle (although one feature in the 5.5E cleric can be lost in a similar way to the _wish_ spell, but that's *_one_* feature).
I just want to say I don't understand people talking about natural 20s succeeding and natural 1s failing outside of combat as a homebrew rule. When you call for a roll, a 1 on the die should definetly fail and a 20 on the die should definetly succeed. If a 20 on the die doesn't succeed, they never should have rolled in the first place because there was no chance of success, you should have just described them failing. The same thing goes for failing and nat 1s.
For me, a 20 means the best possible outcome, and the inverse for a nat 1. I'll let them know that it would be exceptionally difficult if not impossible, and if they try and steal someone's weapon that they're holding, a 20 means they didn't take it, but they also weren't caught.
@@pointlessconversations4493 if it's a mechanically determined DC, some PC may auto-succeed or auto-fail it while another may need to roll. Checking all your bonuses before determining whether you need to roll can be tedious
This presupposes that I know all my players' skill modifiers and miscellaneous bonuses. I have enough stuff to keep track of, I don't need to have a copy of 4-6 character sheets in my notes too.
thats not how the rules, or any respectable table works. and that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is equally absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story.
Just remember if every somatic is a dance and every verbal is a shout, casters cannot participate in stealth, meaning stealth is only for dex martials. And now you have 2 out of 5 players splitting off, now their dead, moving on
@@ShinAkuma2 if you want the equivalent of a commoner dragging down your stealth averages be my guest. Unless your playing bard, casters have spells to be useful, and if they cant cast, theyre a liability
@@blockhead134 so then the issue is that your casters aren't trained in stealth, not that they can't cast, right? Besides, spells like Invisibility, Silence, and Pass without Trace exist.
@ShinAkuma2 you are completely ignoring the issue. The point is that casters can't do the 1 thing they're supposed to do without putting the whole party at risk. There are other non stealth spells that people want to cast.
@@viennasavage9110 My archer can’t shoot arrows without giving away our position! Our knight can’t charge on horseback without breaking stealth! The barbarian wants to rage and intimidate without anyone seeing or hearing her! That’s what you sound like. If you want to be stealthy, stop doing loud, visible things.
For survival elements i say the game the long dark is a good one for dnd my campaigns i make is Dark souls Combat/E5 with the survival elements of The long dark very fun.
I have to agree on Criting (whether Success or fail) on ability checks being stupid. Logically, it makes no sense. An example I like to give appears In campaign 3 of critical role. FRIDA A Dex based fighter rolled a 23 on a DC 20 stealth check thanks to high dex, stealth proficiency, and pass without trace (a spell that per the description declaires that you cannot be tracked through non-magical means). But since he rolled a natural 1, he still failed. Why? He beat the DC. Simultaneously, this is often used against players. "Natural 20, for a total of?" Has been said on several occasions. It's a crap houserule that is stupidly flimsy.
clerics used to have to be within a step of their deities alignment or had to keep to the alignment they were aligned with in the never used ability in 3.5 for clerics to not be tied to a deity
Crit fumbles have always sucked, and they tend to destroy the feel of the game. Your high-level weapons expert has a 1/20 chance with EVERY attack that they will drop their weapon, injure themselves or an ally, or ruin the situation. Every single roll is a threat to the party, but also a threat to the seriousness of the game's theme. Every crit fumble table I've experienced mandates playing Yakety Sax during the game. At high volume so it's hard to talk or hear. Oh I'm sorry, you don't want that? Does it ruin the mood? Make it hard to play? THEN PUT AWAY THE DAMN CRIT FUMBLE TABLE! It makes the game worse, punishes players who participate and roll a lot, and is diametrically opposed to the balance and intentions of the rules.
I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story. Do you think the DM knows every skill bonus every player has all the time?!
Prove how magic is yelled Making a goku as a ref is bad. If you pay attention to DBZ he doesn't need to actually say it, just saying it makes it stronger
Crit fumbles - it's bad, it hurts martials more than any other class, and it not balanced at all. You fighter that doing 5 attack per turn has more chances to get nat 1 per turn, than lvl 1 fighter, or wizard who don't even do attacks, he does fireball. Also it looks stupid, that your 20-s level legendary fighter/monk/warlock with eldritch blast are throwing there weapons of their hands every turn and hitting their allies because they f*cking fortune intolerant more than others. Also, it takes a lot of time, especially if you are using tambles... Uuuh hate those. Nat 1 is just an automatic miss, and that's it and should remain so. No crit fumble homebrew.
Most homebrew rules are hit and miss with me. I usually can see merits to each one and they do tend to make stuff streamlined but some are just way to strong. I think the one I don't like is being able to use Bonus Action only things as an Action. This usually means the person is taking two Bonus Actions which can cause a lot of issues because some BAs can be pretty powerful. I know out of combat that isn't a problem because actions usually aren't tracked, so you can get away with a lot more. Just seems like having the limits of one action and one bonus action is the way the game is balanced.
People there seem so against "20 is automatic success and 1 is automatic failure" that they don't even notice they're making people roll when the result changes absolutely nothing. If 20 doesn't succeed and 1 doesn't fail then why are you even requesting a roll in the first place? Don't do that, it's dumb. You're making your game dumb.
that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is equally absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story. Only one making the game dumb is the guy that lacks any skill at a task insisting to attempt the task. The idea that someone with no skill at all will succeed 5% of the time regardless, is dumb, and you are dumb for thinking it makes sense.
why is this complicated for so many people here. The Dm isnt all knowing. I have only a rough idea of what your bonuses are.Lets say its a lock with a dc to pick of 30. Now I can either assume no one has the skill to pick it, and say 'no roll' and screw your rogue with a +12 mod, or I can let yall roll and tell you what happens depending on your total. Which would you prefer?
@@DellikkilleD yeah, he hits his 5% chance, he lucks into something. Maybe this is the SCRAP of arcane knowledge this barbarian has picked up over the years, or maybe he lucked into drawing a ritual circle correctly. Also who said anything about repeating the check over and over again?
Spell components are so important for flavour, its great, and depending on how into the story your players are can limit the use of strong spells while not eliminating them "no sir, we dont have sulfur, you'd have to travel to the city of ingrahesh to get THAT"
“We have very meaningful sessions and players have shed tears before” My, how humble. Toot your horn a little bit, Mr. DM, or the rocks might start singing your praises.
Health potions should be pre rolled before given to the players, and an inspect roll with medical knowledge should tell you how much it heals. I'd do this with health potion cards, write a number on the back to keep track of who has what potion, but I also recommend this: Sellers of health potions within easy trade distance for medical supplies, should give consistently near-best health potions, then you can USE that as a baseline for a quest
whispering spells should be fine. Not automatically unheard, but able to roll to do so quietly. The two saying it has to be loud I think are stupid. Also that DM with the 1 inch = 5ft, no grid.... so you just run an invisible grid, that guy is stupid.
What I've learned from this video is that lots of people don't understand the difference between homebrew rules and optional/variant rules.
Same, lol
"kingsguard is level 2 guards.... I like my setting to make sense" okay bro
If the kings guard, the best of the best, are level 2 then why hasn’t this kingdom been overtaken by another yet? Why is it that only after the party kills them do other kingdoms (whos top tiers are also level 2 btw) think about trying to overtake the land?
