Tactical Combat Variant | New combat skills system featuring 32 new tactical actions characters and monsters can take! thedmlair.com/collections/5e-rulesets/products/tactical-combat-variant-using-skills-in-new-ways In June and July 2024, $25 DM Lair patrons get it included with their other loot! www.patreon.com/thedmlair
in our last session, one pc attempted to roll between the legs of the troll to get behind it, the other two pcs used chunks of bear meat they found previously to try to lure the troll out of the hallway into the room in order to calm it or then jump it. Previous to that they encountered two giant scorpions, the one pc attempted to use his spell stone for talking with animals, succeeded, then convinced the arachnids to be friends, then asked them to attack another group of critters that was in the other room. I keep encouraging the players to be creative, descriptive, and think outside the box....then we roll dice. in our combat system it is very streamlined so there is only one action [not including moving] so to make sure they optimize their turn they are learning to think prior to their turn to be creative and strategic.
Was gonna say, "or you could just play Pathfinder 2e which has this baked in already'. Most of the "how to fix 5e" is just stuff lifted from PF2e or other games. I wish people would just try other games to get off of the 5e train as there are a lot of other well thought out and fun alternatives.
@@nonyabusiness890 we began to play P2 virtually (maybe that's why?), while I am 5e fan. I see none of that, that you speak of (nobody uses tactics like that, nobody talk about anything like that, I don't see it on my character sheet). I can cast my spell using 1 or 2 actions and basically move. Or cast at lvl 2, then lvl 1 with -5 penalty, which isn't too fun. I also really don't like how little skills there are. I mean, yes, you can use Nature for Animal handling, but Nature is such a broad term, doesn't make sense to have expertise in Nature and know everything about the land and about how to handle every animals out there (or just have a good "vibe" that animals can feel) . It should be one or another. Then goes history check. Where is it?? Adding you own lore check? Idk, so far I am not impressed.
So... pf2e? Love that system. I was working with a player of mine who was running a level 1 monk. We went over his special abilities, which was... 2. A focus spell, and the ability to attack twice with one action. I was pretty disappointed, until I ran a combat with him and he was jumping and moving and flanking and tripping and rolling knowledge... Every character has such a huge toolbox of things to do with their turn.
Something I've found that helps add some dynamism is either side objectives or special ways to weaken the boss or gain an advantage. Maybe you need to reach or protect an item. Somebody's hacking a computer or something. Maybe you can go and cut ropes that cause items to fall on the boss or there are a bunch of weird alchemical flasks you can grab and throw that'll have all sorts of effects. Maybe instead of just attacking the boss you need to dodge his minions while you take out pillars that give him power or have to use a skill to interact with things to a similar result. Maybe a fight on some kid of vehicle and you need to maintain control so it doesn't go and crash but both sides are fighting for the controls. Also just forcing people to move around a lot by tactics or just the way the environment is working. Like a shifting surface or floating platforms
definitely it is a great way to make a battle dynamic and interesting, but I feel like that's a lot of work for DM. You would do this for a "boss fight", "to complete the mission fight", but not in a more common fights (alerted guards of a small village, random goblin encounters, etc.), where the advice from the video can help a lot
@@kristidaemon4709 it's just less applicable to systems outside 5e that said I do support more options than just attack. One issue I have with pathfinder is that you can't do much more than just swing your sword without major feat investment and only some of those manuvers are even worth it
@@thereallocke8065 I see. Interestingly, here in the comments somewhere, a person was talking (wouldn't say arguing with me per se) that in Pf2 you can do it all (which I did not experience when I tried Pf2), that it is better than 5e and that it just takes an effort from lazy 5e players. Glad that I am not crazy and this mechanic indeed isn't just included in Pf2 action system for every character, right from the bat. Thanks for clarification :)
@@kristidaemon4709 can't really say much with 2e but with 1e if you want to like trip somebody it's about 2-3 feats to do it effectively which means if you're not a fighter you're now heavily dependent on that maneuver. Like yeah you can use other skills like bluff to feint people or intimidate to demoralize and there's a lot of cool stuff that can be built on that like allowing sneak attacks to proc but it requires a few feats of investment and sometimes level gated abilities so you're rarely going to get the same utility just doing something as a pass time than you would making it your thing
This sounds like a cool idea on paper, but I think at the root it's a bit complex for my crayon eaters... er.. i mean players. I was thinking of either "make another attack/cast a cantrip at disadvantage" if they don't want to move, OR give me something creative and we can play it out XD. Always enjoyed your bacon infused content, and definitely gave me something to ponder over.
I mean, you're not wrong, but not everyone wants to switch systems. (And how many videos can I really make that are basically "just go play pathfinder"? I have 2 already.)
@@theDMLair ah sure why not 😁 like NADDPOD did a beginner box two shot recently and really showcased a lot of the goofy nonsense that makes it a joy to play
How to fix it? Make it interesting , include factions already identified, character backstories, and campaign elements that make the combat mean something. You can't use all of that in every encounter. But here is an example of an encounter we recently played out where all these were relevant. It was a major fightscene and ended up centering on the love song I wrote to my old flame who was also the current BBEG. I knew this scene was coming up at a drow masquerade and pre wrotet he song - five verses with a chorus - made sure she knewi I wrote it for her by spending 1000 gold on planting rumors ahead of the masquerade, and then got access to the exclusive table upstairs where all the main bad guys were having a private dinner. There with all my bardic splendor and a precast enhance ability spell to give advantage on the roll, I wildly aced my performance check. She changed sides, 50% of the potential bad guys stayed neutral, and combat commenced due to an NPC that didn't approve of her turn about. We knew there were factions we could influence and had already taken steps to know what might convince them to stay neutral. So, the combat broke out in a circular room with intermixed bad guys a d neutrals that we had to make sure we didnt damage or they would join the fight against us. Really fun scene that kinda played out as a reverse heist where we had to plan a way to get in past the guards magically scanning everyone to prevent anyone bringing in weapons or magical items, and then have the dramatic performance and pay off for the other characters' preparation. BTB: I can hear it now, but I didn't pick the BBG to be my old flame. I'm playing a risen character with a fractured memory. I trust my DM and just let him drop thise kind of things on me. In this case, right afterwards we made a deal with the temple of lolth to kill her. The head priestess just casually dropped how impressed she was that it would be so easy for me to kill my old fiancée. He makes a great effort to include elements from all our backstories.
Your first paragraph nails it. A big part of it is on the DM. Include the story (not always). I run roleplay heavy games. Combat is always deadly and there's always a reason.
While it's nice to see this problem addressed, im sceptical the solution is more rules. There is already a wide range of options, the limitations are a lack of player creativity, lack of environment versatility, lack of group strategy, and using theater of the mind for combat. The last is the worst and the first any table should correct.
This is very cool! Just a thought when using this for 5e though: A Rogue with Reliable Talent (or similar skill-focused class) has the potential to NEVER fail their combat tactics. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's just something to consider for your games.
@@theDMLair I think the loss of movement would be a big factor. If, however, you have players like mine, then your players would try to find "loopholes" for everything! For example, I can see a combat tactic-user on horseback begging to still move since it's the horse that's moving. To be honest, I would still allow it because I think it's cool - but if a problem emerges, then we'll just talk it out. 🙂
@@theDMLair I think that although they would succeed. Losing the ability to hide or movement to gain this small bonus seems fair tradeoff to me. You have a rogue in the open. Attack him. Most of 5e is not balanced to begin with, so it's as broken as a +3 holy avenger. Or dare i say the sharpshooter feat... 😑 I'd much rather have these tactical options then those feats to be honest.
I say let the Rogue have this win, they’re already one of the weakest class mechanically. These tactics all have DC 20 to 30 which is enormous for characters without expertise and low level characters
In the first DND campaign I ever played, my character was a squishy ratfolk rogue, and it was a solo game (just me and the DM), so I actually couldn't afford to just go ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, or else I would die. So I had to be creative with my resources and the terrain. Like, during a fight against a wererat, I would do things like run down a passage while scattering caltrops across the entrance, or scramble across a narrow ledge to put a pit between us while also tossing a flask of oil on the ledge to create a slippery hazard. I even tried to light the oily patch on fire by shooting a crossbow bolt at the nearby cavern wall to create a spark, though I failed my attack roll. Still, the wererat got the message and ended up slinking away with oily, wounded paws and a lot less dignity than it started with. There was also a heist I pulled that went slightly awry, where I ended up being attacked by the homeowner. Instead of fighting, I used my character's tail blade to scatter some hot embers from a fire that was at my back, then used the distraction that caused to slip away. And that's how I did pretty much all the combat in that campaign, by trying to use whatever dirty tactics I could to gain an advantage. It was a lot of fun being creative like that, and it fit the character.
