Here is the thing, you will never be right 100% all the time, if someone tells hey you are wrong and link several different sources saying you are wrong, than maybe you might just actually be wrong.
When the community is right is the caveat. There are times when the community is wrong, en masse and it is the game designers that point this out... Not that this was an example of that, but I can think of a few online communities that are...
@@craigtucker1290 agreed, like take the dnd 5e community and their ruling on invisibility. If you look up the ruling for someone going/being invisible you can find countless people saying you still know its exact location when raw says you do not as they try to nerf invisibility to not be similar to the hide action
@@kingwildcat6192000 Ahhh yes, when the community tries community revisionism on the rules base on how they "feel" something should work. The ultimate arbiter is the game designers and lucky for most, Sage Advice is relatively easy to get a hold of. Though I have heard some claim that Sage Advice isn't official, which is just as laughable. The worst are the old-timers, the grognards of the older editions. Most have been homebrewing for so long that they little remember what the rules actually state or how the game was supposed to be played. They are so fanatical in their "beliefs" that even when you produce something from the game designers themselves that states otherwise, they just say its stupid and continue with their "beliefs," despite evidence to the contrary. This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for these types leading other astray as well. The blind leading the blind...
@Gené Further discussion can be made after session, but the DM should hear the relevant arguments and be open to the possibility that they might be in error. This is actually stated within the rules themselves and repeatedly by the game designers. A DM is just another player with a designated role, nothing special and just as fallible as any other player. It is not the role of the DM to be some sort of "god" of the game, they are supposed to be a fair and impartial arbiter of whatever rules everyone has agreed to, not a tyrant. It is far easier to take a few minutes to get it right and satisfy fairness than to have to try and retcon it later because the DM's ego prevented them from making a fair and correct ruling in the first place.
I am a brand new DM. Just finished my first six month campaign with five players and they have been immensely helpful and telling me how I can improve things or whether or not I'm wrong on a certain topic or rule. Just because you're the DM does not mean you are the ultimate authority on every single aspect of the game. There is tons of people that are offering to help you become a better player so that everybody can enjoy the game equally.
@@aquadark2291 Indeed, people forget sometimes that the PC creators are not the only players at the table...the DM is another player, and should also be having fun--but not at the expense of everyone else.
Agreed. If everyone is bound and determined to be Rules-As-Written, or nothing, then the game will not proceed, let alone be fun, because it will turn into a massive debate. However, if everyone at the table can agree to agree on rules (not necessarily consensus, but just a majority saying it's this way, and the others say, "Well, I don't think so, but I'll go along to get along,") then it does not matter what the "proper interpretation" is. The only thing that matters is, "Can everyone at the table agree that this is the way we're going to do things?" But then again, I think rules debates are far too esoteric for me, and completely removed from the actual game. At least, in my opinion.
In every aspect of your life, practice examining if you're actually correct, and gracefully admitting when you're wrong. It's a tremendously important skill.
@@amanofnoreputation2164 "And if someone points out that you're lying, lie again. Harder." That's only one of the options. The other one is to accuse them of lying or being stupid.
Humility is the hardest trait to learn in our lives and most will never come close. In a situation like this, the D.M. just needs to stop playing a game that strokes his ego for quite some time.
So basically he argued wrongly so hard that he made the key player he needed to do the thing to keep his story world from collapsing.. leave. Over a cantrip. *slow clap* Destroyed his own game world over a cantrip. Over a cantrip argument he could have just looked up in the physical PHB
That DM doesn't like the player and is taking it out on him via the rules. It's clear as day. The player called him on BS rules, and the DM is too pigheaded to accept the easy out of "oops, my bad." I wish someone had explained to the DM that, if an ability is key to the continuation of the campaign, you should give it to the PC, not force them to screw up their build. THREE LEVELS of a bad dip?! That's outrageous, and any experienced players at the table would bail right then.
@@evangrescol7772 If I'm playing a single class Barbarian and I want to keep raging and tanking, I want to get better at raging and tanking every level. If I'm being forced to take three levels of classes that don't help much, I'm losing progression on raging and tanking. If the game lasts until level 20, and I was planning on playing a single class character, I thought I was going to get my capstone ability, but now I won't, until the next campaign I play to 20. That's a broken build.
@@LetholdusKaspyr I know! I AM SO EXCITED about the barbarian capstone ability! NO WAY will my barbarian multi-class, even with her 16 Int. And there are so many ways the DM can have that one weapon bind to the PC. A ritual, a magic spell, the weapon choosing its wielder, a curse, a blessing, a reward from an adventure, or just "The Word of God," BAM! It's bound to you, because I want it to be. That last isn't nearly as fun, but it's still an option. Maybe a gauntlet that holds onto things and won't let go, until you give a command word, or remove the gauntlets. Maybe the weapon is sewn onto the PC's hand with magical thread that cannot be removed, and he has to spend his life constantly wielding a weapon, and doing everything else one-handed. That would suck, but it would be better than completely nerfing a barbarian build. Or don't bind it, and let the PCs be nervous about losing it to the BBEG, and make protecting the weapon an added responsibility. "Wait! Do you have your axe?" "Course I do. Why do you ask?" "There was a pickpocket!" "YIPES! Where's my AXE?!" "FIND THE PICKPOCKET OR THE WORLD IS DOOOOOMED!" Seriously, you could really add to the drama by NOT binding it.
@@AuntLoopy123 The DM planned on using the bond to screw with the player via the axe's nature, obviously. Which could be a fun story, if the player is down for it. Just, make the player quest for the bond, and give it to them as a reward. Maybe give them custom abilities with progress. Don't wreck their sheet.
If you're going to dig your heels in on an argument, the absolute least you could do as a GM is read the rules yourself and make sure you yourself understand just how the rules work, instead of just assuming you remember the rules correctly- not to mention that whole "you better take a few levels as a whatever otherwise that's the end of the world" isn't really a great thing to do to a player. Maybe it was something that should have been brought up much earlier so it could have been planned, or something else? What we see here is a GM who couldn't admit they'd screwed up, and took it to an absolutely absurd end, and honestly, I think OP was right to quit- just hope they landed somewhere better than this virtual table.
There are a lot of people out there who think that admitting they're wrong is a sign of weakness. The opposite is largely true: The ability to reconsider previously held beliefs, especially firmly held ones, is the sign of someone with the strength to let go of ego in favor of truth. This is not to be confused with someone who just goes with whatever the last thing someone told them but held no strong beliefs in the first place, by the way. That's a different form of weakness.
Hexblade would only give him the sword thing. Charisma weapons don’t work well, spells work very bad, and the cursing isn’t that good. Beisdes, to actually bind it to him, he needs pact of the blade. So for a barbarian, it’s better to do 3 levels fighter than warlock.
@@insertlaughter4436 That explains it a bit better. I was confused as to why he needed to devote _three levels_ into a class that gets the subclass at level one.
@@insertlaughter4436 well for hexblades curse you dont NEED to use charisma, you can use strength if youd like. Its like shillagh. And while spells wouldnt be very good, its be better to just take something like sheild from the hexblades spell list, plus given how he said nothing about his charisma id assume it was higher then his intelligence. But aside from that i do think fighter was the better option for a barb in this situation
@@quidlad8536 You just said a bunch of correct things a more veteran player than OP would know. This was OP's first campaign. I highly doubt that OP would know all that. Edit: I also highly doubt the internet would explain that to OP instead of the much easier route which OP wanted to take.
Feel kind of bad for what happened in this story. I have to admit admitting you are wrong is tough which is why session 0 helps. Before I started my homebrew campaign, I told the players “listen I am not perfect at everything and I may get the rules wrong once in awhile so if you have a problem with how I run the campaign then after the session please let me know about it so I can get better.” Ive been running that campaign for around 6 months now and I learn new things from players as a benefit. It has been really fun to see my players want to multiclass or gestalt, since I am not the best at it they tell me details about it when I ask. When I play it improves my character class knowledge a bunch. Keep learning and having fun.
Is one familiar even all that bad, even if we assumed the DM was right? Feels like he just wanted to nerf this guy for some reason and was mad the player found an optimal solution.
Honestly he could have just made some ingame ritual instead of forcing a change on the character, that alone was really a yellow flag, but when he even takes control over the spells... red flag.
Im playing a battle smith artificer and took the arcane adept feat. So now i have my homunculus steel defender and a familiar and am contemplating taking a 2nd homunculus
You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list. The exact text as its written.
