DM: "Your armor smells too bad to use." Players: "Well, we clean it with Prestidigitation..." DM: "Nope, doesn't matter, still smells too bad." Players: "Okay, so we take a day cleaning it in the river with some soap..." DM: "Still smells too bad." Players: "... Okay, so we take the armor to a PRIEST to sanctify it..." DM: "It is now blessed, and still smells too bad to use." Players: "So are you telling us that just by eating some bad beans and drinking some questionable water, we can produce an effect *more powerful than any curse?* Because seriously, that Priest? He can cleanse just about any cursed item, even if the curse was cast by a Elder Lich and has endured thousands of years. But if we have an accident on that same item, that's *it,* it's broken *forever?*" DM: "... Yeah, 'cuz I hate casters." Players: "*WE NOTICED.*"
I can imagine the lawful stupid paladin might have accidentally become an oathbreaker in a previous game and has become super anxious about breaking her deity's rules
I haven't DM'd much, admittedly, but if that Bard vs Paladin fight had gone down, I would have done the following. Bard: "I slap the Paladin again!" DM: "Cool. Roll for damage, as it's unopposed. The Paladin's God slaps you back. Roll a D100." Bard: "... What?" DM: "What, did you think the Gods don't check up on their champions? You have the misfortune of attacking a Paladin with whom you have entered into a covenant of fellowship unprovoked, with intent to harm or kill. So the God has slapped you back, now roll a D100 and we'll see what fun effect they've placed on you from the happy fun table." Bard: "You can't do that!" DM: "I mean, if this isn't Chaotic enough for you, I *could* go with my original plan of rolling a D100 and pulling an effect from the Deck of Many Things with all the good cards removed..." Bard: "But it's not fair!" DM: "But it's what my character would do."
Paladins patron when a dragon, a horde of ogres, or the BBEG almost kills their Paladin: I sleep. Paladins patron when a bard gives the Paladin a slap on the cheek: *"REAL SHIT?"* I see no issue with this logic, other than the fact that it is retarded.
You could actually succumb to such things back in the day. There was an actual mechanic for when and how often you would have to check to see if you contracted a mundane disease and then tables to determine what type and the severity.
If I was the DM of the Paladin that wouldn't hurt the party member, I would have allowed the rogue to kill the paladin and then change the scene to the paladin's god saying, "I'm sending you back... but only if you send him (the rogue) to whatever god he prays to!" In others words, I'd instruct the paladin to go back and kill the rogue. Imagine the rogue's expression when a beam of light shoots down upon the paladin's corpse and the paladin rises up and proceeds to kill him.
I would have pulled the paladin aside and told her that nothing in her oath says she has to tolerate this behavior, and that by not dealing with it she might be in violation of her oath. If she quibbled, I'd ask her if she - player - would tolerate that kind of behavior.
I somewhat get punishing the use of spells at a higher spell slot than intended. So maybe instead of losing Initiative, give each player X number of Action Points that can be spent however you want. Extra Action and reducing movement gives additional AP, but using a Reaction or increasing the Spell Slot costs AP. For example: a player has 30 movement speed (6 squares, 6 AP), 1 action (2 AP), Extra Attack (2 AP), 1 bonus action (1 AP), and a reaction (2 AP), that becomes 13 AP a turn. I will allow the use and combination of Spells and Attacks, so long as the player’s AP isn’t depleted You can charge a multi-turn action faster if you expend extra AP (if you can prepare a 2-round spell while moving, don’t move for better focus). You can cast a spell as a 2 AP action, but it still takes a spell slot. A cantrip is also a 2 AP action, but you can only use 1 a turn. Each spell slot increase is a +1 AP cost. If you don’t move at all, you get 6 extra AP to spend, including on 3 attacks or on multiple reactions.
@@LocalMaple That would mean if I stand still I could technically attack 6 times (6*2AP) per turn. An interesting idea though. I would probably do something like 3 actions that can be spent however you like, but defense counts as one action. It needs balancing.
@@LocalMaple Some have said they are using an optional rule in the DMG regarding initiative for 5th edition, which sounds like the individual initiative rules from older D&D where every action had an initiative modifier. The higher the spell or the larger the weapon, the slower you went. Not an absurd idea, but I can see why most don't like it because most don't like consequences to their choices, hence why 5th edition plays like it does. Before, you would have to consider how long it would take to cast certain spells or the speed of weapons when deciding what you were going to do.
@@craigtucker1290 I think it's less about 'consequences' and more about 'doing maths every turn during a fantasy game where you try to work out your initiative correctly'. Pathfinder is basically storytime maths with extra details in comparison to 5th Ed. Still fun when you get used to it, but not as accessible to newcomers.
@@rowlandedmonds4201 That is why you use the starter material and build up from there. But 5th edition never builds up, it is just starter material and not much more. And to be honest, I had a new player that jumped into full complexity with not much trouble. Sure, they needed help at first, but it comes down to a matter of practice. And this takes into account we use the final version of initiative which uses phases for attacks, similar to the complexity of Shadowrun in some ways, but basically it staggers multiple attacks at different times. You go on your initiative and every what amounts to a 3 count for the next attack. A player just needs to add all their modifiers to their roll (like adding dexterity, so not hard) and then count every 3 later, that's it.
I kind of understand the Lawful Stupid Paladin of the second story. They probably had a DM who punished them for *not* being true to their alignment or diety. So, this was the result.
That's usually my justification phrase for "fleshing out" the numbers & alignment on my character sheet into an actual character... or some rolls I made. Specifically, because of an action my character has or then makes. 😅
Honestly, I dont think the phrase "Its what my character would do" isnt inherently bad... Its just that MOST of the time its used by people who want to ruin the fun for everyone else... But sometimes, its not bad, as long as its not ruining the game or making other people uncomfortable or mad, because realistically, isnt every decision you make something "your character would do"
In my group, I've only pulled that line ONCE. The character is on the side of lawful stupid who hates ambushes with a strong code of honor. Upon cornering a suspicious person with the party covering the only exits out of the room, he announced their presence to this figure.
There are a lot of words that are not inherently bad, but get used in derogatory or harmful ways and become perceived as bad. Here is the problem with that mentality when used in most D&D games. We design and build the characters. What they do is ultimately what we want them to do. We are capable of breaking our own character for the sake of another cause. These causes do not have to be ground shattering or traumatic either. (Such as socializing with people at a family gathering despite being an introvert...) The phrase is over used in a negative way to justify or try to 'play down' being a complete tool to the other people involved (DM and Players).
Story 1- DM plays The Oregon Trail instead of D&D Story 2- In a bizarre plot twist, the 2 jerk players end up at the same vacation spot as the DM. Dun dun DUN!
I've used the phrase "It's what my character would do" (paraphrased) exactly one time. My tempest cleric smashed the other cleric upside the head with her warhammer because the other cleric had just killed a child (who had a cursed disease resistant to both Remove Curse and the Restoration spells) without ANYONE making any attempt to inform my tempest about the presence of said disease. Legitimately didn't even know it existed, but the other party members thought she'd be okay with brazen murder happening in her arm's reach
If there's one defense of "it's what my character would do," it's that sometimes its usage is justified. For example, if you have a party that wants to loot some graves, yet one character objects because desecrating the dead is against their moral code, he has a valid in-character reason for it instead of going "durr hurr let's do it becuz everywun elz is!" just for the sake of keeping the peace at the table.
In these cases, the defense is "My Character's ethical (or religious, moral, etc...) code and culture considers that abhorrent behavior. He would adamantly refuse this, and will lose respect for anyone who would even consider such a thing." NOT just the blanket "My Character refuses because that's what he'd do."... The toxic form of the argument is just that... a toxic one-line delivery that's supposed to justify any stupid thing the Player intends to do... It's been employed for everything from metagaming to diving into subjects the whole Table has agreed (at session-0) NOT to get into... ;o)
@@megamanx466 Exactly... which is why it should genuinely be avoided as a "one line answer"... It's no answer. If you're about to commit a PC to something controversial or dubious for the sake of the Party, then you should be able to articulate the legitimate thinking process behind your PC's action... Arguably, as a Player, you should be able to fully articulate the "inner dialogue" for your PC at any point in time... and hold a decent intelligent conversation about it with the GM or any mid-grade writer... It's the same kind of "Character Examination" we did in middle and high school Language Arts when we covered books and stories in class discussions... ANYWAY... You are entirely correct. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 While true... not everyone is at the same level of creative and logical thinking as that. Some are merely monkey see monkey do. I've played with potheads and 90% of them aren't that bad. 😅
If I was in that game that long: DM: "You shit yourself so your armour's dirty." Me: "I clean my armour." DM: "Nah, smells too bad." Me: "... That's why I want to clean it." DM: "Nope, you ditch the armour." Me: "... NO, I *clean* it." DM: "Your only options are to buy new armour or go without." Me: "Not if I CLEAN my amour."
Probably would have asked him if he changed what prestidigitation did, and if he said no then i would cast it multiple times to clean the armor and change the smell, telling him that I can do that with prestidigitation since he said he didn't change it's effect.
@@williamfalls or instead change smell by damage, needing repair. Makes much more sense than dirtiness/smelliness be a reason to ditch a armor, they are expensive!
"It's what my character would do" generally means protecting my party viciously (as a gnome warlock the chiwawa vibes are intended) But also insane curiosity means dissecting every enemy he can, randomly gathering/combining plants into potions and powders that seldom have the healing effects he wants.. (including the dm telling me once l about literally created napalm) And spending mornings communing with his patron because they bonded over their insane thirst for knowledge and he won't let his bud miss out on any juicy details he learned. 😂
Reminds me when my chaotic bard thought he'd try to kill a minotaur skeleton by removing its' head mid combat. Got lucky with acrobatics to climb it but it died before he could try.
This hasn't actually come up in any sort of session that I've been in, but I can easily imagine it happening nonetheless: Murderhobo: "Why are you giving the homeless urchins GOLD?!" Me: "It's what my character would do." News flash, part of my idealized power fantasy is to be a good person and use my riches to improve the lives of the less fortunate.
I say you should take "Give someone a fish and they're fed for a day, teach them to make fishing equipment and how to fish and they're fed for life." to heart. Don't do charity, build up their infrastructure to help the poor become self-sufficient. Maybe create an organization that helps with this. Of course, if your character doesn't know this then they may not do this. I just want to make sure that you, the player, know of this since this is a common error I see.
@@redforest9269 Charity works when you don't have the means to create an organization to help the masses. It also can mean the world to someone when you show them some kindness and compassion when they are at their lowest point. After all, Christ fed the poor and healed the sick with no strings attached.
@@redforest9269 Charity works when you don't have the means to create an organization to help the masses. It also can mean the world to someone when you show them some kindness and compassion when they are at their lowest point. After all, Christ fed the poor and healed the sick with no strings attached.
@@reapergrimm8 I know that charity is better than nothing. It's NOT that Charity is "bad", it's just that a lot of people see it as the end-all-be-all. And I think you're severely overestimating the cost of creating an organization, ANY organization, to organize the poor you speak of to take control of their own fate. Especially in the situation where you're rich and probably don't have much better to spend your stuff on. And indeed, your organization should definitely not discriminate, "Oh we'll help you but only if you convert." Even if you are religious, or I'd say ESPECIALLY if you're religious, you MUST help everyone. Even IF you're say, homophobic, you can just avoid homosexuals and let other volunteers directly talk to them. What, they deserve to starve because you don't like how they think? If they need the help and aren't hurting anyone then... Though in an IRL example there's probably ALREADY an organization in your area that does these things, I was mostly just working on the Fantasy assumption that medieval times really sucked and didn't have these things (aside from churches I suppose).
I pulled the line "it's what my character would do" when it came to being in a crypt dungeon and I found a crown in a coffin. I put it on. My DM gave me an out and asked, "Are you sure you want to do that?" And I was like "no, but it's what my stupid rogue would do"
Working with character flaws instead of against them even though you know bad things will happen out of character is typically what one of my my DM expects from us.
