DM's, what is something everyone else is wrong about in D&D? #1

Put your stories in the comments below they could be in our next video! If you have your own video ideas submit them to us on Reddit at r/MrRipper
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
/ mrripperstream
/ mrripper
/ mrripperyt1
/ discord
Source
/ dms_what_is_something_...
You can find out more about our narrator Brian (including all his socials) on his website:
www.brianvaugh...
#mrripper #dnd #dndstories
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
D&D players, what way did you use a "useless" spell in a good way? #2
D&D Players, What was your best "Wait...what?!" moment?
What's the biggest mind-f**k you've seen during a DND campaign?
What's your worst loot stories?
What's the saddest death that you have ever encountered while playing D&D?
What's the funniest way you spoiled a important plot element in your campaign?
DND players, what was your funniest “rolled a 1” moment?
DMs, What is a plotline you've always wanted to run?
Ever had another PC kill your character?
DND Players, What is the coolest character you have ever played?
DND players, what was your funniest “nat 20” moment? (r/askreddit)
DND players, what’s your best Stories of Rope? (r/dndstories)
D&D Players, what's the most screwed up thing you've ever done in a game?
What's the worst TPK you've experienced?
D&D Players, what's the most screwed up thing you've ever done in a game?
DND Nope Moments #1
What’s your best Tarrasque story?
What's the funniest thing PC's latched onto?
What is the most unexpected damage you've ever done as a PC or DM?
What is the smallest way your DM has driven home how "evil" a villain is?

[@edamommy]

"Trauma" shouldn't be the only way for a DM to incite character development. I've seen a lot of DMs use a PC's backstory as a weapon and I've found it has pretty diminishing returns, and disincentivizes backstory involvement. After all, when players realize that their backstory NPCs won't actually get elaborated on outside of being found as corpses, they'll start building orphan PCs with zero connections to the social world

[@Kirk9019]

Players always get more invested in their characters when their backstory characters get to live and have happy endings. Especially if the PCs are directly responsible for that being the case. In one of the campaigns I'm running currently the party just saved the Sorcerer's mother from a curse. She was dying due to a curse bestowed by Zariel in exchange for the birth of her daughter (Tiefling Aberrant Sorcerer) and the party unwittingly traded a powerful elemental artifact in exchange for healing the mother. The party will almost certainly face consequences for giving Zariel such a powerful artifact later, but the Sorcerer's mother is free of her curse. Watching my player's eyes light up in relief when I described their mother returning to health made me very happy as a DM.

[@leekonze7441]

This, 100%. I have had quite a few DMS who have labeled characters without traumatic backstories as "boring" and the DM would either rewrite the backstory to be filled with traumatic events, or would simply kill off the character within a couple of sessions for being "boring." And you are right, there's no incentive to write a backstory with your character having a multitude of family, friends, and social connections if the DM is simply kill all of them off. I had one DM who did this, and their excuse was "adventurers shouldn't be tied down."

[@snatchadams69]

@@leekonze7441 this happened too so I'd finally gotten fed up the railroading and retconning so I just started murder-hoboing. When the DM finally asked me why I kept killing people in some cases derailing his campaigns my answer was "My character has no connections in this world why should he afford anyone else theirs"

[@ZTMercx88]

@@leekonze7441 as a DM I love when players give me non-traumatizing backstory they lead to better stories.

[@jasonrustmann7535]

I've always found it difficult to use a players background NPC's cause of the "that's not how i pictured them acting" argument that comes up, whenever I've tried it with one of my players, they've always sulked afterwards, when i bring it up so i can address it, i just get met with arguments about how like their "mean brother" wasn't "mean like that", so i tend to just introduce many NPCs, and then develop whichever one's they end up clinging onto, i find you get more, and better, character development when it involves things they've actually interacted with in game.

[@NicoBabyman1]

If the Grease spell isn’t flammable, it should be renamed to Lubricate!

[@deathm3lon642]

I cast lube!

[@LastnameIchose]

Definitely a bard cantrip

[@hostiusasinhostilityhostil7853]

The idea that spell grease isn't flammable annoyed me, so I looked into it. Afaik lubricating grease, by definitions set out by the GHS, isn't flammable (it doesn't ignite at flammable temperatures - ranges of -17-60°C, or 0-140°F), but is _combustible_ (ignites between the ranges of 60-93°C, or 140-200°F). Cooking grease (e.g. bacon grease) naturally ignites more easily than lubricating grease, though most types are still combustible rather than flammable - still, wouldn't want a pyromaniac wizard near it. If you look at the material component for the grease spell, it's "a bit of pork rind or butter", implying it's cooking grease. It's probably a DM-by-DM basis given the spell description doesn't elaborate, but considering you can set wooden objects on fire easily enough in dnd... I'd say there's an argument for letting spell grease burn.

[@troyhenry6111]

Why isnt it flammable?

[@lordzaboem]

I give my players the option the first time they use this spell whether their grease is flammable or not. If it's not, they don't get to use it to spread fires. If it is, that fact will be used against them at some point. I've yet to hear a player complain about having the choice.

[@an8strengthkobold360]

I think edgy rouges are not that big of a problem. Most rogues are just general scoundrels/bastards but not batman.

[@taserrr]

A great way to play a rogue is just a regular person that fell into crime (potentially from a young age). And has a slow shift of character, perhaps by how the story unfolds, NPC/PC interactions or several things that they start to question their morals and shift alignments and become an actual hero.

[@theuncalledfor]

@@taserrr I have a Rogue character that was forced into crime because no one would hire him, and the intent is for him to never steal again (unless, you know, from someone who specifically deserves it), because he just wants to live an honest life.

[@lennonpaiva5684]

I made a charlatan rogue. Acts like a stereotypical bard and is a "hides in plain sight" kind of thief. It's fun to play with, although I'm not that extroverted to pull it off

[@xRickAstleyx]

its the sorcerers you gotta watch out for

[@SebasTian58323]

Not all rogues have to be edgy either, mine sounds like she'd be edgy. Here's a short summary of her. "She was kidnapped at birth by a kingdom and raised as an assassin, part of a secret organization under the Kings direct rule. After one assignment where she seduced and killed her target, she was left pregnant and gave them baby up for adoption after naming her after her deceased father. A few years later, she messed up on a mission and the king nearly got killed, so she was cast out." It sounds like a generic edgy backstory for an edgy rogue, but she's actually a sociable and polite, if sarcastic, person. She was trained to be that way after all. I'm going to have her be wearing typical edgy rogue clothing, not only to cover up her bright wings and pointed ears, so as to not draw attention to herself in public. It would probably work better if the game I'm using the character for just started, but I'm joining a game that's already in progress.

[@maplepainttube8158]

When the one guy was like, “this isn’t a video game, the world shouldn’t magically scale to your party” I was about to hard disagree and was thinking, “it’s still a game, it’s supposed to be a fun challenge, not an impossible brick wall” but then he was like, “If your players ignore all warnings and try to fight the giant ancient dragon at low level then they should get curbed stomped” I 180 and agreed. Let the, burn.

[@AlteredNova04]

The main story should be level scaled (unless the players find some way to sequence break to the final boss early) but if they decide to go off the rails and explore the world randomly then they better be careful who they challenge to a fight.

[@timemaster66]

I warn all of my players that the world is not their level, the story line is. They can go wherever they want, but the ancient cursed forest with manned guard towers every 30 yards along its edge.... Probably not for level 1 characters.

[@joeyuzwa891]

My party was about 5 miles away from a warzone and the orc horde was bulldozing through the front lines with abnormally large Behir mounts. They could see and hear blue lightning off in the direction of the front lines, likely in the town they were just in. One of my players INSISTED on going back to the town to retrieve a reward despite having 230 gold coins in their possession. I’m so glad the rest of my players vetoed him, cause they would have been annihilated.

[@bow-tiedengineer4453]

I agree, but for the love of god, make sure the overleveled enemies and the main storyline enemies are very clearly different. My best friend failed this, with both high and low level criminals in the same city, and it was a disaster. We were tracking a level appropriate criminal, lost the trail, and stumbled into some criminal activity that we decided to investigate for leads. Got TPKed by the elite goons of the local crime boss.

[@Gamer88334]

@@timemaster66 Yeah, that would be more effective at convincing me to not go there than the DM just telling me to not go there. If you're gonna tell me to not go somewhere, you better tell me why or else I'm gonna go there and see why I shouldn't go there.

[@klikkolee]

Metagaming isn't just knowing more than your character -- it's pretty much impossible to not know more than your character. Metagaming is using that extra knowledge to drive character actions.

[@SpeedyCheetahCub]

Like that one story where the seasoned player knew which monster they were going to fight because there was a random mirror in the woods, but neither the other players nor any of the PC (including the seasoned player's PC) had ever even heard of that type of monster. Yeah, you might suspect it, but your character wouldn't and it's not fun to spoil the surprise for your fellow players. This reminds me of when I was watching an Among Us video and one of the guys was staying in another guy's house that day. The houseguest died in game so he entered the host's room to complain about the host killing him, but the host didn't mute fast enough and you could hear the guest for a split second shouting angrily in the background. One of the other players talked about how he has insider knowledge that the two guys were in the same house, so he deduced that the dead dude was mad at the other guy for killing him. So they voted him out and won. But that other player was definitely metagaming, no matter how funny it was.

