I use the aggro rule. The more dangerous you appear the more enemy attention you get. Example Garg and Thaddeus Garg is an orc barbarian bristling with weapons and muscle Currently standing there aggro 10 Thaddeus is a short waif skinny frightened looking elf Currently aggro 1-2 Garg is wasting fools so he gets most the attention Someone swings on Thaddeus and chain lightening goes off now attention switches as Thaddeus is now considered artillery aggro 10 Explanation: Enemies know if the mob the barb they can maybe subdue him But the now wizard could wipe them all before getting close waiving fingers
I want modules. In 3rd and 4th edition, they did away with modules. In 5e, it's all $40-50 hardcover campaigns. (an adventure that takes players through multiple tiers of play is a campaign) Bring back modules. Not DMs Guild stuff, professionally written and produced adventures. Heck do series of adventures. I would even be fine with updated 1st and 2nd edition adventures, provided I don't have to pay for the nostalgia. (I'm looking at you, Goodman games) Hell, I'd even pay an effing subscription fee to get professional grade adventures every month. I'm adapting the Isle of Dread for my little 5e group (2 players + 1 DMPC supporter) and it's hard. Bring back the modules!
@@keithulhu I think what eric peterson was getting at is that yes they have a 5e conversion but the book has a history of the adventure section, the original print, and some other nostalgia stuff along with the conversion and it will cost you about $70 for the book. So you have to pay through the nose or you have to become a pirate. Arrgh.
I definitely think that decreasing the number the number of spell slots casters get would create some very interesting resource managment problems. It would introduce a whole new level of stategy into the game.
1. I'm completely indifferent to when subclasses & features kick-in--it's never impacted my DMing 2. I've never liked Rangers from their inception in AD&D--it has an even thinner basis than the Barbarian IMO--but I can't say their balance (before or now) made any impact on my campaigns 3. Paladins are strong, but it's never imbalanced my campaign and most players steer clear either because they don't like the flavour or (for newbies) it seems overly complicated; it also solves the problem of no one wanting to play a cleric (a habitual one in my groups) 4. I have mixed feelings about campaign settings vs adventure books--it's more about quality than either/or for me; the Forgotten Realms was tired before 5e came out, so a break form it is nice, but I make my own settings so other than borrowing there's not much incentive to pick-up a world book; the principal problem with adventure books (collections or full campaigns) is most are highly flawed, so if they were written better I'd love to see more 5. Barbarians are very popular with my players, especially newbies, so I'm content with them being what they are 6. I agree about sandbox campaigns being overrated; I think it suits old school AD&D players, but most players *want* direction, they just don't want to feel railroaded 7. There's a risk of losing distinctiveness if everything becomes detachable from the template, but on the whole I don't disagree (what's appealing about classic fantasy races *is* the fluff behind them, after all) 8. Yes, monsters aren't built properly b/c the math assumes 5-6 encounters when most groups only have 1-2; 3rd party content tries to address this, but especially at higher levels you always have to tweak things 9. Your idea for a baseline for checks isn't a bad one--I haven't had specific issues with passives, but (like everything else) higher play doesn't really adjust for player scores (probably because most players don't go beyond 7th level) 10. Completely disagree about spellcasters (presumably you're excluding the already limited warlock/sorcerer); given that most groups are only doing 1-2 encounters per long rest, that imbalance of options simply isn't a factor; it's also hard to get new players to play spellcasters (they find it overwhelming), so the incentive of variety is a good one for veterans who want to take up the burden.
For 10 he wasn’t saying the amount of options. He’s saying how many times those options can be brought to bear. With only 1-2 encounters spellcasters bever run out of spell slots so they can shoot leveled spells out every turn.
@@arttuluttinen well I think more people have experienced the issue than those who haven’t given the glut of videos about the disparity of martials and casters so probably not. And couldn’t the reverse be said about you? That maybe it’s you and the idiosyncratic way your group plays that makes it not an issue.
I rule passive ability scores as "Hints". When you enter a room, I will often say, if I know someone has a really strong and passive perception, I say "You get a feeling that is something off". I rule it as gut instinct.
Agreed. I think a rework to make them a FULL tank would be awesome. Make their unarmored defense be just their Con score, add some sentinel-esque battlefield control and you’re perfect
Yea the barbarian has quiet a bit of subclasses going around. The base class needs improvement and to be made more desirable after level 5. I think your fighter fix in your previous video would address alot. Particularly the super strength thing. Imean hell barbarians grabbing goblins and chucking them is already a thing might as well have them go full Samson/Hercules on things. They should automatically count as 1 size larger for terms of grappling at later levels say level 10. Then you can have a barbarian wrestling a huge Dragon. The UA barbarian would then be able to grapple a tarrasque.
1) I agree that all classes should get their subclasses at the same level, but I think 3rd level is a reasonable point in time for this to be made, following the advised level progression rate. 2nd still feels too early. One D&D aims to shift all classes to get their subclass at 3rd level, though I recognize this video came out prior to that revelation. 2) Rangers were only ever "bad" because a great deal of their abilities was subject to DM fiat. While Tasha's has done a lot to improve them, I think the One D&D version is how they should have been released initially in 5e; true experts of the wilderness without half their features rendered useless outside of a specific terrain or when not fighting a specific monster. 3) I feel Clerics are more overpowered than Paladins. Paladins are great for bursting but once their very limited resources are spent, they're relatively useless. Never have I had trouble balancing encounters around paladins. 4) I disagree completely. While I don't care for the restrictions of a module, I know many people who find creating their own world too intimidating or too time consuming. They are a valuable asset, not only for newer DMs, or those who use a less off the cuff style, but also for those who just don't have the time to invest in writing everything out. The only thing I can see is that the structure of the adventures should be a little more lenient and easier to slot things in or out. That's why it's called a module, after all. It's modular. - DISCLAIMER: I recognize that since AD&D, they've been called Adventures and that the term Module has largely been maintained by the player base. 5) I disagree again. Barbarians have a great deal of purposes. Totem and Zealot Barbarians are nigh unkillable, Ancestral Guardian provides what amounts to ACTUAL Tanking mechanics, others offer considerable offensive power. Fighter and Barbarian can fulfill very different roles. 6) This is the first point I agree with completely. I've tried a Sandbox concept since it sounds amazing in theory, but none of my players were able to really find the adventure possibilities, of which I'd constructed countless. I had bread crumbs and options everywhere, but everyone just meandered aimlessly waiting for the adventure to happen (despite their buy-in ahead of time knowing it'd be sandboxed), and I had to keep providing direct hooks. About a half dozen sessions in, I put the campaign on hiatus so I could redesign in its entirely to be more traditional. A worthy experiment, no doubt, but a failed a one. 7) I completely disagree. One D&D went the correct route with removing Ability Score from the race, instead baking it into the background which makes a lot more sense anyway. The specific biological features of a race should remain tied to that race. Otherwise, people will just min-max characters to be the most bizarre shit that likely won't even make sense in your world. 8) I kind of agree, but kind of don't. I think the CR system needs a lot of work and clarification for newer DMs. It's obviously impossible to have a system that covers the difficult of a creature because it's offensive and defensive abilities can vary. In addition, certain factors can massively affect how dangerous a creature is beyond the numbers. It should be made more clear to DMs that if they're running fewer encounters, they should be harder, and if their players are steamrolling things, try turning it up a notch until they're not. Another factor glossed over in the DMG is Action Economy, and just how much it can swing the tide of battle. When running creatures not of my own design, I tend to stick to their stat blocks, rarely feeling the need to modify them unless my party is under/overleveled. 9) I disagree that Passives should be removed, but I do believe they are misused a great deal. A passive comes into play in two circumstances. One is when you need to know how observant your party is being without making them roll, thereby giving away the fact that something worth nothing is in the area. If you rolled Stealth for an ambush predator, the player's passive comes into play. The other is when you need a creature to have a minimum chance of success. If I call for a roll and someone rolls under their passive in a non-stressful environment, I'll give them their passive. If it's the middle of combat or some other encounter that takes up their focus, I'll stick with whatever they rolled. If a player built a character specifically for noticing traps and such, and that's how they want to play the character, you have plenty of tools in your bag to challenge the party without taking away from the player. 10) I disagree that halving a spellcaster's spell slots is a good solution. It'd mean that for the early game, a caster is practically worthless. Martials have the benefit of rarely needing to recharge abilities, and they tend to recharge on a short rest. I do feel martials are somewhat underpowered, though I have been working on a system that I think could help with that. I'm hoping the Warrior Test Packet for One D&D fixes this on its own by allowing martials to do more with weapons, but if not I'll probably finish my system. While I may not agree with majority of what you've put forth here, I do believe it's good that you did. When an idea is proposed, people who may have never even considered the idea begin to think about it. This creates a discourse that can often lead to several variant system ideas being brought up. Over time, most of them will cease to resemble their original selves as they are transformed by the perspectives of many, allowing a handful of viable alternatives to come of it.
Barbarians are one of the best tanks. Bear totem. Have one of the best front line healer subclasses with the ancestral guardian. Reckless attack is incredible. Zealot Barbarian is best for more damage. Barbarians also have the beastial subclass to add flavor and more hand-to-hand combat. Fighters mainly have their expertise in different fighting styles. Whereas as Barbarians offer more tank and power. Keep them separate. Monks would be seen as a better choice for worst when the majority of their good attacks use limited ki points. Barb players are some of the best Characters especially in early levels and only get surpassed in later levels. Even then ancestral guardians at 20th are basically inviolable due to their skills.