One of my favorite characters was a lawful neutral paladin who's entire thing was to make sure people were having fun, and to kill or hurt anyone who soiled the fun of others. I remember one time he was having fun sharing drinks with a bunch of guards, and helped them on there patrol as thanks for a good time during which he caught a rapist using his glaive to cut off his legs heal his stumps then dragged him to jail and asked if he could be the one to execute him. It shocked everyone at the table, and I explained my paladins oath the second time which is why they realized my alignment was neutral and not good.
I think the biggest problem with the second one are these lines: "May I see your backstory?" "No" Seriously, a DM that doesn't have your backstory, I feel, has the right to make up a backstory for you. Then you have no right to complain when you are told what it is
Playing a Paladin myself for nearly 2 years now, I've come to the conclusion that they are better played via their Oath rather than their alignment. Mine started off as Oath of the Crown, which had both narrative and mechanical benefits that the DM was working around, but as the game went on, we both (the character and I) realized her morals leaned into something different than what the Crown's tenets lined up with. So after much thought and consideration, we changed her Oath. There's a fine line between swearing loyalty to a group and pledging Devotion to your party. As she said recently, "You don't know how serious my Devotion is."
That is because very few understand how to play by the alignment and the oath which used to be the way it was done. TSR actually made a book that had very detailed examples of various situations and how a paladin would act accordingly because the gaming community didn't understand what lawful good actually means and this was back when alignment had its own chapter in the books. Lawful doesn't actually mean adheres to the law, it means that one values the needs of society over the needs of the individual while chaotic means the opposite. This is what most get wrong and what created those memes. Still, to this day, most do not understand what the alignments really mean, that they are not subjective, and that the player only gets to declare their alignment at the initial creation and after that, it is the DM that determines their character's actual alignment based on the character's actions.
@@craigtucker1290 Even then, the books and examples have been nothing more than credited to guidelines, especially these days with creativity being a main focus of WotC's new releases. My Paladin has been staying within her tenets despite the fact that some of her deeds may not have been considered lawful, or even considered 'best for society' compared to 'select individuals'. She ends up more of a 'knight of the people' rather than a 'knight of the nation' for her belief that it takes a collective peoples to create a proper society, thus seeks equality for a balanced kingdom, despite years of tradition and current laws being withstanding for generations. So while she does stick to her moral code, she'll bend societies laws if she finds them unjust. Thus birthing what I consider to be a Neutral Good Paladin.
@@Chaotix010 They are not guidelines, they are how the game actually works if one follows the rules as written which is how the game is intended to be played. The problem is that too many end up "making the game their own" which has been necessitated by the anemic lack of material support from WotC with the current edition. What I am talking about is the pre-WotC material, when paladins had to be lawful good (for the most part) as a paladin was the pinnacle of what it meant to be lawful good, rather than the sham that they are now that does not embody what a paladin is supposed to be. This is why they (TSR) released a book to help those on how to play what is supposed to be a challenging class to play. With great power, come great responsibility. This explained how one could act with some flexibility while still maintaining their status, yet dispelled the believed lawful stupid restrictions that the community came up with on their own. This is no longer the case in the current edition where alignment doesn't really matter (not that most know what they really mean with a vague half-page explanation) and paladins are no longer tied to the code of chivalry they once were. Instead, you get a lot of power with no requirement to follow the codes of chivalry, lawful goodness, or be the epitome of what it means to be a hero. All you have to do is follow a an that isn't all that restrictive (a common theme with WotC) and most who play paladins these days still manage to even violate these vague guidelines, yet their DMs do not cause them to fall or even reprimand them. Such is the nature of current D&D where there seems to be little consequences to much of anything, just more power as WotC continues to give the milk away for free. I wish more DMs would follow the rules regarding failing to fulfill oaths and make players responsible for following their oaths properly. Lawful Good paladins would fight against unjust laws and this was not a violation of the paladins code or the lawful good alignment, you didn't need to be neutral good. Upholding laws, even unjust laws, is more of a lawful neutral viewpoint than a lawful good one. It is the good part that prevents them from just going along with an unjust law.
_First example of a house rule from DM_ 0:44 : "1) The action you take in a turn changes your initiative score. We had to recalculate initiative every single turn." I would like to complete the first encounter in the campaign sometime this century.
Hey I’ve got a story I’d love to submit to the channel. Is there a way to do that directly or do I just publish it on a DnD Story forum and hope for the best?
In the 1st story, I get adding a few minor things for the sake of realism, but if the DM wanted to play a realistic game, go with a system that allows that.
@@craigtucker1290 I've started with 3rd edition and to me it's the most complete and supportive one. It was also the most customizable. 4th felt like it was trying to emulate a computer game, though had some fun ideas, and 5th cut down on so many things for the sake of 'simplicity' and 'fun' it's really hard to actually balance anything. Not to mention there are no rules for the DM to follow when creating said homebrew (like a ballpark estimate on how much time and money would it take to research a spell). Compare: In 3rd every spell as a rule of thumb did 1d6 in damage per spell level. It could do more if the effect only affected a small group of enemies (searing light dealing 4d8 vs undead). It was a simple rule of thumb. All spell research costs were dependent on level and used a simple formulae to estimate. In 5th edition a third level spell starts of doing 5d6 and only goes up from there. It wouldn't be that bad, but it's fireball, a blast spell with a bigger area of effect than in 3rd edition. No other spell comes close to it in sheer damage potential. No wonder it's become a meme. I couldn't find a word in the DMG on how long it would take a wizard to research a new spell, or how costly it would be. I guess it's just handwaved as 'you do it'. Sure, you can adjust or ignore a rule if it fits your story better, but the problem is that there's no rule there in the first place. It's much more cumbersome having to invent something out of whole cloth.
@@krinkrin5982 And I can't fault your comparison because of which edition you started with, but 2nd edition was the height of sophistication for D&D with all of its options and material that has yet to be equaled before or since. After all, where did you think most of 3rd edition came from? It was 2nd edition, just repackaged with some of the rule changes that had been experimented with in late 2nd edition which includes feats and skills, though these proved unpopular at the time of 2nd edition. 3rd was actually a dumbed-down version of 2nd edition that copied most of it rules word for word from the later 2nd edition rulebooks. But it also began the tradition of giving way the milk for free and it showed with multiple balance issues and the over-proliferation of magic items that haunted that edition. 2nd edition actually has more material, sourcebooks, and generally options than 3rd edition except for races which 3rd does have more of. 2nd edition had more spells, more types of magic, more magical items, more modifications to classes through a seemingly unending option of kits, and more information on specific settings. While 3rd edition did offer unrestricted class access, this change did conflict with setting lore and violated canon. What you see in 5th edition being dumbed-down from the previous edition is exactly the same thing when the game went from AD&D 2nd edition to D&D 3rd edition with the elimination of many concepts like system shock, chance to learn spells, resurrection survival being replaced by the same hand waived automatic successes that you are now complaining about with 5th edition. I tried 3rd edition, but found it to be a dumbed-down version of the game I liked that offered less and that bent over and gave into community whiners that wanted absurd things like opening up the classes and trading priest spells for healing. Each edition has only gotten worse since 2nd edition with 3rd edition being the beginning of the reign of power-gaming with the proliferation of magic items, overpowered feats, and ridiculous prestige classes; ending with 5th edition being the dumbed-down, mollycoddling, plays like a video game edition that just has no ability to scale up. Not sure what you are talking about in regards to fireball, according to the 3/3.5 PHB, it is 3rd level spell with 40' radius just like it is in 5th edition. A 2nd edition fireball detonated at ground level actually has a radius of 49' as it fills a cubic volume, not a radius. Another example of how things were dumbed down from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, though I can understand this one as most didn't know or have access to the math to calculate a volume based area of effect that tries to remain spherical.
"'It's what my character would do' is the worst phrase anyone can utter in a game of D&D." I don't agree. Just look at Grog from Critical Role. I don't believe Travis ever actually said those words, but boy did he ever *live* them! Grog was a true, loyal friend to the party, but every once in a while he would go and do something completely random and crazy that came completely out of left field and had nothing to do with what the rest of the party was doing, because it was ABSOLUTELY what Grog would have done in that case. And those generally turned out to be some of the funniest moments of the campaign!
I continue to not understand how the people being picked on in situations like this (in the first case, the casters) don't just walk out without a word.
Let's point out that the armor rules are actually less realistic. You hurt someone in full plate by targeting its gaps. If you miss the gap in the armor you really aren't doing much to that person. That's what AC symbolizes. You're not stabbing someone through a steel plate regardless of how hard you stab, so DR as the primary way armor works makes no sense.
Whenever I think of people trying to make games like D&D more realistic, I always think about something that Jacob Budz from XP to Level 3 said: "If you want a realistic experience, go outside! Take a backpack, go up in the woods and walk around with the real, real trees with your real motivation and your real body, you realistic piece of sh- POO POO."
I'd considered trying to pick up some money as a paid DM.. and it's stories like this that make me realize I would never make any money from it. Players like this or the first wiff of 'I'm paying you so you have to let me do what I want/give me what I want' and I'd be out of there and refunding the money.