@eslin2845 yeah. Its actually a red flag in a DM whos baiting/preparing for that to happen
Technically level 1 adventurers are canonically extremely powerful people who could realistically take on threats to entire towns or villages in groups of about 4. So an army of CR 2 guards being able to defend the king isn't as unreasonable as it sounds at face value, a dragon isn't the threat the kingsguard is there to take care of, that's what adventurers are for
@@eslin2845 It hasn't been overtaken, because the neighbours' armies are of the same level distibution? If we are not speaking about various diplomatic agreeements and treaties, that the party breaks completely.
@@ViZet85 whats stopping a random evil wizard (cr3) recruiting few ogres to take over the kingdom then? Nah it doesnt make sense whatsoever and its literally a bait by a "fed up with murderhobos" DM.
go ahead, try to tell your gnome barbarian that he can only carry 20 pounds, ill wait.
Yeah, not basing carrying capacity off of strength is a crazy take.
And why would being obese help me lift more weight?
@aidanpalmer1075 by everything you do having more resistance to it. You burn more calories just standing up as an obese person than a thin person.
That said, there *is* a limit, and a fit person can definitely lift more than a couch potato, so basing it on strength *is* the way to go, but I think the PHB assumes your character is at least fit enough to be an adventurer, obese or not.
as a halfling rouge that is 30 pounds, carrying less than 10 pounds means that i get daggers and my shortsword and leather armor- oops, that's more than i can carry!
Goblin barbarians denied two-handed weapons from the Heavy trait moment. Just add a damn strength requirement!
for the verbal component on spells: while i agree that you cant whisper your spells, i dont believe you must be yelling them out. casting spells at normal speaking volume is more appropreate. i.e. the guy sitting 5 feet away from you can hear you fine but the guy in next room likely wont unless its dead quiet, the rooms echo, and paying attention.. most spells are said to be chanted, but theres no reason you cant chant at any volume. and im pretty sure theres no written rule on given volume, but they are supposed to be audible so having it at normal speaking volume as the minimum is fine. i hate it when people say "spells are loud".. like, dude.. a wizard learning new spells isnt going to be screaming at the top of his lungs in his study.. i mean, could you imagine what stryxhaven would sound like if that was the case? nah, look at harry potter. in the classrooms they just spoke the spells normally. thats more how it should be
I agree, but I also consider that the spell, even something like Detect Magic in the example, will cause some reaction to the environment (like a form of light, sound, or whatever), that will also make it clear that someone nearby is casting a spell, even if the caster didn't yell the verbal component.
Plus, allowing stealth-casting downplays the need of Subtle Spell, since that's the point of the feature. How I tend to do as a DM: If there's absolutely no sorcerers in my players' party, I may allow it along with a stealth check, but otherwise, I don't allow stealth-casting
I think it just needs to be loud enough for it to be heard and acknowledged at a dinner table
I've always ruled that for spells that aren't absurdly far-ranged, they're loud enough to be heard by anyone who would be affected.
I think spells that deal damage should be considered loud, but more utility-based spells could be cast along with a Stealth check to see if it's sufficiently silent. Adds a risk-reward factor that could result in the spell failing to go off and/or others noticing.
@@olahmundoAh, gotta love when everyone else has to have a restriction to make one single potential option on a single class feel valid.
'Monsters cant have class levels'. Sure it's easy to balance encounters when every creature is a cookie cutter, but by the end of the campaign a lot of go-to encounters are going to be dull or repetitive. However imagine how much more engaging a monster is to deal with when it has a couple class features ontop of its innate abilities; for example a zombie hoard with a few levels of barbarian, but they only rage while aware of something living, that'd make escort or stealth quests quite a bit more tense compared to their usual shambling obstacle nature.
that reminds me of a very violent webcomic, "goblinscomic", where a group of golbien got tired of being fodder for rookie adventurers and just DECIDED to have Class Levels.
so they actually became a Cleric, a Monk, a Barbarian and a fighter.
I usually do that by reflavoring some lower level npcs like guards as using the gladiator stat block for captains and bandit captain for the regular guards, or if they're group enemies typically, I'll give them pack tactics, town guards get battle master maneuvers as well. Just little bits that make them seem more competent and believable, but still not on par with the uber-party of nigh unkillable demi-gods.
Action economy is a bitch though, so zerg rushing the party is also a viable option. If you're surrounded it doesn't matter your AC when two or three attacks each from eight people are coming your way, eventually one beats it or crits.
Right? Why put such a weird limitation on yourself?
Warlocks *canonically* do not lose their abilities if they betray their patron, so that's not homebrerw.
Same for paladins, as they don't get power from their god anymore, they get power from their oath and the faith they have in it when they made it.
@@Nyghtking yup. and even then, oathbreaker exists
@@NyghtkingI’ll admit, for paladins that’s really dumb lol
@@alpharius2omegaboogaloo384Really? I think it’s way cooler than the god stuff. It means that a paladin who betrays their god for the sake of their oath is a possibility which is sick.
@@disc9632right but the oath is to a diety who supplies the power. And surely timeless gods are constant and can’t change their mind about what you should do?
Why would a human king not have class levels? If bandit or orc leaders can have CR, why not a king? One should assume royalty has access to the best education in the land.
The Castellan in Keep on the Borderlands had Fighter levels.
No levels for kings as a homebrew sounds like nonsense.
There are so many stories where we see a Prince train fighting styles under castle guards, it makes no sense that as soon as they become a king they lose it all. They might go rusty or never see an actual combat in their lives, but they at least have the basics of swinging a sword and using a shield.
And in a setting where Magic is rare but known, it only makes sense that a KING OF THE LAND has enough money and contacts to get a few for themselves for protection. Am I supposed to believe that they will buy jeweled necklaces for their queen, but won't get a Ring of Protection or Boots of Speed?
Exactly. Martial training for princes is a part of the necessary skill set to become king, at least in loosely medieval, European settings.
Kings and princes leading their troops on the battlefield is a trope so common it’s almost a default.
Level zero humans are known as “commoners” for a reason.
I think this is a counterpoint to the idea that a king or ruler should automatically be a major boss battle.
No, just because he's king doesn't mean he is automatically the highest level in the land. However, he should be trained as benefits the flavor and story.
To give examples from Game of Thrones,
Robert Baratheon would be a mid-level fighter with advanced age penalties. He legitimately won a duel against Rhaegar for the crown, but that was many years ago.
Joffery would be a level 1 fighter as he was trained as a knight but had no experience.
John Snow would be a high level paladin by the end.
However, Danerys would have classes only as a noble, as she had no combat training.
Kings don’t need to be a major boss battle. They probably should be more accomplished at something than a commoner.
The only thing I would disagree with is the final bit. In many cultures, it was traditional for Kings to be trained as knights or priests. You would make perfect sense for the king to be a low-level fighter, druid, or cleric.
While your average guard would be level 1 and 2, it makes perfect sense for them to have high level adventurers at their command.
No, the fight with the King should not be automatically a huge struggle for the party unless they are a living God or something, but there is no need to exaggerate the other direction either.
Exactly! And if sorcerers are granted magic by right of their arcane bloodline , kings kept power because they claimed that the gods gave there bloodline the divine right to rule ,,,, and divine soul sorcerers are a thing ,,, it would be pretty natural for the strongest divine soul sorcerer in the kingdom to be the king or queen.
Right but how often do you see a fantasy king who can’t hold a sword and kick arse?
Low-level is acceptable, but assumption that any royal is very powerful is quite frequent and completely wrong. And it is a correct thing to do, because a king's power is almost never in blade or spells - it is about being a king and having kingdom resources at your disposal.
