@@godsamongmen8003 Somewhat, I've been scaling up almost everything. But the CR balance post level 5 is all over the map. I like my adventures to be dangerous, but the intention is not to kill my PC's.
Never had a problem with lethality in 5e. Case in point - 5e Rsvenloft campaign lasted for 2 years. By end of campaign, 9 character deaths. Mainly down to PCs not knowing when to retreat. Or use the Meat Grinder option from Tomb of Apocalypse.
@@thereluctanthireling Little hint here...I know it sucks BUT do NOT give your characters magical items. All of the monsters and their CR ratings are designed without Magical Weapons in mind...yes that is a stupid as it sounds. But the moment they get magical weapons monster balanced around having immunties to certain damage types lose a lot of value on their CR (Iron Golems LOOK tough but...yeah...with magical weapons that immunity to non-magical blunt/slashing/piercing might as well not be there at CR13 because by that point everyone usually has at least a +1 if not +2 magical weapon). The other thing to do is to remove the 'non-magical' part of the text but then that punishes martials and they're already being outshone by spellcasters at that point so...yeah..it's catch-22 because you can bet the Spellcasters wont do the right thing and cast Magic weapon on their weapons because that doesn't give them the 'big numbers'. Unless you give them a limited use item like blade oils or some such to buff the weapon and turn it into another damage type..which would actually make good quest rewards now that I think about it, a Blue Dragon Blade Salve, bonus action changes your weapons damage type to Lightning damage, same could be done for all the elenents...and yes I am shamelessly stealing this idea from the Soulsborne games. Fighters use to carry a myriad of weapons before they got a magical weapon. Normally you'd have your standard weapon, a silvered weapon (Lycanthropes), a blunt weapon (usually just a club, they were free in 2e AD&D) and a Cold forged Iron Weapon (for Fey). At the very least you'd carry two weapons of a different damage type, Slashing/Blunt, one for Zombies, one for Skeletons. I mean a Club did 1D6 damage compared to a swords 1D6+1 so it was a viable alternative in a pinch
I can't speak to the default human being bad, because I've never seen a default human in a game. The variant human, however, is both the most flexible and the most popular choice I've encountered.
They are extremely good choices for classes / builds that that need 3 high stats to be effective. Such as monk, barbarian, or warlocks that want to use a blade pact without picking hexblade.
totally agree. don't really understand what he means when he says they have no good ability mods, when humans can literally have whatever ability mods they want!
Yeah, I was a little taken aback by this. Human variant fighter is basically a powergamer meme in 5e Adventurers league because you get a free feat and 2 plus 1s, making it arguably the best choice for martial builds, and especially if you want multifeat combos like pole arm master/sentinel
@@erinkelley845 notice... you had to add "variant" to the human. No one plays the "non-variant" human... for simple reason that they get no advantage... at all.
@@MaleusMaleficarum 1. That doesn't disprove my point that lot's of people make human characters for the bonuses specific to humans 2. Base humans can have some rare instances where they are an optimal choice, ie if you want to make a skill monkey Bard or a particularly MAD multiclass and aim for all odd base stats, you can get a bunch of +1 bonuses you wouldn't get otherwise which can make them more viable.
Everyone complains about no dark vision for humans, but light is a cantrip and torches cost a penny. “But it gives you away!” they say. The plated dwarf’s crummy stealth roll does that too. “There are work arounds for that!” they say. There are work arounds for everything, including darkvision, which is a second level spell.
That's if your GM allows feats, and also if they don't houserule or outright ban certain feats. I make CBE and PAM unavailable before 8th level, and SS and GWM are brought more in line with power attack from previous editions, being -prof. to hit, double prof. to damage so as to not break damage balance. This makes them still fantastic options at 1st level, but not game-breakingly so. Not only that, but should you not choose one of the few feats that's actually worth a damn mechanically like the four mentioned already or a handful of others and opt instead for something more flavorful like Dungeon Delver or the new Chef feat, it really feels as though you have hampered yourself and are missing out on some exceptionally strong abilities like the tiefling's fire resistance.
8:46, I feel the "Not lethal enough" Is a very common thing, but it's really easy to "fix": monsters, if they can, almost always attack downed characters, at least once, to give the single Death Save. With this almost every fight feels dangerous. As for the "reason" for this, I present you the following: -Intelligent/humanoid enemies are completely aware that healing magic/abilities exist, so they might even double tap, if necessary. -Really dumb beasts always bite down on "the prey" trying to pull it away. -The only Monsters I might not use in this dangerous way are INT 6 to 9 creatures, who can't distinguish between unconcious and dead.
I was playing a sorcerer who was taken down by these flying stalactite critters that stayed attached to drain blood, their preferred food. The rest of the party was fighting the rest of the swarm while the cleric kept casting Spare the Dying on my sorcerer until the fighter or bard could get over to me and peel the nibblers off. I hit the two death fail point three times before the fight was over. I was laughing the whole time because the entire fight was due to my sorcerer exploring ahead while the party did a short rest.
IMHO, Making monsters attack downed characters feels like metagaming. From the point of view of the monster any attack that reduces a character to 0 hit points is a mortal wound. Only the DM knows the character can make saving throws. Also, combat situations are fast and furious. We can't expect combatants to waste time making sure each and every opponent are dead before attacking the next one. PCs don't do that, why would monsters?
I like the high survivability of 5e characters. It means as the DM I can really smack them around. Throw the kitchen sink at them. It also means less time is spent rolling up new characters after they die. Knock the wholenparty unconscious and let them wake up naked and in prison, or on some giant’s barbeque. Makes for a great escape adventure. Any good torturer will tell you, you can’t torture someone who is dead. I am also okay with the high hit points. I make my players take the average as per the Player’s Handbook. This way the HP aren’t too high. They can take a few shots but they won’t stand up forever. It also assures that classes that should have high hit points like fighters, barbarians, etc, have the hit points they need to survive on the front lines. Many of the monsters do lots of damage so the HP aren’t an issue for me. The Professor’s take on Attacks of Opportunity gave me pause. Perhaps I shouldn’t penalize my players for trying to escape from a bad situation. I might discuss it with the group. Also PDM’s initiative system is looking better and better.
My largest issue with 5E is the same problems I ended up having in 3.5 they simply begin to release more and more classes/subclasses with variants and often not fully considered rules. It leaves some of classes further and further behind while some get absurd combo abilities that shouldn't work together as they give up nothing to get everything.
Exactly, its a bottomless Pit. It reminds me of collectibles, or the Sims and its expansions, rather than a comprehensive, solid and self sustained set of rules.
Also fits with humans' real-world physiological bonus of great stamina; humans hunted most animals historically by scaring or injuring it and just following it without letting it rest until it died of exhaustion. Basically the only wild animals with enough endurance to keep up with us were wolves (same tactics but twice the running speed), which is why wolves became our dogs.
In my setting, their memetic property of being able to produce viable half-breed offspring gave them social advantage with longer-lived races that had poor birthrates, such as elves and dragons, to the point that in the main civilization your choices of race are "Pick two of Standard Human, Variant Human, Half-Dragon, Half-Elf, Half-Ogre, Half-Dwarf, Half-Pixie, and Half-Halfling." So to be a "pure" human, you're both a Standard and Variant Human.
I agree with the lethality point. Imagine a Barbarian, 20th level, with a high Con and the Tough Feat. We're talking well over 100 HP. Now imagine him being shot by Goblins. It would take 50 arrows to even have a chance of bringing him down. So at level 1 a single arrow is a threat and a handful can be fatal but a year later 1 arrow is ignored and a handful might get his attention?
I _love_ attacks of opportunity. (Note that both 3.5 and PF1 have a disengage action, Withdraw, that works well enough, including that it's harder to disengage when you're surrounded.) They increase the tactical complexity of the game in a way that works very well for the kind of game I want to play in and run. But then that tactical complexity and its associated puzzle solving is one of the major things I want from an RPG. YMMV.
They're moving away from races (aka species) to generic lineages (aka templates). With no more fixed racial ASI and customize your own race, everyone will just be generic blobs.
@@LordJaroh Same. With the custom lineage that is literally just a +2 ability score, feat, and skill proficiency or darkvision, I would rarely if ever use it to make some amorphous, ambiguous mystery race. If I wanted to play the flavor of a tabaxi or elf or dwarf, but still benefit from a starting feat, I would take that custom lineage. For whatever reason, they don’t have the other racial features and developed their feat instead.
@@LordJaroh Yes, this will (in the best case) an individual character. But it also can (will) lead to min-maxing and to some exchangeable adventurer person with an arbitrary backstory.
@@wolfstettler3183 I have been playing 5th for a while now, and none of my characters were generic. Any editions characters are only as generic as the players make them.
Warlock vs Crossbow fighter: Pros: Force magic damage vs weapon damage Cons: EB has less to hit bonuses, no ammo variety while anyone using ranged weapons can get +1 bolts for their +2 gun equaling a +3 flat magic bonus to hit and to damage, or arrows of slaying, or who knows that the DM might make.
I'd really like to hear from anyone who's tested out the "No Opportunity Attacks" rule. I think its very interesting and wonder how many classes get hurt by this. Rogue's Cunning Action, Sentinel feat, etc.
honestly, in pathfinder, the classes/monsters who have opportunity attacks is so small, its negligible. In my opinion, this makes combat WAY more dynamic, as they now no longer fear disngaging, and moving around the battlefield. In 5e, it's almost always just melle fighter magnetizing themselves to an enemy and hitting each other back and forth until combat ends. super lame.
@@nickromanthefencer Thats kind of exactly how I have experienced melee combat. I feel like if opportunity attacks werent a thing, the battle would be more dynamic like when Will Turner fights Captain Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates movie. Seems more fun imo.
variant human gets a bonus feat and skill proficiency , and a feat at level 1 can be quite powerful if its like sentinel or lucky or something.... also, the method to the madness behind lots of hit points was research...they learned that players like to hit so monsters have lower AC and more hit points, but easy way to make monsters harder to hit is to make them find cover
The current system I employ for initiative is my own version of group initiative. The monsters have a set alert level that is between the minimum and maximum number of players in the party. Each player rolls for initiative as normal, and if they roll more than the DC (usually 12) that counts as a success. They must equal or beat the monsters alert number in successes to go first, otherwise the monsters go first. Also the player who rolls the highest is the leader of the party for that battle and decides who goes when, to try and encourage team work. It seems to work well and my players are enjoying it so far, because each player contributes to the initiative roll rather than one player rolling for the group. Also this allows me to focus on the monsters and not worry about which players turn it is.
The only elf race that adheres to your point about human/elf sight dynamic is dark elf (my personal favorite but I grew up reading Drizz't novels so eh...). Your human can still attempt things in the dark but everything is at disadvantage. The dark elves can come into the light but everything they do is at disadvantage.
THAC0 and ascending AC systems are practically the same thing, just with numbers shuffled around. It's just subtracting difficulty to hit (AC) from attacker skill (THAC0) versus subtracting the attacker's skill (proficiency bonus) from the difficulty to hit (AC) -- yes, I know people usually add the bonus to the die, but subtracting to find the target is the exact same thing. I'm happy to use either system and don't see any practical difference. I don't understand why people think THAC0 is hard -- OK, I sort of do, the explanations were typically terrible -- but the two systems are essentially identical when it comes to actually using them.
I agree! As a DM balance has been thrown out the window! Encounter building is a razor edge to see if my players can pull off a win as they frequently are facing encounters that should kill them. But they like it so I don't complain much. But to see them be a little more cautious at times is nice.
Why are rats everywhere when a bear is clearly stronger? Humans can adapt to any environment and breed quickly compared to most other races, if elves have four kids on average and so do humans, then by the time one generation of elves has passed turning two elves into four, about ten generations of humans have passed turning two humans into 1024 humans. In the time it takes a small group of elves to expand into a town, that same group of humans could've taken over a continent. And that's why humans are everywhere in massive numbers.