[@andrewkenny3544]

My hot take: DMs are not responsible for knowing the ins and outs of what abilities you have, only to resolve them fairly when used. If you forgot to add your rage damage, you don't get that damage. If you don't know what a spell does, you don't get to use it this turn. Pick a spell you already know and go from there. Read your fucking shit. For the love of Tiamat, you can even read your spells between your turns. Other people want to play the game and allowing you to spend 20 minutes on your turn wastes their time. Nerds used to read.

[@schizoidmeme5470]

You aren't playing with nerds then, you're playing with normies who only want to SAY they play dnd. Remember, with the inclusion of more groups (since DnD was Niche Nerdy originally) means more people who don't actually care and just want to hop on the bandwagon are playing. It helps to talk with them beforehand, and trust your gut.

[@Zarlos01]

DMs already has a lot to keep track, strategical for everything that isn't a player and so on. The only leeway I would give is fresh new players, but not for much time.

[@torgranael]

The only exception I'd have is session zero. That's just to make sure that everything involved fits the campaign, and any new players know what they're doing. After that, the tracking ends.

[@Martick05545]

This is the complete opposite of a hot take.

[@andrewkenny3544]

@@Martick05545 you'd be surprised the amount of players who treat not knowing the rules as some quirky badge of honor.

[@SirusEinzla]

You CAN win at D&D! You win by everyone having fun and enjoying the game together, players and DMs. It's not just about dealing the most damage, defeating the bad guy or making a game breaking munchkin. If you can look back on your sessions and see them as fond memories that you and everyone had an absolute blast in, then you've won.

[@Konpekikaminari]

winning at a TTRPG means reaching the end of your campaign

[@SirusEinzla]

@@Konpekikaminari not always true, some campaign's never actually meet their end, whether people keep endlessly playing or scheduling just grinds things to a halt.

[@codyray3344]

10:50 the movie "the scorpion king" with the rock, as cheezy as the movie was, actually has one of the most accurate depictions of a bow. Specifically where the scrawny guy could not draw back MC's high draw strength bow.

[@FleshNFaith]

He wasn't even all that scrawny, the draw on the bow was just extra heavy. It's like a major difference between English and Japanese longbows. English bows still have a heavy draw, but the grip is in the middle of the bow. A Japanese longbow is held at a 2/3rds grip (lower than the middle) so the draw is even heavier, but the power delivered is also higher. A skinny little Elvin Melvin with his -1 strength modifier wouldn't be able to even reach a target at the first range integer.

[@SneklySnek]

one thing I noticed is a LOT of the groups I am in consider putting Two Bags of Holding Together to be an Instant Death, when if you actually read the description, It actually sends everything within 5 Feet of it to the astral plain, which, if your DM is operating on The official lore/way that the astral plain function means that this can be a Great emergency escape or a one way 'shortcut' to whatever Plain you want via colour pools

[@timemaster66]

This is an instant death only for creatures that don't fit entirely within the range. So a large creature with only half of its body inside the area of effect would get cut in half. I know it is not their intention, but that is how we play it.

[@WhyYouMadBoi]

its not a short cut to a plane you want because you would have to physically find the color pools. There are better ways of getting to the astral plane.

[@matthewporter7871]

Well the other real problem is most people are not going to know what color leads to which plane to get back home. And if you accidentally go to the wrong plane, you’re basically stuck there.

[@mehazc]

I talked about doing this in our campaign for like a year before we actually had to to prevent a TPK- derailed the entire story for 5 months and created the memorable dungeon ever.

[@Caragoner]

I remember when it used to be a makeshift nuclear bomb. Remember when one of my GMs put heavy restrictions on handing them out for that reason

[@swovy5]

I'm new at DMing and Dnd in general, so I'll say this (which I'm sure everyone has thought and moved passed): Darkvision is stupid. It basically equates to "a lot of races can kind of see in the dark". Instead, they should relegate it to a small handful of races, but allow them to see much clearer. So instead, it would be "few races can see in the dark."

[@overlorddave4952]

Dark vision doesn't mean they see with color so if there's a puzzle in a dark cave it could be color coordinated making them have to use a torch

[@nuru666]

Also Cats should have god damn night vision lol

[@timemaster66]

There are way too many races with dark vision in 5e DnD. You are absolutely correct. It wasn't so prevalent in previous versions.

[@Leivve]

The Gloomstalker has the ability the be invisible to creatures that are relying on dark vision to see them. Throw that ability on a squad of Drow Assassins who are hunting the party, and they'll VERY quickly start lighting up. Dark vision is only a problem if you let it be.

[@timemaster66]

@@Leivve Well, yeah, you can always do work arounds, but my opinion is not that it is a major issue. Only that it is too prevalent. It used to be a reason you might pick a specific race, now half of them have it. I mean, any character can get dark vision with a simple enchanted trinket, but at least then you had to work for it.

[@krystalfan135]

I totally agree with D&D being so expensive. Even D&D Beyond is so expensive for online official content! Honestly, the physical books should come with a code so you don't have to buy the same thing twice, like I did (had to use Beyond during COVID, even though I had the physical book already). It's why I try to download PDF copies people put online, for free. It's a funny system, but it's not always worth the coin.

[@maiadraconica6488]

The books literally costs 55 euros EACH in my country. Don't get me started on the minis. I'll buy some stands and do printouts or something.

[@BoredTAK5000]

You could make all the RAW subclasses as homebrew and then copy and paste the abilities of that subclass from dnd wiki into dnd beyond

[@Zarlos01]

When we had to go to virtual I used the free roll20 and edited each sheet to fill the content out of free acount. And manually put the spell on the casters. When my players level up I ask then to just roll the hit die as normal roll and I just changes the level on the sheet, because using the characthermancer adds things from a free class/race into a character that I customized to use paid content, also no option for feats. And When I began with 5e at the time didn't have book in my country and language, so I used fan translations pdfs, And I just bought the PHB, XGtE and the bestiary books as they are translated (officially) just because is easier to use than a pdf, to at least.

[@mayacampisi4583]

what do you do with the books cuz i have like 30 of them and dont know what to do with them

[@Zarlos01]

@@maiadraconica6488 instead of minis I make tokens with cards of Magic the Gathering. Some creatures/races are hard to find in cheap ones, but work very well. There is some tutorials on KZbin

[@Atma_Weapon]

i like the one about rage being maintained by taking aggressive action.

[@Muropfel]

3:22 Tough wording but I agree with the explanation. It's boring to roll bonks until one side dies first. I try to include the environment (such as buildings, furniture, etc) as much as possible into my encounters. It challenges the DM's map design too!

[@CooperAATE]

I've been saying shit like this my entire tenure with 5e (2 years, but still), and people call me a dick. Challenge your damn players with more than just walls of mooks OR a single meatbag!!!

[@anthonydicrecchio6547]

I do my best to make combat as interesting as possible. Had a section where the party spent some time in the mountains, so I used varying elevation a lot. It's a hell of a lot more challenging to deal with the mooks moving through a mountain pass when you've got archers and spellcasters raining hell on you from a ridge forty feet up. There was also the big skirmish at a city inn. The fight took place between two floors and the alleyways around the building itself. The party was trying to apprehend a rogue nobleman who was trying to have a member of the party assassinated (said party member was a rival noble), so they went to capture him and had to contend with his bodyguards. The party failed to get to him fast enough and the noble's attendant wizard Dimension Door'd him to a fallback position. That did fight result in a few fun things like the Paladin elbow-dropping a dude from a second story window.

[@schizophrenic_rambler]

@@anthonydicrecchio6547 It's over Anakin. I have the high ground

[@Seirvox]

Tactics make a big difference, as well. You can make a lot of fights way more interesting by giving enemies goals in combat. It's one thing to have a group of raiders fight you to the death, but it's another to have them trying to distract you mid fight so their invisible companion can pick your pockets. Something as simple as having a second wave of enemies emerging from behind and ganking the casters can make a big difference in terms of difficulty and memorability. You'll know you're doing it right if the party stops grouping up like a herd of lemmings all the time.

[@puddel9079]

1.) Warlocks are just arcane Clerics. 2.) Splitting the party isn't an automatic TPK, the only reason it keeps turning out that way is because most groups have built their PCs to work together, and they suffer greatly for it.. Some systems encourage splitting up for certain adventures to function properly. 3.) Humans are *NOT* bland.

[@BoredTAK5000]

I like to argue that splitting the party is sometimes good it lets the party interact with the world more as individuals

[@aguyithink4119]

First one I’d say is wrong. An oath and a pact are different

[@AjiraCtelin1993]

@@aguyithink4119 arcane *cleric,* not arcane *paladin.* That distinction is a lot fuzzier, since your power source is either divine or on a similar power scale to the gods.

[@AjiraCtelin1993]

I agree with 3. People need to learn the difference between *bland* and *flexible.*

[@aguyithink4119]

@@AjiraCtelin1993 Ah. What are cleric subclasses called then?

[@dizzydial8081]

I actually remembered a story regarding a rules lawyer. A player was being teleported away from a group of enemies and the player wanted to drop a grenade in the middle of the group. The DM told him to roll dex and everyone protested. We made case after case why the grenade wouldn't pop the player but the same logic would have applied to the enemies. So he decided to not throw the grenade. We were bummed out because it was a badass move but the rules were the rules.