I'd be laying down quite a few rules right off the bat and forcing customers to agree to them. 1) You are not the main character, you are one piece of the whole, so always mind your party members. 2) Just because you are a paying customer does not give you the right to do whatever you want, I'm not hosting a power fantasy, this is D&D. 3) Backstories are required and to be shown to me *before* the first session. There are no "mysterious backstories" that the DM cannot know, else how is he expected to make it work in the world he's building? If you have a backstory, but refuse to show it to me, I'm going to assume you're just making shit up for an easy excuse to do whatever you fancy. If that's the case, I'm either going to make your backstory for you or you can take a hike, your choice. Etc. Etc. Even if people pay me, I need to have some ground rules and standards for what I'm going to allow, else it's not quite professional and it's only going to backfire. The usual excuses paid DMs give in these stories for letting this stuff slide typically comes down to "They're paying me, otherwise I wouldn't allow this". But if you keep letting it happen, it's only going to backfire on you in the long run. Players that are genuinely here to play the game and are taking it seriously will see you as someone who has no backbone or let's too many things go without consequence and will lose interest in playing your game, meaning less money for you and the possibility of other players avoiding your campaigns for that very reason through word of mouth in the game store (Assuming you're doing this irl)
Story 1: Sounds like the DM had some unnatural hatred for casters and magic. Story 2: The Bard got what he deserved and the Paladin took herself out of the equation. OK, problem solved
I actually Kinda Get some of the Custom Rules that they Made for that First Story. The Armor as DR is one that I actually Like a LOT, it not only allows you to differentiate the "Why/how You were protected from harm" Way Better than a Generic AC stat, that 20 AC from a Monk with 20 Dex and Wis Does exactly the same thing as a Fighter in Full plate and a Shield, in both Cases the Descriptive is "it Misses" even though of of the characters is Straight up spider-Senseing and hyper Dodging Everything, and the second is Just Standing there like a Statue, yet nothing actually them him anyway... And the 9 DR that a Full plate armor Might give you sounds like a Lot, Until you realize that it's DR, and it does literally nothing to Protect you from anything But Slashing, Bludgeoning and Piercing damage, So Any kind of Elemental, Force, Necrotic, Radiant or Psychic Damage Goes Right through, and your Low AC (Since you're Basically a statue) Means that you're pretty Much guaranteed to get hit by attacks that do that kind of Damage, And classes that have Access to Heavy Armor usually don't have Proficiency with Dex Saves. There's a full set of Official Rules to do this in Pathfinder too, I think it was in 3.5 as well. The Penalty to Initiative for casting Higher level Spells, is one that Thematically I understand, but it's the Kind of Rule that Makes Combat Far more Clunky and it IS a Bit unfair to Casters (Then again, a Power Word Kill Spell going off before you can even act is a Bit unfair to Fighters soooo). The Idea is clearly to make it so that Stronger spells take longer to cast, Causing a Delay in exactly WHEN the Spell will finish casting. Plus all you'd really have to do is Adjust the caster's Static Initiative Roll they did at the start of the fight when they cast to make it much faster, rather than reroll every round (Though I've Seen games, Such as "Anima: Beyond Fantasy" Where Initiative Needs to be Rolled Every Single Round, and it's important because it's part of the core mechanics of the game)... I've Honestly Seen worse in terms of Trying to Apply this concept in games. Exalted for Example has you Take a FULL Extra Turn to cast Higher Level Spells (Lukily there's only 3 Levels of Spells), But each Extra Level Does Exponentially more than the Previous one, if someone is Dumb enough to Leave the Mage alone for 3 Rounds as he Casts a Solar Level Spell(and the Spell only goes off on the 4th Turn), He Deserves to Buried under a Volcano... The Rule That Baffles me though, is the one where You recover Spell slots Based off HD, where he Explicitly gave a MASSIVE Advantage to Martial Casters Like Paladins and Rangers... I Get the Idea that he wants to Slow down "Mana Regeneration" to make Magic Feel more Special and rare, That Much is OK so Long as the players are Aware and OK with this as they MAKE their Characters. But Making it so that the "I Guess I can Cast Some Minor Magic" Classes Somehow Recover their "Mana" Faster than the Pure Caster Classes is just Straight up dumb. If he Insists on using that System, He Should have Made it so that the HD recovered in spell slots Scaled in the Opposite Direction as HP, Wizards and Sorcerers Get d12s, Clerics and Druids Get D10s, Bards Get D8s (these Little Bastards are Versatile enough, they don't Need to recover as well as full casters on top of it!), and Rangers and Paladins Get D6s. Then Maybe Add a Bonus Equal to your Caster Level + Casting Stat to the number of Slots Recovered (Half that for Rangers and Paladins). Warlocks Meanwhile, Laugh their Asses off as their Primary Class Feature is that they recover ALL the Spell slots on a Short Rest, so that Stays the same! (the whole point of the Class's casting is that they recover Fast, but have Less Total ammo). This Spell slot Recovery System isn't even as Bad as it Might seem, as usually, a Few Days Happen between any given Encounter, so You're Likely to fully recover Spell slots Between each anyway(Since you'll probably have a Week's Rest/Travel between Town and whatever Dungeon you go to, Seriosuly, if you can't recover all your Spell slots with (7d12+(Lvl+Casting stat)X7) Levels of Slots, something is VERY Wrong). unless you're Exploring the Underdark or something (In which case, the Lack of time to recover is part of the Challenge of the place). A Nice Benefit to this System as well is that the DM can add some "Mana potions" to the setting, give the players something to spend some of their Cash on that isn't just Healing and Favors from Random NPCs. As for the Crit Rule, this isn't the First Time I've seen a Rule like this, and it's not a Bad Idea in and of itself, but the way they Applied it is FAR to Extreme, having a Chance of Dismemberment with ANY Crit no Matter how Much damage it does is WAY too Much, a 5-10%(With Improved Critical) Chance per Attack to have something happen to you that Might completely Disable you until you can have some HIGH Level Regeneration Cast on you is WAY too Much, in general you'll be attacked Dozens of times per fight, which means that 5-10% Chance WILL happen on average Once every 2 fights, And becoming Utterly Useless every 2 Fights, in such a way that you Will not Recover from Unless you Break away from the Dungeon or quest to go Spend Money in town tow Get it Fixed just plain isn't Fun for anyone involved. (Certainly not the players that get Disabled every Other Fight, not the other players that have to Halt THEIR Adventure Because the Squishy Mage Just got Dismembered, and Not the DM Who Now has to deal with the players never Finishing a Dungeon Map because they're too Busy Returning to Town every 2 Fights)... The Old Revised Star Wars Made by WotC, had an Optional Rule for this that was more Fair: You had to essentially "Double Crit" to have a Dismembering effect, you had to Crit, then Roll to Confirm that Crit, and if that Confirmation Also hit in your Crit Threat Range, then you Rolled to confirm again, and if THAT Hit, then you could Cause a Dismemberment, But it Still would only Slightly Maim a Limb if the Damage wasn't at least High enough to Reasonably say it could do Damage proportional to the damage Done in terms of Utility (AKA about 20-35% of your Max HP to cut off an Arm, 35-45% for a Leg, and how Much of the Limb got Cut off Depended on Just how Much damage you took)... But Loosing a Hand to 2 Damage When you have over 40 Hp is the type of shit that should NEVER happen though, No Matter if it's a Crit or not, there's Just no Justification for that!
In defense of the paladin there are people are some real world religions out there that are pretty extreme in their dogma and likewise real world followers who genuinely do try and follow their religions dogma to the letter. Dying due to refusing medical intervention comes to mind
there is an armour rule I found once which reduced damage by a small amount and keeps most of its armour, I think it's like regular armour -10 and then you half it to get the damage reduction score and then you take the armour reduction score off the regular armour class, this makes it so you still have decent AC but still adds to the realism. a little bookkeeping to start but once you get used to taking away 3 or 4 damage every time you get hit it's pretty ok, you'll get hit more often but some the attacks get 'absorbed' by the armour which can be great for avoiding annoying 1 damage attacks.
I’m fine with the disease part and I love maiming characters, it adds a lot of roleplaying later.. but I’m careful to do it in a way where it adds rather than subtracts to the roleplay.... and everyone is on board with the kind of game first
This reminds me of 4e... too much mechanics over simple fun... Edited: As for the second story... the player behind the bard is definitely someone I would kick out of my game, regardless if he paid me to play or not. I wouldn't tolerate such a lame ass line of "It's what my character would do" to justified willing idiocy.
Honestly, I'd have put my foot down with the Paladin too. She's holding up the game way too much with her indecisive behavior and she needs to either understand that or find a other game, whether she's paying me or not. The enjoyment of the players that pay you should be the priority of professional DMs and that priority ought to include dealing with problems that ruin the fun of the rest of the party, regardless of whether or not those problems are also paying you to be there.
@@JoshtheOverlander Honestly now that I dealt with a couple of such players that slowed down my game a couple of months, I'm in full agreement with you too there. Though thankfully, I not only put my foot down, but also talked with said players. Managed to get them to share the share the RP spotlight more and be more conscious about everyone's time slots. Communication and patience is the key it seems to successful campaigns and team playing role play fun.
*sigh* Yeah, that graphic, with the rat swarms as the grinding stones, is spot on as usual. I have only played a non-caster once, and if you want more realism, just say no Goodberry, no Warforged. But saying the guy who literally has power flowing through his veins recovers magic slower than the guy who has spells to help with his primary duties... no. MAYBE if they used the inverse of the HD, like a d6 for HP is a D8 for slots and the 1d10 is 1d4 for slots, sure. But DMs that are anti-magic like that... there's a reason I never touched Dark Suns or what ever it's called.
To be honest 'It's what my character would do' is not that bad. I usually approve as a DM, but for two caveats which can help to curtail this behaviour: If the behaviour has been outlawed at table during session zero, such as ERP or Torture etc, then that character becomes an NPC if the behaviour does not cease and If the behaviour is called out and that given as a response, the DM or other players have the right to demand they prove it, at which point they have to justify their behaviour based on backstory out of character to the table, if we agree that is logical then fair enough, if it isn't then no, that is clear insanity and they should stop and if they don't want to do so then repeat examples will demonstrate such insanity plainly to the table and permanently insane characters are relegated to, you guessed it, NPC status. And no, you are not allowed to have a secret backstory withheld from the DM. If the DM does not know your backstory it is not cannon and thus not eligible for usage at game and the players are all adults so metagaming isn't really a thing, so you can spill your guts OC and we will keep the info separately (most of us also LARP too so we are used to regular IC/OC separation)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're overhauling the mechanics of 5e to the point where you're fundamentally changing how the game is played, you might as well just play a different system.
I think that paladin watched that Debbie Reynolds skit on Saturday Night Live, about the woman praying to Jesus for literally everything, until he appeared and told her to cut it out, because he had other people to help, too, and thought, "If I do enough of this, the DM will send me my god. It can't fail!" However, the DM could respond to her "Does my god allow me to open a door without knocking?" with "How long have you been following this god? And in all this time, you have not encountered a closed door? Really? Oh, you have? Well how did you handle it then? Did your god smite you? No? Then, however you did it then, without being smited, do it that way now." And "How long have you been following this god? And in all this time, have you never eaten a piece of bread with jam or peanut butter on it? Really? Oh, you have? Well, what did you have on your bread then? Did your god smite you? No? Then, however you ate it then, without being smited, eat it that way now." Repeat that spiel every time, until she gets the point. Fight annoyance with annoyance. But not the "Slap them till they die" annoyance, because that is just over-the-top annoying, and serves no purpose to teach her a lesson. Seriously, I get the "My god won't let me hit back, when it's a party member," but she couldn't just walk away? And why didn't any of the other party members hit HIM. Why let this go down? They didn't hit him until he literally killed her. So ludicrous.
"Armor gives a damage reduction instead of AC"? Dude, that's more video gamey than realistic. The whole point of armor was to straight up negate damage.
It is a good game, but unlike D&D, it has always required better and more skilled play and players to work while D&D has always been more forgiving, even with the grittier and more realistic early editions.
YIKES! This was a bunch of OVERDOING it in BOTH stories; I DO in fact like a bit of realism in my fantasy, but only the stuff that actually ENHANCES the fantasy elements. Also, the DM of the first story is CLEARLY biased class wise; it should be a RULE that DMs HAVE to be OBJECTIVE in this sort of thing. Also, the paladin of the second story sounded like a little kid with a psychologically abusive parent, who's so scared of their getting mad at them, that they have to ask if they're allowed to do ANYTHING, even DEFEND themselves from a bullying big brother, in order to try to avoid it. Again, YIKES!
@@iBloodxHunter should quicken spell do that though it´s already the equivalent of a first level spell slot and you can´t cast more than one leveled spell a turn. so your damage can´t get too high norrmally
@@andrewthegeek6522 oh no, I'm afraid I'm just biased and think the metamagics should get a buff. (In this particular case, extra mechanics) Can't even go on about how much I love Subtle Spell, Quicken Spell and..... The one that doubles range.... Also Twin Spell on healing spells.🍻
Holy crap. I am all for more realism in DnD, to the point a lot of people dont like it but not nearly like this. I use methods many other realistic DMs use, like better falling mechanics and keeping track of the size of items in addition to the weight. What that DM was just... not even realistic.
If a friend keeps slapping you against your consent and threaten to even kill you by doing so, you get a freebie to beat the ever loving shit out of them.
Finally the question has been answered. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? That unstoppable force slaps all 44 of the immovable objects HP away.
Unfortunately, most of the dudes who use that excuse in these horror stories don't actually mean that, it's just an excuse to get away with whatever they want in the moment, even if it blatantly fucks with everyone else's fun.
That was a funny beyond belief. Would have loved that. Bards awsome. So is pal , you talk about fun for everyone, everyone includes people who dont care about the book you turn a session into. Dm s respond, not control. If there silly, be silly back. Bards a idiot? He wakes up with a kabold holding his head, refusing to let go, when u try to remove him he bits you, and when you try to hit him off , hes just fast enough to make you hit yourself. Got murder hobos? Party rested in a forest or dungeon with no sentry? Partys throats were cut while sleeping then robbed by bandits, the party is found naked, dead and covered in vulture ding, half eaten.
I don't get why so many paladins end up going the Lawful Stupid route. I revel in my money-obsessed alcoholic paladin with a criminal background pushing the limits of my god's patience.
Most holy knighthoods have some sort of “justified use of force” bylaw. Ergo, Paladin could have responded with a right hook and “ok, let’s box.” Alas, another Lawful Stupid.
In the first story I would've quit after the first encounter cause those rules are just plain stupid. Second story I've heard on another channel, and yeah again stupid lol. Though at least the paladin was trying to play? Idk their reasoning doesn't make sense to me
1st story, well the DM isn't wrong about 5th edition, it does lack realism (a trend started in 3rd edition), though the solution isn't making a bunch of house rules... 2nd story, PvP will generally work itself it out in the end, but not understanding how to play alignments has been a problem for decades. Also, the bard's alignment should have shifted to chaotic evil, since their actions were causing more harm...
Nothing in DnD has realism, previous editions before 3rd had you believe that wizard at level 1 was about as study as glass nevermind the laundry list of other things.
