Baldur's Gate 3 Gets Skill Checks Right - Lazy RPG Talk Show

[@barachiel9767]

On the topic of Too Much Travel: Swords of the Serpentine handles this very well and I use it in other games. Basically, one player describes a problem that happens during the travel, another player describes how it got worse, and a third describes how it was all resolved. Fun, fast, and puts creativity in the hands of players and still makes the travel meaningful.

[@GregMcNeish]

Prompting my players to create things in the world around their characters is one of my favourite things to do in a variety of settings. I've never seen anything but a benefit from handing them little parts of the world and letting them make it their own.

[@dziooooo]

I love this! Need to try it next time we have a long distance travel

[@kurtoogle4576]

Gotta respect Mike's hustle in every video. Unmatched! Also, really identified with that Counterspell rant!

[@Pelusteriano]

26:45 "I'm ruining fun in my game" is such a hard pill to swallow as a DM but one we all have to accept. I'm really glad that you decided to say that publicly, opening the discussion about it. There's many ways we can improve and we should focus more on those that are ruining fun. Thanks, Mike!

[@kirktate647]

Players can get Silvery Barbs a la carte on D&D Beyond for a $1.99 and taking their candy bar away is a "not fun" experience for the DM and the player. The application and the business strategy are specifically designed to discourage DMs from curating what comes into their games and let players use whatever they're willing to pay for. The goal is to increase revenue from players, not to make the DM's job easier or the games better.

[@ogreboy8843]

This is super important point! There IS a connection between monetization and how we play our games. Thank you for pointing it out.

[@TheOriginalDogLP]

I never had that happen though, especially because I say in session 0 what sourcebooks are allowed and I already provide these. My players don't even know they could buy access to more spells directly.

[@TheOriginalDogLP]

Additionally, as the DM I like the option to buy only spells, feats, monster etc from a book. Its not catered for player only.

[@velvetimpulse]

@@TheOriginalDogLPyeah I agree with you. I think this might be a desired effect, but is not really something that happens. DnD is a social game, people inevitably talk over anything that is deemed problematic or unintentional and “patch it” themselves for their table. It’s a TTRPG tradition at this point. Besides, as you pointed out, players are clueless about these things since DnD makes the DM do all the work and implies we are the ones having to front all the costs.

[@SavantApostle]

If my players cared to buy SB I would just be glad they bought something. I don't think SB is that bad, but yeah pay to win is a bad thing no matter who pays.

[@andrewshandle]

So I wrote a big thing on the DND Reddit about the way BG3 does ability checks and egg DMs should copy it, and outside a few people making some really strange strawman arguments, it had overwhelming positive responses and was massively up voted. So I think most people agree with you and maybe it just took BG3 to see it. First off, most checks (especially early) not only are low DC, but none of them block the adventure. Most checks are for additional info (your Selune example) or an alternative solution is literally right next to it. Secondly, when players roll often they don't get freaked out by it. In games where DMs rarely make players roll out of combat, every roll is a meta gaming red flag for players. "Wait, why am I rolling a perception check here...something must be up!" becomes the default player reaction. Normalizing rolls to not always be significant not only is more fun for players, it rewards players for taking less popular skills (like Animal Handling).

[@bryan__m]

I like to curb the "why am I rolling" issue by giving players results no matter what they roll. If you rolled a 20, congrats, you spot the slightest hint of movement in the trees, which draws your attention to the hobgoblin hiding with his bow trained on you. If you roll a 10 you might notice signs of recent movement through this area. If you roll a 1 you notice what a nice, quiet day it is. (This works particularly well for group checks with high DCs, so if the highest is a 17 or 18, they don't know they "failed" the check).

[@flange_pickle]

I have to say the most important pitfall there is, is not putting the story first. And by story I mean the characters. Be on the characters side, let them counter spell, let the NPC save the day especially an NPC they all know and love. Let them win but get them on the ropes.

[@Pelusteriano]

41:20 in my game, I have Passive Checks on all the time for every single thing they do, not limiting it to Perception and Insight. This is basically "Take 10" from other editions, which I think should be the case if the characters have the time and resources to do something without any pressure. Only if the outcome of failure would lead to an interesting or meaningful, I'd call for an Active Check. It makes the game run smoother and it validates the fantasy created by each character.