6:20 You absolutely can put ten war hammers in a backpack. What are you smoking? Packs are not that small and war hammers are not that big! This DM has clearly never gone camping and only thinks about medieval weapons in video game and hollywood form where warhammers are basically an anvil on a stick. A real warhammer is quite small, arguably smaller than a camp axe but certainly comparable in size to one.
Sure that would basically fill a modern day school kid's backpack, but you'd still be able to do it. And if it's a proper rucksack as any modern hiker, soldier, or ancient adventurer would have, you could fit those ten hammers in there along with a sleeping bag, tent, a few packed rations, and a fucking inflatable life raft. Would it be heavy? Not really! 10 warhammers, assuming average weight, would be about 18 - 22 pounds. I carry more than that in a grocery bag every time I go shopping.
A war hammer is a pole arm. About as long as an adult human is tall.
There may or may not be a mass/encumbrance issue.
There will definitely be a physics/balance problem if you try to put six in a backpack.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm Not all war hammers are pole arms. There are plenty of historical examples of 2-3 foot war hammers. Not saying that storing and handling a bunch of 30 inch weirdly balanced sticks wouldn't be awkward, but you could easily stuff a bunch in a large backpack.
Short handled, one handed, bludgeoning weapons are generally categorised as maces.
critical fumble tables unfairly punish martials who roll multiple times a round where a caster can take spells that dont even have rolls
To the first guy not ignoring spell components, I don’t either as a player and it’s super fun and makes you think of creative solutions! I had a sorcerer in one game and we were kidnapped, locked in a cave, and had all our equipment taken. After we freed ourselves, I scrounged for components, most notably, bat guano. DM thought I went made saying “I look for bat crap on the walls”, he gave me a nature check to find some, and BAM I could cast fireball again :)) DMs make the world and think of out of the box scenarios for players, players should put the same effort with out of the box solutions
It's kinda dumb to lock spells behind components though cause depending on the setting, you can just not get to use any spells you have or wait forever depending on the type of component.
Having your carry weight be tied ONLY to your body weight is BULLSHIT
I’m actually tilted about that one
Now, having your carry weight START there and go up or down based on your STR score, I’m ok with
But if you’re gonna sit there and tell me the gnome with 20str can’t outlift the human with 8 STR, you’re out of your god damn mind
Wasn’t expecting a monopoly house rule to be mentioned.
6:07 This is a horrible rule for small races. A kobold weight is on average 25-35 punds. The 1/4 rule would make a kobold unable to wear common clothes and have an empty backpack as those 2 items are 3 and 5 pounds respectively. At 35 pounds the quarter weight is 8.75 and i don't know many tables that round up.
Well since Kobolds are 1/4th the size, their clothes are 1/4th the weight, makes sense to me
I do spell whispering simply because i grew up watching "The Sword in the Stone" from Disney. In it Merlin would whisper spells so it just made sense to me years later.
I really wasn't a fan of most of the spellcasting answers, but especially this one. It really feels like the guy is trying to force his opinion to become a fact on that one, especially once he mentioned BG3, a video game which altho based on 5e doesn't always follow the rules as written.
BG3 is not a DnD rulebook, it's made by people who were reading the DnD rulebook in order to make decisions for their own game and therefore is entirely based on their subjective interpretation much like any tabletop DnD campaign. Looking at BG3 like it's an example of what the rulebook intended is like looking at a drawing of a bird and saying "yeah that's what a bird is supposed to be!" The drawing is an artistic interpretation of a bird, not a bird. BG3 is an interpretation of DnD, it is not DnD.
I guess these people have not yet read the new rules where drinking potions as a bonus action is the default rule, not a house rule.
Or they're still running the 2014 version of 5e instead of 2024
Who’s buying the books?
@@duck_entertainment Plenty of people. A lot of the changes are really good
Well that's another reason not to use that shit.
@@duck_entertainmentits mostly free rn
Basically anything which is argued for by saying "bUt CrItIcAl RoLe DoEs It" or "bUt It'S mOrE rEaLiStIc"
something tells me, despite how good it is, "bUt BaUlDuR's GaTe 3 DoEs It!" is next
All 3 of those can have good things and can have bad things. Critical thinking is vital, and, what's more important, what's fun for you and your table.
People that change rules based on realism to the detriment of specific classes (martials, it’s always the martials who get screwed over) never think about that a level 1 wizard with a tiny dagger can stop the freaking Tarrasque from moving by poking it slightly as it moves past if they have the Sentinel feat.
@MayHugger how do you have a sentinel feat on level one?
@@SunbleachedAngelvariant human
Let players choose how they fail instead of crit fails (for skill checks) is one I've been doing instead. "nat 1? How do you want to ASTRONOMICALLY fail that stealth check?"
It leads to HILARIOUS fail upwards moments. "Well I heard you could put black beans in a lot of different things to add nutrients into them without impacting flavor. I tried that with breakfast. It has now backfired louder than our cleric's car when they pulled into the driveway."
0:58 for clerics, Druids, and warlocks that makes some sense but paladins just either get a new subclass or can renegotiate their oath because paladins don’t get power from a god but from an oath they give themselves (basically a jjk binding vow)
Its also lore that warlocks patrons give up a part of their power permanently to the warlocks. They cannot revoke that power, but they could deny giving more.
@ what if a warlock got the starter bundle from each patron
Druids don’t get power from an entity either. That’s what makes them not just “the other cleric”
oh, i just remembered that old game "Dungeon Siege".
in THAT game, it was possible to drink PART of a potion, and same the rest for later, and that happened automatically!
AND you could combine several partly-full potions to conserve inventory space!
als, "coin weight" reminds me of several old D&D PC games by SSI, where it was worthwhile to go to a store and make change, converting your copper coins into silver, and so on.
I just played some DS2 today. Partially drinking potions is a wonderfully convenient feature. I haven't yet played another game that scratches the same itch.
I don't play DS1 but combining Potion isn't in DS2.
You could really only drink part of a potion. They're about 30ml of liquid (an ounce per the DMG) so you'd struggle to do much past just down the whole thing
I don't understand why people are so against letting players attempt to do their spells quietly. Just let them roll for it! Subtle Spell is automatic. There's no risk. So no, it's not invalidated if you let your players roll to be sneaky casting a spell. They're taking a risk of losing a spell slot or getting caught. Especially if it's a difficult check. Maybe they'll get tired of failing their spells and look forward to takeing that feat. Or maybe they'll succeed every now and then and make cool moments.
D&D is a game of taking risks. That's the whole point. If they're asking to do something that's a bit against the rules as written just make it a difficult role with penalties for failure and let them decide if it's worth it. And remember, if there's a feat in the book for what they're trying to do, those feats are automatic. They are not made useless by letting a player do something similar with a chance of failure attached.
Its hilarious that half of these are just DMs who don't even know the rules... Finding a good DM is truly a miracle, because most of them are like the ones in this vid.
Honestly I feel like most rules lawyer DMs just miss the point of playing DnD entirely. A good DM follows the rules and doesn't homebrew in something just to make it faster or easier, but rather because it makes better sense for the type of campaign they're trying to run or makes more sense to the story. The rules DO also dictate story beats, and they're restrictive on roleplay because there's stuff you simply can't do because rules prevent it. So if there's certain types of moments you want to open up, you have to alter some of the rules.
Some of the rules are also just not that fun, I personally don't like forcing all spells to have components because it's really just not fun to have to keep track of components and definitely not fun to be useless when I run out of those components and just have to say "sorry guys I don't have a handful of bat shit can't cast fireball even tho I have the spell slot to do it". The game at its core is about having fun, and as a DM your job is also creating fun not just enforcing rules.