Unless you count orcs, goblins or kobolds, which breed way faster than humans and have better abilities and traits. Besides, the argument here is "How would humans have kingdoms or positions of overall power, if most other species are superior in some way?", which taking your analogy that is why rats don't "rule" over bears, cats or dogs. In the normal rulings, on average every other species has at least +1 bonus on a single ability plus any racial features that go from dark vision to casting spells. Humans have 0 bonuses and no extraordinary racial features. There is the variant humans but it is clearly a meta rule for min-max purposes, lore wise it makes little sense. And seeing how the variants for all other races now make them even more versatile, leaving humans with a cool feat in the dust. Stat penalties were the actual thing that made humans more attractive in previous editions, yes you don't get cool racial traits but you don't have a clear weak point compared to everyone else, and you also got an extra feat. With every race being cool, versatile and pure "pluses", we got the short end of the stick on 5e. Mechanic wise, variant human is good, world-building wise not quite.
I actually think varient human works better lore wise. Humans typically specialise into different things, we can be blacksmiths like dwarves, doctors like asimar, experts of the natural world like wood elves, hardened warriors like orcs, etc etc. The idea that humans can pick a particular thing and get really, really good at it fits us in the real world, so being able to pick any specific feat as opposed to other races which are all similar in their natural abilities makes sense.
This video has inspired with an idea I am going to throw at my players (PF 2e) within a particular dungeon, because I'd love to see it tested out. You can cast every spell you have, as much as you want, but you roll a d20, you add 1 less than half your proficiency roll to the result (expert +1 to legendary +3, or in 5e, your prof bonus -3, minimum 0, this is my idea that you've mastered the basic spells, because you don't roll if you can't fail, no nat 1's), if the result is equal or lower than the spell level, it goes wrong. Roll a spell attack, vs your own spell save DC, success means nothing happens, failure... I get to have some fun with you. (I realize you could just roll a 50/50 check on a d20, but I like the feel of wrestling your own spell under your control)
Also old timer. Started with AD&D, then Runequest. Now running 5E as DM, have needed to change rest healing to make any level.of threat, and added exhaustion level and possible serious wounds to make 0 HP a thing to avoid. Wish RQ3 was improved... Real danger in combat there.
I recently listened to the Bard from Bardic Broadcasts ("The BEST thing about Heroquest!") interviewed on Questing Beast. He made a great case for death at zero hp, and now I'm converted. Give it a listen.
One thing I found seems to make magic users more interesting is using the gritty rules, long rest takes a week or even a month while short rests are at least one nights rest, so casters are much more careful with their spell slots and other classes watch their per rest/long rest resources closely
But... Variant Human with that feat though... Plenty of feats could help to put-off those advantages of the other races. Plus, Dragonborn don't get darkvision as a couple of other races don't. There's also Tasha's Custom Lineage, with that you get the option for Darkvision but you can still call yourself human.
i think the real problem isn't that humans *don't* have darkvision, it's that basically all the other race options *do* have darkvision. honestly only drow and maybe deep gnomes should actually get darkvision imo. it's so common that it makes it feel lame if you *don't* have it.
@@nickromanthefencer Well, Dragonborn don't have darkvision. Plus, in darkness all of those races including the Drow are still at disadvantage to notice anything. So, they're all carrying torches anyway. The only schmuck that doesn't need a torch is the Warlock, and that's if they choose to take Devil's Sight as an invocation.
I think I agree for the most part. I do feel like initiative, while it is slow (my players often roll each die for attacks and damage individually for instance) is an option the prevents huge, TPK types of events from happening all at once. I’m not sure how I would personally fix it, but I do agree. There are rules in the DM workshop chapter of the DMG for heroic and more difficult modes. The more difficult one is that a short rest takes 8 hours, and a long feast takes 7 days.
Some good points Agreed humans suck Agreed on the spell casting for everyone too I disagree on not deadly enough it depends on the DM and the party and of course the dice
My suggestion for stock humans is to let your players move around stat bonuses with a maximum of +2, so they can have +2/+2/+2 or some other combination that adds up to 6. This guarantees better stats -- where they actually matter -- for the character who won't be getting darkvision and other cool abilities.
The 5E DMG has great alternate rules for group initiative and a “gritty realism” mode where short rests are 8 hours and long rests are 1 week, which both makes the game more deadly and rebalances spellcasters nicely
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 both are in chapter 9, which is basically a collection of variant rules. Group initiative is on page 270, with a few other initiative variants. Gritty Realism rest variant is on page 267.
@@nickromanthefencer it basically means a party can’t long rest unless they’re somewhere safe. Short resting for 8 hours in the wilderness is likely to be interrupted by an encounter, and an 8 hour rest in a dungeon will assuredly be interrupted by an encounter
I respectfully disagree with the Human point. They get a plus one to everything, which is good, but mainly I think the variant human option is REALLY GOOD.
Here are my Top 5 Best and Worst things about 5th Edition. Top 5 Best: 1. Proficiency (Bonus) System: Elegantly creates staggered tiers of play and handles advancement nicely. 2. Backgrounds: Good way to customize a character with proficiencies outside their class or race. 3. Saving Throws: I like how they’re tied to ability scores. It makes all the ability scores more useful. 4. Advantage/Disadvantage: Speeds play and dispenses with a ton of floating modifiers. 5. Conditions: These feel like good common sense rulings with easy application for frequent situations. Top 5 Worst: 1. Too Much Magic: I dislike how nearly all classes have a pathway to magic. I dislike how a Wizard using a Firebolt cantrip is the equal of a Fighter with a bow in combat. I don’t think Wizards should be as involved in combat as much as martial classes. I don’t like the idea of casters throwing spells as bonus actions like a hipshot in the middle of melee. I realize I’m in the minority. Mechanically it’s fine. It’s just a flavor thing I don’t like. 2. Too Many Non-Humans: The 5E human is fine. I just think other races are overpowered. And corny. I don’t want to play Thundercats (Tabaxi), TMNT (Tortles), or Go-Bots (Warforged). Again, a lot of this is my personal distaste for something I see as silly, not inherently bad. 3. Too Much Healing: Short rests, long rests, multiple death saves, tons of healing magic (Healing Word) makes it too hard to die - as much as the hit point bloat. 4. Too Many Player-Side Dice Rolls: I prefer referee-side reaction rolls, morale rolls, and surprise rolls (vs Passive Perception). To me, the spirit of the game is the back-and-forth question and answer interaction between the DM and the players. Player-side rolls like Investigation or Insight can short-cut this kind of exchange. 5. Class Features and Feats: I think they complicate the action economy with a bunch of conditional circumstances and special circumstances that prolongs combat and make the PCs feel like superheroes.
I recently played CoC with a friend who's only played 5e. He was genuinely surprised at how deadly the combat was. SMDH. These kids today with their long-lived characters and their half-orc bards and their baaaack stoooories! In my day, we had cold THACO with a death save chaser for dinner and we Liked it!
I personally like having the options for either total meat grinder or PCs as The Big Damn Heroes and anything in between. Some groups want to wreck shop and feel almost invincible and do cool things; some folks want to focus more on story, but allow for the chance of death; and some folks want to feel like they are accomplished if they only lost three characters to a dungeon or whatever. And folks should be able to have all those experiences. That said, yeah there should be better options for just running from a fight both for the players to save characters and for the opponents who would realistically be retreating.
I consider myself a youtube student of PDM and this video is more or less several more detailed videos from the last few years. Here’s how his past vids have influenced my DMing of current campaign 5: if i know a session is gonna bet multiple combats. I use group init that we decide at the start of the session and then coin toss/d20 for the Monsters and place them in the pre rolled order, cuz I have 8 ppl and this way is real smooth. 4. I’m running a game world with firearms and Chainsaw/fuel weaponry. Weapons deal double to triple damage... and so do all my monsters. It’s the inverse of reducing or capping HP and my players are enjoying the bigger numbers... until the dragon opens it’s maw. 3. Humans suck? I let humans start with a feat, keeps them competitive choices imo. I also don’t allow that new tasha lineage system as it completely makes humans moot like PDM mentions. That variant rule is so good almot everyone would pick it and we begin to homogenize. PDM has a vid on it. 2. See number 4... Magic spells get no damage buffs. And it’s hasn’t made the game balance as wonky as you might expect because caster still do big damage but also have incentive to pick those more interesting magic tricks and buff spells. If the fighter has a belt of grenades then the wizard sees fireball as cool qnd all but Haste,fly and hypnotic pattern seem more competitive 1. I’m not doing anything to resting yet. But we are in a zombie apocalypse and the use horde/swarm rules that grapple and hold down players... you can not heal while in these swarms unless you are rescued and you don’t want to be reduced to 0... lest you wanna join them. Also playing with higher Death save DC (beacon of hope just got much better)
I always enjoy your videos even though we have different approaches to DMing, but as a 3.5 advocate I must point out against your anti- attacks of opportunity segment in PH p 143 there is already a withdraw action that allow you to leave combat without provoking . . . I like to do that with bosses the party thinks they've locked down . . . then as the mooks sweep in the boss drinks down a delicious healing potion or two as the players curse the loss of treasure. Another benefit in 3.5 is that humans are great to play bonus feat at first and any favored class they want. I started with 1st edition, had fun but 3.5 really is best for me I love the customizability and that it functions as both a skirmish game and a "role" playing game where experienced DMs use Charisma checks to differentiate the player from the PC something very difficult to do in 1st and 2nd . Not a fan of 5th feels like a blending of 4th and basic to me . . . but I'm so glad that many people love it! Cheers!
Exactly about 'more deadly.' It is not about a psychopathological DM that just wants to kill the PCs. It is about creating a feeling in the players themselves -- a feeling of wonder, awe, fear. Even as a DM I have been stunned and shocked by some of the the brutal situations I have seen the characters in, thinking "This is terrible!." The other thing lethality does is it creates smarter players who are not murder hobos, who don't do stupid things, who actually earn their status. it raises the quality of the game when the players are not stupid, and it forces the DM to be smarter, to seek new ideas for problems to solve, to read and explore. Lethality makes the game better, and makes the players better...By the way, I agree with a lot of the rule changes you like (no way am I using old combat with the charts, we didn't like that in high school either). Another thing I hate about 5e is the number of player options, which seem to say "You don't need to read fantasy lit, we've done all the thinking for you." Lame. And the stupid races!!! D&D has become its own stale mythology with no surprises. 5e encapsulates it more than any other edition. It is boring, and the players who know 5e and no other edition are also boring.
I've been playing a human fighter champion for the past 4-ish years and it was so boring I considered changing character. Then I discovered the Eldritch Knight and changed to that. Love it! Also added some flair from XGE
To Hit Armor Class 0 - Oh man that brings back memories. Some things are best left behind. I think one of the key tensions in RPGS is 'detail/realism' vs 'streamlined/fast' I very much appreciate the streamlined view as I've grown older. Sometimes simpler is just better.