[@Pelusteriano]

Something else the I do and you mention it later on, around 43:20, is gating things behind Proficiencies, which is something else that I do. If you don't have Proficiency in Nature, I'll be mostly using your Passive Check for Nature-related things. If you do have it, I call for a roll. On a success, I tell the player something like "on top of what you would've known with only your Passive Check, you know these additional things." On a failure I just provide what the Passive Check can give. Again, keeps things smooth and respects the build of the player. That way I prevent skill dogpilling and an unproficient player stealing someone else's spotlight.

[@timblighton6216]

@@Pelusterianosame! “Because of your long months of training (first level example), you discover…”

[@grahamward7]

As an OSR guy, I don’t recommend you worry about the DM’s distinction between referee and facilitator. A lot of ink has been spilt trying to tell the difference, and there are plenty of grognards who act like an OSR style requires emotional detachment. It’s BS. From what I’ve seen of your approach, you’re totally in line with OSR.

[@toddgrx]

@09:43... "prepare for a Sly Flourish rant" 😆 (isn't this why were are watching?) also @14:20 Mike says "the new spell must be cast at a spell slot equal to or less than the original spell slot"; but the text reads "... equal to or less than *half* than the original spell slot"; So it is lower for sure

[@SlyFlourish]

That’s definitely better.

[@toddgrx]

@@SlyFlourish great show today... Guidance and ability checks not getting us through doors came up in our game just last week (of course I wasn't the DM 😏) and Counterspell does suck

[@somewords5495]

Personally, as far as counterspell goes... I would just tell the players what is being cast, above table. BG3 handles it this way.

[@KayTelleHoel]

I really appreciate all of your videos and content.

[@shawnhuls1606]

Wow - that database! The videos themselves are fantastic, but to organize a time stamped catalog is amazing. Thank you Mike for all the great content and hard work.

[@jahpocalypse]

i also hate the current counterspell but i like the idea of wizards dueling during a fight. taking counterspell out just changes the priority of reaction spells so more people will use spells like absorb elements, shield, and silvery barbs.

[@mrshrekles]

I've been writing my own ttrpg and your shows and information you provide has been so inspirational!! Thank you so much!!

[@Indestructoboy]

9:44 my guy, I am HERE for this Counterspell rant. Almost 99% of the spell power discourse for 5e revolves around reaction spells (Silvery Barbs, Shield, Counterspell), and I think the game is significantly more enjoyable with them all removed.

[@bjornprompeler9424]

On barbarian rage: I want to argue that outside of combat there are no bonus actions... There even are no normal actions, because an action is something you do in combat.

[@marksmith7517]

On the subject of checks, the players are not always aware, but we are playing a game where the characters would be aware. I think that the way you are doing checks represents this dynamic.

[@michaellegg1631]

"Maximize meaningful player decisions". Quote from "Tome of Adventure Design"

[@davidfarnham5623]

my players do things like speak with animals and disguise self all the time in my tabletop games, and I vastly prefer that sort of game to the one that focuses on damage and combat

[@michelebaioni5716]

46:30 alternatively, if no outstanding skill check result is rolled, you could split the clue and give one half each to the two best rollers: let the characters share what they got.

[@thosp]

Who's your favorite character in BG3 Mike?

[@missmeaghanj2482]

I love your videos and your book has been a huge help. First thing, it would be cool if your videos had a big SLY FLOURISH logo on the thumbnails because even though I subscribe to your show, sometimes your thumbnail looks like a million other thumbnails on my KZbin feed. I have gone back and forth many times with silvery barbs. The reason that I allow it is that sometimes the players get as much fun from a well placed a silvery barbs as they do from a well placed critical hit and I don't want to take that away from them.

[@Gumby-vx7ki]

Bonus actions are fun ruiners. New players don't understand them, and experienced players spend minutes agonizing over their most efficient uses of bonus actions.

[@paulbigbee]

Likely a heretical point of view: the problem is not being in 10 years into the 5E design. The problem is ancient rules lawyering, especially with the increased “optimizer” community that treats the RPG with a wargaming mindset, gouging any and every advantage from the texts. No wonder OSR has enjoyed such an enormous boom.