@@Soulandshadow19 You are entitled to your belief, but since you don't understand what hit points represent, your argument is flawed to begin with. Hit points have always been an abstract of health, luck, evasion, and heroism, something not associated with wizards compared to other classes. Earlier editions tried balance, something lost when WotC took over D&D. There were also consequences to everything one chose, the game was not handed to you on a silver platter as it is now. Despite all of this, there were more durable wizards in the earlier editions, but that durability always came at a cost, something that is no longer the case.
That phrase should be banned and invoke Right to Kick - aka the DM has the divine right to kick out a player who says that damn phrase. I know D&D is supposed to be ROLE playing but when you use your ROLE as an EXCUSE to murder, you should be not only banned from D&D but sent to JAIL FOR LIFE. X( In fact, playing lawful stupid and evil characters should be banned. No jury would convict me if I had psychic powers to blow people's brains up so I could blow up any player I take in that acts evil or stupid just because "That's my character's trait." For that DM who wanted to be true realistic, I'd shuffle them to the History Channel to rewatch the Black Plague over and over again. As one D&D guidebook said "Nobody wants to be slogging through sewage in the streets of realistic 16th century Europe. They even want streetlights." For the lawful dumb paladin, I'd slap herself myself and say "That was your god speaking, he said to stop kowtowing to him and be free willed." And to the bard... well, the other players already jumped him and he can have no regrets going back to his Call of Dooty. XD Sorry, I had to vent. I am so glad I never play D&D, it's probably a nightmare house from all the idiots in it. I know there are good people but with all the perverts, power-gamers, rules lawyers and land sharks, I am so glad FFXIV online bans that sh**.
Frankly... Is someone a friend if they slap you non-stop until you pass out? i'd have intervened as the Dm, like, for sure. Certainly a moment for growth. A godly message pleading for the paladin to protect themselves as they would their own god and not to die in such a naive and stubborn fashion, or something similar.
So I need to ask. What's the fine line between keeping in character and being smart as a player? Cause if you have a character that'd do something absolutely insane and detrimental to the party and yet you as a player knows how stupid it would be to do it. Like what should you do in that situation? It is a roleplay game so what's the limit there?
Am I the only one who like the stated rules in the first story ? XD XD XD The Crit rule is a bit heavy on the player side because . DM makes more attacks and monsters most likely never comeback so a lingering injury on them isn't as helpful. a sorcerer with one hand can still cast spells though they still have one hand free. the dirty water giving everyone the runners and making equipment too dirty was a bad move. just give positioned condition until finding a cure or spending spell slots. I like needing to spend hit dice for spell slots and healing in a long rest rather than I sleep oh I back to full !!! it is way WAY too forgiving tbh. to give an easy way to make spell slots on a long rest doesnt suck as much do make spell slots potions similar to healing potions. easy way is half the healing potion progression would be the spell slots recovered . ex : uncommon potions 1d4+1 spell slots, rare is 2d4+2 slots and so on. and you know ... making healing potions actually valibles !!! Buffing classes and hearing others is not fair and sorcerers already weakened in 5e quite a bit so they dont need more ways to feel bad. while paladins already one if not the strongest class in 5e as a whole ! the second story the Bard was an A-hole and I would have kicked him even if he paid me 100 $ paying for a game doesn't mean you are allowed to be a dick ! the paladin I would have opened up more about the fact that this is ruining pacing
Paladins are fighters who get magical powers from being complete zealots about some particular notion. This is mechanically and canonically how it is. The paladin's god might have allowed her to defend herself, but what's more important here is that the paladin, and the player playing her, did not believe that was the case, and was committed to the ideal of their oath. Lawful Stupid or not, the Paladin was playing a legitimate character, in a way that is not incorrect. People can be committed to their ideals to the point of needless self sacrifice, and it's really not that rare, especially when they believe they have a higher purpose in said sacrifice than in survival. It seems to me the player chose paladin, because they wanted to play a character that was strictly bound to a set of morals and would not under any circumstance betray those morals. The paladin wanted to be a paladin, to be what a paladin is supposed to be.
Her god would not allow her to harm a friend.... So.... grapple? It doesn't NEED to cause damage. She's only barred from harming a FRIEND... So... He STOPS being a friend?
14. Pages. Of. Rule. Changes. My god I have trouble keeping up with rules as they are with all the changes over the years. I mean I tweak a little here and there. But 14 pages? This guy must work for the IRS or something.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have some house rules that add a bit of simulationism or verisimilitude. It requires reading your group though, and group buy-in. *I* like the Darker Dungeons homebrew ruleset, but I'd never run it for a group that didn't want that grittier feeling in their game.
The first story was an DM that was playing the wrong game system (DM should have picked up Pendragon RPG fir a good time). The second story (if I believed it) was the DM not actually stopping 1 bad character. The LN Paladin was fine and some players will not EVER do PVP even if allowed - those players are fine. Also the Paladin could heal self and high AC too! So how long did the PC watch this and not say I don’t know smoke the CN player …oh they just waited till the person that could grapple and stop them with little harm was down (Professional DM? Maybe am missing something but no)
ok as a guy thats been a weekly DM going on 3 to 4 years now i have this to say #1 ya 5e can be a little unrealistic on some things and i have over the years made some new rules BUT 14 PAGES WTF MAN i only made like 3 and got rid of them all after testing #2 Armor Damage reduction ok i also did that but it was like a d6 or so and i had the AC stay the same also it only reduced non magic damage #3 "the action you take on a turn changes your initiative score" this has never ever come to my mind just because how absolutely STUPID it is that is going way way too far its a ROLE PLAYING GAME key word GAME its suppose to be fun not take 6 hours just to get to the back to your turn unless you have like 261 NPC's on the board and even so it might not take that long #4 the crit giving permanent wounds thing there is a magic item that already has that and its a bad idea and a pointless one at that spell scrolls are a thing in dnd just get like 1 or 2k Gold and new hand and your no longer in a star wars movie also i did do something like it BUT it was only when they where put down but got rid of it shorty after preferring to use it as a story telling devise #5 the whole Spell and Hit Die thing ya bad idea as well maybe if instead you gave the players a choice if they wanted to spend those die to get back spells or health maybe but still i can see that getting out of hand fast #6 2:06 WTF -9 JUST NO #7 this DM hates spell casters a lot i feel like out of those 14 pages 13 where there just to screw over spell casters assuming that he did not just put 1 rule a page like when i started being a DM i had trouble with spell casters mostly due to one of my players but i did not go that far all i did was remove necromancy because he kept finding ways to make an undead army and i am not talking about like 15 or 30 undead i can handle that more like 600 to over 1000 #8 2:38 oh ok these rats are from dishonored #9 the armor thing WHY just why also dont let this guy DM again #10 WTF KIND OF GAMES DOES THIS DM PLAY YOU ALL GET DYSNTERY let me guess he did not even worn you of it in fact it sounds like he wanted to get rid of the armor because it was too OP but instead of just saying "Hey guys the armors way to powerful so im going to change it" instead he did this #11 payers not telling me about them is the norm for me i got one that wont even show me his sheet so i can give him a powerup so ya
"It's what my character would do" 5e lends itself more to this than any other version of D&D I have ever seen with the backgrounds. If I have a fighter with a below average intelligence and a temperament dictated by a chosen background, you best believe I'm going to rp exactly that. I get that some people just use the phrase as a justification to be a dipshit but if it's not what your character would do, then why the hell are you doing it? On that note, why is there never anyone to step up and say, "well what my character would do is try to explain why that's a bad idea in this situation" and get some sort of rp going on between players rather than groaning, rolling eyes and just letting it happen?
If unstoppable meets unmovable then we refer to the laws of physics. Equal and opposite reactions blah blah blah. Basically unmovable doesent budge and unstoppable stops. His own energy deflected back at him . unmovable wins I guess lol
Hey man if my character runs headlong into a fight he's outnumbered in to save a important npc or buy the party time to escape, ima hit them with it's what my character would do
sounds like Warlock would do ok in the setting... But yeah crippling others and yourself only because you're crippled the least is not a good way to live.
Imagine a half elf fighter throws a tfling cleric with a ac of 18 down a flight of stairs because he was AFK as a joke ( that wasn't a joke the DM's having me secretly kill him the cleric because he has bounties all over the nation in the organization hired me to kill the cleric or bring them in alive but every single time I nearly kill him a party member always tries to save him but they always failed but the cleric always survives my attempts of killing them he just laughs It off after saying fuck you few times my character always died because of trying to save him just to kill him myself not long after he fell down the stairs a pack of wolves appeared one was a large ice wolf almost instant killed me and it had a nat 20 so my 27 hp went down to 8 hp then our other clerics heals me for 5 hp giving me 13 now then are half orc fighter accidentally stabbed the tanky healer in the foot waking them up from being unconscious from the fall from the stairs taking 1 hp away from them and he had 32 hp but his hp was at 12 from the fall so he had 11 after that then he tries to tame it fails just a magic emblem on the ice wolves head so he trying to do anime move he jumped up into the air using me as a stepping stone tries to punch it in its head the wolf open its mouth wide open and bites his right arm off now he's laying on the ground and bleeding to death but guess what a hail Mary from the DM saves his ass and we get thrown out the dungeon with and now one harmless tank healer that called meat shield because that's all it's good for now or ever has been but I just say I think kicked on the one armed cleric entire way back to town just so he could take a magic potion every grow his arm the emergency item call the baby carriage we put the one arm into it guess what he turned into a baby but that was all after he took the seed that made his arms grow back and the hell a lot more kicking
DM: "Your armor smells too bad to use."
Players: "Well, we clean it with Prestidigitation..."
DM: "Nope, doesn't matter, still smells too bad."
Players: "Okay, so we take a day cleaning it in the river with some soap..."
DM: "Still smells too bad."
Players: "... Okay, so we take the armor to a PRIEST to sanctify it..."
DM: "It is now blessed, and still smells too bad to use."
Players: "So are you telling us that just by eating some bad beans and drinking some questionable water, we can produce an effect *more powerful than any curse?* Because seriously, that Priest? He can cleanse just about any cursed item, even if the curse was cast by a Elder Lich and has endured thousands of years. But if we have an accident on that same item, that's *it,* it's broken *forever?*"
DM: "... Yeah, 'cuz I hate casters."
Players: "*WE NOTICED.*"
Very annoyed player: I cast wish to unstench my armor.
DM: Still smells too bad.
Player: *flips table and leaves*
Not 5 minutes in, and I already got the sense this is a “I hate magic” type of gm.
I can imagine the lawful stupid paladin might have accidentally become an oathbreaker in a previous game and has become super anxious about breaking her deity's rules
I'm just imagining the bard being dogpiled by the rest of the party while screaming "I REGRET NOTHING!"
No regerts!
I haven't DM'd much, admittedly, but if that Bard vs Paladin fight had gone down, I would have done the following.
Bard: "I slap the Paladin again!"
DM: "Cool. Roll for damage, as it's unopposed. The Paladin's God slaps you back. Roll a D100."
Bard: "... What?"
DM: "What, did you think the Gods don't check up on their champions? You have the misfortune of attacking a Paladin with whom you have entered into a covenant of fellowship unprovoked, with intent to harm or kill. So the God has slapped you back, now roll a D100 and we'll see what fun effect they've placed on you from the happy fun table."
Bard: "You can't do that!"
DM: "I mean, if this isn't Chaotic enough for you, I *could* go with my original plan of rolling a D100 and pulling an effect from the Deck of Many Things with all the good cards removed..."
Bard: "But it's not fair!"
DM: "But it's what my character would do."
Lol, completely agreed.
Nah, that's stupid bad DM is god bs.
Make the paladin roll for common sense instead with every slap.
They could also restrain him doing no damage, making it impossible to inflict more damage and doing no damage.
Bard: Is this because I played a cannibal edgelord murder hobo last campaign?
DM: *Eye Twitch* You ate the princess and her newborn.
Paladins patron when a dragon, a horde of ogres, or the BBEG almost kills their Paladin: I sleep.
Paladins patron when a bard gives the Paladin a slap on the cheek: *"REAL SHIT?"*
I see no issue with this logic, other than the fact that it is retarded.
A DnD game so realistic, it ends with an Oregon Trail screen. Wow.
lol
You have dysentery
@@nyotamwuaji6484 Dammit, can I at least have a constitution saving roll?
@@groofay fine. but if you fail im also giving you typhoid. and throwing in a snakebite!