I was just talking with my brother, yesterday, about a ruling he made. I was so proud of my wizard, being prepared for shield, when we unexpectedly fought a wizard, who hit me with magic missile. I mean, we're just getting started, and I'm like, "Oh, yeah! I know what I'm doing! Woot! Shield for my reaction, and no damage!" Also, I had just used magic missile, and was all excited, saying, "THERE IS NO ATTACK ROLL! It simply doesn't miss! WOOHOO!" After missing all night with attack rolls, I was very happy about it, and everyone else was pleased to hear it. We had all been rolling like crap. But then, after I used my reaction to cast Shield, he said, "But did you see it coming? You can't react, if you didn't see it coming." He pointed out on the battle map the angles, and I admitted that no, I did not see it coming. Heck, I thought that wizard was out of action, because he was all tied up. But, his shoulder had been dislocated, when the barbarian tackled him, so he was able to use that to wiggle out of his restraints. Since we were "sure" he was tied up and unable to cast spells, let alone pick up a weapon, the entire party had turned their backs on him, to fight the other guys on the other side of the room. Now, rules as written, that is not even a consideration. It doesn't say anything about you having to SEE the attack coming. At least, it doesn't say that in the text of the spell I wrote down, by hand, on my little spell card, from which I was getting all my info in game, so I didn't have to look it up in the player's handbook every time I cast. But, when he made that call, I thought, "This sort of thing is exactly WHY I asked for us to use battle maps, rather than just do theater of the mind. I wanted to be able to know angles and distances, specifically for making spells work, or not work. I didn't expect him to use it against me so early, but yeah. He is well within his rights, and added complexity to battle tactics adds to the fun flavor, right? So, yeah, I will accept that as a rule." Yesterday, when we were chatting, I told him, "It's not rules as written, but I like it! It adds verisimilitude." He and I alternate, him DMing at his house one week, and me DMing at my house the next, and we have vastly different DM styles, but the game is always FUN. That's what matters, in the end. We were actually laughing over how the next session, my character was literally screaming in frustration at what that same escaped wizard had done, while I, as a player, was laughing my head off. I LOVE it when my brother gets sneaky. Not vindictive. Just sneaky. And he loved it, too, knowing that, as a player, I was having a blast, and as a character, I had discovered new levels of challenge. And the best part is, according to the adventure, as written, we were supposed to kill or capture the wizard at that point, so now that he's escaped, my brother has to figure out what the heck to do with him, where to place him, and how he will have advanced by then. My character was gloating, "Well, at least I have his magic staff! He won't be able to do much without a staff." Then, we discovered that the wardrobe had a beautiful carved post on one side. Just one side. "NOOOOOOO! THAT BASTARD HAS A SPARE STAFF!" I love my brother. I love his mind. And I love that he is willing to respect the rules, and know the rules, so that he can properly break the rules. Like the OP said here, if the DM had simply said, "OK, I was wrong about rules as written. However, I want to run it this way, so that's how it's going to be for my game," that would have been fine. OP would have gone along with that. But the DM decided that he couldn't be satisfied with simply being "The god of this game session." He had to be RIGHT on the Internet. That's where he showed himself to be a fool.
Slight exception: These mandates are made at character creation. EG: We are starting at level 3 and I want everyone to have at least one cleric level for story reasons.
Well yes and no, I can understand a game where you are only allowing say humans (im in a campaign with that requirement) but the issue is controlling someone's class, subclass and multiclass because if they dont x problem in game may occur. Edit: Unless its a premade character at say a con to save time
@@kingwildcat6192000 Making player's characters take classes according to the events of the campaign instead of what they want *can* be a very interesting idea, it adds a lot of immersion into the game. However, this is the type of thing that should be discussed before the campaign even started, and applied only if the player agreed to it beforehand.
@@antongrigoryev6381 i never said it wasnt an interesting idea or that it wasnt immersive. but i was more going at the fact your guilt tripping/backmailing a player to make them stay on the railroad or be at fault if the bbeg becomes a god because they chose to have player agency over cucking the bbeg
@@Starcoffin If I wanted all of my PCs to have at least one level of cleric, I would give them a free level in cleric. It would not count as a level, for spells and abilities that level up, based on the total level of the character, but you'd have the 1st level cleric abilities. Yeah, I like Hombrewing. The thing is, a free class like this means that, if they LIKE cleric, they can choose to continue in that class, but if they don't like it, it costs them nothing and they can still go to full 20, in a single class, if they want to. Some of those single-class characters are SO COOOL.
In my first campaign as dm, I misread the attack of a creature. When I realized my mistake, I went back to that attack and fixed it. A lot of dms make mistakes, but only good ones fix them.
Being told one is wrong stimulates the same part of the brain as being wrong. Being wrong can also trigger fight or flight. It's called the Backfire Effect!
Reminds me of the time a guy posted as a dm on FB asking about the rules on a torrtle with unarmored defense getting an AC of 18 plus stat bonuses he was shown rules, videos, ect. And he refused to accept, plus everyone said if he thought it was ok to do it to do it for his player but he wanted online proof he was right
Here's the issue, it's LITERALLY printed in the Player's handbook, and I quote "Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher. You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list." How in the hell can someone argue they are right when it's literally in writing they are not, and I know people would have told him the exact page number to find it, so either he refused to even look or refused to accept it. Either way, the DM was beyond dead wrong, and refused to acknowledge it by looking at the PHB.....despite willingly looking at the PHB when someone ELSE was mistaken about barbarian. The DM deserved what he got from the internet, and it's good OP left, cuz I'm 100% sure things were ganna go down hill from there.
Yes very much. There is a big difference between 'that is nice but I'll run it this way in my game' and '(this obviously wrong thing) is what the rule says'. The worst that can come from the first you being an a*hole (anyone who says they've never been one is lying or delusional). The second, if you insist upon it, makes you an idiot with very poor reading comprehension. Besides IMHO, eldritch knight is already too restrictive in its spell selection. As DM I would allow an EK to pick two schools that fit the character's personality and fighting style.
@@alexisartfeild2807 When my PC took Eldritch Knight, I didn't even check the schools of magic. I let him pick what he wanted, because either he read the rules and followed them, or he misunderstood the rules, and frankly, I have TOO MUCH TO DO, so I couldn't be fussed. Yes, I am a lazy and generous, and trusting DM, and not getting hung up on RAW makes my life much easier. I did check over if he was assigning spell slots and prepared spells properly, and getting things like hit dice correct. Those things matter to me.
@@AuntLoopy123 Yup. Unless the player is new to the system or causing problems (potentially cheating) I'll let them manage their own stuff. As you said as DM you already have too much too to do.
I once had a dm give a bard an animated piano that walked around with her yet refused to give me a gun as an artificer because in his words "explain why you need a gun" despite him only saying that to me. I even asked if he was going to ask anyone else that for their weapons of choice and he said "no" so I guess since guns are an artificer's bread and butter where we get spells and abilities that only work with guns, we're not allowed guns. He let the gunslinger have a gun though.
"Explain why you need a gun." "Explain why you didn't ask any of the other players that question." As soon as he singled you out, you should have said, "Treat me fairly or don't treat me at all," and bounced.
@@AuntLoopy123 I did ask why I'm being singled out and was told because artificers don't need guns and when I tried to explain why they do I was booted for arguing with the dm DESPITE the fact that when he said his decision was finial I dropped it.
I've been listening through all the videos in the D&D Horror Stories playlist and I gotta say- the vast majority of problems DMs and Players have is a person or two just being immature.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I'd stop at the three dip, it's kinda obvious. Apparently Clockwork Sorcerer has access to Armour of Agathys as does Bard, and then there is the Mark of Warding in an Eberron campaign.
Absolutely about you're players having fun 100% true. If you found an exchange where you could be happy with barbarian/eldritch knight in a way that worked for you more power to you. Personally, I think I would take a feat that binds the weapon to me instead of multiclassing, but if multiclassing was my only option, then I would do what you did, make the best of the multiclass combination.
i had a DM in college pull something like that he insisted that a nat 20 in combat was only a "potential crit" unless you rolled a second nat 20 making a Crit go from a 1:20 chance to a 1:600 as a result i started actively looking for weapons that lowered my crit range even if they were not ideal for my charicter
this story makes me wonder if looking for just a campaign on discord would be less drama than a west march, the last 2 i got invested in i left cause of drama.
Bounding to your weapon seems a bit overkill Just don't lose it =w= I mean, that trick would work exactly once anyways When the BBEG comes to steal it the second time he will just kill you, then you can't resummon it
I don't get why the dm didn't just homebrew the barbarian to have the eldric knight features he wanted the player to use then. Maybe have it where the axe had a curse where the user was bond to it till death or something.
Because this was quite likely an attempt by the DM to nerf the player's character for whatever reason. A terribly dickish thing to do as a DM in regards to saying "multiclass or the world will end."
I’m new but one of the things I realized is that I probably still had my concentration from favored foe despite getting hit, maybe. I actually, while another player was deciding things, asked for some clarification from the dm and they said, “oh! I forgot about that. Roll to see if you keep your concentration.” And I did and got a 21 (considering I was rolling low almost that whole session I was so glad to get this). I kept it but the fight actually ended soon after. I probably could have used it if my next turn hadn’t missed so badly (like I said, I was rolling bad mostly). Ended up losing one of my arrows but at least got a a few back. I don’t actually have to track those things, with my dm’s permission, but didn’t see why not when I’m trying to figure out ranger mechanics and probably won’t always have that leeway. I’m the newest person at our table so I’m given a lot of leeway and advice from both the dm and other experienced people. I’ll occasionally have questions like this but I try to save them for an open moment and abide a dm ruling and ask for clarification if something doesn’t add up to what I do know is in the rules. Won’t really argue, but will basically try to get as much clarification as I can. My brain is one of those “million and one scenarios” creators, does tons of “what if”s , and it can be really good for strategy but it also means that I will learn every rule and how to twist it and bend it. It does this unconsciously even if I don’t always act on it (drove my parents and teachers insane when I was young, even if I mostly had the reputation of a “good” kid). So yeah. I’m going to pick at rules and ask how they work and why they work and see what ways I can creatively use them. I’m an artist and writer at heart and have always loved science. Picking things apart and figuring out how to rework them is the breath in my lungs and the blood in my veins. It’s what I do. I try to be polite though but I am well aware some people think this is an authority figure fighting thing. It’s not. I really don’t care one way or another for authority. It’s an “I want to know how and why this works and see what I can do with this” thing and I’m using questions to help with that. Question the world and figure it out, that’s what my parents always taught me. It’s what I live by now.
I recently held a Coup d’Etat (I’m not kidding) against my DM. He had no order at the table, took away player agency, rushed modules, took favourites and literally uses a new player’s character as their character. He is quite salty as we voted him out, before he left he banned 2 players (I unbanned them) and claims he has all the players that voted against him. Why? I asked if I could DM.
my favorite way to accept it is "ahh, i think your right" Im a first time dm so some of the rules go misinterpreted and i havent actually played much dnd so i dont know all the classes and such
Just admit you were wrong, after all D&D has so many rules trying to memorize them its nearly impossible. I mean...that is why there are books about it! TO CHECK THEM!