Past level 8 most Barbs are shit. If he had said that, then it'd be somewhat understandable, but to say that they are overall worse than even the Monk is just blatantly wrong lol.
Was gonna write a ridiculously long comment but I'll make a video response instead like it's 2008 all over again lmao. Love the video, and I'll comment now on just one thing. Spell casting in my opinion is just too willy-nilly in 5e. Some cantrips are kinds crazy to be used at will endlessly, and I feel like there's not enough repercussions for mages. Like if I'm a front line fighter and I make an attack against a big bad, and I miss, I might just get dunked on and wiped depending on the circumstance. Where as if I cast fireball and the big bad saves against it, he's still taking half. Like no matter what I do as a caster, unless I somehow get myself too close to danger or the dm targets me, I just don't feel threatened. I made a level 2 warlock with a plus 6 to hit with a 1d10 Eldritch Blast that I can cast as much as I want from 300ft away. If I miss? Okay I'm 300ft away. I'll just cast it again next turn. I think it's not a spell slot issue, it's a "nothing bad happens if I fuck this up" issue. Slap an arcana check on every spell you cast with the risk of taking spell damage or losing a slot. Make magic dangerous, powerful yes, but dangerous even to the caster.
1. I dislike subclasses in general, just add more classes and this mess could get sorted. 2. Rangers are fine. 3. Paladin's need a nerf, remove the cleric overlap from them would help. 4. meh, 5. Barbarians should just be Melee 6. meh 7. There are too many races, there should NOT be 32 flavors! 8. Monsters do need a slight buff, but terrain, minions, and lair actions can help bolster the core material. 9. Agreed, if the party is not looking for traps they will be after the first one hurts them. Also encourage the Dungeon Delver Feat. 10. Spell slots are dumb, but the spell list is also dumb with over 500 spells to pick from.
To be honest, I disagree with all your points, but it is refreshing to get another point of view and I see where you are coming from. I liked it and would take another 10 to brainstorm more ideas on the game we all love.
I’m glad that you commented because I definitely don’t think I’m “right” with all of these. It’s the discussion that counts. With all the new One D&D changes I’m sure these it won’t be long before I’ve got another 10. Thanks for commenting again and I hope you stick around the channel.
I agree with ½ of the things said here. Mainly in the camp of wanting more buffs to mitigate balance rather than nerfs (like nerfing the mages, buff the martials!) But love your opinion on things! Keep them coming!
@@enterthedungeon the editions of D&D before 3rd B/X, 1e, and Becmi especially, Godbound, Stars Without Number, Worlds Without Number, Adevturer Conquer King, White Hack, Black Sword Hack. Sorry it took me so long i didnt get a notification till now.
I fully agree with Hot Take number: 3_Paladin, 5_Barbarian, 6_Sandbox, 8_Damage, 9_Passive, 10_Spell-Slots I disagree with number and here is why: 1) I like to explain the advancing of PCs with storytelling. For example if a PC decides to dip into Warlock at some point I will have to prepare some kind of encounter with a Patreon that he wishes to have. This also goes for PCs when they choose their subclass and questions that arise while leveling up are: What made the cleric suddenly chose his/her Domain after fighting Goblins? To whom did the Paladin make the oath while killing rats in the basement? and so on. For some classes the subclass joice should have such a big impact on their life or backstory that it shouldnt just happened while doing some random sh*t. And it is not possible for the DM to narrate all these advancements of PCs in the early sessions. Thats why i like subclass at lvl 1 and from there the players are not common people anymore - They have chosen a Domain, Path, Oath, Way, Circle ... and this is already backstory material and has happened. 2) I somewhat agree that the ranger was a bit weak but not as much as they made him to be. Some subclasses make him now top tier, but i think he is fine. 4) I like there to be adventures for diffrent settings/enviroments/bioms/playstyles so that new and old players can either run them as they are or draw inspiration from them. For example have a fully Sandbox adventure so players learn what sandbox actually is, have a hexcrawl adventure, have a survival adventure, have an adventure on sea, desert, icy mountains etc. Also adventures in diffrent settings like Dark Sun, Birthright. I think the range on 5e adventures and them being very difrent and covering a difrent niche has been selected very good so far. There only needs to be one adventure for a specifice genre. 7) I think Race should have meaing. A 3ft halfling should not have more strength then a 7ft goliath, its unrealistic an breaks imersion for some people. Just make it an optional rule so DMs are not forces to throw away their realism when a player shows up with a reality defying character. I also like Racial abilities to be truthfull to the Race they represent Goliaths having Stones endurance because of their Stone giant ancestry or because of their harsh enviorment they live. These abilities give the race actual flavor why take it away. It doesnt have to be a core Rule, just make it optional for the tables that enjoy going crazy with their fantasy. I like mine a bit more rooted and grounded and i think its easier to go from grounded to fantastical than vice versa. I and many other People have changed race related AbilityScoreImprovements when they made sense to us before Tasha was introduced and would have done so even if it didnt come out. What i want to say is that these rules are for people to see whats possible to change, but it should not be a core rule instead a optional one. 9) Passive scores are meant to speed up the game. So the DM has not to ask to role for every trivial thing. I think its okey to remove it completly but just mentioning it in a short section that you can always just forgo roling if that character is overqualified for that trivial task. Barbarian 1ith 20STR lifting a comoner with "passive Strength" , Wizard with 20INT solving a childrens puzzle... remove the Passive scores just let the DM decide which tasks are trivial and dont have to be rolled. But if a session involves very little rolling than it is okey if the DM lets the players role even for trivial tasks so that have a success. 10) I 100% agree that Spellcasters above 5th level never gas out on Spellslots. Even if you make them use utility spells in puzzles, skillchalanges or social encounters before they get to the combat encounter they will still have enough and still remaining spell slots afterwards. D&D is meant to have way to many encounters than players actually have and this gives casters a huge adventage, because they are meant to have a finite resource. And they at the same time overshadow martials who are less dependent on these resources and could shine more when the casters are gased out.
So, disagree with hot take #4: Publishing full adventures... As a long time D&D player over pretty much every edition, the usefulness of full campaigns cannot be understated. Our table is a mix of family and friends of all ages (From teens to almost seniors) that all have different careers and lifestyles. It is hard enough for us to just find time to get together and play, let alone write our own campaigns. Setting books are great and all, but generally, we want something that can be picked up and easily run without much thought (which the campaign books do to varied degrees of success). Setting books and whatnot are fine I guess for reading and fluff purposes, but we just want to sit down and play when we have the time.
I think the best option to balance anything is to never nerf but to buff those who are lower on that power ladder. Unless of course of specific situations where someone breaks the game. Because if you nerf that one player or players they are going to get upset that you are holding them back. Heck even the players playing the “weaker” classes will be worried you might mess with them too or that now they have to put themselves in danger more often to make up for the weaker magic users. Anyway that’s my response on balance, oh and if you monsters aren’t doing enough, just add more!
Change critical hit damage bonus. Instead of doubling all damage dice, add an extra D6 untyped damage based on proficiency bonus. At low levels this is 2d6, but it ignores all resistances. It increases with level all the way to 6d6 at level 17-20. This will cut down on huge unpredictable spikes of damage, that completely neuter the DMs ability to regulate combat, but still gives a decent bonus.
Hot Take 4: Fully written campaign books are something very pleasant for any group of friends who do either dont have the time, or the talent, or the motivation to write their own stories... I don't see how they can be perceived as a bad thing? They just make the lifes of DMs easier and if a DM wants to write their own worlds with their own story, then so be it, he is allowed to do that. Settings with story skeletons exist also, so theres literally something there for everyone... so whats the issue? Hot Take 5: How are Barbarians the worst class in the game, when Monks exist? Also, no Barbarians should not be Fighters, because the whole thing of a Fighter is, that he is a trained soldiers that can use all armor, all weapons and be strategic with its usage... Meanwhile the whole thing of a barbarian is, that he is a primitive and untrained warrior who uses brute force and relies only on what nature has given him as tools... These are 2 completely different thematics that do not at all fit within the same base class and thus the class features also do not add up from a thematic perspective... Hot take 6: You literally said it yourself: some groups thrive in a sandbox themed adventure and some groups don't... why are sandbox adventures a bad thing if that is the case? A group that likes sandbox will play a sandbox and everyone is happy. I really do not get you? Did you just make a video to gather as much attention as possible, by spouting as much nonsense as you can? Hot take 7: Yes, there CAN be an elf with wings, if in the world you play there exist things like that. If you want to play something like that then make it yourself, thats why homebrew exists. Having fixed races with fixed racial features gives inexperienced players the possibility of an easy selection. One of the best things of DnD 5e, is that it is very simple in its construction. Character creation is super straightforward, but gives enough customizability to make unique feeling characters. There are more than enough rpgs out there, like Pathfinder and Shadowrun who don't restrict you as much during character creation but it takes a shit ton of time to learn and get used to those systems... If you want a game where you can choose every single feature you get at every level, then play another rpg and dont flame dnd for its simplicity...
