In all sincerity, that Sentinel call could DEFINITELY have been handled better by me (and shortly after the moment I noted three different, better ways I could have). The stress of it all likely didn’t help either, hehe. Even so, there was no weirdness or butt hurt feelings after, and I made sure to check! :) Part of why I have even been doing this for nearly 10 years is to show some good things to do in your games, if you like, and show the mistakes I make as well. LEARN from my MISTAKES.
Its a perfect example of a DM making a ruling in the moment, and everyone jumping onboard with it and moving the game forward! Hope you don't mind me making these kind of videos about you!
@parkerparagas3583 personally, I think of Sentinel less as "physically preventing the creature from moving" and more "the damage it took as it tried to leave has convinced it that you are the larger threat, so it stays to kill you instead."
Had a DM who would always respond, "You do not find the trap" regardless of whether there wasn't a trap to begin with or the player's roll wasn't high enough. We loved it and it's been running gag ever since.
Honestly, that’s one of my biggest pet peeves and I never use it as a DM unless you failed. If you get the same information on a success as a failure, what’s the point of rolling? In my experience it either brings the game to a grinding halt as paranoid over caution takes over or people get so frustrated with non-answers that they forgo preparation and just charges in regardless.
Something I appreciate about Brennan is how rarely he actually says no. Instead he'll just impose disadvantage or a higher DC-sometimes to a ridiculous level matching the ridiculousness of the request. I think saying No outright makes sense with roleplaying heavy campaigns or simpler systems (like the kids on broomsticks system Aabria uses in Misfits and magic) but in battle-heavy campaigns with big complex storylines like the ones Brennan tends to run, I think replacing saying No with instead imposing disadvantages or higher dcs matched to the level of insanity of pcs requests, is a really cool, fun and successful way to navigate pcs more illogical requests/improbable attempted actions.
"How foes sentinel stops this creature ?" "I don't know. With his sword ? I'm not a warrior in a fantasy world with magic equipment and some god's favor, but my character does." It's like having a character with a huge bonus for playing an instrument, and you try to impress the king. Then, the DM asks : "Ok, how does he impresses the king ?" "I don't know. With his instrument ? I'm not a pro music player, but my character is." or "How does your rogue evade the fireball damage since he's right in the center or the blast ?" "I don't know, but the rules says he can."
@@dragonfan8647That makes sense to me, if a player used sentinel against a target that they hit but didn't deal damage (maybe the target is immune to nonmagic weapons), it would make sense that the target wouldn't be slowed or stopped
one of my favorite made-up rules Brennan did was when Zac Oyama and Emily Axford as Gorgug Thistlespring and Fig Faeth respectively tried to save their friend Fabian Aramais Seacaster (Lou Wilson) from his own RP blunder (he was fully in character and made a really bad choice) Zac and Fig decided to do something beyond stupid and when they tried to make complex rolls in the moment of going like, 80 mph flying through the air while hanging on to a rope (this was all live streamed btw), Brennan decided to make them roll "Quadruple Disadvantage".
@@Shelmer75 yeah, a few episodes later Ally tried to have Kristen pull an acrobatic stunt with ribbon dancing (with Kristen's -3 dex mod) and Brennan just coldly went "Hey Ally? *I'm going to allow this.*"
If a player often misses sessions and has a hectic schedule, they could always appear occasionally as an reoccuring character that happens to be played by someone other than the dm
Yeah it seems like a lot of people don’t want to play unless everyone is there because they view their games like a movie or tv show. But even in tv shows main characters are gone for an episode all the time.
Or as a guest star, playing the Big Bad of the week! I also had a campaign where one guy who was only there part of the time played as the druid's familiar. The familiar ran on autopilot most of the time as familiars do, but when Chris was playing him the familiar got to make his own decisions and have more personality.
I think this sort of thing would work really well in cyberpunk, since a lot of what you're doing is individual gigs someone getting busy and not being on every job makes sense also theres already a system for side hustles between jobs so if you want to, as GM you can grant them some Eddies and xp in character so they dont get too far behind the main group
I showed up as the Campion to a god of death hunting the party. Was stacked on health and potential dmg and had lycanthropy to spice it up. I was dropped like a sack of rancid potatoes the first encounter lmao, the party was very sus of everyone at the time and didnt bother to waste time finding out if I was evil or not XD
I did this for a while, and the our dm tied it into the story SO well. Honestly it's what kept me in the group in the midst of hectic schedules and life getting in the way and I'm FOREVER greatful
Well, he was trying to cast a concentration spell (invisibility) while already concentrating on invisibility. A spell's description does note if a spell is concentration, but it doesn't remind you of the rules of how that works. So, an easy thing to forget because the spell itself doesn't remind you that casting this will drop something else.
A thing I appreciate about Aabria from watching her as a player is that while she's as likely as any other player to make an ask of the DM (maybe even more likely because she does know the rules very well) she's often happy to accept a 'no' as the answer. It's very fun to watch her encourage the DM to say no if that's what makes sense in the moment because it models how to take that no gracefully.
I think punishment is a bit of a strong word to use for the EXU example. It wasn't "you don't know your spells, so im going to make this suck for you." (I have seen DMs that act like this.) It was, "You did what you did, here's what happens." She wasn't punishing him. She just didn't save him from himself. It was a really funny moment and everyone was laughing- including Robbie. I think its exactly the kind of mixup a real adventurer might have when they're still new to magic. To me it was completely believable and matched the tone of EXU perfectly. If it had been a level 15 boss fight where the tone is serious, the stakes are high, everyones thinking about a million different things, and the *characters* know better, I probably would have given Robbie a chance to change his mind. But for that particular moment? It worked great.
No, it's accurate. Aabria loves making players feel like they're making the wrong decisions. Prime example being how Opal was FORCED to use the Lolth crown, and any attempt to do anything BUT use the crown was punished with failure, being robbed of agency, or Aabria openly complaining.
I call it setting boundaries. Like little kids and velociraptors, players will periodically test your boundaries to see if they're real and if they have any weak points. They'll do it even with things they don't particularly care about, just to test your reaction. "Will the DM let me cast Invisibility without losing the Invisibility I'm concentrating on? Let's find out." It's your job to make the game feel real, and the way we feel things is by reaching out a hand and seeing if it finds any resistance. Something that can be passed right through feels like an illusion.
I think punishment is a proper word because as they said, I wouldn’t have done it if I would’ve known and she made the, abide by it, however I will say, punishments don’t have to be severe, punishment doesn’t have to be soul destroying, it’s still the word ud use. But it’s such a minor thing anyways others can argue it’s not but again since she didn’t flex on the decision, technically it counts. And I like that. Punishments can be minor and funny a lot of the times too. Not argument here, just fun word understanding
I try to "no but" if i cant "yes and" with my players, giving them a route to achieve what they want or something close without letting them do something super game breaking
Was once in a campaign where a player tried to use call lightning deep within a cavern system (ie no path to the sky for said lightning to come from), DM said ok, roll damage etc - and obviously nothing visible happened - the player asked why nothing took damage, and the DM said the lightning bolt struck the ground about 300 feet above you. Player was annoyed - both because they lost their spell slot AND because they'd actually meant to cast Lightning Bolt. On the very next turn, the, still annoyed, player cast Call Lightning again, the DM even checked it was what they wanted to cast, they said yes - and the DM ruled it exactly the same, zero backing down for the player not knowing how their own spells work xD (the player then tried to cast it a third time in the same combat with much anger when it still wasn't working xD)
If you were in a large enough cavern at the time, the spell creates a cloud when you cast it, even underground. And if you weren’t then the spell wouldn’t do anything and the DM didn’t need to ask for fake damage rolls
I disagree with that ruling since the spell clearly says it can be used indoors as long as you have 10 feet of space above you, so it’s not a case of the player not knowing their spell. Secondly, unlike the example with the Sentinel feat against a giant creature, this ruling burns both a resource and the player’s action. Even if Marisha knew that Sentinel feat wouldn’t work, it doesn’t change what her character would have done on that turn. She still would have attacked. If the druid knew that Call Lightning wouldn’t work indoors, they would definitely have used a different spell.
The cavern in question wasn’t big enough for the spell to go off, before combat started there had been awhole discussion coming up with a plan that made specific use of the low ceiling - and the player immediately before the Druid had also had difficulty attempting to jump over the enemies due to the ceiling height. The Druid hadn’t been paying attention. The DM asked “are you sure you want to cast that spell” and the play said yes. Was 100% a case of the player both not paying any attention to what’s been going on and not knowing their spell. Sure the first instance might’ve been a tad harsh, but the Druid still tried the exact same thing two more times even after having it explained why the spell wasn’t working.
@wyltedleaves nah sometimes your players just don't remember every single spell. Most of the people I play with are good about correcting themselves or adhering to spells and rules in general but, there's times where we make mistakes or misread how something works so we retcon or just move forward. It's not as big a deal unless someone is consistently wrong about how things work and people really shouldn't be so harsh about a tabletop games when there's simple resolutions and you can learn from it.
That's why new players get the puppy phase and help from a good DM. But when you have been playing 30 hours of DnD with me and did not read your character sheet properly, I am sure as hell not going to remind you of your bonus damage.
@@bluewilliams4911 Nope. It can totally be part of the format to be new to the game or pen and paper altogether. Did you watch Dungeons and Drag Queens? It is easy to spot the one queen who has actually played DnD before. They do have experience in entertainment however. 15 years of Pen and Paper and I could not play like those people in Dimension 20, not because I have no game experrience, but because I am not a Stand Up comedien used to that level of improv.
Matt tried to punish Tiberius for trying to cast fly while he had fly on some guys already. It was right before he 'left' the game. You gotta learn your character.
@@zachnightingale8156 they all fell out of the sky very chaotically, nearly plumetting to their deaths, and he had to make some rolls to save himself i believe. it was somewhere around episode 24 or 25 of campaign 1
@@jawamaster it definitely depends on the situation. in this case, the player was regularly ignoring rules and ruining fun moments for the table by stealing centerstage. i'm no expert but i'd say if the vibe at the table/of the campaign is more chill then a reminder is due, especially for novice players. but if it's a scarier or more intense campaign, then adding consequences for not noticing things like that can add more tension. always talk to your players! or if you're a player, always talk to your dm!
@jawamaster Like Four said, it's really a case-by-case sorta thing. In this instance, the player for Tiberius had *ridiculous* "Main Character Syndrome" to the point it was ruining the experience for all the other players, including Matt himself. Would need to double-check, but I think it was getting to the point that all the female players (Laura especially) got uncomfortable around him (because Tiberius was hitting on their characters constantly or undermining their cool moments). This sort of "DM attitude" is only as common as there are players who're like this. Even the nicest people out there (like Matt) aren't able to put up with it with grace for long, eventually you *have* to smack the hammer down.
One time I got a nat 20 for a stealth check and now canonically dragons are colorblind within our campaign they have to actively use magic to see colors
While I love CR, and while Matt Mercer is one of my idol DMs, I actually don’t like the Sentinel example! Beau is a 20th-level super-monk! Matt should’ve asked Marisha how Beau stopped the huge monster *in earnest* and then accepted if she could think of a cool and sensible description of how Sentinel stopped the monster after all. Would’ve been fun and felt less patronizing. I don’t think the moment was that serious, of course. Just think it’s an extremely rare instance where Matt could’ve handled something better. Also, I think it’s important to note that Brennan Lee Mulligan doesn’t apply his home-rules to every game, far from it. The insta-death rule, for example, is specifically from Neverafter, D20’s most lethal campaign BY FAR.
Agreed, DM's shouldn't belittle their players like that especially not mid-combat. Honestly he's very lucky Marisha is his wife and long time friend because it would have been 100% fair for a player to leave the whole damn game after being teased like that. I particularly hated that moment because I DM for neurodivergent players, some from other countries with English as a second language, and they would have genuinely described how they stopped a gargantuan creature in a heartbeat
@@inuendo6365 bit of an overreaction with leaving the table even if i played with a dm for the first time and they do that to me i wouldn't be to upset
I disagree. As apart of the DM Forever group myself, I sometimes do this to my players and I’ve explained this to them as well to the point they understand. But in the case of CR in that particular situation. It’s different if they were doing a streamed session compared to that session that was live in front of an audience. Ok wow, you rolled a Natural 20. You want a cookie for making a simple hand gesture to do that? Now I as the DM am going to make you earn that 20, just as you do ANY OTHER GAME NIGHT… explain how your sentinel did it. Thats all he required. For that natural 20, he wanted her to give an oration to the audience for a more dramatic effect to give them exactly what they paid for. In the end it was a “I shouldn’t have to do that” and the DM said, well bump it then, i shouldnt have to give you the natural 20 either. DC checks dont have to be 18 or lower. And players seem to forget that. These CR players are all lvl 20. Which means they are going up against monsters that may or may not have spells or actions that will have DC’s of 24 to 28 on them… even if you catch a natural 20, ok that plus whatever your modifier is, it may not reach the DC of what they are fighting. Yes there is a cool factor there for hotting the max dice limit, and a DM can “choose” to have that effect added which he did, but if you the player dont decide to go along with that cool factor yourself, then sit back and accept that that challenge DC is probably waaay above your pay grade.
@@JVHorvath1 yeah if you acted like a coddled child like your comment suggests it's surprising you have players at all. How old are you 12? "Ok wow you rolled a Nat 20, you want a cookie" sounds like there's a reason you're a forever DM, you need the power imbalance not to get kicked
@@ArturoRivera2004 the perspective was more for my players but yeah at level 20 I'd leave the table because I value my time investment. Personally I think Mercers games would be boring AF to play in already and I watch a double speed for the group as a whole, not for his DM style
Mind you, could probably explain sentinel as cutting a ligament in their leg or tripping them as they go by, or just knocking them off balance for 6 seconds
I would just say "because i chose it as my feat. At that time you didnt inform me of this houserule." Sentinel gets on many DMs nerves, because it is so powerfull. If you as a DM wants to modify it, thats fine. But you NEED to inform your players about it if they want to take Sentinel, so they know what they choose and how it will work in play.
@@KamiRecca you would be a horrible player. Telling the DM that no creature's are immune to movement speed reductions unless you've been told beforehand is toxic. Yes, DM's can make creatures immune to movement speed reductions (freedom of movement). Maybe the DM didn't think about it until the moment it happened, but the DM has an ability to add things to a creature or NPC when it makes sense. It's not a houserule, it is simply logic. When the player can't even come up with a good reason besides "it's duh rulez!" then it should be dismissed. Matt's first and only olive branch was to ask the player "how?" At that moment the whole table realized how ridiculous the idea of stopping a 4 story monster by slapping them with a staff was.
@@Kishandreth i am a player with 24 years experience, both as a player and a DM. I am not new to this. No it is not toxic to say that a DM should proclaim what houserules he/she uses. Thats just good DM conduct. This is the rules, as written: Sentinel: You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits. - Players handbook "ANY ENEMY'S GUARD" is rather clear language, is it not? So if the DM decides that it does not work on "Any Enemy", then thats a houserule. P.s Of course the DM can make whatever ruling he/she wanys. The enemy can be Immune to Sentinel feat, or any other ability, effect, status or spell, and the DM doesnt even have to explain it, just say " unfortunately that doesnt work." My problem here is that the DM demands the player to motivate why a ability, especially one from such a finite resourse as a Feat, would work, when the rules CLEARLY says it works.