[@schizophrenic_rambler]

DnD was supposed to be made by those who are at the table, where the game changes to suit the table, not the other way around. Rule of awesome is often the way to go

[@J05TI]

This is why rules lawyers suck. If you have less fun because of a stupid rule, screw the rules! The game is about having fun, not following rules. The rules are there to facilitate a game, not to be worshipped.

[@AjiraCtelin1993]

The fall damage take reminds of my own take on it. I don't know how accurate this is, but I heard somewhere that Gary Gygax originally never intended fall damage to scale linearly, but the phrasing was so bad that the publishers just made it linear anyway. So what I do is: every additional 10 feet you fall adds 1/10 the total distance you've fallen to the d6 count (1d6 for 10 feet, 3d6 for 20 feet, 6d6 for 30 feet, 10d6 for 40 feet, 15d6 for 50 feet, etc.), to a maximum of 200 feet (or 210d6 damage). This way, while fall damage is more complicated to track, it actually *means* something.

[@nuru666]

This. There's a difference between falling off a wall and taking a 20 foot spill v falling off of say the space needle

[@Drakenized]

My only comment on that fall damage one is that, technically to a peasant, even a 10 foot drop could be lethal, but I do agree that fall damage is a weird thing in dnd the way it currently is.

[@mauro_carvajal]

@@Drakenized well there are some cases of people falling from their beds and dying, so maybe not that far fetched

[@solsystem1342]

Assuming you're applying damage proportionally to speed on impact that's the opposite of how falling works. In 1/2 the time you fall 1/4 of the distance (assuming no air resistance) which means the damage should look something more along the lines of 10ft=1d6, 40ft=2d6, 160ft=4d6 and so on. You could find intermediate values but I'm too lazy to do that. Unless you want to take peak force into account by calculating Impulse/time=peak force. In which case damage is actually linear. Trying to model it more accurately then linear would be challenging without running a computer simulation with known properties of an object. So yea 1d6/10ft (or any liner system) is actually the best way to handle fall damage realistically, who knew?

[@LEE3R0Y]

Just to say 210d6 averages at 735 damage which is a bit on the extreme end but I like the concept, maybe the max damage could cap at a creature's terminal velocity which is decided by their weight

[@mattfisher368]

Grim dark is fine in D&D, it's a place for non evil parties to help and make the world better, and well evil is evil

[@RowanTheRatBastard]

Hot take: I've seen lots of DMs who say to prepare for everything, or to not spend so much time into preparing. DMs should make the campaign how they want to. If they want to prepare for everything, they should. I found that I can't do that. I have to have a storyline, a few major encounters, NPCs, random encounters I can use at anytime, and that's about it. I like trying to work with the players and having to think on my feet, but some people don't. And that's fine. Yes as the DM you should make the players happy, but you should also have fun with it.

[@hirocheeto7795]

That's honestly probably what I'm gonna do, if not purely out of necessity. I've got a one-track mind, and thinking outside the box for what *other* people *might* end up doing is just out of the question. When it's my turn to DM (my group is doing a rotating thing, and I'm next in line) it's gonna be all vibes and a really vague encounter list.

[@Smilley85]

No plan survives contact with the enemy - or the players, in this case. They seem to have a sixth sense for the single thing you did not plan for. While on the note of planning, I love what my DM did for a heist we did: he let us roll for preparations, and gave us a number of "prep points". If we encountered a difficult situation (eg. find a secret passage into the vault, or a golem jumping us), we could spend a point to diffuse it. That way we wouldn't spend ages trying to come up with crazy scenarios , and still not have a backup that actually mattered.

[@Ghost_in_the_Rain]

Agreed. I believe improvisation is an integral part to being a DM; the way I see it, you can *never* be prepared for everything, because your players will sooner or later find some way to surprise you.

[@tcrpgfan]

For me a good dm should say BOTH. Why? Because it''s about the choice a player makes. It can even be used as a chance for role playing as a more prepared character can actually assist a not prepared at all character when they get into trouble or to point out they weren't helpful.

[@eduardomartin242]

6:16 Would someone mind explaining what a Monte Cristo & Monte Carlo campaign are?

[@otisthecan3112]

Thank you! I was looking for this!

[@hostiusasinhostilityhostil7853]

No idea on the Monte Carlo bit, but in _The Count of Monte Cristo,_ the tl;dr is that how characters change through their struggles in life (and here, in a campaign) can make them more compelling. [Spoilers for a classic book]: The protagonist, Edmond Dantès, goes through hell locked away in the Bastille for years after his colleague feels challenged by his professionalism, and decides to do away with him; then he escapes thanks to his dying father figure, who gave him a world-class education and led him towards a vast hoard of treasure on the Isle of Monte Cristo. Dantès then uses this to become rich, lays claim to the uninhabited island - becoming the Count of Monte Cristo - and tracks down those who wronged him so he can covertly take his revenge. The whole payoff is fueled by this agonising treatment he goes through as a young man over a miscarriage of justice, but is also framed by his post-prison-break belief that he's a tool of God's providence, which itself is tested in how his worldview has been slowly warped over time. How far the Count is willing to go in exercising his revenge, as well as the methods he uses, are big parts of what make his character rich and flavoured, especially as the reader was given time to immerse themselves in how much he suffered in the Bastille.

[@tombratcher6938]

I think Monte Carlo was meant to be Monty Haul, but maybe not

[@NightSwift271]

Nice to hear the pathfinder advocating, I've been the forever dm for my Pathfinder group for a few years now and we all love it! We spend at least as much time in rp as we do messing with the system, and all of us love PF for it's sheer number of options to play with.

[@badcoyote3373]

My hot take I get flack for is: a min maxer in the party is less annoying then having someone who makes a purposely weak character. People always say bad stats is good for rp when all I've seen is their one character trait is the fact they're bad at what they do. Also min maxing doesn't automatically make a character boring or unable to rp.

[@mrvoltem9379]

I mean i get what you're saying, but this is about managing expectations. It heavily depends on what the character is good/bad at and what type of game you're running. If its a combat-focused game, then a PC whos just deadweight in combat isnt any addition and will jsut be mocked. If the game is about rp and larger story too, and that same character is say a diplomat, unused to combat, but on an important mission to negotiate a peace deal, suddenly that characters weakness is both reasonable and justifies the other players at the table. Secondly, underdog stories are fun. Ye olde power-fantasy "look im totally heroic because im putting myself in danger *mows down dozens of evil minions*, whew that last one almost scratched me" is appealing to some, but a story of ordinary people rising to the occasion has its appeal too. Like LOTR, frodo isnt some great badass, he's actually quite ordinary and has no special skills. Just food for thought.

[@Scruffy-qi3ik]

@@mrvoltem9379 I’ve always had the idea for a game that starts at level 5 or something of a blacksmith character that’s gotten old and has worked for so long that their only good stats are strength/dex, wisdom, and intelligence/charisma. So basically 3 that’s good and relates to his job and the rest that’s bad/average. They would be decent in combat from stat alone, but won’t be as good as their smithing and also not being very sociable despite the charisma stat, as it would mostly be used for what they’re used to doing, which would be haggling or intimidating hooligans. Basically just the average blacksmith that decides to leave his home for the greater good

[@nicholascarter9158]

@@Scruffy-qi3ik Why level 5?

[@solsystem1342]

I disagree and I don't know anyone who wants to play as a character who is bad at everything, just most things. For instance I played a sorcerer and she didn't have a single physical stat above 10. With 9ac and low hit points she should have been useless but, since I couldn't rely on my character sheet to get me through a fight I got creative. Every fight was more interesting because we didn't have the strength to just beat down our opponents. Also, a secret I can tell you is (if you have a good dm) the world will subtly shift to accommodate the players so the difficulty will end up being about the same no matter how strong or week your characters are. I agree with min-maxing not excluding roleplay though. When I min max it's often to make my concept work within the rules not just to build a polearm master barbarian everytime I make a first level character.

[@epicsage16]

Here’s the thing: bad stats CAN be great for roleplaying IF the bad stat is not the one that you depend on for most functions of your character. A STR build character forced into a social situation can be funny or add something to the story. A school-dropout Wizard that can’t cast spells to save their life is a hindrance to the party.

[@damienhailey118]

I agree with the contributor about Alignments. Yes, it's simplistic and doesn't take everything into account. It's *not supposed to*. In D&D/Pathfinder, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are tangible forces that you can roll into a ball and use to hit somebody in the face. What Alignment is, is how your soul resonates with those forces.

[@CooperAATE]

Ah, a person of intellect.

[@weaponizedpizza8825]

Darkvision should really be renamed nightvision.

[@silverwizardess7921]

As long as there is a discussion with the DM and players before hand about limitations and intentions, the "horny bard" trope is *a lot of fun.* I'm in a campaign that started out as a joke, so I made a joke character to fit the mood and give the party a boost where they were lacking. He has become one of my favorite characters that I have made in my relatively short time playing.