1:04 To be clear those old original class features can only be used if the DM values a very narrow and specific type of exploration, not exploration in general.
6. I have to completely disagree with your sandbox evaluation. Firstly, NO a sandbox is not like a video game. The "Sandbox" basically is one of the original basic RPG features, video gaming took many years to achieve a form close to a sandbox. It comes down to the group when deciding between different settings and what kind of game you want, sandbox thus more episodic, narrative-driven and thus more linear, etc. But that does not make a sandbox bad. It just tells you that your players want to replay a "movie" or they want to retell a book, they want that style of game a game with an overall narrative that drives the story. Sandboxes need players who, for example, focus on either the story of their characters or approach the game with very classic "my character is me+" thus they enjoy the evolving of said character in its Stats. Or they are playing the game, especially with exploration as the overall theme. To me the big issue with narrative-driven games is that they are inherently limited - the narrative drives the game, defines a goal and thus an end to the game, When "the world has been saved" the heroes go home, like Sam does at the end of LotR. Only the players are left with a hollow feeling, they would need a new start, most often with a new character. A sandbox is a playground in which the group alone decides what will happen, not only when something happens but what at all happens. The sandbox can be expanded on very easily, thus the Story of those characters can go on - ad infinitum. Besides that, exploration-focused games or even narrative-driven games can profit from a sandbox especially due to this modularity when they are placed in a homebrew world. Sandboxing can and will make that worldbuilding process easier when applied because it focuses on the surroundings, the things nearby that do matter to and affect the characters. 7. WotC does not do away with that race stuff because of evolution for the better. They do away with it because it is Zeitgeist. The majority of the players are younger people (below 35) and those people have a certain stance on the "darker" side of things. Things like race/species, slavery, gender roles etc. It is a concession to that group of players who want to eat the cake and still keep it. Players who want to really "be whatever they like to be" just like their parents told them the world would be. In a magic fantasy world that is really a possibility, thus WotC sees the potential to be "politically, racially and socially enlightened" and that is OK I mean they want to sell stuff and we, their customers, are really not known for their unbreakable strong tights to reality. Are we? Still, I do like a healthy dose of realism in my games and my settings. Consequently, I do not like those changes and they have been one of my core reasons to leave D&D5e behind, go back to BECMI, other fantasy RPGs and my own WIP homebrew system.
1. Passive Perception has already been described by the design team as a "floor" for active perception. 2. Passive skills are not meant to replace active checks and it is 100% the DM's choice when to use passive or active skills. 2a. There is a difference between what can be noticed passively vs what can be noticed when actively searching. 3. The 5e SRD describes passive skills as representing either "an average result" for repeated checks over time--or--a way to handle secret checks. 3a. Repeating procedures on a room-by-room basis (search the room, check for traps, investigate every object) is boring and mechanics that incentivize this are far more problematic than mechanics that provide tools for streamlining this process. 3b. In the example of secret checks, passive scores are also useful as a DC for the DM to roll against. Instead of doing opposed perception vs sneak you can just have the hidden monster roll stealth against the players' passive perception scores. Passive perception is your AC vs getting surprised by something unseen; passive insight is your AC vs being deceived by someone who seems trustworthy, etc. In conclusion, passive scores are so unobtrusive, so easy to calculate, so useful, and so flexible that "removing" them doesn't really even mean anything. I'd honestly be fine with removing it from the character sheet...the regular perception score is still there and I know how to add 10. It would still be a really good tool to have in the DM's arsenal and I would continue to use it whenever I feel like it is appropriate.
I fully agree passive abilities tied to skills are terrible and need to be reworked. And for spell slots...the point about the adventuring day as written not being reflective of modern game reality is SO TRUE. Not sure i agree with reducing spell slots as the solution, but the issue is definitely with the game being designed around an adventuring day that isn't true to reality.
I'm certainly not the first to say this but we need more RP abilities and spells. As someone who would rather RP and investigate it would be nice to get some abilities and spells to help with that too. Idk how but someone will figure it out
With someone who has a shit tons of passive perception I would literally overfeed them information as they do noticed them and with probability or certitude depending of what I want to give of things perceived. "You travel in a forest and hear noises in the bushes 50 feet away" it was a rabbit, "You can see deers a mile away on the mountainside" "you notice a trap on the ground but is suspisiously obvious to notice" it is a distraction from the real trap or something like that. So the player who invested in it didn't waste his point with me making it punishing and he has to think about what to do with said information while not completely ruin the feeling of exploration.
I agree on the Barbarian, but more so that they need something to help them, either additional feats or that 3rd attack, something. I don't think they will work as a fighter subclass they already have a few stinkers in there. I also agree on the Ranger, the remake was decent and now they are on par with other martials (not the Paladin). On the Paladin, and the spell slots I disagree. Maybe some DMs are allowing Paladins to play like fighters with magic, but they are supposed to be faith-based. This means they have other things to spend their coin on and certain behaviors in their code to adhere too. That needs to be enforced at the table. I've seen too many Paladins hoarding gold, stripping bodies or looting crypts and while good role play can get you by these and still get the money, it needs to be done and not just played like a fighter with extra powers and no additional limitations. As for the spell slots, you may need to review the other pillars of your game to ensure some magic is being used for the social and exploration pillars. If it is one combat after another and concentration checks aren't being rolled as they should, then spellcasters can get away with 1 concentration spell and some cantrips per fight. Monsters are smart and know to break concentration on spellcasters, or at least try. I believe the number of slots is adequate, just review all pillars and combat timing to ensure you haven't fallen in to a predictable pattern with your game design. Maybe the NPC gives the info if the players use magic to help him first, causing a spell slot of two to be used up before they get told where the Owlbear territory is.
Monk is clearly the weakest . barbs can do good damage at least . bring back 3.5 monk . they dont get healing and they dont get spells and they dont get expertise. let the monk do what its supposed to and wreck face. stunning strike sucks move it too a subclass so people cant use it to keep holding the monk back
The main difference is that a fighter, rogue, monk, all recharge all of their abilities on a short rest or have no abilities to recharge. Meaning that with less spell slots most mages will run out of steam incredibly fast when you consider they are the only class who have to use resources out of combat. (Rogues have no resources and monks fighters and barbarians aren’t tossing 90% off their class features throughout a given day) while in order to sneak into a castle it might require multiple spell slots or at least a few higher ones for the wizard to be effective, along with having to be useful during the fight because lets admit it cantrip damage is a LAST RESORT and incredible low powered. You mean to tell me a wizard gets one spell all the way up until 3rd level?!
Coming in super late, but regarding the sandbox take: the issue I was having (and what I imagine lots of other DMs encounter) is that I felt stranded alone with a ton of responsibility. Like, I'm not a writer. I dont think I could write a great story totally on my own on paper; let alone in a game where I dont control my main characters. But my players sit down every game expecting a fun time and an entertaining story. That constant pressure is exhausting and burns me out hard. I think people try sandboxes in the hope that the players will give the DM more direction and take that pressure away. At least that's what I wanted. To that end, what's worked for me is talking to your players between sessions about what their goal is in the next session. Depending on what your group is like and how confident a writer you are, that can be free form like a total sandbox, somewhat guided where you provide a few options that the players choose from, or even as directed as saying "I'm planning that you all are going to go to *this place* for *this reason* please let me know if that isn't cool" For me, getting that player buy in before the session had even started let me focus my planning, gave me more confidence that what I prepped was valuable, and helped make me feel like I wasn't alone putting all of the work into the game.
From the DMG - "Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer." Most parties "can handle" 6 to 8 encounters (I'm assuming they are referring to fighting encounters and not every other type of encounter that's possible). That does not mean that they should be expecting to have that many every day. Besides becoming a complete slog and boring for most parties, even in a fantasy world/game that's not realistic at all, unless you're running an insanely monster-filled arena of a world. Even Mad Max had "days off". I'm pretty sure you know all that, but I've seen too many people talk like this is some sort of "rule" or expectation. I do agree with a lot of your takes (especially passive skills), though I don't think spell slots are an issue. If magic using types need to choose what spells they have available for the day, that is a fairly limiting thing. So is making sure that the party doesn't take multiple long rests in a day. My table gets one per 24-hour period except in exceptional circumstances (which I tell them about). Short rests are fine, but most spell slots only recover on long rests. Also, wizards max out at four 1st level spells, even at level 20, and 2nd-5th max out at three, 6th & 7th max at two, and 8th & 9th max at one. Combine that with having to choose which ones to know for the adventuring day and, while they wield some very kick ass power, the beasties they encounter could/should be such that they will need to choose what they cast carefully. Most of their cantrips are trivial once they gain any significant levels. JMHO. Anyway, another great video. Glad I found you out here.
I disagree with you on the free racial ability one. It's not because I think that this wouldn't be fun, but because it would allow Minmaxers to build characters that are completely broken, who are almost impossible to integrate into an existing campaign. Let's just say flying turtles everywhere... And it would also lead to some racial abilities being completely forgotten about despite them being really interesting lire wise. We can see this exact thing already happining with feats.
I agree with the first hot take all classes should get subclass features at same lv y must a sorcerer have to wait till lv 14 and 18 for their last feature where where other cast get their final subclass feature by lv 14
Unfortunately, the Barbarian bit is 100% accurate. I play a "Barbarian" but in truth I only have 3 levels of Barbarian and 10 levels of fighter currently... you get all the Barbarian you need at level 3.
