"It's too complex to explain to the likes of you" Yeah I've heard that crap before. It *ALWAYS* means "I'm full of shit and trying to shame you into submission".
Listening to the whole limb/bone system, I get the impression the DM had played way too much Fear and Hunger and really wanted to build a campaign around it
“If sneak attack is kept intact, you would take out a body part with every successful attack.” Okay, so let them do that! That sound like the perfect way to separate a rogue from another martial class in this system. Sneak attacking is already flavored as an opportunistic attack, so why shouldn’t it be better at disabling opponents? If you’re just home brewing for friends, then balance really isn’t a huge deal. It’s not like this VATS-esque thing is getting published or anything.
There's also the fact, that since the total HP of enemies is apparently divided across each body part (from my understanding of what was written/said in the story), if an additional d6 of damage, combined with a d4, d6, d8, or d12 worth of damage is enough to disable a single limb, even on targets with higher HP to be divided...then maybe the DM should bump up the HP? Cause like, if I'm fighting the Tarrasque under this system, and I'm playing a Rogue/Fighter Multiclass, allowing for extra attack, and I target both legs of the Tarrasque with a Shortbow, doing 1d6 Piercing Damage + 1d6 Sneak Attack Damage to both legs, for a maximum of 24 damage between both legs, and the Tarrasque becomes paraplegic from 24 damage...then maybe the system is flawed
The D&D hitpoint system is in no way realistic and would need to be replaced wholesale to implement such a system. And as I've said elsewhere, if you're going to change it that much, why not start with a system that is closer to what you want to end with?
Its funnier when you find out its based on Fear and Hunger. Which has a lot of skills the player can use that are broken. So nerfing skills is laughable.
@@fred_derf True, I'm pretty sure a Barbarian for example would probably be dead after taking like...200 Arrow Wounds to the back, if things were realistic. Like I'm sorry, I don't care how "built different" someone is as a human, 200 arrows in the back, is 200 arrows in the back. You'd die of blood loss. But under D&D, the Barbarian lives cause Rage Resistance, and each arrow might only deal 1 damage, compared to the Barbarian's like 300+ HP
not always if the game was built around it and not half baked homebrew with games like Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Cyberpunk 2020/Red as good example of well made "realistic" combat
I feel like this is a survivorship bias thing. We hear about the bad "more realistic" stories because they're bad and someone wants to rant, while good RPG stories with more realism might not even bring that up
@@CyborgCharlotte Maybe they adapted closer to how it was in Fallout 1 to Tactics. You can target an enemy in general, but using VATS allows you to target a limb with a accuracy penalty, automatic weapons couldn't be used with VATS
@@CyborgCharlotte look up how RIFTS or battletech does it. It requires it to be baked at least 1/2 way into the hit roll often with different dice (think they do a 1d20 and a d100 so people can't do the "I hit with this set of dice so thats what is the hit roll") that can be rolled along with the attack roll.
@@CyborgCharlotte The one from Modiphius absolutely does have a hit location system. The game itself is a little messy, but interesting and is definitely faithful to the source material.
This is why DM keeps all Homebrew rules in our discord channel in a small tab that's easy to find and, if anything is changed to make it more balance, everyone is told ahead of time before the rule goes into effect.
I still dislike the idea of modding things too heavily. If you turn the game on it's head, then nothing in the system will remain usable as everything is tested with RAW in mind not your homebrew. Big changes lead to a downward spiral forcing you to rethink everything from the ground up when you could've just played a different system. Like pathfinder. I also do homebrew, but I make monsters, items, and a few feats. Sometimes I'll funk around with creation rules and have my players start with a feat for flavor (like chef, charger, or something else that's rarely picked) to encourage them to go 'off-meta' since my table is a bunch of war-game peeps. I stay as close to RAW as possible.
@@yourbiggestfan395Bold of you to assert that 5e is in any way balanced 😂 For real though, I don't think I've ever played any system fully RAW, there's always a few tweaks at a minimum, and a full overhaul can be easier on some groups than getting them to try a whole new system.
@@Ontomancer There are classes, races, and subclasses, that are better than others. However, the game is, in fact, very balanced. The CR system when ran correctly allows for fun and challenging encounters without too much strain. Death is rare in 5e unless your DM fucking hates you or your fucking stupid. A lot of people don't respect the RAW encounter rules. I can math out my party's DPR and I know how long any encounter will take them no matter what. I know their chances at winning, and everything runs through spread sheets and tables before my players ever see it. All of the tools needed to math out items, encounters, and traps, are all in the DMG and it all is fair and smooth. There's a reason it's the most popular TTRPG, but it sounds like you have a different pet favorite. Monsters don't use the same tools as players and when they do, they tend to still have features that monsters have and are still weighed by CR by their defensive and offensive CR.
@@yourbiggestfan395 Most of the rules changed are just to make things more fun or to save on resources. Like, because healing potions can be so expensive and we have few healers, DM ruled we can use either an action or bonus action to use them. By using an action, we get the full benefit from the healing potions. But we have to roll for the amount of health if we use a bonus action instead. Or, when making a character, if you use your starting gold to buy a tool, you're automatically proficient in that tool. It's not too many big changes. I think the biggest change he made is that you can use both an action and bonus action level spells on the same turn because it's dumb you can cast a cantrip as an action and then a leveled spell as a bonus action when it takes up the same amount of time. Or how like you can't use a bonus action cantrip if you've used your action to cast a leveled spell. It makes combat more fun and restricts spell casters less.
@@potatofairy8535 I have the same thing in my games! Allowing more than one leveled spell to be cast on a turn is fun. Everything you listed though is inside the DMG as optional content and some aren't even rule changes. The prices of items aren't hard-set, they are just examples the DMG provides.
"Don't surprise players with random rules you're inconsistent with." I bet called shots/injury levels would be fine if not effectively brought out of nowhere.
The antidote here is to write down all the home rules as he comes up with them, and then bring them up like fucking case law whenever a contradiction happens a few sessions of playing under his own garbage Homebrew and being held to it, they'll cut the crap
Yeah; if there’s walls then record the location of the walls for future reference, don’t just say “we don’t know where the walls are they’re invisible we’ll address them as we go”
Yeah, I always felt like combat could have been done better in 5e, but then I read other systems, heard stories, and attempted some changes for one shots, and I began to see why it is the way it is.
I imagine they were going for a “Fear and Hunger” kind of thing with the striking body parts, but with that you ran the risk of missing depending on the body part since it’s a little harder to hit arms and legs compared to the torso, and way harder to hit the head in an attempt to one shot things. But it’s not that hard to implement without nerfing abilities lmao
@@ShowerCurtain1 I mean to be honest I actually have less of a problem with a character dying in a funger campaign then a regular one, it may be because of how mainstream representation has effected my perception but a character dying on an epic quest feels a little unsatisfying in some ways while a character dying in the cruel world of funger sorta comes with the setting with someone dying without ever getting to the end fitting with the type of world funger is
Jaw-dropping story, but also the DM needs friends who are willing to have an honest conversation about what is and isn't working, rather than ranting about it on the internet.
True. I was dissapointed in the gnome player since i was waiting for him to go full nerd mode and tell him his system sucks because of its inconsistent rule set. Sometimes u need direct criticism to improve, its gonna anger or sadden u at the beginning, but its for the better. Dnd its a story that needs to be written by both dm and players, and as such, it needs both parties to be on the same page. The dm wanted fear n hunger but the players wanted core dnd.
Truuuuue. A lot of RPG horror story OPs need to hear this imo. I get that it's hard, I have social anxiety myself, but you really need to try that, at least before complaining online
The main takeaway from this for new DMs (really any DMs) is: *write your rule changes down!* When you make a ruling during a game make a note of it so you can add it to your home-brew rules. If you don't write your home rules down you WILL end up frustrating your players.
Oh I see that the DM might be a massive Fear and Hunger fan cause in the game you have to target enemy limbs to cripple and the Torso for the main HP that's my theory of the DMs hombrew.
I started playing in AD&D 2e and one of the things we had there was called shots. You could choose take a penalty to your roll in order to aim for specific body parts and different things would happen based on where you hit and how much damage. Whatever damage done still was subtracted from the whole, they were not divided like this guy. It was official rules and I’m thinking of adjusting it to my new 5e game. I’m new to 5e so I’m waiting to see
For our game our DM uses a called shot system AC increases to call a shot (like +2 for a limb +4 for an eye). On a hit there is an affect but some times less damage...like hitting a leg might reduce movement or a shot to the chest might be leave the target stunned. A critical increases the severity/duration. It's been interesting I find when I play my barbarian I play a bit more strategically using reckless attack to take called shots at advantage in hopes of getting one of these effects.
"Every limb had a different armor class" So if you shoot 10 arrows point blank, only the arms will take damage while the shots deflect off everything else? "These rules are meant to be realistic!"
I assumed that the idea was that armor would cover different parts of the body. So a chest plate would grant AC to your torso, but not to your limbs. Don't know how it worked in practice. But that's what I assumed.
@@RickJaeger Exactly. That's what makes most sense. Going for the most protected region is not very logical unless you're a heavy damage dealing type. An arm is not very protected and is the most important for attacks so go for that. It's a pretty good system actually.
a more accurate description would be "only the arms take damage and the rest of the arrows deflect or miss (whichever is appropriate) remember that AC is a combination of sturdiness, mobility, AND size
The first story reminds me of when my friends and I in high school would joke about a ridiculously complex system, and we'd get affects like "Hypothalmus efficiency decreased 11%"
There's realism in my games; gravity pulls you down, you need food and definitely water multiple times a week, fire will burn you if you touch it, and there are some things you can't do with your hands full. There should be enough realism that players' actions and options feel like they make sense consistently. Beyond that you're just imposing limits
realism my game: you may get disease or leprosy for being dirty, some weapons like the kusarigama or chain weapons needs dexterity checks or fail and you hit yourself
This sounds like someone playtesting a new game system they're designing without telling their friends, but "keeping the rules in their memory" is insane. I mean, everything about the system is crazy, but trying to keep all of that in one's head while also running a game is just nuts.
It would've been completely different had he told them beforehand. "Guys I'm testing some big changes to the system, please be beta testers and bear with me as I might adjust them as we go to keep things balanced" Obviously, he'd still need to keep everything written down and ask the players for feedback. It's not impossible or crazy, but it needs to be agreed upon before starting.
@@00r0ryyeah. But also at that point just make your own game designed around that since a lot of clases get nerfed and buffed. All of a sudden, fireball is even better. Or smite. At that point, you would have to rebalance so many numbers and stuff its not even worth it. Shits getting close to f.a.t.a.l with them "realistic mechanics🤓👍"
“The grid was turned into hexes” that’s not even homebrew some people just do that. I do like the what you calls VATS in D&D system. It implies piecemeal armor as well, which is pretty cool. If it can be abstracted it sounds fun and not too disruptive. How I would do it is not how he’s doing it, like health should be one pool, limbs being destroyed should only be on massive damage or maybe crits, and just keeping the piecemeal limb based system seems fine. Ideally I’d either make or find a system for that because it would be more integrated into the system that way instead of slapped on top.
D&D started out using hexes, I've never been a fan of the switch to squares. Hexes just work better calculating distances etc. You don't need special rules for moving, firing, casting on the diagonal (for example) as there aren't any diagonals.
@@fred_derf OD&D used hexes for overland travel but aways used squares for interiors. Mainly because the thing they got overland travel rules from used hexes. But I do agree it’s better I’m also one to forgo the grid entirely and just measure distance, wargaming style
@@kaylaa2204, writes _"OD&D used hexes for overland travel but aways used squares for interiors."_ I've been playing since the Red Box and we always used a hex battle grid. I had a roll up one you could draw on using white board pens.
@@fred_derf I ain’t saying that’s a bad thing, I just always used squares for interior even if I’m using hexes, since it makes more sense for rooms, or just forgo a grid entirely Hexes don’t really fit well trying to place it over a square room but it works great for like caverns or outdoor areas Personal preference though
@@kaylaa2204, writes _"Hexes don’t really fit well trying to place it over a square room but it works great for like caverns or outdoor areas"_ Squares don't really fit well unless the room is some sort of rectangle and each wall is a multiple of 5 feet. So it's pretty much six of one, half-a-dozen of another.
Go go gadget all of your bones are broken. Go go gadget you're inside out now. Go go gadget all of your thoughts and memories are fake. Go go gadget I am your mother. Go go gadget compassion for fellow man.
HE IS BACK :3 Honestly, your videos man have helped me get into DMing and what to avoid doing, and I am happy, and I have a group of players that are helping me on my learning journey.