[@velvetimpulse]

Interesting, never thought that way about the OSR boom. You mean it grew as a reaction against the optimiser trend, right? I could see that, as I’m delving back into my pre-3.0 game notes and exploring other systems because of how exhausted I’ve grown from dealing with the optimisers in my tables.

[@cricketerfrench7501]

A very small defence of counter spell and reactions in particular. Mike says it breaks up the narrative flow, but sometimes that IMHO can be a good thing. If you are a non magic user you do your attack then sit and wait for your turn to come round. No "cutting word", no "cast guidance", etc. I think it is good for the game if players whose turn has passed can interact in the game. Oh but I hate shield and counter spell like most DM's.

[@bobbycrosby9765]

I have my players constantly rolling. Sometimes only a 1 will fail. I use the roll to determine the level of success rather than if they succeed or fail. I like to use dice results to hang my story upon.

[@dukejaywalker5858]

RE: BG3 -- Sometimes I'm worried that if I invite a new player into my game whose only D&D experience is BG3 that they will have frustratingly different expectations of how the game works. e.g., "No, you can't carry three crates on your person and then stand on them to get a bonus to ranged attacks", or "No, you can't dip your sword into a candle to add burning damage to your attacks"...!?

[@alextrollip7707]

U can buy some oil then ignite your sword for fire damage though. It's pricier for sure. But it can work. The crate thing is a funny, I usually say I don't do encumbrance untill it becomes obvious u can't carry it. 3 crates no one is carrying just because of volume.

[@StephenChristopher07]

Im playing as a forest gnome specifically because they have speak with animals as an inherent ability

[@neurolancer81]

From your rant, how are any other reactions better than counter spell? They are all drags on the flow of combat no?

[@k3rvyn]

oh yes please, do the "adventure pitfalls" product. PLEASE! "Those who never failed learned nothing" and it helps so much more to know what is really bad, and why it is really bad, than to know what might be cool. The "might be cool" depends on a gazillion different factors. Stuff that sucks rectums is mostly always shitty. Let's have my best of: - Time travel do a dystopian future when the PCs can not stop the bad stuff from happening and get back into their time. (I could just have started there) - Just give the players a peek-a-boo into other cool stuff, right before the BBEG fight and then take it away from them (room full of doors, one leads to sigil. One PC says screw BBEG we should go to sigil. I DMfiat them back into the door room, the door is locked, the BBEG fight takes place, BBEG gets killed, BBEG castle colapses - no loot, no doors) - Artifacts that corrupt the PC and then takes away agency, because I didn't want to spoil the fun before it happens. The player which PC I took over, just closed the discord call and left the WA group. - Savior NPC that doesn't let the party die, because the players like the PCs so much. Ruined the suspension of disbelive beyond repair. - PC storms BBEG to interrupt the BBEG monologue, just to step into a stasis trap, so the BBEG can talk more.

[@XanothAvaeth]

8:00 as a DM I'd just go with "if used outside of combat, you take max" I just don't care and you can just throw more minions at the party to add more challenge. However, as a player, I feel so many of these "I'd feel dumb using this mechanic like this with my friends" options just end up making me not want to play with these options. Some of my friends that DM are a lot less liberal with rules than I am and are a lot more systematic and these sorts of things when they come up greatly slow down the game. I just want to do cool shit and get on with what matters and some of this stuff just feels like an illusion of doing cool stuff but really it just tied your shoe laces together and now the game comes to a stumbling halt every time you use the ability in a way that's logically optimal.

[@synmad3638]

On too much travel being a pitfall: that sounds more like a consequence of 5e's travel systems (or lack thereof) not providing decisions to players, or simply not being what the players want out of the experience. "Too much travel" being an issue in, say, Ryuutama, would be kinda weird. I'd definitely love to hear more about fun ruiners.

[@paulbigbee]

Exploration has and continues to be an abysmally deficient aspect of Hasbro 5E. By contrast, Uncharted Journeys and A5E (as well as non-5E games like Forbidden Lands) explicitly design for that fantasy experience.

[@TheAnthery]

People act like monsters are the only crunchy thing a DM has, but that's not how it should be. There should absolutely be high effort systems for both traveling and dungeons, or at least just general exploration

[@flow6694]

I have been trying A5E travel systems, lots of fun!