I would say that if you think D&D is too simple then play something else. The whole point of D&D is to be simple and quick, where the only thing a player needs to do each turn is roll the D20 to see if he hits and then the damage dice. If you want more than that then maybe try WHFRP or BRP/Mythras instead?
@@theDMLair They were sort of like mini-feats. You could spend 2 of your skill points when you leveled up to get a new skill trick that you met prerequisites for, and you could know a total number of skill tricks equal to 1/2 your character level. There were tons to choose from, in different categories like Mental, Movement, and Manipulation. A great one was Collector of Stories, which gave a hefty bonus on knowledge checks to identify monsters. There's also one called Conceal Spellcasting, which let you use Sleight of Hand to prevent others from knowing you were casting a spell.
These look fun and you've put good work into them. I don't think we'll solve the problem with more mechanics, though. As I see it the problem is that we separate out social interaction and combat, calling social interaction "role playing" while combat becomes an exercise in picking the most effective option from a short list on a character sheet. More options on the sheet won't fix that. Actually role playing during combat is the only thing that will "fix" DnD combat. I can definitely see using these combat tactics as training wheels to get both players and DMs more into the minds of the characters they're playing.
Depends on the table. I expect, with that mentality, you might enjoy the pbta games quite a bit. Some tables actually want to play a board game when combat starts though. The process of understanding mechanics and then determining the most optimal action is fun for some people. And for those people, more complexity is often exactly what they need to have more fun than base DND 5e allows for. No one is right or wrong. People are just different
@@bonzwah1 100% agree and don't think it needs to be one or the other. I'm at my happiest when there is sort of a dialog between the rules and the RP, like when they compromise with and explain each other.
2:18 Giving players more options on their turns 3:40 Combat Skills (Tactical Actions) System (Playtest it so that Added Fun > Complexity) 5:11 How it works 6:32 Attack Enhancements, Attack Penalties, Area Control, Concealment, Information/Recon/Scouting, Movement *EXAMPLES* 8:22 Prepare 8:57 Disguise a Spell 9:42 Strengthened Strike 10:06 Determine Intent 10:46 Area Denial 11:30 Regarding Monsters 12:55 How to fix sucky monsters 14:26 Managing the Pace of Gameplay (Determine the role of each enemy creature in combat. Pick a FEW tactics per role/monster. Read the tactics BEFORE the game.)
Sounds pretty good, but I observe that for different tactics the numerical effect is different (prepare is different than disguise a spell) . If you decide upon a single bonus for each tactic that has them. Like +1 on dc 20 an raising the effect by one for every 5 steps, it would avoid having to check the tactics every time you use them
This is exactly what I needed. MORE options for players to sit there not making a decision about for entire minutes at a time. The easiest way to prevent people standing around doing the same thing on repeat I have is to remove opportunity attacks and keep levels low so equipment damage doesn't become irrelevant.
I immediately bought this from you. Because even if the ideas are out there, $5 is well worth the time I'd have to spend to compile this and organize this as you have. Dope work Luke.
If I'm understanding this right, these tactical moves are just like using your movement, one might even say they are "move equivalent" actions... Sounds very familiar.
I've been allowing this kind of creativity for a while. I don't use a name, I just think that with the right reasoning everything can be allowed. I don't think this kind of thing need to come from the rules, players need to feel comfortable to try crazy shit during combat "can I do x to that creature?" "Sure, let's see how we can test this success and decide if can be framed as an attack or movement"
In PF1E, I need that movement to make my full attack. :P But we often have characters built to Intimidate, feint or use combat maneuvers as part of their attacks.
I run games in a homebrew setting known for lethality, and being "Final Fantasy but Darker". One thing that happens regulalry in combat is the party being outnumbered (to which i group enemies by my own rules not the DMG rules) or outmatched, not in numbers, but in skills. Once on a beach landing they had to fight a standing undead army under command of several people, skeleton archers, zombie fronline troops etc: essentially intelligently used / operative undead. For the outmatched version they've fought a few enemies with skills that outright are a problem. One of which has an effect of cronenberging the PC if they fail a save and have to find a way to mitigate / slow / remove the problem / area. The players sometimes stomp my enemies into the ground. even the bosses. Sometimes they lose a PC, followed by an arm, eye and a few legs then are in the process of retreat. It wasn't really a great system. But i could easily scale the combats which was the problem we ran into in the beginning. Our PC's were "strong" using enhanced standard progression, which our table has come to hold as standard, but this made the entire campaign a lot more interesting.
I heared this discussion a hundred times in the Shadowrun -forums before. and i think always the same: if the combat is boring, it's not on the System's fault. It's always the players and GM's fault. Bring in casters, let enemies use dirty tricks, bring in a "hero" enemy with some other things, or simply let NPCs use tactics. Focus players, let NPCs retreat. Maybe the enemy was super prepared and they all got resistance potions against fire... well, here you go Fireball-Maker! Enjoy! I also like to add an objective or enviromental "feature". Of course 3/4 fights are "repetetive" but in all the videogames i play, 9/10 fights are this way... What my group is having the most problem with: they want to metagame. My roughe wants to abuse flanking. my Paladin is waiting to heal... my druid is saving spells. So my goals are: Punish "Flanking" or use it against the rouge, bind the paladin so he cant just "wait around", and add enviromental things to get stopped or used by the druid. Also my rule number 1: "What players are able to use, i will use." meaning: my leading enemies use potions. enemy casters use AOE-Spells and buffs. My Enemies have magic items or things to protect them from magic. And my npcs have no "meta gaming" but in every universe there is one rule for combat: Attack the mage / Healer first.
Bacon’s pretty great! I like turkey bacon the most for reasons truly unknown to me. I’m curious on something here with the DCs- why are they so high? DC 20 is a “Hard” task while a 30 is “Nearly Impossible” I understand that these call for proficiency but even with that these still aren’t that consistent. I’m thinking DC 15 would be a better starting point for the lower tier stuff.
11:50 "Otherwise we would have a rather unbalanced system wouldn't we ?" Ha yes, it would bring the usual balance of the monster *cough cough* Otherwise, quite the cool video and concept. I wouldn't be able to stomach playing anything less complex than a tactician fighter after having to suffer the braindead routine of playing a rogue. Also, as other said, PF2E and DC20.
Hey Luke, I don't think you suck. You are a bit to self critique. You pump out videos with good content, quality and in a rich quantity. I haven't quite warmed to your style yet, but that's just your style.
Probably the easiest way to fix this issue is with interesting terrain instead of flat square rooms and not using one big monster / lots of the same small monster.
Okay. The new tactical action system basically means that Luke just did 33% of a new ttrpg system. At this point he might as well make his own ttrpg system.
I like to gain advantage over bacon by slicing it thickly, frying it to the perfect balance between crispy and chewy, and then eating it. It's all about the tactical movement of the bacon going into my belly.
Eliminate the requirement to disengage to avoid an attacks of opportunity & it takes some steam away from the Rogue, but then players won't lock into static positions & waste their movement.
Bacon up my mind whether I like this or not. I am not familiar with the AD&D 5th rules since I use Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder uses a similar system but they use feats that give you these same abilities. However, I have always had a problem with players only getting one attack and wasting a move action doing nothing. I have made a house rule that a player gets two actions so they can move or attack again, along with the feats mentioned above, this takes care of that problem. I do like you idea because now I can give players the leeway to come up with their own ideas without having to wait for a feat level up to do the same thing that they should be able to do anyways. This might slow down game play true, but if the players are having fun, that is the main emphasis. Good idea your bacon me happy with this. Thanks.
Ps. I forgot to mention, Pathfinder 1e already has skills for all it's monsters, which makes access to your idea one step easier on DM's. Just bacon sure you and your followers who use Pathfinder know this.
