I put the reins in the PCs hands. They would get to the Sanctum when and if they made it happen. They made it happen at the END of chapter 2 by rescuing Alustriel.

@@d20play I like that. Starting up a Vecna campaign tomorrow night 🥃

This video shows how I do that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2mzqXadhZWCa80 There are links to that and similar videos in the description of most of my videos in case you want to check any of the other ones out!

I loved that campaign!

Thank you! Brings back memories from '86!

Yes. I saved the meeting with the wizards for when the PCs sought them out and or rescued one or more of them. See that start to happen at the second half of the Vecna 2b video!

​@@d20play Got it, thanks. I'm running this now (still on Ch 1), so interested to see how someone else runs it.

Cool! There were so many potential leads in chapter 1. I am trying more and more to make gameplay more emergent and in the hands of the PCs, so we will see where they take me!

Very strong!

@@d20play Also the way I worded it was intentional. I think it should be +1d4 to the caster's AC on each attack. Puts the onus of remembering on the caster, rather than the busy DM. And since it only needs to be rolled if an attack would actually hit, it speeds up gameplay.

I know, right!? Close enough to make most players happy with a house rule or two, though. I think so.

Maybe that is what he was thinking…

Silence doesn't affect Somatic components, only verbal. Was anyone ever getting counterspelled on Hunter's Mark, anyway?

@@VinStJohnAn old DM of mine

That's a good trade. A 2nd level spell vs a st level spell that is a bonus action and has few free casings.

The Gloom Stalker: for some reason they decided to nerf Dread Ambusher. That was unnecessary. The real problem with the subclass was Umbral Sight. It's literally Greater Invisibility with no concentration at level 3. It's incredibly overpowered and they didn't change it. Absurd!

I agree with you, why did they only give the ranger one expertise? Every other expert class gets two

@@fortunatus1as someone who played a gloomstalker a lot you’d be surprised how difficult it is to be in darkness sometimes. Especially if there are humans in your party.

@@comradewarners It certainly depends on the campaign, the DM, and the terrain. But if you're playing in the underdark or shadowfell, it's incredibly overpowered. You can almost accomplish the same thing without being overpowered by instead giving them the following: You can Hide as a Bonus Action. It's now not overpowered because you must follow the stealth, cover/obscurity rules and requires the expenditure of that BA. But it is also more universally useful as it doesn't rely on enemies' vision type. EDIT: You do lose out on consistent disadvantage on attacks against you but that was the majorly overpowered part.

@@fortunatus1 honestly bonus action hide without having to multiclass in rogue would be pretty sweet.

What parts are nerfed?

​@@kongoaurius All the Favoured Terrain stuff (both playtest and 2014) are gone. Primal Awareness/Primeval Awareness are gone. Land's Stride is gone. Hide in Plain Sight is gone. Vanish is removed. The Tasha's Favoured Foe rule is most of the new Hunter's Mark rule (no spell slot damage buff). In terms of unique buffs to the base class you get: Roving is now +10 speed instead of +5 Expertise at Level 9 Concentration Protection for HM Nature's Veil lasts for two turns Advantage against HM targets (which you would often already have because of Nature's Veil) True Blindsight +D4 damage The last five features are late T3 through to T4, so outside the normal range for most campaigns. The problem is the marketing is trying to compare the 2014 version to the 2024 version, when people had already moved on to the Tasha's version. They are essentially giving us the Tasha's version again, which would be passable if every other class wasn't seeing across the board buffs.

According to the people that have the book, there were some things left out. I'm not a fan of how they handled Favored Enemy either, but if the optimizer who actually has the full context of the features is saying the class is stronger than it was in Tasha's I'm inclined to go with him. Argument form authority I guess, but considering they're one of the few that's fully informed on the new changes I think it's warranted. They certainly weren't given as much of a straight buff as the Martials, but Ranger was already in a fine position by the end of 5e. It was most definitely not one of the weaker classes by the time all was said and done, and it was never the worst to begin with. People just over-exaggerated because Beastmaster in specific was horrendous in 2014.

​​@@malmasterson3890the problem is not power level, Ranger can deal good damage, always has been good at it. The problem is that the class is super boring, features interact very badly between each other and there's no flavor. You are worse at skills than other experts, you loose buffs to travel, you gain movement boost that many other classes get, you're nothing different than another class, you have nothing unique. Moreover, your whole class and subclasses rely on a level 1 spell that can't be upcasted in a useful way, and eats up concentration and bonus actions limiting your spell use and other actions use.