[@flibbernodgets7018]

8:00 It's nice to have a rules advocate, to help you get the most out of what your character can do or to not waste actions. "Those bonuses won't stack, so you may want to cast something else so as to get more out of your turn". Those players are nice to have as long as they don't overstep into playing other people's characters for them, or other players don't lean on them too much.

[@an8strengthkobold360]

I think you can kind of tell when a player has never used a bow irl.

[@WolfBoy-om6dw]

10:24 I 100% agree with the guy who said you should be using another system if combat isn't important In your campaign

[@taserrr]

Why? Like sure there's probably better systems for it, but DnD for RP heavy games works well. Hell most classes have multiple class traits that can be used in non combat encounters, same goes for feats, backgrounds, etc.

[@taserrr]

@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 What kind of reason is that? I've played a lot of DnD, I play a weekly campaign and run one myself. Never paid a dime. I'm not going to spend 1000 bucks on all the books, google is your friend.

[@Konpekikaminari]

@@taserrr for your 1st reply- DnD 5e is predominantly combat focused (though admittedly, not as bad as it's predecessor), and if combat is not important in your game (there's a distinction to make between "combat is unimportant" and "RP heavy") then DnD 5e become a mostly redundant as the "skill system" doesn't enhance Out-of-Combat gameplay all that much, it serves more to "cover" those parts for your 2nd reply- agreed, nothing more to add on that one

[@taserrr]

@@Konpekikaminari Well I disagree, I'd say DnD leans more towards combat, but not predominantly. It's all up to the game you're playing. I myself run a game I'd consider about 75 rp 25 combat, and there are entire sessions without combat encounters and they work great. The thing is, the books cover mostly mechanic related things, which are almost always combat or problem solving related. And that's because it's impossible to write about how RP should be run, that depends entirely on your group of players, on the setting, on their decisions etc. DnD is a roleplaying tabletop game in essence, which means the focus is put on roleplaying. Combat and RP aren't exclusive to one another, there's a lot of roleplay in the combat. I'd put it the other way, if you're looking for a dungeon crawl experience DnD is not the game you're looking for, and there's far better dungeon crawling systems out there. The point of DnD is not the kill enemies and find loot, it's to create a story where the player's decisions matter. Whether they like combat or not is up to each specific game and players, but in the end it's about the story they create together.

[@Konpekikaminari]

@@taserrr you missed my point, when I say "not combat" I am referring to explorations or various social mechanics, *NOT* to RP I'm going to bet your games are actually 100% RP, because just like you said yourself, RP and combat are not mutually exclusive As for non combat RP, let's be real, you don't need any system to do that- I myself had 4 hour sessions that were extremely fun, but not a single die was rolled that day I myself am currently playing a roleplay heavy campaign of "Shadow of the Demon Lord" a system that's more combat oriented than even DnD

[@fivebuckle3967]

where is the video edit: when I first tried to watch it, it wasn’t there

[@ScourgeIsBestVillain]

Bruh

[@postapocalypticnewsradio]

I am the video!

[@pallydan893]

First bit with barbarian keeping rage by punching themselves, try consciously biting your tongue vs accidentally biting it, the results are not the same

[@Leivve]

I do like like the rule of allowing to keep with a dash, at least for a round. Spending a resource (your action) to engage in aggressive behavior, especially if you end your turn next to an enemy I think is fair.

[@envytee9659]

8:25 - I mean, ultimately, yes. Look at the adventure module books. They very much have points where they railroad to push the story forward. It is possible to push forward a cohesive story without any railroading whatsoever, but that will require a TON of improv and homebrew world-building on your part as the DM. In my current, 2-year long, ongoing campaign, I have an overarching framework for a larger "main story" but ultimately the players have complete freedom to do what they wish. They can completely go off the rails and do their own thing... and they have. For example, one portion of the world is known to be ruled by five warring Mafia families. When the players run into a completely separate Mafia family at the centre of the world; one which stands above the rest as the definitive best, they decided they wanted to go try recruiting the warring families under a temporary alliance to defeat the greater evil. I had literally nothing planned for that. Sure, I had ideas and story beats in my head, but nothing written down or planned out extensively. Nevertheless, I let them try. I went through an UNGODLY amount of planning, writing and preparation to plot out various parts of the world and the organizations under the 5 families. The players, through lucky rolls and prior contracts, managed to convince the families to join their cause, and carried out a successful attack... a story point I could have never imagined in my wildest dreams. I had alot of improv and active tweaking/world building to carry out, but nevertheless they could still tell their own cohesive story without any railroading whatsoever. Should other DMs do the same? No, unless you have alot of free time and love to give to your game. In that case, absolutely.

[@solsystem1342]

This is why I constrict the size of my open worlds. My players are free to go anywhere and do anything within the quadrants but they can't leave and buy a ride over to another region of the world unless they want to retire their character. Also, setting a few end game crisis in the world with different triggers/ways to stop them has been really fun. Nothing majorly world changing has happened yet but, one of the Priors (precursors who built the spirits) is set to wake up unless someone stops them soon. Also, they're close to having the Karinate (big empire) invade. The CronoCouncil has been stopped though so they're 1/3. I'm only human sadly so if I want to keep playing in different worlds and have semi-regular open ended campaigns that's how it's going to work.

[@envytee9659]

@@solsystem1342 Yep. Semi-open is probably the best way to run a game with limited railroading. Of course there is that bit of railroading in the fact that you outright have to stop thw players from venturing beyond the "border", but the significantly lower strain and demand it places on the DM is honestly worth the slight limitations on the players.

[@fluffball6142]

Martials dont need to just attack . Use shackles and rope. If magic casting enemies are getting annoying , gag your enemies , restrain their limbs. You can get rid of spellcasters spellcadting components

[@AverageDunce]

I can see somebody is in a naughty mood lmao

[@Calebgoblin]

The best Ripper send-off yet

[@BrianVaughnVA]

Love ya Caleb!

[@epicmelonman]

Also for the bow one 1e actually has some optional rules in some books about using Str bonus with bows. For Cthulhu it's 1/2 the melee damage bonus that gets applied

[@CrowFeatherQuill]

Sizzling Take: You can give your characters the power to do nearly anything. Balance is not the issue. Your incapability to balance creatively is the issue.

[@WarChallenger]

Personally, as a DM who pulls mostly from the real world as examples, I believe whole-heartedly that DMs who are going to implement various material-based encounters should actually RESEARCH what those encounters are. For example, I recently saw a video on a creature called a "plush golem," taking the form of what is essentially a possessed Teddy bear. Sounds, well, amazing. But let me tell you now that if I'm going to implement that in my game, I will research how that would differ from any other golem types. Not only would it add extra flavor to the game and potentially challenge the PCs with a fun encounter, but it would also serve as a reminder that some things in the world react in unpredictable ways, but it all makes sense from the right angle. If a barbarian swings a war hammer at a magically sentient stuffed toy, it will do absolutely jack but send it flying. Blunt weapons do NOTHING to a pliable object unless there is a hard surface to catch the momentum of that weapon, and make sure that the pliable material takes the full hit. Go ahead and whack a standing pillow with a baseball bat, and see how much damage that actually does. Now we go back to the rules-as-written, where that supposedly did 11 points of damage. Even though it's physically impossible, most DMs seem to just let stuff like that happen because of the RAW. Players should be encouraged whole-heartedly to explore the mechanical workings of the world itself, and not just throw numbers around. As another example, a bear trap is built with a powerful spring, wound up to its full potential within the range where the spring won't permanently deform. If a player wants to use a bear trap and a climbing rope to make a way to clamp down onto a cliff edge using the force from that spring, that would ABSOLUTELY work because of the way the trap itself works. RAW, or at least the way most DMs would run that, the player would need to roll for it, in spite of the fact that what they're doing is a completely sound principle. One of my current DMs also recently pointed out just how unimportant disease or conditions are in RAW. Instead of just poison damage, I fully believe it's up to the DM who puts that encounter or effect together to look into the actual biological consequences. Sure, your healing potion is magically infused, but it's not going to stop your character's blood from congealing into iron flavored gelatin after they get bitten by a cobra. "It heals 2d8 hit points!" But, my dude, your character just got splashed with what amounts to the fantasy equivalent of piranha fluid. They're turning into a gas. Maybe it's just my time with Pokémon talking, but poison should matter a wee bit more than just a dice roll. Also, spells like heat metal should absolutely obey the laws of thermodynamics and physics where applicable. If you cast heat metal on someone's metal shoes while they're standing on a wooden floor, they will start leaving charred spots in the planks at the very least. If you cast shape water to freeze the liquid in a wooden barrel full to the top with water, it will crack apart at its widest point in the middle due to the expansion of the ice. These are spells that directly manipulate materials in ways that interact with the environment. A DM should always be open to explore these material and/or biological reactions if the players want to as well. I get that sometimes it's not story relevant, could cause some trouble with encounter balancing, etc. As well, I get that very few DMs have actually taken physics courses, or have taken extreme notice of these material properties in the real world. But when a sharpened sword is dealing damage against a creature composed of flowing water, or a sting from a type of scorpion you'd run screaming from in the real world is only dealing four damage, you know something isn't quite right.