+jamesrizza2640, writes _"However, I have always had a problem with players only getting one attack and wasting a move action doing nothing."_ Isn't Pathfinder 1e combat like 3.5e combat? If you're not going to move then you can combine your standard and move actions into a full-round action and then you can attack multiple times depending on what your BAB is? My Rouge / Barbarian can attack (with his bow, when hasted) up to 6 times on a full round action. Or up to 7 times when using his Short Sword & Rapier
@@fred_derf This is true, however most players don't get an additional attack until 5th level, even the fighters so I homebrew it this way to allow the players a little more leeway. Yes 3.5 is very similar to Pathfinder with only a couple of differences. Thanks for your reply.
@@jamesrizza2640 The fact that low level characters can't make a second attack in a round has never bothered me, they're newbies, they'll get better. It's a really satisfying reward for obtaining 5th (or whatever) level! The first time you get to attack twice or attack two opponents in a round is an exciting moment. One of the failings of D&D is that there aren't more such improvements for martial classes. So often a new level simply means more HP and you're slightly better at a bunch of things (depending on your feat choice). At least magic users get to cast higher level spells every other level. In D&D (and Pathfinder 1e, I can't comment on 2e) combat isn't a simulation or anything close. It's a board game. It's a lot closer to chess than actual combat. A single "attack" does not represent a single weapon swing, but multiple attacks, parries, dodges, feints, etc. The attack roll determines whether you have been able to damage your opponent during the round, the damage roll then determines how badly -- what's not resolved is whether that represents one good hit, or several smaller hits. Remember, when D&D first started a round represented a full minute (60 seconds) of action. Attack rolls used to be called to-hit rolls, but they should have been (and should be) called "to-damage" rolls -- because the roll is there to see if you caused any damage, not if you hit. That's why armor raises your AC, it's not making you harder to hit, it's making you harder to damage. So it's not that a higher level fighter gets in more hits in a round, it's that they're better able to take advantage of opportunities for their hits to cause more damage. And at 5th and higher levels, (if they're not distracting themselves by moving around), they can effectively attack two opponents in the same round. Attacks of opportunity do (for the most part) represent a single attack at an opponent's back (i.e. under defended) while they're going away from you. That's why they activate when _leaving_ a threatened square. Note: all this is for melee attacks, ranged attacks (and spells) do represent single throws / shots / casts, etc. Which is why you can't make ranged attacks of opportunity. All that said, during combat 3.5e (and probably pathfinder 1.e) could use a bunch more actions you can use as move equivalents. e.g. tripping, shield bashing, or throwing sand in someone's eyes. So in summary, I don't think the solution is to give low level characters more attacks per round, but instead give them more options to use as move equivalent actions.
Instead of a dedicated 'move' action, just give them three (2½) actions and the ability to move during one of them Pretty sure that was how it was done in 3rd edition, and 5th took that away.. An attack action, movement action, tactical action. Why limit them? Why not allow no attack and two tactical actions, or simply two attack actions and no movement Disguising a spell, isn't that already given to a metamagic effect?
When I was playing as a DM, I got enjoyment out of building the monsters as if they were player characters, choosing skills asl per character and not trying myself down to the stat block This video is a good example of why I'm hesitant to play 5th edition
Hi Luke! I have yet to rewatch the video as I listened between errands this morn :P My idea would be Intimidation for Martials, I homebrew that Str should be a valid stat to use instead of Charisma for it. Never made sense to me by RAQ for martials that dump Cha, thematically. Or bards and hex blades and paladins could use Persuation/Intimidation with Cha or Str. My angle as a DM would be not a success/fail taunt outcome but more a gradiant system. Higher the roll, higher the taunt effect. Thus allowing a intelligent enemy to have wiggle room between the situation at hand, giving the DM not a strict framing but open options, giving the player good chances at doing more :)
So you basically makes it 3 action battle system (action + bonus + tactical) and you add some option instead of just moving. And you need to be proficient or an Expert in a skill to do an action... And these options could give like a +1/+2 bonus to your next attack or so... This video can be just named "Try Pathfinder 2e" But I get it. Nobody will watch it or buy a 5 bucks set of "heavily inspired" ruleset then.
Absolutely. That's what I do all the time... just don't tell anyone. It's ridiculous that a massive monsters doesn't have Athletics proficiency at times and is getting wrangled by the cleric.
Great ideas. I've been considering something similar for the game system I am designing. You what else is great? Bacon is great. I can't understand why you hate it so much. I mean, none of your tactics incorporate bacon...
So my problem as the DM is kind of just getting the players to think of ANYTHING else that isn't "I attack with my longsword." I've narrated, I've given environmental clues, I've had phases, I've had spell effects, hazards, traps, temp. weapon emplacements, and at the end of the day 9 out of 10 times they look me in the face and say, "So I'm going to run up and attack it." And I've made mention of what else they can do by sometimes outright telling them options they could have taken by pointing out mechanics like the Help action, etc. They'll say how they didn't even realize, forgot, or that those options sound cool...then next time it's back to hitting it with attacks, lol. They just have no imagination, lol. One of the players looks at his character sheet and says his character's new motivation is getting his To Hit up by +1 more. Only takes stat increases, never feats, and has capped his STR/DEX. It's hard to be motivated to create anything interesting when it feels so wasted. 😕
@@theDMLair And that's ultimately what keeps me DMing, lol. I had a story of "Coming to Tiamat" moment with myself and said, "Why am I doing this (DMing)?" And the answer was because I like getting together with these guys and playing; even if they just play the game like a button masher, lol.
10:00 Feint Duration: instantaneous Roll a slight of hand check to disguise the direction of your melee strike. DC 20: +1 to the attack roll DC 25: +2 to the attack roll DC 30: +3 to the attack roll This tactic can be used once per turn.
I try to do fun (non mechanical stuff) to falvor up my abilites. For example. Rolling through the legs of a creature of equal size. DM - 'You can't move through an opponents space' me - *sighs* 'fine I walk around the target and hit him. (exactly the same results) Me - 'I run up the tail of the dinosaur, jumping off it's shoulder slashing at it as I do landing infront of it, shield up in a defensive stance. DM - 'gimmi a dex check to run up the tail and a dex save for the landing' Me - 'Will this preventing me from doing the thing' DM - 'Ill set the DC at 15 and yes' Me - *sighs* 'I walk around him stab his toe and stand infront of him'
"Rolling through the legs of a creature of equal size." That's just a DC 25 tumble skill check... oh right! 5e, not 3.5e. Considering that a dinosaur isn't standing still, the DC for running up a dinosaur's moving tale would be incredibly high, and since its tail wouldn't (typically) be dragging on the ground, how are you even getting onto it? The only other issue is do you have spring attack, otherwise you can't attack in the middle of a move.
@@fred_derf Spring attack isnt a thing. And again. It's just flavor, you can get the exact same outcome by 'walking around' But who the hell wants to say, 'I walk around the huge dinosaur, and bait and switch my firend and hit the dino' after waiting 10-15min for your turn
@@Whitewolf1984p, writes _"Spring attack isnt a thing."_ I pointed out that I was talking from a 3.5e position, and Spring Attack is definitely a part of 3.5e. If all you're doing is using it for colour, then have at it. But you and I both know many people will try to use such leeway to get an unfair advantage. For example, if I let you roll through an opponent's legs when you could just go around, are you going to want to do it at a different time when you can't just go around? Arguing "you let me do it before"! just to be clear; If all you're doing is using it for colour, then have at it. Personally I wouldn't allow it because it's unrealistic (given the genre and setting). But I might be in the minority with that opinion -- and given the stupid unrealistic things I see happen in movies and TV shows all the time, totally unrealistic stuff doesn't bother most people.
@@fred_derf Ah, my mistake, I thought you ment 5e for spring step, my mistake. And yes its just for color/flavor. And if players try to do it later to cercumvent a mechanic, then that player should be ashamed, reprimanded and or kicked. This isnt a DM vs player game, it's a collabritive storytelling game.
@@theDMLair I'm just saying, if you want crunchy combat (and who doesn't?) 5e is a poor choice of system to start from. It would be much more practical to start with a system that is closer to what you want rather then add / change a ton of the rules to make 5e fit.
