5 Ways You're Probably Playing D&D Wrong

[@impishinformation7237]

The idea that magic items are impervious to damage is instantly disproved by the magic item minor properties and quirks tables, as they have the frail (item chips and breaks easily), and unbreakable features

[@wesleyjudson599]

And one of the quirk options is to make the item indestructible, except from some specific method. In this way, a GM could decide that all magic items are indestructible, but its not a rule, and if following the quirk guidelines accurately, should not be consistent or common.

[@thekaxmax]

He says that.

[@wesleyjudson599]

@@thekaxmax In context of artifacts, but yea, basically.

[@thekaxmax]

@@wesleyjudson599 how many tables use the existing damage rules for _anything_ let alone the magic item damage rules?

[@wesleyjudson599]

@@thekaxmax I know it might come as a surprise to you, but I have no idea. (lol) I'm guessing you think the answer is 0%. I personally think its probably closer to 1%.

[@ChrisSham]

The error with the heaven/hell one is failing to distinguish between D&D rules and D&D settings. The rules have no definite afterlife written into them. Some of the settings do, but not all do. Dark Sun, for example, is effectively cut off from the default multiverse, which is also why they don't have cleric magic. And then there are also homebrew settings, which could go any way at all. None of that is specified in the quantitative rules, so any given D&D game could have or not have any sort of afterlife. It's really more the GM's choice than a hard rule.

[@ethans9379]

Exactly. I highly doubt that Great Wheel cosmology reaches many homebrew worlds, let alone its particular lore.

[@wanderingshade8383]

@@ethans9379 No, they tend to. Because its the lore that the rules are based around. Yes, there is a difference between rules and setting. The issue is, the rules are made to support the setting but don't tell you that. If you follow the rules as written baseline in 5e, then the Great Wheel cosmology exists.

[@tuomasronnberg5244]

​@@wanderingshade8383Actually the person you're replying to is correct. You cannot point out even a single rule in the DMG or PHB that requires the great wheel cosmology to function.

[@wanderingshade8383]

@@tuomasronnberg5244 3 things. 1) The Great Wheel is in the back of the PHB and explained in more detail with rules for each plane in the DMG. 2) Demons, Devils, Angels, Yugoloths. Those statblocks imply the existence of the Great Wheel and using them without it takes a lot of world building effort. 3) Tasha's Otherworldly Transformation and Plane Shift directly call out locations in the Great Wheel in their spell descriptions. To rephrase my original point, it's much easier to simply use the lore as presented rather than try to make your own. Even if you don't know much about the Great Wheel, it's much easier to say "yeah sure Elysium and Mount Celestia and the Nine Hells exist" than to try and make up your own stuff, so that's what most people do.

[@ChrisSham]

I draw your attention back to my original point: Lore and settings do not equal rules. Do some people play with the Great Wheel? Sure. Do the majority? Maybe. Do all? No. So is someone playing in a homebrew setting NOT playing D&D? Or are setting and rules two separate matters? If the former, then none of us truly play D&D because no game sticks rigidly to lore-as-written.

[@Treebohr]

Regarding hiding: the rules say you can't hide if you can be clearly seen. The rule says if you "come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." Because of the phrase, "come out of hiding" I interpret this to mean any creature *can* see you at that point, so changing the scenario to move away from other creatures doesn't change that. It does mean you can't run into melee for a sneak attack in the middle of combat, but you already removed melee as an option by implying that the "attack a creature within 5 feet of an ally" clause of sneak attack was irrelevant because "optimized parties don't run into melee." As for making ranged attacks while hidden, the rules assume you "come out of hiding" to do so, but since you were hidden, you get advantage on that one attack. "If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." Though I suppose that could be interpreted to mean they know which space you're in, not necessarily that they see you, depending on the circumstances. TL;DR The stealth rules, like most rules in 5e, suffer from the designers' commitment to "naturalistic" language, but I don't think they're as bad as you claim.

[@thekaxmax]

Thi is why smokesticks exist, and why rogues have special abilities to rehide after attacking.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

@@thekaxmax Also smoke bombs, pepper eggs and so on.

[@rasimir6124]

Dim light provides light obscurement so the target is not clearly seeing the rogue when doing a melee sneak attack, so there is a way for a rogue to get a melee sneak attack. Another way for melee sneak attack is dropping from a high place, hidden from the shadows, as falling is considered instantaneous in dnd. The Skulker feat also gives the rogue the ability to dash away after missing instead of hiding again.

[@metagames.errata7777]

As a 5e ... uhh, hater isn't the word. Critic? Idk. I thought it was worth mentioning that I dislike 5e for the same kind of rules messes that most of this video is about and I know I can be pretty negative towards the game. But your take seems better Tom's in this case. No shade, Grungeon.

[@mr.crispyfriedchicken3946]

When speaking of a single mage versus an army, I understand that the maths might not back it up, but in lore it is supposed to be more similar to how it is generally perceived. In an event known as Halaster's Highharvesttide, the blackstaff (the title belonging to whichever powerful mage is protecting Waterdeep at the time) killed an army of 136 sea zombies that arose out of the Sea of Swords single-handedly. There are other such events throughout the history of the Swords Coast, and realistically, even mathematically, any mage with access to wall of fire with the right tactical positioning could lead to the same results. I think the point of this "misconception" is because mages have such ready access to mass damage from good positioning of powerful spells, ranging from wall of fire as already mentioned to the lowly fireball to, of course, the incredibly powerful meteor swarm. Even burning hands if positioned right is able to do a pretty damn impressive amount of damage. Enemy has archers? Otiluke's resilient sphere. It really is that easy. From there, you can throw fireballs to your heart's content But wait, I hear you say, not all mages have access to 4th level spells, and you may be right; however, even the common "mage" found in the monster manual has access to 5th level spells! It's just that WOTC doesn't want you as the dungon master to essentially obliterate your PCs with a CR 5 mage who can turn off all martials. I personally dont think that thay should mean that no mages would have access to these spells, however. These spells mean that yes, a mage of significant enough power is equal to or greater than a small army, and I think all the people of Faerun know that.

[@Tupadre97]

When speaking of immortality you're forgetting the clone spell which is essentially just perfect immortality even more so than being a lich. So really wizards would be the ones that are viewed as immortal demigods which makes sense given how op they are.

[@lordk.gaimiz6881]

Perfect provided they don't encounter a nabassu or similar creature, which is thankfully rare. But i agree with you.