[@macoppy6571]

Instead of making a Check to pass through the Door of Necessary Plot Development, roll Effort (e.g. hit points) to determine how many rounds the door remains an obstacle. No effort is required to use a key, but a Check could be required to use it while fending off an eldrich tentacle from snatching the key away 😀

[@tslfrontman]

"I play (fun big creature)!". "Nope I play Counterspell... It is discarded." "...That sucks and is stupid." ~Me, in literally my first group game of MtG.

[@Benz74M]

Counterspell should be a limited use Abjurer feature rather than a spell. In a previous playtest, Eldritch Blast was warlock-only spell that only increased in power with warlock levels. I loved that. Now they reverted to 2014 version. A high lever warlock should be better at casting this cantrip than another spellcaster.

[@maxducoudray]

Counterspell is part of the superhero paradigm that 5E often falls into, where abilities can do anything mechanical and characters are piles of these mechanisms. There’s no sense of a world or a reason why you can counter a spell. You just can. Why? Spells are more interesting when they do something, not when they stop something from happening.

[@coolintruddle]

As I rarely play 5e (haven't used the system since Phandelver came out), the primary drawback of 6e for me is cost effectiveness. I already have hundreds of dollars worth of the IP. I can't justify spending another $150 on what I am beginning to consider incremental modifications. All previous new editions at least swung for the fence and made big changes.

[@dmportella]

more adventures pitfalls for you Railroading: Forcing players down a predetermined path without allowing them to make meaningful choices. Overpowered Enemies: Throwing enemies at players that are far beyond their capability to handle without proper preparation or reason. Lack of Rewards: Not providing adequate in-game rewards (like loot, experience, or story progression) to incentivize players. Inconsistent World Rules: Changing how the world or its magic systems work without explanation. Lack of Character Development: Not allowing or facilitating opportunities for characters to grow or evolve. Favoritism: Giving certain players more attention, rewards, or opportunities than others. Ignoring Player Backstories: Not incorporating elements of a player's character backstory into the campaign. Overuse of Deus Ex Machina: Using sudden, unexpected solutions to resolve situations, which can feel unearned. Lack of Descriptive Narration: Not providing vivid descriptions can make the world feel flat and unengaging. Player vs. Player (PvP) Without Consent: Allowing or encouraging players to act against each other without everyone's agreement. Too Much Downtime: Long periods where players aren’t actively participating or engaged. Not Adapting to Player Feedback: Ignoring players' desires or feedback about the game's direction. Unbalanced Party: Having a party where some characters are significantly more powerful or useful than others. Over-reliance on Tropes: Using cliches or stereotypes excessively, leading to predictability. Lack of Session Prep: Coming to sessions without adequate preparation, leading to disjointed or slow gameplay. Mismatched Player Expectations: Not ensuring that all players are on the same page regarding the type and tone of the game. Withholding Information Unnecessarily: Keeping players in the dark without a good narrative reason can lead to frustration. Inadequate Pacing: Not balancing moments of tension with moments of relaxation or character development. Lack of Player Agency in World-building: Not allowing players to contribute to the world's lore or history. Ignoring Player Skillsets: Not tailoring challenges or puzzles to the unique abilities and skills of the characters.

[@trollsmyth]

It's clear to me that 5.5e or whatever is something they realize now is a bad idea, but their stuck with it. I doubt, all told, it'll be better in any objective way, but it'll have enough power-creep to get a certain flavor of player excited. That's low-hanging fruit, and they're grabbing for it. I'm not expecting anything else, and I'm not entirely certain I'm going to get the new books.

[@jaakkosippola7191]

I think you have said that you like the luck system from kobold press more then inspiration. This seems counter to the point to your counterspell and looking If people use it or not. I have found that luck does exactly the same. Player makes a roll and I cant immediately just say if it hit or not. They have to choose if they use those points or not. It takes more time during the game then counterspell problems. I do agree that counterspell is a slight fun stomper, but players do learn to play around it after the first counter. Also the counterspell in level up letting you use a lower level spell as a reaction gives you fun interaction. Do I counter the counter or cast a lower level spell.

[@justinmichael9043]

I totally understand the point being made about thorough testing of the players classes, but if I may be allowed to nitpick, I don’t believe there is a barbarian feature that just gives free temp HP. I could be wrong.

[@skeletonghost610]

in the playtest, a new barbarian subclass (World Tree) can give temp hp each turn.