(1/2) Good video as always, and it's nice to see your perspective on the +'s and -'s of 5e. A few points I'd like to make in regards to them. Pros 5. Cohesion: While I agree the consolidated d20 system is very convenient and easy to learn, it is also very flat. 5% chance to roll any specific number one a single die creates a flat curve. I've discussed this point at length comparing older school and newer school, it tends to boil down to 'other systems would probably be more balanced, but harder to use overall and a bit more complicated'. But I do agree, THAC0 is an incredibly silly system that my Father and I will debate endlessly on. 4. Advantage and Disadvantage: I'm a bit more mixed, I do agree with your thoughts, however my problem tends to stem from a lack of the dynamics of the system. I wish less things necessarily tied into the system, and a mix of flat bonuses with Advantage/disadvantage vs just giving advantage for everything (Like the optional but widely used and typically accepted flanking rules). I do agree however, overall it is a pretty good system and have home-ruled similar things into other systems. 3. Spellcasters: Will get into this below 1. Disengage: I agree, as an action choice, it makes great sense! I don't however agree that attacks of opportunity 'never' make sense. If you go in to swing at your enemy, then run away after, I imagine you go in to attack, then pull back and retreat, leaving yourself vulnerable to a counter attack before you get away. If you are dashing around and past someone, expect that someone to try to stop you with a swing if your looking past them and not at them(Because our heads are not on a swivel like an owl, despite the lack of facing rules). I do like the Disengage action as a choice.
(2/2) Dislikes 5. Initiative is Slow: I can't disagree. I've seen other people mention the option group initiative rules, but unlike some rules I will get into below, it isn't widely accepted as the standard and the individualized initiative is often preferred, which if a player isn't familiar with the game or their character and don't try to imagine ahead what they want to do can slow things down. However, this certainly doesn't mean old school initiative was fast. I'm playing in an AD&D campaign, and DMing a Pathfinder Campaign, and I don't think the initiative is especially slower in either one with one using the group initiative and one using the individualized one, because the slow part of the initiative exists in both, the players deciding what they want to do, and that is entirely dependent on the player to think about, and not really on the ruleset. But I do agree, if you have a combat heavy game, rolling individualized initiatives every encounter can slow things down, what I tend to do to solve that is have a "Static initiative" for a long stretch of dungeon, roll once, and the party members will each have that initiative for the first half of the dungeon or until they rest, and I just have to roll for their enemies. It also has it's problems, but it certainly helps save time. 4. Too Many Hit points: I can understand this complaint in 5e. 5e toned a lot of their numbers down, damage especially overall. You can still dish out a lot of damage, but compared to 4e and 3e, or Pathfinder, the numbers are a lot toned down, same with AC and ability scores, there is a lot lower 'caps' that exist. HP however seems to be largely untouched aside from the cap on Con. Which I can understand would result in things having a lot of HP, with a lot lower damage numbers to work through it making things take longer. However, I do differ a bit on this point in some ways from you, but will get more into that also on a below point. 3. Humans suck: So this is also a point that is being talked about in length below in some comments, and I will start off by saying, Baseline human which you seem to be addressing is nothing to write home about. However, ignoring the clearly incredibly powerful variant human for the moment, lets look at the standard human and their benefits first. You get +1 to all six attributes. A smaller benefit than +2 to a primary and +1 to a secondary because +2 is significantly better than +1, but the advantage comes in to characters who want a wider variety of stats, or, as it turns out, are playing the fighter who gets more ability score increases to put up their stats even further and wants a wider variety of stats, Con, Strength, Dex, Charisma if they want to be the face. The lack of darkvision is a hit but, if I am honest having played a AD&D game a while now with 'Infravision', most of the time it doesn't really serve much of a point. If a DM wants to make it hard to see, they don't do it by being a naturally dark cavern, they use a supernaturally dark cavern because Torches and light spells from below are incredibly easy to get. The only time darkvision really comes into play as being a pretty annoying/silly thing is if you are a stealthy char. Not being able to see in your optimal state of living(In the shadows) can suck, and you can't just hold up a light for obvious reasons. For the fighter, wizard, barbarian, it is very often not a problem as it is incredibly easy to maintain sources of light if you need to, and often something that results in spending at most a single turn to produce light to see at most. Still on point 3, coming around to the widely accepted and used variant human and the 'optional' feat system. Everyone uses these systems. Except for very very new players, or people who specifically despise feats. Feats in 5e, something you didn't mention on either side likely because of the meme that it is an 'optional rule', are incredibly good as discussed below(And before anyone says you can spot ban feats, or opt to not use them, I will say technically you can do that in /any/ system. You can spot ban elves, fighters, longswords. 'Optional' or not, you can do whatever you want in your game. It is widely accepted and used as the primary system in the game.) So variant human is incredibly powerful, because it gets a bonus feat, at the cost of 4 of it's +1s, only getting +1 to two stats of their choosing, which however allows them to be a bit more flexible in what they want to be, but it is less than previously mentioned. You also get proficiency in any skill you want, as an added bonus. In a standard Stat array in 5e (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) has two odd numbers, which you can now round up to have a nice clean set of bonuses, or not and split up your ability score increases later. To get back to feats however, they are incredibly powerful, and often can be game defining, but also lacking impact at times, but being no less flavorful. I'm more surprised you didn't bring them up as a complaint to the divide between the good and bad feats in the game, because undeniably there it one. However, this alone makes Variant human one of the best races in the game, as many feats can push a character well above any other race including 'Darkvision'. There is a reason the most popular race and class, both separate and in conjunction, is the Human Fighter. And it's not just because people are stupid or boring. But I'll get more into that on the next point. 2. Too much Magic: I fundamentally disagree that magic has completely outstripped all other forms of power. Far from it, in fact. If I had to make any complaint about the disparage in power in builds, I would complain that it is in fact Finesse warriors that have gotten insanely powerful. Dex has gotten to the point that it can go to AC, To hit, To damage, and even to initiative, making it an insanely focused stat that you can apply again and again to your damage at very little loss. However, lets focus on your original point, why would anyone want to play a fighter. (And inbefore you say 'it was a joke take it as a joke', then this criticism is also 'just a joke') Fighters, as listed in this example you gave, gain something wizards, sorcerers, rangers, no one else gets. They get extra ability score increases at more levels, which in the 'optional' rules, means extra feats. This makes fighters incredibly powerful, not even accounting for their ability to essentially get an extra attack, or whatever action they desire to take, once a rest. The tradeoff between the two has always been consistency long-term damage versus short-term burst. Over the course of an entire dungeon, the Fighter can swing his weapon and do his damage over and over throughout battle after battle. The wizard or sorcerer can only drop a fireball a few times a rest (though you can complain about the rest rules as you'd like). I can see the complaint about cantrips being too strong, but it isn't much different from firing a Crossbow, just magically themed. If you feel they are too strong, drop a damage die on them. However Fighters are incredibly powerful, at lower levels, and even mid levels. Their consistent damage is incredibly, and their ability to get extra attacks with their surge is amazing. There is a reason that Human Fighter is the most commonly picked and played classes and races individually, and in combination. They are a very solid combination, they work well together. People are not stupid, they aren't picking them because they're bad at the game or don't know how to play (Although some might be), people legitimately play that combination because it is a solid one. I've personally played that combination in Pathfinder, where other races get EVEN MORE benefits over base human. Just because 1 feat is an incredible boon to have for any character, and can be used both for mechanics or for flavor, depending on your mood. And very few can compete with the raw consistent beating a fighter can dish out when planned properly, they just don't get the burst a wizard can across an entire room. 1. Not Dangerous Enough: I still disagree with your overall concept. Claiming people were 'traumatized' by Alina's death is a joke. All it did was go 'yep, he's a dick and has no redeeming qualities, lets kick his ass when we can'. Everyone knows in basic you died at the drop of a hat, and I still stand by that is one of the worse facets of it. That said, I can definitely still see the argument for the joke that 5e's death system is. People call it the "Jack-in-the-box" mode for a good reason. I think that Pathfinder 2e's take on the system is a little better, making you take 'wounds' when you go down that, if not treated, will make you even closer to death if you go down again rather than resetting these saves. The idea that you require an air of menace in your game I still think entirely depends on your setting. I once again go to Lord of the Rings, Frodo didn't need to die for me to know that a troll was a scary thing to face. It isn't so binary a thing as that. Big hits, big damage, imposing descriptions or demonstrations of power can all do the same. Also, if you want a more heroic setting or campaign, having a group who is perpetually acting like a bunch of worried housewives, warily stepping every other five feet rather than moving quickly to save the captives who are actively in danger of death, can be just as much of a nuisance. A well put together video despite all of my disagreements I also agreed with a fair amount, like on the experience points part. It focuses on my overall takeaway, which is you'll like or dislike what your preference tends to trend towards. Keep up the videos and hope you are well!
Another great video! For one of your upcoming videos I would love to see how you run Vehicles in your games, seeing as you’ve ran non DnD stuff. Vehicles tend to either have bulky over realistic rules that no one memorizes or they have an anti teamplay mentality, usually both. By anti team-play I mean the driver or captain makes several decisions that causes everyone else’s rolls to happen and everyone else is either watching the cutscene or making one anticlimactic roll chosen by captain or prompted by DM while all of their awesome, non vehicular stats and abilities get dusty. The game becomes reactionary rather than active for almost the whole group. You have spoken about Vehicles in piecemeal in some of your other great vids. Like making fun of the vehicles skill im CtC or telling Han solo to “just roll high” on X maneuver cuz you never tell solo the odds. However, I would appreciate a dedicated video on your vehicle thoughts. Please share your wisdom Professor DM!
I’m waiting for the people who act like 5e is some holy grail that can never be spat upon to come swarming into the comments. Edit: I’m pleasantly surprised to not see any.
@@ImperialValues Oh yeah, that would definitely make sense. My friends and I always used 3.5 for lighter RP, so I could see how someone could take that one step further.
It's actually MORE common to see that 5e, whilst a good game, has faults being discussed. The balancing of classes with short rest vs long rest was, personally, a piss poor choice and I much prefered the way 4e did it with everyone essentially being a short rest character. I know 4e gets a LOT of flak and it did do some things bloody terribly (monsters had waaaaay to much HP which made fights a slog, the constant need to add up all different bonuses for every little thing) but every character having an At will, per encounter and per day powers meant everyone was pretty damn well balanced and you didn't end up with Spellcasters vastly outstripping the martials come high level. The prof mentions he enjoys Wizards being powerful BUT the whole 'you got 1 spell and like 2 hit points' was basically to balance out the fact a high level your were damn near god-like. With 5e Wizards are a touch more survivable now at low level whilst ALSO being god-like at high level. The trade off was IF you could survive to level 5 you'd start to see large gains (the whole Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards issue). What should have happened is spell casters should have been buffed at the lower end and reigned in at the upper end instead of just buffed in the lower end. The 'Adventuring Day' the whole game is designed around doesn't work because large amounts of players don't do 7-8 encounters per adventuring day unless it's limited to purely dungeon delving campaign. Meaning Short rest classes tend to get the short end of the stick because they shine in being consistent throughout encounters whilst long rest classes had to save resources for the big final boss of the dungeon. CR is a shitshow, the balance is all over the place, monsters were balanced around a party not having magical items and the Action economy for big solo monsters without legendary actions and legendary resistances is out of whack. An Iron Golem is not a CR13 creature, it's more a CR10-9 creature because a large part of its CR seems to have been attributed to its immunity to non-magical weapon damage.
Me too. All of it. I'm gladdened to see you use the example of the ubiquitous artwork of humans going toe to toe with gargantuan monsters (which irks, vexes, and annoys me. )
Oh yeah! I am on board with all you said - both good and bad. (no surprise as we have similar histories) I expect you said as much in your feedback for One D&D, but I hope you resurrect this video and/or publish a new version during the ongoing playtest so others can benefit and consider your thoughts for when they comment as well.