@@KamiRecca 24 years experience but never looked at the monster manual. I cited the exact spell that allows ANY creature to not suffer from ANY reduction to movement speed.(Freedom of movement) There are plenty of examples of creatures being immune to prone or grapple or restrained. Immunity to movement speed reduction is absolutely a thing a DM can give a creature. Tell me how the sentinel feat allows a player to stop a vampire in mist form from moving with a weapon attack. Tell me how a wraith with it's immunities can be stopped. I'm telling you that simply stating "it says the creature creature's speed becomes 0" is completely toxic because as a player you don't know what traits the DM assigned to the creature. You doubled down attempting to put your 24 years of experience against a logical argument and lost. I can probably pull out other examples of creatures that have traits that make them unstoppable.
@@Kishandreth you dont read very well, do you? Yes a DM can decide to do anything, give whatever immunity they want etc. But asking a player to motivate Why a ability should work, when the ability, according to the rules Should work, that is toxic. That goes against player agency. We tend to play in worlds of Magic, Miracles, Blessings, Curses, Destiny and Other Magic Shennanigans. Logic and Realism, unless a core tennant in the setting (and dnd is not one of them) takes the back seat by neccessity. So in a world where thoughts can power arrows in flight, fire can be shaped into elementals by will, why Shouldnt Sentinel work against wights or vampires, unless specificly homebrewed by the DM or stated by the rules? As for Freedom of Movement or other abilities, that was not the case here, was it? Matt didnt go "sorry, its effected by Freedom of Movement". He could have, but he didnt. Instead it was the case of "i dont Want this to work." Now go out there, play some wonderfull campaigns, and come back when you've realized that you are an ass, ready to make yourself a better person. Best of wishes - Kami
Taking a beat to look up the rules is such a good note. I run Pathfinder 2e online and it is such a blessing to be able to have access to all of those rules online free. I ran a 5e campaign and found it a bit more invasive to pause the game to crack open the book and try to find the rule I needed to refer to. I would still do it because getting it right was important, but it would always take that much longer with 5e.
There's a lot of emphasis in this on ignoring the rules when it suits the situation. But I feel like it's a bit mischaracterized. It's not ignoring the rules for the DM to make a ruling that sometimes no roll is necessary. That's literally how the game works. The DM makes rulings all the time and is the official arbiter of which mechanics to use, as well as how and when to use them to resolve any given situation. Most of the examples in the video of DM's ignoring the rules is actually just a DM making a ruling, and that's 100% within the rules. I'm also not a particular fan of the wording in the advice that a DM can simply not allow something if it's something they don't "want" to happen. I don't think what the DM alone wants or doesn't want is particularly good criteria to judge by. I think it's better to consider the desires of the entire group and the effect on the game as a whole. There could be tons of things you don't really want to happen in your game, but you should take agency away from your players only sparingly and as a last resort. That's not to say you have to make sure your players can always succeed. They can attempt impossible tasks and fail. In the example about whether or not the room is trapped, I don't think you need to go directly to asking for a roll. If they player asks if there are any traps you can perfectly easily reply, "You don't see any out in the open, do want to search for traps?". This makes it clear that when they ask the DM directly for information without stating they are taking any action, they are only privy to the information directly available to their character. It doesn't give away whether there are traps or not, merely puts it back on them whether they want to actually search or not. You might not want to do that all the time. It's okay to talk through things in shorthand sometimes and sort of speed through stuff, especially if your party is tediously searching through 20 different rooms or something. But it is definitely worth reminding players how the game loop actually works sometimes.
I disagree heavily with the "sorry, you should've known better than to break your invisibility" mindset. I've walked back a lot of things for my players because we are NOT our characters. I might not have remembered that my invisibility would break, but my hyper intelligent and tactical minded wizard character absolutely would have. I may have forgotten to pack fire spells, but my character who's fought trolls before and knows their weakness to fire WOULD have. Etc etc.
6:00 I’d like to say, Aabriya herself doesn’t entirely know the rules either and actively adjusts how things work just to fit her interests. I will never forget when Robbie cast a single-target spell and Aabriya went “hmm no it does AOE dmg now spontaneously because I said so” and used it against the party. Minutes later she asked Matt to clarify the rules on something for her because she straight up didnt know how they worked. And she STILL changed them without telling anybody what was being changed. Theres a fine line between holding people accountable and being vindictive
To be fair, this was Robbie's first time playing Dnd. Amd while the player made a mistake because of that lack of experience the character would know that casting the spell would drop concentration on the first cast. I would have handled it by explaining that. I totally agree that knowing how your character works is important but punishing a player for a lack of knowledge that their character does know feels wrong.
3:22 How does Beauregard stop a monster with sentinel? What do you mean? 😂the same way she punches ghost, moves at superhuman speed, stuns enemies with a single blow, runs up walls and across bodies water as if it were solid ground, survive 100ft drops, catches bullets, dodge dragon fire unscathed and PUNCHES GHOST! Marisha could have easily said, “…do to my long time spent as an agent of the cobalt soul gathering knowledge, livid experience of fighting monsters and as a trained monk capable using my own martial prowess and mastery of the natural flow of energy in the body, I’m able to temporarily disrupt his flow of energy interrupting his movement. Almost like a lesser version of stunning strike.” The narrative of the game world is incredibly fluid. It can shape itself around any rule to make sense, especially in a world with magic, ghost, ki, gods and devils.
but she didnt, I think if players expect the DM to accept their more convoluted tactics with something like mage hand, and interactions with the enviroment, then the players should also make some effort to reason that what a spell does can have no effect on something even if it's not explicitly stated that the something doesn't have immunity to it.
@@zirkereuler5242 I was stating that narratively it makes total since that Bea would be able to stop the large monster using sentinel, there's literally very little reason it wouldn't work. Suddenly asking how would sentinel work, is inconsistent with how her other abilities have been handled. She never needs to explain stunning strikes(which she literally used on a robot), running up walls, punching ghost, evasion, slow falling from 50ft in the air, being immune to poison, her super human speed, catching bullets, felling armored titans with her bare fist, or punching ghost. But suddenly she needs to explain sentinel? She wasn't even doing anything convoluted. Monster ran past her, opportunity attack hit, he should have stopped moving. Saying it "narratively doesn't make since", makes no since, because the narrative is literally whatever you want it to be. anywhere from: giant monster got hit in the shin and caught the meanest charlie horse, all the way to Bea understands the mystic art of how energy flows through the body and she hit him in a critical spot which temporarily stopped his movement. I feel like we get so wrapped up in narrative that we forget we are it's architect.
She couldve, yeah, but she didnt. The entire table stopped and literally out loud said “yeah, actually, sentinel not stopping this 5 story tall astral meat soul sucking vapor demon thats not even a real entity but rather a magic suit of armor for trent kinda makes sense.” Marisha didnt even argue the tiniest bit and she’s usually not a pushover when the rules dont go her way
Going from the preface, all the way back from the 2nd Ed. DM's Guide, it tells the reader that it's a GUIDE! Not a rulesbook, per se, but options that the DM can use to play the game. However, the best option is to be consistent with your rules, so that you don't make something unbalanced, unfair, or make it so the players don't understand how something is supposed to work, because that leads to confusion, and often high temper flares...
Ruling that Sentinel not work in that situation is already bad enough, the cost of a feat is already a steep one and a huge commitment, and with one like that's it's already defining your entire play style for your character for the rest of the campaign, plus its effect only lasts the rest of the turn I feel like ruleing that it's staggered for a few seconds is a plenty reasonable thing to happen even IRL.
She was a lvl 20 monk, the other players can turn into adult dragons, counter spell gods, and even have gods directly intervene, but a super human at peak martial prowess with magical energy that can enhance their own bodies and affect the nerves of their enemies makes no sense stopping a giant creature for a few seconds.... Really? Like, fucks sake man, she has stunning strike, say she hits a nerve, say she makes ki propagate through the target and numb their leg temporarily, or simply say she is that fucking strong, martials should have anime powers and D&D is a trash system for not making it that way, lvl 20 casters are gods, lvl20 martials can't even dual wield great swords, you can't even lift more than a ton, why can't they grab full houses and chuck at a flying dragon? Why can't they use a Giant's enormous sword? Why can't they move so fast it looks like teleportation? Why can't they jump more than a couple meters? Why can't they slash through stone like it was butter? Honestly, fuck D&D, and fuck whoever expects realism for martials while giving leniency for caster to do whatever they want because magic.
@@phelps6205 exactly, I let players with Strength based classes do so much more with it because of how few classes are dependent on the score, and if a martial character gets something to one up or even match some of the bs spell casters can do later I do everything in my power to let them do it
Every time your character is moving and takes damage I would stop you. Sorry, you are wincing from pain and can not move this round. Anything the players can do, the GM can do.
@@R_J8And people wonder why the martial/caster disparity exists. Sentinel works on any creature because there is no specification for creature size. You could pull the exact same bullshit with Rogue’s Evasion. It logically makes no fucking sense, but it doesn’t fucking matter, this is a make-believe game where magic exists.
I once had a scene where the players were flying down from the city of Eltruel in Descent into Avernus and while flying to land a group of Devils and Demons got into a fight in their path. I mentioned the fiends hadn't spotted them yet, but they would soon if the players didn't take any action. One of the players said he was gonna hide and I pointed out that he was floating in the middle of the air, not really a place to hide in sight. My goal was for the players to think of some way to create a distraction. Like casting light on one of the Ranger's arrows and the Ranger shooting it to distract the devils, or something like that. And the player that wanted to hide got very annoyed and so I had to pull him away from the table and have a discussion with him and eventually we came to an understanding.
@kaiiser2190 Yes. Because sometimes players' actions have consequences. The actions the players took was deciding out of all the ways to get down from Eltruel that they would fly down. I asked them how they wanted to fly down. They wanted a direct path since one of them only had a minute of flight. So, with that in mind, they went a direct path that put them into the open air. Then, I placed a challenge in front of them, and because of their actions, they didn't have access to hiding. Again, because of their actions.
I love watching the timer in the corner of the video and thus missing the entire actual video. But, I guess it keeps me engaged, so it’s fulfilling it’s purpose
"because I'm the DM" is a horrible and toxic justification for arbitrary or capricious rulings that completely breaks trust and the social contract serving as the foundation for games.
I’m blessed with players who accept my rulings. I’ve found it helpful to explain why I rule certain ways, to reduce frustration, but they never argue with me, which is huge, honestly.
That's kinds all she should've needed to say, lmao. He could have done several things to avoid it or said something to make the creature sound cool, but he didn't, he just shut her down...sad
Sentinel is in practice a pike stopping a horse. A skilled user of a polearm can absolutely stop a much larger than player creature that is charging toward you. In a world of fantasy, I see no reason to assume an extremely skilled combatant couldn't have studied the weakpoints of mythical creatures in hopes of being able to defeat them.
Yeah its just subjective really. Im fine with the ruling because for me a human stopping Godzilla is unrealistic. Sure theres ways to work around it, and it would be fine to allow it, and to some it would make perfect sense. But also, Matts ruling was also valid in my mind. Its up to the DM what makes the most sense in the moment, and thats what happened here.
My problem with what a lot of people in the comments are saying is: if you start going by "logic" you quickly get into semantic territory. "You cannot cast speak with plants on the mushroom sorry" is a shitty way to rule things. It means knowing what the dm knows only is valued, actually creates imbalance in the game and often times does NOT make the game more realistic or better. Its a game, it has gamey rules and abstractions meant to correlate with but not simulate reality. If you go by logic every player's turn should happen at the same time for instance, which could be a cool idea for a TTRPG designed around this element, but thats not what DND does. The rules are not gospel but they are there for a reason too otherwise you might aswel play a more rule's light game or just do make belief. nothing would be wrong with that. Nothing wrong with CHANGING the rules. but changing the rules arbitrarily by some metric like logic and inconsistently applied, just means the players have no clue what could work and how. You don't have to think with in the rules as a player. All you need to do is tell me what it is you would like to do. (Can use this spell to do x?) How that gets resolved does not need to be logical, but it *should* be consistent. Which is why dnd has rules at all. The only real rule I have is to try whatever is fun and makes sure everyone else does too. I only break the rules for fun. real life Logic has no mechanical place in a fantasy turn based TTRPG. people confuse unlimited choice's and ways to approach situations with "being logical or a simulation". A dnd game actually based in logic would be the most boring thing in the world. characters and players would never leave their house in fear of being attacked. We are playing a turn based fantasy hero cooperative story creator. So in short I agree with you. A dnd warrior is beholden to fantasy not reality
that sentinel ruling is really weird imo... I don't think you should ever be looking to strip away player's abilities with homebrew. Creatively justifying something for the sake of realism is a lot more impressive than stopping a very basic ability from doing what it's meant to for the sake of realism :///
Plus its not like Sentinel is hard to play around if you're using homebrew monsters anyway; it requires an opportunity attack to be made for that effect to occur, so any number of ways to prevent the AoP from happening would have the same effect, while imparting to the player that a monster has taken enough notice of their abilities as to be wary of them. Strangely, despite Matt obviously being a fantastic GM, it felt amateurish
yeah. is one of those things where "realism" gets brought up as a defense, but like... its BY FAR not the most realism-shattering thing that DnD has to offer in terms of logistics. and its clearly just an excuse to veto an ability that the DM doesn't like, mechanically. cuz lets be real. Sentinel is one of THOSE feats. similar boat as Mobile. so many DMs just view it as a tool players use to ruin their encounters. not saying Matt is necessarily one of those more extreme cases. but i definitely feel like he just didnt want his monster to be stopped, and saw "hur dur realism" as a decent enough excuse in the moment to just not allow it.
@@chimchimbiasedwreckedbyjin4056 as a player, you shouldn't have to explain /that/ a feat that you took works. Unless you as a player try to argue some weird edge case, the feat / spell / whatever other mechanic there is does exactly what it says in its description. I would be stumped in this situation too.
@@davidbeppler3032 that doesn’t make it feel any less bad as a player though. Especially since you’ve given up an ability stat improvement for that ability. Martial classes are almost inherently weaker than spell casters anyway
7:44 I understand why some DMs subscribe to the rule of "If you don't read your spells it's your fault" but in a game where so much of it is happening in your imagination and sometimes you're scrambling to figure out what spell to cast or what ability to use, a little bit of leeway can go a long way. It can be something as simple as saying, "keep in mind, if you do X then Y will happen" and let the player decide whether or not they want to continue. Or if the decision has been already made instead of making the player feel like they messed up and they're bad at the game, turn it on it's head! For example: In Critical Role C3 E94, Ashley Johnson cast Earthbind during a battle hoping it would restrain an enemy so they couldn't move. In that fight her character was singled out, ganged up on and had very few resources left and you could tell that Ashley was under a lot of stress and probably meant to cast something like Entangle. It wasn't until later that she realized Earthbind didn't do what she thought it did and was clearly frustrated by this. Matt, clearly able to tell how she felt, later in the fight had enemy try to fly but couldn't because of the Earthbind, so Ashley didn't feel like she completely wasted a full turn and a spell. Did it make that much of an impact in the fight? Not really. But did it excite everyone at the table, especially Ashley? Yes! Moments like that are what make him such an incredible DM.
I know you focus on D&D dungeon masters, but I want to suggest you to check out Jason Carl from World of Darkness (in particolar I liked New York By Night). I think he is a great storyteller and I think that he can teach some interesting tricks. Also if I can ask for a topic, I am curios about horror ttrpgs so if there are some tricks or methods that you have notice in many actual plays.