TL;DR there are a lot of good reasons to enforce a rule as it's written, but doing it just because you think the way others play their game is dumb just isn't good enough for me.
So with the potion, I do something similar at my table. You can drink a potion as a bonus action, however because you are chugging it super fast, I flavor it as it spilling and you have to roll to see how much you would actually get. But if you drink it as an action, you are taking your time to actually drink it and thus you get maximum healing. It’s worked pretty well at my table.
1:09 -1:20 Unfortunately for you, the official rules have changed to mirror the Homebrew rules
0:45 - ...There are seriously people who think that players _shouldn't_ lose their granted powers as punishment for defying the higher being that grants them those powers?
Yes because it’s taking player choice (ignore that the subclass and their actions were both player choice)
The problem is that it just doesn't work in D&D, because there you are defined by your special class abilities. I actually had something like that happen to me in The Dark Eye, but that one is a skill-based system where you don't get completely crippled if you lose your special powers, unlike D&D.
That doesn't mean it can't be done entirely. In earlier editions, Paladins, who fall from grace, would become fighters. 5e even suggests a class change as one of the possible consequences for breaking your oath. But just taking away class powers is too punishing in this system. Depending on the character, they could become practically useless.
While it makes for interesting plotlines, if it takes away all your class abilities right before a fight you're almost certainly toast.
That's what the Oathbreaker subclass is for.
Except that Oathbreaker is not a nerf and, in many ways, is an upgrade from most of the other Paladin sub-classes especially at levels 1-6.
Warlocks shouldn't lose their powers on betraying their patron, since their whole schtick is that they made a bargain for eldritch knowledge.
Once they know that knowledge, they can't take it back, but they shouldn't get more secrets without groveling if they stab their patron in the back
Flanking. It gives advantage too easily. Characters should have to obtain it through other methods which aren't virtually free. In the same vein, you can't take the help action in my game out of initiative unless you can describe how you're helping in a way that directly assists the recipient's personal ability to complete the task. Example, giving a boost over a wall counts, but helping someone look for something by also searching is just you making your own check. In combat though, if you want to use your action to give someone advantage, go for it. Since you have to make an actual decision and deal with actual consequences, it's fine there. But I'm not going to always give you free advantage on every ability check out of combat just for not splitting the party, and the same goes for in-combat for just positioning like a not-dummy without the use of action economy
Well, adv on flanking makes sense. Each round takes 6 seconds in-game, so imagine having to block/dodge/parry two people attacking you from opposite sides at the same time within 6 seconds.
Flanking isn't homebrew, it is a built in optional rule.
@@OrtegaSauce I can see the logic of it, I just don't like it from a game balance stand point
@@sandgbroschvany1818 fair enough, on a technically you're right
Less homebrew and more variant rule, but I’ve recently stopped rocking Flanking at our table. It just made getting advantage in combat too easy and nullified actions and class/subclass features. I’ve also found that it’s made combat harder as the PCs inherently hit less often, making things over all more fun!
Try blocking attacks from two people at opposite sides of you and you'll understand why they deserve adv
@OrtegaSauce DnD and realism don't really go hand in hand.
Just make advantage a static bonus if you really wanna keep it
@@OrtegaSauce not criticising the flanking rule and how WOTC implemented it. We’ve just found that games and combat are more enjoyable without constantly having to optimise your position and allows for features like reckless attack, the help action, and the kobolds pack tactics, really shine and feel good.
A house rule I've heard as an alternative to advantage is to give a +2 bonus on the attack roll. Rewards you for your positioning while giving things like pack tactics or reckless attack a chance to shine.
@Mrgramzo96 that makes sense, too
I personally prefer the arcane focus variant rule because neither I nor my party enjoy keeping track of too much inventory. If ran properly, the focus negates the requirement for a material component- and that’s the key idea. Should something happen to the PC(s) focus/foci, they’ll have to perform the spell the old fashioned way by scrounging up material components. It’s great to keep in mind should the party, or at least a member, get imprisoned.
Hearing about these mostly horrid tables makes me glad for my small group
Potions as a bonus action. Crit fumbles.
What kind of shit games have you been playing where crit fumbles are "Popular?"
A slightly harsh assessment. Not as uncommon as you might think.
Sadly critical role does it so people think it is an official rule @Czarro672
The barbarian has 12 gold. The rogue takes half that gold. What does the rogue take?
Antibiotics and painkillers after the Barbarian finds out.
1d12 slashing damage
Death saves
I'm pretty sure that permanent injuries are not a popular homebrew rule. Sure there are some who do this but I haven't seen it much and I doubt it's much more popular than I think. 5e players tend to hate real adversity to begin with, so it's hard to imagine that such a harsh rule would be tolerated by a significant number of them.
What is popular is bonus action healing potions and I don't like it (even though the group where I'm a player uses it). I can be convinced to buff the effect that half the HP regained is the minimum you can get back from them, but I still insist on an action to take it.
I have mixed feelings about weight. On one hand, I want to use it, but on the other, it's just too much of a pain to do so normally. Tracking individual weight of everything and having to think of the weight of items that aren't conveniently listed in the books. I think an abstract system, like in Ryuutama and Pathfinder 2e would be much more practical. If I ever GM 5e again (or even other editions), I might take the latter for it.
Also, as someone pointed out, I'm pretty sure that you don't have to yell your magic spells out loud. Just speaking normally is enough (and already pretty loud when you have to quiet).
And of course, there's again plenty of "on my table, we always roll dice, even if there's only possible outcome"... sigh.
-permanent injuries are part of some other systems and when integrated from the very beginning (and as long as they are fair, working for both sides) they can make a system feel dangerous and tactical approaches more meaningful
given, many systems have magical or surgical ways to reverse those "permanent" injuries, making it more about cost and access to resources but still, depending on the setting and the level of danger the group wants I can totally see this
-when it comes to Potions, I personally would change it slightly: a Quick Action for half the healing and a following Quick Action for the other half. doing anything inbetween makes you waste the second half. you can move and use Standard Action before the first and after the second Quick Actions all the same, but those two have to be back to back to be done fully. Enemy attacks you inbetween? sorry, had to defend yourself and the Potion fell or got knocked out of your hand. don't wanna deal with this? drink it normally with your standard action then
-Encumberance is always a slowdown, making Inventory management harder and is a pretty polarizing topic with many groups I encountered over the years. personally I am for it because realism can make it feel more immersive, but I totally get why people hate it and streamline it away
In all honestly without it being a bonus action, healing potions are basically just not a feature of the game. At most levels the types of potions that can be afforded are just not particularly useful.
As a response to the 20s or 1s not critical resulting, a DM can make the rolls add flavor to the action, like bypassing a trap trigger while keeping it armed, speaking so well not only does the guard let them pass he actually likes them and is a future ally (or speak so horribly they make an enemy possibly), etc. OR just add/subtract extra to the roll, like a free +/- 5 or 10, just to show how lucky or cursed the attempt was.
Heavy criticals and critical fumbles.
I know they are popular from a story point of view, but just from a game design point of view they make the game worse by making extremes more extreme.
My table tried the penalty for going unconscious as a means of upping the stakes and incentivising early healing, but all it served to do was kneecap the tanks. We revoked it pretty quickly.