You could actually succumb to such things back in the day. There was an actual mechanic for when and how often you would have to check to see if you contracted a mundane disease and then tables to determine what type and the severity.
If I was the DM of the Paladin that wouldn't hurt the party member, I would have allowed the rogue to kill the paladin and then change the scene to the paladin's god saying, "I'm sending you back... but only if you send him (the rogue) to whatever god he prays to!" In others words, I'd instruct the paladin to go back and kill the rogue. Imagine the rogue's expression when a beam of light shoots down upon the paladin's corpse and the paladin rises up and proceeds to kill him.
I would have pulled the paladin aside and told her that nothing in her oath says she has to tolerate this behavior, and that by not dealing with it she might be in violation of her oath. If she quibbled, I'd ask her if she - player - would tolerate that kind of behavior.
It's best to have lawful characters set out their "laws" to the DM at the start of the campaign... including those of their god(s) perhaps. 😅
Just wants to point out it was a Bard, not a rogue.
"The way magic works is unrealistic, so I changed it."
Bruh it's MAGIC.
I somewhat get punishing the use of spells at a higher spell slot than intended. So maybe instead of losing Initiative, give each player X number of Action Points that can be spent however you want. Extra Action and reducing movement gives additional AP, but using a Reaction or increasing the Spell Slot costs AP.
For example: a player has 30 movement speed (6 squares, 6 AP), 1 action (2 AP), Extra Attack (2 AP), 1 bonus action (1 AP), and a reaction (2 AP), that becomes 13 AP a turn. I will allow the use and combination of Spells and Attacks, so long as the player’s AP isn’t depleted
You can charge a multi-turn action faster if you expend extra AP (if you can prepare a 2-round spell while moving, don’t move for better focus). You can cast a spell as a 2 AP action, but it still takes a spell slot. A cantrip is also a 2 AP action, but you can only use 1 a turn. Each spell slot increase is a +1 AP cost. If you don’t move at all, you get 6 extra AP to spend, including on 3 attacks or on multiple reactions.
@@LocalMaple That would mean if I stand still I could technically attack 6 times (6*2AP) per turn. An interesting idea though. I would probably do something like 3 actions that can be spent however you like, but defense counts as one action. It needs balancing.
@@LocalMaple Some have said they are using an optional rule in the DMG regarding initiative for 5th edition, which sounds like the individual initiative rules from older D&D where every action had an initiative modifier. The higher the spell or the larger the weapon, the slower you went. Not an absurd idea, but I can see why most don't like it because most don't like consequences to their choices, hence why 5th edition plays like it does.
Before, you would have to consider how long it would take to cast certain spells or the speed of weapons when deciding what you were going to do.
@@craigtucker1290 I think it's less about 'consequences' and more about 'doing maths every turn during a fantasy game where you try to work out your initiative correctly'.
Pathfinder is basically storytime maths with extra details in comparison to 5th Ed. Still fun when you get used to it, but not as accessible to newcomers.
@@rowlandedmonds4201 That is why you use the starter material and build up from there. But 5th edition never builds up, it is just starter material and not much more.
And to be honest, I had a new player that jumped into full complexity with not much trouble. Sure, they needed help at first, but it comes down to a matter of practice. And this takes into account we use the final version of initiative which uses phases for attacks, similar to the complexity of Shadowrun in some ways, but basically it staggers multiple attacks at different times. You go on your initiative and every what amounts to a 3 count for the next attack. A player just needs to add all their modifiers to their roll (like adding dexterity, so not hard) and then count every 3 later, that's it.
I kind of understand the Lawful Stupid Paladin of the second story. They probably had a DM who punished them for *not* being true to their alignment or diety. So, this was the result.
Hey, "what my character would do" usually has me walk old ladies across the street and lock up stores when their owners suddenly have to leave.
That's usually my justification phrase for "fleshing out" the numbers & alignment on my character sheet into an actual character... or some rolls I made. Specifically, because of an action my character has or then makes. 😅
I would ask, why did you decided that is what your character would do?
Honestly, I dont think the phrase "Its what my character would do" isnt inherently bad... Its just that MOST of the time its used by people who want to ruin the fun for everyone else... But sometimes, its not bad, as long as its not ruining the game or making other people uncomfortable or mad, because realistically, isnt every decision you make something "your character would do"
"Why are you turning down that huge pile of gold?!" "Because my character isn't greedy and this potato farmers obviously need it more than I do."
@@XX-sp3tt my point exactly
In my group, I've only pulled that line ONCE. The character is on the side of lawful stupid who hates ambushes with a strong code of honor. Upon cornering a suspicious person with the party covering the only exits out of the room, he announced their presence to this figure.
There are a lot of words that are not inherently bad, but get used in derogatory or harmful ways and become perceived as bad.
Here is the problem with that mentality when used in most D&D games. We design and build the characters. What they do is ultimately what we want them to do. We are capable of breaking our own character for the sake of another cause. These causes do not have to be ground shattering or traumatic either. (Such as socializing with people at a family gathering despite being an introvert...)
The phrase is over used in a negative way to justify or try to 'play down' being a complete tool to the other people involved (DM and Players).
Story 1- DM plays The Oregon Trail instead of D&D
Story 2- In a bizarre plot twist, the 2 jerk players end up at the same vacation spot as the DM. Dun dun DUN!
I've used the phrase "It's what my character would do" (paraphrased) exactly one time. My tempest cleric smashed the other cleric upside the head with her warhammer because the other cleric had just killed a child (who had a cursed disease resistant to both Remove Curse and the Restoration spells) without ANYONE making any attempt to inform my tempest about the presence of said disease.
Legitimately didn't even know it existed, but the other party members thought she'd be okay with brazen murder happening in her arm's reach
If there's one defense of "it's what my character would do," it's that sometimes its usage is justified. For example, if you have a party that wants to loot some graves, yet one character objects because desecrating the dead is against their moral code, he has a valid in-character reason for it instead of going "durr hurr let's do it becuz everywun elz is!" just for the sake of keeping the peace at the table.
Totally agree! 😄
In these cases, the defense is "My Character's ethical (or religious, moral, etc...) code and culture considers that abhorrent behavior. He would adamantly refuse this, and will lose respect for anyone who would even consider such a thing."
NOT just the blanket "My Character refuses because that's what he'd do."...
The toxic form of the argument is just that... a toxic one-line delivery that's supposed to justify any stupid thing the Player intends to do... It's been employed for everything from metagaming to diving into subjects the whole Table has agreed (at session-0) NOT to get into... ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Indeed. It should never be used to try to abuse the system or the DM's patience. 😅
@@megamanx466 Exactly... which is why it should genuinely be avoided as a "one line answer"... It's no answer.
If you're about to commit a PC to something controversial or dubious for the sake of the Party, then you should be able to articulate the legitimate thinking process behind your PC's action...
Arguably, as a Player, you should be able to fully articulate the "inner dialogue" for your PC at any point in time... and hold a decent intelligent conversation about it with the GM or any mid-grade writer... It's the same kind of "Character Examination" we did in middle and high school Language Arts when we covered books and stories in class discussions...
ANYWAY... You are entirely correct. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 While true... not everyone is at the same level of creative and logical thinking as that. Some are merely monkey see monkey do. I've played with potheads and 90% of them aren't that bad. 😅
If I was in that game that long:
DM: "You shit yourself so your armour's dirty."
Me: "I clean my armour."
DM: "Nah, smells too bad."
Me: "... That's why I want to clean it."
DM: "Nope, you ditch the armour."
Me: "... NO, I *clean* it."
DM: "Your only options are to buy new armour or go without."
Me: "Not if I CLEAN my amour."
It will get you somewhere as long as you keep the pressure going.
Yeah, that's fricking stupid. It smells too bad? Fine, I shove wine corks up my nose or something. Screw you, DM.
I mean, if he wanted realism, they could have at least offered a third option of cleaning themselves and clothes off for a time loss of a few hours.
Probably would have asked him if he changed what prestidigitation did, and if he said no then i would cast it multiple times to clean the armor and change the smell, telling him that I can do that with prestidigitation since he said he didn't change it's effect.
@@williamfalls or instead change smell by damage, needing repair. Makes much more sense than dirtiness/smelliness be a reason to ditch a armor, they are expensive!
"It's what my character would do" generally means protecting my party viciously (as a gnome warlock the chiwawa vibes are intended)
But also insane curiosity means dissecting every enemy he can, randomly gathering/combining plants into potions and powders that seldom have the healing effects he wants.. (including the dm telling me once l about literally created napalm)
And spending mornings communing with his patron because they bonded over their insane thirst for knowledge and he won't let his bud miss out on any juicy details he learned. 😂
I love this
Reminds me when my chaotic bard thought he'd try to kill a minotaur skeleton by removing its' head mid combat. Got lucky with acrobatics to climb it but it died before he could try.
This hasn't actually come up in any sort of session that I've been in, but I can easily imagine it happening nonetheless:
Murderhobo: "Why are you giving the homeless urchins GOLD?!"
Me: "It's what my character would do."
News flash, part of my idealized power fantasy is to be a good person and use my riches to improve the lives of the less fortunate.
I say you should take "Give someone a fish and they're fed for a day, teach them to make fishing equipment and how to fish and they're fed for life." to heart.
Don't do charity, build up their infrastructure to help the poor become self-sufficient. Maybe create an organization that helps with this.
Of course, if your character doesn't know this then they may not do this. I just want to make sure that you, the player, know of this since this is a common error I see.
@@redforest9269 Charity works when you don't have the means to create an organization to help the masses. It also can mean the world to someone when you show them some kindness and compassion when they are at their lowest point. After all, Christ fed the poor and healed the sick with no strings attached.
@@redforest9269 Charity works when you don't have the means to create an organization to help the masses. It also can mean the world to someone when you show them some kindness and compassion when they are at their lowest point. After all, Christ fed the poor and healed the sick with no strings attached.
@@reapergrimm8 I know that charity is better than nothing. It's NOT that Charity is "bad", it's just that a lot of people see it as the end-all-be-all.
And I think you're severely overestimating the cost of creating an organization, ANY organization, to organize the poor you speak of to take control of their own fate. Especially in the situation where you're rich and probably don't have much better to spend your stuff on.
And indeed, your organization should definitely not discriminate, "Oh we'll help you but only if you convert." Even if you are religious, or I'd say ESPECIALLY if you're religious, you MUST help everyone. Even IF you're say, homophobic, you can just avoid homosexuals and let other volunteers directly talk to them. What, they deserve to starve because you don't like how they think? If they need the help and aren't hurting anyone then...
Though in an IRL example there's probably ALREADY an organization in your area that does these things, I was mostly just working on the Fantasy assumption that medieval times really sucked and didn't have these things (aside from churches I suppose).
I pulled the line "it's what my character would do" when it came to being in a crypt dungeon and I found a crown in a coffin. I put it on. My DM gave me an out and asked, "Are you sure you want to do that?" And I was like "no, but it's what my stupid rogue would do"
Working with character flaws instead of against them even though you know bad things will happen out of character is typically what one of my my DM expects from us.
One of my favorite characters was a lawful neutral paladin who's entire thing was to make sure people were having fun, and to kill or hurt anyone who soiled the fun of others. I remember one time he was having fun sharing drinks with a bunch of guards, and helped them on there patrol as thanks for a good time during which he caught a rapist using his glaive to cut off his legs heal his stumps then dragged him to jail and asked if he could be the one to execute him. It shocked everyone at the table, and I explained my paladins oath the second time which is why they realized my alignment was neutral and not good.
I think the biggest problem with the second one are these lines:
"May I see your backstory?"
"No"
Seriously, a DM that doesn't have your backstory, I feel, has the right to make up a backstory for you. Then you have no right to complain when you are told what it is
Playing a Paladin myself for nearly 2 years now, I've come to the conclusion that they are better played via their Oath rather than their alignment. Mine started off as Oath of the Crown, which had both narrative and mechanical benefits that the DM was working around, but as the game went on, we both (the character and I) realized her morals leaned into something different than what the Crown's tenets lined up with. So after much thought and consideration, we changed her Oath.