Dm here, I use a heavily homebrewed world. If you want custom stuff I'll build it with you. Race? I'll work it in. Class? Ehh I'm working to that. Backstory? Yes! If it fits more please! But I don't go control freak
As a new DM starting a game for inexperienced players, I told them they could use anything they found in the rulebooks and I'd help them set up their sheets, with homebrew open for consideration. Fortunately nobody went crazy with it
@@joelrobinson5457 honestly could be great. One of the things I do with races is just separate mechanics from thematic outright. So there are "humans" with the stat block of an Orc because they're just that tough etcetera. I find it opens things up well without requiring the oversight that Homebrew races do so saves some time/effort. Ofc sometimes things need to be Homebrewed regardless but races aren't too hard
im personally planning on having a very merciful limb cutting system for my campaign first: the weapon has to be heavy second: there's a second roll which halves modifiers and it does nothing if it rolls below 17, but if it rolls higher or the same, say goodbye to your arm or whatever was targeted third: if you defend you cannot get limbs cut off fourth: you can get limbs back by making a sacrifice (doesnt have to be anyone in the party, could be 10 mice if you want) ik it's unrealistic but if everyone became potatoes from one enemy with big sword then that would be a bit unfun
yeah fr, the whole point of games like this is to be living in a fantastical setting whether it's high fantasy or not.. it's not meant to be realistic.. you can add realistic elements, sure, like if you take too much damage that knocks you unconscious, you are left with scarring depending on what knocked you unconscious, but to say a rock fell on your leg and now you can't move until you get a new leg?? that's a little unfun and takes the entertainment out of the game that is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone..
@@pumpkibee Actions are worthless if they don't have consequences. It seems that the reason the gnome mage got hurt is because he didn't dodge correctly while everyone else did, as in the player didn't take enough time to dodge carefully. Setting up that kind of system is good and immersive. I fundamentally disagree that the players are supposed to win. That's a game made for babies. The players are supposed to be able to win if they play correctly and die if they play incorrectly. They should have left the gnome mage behind and ran. That was the best course of action.
@@icebox1954 "I fundamentally disagree that the players are supposed to win. That's a game made for babies." Bro what the fuck is this argument. If you think that a RPG campaign is a DM vs players thing, you are a bad DM. Imagine a long campaign, that takes 10+ sessions, for everyone to die to the BBEG at the very end because the DM "doesn't agree with the players winning". Another thing "That was the best course of action", and also the least fun for everyone. As the guy in the video said, the role playing aspect was really good, and abandoning someone just because it's the best thing to do, doesn't mean it's the thing the characters would do; If you go that route, every lawful good paladin/cleric that risks his life to save a wounded person is being dumb and playing incorrectly. Also "he didn't dodge correctly while everyone else did" This makes no sense when it was not the gnome fault since the DM was the one to make the convoluted rules to what was happening
@@leonardocoutomaciel4997 1. It was totally the gnome's fault. It was a skill issue. 2. If you're so childish that you think you should win automatically then you are unworthy of my time. Whatever campaign you're doing is devoid of value and beneath me. 3. Being a paladin doesn't mean being stupid. You don't automatically die for nothing. If a boss can't be beaten then living to fight another day is the correct way for a paladin to play.
@@icebox1954 wow, thankfully my DM is not you lol. Have fun with your players with your, idk, superiority? lol beneath me. This anwser feels like a bait but thanks for the laugh either way
4:23 I think the Jenga analogy is slightly flawed. You can remove one bottom block and have the tower standing perfectly fine. Two, however, and depending on the blocks pulled from the bottom, it’s either falling over or else very unsteady. What the GM of this story essentially did is yank out the third bottom block and then tried to replace them as the tower was collapsing.
It's more like instead of taking out a jenga block, the DM shoved a TP roll in there with his body parts houserules and was hoping the tower would somehow remain standing.
@@MisterNightfish That’s a lot closer, actually, and it even gets to why it’s a bad idea. If you’re allowed to introduce random objects, are you even playing Jenga anymore?!
@@zacharysieg2305, writes _"If you’re allowed to introduce random objects, are you even playing Jenga anymore?!"_ Oooo, that sounds like it could actually be a fun game... you start with a pile of differently shaped blocks and you either have to take one from the pile and add it to the tower (building it) or remove one from the pile and add it elsewhere.
So many Red Flags here right from the start - the claim of "More Realistic" would have been enough by itself to have me run screaming from the room. The DM might have been a friend, but he was also a #$%^& idiot - if you MUST go Homebrew, then consistency and clarity are absolutely essential, and this "system" had neither. Given the DM;s resistance to providing notes, etc., I can only surmise that most of this was being pulled out of his @$$. Gnome might have had some negative traits, but he wasn't the problem here. The DM and his alleged system was.
+7thesealord888, writes _"the claim of "More Realistic" would have been enough by itself to have me run screaming from the room."_ I couldn't agree more.
Nah the gnome sounds an asshole overall , same for op And as many pointed out a big part of the system seems to be taken from the video game "Fear and Hunger" and the dm probably felt weird or embarrassed to admit it And keep in mind that overall all the sessions op said that everything else was great which means that he wasn't being a control freak and forcing them into situations or something.
So, as a forever-DM who once *did* foolishly try and re-stat the entire armour system and make new rules 10+ years ago. Don't. The core system isn't built for it, and it's just too much damn complexity. Since then, I have implemented a much smoother body-part specific crit table, which is still undergoing playtesting to see if we need to remove or alter the bonus damage component, or if adding it to sneak attacks / called shots is viable, but it seems far more promising. The difference being that there is *no extra workload given to the players* - they don't need to keep track of extra AC or HP numbers, and the system only becomes relevant when someone confirms a critical or otherwise deals extra damage. I also provide a FULL Word Doc to every member of the party laying out all of the house rules, so that there's never, ever a case of them walking into a situation and discovering a rule after it would have been useful to know. That just isn't fun, and leads to pointless arguments. While I was at it, I also started writing out all of the base game rules from the PHB and putting them in the same document, minus the fluff text, so that it becomes basically a ~10 page condensed rules book that's much, much easier to ctrl+f search for any specific mechanic, and that's been going over very well. D&D is already a pretty complicated system, so the vast majority of house rules are better served making things easier and smoother for the players, so that you can afford to have one or two mechanics that add a little more depth without drowning your players in paperwork. I'd also strongly advocate that if you make things harder on the players in one way, you should mitigate that in a different way - and explicitly tell them about it. Like, if you add more long-term injuries and stat damage as a result of regular attacks (see above: body part crit table), then there needs to be more robust systems to heal those things during long rests, and the players need to know that. You can, of course, make the conscious choice to change the difficulty paradigm of the game itself by altering core concepts, but that is - again - something the players should be made explicitly aware of, and have a chance to discuss. You don't want them picking up a game thinking it's going to be like the Elder Scrolls, and then a Souls-Like boss comes out during the tutorial and stomps them into the dirt. But if everyone knows that's what they're in for, then cool. Carry on. Thus; the house rule Word Doc, or whatever works for you. You can also OPENLY playtest things with your players... That's a thing. Let them know "Hey, trying this new rule" and if after a combat or two they think it sucks, then you can just change it on the fly. If one of them dies specifically because of the rule, and it was obviously unfair, you can just rewind a turn and play it out as if that rule no longer existed, or tweak it so it fits better. I have done this, and the response was nothing but positive from the players, who felt actually involved in the development of their own campaign and making it fun - because they had agency, and knew they could ALSO use that mechanic against the enemy, and it wasn't only for them.
Playing D&D with a limb system is just superior D&D. D&D 5e is the most modular TTRPG system in all of D&D, that's why you don't just play a different game. Different games which meet the requirements don't exist. Yeah, the DM was in the wrong obviously. He wasn't willing to slowly introduce the party to the rules, and overhauled 5e without telling them. I have to say, at least this on is realistic and not another fake D&D "horror story" about people who are just incompetent players slandering DMs. You still narrate at 0.50 times speed. Regardless, the failed DM in this story should check out my ruleset, it's accomplishing the same thing but better and focusing on roleplay rather than gameplay.
That cerberus could've built so much suspence too and the slight of could've even been made interesting. First thing is that I'd say the door in is like 6-7ft high max so the run could feel like a good idea, but I don't know how to fit it in with tbis idea As you enter the room you see a three headed hound asleep, from your estimates at least twice your heights and thrice your widths. Behind the beast is a large tree with pods seemingly filled with glowing liquid which could only be your remedy. "After OP gets there" the pods are quite large and seem as if they'd be tough to pluck from the tree, how would you like take them off (If they use a dagger they make it 2 points easier on slight of hand to silently move them and require a very low dex throw to cut them). They actually have reason to roll 5 times as these are cumbersome and hold liquid which makes noise. "Upon the first fail" You know you created too much noise and as you silently stare at the beast you can see its ears perc up waiting for another sound, after what feels like minutes the creatures ear goes back down. "Upon the second fail" You witness the creature raise to its feet its size larger than you imagined. It still seems half asleep and you imagine that youd have at least several seconds before it notices you. What would you like to do?
Excellent example! As I said somewhere else, nothing against multiple rolls in situations like this, but only if you're deft enought to both explain the need for them and take advantage of them to raise tension. Save-or-suck is already troublesome enough as it is, and repetitive tasks can easily become teedious in inexperienced hands, even with the implied tension of "there's a monster over there".
Dracule did it correctly. If you set up your people to fail outside of amazing luck then it becomes forced. Give them one fail chance and let the second one be the determining one. Also, have the room's exit be smaller than the beast and explain before this that the beast was put here to guard the treasure quite a while ago and the master either died of old age or something and the faithful hound eagerly protects it over anything else. This gives the heroes a chance to attack the tree to make the hound back off so they can escape or something and the smaller exit makes the hound unable to follow. This is how I'd have done it.
Honestly, the fact that Gnome was injured could have made for a great moment. The Cerberus could have been awake, but taking slow steps towards the party, so the party can actually run away and try desperate shots against the Cerberus. Something dramatic happened, and the game is not ended because the DM wanted a dramatic showdown but everybody is bleeding but the DM/cerberus is reluctant to kill people.
4:07 wait wtf that’s-yes, yes! Do that! That’s great! I’d LOVE that kind of gameplay! 13:07 “I do an advantaged sneak attack on the sleeping Cerberus’s back, crippling its legs and spine, and I use the opportunity to grab a handful of leaves from the tree” Like the thing about Fear and Hunger is _you_ can set traps _for the enemies to run into_
I'd love to point out that hexes aren't that weird. A lot of game mats have hexes, and it's actually mathematically easier to do diagonal movement. That's why I use them.
16:37 I'm a new DM an even I could tell that was going to be a shit show, personally just me personally I wouldn't of applied the limb system to the players I know bit unbalanced but still adds a bit of flair and chances for players to Crit on a Headshot an instakill opponents just be careful how you implement it, I'd go with yes divide the creatures health but I'd also divide its AC, meanwhile I'd not let the players know more than limbs can be individually aimed for, I wouldn't add in disadvantages to aiming for limbs(of course shields and cover usual disadvantage situations apply the normal disadvantage but don't add extras) an lastly in BBEG battles mark off the damage against the divided Health & AC still, but if things move too quickly let the battle draw on a little more for flair but when things look like the party is hurting a touch(no killing or forcing equipment an spell drains so you can wipe them out with another attack) once their hurting just that teeny hint let the next attack be the "how do you want to do this moment" give them that choice of what they'd like to do to this beast list of a descriptive visual of how haggard each limb they killed the divided hp of looks an let them choose how they end it an describe the scene in spectacular glory❤ It can be done right I have faith.❤
You know what's funny? They literally could have just used the Friday night firefight system from cyberpunk 2020 in a fantasy setting. Friday night firefight is already based around hyper lethality and limb based damage/called shots. They just made shitty cyberpunk
Always leave room for your players to make decisions that you haven't planed for, forcing a narrative isn't fun for the players. I myself have come up with home brew monsters and when playing it out I have realized that my players aren't have with it. If your going to overhaul the entire games combat you need to tell your players beforehand in detail or even better get their input and ideas on it. D&D is a collaborative game, collaborate with your players about what they want.
If you're going to do this, just find another system that does what you want, or make your own. This would've worked far better as its own system instead of trying to bend over backwards to keep 5e classes and mechanics somewhat intact.
any time a dm says the rules are totally redesigned and there are too many changes to explain, you should assume he's making shit up as he goes along until proven otherwise, lol.
As a DM I only ever use any kind of limb based shit if it makes a lot of sense, for example if you have a fucking boulder dropped on your legs they probably won’t work as well as before until you heal up
There are only 2 hombrew rules i use 1. Crits double damage (both for hits and failed saves) 2. You can cast as many spells as you have resources (meaning you can absolutely misty step into a fireball as long as you have the slots, same with action surge).
This sounds more like how limb damage works in Monster Hunter, but the thing about Monster Hunter is that limb damage isn't just subtracted from total damage done, there's actual separate formulae for how it calculates limb breaking beyond just your raw damage output. The other thing, though, is I think D&D just has too low of health pools for this to be a viable system, since in most games with these types of limb damage the fights are longer, enough that they give more room for genuine strategizing with the system as limb damage debuffs are around long enough to be actually important and useful
Most important, most of games with limb damage are mecha games where even if a limb gets replaced or permanently destroyed you can replace it in short term instead of permanently losing a huge part of your contribution to the fight because your opponent rolled high enough damage on your main systems.