[@mrvoltem9379]

Many of your complaints about poisons etc are issues with HP, which could be somewhat mitigated with narrative explanations, such as you getting stung by deadly scorpion in combat and taking damage is actually you character avoiding the sting, spending some of their 'luck' in the process. Out of combat, if the scorpion is in his boot, its sting will of course kill. If that isnt enough however, your issue is with HP in general, which is indeed a huge problem, what with d&d being essentially cartoonish epic fantasy with people shrugging off terminal velocity falls and lightning strikes because they have set damages rather than 'you fall, you die, irrelevant of level' In which case heavy homebrew is required or better switch to a different system. Concerning the various transmutation/matter manipulation spells, you are correct, those should allow for creative liberty as much as possible. However it is to be kept in mind that 1) creatures have immunity to such effects for a reason, explainable by an innate resistance to magic, so you cant just 'destroy water' the bloood of enemies etc, and 2) the character's in-game knowledge should be limited. Its funny for a oneshot if the players invent gunpowder or nuclear weapons, its less funny if that destroys the DM's carefully planned setting for a gag, but then expect that to become canon.

[@WarChallenger]

@@mrvoltem9379 You’re absolutely right about the HP part being a huge issue with the 5e system. And if course, I’m not one for metagaming whatsoever when it comes to spells and the like. I do, however, want the players to experiment with reasonable knowledge, or more likely, reasonable lack thereof. Like casting fireball at an enemy and missing in a room with a 10 ton wooden keg of molasses. That’s 100% going to start a ticking time bomb leading to the eventual flood of the room with sweet tasting napalm. It would also be reasonable for most people in that fantasy setting to know that molasses burns, but there are also some instances where that ISN’T known, like with smaller towns or settlements that don’t produce those types of ingredients.

[@mrvoltem9379]

@@WarChallenger i actually had no idea that molasses could burn, i thought they wouldn't have enough surface area, thought it makes sense, they are highly concentrated carbohydrates. But yeah, lighting buildings on fire with fireball (that spell even explicitly states it lights stuff on fire) or using ray of frost to freeze a puddle of water for enemies to slip on is entirely reasonable and, so long as it doesnt lead to any game-breaking stuff (aka stuff that is low-cost, super effective and can be done often) it should be allowed. One caviat however is that the DM literally controls the laws of physics. If the magical ice can't be melted, it can't be melted. If steam expansion isnt as high as in our world, no steam explosions. But this is basically just a way for the dm to say, "uh, no you cant make x devestating invention, it doesnt work."

[@solsystem1342]

There was one time I almost convinced to get my players to trap a cryopheonix in a invincible sphere with water bombs. If it would have happened they would have ended up creating a huge explosion of steam (after the whole sphere ended) and then had to deal with a super dense fire-ice Phoenix that was hot enough to have scalding steam constantly boiling off it (due to how much energy would be created from packing all the water into a tiny sphere). Of course irl it would just explode leaving a huge crater but by kind of playing with real physics concepts you tend to get cooler outcomes.

[@WarChallenger]

@@solsystem1342 I 100% agree with that. I still want to one day build a How-ice-r in a campaign. Weaponize the freezing from shape water into a cannon.

[@bardofvoid174]

I feel like a good way to help with the "bow-wielding taking no str" problem is by giving it a str minimum, like armor; And if you don't have that high enough str, then you have disadvantage to using it. (probably something like, 11-13- maybe 15 for *heavy*-duty ones. Not to the point where str *has* to replace your secondary skill or something, but enough to be something you have to consider if you wanna be proficient with a bow). If you wanna get into proper homebrew territory and flesh it out more, you could make it so that as a trade for the loading property, the crossbow has no/lower/minimal str minimum, instead of more damage or something) Idk, if you like the idea, definitely modify it as you see fit, this was just a concept I thought of.

[@schizophrenic_rambler]

A rather good idea

[@WolfBoy-om6dw]

13:12 I agree with everything said here especially the stuff that Brian said about Pathfinder being far more cheaper to get into then Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition honestly any other tabletop RPG is easier to get into compared to Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition from a money standpoint and a rules standpoint.

[@travisbewley7084]

God I wish more people were willing to run Pathfinder. I got my core rulebook just collecting dust and the automation book has had me wanting to play an automotion monk so badly.

[@solsystem1342]

I must say pathfinder 2e and dnd 3.5 are significantly crunchy in the rules department then 5e. Haven't played any other robust rulesets so couldn't tell you about that.

[@travisbewley7084]

@@solsystem1342 if you mean having to add a few +1 and +2 values to rolls but I hardly consider that significant. I have yet to run a 5e game where players didn't appreciate that we added +1 bonuses for flanking and high ground. The added depth in tactics for both the players and enemies made encounters way more engaging.

[@gary0044187]

To give my hot take: Anyone that's ever complained about dnd's alignments were just not interested in playing with that alignment system. If you, both dm and player, set off to play the game in a way that treats the alignments as real and as major parts of what defines the character and the setting and you played it well without the jaded attempts to twist it in some edgy manner, you would find that experience unique and enjoyable. similarly, complaints about lawful good and chaotic neutral characters are just examples of either the character being played poorly or not matching the setting, with either the dm, players, or both seeking to undermine it.

[@Smilley85]

I actually like the fact that classes are not bound to any alignment anymore. "You are too lawful to be able to sing" was just stupid. Falling from grace of a deity or patron is fair game, though. Using alignment for fluff and for certain "sense Evil" kind of abilities is also OK. It's just hard to draw the line between alignments, as all hardcoded rules will lead to redlining (killing 3 kittens makes me Evil, so sacrificing only two is still OK), while not having them will make decisions seem arbitrary.

[@SkullQueen33]

My sister and I set up a houserule to our games: you could metagaming by rolling by 'Inspiration'. Why? I'll explain. We both had in our games parties of new players that split the party accidentally on the dungeons and, while one half may had found some treasures or stuff to grab, the other is dealing a hard encounter with monsters that they barely could beat if the party doesn't reunite. So, we did this: Suddenly, one of the players that split rolls a dice and, with a plus of the Inspiration stat, thinks 'hey, where the rest of the party go?' and, if suceeds their roll, they could get back to their tracks and join the party in the other side of the dungeon without further problems. So yeah. Metagaming is allowed at our tables as long as it is for solving issues of spliting the party

[@postapocalypticnewsradio]

PANR has tuned in.

[@Atma_Weapon]

Hey, Panr. Welcome back to the House of Ripper. Its good to see you again, bud. Hope youre doing well.

[@postapocalypticnewsradio]

@@Atma_Weapon hey big cat! Always good to see ya. I'm doing pretty well over here. The missus and I are about to head to Florida. See my family and meet up with friends. Gonna be a pretty ok time I think. How about you? Keeping well?

[@Tigerheart01]

Lol to the first one. "I think the guy who wrote the rules is wrong."

[@urfork1]

"your coins weigh something, and you sh-" *violently bashes your skull in*

[@tombratcher6938]

With a sock full of coppers?

[@BoredTAK5000]

Carriages with flames on the wheels go faster Now a serious one: There are too many races in dnd 5e. HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO TYPE OUT LORE FOR (at time of typing) 58 RACES (yes I counted) HALF OF WHICH HAVE TRASH LORE TO BEGIN WITH. For example, who plays gith, kalashtar or genasi? If no one plays them why should I spend time writing lore for them? Don’t get me wrong I’ll let a player play them if they have a good reason for it but I refuse to write lore for all 58 races

[@InquisitorThomas]

I think the best approach for races you don't have lore for is just to treat them like Schrödinger's Cat, they do and don't exist in your world until a player wants to play them. A player wants to play a Kalashtar in a Non-Eberron setting? Ask them why if it's just for abilities treat them like they're just a psychic human, if they want to play with the whole dreaming dark plotline ask how much they want to the Kalashtar to be a thing, perhaps this individual is the only Kalashtar in the setting and the Quori are hunting their single rogue member through manipulations of dreams.

[@jacked4121]

I’m setting up a campaign and one of my players is going to play a kalashtar. Originally was going to do princes of the apocalypse so his backstory was his village was transported to faerun through some bs (I don’t remember off the top of my head) and that his village basically exists in both planets simultaneously. Idk first time I have encountered kalashtar but not writing in the whole race to faerun just making it a one off

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

I was once told you should railroad but make the players think they had a choice, eg. they chose where the ship is headed but then it has a problem foretold by the dice and they're forced to land somewhere that wasn't a choice presented but is where the story is needed to keep going, or both towns leads are where the story is. Also fudge the dice but not never let your players know you fudge

[@beardlessdragon]

I love that most of these are pretty rational opinions with explanations for their viewpoints and then the one guy is just like "TRACK THE WEIGHT OF YOUR MONEY" 😂

[@Leivve]

PCs should be required to pay taxes and fees as part of their adventuring. Money exchanges, gem exchanges, tolls, entry fees for non-citizens, fees for owning magic items, tribute for the local nobility, ect. There should be a consistent hole in your player's wealth so they need to consistently be driven to acquire more gold. When giving out treasure, you should start your reward base with silver coins not gold. the default economy in DnD, a gold coin is near half a years worth of wages for peasant laborers. Throwing 500 gold at a party of 5 is a king's bounty. Bards playing at the tavern for the night should only get a silver at most (unless it is a very big tavern with hundreds of patrons), and they have to buy their own food still, and the tavern is only offering the stable for free.