In a game when characters can turn into ancient dragons and call their god for backup, it's not so strange to stop a titanic creature dead in its tracks with a punch
@@BonusAction It really does not. The feat does not mention creature size. And the realism of the individual game world is "Caleb can turn into an Ancient White Dragon once a day, and Jester can have the Traveler, a literal God, intervene once a week". The Martials already have it rough at high levels with few encounters, why would a DM make them even worse? When Scanlan tried to Counterspell Vecna, imagine if Matt said "Sorry, he's god, the spell has no effect". It's the same exact situation. It's not like Sentinel is an unbeatable feat that has no counterplay. First, the monk still has to hit with the opportunity attack. Then, a titanic creature should have a bigger reach than a human monk. Thus, the creature should still be able to attack the Monk that has used Sentinel. Then, there's the less common alternatives. The creature could use short-ranged teleportation, such as Misty Step. The creature could have Legendary Actions that allow it to Move, as Vampires do. What I'm trying to say is, sometimes as a DM you forget your players' abilities and you get whomped, but you have to play by the rules of the game. Example: Brennan Lee Mulligan in the last fights of a Crown of Candy (shoutout to Emily Axford), or Brian Murphy in Naddpod. I don't think Mercer is a bad DM (obviously), but I do think he's more narrative and cinematic focused, and less inclined to use the actual mechanics of the game.
That first one is kind of a bad example imo...sure it was cool, but it just sounds like Matt could have given the creature the Sentinel feat or an ability that does the same. There are ways he could have handled that without outright denying the character a completely valid combat feature. It "makes sense" because thats what the feat does...if he doesn't like Sentinel he should have made that clear at character creation, not just...stopped it dead in its tracks? Live? Her ability would have worked in literally every other situation. I cannot fathom why he would do this other than to say he wanted the monster to be able to move. There were so many better ways...Freedom of Movement...like cmon... Edit: To be clear, with the same logic you could say "Ah right...so how do you cast that spell? Faith? Well, I haven't seen proof of any gods tonight so I suppose your spell fails. Wanna try something more realistic?"
Except he didn't do that. And the point is that this massive creature is in motion and has a tremendous momentum. You stabbing it as it tries to bowl through you hurts, but big things don't stop on a dime. In every other situation where she's not stabbing something two dozen times her own size it would work because she's *not* stabbing something two dozen times her own size. It either reacts to being stabbed by stopping by itself as it doesn't want to impale itself or she has the mass required to actually believably stop it. The point of the ruling is to go "Okay, can you explain *how* your character is able to stop something so much bigger than them without using game rules?" Because to use your spellcasting question 'They have the faith and their god channels through them' is a valid response. It is, more importantly, an *in character* response.
And so is, “My ki is strong enough to stop the rampaging beast cold.” Marisha blanked because it made no sense to be asked how her character could use their feat. It’s up to the DM to describe how it *works*, not find reasons to disallow it.
@@TheaBlackwood-um1pi It makes perfect sense to ask a player how their character does... anything. It's *their character*. And it's not like any of these people are bad at describing how something like that happens.
@@selonianth "you're playing a bard that plays the flute? Okay, show me how your character casts a spell. Oh, you can't play the flute? Then I guess your spell fails." This is exactly analogous to Mercer's bullshit ruling and if you can't see why that's a problem then you can't be helped. You're playing a fucking fantasy game as a character. You shouldn't have to explain how shit works. It works because it's written in the rules. If Matt wanted it to not work (for no reason) then he should have to explain why it DOESNT work. Not the other way around. And I would've accepted his ruling if he actually had any valid reason, like he could've said the monster had sentinel as well, or the monster's movement speed can't be reduced. But he didn't, he just said it doesn't work and then doubled down and made her feel stupid in front of a live audience because she, god forbid, expected her feat to actually work the way it's written in the rules.
@josephblattert6311 that's not remotely analogous to what's being described. We can't cast Magix in our world, but we *can* use spears and pikes to dissuade people charging us and keeping them at bay, often to devastating effect. But nothing approaching that size is going to be dissuaded by a pinprick to a foot as it's charging. Even if it cared about the pain it wouldn't stop on a dime. The ability is *not* magic, so acting like it should work 'because it's a magical world' is asinine. RAW can, and does, get ignored on the players behalf just as much as it gets ignored to their detriment. Hiding behind it is childish and harmful to the cause of any DM dealing with rules lawyers who try to do shit like the peasant catapult. "But the rules say the turn is 6 seconds and if that many people passed it up within that time it would be doing Mach 3!" The rules can, do, and *should* lose to basic fucking logic from time to time or people lose suspension of disbelief and the purpose of the game as a storytelling medium is lost in favor of numbers go up. Did Matt handle it a bit unfortunately? Sure, he thinks so anyway, (he posted on this video saying such) but the actual ruling? Nothing wrong with saying "sorry, logic says no."
Personally, I think that the way that Matt dealt with the scenario at 2:34 was pretty bad because it felt like he was patronizing and taking away something that the play had invested into without linking it to the story. I think a better way of handling it would be, "As you strike at this massive creature, dealing damage to them, you perform your battle maneuvers to hold them in place. However, as you do, the creature's immeasurable momentum and power still push forwards as it looks down at you like a bug. It seems as though this creature is immune to the effects of the Sentinel feat."
He says yes when asked but I would like to inform you this creature was massive. It was so massive that it dwarfed a T-Rex and a dragon that two of the PCs transformed into. I agree that the sentinel feat wouldn’t work on the creature.
@@benpurcell4935Yeah, how would melee weapons be able to damage it at all if they aren't even long enough to pierce its hide. While we're at it, how does a punch go through plate armor, let's just make AC have a damage reduction effect. Ooh, and explain how your character is just conjuring fireballs out of thin air, let's ban all magic because that doesn't work in our world either See what happens when we don't follow rules and try to use logic in a world that has different physics and is dictated largely but "it works because it works" magic?
@@orionstokesweiss2344 It seems you disagree with Matt’s ruling and that‘s ok. Some creatures can have a feat of their own that counters stunning strike and sentinel. I also think it made sense that Matt ruled the way he did since it was the literal size of a small skyscraper.
@@benpurcell4935 So what about the rest of the world, should logic only apply to this scenario but not to the rest? The creature didn't have a feat that restricted all movement restriction judging by the clip. It was an on the spot, I do not want my players to be able to use their abilities because it interferes with how I want this to play out. Classic railroading, and one of the worst things you can do as a DM. If you look up D&D horror stories one of the most common details is the DM refusing any player agency. If Matt had actually said in the moment that it appears that this creature is immune to movement inhibition, that would have been fine. That would have been planned. But kneejerk you have no agency here? Shite
@@orionstokesweiss2344 You have not seen the entire show then. Matt asks Marisha how sentinel would stop this monster and when she came up with a blank he doesn’t allow the feat to work. He gives a chance to have it work because if it was true railroading then he wouldn’t have given her a chance to give a reason as to how sentinel would stop the monster. I know the full context of the clip. I recommend watching the show because it’s pretty epic. The monster is significantly larger than all the creatures that the Mighty Nein or Vox Machina had ever fought. Matt is the DM and is pretty lenient in a lot of his rulings and he did have a period of harsher rulings after an incident.
i think a good example to follow is critical roles early years where decisions here made in the moment but if it turned out to be wrong or if they home booed a "better" rule they would just implement that next time it came up
The most important thing is 'don't be a arse'. You can't pull off a hard rule without first building up a lot of trust with your players. Eg in my Ravenloft Game I gave the Players free reign to make level 20 PC's only to suprise them with the twist that levelling was tied to how much fear/territory they owned - meaning they levelled DOWN when they failed. This worked because I give out lots of inspiration with no limit on how many they can have, and work to enable players to challange their PCs in interesting/fun ways. The players figured out that Ravenloft in my campaign ran like a game of Risk where they could gain or lose power by defeating other Dreadlords.
3:20 On the flip side, I think another great example is how Matt eventually gave up on explaining how a water elemental could catch fire, and just said "it's not on fire, that doesn't make any sense". Rules are there to serve you.
I stumbled upon this video and I appreciate this type of analysis. All the advice is great and very useful as someone who's just getting into D&D! On a more important note, I had my d20 laying around in my desk beside me. I rolled it to "see if I can see the subscribe button"... and a beautiful nat 1 appeared :) (I'm still subscribing tho)
As a new DM, I was the only person who owned a players handbook and the only one who put any effort into learning the rules. This was honestly incredibly frustrating. Stuff moved very slowly every time people levelled up I had to read all the options for people and relay that information to them and they then had to make a decision. Then I had to do this 4 more times for the other players. That campaign lasted for a couple months then after an extended break we kinda all gave up on it. It was a pre written one and I liked the idea of making a homebrew campaign and setting. My friend's agreed to go through with this but this time I made it explicitly clear that they needed to read all the character customisation options and their spell lists for themselves. I could not repeat what happened before.
Im a bit torn up about the different stances for the Sentinel incident. I am both a player and a DM. I do see both perspectives. If I were a player with limited ability selections, I'd want to rely on my choices to prevent beat downs and tell the stories I envision. If I were in Marisha's place I'd have felt the low-blow. But in response to comments saying that would have had people walk out from the table, isn't that a bit of an extreme conclusion knowing how long the campaign had been going prior? If the ONE time you were denied use of your ability for any reason leads to you walking away with a bitter aftertaste, doesn't that sound like a destructive life path? In a GM's perspective, I absolutely see the fine print in the ruling. This monster should NOT be laughed at. If any monster I throw at you can be stopped by a pixie with Sentinel, that's an ABSOLUTE disrespect to any hard work I'd have done for storytelling because one person wanted it for shoots and giggles. That's not my fun. In retrospect, it definitely would have been something to ease into earlier. Not just plop at the table because "teehee, hard mode". If anything, talk to the player before the encounter and open the discussion that sentinel has limits that may come up. Ideally at the game table, this will motivate the player to ask first in assessment rather than just jump in thinking everything is fine.
exactly, i think the problem was not the overruling, but the way it was done - with no previous similar incidents, no amendments, no warnings, in the middle of a stressful situation. it felt like a very hard "no", even the deceptively open "tell me how it makes him stop" was said in borderline mocking tone. really surprised me in a negative way, ngl
Gotta go with a hard no on DM fiat alterations to how characters work. Not only does it remove player agency in their character’s function, the DM loses the right to complain if the player doesn’t know how their character works because DM fiat altering said character means they *can’t know.*
Personally in any sort of RPG I don't think you should punish people for not knowing something their character would know, especially if you haven't moved that far past the point yet, as long as they aren't making a habit of it as an undo button.
One thing I do with the "Trap Roll" is that if they find a trap I tell them they find it. If they don't I tell them "You don't find any traps." Roll high or low, traps present or no, the answer is always "you don't find any traps."
Using the contents page quickly? That’s a struggle-, grappled, see restrained, restrained, see incapacitated. I’m exaggerating but it does feel like a long journey at times.
My DM style is "Yes, but..." I want my players to have fun, but on the other hand I need to keep things in check as a DM. So I'll give them a high DC to roll for, and if it's outlandish or crazy I'll allow it, but Monkey Paw the shit out of it where it doesnt quite go as planned. For instance I have a Warlock with a Fey Cat companion (giving her the ability to resummon it after 24 hours if killed - thank you Liam O'Brian for that inspiration), she wanted to toss it at the mini-boss and she rolled high next to turn to have it take a piss on the creatures head - rolling a Nat 20. So I made it so the creature flee in terror at the abysmal stench. Next combat she tried the same thing, rolled a Nat 1, and it was thrown with such uncanny strength unbefitting her low stat that it got thrown over it's head, into a spinning propeller where it turned into a puff of blue mist. I also always have my players roll a check when they ask for something. Sometimes even when I didnt have anything originally, an idea might come to me that I do throw in that I might not have otherwise if they roll stupidly high.
I once had a player insist that eldritch blast worked like magic missile, *even if the target is invisible or behind cover*. I was a newbie dm at the time (still am frankly) and i had trouble 'defending' my ruling that it didnt.
Anyone can make an attack roll against an invisible creature. Invisible just means they have disadvantage on the attack roll and it's considered heavily obscured, which in turn lets it hide anywhere it wants It's only when an invisible creature succeeds on a hide check does it become untargetable.
I forgot to mention they were also behind complete cover at the time. also, at least for me, you have to have a successful perception check to even have a general idea where an invisible person is (or they bomb their stealth rolls) bc the idea that you could fire randomly in any direction and have a 50% chance of hitting something is wild to me@@haiclips3358
The ruling is easy, magic missle doesn't ask for a roll to hit, it simply asks that youre able to see the target. Eldritch blast does ask for a roll to hit, so the player can try to hit but it isn't guaranteed. Just tell them that's the RAW.
It's very important to have the dm be in this referee place because playing characters easily makes people very invested and questioning someone's authority weakens it, while we need someone to be able to decide quickly and move on without issue when an argument drags on When i'm a dm, i ask of my players to invest themselves enough in making the game work smoothly, when i'm a player i often say "i think that [...] , but you are the dm"
For Aabria's example on not reading your character sheet and spells carefully, I'd do this with an experienced group more than an inexperienced group, to an extent. If it's early on in the campaign and it's a group of new players, I'll let them have a mulligan. After that, it is what it is.
In theory, Sentinel could be the action of understanding the muscular system of an animal or creature enough that when you hit it you're hitting the equivalent of a funny bone or something that temporarily prevents the creature from moving more out of shock or surprise than sheer force...
Bria's approach is my favorite I've seen. From playing games like BG3 and Divinity my friend has murdered random people and the party more than he's damaged enemies at this point.
My super nice and supportive character found someone stalking our party and decided to show them how to stealth directly in front of them. This ended up everyone in the party stealthing in front of them and breaking them mentally.
IF you rule the rules, you're not really playing a game anymore. It's great advice for someone with experience. It's a recipe for disaster to give that idea to a newbie.
My chaotic neutral wild magic sorcerer has messing up as part of his character. And as a chaotic neutral player, i like watching him get in trouble. Marissa brought the "no but" energy by countering the "explain how" bringing on the crushing nope from Matt. She probably could have narrated something cool and had it allowed
@@benpurcell4935But should a player have to explain how their character does things? No! We don't ban players from playing a high charisma bard just because they are socially awkward fucks, we don't restrict history checks just because the player doesn't know what their character does. and in no way should we restrict a martial characters extremely limited options based upon their ability to describe when put on the spot how they stop a big thing from proceeding via sentinel.
@@benpurcell4935 It logically doesn't make sense for a melee weapon to be able to pierce the skin of a creature as large as described, it logically doesn't make sense that a wizard can conjure a fireball out of thin air, it logically doesn't make sense that being shoved off a 9.9ft cliff will not result in any harm but a 10ft one will. D&D isn't about logic, it is about the magic of the world. A martials feats should get to do what they say they do, just like a sorcerers spells should get to do what they say they do. Does it make logical sense that a fireball can not damage a target of your choice? Of course not, that isn't how explosions work at all! Does that mean that DMs should remove careful spell from the game?