[@justinmichael9043]

Ahh! Thank you! I haven’t read this latest playtest yet, so that would explain my confusion!

[@lonic123]

Thanks

[@zionich]

I am in a wierd camp where I disagree that paralyzing or stunning takes away player agency. I completely agree it takes away player fun. In the same vein, miss an attack really sucks for a melee attacker. I don't see a difference in sometimes you waste your action and the spell doesnt go off.

[@bryan__m]

I want one of my players to pick up counterspell so I can finally have an opinion on it. Everyone knows the infamous CR scene that proves it can be an asset to the game, and I can't think of any situations I've seen in any of the live plays I watch (which, granted, aren't plentiful) that have been a detriment to the game, but there's also very little I disagree with Mike on so I can't just outright say he's wrong. For adventure pitfalls, I definitely find myself stepping over player's choices. It's something I'm actively working on fixing, but sometimes when trying to move the action forward I assume what the players want to do instead of asking them what they want to do.

[@inspirationfollows9692]

On the topic of computer games rolling checks for you in the background - Disco Elysium had a similar kind of system. Your passive checks would appear as random thoughts/observations you could have while wandering around the world. The higher your passive score in a skill, the more likely that skill would be the subject of that random thought. While in dialogue, you'd have both "background checks" (like what you describe) and active checks. Background checks had the computer roll your skills for you without prompting against a preset DC, and would tell you if you passed or failed. The outcome usually impacted some sort of exposition or description related to that skill. The outcomes generally didn't create new opportunities for player actions or dialogue options, but just provided more information or context if you passed the check. Active checks were ones that the player would choose to make, and you were informed of how difficult it would be beforehand and whether this was a one-time check or a check that could be re-attempted as you gained XP. Active checks tended to impact things like which dialogue options you could choose from. Sometimes they were required gates to pass to reach a cutscene or would determine how the next act of the game proceeded.

[@CJWproductions]

Gosh, I want a DMG written by the design team for Disco Elysium.

[@ColostomyMan]

I am curious. What makes Counterspell different from other spells that might take away actions? Do you also not use Dominate or Hold spells because they take away actions? Having run a Lich that Dominates the Barbarian led to a lot of crazy mayhem and fun and memorable moments but it definitely took away agency. Also a small note that not losing the spell slot only matters for the players, I would disagree. Losing a 9th level spell slot on my Lich was a big loss previously. Counterspell was overly powerful and clunky before and I think this is an improvement but like you said, if your table hates it, then that's all that matters.

[@dziooooo]

I use passive checks a lot. Traversing difficult terrain with a bunch of climbs and jumps and trying to keep up with something? Passive Athletics. Following along and not standing out while infiltrating a religious celebration? Passive Religion or Deception. And I often open a scene with call for checks too, based on training or sometimes backatory. We recently had a situation where only our drow PC and a paladin got to roll, because it relied on a specific knowledge only the two of them would have a reasonable chance to have

[@blorpymcnornor2415]

Coming from an OSR perspective, I feel the opposite about GM-as-referee being “boring”. To me, the impartiality of the GM is the main thing that makes it a game at all. It’s exciting when even the GM doesn’t know what’s going to happen, and it’s obvious and indeed boring when they have their thumb firmly on the scales. I recognize that I’m in the minority though. About half my ttrpg friends actively prefer 5e, mainly because of brand recognition, and the other half are casual 5e/OSR agnostics.

[@cp1cupcake]

BG3 skill checks might have been done well as a D&D mechanic, but its something which really falls flat on its face in a video game, especially since a lot of the checks might force whoever does something like initiating a conversation to succeed. Having an RNG determine is content is locked is a pretty poor mechanic for a video game and tends to encourage stuff like savescumming which is usually considered a detriment to how a game works.

[@Benz74M]

I disagree about "capture" being always a bad solution. If you look at what makes sense in the world for a particular fight, sometimes the PCs will stumble upon forces that are too strong for them, or their actions will bring them more hostiles creatures that they can handle. Capture can be a good alternate to a TPK, if done right. Baldur's Gate 3 does it a few times. But I agree not to *force* a capture just "for the story".

[@markusturunen7929]

I tend to limit my player's abilities to the officially published material, if I'm running the Forgotten Realms campaign setting due to many of the homebrew are fun but broken in the sense of power. My question to homebrew players is this, why would you play a simple fighter when you can do all those broken homebrew classes?