I believe RAW only paladins lose powers if they fail the source of their power, and it's is their oath, not their god. For warlocks it's exactly a popular house rule, and for druids I'm not sure if it's even a popular one
To clarify, I'm not saying that it's wrong way to rule it, but it's not "fallowing RAW over doing it the way that is popular in community" but quite opposite
Yeah, Rules as Written Paladins are the only one who can mechanically lose their power. Warlocks learn things, they're not on a constant Wifi connection. What the patron has already given them is theirs. Druids on the other hand I feel like they *should* lose their powers if they go out of their way to destroy nature, but this isn't mechanically represented.
@@K4rm4ttack Warlock should get some nasty curses and be on some supernatural hit list, but patrons aren't gods and they can't keep 24h personal tabs on you.
(yours familiars can, other tokens make easy to scry on you)
Oaths are sweared in name of something as witness/guarantor, even irl kingdoms were backed on divine authority. (this power need some source)
We use a homebrew(I invented it) that drinking small potion requires only a bonus action, and anything bigger requires either drinking it with an action or trying to drink it with bonus action and making Con saving throw to not choke and lose both your action, bonus action and get a incomplete effect of a potion
Ok this is a weird one because it's still not used very much in the game but alignment matters. I feel most tables ignore alignment and it's understandable when you consider restrictions in previous edition (IE Paladins must be lawful good). While I don't feel those restrictions are right, alignment should still matter for one simple reason and that is the state of one's soul. Unlike the real world the afterlife in D&D isn't just theoretical it's an actual place that can be visited and gods are beings whose blessings or curses have real tangible effects on the world. So while I don't hold players to a specific alignment (IE you don't have to be LG ALL the time) people and even the gods will start to take notice and if you keep acting chaotic you will get a reputation for being chaotic even if you think you are lawful. And should your character reach the pearly gates and die in a campaign, you will have to have a long discussion with the powers of the outer planes of where your soul is going to end up.
At our table, if someone rolls a nat 1, they have to roll again to see if anything happens. Pretty much on a 6 or higher they’re fine. 2-5 maybe you drop your weapon, and really only on another nat 1 does anything bad happen. Adds stakes, but most of the time nothing even happens.
I haven’t dm’d much, but I did do a holiday one-shot for Christmas. One of the opponents I rolled for rolled a Nat 1. One of the players (who I play with at the other table so he knows this rule) asked if anything happened. Rolled again to see if anything did, and rolled another 1. In the spirit of the game, I described how this animated oven got so hot that it melted its door closed, causing it to not be able to attack again. It was fun, and it honored the very unlikely chance of rolling two natural 1s in a row lol.
Crit success on skill checks and saves are not raw and are ignored at my table
you have a shit table
That sounds... Really pointless and arbitrary. I get not having crits be an automatic success (They're supposed to be the best PLAUSIBLE outcome) but having them do nothing kind of defeats the whole point. And just out of curiosity, do you also ignore critical fails?
@@Czarro672 yes. If you pass the DC then you succeed. Even if you roll a 1. If you allow crit success on skills and saves you devalue the commitment a player makes to building a character that has a spell DC higher than their enemies' possible save. Why negate that by giving a get out of jail free card to their enemies?
If the players don't prepare themselves properly to face a formidable enemy, why give them a way to ignore those consequences?
@@Holytoaster that's a matter of opinion, and my group disagrees with you.
@@stevengrass6800The whole point of rolling dice is to add luck. It's not "Devaluing" anything, because you can always Crit Fail just as you can always Crit Success.
I've got a few:
1. Rolled stats. I know this isn't entirely homebrew but there's so many homebrew versions that I think I can talk about it here. More often than not, I find rolled stats to be rather punishing especially with how sparse ASIs normally are. More importantly, it creates very unnecessary disparities between party members and can heavily limit what a player will choose depending on their luck. I know I can have my players just reroll until they get decent stuff, but that just takes a lot of time, will still leave disparities, and kind of defeats the point of having rolled stats. I personally use a slightly buffed standard array.
2. No auto-success or fails on 20s and 1s outside attack rolls. I find this to undermine both player and enemy/NPC competence in an unfun way. For the most part, if a nat 20 doesnt cut it I won't ask for a roll. However, I might occasionally ask for one with the disclaimer that it's impossible to succeed to see how well they do i.e does the king take the offer as a joke or insult.
3. Not handwaving spell components. I won't be as harsh to say you alert everyone in a five mile radius, but it's gonna pretty obvious to anyone who can see or hear you that you are casting a spell. I even go an extra step to say casting while deafened or restrained makes verbal or somatic components respectively more difficult to perform (must make spellcasting ability check before the spell goes through, DC is based on the level of the spell).
I use a standard action for potions. However, I also allow the players to purchase, for 500 gp, a bandolier they can place 5 potions in that they can drink as a bonus action. I then have them write down which potions are in the bandolier, because that's actually fair.
Edit: I also use a backpack sheet. Having players show me on the sheet where everything goes on the backpack helps stop people being packmules.
I have a Homebrew I'm going to try soon that will attempt to bridge the gap between the two ways people see natural 20's outside of combat. I called them Fate Breaker dice. (Technically they're coin flips but I'm going to use D6's rolling for odd/even).
So, with Fate Breaker dice, skill checks outside of combat are still not automatic successes. However, the DM will define a value above 20 for the check. Like, 25 if it's something you're really not supposed to be able to do, or 30 for something that's genuinely rule breaking. If you roll a natural 20 for a skill check outside of combat but still don't succeed, even with your modifiers, you can roll Fate Breaker dice which will add points to your check. Every even that you roll will add one point to your check. But if any one of them are odd you fail. The DM can have the player roll them one at a time if they don't want them to know how difficult the check actually is, or if you want it to be way more difficult then you can only give them one fate roll, and it's up to them to gamble on how many Fate dice they want to try.
Lore wise, I will probably just explain it as a God stepping in and making the action a reality. Could make for some fun story elements. If the character isn't religious then it could be some nosy trickster type God who is taking a liking to them.
I understand both sides of the argument. Player shouldn't be able to brute force their way around the rules, but it is really fun when wacky things you can't really explain happen. Hopefully Fate Breaker dice can satisfy both opinions.
“You can’t materialize objects as any class”
see the ULTRA LOUD MAGIC thing is just stupid and boring and basically forces players to play blaster mages. because no ones going to play a mind mage who tries to sneakily cast charms and illusions because no guard is going to be fooled into the following the the half naked catfolk away from his post if he just heard the crazy man down the street screaming his head off and filling the night with bright flashing lights 12 seconds before.
seriously what do people have against the quiet caster? yeah, maybe they cant cast boom boom spells softly but not every spell needs to be screamed into a megaphone for it to work. gandalf, radagast, harry potter, merlin, harry dresden, howl, allanon, all these super power wizards have cast quietly before. its not that hard to do, hell even just have them roll a stealth check against passive perception to see if anyone notices and youll see an uptick in clever casters now that they dont have to scream I AM CASTING A SPELL, I, THE GUY STANDING AROUND THE CORNER AM CURRENTLY CASTING A SPELL THAT DOES A THING, I HOPE NO ONE NOTICES I AM CASTING A SPELL OR MOST OF ITS EFFECT WILL BE RUINED.
I think switching weapons should be a bonus action if an enemy is within 5 ft of you. Free action if further unless it’s in a container.
Flanking cheapens advantage to the point that it’s not even worth being creative trying to get it any other way and that’s really unfun . Also it makes reckless attack useless
+2 bonus flanking is infinitely better than the official variant rule. especially if you apply it to enemies too. Like sure you can seek to flank something tanky you’re struggling hit, but you’d better hope you don’t get caught between him and his friend
TIL a bunch of homebrew rules are popular:
- Ignoring spell components
- critical fumble rules
- Not losing power when a paladin acts against their oath.