Reminds me of one of my current campaigns where to DM and another player were arguing over the definition of a lance. It was a Grim Hollow campaign and the player I think wanted to combine stats with his new weapon by breaking off the tip and fusing it.
MY dm had a small misinterpretation of extra attack (which everyone had before I joined - im the only one without that feature). I mentioned it once and in trying to clear up, he looked into it and came up with a new ruling that's even less RAW than before. I left that alone. Its not that big a deal as long as the rules apply equally and everyone is having fun.
Rules matter for Adventure League; homebrew? dm's ruling are still the most important. It's important to be able to either roll with the punches or walk away from a fight with a DM.
"no spell I get by level 3 be uuseful as a barberian" bud .... bud .... buuuuuuuud .... Armoth of Agathis !!! Mirror Image !!! 2 spells doesnt require concentration HUGE buff and you get double the benefet of armoth of agythis because having resistance essentially double the tmp HP Mirror Image + Sentinel . if they tarrget you mirror it isnt you so you can use sentinel reaction if you are ancestral barbarian they would have disadvantage on you mirror attack. and you can reckless and they will still have disadvantage to hit your mirrors and if they hit you Good they take 10 cold damage !!! and many many other good spells for utility when you are not raging !
Wait, what version of dnd is this? cause 5e warlocks get their patron from level 1, so all they'd need is one level in hexlock. (unless they require PotB for some reason)
As i understand it, the idea was to bind the weapon to the character. Hexblade doesn't do that. PotB does. Really he could have gone with any warlock subclass and take PotB and it would achieve the goal of binding the weapon.
@@basbarbeque6718 Eh, honestly the only benefit Hexblade would offer is the Shield spell, that's it. The hexblade's curse is meh, moreso if you have a crap Charisma. The hex warrior is again meh since barbarians already get light armor, medium armor, shields, and martial weapons, and again hitting with charisma is not helping any. If all he needed was pact of the Blade, I'd have gone with Celestial Warlock. The pool of D6 that can be used for healing (and isn't a spell so it can be used while raging) plus having access to cure wounds for a spot of extra healing seems like a much more beneficial dip choice then hexblade.
@@demonzero677 I wouldn't give up my level 20 capstone ability. That just SUCKS. The DM could have made it a story element that they need to find a way to bind the blade. AND they could have accomplished that long before they go through three whole levels. WASTED levels. This is maddening.
I don't know how hard it is to understand this: "You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list."3 spells known, 2 of which must be Abjuration and/or Evocation, meaning that you can have 1 Abjuration, and 1 Evocation spell, or 2 Abjuration, or 2 Evocation spells.This is about the Eldrich Knight subclass of the Fighter class.Pretty simple if you ask me.But then again, I have had similar players, who have stated I am wrong, when I am reading directly from the source books, and then they throw their "Proof" on me, from Homebrew pages. -.- Homebrew means it is a home ruling, that means that specific DM or Player overrules the ruling of the books.But if you argue against me when I say this is how the rule goes in my campaign, then don't expect me to be gullable, I do not take bullshit lightly.Example of this:Player goes into an Icewind Dale Rule set (The same rule set that is for the Game Icewind D.A.L.E).First he says I am wrong about the rules, when he takes up the 5e ruleset, and I explained multiple times, we are going by the Icewind Dale ruleset, not 5e, but he didn't let up.So fine, I then changed it to 5e ruleset, but he got angry because I wouldn't allow him to go with a Homebrew Grenadier class, that could at level 5 create a Fire Bomb, that did 10d20 Fire Damage, 10d20 Slashing damage, 10d20 Blunt damage, and 20d20 Piercing damage, for no cost. *Note*: This bomb also had a 60ft Radius, meaning a diameter of 120ft of an explosions, that could be thrown 180ft.I said it would have to be an Ultimate thing, and that it required some very unique and very hard to find materials that costs a TON of resources to make.Either that, or lower the damage, the aoe and how far you can throw it, since that was just BS.He was even going against the literal ruling that you need the specific materials to create the bomb in the first place, and was arguing that Spell Casters didn't have to use materials to make their spells...Because Spell Casters have to Slot their spells, and have limited Slots, that makes them have to spend 8 hours of Memorizing to be able to cast.Where a Ranger/Archer would require to buy, or Fletch arrows/crossbow bolts to use their weapons, that sling users actually have to gather rocks/stones to be able to use their ranged weapon.And that cost resources as well, material things to make physical things.But no, that was not enough, so he then argued that Pathfinder was so much better, that he wanted the Point system, and that the HP system in DnD was too bad.So okay, fine, we will then play Pathfinder, by the book I said. I literally posted the whole book, for how you roll your HP, and roll for skills, and pin pointed that if you are to make things that are physical, you require to use the allocated materials to make them.Same as spell casters needed materials for a lot of their spells, and they don't come cheap on their own either.All in all, he left, because he couldn't make a super OP character, because I wouldn't allow it.
@@antongrigoryev6381 it gets stronger with your character level because it's a cantrip *and* you get thunder damage as a choice in the general arsenal. Additionally it restricts a enemy "do I move and take damage", plus Critical applies to the first hit.
@@UndeadDragonWarrior 2d12+Str is about 17 points of damage. Booming Blade deals less, even if the target moves, until lvl 11. And even then you need the target to actually move to deal more damage than your second attack would. And crits don't matter. You have a 5% chance of crit, so 5% of all your attacks will be crits. That's it. One powerful attack, multiple attacks - damage increase will be about the same. Actually, multiple attacks will be better with Barbarian because of Brutal Criticals, though it's 9th lvl and may not matter. And that's not even considering Rage, which, in my experience, you would very rarely not have available.
@@antongrigoryev6381 Damage isn't everything, the 'threat' of damage weighs on anyone aware of it, plus you still get the opportunity for Attack of Opportunity either way. Plus this doesn't deny Multiple attacks, could still achieve it later with Barbarian in general, it's the option to dissaude a enemy from running away. You can really only achieve that with the Sentinel Feat otherwise, which could still be useful on either case. [2d12+STR+#d8 (if move +#d8) damage] looks more intimidating than, [2d12+STR & 2d12+STR] damage] Two Attacks. I swapped back to my old Barbarian, I know the value, but I find mind games useful. You may be able to disengage, but you'll still receive wrath, with or without Sentinel.
once I got on an argument with someone about what spells you get when multiclassing. essentially I was saying as long as you have slots at a high enough level you can as a druid and cleric prepare spells of the level which the other individual disagreed with pg 164 as his evidence pointing at the example it gives where a wizard can´t learn a third level spell because he does´nt has enough wizard levels. though this example seems to disprove my argument I then checked for wording. on pg 114 of the phb wizard learning says ¨Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown by the Wizard table.¨ so this is the case with wizards, but it seems if you can get a higher-level spell scroll and copy it into your spellbook (only specifying you must be able to prepare it) your ability to then prepare it because the only specification for preparing is that it´s in your book and you have the slots not specifying the wizard table this time. so you can cast above your individual classes level Then I checked other spell casters. bards specify the table, but when you level up you can trade a spell with the only specification being spell slots. clerics prepare from their whole list only specifying spell slots. druids are the same. sorcerers don´t specify the table and let you swap when you level up. so the argument by my understanding is that when you multiclass you can prepare spells of a higher level than the class alone can cast but the other person disagreed then a month later I summarized it in the comment section of a youtube video. tell me if I´m wrong
I don't play DnD, but i'm interested in the game, so i looked into different rules. And i was interested in this question myself. If i take 17 lvls in Wizard, and then go 3 lvls in cleric, can i cast lvl 9 cleric spells? My conclusion from reading the multiclass rules is that the rules are inconsistant. Every "spellcasting" section in class descriptions sais you can learn/prepare spells based on spell slots you have. But the multiclass section mentions the possiblity of having higher spell slots then you can use as a class. So the way i see it, it's up for personal interpretation... Nothing in the rules sais you definitively can't cast a 9 lvl cleric spell as a 17 lvl wizard/3 lvl cleric, but the rules suggest that you might not be able to...
The example in the multiclass section with wizard also has Ranger levels, and it is also mentioned that you can't have Ranger spells of 2nd level, even though Ranger has the same wording that is tied to the max level of the spell slots. So even if we assume that RAW you're right, it's just bad wording. It's certainly not intended, and it goes against the example used in the book, which is there specifically to show how it should work. Plus remember that multiclassing is an optional rule, so the wording of pure classes shouldn't necessarily account for it. So no, you can't cast spells of a higher level than your class level allows. It would be broken if it worked like this. Edit: Maybe we have different printings of phb, but wizard's wording doesn't have ", as shown by the Wizard table." part either. Only "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots".
@@antongrigoryev6381 my problem with that is also how ridiculously underpowered you would make spell castor multi classes your already missing out on features but now there is the clam that your core mechanic just doesn't properly advance with you
@@antongrigoryev6381 My DM is perfectly fine with multi-class characters gaining spells of a higher level if they happen to have spell slots because you usually have to sacrifice things to multi-class anyway. He let my 8th level Paladin gain 3rd level Sorcerer spells when she got a level in Sorcerer because he thinks the RAW restriction on multi-class spellcasting is stupid.
Given how the content usually is on these channels, I assumed it was IN game, and therefore it doesn't matter what the rules are, the DM's ruling is law. But this was outside the game and... wow.
Forcing someone to take a class without talking about it is already a bad thing. To then fight and restrict that character further just sucks. Being a DM is knowing roughly how the rules work (most DMs will never have every rule down for every class, spell, attack it will drive you insane if you do) so being open to someone telling you differently is fine. Take a moment, open the book and clarify. Most of all don't double down on either side. Players make mistakes, DMs make mistake. Own up to it and move on. Much more important things to do like slaying dragons and getting drunk in a tavern.
If you watch Critical Role, Matt Mercer, who's considered to be the best DM ever by a lot of people, opens the PHB at least once per session to double check some rule that comes up...