@@orionstokesweiss2344 Let me set the scene for you just a bit. The Mighty Nein had literally just wiped a bunch of bad guys out and one of them was hiding by a tree. Beau and Yasha rush to the tree and hit the bad guy because both have the sentinel feat he goes nowhere when he tries to run so he pulls this orb out and breaks it. He transforms into a four story tall monster. Now tell me how the sentinel feat is supposed to stop it dead in its tracks because Marisha does deal damage to it. You need to come up with a scenario where sentinel works besides just going on about how D&D is a fantasy game and there’s no logic in it. You can literally jump from 9ft and not get hurt but you also are at a higher likelihood to get hurt when you jump from something that is greater than or equal to 10ft. Fireballs and spells work because there’s a magic system. The magic system is basically any other system where you can imagine it and it happens.
I feel like we need to remember the roles of the DM. Not only is a DM a narrator and the person who sets the scene, but they are also a referee and facilitator, meaning that if a player falls outside the rules of the game, the DM is there to catch them and to facilitate them back into the confides of the narrative. This is why I personally don't prefer Aabria's DM'ing style because of its punishing nature. DND is already so packed with rules and mechanics so slipping up as a player is common ground and even though it slows down the game perhaps and can understandably sometimes become frustrating, it's important to remember that the game is there for fun and a DM should team up with their players for the ultimate purpose of having fun.
Brennan does his through improve, looking to build on and twist player actions with knock on effects. Take a look at agent carter in response to fig, in the latest series
That's a great example! One of the things I really appreciate about Brennan as a DM is that if his characters continue doing wild stuff largely without consequences, he implements not something meant to stop them, but a new challenge to be overcome. Sure, Agent Carter is inconvenient for Fig (and I'm honestly hoping he gets a little more powerful) but it's not actually stopping her from using her powers, just adding something for her to think about. Not to mention that Brennan really only brings him up when Fig goes too far, and not when she's using it to just contribute to the mystery (e.g. he only showed up at the end of the Wanda Childa podcast conversation, iykyk). Sorry for the essay, I just really like that about him as a DM
7:40 unless the spell's wording is VERY confusing, I never really ask how a spell works... I *Do* ask "How would you rule this?" cause there is a lot of spells that are VERY POLARIZED in how DMs run them... *COUGH* (Conjure Animals) *COUGH*
Re: Abbria's style: I've learned my DM is *very* picky about magic. We cannot make stealth rolls to whisper and do the hand signs in a non-descript way that won't alert enemies a room over, and we can and have gotten punished forgetting this. If you do magic, it is *extremely* obvious unless you use Subtle Spell, because that is the reason Subtle Spell exists and why it would be meaningful for you to choose to get it in some way. I kinda accidentally played him last session with the grave priest's Detect undead and paladin's Sense. He let us do it, and then said '[The NPC] is now furious at you for finding out her secret after you do these things right in front of her', and I had to point out that in the descriptions of those two, there are no verbal or somatic components, no glowing eyes, nothing, just a temporary sixth sense.
I’m not aware of this mm moment outside of that tiny clip; “this monster” is what? Was it gargantuan? Was it huge? Can I maybe get a link and a timestamp to watch the situation? Thank you for your service.
This was from the Mighty Nein Reunion in London - the moment is here: ruclips.net/video/-RAmTSX8Ef8/видео.htmlsi=4Ow0SrcYm03GFYaq&t=15342 but the start of this phase is from around 3:55:00 (ruclips.net/video/-RAmTSX8Ef8/видео.htmlsi=ekVHGDjfp3Xd14MM&t=14133), and yeah, it was gargantuan!
For what it's worth, the size of the creature doesn't matter for the Sentinel feat. If the opportunity attack hits, the creature stops. It doesn't need extra explanation; its how the ability works, same as any class ability, but for some reason in this case Matt decided it did not...my mind is boggled.
@@benpurcell4935 yeah and they were also slinging magic...that wasn't very realistic either, but they still did it so why do we have to stop non-magic characters from doing unrealistic things...?
About punishing your players: It is VERY IMPORTANT to do it at the right time. The point isn't to make it hurt not to know your stuff, but to nudge the player and let them know they should. I never do it to new players, and some players seriously struggle with the rules and get a pass, because I know they're doing their best. As for those who should know their stuff, I still don't let it impact the game in a serious or lasting way. I allow it to make a moment that sucks, but not to have lasting consequences. Wasting a resource such as a spell slot, having rage run out, or a turn go to waste, sure, I use penalties like that to teach players, but I'd never let someone die over it, though I will tell a player when their lack of knowledge could have done that if I wasn't being nice. And I don't ever stack them! If a player has received "punishment" in the form of a stingy ruling, they gain immunity to such rulings for a bit, and I will instead correct them and refer back to the punished incident to let them know they need to learn their shit by next session. People need the opportunity to actually amend their errors if punishment is going to work. Punishment isn't an incentive, it's a powerful reminder that makes it easier for the punished to keep their mistake in mind.
I'm lucky enough to have a party that cares more about my homebrew story rather than loot or rules or minmaxing. That frees me up to collaboratively figure out how to get to the next story beat based on their rolls and bending rules when they come up with something fun or cool. Not railroading, more like a collective puzzle game: We know we want to get to the next plot point, so how do we make that happen with the resources (rolls) we have?
I agree with most people here. MM not allowing sentinel to work at most tables would have the player leaving. That is something that should be established Session 0, not halfway though a session and certainly not after the player has just used it.
I'll be honest, wouldn’t exactly call a player using an ability and then questioning why said ability doesn’t work "rules-lawyering". Kinda leans into a toxic dm'ing mindset.
I feel a lot of people miss the subtle power of a solid "no, but..." as a substitute for "yes, and..." in improv, especially in improv games like D&D. Instead of outright denying what they other improvisor was saying, it pivots into something related that might be more manageable. Also, as far as looking stuff up at the table goes, with digital tools, an internet connection, and some practice one can pretty easily find the answer to just about any rules question within around 15 seconds so it doesn't slow the game down at all. Personally, I'm a big proponent of the idea of rule zero only being applied with the acknowledgement of what the RAW actually *is* first, like "by RAW that wouldn't work, but the idea is sick as hell so I'm gonna allow it" (to paraphrase Brennan) or "This is what the book says happens, but that's lame so we're doing this instead". I find a lot of the time people come up with houserules at the table due to being ignorant of the relevant RAW and being too lazy to look it up, and back when looking it up meant flipping through a dozen different books and a couple hundred splat books to find the relevant section, making something up as a stopgap made sense since looking up the rule would be impractical and expecting somebody to know 100% of the rules off the top of their head is unreasonable, but these days with modern technology the rules are readily accessible quickly and easily (google the words "5e tools" and you'll see what I mean). I've seen rule zero be used as an excuse to not bother learning the rules in the first place, which IMO is a shameful attitude for a DM to take, as the rules are what make it D&D as opposed to a different TTRPG with a different set of rules. Yes, the rules are a tool and when they get in the way of the game they can and should be cast aside or altered as needed, but that line of reasoning is not applicable, if after looking up the relevant rule (or being informed of it by a knowledgeable player at the table) the DM decides to make something up anyway, that's fine because they are making an informed decision for the sake of the game and the enjoyment of their players, making something up because they don't know the relevant rule and can't be bothered to spend a few seconds looking it up when everybody has a computer in their pocket (and many make active use of laptops and tablets at the table anyway) only makes it more likely that whatever kludged together ruling they come up with will be clunky and unbalanced (since coming up with elegant mechanics that fit well into the existing balance tends to come as a result of being knowledgeable about multiple TTRPG rules systems). I've had multiple instances where I'll see somebody talk about a ruling they made on Reddit and it was pretty clear they didn't know the relevant RAW, so somebody informs them of what the RAW is and they get downvoted into oblivion by rule zero zealots thus preventing the OP from learning what the RAW is for future consideration. Caring what the RAW actually *is* should be the default with rule zero being applied as an exception for rule of cool, rule of funny, or because the RAW for that happens to be dumb. The rules are a tool and so many people just refuse to use them as one.
There's one problem I have with the "rules serve you, don't let the rules tell you what to do" sentiment. Why? Well, imagine you have a character which took a specific feat, or subclass, or a maneuver even, which let them to something specific. You invested "resources" to be able to do that. Then there's that other player, who has a great idea and wants to do something like the player above, and you go "rule of cool" and allow it, only that the first player now wonders why they took the subclasses/feats, when they could have just say "I'd like to do X". This problem doesn't only exist in DnD, but also in Pathfinder, though I can only speak for 2e, in which you think "hey, I'd like to do that" - and then you'll find out, there's actually a class-/general feat for that... So, in general, it's a great thing to think like that, sure, but I'm just saying, sometimes, it makes specific class-/race features and feats "wasted resources".
I still recommend on of those out-of-job former soviet commissars. They are absolutely smashing in keeping people in line, have incredible work ethics (I mean it's been decades they last could live their dream) are pretty affordable and even bring their own gun.
You used Aabria as an example of being a stickler for knowing your rules and almost punishing the players when they don't, but I also think that she's one of the least strict when it comes to the rules. SPOILER for CR episode 93(?). This episode hadn't come out when this video was made, but in the episode of CR where they switched to the Crown Keepers with Aabria DMing, after Dorians brother died and he is commanded to leave the battle, he casts Geas on the Spider Queen's creature. This takes a minute to cast, but she let him cast it instantaneously, because it made the story more interesting.
sentinel doesnt make logical sense, however from game logic view, its very similar to any form of "stagger" effect present in a lot of fantasy games and such, you could with a bit of creativity perhaps flavour it so it makes sense, but stagger is a stagger and since its in the game it should work, unless the foe has immunity to this effect or you clearly state that it wont work on collosal things it should work, the person taking this feat goes into the game thinking it will work unless you tell him otherwise at the very beggining it ruins the fun for the player if you put an end to this just because you didnt plan ahead and very few people can take such a shutdown like weve seen in the video. Ive had my own experience with the same exact thing, DM did it to me, I felt about it like shit (wasnt that big of a deal since it was a oneshot, but considering it being a oneshot and me picking the ability only to be unable to use it single time the entire oneshot because some bullshit rules also ruined the feeling) so you can definitely say no, but if ur experienced DM and you know you have problem with the whole sentinel shenanigan make sure to tell your party before hand. I for one embrace the rule for what it is and dont change it, if the person with sentinel wants to play a guardian and enabler, why take that away from them?
I personally love Aabrias often role-playing heavy dm style and I think that her tendency to playfully put players in their place makes a lot of sense for the kinda games she runs, particularly in regards to her campaigns using non 5e systems (like in Misfits and magic) or modified 5e systems (like a court of Faye and flowers). Role playing necessarily is dictated by fewer on the book rules than battles and similarity systems like kids on bikes or broomsticks just don't have as many rules in place as something like 5E or pathfinder. Thus they can lend themselves to more audacious and outrageous moves being attempted by the pcs and Imo Aabria provides a really successful model for how to balance the fun of a game like that with actually maintaining some level of structure and consequences that keep the game entertaining and rewarding.
Punishment is too funny not to use, I’m running DSI and I don’t remember what the player did but I made it so he got smited by bahamut with lightning. He was at 1 health anyway so didn’t really impede his game and everyone laughed lmao
I'll mention it's still important not to say "No" too often. It's easy to get to that when you care, but it's all right if things aren't perfectly balanced or throw what you anticipated as possible throught he window. In fact, it's often beneficial. You can also say "No, but..." and give something positive to your player so they feel good when you think it's all right
I would definitely ask if I get my feat back for sentinel. Edit: Or if I was being a better player, talk to the dm after the session about how its not okay to change how my abilities work without any forewarning. Its one thing for a creature to have immunity to stun when I am playing a monk, its another to give it immunity to my ability specifically.
Literally rolled a nearby die to catch that DC 2 perception check for the subscribe button. I got a 7, -1 for my self-calculated IRL wisdom. Success! Subscribed. :)
![Nat 1's Are Better Than Nat 20's | Adventuring Academy [Brennan Lee Mulligan, Sam Reich]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ea_cR__Cej4/mqdefault.jpg)
In all sincerity, that Sentinel call could DEFINITELY have been handled better by me (and shortly after the moment I noted three different, better ways I could have). The stress of it all likely didn’t help either, hehe. Even so, there was no weirdness or butt hurt feelings after, and I made sure to check! :)
Part of why I have even been doing this for nearly 10 years is to show some good things to do in your games, if you like, and show the mistakes I make as well. LEARN from my MISTAKES.
Its a perfect example of a DM making a ruling in the moment, and everyone jumping onboard with it and moving the game forward! Hope you don't mind me making these kind of videos about you!
Mercer the 🐐
With hindsight, what would you have done instead?
father
@parkerparagas3583 personally, I think of Sentinel less as "physically preventing the creature from moving" and more "the damage it took as it tried to leave has convinced it that you are the larger threat, so it stays to kill you instead."
"You dont SEE any traps" is what my DM always says when I roll a check for traps.. so even if there aren't any it still makes me worry
Had a DM who would always respond, "You do not find the trap" regardless of whether there wasn't a trap to begin with or the player's roll wasn't high enough. We loved it and it's been running gag ever since.
thats the thing with traps. you dont see them... until you brave the skirt and find out.
Ah yes. Like the scene in Pitch Black.
"Looks Clear."
*Monster swarm speeds by*
"I thought you said it was clear!"
"I said it *looked* clear."
Honestly, that’s one of my biggest pet peeves and I never use it as a DM unless you failed. If you get the same information on a success as a failure, what’s the point of rolling?
In my experience it either brings the game to a grinding halt as paranoid over caution takes over or people get so frustrated with non-answers that they forgo preparation and just charges in regardless.
"You think you're moving sneakily"
Something I appreciate about Brennan is how rarely he actually says no. Instead he'll just impose disadvantage or a higher DC-sometimes to a ridiculous level matching the ridiculousness of the request. I think saying No outright makes sense with roleplaying heavy campaigns or simpler systems (like the kids on broomsticks system Aabria uses in Misfits and magic) but in battle-heavy campaigns with big complex storylines like the ones Brennan tends to run, I think replacing saying No with instead imposing disadvantages or higher dcs matched to the level of insanity of pcs requests, is a really cool, fun and successful way to navigate pcs more illogical requests/improbable attempted actions.
"How does Sentinel stops this creature?"
"You ever stubbed your toe or stepped on a lego? that's the kinda pain I'm inflicting right now."
"How foes sentinel stops this creature ?"
"I don't know. With his sword ? I'm not a warrior in a fantasy world with magic equipment and some god's favor, but my character does."
It's like having a character with a huge bonus for playing an instrument, and you try to impress the king. Then, the DM asks :
"Ok, how does he impresses the king ?"
"I don't know. With his instrument ? I'm not a pro music player, but my character is."
or
"How does your rogue evade the fireball damage since he's right in the center or the blast ?"
"I don't know, but the rules says he can."
That would carry the implication that it wouldn't work against a foe that doesn't feel pain
Or like a baby grabbing onto your leg making walking difficult
@@dragonfan8647That makes sense to me, if a player used sentinel against a target that they hit but didn't deal damage (maybe the target is immune to nonmagic weapons), it would make sense that the target wouldn't be slowed or stopped
@@ChibiNyanexactly. Then it would be fair for the players to also ask the DM how the bullshit abilities of the monster also work :P
one of my favorite made-up rules Brennan did was when Zac Oyama and Emily Axford as Gorgug Thistlespring and Fig Faeth respectively tried to save their friend Fabian Aramais Seacaster (Lou Wilson) from his own RP blunder (he was fully in character and made a really bad choice)
Zac and Fig decided to do something beyond stupid and when they tried to make complex rolls in the moment of going like, 80 mph flying through the air while hanging on to a rope (this was all live streamed btw), Brennan decided to make them roll "Quadruple Disadvantage".