I've never played DnD before, and have a very non-DnD-ish homebrew, but the second I heard "There are too many rules, we'll just adress them as they come up", multiple loud klaxon blares went off in my head. My world has 'too many rules' as well, but I have an in-depth guide to all of them that I always keep available to my players, and, I give mercy to players who bump into a rule that screws them over, if it wouldn't have had they known about it.. Though typically I stay within the policy of just not having any rules that screw over a player, if they don't know about it.. I prefer my player's failures to be caused by backlashes they were fully aware of prior to causing. Especially since my world/scenario plays a huge amount around a "Guilty pleasure" aspect. Doing things you know are wrong or that may damn you, but doing them anyway because you were tempted into doing them, or simply couldn't resist the urge to.
its a very common mistake when doing anything for the first time: DOING WAY TOO MUCH instead of understanding basics they try for some wacked out overcomplex combat or some such and do not have the skill to run it properly do not ever build a house without a foundation cuz you think you dont need it
"If de dislikes something, he will say to your face, which can hurt people's feeling" Thats such a weird phrasing. So hurting his feeling by doing something is OK, but when he dares to be vocal about it - its him who is ''hurting feelings''
Admittedly a blanket statement like that does sound a bit weird in a vaccuum, but in my experience hearing or reading similar statements, it's usually reffering to the kind of person whose "brutal honesty" has a weird tendency to emphasize the "brutal" part. Some examples: -A player who dislikes a poorly implemented houserule and their first instinct is to straight up call the DM an incompetent imbecile instead of discussing it with them. -A person who deems a hairstyle "too masculine" for a woman, so they blurt out how disgusting she looks with it first chance they get.
@@Elvalley your examples are straight up offences, with slander and everthing, and if someone uses them, he can not be a "not a bad person" OP stated that this guy was not bad, just honest Honesty != Rudeness
@@vrcxdc3623 my examples were deliberately extreme, because if I made them subtle I'd have to write quite a lot more. Being offensive, at least to a degrre, is kinda the issue though, what do you think "honest to the point of hurting feelings" could entail?
@@Elvalley feelings of some people are being hurt by literally anything, you know. For example, where i live, we have a prison sentence for, quote, "offending feelings of thoso who have faith" So, how it works - person tells thst his feeling were hurt by your opinion and you go to jail for 5 years. But they dont have to prove it, because it is impossible Basically its one of many laws we have have to be able to imprison mitetally anyone, if needed
@@vrcxdc3623 ah, I see. I do think you may have a bit of a biased view in the opposite direction from when most people say somebody talks in hurtful ways, but I get where you're coming from.
So separate AC for limbs, HP for limbs, etc? So he turned D&D 5e into RuneQuest? Then play RuneQuest! (This old Grognard shakes his head and walks away mumbling)
The old HERO System has some great hit location rules but they are part of a complete combat system that is quite different from D&D. It's a really fun system with a GM and players who know what they are doing but it is not a noob friendly system by any stretch of the imagination.
The limb system is similar to something I devised, which is you can choose to target specific areas if you choose and I will determine any disadvantages to the roll depending on how difficult it would be. Any damage dealt to that area still takes from the overall creature health but with enough damage I would allow players to disable creature abilities. Dealing with a dragon? targeted shots to the wings with like a -2 could lead to disabling flight while still dealing direct HP damage. More along the lines to motivate strategic thinking and a chance to shift the battle more in their favor. Otherwise if they don't care for it then standard combat targeting is the default. Also I wouldn't utilize the system against players, debuffing PCs too much starts to tarnish any game enjoyment
I've been DMing for years in a sort of arbitrary way, although our system is a lot more roleplay-based than TTRPG like. Its barely a TTRPG, just has rolls for certain things and so far I've not gotten any complaints. I guess its because I always sort of do the story in favor of the players. My goal isn't to hinder their progress, but rather to write a proper narrative. The only time I've had complaints, I rectified stuff. When you do a mistake, own up to them.
Disabling a limb each/everytime a sneak attack is delivered *is* realistic, yet that's what the DM nerfed? Like, there's ample historical precedent for what an undefended blow hitting a particularly vulnerable area of the body does to a combatant; you've already landed amongst the lucky if you're alive at all.
I feel for that DM, I understand what it's like to want to homebrew some stuff and then it goes wrong. It's cool to see a story where a DM made an honest mistake and didn't mean for things to go badly. Mad respect to him for recognizing he messed up and giving everyone a way out. Hope they can laugh about it now and have some good DnD games, love seeing the friendship preserved.
I also think this kind of difficulty and "realism" would work better with higher level characters who are more powerful and have more abilities, health, items and means etc
I was going to say "if you want to play a lethal system play call of cthulhu" but even call of cthulhu is very straightforward in the way combat works, some systems are made to make combat heroic and survivable so you can multiply them without losing PCs, others are made to make combat chaotic and lethal to make any fight a dramatic scene, with a whole spectrum in-between, but for the love of god choose a system made for the spirit you want for your campaign.
My favorite limb targeting/damage system so far is from the warhammer roleplay and rogue trader ttrpgs. To hit rolls line up with one of the limbs or torso with roughly a 15% chance to hit an arm or leg and a 40% to hit the body. Once you hit zero you apply an effect from a critical chart on a -1 to -10 scale with -10s being essentially a narratively gruesome death based on the weapon type being used on said section of the body. And -1s to 9s doing cosmetic damage and adding escalating debuffs that were curated by the developers very well imo. Very intuitive and benign and adds some nice aesthetic flavor and understandable mechanical nuance to the games without causing too much clutter. I found it relatively easy to convert the d100 system that those games use to homebrew it into my D&D campaigns and it has become one of my players favorite parts of combat with everyone getting excited to see what kind of critical hits they pull off and even enjoying getting critted because the battle scars add flavor to their character progression.
I had a dm say the fighters sword broke on a nat 1, it was the only weapon he had as it was a one-shot. Made the fighter feel bad since he couldn’t really do much of anything. He was able to get a new sword by the end of the fight though that let him cast a steel wind slash spell.
If the DM wanted such a crunchy system that involves targeting limbs and whatnot within a fantasy setting in the name of "realism", then there's the Witcher TTRPG right goddamn there, which is actually a hell of allot better than whatever this DM was coming up with.
This actually reminds me of the German system my playgroup uses. It also has targeted hits with individual body parts applying different attack modifiers when targeted. The difference is though: That system isn't mandatory, you may just as much simply "attack" - which in my experience is indeed the default for most players. Only in very specific circumstances, against specific enemies (or similar), announcing targeted attacks is really worth it.
The problem with targeted attacks, is it's very much a TV / Movie trope and has no basis in real life. In real combat you hit the body part that's available to hit at the moment. In a melee what you hit is going to be determined far more by what your opponent gets in your way (such as their shield or weapon) then by "what you target". Your "targeting" is going to be determined by what opening they leave you. Their shield is a bit high? Great, strike at his legs. His shield is low? Go for the head. They've over extended their swing? Go for their sword arm. etc. With ranged weapons, you aim for "the body", no one is accurate enough to target specific body parts when in combat with moving targets. The only thing that could be used to target specific body parts is _Magic Missile_ as it "unerringly hits its target" but even that would have to be homebrewed.
This is the kind of RPG horror story I like. I don't think the DM here was malicious. They just were way over-confident in their abilities with house rules. I feel like it's easy for people to think "I can remember all this in my head. It will be fine." But it's way harder than it sounds.
+Zulk_RS, writes _"I don't think the DM here was malicious"_ I think Arrogant would be a better term than Malicious. But they did exhibit some Rail Roady tendencies so they're at least a little malicious.
@@fred_derf I am willing to give them a charitable interpretation here. I don't think they wanted to railroad. I think they might have had trouble dealing with their own unwieldy and half-remembered rules that he created. Definitely Arrogant though.
@@Zulk_RS, writes _"I don't think they wanted to railroad."_ Making the character roll checks until they woke up the Cerberus with the only option being run away (or die) _is_ railroading. There was clearly no scenario there to allow them to get past the Cerberus. But as i said, it was Rail Roady, not a full out Rail Road.
@@fred_derf I agree with you. It WAS a rail road. My point was that I don't think they did it on purpose. Like on paper, someone who has not have had much experience behind the DM screen might think that "Oh making them roll multiple times make sense." not realizing just how drastically it raises failure chance. Then they might have thought "Okay. No problem. They can easily run away from the Cerberus" but because they have so many BS homebrew rules, they themselves forgot that "running away" is easier said then done. Lastly there is a core problem with the rules that I think the DM themselves didn't realize: The Death Spiral. When the PCs decided to stay and fight, the DM waived a few of the rules thinking it would stack the odds in the PCs favor but they forgot completely that the more damage the PCs take, they worse their chance actively get, which leads to more damage which leads to bigger penalties which lead to more damage. The DM didn't realize the absolute shit show the rules would create. And when he finally did realize it, he basically soft ended the campaign.
@@Zulk_RS I agree with pretty much everything you've written. However I do think there was an element of "I'm going to show them how D&D should be played" to the DM's mindset so, as I sad, they're at least _a little_ malicious.
This video actually brought a question to mind. I am a long term DM, but I’m still unsure when I homebrew material, and I usually playtest it by myself in a self-played one-off related to the particular creations level. However, I have been writing a long term campaign with two homebrewed evolving relics that will grow as the players level up. The relics themselves pretty much demand an entire campaign be written around them. I have two players that are interested in playing and they are both aware of the fact this will be an experiment with a lot of untested homebrew material. The first story at one point described the campaign as a “chaotic experiment.” Am I making the same mistake as that GM, or am I being better as a GM by informing my players ahead of time? Bear in mind, my rules are gonna be committed to paper, but the players have been told if something feels incorrectly balanced, I may adjust numbers on the fly as a test. This video just made me very nervous as I have been working on one of the relics for over a year and have recently finished it.
Hey sorry but, I’m trying to find one video. But I can’t seem to find it: It was about an Acrobat Girl Character, Mei, I think? Something about their friend being slowly influenced by a rude dice roller and then they have to influence him back to not being a murderhobo?
DM just squished the D20 system into a Standard Interlock system shaped box... Just run Cyberpunk at this point with the limb damage and less leniency for players.
Aight listen, i dislike sponsor segments as much as anyone else; but i have to give the Crab credit for being the first (and so far) only content creator ive ever seen only do sponsors that are actually related to the content they make. I have yet to have a Manscaped jumpscare or be self-conscious from a HelloFresh sponsor on this channel.
this guy needs to add a difficulty system easy meaning cerberus is heavy injured medium guides injured players to safety while allowing the party to keep active with the party running and the injured people hiding in a small grove so the injured player isn't attack v the people who are easier to kill hard aka the encounter plays out normaly
i mean mine was based off no limbs but your damage was based on a damage to shield system roll a d5 and the enemy rolls a d20 you tank 15 hp damage tho probably didn't help that most players in my roleplays had the base hp of 100 I was trying to invent a pendant and armor system to help calm this active death system
A lot of those ideas were tried out in early rival FRPG systems like Runequest and Palladium Games. Locational armour and hit points can work, as it does in Runequest, but critical hits tables rarely do, unless they are steeply nerfed in the conditions in which they can occur. Some elements of real life physics simply have to be left outside the game, like effects of height and weight differences, when going up against giants and similar. License simply has to be allowed for magic and mythical monsters to not be "scientific", so that they can't just crush players to death by moving their feet, or swatting them into oblivion with a swing of a club. Certainly in the real world certain kinds of events would break bones and tear muscles, but then you don't have a fantasy role playing game. You have perhaps a survival game. Not only does going into such detail slow combat down completely, which was the problem with D&D 3rd Edition, but it also needs to be balanced and made to make sense by systems like Greg Stafford's in Pendragon where because magical healing is very scarce, players can only take on one or two combats a year, because they then have to spend weeks and months healing with period medical help. If you go into detailed catastrophic injuries, then suddenly being fully magically healed after a few days and able to return to exploring creates a believability problem. It's dissonant. If the healing is easy, so should the combat system be. If the combat system is complex and "realistic" like that, then so must the healing system be.
Critical hit tables work quite nicely in the FFG Warhammer 40'000 RPGs, because those games are expected to be over the top violence from the moment weapons are drawn. One thing of note though is that in most of the systems it's much easier to crit an NPC than to crit a player.
I do a soft vat system with my campaigns. Basically, I will ask my players how they wanna attack each turn and if they give me a compelling enough argument to hit an arm or leg, I may have it damaged significantly.
Good it took gnome dude to mame dm to realise his fumble. And clearly he just wants to tell a story and make shit up as the game goes along which is bullshit
Adding damage systems is fun and adds depths to play, but too complicated is too complicated. Limited slowdown to play limb damage: 1) Roll to hit 2) Roll a d20 after hit confirmed. Assign limbs by number range (i like chest and arms being more likely, legs being a lil likely, head being not likely. Separate the limb damage by left and right on your lil number layout) Multiply limbs? Uhhhh figure it out creature dependent really 3) Assign damage; if AOE hit auto to chest unless its a leg trap or something 4) consequences? Easy way is base it off some proportions of hit die. Easy to track on sheet for individual player. This can cause limb loss or broken limbs. For chest giving a exhaustion until healed is a maybe. Called shots are already in 5e but you could for ease of use just add 2-4AC If a critter has a wild body like a beholder just dont roll limb stuff theyre freak they dont need it. Not standardized rules ^ How druids leave wild shape should the keep a broken limb or something? Every group has different needs and wants. As a DM think about your enemies cripple points BEFORE SESSION. Also think about healing and restoration scrolls or how potions interact. JUST WRITE DOWN YOUR OWN RULES SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THEM!!!!!! Ask players if it’s something you didn’t think of before you throw something made up out!!!! As a player hope your dm has it written down
There are impatient types out there, trying to make use of what's given I... have a hurt experience in that type? Trying to find a way to get players onboard with a Tarkov-style journey in 5e... gave up due to the lack of gunpowder agreements
Goofy take Many players don't want to sit down and learn an entire system just for a single campaign And the changes he made were all fully aimed at limbs and injury. There is no point in adapting a whole new system for relatively simple changes. He's simply at fault for not taking the time to explain them to the players.