There's a fine line between swearing loyalty to a group and pledging Devotion to your party. As she said recently, "You don't know how serious my Devotion is."
Arguably, the Paladin Oaths are built to represent the alignments. Devotion is LG. Ancients is NG. Vengeance is CG.
That is because very few understand how to play by the alignment and the oath which used to be the way it was done. TSR actually made a book that had very detailed examples of various situations and how a paladin would act accordingly because the gaming community didn't understand what lawful good actually means and this was back when alignment had its own chapter in the books. Lawful doesn't actually mean adheres to the law, it means that one values the needs of society over the needs of the individual while chaotic means the opposite. This is what most get wrong and what created those memes.
Still, to this day, most do not understand what the alignments really mean, that they are not subjective, and that the player only gets to declare their alignment at the initial creation and after that, it is the DM that determines their character's actual alignment based on the character's actions.
@@craigtucker1290 Even then, the books and examples have been nothing more than credited to guidelines, especially these days with creativity being a main focus of WotC's new releases. My Paladin has been staying within her tenets despite the fact that some of her deeds may not have been considered lawful, or even considered 'best for society' compared to 'select individuals'. She ends up more of a 'knight of the people' rather than a 'knight of the nation' for her belief that it takes a collective peoples to create a proper society, thus seeks equality for a balanced kingdom, despite years of tradition and current laws being withstanding for generations.
So while she does stick to her moral code, she'll bend societies laws if she finds them unjust. Thus birthing what I consider to be a Neutral Good Paladin.
@@Chaotix010 They are not guidelines, they are how the game actually works if one follows the rules as written which is how the game is intended to be played. The problem is that too many end up "making the game their own" which has been necessitated by the anemic lack of material support from WotC with the current edition.
What I am talking about is the pre-WotC material, when paladins had to be lawful good (for the most part) as a paladin was the pinnacle of what it meant to be lawful good, rather than the sham that they are now that does not embody what a paladin is supposed to be. This is why they (TSR) released a book to help those on how to play what is supposed to be a challenging class to play. With great power, come great responsibility. This explained how one could act with some flexibility while still maintaining their status, yet dispelled the believed lawful stupid restrictions that the community came up with on their own.
This is no longer the case in the current edition where alignment doesn't really matter (not that most know what they really mean with a vague half-page explanation) and paladins are no longer tied to the code of chivalry they once were. Instead, you get a lot of power with no requirement to follow the codes of chivalry, lawful goodness, or be the epitome of what it means to be a hero. All you have to do is follow a an that isn't all that restrictive (a common theme with WotC) and most who play paladins these days still manage to even violate these vague guidelines, yet their DMs do not cause them to fall or even reprimand them. Such is the nature of current D&D where there seems to be little consequences to much of anything, just more power as WotC continues to give the milk away for free.
I wish more DMs would follow the rules regarding failing to fulfill oaths and make players responsible for following their oaths properly.
Lawful Good paladins would fight against unjust laws and this was not a violation of the paladins code or the lawful good alignment, you didn't need to be neutral good. Upholding laws, even unjust laws, is more of a lawful neutral viewpoint than a lawful good one. It is the good part that prevents them from just going along with an unjust law.
@@craigtucker1290 Fair. I respect your view on it.
You had to change armor... Because it smelled.
Dude. I would wear armor made of dung if it means it would survive a dragon blast.
It seems like he pulled some of these rules from the variants in the DMG.
at what point would the paladin not consider the bard a friend? i guess not after being slapped over 40 times
_First example of a house rule from DM_
0:44 : "1) The action you take in a turn changes your initiative score. We had to recalculate initiative every single turn."
I would like to complete the first encounter in the campaign sometime this century.
In conclusion, some people aren’t made to be a DM... or even play. Lol
Hey I’ve got a story I’d love to submit to the channel. Is there a way to do that directly or do I just publish it on a DnD Story forum and hope for the best?
I'd be curious to know, too.
Sounds like he rips these off the subreddit RPG horror stories
@@mirnoyevolkodav8036 possibly, though I wouldn't call it ripping off since they are posted in public to be shared.
It's not ripping off if they give credit to OP
@@Dannydarko27 that too
In the 1st story, I get adding a few minor things for the sake of realism, but if the DM wanted to play a realistic game, go with a system that allows that.
I would say use an edition before WotC took over D&D and turned it into a video game.
@@craigtucker1290 I've started with 3rd edition and to me it's the most complete and supportive one. It was also the most customizable. 4th felt like it was trying to emulate a computer game, though had some fun ideas, and 5th cut down on so many things for the sake of 'simplicity' and 'fun' it's really hard to actually balance anything. Not to mention there are no rules for the DM to follow when creating said homebrew (like a ballpark estimate on how much time and money would it take to research a spell).
Compare:
In 3rd every spell as a rule of thumb did 1d6 in damage per spell level. It could do more if the effect only affected a small group of enemies (searing light dealing 4d8 vs undead). It was a simple rule of thumb. All spell research costs were dependent on level and used a simple formulae to estimate.
In 5th edition a third level spell starts of doing 5d6 and only goes up from there. It wouldn't be that bad, but it's fireball, a blast spell with a bigger area of effect than in 3rd edition. No other spell comes close to it in sheer damage potential. No wonder it's become a meme. I couldn't find a word in the DMG on how long it would take a wizard to research a new spell, or how costly it would be. I guess it's just handwaved as 'you do it'. Sure, you can adjust or ignore a rule if it fits your story better, but the problem is that there's no rule there in the first place. It's much more cumbersome having to invent something out of whole cloth.
@@krinkrin5982 And I can't fault your comparison because of which edition you started with, but 2nd edition was the height of sophistication for D&D with all of its options and material that has yet to be equaled before or since. After all, where did you think most of 3rd edition came from? It was 2nd edition, just repackaged with some of the rule changes that had been experimented with in late 2nd edition which includes feats and skills, though these proved unpopular at the time of 2nd edition. 3rd was actually a dumbed-down version of 2nd edition that copied most of it rules word for word from the later 2nd edition rulebooks. But it also began the tradition of giving way the milk for free and it showed with multiple balance issues and the over-proliferation of magic items that haunted that edition.
2nd edition actually has more material, sourcebooks, and generally options than 3rd edition except for races which 3rd does have more of. 2nd edition had more spells, more types of magic, more magical items, more modifications to classes through a seemingly unending option of kits, and more information on specific settings. While 3rd edition did offer unrestricted class access, this change did conflict with setting lore and violated canon. What you see in 5th edition being dumbed-down from the previous edition is exactly the same thing when the game went from AD&D 2nd edition to D&D 3rd edition with the elimination of many concepts like system shock, chance to learn spells, resurrection survival being replaced by the same hand waived automatic successes that you are now complaining about with 5th edition. I tried 3rd edition, but found it to be a dumbed-down version of the game I liked that offered less and that bent over and gave into community whiners that wanted absurd things like opening up the classes and trading priest spells for healing.
Each edition has only gotten worse since 2nd edition with 3rd edition being the beginning of the reign of power-gaming with the proliferation of magic items, overpowered feats, and ridiculous prestige classes; ending with 5th edition being the dumbed-down, mollycoddling, plays like a video game edition that just has no ability to scale up.
Not sure what you are talking about in regards to fireball, according to the 3/3.5 PHB, it is 3rd level spell with 40' radius just like it is in 5th edition. A 2nd edition fireball detonated at ground level actually has a radius of 49' as it fills a cubic volume, not a radius. Another example of how things were dumbed down from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, though I can understand this one as most didn't know or have access to the math to calculate a volume based area of effect that tries to remain spherical.
He could've used cyberpunk mechanics in a dnd setting..... I mean, why not?
"'It's what my character would do' is the worst phrase anyone can utter in a game of D&D."
I don't agree. Just look at Grog from Critical Role. I don't believe Travis ever actually said those words, but boy did he ever *live* them! Grog was a true, loyal friend to the party, but every once in a while he would go and do something completely random and crazy that came completely out of left field and had nothing to do with what the rest of the party was doing, because it was ABSOLUTELY what Grog would have done in that case. And those generally turned out to be some of the funniest moments of the campaign!
I continue to not understand how the people being picked on in situations like this (in the first case, the casters) don't just walk out without a word.
Let's point out that the armor rules are actually less realistic. You hurt someone in full plate by targeting its gaps. If you miss the gap in the armor you really aren't doing much to that person. That's what AC symbolizes. You're not stabbing someone through a steel plate regardless of how hard you stab, so DR as the primary way armor works makes no sense.
Whenever I think of people trying to make games like D&D more realistic, I always think about something that Jacob Budz from XP to Level 3 said:
"If you want a realistic experience, go outside! Take a backpack, go up in the woods and walk around with the real, real trees with your real motivation and your real body, you realistic piece of sh- POO POO."
That DM should have just designed their own game system from scratch.
I'd considered trying to pick up some money as a paid DM.. and it's stories like this that make me realize I would never make any money from it. Players like this or the first wiff of 'I'm paying you so you have to let me do what I want/give me what I want' and I'd be out of there and refunding the money.
I think if you *need* to pay a DM to DM for you... then your Yelp reviews as a player should be checked! 😅
I'd be laying down quite a few rules right off the bat and forcing customers to agree to them. 1) You are not the main character, you are one piece of the whole, so always mind your party members. 2) Just because you are a paying customer does not give you the right to do whatever you want, I'm not hosting a power fantasy, this is D&D. 3) Backstories are required and to be shown to me *before* the first session. There are no "mysterious backstories" that the DM cannot know, else how is he expected to make it work in the world he's building? If you have a backstory, but refuse to show it to me, I'm going to assume you're just making shit up for an easy excuse to do whatever you fancy. If that's the case, I'm either going to make your backstory for you or you can take a hike, your choice.
Etc. Etc.
Even if people pay me, I need to have some ground rules and standards for what I'm going to allow, else it's not quite professional and it's only going to backfire. The usual excuses paid DMs give in these stories for letting this stuff slide typically comes down to "They're paying me, otherwise I wouldn't allow this".
But if you keep letting it happen, it's only going to backfire on you in the long run. Players that are genuinely here to play the game and are taking it seriously will see you as someone who has no backbone or let's too many things go without consequence and will lose interest in playing your game, meaning less money for you and the possibility of other players avoiding your campaigns for that very reason through word of mouth in the game store (Assuming you're doing this irl)
Story 1: Sounds like the DM had some unnatural hatred for casters and magic.
Story 2: The Bard got what he deserved and the Paladin took herself out of the equation. OK, problem solved
you're braver than i am. i would have walked out after reading the insane rules.
Every time I see a character in a hoodie (or similar) with a missing hand my brain goes "Poor Ethan Winters".
I actually Kinda Get some of the Custom Rules that they Made for that First Story.
The Armor as DR is one that I actually Like a LOT, it not only allows you to differentiate the "Why/how You were protected from harm" Way Better than a Generic AC stat, that 20 AC from a Monk with 20 Dex and Wis Does exactly the same thing as a Fighter in Full plate and a Shield, in both Cases the Descriptive is "it Misses" even though of of the characters is Straight up spider-Senseing and hyper Dodging Everything, and the second is Just Standing there like a Statue, yet nothing actually them him anyway... And the 9 DR that a Full plate armor Might give you sounds like a Lot, Until you realize that it's DR, and it does literally nothing to Protect you from anything But Slashing, Bludgeoning and Piercing damage, So Any kind of Elemental, Force, Necrotic, Radiant or Psychic Damage Goes Right through, and your Low AC (Since you're Basically a statue) Means that you're pretty Much guaranteed to get hit by attacks that do that kind of Damage, And classes that have Access to Heavy Armor usually don't have Proficiency with Dex Saves. There's a full set of Official Rules to do this in Pathfinder too, I think it was in 3.5 as well.