[@Keovar]

28:53 - Squid Game is a series all about that. Look at the Personal Quests in Dungeons of Drakkenheim. Whereas the Bond personal trait is often a weak motivator, the Personal Quests are much stronger prompts, and while they're mostly custom to that adventure, they'd be easy to convert.

[@phil6186]

What frustrates me, when player ask for lvlup and get it and then at the next session most of them didnt lvl up or forgot what they chose... i prep for 1-3h every 4h session and they dont have 5 minutes to lvl up or review thier character 😮

[@AvengerYouT]

About counterspell: I declare that the NPC starts casting a spell (not with these exact words of course), and my players are aware that they have two or three seconds to declare their counterspell before I describe the spell effects. Once they decide to counterspell, there's no turning back. They don't know the spell level, it's aways a bet and that's the fun part. They might "ruin" my fun, or they might lost a spell slot for nothing.

[@efg-smca]

This. There are so many reactions in the game, the DMs I play announces the spell being cast (pause), make DC 15 Dex saving throw (last chance to announce a counter spell) or take, (rolls damage). If I'm running a villainous wizard, I'll like not losing the spell slot.

[@davidburns9766]

“I’m going to counterspell” “Sure okay, the DC is x” I wouldn’t ever tell my players what level it’s being cast at, if you want to counterspell, go for it, mark off that spell slot and let’s see what happens.

[@drjimnewman]

I still think warlocks need more spell slots and really need to get rid of the requirement for short rests; just give all slots of once, ffs

[@Robstopper78]

Just have to come here to say TAL-DOR-EE. That's all - Love your videos!

[@HecsBrewed]

Wanting travel to matter/be interesting, but discarding random encounters, seems like a "you did it to yourself" kind of situation

[@geoffdewitt6845]

For "radar" checks like what Mike describes in the BG3 section, I instead roll for the item. So rather than have 4 PCs make Arcana checks to see an alarm, I roll for the alarm vs a DC of my PCs passive Arcana skill. So if the wizard has a +10 bonus (or a 20 passive Arcana), and the alarm gets a 15, the wizard notices it.

[@TheOriginalDogLP]

I do the same! It works quite well IMO

[@geoffdewitt6845]

@@TheOriginalDogLP Yay! I'm not alone!!

[@jpri26]

Yes, I let all the spells in from wotc, Kobold press, Mcdm, sometimes even from dmsguild and instagram posts. It’s fine

[@jameshartley6315]

The counter spell debacle is simply fixed by removing spell slots and say you can cast x amount of spells per day. You must study each as many times as you wish to cast them.

[@Scutifer_Mike]

Not sure how you get to some of your conclusions about ORS games. Referees don’t teach players lessons. They don’t design unfun sessions. They let the tables and appendixes dictate the story’s outcome. Keep at the OSR and read what GMs who have run the style for decades have to say on the subject. Lot of smart people on this subject

[@phil6186]

My players say its to easy: My fights are too soft, the only time someone died was, when he ran with 5 hp in another gelatenious cube and the others where too far away to help or to weak themself 😂

[@kalibos]

On the subject of the Lich King in WoW, that's one of the examples that breaks the dumb tropes you mentioned. The character justifies his actions and it's a satisfying narrative twist ending to a great fight. Definitely not a cop-out.

[@leonardoraele]

I'm with you, Mike. Silvery bards sucks. Counterspell sucks.

[@ChrisSneeze]

Good rant on counterspell

[@davidburns9766]

On counterspell I would simply rule - if the spell being cast is in your class list, you can attempt to counterspell, like you recognise the magic. - if it’s not, you make a spellcasting mod check to see if you can deduce it from your alternative magical knowledge - if not, then you can’t.

[@Giantstomp]

A lot of these issue come up in the designs because they are looking for ways to appease the players first, and not how it plays out in reality. Sure they are not trying to break things, but they are so worried about keeping everyone happy that it just keeps diluting things an making these kinds of problems. I think D&D needs a clear mission statement for their design so they can stop trying to making a game that doesn't alienate anyone, and be more focused in their approach. They need to realize you can't please everyone.

[@armorclasshero2103]

People legit think all wotc material is "in-bounds", because they don't know how to make characters without dndbeyond.