- Ignoring weight entirely
- The 1/4 your body weight thing (Shouldn't STR change the fraction?)
- Tracking ammo
- Tracking travel
Str should absolutely change your carry weight
100%
I homebrew spell radius percentages based on volume ( if loud, the radius is as written, with room level being 50% radius, and quiet being 25%)
I’m pretty sure there’s a rule regarding verbal spell components that says you have to cast the spell in a normal speaking voice
What’s that like as far as mechanics go?
Well, that’s for the DM to decide, and how far that can be heard can vary based on background noise
A big open smithing floor with forges billowing and hammers hitting anvils galore is going to have a normal speaking voice inaudible than an open field in the middle of the night
1:13 i don't know if it's even codified in 5th Edition, but in the 3e and 3.5 era, the DMG spelled out explicitly that a potion is 1 fluid ounce (that's an eighth of a cup, or 2 tablespoons). It's more than a single normal swallow for most people, perhaps, but it's hardly the same as "chugging a drink."
Also, for many of these: I'm not entirely clear on the 5th Edition RAW, but in the days of the best D&D rule set, natural 20 always succeeded and natural 1 always failed on attack rolls and saving throws, but for skill checks and other ability checks, never. It was entirely reasonable to use a skill and not have to roll, if the DC of the check is no higher than 1 less than the character's total modifier.
I have a rule that actually does incentivise people to care about knock outs without punishing them in the fight that it happens in.
Because if its aplied in combat it hits the people most vulnerable to debuffs most . Martials. Disadvantage on all attacks is SUCH A COMMON condition and makes any fighter or similar half as effective.
The rule itself is that anybody that suffers 2 failed death saves needs to make a dc 15 con save. Sometimes multiple ones are made.
A total of 9 or below leads to a -2 to everything that involves a d20. including DCs. (My games exhaustion 2 levels of it in this case, keeps it fair against casters too)
a total between 10 and 14 has you suffer a -1 .
a success leads to no penealty.
It means that the party is incentivised heavyly to keep people healthy enought that they dont drop unconcious while the enemy has still leftover attacks.
I tend to not split multiattacks below 3 attacks so it happens that i send a single attack at a freshly downed party member pretty regularly.
As such fights where the party nearly lost someone are leaving semi permanent marks on them requiring them to have downtime to recover from such instances.
Keeps the party members way more human IMO.
A retreat and retry are way more common then blind barb style gameplay of running in despite the party being very clearly not in a place to continue fighting.
How I conceptualize Warlocks is that they sell their soul, so basically whatever power they currently have, it’s theirs, and can’t be taken from them, however the patron can stop granting powers, and the warlock basically needs to Multiclass in order to progress leveling
Also, with Druids, i don’t think it’s that nature grants them power like a patron or deity, but rather Druids harness magic like sorcerers and wizards harness the arcane weave. I headcanon it that if low-ish level Druid’s land gets razed, they may lose some of their powers, but high-level Druids cultivate their own home for their magical natural prowess that resides in them, and therefore that cultivation can sprout out of them
Paladins do canonically have Oathbreaker, but I also headcanon that a Paladin switching oaths can happen (like from vengeance to redemption, or from the crown to conquest) because having a one-size-fits-all “you broke your tenants” paladin subclass is kinda arbitrary, because not all Oathbreaker are the same
Honestly the concern with cleric is the most agreeable. There really is no “Oathbreaker” equivalent for cleric, and all of their power is borrowed, like a paladin’s, so it kinda leaves the cleric to, theoretically, do whatever they want, and even go against their tenants
I really want to play with the system described at 8:09
The problem with the spell stuff is in BG3 they will say spells quieter if you're sneaking. Goku has shot Kamehameha out of his feet with no hand movements. And Gohan did the ssem thing with one arm, no movement, and did it quietly. I. Not saying spells should be whispered, but they aren't shouted either. With charm spells, the verbal tends to be whatever you're saying. You don't castna spell and then talk.
Critical success/failures on attack only; Skill checks only get critical failures since a 1 on a lockpicking means you could break your lockpicks or a 1 on a CHA means you fart loudly while talking. But such things only happen on a failed check. Ie, if you role a 1 on Stealth but still pass the check with your modifiers, then you pass while if you don't pass with your modifiers you trip and people notice.
Health Potions; I change their nature. Their not potions, their more like gummies. You pop one in and get Temp HP rather then literal HP back. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense that you can throat a bottle and large holes in your body close. But to discourage rampant HP gummy doping during combat, stronger gummies may cause levels of exhaustion if too many are used in a short amount of time.
Enforcing encumbrance; Not only do I enforce item weights but I also don't give out Bags of Holding, like at all. The industrious players end up making the smart choice to buy a wagon and places to store things. Making players think about all the crap they're hauling around is a good thing.
The one comment about Nat 20’s and Nat 1’s critting only on attack rolls is my least favorite thing.
For an example, I was in a fight where everyone had to make a constitution saving throw against like a DC 24. EVERYONE failed it, and it made us blind and deaf at the same time. So for a whole turn players were fumbling around trying to figure out what they could do, and the effect only ended when you saved, not even after a specific amount of time would it naturally end (and yes, spells could have ended it, too, but tell that to the cleric who has to use six whole rounds to remove the debuffs of six people). When someone did eventually get a Nat 20, the DM said it still failed because “Nat 20’s only succeed on attack rolls.” We had to take a huge pause in the game because we had to tell him that it was gonna be a TPK if even a Nat 20 didn’t save someone from the effect, and he was already targeting the cleric since he unblinded himself to be able to do something, so if our only source of ending the effect dies then we all just die.
That’s why I hate that rule because it makes the game less fun. Obviously out of combat a Nat 20 shouldn’t warrant you whatever you want if you do something insane, but IN COMBAT let a Nat 20 do its thing and let you succeed.
so, your entire party neglected an important save stat, and thats the rules fault? nah mate. thats why parties are suposed to have varied skill sets and take precautions.
@ I’m saying it doesn’t make it *fun*. And sometimes parties DON’T do that, MATE. Tell me who’s supposed to be the CON Save person when you’ve got 2 Rogues, a Cleric, Ranger, Warlock, and Druid on a team. I would expect the DM to throw stuff were weak to, but not something that we’ll all instantly fail and not be able to do anything about it.
@@Zephyris101 so.. your team made a bad group, but expects it to just all work out for them.. lmfao
@ A better group than whatever you probably don’t have, though. 😂
@@Zephyris101 lmfao, Ive been running tables longer then you have likely been alive, especially with your complete lack of understanding the *basic* rules. anyone with 6 months experience understand why crits dont work for skill checks or saves. You dont reward lazy/poor party comp.
Any rules variations that allow Pact of the Tome Warlocks to gain The Book of Ancient Secrets Eldritch Invocation at level 3 rather than level 5, mostly by some sort of home-brewed delay to choosing 2nd level Eldritch Invocations.
This may sound a bit niche but in the games I’ve played it has come up every single time there is a Tome Warlock in the party so I’m assuming it’s not just a me problem.
If anyone has ever played with a Tome Warlock you may have noticed that they behave like bower birds at a blue light disco collecting ritual spells as soon as they get the chance. For a caster with limited spell slots these ritual spells improve the utility and survivability of your character immensely. There are 11 x 1st level and 6x 2nd level ritual spells across all classes in the player’s handbook. There is a significant advantage to collecting as many of these as soon as possible.