Passive checks should be reworked. Maybe remove the base and only make it your modifier. Now you can actually use it as a "no roll under passives" because it's not an insane number like 17, but WIS + PROF etc
I can understand the "paladins are overpowered" thing, but I'm not sure about the argument that they can forefeel all roles. Virtually every spellcaster can; with different efficiency, but still. You can say that no class should be able to do that, and it's a valid opinion as well, but... It would be just a different system at that point. Also, *every* fight being deadly gets stale at some point, and it has nothing to do with balance, it just isn't fun.
The only problem I have with consistently leveled subclasses is that a patronless warlock and a bloodline lacking sorcerer make no sense to me. Maybe I just lack creativity, but I cannot find a way to explain these two things, they seem like walking contradictions.
Perhaps you are visited by a patron but they don't reveal to you their true identity and give you some small powers as a test. Later they reveal themselves and fully take you on as a patron. As a sorcerer you start manifesting natural magical abilities that can't be from any other source then your heritage eventually after growing and learning more about your magic your able to identify where it must have came from in your ancestry. For me it's paladins that are the biggest issue how are you a paladin and you don't even know your oath?
as a totem barbarian main, suck these balls. i would like an action surge, oh wait i dipped a few levels into the fighter, got it and am making my dm lose years of her life by action surging while hasted, attacking an extra time as a bonus action because of great weapon master, effectivelly attacking 6 times with advantage (reckless atk) and adding +10 damage to all attacks (gwm) and doing 143 damage in 1 turn, without critting, at level 6. On a side note, a lvl 20 Beast path barbarian of mine had a health pool of fucking 460 hp, not to mention rage or for its constant regeneration each turn because of the path features. this was without any con increasing magical items.
I agree with rangers being great, wizards of the coast needing to release more classes and campaign settings and passive ability checks sucks. I also agree that barbarians are odd but I want a rework for them, not to be made fighters. Everything else I strongly disagree with.
0:00 *Intro :* Yea why not. 0:38 *Ranger :* Yea they buffed them, now they are not the worst class and they are pretty good now. I don't see a problem here. You yourself admited that "Rangers now are one of the best design class in DnD 5th edition and its big turnaround." - and I don't understand, is it bad? You said they are well design so thats good...? 1:14 *Paladin :* Yea they are strong. They are not that good at range and they are not as tanky as Barbarians. They can deal, not consistent, big single-target dps dmg, support with healing and they aura. They are versatile martial art class like wizards in spellcaster type classes. Are they strong? Yes but there always be the strongest&weakest class in all/all types of classes. 2:03 *WoTC :* Matter of preference. Everybody have they own opinion. I say let them release what they want. If they want to release something that customers wants then let them. 3:09 *Barbarian :* No. Just no. Monks are the weakest class, right now, by far. Barbarian have its own strength. If you want to compare its to fighter, classes alone without subclasses then fine. Fighter has Action "Action Surge" which is more chance to do one action, mostly attack which is just more chances to hit. Once-Twice per short/long rest. Barbarian has Recless Attack which is advantage on a attack-rolls on their turn, no limit usadge. It gives everyone else advantage to attack Barb but they have the biggest HP from all the classes and are encouraged to boost CON from their features so you can lay on your HP and AC from CON. Also Recless Attack works very well with Great Weapon Master. I will let people decide what they think is better. Just remmember Barbs dmg comes from number not rolls, when fighters from numbers of attacks that may or may not miss. 3:55 *Sandbox :* Have to agree. Sandboxes are not bad for dawntime, for simple looking around the town but still they are mostly boring. 5:27 *Race :* People do/will do what they want. I do what I want. 6:45 *Damage :* No. Tarrasque has +19 to hit which means it almost always hits. Rogue with Light Armor +3 and max DEX has 20 AC. You can get high AC but on average its around 20-23. Also on average PC have around 82-142 HP from Wizard to Barb with 0 CON mod. Tarrasque can deal on its turn, on average, 148 dmg. It needs to hit but +19 to hit means that at 23 Armor it has 80% to hit which you could take like: 148*0,8=118,4. So no, more damage is not the answear. I agree that there is a problem with amount of encounters and their difficulty, but more damage is not the good answear. 7:58 *Passives :* Almost always you need to look only on Passive Perception. Which mostly has the partys "scout" (not necessarily rogue) so you need to look only at his/her Passive Perception. At worst you can have Cleric that is not partys scout (bc of heavy armor) but with highest Perception. The omg those are 2 numbers to remember. Its not like you cen write them down. Also I don't understand the argument "they can see every hidden door". Is that bad? Are they not supposed to see it for the story to went on? If you don't want them to see it why are you placing it in the first place? Its sounds more like "I don't know what I want so its the system problem.". And if trap is very well hidden you can give your players disadvantage on Perc. rolls which is -5 to passive Perc. Traps that are "roll to see" are like "roll to not get dmg before an encounter" or "I want to kill you but don't want to too obvious about it". And with the idea of profficiency it sounds like you just want to make passives lower. You do you, but why? Idk. 7:58 *Spell slots :* I understand the problem of the encounter amount but first you want to boost dmg and now cut half spellslots of spellcasters? You realy just wants them dead, right? And why warlocks excluded? they have 2 slots for every short/long rest so they have from 2 -> 6 spell slots a day. And also low amount of encounter bring paladin to better place bc of divine smite. Why you don't cut it in half too? And why only Paladin Arcane Trickster, Ranger all other half-casters too. Full-casters outpacing half-casters?! How dare they! If you wan't harder campaigns, bc this sounds like it, then play warhammer fantasy 2nd edition. DnD is narrative game. You can still makes hard fight without "more dmg, nerfs or more encounters" but you need to think more about it.
While i can agree that spell casters do need some sort of rework i think just a flat cutting slot numbers in half is lazy solution that would feel terrible. Full casters are looking at about 11 spells at max level. Or too put it another way averaging about a single spell slot every 2 level ups. The experience is going to feel terrible at low levels. Their should just be a more fundmental rework than just trying to limit all magic users to a single spell perr combat if they dont want too risk exhauting their entire arsenal too early in the day
I geniuenly agree with a lot of hot takes such as ranger and barbarian. But with sandbox campains? really? I mean of course as a DM sandbox campains are difficult so build coz you need a lot of prep time and you need to be able to go with every idea your players have. If your players dont find the initiative and dont know what to do, you need to take the initiative as the DM. Meaning you as a DM need to do a lot more then just throw one thing at the players. Plus, in a sandbox, the idea is not only the players do this one thing, it is to experience the world they are living in with every detail. What plants life where, so certain animals life somewhere and they need to find the feather of a speical bird to craft the potion they want to make, and now need to make a small journey to the place the animal lives. And of course as a DM, you need to tell the players, that they need to have a goal for themselfs. and if they have a problem selecting one or came to a halt, you as a DM need to give them a reason to have a different one. Maybe someone is threatning to burn down the tavern they just build to spend the rest of their time in it. Give them a reason so they need to leave the place they settled down on. They are a lot of possibilities but you just need to understand how to actually play such a sandbox. So yeah if your sandbox sucks its the DMs fault or the playerdynamic is horrible. If your DM is good and your playerdynamic is right it works.
and btw a dwarf with a turtle shell sounds horrible and no one should ever do that because I know 1-2 players who would abuse that so hard that I would never player D&D afterwards
I think point buy races would work best with beast races so we dont get 50 new ones with each book Cr should be able to divided by the party, so if you have 5 people against a cr 30 you need to be level 6 The passive stats are big pain when teaching new players
Here's a hot take make proficiency progression in single +1 steps in the six steps that there are. "Oh but 20/6 don't jive' Uh yeah it does it's 3r2 put the one remainder at the front to get an early jump and the second on the backend seeing there's very little tied to it at that point anyway, seriously 20th should be about capstone abilities.
I agree with pretty much all of them except the racial buffet. As a DM that prefer my own setting, I don't want to have to design lore and cultures around some elves having fucking wings or ninja turtle dwarves. This was your stupid hot take.
I use the aggro rule.
The more dangerous you appear the more enemy attention you get.
Example Garg and Thaddeus
Garg is an orc barbarian bristling with weapons and muscle
Currently standing there aggro 10
Thaddeus is a short waif skinny frightened looking elf
Currently aggro 1-2
Garg is wasting fools so he gets most the attention
Someone swings on Thaddeus and chain lightening goes off now attention switches as Thaddeus is now considered artillery aggro 10
Explanation:
Enemies know if the mob the barb they can maybe subdue him
But the now wizard could wipe them all before getting close waiving fingers
Speaking of adventures, I want to see more soft cover, stand alone adventures like there was in every prior edition of D&D.
I want modules. In 3rd and 4th edition, they did away with modules. In 5e, it's all $40-50 hardcover campaigns. (an adventure that takes players through multiple tiers of play is a campaign) Bring back modules. Not DMs Guild stuff, professionally written and produced adventures. Heck do series of adventures. I would even be fine with updated 1st and 2nd edition adventures, provided I don't have to pay for the nostalgia. (I'm looking at you, Goodman games) Hell, I'd even pay an effing subscription fee to get professional grade adventures every month. I'm adapting the Isle of Dread for my little 5e group (2 players + 1 DMPC supporter) and it's hard. Bring back the modules!