The Penalty to Initiative for casting Higher level Spells, is one that Thematically I understand, but it's the Kind of Rule that Makes Combat Far more Clunky and it IS a Bit unfair to Casters (Then again, a Power Word Kill Spell going off before you can even act is a Bit unfair to Fighters soooo). The Idea is clearly to make it so that Stronger spells take longer to cast, Causing a Delay in exactly WHEN the Spell will finish casting. Plus all you'd really have to do is Adjust the caster's Static Initiative Roll they did at the start of the fight when they cast to make it much faster, rather than reroll every round (Though I've Seen games, Such as "Anima: Beyond Fantasy" Where Initiative Needs to be Rolled Every Single Round, and it's important because it's part of the core mechanics of the game)... I've Honestly Seen worse in terms of Trying to Apply this concept in games. Exalted for Example has you Take a FULL Extra Turn to cast Higher Level Spells (Lukily there's only 3 Levels of Spells), But each Extra Level Does Exponentially more than the Previous one, if someone is Dumb enough to Leave the Mage alone for 3 Rounds as he Casts a Solar Level Spell(and the Spell only goes off on the 4th Turn), He Deserves to Buried under a Volcano...
The Rule That Baffles me though, is the one where You recover Spell slots Based off HD, where he Explicitly gave a MASSIVE Advantage to Martial Casters Like Paladins and Rangers... I Get the Idea that he wants to Slow down "Mana Regeneration" to make Magic Feel more Special and rare, That Much is OK so Long as the players are Aware and OK with this as they MAKE their Characters. But Making it so that the "I Guess I can Cast Some Minor Magic" Classes Somehow Recover their "Mana" Faster than the Pure Caster Classes is just Straight up dumb. If he Insists on using that System, He Should have Made it so that the HD recovered in spell slots Scaled in the Opposite Direction as HP, Wizards and Sorcerers Get d12s, Clerics and Druids Get D10s, Bards Get D8s (these Little Bastards are Versatile enough, they don't Need to recover as well as full casters on top of it!), and Rangers and Paladins Get D6s. Then Maybe Add a Bonus Equal to your Caster Level + Casting Stat to the number of Slots Recovered (Half that for Rangers and Paladins). Warlocks Meanwhile, Laugh their Asses off as their Primary Class Feature is that they recover ALL the Spell slots on a Short Rest, so that Stays the same! (the whole point of the Class's casting is that they recover Fast, but have Less Total ammo). This Spell slot Recovery System isn't even as Bad as it Might seem, as usually, a Few Days Happen between any given Encounter, so You're Likely to fully recover Spell slots Between each anyway(Since you'll probably have a Week's Rest/Travel between Town and whatever Dungeon you go to, Seriosuly, if you can't recover all your Spell slots with (7d12+(Lvl+Casting stat)X7) Levels of Slots, something is VERY Wrong). unless you're Exploring the Underdark or something (In which case, the Lack of time to recover is part of the Challenge of the place). A Nice Benefit to this System as well is that the DM can add some "Mana potions" to the setting, give the players something to spend some of their Cash on that isn't just Healing and Favors from Random NPCs.
As for the Crit Rule, this isn't the First Time I've seen a Rule like this, and it's not a Bad Idea in and of itself, but the way they Applied it is FAR to Extreme, having a Chance of Dismemberment with ANY Crit no Matter how Much damage it does is WAY too Much, a 5-10%(With Improved Critical) Chance per Attack to have something happen to you that Might completely Disable you until you can have some HIGH Level Regeneration Cast on you is WAY too Much, in general you'll be attacked Dozens of times per fight, which means that 5-10% Chance WILL happen on average Once every 2 fights, And becoming Utterly Useless every 2 Fights, in such a way that you Will not Recover from Unless you Break away from the Dungeon or quest to go Spend Money in town tow Get it Fixed just plain isn't Fun for anyone involved. (Certainly not the players that get Disabled every Other Fight, not the other players that have to Halt THEIR Adventure Because the Squishy Mage Just got Dismembered, and Not the DM Who Now has to deal with the players never Finishing a Dungeon Map because they're too Busy Returning to Town every 2 Fights)... The Old Revised Star Wars Made by WotC, had an Optional Rule for this that was more Fair: You had to essentially "Double Crit" to have a Dismembering effect, you had to Crit, then Roll to Confirm that Crit, and if that Confirmation Also hit in your Crit Threat Range, then you Rolled to confirm again, and if THAT Hit, then you could Cause a Dismemberment, But it Still would only Slightly Maim a Limb if the Damage wasn't at least High enough to Reasonably say it could do Damage proportional to the damage Done in terms of Utility (AKA about 20-35% of your Max HP to cut off an Arm, 35-45% for a Leg, and how Much of the Limb got Cut off Depended on Just how Much damage you took)... But Loosing a Hand to 2 Damage When you have over 40 Hp is the type of shit that should NEVER happen though, No Matter if it's a Crit or not, there's Just no Justification for that!
In defense of the paladin there are people are some real world religions out there that are pretty extreme in their dogma and likewise real world followers who genuinely do try and follow their religions dogma to the letter. Dying due to refusing medical intervention comes to mind
damn last time i was this early the DM still had snacks xD
I love love love realism in tabletop combat. This attempt was a little messy though, not gonna lie.
Pictured: The world's worst car wash.
Don’t say it too loud, now everyone will want some!
there is an armour rule I found once which reduced damage by a small amount and keeps most of its armour, I think it's like regular armour -10 and then you half it to get the damage reduction score and then you take the armour reduction score off the regular armour class, this makes it so you still have decent AC but still adds to the realism. a little bookkeeping to start but once you get used to taking away 3 or 4 damage every time you get hit it's pretty ok, you'll get hit more often but some the attacks get 'absorbed' by the armour which can be great for avoiding annoying 1 damage attacks.
I’m fine with the disease part and I love maiming characters, it adds a lot of roleplaying later.. but I’m careful to do it in a way where it adds rather than subtracts to the roleplay.... and everyone is on board with the kind of game first
Aaaah the background making me dizzy! YIRBEL LIVES!
The Paladin was fine, I just would have redirected her to pray to see if he showed her to do things. The Bard got what was coming, so no problem.
This reminds me of 4e... too much mechanics over simple fun...
Edited: As for the second story... the player behind the bard is definitely someone I would kick out of my game, regardless if he paid me to play or not. I wouldn't tolerate such a lame ass line of "It's what my character would do" to justified willing idiocy.
Honestly, I'd have put my foot down with the Paladin too. She's holding up the game way too much with her indecisive behavior and she needs to either understand that or find a other game, whether she's paying me or not. The enjoyment of the players that pay you should be the priority of professional DMs and that priority ought to include dealing with problems that ruin the fun of the rest of the party, regardless of whether or not those problems are also paying you to be there.
@@JoshtheOverlander Honestly now that I dealt with a couple of such players that slowed down my game a couple of months, I'm in full agreement with you too there. Though thankfully, I not only put my foot down, but also talked with said players. Managed to get them to share the share the RP spotlight more and be more conscious about everyone's time slots. Communication and patience is the key it seems to successful campaigns and team playing role play fun.
I use "It's what my character would do" to make everyone at the table die laughing.
*sigh* Yeah, that graphic, with the rat swarms as the grinding stones, is spot on as usual. I have only played a non-caster once, and if you want more realism, just say no Goodberry, no Warforged. But saying the guy who literally has power flowing through his veins recovers magic slower than the guy who has spells to help with his primary duties... no. MAYBE if they used the inverse of the HD, like a d6 for HP is a D8 for slots and the 1d10 is 1d4 for slots, sure. But DMs that are anti-magic like that... there's a reason I never touched Dark Suns or what ever it's called.
To be honest 'It's what my character would do' is not that bad. I usually approve as a DM, but for two caveats which can help to curtail this behaviour:
If the behaviour has been outlawed at table during session zero, such as ERP or Torture etc, then that character becomes an NPC if the behaviour does not cease and
If the behaviour is called out and that given as a response, the DM or other players have the right to demand they prove it, at which point they have to justify their behaviour based on backstory out of character to the table, if we agree that is logical then fair enough, if it isn't then no, that is clear insanity and they should stop and if they don't want to do so then repeat examples will demonstrate such insanity plainly to the table and permanently insane characters are relegated to, you guessed it, NPC status.
And no, you are not allowed to have a secret backstory withheld from the DM. If the DM does not know your backstory it is not cannon and thus not eligible for usage at game and the players are all adults so metagaming isn't really a thing, so you can spill your guts OC and we will keep the info separately (most of us also LARP too so we are used to regular IC/OC separation)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're overhauling the mechanics of 5e to the point where you're fundamentally changing how the game is played, you might as well just play a different system.
Or play an earlier edition that is more realistic, before WotC, that is.
I think that paladin watched that Debbie Reynolds skit on Saturday Night Live, about the woman praying to Jesus for literally everything, until he appeared and told her to cut it out, because he had other people to help, too, and thought, "If I do enough of this, the DM will send me my god. It can't fail!"
However, the DM could respond to her "Does my god allow me to open a door without knocking?" with "How long have you been following this god? And in all this time, you have not encountered a closed door? Really? Oh, you have? Well how did you handle it then? Did your god smite you? No? Then, however you did it then, without being smited, do it that way now." And "How long have you been following this god? And in all this time, have you never eaten a piece of bread with jam or peanut butter on it? Really? Oh, you have? Well, what did you have on your bread then? Did your god smite you? No? Then, however you ate it then, without being smited, eat it that way now." Repeat that spiel every time, until she gets the point.
Fight annoyance with annoyance. But not the "Slap them till they die" annoyance, because that is just over-the-top annoying, and serves no purpose to teach her a lesson.
Seriously, I get the "My god won't let me hit back, when it's a party member," but she couldn't just walk away? And why didn't any of the other party members hit HIM. Why let this go down? They didn't hit him until he literally killed her. So ludicrous.
"Armor gives a damage reduction instead of AC"? Dude, that's more video gamey than realistic. The whole point of armor was to straight up negate damage.
DM sounds like they would enjoy something like Shadowrun more.
It is a good game, but unlike D&D, it has always required better and more skilled play and players to work while D&D has always been more forgiving, even with the grittier and more realistic early editions.
-10 sympathy for that paladin
This is why we cant have nice things
YIKES! This was a bunch of OVERDOING it in BOTH stories; I DO in fact like a bit of realism in my fantasy, but only the stuff that actually ENHANCES the fantasy elements. Also, the DM of the first story is CLEARLY biased class wise; it should be a RULE that DMs HAVE to be OBJECTIVE in this sort of thing.
Also, the paladin of the second story sounded like a little kid with a psychologically abusive parent, who's so scared of their getting mad at them, that they have to ask if they're allowed to do ANYTHING, even DEFEND themselves from a bullying big brother, in order to try to avoid it.
Again, YIKES!
Bard went full Postal Dude. Smacking someone to death and going with "I regret nothing"
That DM should have just ran Storyteller/Vampire the Masquerade imo
7:00 The Slap Remastered moment
I just heard this guys voice in an ad for one of those "hair restoring" things.
I´ve considered a hyper realistic traveling grindy style campaign, but that will need wargame style players
0:45 that initiative is in the dmg i´ve never thought of using it
I actually like the idea but it needs to be loosened a bit. Quicken Spell should do the exact opposite.
@@iBloodxHunter should quicken spell do that though it´s already the equivalent of a first level spell slot and you can´t cast more than one leveled spell a turn. so your damage can´t get too high norrmally
course there is extra thought that you could then use your action to dodge or use a magic item so *shrugs*
@@andrewthegeek6522 oh no, I'm afraid I'm just biased and think the metamagics should get a buff. (In this particular case, extra mechanics)
Can't even go on about how much I love Subtle Spell, Quicken Spell and..... The one that doubles range....
Also Twin Spell on healing spells.🍻
@@iBloodxHunter twin spell on healing spells? i suppose you have to choose the right subclass multiclass or take a feat, but that´s genuous
Holy crap. I am all for more realism in DnD, to the point a lot of people dont like it but not nearly like this. I use methods many other realistic DMs use, like better falling mechanics and keeping track of the size of items in addition to the weight. What that DM was just... not even realistic.
if a person in full plate armor was to take a fire ball full on would that tern the armor to a oven?
If a friend keeps slapping you against your consent and threaten to even kill you by doing so, you get a freebie to beat the ever loving shit out of them.
Idk this is the kinda games I play in more or less and we have lots of fun
Aside from the magic
What I mean is the whole it’s what my character would do, the people I play with love good role play
Finally the question has been answered.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
That unstoppable force slaps all 44 of the immovable objects HP away.