My favourite thing about Brennan is his “sure, but there are consequences” approach haha
@@Shelmer75 yeah, a few episodes later Ally tried to have Kristen pull an acrobatic stunt with ribbon dancing (with Kristen's -3 dex mod) and Brennan just coldly went "Hey Ally? *I'm going to allow this.*"
@@vante2 that’s the exact situation I was thinking of 😂
Was this in Sophomore? I don't remember this from the first season
@@paragonca9736 yep!
If a player often misses sessions and has a hectic schedule, they could always appear occasionally as an reoccuring character that happens to be played by someone other than the dm
Yeah it seems like a lot of people don’t want to play unless everyone is there because they view their games like a movie or tv show. But even in tv shows main characters are gone for an episode all the time.
Or as a guest star, playing the Big Bad of the week! I also had a campaign where one guy who was only there part of the time played as the druid's familiar. The familiar ran on autopilot most of the time as familiars do, but when Chris was playing him the familiar got to make his own decisions and have more personality.
I think this sort of thing would work really well in cyberpunk, since a lot of what you're doing is individual gigs someone getting busy and not being on every job makes sense
also theres already a system for side hustles between jobs so if you want to, as GM you can grant them some Eddies and xp in character so they dont get too far behind the main group
I showed up as the Campion to a god of death hunting the party. Was stacked on health and potential dmg and had lycanthropy to spice it up. I was dropped like a sack of rancid potatoes the first encounter lmao, the party was very sus of everyone at the time and didnt bother to waste time finding out if I was evil or not XD
I did this for a while, and the our dm tied it into the story SO well.
Honestly it's what kept me in the group in the midst of hectic schedules and life getting in the way and I'm FOREVER greatful
to be fair to aabria, robbie was literally looking at the invisibility spell card and forgot that line lmao
it was invisible
Well, he was trying to cast a concentration spell (invisibility) while already concentrating on invisibility. A spell's description does note if a spell is concentration, but it doesn't remind you of the rules of how that works.
So, an easy thing to forget because the spell itself doesn't remind you that casting this will drop something else.
@@potterfanz6780 What is noted in the spell description, however, is that invisibility ends if you cast a spell with or without concentration.
@@joeljude9180 ha, like the invisible book of invisibility from harry potter
well tbf to anyone, aabria is a trash dm.
A thing I appreciate about Aabria from watching her as a player is that while she's as likely as any other player to make an ask of the DM (maybe even more likely because she does know the rules very well) she's often happy to accept a 'no' as the answer. It's very fun to watch her encourage the DM to say no if that's what makes sense in the moment because it models how to take that no gracefully.
I think punishment is a bit of a strong word to use for the EXU example. It wasn't "you don't know your spells, so im going to make this suck for you." (I have seen DMs that act like this.) It was, "You did what you did, here's what happens." She wasn't punishing him. She just didn't save him from himself.
It was a really funny moment and everyone was laughing- including Robbie. I think its exactly the kind of mixup a real adventurer might have when they're still new to magic. To me it was completely believable and matched the tone of EXU perfectly.
If it had been a level 15 boss fight where the tone is serious, the stakes are high, everyones thinking about a million different things, and the *characters* know better, I probably would have given Robbie a chance to change his mind. But for that particular moment? It worked great.
Exactly this.
No, it's accurate. Aabria loves making players feel like they're making the wrong decisions. Prime example being how Opal was FORCED to use the Lolth crown, and any attempt to do anything BUT use the crown was punished with failure, being robbed of agency, or Aabria openly complaining.
I call it setting boundaries. Like little kids and velociraptors, players will periodically test your boundaries to see if they're real and if they have any weak points. They'll do it even with things they don't particularly care about, just to test your reaction. "Will the DM let me cast Invisibility without losing the Invisibility I'm concentrating on? Let's find out." It's your job to make the game feel real, and the way we feel things is by reaching out a hand and seeing if it finds any resistance. Something that can be passed right through feels like an illusion.
@@ZeroNumerousyou are brave to speak the truth
I think punishment is a proper word because as they said, I wouldn’t have done it if I would’ve known and she made the, abide by it, however I will say, punishments don’t have to be severe, punishment doesn’t have to be soul destroying, it’s still the word ud use. But it’s such a minor thing anyways others can argue it’s not but again since she didn’t flex on the decision, technically it counts. And I like that. Punishments can be minor and funny a lot of the times too. Not argument here, just fun word understanding
I try to "no but" if i cant "yes and" with my players, giving them a route to achieve what they want or something close without letting them do something super game breaking
Was once in a campaign where a player tried to use call lightning deep within a cavern system (ie no path to the sky for said lightning to come from), DM said ok, roll damage etc - and obviously nothing visible happened - the player asked why nothing took damage, and the DM said the lightning bolt struck the ground about 300 feet above you. Player was annoyed - both because they lost their spell slot AND because they'd actually meant to cast Lightning Bolt. On the very next turn, the, still annoyed, player cast Call Lightning again, the DM even checked it was what they wanted to cast, they said yes - and the DM ruled it exactly the same, zero backing down for the player not knowing how their own spells work xD (the player then tried to cast it a third time in the same combat with much anger when it still wasn't working xD)
If you were in a large enough cavern at the time, the spell creates a cloud when you cast it, even underground. And if you weren’t then the spell wouldn’t do anything and the DM didn’t need to ask for fake damage rolls
I disagree with that ruling since the spell clearly says it can be used indoors as long as you have 10 feet of space above you, so it’s not a case of the player not knowing their spell.
Secondly, unlike the example with the Sentinel feat against a giant creature, this ruling burns both a resource and the player’s action. Even if Marisha knew that Sentinel feat wouldn’t work, it doesn’t change what her character would have done on that turn. She still would have attacked. If the druid knew that Call Lightning wouldn’t work indoors, they would definitely have used a different spell.
The cavern in question wasn’t big enough for the spell to go off, before combat started there had been awhole discussion coming up with a plan that made specific use of the low ceiling - and the player immediately before the Druid had also had difficulty attempting to jump over the enemies due to the ceiling height.
The Druid hadn’t been paying attention. The DM asked “are you sure you want to cast that spell” and the play said yes. Was 100% a case of the player both not paying any attention to what’s been going on and not knowing their spell. Sure the first instance might’ve been a tad harsh, but the Druid still tried the exact same thing two more times even after having it explained why the spell wasn’t working.
These are children
@thisscreensucks this coment is childish
Tbf, not knowing ≠ player did not read. Especially new players have so much to worry about they forget stuff all the time.
@wyltedleaves nah sometimes your players just don't remember every single spell. Most of the people I play with are good about correcting themselves or adhering to spells and rules in general but, there's times where we make mistakes or misread how something works so we retcon or just move forward. It's not as big a deal unless someone is consistently wrong about how things work and people really shouldn't be so harsh about a tabletop games when there's simple resolutions and you can learn from it.
That's why new players get the puppy phase and help from a good DM.
But when you have been playing 30 hours of DnD with me and did not read your character sheet properly, I am sure as hell not going to remind you of your bonus damage.
Absolutely, but if you’re being paid to play, you’ve played before. I promise you
@@bluewilliams4911 Nope.
It can totally be part of the format to be new to the game or pen and paper altogether.
Did you watch Dungeons and Drag Queens?
It is easy to spot the one queen who has actually played DnD before. They do have experience in entertainment however.
15 years of Pen and Paper and I could not play like those people in Dimension 20, not because I have no game experrience, but because I am not a Stand Up comedien used to that level of improv.
@wyltedleavesRobbie, the guy casting Invisibility in Aabriya’s example, was literally brand new coming into ExU as Dorian. So was half the ExU cast.
The funny thing is:
Sam exposed himself and ended his invisibility as Scanlan doing the same thing
Matt tried to punish Tiberius for trying to cast fly while he had fly on some guys already. It was right before he 'left' the game. You gotta learn your character.
Oh how did he go about it? Please remind me, I forgot, but it sounds insightful :)
@@zachnightingale8156 they all fell out of the sky very chaotically, nearly plumetting to their deaths, and he had to make some rolls to save himself i believe. it was somewhere around episode 24 or 25 of campaign 1
Is this common? It feels so bad when this happens as a player. As a DM i just tell the player “you’re already concentrating… are you sure?”
@@jawamaster it definitely depends on the situation. in this case, the player was regularly ignoring rules and ruining fun moments for the table by stealing centerstage. i'm no expert but i'd say if the vibe at the table/of the campaign is more chill then a reminder is due, especially for novice players. but if it's a scarier or more intense campaign, then adding consequences for not noticing things like that can add more tension. always talk to your players! or if you're a player, always talk to your dm!
@jawamaster Like Four said, it's really a case-by-case sorta thing. In this instance, the player for Tiberius had *ridiculous* "Main Character Syndrome" to the point it was ruining the experience for all the other players, including Matt himself.
Would need to double-check, but I think it was getting to the point that all the female players (Laura especially) got uncomfortable around him (because Tiberius was hitting on their characters constantly or undermining their cool moments).
This sort of "DM attitude" is only as common as there are players who're like this. Even the nicest people out there (like Matt) aren't able to put up with it with grace for long, eventually you *have* to smack the hammer down.
One time I got a nat 20 for a stealth check and now canonically dragons are colorblind within our campaign they have to actively use magic to see colors
Ok that's hilarious and stuff like that truly be part of the reason why dnd is incredible
While I love CR, and while Matt Mercer is one of my idol DMs, I actually don’t like the Sentinel example! Beau is a 20th-level super-monk! Matt should’ve asked Marisha how Beau stopped the huge monster *in earnest* and then accepted if she could think of a cool and sensible description of how Sentinel stopped the monster after all. Would’ve been fun and felt less patronizing. I don’t think the moment was that serious, of course. Just think it’s an extremely rare instance where Matt could’ve handled something better.
Also, I think it’s important to note that Brennan Lee Mulligan doesn’t apply his home-rules to every game, far from it. The insta-death rule, for example, is specifically from Neverafter, D20’s most lethal campaign BY FAR.
Agreed, DM's shouldn't belittle their players like that especially not mid-combat. Honestly he's very lucky Marisha is his wife and long time friend because it would have been 100% fair for a player to leave the whole damn game after being teased like that.
I particularly hated that moment because I DM for neurodivergent players, some from other countries with English as a second language, and they would have genuinely described how they stopped a gargantuan creature in a heartbeat
@@inuendo6365 bit of an overreaction with leaving the table even if i played with a dm for the first time and they do that to me i wouldn't be to upset
I disagree. As apart of the DM Forever group myself, I sometimes do this to my players and I’ve explained this to them as well to the point they understand. But in the case of CR in that particular situation. It’s different if they were doing a streamed session compared to that session that was live in front of an audience. Ok wow, you rolled a Natural 20. You want a cookie for making a simple hand gesture to do that? Now I as the DM am going to make you earn that 20, just as you do ANY OTHER GAME NIGHT… explain how your sentinel did it. Thats all he required. For that natural 20, he wanted her to give an oration to the audience for a more dramatic effect to give them exactly what they paid for. In the end it was a “I shouldn’t have to do that” and the DM said, well bump it then, i shouldnt have to give you the natural 20 either. DC checks dont have to be 18 or lower. And players seem to forget that. These CR players are all lvl 20. Which means they are going up against monsters that may or may not have spells or actions that will have DC’s of 24 to 28 on them… even if you catch a natural 20, ok that plus whatever your modifier is, it may not reach the DC of what they are fighting. Yes there is a cool factor there for hotting the max dice limit, and a DM can “choose” to have that effect added which he did, but if you the player dont decide to go along with that cool factor yourself, then sit back and accept that that challenge DC is probably waaay above your pay grade.
@@JVHorvath1 yeah if you acted like a coddled child like your comment suggests it's surprising you have players at all. How old are you 12?
"Ok wow you rolled a Nat 20, you want a cookie" sounds like there's a reason you're a forever DM, you need the power imbalance not to get kicked
@@ArturoRivera2004 the perspective was more for my players but yeah at level 20 I'd leave the table because I value my time investment. Personally I think Mercers games would be boring AF to play in already and I watch a double speed for the group as a whole, not for his DM style
Mind you, could probably explain sentinel as cutting a ligament in their leg or tripping them as they go by, or just knocking them off balance for 6 seconds
I would just say "because i chose it as my feat. At that time you didnt inform me of this houserule."
Sentinel gets on many DMs nerves, because it is so powerfull. If you as a DM wants to modify it, thats fine. But you NEED to inform your players about it if they want to take Sentinel, so they know what they choose and how it will work in play.
@@KamiRecca you would be a horrible player. Telling the DM that no creature's are immune to movement speed reductions unless you've been told beforehand is toxic. Yes, DM's can make creatures immune to movement speed reductions (freedom of movement). Maybe the DM didn't think about it until the moment it happened, but the DM has an ability to add things to a creature or NPC when it makes sense.
It's not a houserule, it is simply logic. When the player can't even come up with a good reason besides "it's duh rulez!" then it should be dismissed. Matt's first and only olive branch was to ask the player "how?" At that moment the whole table realized how ridiculous the idea of stopping a 4 story monster by slapping them with a staff was.
@@Kishandreth i am a player with 24 years experience, both as a player and a DM. I am not new to this.
No it is not toxic to say that a DM should proclaim what houserules he/she uses. Thats just good DM conduct.
This is the rules, as written:
Sentinel:
You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits.
- Players handbook
"ANY ENEMY'S GUARD" is rather clear language, is it not?
So if the DM decides that it does not work on "Any Enemy", then thats a houserule.
P.s
Of course the DM can make whatever ruling he/she wanys. The enemy can be Immune to Sentinel feat, or any other ability, effect, status or spell, and the DM doesnt even have to explain it, just say " unfortunately that doesnt work."
My problem here is that the DM demands the player to motivate why a ability, especially one from such a finite resourse as a Feat, would work, when the rules CLEARLY says it works.
@@KamiRecca 24 years experience but never looked at the monster manual. I cited the exact spell that allows ANY creature to not suffer from ANY reduction to movement speed.(Freedom of movement) There are plenty of examples of creatures being immune to prone or grapple or restrained. Immunity to movement speed reduction is absolutely a thing a DM can give a creature.
Tell me how the sentinel feat allows a player to stop a vampire in mist form from moving with a weapon attack. Tell me how a wraith with it's immunities can be stopped.
I'm telling you that simply stating "it says the creature creature's speed becomes 0" is completely toxic because as a player you don't know what traits the DM assigned to the creature.
You doubled down attempting to put your 24 years of experience against a logical argument and lost. I can probably pull out other examples of creatures that have traits that make them unstoppable.
@@Kishandreth you dont read very well, do you?
Yes a DM can decide to do anything, give whatever immunity they want etc.
But asking a player to motivate Why a ability should work, when the ability, according to the rules Should work, that is toxic. That goes against player agency.
We tend to play in worlds of Magic, Miracles, Blessings, Curses, Destiny and Other Magic Shennanigans.
Logic and Realism, unless a core tennant in the setting (and dnd is not one of them) takes the back seat by neccessity.
So in a world where thoughts can power arrows in flight, fire can be shaped into elementals by will, why Shouldnt Sentinel work against wights or vampires, unless specificly homebrewed by the DM or stated by the rules?