@@ericpeterson8732 Goodman Games has a 5e conversion for Isle of Dread.
@@keithulhu I think what eric peterson was getting at is that yes they have a 5e conversion but the book has a history of the adventure section, the original print, and some other nostalgia stuff along with the conversion and it will cost you about $70 for the book. So you have to pay through the nose or you have to become a pirate. Arrgh.
I definitely think that decreasing the number the number of spell slots casters get would create some very interesting resource managment problems. It would introduce a whole new level of stategy into the game.
1. I'm completely indifferent to when subclasses & features kick-in--it's never impacted my DMing
2. I've never liked Rangers from their inception in AD&D--it has an even thinner basis than the Barbarian IMO--but I can't say their balance (before or now) made any impact on my campaigns
3. Paladins are strong, but it's never imbalanced my campaign and most players steer clear either because they don't like the flavour or (for newbies) it seems overly complicated; it also solves the problem of no one wanting to play a cleric (a habitual one in my groups)
4. I have mixed feelings about campaign settings vs adventure books--it's more about quality than either/or for me; the Forgotten Realms was tired before 5e came out, so a break form it is nice, but I make my own settings so other than borrowing there's not much incentive to pick-up a world book; the principal problem with adventure books (collections or full campaigns) is most are highly flawed, so if they were written better I'd love to see more
5. Barbarians are very popular with my players, especially newbies, so I'm content with them being what they are
6. I agree about sandbox campaigns being overrated; I think it suits old school AD&D players, but most players *want* direction, they just don't want to feel railroaded
7. There's a risk of losing distinctiveness if everything becomes detachable from the template, but on the whole I don't disagree (what's appealing about classic fantasy races *is* the fluff behind them, after all)
8. Yes, monsters aren't built properly b/c the math assumes 5-6 encounters when most groups only have 1-2; 3rd party content tries to address this, but especially at higher levels you always have to tweak things
9. Your idea for a baseline for checks isn't a bad one--I haven't had specific issues with passives, but (like everything else) higher play doesn't really adjust for player scores (probably because most players don't go beyond 7th level)
10. Completely disagree about spellcasters (presumably you're excluding the already limited warlock/sorcerer); given that most groups are only doing 1-2 encounters per long rest, that imbalance of options simply isn't a factor; it's also hard to get new players to play spellcasters (they find it overwhelming), so the incentive of variety is a good one for veterans who want to take up the burden.
For 10 he wasn’t saying the amount of options. He’s saying how many times those options can be brought to bear. With only 1-2 encounters spellcasters bever run out of spell slots so they can shoot leveled spells out every turn.
@@dmichael8213 That's never been problematic for me.
@@arttuluttinen good for you I guess but it seems like mages are balanced around more encounters so when there are less they seem unbalanced
@@dmichael8213 As I haven't had the problem, is the system really the issue or is it the people using it?
@@arttuluttinen well I think more people have experienced the issue than those who haven’t given the glut of videos about the disparity of martials and casters so probably not. And couldn’t the reverse be said about you? That maybe it’s you and the idiosyncratic way your group plays that makes it not an issue.
I rule passive ability scores as "Hints". When you enter a room, I will often say, if I know someone has a really strong and passive perception, I say "You get a feeling that is something off". I rule it as gut instinct.
I agree with most of these. Maybe not with the barbarian, but the rest I'm in afull agreeance and they are all very well reasoned.
Agreed. I think a rework to make them a FULL tank would be awesome. Make their unarmored defense be just their Con score, add some sentinel-esque battlefield control and you’re perfect
Yea the barbarian has quiet a bit of subclasses going around. The base class needs improvement and to be made more desirable after level 5. I think your fighter fix in your previous video would address alot. Particularly the super strength thing. Imean hell barbarians grabbing goblins and chucking them is already a thing might as well have them go full Samson/Hercules on things. They should automatically count as 1 size larger for terms of grappling at later levels say level 10. Then you can have a barbarian wrestling a huge Dragon. The UA barbarian would then be able to grapple a tarrasque.
1) I agree that all classes should get their subclasses at the same level, but I think 3rd level is a reasonable point in time for this to be made, following the advised level progression rate. 2nd still feels too early. One D&D aims to shift all classes to get their subclass at 3rd level, though I recognize this video came out prior to that revelation.
2) Rangers were only ever "bad" because a great deal of their abilities was subject to DM fiat. While Tasha's has done a lot to improve them, I think the One D&D version is how they should have been released initially in 5e; true experts of the wilderness without half their features rendered useless outside of a specific terrain or when not fighting a specific monster.
3) I feel Clerics are more overpowered than Paladins. Paladins are great for bursting but once their very limited resources are spent, they're relatively useless. Never have I had trouble balancing encounters around paladins.
4) I disagree completely. While I don't care for the restrictions of a module, I know many people who find creating their own world too intimidating or too time consuming. They are a valuable asset, not only for newer DMs, or those who use a less off the cuff style, but also for those who just don't have the time to invest in writing everything out. The only thing I can see is that the structure of the adventures should be a little more lenient and easier to slot things in or out. That's why it's called a module, after all. It's modular. - DISCLAIMER: I recognize that since AD&D, they've been called Adventures and that the term Module has largely been maintained by the player base.
5) I disagree again. Barbarians have a great deal of purposes. Totem and Zealot Barbarians are nigh unkillable, Ancestral Guardian provides what amounts to ACTUAL Tanking mechanics, others offer considerable offensive power. Fighter and Barbarian can fulfill very different roles.
6) This is the first point I agree with completely. I've tried a Sandbox concept since it sounds amazing in theory, but none of my players were able to really find the adventure possibilities, of which I'd constructed countless. I had bread crumbs and options everywhere, but everyone just meandered aimlessly waiting for the adventure to happen (despite their buy-in ahead of time knowing it'd be sandboxed), and I had to keep providing direct hooks. About a half dozen sessions in, I put the campaign on hiatus so I could redesign in its entirely to be more traditional. A worthy experiment, no doubt, but a failed a one.
7) I completely disagree. One D&D went the correct route with removing Ability Score from the race, instead baking it into the background which makes a lot more sense anyway. The specific biological features of a race should remain tied to that race. Otherwise, people will just min-max characters to be the most bizarre shit that likely won't even make sense in your world.
8) I kind of agree, but kind of don't. I think the CR system needs a lot of work and clarification for newer DMs. It's obviously impossible to have a system that covers the difficult of a creature because it's offensive and defensive abilities can vary. In addition, certain factors can massively affect how dangerous a creature is beyond the numbers. It should be made more clear to DMs that if they're running fewer encounters, they should be harder, and if their players are steamrolling things, try turning it up a notch until they're not. Another factor glossed over in the DMG is Action Economy, and just how much it can swing the tide of battle. When running creatures not of my own design, I tend to stick to their stat blocks, rarely feeling the need to modify them unless my party is under/overleveled.
9) I disagree that Passives should be removed, but I do believe they are misused a great deal. A passive comes into play in two circumstances. One is when you need to know how observant your party is being without making them roll, thereby giving away the fact that something worth nothing is in the area. If you rolled Stealth for an ambush predator, the player's passive comes into play.
The other is when you need a creature to have a minimum chance of success. If I call for a roll and someone rolls under their passive in a non-stressful environment, I'll give them their passive. If it's the middle of combat or some other encounter that takes up their focus, I'll stick with whatever they rolled. If a player built a character specifically for noticing traps and such, and that's how they want to play the character, you have plenty of tools in your bag to challenge the party without taking away from the player.
10) I disagree that halving a spellcaster's spell slots is a good solution. It'd mean that for the early game, a caster is practically worthless. Martials have the benefit of rarely needing to recharge abilities, and they tend to recharge on a short rest. I do feel martials are somewhat underpowered, though I have been working on a system that I think could help with that. I'm hoping the Warrior Test Packet for One D&D fixes this on its own by allowing martials to do more with weapons, but if not I'll probably finish my system.
While I may not agree with majority of what you've put forth here, I do believe it's good that you did. When an idea is proposed, people who may have never even considered the idea begin to think about it. This creates a discourse that can often lead to several variant system ideas being brought up. Over time, most of them will cease to resemble their original selves as they are transformed by the perspectives of many, allowing a handful of viable alternatives to come of it.
this
Barbarians are one of the best tanks. Bear totem. Have one of the best front line healer subclasses with the ancestral guardian. Reckless attack is incredible. Zealot Barbarian is best for more damage.
Barbarians also have the beastial subclass to add flavor and more hand-to-hand combat.
Fighters mainly have their expertise in different fighting styles. Whereas as Barbarians offer more tank and power.
Keep them separate. Monks would be seen as a better choice for worst when the majority of their good attacks use limited ki points.
Barb players are some of the best Characters especially in early levels and only get surpassed in later levels. Even then ancestral guardians at 20th are basically inviolable due to their skills.
Past level 8 most Barbs are shit. If he had said that, then it'd be somewhat understandable, but to say that they are overall worse than even the Monk is just blatantly wrong lol.