"Hulk like this solution a lot. Will experiment with this later."
5:58 if it is what your character would do consider if this character fits into the TEAM game of D&D
Unfortunately, most of the dudes who use that excuse in these horror stories don't actually mean that, it's just an excuse to get away with whatever they want in the moment, even if it blatantly fucks with everyone else's fun.
Oregon Trail: D&D Edition.
This sounds like a very anti magic paladin heavy dm.
You did this for friendship sake...the second you think that...walk away..it ruins the friendship
That was a funny beyond belief. Would have loved that. Bards awsome. So is pal , you talk about fun for everyone, everyone includes people who dont care about the book you turn a session into. Dm s respond, not control. If there silly, be silly back. Bards a idiot? He wakes up with a kabold holding his head, refusing to let go, when u try to remove him he bits you, and when you try to hit him off , hes just fast enough to make you hit yourself. Got murder hobos? Party rested in a forest or dungeon with no sentry? Partys throats were cut while sleeping then robbed by bandits, the party is found naked, dead and covered in vulture ding, half eaten.
I don't get why so many paladins end up going the Lawful Stupid route. I revel in my money-obsessed alcoholic paladin with a criminal background pushing the limits of my god's patience.
I try to prioritize my campaigns based on story, rather than the use of mechanics. That way I can play them across different Editions
Most holy knighthoods have some sort of “justified use of force” bylaw. Ergo, Paladin could have responded with a right hook and “ok, let’s box.”
Alas, another Lawful Stupid.
In the first story I would've quit after the first encounter cause those rules are just plain stupid. Second story I've heard on another channel, and yeah again stupid lol. Though at least the paladin was trying to play? Idk their reasoning doesn't make sense to me
1st story, well the DM isn't wrong about 5th edition, it does lack realism (a trend started in 3rd edition), though the solution isn't making a bunch of house rules...
2nd story, PvP will generally work itself it out in the end, but not understanding how to play alignments has been a problem for decades. Also, the bard's alignment should have shifted to chaotic evil, since their actions were causing more harm...
Nothing in DnD has realism, previous editions before 3rd had you believe that wizard at level 1 was about as study as glass nevermind the laundry list of other things.
@@Soulandshadow19 You are entitled to your belief, but since you don't understand what hit points represent, your argument is flawed to begin with. Hit points have always been an abstract of health, luck, evasion, and heroism, something not associated with wizards compared to other classes. Earlier editions tried balance, something lost when WotC took over D&D. There were also consequences to everything one chose, the game was not handed to you on a silver platter as it is now.
Despite all of this, there were more durable wizards in the earlier editions, but that durability always came at a cost, something that is no longer the case.
That phrase should be banned and invoke Right to Kick - aka the DM has the divine right to kick out a player who says that damn phrase. I know D&D is supposed to be ROLE playing but when you use your ROLE as an EXCUSE to murder, you should be not only banned from D&D but sent to JAIL FOR LIFE. X(
In fact, playing lawful stupid and evil characters should be banned. No jury would convict me if I had psychic powers to blow people's brains up so I could blow up any player I take in that acts evil or stupid just because "That's my character's trait." For that DM who wanted to be true realistic, I'd shuffle them to the History Channel to rewatch the Black Plague over and over again. As one D&D guidebook said "Nobody wants to be slogging through sewage in the streets of realistic 16th century Europe. They even want streetlights." For the lawful dumb paladin, I'd slap herself myself and say "That was your god speaking, he said to stop kowtowing to him and be free willed." And to the bard... well, the other players already jumped him and he can have no regrets going back to his Call of Dooty. XD
Sorry, I had to vent. I am so glad I never play D&D, it's probably a nightmare house from all the idiots in it. I know there are good people but with all the perverts, power-gamers, rules lawyers and land sharks, I am so glad FFXIV online bans that sh**.
Frankly... Is someone a friend if they slap you non-stop until you pass out? i'd have intervened as the Dm, like, for sure. Certainly a moment for growth. A godly message pleading for the paladin to protect themselves as they would their own god and not to die in such a naive and stubborn fashion, or something similar.
...oh gods, that DM. That would have been a nope-nope & 'I'll be over here playing FF7'
So I need to ask. What's the fine line between keeping in character and being smart as a player? Cause if you have a character that'd do something absolutely insane and detrimental to the party and yet you as a player knows how stupid it would be to do it. Like what should you do in that situation? It is a roleplay game so what's the limit there?
Am I the only one who like the stated rules in the first story ? XD XD XD
The Crit rule is a bit heavy on the player side because . DM makes more attacks and monsters most likely never comeback so a lingering injury on them isn't as helpful. a sorcerer with one hand can still cast spells though they still have one hand free.
the dirty water giving everyone the runners and making equipment too dirty was a bad move. just give positioned condition until finding a cure or spending spell slots.
I like needing to spend hit dice for spell slots and healing in a long rest rather than I sleep oh I back to full !!! it is way WAY too forgiving tbh.
to give an easy way to make spell slots on a long rest doesnt suck as much do make spell slots potions similar to healing potions. easy way is half the healing potion progression would be the spell slots recovered . ex : uncommon potions 1d4+1 spell slots, rare is 2d4+2 slots and so on. and you know ... making healing potions actually valibles !!!
Buffing classes and hearing others is not fair and sorcerers already weakened in 5e quite a bit so they dont need more ways to feel bad. while paladins already one if not the strongest class in 5e as a whole !
the second story the Bard was an A-hole and I would have kicked him even if he paid me 100 $ paying for a game doesn't mean you are allowed to be a dick !
the paladin I would have opened up more about the fact that this is ruining pacing
Ive made realism rules but honestly this doesnt look like it has any.... The initiative thing is indefensible
Paladins are fighters who get magical powers from being complete zealots about some particular notion.
This is mechanically and canonically how it is.
The paladin's god might have allowed her to defend herself, but what's more important here is that the paladin, and the player playing her, did not believe that was the case, and was committed to the ideal of their oath. Lawful Stupid or not, the Paladin was playing a legitimate character, in a way that is not incorrect.
People can be committed to their ideals to the point of needless self sacrifice, and it's really not that rare, especially when they believe they have a higher purpose in said sacrifice than in survival. It seems to me the player chose paladin, because they wanted to play a character that was strictly bound to a set of morals and would not under any circumstance betray those morals. The paladin wanted to be a paladin, to be what a paladin is supposed to be.
Her god would not allow her to harm a friend.... So.... grapple? It doesn't NEED to cause damage.
She's only barred from harming a FRIEND... So... He STOPS being a friend?
14. Pages. Of. Rule. Changes.
My god I have trouble keeping up with rules as they are with all the changes over the years. I mean I tweak a little here and there. But 14 pages? This guy must work for the IRS or something.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have some house rules that add a bit of simulationism or verisimilitude. It requires reading your group though, and group buy-in. *I* like the Darker Dungeons homebrew ruleset, but I'd never run it for a group that didn't want that grittier feeling in their game.
lol the 1st story ending
The first story was an DM that was playing the wrong game system (DM should have picked up Pendragon RPG fir a good time). The second story (if I believed it) was the DM not actually stopping 1 bad character. The LN Paladin was fine and some players will not EVER do PVP even if allowed - those players are fine. Also the Paladin could heal self and high AC too! So how long did the PC watch this and not say I don’t know smoke the CN player …oh they just waited till the person that could grapple and stop them with little harm was down (Professional DM? Maybe am missing something but no)
The first story is what would happen when someone who thought they know better than pro game designer but in reality they know nothing.
I want to be that pedantic a-hole right now Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral were not alignments when alignments first existed.
ok as a guy thats been a weekly DM going on 3 to 4 years now i have this to say
#1 ya 5e can be a little unrealistic on some things and i have over the years made some new rules BUT 14 PAGES WTF MAN i only made like 3 and got rid of them all after testing
#2 Armor Damage reduction ok i also did that but it was like a d6 or so and i had the AC stay the same also it only reduced non magic damage
#3 "the action you take on a turn changes your initiative score" this has never ever come to my mind just because how absolutely STUPID it is that is going way way too far its a ROLE PLAYING GAME key word GAME its suppose to be fun not take 6 hours just to get to the back to your turn unless you have like 261 NPC's on the board and even so it might not take that long
#4 the crit giving permanent wounds thing there is a magic item that already has that and its a bad idea and a pointless one at that spell scrolls are a thing in dnd just get like 1 or 2k Gold and new hand and your no longer in a star wars movie also i did do something like it BUT it was only when they where put down but got rid of it shorty after preferring to use it as a story telling devise
#5 the whole Spell and Hit Die thing ya bad idea as well maybe if instead you gave the players a choice if they wanted to spend those die to get back spells or health maybe but still i can see that getting out of hand fast
#6 2:06 WTF -9 JUST NO
#7 this DM hates spell casters a lot i feel like out of those 14 pages 13 where there just to screw over spell casters assuming that he did not just put 1 rule a page like when i started being a DM i had trouble with spell casters mostly due to one of my players but i did not go that far all i did was remove necromancy because he kept finding ways to make an undead army and i am not talking about like 15 or 30 undead i can handle that more like 600 to over 1000
#8 2:38 oh ok these rats are from dishonored
#9 the armor thing WHY just why also dont let this guy DM again
#10 WTF KIND OF GAMES DOES THIS DM PLAY YOU ALL GET DYSNTERY let me guess he did not even worn you of it in fact it sounds like he wanted to get rid of the armor because it was too OP but instead of just saying "Hey guys the armors way to powerful so im going to change it" instead he did this
#11 payers not telling me about them is the norm for me i got one that wont even show me his sheet so i can give him a powerup so ya
"It's what my character would do" 5e lends itself more to this than any other version of D&D I have ever seen with the backgrounds. If I have a fighter with a below average intelligence and a temperament dictated by a chosen background, you best believe I'm going to rp exactly that. I get that some people just use the phrase as a justification to be a dipshit but if it's not what your character would do, then why the hell are you doing it?
On that note, why is there never anyone to step up and say, "well what my character would do is try to explain why that's a bad idea in this situation" and get some sort of rp going on between players rather than groaning, rolling eyes and just letting it happen?
If unstoppable meets unmovable then we refer to the laws of physics. Equal and opposite reactions blah blah blah.
Basically unmovable doesent budge and unstoppable stops. His own energy deflected back at him . unmovable wins I guess lol
Hey man if my character runs headlong into a fight he's outnumbered in to save a important npc or buy the party time to escape, ima hit them with it's what my character would do
sounds like Warlock would do ok in the setting... But yeah crippling others and yourself only because you're crippled the least is not a good way to live.
Imagine a half elf fighter throws a tfling cleric with a ac of 18 down a flight of stairs because he was AFK as a joke ( that wasn't a joke the DM's having me secretly kill him the cleric because he has bounties all over the nation in the organization hired me to kill the cleric or bring them in alive but every single time I nearly kill him a party member always tries to save him but they always failed but the cleric always survives my attempts of killing them he just laughs It off after saying fuck you few times my character always died because of trying to save him just to kill him myself not long after he fell down the stairs a pack of wolves appeared one was a large ice wolf almost instant killed me and it had a nat 20 so my 27 hp went down to 8 hp then our other clerics heals me for 5 hp giving me 13 now then are half orc fighter accidentally stabbed the tanky healer in the foot waking them up from being unconscious from the fall from the stairs taking 1 hp away from them and he had 32 hp but his hp was at 12 from the fall so he had 11 after that then he tries to tame it fails just a magic emblem on the ice wolves head so he trying to do anime move he jumped up into the air using me as a stepping stone tries to punch it in its head the wolf open its mouth wide open and bites his right arm off now he's laying on the ground and bleeding to death but guess what a hail Mary from the DM saves his ass and we get thrown out the dungeon with and now one harmless tank healer that called meat shield because that's all it's good for now or ever has been but I just say I think kicked on the one armed cleric entire way back to town just so he could take a magic potion every grow his arm the emergency item call the baby carriage we put the one arm into it guess what he turned into a baby but that was all after he took the seed that made his arms grow back and the hell a lot more kicking
the dm of story 1 shoud play gurps instead of make this awful set of rules .... i cam imagine some players ragequiting this table .