[@thomashutchins4327]

The clone spell does have a weakness, if someone is able to track down the jar(s) then the wizard can die for the next 120 days while they're making a new one. Because of glyph of warding + demiplane the more likely way to kill a wizard of this type is soul cage or magic jar, although those spells only work on humanoids.

[@Tupadre97]

@@thomashutchins4327 you can make multiple clones to avoid that. also mordenkainen's private sanctum basically makes it impossible to find them.

[@thomashutchins4327]

Technically sanctum only prevents CREATURES from being detected by divination spells, but that's up to dm interpretation Theoretically if the dm agrees with that interpretation locate object could detect the clone jar inside due to not creating an sensor, though that seems more like an oversight in the spell's wording than an intended weakness in the spell combining demiplane and sanctum would probably be enough to keep your jars safe you're still at risk of soul trapping tho

[@josuelservin]

​@@thomashutchins4327that's easy to solve with the use of "Sequester" or "Nystul's magic aura" to throw off divination attempts of your clone jar.

[@revshad4226]

one of the big factors in item (not just magic items) are impervious, is that there are no mechanics for maintenance, damage or destruction, [beyond the you only recover half of the arrows you fire]. and that WotC5e has removed the overwhelming majority of the "feels bad" mechanics that had existed in earlier editions

[@thekaxmax]

removing rules that add paperwork and are easy to avoid the issues of is a good idea--only the miserly wouldn't pay to have gear repaired whenever in town. They should, though, have put in optional rules.

[@Primalmoon]

11:15 Someone get King Arthur on the line! We need to tell him about this new discovery in carrying capacity of an unladen swallow.

[@thomashutchins4327]

another thing I don't see mentioned often is that multiclassing is an optional rule and so are feats to replace ASIs

[@viciousrodent]

I think the "Magic items can't be destroyed" thing comes mostly from the changes to things like rust monsters, oozes, etc., which were the primary means by which magic items were prone to breaking in-game previously? There isn't really an explicit "Sunder" option like 3.5 had either, so it comes up far less often in 5e that someone even attempts to break a magic item, really. Though magic items being indestructable has been a common house rule for a while. I've always liked them being breakable though. Maybe it's just the old school GM part of my brain, but, I've certainly been known to break my players' toys on occasion. It gives an added way to manage the party's power level, and can give certain situations more interesting ways to cost the party resources than just eating a spell slot or some HP. They might be able to recover their spell slots and HP by the following morning, but, they'll still feel the absence of their fighter's favourite sword until they can find a replacement, get it back, or have it repaired somehow.

[@QCreyton]

Magic items being mostly indestructible with notable exceptions has been in the lore explicitly since first edition, repeated in second, again on third and 3.5. being a lore feature it still applies because as WotC said, all previous lore still applies unless it is contradicted in the new material. The closest they got to contradicting it is saying that "magic items are at least as durable as their mundane counterparts" which was true in the past already. In lore, enchanted weapons and aoir never rust or tarnish, enchanted weapons can't be dulled, armour can't be dented, shields can't be broken and enchanted clothing doesn't wear or tear. It wasn't specifically stated in the core 5e books but it doesn't have to be for it to still be the case since it was lore anyway.

[@viciousrodent]

@@QCreyton Where in the lore did that come up in the previous editions? in the mechanics of 3.5 magic items used the same rules for breaking and durability as normal items, they jsut had better saves based on the enhancment bonuses. In AD&D they made saving throws like any other item. In 3.5, 2e, and 1e, rust monsters and oozes have been able to rust or corrode magic items just as well as non-magical items, if they failed any relevant saves. Similarly, magic items in those editions could be destroyed by a fireball spell if unattended, or in AD&D if their posessor failed their save. In all previous editions, at least by the rules, most magic items could be destroyed in a similar manner to any other, though often slightly more resistant or with bonuses to saves.

[@HelotOnWheels]

I disagree with this interpretation of hiding. The rules only forbid trying to hide while another creature actually sees you -- you can't use hiding to magically disappear out from under somebody's eyes as if you'd put on a ring of invisibility. But, *once you are hidden,* you can move about while hidden with a successful Dexterity-Stealth check, including moving into melee range of an opponent and striking with advantage, certainly from the opponent's rear or sides, and perhaps even directly in front of it if there are shadows or obstructions there for you to continue hiding in. The text of the Stealth rule specifically implies movement while hidden: "...slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, *or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.*" This is also the way the rule works in D&D-based video games like Baldur's Gate; hide checks always fail when you're in an enemy's field of vision, but if you hide before entering the enemy's field of vision, you can then move into the enemy's visual range without being detected. That said, the most important tool for the rogue who wants to Sneak Attack is not hiding, but simply getting a teammate within five feet of the intended target; so long as an ally is close enough to keep the enemy busy, the rogue's missile and melee attacks are automatically Sneak Attacks also. But it's nice to be able to get advantage on the attack roll, too.

[@Redacted-NA]

The rules for stealth in 5e are such a mess that my table mostly ignores them but we have been gaming together for nearly two decades so we dont tend to argue much over details. Trying to play them "by the book" would be such a massive waste of time and effort.

[@steveslothstorm1155]

In regards to the stealth rule, this is precisely why the Skulker feat is a valuable feat because it permits hiding in light obscurity, which crucially includes dim light. Additionally, wood elves.

[@DanielMWJ]

You forgot the part where the archmage drops a meteor swarm and instantly kills most of those commoner archers. :p

[@facedeer]

Even archmages have a very limited number of those meteor swarms to drop. You're wasting a nuke to deal with a handful of mooks.

[@zacharyweaver276]

@@facedeer This is why fireball exists

[@Holycrapitschad]

Yeah but then the archmage cant do his signature trick of casting timestop and then fully charging a delayed blast fireball when the heroes eventually show up

[@zacharyweaver276]

@@Holycrapitschad or teleport away

[@evancarlson5805]

If he teleports away, the invading army wins the battle.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

A spellcaster can do massive damage to an army, that's why any army worth the title has spellcasters of their own to counter enemy spellcasters. Some of us remember the the 'Empires' trilogy where we see what happens when one army has spellcasters and the other hasn't. And it isn't the combat spells that destroy an army, it's spells like 'Scrying', 'Sending', 'Illusionary Terrain' and so on.

[@Talladarr]

It's possible I'm not remembering the rules correctly. I don't play 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons anymore, but I was fairly certain that Getting a sneak attack as a rogue really only requires having advantage on the attack. Yes, being hidden is one way to achieve that, but a melee rogue could also achieve that by simply flanking targets with the fighter.