As for Freedom of Movement or other abilities, that was not the case here, was it? Matt didnt go "sorry, its effected by Freedom of Movement".
He could have, but he didnt.
Instead it was the case of "i dont Want this to work."
Now go out there, play some wonderfull campaigns, and come back when you've realized that you are an ass, ready to make yourself a better person.
Best of wishes
- Kami
Taking a beat to look up the rules is such a good note. I run Pathfinder 2e online and it is such a blessing to be able to have access to all of those rules online free. I ran a 5e campaign and found it a bit more invasive to pause the game to crack open the book and try to find the rule I needed to refer to. I would still do it because getting it right was important, but it would always take that much longer with 5e.
Beyond is preety good to check rules as the search feature looks at all available sources.
just google the rules, I mean errata is not even in the book unless you have the newest versions
5etools is also great for looking up rules with one search
Archives of Nethys for the win. Eat your heart out, Hasbro
There are free online D&D 5E SRDs, too.
There's a lot of emphasis in this on ignoring the rules when it suits the situation. But I feel like it's a bit mischaracterized. It's not ignoring the rules for the DM to make a ruling that sometimes no roll is necessary. That's literally how the game works. The DM makes rulings all the time and is the official arbiter of which mechanics to use, as well as how and when to use them to resolve any given situation. Most of the examples in the video of DM's ignoring the rules is actually just a DM making a ruling, and that's 100% within the rules.
I'm also not a particular fan of the wording in the advice that a DM can simply not allow something if it's something they don't "want" to happen. I don't think what the DM alone wants or doesn't want is particularly good criteria to judge by. I think it's better to consider the desires of the entire group and the effect on the game as a whole. There could be tons of things you don't really want to happen in your game, but you should take agency away from your players only sparingly and as a last resort. That's not to say you have to make sure your players can always succeed. They can attempt impossible tasks and fail.
In the example about whether or not the room is trapped, I don't think you need to go directly to asking for a roll. If they player asks if there are any traps you can perfectly easily reply, "You don't see any out in the open, do want to search for traps?". This makes it clear that when they ask the DM directly for information without stating they are taking any action, they are only privy to the information directly available to their character. It doesn't give away whether there are traps or not, merely puts it back on them whether they want to actually search or not. You might not want to do that all the time. It's okay to talk through things in shorthand sometimes and sort of speed through stuff, especially if your party is tediously searching through 20 different rooms or something. But it is definitely worth reminding players how the game loop actually works sometimes.
I disagree heavily with the "sorry, you should've known better than to break your invisibility" mindset. I've walked back a lot of things for my players because we are NOT our characters. I might not have remembered that my invisibility would break, but my hyper intelligent and tactical minded wizard character absolutely would have. I may have forgotten to pack fire spells, but my character who's fought trolls before and knows their weakness to fire WOULD have. Etc etc.
6:00 I’d like to say, Aabriya herself doesn’t entirely know the rules either and actively adjusts how things work just to fit her interests.
I will never forget when Robbie cast a single-target spell and Aabriya went “hmm no it does AOE dmg now spontaneously because I said so” and used it against the party.
Minutes later she asked Matt to clarify the rules on something for her because she straight up didnt know how they worked. And she STILL changed them without telling anybody what was being changed.
Theres a fine line between holding people accountable and being vindictive
One of my favorite moments from Brennan is during Calamity and when he just let Sam go into this grand speech.
Legit brennens is what i aspire to "maybe but ill remember and it will bring chaos"
To be fair, this was Robbie's first time playing Dnd. Amd while the player made a mistake because of that lack of experience the character would know that casting the spell would drop concentration on the first cast. I would have handled it by explaining that.
I totally agree that knowing how your character works is important but punishing a player for a lack of knowledge that their character does know feels wrong.
3:22
How does Beauregard stop a monster with sentinel? What do you mean? 😂the same way she punches ghost, moves at superhuman speed, stuns enemies with a single blow, runs up walls and across bodies water as if it were solid ground, survive 100ft drops, catches bullets, dodge dragon fire unscathed and PUNCHES GHOST!
Marisha could have easily said, “…do to my long time spent as an agent of the cobalt soul gathering knowledge, livid experience of fighting monsters and as a trained monk capable using my own martial prowess and mastery of the natural flow of energy in the body, I’m able to temporarily disrupt his flow of energy interrupting his movement. Almost like a lesser version of stunning strike.”
The narrative of the game world is incredibly fluid. It can shape itself around any rule to make sense, especially in a world with magic, ghost, ki, gods and devils.
Especially for a level 20 character. Literally the highest peak of performance someone can operate at.
but she didnt, I think if players expect the DM to accept their more convoluted tactics with something like mage hand, and interactions with the enviroment, then the players should also make some effort to reason that what a spell does can have no effect on something even if it's not explicitly stated that the something doesn't have immunity to it.
@@zirkereuler5242 I was stating that narratively it makes total since that Bea would be able to stop the large monster using sentinel, there's literally very little reason it wouldn't work. Suddenly asking how would sentinel work, is inconsistent with how her other abilities have been handled. She never needs to explain stunning strikes(which she literally used on a robot), running up walls, punching ghost, evasion, slow falling from 50ft in the air, being immune to poison, her super human speed, catching bullets, felling armored titans with her bare fist, or punching ghost. But suddenly she needs to explain sentinel? She wasn't even doing anything convoluted. Monster ran past her, opportunity attack hit, he should have stopped moving. Saying it "narratively doesn't make since", makes no since, because the narrative is literally whatever you want it to be. anywhere from: giant monster got hit in the shin and caught the meanest charlie horse, all the way to Bea understands the mystic art of how energy flows through the body and she hit him in a critical spot which temporarily stopped his movement. I feel like we get so wrapped up in narrative that we forget we are it's architect.
Agree, it was ugly
She couldve, yeah, but she didnt. The entire table stopped and literally out loud said “yeah, actually, sentinel not stopping this 5 story tall astral meat soul sucking vapor demon thats not even a real entity but rather a magic suit of armor for trent kinda makes sense.”
Marisha didnt even argue the tiniest bit and she’s usually not a pushover when the rules dont go her way
Going from the preface, all the way back from the 2nd Ed. DM's Guide, it tells the reader that it's a GUIDE! Not a rulesbook, per se, but options that the DM can use to play the game. However, the best option is to be consistent with your rules, so that you don't make something unbalanced, unfair, or make it so the players don't understand how something is supposed to work, because that leads to confusion, and often high temper flares...
Ruling that Sentinel not work in that situation is already bad enough, the cost of a feat is already a steep one and a huge commitment, and with one like that's it's already defining your entire play style for your character for the rest of the campaign, plus its effect only lasts the rest of the turn I feel like ruleing that it's staggered for a few seconds is a plenty reasonable thing to happen even IRL.
She was a lvl 20 monk, the other players can turn into adult dragons, counter spell gods, and even have gods directly intervene, but a super human at peak martial prowess with magical energy that can enhance their own bodies and affect the nerves of their enemies makes no sense stopping a giant creature for a few seconds.... Really?
Like, fucks sake man, she has stunning strike, say she hits a nerve, say she makes ki propagate through the target and numb their leg temporarily, or simply say she is that fucking strong, martials should have anime powers and D&D is a trash system for not making it that way, lvl 20 casters are gods, lvl20 martials can't even dual wield great swords, you can't even lift more than a ton, why can't they grab full houses and chuck at a flying dragon? Why can't they use a Giant's enormous sword? Why can't they move so fast it looks like teleportation? Why can't they jump more than a couple meters? Why can't they slash through stone like it was butter?
Honestly, fuck D&D, and fuck whoever expects realism for martials while giving leniency for caster to do whatever they want because magic.
@@phelps6205 exactly, I let players with Strength based classes do so much more with it because of how few classes are dependent on the score, and if a martial character gets something to one up or even match some of the bs spell casters can do later I do everything in my power to let them do it
Sentinel answer: I hit the creature in a way that causes them to wince in pain; momentarily disorienting them from moving.
Every time your character is moving and takes damage I would stop you. Sorry, you are wincing from pain and can not move this round. Anything the players can do, the GM can do.
The creature you’re striking is a dragon. The dragon is not disoriented because he’s a dragon.
It only works when you crit on gigantic creatures would be fair
@@davidbeppler3032If the monster has Sentinel, sure. Stop attempting to conflate rules with descriptive text.
@@R_J8And people wonder why the martial/caster disparity exists. Sentinel works on any creature because there is no specification for creature size. You could pull the exact same bullshit with Rogue’s Evasion. It logically makes no fucking sense, but it doesn’t fucking matter, this is a make-believe game where magic exists.
5:43 actually rolled the check and crit, guess im subbing LOL
I once had a scene where the players were flying down from the city of Eltruel in Descent into Avernus and while flying to land a group of Devils and Demons got into a fight in their path. I mentioned the fiends hadn't spotted them yet, but they would soon if the players didn't take any action. One of the players said he was gonna hide and I pointed out that he was floating in the middle of the air, not really a place to hide in sight. My goal was for the players to think of some way to create a distraction. Like casting light on one of the Ranger's arrows and the Ranger shooting it to distract the devils, or something like that. And the player that wanted to hide got very annoyed and so I had to pull him away from the table and have a discussion with him and eventually we came to an understanding.
He was fucking FLYING OVER A FIGHT OF DEMONS AND DEVILS and youre worried about the realism of hiding LMAO, just LMAO
@kaiiser2190 Yes. Because sometimes players' actions have consequences. The actions the players took was deciding out of all the ways to get down from Eltruel that they would fly down. I asked them how they wanted to fly down. They wanted a direct path since one of them only had a minute of flight. So, with that in mind, they went a direct path that put them into the open air. Then, I placed a challenge in front of them, and because of their actions, they didn't have access to hiding. Again, because of their actions.
I love watching the timer in the corner of the video and thus missing the entire actual video. But, I guess it keeps me engaged, so it’s fulfilling it’s purpose
"because I'm the DM" is a horrible and toxic justification for arbitrary or capricious rulings that completely breaks trust and the social contract serving as the foundation for games.
So don't make arbitrary or capricious rulings.
@@BonusAction I can tell by the way you talk about DND and games you're probably the kinda shitty dm that does stuff like that.
if a dm were making rulings that I thought sucked and they were always just like "that's how it is. I'm the dm"
I'd just find another dm.
I’m blessed with players who accept my rulings. I’ve found it helpful to explain why I rule certain ways, to reduce frustration, but they never argue with me, which is huge, honestly.
"please tell me how sentinel stops this creature" "BECAUSE THE RULES SAY SO LOL"
That's kinds all she should've needed to say, lmao. He could have done several things to avoid it or said something to make the creature sound cool, but he didn't, he just shut her down...sad
Sentinel is in practice a pike stopping a horse. A skilled user of a polearm can absolutely stop a much larger than player creature that is charging toward you.
In a world of fantasy, I see no reason to assume an extremely skilled combatant couldn't have studied the weakpoints of mythical creatures in hopes of being able to defeat them.
Yeah its just subjective really. Im fine with the ruling because for me a human stopping Godzilla is unrealistic. Sure theres ways to work around it, and it would be fine to allow it, and to some it would make perfect sense. But also, Matts ruling was also valid in my mind. Its up to the DM what makes the most sense in the moment, and thats what happened here.
My problem with what a lot of people in the comments are saying is: if you start going by "logic" you quickly get into semantic territory. "You cannot cast speak with plants on the mushroom sorry" is a shitty way to rule things. It means knowing what the dm knows only is valued, actually creates imbalance in the game and often times does NOT make the game more realistic or better. Its a game, it has gamey rules and abstractions meant to correlate with but not simulate reality. If you go by logic every player's turn should happen at the same time for instance, which could be a cool idea for a TTRPG designed around this element, but thats not what DND does. The rules are not gospel but they are there for a reason too otherwise you might aswel play a more rule's light game or just do make belief. nothing would be wrong with that. Nothing wrong with CHANGING the rules. but changing the rules arbitrarily by some metric like logic and inconsistently applied, just means the players have no clue what could work and how. You don't have to think with in the rules as a player. All you need to do is tell me what it is you would like to do. (Can use this spell to do x?) How that gets resolved does not need to be logical, but it *should* be consistent. Which is why dnd has rules at all. The only real rule I have is to try whatever is fun and makes sure everyone else does too. I only break the rules for fun. real life Logic has no mechanical place in a fantasy turn based TTRPG. people confuse unlimited choice's and ways to approach situations with "being logical or a simulation". A dnd game actually based in logic would be the most boring thing in the world. characters and players would never leave their house in fear of being attacked. We are playing a turn based fantasy hero cooperative story creator. So in short I agree with you. A dnd warrior is beholden to fantasy not reality
that sentinel ruling is really weird imo... I don't think you should ever be looking to strip away player's abilities with homebrew. Creatively justifying something for the sake of realism is a lot more impressive than stopping a very basic ability from doing what it's meant to for the sake of realism :///
Plus its not like Sentinel is hard to play around if you're using homebrew monsters anyway; it requires an opportunity attack to be made for that effect to occur, so any number of ways to prevent the AoP from happening would have the same effect, while imparting to the player that a monster has taken enough notice of their abilities as to be wary of them.
Strangely, despite Matt obviously being a fantastic GM, it felt amateurish
@@ilikecookies72_45yeah just give you character the flyby ability and say he doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
yeah. is one of those things where "realism" gets brought up as a defense, but like... its BY FAR not the most realism-shattering thing that DnD has to offer in terms of logistics. and its clearly just an excuse to veto an ability that the DM doesn't like, mechanically. cuz lets be real. Sentinel is one of THOSE feats. similar boat as Mobile. so many DMs just view it as a tool players use to ruin their encounters.
not saying Matt is necessarily one of those more extreme cases. but i definitely feel like he just didnt want his monster to be stopped, and saw "hur dur realism" as a decent enough excuse in the moment to just not allow it.
But he didn’t he gave her a opportunity to say how sentinel would stop a giant and she didn’t have an answer so she didn’t get to use it
@@chimchimbiasedwreckedbyjin4056 as a player, you shouldn't have to explain /that/ a feat that you took works. Unless you as a player try to argue some weird edge case, the feat / spell / whatever other mechanic there is does exactly what it says in its description. I would be stumped in this situation too.
Matt saying sentinel doesn’t work would be fine if he had ever ruled it like that before, but seeing as he hasn’t it just feels bad
In all the other fights with a 200 ft Kaiju Sentinel worked?! Remember? No? Me either. Move along.
@@davidbeppler3032 that doesn’t make it feel any less bad as a player though. Especially since you’ve given up an ability stat improvement for that ability. Martial classes are almost inherently weaker than spell casters anyway
@@stonersudowoodo7143Bro, there's ALOT that doesn't work on titan sized creatures, not just sentinel
@@jotuthegamingguru8809 That’s true. However, I’d like you to list a few
agreed, or if it was a house rule. during the livestream it just felt... robbing, especially since it was perfectly by the book
7:44 I understand why some DMs subscribe to the rule of "If you don't read your spells it's your fault" but in a game where so much of it is happening in your imagination and sometimes you're scrambling to figure out what spell to cast or what ability to use, a little bit of leeway can go a long way. It can be something as simple as saying, "keep in mind, if you do X then Y will happen" and let the player decide whether or not they want to continue. Or if the decision has been already made instead of making the player feel like they messed up and they're bad at the game, turn it on it's head!