[@mrvoltem9379]

Hoh boy here we go: 1) Grit. The optional rule 'gritty realism' that turns long rests into multi-day affairs is way more narratively satisfying than 8h long rests, allowing for players to still be impacted by their choices from the previous day and making resource preservation during say, travel, much more important. 'Lets avoid the bandits on the road' becomes a lot more interesting if the party's resources dont come back at the end of the day during the long rest they would take anyway. Additionally, if the game mechanics are canon, that means you would not have armies or warfare, you would just have strike-teams of assassins, as anything other than death is temporary and attrition warfare would be borderline impossible. 2) Incoherence. D&D is designed to make everything hyper-magical and fantasticall and it many effects break my suspension of disbelief. Disease? Cure disease potions and lesser restorations fron clerics would render those basically nonexistent unless its special magic disease. Death? No king, duke or baron would ever die, they would just get resurrected. They have the treasure for it, so whats the point in say, assasinations? Same with the villains, that dragon won't stay dead. 3) Weakness everything in 5e is super freaking weak. Humans? Garbage, die from a stiff breeze, from bandits and commoners to guards and nobles, all have pitiful statblocks and as a result are treated as less than dirt by many players. Why not commit warcrimes, if the irate crowd of villagers can be wiped out in under a minute? 'Commoners are strong in crowds' no, not really. They are still super weak, nevermind that humans aren't supposed to just charge mindlessly towards the thing that already killed 50 of them. Effectively players from level3+ are immune to town guards, and the dm needs to pull a paladin order or something of the sort out of their ass to keep rowdy players in line. Humans are a prime example, but this extends to animals (bears, tigers) and even supposedly mythical monsters like griffons or ogres. Considering most people like to play the game at levels 5-10 creatures like these will barely be a speed-bump, if that. 4) Martials This isnt actually an unpopular opinion, just a design flaw that i will not relent on. Give martials some super-moves and resources to spend, just 'i attack x times' ever round is super lame. I could probably keep going but thats enough for now.

[@nicholascarter9158]

I think your issues two and three both are connected to an observation. In terms of capabilities, Aragorn, Legolas, Conan, Geralt, Lancelot, Robin Hood are at best maybe level five or six. When your players enter tier two we're headed to the kind of powers the old tales reserved for characters like Achilles.

[@mrvoltem9379]

@@nicholascarter9158 tier two is level 5-10 though? And yes, thats where most people play and enjoy the game most, so the monster statblocks should be balanced around it. But no, all the statblocks are designed around level 1-4, so you can metaphorically go monster slaying right out the womb, its dumb.

[@nicholascarter9158]

@@mrvoltem9379 Right. The heroes we associate with fantasy stories are, at the height of their power, *the weakest characters in tier two* . A level 9 character might be the strongest guy on the entire planet.

[@mrvoltem9379]

@@nicholascarter9158 yeah, which is really restrictive and unfun. Levels 5-10 are the most mechanically engaging and fun, but you're already way beyond most 'normal' creatures, making it very hard to have any kind of 'relatable' stories without massively changing the various creature statblocks (which is what i usually have to do). Slaying a bear in single combat is a great feat even in most fables for anybody that isnt a demi-god, but thats like lvl1 maybe lvl3 stuff. A horde of wolves isnt supposed to just be a joke, i dont want to have to use dire-lighting-mega-wolves to make it a challenge. Personally i just rebalance many statblocks so that a level 5 adventurer is equivalent to a professional mercenary or trained soldier, and scale baseline creatures up to that standard. Its tedious and annoying, but it allows for a mechanically fun game while still allowing for dangerous creatures like bears etc to not be a joke.

[@PlaneswalkerTARDIS]

Totally agree on the Pathfinder 2e bit. Paizo has managed to make with all rules for free online, with deeper rules, far better balance, and is UNIONIZED! My next long-form game is going to be PF2e. DnD is a bit simpler, but between the cost of having to rebalance stuff for party comp, and the actual cost of the books if you don't "sail the seven seas", I think it ends up being the weaker system of the two

[@avidreader8521]

3:23 We recently had a combat that was complicated by bodyguarding an important NPC. We had to protect the king (as protecting him was the job) and also opted to protect other important NPCs (his council of advisors, as just abandoning them would have been...inadvisable), which made the otherwise straightforward issue of 'kill the huge, scary golems' into something a lot more interesting.

[@rethall2308]

Beautiful ending to the video! It did put a smile on my face.

[@ConnorElzaim]

Full agree on the alignment comment. So long as alignment for a material entity is simply a "descriptive" word for your characters moral outlook and players/DM's aren't sitting around waiting to call the popo(the gods) on the paladin because they accidentally stole one grape it works otherwise fine, and it's a fun system. It should not be treated as a one and done thing if the act isn't extremes, but rather the description of a players given trend of behaviour. If you treat it like it's proscriptive or go after someone for the slightest thing you're ultimately creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of "alignment is bad."

[@SDS_Solar]

3:23 not my DMs. He always makes fighting super fun and makes us think hard to defeat the main guy. In our campaign there is the Imperium of man. And in the IoM there are sub divisions lead by inquisitors. We've had an encounter with 2 so far but there are so strong that our main goal is just to hold them off for long enough. We killed 1 purely with luck

[@NeuralNotes5]

D&D should get inspired by what I know of GURPS and that being, it's characters should be build using point buy system, with every ability for sale for a reasonable price, not simplified and restricted to the builds of certain classes or multiclass options. This way you can disregard the class abilities and options your fictional character wouldn't have and instead reach other ones faster. For beginners, there would be prebuild options (the standard D&D classes), but the only restrictions should be made by you, your DMs and fellow players and tones of your campaigns. Much love, take care and bye ❤️

[@basedeltazero714]

Point Buy systems can be fun. They can also be nightmarish. How do you balance more powerful abilities, syncretic combos, etc. Personally, I find point buy... nice, but also flawed? It's just too easy to make an utterly broken character (in either direction). I think the way D20 modern worked was... somewhat decent, where they were more or less exceedingly clear that each class was more a grab bag of abilities you were meant to switch between as you need.

[@RainbowDashShadesOfApproval]

10:55 That's what composite bows are for. Literally adds strength modifier to the damage. There are composite bows im 5e, right? ... Right?

[@andrewwarden2604]

Hot take: A DM/GM/Storyteller, should not be afraid to anger their players. You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try. So stop trying. Come up with the best story or scenario you can. Those that appreciate it, will be happy and stay. Those that don't appreciate it, can exit stage left, and your group will be better off for it.

[@MrSpleenboy]

The tremor sense thing I'm with up to a certain point. Let me explain: If a creature with tremor sense has the "swallow whole" mechanism, then I think it totally should be able to (assuming it has the movement to get there) go over to and eat what is currently located at that square. However, it probably shouldn't have the same capability to attack something in that square. I envision it as an equivalent to trying to hit something like a displacer beast - in 3.5 terms, the tremor sense creature should have a miss chance against an enemy that it has identified as being in "that square". In 5e terms, would that be disadvantage on the attack roll? Anyway, that's kinda how I would house rule tremor sense. Additionally, I bet the "Your coins weigh something, and you'd better keep track of it" guy is also the same guy who doles out treasure in coppers, and never platinum (it's worth more in game, but has a smaller atomic mass, than gold)...

[@hybridgryph6931]

On the encounters not needing to be fair thing, my DM is secifically running a campaign in where some encounters WILL be too difficult and running will be the best option. It's a hard campaign and not everything is gonna work well for us. Me and one other party member after some of us got split had to run from a few goblins and a couple ogres because a hill giant joined the fray, and it was a terrifying yet fun escape. Not every encounter has to be fun from winning. Sometimes it's just fun to escape something crazy and terrifying, pulling off quick strategy to distract away the foe so you can actually find escape(we made toll collectors on a bridge deal with the danger instead as we ran past them and I rolled one hell of a persuasion roll)

[@nicksalvato6574]

Follow up idea for bows to use strength: Dex to hit, Strength for damage.

[@unstable7505]

I’m pretty sure this was a thing in earlier editions. It just made character creation much harder, was too confusing, and a tad unnecessary

[@Tundra0stalker]

That's what it literally was for 3/3.5e. For that though you had to sink points into two stats (as opposed to melee characters one) and put money into increasing the maximum allowed bonus damage from strength on a point by point scale that cost more each time (basically having to make the bow have a heavy draw length, sturdier materials, etc.) Which only went to a maximum of plus 5 (remembering to still having to put points in str to even make it that far) before having to apply a specific magic enchantment that let you just apply your str bonus flat out with no max (which wasn't in the core rulebooks and only later added via sourcebooks so the first method basically became obsolete) Not to mention most ranged feats only required dex, and high at that IIRC. Feats being much more important in this edition. The rules made flavor sense yes, but they were basically handicapping you right out the gate for no real benefit.