[@gavinruneblade]

There are actually many ways for a melee rogue to get advantage from hiding, the enemy doesn't need to bump into you, just get within melee reach of you. The easiest is Minor Image cantrip which you can see through and they cannot until they waste a turn interacting with it AND succeed on a saving throw. Or be around a corner, ducked behind a wall, and have a readied action to swing upon a target appearing. On the moving away, that's actually not in line with the rules as written: the opposite of a statement is not a rule. Only a stated rule is a rule. People can interpret however they want, but a rule has to be written to be written.

[@ethans9379]

Yeah I have no plans to play with the lore accurate D&D cosmogony

[@thekaxmax]

which setting? Each has their own

[@ethans9379]

@@thekaxmax Likewise, I would also use my own

[@thekaxmax]

@@ethans9379 If you want to make your own setting, more power to you

[@andresmarrero8666]

Yeah D&D's afterlife is a bit funky.

[@YataVSTheWorld]

Still if the Angel/demon/ecc... Can be killed and those were formal mortals... The point applies regardless. But I agree that point Is a bit shady due to the mix of rule, lore and behavior

[@wesleyjudson599]

On the topic of hiding, there's actually two points that are very pertinent to this discussion: 1. Obscurement, both from darkness and other sources like fog. 2. Advantage on attack rolls. If the GM allows you to pop out form behind cover to shoot, they need to consider whether an enemy in combat is "distracted", if they want to grant you the advantage on your attack rolls due to hiding. Heavy obscurement means a Rogue could hide, and never come out of hiding, until after they attack the creature in melee. This is primarily caused by darkness, but the Skulker feat and some racial abilities allow hiding in light obscurement as well. However, in regards to obscurement, only the heavy obscurement grants the "blinded" condition to seeing into the area, meaning the rogue only gets advantage on the attack roll in that situation, unless they are successfully hiding in light obscurement. The rules makes it seem to me like the D&D 5e rules actually intended for hiding to be largely regulated by the GM, since there is a lot of complexity as to whether a person can hide from another person or not. This becomes even more complex regarding things like blindsense/tremorsense.

[@naghogodfrank]

You are incorrect on the rules. Successfully hiding makes you unseen by the target. Attacks from unseen attackers are made at advantage, so hiding does give you advantage on attacks. On the heavy obscurement: you would loose stealth after making an attack, but you would still be unseen due to the heavy obscurement. Raw The target would be able to figure out your location from sound until you stealth again but would have disadvantage on attacks against you since it still can’t see you in the obscurement.

[@wesleyjudson599]

@@naghogodfrank Please cite the page number for this sentence: "Attacks from unseen attackers are made at advantage."

[@naghogodfrank]

@@wesleyjudson599 phb page 194 “Unseen Attackers and Targets” the paragraph with the rule is actually the last one in this chunk on pg 195 directly above Ranged attacks

[@wesleyjudson599]

@@naghogodfrank Interesting, hiding rules in a third location in the PHB. Should've known. I have edited the post with the changes. Thank you.

[@naghogodfrank]

@@wesleyjudson599 happy to help. the 5th ed pub is a mess and breaks up rules across the book for no good reason

[@chameleonx9253]

Pascal's Wager is a trash argument in real life too. The whole thing is based on a false dichotomy between atheism and the one specific sect of Christianity that the apologist believes in. In reality, you would have to consider every single mythological tradition that has ever existed, as well as all the traditions that could exist (as there's no reason to believe we've already found the "true" religion, if there is one, nor that we haven't discovered it in the past and since dismissed it). Then you would have to factor in the tens of thousands of individual sects and cults within all of those traditions, which all have their own idiosyncrasies that could affect your afterlife. So far from being 50/50, the actual chances of any specific version of Christianity (or any other religion) being the "correct" mythological tradition is way less that 1%. Ergo, you're way better off just ignoring religion entirely and focus on being a good person, and just hope whatever deity is going to judge you is a fair and just god that isn't going to torture you forever for not believing a bunch of absurd nonsense for no good reason.

[@h.1699]

you are aware that you are basically making the same argument? Pascal argues that the question if there is a god is irrelevant as long as there is a non-zero chance. Any chance for infinite gain (not only really high, actually infinite like eternal afterlife) is more optimal than fully ignoring the possibility. And being a good person following the rules necessary for an enjoyable infinite afterlife of any religion considering that to be a thing, maximizes the gains you possibly could get, while being a bad person at best (if not awaiting eternal punishment) results in finite gains throughout one's lifetime. it easily can be assumed he knew at least the bible (and not only sermons but having actually read the old texts) and thus knew how low the bar for being a decent enough person hangs, don't murder, don't steal, don't break oaths, forgive people for (perceived) misdeeds. And even though gametheory hadn't been a thing yet, it's based on mathematically optimizing decisions which is his whole thing with the wager, thus we can assume he'd thought of similar thought experiments, which basically all show that cooperation and consequences for misdemeanor followed by forgiveness are the most optimal path for oneself and everyone generating longterm benefits for themselves. TLDR Pascal does not say you HAVE to believe in the Christian God, you only should assume there might be such an entity and there might be eternal afterlife that could be bliss or suffering depending on your deeds while living, thus you possibly have infinitely more to gain from being a decent person than you ever could gain by being a bad one.

[@chameleonx9253]

@@h.1699 But that's not the argument he's making. He's not saying you should be a decent person, he's saying you should be a Christian, and in Christianity it makes no difference whether or not you're a good person. If you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell. Period. If Christianity were true, you could take two people who have lived identical virtuous lives, and the one who doesn't believe in Jesus is still condemned to eternal torture for not accepting him. This means that, practically speaking, the difference between saved and damned is not virtue, but gullibility. Second, there are other problems with the argument. This is just the most obvious. Another is that it's predicated on the concept of doxastic volunteerism, or the idea that one can simply decide to be convinced of a proposition for practical benefit. Pascal is essentially urging us to "fake it till you make it." To pretend to be convinced of Christian doctrine, even though you're really not, just to avoid possibly going to hell. Which implies that he thinks his God either wouldn't be able to tell the difference, or wouldn't care who genuinely believes in Christ and who is just playing their cards close to the chest. Both are refuted by scripture. Finally, the implied logic of the argument is that we should seek to maximize potential gains and minimize potential risk. If this is the case, why should we settle on Christianity? Why not envision an even more wicked and cruel god than the one in the Bible, who will inflict even more grossly disproportionate punishment on us for disbelief? By the logic of the argument, one should choose to believe in the most evil, cruel, and vindictive God that one can possibly imagine, since following that God is going to minimize your risk.