For example: In Critical Role C3 E94, Ashley Johnson cast Earthbind during a battle hoping it would restrain an enemy so they couldn't move. In that fight her character was singled out, ganged up on and had very few resources left and you could tell that Ashley was under a lot of stress and probably meant to cast something like Entangle. It wasn't until later that she realized Earthbind didn't do what she thought it did and was clearly frustrated by this. Matt, clearly able to tell how she felt, later in the fight had enemy try to fly but couldn't because of the Earthbind, so Ashley didn't feel like she completely wasted a full turn and a spell. Did it make that much of an impact in the fight? Not really. But did it excite everyone at the table, especially Ashley? Yes! Moments like that are what make him such an incredible DM.
Oh, you included my advice of "dont be afraid to say no to players", i feel weirdly seen
I know you focus on D&D dungeon masters, but I want to suggest you to check out Jason Carl from World of Darkness (in particolar I liked New York By Night).
I think he is a great storyteller and I think that he can teach some interesting tricks.
Also if I can ask for a topic, I am curios about horror ttrpgs so if there are some tricks or methods that you have notice in many actual plays.
In a game when characters can turn into ancient dragons and call their god for backup, it's not so strange to stop a titanic creature dead in its tracks with a punch
It really just depends on the realism of the individual game world!
@@BonusAction It really does not. The feat does not mention creature size. And the realism of the individual game world is "Caleb can turn into an Ancient White Dragon once a day, and Jester can have the Traveler, a literal God, intervene once a week". The Martials already have it rough at high levels with few encounters, why would a DM make them even worse?
When Scanlan tried to Counterspell Vecna, imagine if Matt said "Sorry, he's god, the spell has no effect". It's the same exact situation.
It's not like Sentinel is an unbeatable feat that has no counterplay. First, the monk still has to hit with the opportunity attack. Then, a titanic creature should have a bigger reach than a human monk. Thus, the creature should still be able to attack the Monk that has used Sentinel.
Then, there's the less common alternatives. The creature could use short-ranged teleportation, such as Misty Step. The creature could have Legendary Actions that allow it to Move, as Vampires do.
What I'm trying to say is, sometimes as a DM you forget your players' abilities and you get whomped, but you have to play by the rules of the game. Example: Brennan Lee Mulligan in the last fights of a Crown of Candy (shoutout to Emily Axford), or Brian Murphy in Naddpod. I don't think Mercer is a bad DM (obviously), but I do think he's more narrative and cinematic focused, and less inclined to use the actual mechanics of the game.
That first one is kind of a bad example imo...sure it was cool, but it just sounds like Matt could have given the creature the Sentinel feat or an ability that does the same. There are ways he could have handled that without outright denying the character a completely valid combat feature. It "makes sense" because thats what the feat does...if he doesn't like Sentinel he should have made that clear at character creation, not just...stopped it dead in its tracks? Live?
Her ability would have worked in literally every other situation. I cannot fathom why he would do this other than to say he wanted the monster to be able to move. There were so many better ways...Freedom of Movement...like cmon...
Edit: To be clear, with the same logic you could say "Ah right...so how do you cast that spell? Faith? Well, I haven't seen proof of any gods tonight so I suppose your spell fails. Wanna try something more realistic?"
Except he didn't do that. And the point is that this massive creature is in motion and has a tremendous momentum. You stabbing it as it tries to bowl through you hurts, but big things don't stop on a dime. In every other situation where she's not stabbing something two dozen times her own size it would work because she's *not* stabbing something two dozen times her own size. It either reacts to being stabbed by stopping by itself as it doesn't want to impale itself or she has the mass required to actually believably stop it.
The point of the ruling is to go "Okay, can you explain *how* your character is able to stop something so much bigger than them without using game rules?" Because to use your spellcasting question 'They have the faith and their god channels through them' is a valid response. It is, more importantly, an *in character* response.
And so is, “My ki is strong enough to stop the rampaging beast cold.”
Marisha blanked because it made no sense to be asked how her character could use their feat. It’s up to the DM to describe how it *works*, not find reasons to disallow it.
@@TheaBlackwood-um1pi It makes perfect sense to ask a player how their character does... anything. It's *their character*. And it's not like any of these people are bad at describing how something like that happens.
@@selonianth "you're playing a bard that plays the flute? Okay, show me how your character casts a spell. Oh, you can't play the flute? Then I guess your spell fails." This is exactly analogous to Mercer's bullshit ruling and if you can't see why that's a problem then you can't be helped. You're playing a fucking fantasy game as a character. You shouldn't have to explain how shit works. It works because it's written in the rules. If Matt wanted it to not work (for no reason) then he should have to explain why it DOESNT work. Not the other way around. And I would've accepted his ruling if he actually had any valid reason, like he could've said the monster had sentinel as well, or the monster's movement speed can't be reduced. But he didn't, he just said it doesn't work and then doubled down and made her feel stupid in front of a live audience because she, god forbid, expected her feat to actually work the way it's written in the rules.
@josephblattert6311 that's not remotely analogous to what's being described. We can't cast Magix in our world, but we *can* use spears and pikes to dissuade people charging us and keeping them at bay, often to devastating effect. But nothing approaching that size is going to be dissuaded by a pinprick to a foot as it's charging. Even if it cared about the pain it wouldn't stop on a dime. The ability is *not* magic, so acting like it should work 'because it's a magical world' is asinine. RAW can, and does, get ignored on the players behalf just as much as it gets ignored to their detriment. Hiding behind it is childish and harmful to the cause of any DM dealing with rules lawyers who try to do shit like the peasant catapult. "But the rules say the turn is 6 seconds and if that many people passed it up within that time it would be doing Mach 3!"
The rules can, do, and *should* lose to basic fucking logic from time to time or people lose suspension of disbelief and the purpose of the game as a storytelling medium is lost in favor of numbers go up.
Did Matt handle it a bit unfortunately? Sure, he thinks so anyway, (he posted on this video saying such) but the actual ruling? Nothing wrong with saying "sorry, logic says no."
the subscribe button literally lights up when he says "can you find the subscribe button?" didn't know youtube did that...
Personally, I think that the way that Matt dealt with the scenario at 2:34 was pretty bad because it felt like he was patronizing and taking away something that the play had invested into without linking it to the story. I think a better way of handling it would be, "As you strike at this massive creature, dealing damage to them, you perform your battle maneuvers to hold them in place. However, as you do, the creature's immeasurable momentum and power still push forwards as it looks down at you like a bug. It seems as though this creature is immune to the effects of the Sentinel feat."
He says yes when asked but I would like to inform you this creature was massive. It was so massive that it dwarfed a T-Rex and a dragon that two of the PCs transformed into. I agree that the sentinel feat wouldn’t work on the creature.
@@benpurcell4935Yeah, how would melee weapons be able to damage it at all if they aren't even long enough to pierce its hide. While we're at it, how does a punch go through plate armor, let's just make AC have a damage reduction effect. Ooh, and explain how your character is just conjuring fireballs out of thin air, let's ban all magic because that doesn't work in our world either
See what happens when we don't follow rules and try to use logic in a world that has different physics and is dictated largely but "it works because it works" magic?
@@orionstokesweiss2344 It seems you disagree with Matt’s ruling and that‘s ok. Some creatures can have a feat of their own that counters stunning strike and sentinel. I also think it made sense that Matt ruled the way he did since it was the literal size of a small skyscraper.
@@benpurcell4935 So what about the rest of the world, should logic only apply to this scenario but not to the rest? The creature didn't have a feat that restricted all movement restriction judging by the clip. It was an on the spot, I do not want my players to be able to use their abilities because it interferes with how I want this to play out. Classic railroading, and one of the worst things you can do as a DM. If you look up D&D horror stories one of the most common details is the DM refusing any player agency. If Matt had actually said in the moment that it appears that this creature is immune to movement inhibition, that would have been fine. That would have been planned. But kneejerk you have no agency here? Shite
@@orionstokesweiss2344 You have not seen the entire show then. Matt asks Marisha how sentinel would stop this monster and when she came up with a blank he doesn’t allow the feat to work. He gives a chance to have it work because if it was true railroading then he wouldn’t have given her a chance to give a reason as to how sentinel would stop the monster. I know the full context of the clip. I recommend watching the show because it’s pretty epic. The monster is significantly larger than all the creatures that the Mighty Nein or Vox Machina had ever fought. Matt is the DM and is pretty lenient in a lot of his rulings and he did have a period of harsher rulings after an incident.
i think a good example to follow is critical roles early years where decisions here made in the moment but if it turned out to be wrong or if they home booed a "better" rule they would just implement that next time it came up
The most important thing is 'don't be a arse'. You can't pull off a hard rule without first building up a lot of trust with your players. Eg in my Ravenloft Game I gave the Players free reign to make level 20 PC's only to suprise them with the twist that levelling was tied to how much fear/territory they owned - meaning they levelled DOWN when they failed. This worked because I give out lots of inspiration with no limit on how many they can have, and work to enable players to challange their PCs in interesting/fun ways. The players figured out that Ravenloft in my campaign ran like a game of Risk where they could gain or lose power by defeating other Dreadlords.
3:20 On the flip side, I think another great example is how Matt eventually gave up on explaining how a water elemental could catch fire, and just said "it's not on fire, that doesn't make any sense". Rules are there to serve you.
I stumbled upon this video and I appreciate this type of analysis. All the advice is great and very useful as someone who's just getting into D&D!
On a more important note, I had my d20 laying around in my desk beside me. I rolled it to "see if I can see the subscribe button"... and a beautiful nat 1 appeared :)
(I'm still subscribing tho)
fantastic video! Really enjoyed the easy way you explain things. My players will appreciate this advice for sure!
As a new DM, I was the only person who owned a players handbook and the only one who put any effort into learning the rules.
This was honestly incredibly frustrating. Stuff moved very slowly every time people levelled up I had to read all the options for people and relay that information to them and they then had to make a decision. Then I had to do this 4 more times for the other players.
That campaign lasted for a couple months then after an extended break we kinda all gave up on it. It was a pre written one and I liked the idea of making a homebrew campaign and setting.
My friend's agreed to go through with this but this time I made it explicitly clear that they needed to read all the character customisation options and their spell lists for themselves. I could not repeat what happened before.
Im a bit torn up about the different stances for the Sentinel incident. I am both a player and a DM. I do see both perspectives.
If I were a player with limited ability selections, I'd want to rely on my choices to prevent beat downs and tell the stories I envision. If I were in Marisha's place I'd have felt the low-blow.
But in response to comments saying that would have had people walk out from the table, isn't that a bit of an extreme conclusion knowing how long the campaign had been going prior? If the ONE time you were denied use of your ability for any reason leads to you walking away with a bitter aftertaste, doesn't that sound like a destructive life path?
In a GM's perspective, I absolutely see the fine print in the ruling. This monster should NOT be laughed at. If any monster I throw at you can be stopped by a pixie with Sentinel, that's an ABSOLUTE disrespect to any hard work I'd have done for storytelling because one person wanted it for shoots and giggles. That's not my fun.
In retrospect, it definitely would have been something to ease into earlier. Not just plop at the table because "teehee, hard mode". If anything, talk to the player before the encounter and open the discussion that sentinel has limits that may come up. Ideally at the game table, this will motivate the player to ask first in assessment rather than just jump in thinking everything is fine.
I feel like Matt probably doesn't like that he made that ruling now, seeing as I can't remember a similar ruling ever occurring in that game again
exactly, i think the problem was not the overruling, but the way it was done - with no previous similar incidents, no amendments, no warnings, in the middle of a stressful situation. it felt like a very hard "no", even the deceptively open "tell me how it makes him stop" was said in borderline mocking tone. really surprised me in a negative way, ngl
Gotta go with a hard no on DM fiat alterations to how characters work. Not only does it remove player agency in their character’s function, the DM loses the right to complain if the player doesn’t know how their character works because DM fiat altering said character means they *can’t know.*
after listening to dungeons and daddies i really think Anthony Burch should be in these convos
Personally in any sort of RPG I don't think you should punish people for not knowing something their character would know, especially if you haven't moved that far past the point yet, as long as they aren't making a habit of it as an undo button.
One thing I do with the "Trap Roll" is that if they find a trap I tell them they find it. If they don't I tell them "You don't find any traps." Roll high or low, traps present or no, the answer is always "you don't find any traps."
Using the contents page quickly? That’s a struggle-, grappled, see restrained, restrained, see incapacitated. I’m exaggerating but it does feel like a long journey at times.
This was a great video! Thank you! Will for sure be using the DM/player contracts in future games!:)
My DM style is "Yes, but..." I want my players to have fun, but on the other hand I need to keep things in check as a DM. So I'll give them a high DC to roll for, and if it's outlandish or crazy I'll allow it, but Monkey Paw the shit out of it where it doesnt quite go as planned. For instance I have a Warlock with a Fey Cat companion (giving her the ability to resummon it after 24 hours if killed - thank you Liam O'Brian for that inspiration), she wanted to toss it at the mini-boss and she rolled high next to turn to have it take a piss on the creatures head - rolling a Nat 20. So I made it so the creature flee in terror at the abysmal stench. Next combat she tried the same thing, rolled a Nat 1, and it was thrown with such uncanny strength unbefitting her low stat that it got thrown over it's head, into a spinning propeller where it turned into a puff of blue mist. I also always have my players roll a check when they ask for something. Sometimes even when I didnt have anything originally, an idea might come to me that I do throw in that I might not have otherwise if they roll stupidly high.
I once had a player insist that eldritch blast worked like magic missile, *even if the target is invisible or behind cover*. I was a newbie dm at the time (still am frankly) and i had trouble 'defending' my ruling that it didnt.
I tried to lay it out as logically as possible but they were insistent on interpreting the spells' wording in a specific way. Super frustrating!
Anyone can make an attack roll against an invisible creature. Invisible just means they have disadvantage on the attack roll and it's considered heavily obscured, which in turn lets it hide anywhere it wants
It's only when an invisible creature succeeds on a hide check does it become untargetable.
I forgot to mention they were also behind complete cover at the time. also, at least for me, you have to have a successful perception check to even have a general idea where an invisible person is (or they bomb their stealth rolls) bc the idea that you could fire randomly in any direction and have a 50% chance of hitting something is wild to me@@haiclips3358
The ruling is easy, magic missle doesn't ask for a roll to hit, it simply asks that youre able to see the target. Eldritch blast does ask for a roll to hit, so the player can try to hit but it isn't guaranteed. Just tell them that's the RAW.
@@PhoenicopterusReven better: "I do not interpret it that way. Argument done, that's the ruling"
It's very important to have the dm be in this referee place because playing characters easily makes people very invested and questioning someone's authority weakens it, while we need someone to be able to decide quickly and move on without issue when an argument drags on
When i'm a dm, i ask of my players to invest themselves enough in making the game work smoothly, when i'm a player i often say "i think that [...] , but you are the dm"
My DM has a rule that if we can flavor something well enough and roleplay it, then we can at least try to do it
For Aabria's example on not reading your character sheet and spells carefully, I'd do this with an experienced group more than an inexperienced group, to an extent. If it's early on in the campaign and it's a group of new players, I'll let them have a mulligan. After that, it is what it is.
In theory, Sentinel could be the action of understanding the muscular system of an animal or creature enough that when you hit it you're hitting the equivalent of a funny bone or something that temporarily prevents the creature from moving more out of shock or surprise than sheer force...