[@SlyFlourish]

Yes. This is my big concern.

[@armorclasshero2103]

@@SlyFlourish Me too. I have players who literally don't know how to play the game without dndbeyond.

[@gabrielcardoso8732]

Very guilt of too many options. It is so hard to find the balance between rail road and to many paths.

[@ambercampbell8380]

I love your videos, Mike, I find your opinions deeply worthwhile to my gm'ing, so please understand that I'm pointing out what feels like a contradiction out of respect and care, not to be a nitpicky internet jerk. Your entire point about counterspell makes absolutely NO sense in a video titled "BG3 Gets Skill Checks Right". As an avid counterspell user in BG3, D&D and MTG, BG3 literally sidesteps your entire point in the game by just telling you what you're counterspelling on cast. The only thing it doesn't do is tell you the damage, but it does literally show you the entire spell and prompts you for a counterspell if you want to. Does this still disrupt the flow of the game, your original point? Yes. But only a little, in the grand scheme of things, if you play it the BG3 way, which only requires you to not announce the damage immediately (which, btw, *is* the pro of rolling damage instead of just taking the average, it gives the pause for the player to jump in and not disrupt as much).

[@billedens4749]

As a DM I NEVER us counter spell or silvery barbs. They take away from the fun that characters have. Sometimes it can be for for characters to counter spell a monsters spell, but really none of my current players use it as they would rather be offensive than burn their spell slots countering things.

[@davidburns9766]

Nah, my enemies can have silvery barbs or counterspell if it’s available to them. And if they’ve faced the party and saw the spells, of course they’ll at least have them in mind or use them. I won’t use them for every enemy with magic BECAUSE the players use them, but of course the intelligent wizard bad guy you fight will remember the spells and abilities you used…

[@dmeep]

anything on dnd beyond tends to be in our games Also I dont find it unreasonable that a player recognize a spell they know being cast

[@micka190]

100% agree with you on Counterspell. Kill it with fire. The fact that you don't need to upcast this one is even worse.

[@zerolv30000]

? You do need to upcast it if you don't want to do the DC check. I think it's fine. Chance of failure for them.

[@jameshartley6315]

Also imo. These play tests and new books are simply money grabs. I'll stick with what I have already.

[@Flaraen]

I think the version in the UA is better than either the 5e version or 5e level up. And you're fine to house rule no counterspell but WoTC has to make counterspell to be backwards compatible, otherwise it'll just be the 5e version. Personally I just let casters know what the spell the enemy is casting, and if you like a more streamlined game I think you'd prefer it. Does it matter that much whether the Lich is casting cone of cold or finger of death?

[@dallisjohnson662]

Reaction and Interaction are dynamic and beneficial to gameplay, as long as they occur smoothly.

[@Keovar]

If Silvery Barbs is a problem at your table, shouldn't you also ban Bless and Bane? A regular d20 averages to 10.5, and advantage averages to 13.33_, so advantage changes your average roll by about 2.8. A d4 averages to 2.5, which is a slightly smaller modifier, but Bless affects multiple creatures over multiple checks in multiple rounds.

[@CJWproductions]

Bless is one of the strongest spells in the game! I think it gets a pass for a couple of reasons: 1 - it competes with other concentration spells, making it harder to justify spamming; 2 - it's a support spell, so the power isn't a spotlight-stealer; 3 - people have the incorrect impression that Clerics are weak and need the help. But it's absolutely on the chopping block. I would keep it because I just LIKE it. I don't like Silvery Barbs, so it has no protection from my wrath

[@CJWproductions]

To be clearer in my point, Barbs is more spammable, has a straightforward "boost my own spells" use case, and belongs to the Bard, which despite the outdated memes is, I think, pretty well known to be among the strongest classes. I'm not even sure it's stronger than Cleric, but it seems to be, in public perception.

[@philipstaffinwiebe501]

We made silvery barbs a second level spell and no one has taken it yet. Taking it out of level 1 prevents a feat from getting it.

[@IamMuldeh]

Don't think about the playtest as giving free labour to wotc.. think of it as wotc giving free ideas that you can incorporate into your games now, or ignore as you choose.