Thank you for the throwback. Bargle was a great villain. Though my DM allowed me to save Alina (he called her Kara), Bargle was my primary adversary for several years and was responsible for some of my original PC's greatest defeats. and the target of some of his greatest Success.
as a funny aside when I worked in Framing I had a guy bring in the art of Alina from the book that hey had cut out so they could get it framed for their game room
I agree that the game is not deadly enough. You get to recover almost all your health with a 1-hour breather and you heal all wounds, like getting an axe to the face, overnight. Short rests should be to recharge the short rest based abilities (and apply one charge of healing kit with the Healer feat) and long rests should let you recover your long rest based skills and heal with your hit dice, but only if you have healing kits on hand (and even then, I feel it's quite generous). You'd have to rest uninterrupted for a week to get your hit dice back. Also, I think the exhaustion mechanic doesn't come up enough (and giving exhaustion to the Berserker for an extra attack is ridiculously unfair). Imposing a level of exhaustion seems like an arbitrary affair, but what if you could opt to take one level of exhaustion to get your healing dice back? It would make sense from a narrative perspective, because you're pushing yourself to survive and your wounds take a toll on you.
Humans are fine, if you use a variant (which is pretty standard). Starting with a feat before the most recent book was something ONLY humans could do, and it made them the best race in almost all cases.
The base human is certainly rather lacklustre (this is largely down to so many classes hinging off a single ability score), but the variant human is usually a top tier choice for any class you can name. I think a lot of people overvalue darkvision because many DMs don't use lighting rules. By the letter of the rules you should be making perception rolls when using Darkvision at a disadvantage, for example, which is extremely hazardous when exploring dark areas. Most DMs seem to completely ignore the lighting part of the game, though. Personally, I am of the school that a simple light spell is the superior solution for the vast majority of situations. It's a cantrip now, not a first level spell. You have no excuse not to have access to it!
A question for PDM: when you like the disengage action from 5E because the character/monster can avoid a free attack. What do you think about the fighting withdrawal in B/X and falling back (with parry) in 1E? Are they equivalent in your opinion?
Does anybody remember in the Cardmaster Adventure Design Deck when HP was one full HD + 1HP / level. So, a level one fighter should have 11 hit points.
I just make up my own systems. It takes forever but it is really fun. I just start with a board game and use their cards and pieces, then make my own from there. Descent is a great one for that! I also made my own RPG systems for Zombicide and Reichbusters. Just balance them as I go and keep it fun and challenging!
Prof. D.M, I really think you should give the optional rules in the PHB a try. Feats and varient-human in-perticular. ... Personally, I would allow anything from The PHB or Xanathar's, including feats and multiclassing, and coustom backgrounds. (But not coustom linage.) ... I would keeping hit points as is, but nerf death-saves and baning resurection. ... Replacing D.M. inspiration dice with points, but leaving Bardic inpirarion as-is. ... Most everthing else, I would do by the books to the best of my abillity, except some homebrew npcs. ... If it's not in the book, will improvise somthing that is spiritually consistant with: what *is* in the books, my previous rulings, and the fun of the table.
I post this before watching the video to see if I am able to guess the professor choices. Best: Advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, disengage action, backgrounds, spells cast with a higher slot for a shorter spell list? Worst: Action economy (bonus action, reaction), HP inflation, races with no Statistic malus, cantrip powercreep, every class plays like a spellcaster of some sort? ...A few pew pew later...Why didn't I mention Initative? xD
I would argue that while Advantage/Disadvantage is an elegantly simple design, it's almost too ubiquitous a solution in the game, which sometimes resorts in discouraging tactical play as Adv doesn't stack and game tactics sometimes becomes more about fishing for Advantage. Also, I don't think that Inspiration is designed particularly well. IMO it sits in the Uncanny Valley for people who hate metagame mechanics and people who love them, because the earning and spending of Inspiration isn't necessarily attached to the characters' traits while also being subject to DM whimsy.
Interested non-player writing - in 5E, do powerful warriors have much to fear from tidal waves of (say) 'ordinary' soldiers or orcs? I realise that an occasional member of an onrushing horde might land a 20 on one of Our Guys, but In My Day three or four substantial scrappers might have little to fear from fifty goblins intent on homicide and (who knows?) dinner. Does 5e have any rules that enable a large warband to semi-stampede a small group through weight of numbers, and cut them up if they get knocked to the ground? The Prof's hit point cap seems like a good solution to danger-free extermination of half-battalions. Is there another way round this? However it's achieved, shouldn't large numbers of hostile normies be scary?
In my settings, Humans are actually the dominant race, because they learn faster, are more creative and have an exceptional drive over races like elves. Humans also are generally tougher than elves due to denser muscle mass.
i gotta agree on the comments regarding humans. TBF we've come a long way since the early editions, and Humans each time were either "this is the only choice my players want" (the dark days which everyone was feat-obsessed) or "none of my players will ever pick human" I think the next step D&D should take is coming up with human races unique to the d&d multiverse, kind of like how LOTR has unique human lineages/races that differed in characteristics (whose names I forgot how to spell lol)... assuming they dont do away with preset racial characteristics altogether
In my own rebuild of D&D 5e, I've gutted the HP, crits are full value plus rolled dice, and both variant and standard humans get two feats at the get-go. It was my balance measure for the demi-humans. The demi-human races are also rarer, and most took a hit on darkvision etc.
Best thing: the increased popularity of D&D. Worst thing: the proliferation of universal optional rules as offered by feats, Tasha's Cauldron, and such that people assume should be in any given game.
I always wonder why people complain about the raw rules when one of the first of them is if a rule doesn't work for your group change it. Just be consistent. Want a more lethal game up the challenge give one death save, make a crit auto kill anyone with less than 5 hp, make it impossible to come back to life. Want a game that doesn't include PC death at all no problem just work out how you want to handle the fun with your party.
My biggest gripe about 5e wasn't mentioned: The game seems like it was shoved out the door too quickly. They've had to have numerous books to rewrite some parts that did get overlooked (Tasha's, Volo's, Xanathar's, etc). You have the 5e Ranger which definitely was not playtested well, magic item costs, monster CRs, etc. Another gripe that wasn't mentioned is the power creep (raising the bar significantly for a tough campaign through the above mentioned books). I love the RP of the Warlock, but he seems a bit lackluster, with 90% of warlocks being based almost completely around Eldritch Blast. There are a few other minor issues (traps, powerful or weak races, 'variant' rules of feats and multiclassing, etc), but there also good things about 5e (RP-focus, their shift away from fully 'evil' races, etc). Just my 2 cp.
The crazy amount of magic, absurd survivability of characters, and ridiculous scaling of power is what pushed me towards the OSR, but it swings too far to the other end of low-powered grittiness for my players' tastes. Managed to pitch a game using the beta of Worlds Without Number and it ended up being a happy medium for my group. I got to run a dangerous sandbox world and my players were able to create fairly durable characters that were distinct mechanically and personality-wise. I do hope it gets covered by you or one of your friends' channels when it is out, as I feel like it hits a good compromise between new school and old school play!
Five worst things about D&D 5E? 1️⃣ Spells don't add your ability modifier to damage by default ~ means a crossbow bolt is stronger than an eldritch blast. 2️⃣ Lack of balance between subclasses ~ some are clearly stronger than others. 3️⃣ Magic item attunement limits to three good items ~ I downright hate this idea. 4️⃣ Lack of feats, especially for starting characters ~ though feats are better now, feats are as I envisioned them back in 3E. 5️⃣ Whack-a-mole death rules ~ characters don't go below 0 HP, any little healing brings them back.
But the spell doesn't automatically work. You still have to roll to hit or the Dm has to roll to see if they pass their save. So should fighters roll to see if they can hold their sword then roll to see if they hit?
I like the thing you said about humans. There's literally upsides to playing as a human. Infact you get punished unless a person chooses Variant Human or Custom Lineage.
Totally agree with all these points. I had to admit it but 5e is slowly drifting away from my style of gameplay. I like that gritty style, death is awaiting game and it seems nearly impossible for any player to feel that threat when you have 100's of hit points. I recently played a Dark Matter game where the DM imploded a planet we the players was trapped on and said "everyone dies." I was thrilled and immediately cheered "I'll create a new character!! That was a blast!" - the other players looked at me like I was crazy. Turned out it was an experimental simulation so we all lived.
Regarding the "danger" in 5E. In the campaign I currently DM, every combat someone gets seriously hurt, but going down to 0HP is rare. And only one character has in fact died, but they were Reincarnated. So IMO threat is there.
Darkvision isn't really that big a deal If your DM is playing by the rules. Because darkvision only makes you see in darkness as if it were dim light, whenever you are relying solely on darkvision on you should be getting disadvantage on every roll that requires sight, so even if everyone has darkvision you really want to use a light source anyway
Not a fan of the fact that disengage works for every enemy on the board, not just the one engaged with, even if you go through multiple threatened areas.
My biggest issue with xp for gold was always the transient nature of wealth. If you're a Dragon maybe this makes sense, but players don't just pile it higher and higher and sleep on it. If you robbed a liquor store and recieved 100 gp, then just threw it in a dumpster and kept walking, do you keep the xp? At least xp for killin things can't be metagamed like that.
Casters don't usually roll, because most of their spells are A.O.E. Rolling once to hit multiple targets, wouldn't make sense. (Unless your talking about combat spells that automaticly sucseed, like Magic-missile, and counterspell.)
It's official! I'm a friend of the Professor!
Congrats to you both
You’re a friend to all of us dammit!!!
Two of my favorite youtubers
Love you, beige
I love your channel too. You should join the madness in PDM’s FB group
"I wouldn't mind a game that's a little more Motorhead and a little less Maroon-5"
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I agree, but I prefer Wu-Tang style.
Adam Levine is at a pay phone trying to call the professor right now.
WHOA!!! That's a BIG difference! I agree of course!
Does not knowing who Maroon 5 is make me too old school?
@@_sphere_9654
No, it just means that you have been blessed beyond measure.
Great points as always....the lack of lethality in 5E is probably my biggest complaint, plus running human centric campaigns is tougher these days.
Can't that be fixed by just balancing encounters a little on the tougher side?
@@godsamongmen8003 Somewhat, I've been scaling up almost everything. But the CR balance post level 5 is all over the map. I like my adventures to be dangerous, but the intention is not to kill my PC's.
Never had a problem with lethality in 5e. Case in point - 5e Rsvenloft campaign lasted for 2 years. By end of campaign, 9 character deaths. Mainly down to PCs not knowing when to retreat.
Or use the Meat Grinder option from Tomb of Apocalypse.
@@thereluctanthireling Little hint here...I know it sucks BUT do NOT give your characters magical items. All of the monsters and their CR ratings are designed without Magical Weapons in mind...yes that is a stupid as it sounds. But the moment they get magical weapons monster balanced around having immunties to certain damage types lose a lot of value on their CR (Iron Golems LOOK tough but...yeah...with magical weapons that immunity to non-magical blunt/slashing/piercing might as well not be there at CR13 because by that point everyone usually has at least a +1 if not +2 magical weapon). The other thing to do is to remove the 'non-magical' part of the text but then that punishes martials and they're already being outshone by spellcasters at that point so...yeah..it's catch-22 because you can bet the Spellcasters wont do the right thing and cast Magic weapon on their weapons because that doesn't give them the 'big numbers'.
Unless you give them a limited use item like blade oils or some such to buff the weapon and turn it into another damage type..which would actually make good quest rewards now that I think about it, a Blue Dragon Blade Salve, bonus action changes your weapons damage type to Lightning damage, same could be done for all the elenents...and yes I am shamelessly stealing this idea from the Soulsborne games.
Fighters use to carry a myriad of weapons before they got a magical weapon. Normally you'd have your standard weapon, a silvered weapon (Lycanthropes), a blunt weapon (usually just a club, they were free in 2e AD&D) and a Cold forged Iron Weapon (for Fey). At the very least you'd carry two weapons of a different damage type, Slashing/Blunt, one for Zombies, one for Skeletons. I mean a Club did 1D6 damage compared to a swords 1D6+1 so it was a viable alternative in a pinch
I can't speak to the default human being bad, because I've never seen a default human in a game. The variant human, however, is both the most flexible and the most popular choice I've encountered.