[@havoc_xv]

A nat 20 or nat 1 doesn't always have to mean the absolute best or absolute worst outcome. Sometimes I use it as "what's the most extreme thing that could happen?", from there it's up to the players to work their way out of the nat 1 or make the most of the nat 20. I don't do this all the time, but it helps keep things in order - i.e. in situations where the nat 20 can derail a campaign, or when a nat 1 would result in something like a tpk. I actually had a moment like this my very first time playing DnD. Big squabble in the center of town between humans and orcs, and a party member (half elf ranger iirc?) tried making a big speech and shot an arrow as a symbol of equality (he was bullsh*tting but we all appreciated the effort). Rolled a 1. Arrow landed in the Guard Captain's knee. That single roll was the whole reason my party was able to expose the town mayor as a corrupt cultist who stole from the orcs to put them against the town guard as a distraction. Best. Session. Ever.

[@amendersc1650]

14:24 in their website they make it so you can by each thing alone like only the races only the monster or even only that specific feat that sounds cool

[@ToxicMynd]

2 things interconnected. The observant feat will give players a +5 to passive perception and investigation, meaning passive investigation is a thing, meaning passive skills are a thing. Also passive perception has been confirmed to be the base minimum before you need to roll to succeed. meaning if you have a 15 in passive perception and the DC for seeing something is 15, you auto pass it. This should by extention be done for other skills. If the game is set in Faerun and you want to be a bladesinger, you got to be elven and dedicated to Elistraee. Because lore. You'll be a wizard because I'm lazy but you can lose powers like a cleric if you don't obey her laws. Based on wording, rogues can use sneak attack dice on strength attacks or attacks with weapons they are not proficient in as long as they are finesse or ranged weapons. Meaning any thrown weapon counts like hand axes, as well as pistol whipping an enemy with your hand crossbow. You just get a 1d4+str for improvised weapon usage and no proficiency bonus to hit if using a ranged weapon this way.

[@wyattfrye8262]

9:34 your goddamn right. My bladesinging paladin kobold will sing a song for this wonderful statement

[@_Nykolaii_]

Mr.Ripper, please stop making me cry with that kind of closing monologue ;v;

[@an8strengthkobold360]

Edge lords are fine as long as the player is experienced enough to know what they're doing.

[@Leivve]

Edge lords are only bad if the player doesn't go in planning for the character to stop being an edge lord, and learning to trust/cooperate being key to their growth.

[@an8strengthkobold360]

@@Leivve I'd argue only the cooperation part is necessary.

[@Dan-fw2db]

@@Leivve My Chaotic Neutral Human Necromancer is 100% EDGE and he is incredibly helpful and useful to the party. Once we actually get to Combat he is 100% going to Laugh Maniacally ™ when he uses his Familiar to grant the Rogue, Dragon's Breath in the middle of combat.

[@ruquang89]

oh no there were definite plot hooks you just got distracted by a tangeant i had to makd up on the spot

[@ghostishere143]

I cannot stress how OP 5e Paladins can be. They have access to EVERYTHING. Tank, Heals, DPS, I watched my friend in a rule of cool fight, as a level 7 Oath of 'Devotion?' paladin solo an adult green dragon in 3 hits. 3! I took one good assassin shot at it with an apt up bow, but still. Holy cow it's ridiculously scary. Played a game with 4 lvl 3 paladins each a different devotion to play the 4 horsemen. It was derailed in 5 minutes when we curb stomped a guy one of our players detected as evil and took over his town to purify it...

[@RisottoNero-z1w]

13:12 OHHHHH, so D&D is suffering this as well? We are flooded with pointless product back in Magic

[@zevraluna1899]

Ok, yes. My dm absolutely lvls her threats appropriately. There is an underdark dragon who took a bunch of people hostage and thus we are now on a fetch quest for one of three magic items. One of our party members briefly entertained the idea of trying to trick this dragon with our *deep breath* lvl 6 magic. An ancient dragon. And you want to try and trick it when it has hostages and we’re low lvl? What could possibly go wrong!

[@Arcticmaster1190]

Ooh, the “encounters don’t have to be fair” is something that I actually agree with. Part of why murderhoboing is a thing is because everyone is so expecting that you just make it easy for your players. I dropped a young Blue Dragon on my wife’s character in her first real dungeon, offed an NPC and told her character that if she didn’t hand over all of her gold, she and the rest of her band was next. She was level 2. And a newbie. I won’t even get into half the crap I threw at her after that… XD Fights do not have to be fair. In fact, if the odds aren’t stacked against the players even a little bit, you’re probably doing it wrong.

[@schizophrenic_rambler]

They don't have to be fair but if you only throw punches at your table, the players won't feel engaged. You have to keep things balanced, make encounters risky but not so much that your players are powerless in a Berserk fashion unless you plan to make them have some payback

[@Arcticmaster1190]

@@schizophrenic_rambler Oh absolutely. I may not hold back, but I always, ALWAYS give some way out. And I’m also a big fan of working with the players for solutions. My deal is more along the lines of “just because you want it doesn’t mean you’ll just get it. And even if you do, there some strings attached most of the time unless you’ve really earned it.” It’s kinda hard for me to put to words because it’s more intuitive than it is descriptive, since as you said, there’s a sweet spot.

[@Salad_Pickle]

I don't use notes or anything to track characters, locations, etc. I can't remember IRL names, directions, etc. Idk why. But in my own creations, I can remember in depth. I can even memorize characters and their backstories if I've helped write them... but i can't remember what road my walmart is on.

[@Wanderingsage7]

Rules According to Crawford, or RATC are guidelines. 90 percent of the time, Jeremy Crawford isn't the DM at your table. Monks in 5e should be better than they are. Fighters shouldn't be better at fighting unarmed at level one than the class who's gimmick is fighting unarmed. Also they should be able to add wisdom to the ki pool. Homebrew makers shouldn't confine themselves to being balanced with what WOTC has already given us. It should be within reason, but if it's a little better than baseline than that's perfectly fine.

[@typhoonzebra]

For the monks, they are pretty weak early on, but as level goes up, ki points amass and they can kick some serious ass. Which brings me to my opinion that basically no games should start at level 1. Start wherever your party and DM wants! Level 3, 5, 9 whatever. It allows you to have cool backstories with believable feats in them as well as cool class and subclass features to tap into early on. Plus it increases the likelihood that you'll actually get to taste late game abilities.

[@solsystem1342]

@@typhoonzebra no, lv.1 is definitely useful for new players and gritty gameplay. There are some types of adventures that just don't work lv.3+ because you can rely on character abilities (more then you could at lv.1).

[@nvile]

I absolutely agree with the statement “Remove Curse sucks as a spell and should be reworked”

[@DutchBlackMantha]

11:04: Must be playing 5e. Before that, you had heavy bows that allowed you to add a certain amount of your strength to damage, but would give penalties to attack if you don't have enough. But basically everything that required people to add two numbers was dummied out in 5e.

[@sam_bagging6028]

Our barbarian goes enraged when he hears church bells. And also when he hears church bells he shifts into a anthropomorphic goat. So it's raging goat barbarian instead of gnome Barbarian. And he has a church bell he uses a club so it keeps him enraged

[@davidbarnett342]

Had a group of players ambushed by about a dozen or so Dire wolves. Luckily they had a wizard NPC with them who was going to cast a high level ice storm from atop the PCs Daern's instant fortress in like a 3 turn build up, and he warns every one to disengage and get inside because once he starts he can't stop. Every player but one attempted and succeeded in disengaging and running inside while the lone player chose to stay on the offense and fight the wolves. They then managed to fail the STR save and got knocked prone and swarmed by wolves, and incapacitated while the wizard cast his spell giving them 2 automatic failed saves and killing all the wolves. This was the first session and their only saving grace was their fighter went right before them and was proficient in medicine and passed the DC to stabilize them before having to make the potentially fatal save. This player doesn't always listen when it isn't their turn so I wasn't sure what motivated them to stay outside and almost die day 1 session 1, but it brought the party together and gave some good RP for the players. Needless to say they play with a little more attention and caution now!

[@golett0331]

Tracking ammunition can be fun, if you do it right, which is not RAW. I'm counting my own bolts in a game where the DM doesn't require us to track them. 3xPB per combat rarely has me run out of bolts, but when I do, it forces me to adjust my play style, making me actually think.

[@Rabijeel]

I agree, many GM do not know about the Stealth & Perception Rules at all which is pretty shite - it is one of the basic Rules. About the "Vanishing" aka "Hide in plain sight" and how long it takes to learn: Ever seen a Guy doing it irl? I did. Friend did some sorta "Ninjutsu" and in a Training Camp they did they learned this Batman-level of shite. He is a 6,5ft 220lb Dude and he can literally vanish in the Woods when walking behind a tree and *poof*. Or enter a Room before you and you enter and he is gone. Pretty unnerving stuff and works by tricking your perception. You enter the Room, look around where he is and suddenly hear a voice behind you in the Doorframe. Thats literally that Stealth & Backstab Stuff.

[@MattHew-rq8zw]

As an undead my current character (pathfinder) - has 8 in str (minus 2 to the stat, no con bonuses - everything in Charisma for either workarounds or flavor), as there's no flesh, sinews, muscles, etc. he can't run, movement's are restricted to walking or Timeshifting (Oracle/Magician Bard. + Agent of th Crave.) with a phylactery (he's working on to becoming a better undead, without sinking to the deeper evils of most liches, despite being cursed to become one himself), thus giving him 25ft of moment, no rushing movement act - doubtful on climbing, cannot swim(?). I also made sure he'd be played as a kind, elderly gent type of guy, joking and trying to be outright a positive pete in the party. He's also been the first character I've made who has dealt 1 damage, and 2 damage with a natural one, on a 1d4-1 ... :D ! Love every moment of it. So yeah... despite getting the boons of undead... healing magic harms him, and well without disguises he won't be getting through towns or elsewhere without trouble... oh and that STR at 8 limits carry capacity XD hahaha...so I think it can be a bit balanced out.