@lamogio7938 you're serious? You're telling me it would take less effort to not only explain the mechanics of 5e, but on top of that a bunch of random nonsensical homebrew rules than it would to just puck up a new system that better fit what you want out of a ttrpg? They were basically teaching them a new system at that point with the amount of changes.
@@miztic_ For starters this wasn't their first campaign so they weren't being taught the mechanics of 5e , they probably already knew most of it And the new additions really aren't that complicated , the op just had a hard time grasping them due to them not being laid out on a sheet properly Each limb has its own hp pool , once it reaches 0 that limb is removed. Injuries have three levels of severity and debuffs become gradually worse if the injuries aren't treated. Also the rule about opportunity attacks which isn't even considered a new system , it's just a different roll. That's all , it really doesn't take that much time to understand.
@@lamogio7938 it also doesn't take that much time to just use a new system, so you don't have to sit there and homebrew a bunch if bs, lose the interest of your players for having badly implemented homebrew, and not have a game to run anymore. Just use a different system. My group does this all the time, and it's not hard at all.
...you ever play D&D? DM is clearly playtesting a new system. This is not only common... but literally most DMs do this. Matt MERCER uses rules he makes up on the spot ffs. It's a required skill for good DMs, those selling it as a new homebrew system is... a bit misworded. DM apparently made it VERY clear you can not fight cerberus. Pro-tip... he can't chase ALL of you at the same time. This is how you get more leaves, fool. Bet DM would have it chase the ONLY ONE it saw, not the entire party. Sounds like players failed to play smart, in a system that demands you play SMART. I'm imagining The Gamers: darkness rising going on here, and the murder hobos can not comprehend a game that demands more than brute force. Ffs crab. Think before you post.
With my group, there are often questions of balance, fairness, and why X works a certain way and could Y work in another way that isn't specified but would make sense. PF1e is also pretty notorious for its Feat Tax (wherein many feats are locked behind taking multiple other feats, not just the next feat in the chain). So any rule reviews players request are submitted to the group chat and reviewed by everyone. We have 3 GMs on rotation (including myself) and between us we discuss the rule in question, hash out a potential change, then everyone votes on it. A few examples: Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization are no longer locked to levels in Fighter. This is because anyone could choose to focus their efforts on a single weapon to become great at it. Fighters already have the benefit of feats at every level; locking feats behind being a Fighter seemed a bit silly. Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting now function similarly. Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalty for fighting with a weapon in each hand (normally a -6 for main hand and -10 for off-hand) to -4/-4, or -2/-2 if your offhand weapon is classed as Light. TWF remains unchanged, but with ITWF, the penalty is reduced by an additional 2 (to a minimum of 0/0 if wielding a Light weapon in offhand), while additional attacks granted by the feat remain unchanged. GTWF gives a +2/+2 to fighting with two weapons (additional attacks again unchanged), but imposes a -5/-5 if you AREN'T fighting with two weapons, to reflect that the player has chosen to give up on fighting in a traditional manner (sword-and-board, two-handed weapons, one-handed weapon with a free hand for magic or combat maneuvers). Gunsmithing no longer lets a player just willy-nilly make a firearm with no craft check. That one was just ridiculous. Healing magic when used outside of combat/duress heals for the maximum amount instead of having to roll for it. Potions still require a roll (it's an item, not a person).
From the way this DM changed the combat system to a hex map and targeted limbs, it kinda sounds like he was trying to wedge a more BattleTech style combat system in, which could be cool potentially, but I think his biggest misstep was in not presenting this homebrew as an experiment and tweaking it along the way with feedback from the players. My old DM in high school was great at running several different game systems, including D&D and BattleTech, so I would've loved the idea of him dabbling with a hybrid combat system. However, that's really the sort of thing that needs to be either super well prepared in advance or adjusted during gameplay.
Easy VATs style system general strike is base AC, legs and arms +1 to base AC, hands and feet +2 to base AC, head +3 to base AC… This only goes into affect IF the player wants to strike a certain limb…. I haven’t come up with HP per limb but you could base it off base HP… So like enemy has 50hp base you could make the arms able to take 15 before being disabled, the hard part to figure out would be what to do with headshots… head shot could be damage= 75+%of base health is a kill, 50-75% renders it unconscious maybe…. I dunno something like that though.
I wish D&D combat just made damage types matter, like, at all. Besides bludgeoning being the best because skeletons. I want to also do things like, using the spike of an axe to grapple or trip enemies, be able to do a pommel bash encase slashing is resisted with a sword. Use throwing knives like IRL throwing knives and use it to distract the enemy instead of somehow killing someone. Maybe make certain throwing weapons deal bonus damage if you run before throwing. It's one of the pet peeves I have with D&D combat besides battle master being the "lol things you should be able to do as any other martial classes are ONLY FOR ME"
This story is funny, but obviously not true. Someone had a headcanon on the worst experience one could have with DM homebrew and wrote a fanfic. The storyteller is, ironically, inconsistent with the DM's inconsistencies. Early on, the rules highlighted are limb targeting and Opportunity Attacks at Disadvantage. After "Gnome" joins the party, the apparent first exposure to the DM's homebrew system, is being asked what limb he wants to target for an Opp Attack, which baffles him. In what possible situation is the very first attack roll being made an OA? That's an incredibly rare and specific scenario. Someone joins your session, and the FIRST combat roll for them to see your system, is them rolling OA? Doesn't even see anybody else, or an enemy roll for an attack first? No shot. Let's grant that this unbelievable circumstance happens. Okay, fine. You're telling me a Level 2 Wizard makes a physical Opportunity Attack, and deals enough damage to break bones? What? A Level 2 Wizard is going to struggle to physically hit the broadside of a barn unless their build is woeful, but we're told this is an experienced player who's a stickler for RAW. But his attack is not only hitting, but hitting hard enough to deal significant area damage? On his very first roll with this system? How incredibly lucky. On top of that, this attack is apparently only at Disadvantage if "Gnome" targets the head. Okay, so I guess we're no longer doing the "all Opp Attacks are Disadv" homebrew. That can make sense, seeing as they've said that the DM is inconsistent. But wait, later in the story when they're fighting Cerberus, they specifically point out that *now* the Disadvantage Opportunity Attacks rule is being left out? Why wasn't that highlighted before? That doesn't make sense. Like I said, this is a cute story, but painfully fake.
One common thing I notice in these stories is that everyone at the table, particularly the OPs, let the problem people get away with absolute garbage, which is stressing them out, because they're too afraid of the stress of conflict to say anything. Like, they're effectively gaining +5 stress per session, but because saying something will cause them to gain +10 stress in a lump sum, they don't say anything, despite the entire concept of DnD to be a stress reliever. OP is five sessions in, so they're at 25 stress, and they're still scared of the +10 stress that would just go down as they remove themself from the stressful scenario. People are so scared of moderate amounts of stress that they will put up with tiny stressors for much longer, ultimately accounting for more overall stress, just to avoid one single stressful situation that they can predict. I mean, I'm anxious, I kinda get it, but, like, I also know it's gonna be better if I bite the bullet and open my mouth.
"I have some home brew rules for a game im playtesting! Wanna try?" "Uh cool. I've been playing and tinkering with rpgs for decades. Can I see them?" "No they are in my head." "...... good luck with that." Thinking: "How in the name of fuck can you possibly get good playtest data on a system you don't actually have written? You can't even edit. If you haven't had someone else LOOK at the rules even they aren't even close to being able to playtest. Plus you'll be handholding all the players through it which will make the playtest useless and biased. What is wrong with you?!?"
Imagine hating on hex maps as the first thing OP points out, lol. Joking aside, I actually believe that every TTRPG player should try out doing a few battles with hex maps; it isn't because I'm convinced you'll like it better but because I just believe in the "if there's no harm, why not try it" philosophy. That, and I do think a lot of you might find you like it. . .or at least more than you thought; lol. Honestly, while it may feel a little odd at first - especially if you're used to square maps - in my opinion it makes the game _easier._ At least, it's been working pretty well in my PF2e game so far. Hell, I'm pretty sure the only reason battle maps are square is because square grid-paper is much more common than hex grid-paper. - Mobility feels more fluid. - Radius spells are much more "naturally accurate" (in terms of shape) and "intuitive"(?) - I don't know, it just "feels better" to me and I don't know how to describe why, lol. - Cones _sometimes_ fall under the same boat. They can still be a little janky at times depending on the angle, but square maps have the same issues with more angles. - No need to deal with "special diagonal rules" with things like "Every other diagonal square movement is +5ft extra." Hex does _technically_ have diagonals, but hexes aren't as burdened by that infamous "grid feeling" that make it feel necessary in square maps. Probably the only rule that can get _more_ complicated with hex is flanking, but only on even sizes (with medium equating to Size 1) and if diagonals aren't being used. If diagonals _are_ being used, flanking on hexes is not only "not more complicated" but it is also a _lot_ easier to flank with hex maps. *Medium et. al* _(assuming a reach of 5 feet)_ Square: 4 flanking pairs. If you placed your token adjacent to another token, there would only be one spot that other token can go. Hex: 3 w/o diagonals. . . *9* with. With the same scenario as above "no diagonals" would still only have one spot; however, _with_ diagonals, your flanking ally would have *_three_* options to choose from. This also means it only takes 1 token to give potentially 3 other tokens flanking all at once.
So, this DM just loves Fear and Hunger and instead of just saying it, he tried to push the systems into a normal campaign lol
"We have Fear and Hunger at home"
Fear and Hunger at home:
DnD community: Just play another system
Also DnD community: Why play another system if you can just homebrew
@@realdragonMore like homesteal
Its so obvious too
Crazy too because writing these rules and passing them out would take maybe 10 minutes all told lmao.
"The rules are too complex to explain" is the TTRPG version of "My fighting style is too strong for competitions"
If the rules are too complex to explain, there are no rules
If the rules are too complex to explain they are too complex to play.
@@Badartist888 exactly
"My goals are beyond your understanding"
"It's too complex to explain to the likes of you" Yeah I've heard that crap before. It *ALWAYS* means "I'm full of shit and trying to shame you into submission".
Listening to the whole limb/bone system, I get the impression the DM had played way too much Fear and Hunger and really wanted to build a campaign around it
Hey should just use warhammer fantasy por any other system to make a gritty campaing, this was maddnes XD.
My head went straight to Cyberpunk 2020. God, that was a tedious system to play.
Which could be really cool and be pretty fun, if done properly and with everyone knowing the plan ahead of time.
Fair tbh, just gotta set expectations so people know what they are getting into
If I ever do a limb system, I'm keeping it as simple as Fallout to avoid too much tediousness.
“If sneak attack is kept intact, you would take out a body part with every successful attack.” Okay, so let them do that! That sound like the perfect way to separate a rogue from another martial class in this system. Sneak attacking is already flavored as an opportunistic attack, so why shouldn’t it be better at disabling opponents? If you’re just home brewing for friends, then balance really isn’t a huge deal. It’s not like this VATS-esque thing is getting published or anything.
Yeah my immediate reaction there was "that sounds like a feature not a bug", it'd add a really fun dynamic to playing a rogue.
There's also the fact, that since the total HP of enemies is apparently divided across each body part (from my understanding of what was written/said in the story), if an additional d6 of damage, combined with a d4, d6, d8, or d12 worth of damage is enough to disable a single limb, even on targets with higher HP to be divided...then maybe the DM should bump up the HP?
Cause like, if I'm fighting the Tarrasque under this system, and I'm playing a Rogue/Fighter Multiclass, allowing for extra attack, and I target both legs of the Tarrasque with a Shortbow, doing 1d6 Piercing Damage + 1d6 Sneak Attack Damage to both legs, for a maximum of 24 damage between both legs, and the Tarrasque becomes paraplegic from 24 damage...then maybe the system is flawed
The D&D hitpoint system is in no way realistic and would need to be replaced wholesale to implement such a system. And as I've said elsewhere, if you're going to change it that much, why not start with a system that is closer to what you want to end with?
Its funnier when you find out its based on Fear and Hunger. Which has a lot of skills the player can use that are broken. So nerfing skills is laughable.
@@fred_derf True, I'm pretty sure a Barbarian for example would probably be dead after taking like...200 Arrow Wounds to the back, if things were realistic.
Like I'm sorry, I don't care how "built different" someone is as a human, 200 arrows in the back, is 200 arrows in the back. You'd die of blood loss.
But under D&D, the Barbarian lives cause Rage Resistance, and each arrow might only deal 1 damage, compared to the Barbarian's like 300+ HP
that ending with the cerberus feels like the DM realised how bad his homebrew system really was and had a "I made a terrible mistake" moment
DM: I've made a terrible mistake-
Gnome, I assume with how he was fuming: "Oh I mAdE a TeRrIbLe MiStAkE" yeah- that's you
Every single time I have heard "more realistic" in regards to a TTRPG it ends up being the "kiss of death" for the game.