Was gonna write a ridiculously long comment but I'll make a video response instead like it's 2008 all over again lmao. Love the video, and I'll comment now on just one thing.
Spell casting in my opinion is just too willy-nilly in 5e. Some cantrips are kinds crazy to be used at will endlessly, and I feel like there's not enough repercussions for mages. Like if I'm a front line fighter and I make an attack against a big bad, and I miss, I might just get dunked on and wiped depending on the circumstance. Where as if I cast fireball and the big bad saves against it, he's still taking half. Like no matter what I do as a caster, unless I somehow get myself too close to danger or the dm targets me, I just don't feel threatened.
I made a level 2 warlock with a plus 6 to hit with a 1d10 Eldritch Blast that I can cast as much as I want from 300ft away. If I miss? Okay I'm 300ft away. I'll just cast it again next turn.
I think it's not a spell slot issue, it's a "nothing bad happens if I fuck this up" issue. Slap an arcana check on every spell you cast with the risk of taking spell damage or losing a slot. Make magic dangerous, powerful yes, but dangerous even to the caster.
1. I dislike subclasses in general, just add more classes and this mess could get sorted.
2. Rangers are fine.
3. Paladin's need a nerf, remove the cleric overlap from them would help.
4. meh, 5. Barbarians should just be Melee 6. meh
7. There are too many races, there should NOT be 32 flavors!
8. Monsters do need a slight buff, but terrain, minions, and lair actions can help bolster the core material.
9. Agreed, if the party is not looking for traps they will be after the first one hurts them. Also encourage the Dungeon Delver Feat.
10. Spell slots are dumb, but the spell list is also dumb with over 500 spells to pick from.
To be honest, I disagree with all your points, but it is refreshing to get another point of view and I see where you are coming from. I liked it and would take another 10 to brainstorm more ideas on the game we all love.
I’m glad that you commented because I definitely don’t think I’m “right” with all of these. It’s the discussion that counts. With all the new One D&D changes I’m sure these it won’t be long before I’ve got another 10.
Thanks for commenting again and I hope you stick around the channel.
I agree with ½ of the things said here. Mainly in the camp of wanting more buffs to mitigate balance rather than nerfs (like nerfing the mages, buff the martials!)
But love your opinion on things! Keep them coming!
Sandboxes are easy, its just 5e doesnt support it because its a game for babies.
Is there a game system you recommend that is better for sandboxes?
@@enterthedungeon the editions of D&D before 3rd B/X, 1e, and Becmi especially, Godbound, Stars Without Number, Worlds Without Number, Adevturer Conquer King, White Hack, Black Sword Hack. Sorry it took me so long i didnt get a notification till now.
I fully agree with Hot Take number: 3_Paladin, 5_Barbarian, 6_Sandbox, 8_Damage, 9_Passive, 10_Spell-Slots
I disagree with number and here is why:
1) I like to explain the advancing of PCs with storytelling. For example if a PC decides to dip into Warlock at some point I will have to prepare some kind of encounter with a Patreon that he wishes to have. This also goes for PCs when they choose their subclass and questions that arise while leveling up are:
What made the cleric suddenly chose his/her Domain after fighting Goblins?
To whom did the Paladin make the oath while killing rats in the basement? and so on.
For some classes the subclass joice should have such a big impact on their life or backstory that it shouldnt just happened while doing some random sh*t. And it is not possible for the DM to narrate all these advancements of PCs in the early sessions. Thats why i like subclass at lvl 1 and from there the players are not common people anymore - They have chosen a Domain, Path, Oath, Way, Circle ... and this is already backstory material and has happened.
2) I somewhat agree that the ranger was a bit weak but not as much as they made him to be. Some subclasses make him now top tier, but i think he is fine.
4) I like there to be adventures for diffrent settings/enviroments/bioms/playstyles so that new and old players can either run them as they are or draw inspiration from them.
For example have a fully Sandbox adventure so players learn what sandbox actually is, have a hexcrawl adventure, have a survival adventure, have an adventure on sea, desert, icy mountains etc. Also adventures in diffrent settings like Dark Sun, Birthright. I think the range on 5e adventures and them being very difrent and covering a difrent niche has been selected very good so far. There only needs to be one adventure for a specifice genre.
7) I think Race should have meaing. A 3ft halfling should not have more strength then a 7ft goliath, its unrealistic an breaks imersion for some people. Just make it an optional rule so DMs are not forces to throw away their realism when a player shows up with a reality defying character. I also like Racial abilities to be truthfull to the Race they represent Goliaths having Stones endurance because of their Stone giant ancestry or because of their harsh enviorment they live. These abilities give the race actual flavor why take it away.
It doesnt have to be a core Rule, just make it optional for the tables that enjoy going crazy with their fantasy. I like mine a bit more rooted and grounded and i think its easier to go from grounded to fantastical than vice versa. I and many other People have changed race related AbilityScoreImprovements when they made sense to us before Tasha was introduced and would have done so even if it didnt come out. What i want to say is that these rules are for people to see whats possible to change, but it should not be a core rule instead a optional one.
9) Passive scores are meant to speed up the game. So the DM has not to ask to role for every trivial thing. I think its okey to remove it completly but just mentioning it in a short section that you can always just forgo roling if that character is overqualified for that trivial task. Barbarian 1ith 20STR lifting a comoner with "passive Strength" , Wizard with 20INT solving a childrens puzzle... remove the Passive scores just let the DM decide which tasks are trivial and dont have to be rolled. But if a session involves very little rolling than it is okey if the DM lets the players role even for trivial tasks so that have a success.
10) I 100% agree that Spellcasters above 5th level never gas out on Spellslots. Even if you make them use utility spells in puzzles, skillchalanges or social encounters before they get to the combat encounter they will still have enough and still remaining spell slots afterwards. D&D is meant to have way to many encounters than players actually have and this gives casters a huge adventage, because they are meant to have a finite resource. And they at the same time overshadow martials who are less dependent on these resources and could shine more when the casters are gased out.
So, disagree with hot take #4: Publishing full adventures...
As a long time D&D player over pretty much every edition, the usefulness of full campaigns cannot be understated. Our table is a mix of family and friends of all ages (From teens to almost seniors) that all have different careers and lifestyles. It is hard enough for us to just find time to get together and play, let alone write our own campaigns. Setting books are great and all, but generally, we want something that can be picked up and easily run without much thought (which the campaign books do to varied degrees of success). Setting books and whatnot are fine I guess for reading and fluff purposes, but we just want to sit down and play when we have the time.
I think the best option to balance anything is to never nerf but to buff those who are lower on that power ladder. Unless of course of specific situations where someone breaks the game. Because if you nerf that one player or players they are going to get upset that you are holding them back. Heck even the players playing the “weaker” classes will be worried you might mess with them too or that now they have to put themselves in danger more often to make up for the weaker magic users. Anyway that’s my response on balance, oh and if you monsters aren’t doing enough, just add more!
Change critical hit damage bonus. Instead of doubling all damage dice, add an extra D6 untyped damage based on proficiency bonus.
At low levels this is 2d6, but it ignores all resistances. It increases with level all the way to 6d6 at level 17-20.
This will cut down on huge unpredictable spikes of damage, that completely neuter the DMs ability to regulate combat, but still gives a decent bonus.
Hot Take 4: Fully written campaign books are something very pleasant for any group of friends who do either dont have the time, or the talent, or the motivation to write their own stories... I don't see how they can be perceived as a bad thing? They just make the lifes of DMs easier and if a DM wants to write their own worlds with their own story, then so be it, he is allowed to do that. Settings with story skeletons exist also, so theres literally something there for everyone... so whats the issue?
Hot Take 5: How are Barbarians the worst class in the game, when Monks exist?
Also, no Barbarians should not be Fighters, because the whole thing of a Fighter is, that he is a trained soldiers that can use all armor, all weapons and be strategic with its usage...
Meanwhile the whole thing of a barbarian is, that he is a primitive and untrained warrior who uses brute force and relies only on what nature has given him as tools...
These are 2 completely different thematics that do not at all fit within the same base class and thus the class features also do not add up from a thematic perspective...
Hot take 6: You literally said it yourself: some groups thrive in a sandbox themed adventure and some groups don't... why are sandbox adventures a bad thing if that is the case? A group that likes sandbox will play a sandbox and everyone is happy. I really do not get you?
Did you just make a video to gather as much attention as possible, by spouting as much nonsense as you can?
Hot take 7: Yes, there CAN be an elf with wings, if in the world you play there exist things like that. If you want to play something like that then make it yourself, thats why homebrew exists.
Having fixed races with fixed racial features gives inexperienced players the possibility of an easy selection.
One of the best things of DnD 5e, is that it is very simple in its construction. Character creation is super straightforward, but gives enough customizability to make unique feeling characters.
There are more than enough rpgs out there, like Pathfinder and Shadowrun who don't restrict you as much during character creation but it takes a shit ton of time to learn and get used to those systems...
If you want a game where you can choose every single feature you get at every level, then play another rpg and dont flame dnd for its simplicity...
If it gets to full point buy
You might as well play gurps
1:04 To be clear those old original class features can only be used if the DM values a very narrow and specific type of exploration, not exploration in general.
6.
I have to completely disagree with your sandbox evaluation. Firstly, NO a sandbox is not like a video game. The "Sandbox" basically is one of the original basic RPG features, video gaming took many years to achieve a form close to a sandbox.