[@h.1699]

no matter if the punishment is not going to heaven and live in eternal bliss or suffer in hell for all eternity, both would be the same infinite loss, as long as the afterlife could be eternal, anything less than the optimum is an infinite loss, no matter if there is actually suffering or not. if you would attack his argument from the angle that ceasing to exist without experiencing bliss or suffering or even living a happy afterlife with slightly less boons than possible in his decision diagram is equal to eternal torture, i'd be with you. anything multiplied with infinity becomes infinity. thus if you lived happy for eternity but because you were a drunkard before you would have to drink from smaller glasses, the ones not having been drunkards would over eternity gain infinitely more than you, which means you got punished infinitely. As we are multiplying with infinities it's irrelevant that you could drink more often. (i recommend looking at the hotel with an infinite number of rooms) but obviously you didn't even read the bible, the draconic punishments of the old testament were revised by that prophetic jewish carpenter who is said to have founded Christianity. The whole BS around having to believe and strictly following all the nonsense some Church-/Cultleaders spout isn't in the original texts. TLDR of the new testament(s) as long as you acknowledge god to be a thing and regret that you did wrong a few times over the course of your life you go to heaven, it's the whole stick why the Protestants split from the Catholics. For me ceasing to exist is infinitely more desirable than going to Heaven and living a drug-induced dream or whatever. Thus I'm using Pascal's own reasoning and reject God for there being a non-zero chance of them not existing and ceasing to exist A being of infinite value too B being more desirable to me and C being achievable no matter what i do, is gaining infinitely with more chance to reach this goal. Still, on the pure non-zero chance of there being some god who might judge, i'd increase my chances of the least appealing option by being a significantly bad person, thus even then trying to not be an arsehole to everyone has the higher potential for not losing infinitely. Pascal sees ceasing to exist just as an end of a finite live, not as a blissful eternal non-existence, thus any option where god doesn't exist he sees as finite gains, whereas if they exists he argues there is the option of gaining infinitely more by being decent than being not, thus he argues you should assume there might be a judge (which seems to be needed to keep Christians in line, according to the many Christians who believe Atheists could never be driven by morality) that you should try to appeal to. Pascal was foremost a mathematician, physicist and inventor and only became a Christian in the later half of his life and only really started writing about Catholic philosophy in the last decade of his life (though okay he didn't reach 40 and he did become somewhat missionary in his later period before ceasing that again a year before he died). His wager can be seen as the Father of Probability Theory justifying his fideistic view on his religious views to the more rationalistic views of Descartes and others, making an argument that even from their standpoint the assumption of god's existence would be more benefitial than the assumption of there not being a god. he did believe it's easier for people to be decent if there is a damocles sword looming over them, a believe many Christians seem to share even today. none the less he does not state you HAVE to believe, because even if you don't you could still go to heaven, in his opinion it'd be just easier for people to stay/become decent while assuming they might get judged by god, than without that looming threat to their afterlife. he did not advocate for becoming extreme in your religious views. as long as worldly laws alone aren't enough to keep people decent (which they aren't) and there's a significant percentage of people who'd rather take from others than give (which seems to be the case especially in perceived uncertain times) promising much more than what they ever could amass throughout their life on the condition of them staying decent people should decrease the amount of people doing their worst. of course that assumes no middlemen weaponizing religion, who of course, aren't following their religious nor the worldly laws. But the wager doesn't even account for eternal suffering, living sinful and/or there being no god always only resulted in finite gains not necessarily suffering in his argument thus envisioning an even more wicked and cruel god makes no difference for his logic. Neither does it for my argument. i didn't argue you should just make up any god to minimize your risk, because the probability of that god being the right one to follow is lower or at most as low as any other god, assuming the core principles of every major religion to be fundamentally good guidelines to follow is my argument not making shit up or follow just any religion. to minimize the risk you need to be a decent person in the eyes of as many somewhat well-meaning gods as possible, as such you should keep in line with the fundamentals of society: don't murder, don't steal, don't break oaths. that looks to be the minimum for being a decent person more or less everywhere with more or less exceptions to those rules. but even where murdering people of other religions isn't forbidden, it usually doesn't increase your chances or the quality of your afterlife neither does abstaining from doing so decrease those parameters, hence the optimal way is to not murder them, as their religion could be the correct one if there is a correct one. same applies to stealing and oathbreaking. Basically Kant's Imperatif is minimizing the possibility of not being a decent person in the eyes of most major religions/societies and thus maximizing the possibility for a desirable outcome in death. following the most evil, wicked and cruel god's rules minimizes the amount of less evil, wicked and cruel gods who might deem you fit for their desireable afterlife. Thus you don't minimize the risk for punishment but instead the chances of not being punished. because even if that god had the same probability to be the right one than any other god imaginable there are many others that could be real instead and the overlap of virtues is unlikely to be big. to minimize the risk you'd want to follow the virtues overlapped the most often, followed by those that do not inconvenient you anyway (for example if you like vegan food, virtues about not killing instead of only not murdering does not inconvenient you).

[@timogul]

DM: "So what class are you playing?" Player: "An angry mob of peasants."

[@epicsavagebros7400]

A single mage can best an army easily. All you need to do is be ready for the fight and know where you are. Sleep, wall of (insert element), greater invisiblity, summon elementals, and fire ball are all more than enough to wipe out an army as really just one dude. The average solider is probably about as strong as a town guard. With that in mind a simple sleep spell can knock out a good amount of them. A fire ball can wipe out a dozen or more and circle of death can take out fifty enemies in one go. If you had the time to put up a few glyphs of warding they are literally rune by landmines. None of this is even taking in illusion spells. In dnd a small army of 100 can easily be challenged by a level 7 wizard so long as the wizard isn’t trying to be doom slayer and walk through them all.

[@orlandoriviere2]

On the afterlife/outer planes, I’m not sure if I’ve always misunderstood but it seems to me like really there could be very little punishment at all, at least in the hells (which most would assume to be where bad souls get punished) thanks to infernal hierarchy. Sure, maybe you become a lemure when you die, but do a good enough job and you can rise up the ranks of devils, and the most corrupt people in life end up almost the same in “death”. Unless I’m misunderstanding some things

[@TanukiTracks]

If I recall your soul is basically reincarnated into the demon/devil. You don't remember who you were previously, your previous self is functionally gone

[@naghogodfrank]

A mage flying within bow range of an army is not an issue of them not being a powerful option it’s an issue of the mage being an idiot.