They are extremely good choices for classes / builds that that need 3 high stats to be effective. Such as monk, barbarian, or warlocks that want to use a blade pact without picking hexblade.
totally agree. don't really understand what he means when he says they have no good ability mods, when humans can literally have whatever ability mods they want!
Yeah, I was a little taken aback by this. Human variant fighter is basically a powergamer meme in 5e Adventurers league because you get a free feat and 2 plus 1s, making it arguably the best choice for martial builds, and especially if you want multifeat combos like pole arm master/sentinel
@@erinkelley845 notice... you had to add "variant" to the human. No one plays the "non-variant" human... for simple reason that they get no advantage... at all.
@@MaleusMaleficarum 1. That doesn't disprove my point that lot's of people make human characters for the bonuses specific to humans 2. Base humans can have some rare instances where they are an optimal choice, ie if you want to make a skill monkey Bard or a particularly MAD multiclass and aim for all odd base stats, you can get a bunch of +1 bonuses you wouldn't get otherwise which can make them more viable.
I think a video analyzing the changes in art style over the years and how it reflected the culture of the time would be very interesting.
"Humans sucks"
Variant humans laughing with the best thing in the game, feats
If your DM uses that optional rule. Even then, being able to see your target takes precedence over being able to swing a two-hander harder.
Everyone complains about no dark vision for humans, but light is a cantrip and torches cost a penny. “But it gives you away!” they say. The plated dwarf’s crummy stealth roll does that too. “There are work arounds for that!” they say. There are work arounds for everything, including darkvision, which is a second level spell.
That's if your GM allows feats, and also if they don't houserule or outright ban certain feats. I make CBE and PAM unavailable before 8th level, and SS and GWM are brought more in line with power attack from previous editions, being -prof. to hit, double prof. to damage so as to not break damage balance. This makes them still fantastic options at 1st level, but not game-breakingly so. Not only that, but should you not choose one of the few feats that's actually worth a damn mechanically like the four mentioned already or a handful of others and opt instead for something more flavorful like Dungeon Delver or the new Chef feat, it really feels as though you have hampered yourself and are missing out on some exceptionally strong abilities like the tiefling's fire resistance.
@@gmscott9319 This!
Or if your DM let's you use Tasha's custom creation rules which makes them pointless
8:46, I feel the "Not lethal enough" Is a very common thing, but it's really easy to "fix": monsters, if they can, almost always attack downed characters, at least once, to give the single Death Save. With this almost every fight feels dangerous. As for the "reason" for this, I present you the following: -Intelligent/humanoid enemies are completely aware that healing magic/abilities exist, so they might even double tap, if necessary. -Really dumb beasts always bite down on "the prey" trying to pull it away. -The only Monsters I might not use in this dangerous way are INT 6 to 9 creatures, who can't distinguish between unconcious and dead.
I really like this...........a lot!
@@AgranakStudios Thank's!!! 💪
I was playing a sorcerer who was taken down by these flying stalactite critters that stayed attached to drain blood, their preferred food. The rest of the party was fighting the rest of the swarm while the cleric kept casting Spare the Dying on my sorcerer until the fighter or bard could get over to me and peel the nibblers off.
I hit the two death fail point three times before the fight was over. I was laughing the whole time because the entire fight was due to my sorcerer exploring ahead while the party did a short rest.
IMHO, Making monsters attack downed characters feels like metagaming. From the point of view of the monster any attack that reduces a character to 0 hit points is a mortal wound. Only the DM knows the character can make saving throws. Also, combat situations are fast and furious. We can't expect combatants to waste time making sure each and every opponent are dead before attacking the next one. PCs don't do that, why would monsters?
@@daviddamasceno6063 Well, I explained my reasoning, but if you don't agree, that's okay too ;)
Also I don't know if a DM can really "metagame" 🤔🙈
"We are Deathbringer and we play rock n roll!"
"Gooooood evening, Waterdeep!"
I like the high survivability of 5e characters. It means as the DM I can really smack them around. Throw the kitchen sink at them. It also means less time is spent rolling up new characters after they die. Knock the wholenparty unconscious and let them wake up naked and in prison, or on some giant’s barbeque. Makes for a great escape adventure.
Any good torturer will tell you, you can’t torture someone who is dead.
I am also okay with the high hit points. I make my players take the average as per the Player’s Handbook. This way the HP aren’t too high. They can take a few shots but they won’t stand up forever. It also assures that classes that should have high hit points like fighters, barbarians, etc, have the hit points they need to survive on the front lines. Many of the monsters do lots of damage so the HP aren’t an issue for me.
The Professor’s take on Attacks of Opportunity gave me pause. Perhaps I shouldn’t penalize my players for trying to escape from a bad situation. I might discuss it with the group.
Also PDM’s initiative system is looking better and better.
I agree with everything you said.
My largest issue with 5E is the same problems I ended up having in 3.5 they simply begin to release more and more classes/subclasses with variants and often not fully considered rules. It leaves some of classes further and further behind while some get absurd combo abilities that shouldn't work together as they give up nothing to get everything.
Exactly. I don't allow Tasha's in my game because of power creep.
Exactly, its a bottomless Pit. It reminds me of collectibles, or the Sims and its expansions, rather than a comprehensive, solid and self sustained set of rules.
Compared to 2nd edition AD&D, with the copious number of splatbooks, 5E feels tame.
I gave my Humans 1 healing surge per long rest. Its supposed be like Boromir standing back up to fight for a couple more rounds.
Also fits with humans' real-world physiological bonus of great stamina; humans hunted most animals historically by scaring or injuring it and just following it without letting it rest until it died of exhaustion. Basically the only wild animals with enough endurance to keep up with us were wolves (same tactics but twice the running speed), which is why wolves became our dogs.
Humans have the collective feat "Breed like rabbits".
Humans have deities on their side
@@PUNishment777 In my game, humans have gumption--they get more skills points than any other race and learn things faster.
They also get +6 to their stats, unlike the other races +3. ;)
In my setting, their memetic property of being able to produce viable half-breed offspring gave them social advantage with longer-lived races that had poor birthrates, such as elves and dragons, to the point that in the main civilization your choices of race are "Pick two of Standard Human, Variant Human, Half-Dragon, Half-Elf, Half-Ogre, Half-Dwarf, Half-Pixie, and Half-Halfling."
So to be a "pure" human, you're both a Standard and Variant Human.
Those bullet point "POW!"s are on point.
Also, Motorhead.
I agree with the lethality point. Imagine a Barbarian, 20th level, with a high Con and the Tough Feat. We're talking well over 100 HP. Now imagine him being shot by Goblins. It would take 50 arrows to even have a chance of bringing him down. So at level 1 a single arrow is a threat and a handful can be fatal but a year later 1 arrow is ignored and a handful might get his attention?
I _love_ attacks of opportunity. (Note that both 3.5 and PF1 have a disengage action, Withdraw, that works well enough, including that it's harder to disengage when you're surrounded.) They increase the tactical complexity of the game in a way that works very well for the kind of game I want to play in and run. But then that tactical complexity and its associated puzzle solving is one of the major things I want from an RPG.
YMMV.
Whilst I do like 5e it is sadly moving to become a game where race and some classes mean very little. Everything ends up being a bit bland.
They're moving away from races (aka species) to generic lineages (aka templates). With no more fixed racial ASI and customize your own race, everyone will just be generic blobs.
@@crankysmurf I disagree. Every player can make their character as unique as they want to.
@@LordJaroh Same. With the custom lineage that is literally just a +2 ability score, feat, and skill proficiency or darkvision, I would rarely if ever use it to make some amorphous, ambiguous mystery race. If I wanted to play the flavor of a tabaxi or elf or dwarf, but still benefit from a starting feat, I would take that custom lineage. For whatever reason, they don’t have the other racial features and developed their feat instead.
@@LordJaroh Yes, this will (in the best case) an individual character. But it also can (will) lead to min-maxing and to some exchangeable adventurer person with an arbitrary backstory.
@@wolfstettler3183 I have been playing 5th for a while now, and none of my characters were generic.
Any editions characters are only as generic as the players make them.
Warlock vs Crossbow fighter:
Pros: Force magic damage vs weapon damage
Cons: EB has less to hit bonuses, no ammo variety while anyone using ranged weapons can get +1 bolts for their +2 gun equaling a +3 flat magic bonus to hit and to damage, or arrows of slaying, or who knows that the DM might make.
I'd really like to hear from anyone who's tested out the "No Opportunity Attacks" rule. I think its very interesting and wonder how many classes get hurt by this. Rogue's Cunning Action, Sentinel feat, etc.
honestly, in pathfinder, the classes/monsters who have opportunity attacks is so small, its negligible. In my opinion, this makes combat WAY more dynamic, as they now no longer fear disngaging, and moving around the battlefield. In 5e, it's almost always just melle fighter magnetizing themselves to an enemy and hitting each other back and forth until combat ends. super lame.
@@nickromanthefencer Thats kind of exactly how I have experienced melee combat. I feel like if opportunity attacks werent a thing, the battle would be more dynamic like when Will Turner fights Captain Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates movie. Seems more fun imo.
Just take Monile feat.
Funny you mention Motorhead. I just shared "Killed by Death " in our group because we were accused of being murderhoboes.
Thanks for spreading the word of DM Scotty's Luck Dice! Peach and Vanilla Cokes are better...
variant human gets a bonus feat and skill proficiency , and a feat at level 1 can be quite powerful if its like sentinel or lucky or something.... also, the method to the madness behind lots of hit points was research...they learned that players like to hit so monsters have lower AC and more hit points, but easy way to make monsters harder to hit is to make them find cover
The current system I employ for initiative is my own version of group initiative. The monsters have a set alert level that is between the minimum and maximum number of players in the party. Each player rolls for initiative as normal, and if they roll more than the DC (usually 12) that counts as a success. They must equal or beat the monsters alert number in successes to go first, otherwise the monsters go first. Also the player who rolls the highest is the leader of the party for that battle and decides who goes when, to try and encourage team work. It seems to work well and my players are enjoying it so far, because each player contributes to the initiative roll rather than one player rolling for the group. Also this allows me to focus on the monsters and not worry about which players turn it is.
The only elf race that adheres to your point about human/elf sight dynamic is dark elf (my personal favorite but I grew up reading Drizz't novels so eh...). Your human can still attempt things in the dark but everything is at disadvantage. The dark elves can come into the light but everything they do is at disadvantage.
In my day D&D was deadly and trauma inducing. And we liked it that way!
Good review. One point on the opportunity attacks thing - simply take an action to disengage...
THAC0 and ascending AC systems are practically the same thing, just with numbers shuffled around. It's just subtracting difficulty to hit (AC) from attacker skill (THAC0) versus subtracting the attacker's skill (proficiency bonus) from the difficulty to hit (AC) -- yes, I know people usually add the bonus to the die, but subtracting to find the target is the exact same thing. I'm happy to use either system and don't see any practical difference. I don't understand why people think THAC0 is hard -- OK, I sort of do, the explanations were typically terrible -- but the two systems are essentially identical when it comes to actually using them.
Right. The way THAC0 was put out there it seemed like knowledge of advanced math and a slide rule were necessary =P
I agree! As a DM balance has been thrown out the window! Encounter building is a razor edge to see if my players can pull off a win as they frequently are facing encounters that should kill them. But they like it so I don't complain much. But to see them be a little more cautious at times is nice.
Why are rats everywhere when a bear is clearly stronger?
Humans can adapt to any environment and breed quickly compared to most other races, if elves have four kids on average and so do humans, then by the time one generation of elves has passed turning two elves into four, about ten generations of humans have passed turning two humans into 1024 humans. In the time it takes a small group of elves to expand into a town, that same group of humans could've taken over a continent.