@@eliascabbio7598 I do 100% agree with your statements as far as the base class is concerned. Like I said the new Favored Enemy is definitely not to my liking. That being said, it's the subclasses & the spell list that have always drawn me personally to the Ranger. The good ones have excellent flavor and appeal imo. They have some of the most fun unique spells in the game that aren't just straight up broken. So yeah, I agree that it is pretty boring for the most part, bit if they kept most of the unique spells and added more for the Ranger, then I think it'll still feel fun for those that enjoyed it in 5e especially. Hopefully there's more to it as well.

I love the tactical side of the game, so you can be sure I will always share the best maps I can find for any given adventure!

Oh yeah! for the subclass free spells.

I would have to see what the final version is but last I saw the bonus action rule for spell casting was gone

Really!? Where did you see that?

@@d20play it was early in the play test but Treantmonk pointed out the wording change. So nothing confirmed whether it made it to the final product

@@d20play I did some digging because I wanted to make sure I wasn't making anything up. The new rule interpretation comes from the fact that the magic action makes no mention of the bonus action rule. In addition, the rule only exists under the quickened spell description implying it's only intended to affect quickened spell and not the magic action in general. I've been looking at all the play tests and this remains consistent so likely to be in the final result

Thanks for tracking that down! Fingers crossed!

A Paladin´s Smite™ is now a spell, that if you choose to use it spends a spellslot [so that a cleric could also cast], that is a "reaction trigger" but that instead of wasting your reaction FORCES you to use a Bonus Action [something that is only possible if the trigger happened in the middle of your turn]. [The solution]: Make the Paladin Feature Class (to keep Clerics in check), allow for this casting to instead happen _"as a free action that you MAY choose to take (whenever you hit & deal damage in melee), only once per Round"_ instead of using a Bonus Action at all [but still available, if you also know the spell from multiclassing Cleric or provided by a Feat]. -> This way, you could in theory also build up a Paladin subclass that does more with it [spending your reaction & using a resource (proficiency times, etc)] to further differentiate it from a Cleric casting it.

@@adolfodef yeah I agree

@@adolfodef I've been fond of Paladin's Smite upgrading the chassis of Divine Smite, so that it at least requires two levels to get the good shit when multiclassing.

Check out this video of mine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5q1hKiAgZibmLc

Good reasoning for the spells that are part of features!

They did [Technically Speaking] "kept" it in one of the Rogue features [optional player choice to replace of ~some~ of the dice rolled on a sneak attack, forcing a saving throw that (may) cause a temporary effect equal to (the last U.A. version of) "Daze"]. They could theoretically add a feature to the Monk class (or as part of a subclass), that modifies the way Stunning Strike optionally works [as soon as level 6]; giving the effects of what the Dazed condition was [perhaps with an extra -ki- _Discipline_ point to force disadvantage on the target´s saving throw (emulating the Sorcerer´s Empowered Meta-magic)].

I feel like putting the customization in the DMG's a good choice as it explicitly makes the DM the arbiter of what customizations are appropriate instead of giving the players a perceived license to do whatever they want. Not that DM's need permission to customize, but explicitly putting the option under the purview of the DM is a good way to keep it, but give the DM even more explicit authority over it. Hopefully that signals to players that yes, customization is possible, BUT you need to work WITH your DM and not just assume you're free to do as you please here.

From that standpoint it mainly means you can't just disarm an enemy you have to also separate them from the weapon, which is already a thing that makes it more complicated to disarm enemies in 2014, but it is doable. Really the bigger issue with disarming an enemy is monsters don't usually have their unarmed attacks printed in the stat blocks. So if you do manage to successfully pull it off your DM now has to calculate the monster's unarmed attack before play can resume, and if you have a player that can just disarm practically any enemy on demand it's going to get really annoying, and boring, pretty quickly. Although, personally... I wish they did include the monsters unarmed attacks in the stat blocks, because you need that for more cinematic attacks if you want an enemy that fights more dynamically instead of just using their weapon over and over. If you want to throw in kicks and headbutts... those are unarmed attacks. They may not be tactically optimal, but who cares, you're the DM. Don't make your monsters optimal, make them fun. You can always throw an extra one or two in there if you need to. The other big complication with disarming is, what happens when your player picks up the enemy's weapon and wants to use it? Well now the DM not only has to calculate the monster's unarmed stat, but has to deduce the weapon's stats too and decide if it's usable and whether the player's proficiencies cover it, ect... If it's once in a while that can be a great moment in a battle. But if it happens all the time it's just overcomplicated shenanigans that'll get old, but remain too optimal to stop using it. Cutting disarm is probably for the best...