It's a kiss of death and they ignore things that are actually kind of easy to do in real life.
not always if the game was built around it and not half baked homebrew with games like Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Cyberpunk 2020/Red as good example of well made "realistic" combat
I feel like this is a survivorship bias thing. We hear about the bad "more realistic" stories because they're bad and someone wants to rant, while good RPG stories with more realism might not even bring that up
@@TheSpiritus0 Yes, I noticed that too.
Kind of backwards don't you think?
Sad thing is, this wasn't realism AT ALL. Dude made up random rules on a whim to suit his own desires
Hit Location combat systems work well when the system is deisgned around them, but not when forcibly shoved into a system they do not belong.
I just started a Runequest game and 100% this
Does the Fallout TTRPG have something like that? Wondered how they’d adapt VATS or something similar in a setting like that
@@CyborgCharlotte
Maybe they adapted closer to how it was in Fallout 1 to Tactics.
You can target an enemy in general, but using VATS allows you to target a limb with a accuracy penalty, automatic weapons couldn't be used with VATS
@@CyborgCharlotte look up how RIFTS or battletech does it. It requires it to be baked at least 1/2 way into the hit roll often with different dice (think they do a 1d20 and a d100 so people can't do the "I hit with this set of dice so thats what is the hit roll") that can be rolled along with the attack roll.
@@CyborgCharlotte The one from Modiphius absolutely does have a hit location system. The game itself is a little messy, but interesting and is definitely faithful to the source material.
"Heres a ball... Play."
"Play what? What kind of ball even is this?"
"Dont worry about it. Ill let you know the rules as you play."
"But..."
"PLAY."
Tbf, Calvinball is very fun.
OH MY GOSH YOU HAD A CHILDHOOD TOO YAY
@@levinseve3471 EYYYY
This is why DM keeps all Homebrew rules in our discord channel in a small tab that's easy to find and, if anything is changed to make it more balance, everyone is told ahead of time before the rule goes into effect.
I still dislike the idea of modding things too heavily. If you turn the game on it's head, then nothing in the system will remain usable as everything is tested with RAW in mind not your homebrew. Big changes lead to a downward spiral forcing you to rethink everything from the ground up when you could've just played a different system. Like pathfinder. I also do homebrew, but I make monsters, items, and a few feats. Sometimes I'll funk around with creation rules and have my players start with a feat for flavor (like chef, charger, or something else that's rarely picked) to encourage them to go 'off-meta' since my table is a bunch of war-game peeps. I stay as close to RAW as possible.
@@yourbiggestfan395Bold of you to assert that 5e is in any way balanced 😂
For real though, I don't think I've ever played any system fully RAW, there's always a few tweaks at a minimum, and a full overhaul can be easier on some groups than getting them to try a whole new system.
@@Ontomancer There are classes, races, and subclasses, that are better than others. However, the game is, in fact, very balanced. The CR system when ran correctly allows for fun and challenging encounters without too much strain. Death is rare in 5e unless your DM fucking hates you or your fucking stupid. A lot of people don't respect the RAW encounter rules. I can math out my party's DPR and I know how long any encounter will take them no matter what. I know their chances at winning, and everything runs through spread sheets and tables before my players ever see it. All of the tools needed to math out items, encounters, and traps, are all in the DMG and it all is fair and smooth. There's a reason it's the most popular TTRPG, but it sounds like you have a different pet favorite. Monsters don't use the same tools as players and when they do, they tend to still have features that monsters have and are still weighed by CR by their defensive and offensive CR.
@@yourbiggestfan395 Most of the rules changed are just to make things more fun or to save on resources.
Like, because healing potions can be so expensive and we have few healers, DM ruled we can use either an action or bonus action to use them. By using an action, we get the full benefit from the healing potions. But we have to roll for the amount of health if we use a bonus action instead. Or, when making a character, if you use your starting gold to buy a tool, you're automatically proficient in that tool.
It's not too many big changes. I think the biggest change he made is that you can use both an action and bonus action level spells on the same turn because it's dumb you can cast a cantrip as an action and then a leveled spell as a bonus action when it takes up the same amount of time. Or how like you can't use a bonus action cantrip if you've used your action to cast a leveled spell. It makes combat more fun and restricts spell casters less.
@@potatofairy8535 I have the same thing in my games! Allowing more than one leveled spell to be cast on a turn is fun. Everything you listed though is inside the DMG as optional content and some aren't even rule changes. The prices of items aren't hard-set, they are just examples the DMG provides.
"Don't surprise players with random rules you're inconsistent with." I bet called shots/injury levels would be fine if not effectively brought out of nowhere.
DM I played with wanted to use called shots. She was newish so I assisted and quickly found a chart for such a thing. It worked well enough.
DM: "I'm committing all the rules to memory."
Me: "So you're just making it up as you go then?" Walks out.
I turn 360 degrees and walk away
@@ultureyou turn 180 degrees. if you turn 360 degrees that's a full circle and you're walking towards the DM again.
@@baydiac Walk through the table and into them to assert your dominance and express your distaste for their DMing methods.
@@baydiac Dumbass comment made me turn 720 degrees and walk away.
@@baydiaccould also be moonwalking away xD
The antidote here is to write down all the home rules as he comes up with them, and then bring them up like fucking case law whenever a contradiction happens a few sessions of playing under his own garbage Homebrew and being held to it, they'll cut the crap
Yeah; if there’s walls then record the location of the walls for future reference, don’t just say “we don’t know where the walls are they’re invisible we’ll address them as we go”
"Learn the basics, so you understand why they exist." - Wise Words of the CritCrab 🙏
Yeah, I always felt like combat could have been done better in 5e, but then I read other systems, heard stories, and attempted some changes for one shots, and I began to see why it is the way it is.
“There’s so many homebrew rules that I can’t tell you them all, but it’s meant for realism”
“Yeah, nope”
I imagine they were going for a “Fear and Hunger” kind of thing with the striking body parts, but with that you ran the risk of missing depending on the body part since it’s a little harder to hit arms and legs compared to the torso, and way harder to hit the head in an attempt to one shot things. But it’s not that hard to implement without nerfing abilities lmao
@@ShowerCurtain1 I mean to be honest I actually have less of a problem with a character dying in a funger campaign then a regular one, it may be because of how mainstream representation has effected my perception but a character dying on an epic quest feels a little unsatisfying in some ways while a character dying in the cruel world of funger sorta comes with the setting with someone dying without ever getting to the end fitting with the type of world funger is
@@ShowerCurtain1tbh, F&H was inspired by Miro Haverinen's D&D session with his friends.
@@LoarvicLoarvic if they played a Silent Hill/Hellraiser/AmnesiaTDD/Nethack/Berserk/Souls-like/Mortal Kombat inspired campaign maybe
@@noisehero4409 so average D&D campain
Just play Fear and Hunger at that point
Jaw-dropping story, but also the DM needs friends who are willing to have an honest conversation about what is and isn't working, rather than ranting about it on the internet.
True. I was dissapointed in the gnome player since i was waiting for him to go full nerd mode and tell him his system sucks because of its inconsistent rule set. Sometimes u need direct criticism to improve, its gonna anger or sadden u at the beginning, but its for the better. Dnd its a story that needs to be written by both dm and players, and as such, it needs both parties to be on the same page. The dm wanted fear n hunger but the players wanted core dnd.
Truuuuue. A lot of RPG horror story OPs need to hear this imo. I get that it's hard, I have social anxiety myself, but you really need to try that, at least before complaining online
The main takeaway from this for new DMs (really any DMs) is: *write your rule changes down!* When you make a ruling during a game make a note of it so you can add it to your home-brew rules. If you don't write your home rules down you WILL end up frustrating your players.
Oh I see that the DM might be a massive Fear and Hunger fan cause in the game you have to target enemy limbs to cripple and the Torso for the main HP that's my theory of the DMs hombrew.
limb targeting systems have existed before fallout or fear and hunger
Monster hunter did it first.
Yes man. Basic mechanics were created by a single game, thats how it works. People should put copyright laws into this stuff too.
I started playing in AD&D 2e and one of the things we had there was called shots. You could choose take a penalty to your roll in order to aim for specific body parts and different things would happen based on where you hit and how much damage. Whatever damage done still was subtracted from the whole, they were not divided like this guy.
It was official rules and I’m thinking of adjusting it to my new 5e game. I’m new to 5e so I’m waiting to see
For our game our DM uses a called shot system AC increases to call a shot (like +2 for a limb +4 for an eye). On a hit there is an affect but some times less damage...like hitting a leg might reduce movement or a shot to the chest might be leave the target stunned. A critical increases the severity/duration. It's been interesting I find when I play my barbarian I play a bit more strategically using reckless attack to take called shots at advantage in hopes of getting one of these effects.
@@kereymckenna4611 that sounds very similar to the old called shot system. It’s good to know that it may work once I get used to things. Thanks.
You: “AD&D”
Reasonable person: “Advanced Dungeons and Dragons”
Myself: “Attention Deficit and Disorder”
"Le rulébook, c'est moi!"
* Lous XIV, DM edition
The rulebook is me, but a winner is you!
"Every limb had a different armor class"
So if you shoot 10 arrows point blank, only the arms will take damage while the shots deflect off everything else?
"These rules are meant to be realistic!"
I assumed that the idea was that armor would cover different parts of the body. So a chest plate would grant AC to your torso, but not to your limbs. Don't know how it worked in practice. But that's what I assumed.
@@RickJaeger Exactly. That's what makes most sense. Going for the most protected region is not very logical unless you're a heavy damage dealing type. An arm is not very protected and is the most important for attacks so go for that.
It's a pretty good system actually.
a more accurate description would be "only the arms take damage and the rest of the arrows deflect or miss (whichever is appropriate)
remember that AC is a combination of sturdiness, mobility, AND size
well, think of like chest armor that doesn't extend to the arms, or a helmet. A helmet is only going to protect your head!
Bro is just trying to play FATAL
The first story reminds me of when my friends and I in high school would joke about a ridiculously complex system, and we'd get affects like "Hypothalmus efficiency decreased 11%"
There's realism in my games; gravity pulls you down, you need food and definitely water multiple times a week, fire will burn you if you touch it, and there are some things you can't do with your hands full. There should be enough realism that players' actions and options feel like they make sense consistently. Beyond that you're just imposing limits
Imposing Limits is not a bad thing
@@xolotltolox7626 not always but it can be
realism my game: you may get disease or leprosy for being dirty, some weapons like the kusarigama or chain weapons needs dexterity checks or fail and you hit yourself
This sounds like someone playtesting a new game system they're designing without telling their friends, but "keeping the rules in their memory" is insane. I mean, everything about the system is crazy, but trying to keep all of that in one's head while also running a game is just nuts.
It would've been completely different had he told them beforehand. "Guys I'm testing some big changes to the system, please be beta testers and bear with me as I might adjust them as we go to keep things balanced"
Obviously, he'd still need to keep everything written down and ask the players for feedback. It's not impossible or crazy, but it needs to be agreed upon before starting.
@@00r0ryyeah. But also at that point just make your own game designed around that since a lot of clases get nerfed and buffed. All of a sudden, fireball is even better. Or smite. At that point, you would have to rebalance so many numbers and stuff its not even worth it. Shits getting close to f.a.t.a.l with them "realistic mechanics🤓👍"
“The grid was turned into hexes” that’s not even homebrew some people just do that.
I do like the what you calls VATS in D&D system. It implies piecemeal armor as well, which is pretty cool. If it can be abstracted it sounds fun and not too disruptive.
How I would do it is not how he’s doing it, like health should be one pool, limbs being destroyed should only be on massive damage or maybe crits, and just keeping the piecemeal limb based system seems fine.
Ideally I’d either make or find a system for that because it would be more integrated into the system that way instead of slapped on top.
D&D started out using hexes, I've never been a fan of the switch to squares. Hexes just work better calculating distances etc. You don't need special rules for moving, firing, casting on the diagonal (for example) as there aren't any diagonals.
@@fred_derf OD&D used hexes for overland travel but aways used squares for interiors. Mainly because the thing they got overland travel rules from used hexes.
But I do agree it’s better
I’m also one to forgo the grid entirely and just measure distance, wargaming style
@@kaylaa2204, writes _"OD&D used hexes for overland travel but aways used squares for interiors."_
I've been playing since the Red Box and we always used a hex battle grid. I had a roll up one you could draw on using white board pens.
@@fred_derf I ain’t saying that’s a bad thing, I just always used squares for interior even if I’m using hexes, since it makes more sense for rooms, or just forgo a grid entirely
Hexes don’t really fit well trying to place it over a square room but it works great for like caverns or outdoor areas
Personal preference though
@@kaylaa2204, writes _"Hexes don’t really fit well trying to place it over a square room but it works great for like caverns or outdoor areas"_
Squares don't really fit well unless the room is some sort of rectangle and each wall is a multiple of 5 feet. So it's pretty much six of one, half-a-dozen of another.
Go go gadget all of your bones are broken. Go go gadget you're inside out now.
Go go gadget all of your thoughts and memories are fake. Go go gadget I am your mother.
Go go gadget compassion for fellow man.
You're a go go gadget
*scratches one big dandruff off my head* erm yeah sure whatever dude
@@corpsemachine6949 *Brandishes my iconic scimitar.* Yeah okay buddy. Keep making fun of me.
why would you say this@@corpsemachine6949
Go go gadget FATAL critical damage chart!