The DM did tell the player how he wanted it set up, so going online to show the rules otherwise was not a good move on the player. The player should have also communicated more with the DM about the multiclassing and see how the DM will set the rules.
That was honestly really picky of that DM, nevermind the whole "I'm right situation," but homebrewing to make an already forced nerf even more nerfed? Like, did he even want his player to have fun?
I sympathize with op from the first story, however, out of the fighter, or hexblade dip hexblade was obviously the superior choice, as he only had to waste one level into it, and he got a curse that he could use while raging
@@antongrigoryev6381 True. Still the better option. Hex blade curse, Eldritch Smite, The ocasionally useful blink or invisibility, even shield for when he goes low on initiative (not on surprise rounds though)
I never played dnd till a couple years ago and after two sessions it stopped because year couldn’t meet and not many people could some so it was offend cancelled but apparently owning no dnd books or knowing how to use dnd beyond wasn’t and excuses to the dm any chance he took he will attack me who still is fairly new and doesn’t know that much other than how to role play I don’t fully understand spells either but when someone else make a idea equal to something I have bought up they get this is why we need new players the. When I have a equal. Idea I got a stop being so dumb and stupid with your character or he’s dead and I’ll make you a new one. I’m not a dnd book collector nor can I sit and memorize rule I can find a quick jump past if I can make a home though it won’t be that great
i don't agree that D&D is only meant for one group to have fun i feel like if everyone isn't having fun then it's not true D&D as i tried to get back into D&D recently over discord but it ended in everyone there using homebrew as an excuse and characters being transferred from one capman group to another with a bunch of homebrew rules to the point they started honestly making be get burned out of D&D again the one good DM i had ended up quit due to the server owner the only person who could introduce new players into the server causing a massive server split even though there were reports of 5 players on both side of their factions war causing major problems to the point the neutral players that joined like me where either forced to take a side if you wanted to play or you just didn't get any play time and the few DMS who did dm where all using rules that would interchange based on the character instead of the worlds campaign and by DM i wont get into it as well the only cool experience i had has become so blurry from the sheer toxicity that accord right after words i can't even bother to remember it other than the name Viest and him being a really good dm what was so bad about the server was when you think D&D you think the D&D ruleset right instead when it came to breaking rules in D&D basically the only thing you had to say was homebrew and you'd be off the hook i remember at level since they let you make or get a special item or magical power on that server you could give yourself something like a made up item such as the ring of unlimited wishing which gave a neutral evil goblin a wish spell without an drawbacks on top of that they nerf and limited the wish spell to the point it was you can wish for like anything equal to the amount of platinum you had on you and say you wanna wish the monster you party has no chance of killing away or teleport away from said monster guess what your not allowed to use teleport spells until you do this super secret quest only one faction knows how to do and no one else has information on how to do or even find much less start it wanna know world lore your gonna have to find it eyes of the rune keeper written in elvish guess what you can't read it unless you actually know elvish making eyes of the rune keeper a very useless feat along with comprhend language only good dm they had going for them was Viest and he ended up quiting cause of the streess up on him and the players in the server
Ok this one to real for me it didnt happen to me but I had a disagreement with a dm before in the same way about a rule then him just saying o it's my homebrew world and I can do what I want but it wasn't about his homebrew and was the 1st time he said we were in his homebrew so we all looked at him saying thought we were playing DND and if not we would like to play dnd not this homebrew so we all know what to do and how to do it that was the end of that game
People need to learn to not argue with an out-of-context internet mob unless they don't care about the response, because the response will always be more shit than helpful. Similar to another video, this person should not have engaged in this reddit dispute at all. Internet mobs make everything worse for everybody. Keep your private disputes private.
If it was a small and honest mistake, there really is no shame in taking the L on it, nobody will jump on you for saying "Whoops, my bad", and by that time tomorrow everyone will have all but forgotten the matter. Digging your heels in deep and arguing with 80+ people at once over a trivial matter is a bigger mistake that will likely brand you an idiot online for a good long while, please try not to follow DM's example.
GM shouldn't have cared about the rules in the first place, you're the GM just decide what he is allowed to use and what not and in this case allow him more than normal not less, you're kinda forcing him to multi class after all.
Ok. You you can talk trash on the DM all you want but this situation could've easily been avoided if instead of asking random internet people he just showed him the damn book. This would've avoided the internet stuff and allowed the problem to solve much faster as it will immediately change the discussion form the rules to "i don't like how that works"
I'd personally suggest just not going along with the DMs plan. Being told the fate of the world rests on your shoulders at level 3, and then being "suggested" to multiclass into a specific class/subclass is not fun. DMs shouldn't have this much control over what classes a PC takes.
That the kid wanted to argue in internet is normal in these days. You are wrong when you think rules need to be rigid. It is ok, new people always fall in the same assumption. You will learn eventually.
Look, this is kinda dumb. Dm is god in the game, and can make rules of his own. However, it is my belief that he should make an effort to make the campaign balanced. The dm should also not go out and argue endlessly about the rules, which he can make and can use in his module.
There should always be a touch of wiggle room on the rules I think...but if the internet really needs to be brought in for it eeeeegh well lets see YIRBEL LIVES.
"Everyone is allowed to be wrong...", you say. Hmmm. I say, that OP is wrong. Both Hexblade AND Eldritch Knice are amazing multiclasses for Barbarian. But the DM should never have forced the multiclass on OP. Any DM worth their salt would find a way for the weapon to be bound to the PC without needing the multiclass. Here, a free example from a DM who is currently fly running two campaigns that take place 20k years apart and indirectly impact each other: The axe was _actually_ originally not the BBEG's but rather a young, lost to history, folk hero. A shard of that hero's soul is awakened because the PC is a descendant of them, their [will of fire] or whatever mcguffin backstory or whichever connection. Standard tropes are standard because they are an outline easily modified to fit into any story as an aside. The mutation and blending into your's and your players' game world is what makes them memorable, not the fact that they are a standard side quest. Which in and of itself can become the mini adventure to even get said multiclass anyways. So like, put in effort or put in a lot of effort and make them picking the multiclass seem like it was their idea anyway. (Valkriste do not read that last sentence ;) ) Edit: the above is a joke, I just gave him a sexy invisible incubus and he did the rest. Now the incubus is a Patron, and everyone is _pleased._
I understand that the stories are community stories but why do you always just post stories about terrible players/ dms? I want some epic tales or a sad story or something of substance once in a while...
@@antongrigoryev6381 yes there are cases of good heart warmy stories but is mostly " when my asshole dm did a shitty thing to our shitty game group" i just want some positivity is all im saying
this player sounds like a problem player from the start. 1 the player could easily have not taken any of the multi class options. 2 the player obviously is brand new and hexblade warlock is an amazing multi lass for barb. 3 player sounds like one of those people that thinks combat is the only thing in the game. I wouldnt want to play with this dm or this player.
Yes, but homebrew rules conflicting with RAW should ALL be discussed prior to gameplay. Not being allowed your wild card spell as an EK could influence your decision in the entire character archetype. Some rulings can't be made until in the moment, but that's a big one that should have been known to everyone from the get-go.
@@tjcross2 I did. He came prepared consulting the internet. But from sounds of it never verified anything with the DM. At the end of the day the DM decides what's allowed.
Here is the thing, you will never be right 100% all the time, if someone tells hey you are wrong and link several different sources saying you are wrong, than maybe you might just actually be wrong.
Need to be careful with echo chambers.
there are things tht is hard to adjust like me but unlike me once im proven wrong ill accept it with a bucket of salt
Lesson: when a community en masse tells you that your ruling is incorrect, it may be wise to accept you're wrong.
Da Rules are more like Guidelines.
All that matters is that your players are having fun, if not, you're doing something wrong.
When the community is right is the caveat. There are times when the community is wrong, en masse and it is the game designers that point this out...
Not that this was an example of that, but I can think of a few online communities that are...
@@craigtucker1290 agreed, like take the dnd 5e community and their ruling on invisibility. If you look up the ruling for someone going/being invisible you can find countless people saying you still know its exact location when raw says you do not as they try to nerf invisibility to not be similar to the hide action
@@kingwildcat6192000 Ahhh yes, when the community tries community revisionism on the rules base on how they "feel" something should work. The ultimate arbiter is the game designers and lucky for most, Sage Advice is relatively easy to get a hold of. Though I have heard some claim that Sage Advice isn't official, which is just as laughable.
The worst are the old-timers, the grognards of the older editions. Most have been homebrewing for so long that they little remember what the rules actually state or how the game was supposed to be played. They are so fanatical in their "beliefs" that even when you produce something from the game designers themselves that states otherwise, they just say its stupid and continue with their "beliefs," despite evidence to the contrary. This wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for these types leading other astray as well.
The blind leading the blind...
@Gené Further discussion can be made after session, but the DM should hear the relevant arguments and be open to the possibility that they might be in error. This is actually stated within the rules themselves and repeatedly by the game designers. A DM is just another player with a designated role, nothing special and just as fallible as any other player. It is not the role of the DM to be some sort of "god" of the game, they are supposed to be a fair and impartial arbiter of whatever rules everyone has agreed to, not a tyrant.
It is far easier to take a few minutes to get it right and satisfy fairness than to have to try and retcon it later because the DM's ego prevented them from making a fair and correct ruling in the first place.
I am a brand new DM. Just finished my first six month campaign with five players and they have been immensely helpful and telling me how I can improve things or whether or not I'm wrong on a certain topic or rule. Just because you're the DM does not mean you are the ultimate authority on every single aspect of the game. There is tons of people that are offering to help you become a better player so that everybody can enjoy the game equally.
It's almost like it's a game that's there to have fun and that's the reason the books say. "These rules are just a guideline."