And that's why humans are everywhere in massive numbers.
Unless you count orcs, goblins or kobolds, which breed way faster than humans and have better abilities and traits.
Besides, the argument here is "How would humans have kingdoms or positions of overall power, if most other species are superior in some way?", which taking your analogy that is why rats don't "rule" over bears, cats or dogs.
In the normal rulings, on average every other species has at least +1 bonus on a single ability plus any racial features that go from dark vision to casting spells. Humans have 0 bonuses and no extraordinary racial features.
There is the variant humans but it is clearly a meta rule for min-max purposes, lore wise it makes little sense. And seeing how the variants for all other races now make them even more versatile, leaving humans with a cool feat in the dust.
Stat penalties were the actual thing that made humans more attractive in previous editions, yes you don't get cool racial traits but you don't have a clear weak point compared to everyone else, and you also got an extra feat. With every race being cool, versatile and pure "pluses", we got the short end of the stick on 5e. Mechanic wise, variant human is good, world-building wise not quite.
Cue a first level adventure for a party of elves where they have to clear all the humans out of the tavern basement.
I actually think varient human works better lore wise. Humans typically specialise into different things, we can be blacksmiths like dwarves, doctors like asimar, experts of the natural world like wood elves, hardened warriors like orcs, etc etc. The idea that humans can pick a particular thing and get really, really good at it fits us in the real world, so being able to pick any specific feat as opposed to other races which are all similar in their natural abilities makes sense.
This video has inspired with an idea I am going to throw at my players (PF 2e) within a particular dungeon, because I'd love to see it tested out. You can cast every spell you have, as much as you want, but you roll a d20, you add 1 less than half your proficiency roll to the result (expert +1 to legendary +3, or in 5e, your prof bonus -3, minimum 0, this is my idea that you've mastered the basic spells, because you don't roll if you can't fail, no nat 1's), if the result is equal or lower than the spell level, it goes wrong.
Roll a spell attack, vs your own spell save DC, success means nothing happens, failure... I get to have some fun with you. (I realize you could just roll a 50/50 check on a d20, but I like the feel of wrestling your own spell under your control)
Classic D&D: Death Metal
D&D 5e: Power Metal
@@magyar9479 never played that one
Also old timer. Started with AD&D, then Runequest. Now running 5E as DM, have needed to change rest healing to make any level.of threat, and added exhaustion level and possible serious wounds to make 0 HP a thing to avoid. Wish RQ3 was improved... Real danger in combat there.
I recently listened to the Bard from Bardic Broadcasts ("The BEST thing about Heroquest!") interviewed on Questing Beast. He made a great case for death at zero hp, and now I'm converted. Give it a listen.
One thing I found seems to make magic users more interesting is using the gritty rules, long rest takes a week or even a month while short rests are at least one nights rest, so casters are much more careful with their spell slots and other classes watch their per rest/long rest resources closely
Being able to move, do a full action (i.e full attack), then finish any movement you have left without using a feat was a huge advantage for me.
But... Variant Human with that feat though... Plenty of feats could help to put-off those advantages of the other races. Plus, Dragonborn don't get darkvision as a couple of other races don't. There's also Tasha's Custom Lineage, with that you get the option for Darkvision but you can still call yourself human.
i think the real problem isn't that humans *don't* have darkvision, it's that basically all the other race options *do* have darkvision. honestly only drow and maybe deep gnomes should actually get darkvision imo. it's so common that it makes it feel lame if you *don't* have it.
@@nickromanthefencer Well, Dragonborn don't have darkvision. Plus, in darkness all of those races including the Drow are still at disadvantage to notice anything. So, they're all carrying torches anyway.
The only schmuck that doesn't need a torch is the Warlock, and that's if they choose to take Devil's Sight as an invocation.
In memory of Alina, we knew her but a moment.
I think I agree for the most part. I do feel like initiative, while it is slow (my players often roll each die for attacks and damage individually for instance) is an option the prevents huge, TPK types of events from happening all at once. I’m not sure how I would personally fix it, but I do agree.
There are rules in the DM workshop chapter of the DMG for heroic and more difficult modes. The more difficult one is that a short rest takes 8 hours, and a long feast takes 7 days.
Some good points
Agreed humans suck
Agreed on the spell casting for everyone too
I disagree on not deadly enough it depends on the DM and the party and of course the dice
Deadliness has decreased if you apply a no homebrew DM and math.
A good DM can make anything more deadly.
My suggestion for stock humans is to let your players move around stat bonuses with a maximum of +2, so they can have +2/+2/+2 or some other combination that adds up to 6. This guarantees better stats -- where they actually matter -- for the character who won't be getting darkvision and other cool abilities.
The 5E DMG has great alternate rules for group initiative and a “gritty realism” mode where short rests are 8 hours and long rests are 1 week, which both makes the game more deadly and rebalances spellcasters nicely
What page is that in the DMG? I am lazy.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 both are in chapter 9, which is basically a collection of variant rules. Group initiative is on page 270, with a few other initiative variants. Gritty Realism rest variant is on page 267.
i feel like this would just make the games take place over more time in-game. what would actually change other than the time character spend resting?
@@nickromanthefencer it basically means a party can’t long rest unless they’re somewhere safe. Short resting for 8 hours in the wilderness is likely to be interrupted by an encounter, and an 8 hour rest in a dungeon will assuredly be interrupted by an encounter
I respectfully disagree with the Human point. They get a plus one to everything, which is good, but mainly I think the variant human option is REALLY GOOD.
His point is that they are boring, not that they aren't good. For a powergamer variant human can be great, but for a roleplayer? Not so much.
@@Wind_Falcon I think they are great for a role play heavy player. They can add some great flavour
Here are my Top 5 Best and Worst things about 5th Edition.
Top 5 Best:
1. Proficiency (Bonus) System: Elegantly creates staggered tiers of play and handles advancement nicely.
2. Backgrounds: Good way to customize a character with proficiencies outside their class or race.
3. Saving Throws: I like how they’re tied to ability scores. It makes all the ability scores more useful.
4. Advantage/Disadvantage: Speeds play and dispenses with a ton of floating modifiers.
5. Conditions: These feel like good common sense rulings with easy application for frequent situations.
Top 5 Worst:
1. Too Much Magic: I dislike how nearly all classes have a pathway to magic. I dislike how a Wizard using a Firebolt cantrip is the equal of a Fighter with a bow in combat. I don’t think Wizards should be as involved in combat as much as martial classes. I don’t like the idea of casters throwing spells as bonus actions like a hipshot in the middle of melee. I realize I’m in the minority. Mechanically it’s fine. It’s just a flavor thing I don’t like.
2. Too Many Non-Humans: The 5E human is fine. I just think other races are overpowered. And corny. I don’t want to play Thundercats (Tabaxi), TMNT (Tortles), or Go-Bots (Warforged). Again, a lot of this is my personal distaste for something I see as silly, not inherently bad.
3. Too Much Healing: Short rests, long rests, multiple death saves, tons of healing magic (Healing Word) makes it too hard to die - as much as the hit point bloat.
4. Too Many Player-Side Dice Rolls: I prefer referee-side reaction rolls, morale rolls, and surprise rolls (vs Passive Perception). To me, the spirit of the game is the back-and-forth question and answer interaction between the DM and the players. Player-side rolls like Investigation or Insight can short-cut this kind of exchange.
5. Class Features and Feats: I think they complicate the action economy with a bunch of conditional circumstances and special circumstances that prolongs combat and make the PCs feel like superheroes.
I recently played CoC with a friend who's only played 5e. He was genuinely surprised at how deadly the combat was. SMDH. These kids today with their long-lived characters and their half-orc bards and their baaaack stoooories! In my day, we had cold THACO with a death save chaser for dinner and we Liked it!
Mentions Lindybeige and Motorhead. So refreshing to see others of my own sense of taste!!
Are you familiar with Castles & Crusades? I think you'd like it.
I personally like having the options for either total meat grinder or PCs as The Big Damn Heroes and anything in between. Some groups want to wreck shop and feel almost invincible and do cool things; some folks want to focus more on story, but allow for the chance of death; and some folks want to feel like they are accomplished if they only lost three characters to a dungeon or whatever.
And folks should be able to have all those experiences.
That said, yeah there should be better options for just running from a fight both for the players to save characters and for the opponents who would realistically be retreating.
I consider myself a youtube student of PDM and this video is more or less several more detailed videos from the last few years. Here’s how his past vids have influenced my DMing of current campaign
5: if i know a session is gonna bet multiple combats. I use group init that we decide at the start of the session and then coin toss/d20 for the Monsters and place them in the pre rolled order, cuz I have 8 ppl and this way is real smooth.
4. I’m running a game world with firearms and Chainsaw/fuel weaponry. Weapons deal double to triple damage... and so do all my monsters. It’s the inverse of reducing or capping HP and my players are enjoying the bigger numbers... until the dragon opens it’s maw.
3. Humans suck? I let humans start with a feat, keeps them competitive choices imo. I also don’t allow that new tasha lineage system as it completely makes humans moot like PDM mentions. That variant rule is so good almot everyone would pick it and we begin to homogenize. PDM has a vid on it.
2. See number 4... Magic spells get no damage buffs. And it’s hasn’t made the game balance as wonky as you might expect because caster still do big damage but also have incentive to pick those more interesting magic tricks and buff spells. If the fighter has a belt of grenades then the wizard sees fireball as cool qnd all but Haste,fly and hypnotic pattern seem more competitive
1. I’m not doing anything to resting yet. But we are in a zombie apocalypse and the use horde/swarm rules that grapple and hold down players... you can not heal while in these swarms unless you are rescued and you don’t want to be reduced to 0... lest you wanna join them. Also playing with higher Death save DC (beacon of hope just got much better)
I always enjoy your videos even though we have different approaches to DMing, but as a 3.5 advocate I must point out against your anti- attacks of opportunity segment in PH p 143 there is already a withdraw action that allow you to leave combat without provoking . . . I like to do that with bosses the party thinks they've locked down . . . then as the mooks sweep in the boss drinks down a delicious healing potion or two as the players curse the loss of treasure. Another benefit in 3.5 is that humans are great to play bonus feat at first and any favored class they want. I started with 1st edition, had fun but 3.5 really is best for me I love the customizability and that it functions as both a skirmish game and a "role" playing game where experienced DMs use Charisma checks to differentiate the player from the PC something very difficult to do in 1st and 2nd . Not a fan of 5th feels like a blending of 4th and basic to me . . . but I'm so glad that many people love it! Cheers!
Exactly about 'more deadly.' It is not about a psychopathological DM that just wants to kill the PCs. It is about creating a feeling in the players themselves -- a feeling of wonder, awe, fear. Even as a DM I have been stunned and shocked by some of the the brutal situations I have seen the characters in, thinking "This is terrible!." The other thing lethality does is it creates smarter players who are not murder hobos, who don't do stupid things, who actually earn their status. it raises the quality of the game when the players are not stupid, and it forces the DM to be smarter, to seek new ideas for problems to solve, to read and explore. Lethality makes the game better, and makes the players better...By the way, I agree with a lot of the rule changes you like (no way am I using old combat with the charts, we didn't like that in high school either). Another thing I hate about 5e is the number of player options, which seem to say "You don't need to read fantasy lit, we've done all the thinking for you." Lame. And the stupid races!!! D&D has become its own stale mythology with no surprises. 5e encapsulates it more than any other edition. It is boring, and the players who know 5e and no other edition are also boring.
I've been playing a human fighter champion for the past 4-ish years and it was so boring I considered changing character.
Then I discovered the Eldritch Knight and changed to that. Love it!