[@devourlordasmodeus]

I've basically never had a rogue use hide to get sneak attack, they gain advantage or get an ally within 5 feet to do it

[@h.1699]

and that's all they need rules as written

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@@h.1699 duh

[@EvelynNdenial]

a single high level caster IS a match for an army. because they dont take straight fights. they dont sit there while 100 peasant levy shoot them, they go invisible or teleport away. then a few minutes later the earth splits, the hells open, the dead walk, the ocean rises to meet the falling sky, and the air turns poisonous and lethally hot humid and burning. and that's not flowery language for what happens in lore, those are all spells that are great for taking out small armies. lower level casters are vulnerable sure, thats linear fighter quadratic wizards in action. but even then casters are the AOE classes. as soon as one has fireball or some equivalent is going to be able to route pretty sizeable groups of soldiers. remember in history most armies routed at like maximum 10% losses, its only dnd's gamified system that makes everyone fight to the death.

[@adolfodef]

[D&D 5.24] : . Magic is Stronger everywhere in The Multiverse | . The Weave (or other setting's equivalent for The Source] influences all lifeforms & sentient entities since even befire they are born/made (there is no such thing as a "truly magic_less" creature). | . The "Blindsight Fighting Style" is just the (cantrip level, "supernatural", not-a-spell) lesser version of the 1st_Level "Detect Magic" spell (but passive, always_on, restricted to creatures only). -> It allows to percieve the "Luminescence" of living creatures on Melee range (10 feet for a lance). | / / | . The requirement of success on a DC 15 skill check for Steath (using Dexterity) is to perform a Somatic-esque contortion with your body to "trigger" a supernatural ilusion-like effect in your space (or rather, a "cognitohazard" effect on minds of your choice, removing knowledge about your position + movement... Schrodinger's Cat style).

[@fafhrdkreig4739]

Thank you, good sir. You have given me more reasons to keep playing 3.5.

[@YataVSTheWorld]

In earlier version of rhe game like 3.5 magic items had a weird resistance and they are Always offered a saving throw to avoid be damage/destroyed except for specific cases... So probably many players carried this kind of conviction into the later version of the game

[@h.1699]

15:00 raw you do not need to be hidden to get the bonus damage from sneak attack. you only need advantage on the attack roll or no disadvantage and another enemy of your target in a distance of 5 feet or less from it. 5e phb p.96: "Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table."

[@n.a.e.l.56]

I believe there's a passage saying (at the DM's discretion) that magic items are usually resistant to wear-and-tear, and their sizes adatp to the wielder

[@bramverbist8325]

Problem is that the rules for stealth are just mostly left up to the dm, they are not really hard rules like combat. I think the intention was that when attacking from cover the movement is part of your attack, you will only be noticed at the point of contact

[@h.1699]

wdym with "mostly left up to the dm"? there are hard rules in the player handbook of 5e only things not covered under them is fully up to the dm or if the dm decides to ignore the rules, but that's a staple with all the rules.

[@Soothsayer-bp8oz]

There are 2 ways I know of to auto succeed on con saves. Conjuration wizard cannot lose concentration on Conjuration spells after lvl 10, and the mind sharpener infusion gives you (essentially) 4 legendary resistances for con saves.

[@devourlordasmodeus]

A mage would fly 180 feet in the air, fly down 30 feet to get the ground in range of fireball, cast it then fly back up out of range of arrows

[@thomashutchins4327]

Longbows can shoot up to 600ft, albeit at disadvantage. If the archer can get 1 source of advantage they can cancel our the disadvantage (ex if they are hidden), but even if it is at disadvantage enough archers focus firing can easily get a couple of hits

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@@thomashutchins4327 I mean, that's why my first fireball is going to the archer formation Mages really lost something when they took protection from missles away as a spell

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@thomashutchins4327 my mages really are absolutely busted tho, I allow concentration on multiple spells in 5e

[@thomashutchins4327]

@@devourlordasmodeus well then concentrating on multiple spells opens up a whole new can of worms though now that I think of it, even without needing concentration mirror image + blink lowers it to a 1/4 chance to be aiming at the wizard, and a 1/2 chance of the wizard even being on the physical plane to shoot at in the first place

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@thomashutchins4327 the buff get crazy but they run out of spell slots fast

[@austindelpier9268]

i think the idea of a high LV caster being an army killer is stuff like meteor swarm and storm of vengence

[@Joethemerciless]

Why would a high level spell caster fly within arrow range? A much better strategy would be to teleport a mile up, use their reaction to cast feather fall, then toss out a meteor swarm. That way if anything's still moving, they have their concentration free to summon in some flying creatures and have them halo drop into the fray. If that all fails, they have a miriad of means by which they can sneak away, rest up, and do it all over again on the now thinned enemy force.

[@h.1699]

to cast most if not all attack spells (have to look through them as most of the time it's irrelevant, just assuming TGM to be right on this one for now) you'd have to be in range of those bows and all those archers seeing the mage out of their reach can ready an action to shoot them as they start casting all those attacks would get resolved before the spell is cast and if the mage gets downed by them the spell fails, which in turn should make the majority of those archers to ready that action. of course readying the action uses their actions, thus giving nonmage allies of the mage an edge.

[@adrianhultman6236]

​@@h.1699The range of meteor swarm is one mile, no need to get within bow range. One casting of meteor swarm can kill roughly 250 enemies, so over the course of a few days a wizard of 17th level or higher could inflict massive cassualties without ever playing themselves in danger

[@morrigankasa570]

The only way you are playing wrong is if you aren't having fun!

[@MauroDraco]

Nice sampling of basic rules and world building issues! Well presented and argued too, Tom!

[@zacharyweaver276]

10:25 I blame this on 5e rules not making any sense sometimes at least for the tiny sized creatures

[@h.1699]

15:38 that makes some sense, you might be seen but not perceived as a threat and as such ignored as there is a combat going on (else the awareness is determined by perception and not automatically seeing someone)

[@h.1699]

of course you'd still lose the status of being hidden if you'd run in the open, but even only light obscurement (patchy fog, dim light, heavy rain, moderate foliage, cover, creatures breaking line of sight, ...) is enough to stay hidden.

[@Wilzekify]

A lvl10+ caster with Amulet of Health, Cloak of Protection and Resilient (CON) has +9 to concentration saving throws. I know him, he’s me. I still lose concentration a ton because our enemies regularly deal 50-60 dmg per hit. But it feels nice to autosucceed a DC10 concentration.

[@anvos658]

The stealth one I think you missed the distraction clause, or at minimum just invoking some sort of stealth check.