Bria's approach is my favorite I've seen. From playing games like BG3 and Divinity my friend has murdered random people and the party more than he's damaged enemies at this point.
My super nice and supportive character found someone stalking our party and decided to show them how to stealth directly in front of them. This ended up everyone in the party stealthing in front of them and breaking them mentally.
Nat 1, my eyeballs fall out
IF you rule the rules, you're not really playing a game anymore. It's great advice for someone with experience. It's a recipe for disaster to give that idea to a newbie.
My chaotic neutral wild magic sorcerer has messing up as part of his character. And as a chaotic neutral player, i like watching him get in trouble.
Marissa brought the "no but" energy by countering the "explain how" bringing on the crushing nope from Matt. She probably could have narrated something cool and had it allowed
Matt certainly would have allowed sentinel to work if she had thought of some good reason for it to work.
@@benpurcell4935But should a player have to explain how their character does things? No! We don't ban players from playing a high charisma bard just because they are socially awkward fucks, we don't restrict history checks just because the player doesn't know what their character does. and in no way should we restrict a martial characters extremely limited options based upon their ability to describe when put on the spot how they stop a big thing from proceeding via sentinel.
@@orionstokesweiss2344 It logically doesn’t make sense for sentinel to work in this case.
@@benpurcell4935 It logically doesn't make sense for a melee weapon to be able to pierce the skin of a creature as large as described, it logically doesn't make sense that a wizard can conjure a fireball out of thin air, it logically doesn't make sense that being shoved off a 9.9ft cliff will not result in any harm but a 10ft one will. D&D isn't about logic, it is about the magic of the world. A martials feats should get to do what they say they do, just like a sorcerers spells should get to do what they say they do. Does it make logical sense that a fireball can not damage a target of your choice? Of course not, that isn't how explosions work at all! Does that mean that DMs should remove careful spell from the game?
@@orionstokesweiss2344 Let me set the scene for you just a bit. The Mighty Nein had literally just wiped a bunch of bad guys out and one of them was hiding by a tree. Beau and Yasha rush to the tree and hit the bad guy because both have the sentinel feat he goes nowhere when he tries to run so he pulls this orb out and breaks it. He transforms into a four story tall monster. Now tell me how the sentinel feat is supposed to stop it dead in its tracks because Marisha does deal damage to it. You need to come up with a scenario where sentinel works besides just going on about how D&D is a fantasy game and there’s no logic in it. You can literally jump from 9ft and not get hurt but you also are at a higher likelihood to get hurt when you jump from something that is greater than or equal to 10ft. Fireballs and spells work because there’s a magic system. The magic system is basically any other system where you can imagine it and it happens.
I feel like we need to remember the roles of the DM. Not only is a DM a narrator and the person who sets the scene, but they are also a referee and facilitator, meaning that if a player falls outside the rules of the game, the DM is there to catch them and to facilitate them back into the confides of the narrative. This is why I personally don't prefer Aabria's DM'ing style because of its punishing nature. DND is already so packed with rules and mechanics so slipping up as a player is common ground and even though it slows down the game perhaps and can understandably sometimes become frustrating, it's important to remember that the game is there for fun and a DM should team up with their players for the ultimate purpose of having fun.
Brennan does his through improve, looking to build on and twist player actions with knock on effects. Take a look at agent carter in response to fig, in the latest series
That's a great example! One of the things I really appreciate about Brennan as a DM is that if his characters continue doing wild stuff largely without consequences, he implements not something meant to stop them, but a new challenge to be overcome. Sure, Agent Carter is inconvenient for Fig (and I'm honestly hoping he gets a little more powerful) but it's not actually stopping her from using her powers, just adding something for her to think about. Not to mention that Brennan really only brings him up when Fig goes too far, and not when she's using it to just contribute to the mystery (e.g. he only showed up at the end of the Wanda Childa podcast conversation, iykyk). Sorry for the essay, I just really like that about him as a DM
I must have rolled a natural 1 on spoting the subscribe button because I had the video in full screen
I failed my perception check and didn't even see the video.
7:40 unless the spell's wording is VERY confusing, I never really ask how a spell works... I *Do* ask "How would you rule this?" cause there is a lot of spells that are VERY POLARIZED in how DMs run them... *COUGH* (Conjure Animals) *COUGH*
In all seriousness, I paused the video at 6:14 to make the perception check, and rolled a Nat 20, so I have subscribed.
The dice gods bless me this day.
Re: Abbria's style: I've learned my DM is *very* picky about magic. We cannot make stealth rolls to whisper and do the hand signs in a non-descript way that won't alert enemies a room over, and we can and have gotten punished forgetting this. If you do magic, it is *extremely* obvious unless you use Subtle Spell, because that is the reason Subtle Spell exists and why it would be meaningful for you to choose to get it in some way.
I kinda accidentally played him last session with the grave priest's Detect undead and paladin's Sense. He let us do it, and then said '[The NPC] is now furious at you for finding out her secret after you do these things right in front of her', and I had to point out that in the descriptions of those two, there are no verbal or somatic components, no glowing eyes, nothing, just a temporary sixth sense.
I like Todd Kenrick's "let players do absurd things, but have absurd consequences for them" style.
I’m not aware of this mm moment outside of that tiny clip; “this monster” is what? Was it gargantuan? Was it huge? Can I maybe get a link and a timestamp to watch the situation?
Thank you for your service.
This was from the Mighty Nein Reunion in London - the moment is here: ruclips.net/video/-RAmTSX8Ef8/видео.htmlsi=4Ow0SrcYm03GFYaq&t=15342
but the start of this phase is from around 3:55:00 (ruclips.net/video/-RAmTSX8Ef8/видео.htmlsi=ekVHGDjfp3Xd14MM&t=14133), and yeah, it was gargantuan!
To put it into some kind of perspective there was a T-Rex and a dragon standing near it and they were reaching about its knee.
For what it's worth, the size of the creature doesn't matter for the Sentinel feat. If the opportunity attack hits, the creature stops. It doesn't need extra explanation; its how the ability works, same as any class ability, but for some reason in this case Matt decided it did not...my mind is boggled.
@@kevrowsome-smith8597 thank you.
Yeah idk about that call.
@@benpurcell4935 yeah and they were also slinging magic...that wasn't very realistic either, but they still did it so why do we have to stop non-magic characters from doing unrealistic things...?
About punishing your players: It is VERY IMPORTANT to do it at the right time. The point isn't to make it hurt not to know your stuff, but to nudge the player and let them know they should. I never do it to new players, and some players seriously struggle with the rules and get a pass, because I know they're doing their best. As for those who should know their stuff, I still don't let it impact the game in a serious or lasting way. I allow it to make a moment that sucks, but not to have lasting consequences. Wasting a resource such as a spell slot, having rage run out, or a turn go to waste, sure, I use penalties like that to teach players, but I'd never let someone die over it, though I will tell a player when their lack of knowledge could have done that if I wasn't being nice. And I don't ever stack them! If a player has received "punishment" in the form of a stingy ruling, they gain immunity to such rulings for a bit, and I will instead correct them and refer back to the punished incident to let them know they need to learn their shit by next session. People need the opportunity to actually amend their errors if punishment is going to work. Punishment isn't an incentive, it's a powerful reminder that makes it easier for the punished to keep their mistake in mind.
I'm lucky enough to have a party that cares more about my homebrew story rather than loot or rules or minmaxing. That frees me up to collaboratively figure out how to get to the next story beat based on their rolls and bending rules when they come up with something fun or cool. Not railroading, more like a collective puzzle game: We know we want to get to the next plot point, so how do we make that happen with the resources (rolls) we have?
I agree with most people here. MM not allowing sentinel to work at most tables would have the player leaving. That is something that should be established Session 0, not halfway though a session and certainly not after the player has just used it.
And specially not before the largest live audience they had ever seen.
I'll be honest, wouldn’t exactly call a player using an ability and then questioning why said ability doesn’t work "rules-lawyering". Kinda leans into a toxic dm'ing mindset.
why does a count down keep appearing on the corner? it's making me so anxious wtf
I feel a lot of people miss the subtle power of a solid "no, but..." as a substitute for "yes, and..." in improv, especially in improv games like D&D. Instead of outright denying what they other improvisor was saying, it pivots into something related that might be more manageable.
Also, as far as looking stuff up at the table goes, with digital tools, an internet connection, and some practice one can pretty easily find the answer to just about any rules question within around 15 seconds so it doesn't slow the game down at all. Personally, I'm a big proponent of the idea of rule zero only being applied with the acknowledgement of what the RAW actually *is* first, like "by RAW that wouldn't work, but the idea is sick as hell so I'm gonna allow it" (to paraphrase Brennan) or "This is what the book says happens, but that's lame so we're doing this instead". I find a lot of the time people come up with houserules at the table due to being ignorant of the relevant RAW and being too lazy to look it up, and back when looking it up meant flipping through a dozen different books and a couple hundred splat books to find the relevant section, making something up as a stopgap made sense since looking up the rule would be impractical and expecting somebody to know 100% of the rules off the top of their head is unreasonable, but these days with modern technology the rules are readily accessible quickly and easily (google the words "5e tools" and you'll see what I mean). I've seen rule zero be used as an excuse to not bother learning the rules in the first place, which IMO is a shameful attitude for a DM to take, as the rules are what make it D&D as opposed to a different TTRPG with a different set of rules. Yes, the rules are a tool and when they get in the way of the game they can and should be cast aside or altered as needed, but that line of reasoning is not applicable, if after looking up the relevant rule (or being informed of it by a knowledgeable player at the table) the DM decides to make something up anyway, that's fine because they are making an informed decision for the sake of the game and the enjoyment of their players, making something up because they don't know the relevant rule and can't be bothered to spend a few seconds looking it up when everybody has a computer in their pocket (and many make active use of laptops and tablets at the table anyway) only makes it more likely that whatever kludged together ruling they come up with will be clunky and unbalanced (since coming up with elegant mechanics that fit well into the existing balance tends to come as a result of being knowledgeable about multiple TTRPG rules systems). I've had multiple instances where I'll see somebody talk about a ruling they made on Reddit and it was pretty clear they didn't know the relevant RAW, so somebody informs them of what the RAW is and they get downvoted into oblivion by rule zero zealots thus preventing the OP from learning what the RAW is for future consideration. Caring what the RAW actually *is* should be the default with rule zero being applied as an exception for rule of cool, rule of funny, or because the RAW for that happens to be dumb. The rules are a tool and so many people just refuse to use them as one.
I rolled a nat one on my "subscribe button" perception check and accidentally clicked on the comments box.
There's one problem I have with the "rules serve you, don't let the rules tell you what to do" sentiment.
Why?
Well, imagine you have a character which took a specific feat, or subclass, or a maneuver even, which let them to something specific. You invested "resources" to be able to do that.
Then there's that other player, who has a great idea and wants to do something like the player above, and you go "rule of cool" and allow it, only that the first player now wonders why they took the subclasses/feats, when they could have just say "I'd like to do X".
This problem doesn't only exist in DnD, but also in Pathfinder, though I can only speak for 2e, in which you think "hey, I'd like to do that" - and then you'll find out, there's actually a class-/general feat for that...
So, in general, it's a great thing to think like that, sure, but I'm just saying, sometimes, it makes specific class-/race features and feats "wasted resources".
I still recommend on of those out-of-job former soviet commissars. They are absolutely smashing in keeping people in line, have incredible work ethics (I mean it's been decades they last could live their dream) are pretty affordable and even bring their own gun.
5:46 Did the subscribe button just fucking glowed ?
You used Aabria as an example of being a stickler for knowing your rules and almost punishing the players when they don't, but I also think that she's one of the least strict when it comes to the rules.
SPOILER for CR episode 93(?).
This episode hadn't come out when this video was made, but in the episode of CR where they switched to the Crown Keepers with Aabria DMing, after Dorians brother died and he is commanded to leave the battle, he casts Geas on the Spider Queen's creature. This takes a minute to cast, but she let him cast it instantaneously, because it made the story more interesting.
Wasn't there also a thing about Aabria changing how one of Dorian's spells worked in order to make his spell kill his brother?
sentinel doesnt make logical sense, however from game logic view, its very similar to any form of "stagger" effect present in a lot of fantasy games and such, you could with a bit of creativity perhaps flavour it so it makes sense, but stagger is a stagger and since its in the game it should work, unless the foe has immunity to this effect or you clearly state that it wont work on collosal things it should work, the person taking this feat goes into the game thinking it will work unless you tell him otherwise at the very beggining it ruins the fun for the player if you put an end to this just because you didnt plan ahead and very few people can take such a shutdown like weve seen in the video. Ive had my own experience with the same exact thing, DM did it to me, I felt about it like shit (wasnt that big of a deal since it was a oneshot, but considering it being a oneshot and me picking the ability only to be unable to use it single time the entire oneshot because some bullshit rules also ruined the feeling) so you can definitely say no, but if ur experienced DM and you know you have problem with the whole sentinel shenanigan make sure to tell your party before hand. I for one embrace the rule for what it is and dont change it, if the person with sentinel wants to play a guardian and enabler, why take that away from them?
I personally love Aabrias often role-playing heavy dm style and I think that her tendency to playfully put players in their place makes a lot of sense for the kinda games she runs, particularly in regards to her campaigns using non 5e systems (like in Misfits and magic) or modified 5e systems (like a court of Faye and flowers). Role playing necessarily is dictated by fewer on the book rules than battles and similarity systems like kids on bikes or broomsticks just don't have as many rules in place as something like 5E or pathfinder. Thus they can lend themselves to more audacious and outrageous moves being attempted by the pcs and Imo Aabria provides a really successful model for how to balance the fun of a game like that with actually maintaining some level of structure and consequences that keep the game entertaining and rewarding.
Just sounds like her own homebrew to make up rules on the fly.
have attention spans gotten so short we need count-down timers between topics in a 15 min video?
But if the rules state that you don't have to always follow the rules does that mean we are following by the rule therefore being ruled by the rules?
Punishment is too funny not to use, I’m running DSI and I don’t remember what the player did but I made it so he got smited by bahamut with lightning. He was at 1 health anyway so didn’t really impede his game and everyone laughed lmao
“This is a great way to deal with rules lawyers.”
Have you met any reasonable rules lawyers?
Matt asking only for perception checks when something changes is because he is good enough to EXPLAIN that something has changed. That is key!
“Stupid will kill you, don’t be stupid.” Me as DM.
I'll mention it's still important not to say "No" too often.
It's easy to get to that when you care, but it's all right if things aren't perfectly balanced or throw what you anticipated as possible throught he window. In fact, it's often beneficial.
You can also say "No, but..." and give something positive to your player so they feel good when you think it's all right
I would definitely ask if I get my feat back for sentinel.
Edit: Or if I was being a better player, talk to the dm after the session about how its not okay to change how my abilities work without any forewarning. Its one thing for a creature to have immunity to stun when I am playing a monk, its another to give it immunity to my ability specifically.
Just quickly wanna shout out Mark Hulmes, phenomenal DM
@5:45 when you asked me to roll perception to subscribe I legitimately did just to be funny (cause you know DC 2) but I legit rolled a Natural 1
7:10 "you are responsible for thar my dude"
Yes!
Literally rolled a nearby die to catch that DC 2 perception check for the subscribe button. I got a 7, -1 for my self-calculated IRL wisdom. Success! Subscribed. :)