@@theDMLair As they should, it was a dumb idea. I think you got the reference to the onednd UA with that stupid idea but going to mention it for anyone reading the comments who doesn't.
Or...I can just play PF2E and completely ignore a company that seems to be fine with sending in the Pinkertons to their customers. At this point, I'm not even willing to USE the stuff from WotC that I already own...much less invest more money on things even remotely related to it. Third party support is still support for the company that owns the IP. Playing or running a game is support for that company. And at this point, the amount of bad they have done, I can not even support them at a level of will play their gamess.
@theDMLair I watch enough of your content to know that, which is why I made the joke lol. The real issue is that despite being way more "arcadey" of a system, 5e is waaaay more popular. Hard to get views or sales with pf2e centered content I would assume :) love your channel, learned alot as a fellow pf2e dm!
You do not completely suck. Neither does bacon. I like this system of yours, but I recognize that it won’t work at every table. I play in a campaign where some players don’t really pay attention when their character isn’t involved in the action. They’ll be off doing other stuff during other people’s turns (online games, so other things can range from folding laundry to surfing the Internet). Then their turn comes, and… “I attack the monster that’s attacking Bob.” “That monster got killed three turns back.” “Oh, okay, what looks hurt that’s near me?” And then five minutes while they try to decide their best course of action. Adding a tactical action in place of simple movement would break their brains. (No, kicking them out is not on the table. They’re our friends or even spouses. And our GM will sometimes tell them to just stab something already.)
@@theDMLair fair enough. If i knew about PF before D&D, It'd be difficult to switch. D&D advantage i see is, it's more modal, easier to tweak and homebrew, as math is not as tight as in PF. I started adjusting action system in D&D in my 2nd session when a player wanted to make 2 bonus actions in a turn. I saw no reason not to convert a standard action to a 2nd bonus one. Today i know that from there it's just a few steps to pf2e/dc20 action system.
TLDR Version: Disguise a Spell, in its current form, does not provide anything useful. Disguise a Spell. I'm not sure this tactic has any real combat use. It provides nothing beyond hiding the true nature of a spell from the enemy or vice versa. Unless the magic user, whatever the class, is going up against other users of magic on the enemy side, using this tactic is a waste of a tactic. What exactly would the benefit be of identifying a spell cast in combat? This tactic makes no mention of Counterspell. Counterspell does not need the caster to be able to identify a spell being cast either. It either stops a spell from being cast, or it does not. Does the Ogre and its melee goblin minions need to identify the fireball being cast by the player? Are they even smart enough to do so to begin with? What if that enemy team has a spell caster shaman. If they enemy manages to identify that a 1 Action instantaneous Fireball is about to be cast, what can they possibly do when it is not their turn in combat? If the shaman has Counterspell, there's no need to identify the spell being cast to begin with. The same can be said for the players side. Why attempt to identify a spell mid combat? It's either going to take effect, or it will be Counterspelled if you have it available to cast. I can see a VERY SLIM margin for identifying the spell being cast by the enemy, in order to decide whether or not to use Counterspell on it or not. For example, the enemy would HAVE to use Disguise a Spell before hand, and the player would HAVE to try an identify it as it is being cast. As there is no outward sign (I assume) that Disguise a Spell is being used, it would have to be a HUGE coincidence for the enemy and the player to Disguise/Identify on the same turn. If the player DOES manage to identify a spell being cast they would then have the opportunity to decide whether or NOT to cast Counterspell if they have it ready, depending on the spell. They may want to pass on using Counterspell on a Firebolt, but may indeed want to Counterspell a Fireball. Again, there are to many random factors in play to get this to actually work. A suggestion for an appropriate change might be that a successful Arcana check allows the spell to be considered 1, 2, or 3 levels higher, ONLY for the express purposes of resisting a Counterspell. Even then, the caster would either have to know a spell would be countered with a Counterspell, or take a guess. In this case, the tactic provides some sort of immediate bonus that is palpable if needed. Thoughts? (sorry for the long post)
the simple fact that you think a players 'turn' during combat is 5 to 10 minutes... that's insane to me! an entire combat with 6 characters and 8 opponents, is 10 minutes... TOTAL! while some of the concepts you present are interesting, they simply won't work with how I run combat. 1st - I never say "roll for initiative" 2nd - there is no established turn order 3rd - action economy his been thrown into File 13. 4th - there are no 'to-hit' rolls we role-play the combat, not switch games from role-play to tactical simulation. it's extremely fast, very lively, never boring or repetitive. and definitely not predictable. ALL of the things you limit your players with by spelling out specific details of a particular action - stifles the creativity. as GM, simply ask - what does your character want to do? regardless of the answer the player says, come up with a possible DC and have them roll. depending on the roll result, as GM, be colorful and descriptive, or if the roll is exceptional, have the player be colorful and descriptive. being locked into a limited list of activities is too - limiting! again, interesting, but - no!
Tactical Combat Variant | New combat skills system featuring 32 new tactical actions characters and monsters can take! thedmlair.com/collections/5e-rulesets/products/tactical-combat-variant-using-skills-in-new-ways
In June and July 2024, $25 DM Lair patrons get it included with their other loot! www.patreon.com/thedmlair
in our last session, one pc attempted to roll between the legs of the troll to get behind it, the other two pcs used chunks of bear meat they found previously to try to lure the troll out of the hallway into the room in order to calm it or then jump it. Previous to that they encountered two giant scorpions, the one pc attempted to use his spell stone for talking with animals, succeeded, then convinced the arachnids to be friends, then asked them to attack another group of critters that was in the other room. I keep encouraging the players to be creative, descriptive, and think outside the box....then we roll dice. in our combat system it is very streamlined so there is only one action [not including moving] so to make sure they optimize their turn they are learning to think prior to their turn to be creative and strategic.
The more I listen, the more this just sounds like Pathfinder 2e actions and skills with a few more skills and a little bit more in depth.
Was gonna say, "or you could just play Pathfinder 2e which has this baked in already'. Most of the "how to fix 5e" is just stuff lifted from PF2e or other games. I wish people would just try other games to get off of the 5e train as there are a lot of other well thought out and fun alternatives.
Dm lair does play pf2e.
@nonyabusiness890 I agree with you. There are many great systems. 5e is just the most recognized and therefore referenced the most.
@nonyabusiness890 I think another problem is people both want stream lined combat and combat with lots of options. You can't have both.
@@nonyabusiness890 we began to play P2 virtually (maybe that's why?), while I am 5e fan. I see none of that, that you speak of (nobody uses tactics like that, nobody talk about anything like that, I don't see it on my character sheet). I can cast my spell using 1 or 2 actions and basically move. Or cast at lvl 2, then lvl 1 with -5 penalty, which isn't too fun. I also really don't like how little skills there are. I mean, yes, you can use Nature for Animal handling, but Nature is such a broad term, doesn't make sense to have expertise in Nature and know everything about the land and about how to handle every animals out there (or just have a good "vibe" that animals can feel) . It should be one or another. Then goes history check. Where is it?? Adding you own lore check? Idk, so far I am not impressed.
So... pf2e? Love that system. I was working with a player of mine who was running a level 1 monk. We went over his special abilities, which was... 2. A focus spell, and the ability to attack twice with one action. I was pretty disappointed, until I ran a combat with him and he was jumping and moving and flanking and tripping and rolling knowledge... Every character has such a huge toolbox of things to do with their turn.
The EXACT thing happened with my friend as a level 1 monk. Except he likes to grab people and beat them to death. He's also building for intimidation.
Something I've found that helps add some dynamism is either side objectives or special ways to weaken the boss or gain an advantage.
Maybe you need to reach or protect an item. Somebody's hacking a computer or something.
Maybe you can go and cut ropes that cause items to fall on the boss or there are a bunch of weird alchemical flasks you can grab and throw that'll have all sorts of effects. Maybe instead of just attacking the boss you need to dodge his minions while you take out pillars that give him power or have to use a skill to interact with things to a similar result. Maybe a fight on some kid of vehicle and you need to maintain control so it doesn't go and crash but both sides are fighting for the controls.