[@arcanerecovery2567]

Query: When someone is invisible (under 2014 rules) they are not hidden just unseen and can be targeted and attacked with disadvantage... but what if instead of being invisible you are hidden, can you now be targeted and/or attacked at all? (consider the answer under the parameters that you are still hidden as if you are found things would be as 'normal')

[@fortunatus1]

The main reason that DMs say that non-consumable magic items are indestuctible is not because they are but rather because they don't want to deal with the minutia of determining the hp of items players wear/have in their possession. If they're not indestructible then every fireball or cone of cold or any aoe spell should be doing damage to every magic item a player has in their possession. Those spells should be destroying their clothes, their backpacks, their spellbooks, damaging their armor, burning up your scrolls (or scroll cases if you're careful). It spirals in a direction that makes the game unplayable or at least not fun.

[@Svartalf14]

Pascal's wager is a complete sophism to start with, since you have to assume that the religion you are following is the right one.... no provisions made if the REAL god happens to be Ahunra Mazda....

[@facedeer]

And IIRC, isn't Kelemvor doing something to get rid of the wall of souls around his city of the dead? I haven't been following recent Forgotten Realms lore in any detail, though.

[@InhabitantOfOddworld]

Oh well, good job Christ is King

[@Svartalf14]

@@InhabitantOfOddworld Not in D&D, he usually isn't

[@InhabitantOfOddworld]

@@Svartalf14 Pascal's Wager isn't a D&D concept to begin with, so...

[@zacharyweaver276]

1:14 I knew this one but I like to imagine magical items are at least more durable than their mundane counterparts requiring greater force or magic to break

[@seanrea550]

I would say rouges can approach someone from behind or if obscured by mist or smoke or darkness as long as they pass a stealth roll.

[@mikenewton389]

And this is how I found out that the item saving throw table wasn’t in the 5e DMG. Bring back the magic item saving throw table from 1e & 2e!!!!11!

[@simonburling3762]

If you are having fun, then you are playing correctly.

[@arcticcircle9815]

You clearly know the rules well, but you fail to take account of one key point: some of the rules are fucking stupid and should be ignored

[@zimattack9994]

So i should give my owls bowling ball to drop on people as a hunting tactic

[@sethewing2576]

Love your videos! I think they are really creative and helpful for running DND. Just wanted to let you know I think the music is a bit too loud in the mix, especially at the start, hope this helps!

[@josuelservin]

Agreed, it was a bit distracting. Hopefully that's easy to solve.

[@GrimHeaperThe]

You're underestimating PC wizards. The archmage is a bad statblock due to how it's stats are spread out, doesn't even have the shield spell and he's recognized as an 18th level caster. At level 18 this wizard would have 108 hp and +8 checks for concentration with advantage. A standard variant human start of the stats with pointbuy. 9 str, 14 Dex, 13 con,16 int, 14 wis, 8 cha. Mage armor 15 AC, Shield spell 20 AC. Vhuman take Con Resilience to get more hp and survive until level 5. Level 4 take Warcaster. +5 to concentration checks with advantage. Only roughly a less than 12% chance of dropping concentration vs DC 10. Dip in and out of range so they shoot at disadvantage even with longbows while you fireball, if they got to the point of holding actions to fire alive somehow you still have the shield spell. The chances of even hitting to begin with are less than simply rolling a 20 this way. The wizard has 36 hp so they're not folding to something as simple as a longbow shot once. Target the archers first so they can't even do so. Likely to go first with Chronurgy or War wizard and the +2 to dex. Fly lasts 10 minutes, already in the air as well. After level 5 you dump everything into int since that's when spells start scaling up, or you have a headband of intellect to hold you over during as it's a possible uncommon item at that level; fireball is so good it'll carry you there while paired with spells like Slow for when friendlies are in the way/ the spell isn't good with immune/fire resist. Arcane deflection which gives a +4 to saves basically makes it impossible to fail a save as well and Durable magic that's gives a +2 for just concentrating from war wizard.

[@reubenfromow4854]

Hey man, I will watch each of your videos the whole way through, regardless of how they sound- I’m really fond of your discourse and think they’re awesome. That being said, the audio editing in this video could still use a little bit of tweaking. The background music sounds quite high pitched, and is maybe louder than it should be. Simultaneously, your voice is a bit out of focus. All of that being said, you’re great, I love the video, and keep up the good work!

[@nadezhdaposlednaya6526]

10:39 Inclusivity is BAD for DnD. If your size make no difference then you have no size. It's some cosmetical flavor nowdays for most parts as many other things (just don't grapple and don't use heavy weapons). Its the same as there are no "drow" characters anymore - there are black-skinend elves. Becouse drow is much more than dark-skinned elf, but to fully include drow in game we have to ignore most of this so it is not a drow anymore. Remember what have Drizzt to endure to become "normal" surface adventurer. He was the drow. "You" aren't. I hate inclusivity so much, as it strips characters from their flavor. All looks the same now - you can have any skin colous, horns, ears, size, tail, as it means nothing. Noone cares (not NPCs, nor players).

[@CaedereS]

Rogues shouldn't "keep up" with warriors in combat. They should think long and hard about attacking anything they can't drop in one well placed attack. Insisting that everything be balanced around solving combat challenges leads to disappointment with a game not designed to that expectation.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

Somehow I always thought they were locks and traps specialists with connections to the criminal underworld, something the other classes usually don't have. My mistake. I miss the time when Thie... Rogues did their own thing and I miss Thief's Guilds.

[@CaedereS]

@@Dreamfox-df6bg They could be that. What they all are, regardless of the degree to which they're criminal trapfinders specifically, is skilled. They're not trying to keep their DPS competitive with the Fighter, and the Fighter isn't put out that the Archmage can deal more damage (the kind of mind that can manage to cast Meteor Swarm once has long since mastered the discipline of "billing for twice the cost to build and crew a trebuchet which can cast Meteor Swarm all day and pissing off back to the reading nook without wasting spell slots"). Rogues don't defeat foes in pitched combat most of the time. They persuade foes not to pitch combat at them by referring to what foes' wrote in the diary foes hide in a secret compartment in foes' locked escritoire, or installing corset ties in foes' fencing doublets suitable for a mage hand to make a straightjacket out of. Not being able to hide from something they're actively stabbing is no impediment, it's a sign they need to stop stabbing whatever this thing is and talk to the Masons Guild Foreman about dropping a building on it, or walling it up, or whatever reminds everyone that there's a job for guys who fight and war, and you haven't hauled this calligraphy set to the Dalelands and back just to be a skinny one of those.