It comes down to the group when deciding between different settings and what kind of game you want, sandbox thus more episodic, narrative-driven and thus more linear, etc.
But that does not make a sandbox bad. It just tells you that your players want to replay a "movie" or they want to retell a book, they want that style of game a game with an overall narrative that drives the story.
Sandboxes need players who, for example, focus on either the story of their characters or approach the game with very classic "my character is me+" thus they enjoy the evolving of said character in its Stats. Or they are playing the game, especially with exploration as the overall theme.
To me the big issue with narrative-driven games is that they are inherently limited - the narrative drives the game, defines a goal and thus an end to the game, When "the world has been saved" the heroes go home, like Sam does at the end of LotR. Only the players are left with a hollow feeling, they would need a new start, most often with a new character.
A sandbox is a playground in which the group alone decides what will happen, not only when something happens but what at all happens. The sandbox can be expanded on very easily, thus the Story of those characters can go on - ad infinitum.
Besides that, exploration-focused games or even narrative-driven games can profit from a sandbox especially due to this modularity when they are placed in a homebrew world. Sandboxing can and will make that worldbuilding process easier when applied because it focuses on the surroundings, the things nearby that do matter to and affect the characters.
7.
WotC does not do away with that race stuff because of evolution for the better. They do away with it because it is Zeitgeist. The majority of the players are younger people (below 35) and those people have a certain stance on the "darker" side of things. Things like race/species, slavery, gender roles etc.
It is a concession to that group of players who want to eat the cake and still keep it. Players who want to really "be whatever they like to be" just like their parents told them the world would be. In a magic fantasy world that is really a possibility, thus WotC sees the potential to be "politically, racially and socially enlightened" and that is OK I mean they want to sell stuff and we, their customers, are really not known for their unbreakable strong tights to reality. Are we? Still, I do like a healthy dose of realism in my games and my settings. Consequently, I do not like those changes and they have been one of my core reasons to leave D&D5e behind, go back to BECMI, other fantasy RPGs and my own WIP homebrew system.
1. Passive Perception has already been described by the design team as a "floor" for active perception.
2. Passive skills are not meant to replace active checks and it is 100% the DM's choice when to use passive or active skills.
2a. There is a difference between what can be noticed passively vs what can be noticed when actively searching.
3. The 5e SRD describes passive skills as representing either "an average result" for repeated checks over time--or--a way to handle secret checks.
3a. Repeating procedures on a room-by-room basis (search the room, check for traps, investigate every object) is boring and mechanics that incentivize this are far more problematic than mechanics that provide tools for streamlining this process.
3b. In the example of secret checks, passive scores are also useful as a DC for the DM to roll against. Instead of doing opposed perception vs sneak you can just have the hidden monster roll stealth against the players' passive perception scores. Passive perception is your AC vs getting surprised by something unseen; passive insight is your AC vs being deceived by someone who seems trustworthy, etc.
In conclusion, passive scores are so unobtrusive, so easy to calculate, so useful, and so flexible that "removing" them doesn't really even mean anything. I'd honestly be fine with removing it from the character sheet...the regular perception score is still there and I know how to add 10. It would still be a really good tool to have in the DM's arsenal and I would continue to use it whenever I feel like it is appropriate.
I fully agree passive abilities tied to skills are terrible and need to be reworked. And for spell slots...the point about the adventuring day as written not being reflective of modern game reality is SO TRUE. Not sure i agree with reducing spell slots as the solution, but the issue is definitely with the game being designed around an adventuring day that isn't true to reality.
I'm certainly not the first to say this but we need more RP abilities and spells. As someone who would rather RP and investigate it would be nice to get some abilities and spells to help with that too. Idk how but someone will figure it out
With someone who has a shit tons of passive perception I would literally overfeed them information as they do noticed them and with probability or certitude depending of what I want to give of things perceived. "You travel in a forest and hear noises in the bushes 50 feet away" it was a rabbit, "You can see deers a mile away on the mountainside" "you notice a trap on the ground but is suspisiously obvious to notice" it is a distraction from the real trap or something like that.
So the player who invested in it didn't waste his point with me making it punishing and he has to think about what to do with said information while not completely ruin the feeling of exploration.
I agree on the Barbarian, but more so that they need something to help them, either additional feats or that 3rd attack, something. I don't think they will work as a fighter subclass they already have a few stinkers in there. I also agree on the Ranger, the remake was decent and now they are on par with other martials (not the Paladin). On the Paladin, and the spell slots I disagree. Maybe some DMs are allowing Paladins to play like fighters with magic, but they are supposed to be faith-based. This means they have other things to spend their coin on and certain behaviors in their code to adhere too. That needs to be enforced at the table. I've seen too many Paladins hoarding gold, stripping bodies or looting crypts and while good role play can get you by these and still get the money, it needs to be done and not just played like a fighter with extra powers and no additional limitations. As for the spell slots, you may need to review the other pillars of your game to ensure some magic is being used for the social and exploration pillars. If it is one combat after another and concentration checks aren't being rolled as they should, then spellcasters can get away with 1 concentration spell and some cantrips per fight. Monsters are smart and know to break concentration on spellcasters, or at least try. I believe the number of slots is adequate, just review all pillars and combat timing to ensure you haven't fallen in to a predictable pattern with your game design. Maybe the NPC gives the info if the players use magic to help him first, causing a spell slot of two to be used up before they get told where the Owlbear territory is.
Monk is clearly the weakest . barbs can do good damage at least . bring back 3.5 monk . they dont get healing and they dont get spells and they dont get expertise. let the monk do what its supposed to and wreck face. stunning strike sucks move it too a subclass so people cant use it to keep holding the monk back
I agree with the last take it makes spells more valuble and i think in this case maybe spells should be slightly buffed
The main difference is that a fighter, rogue, monk, all recharge all of their abilities on a short rest or have no abilities to recharge. Meaning that with less spell slots most mages will run out of steam incredibly fast when you consider they are the only class who have to use resources out of combat. (Rogues have no resources and monks fighters and barbarians aren’t tossing 90% off their class features throughout a given day) while in order to sneak into a castle it might require multiple spell slots or at least a few higher ones for the wizard to be effective, along with having to be useful during the fight because lets admit it cantrip damage is a LAST RESORT and incredible low powered. You mean to tell me a wizard gets one spell all the way up until 3rd level?!
@@antuanlemon484 and 10 at max lv making wizard complety unplayable with all the spell they collect
Coming in super late, but regarding the sandbox take: the issue I was having (and what I imagine lots of other DMs encounter) is that I felt stranded alone with a ton of responsibility. Like, I'm not a writer. I dont think I could write a great story totally on my own on paper; let alone in a game where I dont control my main characters. But my players sit down every game expecting a fun time and an entertaining story. That constant pressure is exhausting and burns me out hard.
I think people try sandboxes in the hope that the players will give the DM more direction and take that pressure away. At least that's what I wanted.
To that end, what's worked for me is talking to your players between sessions about what their goal is in the next session. Depending on what your group is like and how confident a writer you are, that can be free form like a total sandbox, somewhat guided where you provide a few options that the players choose from, or even as directed as saying "I'm planning that you all are going to go to *this place* for *this reason* please let me know if that isn't cool"
For me, getting that player buy in before the session had even started let me focus my planning, gave me more confidence that what I prepped was valuable, and helped make me feel like I wasn't alone putting all of the work into the game.
From the DMG - "Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."
Most parties "can handle" 6 to 8 encounters (I'm assuming they are referring to fighting encounters and not every other type of encounter that's possible). That does not mean that they should be expecting to have that many every day. Besides becoming a complete slog and boring for most parties, even in a fantasy world/game that's not realistic at all, unless you're running an insanely monster-filled arena of a world. Even Mad Max had "days off".
I'm pretty sure you know all that, but I've seen too many people talk like this is some sort of "rule" or expectation.
I do agree with a lot of your takes (especially passive skills), though I don't think spell slots are an issue. If magic using types need to choose what spells they have available for the day, that is a fairly limiting thing. So is making sure that the party doesn't take multiple long rests in a day. My table gets one per 24-hour period except in exceptional circumstances (which I tell them about). Short rests are fine, but most spell slots only recover on long rests. Also, wizards max out at four 1st level spells, even at level 20, and 2nd-5th max out at three, 6th & 7th max at two, and 8th & 9th max at one. Combine that with having to choose which ones to know for the adventuring day and, while they wield some very kick ass power, the beasties they encounter could/should be such that they will need to choose what they cast carefully. Most of their cantrips are trivial once they gain any significant levels. JMHO.
Anyway, another great video. Glad I found you out here.
I disagree with you on the free racial ability one. It's not because I think that this wouldn't be fun, but because it would allow Minmaxers to build characters that are completely broken, who are almost impossible to integrate into an existing campaign. Let's just say flying turtles everywhere...
And it would also lead to some racial abilities being completely forgotten about despite them being really interesting lire wise. We can see this exact thing already happining with feats.