Also just forcing people to move around a lot by tactics or just the way the environment is working. Like a shifting surface or floating platforms
definitely it is a great way to make a battle dynamic and interesting, but I feel like that's a lot of work for DM. You would do this for a "boss fight", "to complete the mission fight", but not in a more common fights (alerted guards of a small village, random goblin encounters, etc.), where the advice from the video can help a lot
@@kristidaemon4709 it's just less applicable to systems outside 5e that said I do support more options than just attack. One issue I have with pathfinder is that you can't do much more than just swing your sword without major feat investment and only some of those manuvers are even worth it
@@thereallocke8065 I see. Interestingly, here in the comments somewhere, a person was talking (wouldn't say arguing with me per se) that in Pf2 you can do it all (which I did not experience when I tried Pf2), that it is better than 5e and that it just takes an effort from lazy 5e players. Glad that I am not crazy and this mechanic indeed isn't just included in Pf2 action system for every character, right from the bat. Thanks for clarification :)
@@kristidaemon4709 can't really say much with 2e but with 1e if you want to like trip somebody it's about 2-3 feats to do it effectively which means if you're not a fighter you're now heavily dependent on that maneuver. Like yeah you can use other skills like bluff to feint people or intimidate to demoralize and there's a lot of cool stuff that can be built on that like allowing sneak attacks to proc but it requires a few feats of investment and sometimes level gated abilities so you're rarely going to get the same utility just doing something as a pass time than you would making it your thing
This sounds like a cool idea on paper, but I think at the root it's a bit complex for my crayon eaters... er.. i mean players. I was thinking of either "make another attack/cast a cantrip at disadvantage" if they don't want to move, OR give me something creative and we can play it out XD.
Always enjoyed your bacon infused content, and definitely gave me something to ponder over.
Yeah, totally. Opening up creative options that are ad-hoced at the table is for sure an option. Maintaining balance is the key.
Is the answer to play DC20?!
Not a bad start! It's a great system!
Imagene adding these too dc20??
I will soo add this too my dc20 game
I love these tactical actions
Had exactly the same problem... Switched to Pathfinder... Now our battles are WAY more tactical. That's my best advice on how to fix D&D combat, lol 😆
I mean, you're not wrong, but not everyone wants to switch systems. (And how many videos can I really make that are basically "just go play pathfinder"? I have 2 already.)
@@theDMLair ah sure why not 😁 like NADDPOD did a beginner box two shot recently and really showcased a lot of the goofy nonsense that makes it a joy to play
How to fix it? Make it interesting , include factions already identified, character backstories, and campaign elements that make the combat mean something. You can't use all of that in every encounter. But here is an example of an encounter we recently played out where all these were relevant.
It was a major fightscene and ended up centering on the love song I wrote to my old flame who was also the current BBEG. I knew this scene was coming up at a drow masquerade and pre wrotet he song - five verses with a chorus - made sure she knewi I wrote it for her by spending 1000 gold on planting rumors ahead of the masquerade, and then got access to the exclusive table upstairs where all the main bad guys were having a private dinner. There with all my bardic splendor and a precast enhance ability spell to give advantage on the roll, I wildly aced my performance check. She changed sides, 50% of the potential bad guys stayed neutral, and combat commenced due to an NPC that didn't approve of her turn about.
We knew there were factions we could influence and had already taken steps to know what might convince them to stay neutral. So, the combat broke out in a circular room with intermixed bad guys a d neutrals that we had to make sure we didnt damage or they would join the fight against us.
Really fun scene that kinda played out as a reverse heist where we had to plan a way to get in past the guards magically scanning everyone to prevent anyone bringing in weapons or magical items, and then have the dramatic performance and pay off for the other characters' preparation.
BTB: I can hear it now, but I didn't pick the BBG to be my old flame. I'm playing a risen character with a fractured memory. I trust my DM and just let him drop thise kind of things on me. In this case, right afterwards we made a deal with the temple of lolth to kill her. The head priestess just casually dropped how impressed she was that it would be so easy for me to kill my old fiancée. He makes a great effort to include elements from all our backstories.
Your first paragraph nails it. A big part of it is on the DM. Include the story (not always). I run roleplay heavy games. Combat is always deadly and there's always a reason.
While it's nice to see this problem addressed, im sceptical the solution is more rules. There is already a wide range of options, the limitations are a lack of player creativity, lack of environment versatility, lack of group strategy, and using theater of the mind for combat. The last is the worst and the first any table should correct.
I just had three pieces of bacon with breakfast and it was totally the best
Only 3? Are you feeling okay?
Specific mechanics aside, using the move "action" for skills, instead of the "standard" action is a good take. Really like the idea
DC20 seems to have fixed most of these things mechanically. I am looking forward to DM Lair content for it.
Great Video, a lot of players seem to forget they can move around during combat.
This is very cool! Just a thought when using this for 5e though: A Rogue with Reliable Talent (or similar skill-focused class) has the potential to NEVER fail their combat tactics.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's just something to consider for your games.
Yeah, good point. How do you think that would be accounted for?
@@theDMLair I think the loss of movement would be a big factor. If, however, you have players like mine, then your players would try to find "loopholes" for everything! For example, I can see a combat tactic-user on horseback begging to still move since it's the horse that's moving.
To be honest, I would still allow it because I think it's cool - but if a problem emerges, then we'll just talk it out.
🙂
@@theDMLair I think that although they would succeed. Losing the ability to hide or movement to gain this small bonus seems fair tradeoff to me. You have a rogue in the open. Attack him. Most of 5e is not balanced to begin with, so it's as broken as a +3 holy avenger. Or dare i say the sharpshooter feat... 😑 I'd much rather have these tactical options then those feats to be honest.
I say let the Rogue have this win, they’re already one of the weakest class mechanically. These tactics all have DC 20 to 30 which is enormous for characters without expertise and low level characters
In the first DND campaign I ever played, my character was a squishy ratfolk rogue, and it was a solo game (just me and the DM), so I actually couldn't afford to just go ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, or else I would die. So I had to be creative with my resources and the terrain. Like, during a fight against a wererat, I would do things like run down a passage while scattering caltrops across the entrance, or scramble across a narrow ledge to put a pit between us while also tossing a flask of oil on the ledge to create a slippery hazard. I even tried to light the oily patch on fire by shooting a crossbow bolt at the nearby cavern wall to create a spark, though I failed my attack roll. Still, the wererat got the message and ended up slinking away with oily, wounded paws and a lot less dignity than it started with. There was also a heist I pulled that went slightly awry, where I ended up being attacked by the homeowner. Instead of fighting, I used my character's tail blade to scatter some hot embers from a fire that was at my back, then used the distraction that caused to slip away.
And that's how I did pretty much all the combat in that campaign, by trying to use whatever dirty tactics I could to gain an advantage. It was a lot of fun being creative like that, and it fit the character.
I would say that if you think D&D is too simple then play something else. The whole point of D&D is to be simple and quick, where the only thing a player needs to do each turn is roll the D20 to see if he hits and then the damage dice. If you want more than that then maybe try WHFRP or BRP/Mythras instead?
This feels inspired by both Move Actions and Skill Tricks from D&D 3.5e, and it sounds great!
I'm not familiar with those. What were skill tricks?
@@theDMLair They were sort of like mini-feats. You could spend 2 of your skill points when you leveled up to get a new skill trick that you met prerequisites for, and you could know a total number of skill tricks equal to 1/2 your character level.
There were tons to choose from, in different categories like Mental, Movement, and Manipulation. A great one was Collector of Stories, which gave a hefty bonus on knowledge checks to identify monsters. There's also one called Conceal Spellcasting, which let you use Sleight of Hand to prevent others from knowing you were casting a spell.
These look fun and you've put good work into them. I don't think we'll solve the problem with more mechanics, though. As I see it the problem is that we separate out social interaction and combat, calling social interaction "role playing" while combat becomes an exercise in picking the most effective option from a short list on a character sheet. More options on the sheet won't fix that. Actually role playing during combat is the only thing that will "fix" DnD combat. I can definitely see using these combat tactics as training wheels to get both players and DMs more into the minds of the characters they're playing.
Depends on the table. I expect, with that mentality, you might enjoy the pbta games quite a bit.
Some tables actually want to play a board game when combat starts though. The process of understanding mechanics and then determining the most optimal action is fun for some people. And for those people, more complexity is often exactly what they need to have more fun than base DND 5e allows for.