[@somegenerichandle]

Some of these things went over my head. So, yes your more obsessive (at least about D&D) than me.

[@katherinespezia4609]

Everything ceases to exist eventually (in Forgotten Realms, at least), or, in other words, Shar was right (kind of).

[@sykune]

I found this bit about sneak attack enlightening however I want to know how does an enemy know everything that going on the battle field if a player does not. Say if the fighter is attacking an orc how does the orc avoid a fireball that's launched from behind him, in that circumstance I would rule he has disadvantage on that roll. Unless he perceives it. Same thing for sneak attack it's perception vs stealth, if there is no real cover I would either give player disadvantage on stealth or advantage to the enemy to perceive the sneaking player. But think of people in real life their are some trained to do just that sneak up and kill people with a knife

[@RequiemWraith]

I would say magic items are considered unbreakable, because there's so few instances where an object might break. For weapons and armour, there's no condition stat, so the only time they're at peril is against something like the Rust Monster. For accessories and clothing, it's never come up in any of my games, and I'd be hesitant to add any kind of damage or wear and tear, because most of the players I've come across would consider it 'not fun', or as was once said to me about ammunition "I don't play D&D for bean counting". The lifting thing is something that DOES infuriate me. A 2' tall, spindly Kobold PC and an 8' tall, bulking Goliath have the same potential strength score. THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

[@CaedereS]

You don't have to describe the 18 STR kobold as spindly, or the 10 STR Goliath as hulking. The Goliath has a more powerful build than an equally strong human, and can use their strength to do things a Small creature cannot. The creature size guidelines and the powerful build feature address the things you're talking about - the Goliath has the same maximum damage bonus, but that comes into play after the different range of weapons they can wield and their different options when wielding.

[@RequiemWraith]

@@CaedereS it's more that, if you had a 2' tall humanoid and an 8' tall one, barring some kind of physical handicap, there's absolutely no way they'd even be in the same league in terms of strength. It's where I really struggle with the suspension of disbelief in the ruleset. Taking the upper limit of the given weight range, a Kobold is 35lbs tops. Being generous and say they could deadlift 5x their own weight, which is above elite levels, that's 175lbs that they can lift. That means their max strength score should be able 6. A Goliath at the bottom end of their weight range is about 200lbs. Say they're on the weaker side, and so can only deadlift 2x their weight, that's 400lbs, for a strength score of 13 as a minimum.

[@CaedereS]

@@RequiemWraith "lift" is already a problem. A rat can't lift anything, really. A horse can bear, or pull, or drag, and even then they can't necessarily push the same mass they can pull. Trying to apply the abstraction of strength built for relative hand-delivered trauma to jump height and maximum gold coin haulage gets more disappointing with every added use case. There's not a game of strength such as would have league tables able to meaningfully include or exclude those two creatures, let alone what they might ride or bear to the competition venue.

[@tuomasronnberg5244]

​@@RequiemWraithA chimpanzee is considerably smaller than a human, yet an adult one can literally tear off your arm with bare hands, a feat impossible to even a strong man. You have to consider muscle density instead of just height.

[@ajh22895]

The background music is too loud. I'm having a hard time hearing you over it.

[@CaedmonOS]

It must have been the wind.

[@jasonsampson3379]

I have a question/potential video topic? Would a world with magic as prevalent as you often work with ever discover steel? Historically, steel was "discovered" basically as soon as mankind started working iron. The early designs for forges, furnaces, ovens, etc. that were capable of achieving and sustaining the temperatures needed to melt iron all resulted in the iron ore mixing with the charcoal used as fuel. In many cases, this is a necessity because the carbon in the fuel starts dissolving in the hot, but not molten, iron which lowered the melting point enough for the iron-carbon mixture to melt. This results in a mass of material which is part iron, part iron with low carbon content, part steel, and part iron with high carbon content. If magic can be used to reach the required temperature without this mixing, would steel have been discovered at all?

[@Tupadre97]

Sure it would because you'd just ask or be told by the god of forging/knowledge how to make steel or really any other scientific discovery youd want to know. Really the question is how wouldn't dnd societies know these things when literal gods of these various subjects actually exist and are actively looking for followers of their religions.

[@zacharyweaver276]

@@Tupadre97 Yeah it's really dumb to think magic would hold back technological progress unless a god is tied to it and doing it on purpose to keep people primitive

[@jasonsampson3379]

@Tupadre97 The problem with steel specifically is that discovering it involved realizing that we had already made it entirely by accident and figuring out how to reproduce it. If you don't already know it exists I cannot see a civilization stumbling into it by any means other than what happened in real life. Most early metallurgy consisted of mixing multiple metals. It is a significant jump to go from metal plus metal to metal plus charcoal. If a forge god reveals it to his worshippers, then it is likely to be restricted to the deity's cult. Early swords made of steel were already the likely origin of magic swords of of myth. This perception of steel as magical would be so much more pronounced if the only people who made it were priests of the god of the forge.

[@zacharyweaver276]

@@jasonsampson3379 Granted issues of generating heat and digging up ore would be much easier with magic existing

[@morganpetros9635]

Some of this stuff is why I no longer run D&D. 😝 The hiding/sneak attack rules are particularly noxious. 😉

[@PheonixKing08]

i'm a minute and forty seconds in and you already have me brain storming. if magic items potions and scrolls were indestructible as the misconceptions goes for magic item: magic potions would last forever in your system or at least be as potent when your body passes it as it was when you consumed it, scrolls wouldn't be destroyed.

[@dvosburg1966]

There is no WRONG way to play. Are you having fun? Are they having fun? Done.

[@josuelservin]

With R.A.I. (Rules As Intended) of course no! R.A.W. (Rules As Written) technically yes... I see this just as fun (at least for me!) explanation/ exploration of the current rules, I like to be cognizant of what the rules say so I can decide how to adapt them for my games, prioritizing the kind of fun my players prefer, which varies from game to game!

[@devourlordasmodeus]

Pascal's Wager is already rendered useless by the introduction of multiple religions

[@h.1699]

Pascal's Wager states that by following the strictest rules your chances of winning infinite is the highest, after all you'd be following the lesser strict rules automatically, while following codices less strict might have a chance to lose infinite. Pascal does not declare the Catholic interpretation of the Christian god to be true only that assuming there'd be no god and no afterlife at all comes with less possible wins but possibly up to infinite losses. He declares that assuming there'd be a god and/or an infinite afterlife maximizes your possible wins and minimizes your possible losses. Even with multiple religions the stratagem for min/maxing your possible gains holds true. Fundamentally the Wager isn't that far from Kant's Imperatif, by not being a jerk you are more likely to gain up to infinitely and by being a jerk you're more likely to lose up to infinitely, thus for your own benefit you should wager on being a good person. But with a proven finite afterlife and proven gods that exist and all possible afterlifes having chances for bliss and suffering it becomes less of a mathematical optimization problem.