Be nice in the comments. Hot takes are naturally a little controversial
I agree with the first hot take all classes should get subclass features at same lv y must a sorcerer have to wait till lv 14 and 18 for their last feature where where other cast get their final subclass feature by lv 14
Unfortunately, the Barbarian bit is 100% accurate. I play a "Barbarian" but in truth I only have 3 levels of Barbarian and 10 levels of fighter currently... you get all the Barbarian you need at level 3.
Passive checks should be reworked. Maybe remove the base and only make it your modifier. Now you can actually use it as a "no roll under passives" because it's not an insane number like 17, but WIS + PROF etc
DO
NOT
ALTER
PALADINS
Yes, just give us an the damn subclasses at the same levels!
I can understand the "paladins are overpowered" thing, but I'm not sure about the argument that they can forefeel all roles. Virtually every spellcaster can; with different efficiency, but still. You can say that no class should be able to do that, and it's a valid opinion as well, but... It would be just a different system at that point.
Also, *every* fight being deadly gets stale at some point, and it has nothing to do with balance, it just isn't fun.
The only problem I have with consistently leveled subclasses is that a patronless warlock and a bloodline lacking sorcerer make no sense to me. Maybe I just lack creativity, but I cannot find a way to explain these two things, they seem like walking contradictions.
Perhaps you are visited by a patron but they don't reveal to you their true identity and give you some small powers as a test. Later they reveal themselves and fully take you on as a patron. As a sorcerer you start manifesting natural magical abilities that can't be from any other source then your heritage eventually after growing and learning more about your magic your able to identify where it must have came from in your ancestry. For me it's paladins that are the biggest issue how are you a paladin and you don't even know your oath?
as a totem barbarian main, suck these balls. i would like an action surge, oh wait i dipped a few levels into the fighter, got it and am making my dm lose years of her life by action surging while hasted, attacking an extra time as a bonus action because of great weapon master, effectivelly attacking 6 times with advantage (reckless atk) and adding +10 damage to all attacks (gwm) and doing 143 damage in 1 turn, without critting, at level 6.
On a side note, a lvl 20 Beast path barbarian of mine had a health pool of fucking 460 hp, not to mention rage or for its constant regeneration each turn because of the path features. this was without any con increasing magical items.
I agree with rangers being great, wizards of the coast needing to release more classes and campaign settings and passive ability checks sucks. I also agree that barbarians are odd but I want a rework for them, not to be made fighters. Everything else I strongly disagree with.
I suppose they wouldn't be hot takes if there wasn't disagreement! Thanks for commenting
0:00 *Intro :* Yea why not.
0:38 *Ranger :* Yea they buffed them, now they are not the worst class and they are pretty good now. I don't see a problem here. You yourself admited that "Rangers now are one of the best design class in DnD 5th edition and its big turnaround." - and I don't understand, is it bad? You said they are well design so thats good...?
1:14 *Paladin :* Yea they are strong. They are not that good at range and they are not as tanky as Barbarians. They can deal, not consistent, big single-target dps dmg, support with healing and they aura. They are versatile martial art class like wizards in spellcaster type classes. Are they strong? Yes but there always be the strongest&weakest class in all/all types of classes.
2:03 *WoTC :* Matter of preference. Everybody have they own opinion. I say let them release what they want. If they want to release something that customers wants then let them.
3:09 *Barbarian :* No. Just no. Monks are the weakest class, right now, by far. Barbarian have its own strength. If you want to compare its to fighter, classes alone without subclasses then fine.
Fighter has Action "Action Surge" which is more chance to do one action, mostly attack which is just more chances to hit. Once-Twice per short/long rest. Barbarian has Recless Attack which is advantage on a attack-rolls on their turn, no limit usadge. It gives everyone else advantage to attack Barb but they have the biggest HP from all the classes and are encouraged to boost CON from their features so you can lay on your HP and AC from CON. Also Recless Attack works very well with Great Weapon Master. I will let people decide what they think is better. Just remmember Barbs dmg comes from number not rolls, when fighters from numbers of attacks that may or may not miss.
3:55 *Sandbox :* Have to agree. Sandboxes are not bad for dawntime, for simple looking around the town but still they are mostly boring.
5:27 *Race :* People do/will do what they want. I do what I want.
6:45 *Damage :* No. Tarrasque has +19 to hit which means it almost always hits. Rogue with Light Armor +3 and max DEX has 20 AC. You can get high AC but on average its around 20-23.
Also on average PC have around 82-142 HP from Wizard to Barb with 0 CON mod. Tarrasque can deal on its turn, on average, 148 dmg. It needs to hit but +19 to hit means that at 23 Armor it has 80% to hit which you could take like: 148*0,8=118,4. So no, more damage is not the answear. I agree that there is a problem with amount of encounters and their difficulty, but more damage is not the good answear.
7:58 *Passives :* Almost always you need to look only on Passive Perception. Which mostly has the partys "scout" (not necessarily rogue) so you need to look only at his/her Passive Perception.
At worst you can have Cleric that is not partys scout (bc of heavy armor) but with highest Perception. The omg those are 2 numbers to remember. Its not like you cen write them down. Also I don't understand the argument "they can see every hidden door". Is that bad? Are they not supposed to see it for the story to went on? If you don't want them to see it why are you placing it in the first place? Its sounds more like "I don't know what I want so its the system problem.". And if trap is very well hidden you can give your players disadvantage on Perc. rolls which is -5 to passive Perc.
Traps that are "roll to see" are like "roll to not get dmg before an encounter" or "I want to kill you but don't want to too obvious about it". And with the idea of profficiency it sounds like you just want to make passives lower. You do you, but why? Idk.
7:58 *Spell slots :* I understand the problem of the encounter amount but first you want to boost dmg and now cut half spellslots of spellcasters? You realy just wants them dead, right?
And why warlocks excluded? they have 2 slots for every short/long rest so they have from 2 -> 6 spell slots a day. And also low amount of encounter bring paladin to better place bc of divine smite. Why you don't cut it in half too? And why only Paladin Arcane Trickster, Ranger all other half-casters too. Full-casters outpacing half-casters?! How dare they!
If you wan't harder campaigns, bc this sounds like it, then play warhammer fantasy 2nd edition. DnD is narrative game. You can still makes hard fight without "more dmg, nerfs or more encounters" but you need to think more about it.
While i can agree that spell casters do need some sort of rework i think just a flat cutting slot numbers in half is lazy solution that would feel terrible.
Full casters are looking at about 11 spells at max level. Or too put it another way averaging about a single spell slot every 2 level ups. The experience is going to feel terrible at low levels.
Their should just be a more fundmental rework than just trying to limit all magic users to a single spell perr combat if they dont want too risk exhauting their entire arsenal too early in the day
I geniuenly agree with a lot of hot takes such as ranger and barbarian. But with sandbox campains? really?
I mean of course as a DM sandbox campains are difficult so build coz you need a lot of prep time and you need to be able to go with every idea your players have.
If your players dont find the initiative and dont know what to do, you need to take the initiative as the DM. Meaning you as a DM need to do a lot more then just throw one thing at the players. Plus, in a sandbox, the idea is not only the players do this one thing, it is to experience the world they are living in with every detail. What plants life where, so certain animals life somewhere and they need to find the feather of a speical bird to craft the potion they want to make, and now need to make a small journey to the place the animal lives. And of course as a DM, you need to tell the players, that they need to have a goal for themselfs. and if they have a problem selecting one or came to a halt, you as a DM need to give them a reason to have a different one. Maybe someone is threatning to burn down the tavern they just build to spend the rest of their time in it. Give them a reason so they need to leave the place they settled down on. They are a lot of possibilities but you just need to understand how to actually play such a sandbox. So yeah if your sandbox sucks its the DMs fault or the playerdynamic is horrible. If your DM is good and your playerdynamic is right it works.
and btw a dwarf with a turtle shell sounds horrible and no one should ever do that because I know 1-2 players who would abuse that so hard that I would never player D&D afterwards
Monk should be split between sorcerer and barbarian, giving barbarian more flexible raw power and sorcerer the one with all the sorcery points
Also can we pls get an updated players handbook with all the spells races subclasses classes and backgrounds
I think point buy races would work best with beast races so we dont get 50 new ones with each book
Cr should be able to divided by the party, so if you have 5 people against a cr 30 you need to be level 6
The passive stats are big pain when teaching new players
I'd be a whole hell of a lot happier if Paladin was scrubbed from the game entirely.
Here's a hot take make proficiency progression in single +1 steps in the six steps that there are.
"Oh but 20/6 don't jive'
Uh yeah it does it's 3r2 put the one remainder at the front to get an early jump and the second on the backend seeing there's very little tied to it at that point anyway, seriously 20th should be about capstone abilities.
do you run your games with these hot takes?
Nice
You had me until take #1…you can’t take any spell slots from my wizard. Period.
I would only be for that if they made it so missing with a spell doesn't consume a SS. Spells that don't have "save for half damage" at least.
I agree with pretty much all of them except the racial buffet. As a DM that prefer my own setting, I don't want to have to design lore and cultures around some elves having fucking wings or ninja turtle dwarves. This was your stupid hot take.
Like myself many people are
mostly leaving Woke, Gready WOTC D&D. The ttrpg I love is D100 Dungeon.
All of these are terrible ideas as far as I can tell. I mean, your table, do what you want, but for the game, it would be complete suck.
Your takes aren't hot, they're just bad. 💀
probably the most based video on RUclips.