Good point. That is the only stat block we have seen so far.

Player: "I disarm their claw!" Ref: "Um....no."

@@brianj.841 It could be as difficult as to convince the D.M. that you spend an action with your [Two Handed, Heavy, (very sharp) slashing type, hard metal] weapon to sever the fingers of the only hand the enemy could use to hang from a rock to avoid falling to their death (they are wielding a shield, had to drop their weapon). -> The enemy will get saving throws against this attempt ( ~somehow~ ), with previously undisclosed "Legendary Resistances" and/or a hidden roll preventing it. . Because of story/setting rules (preventing something like actual mutilation of PC/NPCs to be "a thing that can actually happen" before anyone has easy access to a Regeneration Spell), is usually more feasible to just crack/shatter the rock [so a piece of it it falls alongside the enemy]; since inanimate objects always have already predetermined stats that everyone can check.

Nice. We should compile a list of all the unintended (or intended?) consequences of that rule applying to ANY roll.

​@@d20play thief rogue rolling to avoid consuming charges on a magic item with a permanent finite number of charges like a ring of 3 wishes, to get more wishes

I'll add rolling for random treasures to the list

@@Mike_Hogsheart Your DM has you roll for treasure? I tend to preroll treasure in prep.

Yup, so OP.

It is that second sentence that is the question mark. It reads "You can use this feature only if you haven't moved during this turn" I think the intent of "feature" there is the bonus action and not the attack. If true, you are right!

I remember lots of monsters mysteriously gaining stun immunity when we had a monk with a really high stun save. Not great from the player perspective. But I agree, topple will be annoying in a hurry.

I think the forced saving throws are more annoying that the advantage since players already will have so many ways to have advantage up anyway. Although if your player is doing it as a mastery then they are probably using it almost every chance they get so you can probably just go ahead and roll your d20 when they attack and have your save ready if they hit. Feels weird for the flow, however... Inserting that saving throw. I wonder if it would be better as an ability check for the player against the creature's stats so it's the player rolling instead of DM. They could use two colored d20's and roll both along with their damage dice all at the same time for efficiency that way.

I'm genuinely confused as to why people are so scared of the Topple mastery. It's 1 to 4 saving throw rolls for most levels of play for most builds. If you're using digital tools, just hover your mouse over the saving throw button while the player is attacking. If you're not using digital tools, there's nothing stopping you from rolling some d20s while your players are rolling theirs. I mean, for crying out loud, the blaster caster and the controller are making everyone wait every single turn because they have to make a bunch of area measurements, then they make the DM do a whole bunch of saving throws, then the player is sitting there rolling damage and adding them up.

It has the potential to be extremely dynamic.

Yes, and it is much better. They get to add their fighter level to the roll!

@@d20play that’s what I was hoping for! Just like the playtest. Fighters will now FINALLY be an unstoppable force a few times a day

Legendary resistance is better than aura of protection.

@@BlankCanvas-hp4bf Eh. Idk. In most cases I feel like I would want a +3-5 from my paladin all the time as opposed to a reroll and 9+ once or twice. Not sure.

Welcome!

I'm not sure what movies you watch, but I rarely see the word said in movies and even less IRL. Generally the only people that seem to use the word often are usually in reference to games of some sort and even then most people's introduction to the word is from reading it, rather than hearing, or hearing it pronounced by people who were introduced to it via reading. Even in communities such as D&D where it is commonly used it still isn't just a common word, it's more akin to jargon as we aren't using it in the general sense of the word in every day conversation, but rather using it to mean a very specific thing within the mechanics of the games we play. *shrug*

Never get too caught up on what's the "correct" pronunciation for words. It mostly doesn't matter if the listener was able to understand without issue (you clearly did understand), and even then, lots of words have multiple different pronunciations that are correct. That may come form regionalism, accents and even foreignism (when a foreign word is adopted into a language's dictionary and common use). People say words different and that's fine bro, they're not wrong

I really hope so!!

Easy and obvious house rule

Most definitely. I would have preferred few, if any, power increases.

Yes, if one of their opponents does not pick it up first.

Disarm is Gone ​@@d20play

Thank you so much!

"like you should"?? Of course. We had a great time. Highly recommend this one. The video is edited to remove silence, so it goes a little faster than an actual game.