Also added some flair from XGE
Maroon 5E ... well played, sir!
To Hit Armor Class 0 - Oh man that brings back memories. Some things are best left behind. I think one of the key tensions in RPGS is 'detail/realism' vs 'streamlined/fast'
I very much appreciate the streamlined view as I've grown older. Sometimes simpler is just better.
7:08 "and that balanced the game" - only if you were playing over 6th level.
6:42 humans in 5e are overpowered AS HELL
With a level 1 feat it's my go to race for EVERYTHING
(1/2) Good video as always, and it's nice to see your perspective on the +'s and -'s of 5e. A few points I'd like to make in regards to them.
Pros
5. Cohesion: While I agree the consolidated d20 system is very convenient and easy to learn, it is also very flat. 5% chance to roll any specific number one a single die creates a flat curve. I've discussed this point at length comparing older school and newer school, it tends to boil down to 'other systems would probably be more balanced, but harder to use overall and a bit more complicated'. But I do agree, THAC0 is an incredibly silly system that my Father and I will debate endlessly on.
4. Advantage and Disadvantage: I'm a bit more mixed, I do agree with your thoughts, however my problem tends to stem from a lack of the dynamics of the system. I wish less things necessarily tied into the system, and a mix of flat bonuses with Advantage/disadvantage vs just giving advantage for everything (Like the optional but widely used and typically accepted flanking rules). I do agree however, overall it is a pretty good system and have home-ruled similar things into other systems.
3. Spellcasters: Will get into this below
1. Disengage: I agree, as an action choice, it makes great sense! I don't however agree that attacks of opportunity 'never' make sense. If you go in to swing at your enemy, then run away after, I imagine you go in to attack, then pull back and retreat, leaving yourself vulnerable to a counter attack before you get away. If you are dashing around and past someone, expect that someone to try to stop you with a swing if your looking past them and not at them(Because our heads are not on a swivel like an owl, despite the lack of facing rules). I do like the Disengage action as a choice.
(2/2) Dislikes
5. Initiative is Slow: I can't disagree. I've seen other people mention the option group initiative rules, but unlike some rules I will get into below, it isn't widely accepted as the standard and the individualized initiative is often preferred, which if a player isn't familiar with the game or their character and don't try to imagine ahead what they want to do can slow things down. However, this certainly doesn't mean old school initiative was fast. I'm playing in an AD&D campaign, and DMing a Pathfinder Campaign, and I don't think the initiative is especially slower in either one with one using the group initiative and one using the individualized one, because the slow part of the initiative exists in both, the players deciding what they want to do, and that is entirely dependent on the player to think about, and not really on the ruleset. But I do agree, if you have a combat heavy game, rolling individualized initiatives every encounter can slow things down, what I tend to do to solve that is have a "Static initiative" for a long stretch of dungeon, roll once, and the party members will each have that initiative for the first half of the dungeon or until they rest, and I just have to roll for their enemies. It also has it's problems, but it certainly helps save time.
4. Too Many Hit points: I can understand this complaint in 5e. 5e toned a lot of their numbers down, damage especially overall. You can still dish out a lot of damage, but compared to 4e and 3e, or Pathfinder, the numbers are a lot toned down, same with AC and ability scores, there is a lot lower 'caps' that exist. HP however seems to be largely untouched aside from the cap on Con. Which I can understand would result in things having a lot of HP, with a lot lower damage numbers to work through it making things take longer. However, I do differ a bit on this point in some ways from you, but will get more into that also on a below point.
3. Humans suck: So this is also a point that is being talked about in length below in some comments, and I will start off by saying, Baseline human which you seem to be addressing is nothing to write home about. However, ignoring the clearly incredibly powerful variant human for the moment, lets look at the standard human and their benefits first. You get +1 to all six attributes. A smaller benefit than +2 to a primary and +1 to a secondary because +2 is significantly better than +1, but the advantage comes in to characters who want a wider variety of stats, or, as it turns out, are playing the fighter who gets more ability score increases to put up their stats even further and wants a wider variety of stats, Con, Strength, Dex, Charisma if they want to be the face. The lack of darkvision is a hit but, if I am honest having played a AD&D game a while now with 'Infravision', most of the time it doesn't really serve much of a point. If a DM wants to make it hard to see, they don't do it by being a naturally dark cavern, they use a supernaturally dark cavern because Torches and light spells from below are incredibly easy to get. The only time darkvision really comes into play as being a pretty annoying/silly thing is if you are a stealthy char. Not being able to see in your optimal state of living(In the shadows) can suck, and you can't just hold up a light for obvious reasons. For the fighter, wizard, barbarian, it is very often not a problem as it is incredibly easy to maintain sources of light if you need to, and often something that results in spending at most a single turn to produce light to see at most.
Still on point 3, coming around to the widely accepted and used variant human and the 'optional' feat system. Everyone uses these systems. Except for very very new players, or people who specifically despise feats. Feats in 5e, something you didn't mention on either side likely because of the meme that it is an 'optional rule', are incredibly good as discussed below(And before anyone says you can spot ban feats, or opt to not use them, I will say technically you can do that in /any/ system. You can spot ban elves, fighters, longswords. 'Optional' or not, you can do whatever you want in your game. It is widely accepted and used as the primary system in the game.) So variant human is incredibly powerful, because it gets a bonus feat, at the cost of 4 of it's +1s, only getting +1 to two stats of their choosing, which however allows them to be a bit more flexible in what they want to be, but it is less than previously mentioned. You also get proficiency in any skill you want, as an added bonus. In a standard Stat array in 5e (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) has two odd numbers, which you can now round up to have a nice clean set of bonuses, or not and split up your ability score increases later. To get back to feats however, they are incredibly powerful, and often can be game defining, but also lacking impact at times, but being no less flavorful. I'm more surprised you didn't bring them up as a complaint to the divide between the good and bad feats in the game, because undeniably there it one. However, this alone makes Variant human one of the best races in the game, as many feats can push a character well above any other race including 'Darkvision'. There is a reason the most popular race and class, both separate and in conjunction, is the Human Fighter. And it's not just because people are stupid or boring. But I'll get more into that on the next point.
2. Too much Magic: I fundamentally disagree that magic has completely outstripped all other forms of power. Far from it, in fact. If I had to make any complaint about the disparage in power in builds, I would complain that it is in fact Finesse warriors that have gotten insanely powerful. Dex has gotten to the point that it can go to AC, To hit, To damage, and even to initiative, making it an insanely focused stat that you can apply again and again to your damage at very little loss. However, lets focus on your original point, why would anyone want to play a fighter. (And inbefore you say 'it was a joke take it as a joke', then this criticism is also 'just a joke') Fighters, as listed in this example you gave, gain something wizards, sorcerers, rangers, no one else gets. They get extra ability score increases at more levels, which in the 'optional' rules, means extra feats. This makes fighters incredibly powerful, not even accounting for their ability to essentially get an extra attack, or whatever action they desire to take, once a rest. The tradeoff between the two has always been consistency long-term damage versus short-term burst. Over the course of an entire dungeon, the Fighter can swing his weapon and do his damage over and over throughout battle after battle. The wizard or sorcerer can only drop a fireball a few times a rest (though you can complain about the rest rules as you'd like). I can see the complaint about cantrips being too strong, but it isn't much different from firing a Crossbow, just magically themed. If you feel they are too strong, drop a damage die on them. However Fighters are incredibly powerful, at lower levels, and even mid levels. Their consistent damage is incredibly, and their ability to get extra attacks with their surge is amazing. There is a reason that Human Fighter is the most commonly picked and played classes and races individually, and in combination. They are a very solid combination, they work well together. People are not stupid, they aren't picking them because they're bad at the game or don't know how to play (Although some might be), people legitimately play that combination because it is a solid one. I've personally played that combination in Pathfinder, where other races get EVEN MORE benefits over base human. Just because 1 feat is an incredible boon to have for any character, and can be used both for mechanics or for flavor, depending on your mood. And very few can compete with the raw consistent beating a fighter can dish out when planned properly, they just don't get the burst a wizard can across an entire room.
1. Not Dangerous Enough: I still disagree with your overall concept. Claiming people were 'traumatized' by Alina's death is a joke. All it did was go 'yep, he's a dick and has no redeeming qualities, lets kick his ass when we can'. Everyone knows in basic you died at the drop of a hat, and I still stand by that is one of the worse facets of it. That said, I can definitely still see the argument for the joke that 5e's death system is. People call it the "Jack-in-the-box" mode for a good reason. I think that Pathfinder 2e's take on the system is a little better, making you take 'wounds' when you go down that, if not treated, will make you even closer to death if you go down again rather than resetting these saves. The idea that you require an air of menace in your game I still think entirely depends on your setting. I once again go to Lord of the Rings, Frodo didn't need to die for me to know that a troll was a scary thing to face. It isn't so binary a thing as that. Big hits, big damage, imposing descriptions or demonstrations of power can all do the same. Also, if you want a more heroic setting or campaign, having a group who is perpetually acting like a bunch of worried housewives, warily stepping every other five feet rather than moving quickly to save the captives who are actively in danger of death, can be just as much of a nuisance.
A well put together video despite all of my disagreements I also agreed with a fair amount, like on the experience points part. It focuses on my overall takeaway, which is you'll like or dislike what your preference tends to trend towards. Keep up the videos and hope you are well!
Another great video!
For one of your upcoming videos I would love to see how you run Vehicles in your games, seeing as you’ve ran non DnD stuff.
Vehicles tend to either have bulky over realistic rules that no one memorizes or they have an anti teamplay mentality, usually both.
By anti team-play I mean the driver or captain makes several decisions that causes everyone else’s rolls to happen and everyone else is either watching the cutscene or making one anticlimactic roll chosen by captain or prompted by DM while all of their awesome, non vehicular stats and abilities get dusty. The game becomes reactionary rather than active for almost the whole group.
You have spoken about Vehicles in piecemeal in some of your other great vids. Like making fun of the vehicles skill im CtC or telling Han solo to “just roll high” on X maneuver cuz you never tell solo the odds. However, I would appreciate a dedicated video on your vehicle thoughts.
Please share your wisdom Professor DM!
I’m waiting for the people who act like 5e is some holy grail that can never be spat upon to come swarming into the comments.
Edit: I’m pleasantly surprised to not see any.
You are thinking of the 3.5 only crowd. Easy mistake lol
@@blesper3415 Never seen that crowd, although I assume they’re quite diminished now.
@@jessecollins3652 3.5'ers are folks who like the rules better than RP'ing. And that's okay if you as the DM understand your players' priorities.
@@ImperialValues Oh yeah, that would definitely make sense. My friends and I always used 3.5 for lighter RP, so I could see how someone could take that one step further.
It's actually MORE common to see that 5e, whilst a good game, has faults being discussed. The balancing of classes with short rest vs long rest was, personally, a piss poor choice and I much prefered the way 4e did it with everyone essentially being a short rest character. I know 4e gets a LOT of flak and it did do some things bloody terribly (monsters had waaaaay to much HP which made fights a slog, the constant need to add up all different bonuses for every little thing) but every character having an At will, per encounter and per day powers meant everyone was pretty damn well balanced and you didn't end up with Spellcasters vastly outstripping the martials come high level.
The prof mentions he enjoys Wizards being powerful BUT the whole 'you got 1 spell and like 2 hit points' was basically to balance out the fact a high level your were damn near god-like. With 5e Wizards are a touch more survivable now at low level whilst ALSO being god-like at high level. The trade off was IF you could survive to level 5 you'd start to see large gains (the whole Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards issue).
What should have happened is spell casters should have been buffed at the lower end and reigned in at the upper end instead of just buffed in the lower end.