No one is right or wrong. People are just different
I've been working hard for YEARS to get people to stop calling social interactions "roleplaying." And my battle will never end, I fear.
@@bonzwah1 100% agree and don't think it needs to be one or the other. I'm at my happiest when there is sort of a dialog between the rules and the RP, like when they compromise with and explain each other.
Bacon is delicious, I just ate a Maple Bacon Bar Doughnut.
I like this idea to make Combat less repetitive for all the classes.
Book of nine swords in d&d 3.5 kind of forces the classes in the book to use a variety of moves instead of the same attack over and over
2:18 Giving players more options on their turns
3:40 Combat Skills (Tactical Actions) System (Playtest it so that Added Fun > Complexity)
5:11 How it works
6:32 Attack Enhancements, Attack Penalties, Area Control, Concealment, Information/Recon/Scouting, Movement
*EXAMPLES*
8:22 Prepare
8:57 Disguise a Spell
9:42 Strengthened Strike
10:06 Determine Intent
10:46 Area Denial
11:30 Regarding Monsters
12:55 How to fix sucky monsters
14:26 Managing the Pace of Gameplay (Determine the role of each enemy creature in combat. Pick a FEW tactics per role/monster. Read the tactics BEFORE the game.)
Sounds pretty good, but I observe that for different tactics the numerical effect is different (prepare is different than disguise a spell) . If you decide upon a single bonus for each tactic that has them. Like +1 on dc 20 an raising the effect by one for every 5 steps, it would avoid having to check the tactics every time you use them
Cool idea. A bit too complicated foe my players, bit I might develop a loose version of this to allow more ad lib actions. Thank you
DCC mighty deeds! DCC spell tables with variable results! Bob World Builder uses DCC spell system in DnD.
Bacon makes everything better!
Try it in combat TODAY!!!
This is exactly what I needed. MORE options for players to sit there not making a decision about for entire minutes at a time. The easiest way to prevent people standing around doing the same thing on repeat I have is to remove opportunity attacks and keep levels low so equipment damage doesn't become irrelevant.
This is beautiful! I was making a similar thing, think a feint attack from a rogue using a deception check. But im not paying 4.99 for it.
I immediately bought this from you. Because even if the ideas are out there, $5 is well worth the time I'd have to spend to compile this and organize this as you have. Dope work Luke.
Thank you! Hope you enjoy it at your table!
If I'm understanding this right, these tactical moves are just like using your movement, one might even say they are "move equivalent" actions... Sounds very familiar.
I've been allowing this kind of creativity for a while. I don't use a name, I just think that with the right reasoning everything can be allowed.
I don't think this kind of thing need to come from the rules, players need to feel comfortable to try crazy shit during combat "can I do x to that creature?" "Sure, let's see how we can test this success and decide if can be framed as an attack or movement"
In PF1E, I need that movement to make my full attack. :P
But we often have characters built to Intimidate, feint or use combat maneuvers as part of their attacks.
Inspiration from Pathfinder 2e, I can feel it.
Love me some PF2e. :D
I run games in a homebrew setting known for lethality, and being "Final Fantasy but Darker". One thing that happens regulalry in combat is the party being outnumbered (to which i group enemies by my own rules not the DMG rules) or outmatched, not in numbers, but in skills. Once on a beach landing they had to fight a standing undead army under command of several people, skeleton archers, zombie fronline troops etc: essentially intelligently used / operative undead. For the outmatched version they've fought a few enemies with skills that outright are a problem. One of which has an effect of cronenberging the PC if they fail a save and have to find a way to mitigate / slow / remove the problem / area.
The players sometimes stomp my enemies into the ground. even the bosses. Sometimes they lose a PC, followed by an arm, eye and a few legs then are in the process of retreat.
It wasn't really a great system. But i could easily scale the combats which was the problem we ran into in the beginning. Our PC's were "strong" using enhanced standard progression, which our table has come to hold as standard, but this made the entire campaign a lot more interesting.
I heared this discussion a hundred times in the Shadowrun -forums before. and i think always the same: if the combat is boring, it's not on the System's fault.
It's always the players and GM's fault. Bring in casters, let enemies use dirty tricks, bring in a "hero" enemy with some other things, or simply let NPCs use tactics. Focus players, let NPCs retreat. Maybe the enemy was super prepared and they all got resistance potions against fire... well, here you go Fireball-Maker! Enjoy!
I also like to add an objective or enviromental "feature". Of course 3/4 fights are "repetetive" but in all the videogames i play, 9/10 fights are this way...
What my group is having the most problem with: they want to metagame. My roughe wants to abuse flanking. my Paladin is waiting to heal... my druid is saving spells.
So my goals are: Punish "Flanking" or use it against the rouge, bind the paladin so he cant just "wait around", and add enviromental things to get stopped or used by the druid.
Also my rule number 1: "What players are able to use, i will use."
meaning: my leading enemies use potions. enemy casters use AOE-Spells and buffs.
My Enemies have magic items or things to protect them from magic. And my npcs have no "meta gaming" but in every universe there is one rule for combat: Attack the mage / Healer first.
Systems can absolutely affect the enjoyablitity of different parts of the game.
I always fkn loved this channel. And now that I play pf2e, I love it even more!
Bacon’s pretty great! I like turkey bacon the most for reasons truly unknown to me.
I’m curious on something here with the DCs- why are they so high? DC 20 is a “Hard” task while a 30 is “Nearly Impossible” I understand that these call for proficiency but even with that these still aren’t that consistent. I’m thinking DC 15 would be a better starting point for the lower tier stuff.
You forgot the step where you just convert them all to DC20 and open up their turn options/flexibilities several times over 😜.
Giddy up DC20! I can't wait to have that book on my self!
I think you should probably credit PF2E for this idea since it’s pretty obvious that this is a direct implementation of that game’s mechanics into 5E.
Have you used this in high-level campaigns? Do you have you done this for Pathfinder 1E.
I like this idea of enhancing the use of skills in battle.
I looked at the store and was interested in the maps, are they tangible prints, or digital?
11:50 "Otherwise we would have a rather unbalanced system wouldn't we ?"
Ha yes, it would bring the usual balance of the monster *cough cough*
Otherwise, quite the cool video and concept.
I wouldn't be able to stomach playing anything less complex than a tactician fighter after having to suffer the braindead routine of playing a rogue.
Also, as other said, PF2E and DC20.
Sweet advert.
I bet your options/ ideas are rad, but I think I'll come up with my own that are more intuitive and engaging than "(this) +1 bonus".
Maple cured bacon, crusted with cracked black pepper and smoked over applewood. 'Nuff said.
I have nothing to add.
This all sounds awesome Luke, and not at all stupid. Hopefully my players agree because I’m gunna use it
Thank you! I hope you all enjoy it!
Hey Luke, I don't think you suck. You are a bit to self critique. You pump out videos with good content, quality and in a rich quantity. I haven't quite warmed to your style yet, but that's just your style.
Thank you! Yes, I have a unique style, I do. :D
Those DCs are kinda high. I do like the idea of replacing movement with more options, though. I might make a similar home brew.
What DCs do you think would be more reasonable?
I love bacon and this tactic system.
Probably the easiest way to fix this issue is with interesting terrain instead of flat square rooms and not using one big monster / lots of the same small monster.
Okay.
The new tactical action system basically means that Luke just did 33% of a new ttrpg system.
At this point he might as well make his own ttrpg system.
I like to gain advantage over bacon by slicing it thickly, frying it to the perfect balance between crispy and chewy, and then eating it. It's all about the tactical movement of the bacon going into my belly.
You sir are a genius. I bow to your expert handling of the Bacon and Frying Pan.
Check out the Monster Overhaul. 😊
Combat options are always fun!
Hope you enjoy them!
Eliminate the requirement to disengage to avoid an attacks of opportunity & it takes some steam away from the Rogue, but then players won't lock into static positions & waste their movement.
Bacon up my mind whether I like this or not. I am not familiar with the AD&D 5th rules since I use Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder uses a similar system but they use feats that give you these same abilities. However, I have always had a problem with players only getting one attack and wasting a move action doing nothing. I have made a house rule that a player gets two actions so they can move or attack again, along with the feats mentioned above, this takes care of that problem. I do like you idea because now I can give players the leeway to come up with their own ideas without having to wait for a feat level up to do the same thing that they should be able to do anyways. This might slow down game play true, but if the players are having fun, that is the main emphasis. Good idea your bacon me happy with this. Thanks.