(Wait no don't look it up you will regret it)
HE IS BACK :3
Honestly, your videos man have helped me get into DMing and what to avoid doing, and I am happy, and I have a group of players that are helping me on my learning journey.
Good for you dude
If you need help trying to make a d and d map there’s a fantasy map generator it’s called. Azgarr
2:12 realism in a DnD game? sheeiit... off to a bad start.
Dm here, I use a heavily homebrewed world. If you want custom stuff I'll build it with you. Race? I'll work it in.
Class? Ehh I'm working to that. Backstory? Yes! If it fits more please!
But I don't go control freak
Cool :D
As a new DM starting a game for inexperienced players, I told them they could use anything they found in the rulebooks and I'd help them set up their sheets, with homebrew open for consideration. Fortunately nobody went crazy with it
Yeah, I run an extremely homebrew world too and it can be great to give people some more freedom etc.
@@lynxfirenze4994 like a grafted race where they can have a thri kreens extra arms, or a dragonborn breath weapon,
@@joelrobinson5457 honestly could be great.
One of the things I do with races is just separate mechanics from thematic outright. So there are "humans" with the stat block of an Orc because they're just that tough etcetera.
I find it opens things up well without requiring the oversight that Homebrew races do so saves some time/effort. Ofc sometimes things need to be Homebrewed regardless but races aren't too hard
DM: "I'm introducing a limb targeting system!"
*Thinks back to Fear and Hunger.*
..... Ohno-
This is going to be a 🚽show.
Thankfully, there weren't any prison guards or harvestmen...
insert humorous joke about the time this comment was posted
Witty reply turning original comment into a play on words.
Love when the players are better DM’s then the actual DM lol
im personally planning on having a very merciful limb cutting system for my campaign
first: the weapon has to be heavy
second: there's a second roll which halves modifiers and it does nothing if it rolls below 17, but if it rolls higher or the same, say goodbye to your arm or whatever was targeted
third: if you defend you cannot get limbs cut off
fourth: you can get limbs back by making a sacrifice (doesnt have to be anyone in the party, could be 10 mice if you want)
ik it's unrealistic but if everyone became potatoes from one enemy with big sword then that would be a bit unfun
yeah fr, the whole point of games like this is to be living in a fantastical setting whether it's high fantasy or not.. it's not meant to be realistic.. you can add realistic elements, sure, like if you take too much damage that knocks you unconscious, you are left with scarring depending on what knocked you unconscious, but to say a rock fell on your leg and now you can't move until you get a new leg?? that's a little unfun and takes the entertainment out of the game that is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone..
@@pumpkibee Actions are worthless if they don't have consequences. It seems that the reason the gnome mage got hurt is because he didn't dodge correctly while everyone else did, as in the player didn't take enough time to dodge carefully. Setting up that kind of system is good and immersive. I fundamentally disagree that the players are supposed to win. That's a game made for babies. The players are supposed to be able to win if they play correctly and die if they play incorrectly.
They should have left the gnome mage behind and ran. That was the best course of action.
@@icebox1954 "I fundamentally disagree that the players are supposed to win. That's a game made for babies." Bro what the fuck is this argument. If you think that a RPG campaign is a DM vs players thing, you are a bad DM. Imagine a long campaign, that takes 10+ sessions, for everyone to die to the BBEG at the very end because the DM "doesn't agree with the players winning".
Another thing "That was the best course of action", and also the least fun for everyone. As the guy in the video said, the role playing aspect was really good, and abandoning someone just because it's the best thing to do, doesn't mean it's the thing the characters would do; If you go that route, every lawful good paladin/cleric that risks his life to save a wounded person is being dumb and playing incorrectly.
Also "he didn't dodge correctly while everyone else did" This makes no sense when it was not the gnome fault since the DM was the one to make the convoluted rules to what was happening
@@leonardocoutomaciel4997 1. It was totally the gnome's fault. It was a skill issue.
2. If you're so childish that you think you should win automatically then you are unworthy of my time. Whatever campaign you're doing is devoid of value and beneath me.
3. Being a paladin doesn't mean being stupid. You don't automatically die for nothing. If a boss can't be beaten then living to fight another day is the correct way for a paladin to play.
@@icebox1954 wow, thankfully my DM is not you lol. Have fun with your players with your, idk, superiority? lol beneath me. This anwser feels like a bait but thanks for the laugh either way
4:23 I think the Jenga analogy is slightly flawed. You can remove one bottom block and have the tower standing perfectly fine. Two, however, and depending on the blocks pulled from the bottom, it’s either falling over or else very unsteady.
What the GM of this story essentially did is yank out the third bottom block and then tried to replace them as the tower was collapsing.
It's more like instead of taking out a jenga block, the DM shoved a TP roll in there with his body parts houserules and was hoping the tower would somehow remain standing.
@@MisterNightfish That’s a lot closer, actually, and it even gets to why it’s a bad idea. If you’re allowed to introduce random objects, are you even playing Jenga anymore?!
@@zacharysieg2305, writes _"If you’re allowed to introduce random objects, are you even playing Jenga anymore?!"_
Oooo, that sounds like it could actually be a fun game... you start with a pile of differently shaped blocks and you either have to take one from the pile and add it to the tower (building it) or remove one from the pile and add it elsewhere.
So many Red Flags here right from the start - the claim of "More Realistic" would have been enough by itself to have me run screaming from the room. The DM might have been a friend, but he was also a #$%^& idiot - if you MUST go Homebrew, then consistency and clarity are absolutely essential, and this "system" had neither. Given the DM;s resistance to providing notes, etc., I can only surmise that most of this was being pulled out of his @$$.
Gnome might have had some negative traits, but he wasn't the problem here. The DM and his alleged system was.
+7thesealord888, writes _"the claim of "More Realistic" would have been enough by itself to have me run screaming from the room."_
I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely garbage take.
Nah the gnome sounds an asshole overall , same for op
And as many pointed out a big part of the system seems to be taken from the video game "Fear and Hunger" and the dm probably felt weird or embarrassed to admit it
And keep in mind that overall all the sessions op said that everything else was great which means that he wasn't being a control freak and forcing them into situations or something.
So, as a forever-DM who once *did* foolishly try and re-stat the entire armour system and make new rules 10+ years ago.
Don't.
The core system isn't built for it, and it's just too much damn complexity.
Since then, I have implemented a much smoother body-part specific crit table, which is still undergoing playtesting to see if we need to remove or alter the bonus damage component, or if adding it to sneak attacks / called shots is viable, but it seems far more promising.
The difference being that there is *no extra workload given to the players* - they don't need to keep track of extra AC or HP numbers, and the system only becomes relevant when someone confirms a critical or otherwise deals extra damage.
I also provide a FULL Word Doc to every member of the party laying out all of the house rules, so that there's never, ever a case of them walking into a situation and discovering a rule after it would have been useful to know. That just isn't fun, and leads to pointless arguments.
While I was at it, I also started writing out all of the base game rules from the PHB and putting them in the same document, minus the fluff text, so that it becomes basically a ~10 page condensed rules book that's much, much easier to ctrl+f search for any specific mechanic, and that's been going over very well. D&D is already a pretty complicated system, so the vast majority of house rules are better served making things easier and smoother for the players, so that you can afford to have one or two mechanics that add a little more depth without drowning your players in paperwork.
I'd also strongly advocate that if you make things harder on the players in one way, you should mitigate that in a different way - and explicitly tell them about it. Like, if you add more long-term injuries and stat damage as a result of regular attacks (see above: body part crit table), then there needs to be more robust systems to heal those things during long rests, and the players need to know that.
You can, of course, make the conscious choice to change the difficulty paradigm of the game itself by altering core concepts, but that is - again - something the players should be made explicitly aware of, and have a chance to discuss.
You don't want them picking up a game thinking it's going to be like the Elder Scrolls, and then a Souls-Like boss comes out during the tutorial and stomps them into the dirt. But if everyone knows that's what they're in for, then cool. Carry on.
Thus; the house rule Word Doc, or whatever works for you.
You can also OPENLY playtest things with your players... That's a thing. Let them know "Hey, trying this new rule" and if after a combat or two they think it sucks, then you can just change it on the fly. If one of them dies specifically because of the rule, and it was obviously unfair, you can just rewind a turn and play it out as if that rule no longer existed, or tweak it so it fits better.
I have done this, and the response was nothing but positive from the players, who felt actually involved in the development of their own campaign and making it fun - because they had agency, and knew they could ALSO use that mechanic against the enemy, and it wasn't only for them.
Honestly it seems like a really cool idea but just a bit poorly executed.
First, also love your content
Good job bro
Playing D&D with a limb system is just superior D&D. D&D 5e is the most modular TTRPG system in all of D&D, that's why you don't just play a different game. Different games which meet the requirements don't exist. Yeah, the DM was in the wrong obviously. He wasn't willing to slowly introduce the party to the rules, and overhauled 5e without telling them. I have to say, at least this on is realistic and not another fake D&D "horror story" about people who are just incompetent players slandering DMs.
You still narrate at 0.50 times speed.
Regardless, the failed DM in this story should check out my ruleset, it's accomplishing the same thing but better and focusing on roleplay rather than gameplay.
That cerberus could've built so much suspence too and the slight of could've even been made interesting.
First thing is that I'd say the door in is like 6-7ft high max so the run could feel like a good idea, but I don't know how to fit it in with tbis idea
As you enter the room you see a three headed hound asleep, from your estimates at least twice your heights and thrice your widths. Behind the beast is a large tree with pods seemingly filled with glowing liquid which could only be your remedy. "After OP gets there" the pods are quite large and seem as if they'd be tough to pluck from the tree, how would you like take them off (If they use a dagger they make it 2 points easier on slight of hand to silently move them and require a very low dex throw to cut them).
They actually have reason to roll 5 times as these are cumbersome and hold liquid which makes noise.
"Upon the first fail" You know you created too much noise and as you silently stare at the beast you can see its ears perc up waiting for another sound, after what feels like minutes the creatures ear goes back down.
"Upon the second fail" You witness the creature raise to its feet its size larger than you imagined. It still seems half asleep and you imagine that youd have at least several seconds before it notices you. What would you like to do?
Excellent example! As I said somewhere else, nothing against multiple rolls in situations like this, but only if you're deft enought to both explain the need for them and take advantage of them to raise tension. Save-or-suck is already troublesome enough as it is, and repetitive tasks can easily become teedious in inexperienced hands, even with the implied tension of "there's a monster over there".
Dracule did it correctly. If you set up your people to fail outside of amazing luck then it becomes forced. Give them one fail chance and let the second one be the determining one. Also, have the room's exit be smaller than the beast and explain before this that the beast was put here to guard the treasure quite a while ago and the master either died of old age or something and the faithful hound eagerly protects it over anything else. This gives the heroes a chance to attack the tree to make the hound back off so they can escape or something and the smaller exit makes the hound unable to follow. This is how I'd have done it.
Honestly, the fact that Gnome was injured could have made for a great moment. The Cerberus could have been awake, but taking slow steps towards the party, so the party can actually run away and try desperate shots against the Cerberus. Something dramatic happened, and the game is not ended because the DM wanted a dramatic showdown but everybody is bleeding but the DM/cerberus is reluctant to kill people.
4:07 wait wtf that’s-yes, yes! Do that! That’s great! I’d LOVE that kind of gameplay!
13:07 “I do an advantaged sneak attack on the sleeping Cerberus’s back, crippling its legs and spine, and I use the opportunity to grab a handful of leaves from the tree”
Like the thing about Fear and Hunger is _you_ can set traps _for the enemies to run into_
I'd love to point out that hexes aren't that weird. A lot of game mats have hexes, and it's actually mathematically easier to do diagonal movement. That's why I use them.
yeah and I'm pretty certain they're not even homebrew, but a variant rule available in the official rules
16:37 I'm a new DM an even I could tell that was going to be a shit show, personally just me personally I wouldn't of applied the limb system to the players I know bit unbalanced but still adds a bit of flair and chances for players to Crit on a Headshot an instakill opponents just be careful how you implement it, I'd go with yes divide the creatures health but I'd also divide its AC, meanwhile I'd not let the players know more than limbs can be individually aimed for, I wouldn't add in disadvantages to aiming for limbs(of course shields and cover usual disadvantage situations apply the normal disadvantage but don't add extras) an lastly in BBEG battles mark off the damage against the divided Health & AC still, but if things move too quickly let the battle draw on a little more for flair but when things look like the party is hurting a touch(no killing or forcing equipment an spell drains so you can wipe them out with another attack) once their hurting just that teeny hint let the next attack be the "how do you want to do this moment" give them that choice of what they'd like to do to this beast list of a descriptive visual of how haggard each limb they killed the divided hp of looks an let them choose how they end it an describe the scene in spectacular glory❤
It can be done right I have faith.❤
You know what's funny? They literally could have just used the Friday night firefight system from cyberpunk 2020 in a fantasy setting. Friday night firefight is already based around hyper lethality and limb based damage/called shots. They just made shitty cyberpunk
Brian gang, rise up and remember that rules should be well established and communicated for them to be fair!
Always leave room for your players to make decisions that you haven't planed for, forcing a narrative isn't fun for the players. I myself have come up with home brew monsters and when playing it out I have realized that my players aren't have with it. If your going to overhaul the entire games combat you need to tell your players beforehand in detail or even better get their input and ideas on it. D&D is a collaborative game, collaborate with your players about what they want.