The 'Adventuring Day' the whole game is designed around doesn't work because large amounts of players don't do 7-8 encounters per adventuring day unless it's limited to purely dungeon delving campaign. Meaning Short rest classes tend to get the short end of the stick because they shine in being consistent throughout encounters whilst long rest classes had to save resources for the big final boss of the dungeon.
CR is a shitshow, the balance is all over the place, monsters were balanced around a party not having magical items and the Action economy for big solo monsters without legendary actions and legendary resistances is out of whack. An Iron Golem is not a CR13 creature, it's more a CR10-9 creature because a large part of its CR seems to have been attributed to its immunity to non-magical weapon damage.
Me too. All of it. I'm gladdened to see you use the example of the ubiquitous artwork of humans going toe to toe with gargantuan monsters (which irks, vexes, and annoys me. )
Oh yeah! I am on board with all you said - both good and bad. (no surprise as we have similar histories)
I expect you said as much in your feedback for One D&D, but I hope you resurrect this video and/or publish a new version during the ongoing playtest so others can benefit and consider your thoughts for when they comment as well.
I Kobyashi Maru'd Bargle. Re-defined the parameters of the scenario: killed the bad guy, saved the girl, and walked away with all the fat lootz.
Thank you for the throwback. Bargle was a great villain.
Though my DM allowed me to save Alina (he called her Kara), Bargle was my primary adversary for several years and was responsible for some of my original PC's greatest defeats. and the target of some of his greatest Success.
Maroon 5e made me laugh so hard
I have to agree so much!
as a funny aside when I worked in Framing I had a guy bring in the art of Alina from the book that hey had cut out so they could get it framed for their game room
I agree that the game is not deadly enough. You get to recover almost all your health with a 1-hour breather and you heal all wounds, like getting an axe to the face, overnight.
Short rests should be to recharge the short rest based abilities (and apply one charge of healing kit with the Healer feat) and long rests should let you recover your long rest based skills and heal with your hit dice, but only if you have healing kits on hand (and even then, I feel it's quite generous). You'd have to rest uninterrupted for a week to get your hit dice back.
Also, I think the exhaustion mechanic doesn't come up enough (and giving exhaustion to the Berserker for an extra attack is ridiculously unfair). Imposing a level of exhaustion seems like an arbitrary affair, but what if you could opt to take one level of exhaustion to get your healing dice back? It would make sense from a narrative perspective, because you're pushing yourself to survive and your wounds take a toll on you.
If you don’t like base humans, I would recommend using variant humans, as that gives feat and a skill, which gives humans that versatility
Humans are fine, if you use a variant (which is pretty standard). Starting with a feat before the most recent book was something ONLY humans could do, and it made them the best race in almost all cases.
The base human is certainly rather lacklustre (this is largely down to so many classes hinging off a single ability score), but the variant human is usually a top tier choice for any class you can name.
I think a lot of people overvalue darkvision because many DMs don't use lighting rules. By the letter of the rules you should be making perception rolls when using Darkvision at a disadvantage, for example, which is extremely hazardous when exploring dark areas. Most DMs seem to completely ignore the lighting part of the game, though.
Personally, I am of the school that a simple light spell is the superior solution for the vast majority of situations. It's a cantrip now, not a first level spell. You have no excuse not to have access to it!
A question for PDM: when you like the disengage action from 5E because the character/monster can avoid a free attack. What do you think about the fighting withdrawal in B/X and falling back (with parry) in 1E? Are they equivalent in your opinion?
Does anybody remember in the Cardmaster Adventure Design Deck when HP was one full HD + 1HP / level. So, a level one fighter should have 11 hit points.
Very good summary. You hit most of my concerns as well. Way too much magic, unless you're a high level wizard, then not enough.
AD&D1E is like D&D5E, but for men.
Dead men...
I prefer 2nd edition, but I started with 1st edition.
I just make up my own systems. It takes forever but it is really fun. I just start with a board game and use their cards and pieces, then make my own from there. Descent is a great one for that! I also made my own RPG systems for Zombicide and Reichbusters. Just balance them as I go and keep it fun and challenging!
Prof. D.M, I really think you should give the optional rules in the PHB a try. Feats and varient-human in-perticular.
...
Personally, I would allow anything from The PHB or Xanathar's, including feats and multiclassing, and coustom backgrounds.
(But not coustom linage.)
...
I would keeping hit points as is, but nerf death-saves and baning resurection.
...
Replacing D.M. inspiration dice with points, but leaving Bardic inpirarion as-is.
...
Most everthing else, I would do by the books to the best of my abillity, except some homebrew npcs.
...
If it's not in the book, will improvise somthing that is spiritually consistant with: what *is* in the books, my previous rulings, and the fun of the table.
I post this before watching the video to see if I am able to guess the professor choices.
Best: Advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, disengage action, backgrounds, spells cast with a higher slot for a shorter spell list?
Worst: Action economy (bonus action, reaction), HP inflation, races with no Statistic malus, cantrip powercreep, every class plays like a spellcaster of some sort?
...A few pew pew later...Why didn't I mention Initative? xD
Example. The Disengage could be half base speed penalty. Also limited for 1 enemy.
I run my games Mötorhead style for sure!
"We are Mötorhead, and we play rock'n'roll!"
Just got the deathbringer rules and I cant wait to use them at my table!
I would argue that while Advantage/Disadvantage is an elegantly simple design, it's almost too ubiquitous a solution in the game, which sometimes resorts in discouraging tactical play as Adv doesn't stack and game tactics sometimes becomes more about fishing for Advantage. Also, I don't think that Inspiration is designed particularly well. IMO it sits in the Uncanny Valley for people who hate metagame mechanics and people who love them, because the earning and spending of Inspiration isn't necessarily attached to the characters' traits while also being subject to DM whimsy.
Lethality amount is entirely the DM's option, not an edition thing.
Interested non-player writing - in 5E, do powerful warriors have much to fear from tidal waves of (say) 'ordinary' soldiers or orcs? I realise that an occasional member of an onrushing horde might land a 20 on one of Our Guys, but In My Day three or four substantial scrappers might have little to fear from fifty goblins intent on homicide and (who knows?) dinner. Does 5e have any rules that enable a large warband to semi-stampede a small group through weight of numbers, and cut them up if they get knocked to the ground?
The Prof's hit point cap seems like a good solution to danger-free extermination of half-battalions. Is there another way round this? However it's achieved, shouldn't large numbers of hostile normies be scary?
In my settings, Humans are actually the dominant race, because they learn faster, are more creative and have an exceptional drive over races like elves.
Humans also are generally tougher than elves due to denser muscle mass.
i gotta agree on the comments regarding humans. TBF we've come a long way since the early editions, and Humans each time were either "this is the only choice my players want" (the dark days which everyone was feat-obsessed) or "none of my players will ever pick human"
I think the next step D&D should take is coming up with human races unique to the d&d multiverse, kind of like how LOTR has unique human lineages/races that differed in characteristics (whose names I forgot how to spell lol)... assuming they dont do away with preset racial characteristics altogether
It's good for beginners and people who don't like to make many character customization choices or don't like to have rules in the book for things.
In my own rebuild of D&D 5e, I've gutted the HP, crits are full value plus rolled dice, and both variant and standard humans get two feats at the get-go. It was my balance measure for the demi-humans. The demi-human races are also rarer, and most took a hit on darkvision etc.
I cant believe someone would actually defend probably most hated aspect of original DnD of level restriction.
Best thing: the increased popularity of D&D. Worst thing: the proliferation of universal optional rules as offered by feats, Tasha's Cauldron, and such that people assume should be in any given game.
I always wonder why people complain about the raw rules when one of the first of them is if a rule doesn't work for your group change it. Just be consistent. Want a more lethal game up the challenge give one death save, make a crit auto kill anyone with less than 5 hp, make it impossible to come back to life. Want a game that doesn't include PC death at all no problem just work out how you want to handle the fun with your party.
My biggest gripe about 5e wasn't mentioned: The game seems like it was shoved out the door too quickly. They've had to have numerous books to rewrite some parts that did get overlooked (Tasha's, Volo's, Xanathar's, etc). You have the 5e Ranger which definitely was not playtested well, magic item costs, monster CRs, etc.
Another gripe that wasn't mentioned is the power creep (raising the bar significantly for a tough campaign through the above mentioned books). I love the RP of the Warlock, but he seems a bit lackluster, with 90% of warlocks being based almost completely around Eldritch Blast. There are a few other minor issues (traps, powerful or weak races, 'variant' rules of feats and multiclassing, etc), but there also good things about 5e (RP-focus, their shift away from fully 'evil' races, etc). Just my 2 cp.
The stream of splatbooks is what the companies call "revenue stream".
The happy rubes say "Hey, what a well supported system".
The crazy amount of magic, absurd survivability of characters, and ridiculous scaling of power is what pushed me towards the OSR, but it swings too far to the other end of low-powered grittiness for my players' tastes.
Managed to pitch a game using the beta of Worlds Without Number and it ended up being a happy medium for my group. I got to run a dangerous sandbox world and my players were able to create fairly durable characters that were distinct mechanically and personality-wise. I do hope it gets covered by you or one of your friends' channels when it is out, as I feel like it hits a good compromise between new school and old school play!
Let us all sing praise of the Disengage action!
Five worst things about D&D 5E? 1️⃣ Spells don't add your ability modifier to damage by default ~ means a crossbow bolt is stronger than an eldritch blast. 2️⃣ Lack of balance between subclasses ~ some are clearly stronger than others. 3️⃣ Magic item attunement limits to three good items ~ I downright hate this idea. 4️⃣ Lack of feats, especially for starting characters ~ though feats are better now, feats are as I envisioned them back in 3E. 5️⃣ Whack-a-mole death rules ~ characters don't go below 0 HP, any little healing brings them back.
But the spell doesn't automatically work. You still have to roll to hit or the Dm has to roll to see if they pass their save.
So should fighters roll to see if they can hold their sword then roll to see if they hit?
I like the thing you said about humans. There's literally upsides to playing as a human. Infact you get punished unless a person chooses Variant Human or Custom Lineage.
Totally agree with all these points. I had to admit it but 5e is slowly drifting away from my style of gameplay. I like that gritty style, death is awaiting game and it seems nearly impossible for any player to feel that threat when you have 100's of hit points. I recently played a Dark Matter game where the DM imploded a planet we the players was trapped on and said "everyone dies." I was thrilled and immediately cheered "I'll create a new character!! That was a blast!" - the other players looked at me like I was crazy. Turned out it was an experimental simulation so we all lived.
Regarding the "danger" in 5E. In the campaign I currently DM, every combat someone gets seriously hurt, but going down to 0HP is rare. And only one character has in fact died, but they were Reincarnated. So IMO threat is there.
I would totally play in one of the profs games. I borrow a lot of his stuff.
Darkvision isn't really that big a deal If your DM is playing by the rules. Because darkvision only makes you see in darkness as if it were dim light, whenever you are relying solely on darkvision on you should be getting disadvantage on every roll that requires sight, so even if everyone has darkvision you really want to use a light source anyway
Not a fan of the fact that disengage works for every enemy on the board, not just the one engaged with, even if you go through multiple threatened areas.
My biggest issue with xp for gold was always the transient nature of wealth. If you're a Dragon maybe this makes sense, but players don't just pile it higher and higher and sleep on it. If you robbed a liquor store and recieved 100 gp, then just threw it in a dumpster and kept walking, do you keep the xp? At least xp for killin things can't be metagamed like that.
Casters don't usually roll, because most of their spells are A.O.E.
Rolling once to hit multiple targets, wouldn't make sense.
(Unless your talking about combat spells that automaticly sucseed, like Magic-missile, and counterspell.)
Very well done video! You inspired me to adapt your initiative system to my games and it has done wonders for me!