@@aquadark2291 Indeed, people forget sometimes that the PC creators are not the only players at the table...the DM is another player, and should also be having fun--but not at the expense of everyone else.
Agreed. If everyone is bound and determined to be Rules-As-Written, or nothing, then the game will not proceed, let alone be fun, because it will turn into a massive debate.
However, if everyone at the table can agree to agree on rules (not necessarily consensus, but just a majority saying it's this way, and the others say, "Well, I don't think so, but I'll go along to get along,") then it does not matter what the "proper interpretation" is. The only thing that matters is, "Can everyone at the table agree that this is the way we're going to do things?"
But then again, I think rules debates are far too esoteric for me, and completely removed from the actual game. At least, in my opinion.
In every aspect of your life, practice examining if you're actually correct, and gracefully admitting when you're wrong. It's a tremendously important skill.
Nope -- when you're wrong, lie. And if someone points out that you're lying, lie again. Harder.
@@amanofnoreputation2164
"And if someone points out that you're lying, lie again. Harder."
That's only one of the options. The other one is to accuse them of lying or being stupid.
@@weisilber8957 I think he's going for that mentality of "you lie enough about something, people will start thinking it's true" or something.
Humility is the hardest trait to learn in our lives and most will never come close. In a situation like this, the D.M. just needs to stop playing a game that strokes his ego for quite some time.
So basically he argued wrongly so hard that he made the key player he needed to do the thing to keep his story world from collapsing.. leave. Over a cantrip.
*slow clap*
Destroyed his own game world over a cantrip. Over a cantrip argument he could have just looked up in the physical PHB
That DM doesn't like the player and is taking it out on him via the rules. It's clear as day. The player called him on BS rules, and the DM is too pigheaded to accept the easy out of "oops, my bad." I wish someone had explained to the DM that, if an ability is key to the continuation of the campaign, you should give it to the PC, not force them to screw up their build. THREE LEVELS of a bad dip?! That's outrageous, and any experienced players at the table would bail right then.
Heck, maybe it's not even about a "ruined build", but simply wanting a very simplistic character mechanically.
@@evangrescol7772 If I'm playing a single class Barbarian and I want to keep raging and tanking, I want to get better at raging and tanking every level. If I'm being forced to take three levels of classes that don't help much, I'm losing progression on raging and tanking. If the game lasts until level 20, and I was planning on playing a single class character, I thought I was going to get my capstone ability, but now I won't, until the next campaign I play to 20. That's a broken build.
@@LetholdusKaspyr Good point.
@@LetholdusKaspyr I know! I AM SO EXCITED about the barbarian capstone ability! NO WAY will my barbarian multi-class, even with her 16 Int.
And there are so many ways the DM can have that one weapon bind to the PC. A ritual, a magic spell, the weapon choosing its wielder, a curse, a blessing, a reward from an adventure, or just "The Word of God," BAM! It's bound to you, because I want it to be. That last isn't nearly as fun, but it's still an option. Maybe a gauntlet that holds onto things and won't let go, until you give a command word, or remove the gauntlets. Maybe the weapon is sewn onto the PC's hand with magical thread that cannot be removed, and he has to spend his life constantly wielding a weapon, and doing everything else one-handed. That would suck, but it would be better than completely nerfing a barbarian build.
Or don't bind it, and let the PCs be nervous about losing it to the BBEG, and make protecting the weapon an added responsibility. "Wait! Do you have your axe?" "Course I do. Why do you ask?" "There was a pickpocket!" "YIPES! Where's my AXE?!" "FIND THE PICKPOCKET OR THE WORLD IS DOOOOOMED!" Seriously, you could really add to the drama by NOT binding it.
@@AuntLoopy123 The DM planned on using the bond to screw with the player via the axe's nature, obviously. Which could be a fun story, if the player is down for it. Just, make the player quest for the bond, and give it to them as a reward. Maybe give them custom abilities with progress. Don't wreck their sheet.
If you're going to dig your heels in on an argument, the absolute least you could do as a GM is read the rules yourself and make sure you yourself understand just how the rules work, instead of just assuming you remember the rules correctly- not to mention that whole "you better take a few levels as a whatever otherwise that's the end of the world" isn't really a great thing to do to a player. Maybe it was something that should have been brought up much earlier so it could have been planned, or something else?
What we see here is a GM who couldn't admit they'd screwed up, and took it to an absolutely absurd end, and honestly, I think OP was right to quit- just hope they landed somewhere better than this virtual table.
I don't think the DM had access to the Players Handbook
He did, but he read something he didn't understand so he accused it of being a terrible handbook.
There are a lot of people out there who think that admitting they're wrong is a sign of weakness. The opposite is largely true: The ability to reconsider previously held beliefs, especially firmly held ones, is the sign of someone with the strength to let go of ego in favor of truth.
This is not to be confused with someone who just goes with whatever the last thing someone told them but held no strong beliefs in the first place, by the way. That's a different form of weakness.
I was so confused about the fact that he couldn't just take 1 level of Warlock.
Hexblade would only give him the sword thing. Charisma weapons don’t work well, spells work very bad, and the cursing isn’t that good. Beisdes, to actually bind it to him, he needs pact of the blade. So for a barbarian, it’s better to do 3 levels fighter than warlock.
@@insertlaughter4436 That explains it a bit better. I was confused as to why he needed to devote _three levels_ into a class that gets the subclass at level one.
@@insertlaughter4436 well for hexblades curse you dont NEED to use charisma, you can use strength if youd like. Its like shillagh. And while spells wouldnt be very good, its be better to just take something like sheild from the hexblades spell list, plus given how he said nothing about his charisma id assume it was higher then his intelligence. But aside from that i do think fighter was the better option for a barb in this situation
@@quidlad8536 You just said a bunch of correct things a more veteran player than OP would know. This was OP's first campaign. I highly doubt that OP would know all that.
Edit: I also highly doubt the internet would explain that to OP instead of the much easier route which OP wanted to take.
@@quidlad8536 eldritch knight also get shield as a spell. They also get more spell slots than a level 3 warlock.
Feel kind of bad for what happened in this story. I have to admit admitting you are wrong is tough which is why session 0 helps. Before I started my homebrew campaign, I told the players “listen I am not perfect at everything and I may get the rules wrong once in awhile so if you have a problem with how I run the campaign then after the session please let me know about it so I can get better.” Ive been running that campaign for around 6 months now and I learn new things from players as a benefit.
It has been really fun to see my players want to multiclass or gestalt, since I am not the best at it they tell me details about it when I ask. When I play it improves my character class knowledge a bunch. Keep learning and having fun.
Is one familiar even all that bad, even if we assumed the DM was right?
Feels like he just wanted to nerf this guy for some reason and was mad the player found an optimal solution.
Honestly he could have just made some ingame ritual instead of forcing a change on the character, that alone was really a yellow flag, but when he even takes control over the spells... red flag.
i would probably be the guy's worst nightmare, since he seems to hate the find familiar spell and i love LOVE my warlock's infinite range familiar
Im playing a battle smith artificer and took the arcane adept feat. So now i have my homunculus steel defender and a familiar and am contemplating taking a 2nd homunculus
This guy seriously pulled out the "everyone's stupid but me" argument.
I really love your videos! They're amazing, I really love the interesting stories you tell!
You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list.
The exact text as its written.
I don't trust that text.
@@Normaschthewanderer It do be looking pretty sus
I was just talking with my brother, yesterday, about a ruling he made.
I was so proud of my wizard, being prepared for shield, when we unexpectedly fought a wizard, who hit me with magic missile. I mean, we're just getting started, and I'm like, "Oh, yeah! I know what I'm doing! Woot! Shield for my reaction, and no damage!" Also, I had just used magic missile, and was all excited, saying, "THERE IS NO ATTACK ROLL! It simply doesn't miss! WOOHOO!" After missing all night with attack rolls, I was very happy about it, and everyone else was pleased to hear it. We had all been rolling like crap.
But then, after I used my reaction to cast Shield, he said, "But did you see it coming? You can't react, if you didn't see it coming."
He pointed out on the battle map the angles, and I admitted that no, I did not see it coming. Heck, I thought that wizard was out of action, because he was all tied up. But, his shoulder had been dislocated, when the barbarian tackled him, so he was able to use that to wiggle out of his restraints. Since we were "sure" he was tied up and unable to cast spells, let alone pick up a weapon, the entire party had turned their backs on him, to fight the other guys on the other side of the room.
Now, rules as written, that is not even a consideration. It doesn't say anything about you having to SEE the attack coming. At least, it doesn't say that in the text of the spell I wrote down, by hand, on my little spell card, from which I was getting all my info in game, so I didn't have to look it up in the player's handbook every time I cast. But, when he made that call, I thought, "This sort of thing is exactly WHY I asked for us to use battle maps, rather than just do theater of the mind. I wanted to be able to know angles and distances, specifically for making spells work, or not work. I didn't expect him to use it against me so early, but yeah. He is well within his rights, and added complexity to battle tactics adds to the fun flavor, right? So, yeah, I will accept that as a rule."
Yesterday, when we were chatting, I told him, "It's not rules as written, but I like it! It adds verisimilitude." He and I alternate, him DMing at his house one week, and me DMing at my house the next, and we have vastly different DM styles, but the game is always FUN. That's what matters, in the end.
We were actually laughing over how the next session, my character was literally screaming in frustration at what that same escaped wizard had done, while I, as a player, was laughing my head off. I LOVE it when my brother gets sneaky. Not vindictive. Just sneaky. And he loved it, too, knowing that, as a player, I was having a blast, and as a character, I had discovered new levels of challenge. And the best part is, according to the adventure, as written, we were supposed to kill or capture the wizard at that point, so now that he's escaped, my brother has to figure out what the heck to do with him, where to place him, and how he will have advanced by then. My character was gloating, "Well, at least I have his magic staff! He won't be able to do much without a staff." Then, we discovered that the wardrobe had a beautiful carved post on one side. Just one side. "NOOOOOOO! THAT BASTARD HAS A SPARE STAFF!"