Ps. I forgot to mention, Pathfinder 1e already has skills for all it's monsters, which makes access to your idea one step easier on DM's. Just bacon sure you and your followers who use Pathfinder know this.
+jamesrizza2640, writes _"However, I have always had a problem with players only getting one attack and wasting a move action doing nothing."_
Isn't Pathfinder 1e combat like 3.5e combat? If you're not going to move then you can combine your standard and move actions into a full-round action and then you can attack multiple times depending on what your BAB is? My Rouge / Barbarian can attack (with his bow, when hasted) up to 6 times on a full round action. Or up to 7 times when using his Short Sword & Rapier
You had me at "bacon".
@@fred_derf This is true, however most players don't get an additional attack until 5th level, even the fighters so I homebrew it this way to allow the players a little more leeway. Yes 3.5 is very similar to Pathfinder with only a couple of differences. Thanks for your reply.
@@jamesrizza2640 The fact that low level characters can't make a second attack in a round has never bothered me, they're newbies, they'll get better. It's a really satisfying reward for obtaining 5th (or whatever) level! The first time you get to attack twice or attack two opponents in a round is an exciting moment.
One of the failings of D&D is that there aren't more such improvements for martial classes. So often a new level simply means more HP and you're slightly better at a bunch of things (depending on your feat choice). At least magic users get to cast higher level spells every other level.
In D&D (and Pathfinder 1e, I can't comment on 2e) combat isn't a simulation or anything close. It's a board game. It's a lot closer to chess than actual combat. A single "attack" does not represent a single weapon swing, but multiple attacks, parries, dodges, feints, etc. The attack roll determines whether you have been able to damage your opponent during the round, the damage roll then determines how badly -- what's not resolved is whether that represents one good hit, or several smaller hits.
Remember, when D&D first started a round represented a full minute (60 seconds) of action.
Attack rolls used to be called to-hit rolls, but they should have been (and should be) called "to-damage" rolls -- because the roll is there to see if you caused any damage, not if you hit. That's why armor raises your AC, it's not making you harder to hit, it's making you harder to damage. So it's not that a higher level fighter gets in more hits in a round, it's that they're better able to take advantage of opportunities for their hits to cause more damage.
And at 5th and higher levels, (if they're not distracting themselves by moving around), they can effectively attack two opponents in the same round.
Attacks of opportunity do (for the most part) represent a single attack at an opponent's back (i.e. under defended) while they're going away from you. That's why they activate when _leaving_ a threatened square.
Note: all this is for melee attacks, ranged attacks (and spells) do represent single throws / shots / casts, etc. Which is why you can't make ranged attacks of opportunity.
All that said, during combat 3.5e (and probably pathfinder 1.e) could use a bunch more actions you can use as move equivalents. e.g. tripping, shield bashing, or throwing sand in someone's eyes.
So in summary, I don't think the solution is to give low level characters more attacks per round, but instead give them more options to use as move equivalent actions.
Instead of a dedicated 'move' action, just give them three (2½) actions and the ability to move during one of them
Pretty sure that was how it was done in 3rd edition, and 5th took that away..
An attack action, movement action, tactical action. Why limit them? Why not allow no attack and two tactical actions, or simply two attack actions and no movement
Disguising a spell, isn't that already given to a metamagic effect?
When I was playing as a DM, I got enjoyment out of building the monsters as if they were player characters, choosing skills asl per character and not trying myself down to the stat block
This video is a good example of why I'm hesitant to play 5th edition
TAUNT I feel a taunt mechanic needs be included here
How do you think that mechanic should work
Hi Luke! I have yet to rewatch the video as I listened between errands this morn :P
My idea would be Intimidation for Martials, I homebrew that Str should be a valid stat to use instead of Charisma for it. Never made sense to me by RAQ for martials that dump Cha, thematically.
Or bards and hex blades and paladins could use Persuation/Intimidation with Cha or Str.
My angle as a DM would be not a success/fail taunt outcome but more a gradiant system. Higher the roll, higher the taunt effect. Thus allowing a intelligent enemy to have wiggle room between the situation at hand, giving the DM not a strict framing but open options, giving the player good chances at doing more :)
So you basically makes it 3 action battle system (action + bonus + tactical)
and you add some option instead of just moving. And you need to be proficient or an Expert in a skill to do an action...
And these options could give like a +1/+2 bonus to your next attack or so...
This video can be just named "Try Pathfinder 2e"
But I get it. Nobody will watch it or buy a 5 bucks set of "heavily inspired" ruleset then.
I love ALL the DM Lair videos!!!! ❤
Thank you so much!!! :D
Great vide, thx for the advices!
you bet!
I think you could also give monsters skill proficiencies on the fly. Your players certainly won't notice.
Absolutely. That's what I do all the time... just don't tell anyone. It's ridiculous that a massive monsters doesn't have Athletics proficiency at times and is getting wrangled by the cleric.
Great ideas. I've been considering something similar for the game system I am designing. You what else is great? Bacon is great. I can't understand why you hate it so much. I mean, none of your tactics incorporate bacon...
shoutout to mcdm rpg
So my problem as the DM is kind of just getting the players to think of ANYTHING else that isn't "I attack with my longsword."
I've narrated, I've given environmental clues, I've had phases, I've had spell effects, hazards, traps, temp. weapon emplacements, and at the end of the day 9 out of 10 times they look me in the face and say, "So I'm going to run up and attack it."
And I've made mention of what else they can do by sometimes outright telling them options they could have taken by pointing out mechanics like the Help action, etc. They'll say how they didn't even realize, forgot, or that those options sound cool...then next time it's back to hitting it with attacks, lol.
They just have no imagination, lol. One of the players looks at his character sheet and says his character's new motivation is getting his To Hit up by +1 more. Only takes stat increases, never feats, and has capped his STR/DEX. It's hard to be motivated to create anything interesting when it feels so wasted. 😕
Yeah, that's rough, but if they players are having fun, then is it really broken?
@@theDMLair And that's ultimately what keeps me DMing, lol. I had a story of "Coming to Tiamat" moment with myself and said, "Why am I doing this (DMing)?" And the answer was because I like getting together with these guys and playing; even if they just play the game like a button masher, lol.
Why not just change to Pathfinder. There are plenty of options for every kind of character.
10:00
Feint
Duration: instantaneous
Roll a slight of hand check to disguise the direction of your melee strike.
DC 20: +1 to the attack roll
DC 25: +2 to the attack roll
DC 30: +3 to the attack roll
This tactic can be used once per turn.
I try to do fun (non mechanical stuff) to falvor up my abilites.
For example.
Rolling through the legs of a creature of equal size.
DM - 'You can't move through an opponents space'
me - *sighs* 'fine I walk around the target and hit him.
(exactly the same results)
Me - 'I run up the tail of the dinosaur, jumping off it's shoulder slashing at it as I do landing infront of it, shield up in a defensive stance.
DM - 'gimmi a dex check to run up the tail and a dex save for the landing'
Me - 'Will this preventing me from doing the thing'
DM - 'Ill set the DC at 15 and yes'
Me - *sighs* 'I walk around him stab his toe and stand infront of him'
"Rolling through the legs of a creature of equal size."
That's just a DC 25 tumble skill check... oh right! 5e, not 3.5e.
Considering that a dinosaur isn't standing still, the DC for running up a dinosaur's moving tale would be incredibly high, and since its tail wouldn't (typically) be dragging on the ground, how are you even getting onto it? The only other issue is do you have spring attack, otherwise you can't attack in the middle of a move.
@@fred_derf Spring attack isnt a thing.
And again.
It's just flavor, you can get the exact same outcome by 'walking around'
But who the hell wants to say, 'I walk around the huge dinosaur, and bait and switch my firend and hit the dino'
after waiting 10-15min for your turn
@@Whitewolf1984p, writes _"Spring attack isnt a thing."_
I pointed out that I was talking from a 3.5e position, and Spring Attack is definitely a part of 3.5e.
If all you're doing is using it for colour, then have at it. But you and I both know many people will try to use such leeway to get an unfair advantage.