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@h.1699 Pascal's wager is useless no matter what, if you have 2 religions, say Christianity and Islam then Pascal's wager fails you because if you belive in one and not the other you will go to hell if you are wrong, there is not way to make a correct decision because the ONLY thing that determines where you end up is if you belive or not, not the quality of your character or the life you lived, Pascal's wager is a false test

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@h.1699 I belove you have a misunderstanding of Pascal's wager but I honestly don't know how well Pascal himself understood what he purposed, it would be fine if following the doctrines of a religion was ACTUALLY the way you got into heaven, but beliveing in the religion seems to be the way in to most religions not anything to do with life or even if you followed their commandments or whatever

[@Bradley_UA]

I think you got the death/religion thing backwards. There are some people that do behave IRL like dnd characters: a christian mother drowning her babies, or a muslim terrorist blowing himself in a crowd, in order to get het children/himself into heaven. This is no different from DND regardless of the immortal soul doctrine. However, the majority of psychological healthy people behave as if earth life is the only one we got and as if death is final. Even if thy use religious myth as a coping mechanism. _______ Now, in DND souls and deities actually manifest themselves in reality, because they exist, but it is still rare and only heroes/clergy encounter this often. That would allow for myths or manipulative false religions to spring up everywhere, just like IRL, and for common folk even the real heroes and real gods of DND world would be indistinguishable from mythological fictional heroes and deities of our real life. Therefore even with afterlife and deities actually existing, common folk would still behave as if death is final and only use religion to cope. The only ones aware of these matters would be mages heroes and clergy who interact with gods or supernatural beings on daily matters. Just like IRL neuroscientists are the ones who work with brains and know on a personal level that souls don't make any sense. Everyone else not skeptically inclined easily ignores that if it contradicts their more deeply held beliefs. Therefore despite the world being so drastically different, humans customs, philosophy and behavior would be mostly the same: just performing some random rituals in the hope to control something they cant possibly comprhend.

[@3X3NTR1K]

Mending! Fixes magic items! Best cantrip! No argument!

[@josuelservin]

As the spell says, it can fix them, but not restore their magical properties, the rules are vague in this area, but sage advice suggests that they lose said properties on breaking. But knowing that players love rolling dice and random tables, I have homebrewed that to require a dice roll to determine what happens ranging from: 1.- it breaks and unleash a magical explosion. 20.- It is damaged but can be mended and once it does it gain a random property or quirk.

[@3X3NTR1K]

@@josuelservin Yeah yeah, my point was more that if the DM applies mundane wear and tear to magic items, then mending should prevent that from making them be destroyed by that in the first place. A vague precaution against a vague threat.

[@wesleyjudson599]

On the 4th misconception, I actually made a concession about this in one of my homebrew campaigns. The players don't know this, but the giants in the world are actually regular human(in size) as we understand them. The "humans" are much smaller, effectively being a quarter or less the height of a regular human. The same is true for dragonborn, goliaths, and with goblins & kobolds being a eighth the height. This works out well because of the square-cube law, effective making them 1/64th the weight, and able to carry a larger proportion of their size in weight.(for example, like ants) It also explains why some animals and insects are so big, and why they can travel with that weight on their backs for so long. PS The other option was to decrease to size of the planet, to reduce gravity, but there's some issues with that and binding force and physics, so its easier to make them Lilliputians. I know water has slightly different properties at small enough sizes, and there's an issue with heat dissipation, but both can be resolved by claiming things like "Their bodies are hot compare to a giant", or "the water thinner due to gravity changes".

[@ARatherDapperTapir]

The thumbnail changed

[@Grungeon_Master]

I didn't change it, so that's news to me

[@ARatherDapperTapir]

@@Grungeon_Master so many images in a day, bound to get some wrong. Some people change them to catch new people scrolling through, and I thought it looked different. My b

[@jonathanwells223]

Literally everything you have a problem with is solved in the 3.5 edition of d&d. 5e is merely a polished and dumbed down version of 2e (which sucked) designed by a committee of the same people that designed 4e in order to attract the WoW community, yes those guys. Just use 3.5 instead of complaining about a completely inferior system, all the materials are free as pdfs online if you know where to look, and because you cannot buy it officially anymore it technically counts as abandonedware and isn’t illegal to download.

[@Karamazov9]

Is it wrong if you’re enjoying it?

[@Svartalf14]

a magic user on the front line is a squishy asking to be killed.... fireballs hurt a lot, and can maybe hurt many foes, b ut the caster still is squishy

[@Tupadre97]

Casters are not squishy lol

[@Svartalf14]

@@Tupadre97 clerics maybe, but wizards, sorcerers, and most warlocks suffer a lot if they find themselves in melee

[@beckerscantbechoosers6768]

​@@Svartalf14 I think they meant that *thoughtfully crafted* casters are not squishy.

[@Svartalf14]

@@beckerscantbechoosers6768 that implies a lot of IFs, and not every build can afford high constitution and all the defensive bells and whistles

[@Tupadre97]

@@Svartalf14 the shield spell exists

[@jeremyirons7367]

The background music sucks

[@Avigorus]

My favorite one is people who get militaristic about you must always roll a single d4 for all Magic Missile darts. RAW, the spell itself does not say if you roll once or dart number times only that a dart does 1d4+1 damage, and the rule about rolling once for simultaneous damage only applies when multiple creatures are being affected, even if you rule that a single spell with multiple distinct effects falls within that rule. Granted, anyone can play however they want and I'm one that likes to roll the larger number of d4s all the time, but the tribalism over the single roll (which often even ignores the second half of the IMO misbegotten sage advice) is such a joke...

[@leonelegender]

This guy doesn't even play anything

[@Grungeon_Master]

@@leonelegender Interesting... Where did you come by that information?

[@leonelegender]

@@Grungeon_Master am not wrong and you know it

[@Grungeon_Master]

I literally run 4 weekly games. Stop making things up about random people on the internet and live your life, dude.

[@leonelegender]

@@Grungeon_Master source?

[@Grungeon_Master]

Burden of proof is on the one making the unreasonable claim, I'm afraid. Nonetheless, my source is me, the one who is running the games. Your source is you, who knows nothing. Bye.

[@AncientRylanor69]

k