Part of the issue is the way the rules are written. BoAS specifies Pact of the Tome as the prerequisite but no minimum class level. Because many campaigns start at level 3 it is easy to choose your patron and pact boon, choose BoAS as one of your Eldritch Invocations because you meet the prerequisite and completely miss the rules as written order in which these features are acquired.
A dip into Tome Warlock is already strong for a sorcerer, bard or paladin character. Allowing these characters to cast all the ritual spells is overpowered after just 3 levels.
If a nat 20 cant succeed dont call for the roll
that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story.
If you cant do the thing, dont do the thing champ.
* (Healing Potions As A Bonus Action): Never made sense to me; like the video guy said, you can't chug a potion in less than 6 seconds while fighting / moving / being attacked. Unlike the video guy, I use the same logic for all of combat - no max healing if you drink a potion in combat. I do allow them to restore max health under certain circumstances though - namely, if you drink them during a rest (encourages more use of short rest).
* (Spell Components): I track all of them! No whispering them, no hiding gestures, no ignoring material components. You want to ignore such things, you need to take the features for those.
* (Nat 20 auto-success / Nat 1 auto-failure): I don't like auto-anything. Instead, I just have nat 20s / nat 1s affect the end result (a nat 20 means a better result than what you'd otherwise get, a nat 1 means a worse result). I have this apply to attack rolls as well.
12:03 Commenting so I can find this video again. I could put it in my "Watch Later" Playlist, but I'm claiming that because I want to make a comment.
I was already Subscribed and have liked the video already as well. It's only 4 hours old at this time, allegedly, so maybe asking viewers to "Like" a video actually works after all!
On enemies hearing verbal components, do you have to shout them or can you quietly whisper them to reduce your chance of being heard?
Someone else said it should be a normal speaking voice.
When I DM, players must have paper and ink to get a map from me.
Players learn real quick to actually make sure they have those.
Same with note taking.
0:18 waaait 😂
The rules say verbal components should be spoken in a normal speaking voice who looks dumb now?
I was going to say it’s not subtly(or else subtly spell wouldn’t exist)obviously but you’re not screaming at the top of your lungs that everyone and their mother can hear.I would say as long as you’re 60ft away they can’t hear you unless they have pretty good perception.
Out to 60 feet, sooooo not super far away
@@Muchez14yep the context also matters in combat or if there is stuff going on it would be harder to make out, even in a tavern at night it might be quite noisy so you could probably get away with it if you are not right in your targets face
@Muchez14 subtle spell completely removes the need for components. If someone was looking at you they'd still see you move your hands and mouth. Unless your character is a professional ventriloquist.
"Nat 20 on everything is an auto success, nat 1 on everything is an auto failure." I don't use it because it's not true, it's never been true. Nat 20/nat 1 have only EVER worked that way for attack rolls and Saving rolls, not for skill checks or anything else. If you nat 1 a perception but the total roll still meets or exceeds, per the rules YOU STILL SUCCEED AT THE SKILL.
It's not an auto-fail or auto-success, it's the best/worst _plausible_ outcome.
i really don't think it makes sens for the guards of a castle in a kingdom to be CR2 only, unless that's the most peaceful dnd setting of all time, or for a king to be the same as a commoner, especially not in a medieval setting, there is no way a king was not trained in some kind of fighting when he grew up, or magic, SOMETHING
I personally love crit fail. Roll a 1 on an arrow shot and you hit person you’re trying to save is hilarious.
The no potions as bonus action. They refer to chugging a potion, how big do they think a potion is?! The DMG p139 states that most potions are about one ounce, or roughly 30ml. That's essentially a shot. Someone could absolutely down a shot and do other things in the space of 6 seconds!
Also, the idea of one being able to carry 1/4 of your weight. So a human character at say 180lbs can carry 45lbs as a max? That excluses them from most armours! Even something stripped down like studded armour and a sword is 15lbs, giving them 30lbs to play with?! Really?! A kobold at 30lbs can carry 7.5lbs, so they can't have armour at all, and even a weapon is really limiting them. That's a ridiculous rule to implement
0:36 it is RAW to not role if your player can't succeed even with a nat 20, if a nat 20 is not a success then you should just tell them that isn't possible to do...
That's fair. But a nat 1 being an automatic failure goes along with this. I agree with RAW on it. It's ridiculous that the strongest barbarian in the world has a 5 percent chance of not being able to kick a door down, while the weakest person in the world has a 5 percent chance to kick down _the same door._
I mean thats what RP is for. Say the 30 strength barb rolls a nat one he runs up to smash through the door and trips and for the weakest dude the door had weak hinges and him barley pushing it knocks it off. Its less of a fail or success and more of a luck or unlucky thing@J05TI
You can get beyond 20 without getting a nat 20 with various stat boosts though. Saying that a nat 20 isn't an automatic success isn't saying it's impossible.
@@J05TI if a nat 1 is enough to pass the check after adding up the mods then you don't roll either. That's like asking for a roll to open a door... No you just succeed
@@K4rm4ttack nat 20 means natural 20, as in you get a 20 on the dice before adding your stat modifiers
Potions come in vials. Vials hold 4 ounces of fluid. Volumetrically, this is roughly the same as drinking two mouthfuls. People can EASILY drink that in 2 seconds. Pretty sure this is why bonus action potions became RAW.
Also, basic guards being level 1 or 2? Okay.
But, tenured military positions with combat experience, and nobles who famously train for self defense, should have class levels. The Captain of the Guard should be stronger than his subordinates. The royal knights should be actually strong enough to defend the land against threats. Hell, even just a basic knight NPC has a CR of 3 each.
Not homebrew but variant is using grids (yes using grids is variant despite it being a staple at every table) I play online and make every map, putting unique objects or interactions in each map like a dropped key in the wishing fountain and whatnot. Grids hide a lot of details which sucks plus constant grids keep players in a combat turn by turn kind of mindset with their movements and whatnot. With it off, they interact far more with the environment and get more immersed
I do still turn on grid for combat tho, much easier than pulling out rulers. I do have it pretty opaque to just be noticeable tho in case players wanna huck someone off a ledge and the lines are obscuring it
0:45 Uh... the question is "a popular _homebrew_ rule that you *_DON'T_* use". And this entry is describing _a homebrew rule that their table have made up._ "PCs of warlock classes (cleric, druid, pre-5E paladin, etc) don't lose their class features" is not a homebrew rule, *_it's the RAW._* Neither of the two D&D 5E editions has any rules for warlock classes losing all their power and becoming a glorified muggle (although one feature in the 5.5E cleric can be lost in a similar way to the _wish_ spell, but that's *_one_* feature).
I just want to say I don't understand people talking about natural 20s succeeding and natural 1s failing outside of combat as a homebrew rule. When you call for a roll, a 1 on the die should definetly fail and a 20 on the die should definetly succeed. If a 20 on the die doesn't succeed, they never should have rolled in the first place because there was no chance of success, you should have just described them failing. The same thing goes for failing and nat 1s.
For me, a 20 means the best possible outcome, and the inverse for a nat 1. I'll let them know that it would be exceptionally difficult if not impossible, and if they try and steal someone's weapon that they're holding, a 20 means they didn't take it, but they also weren't caught.
RAW states this is only for combat. Literally just read the rulebook.