If you're going to do this, just find another system that does what you want, or make your own.
This would've worked far better as its own system instead of trying to bend over backwards to keep 5e classes and mechanics somewhat intact.
I swear, every time these upload, I'm at work, but that makes coming home all the more satisfying :3
any time a dm says the rules are totally redesigned and there are too many changes to explain, you should assume he's making shit up as he goes along until proven otherwise, lol.
As a DM I only ever use any kind of limb based shit if it makes a lot of sense, for example if you have a fucking boulder dropped on your legs they probably won’t work as well as before until you heal up
There are only 2 hombrew rules i use
1. Crits double damage (both for hits and failed saves)
2. You can cast as many spells as you have resources (meaning you can absolutely misty step into a fireball as long as you have the slots, same with action surge).
I wanted drugs in my homebrew but it didn't catch on
So if a player character crit fails a saving throw on a fireball they can kiss their party goodbye?
@@Lulink013 no only the creature that crit fails takes 2x damage.
why homebrew to make casters better than they already are? not judging just curious.
@sirpipple1 More funner IMO.
That’s a prime example of the “death spiral” problem with games if I’ve ever heard it.
This sounds more like how limb damage works in Monster Hunter, but the thing about Monster Hunter is that limb damage isn't just subtracted from total damage done, there's actual separate formulae for how it calculates limb breaking beyond just your raw damage output. The other thing, though, is I think D&D just has too low of health pools for this to be a viable system, since in most games with these types of limb damage the fights are longer, enough that they give more room for genuine strategizing with the system as limb damage debuffs are around long enough to be actually important and useful
Most important, most of games with limb damage are mecha games where even if a limb gets replaced or permanently destroyed you can replace it in short term instead of permanently losing a huge part of your contribution to the fight because your opponent rolled high enough damage on your main systems.
I've never played DnD before, and have a very non-DnD-ish homebrew, but the second I heard "There are too many rules, we'll just adress them as they come up", multiple loud klaxon blares went off in my head.
My world has 'too many rules' as well, but I have an in-depth guide to all of them that I always keep available to my players, and, I give mercy to players who bump into a rule that screws them over, if it wouldn't have had they known about it..
Though typically I stay within the policy of just not having any rules that screw over a player, if they don't know about it.. I prefer my player's failures to be caused by backlashes they were fully aware of prior to causing. Especially since my world/scenario plays a huge amount around a "Guilty pleasure" aspect. Doing things you know are wrong or that may damn you, but doing them anyway because you were tempted into doing them, or simply couldn't resist the urge to.
its a very common mistake when doing anything for the first time:
DOING WAY TOO MUCH
instead of understanding basics they try for some wacked out overcomplex combat or some such and do not have the skill to run it properly
do not ever build a house without a foundation cuz you think you dont need it
"If de dislikes something, he will say to your face, which can hurt people's feeling"
Thats such a weird phrasing. So hurting his feeling by doing something is OK, but when he dares to be vocal about it - its him who is ''hurting feelings''
Admittedly a blanket statement like that does sound a bit weird in a vaccuum, but in my experience hearing or reading similar statements, it's usually reffering to the kind of person whose "brutal honesty" has a weird tendency to emphasize the "brutal" part.
Some examples:
-A player who dislikes a poorly implemented houserule and their first instinct is to straight up call the DM an incompetent imbecile instead of discussing it with them.
-A person who deems a hairstyle "too masculine" for a woman, so they blurt out how disgusting she looks with it first chance they get.
@@Elvalley your examples are straight up offences, with slander and everthing, and if someone uses them, he can not be a "not a bad person"
OP stated that this guy was not bad, just honest
Honesty != Rudeness
@@vrcxdc3623 my examples were deliberately extreme, because if I made them subtle I'd have to write quite a lot more. Being offensive, at least to a degrre, is kinda the issue though, what do you think "honest to the point of hurting feelings" could entail?
@@Elvalley feelings of some people are being hurt by literally anything, you know.
For example, where i live, we have a prison sentence for, quote, "offending feelings of thoso who have faith"
So, how it works - person tells thst his feeling were hurt by your opinion and you go to jail for 5 years.
But they dont have to prove it, because it is impossible
Basically its one of many laws we have have to be able to imprison mitetally anyone, if needed
@@vrcxdc3623 ah, I see. I do think you may have a bit of a biased view in the opposite direction from when most people say somebody talks in hurtful ways, but I get where you're coming from.
DND players using the Nerd Emoji to disparage others seems a bit too unaware.
And when the world needed him the most he returned
To date, the only VAT system Ive ever seen work in a TTRPG was from WEG Star Wars.
So separate AC for limbs, HP for limbs, etc?
So he turned D&D 5e into RuneQuest? Then play RuneQuest!
(This old Grognard shakes his head and walks away mumbling)
The old HERO System has some great hit location rules but they are part of a complete combat system that is quite different from D&D. It's a really fun system with a GM and players who know what they are doing but it is not a noob friendly system by any stretch of the imagination.
The limb system is similar to something I devised, which is you can choose to target specific areas if you choose and I will determine any disadvantages to the roll depending on how difficult it would be. Any damage dealt to that area still takes from the overall creature health but with enough damage I would allow players to disable creature abilities. Dealing with a dragon? targeted shots to the wings with like a -2 could lead to disabling flight while still dealing direct HP damage. More along the lines to motivate strategic thinking and a chance to shift the battle more in their favor. Otherwise if they don't care for it then standard combat targeting is the default. Also I wouldn't utilize the system against players, debuffing PCs too much starts to tarnish any game enjoyment
I've been DMing for years in a sort of arbitrary way, although our system is a lot more roleplay-based than TTRPG like. Its barely a TTRPG, just has rolls for certain things and so far I've not gotten any complaints. I guess its because I always sort of do the story in favor of the players. My goal isn't to hinder their progress, but rather to write a proper narrative.
The only time I've had complaints, I rectified stuff.
When you do a mistake, own up to them.
Disabling a limb each/everytime a sneak attack is delivered *is* realistic, yet that's what the DM nerfed? Like, there's ample historical precedent for what an undefended blow hitting a particularly vulnerable area of the body does to a combatant; you've already landed amongst the lucky if you're alive at all.
Combine a power-trip homebrew "I remember it all" GM with an asocial rules-lawyer. What could go wrong? xD
I feel for that DM, I understand what it's like to want to homebrew some stuff and then it goes wrong. It's cool to see a story where a DM made an honest mistake and didn't mean for things to go badly.
Mad respect to him for recognizing he messed up and giving everyone a way out. Hope they can laugh about it now and have some good DnD games, love seeing the friendship preserved.
Oh god, the initial details of the homebrew is giving me horrific Cyberpunk 2020 flashbacks. God, I hated playing that game.
Homebrew? Muffkkka I prefer moonshine.
I also think this kind of difficulty and "realism" would work better with higher level characters who are more powerful and have more abilities, health, items and means etc
This is why you agree on rules beforehand. I feel that as a DM the most important thing is that the players have fun. It's a game, after all.
I was going to say "if you want to play a lethal system play call of cthulhu" but even call of cthulhu is very straightforward in the way combat works, some systems are made to make combat heroic and survivable so you can multiply them without losing PCs, others are made to make combat chaotic and lethal to make any fight a dramatic scene, with a whole spectrum in-between, but for the love of god choose a system made for the spirit you want for your campaign.
My favorite limb targeting/damage system so far is from the warhammer roleplay and rogue trader ttrpgs. To hit rolls line up with one of the limbs or torso with roughly a 15% chance to hit an arm or leg and a 40% to hit the body. Once you hit zero you apply an effect from a critical chart on a -1 to -10 scale with -10s being essentially a narratively gruesome death based on the weapon type being used on said section of the body. And -1s to 9s doing cosmetic damage and adding escalating debuffs that were curated by the developers very well imo. Very intuitive and benign and adds some nice aesthetic flavor and understandable mechanical nuance to the games without causing too much clutter. I found it relatively easy to convert the d100 system that those games use to homebrew it into my D&D campaigns and it has become one of my players favorite parts of combat with everyone getting excited to see what kind of critical hits they pull off and even enjoying getting critted because the battle scars add flavor to their character progression.
I had a dm say the fighters sword broke on a nat 1, it was the only weapon he had as it was a one-shot. Made the fighter feel bad since he couldn’t really do much of anything. He was able to get a new sword by the end of the fight though that let him cast a steel wind slash spell.
If the DM wanted such a crunchy system that involves targeting limbs and whatnot within a fantasy setting in the name of "realism", then there's the Witcher TTRPG right goddamn there, which is actually a hell of allot better than whatever this DM was coming up with.
This actually reminds me of the German system my playgroup uses. It also has targeted hits with individual body parts applying different attack modifiers when targeted. The difference is though: That system isn't mandatory, you may just as much simply "attack" - which in my experience is indeed the default for most players. Only in very specific circumstances, against specific enemies (or similar), announcing targeted attacks is really worth it.
The problem with targeted attacks, is it's very much a TV / Movie trope and has no basis in real life. In real combat you hit the body part that's available to hit at the moment. In a melee what you hit is going to be determined far more by what your opponent gets in your way (such as their shield or weapon) then by "what you target". Your "targeting" is going to be determined by what opening they leave you. Their shield is a bit high? Great, strike at his legs. His shield is low? Go for the head. They've over extended their swing? Go for their sword arm. etc.
With ranged weapons, you aim for "the body", no one is accurate enough to target specific body parts when in combat with moving targets. The only thing that could be used to target specific body parts is _Magic Missile_ as it "unerringly hits its target" but even that would have to be homebrewed.
This is the kind of RPG horror story I like. I don't think the DM here was malicious. They just were way over-confident in their abilities with house rules. I feel like it's easy for people to think "I can remember all this in my head. It will be fine." But it's way harder than it sounds.
+Zulk_RS, writes _"I don't think the DM here was malicious"_
I think Arrogant would be a better term than Malicious. But they did exhibit some Rail Roady tendencies so they're at least a little malicious.
@@fred_derf I am willing to give them a charitable interpretation here. I don't think they wanted to railroad. I think they might have had trouble dealing with their own unwieldy and half-remembered rules that he created. Definitely Arrogant though.
@@Zulk_RS, writes _"I don't think they wanted to railroad."_
Making the character roll checks until they woke up the Cerberus with the only option being run away (or die) _is_ railroading. There was clearly no scenario there to allow them to get past the Cerberus.
But as i said, it was Rail Roady, not a full out Rail Road.
@@fred_derf I agree with you. It WAS a rail road. My point was that I don't think they did it on purpose. Like on paper, someone who has not have had much experience behind the DM screen might think that "Oh making them roll multiple times make sense." not realizing just how drastically it raises failure chance.
Then they might have thought "Okay. No problem. They can easily run away from the Cerberus" but because they have so many BS homebrew rules, they themselves forgot that "running away" is easier said then done.
Lastly there is a core problem with the rules that I think the DM themselves didn't realize: The Death Spiral. When the PCs decided to stay and fight, the DM waived a few of the rules thinking it would stack the odds in the PCs favor but they forgot completely that the more damage the PCs take, they worse their chance actively get, which leads to more damage which leads to bigger penalties which lead to more damage. The DM didn't realize the absolute shit show the rules would create. And when he finally did realize it, he basically soft ended the campaign.
@@Zulk_RS I agree with pretty much everything you've written. However I do think there was an element of "I'm going to show them how D&D should be played" to the DM's mindset so, as I sad, they're at least _a little_ malicious.
This video actually brought a question to mind. I am a long term DM, but I’m still unsure when I homebrew material, and I usually playtest it by myself in a self-played one-off related to the particular creations level. However, I have been writing a long term campaign with two homebrewed evolving relics that will grow as the players level up. The relics themselves pretty much demand an entire campaign be written around them. I have two players that are interested in playing and they are both aware of the fact this will be an experiment with a lot of untested homebrew material. The first story at one point described the campaign as a “chaotic experiment.” Am I making the same mistake as that GM, or am I being better as a GM by informing my players ahead of time? Bear in mind, my rules are gonna be committed to paper, but the players have been told if something feels incorrectly balanced, I may adjust numbers on the fly as a test. This video just made me very nervous as I have been working on one of the relics for over a year and have recently finished it.
1:30 am. But i can't go to sleep without watching this. Health can wait. Crab comes first!
Hey sorry but, I’m trying to find one video. But I can’t seem to find it: It was about an Acrobat Girl Character, Mei, I think? Something about their friend being slowly influenced by a rude dice roller and then they have to influence him back to not being a murderhobo?
gotta love DMs that believe to be the antagonist of "i have no mouth and i must scream"
DM just squished the D20 system into a Standard Interlock system shaped box... Just run Cyberpunk at this point with the limb damage and less leniency for players.
Aight listen, i dislike sponsor segments as much as anyone else; but i have to give the Crab credit for being the first (and so far) only content creator ive ever seen only do sponsors that are actually related to the content they make. I have yet to have a Manscaped jumpscare or be self-conscious from a HelloFresh sponsor on this channel.
this guy needs to add a difficulty system
easy meaning cerberus is heavy injured
medium guides injured players to safety while allowing the party to keep active with the party running and the injured people hiding in a small grove so the injured player isn't attack v the people who are easier to kill
hard aka the encounter plays out normaly
i mean mine was based off no limbs but your damage was based on a damage to shield system
roll a d5 and the enemy rolls a d20 you tank 15 hp damage
tho probably didn't help that most players in my roleplays had the base hp of 100 I was trying to invent a pendant and armor system to help calm this active death system
A lot of those ideas were tried out in early rival FRPG systems like Runequest and Palladium Games. Locational armour and hit points can work, as it does in Runequest, but critical hits tables rarely do, unless they are steeply nerfed in the conditions in which they can occur.