I love my brother. I love his mind. And I love that he is willing to respect the rules, and know the rules, so that he can properly break the rules.
Like the OP said here, if the DM had simply said, "OK, I was wrong about rules as written. However, I want to run it this way, so that's how it's going to be for my game," that would have been fine. OP would have gone along with that. But the DM decided that he couldn't be satisfied with simply being "The god of this game session." He had to be RIGHT on the Internet. That's where he showed himself to be a fool.
Cardinal DM Sin: Forcing a player to play a class/race to suit your game.
Slight exception: These mandates are made at character creation. EG: We are starting at level 3 and I want everyone to have at least one cleric level for story reasons.
Well yes and no, I can understand a game where you are only allowing say humans (im in a campaign with that requirement) but the issue is controlling someone's class, subclass and multiclass because if they dont x problem in game may occur.
Edit: Unless its a premade character at say a con to save time
@@kingwildcat6192000 Making player's characters take classes according to the events of the campaign instead of what they want *can* be a very interesting idea, it adds a lot of immersion into the game. However, this is the type of thing that should be discussed before the campaign even started, and applied only if the player agreed to it beforehand.
@@antongrigoryev6381 i never said it wasnt an interesting idea or that it wasnt immersive. but i was more going at the fact your guilt tripping/backmailing a player to make them stay on the railroad or be at fault if the bbeg becomes a god because they chose to have player agency over cucking the bbeg
@@Starcoffin If I wanted all of my PCs to have at least one level of cleric, I would give them a free level in cleric. It would not count as a level, for spells and abilities that level up, based on the total level of the character, but you'd have the 1st level cleric abilities.
Yeah, I like Hombrewing. The thing is, a free class like this means that, if they LIKE cleric, they can choose to continue in that class, but if they don't like it, it costs them nothing and they can still go to full 20, in a single class, if they want to. Some of those single-class characters are SO COOOL.
In my first campaign as dm, I misread the attack of a creature. When I realized my mistake, I went back to that attack and fixed it. A lot of dms make mistakes, but only good ones fix them.
Thank you for shedding light on & making corrective suggestions for poor play. Keep up your good work.
Being told one is wrong stimulates the same part of the brain as being wrong. Being wrong can also trigger fight or flight.
It's called the Backfire Effect!
Learned that in Adam Ruins Everything.
@@LocalMaple cool source. I learned that from The Oatmeal. Google Oatmeal Backfire Effect!
Reminds me of the time a guy posted as a dm on FB asking about the rules on a torrtle with unarmored defense getting an AC of 18 plus stat bonuses he was shown rules, videos, ect. And he refused to accept, plus everyone said if he thought it was ok to do it to do it for his player but he wanted online proof he was right
Here's the issue, it's LITERALLY printed in the Player's handbook, and I quote "Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher. You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list." How in the hell can someone argue they are right when it's literally in writing they are not, and I know people would have told him the exact page number to find it, so either he refused to even look or refused to accept it. Either way, the DM was beyond dead wrong, and refused to acknowledge it by looking at the PHB.....despite willingly looking at the PHB when someone ELSE was mistaken about barbarian.
The DM deserved what he got from the internet, and it's good OP left, cuz I'm 100% sure things were ganna go down hill from there.
Yes very much. There is a big difference between 'that is nice but I'll run it this way in my game' and '(this obviously wrong thing) is what the rule says'. The worst that can come from the first you being an a*hole (anyone who says they've never been one is lying or delusional). The second, if you insist upon it, makes you an idiot with very poor reading comprehension.
Besides IMHO, eldritch knight is already too restrictive in its spell selection. As DM I would allow an EK to pick two schools that fit the character's personality and fighting style.
@@alexisartfeild2807 When my PC took Eldritch Knight, I didn't even check the schools of magic. I let him pick what he wanted, because either he read the rules and followed them, or he misunderstood the rules, and frankly, I have TOO MUCH TO DO, so I couldn't be fussed.
Yes, I am a lazy and generous, and trusting DM, and not getting hung up on RAW makes my life much easier.
I did check over if he was assigning spell slots and prepared spells properly, and getting things like hit dice correct. Those things matter to me.
@@AuntLoopy123 Yup. Unless the player is new to the system or causing problems (potentially cheating) I'll let them manage their own stuff. As you said as DM you already have too much too to do.
I once had a dm give a bard an animated piano that walked around with her yet refused to give me a gun as an artificer because in his words "explain why you need a gun" despite him only saying that to me. I even asked if he was going to ask anyone else that for their weapons of choice and he said "no" so I guess since guns are an artificer's bread and butter where we get spells and abilities that only work with guns, we're not allowed guns. He let the gunslinger have a gun though.
"Explain why you need a gun."
"Explain why you didn't ask any of the other players that question."
As soon as he singled you out, you should have said, "Treat me fairly or don't treat me at all," and bounced.
@@AuntLoopy123 I did ask why I'm being singled out and was told because artificers don't need guns and when I tried to explain why they do I was booted for arguing with the dm DESPITE the fact that when he said his decision was finial I dropped it.
I've been listening through all the videos in the D&D Horror Stories playlist and I gotta say- the vast majority of problems DMs and Players have is a person or two just being immature.
Learning the words "I am wrong" is an integral facet of leaving adolescence behind.
Warlock's Armour of Agathys is a good combination with Bear Barbarian.
Not so much if Barbarian is the primary class, because you won't get better spellslots.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I'd stop at the three dip, it's kinda obvious. Apparently Clockwork Sorcerer has access to Armour of Agathys as does Bard, and then there is the Mark of Warding in an Eberron campaign.
Absolutely about you're players having fun 100% true. If you found an exchange where you could be happy with barbarian/eldritch knight in a way that worked for you more power to you.
Personally, I think I would take a feat that binds the weapon to me instead of multiclassing, but if multiclassing was my only option, then I would do what you did, make the best of the multiclass combination.
i had a DM in college pull something like that he insisted that a nat 20 in combat was only a "potential crit" unless you rolled a second nat 20 making a Crit go from a 1:20 chance to a 1:600 as a result i started actively looking for weapons that lowered my crit range even if they were not ideal for my charicter
He might as well just say, "No crits in my game." It's not a popular ruling, but it's at least a fair one.
this story makes me wonder if looking for just a campaign on discord would be less drama than a west march, the last 2 i got invested in i left cause of drama.
Bounding to your weapon seems a bit overkill
Just don't lose it =w=
I mean, that trick would work exactly once anyways
When the BBEG comes to steal it the second time he will just kill you, then you can't resummon it
I don't get why the dm didn't just homebrew the barbarian to have the eldric knight features he wanted the player to use then. Maybe have it where the axe had a curse where the user was bond to it till death or something.
Because this was quite likely an attempt by the DM to nerf the player's character for whatever reason. A terribly dickish thing to do as a DM in regards to saying "multiclass or the world will end."
I’m new but one of the things I realized is that I probably still had my concentration from favored foe despite getting hit, maybe. I actually, while another player was deciding things, asked for some clarification from the dm and they said, “oh! I forgot about that. Roll to see if you keep your concentration.” And I did and got a 21 (considering I was rolling low almost that whole session I was so glad to get this). I kept it but the fight actually ended soon after. I probably could have used it if my next turn hadn’t missed so badly (like I said, I was rolling bad mostly). Ended up losing one of my arrows but at least got a a few back. I don’t actually have to track those things, with my dm’s permission, but didn’t see why not when I’m trying to figure out ranger mechanics and probably won’t always have that leeway. I’m the newest person at our table so I’m given a lot of leeway and advice from both the dm and other experienced people. I’ll occasionally have questions like this but I try to save them for an open moment and abide a dm ruling and ask for clarification if something doesn’t add up to what I do know is in the rules. Won’t really argue, but will basically try to get as much clarification as I can. My brain is one of those “million and one scenarios” creators, does tons of “what if”s , and it can be really good for strategy but it also means that I will learn every rule and how to twist it and bend it. It does this unconsciously even if I don’t always act on it (drove my parents and teachers insane when I was young, even if I mostly had the reputation of a “good” kid). So yeah. I’m going to pick at rules and ask how they work and why they work and see what ways I can creatively use them. I’m an artist and writer at heart and have always loved science. Picking things apart and figuring out how to rework them is the breath in my lungs and the blood in my veins. It’s what I do. I try to be polite though but I am well aware some people think this is an authority figure fighting thing. It’s not. I really don’t care one way or another for authority. It’s an “I want to know how and why this works and see what I can do with this” thing and I’m using questions to help with that. Question the world and figure it out, that’s what my parents always taught me. It’s what I live by now.
I recently held a Coup d’Etat (I’m not kidding) against my DM. He had no order at the table, took away player agency, rushed modules, took favourites and literally uses a new player’s character as their character.
He is quite salty as we voted him out, before he left he banned 2 players (I unbanned them) and claims he has all the players that voted against him.
Why? I asked if I could DM.
my favorite way to accept it is "ahh, i think your right" Im a first time dm so some of the rules go misinterpreted and i havent actually played much dnd so i dont know all the classes and such
player: "please sir may i have find familiar?"
DM: *die*
Just admit you were wrong, after all D&D has so many rules trying to memorize them its nearly impossible. I mean...that is why there are books about it! TO CHECK THEM!
Reminds me of one of my current campaigns where to DM and another player were arguing over the definition of a lance. It was a Grim Hollow campaign and the player I think wanted to combine stats with his new weapon by breaking off the tip and fusing it.
Entering a new table: please roll20 for every single player you are meeting. If there is a nat1, then kick the person immediately
MY dm had a small misinterpretation of extra attack (which everyone had before I joined - im the only one without that feature). I mentioned it once and in trying to clear up, he looked into it and came up with a new ruling that's even less RAW than before. I left that alone. Its not that big a deal as long as the rules apply equally and everyone is having fun.