@@pointlessconversations4493 if it's a mechanically determined DC, some PC may auto-succeed or auto-fail it while another may need to roll. Checking all your bonuses before determining whether you need to roll can be tedious
This presupposes that I know all my players' skill modifiers and miscellaneous bonuses. I have enough stuff to keep track of, I don't need to have a copy of 4-6 character sheets in my notes too.
thats not how the rules, or any respectable table works. and that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is equally absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story.
Just remember if every somatic is a dance and every verbal is a shout, casters cannot participate in stealth, meaning stealth is only for dex martials. And now you have 2 out of 5 players splitting off, now their dead, moving on
What if, and hear me out on this one, what if the casters don't cast spells while they're being stealthy? Save the mumbojumbo for later.
@@ShinAkuma2 if you want the equivalent of a commoner dragging down your stealth averages be my guest. Unless your playing bard, casters have spells to be useful, and if they cant cast, theyre a liability
@@blockhead134 so then the issue is that your casters aren't trained in stealth, not that they can't cast, right?
Besides, spells like Invisibility, Silence, and Pass without Trace exist.
@ShinAkuma2 you are completely ignoring the issue. The point is that casters can't do the 1 thing they're supposed to do without putting the whole party at risk. There are other non stealth spells that people want to cast.
@@viennasavage9110 My archer can’t shoot arrows without giving away our position! Our knight can’t charge on horseback without breaking stealth! The barbarian wants to rage and intimidate without anyone seeing or hearing her! That’s what you sound like. If you want to be stealthy, stop doing loud, visible things.
For survival elements i say the game the long dark is a good one for dnd my campaigns i make is Dark souls Combat/E5 with the survival elements of The long dark very fun.
I have to agree on Criting (whether Success or fail) on ability checks being stupid.
Logically, it makes no sense. An example I like to give appears In campaign 3 of critical role. FRIDA A Dex based fighter rolled a 23 on a DC 20 stealth check thanks to high dex, stealth proficiency, and pass without trace (a spell that per the description declaires that you cannot be tracked through non-magical means). But since he rolled a natural 1, he still failed. Why? He beat the DC. Simultaneously, this is often used against players. "Natural 20, for a total of?" Has been said on several occasions. It's a crap houserule that is stupidly flimsy.
0:21 This!!!!
Wow, a lot of these guys just...don't sound fun to play with, lol.
clerics used to have to be within a step of their deities alignment or had to keep to the alignment they were aligned with in the never used ability in 3.5 for clerics to not be tied to a deity
All of them, because adventure league forbids it.
Mine is fumble tables they aren't fun for anyone they don't add anything good and the guaranteed miss is punishing enough
Crit fumbles have always sucked, and they tend to destroy the feel of the game. Your high-level weapons expert has a 1/20 chance with EVERY attack that they will drop their weapon, injure themselves or an ally, or ruin the situation. Every single roll is a threat to the party, but also a threat to the seriousness of the game's theme. Every crit fumble table I've experienced mandates playing Yakety Sax during the game. At high volume so it's hard to talk or hear. Oh I'm sorry, you don't want that? Does it ruin the mood? Make it hard to play? THEN PUT AWAY THE DAMN CRIT FUMBLE TABLE! It makes the game worse, punishes players who participate and roll a lot, and is diametrically opposed to the balance and intentions of the rules.
but why would you let someone roll if a 20 isn't enough to succeed? It doesn't have to be critical, but if it is impossible, why should I roll?
I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story.
Do you think the DM knows every skill bonus every player has all the time?!
Prove how magic is yelled
Making a goku as a ref is bad. If you pay attention to DBZ he doesn't need to actually say it, just saying it makes it stronger
Crit fumbles - it's bad, it hurts martials more than any other class, and it not balanced at all. You fighter that doing 5 attack per turn has more chances to get nat 1 per turn, than lvl 1 fighter, or wizard who don't even do attacks, he does fireball. Also it looks stupid, that your 20-s level legendary fighter/monk/warlock with eldritch blast are throwing there weapons of their hands every turn and hitting their allies because they f*cking fortune intolerant more than others.
Also, it takes a lot of time, especially if you are using tambles... Uuuh hate those.
Nat 1 is just an automatic miss, and that's it and should remain so. No crit fumble homebrew.
The peasants are revolting.
I agree, they smell horrible.
Ummm...
Guy complains about OSR grognards and then describes running OSR style.
Most homebrew rules are hit and miss with me. I usually can see merits to each one and they do tend to make stuff streamlined but some are just way to strong. I think the one I don't like is being able to use Bonus Action only things as an Action. This usually means the person is taking two Bonus Actions which can cause a lot of issues because some BAs can be pretty powerful. I know out of combat that isn't a problem because actions usually aren't tracked, so you can get away with a lot more. Just seems like having the limits of one action and one bonus action is the way the game is balanced.
People there seem so against "20 is automatic success and 1 is automatic failure" that they don't even notice they're making people roll when the result changes absolutely nothing. If 20 doesn't succeed and 1 doesn't fail then why are you even requesting a roll in the first place? Don't do that, it's dumb. You're making your game dumb.
that whole 'dont call for a roll if they cant make it' is equally absurd. at that point you are demanding the dm already know everyones exact mods on everything. I have no idea if you can make that DC 30 check until you roll and add your various bonuses. You can roll any check you want, if you can make the dc you did it. if you dont you didnt. end of story.
Only one making the game dumb is the guy that lacks any skill at a task insisting to attempt the task.
The idea that someone with no skill at all will succeed 5% of the time regardless, is dumb, and you are dumb for thinking it makes sense.
If a Nat 20 fails, why roll at all?
why is this complicated for so many people here.
The Dm isnt all knowing. I have only a rough idea of what your bonuses are.Lets say its a lock with a dc to pick of 30. Now I can either assume no one has the skill to pick it, and say 'no roll' and screw your rogue with a +12 mod, or I can let yall roll and tell you what happens depending on your total.
Which would you prefer?
@DellikkilleD Nat 20s always succeed, that's what I would prefer
@@steamtasticvagabond474 so the 5 int barbarian can pass a arcana check of 30 if he just keeps trying over and over? make it make sense bud
@@DellikkilleD yeah, he hits his 5% chance, he lucks into something. Maybe this is the SCRAP of arcane knowledge this barbarian has picked up over the years, or maybe he lucked into drawing a ritual circle correctly.
Also who said anything about repeating the check over and over again?
Spell components are so important for flavour, its great, and depending on how into the story your players are can limit the use of strong spells while not eliminating them "no sir, we dont have sulfur, you'd have to travel to the city of ingrahesh to get THAT"
“We have very meaningful sessions and players have shed tears before”
My, how humble. Toot your horn a little bit, Mr. DM, or the rocks might start singing your praises.
2 minutes no comments fell off😮
Damn, y'all copy copypastas ain't even using full sentences anymore
Copy pastas trying to avoid straining themselves.
Under 1 hour
These people sound boring lol
I don't allow potions to be taken as a bonus action or to be force-fed to someone who is unconscious.
Verbal component: exhale
There, sneaking for wizards has been saved
Health potions should be pre rolled before given to the players, and an inspect roll with medical knowledge should tell you how much it heals.
I'd do this with health potion cards, write a number on the back to keep track of who has what potion, but I also recommend this:
Sellers of health potions within easy trade distance for medical supplies, should give consistently near-best health potions, then you can USE that as a baseline for a quest
whispering spells should be fine. Not automatically unheard, but able to roll to do so quietly. The two saying it has to be loud I think are stupid. Also that DM with the 1 inch = 5ft, no grid.... so you just run an invisible grid, that guy is stupid.