Some elements of real life physics simply have to be left outside the game, like effects of height and weight differences, when going up against giants and similar. License simply has to be allowed for magic and mythical monsters to not be "scientific", so that they can't just crush players to death by moving their feet, or swatting them into oblivion with a swing of a club. Certainly in the real world certain kinds of events would break bones and tear muscles, but then you don't have a fantasy role playing game. You have perhaps a survival game.
Not only does going into such detail slow combat down completely, which was the problem with D&D 3rd Edition, but it also needs to be balanced and made to make sense by systems like Greg Stafford's in Pendragon where because magical healing is very scarce, players can only take on one or two combats a year, because they then have to spend weeks and months healing with period medical help. If you go into detailed catastrophic injuries, then suddenly being fully magically healed after a few days and able to return to exploring creates a believability problem. It's dissonant. If the healing is easy, so should the combat system be. If the combat system is complex and "realistic" like that, then so must the healing system be.
Critical hit tables work quite nicely in the FFG Warhammer 40'000 RPGs, because those games are expected to be over the top violence from the moment weapons are drawn. One thing of note though is that in most of the systems it's much easier to crit an NPC than to crit a player.
@@AGrumpyPanda That sounds good. Thanks for the info.
I do a soft vat system with my campaigns. Basically, I will ask my players how they wanna attack each turn and if they give me a compelling enough argument to hit an arm or leg, I may have it damaged significantly.
Why does “realistic” always exclusively mean “harder and more horrible”? Reality has nice things in it too.
Good it took gnome dude to mame dm to realise his fumble.
And clearly he just wants to tell a story and make shit up as the game goes along which is bullshit
Adding damage systems is fun and adds depths to play, but too complicated is too complicated.
Limited slowdown to play limb damage:
1) Roll to hit
2) Roll a d20 after hit confirmed. Assign limbs by number range (i like chest and arms being more likely, legs being a lil likely, head being not likely. Separate the limb damage by left and right on your lil number layout)
Multiply limbs? Uhhhh figure it out creature dependent really
3) Assign damage; if AOE hit auto to chest unless its a leg trap or something
4) consequences? Easy way is base it off some proportions of hit die. Easy to track on sheet for individual player. This can cause limb loss or broken limbs. For chest giving a exhaustion until healed is a maybe.
Called shots are already in 5e but you could for ease of use just add 2-4AC
If a critter has a wild body like a beholder just dont roll limb stuff theyre freak they dont need it.
Not standardized rules ^
How druids leave wild shape should the keep a broken limb or something? Every group has different needs and wants.
As a DM think about your enemies cripple points BEFORE SESSION. Also think about healing and restoration scrolls or how potions interact. JUST WRITE DOWN YOUR OWN RULES SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THEM!!!!!! Ask players if it’s something you didn’t think of before you throw something made up out!!!!
As a player hope your dm has it written down
PLAY👏A👏DIFFERENT👏SYSTEM👏
Theres so many systems that you could use isntead of homebrewing this mess.
There are impatient types out there, trying to make use of what's given
I... have a hurt experience in that type? Trying to find a way to get players onboard with a Tarkov-style journey in 5e... gave up due to the lack of gunpowder agreements
Goofy take
Many players don't want to sit down and learn an entire system just for a single campaign
And the changes he made were all fully aimed at limbs and injury. There is no point in adapting a whole new system for relatively simple changes. He's simply at fault for not taking the time to explain them to the players.
@lamogio7938 you're serious? You're telling me it would take less effort to not only explain the mechanics of 5e, but on top of that a bunch of random nonsensical homebrew rules than it would to just puck up a new system that better fit what you want out of a ttrpg? They were basically teaching them a new system at that point with the amount of changes.
@@miztic_ For starters this wasn't their first campaign so they weren't being taught the mechanics of 5e , they probably already knew most of it
And the new additions really aren't that complicated , the op just had a hard time grasping them due to them not being laid out on a sheet properly
Each limb has its own hp pool , once it reaches 0 that limb is removed. Injuries have three levels of severity and debuffs become gradually worse if the injuries aren't treated. Also the rule about opportunity attacks which isn't even considered a new system , it's just a different roll.
That's all , it really doesn't take that much time to understand.
@@lamogio7938 it also doesn't take that much time to just use a new system, so you don't have to sit there and homebrew a bunch if bs, lose the interest of your players for having badly implemented homebrew, and not have a game to run anymore. Just use a different system. My group does this all the time, and it's not hard at all.
...you ever play D&D?
DM is clearly playtesting a new system. This is not only common... but literally most DMs do this. Matt MERCER uses rules he makes up on the spot ffs. It's a required skill for good DMs, those selling it as a new homebrew system is... a bit misworded.
DM apparently made it VERY clear you can not fight cerberus. Pro-tip... he can't chase ALL of you at the same time. This is how you get more leaves, fool. Bet DM would have it chase the ONLY ONE it saw, not the entire party.
Sounds like players failed to play smart, in a system that demands you play SMART.
I'm imagining The Gamers: darkness rising going on here, and the murder hobos can not comprehend a game that demands more than brute force.
Ffs crab. Think before you post.
With my group, there are often questions of balance, fairness, and why X works a certain way and could Y work in another way that isn't specified but would make sense. PF1e is also pretty notorious for its Feat Tax (wherein many feats are locked behind taking multiple other feats, not just the next feat in the chain). So any rule reviews players request are submitted to the group chat and reviewed by everyone. We have 3 GMs on rotation (including myself) and between us we discuss the rule in question, hash out a potential change, then everyone votes on it. A few examples:
Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization are no longer locked to levels in Fighter. This is because anyone could choose to focus their efforts on a single weapon to become great at it. Fighters already have the benefit of feats at every level; locking feats behind being a Fighter seemed a bit silly.
Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting now function similarly. Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalty for fighting with a weapon in each hand (normally a -6 for main hand and -10 for off-hand) to -4/-4, or -2/-2 if your offhand weapon is classed as Light. TWF remains unchanged, but with ITWF, the penalty is reduced by an additional 2 (to a minimum of 0/0 if wielding a Light weapon in offhand), while additional attacks granted by the feat remain unchanged. GTWF gives a +2/+2 to fighting with two weapons (additional attacks again unchanged), but imposes a -5/-5 if you AREN'T fighting with two weapons, to reflect that the player has chosen to give up on fighting in a traditional manner (sword-and-board, two-handed weapons, one-handed weapon with a free hand for magic or combat maneuvers).
Gunsmithing no longer lets a player just willy-nilly make a firearm with no craft check. That one was just ridiculous.
Healing magic when used outside of combat/duress heals for the maximum amount instead of having to roll for it. Potions still require a roll (it's an item, not a person).
From the way this DM changed the combat system to a hex map and targeted limbs, it kinda sounds like he was trying to wedge a more BattleTech style combat system in, which could be cool potentially, but I think his biggest misstep was in not presenting this homebrew as an experiment and tweaking it along the way with feedback from the players. My old DM in high school was great at running several different game systems, including D&D and BattleTech, so I would've loved the idea of him dabbling with a hybrid combat system. However, that's really the sort of thing that needs to be either super well prepared in advance or adjusted during gameplay.
Easy VATs style system general strike is base AC, legs and arms +1 to base AC, hands and feet +2 to base AC, head +3 to base AC… This only goes into affect IF the player wants to strike a certain limb…. I haven’t come up with HP per limb but you could base it off base HP… So like enemy has 50hp base you could make the arms able to take 15 before being disabled, the hard part to figure out would be what to do with headshots… head shot could be damage= 75+%of base health is a kill, 50-75% renders it unconscious maybe…. I dunno something like that though.
I wish D&D combat just made damage types matter, like, at all. Besides bludgeoning being the best because skeletons.
I want to also do things like, using the spike of an axe to grapple or trip enemies, be able to do a pommel bash encase slashing is resisted with a sword. Use throwing knives like IRL throwing knives and use it to distract the enemy instead of somehow killing someone. Maybe make certain throwing weapons deal bonus damage if you run before throwing.
It's one of the pet peeves I have with D&D combat besides battle master being the "lol things you should be able to do as any other martial classes are ONLY FOR ME"
chat as a cleric at lvl 5 is it fair getting jumped by a 2 fighters and a spellcaster with a 120 antimagic field?
This story is funny, but obviously not true. Someone had a headcanon on the worst experience one could have with DM homebrew and wrote a fanfic.
The storyteller is, ironically, inconsistent with the DM's inconsistencies. Early on, the rules highlighted are limb targeting and Opportunity Attacks at Disadvantage.
After "Gnome" joins the party, the apparent first exposure to the DM's homebrew system, is being asked what limb he wants to target for an Opp Attack, which baffles him. In what possible situation is the very first attack roll being made an OA? That's an incredibly rare and specific scenario. Someone joins your session, and the FIRST combat roll for them to see your system, is them rolling OA? Doesn't even see anybody else, or an enemy roll for an attack first? No shot.
Let's grant that this unbelievable circumstance happens. Okay, fine. You're telling me a Level 2 Wizard makes a physical Opportunity Attack, and deals enough damage to break bones? What?
A Level 2 Wizard is going to struggle to physically hit the broadside of a barn unless their build is woeful, but we're told this is an experienced player who's a stickler for RAW. But his attack is not only hitting, but hitting hard enough to deal significant area damage? On his very first roll with this system? How incredibly lucky.
On top of that, this attack is apparently only at Disadvantage if "Gnome" targets the head. Okay, so I guess we're no longer doing the "all Opp Attacks are Disadv" homebrew. That can make sense, seeing as they've said that the DM is inconsistent.
But wait, later in the story when they're fighting Cerberus, they specifically point out that *now* the Disadvantage Opportunity Attacks rule is being left out? Why wasn't that highlighted before? That doesn't make sense.
Like I said, this is a cute story, but painfully fake.
One common thing I notice in these stories is that everyone at the table, particularly the OPs, let the problem people get away with absolute garbage, which is stressing them out, because they're too afraid of the stress of conflict to say anything. Like, they're effectively gaining +5 stress per session, but because saying something will cause them to gain +10 stress in a lump sum, they don't say anything, despite the entire concept of DnD to be a stress reliever. OP is five sessions in, so they're at 25 stress, and they're still scared of the +10 stress that would just go down as they remove themself from the stressful scenario.
People are so scared of moderate amounts of stress that they will put up with tiny stressors for much longer, ultimately accounting for more overall stress, just to avoid one single stressful situation that they can predict. I mean, I'm anxious, I kinda get it, but, like, I also know it's gonna be better if I bite the bullet and open my mouth.
"I have some home brew rules for a game im playtesting! Wanna try?"
"Uh cool. I've been playing and tinkering with rpgs for decades. Can I see them?"
"No they are in my head."
"...... good luck with that."
Thinking: "How in the name of fuck can you possibly get good playtest data on a system you don't actually have written? You can't even edit. If you haven't had someone else LOOK at the rules even they aren't even close to being able to playtest. Plus you'll be handholding all the players through it which will make the playtest useless and biased. What is wrong with you?!?"
Imagine hating on hex maps as the first thing OP points out, lol. Joking aside, I actually believe that every TTRPG player should try out doing a few battles with hex maps; it isn't because I'm convinced you'll like it better but because I just believe in the "if there's no harm, why not try it" philosophy.
That, and I do think a lot of you might find you like it. . .or at least more than you thought; lol.
Honestly, while it may feel a little odd at first - especially if you're used to square maps - in my opinion it makes the game _easier._ At least, it's been working pretty well in my PF2e game so far. Hell, I'm pretty sure the only reason battle maps are square is because square grid-paper is much more common than hex grid-paper.
- Mobility feels more fluid.
- Radius spells are much more "naturally accurate" (in terms of shape) and "intuitive"(?) - I don't know, it just "feels better" to me and I don't know how to describe why, lol.
- Cones _sometimes_ fall under the same boat. They can still be a little janky at times depending on the angle, but square maps have the same issues with more angles.
- No need to deal with "special diagonal rules" with things like "Every other diagonal square movement is +5ft extra." Hex does _technically_ have diagonals, but hexes aren't as burdened by that infamous "grid feeling" that make it feel necessary in square maps.
Probably the only rule that can get _more_ complicated with hex is flanking, but only on even sizes (with medium equating to Size 1) and if diagonals aren't being used. If diagonals _are_ being used, flanking on hexes is not only "not more complicated" but it is also a _lot_ easier to flank with hex maps.
*Medium et. al* _(assuming a reach of 5 feet)_
Square: 4 flanking pairs. If you placed your token adjacent to another token, there would only be one spot that other token can go.
Hex: 3 w/o diagonals. . . *9* with. With the same scenario as above "no diagonals" would still only have one spot; however, _with_ diagonals, your flanking ally would have *_three_* options to choose from. This also means it only takes 1 token to give potentially 3 other tokens flanking all at once.