Rules matter for Adventure League; homebrew? dm's ruling are still the most important.
It's important to be able to either roll with the punches or walk away from a fight with a DM.
"no spell I get by level 3 be uuseful as a barberian"
bud .... bud .... buuuuuuuud .... Armoth of Agathis !!! Mirror Image !!! 2 spells doesnt require concentration HUGE buff and you get double the benefet of armoth of agythis because having resistance essentially double the tmp HP
Mirror Image + Sentinel . if they tarrget you mirror it isnt you so you can use sentinel reaction
if you are ancestral barbarian they would have disadvantage on you mirror attack. and you can reckless and they will still have disadvantage to hit your mirrors and if they hit you Good they take 10 cold damage !!!
and many many other good spells for utility when you are not raging !
Wait, what version of dnd is this? cause 5e warlocks get their patron from level 1, so all they'd need is one level in hexlock. (unless they require PotB for some reason)
It requires PotB, 1 level in hexblade isn't sufficient.
The level 1 feature of hexblade also doesn't work with Greataxes
As i understand it, the idea was to bind the weapon to the character. Hexblade doesn't do that. PotB does. Really he could have gone with any warlock subclass and take PotB and it would achieve the goal of binding the weapon.
@@AndreyKrichevsky althought Hexblade would still be ideal probably
@@basbarbeque6718 Eh, honestly the only benefit Hexblade would offer is the Shield spell, that's it. The hexblade's curse is meh, moreso if you have a crap Charisma. The hex warrior is again meh since barbarians already get light armor, medium armor, shields, and martial weapons, and again hitting with charisma is not helping any. If all he needed was pact of the Blade, I'd have gone with Celestial Warlock. The pool of D6 that can be used for healing (and isn't a spell so it can be used while raging) plus having access to cure wounds for a spot of extra healing seems like a much more beneficial dip choice then hexblade.
@@demonzero677 I wouldn't give up my level 20 capstone ability. That just SUCKS.
The DM could have made it a story element that they need to find a way to bind the blade. AND they could have accomplished that long before they go through three whole levels. WASTED levels.
This is maddening.
I haven’t been a dm yet but I somehow managed to forget that Sacred Flame was a dc and not a spell attack twice and dm let it slide because I was new.
Yeh that scumbag got shown up and failed in every way to cover it up
I don't know how hard it is to understand this:
"You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list."3 spells known, 2 of which must be Abjuration and/or Evocation, meaning that you can have 1 Abjuration, and 1 Evocation spell, or 2 Abjuration, or 2 Evocation spells.This is about the Eldrich Knight subclass of the Fighter class.Pretty simple if you ask me.But then again, I have had similar players, who have stated I am wrong, when I am reading directly from the source books, and then they throw their "Proof" on me, from Homebrew pages.
-.- Homebrew means it is a home ruling, that means that specific DM or Player overrules the ruling of the books.But if you argue against me when I say this is how the rule goes in my campaign, then don't expect me to be gullable, I do not take bullshit lightly.Example of this:Player goes into an Icewind Dale Rule set (The same rule set that is for the Game Icewind D.A.L.E).First he says I am wrong about the rules, when he takes up the 5e ruleset, and I explained multiple times, we are going by the Icewind Dale ruleset, not 5e, but he didn't let up.So fine, I then changed it to 5e ruleset, but he got angry because I wouldn't allow him to go with a Homebrew Grenadier class, that could at level 5 create a Fire Bomb, that did 10d20 Fire Damage, 10d20 Slashing damage, 10d20 Blunt damage, and 20d20 Piercing damage, for no cost. *Note*: This bomb also had a 60ft Radius, meaning a diameter of 120ft of an explosions, that could be thrown 180ft.I said it would have to be an Ultimate thing, and that it required some very unique and very hard to find materials that costs a TON of resources to make.Either that, or lower the damage, the aoe and how far you can throw it, since that was just BS.He was even going against the literal ruling that you need the specific materials to create the bomb in the first place, and was arguing that Spell Casters didn't have to use materials to make their spells...Because Spell Casters have to Slot their spells, and have limited Slots, that makes them have to spend 8 hours of Memorizing to be able to cast.Where a Ranger/Archer would require to buy, or Fletch arrows/crossbow bolts to use their weapons, that sling users actually have to gather rocks/stones to be able to use their ranged weapon.And that cost resources as well, material things to make physical things.But no, that was not enough, so he then argued that Pathfinder was so much better, that he wanted the Point system, and that the HP system in DnD was too bad.So okay, fine, we will then play Pathfinder, by the book I said. I literally posted the whole book, for how you roll your HP, and roll for skills, and pin pointed that if you are to make things that are physical, you require to use the allocated materials to make them.Same as spell casters needed materials for a lot of their spells, and they don't come cheap on their own either.All in all, he left, because he couldn't make a super OP character, because I wouldn't allow it.
Had too many attacks by round and too much damage by hit, but complain, all over the net, about not had an owl!
That kid missed out on Booming Blade and critical rolling on top of that
I agree tho he won’t be able to use it during rage
And multiattack is much better than Booming Blade, especially if you have 2d12 weapon.
@@antongrigoryev6381 it gets stronger with your character level because it's a cantrip *and* you get thunder damage as a choice in the general arsenal. Additionally it restricts a enemy "do I move and take damage", plus Critical applies to the first hit.
@@UndeadDragonWarrior 2d12+Str is about 17 points of damage. Booming Blade deals less, even if the target moves, until lvl 11. And even then you need the target to actually move to deal more damage than your second attack would.
And crits don't matter. You have a 5% chance of crit, so 5% of all your attacks will be crits. That's it. One powerful attack, multiple attacks - damage increase will be about the same. Actually, multiple attacks will be better with Barbarian because of Brutal Criticals, though it's 9th lvl and may not matter.
And that's not even considering Rage, which, in my experience, you would very rarely not have available.
@@antongrigoryev6381
Damage isn't everything, the 'threat' of damage weighs on anyone aware of it, plus you still get the opportunity for Attack of Opportunity either way.
Plus this doesn't deny Multiple attacks, could still achieve it later with Barbarian in general, it's the option to dissaude a enemy from running away. You can really only achieve that with the Sentinel Feat otherwise, which could still be useful on either case.
[2d12+STR+#d8 (if move +#d8) damage] looks more intimidating than, [2d12+STR & 2d12+STR] damage] Two Attacks. I swapped back to my old Barbarian, I know the value, but I find mind games useful. You may be able to disengage, but you'll still receive wrath, with or without Sentinel.
once I got on an argument with someone about what spells you get when multiclassing. essentially I was saying as long as you have slots at a high enough level you can as a druid and cleric prepare spells of the level which the other individual disagreed with pg 164 as his evidence pointing at the example it gives where a wizard can´t learn a third level spell because he does´nt has enough wizard levels.
though this example seems to disprove my argument I then checked for wording. on pg 114 of the phb wizard learning says ¨Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown by the Wizard table.¨ so this is the case with wizards, but it seems if you can get a higher-level spell scroll and copy it into your spellbook (only specifying you must be able to prepare it) your ability to then prepare it because the only specification for preparing is that it´s in your book and you have the slots not specifying the wizard table this time. so you can cast above your individual classes level
Then I checked other spell casters. bards specify the table, but when you level up you can trade a spell with the only specification being spell slots. clerics prepare from their whole list only specifying spell slots. druids are the same. sorcerers don´t specify the table and let you swap when you level up.
so the argument by my understanding is that when you multiclass you can prepare spells of a higher level than the class alone can cast but the other person disagreed then a month later I summarized it in the comment section of a youtube video. tell me if I´m wrong
I don't play DnD, but i'm interested in the game, so i looked into different rules. And i was interested in this question myself. If i take 17 lvls in Wizard, and then go 3 lvls in cleric, can i cast lvl 9 cleric spells?
My conclusion from reading the multiclass rules is that the rules are inconsistant. Every "spellcasting" section in class descriptions sais you can learn/prepare spells based on spell slots you have. But the multiclass section mentions the possiblity of having higher spell slots then you can use as a class. So the way i see it, it's up for personal interpretation... Nothing in the rules sais you definitively can't cast a 9 lvl cleric spell as a 17 lvl wizard/3 lvl cleric, but the rules suggest that you might not be able to...
The example in the multiclass section with wizard also has Ranger levels, and it is also mentioned that you can't have Ranger spells of 2nd level, even though Ranger has the same wording that is tied to the max level of the spell slots.
So even if we assume that RAW you're right, it's just bad wording. It's certainly not intended, and it goes against the example used in the book, which is there specifically to show how it should work. Plus remember that multiclassing is an optional rule, so the wording of pure classes shouldn't necessarily account for it. So no, you can't cast spells of a higher level than your class level allows. It would be broken if it worked like this.
Edit: Maybe we have different printings of phb, but wizard's wording doesn't have ", as shown by the Wizard table." part either. Only "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots".
@@antongrigoryev6381 my problem with that is also how ridiculously underpowered you would make spell castor multi classes your already missing out on features but now there is the clam that your core mechanic just doesn't properly advance with you
@@AndreyKrichevsky that is how i understand it
@@antongrigoryev6381 My DM is perfectly fine with multi-class characters gaining spells of a higher level if they happen to have spell slots because you usually have to sacrifice things to multi-class anyway.
He let my 8th level Paladin gain 3rd level Sorcerer spells when she got a level in Sorcerer because he thinks the RAW restriction on multi-class spellcasting is stupid.
Ah yes , the rules of dnd , always a potential of trouble
Ah yes -- rules of anything.
Given how the content usually is on these channels, I assumed it was IN game, and therefore it doesn't matter what the rules are, the DM's ruling is law. But this was outside the game and... wow.