[@WikiSnapper]

I have learned that, if the players wanted to play a wargame, they would be playing a war game. As a GM, I frequently think in grand battles, and I want the players to partake in those battles. Players may want to fight on the battle field, but rarely want to command units like a general.

[@andrewshandle]

There are people out there that not only like Counterspell, but _love_ it like it's their soulmate...and I think they're in a group chat with each other because if you comment anywhere that CS is an anti-fun spell all around (and also makes no sense in many cases), they will descend to defend it. I honestly don't get it.

[@BigFrakingSword]

The problem isn't Counterspell itself but more so the mentality that people don't like X because it removes "agency" as Sly Flourish put in the video. And well, if that is the reasoning you are going to go with then where does it stop? Shield, Silvery Barbs and any number of Class and Subclass features could get removed if you take a hatchet to 5e to remove all the "anti-fun" stuff that is classified as such merely because X creature does Y and Z creature stops (or attempts to stop) them and thus X creature wasted an Action or whatever they happen to use to do Y if Z creature is successful. D&D while a cooperative experience does not mean people just do whatever they want, be it DM or player. Stuff like Counterspell, Legendary Resistance and the like exist to create checks and balances so neither side can dominate a fight. Because that is actually not fun, one side dominating while the other gets absolutely wrecked.

[@gabrielcardoso8732]

@@BigFrakingSword how shield removes agency?

[@BigFrakingSword]

​@@gabrielcardoso8732Both Shield and Counterspell use your Reaction and a leveled spell to stop a creature from affecting you. If the latter removes "agency", the former does and could be considered worse since Shield is more readily available/reliable and doesn't have built-in mechanics like Counterspell to fail. Though given that Shield can only protect you, no one ever argues about it because everyone loves to have Shield in the game including detractors of Counterspell ironically enough. And then there is the long list of other spells, Class and Subclass features that do the same or something similar. That is the problem with the "agency" reasoning, as it can be used to remove virtually any source of conflict and consequence from a game.

[@gabrielcardoso8732]

@@BigFrakingSword If you go that way, the dice and even the dm existence removes player agency hahaha I agree that agency is not a good argument against cp, as it is a good argument against mind control and maybe paralysis. But must of Sly Flourish argument was about the flow of the game, and cp indeed causes a much bigger pause compared to Shield (shield you hit -> you miss / creature cast a spell, anyone wants to counter it? which spell is it yadayada)

[@BigFrakingSword]

​@@gabrielcardoso8732 Exactly, which is why no one should go down the road of "agency" for the sake of arguing against something like Counterspell. As the ultimate result literally can be no one playing a game. And Counterspell isn't difficult to manage. Either a DM can flat-out say a creature is casting a spell just like they would say an attack hits you to active Shield. Or describe it in such a way to indicate it is a spell and then the spellcaster with Counterspell will say "Can I counter it?" and then the DM says "Yes" or "No". And then it only gets in the weeds if the spellcaster tries to identify the spell ahead of time/Counterspell is contested for not being high enough level but even that is two quick rolls which the player can make ahead of time to minimize drag if need be. People blow Counterspell way out of proportion.

[@PsychedelicLasagna]

If using counterspell is "taking away player agency" then I guess we should just drop all crowd control spells. No hold, charm, or dominate person/monster, no sleep, no entangle, and no hypnotic pattern. You know what I don't even like the conditions that take away my players' agency. So let's just drop all of those too. Where does it end? I mean holy hell man, this is not taking away player agency, counterspell is not even guaranteed to succeed. If you don't like it just take it out of your game and move on, but don't act like it had anything to do with player agency, that nonsense! Player agency is just the new trendy thing to whine and complain about. But realistically the only time you are actually taking away player agency is when you tell them they can't do something they want to do, and you have no reason for doing so.

[@wbbartlett]

The first 16 minutes of this are exactly why I would never bother with 5e. That's Numberwang! Just watched the trailer for BG3 - it's certainly no Skyrim. The only thing that looked mildly interesting was the ripped-off Cthulhu at the end.

[@NeverUseAnApostrophe]

What a braindead take. Please never design a game or anything close to it since you can't comprehend what fun is.

[@dylancox631]

You are right that counterspell sucks. My game got so sick of it we all agreed to get rid of it. Its just garbage design.

[@SeldonnHari]

Reactions are bad game design

[@dmportella]

COUNTERSPELL SUCKS!!