For example, if I let you roll through an opponent's legs when you could just go around, are you going to want to do it at a different time when you can't just go around? Arguing "you let me do it before"! just to be clear; If all you're doing is using it for colour, then have at it.
Personally I wouldn't allow it because it's unrealistic (given the genre and setting). But I might be in the minority with that opinion -- and given the stupid unrealistic things I see happen in movies and TV shows all the time, totally unrealistic stuff doesn't bother most people.
@@fred_derf Ah, my mistake, I thought you ment 5e for spring step, my mistake.
And yes its just for color/flavor.
And if players try to do it later to cercumvent a mechanic, then that player should be ashamed, reprimanded and or kicked.
This isnt a DM vs player game, it's a collabritive storytelling game.
My guys never want to attack first. Death being around every corner has its drawbacks
True that! :D
Roleplay doesn't stop after initiative is rolled. ...not that a Pit Fiend would listen.
"POCKET SAND!!!"
If you want more crunchy combat, don't start with 5e. One of the design goals of 5e was less crunchy combat.
Lots of folks enjoy 5e as a base system and enjoy adding to it.
@@theDMLair I'm just saying, if you want crunchy combat (and who doesn't?) 5e is a poor choice of system to start from. It would be much more practical to start with a system that is closer to what you want rather then add / change a ton of the rules to make 5e fit.
How many times have I read this video title in the last 3 years…? Far, far too many.
I love Bacon!!!
Bacon is rather delicious.
Sooo~ play 4E, as it allows players to do what you describe.
Bacon’s the best
Luke is pretty much saying, “I’m not stupid YOU’RE Stupid!”
I'm not stupid? Such a relief.
You missed out on the chance to ding the "unbalanced" idea of players but not monsters being able to crit :D
My monsters can always crit. Always.
@@theDMLair As they should, it was a dumb idea. I think you got the reference to the onednd UA with that stupid idea but going to mention it for anyone reading the comments who doesn't.
Wall of force suddenly changes the battlefield...
BBEG gloats: "Now I can kill this one while the rest of you watch. MUAHHAAAAhaahaaa!"
So cruel, Fred, so cruel. :D
Bacon is the best
Or...I can just play PF2E and completely ignore a company that seems to be fine with sending in the Pinkertons to their customers. At this point, I'm not even willing to USE the stuff from WotC that I already own...much less invest more money on things even remotely related to it. Third party support is still support for the company that owns the IP. Playing or running a game is support for that company. And at this point, the amount of bad they have done, I can not even support them at a level of will play their gamess.
at this point, just stick to PF2e, that's what you're going for anyway;)
I mean that's what I play given the choice but not everyone wants to change systems
@theDMLair I watch enough of your content to know that, which is why I made the joke lol. The real issue is that despite being way more "arcadey" of a system, 5e is waaaay more popular. Hard to get views or sales with pf2e centered content I would assume :) love your channel, learned alot as a fellow pf2e dm!
The solution, lower hp, and special effects on attacks.
ok i going to buy this
Thank you! Hope you enjoy it!
vegan bacon is ok
That's blasphemy. An insult to slabs of bacon everywhere. :P
Just steal Mighty Deeds feom DCC RPG and use that
You do not completely suck.
Neither does bacon.
I like this system of yours, but I recognize that it won’t work at every table.
I play in a campaign where some players don’t really pay attention when their character isn’t involved in the action. They’ll be off doing other stuff during other people’s turns (online games, so other things can range from folding laundry to surfing the Internet). Then their turn comes, and…
“I attack the monster that’s attacking Bob.”
“That monster got killed three turns back.”
“Oh, okay, what looks hurt that’s near me?”
And then five minutes while they try to decide their best course of action. Adding a tactical action in place of simple movement would break their brains.
(No, kicking them out is not on the table. They’re our friends or even spouses. And our GM will sometimes tell them to just stab something already.)
Yeah, totally. Not everything works at every table. Broken brains do not make for good games. :D
bacon is the best food ever
erm, just convert PF2E 3-action system, and actions to 5E.
Or just play pathfinder 2e... But not everyone is up for that.
@@theDMLair fair enough.
If i knew about PF before D&D, It'd be difficult to switch. D&D advantage i see is, it's more modal, easier to tweak and homebrew, as math is not as tight as in PF.
I started adjusting action system in D&D in my 2nd session when a player wanted to make 2 bonus actions in a turn. I saw no reason not to convert a standard action to a 2nd bonus one.
Today i know that from there it's just a few steps to pf2e/dc20 action system.
Time Stamps pleaaaaaase
You could make more pathfinder content instead of "fixing" 5e with a better game system.
Engagement
Mmmmm...bacon.
Bacon 🥓
Only one slice of bacon, good sir? :(
TLDR Version: Disguise a Spell, in its current form, does not provide anything useful.
Disguise a Spell. I'm not sure this tactic has any real combat use. It provides nothing beyond hiding the true nature of a spell from the enemy or vice versa. Unless the magic user, whatever the class, is going up against other users of magic on the enemy side, using this tactic is a waste of a tactic. What exactly would the benefit be of identifying a spell cast in combat? This tactic makes no mention of Counterspell. Counterspell does not need the caster to be able to identify a spell being cast either. It either stops a spell from being cast, or it does not. Does the Ogre and its melee goblin minions need to identify the fireball being cast by the player? Are they even smart enough to do so to begin with? What if that enemy team has a spell caster shaman. If they enemy manages to identify that a 1 Action instantaneous Fireball is about to be cast, what can they possibly do when it is not their turn in combat? If the shaman has Counterspell, there's no need to identify the spell being cast to begin with. The same can be said for the players side. Why attempt to identify a spell mid combat? It's either going to take effect, or it will be Counterspelled if you have it available to cast. I can see a VERY SLIM margin for identifying the spell being cast by the enemy, in order to decide whether or not to use Counterspell on it or not. For example, the enemy would HAVE to use Disguise a Spell before hand, and the player would HAVE to try an identify it as it is being cast. As there is no outward sign (I assume) that Disguise a Spell is being used, it would have to be a HUGE coincidence for the enemy and the player to Disguise/Identify on the same turn. If the player DOES manage to identify a spell being cast they would then have the opportunity to decide whether or NOT to cast Counterspell if they have it ready, depending on the spell. They may want to pass on using Counterspell on a Firebolt, but may indeed want to Counterspell a Fireball. Again, there are to many random factors in play to get this to actually work. A suggestion for an appropriate change might be that a successful Arcana check allows the spell to be considered 1, 2, or 3 levels higher, ONLY for the express purposes of resisting a Counterspell. Even then, the caster would either have to know a spell would be countered with a Counterspell, or take a guess. In this case, the tactic provides some sort of immediate bonus that is palpable if needed. Thoughts? (sorry for the long post)
I think the "I swing my sword x times" is an incredibly bad faith representation of D&Ds combat.
It is, but it's a popular topic
You’re correct but it definitely can be that way very often especially when it comes to new players that don’t understand the broader concepts of DnD.
I disagree. Because of opportunity attacks players stay stationary and repeat the same actions over and over
He's here to sell his stuff, there has to be a problem to fix...
Isn't "I attack X times" the case for most non-magical martials?
the simple fact that you think a players 'turn' during combat is 5 to 10 minutes... that's insane to me!
an entire combat with 6 characters and 8 opponents, is 10 minutes... TOTAL!
while some of the concepts you present are interesting, they simply won't work with how I run combat.
1st - I never say "roll for initiative"
2nd - there is no established turn order
3rd - action economy his been thrown into File 13.
4th - there are no 'to-hit' rolls
we role-play the combat, not switch games from role-play to tactical simulation.
it's extremely fast, very lively, never boring or repetitive. and definitely not predictable.
ALL of the things you limit your players with by spelling out specific details of a particular action - stifles the creativity.
as GM, simply ask - what does your character want to do? regardless of the answer the player says, come up with a possible DC and have them roll. depending on the roll result, as GM, be colorful and descriptive, or if the roll is exceptional, have the player be colorful and descriptive.
being locked into a limited list of activities is too - limiting!
again, interesting, but - no!
Just play DC20
The wizard goes with Magic Missile instead of Fireball? Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
How dare you? My wizards are special. :)