"I can't be wrong- I'm the DM!
Sadly, something that has plagued the game from it first conception...
Forcing someone to take a class without talking about it is already a bad thing. To then fight and restrict that character further just sucks. Being a DM is knowing roughly how the rules work (most DMs will never have every rule down for every class, spell, attack it will drive you insane if you do) so being open to someone telling you differently is fine. Take a moment, open the book and clarify. Most of all don't double down on either side. Players make mistakes, DMs make mistake. Own up to it and move on. Much more important things to do like slaying dragons and getting drunk in a tavern.
If you watch Critical Role, Matt Mercer, who's considered to be the best DM ever by a lot of people, opens the PHB at least once per session to double check some rule that comes up...
The DM did tell the player how he wanted it set up, so going online to show the rules otherwise was not a good move on the player.
The player should have also communicated more with the DM about the multiclassing and see how the DM will set the rules.
The DM is always right ... in their own game.
I'm gonna put an addendum to that. This DM should not have forced op to multi class when they didn't want to.
Who among us hasn't read the rules wrong once in while.
Hey how do I find a game to play I would love to find a group seriously
That was honestly really picky of that DM, nevermind the whole "I'm right situation," but homebrewing to make an already forced nerf even more nerfed? Like, did he even want his player to have fun?
Mitm did the same thing same type of scenario except I didn't have a choice I had to take Warlock
I sympathize with op from the first story, however, out of the fighter, or hexblade dip hexblade was obviously the superior choice, as he only had to waste one level into it, and he got a curse that he could use while raging
He would need the Pact of the Blade to bind the weapon to him.
@@antongrigoryev6381 True. Still the better option. Hex blade curse, Eldritch Smite, The ocasionally useful blink or invisibility, even shield for when he goes low on initiative (not on surprise rounds though)
Though if he wished for just 3 lvl dip, he wouldn't be able to get the smite
I never played dnd till a couple years ago and after two sessions it stopped because year couldn’t meet and not many people could some so it was offend cancelled but apparently owning no dnd books or knowing how to use dnd beyond wasn’t and excuses to the dm any chance he took he will attack me who still is fairly new and doesn’t know that much other than how to role play I don’t fully understand spells either but when someone else make a idea equal to something I have bought up they get this is why we need new players the. When I have a equal. Idea I got a stop being so dumb and stupid with your character or he’s dead and I’ll make you a new one. I’m not a dnd book collector nor can I sit and memorize rule I can find a quick jump past if I can make a home though it won’t be that great
Anyone have good advice on finding an online dnd group?
i don't agree that D&D is only meant for one group to have fun i feel like if everyone isn't having fun then it's not true D&D as i tried to get back into D&D recently over discord but it ended in everyone there using homebrew as an excuse and characters being transferred from one capman group to another with a bunch of homebrew rules to the point they started honestly making be get burned out of D&D again the one good DM i had ended up quit due to the server owner the only person who could introduce new players into the server causing a massive server split even though there were reports of 5 players on both side of their factions war causing major problems to the point the neutral players that joined like me where either forced to take a side if you wanted to play or you just didn't get any play time and the few DMS who did dm where all using rules that would interchange based on the character instead of the worlds campaign and by DM i wont get into it as well the only cool experience i had has become so blurry from the sheer toxicity that accord right after words i can't even bother to remember it other than the name Viest and him being a really good dm what was so bad about the server was when you think D&D you think the D&D ruleset right instead when it came to breaking rules in D&D basically the only thing you had to say was homebrew and you'd be off the hook i remember at level since they let you make or get a special item or magical power on that server you could give yourself something like a made up item such as the ring of unlimited wishing which gave a neutral evil goblin a wish spell without an drawbacks on top of that they nerf and limited the wish spell to the point it was you can wish for like anything equal to the amount of platinum you had on you and say you wanna wish the monster you party has no chance of killing away or teleport away from said monster guess what your not allowed to use teleport spells until you do this super secret quest only one faction knows how to do and no one else has information on how to do or even find much less start it wanna know world lore your gonna have to find it eyes of the rune keeper written in elvish guess what you can't read it unless you actually know elvish making eyes of the rune keeper a very useless feat along with comprhend language only good dm they had going for them was Viest and he ended up quiting cause of the streess up on him and the players in the server
7:28 doesn't reckless apply advantage to all strength attacks for the entire turn? If it does, this DM is wrong again.
As I understood, he (player) attacked twice even before he got the Extra Attack feature because he thought Reckless Attack allows him.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I missed the level they were at. Even still, the extra attack doesn't take a a bonus action.
Ok this one to real for me it didnt happen to me but I had a disagreement with a dm before in the same way about a rule then him just saying o it's my homebrew world and I can do what I want but it wasn't about his homebrew and was the 1st time he said we were in his homebrew so we all looked at him saying thought we were playing DND and if not we would like to play dnd not this homebrew so we all know what to do and how to do it that was the end of that game
People need to learn to not argue with an out-of-context internet mob unless they don't care about the response, because the response will always be more shit than helpful. Similar to another video, this person should not have engaged in this reddit dispute at all. Internet mobs make everything worse for everybody. Keep your private disputes private.
If it was a small and honest mistake, there really is no shame in taking the L on it, nobody will jump on you for saying "Whoops, my bad", and by that time tomorrow everyone will have all but forgotten the matter. Digging your heels in deep and arguing with 80+ people at once over a trivial matter is a bigger mistake that will likely brand you an idiot online for a good long while, please try not to follow DM's example.
Well to be 100% real dm is god so what they say is what they say but mans did fuck up
Just take a level in warlock to bind the weapon and Eldritch blast stuff 🙄
1 level isn't enough unfortunately
Not to mention 1d10 as opposed to 2d12 is a huge difference in damage.
The amount of warlock simps in here is amazing.
@All Things DnD when did you start going bald?
I'd allow it
GM shouldn't have cared about the rules in the first place, you're the GM just decide what he is allowed to use and what not and in this case allow him more than normal not less, you're kinda forcing him to multi class after all.
Ok. You you can talk trash on the DM all you want but this situation could've easily been avoided if instead of asking random internet people he just showed him the damn book. This would've avoided the internet stuff and allowed the problem to solve much faster as it will immediately change the discussion form the rules to "i don't like how that works"
Deja vu 😕
Just want to point out, being a hex blade warlock even as Bear Barbarian will absolutely not nerf yu
Next Spotify upload?
I'm not gonna be the 421th like .I'll be back
Boom
I'd personally suggest just not going along with the DMs plan.
Being told the fate of the world rests on your shoulders at level 3, and then being "suggested" to multiclass into a specific class/subclass is not fun.
DMs shouldn't have this much control over what classes a PC takes.
That the kid wanted to argue in internet is normal in these days. You are wrong when you think rules need to be rigid. It is ok, new people always fall in the same assumption. You will learn eventually.
Look, this is kinda dumb. Dm is god in the game, and can make rules of his own. However, it is my belief that he should make an effort to make the campaign balanced. The dm should also not go out and argue endlessly about the rules, which he can make and can use in his module.
wassuuuppp
There should always be a touch of wiggle room on the rules I think...but if the internet really needs to be brought in for it eeeeegh well lets see YIRBEL LIVES.
OP is a fool (
"Everyone is allowed to be wrong...", you say. Hmmm.
I say, that OP is wrong. Both Hexblade AND Eldritch Knice are amazing multiclasses for Barbarian.
But the DM should never have forced the multiclass on OP.
Any DM worth their salt would find a way for the weapon to be bound to the PC without needing the multiclass.
Here, a free example from a DM who is currently fly running two campaigns that take place 20k years apart and indirectly impact each other:
The axe was _actually_ originally not the BBEG's but rather a young, lost to history, folk hero.
A shard of that hero's soul is awakened because the PC is a descendant of them,
their [will of fire]
or whatever mcguffin backstory
or whichever connection.
Standard tropes are standard because they are an outline easily modified to fit into any story as an aside. The mutation and blending into your's and your players' game world is what makes them memorable, not the fact that they are a standard side quest.
Which in and of itself can become the mini adventure to even get said multiclass anyways.
So like, put in effort or put in a lot of effort and make them picking the multiclass seem like it was their idea anyway.
(Valkriste do not read that last sentence ;) )
Edit: the above is a joke, I just gave him a sexy invisible incubus and he did the rest. Now the incubus is a Patron, and everyone is _pleased._
I understand that the stories are community stories but why do you always just post stories about terrible players/ dms? I want some epic tales or a sad story or something of substance once in a while...
There are a lot of those on this channel. Heroic, funny, creative moments are pretty usual here. Not sure what you're talking about.
@@antongrigoryev6381 yes there are cases of good heart warmy stories but is mostly " when my asshole dm did a shitty thing to our shitty game group" i just want some positivity is all im saying
This channel has far more of the type of video you're asking for than the majority of D&D channels, so I don't understand your complaint.
You are everything wrong with dnd divas.
this player sounds like a problem player from the start. 1 the player could easily have not taken any of the multi class options. 2 the player obviously is brand new and hexblade warlock is an amazing multi lass for barb. 3 player sounds like one of those people that thinks combat is the only thing in the game. I wouldnt want to play with this dm or this player.
DM's decides the rules. The handbook are just a guideline.
Yes, but homebrew rules conflicting with RAW should ALL be discussed prior to gameplay. Not being allowed your wild card spell as an EK could influence your decision in the entire character archetype. Some rulings can't be made until in the moment, but that's a big one that should have been known to everyone from the get-go.
But that's not what's being discussed tho
@@juddperson6110 guy should of consulted the dm during multi-class building. It's not players vs dm, it's players playing out the dms story.
@@tjcross2 I did. He came prepared consulting the internet. But from sounds of it never verified anything with the DM. At the end of the day the DM decides what's allowed.
@Wraith You get it. Lol.
First
cry baby