[@angelaoneal5169]

Regarding "rules lawyering": I, myself, am a bit of a rules lawyer. However, I have been working on a method that seems to be working quite well for the groups I am in. Rather than interrupting the game, when possible, I will privately message the DM about the rules of a particular situation. By doing this, I am allowing the game to still run freely while also giving the DM the chance to keep things as is or "fixing" the issue of their own accord. After all, it IS their table, so they get to choose what rules apply to their game and what rules don't. I'm not perfect at this yet, but it is something I have been working on.

[@xMaugrex]

I like to believe I'm a chaotic good rules lawyer

[@Dan-fw2db]

My Path of the Storm Herald, Sea, Goliath Barbarian was thankfully able to chase after flying enemies because the DM foolishly allowed us to start with 1 magic item, common or uncommon, of our choosing. And he chose Winged Boots.

[@NeuralNotes5]

Since D&D is a game and games are mostly played for fun, everyone should stride to this goal. Doesn't matter what kind of game you play, it's goal should be for all the ones playing to have fun. Additionally(in brackets, there are examples for D&X): Better themselves (practice empathy, math), relax (it's not a physically straining activity), meet new people (get to know new kinds of people and contacts), get to know something new (piece of world history you didn't know of is build inside a campaign? Nice!), build something meaningful (want to be a fantasy writer? Never was there a better chance)... That's what it's good for, if you need something else, you should seek how to get it elsewhere, be it professional help or anything else. Thank you thank you so very much for understanding. Much love, take care and bye ❤️

[@secretagenttau2233]

I recently had a session in "Candlekeep Mysteries". I was the DM They managed to sneak up to the village being controlled by Yuan Ti. All of a sudden the Elderitch knight says "I wanna blow my war horn". I was legit dumbfounded. I said are you sure. He said yes. The entire party died as the entire village of 20 yuan-ti(all different kinds) descended on the party(level 8 btw) and they all died

[@kyuven]

Race restrictions on classes are complete bullshit unless it's a hyper specific prestige class. The guy who was saying "a goliath and a fairy can be just as strong as one another!" is omitting the fact that the goliath can reach that maximum far easier than the fairy can. There's also size benefits to take into consideration. Moreover this guy doesn't seem to take the spirit of these stats into consideration. Strength isn't just "hit hard, lift hard" it's also a reflection on how you can use your body to hit things. A goliath with 18 strength is probably just a big muscley guy, but a fairy with 18 strength is probably more like a featherweight boxer, able to put a lot of power into their punches but maybe not able to carry as much. The game actually has a mechanic for this too: as a small creature (or tiny, depending on your variant) the fairy can carry FAR less than the Goliath, DEX isn't just your "speed". It's your reflexes and ability to move your body precisely. CON isn't just your HP, it's your overall health and endurance. INT and WIS have a LOT of nuance to them. CHA isn't just "looks pretty." It's your force of personality. Having stat caps can risk moving into some really uncomfortable territory, which D&D is REALLY trying to move away from. And racial penalties were removed because they screwed with the baseline character strength. In a system that's entirely point buy like PF2e, racial penalties are fine. But D&D5e has the minimum of 8 for any given stat in RAW, so having a stat penalty would hurt it. People who don't like these aspects should just play a different game honestly. There ARE games where the things I addressed exist, but they're not all that popular.

[@Hazzbazz]

Your coins weigh somthing better keep track of it. I honestly don't think I could stay in that campaign that level of micromanaging would drive me crazy

[@kayq3231]

Chaotic neutral characters can still be good people. Murder hobos should have their alignments changed to evil.

[@ianraymo350]

Something I've been thinking about is that you should be allowed to take items from other players without their permission when the situation calls for it. Especially if said character effectively holds the group that wants to take a little while to recover their health and resources. For context, we had gone through a particularly rough trip to an island of war druids and were basically out of healing/magical supplies. We get there and learn a siege is occurring with some cultists (typical stuff). Given that a few party members had brushed against being ko'd/killed, my character and another wanted to rest and recover since nobody had any idea what we were getting into for this seige and the war druids probably would handle lasting long enough for us to recover a little, perhaps even use the teleportation staff to head back to a town to resupply since the staff itself just required physically visiting a place to work. Promptly the duo's request was shot down being forced to follow because the person with the staff wouldn't hand it over (not to mention a desire for combat via the other's). And while a combination of the GM throwing the party a bone in the form of minor healing from an NPC alongside generally poor rolls on the GM's side, and great rolling on our side, kept the party safe. It could've easily gone far worse. Especially if both party members had stuck behind to recover via resting.

[@DousedInPiss]

I wish stats were more meaningful, I understand fumbling a roll and having it lead to interesting places. But the amount of times I've seen things like a dumb brute who can barely speak suceed a charisma check because they rolled a 19 with a -2 modifer when a linguistic sevant fails because of a 3 roll +7 mod is just obcene. The level of randomness especiall when someone has a bad luck streak can really stifle character roles.

[@NaskaRudd]

I'm really trying not to shill here so I'm sorry if it comes across that way Small feature I like about PF2E is the tiers of proficiency. I won't bore you with the details if you aren't familiar with the system but it goes Untrained->Trained->Expert->Master->Legend For certain skill actions such as picking a lock it may say something like "Combination lock. Thievery DC 20. Automatic success if the attempting creature is at least master level in thievery" So sometimes it avoids situations where you have made heavy investments in particular skills to help realise the niche of your character, for example your rogue being the ultimate lockbreaker. The system will just say "Your rogue knows how to open this already, so just go ahead and describe what they do" rather than giving them the die roll chance to a fool of themselves. As a master in Thievery, you will need to roll to open a legendary lock, because then your skills are actually being challenged. Conversely there's the opposite. Minimum prof level for certain things. Like disabling a super complicated arcane trap, you may need to be at least expert to attempt the skill. Which negates the chance of the wizard rolling a 5 and then the barbarian who knows extremely little about magic rolls a 17 and kind of steals the wind from the sails of the arcane specialist. It's not a huge bombastic features but it basically gives your character a little "insurance" they won't make a bumbling idiot of themselves when attempting actions they have a professional background in

[@epicsage16]

Yep, I am that realism-loving guy that: 1. Tracks encumbrance and would use variant encumbrance if everyone else didn’t winge about it 2. Includes coin weight in encumbrance (it’s already so simple and should by all rights be much more complicated than “50 coins made of any material, of any purity, of any size/shape, from any culture =1lb.” if realism is the goal) 3. Tracks ammunition and most importantly 4: DOES NOT believe in critical successes and failures outside of combat. If your character has trained their entire life to do something, they should be expected to reliably do it without a 5% chance of massively screwing up out of nowhere for no good reason. Conversely, characters should not always have a 5% chance to work miracles by doing something outside their normal abilities. That would break all sense of logic, reason, and immersion. Bring on the hate comments.

[@Wolfirhart]

Maybe the part about the attributes is not that you should get an increase in your abilities every point invested, but rather following a learning curve or something like that. For example, if I decided to go to the gym from now on (STR 10), I would first have to learn how to use the tools, the basics of training and nurishment etc. that is necessary to even begin training. And then I have to get past that initial hurdle of "hitting the gym for a couple weeks/months", before I even start to notice the wanted changes (STR 11). And then a year would pass, and that's when I see the big mooscles and can actually use them (STR 12). Maybe that's why it's in increments of 2 and not 1 point each. The first point is just you starting the develop new skills, but they don't really improve you per se, but the second point makes the newly acquired abilities a now observable, re-usable and actually useful part of yourself.

[@CamperCarl00]

I made fall damage and push damage where every 10 feet is 2d6. I originally had it be a d10 for every 5 feet, but that started to get out of hand. Also, push damage is when you get pushed and at least 10 feet of the pushback are lost because you hit a wall object or another creature. Also, if a creature is pushed into another with enough force, they both take the damage.

[@downdogy9099]

I got into DCCRPG (Dungeon Crawl Classics) and it littarly cost me 30 dollars for the rule book, that hold both player and dm info and it's thicker then my math textbook for school, and it comes with two modules!! And officials module are only $10 A BOOK, a whole campaign for $10, I've sank almost $100 into DCC and I have more stuff then I could wish for from dnd, (dice, core rule book, scratch off character sheets, 4 campaign modules)

[@bow-tiedengineer4453]

I have takes on a couple of these takes. On the not everything needs to level match the players, I agree, but you should never put aesthetically similar but mechanically disparate enemies in the same area. My friend was DMing, he put a high level crime syndicate thing in the citywhere we were trying to hunt down a criminal on the run. We lost the intended thread of the campaign, but stumbled into the secret entrance to the overleveled enemy's place, and brute forced out way in because we had no other potential leads, and it made sense that the criminal we were looking for might associate with the sort of people who would have a secret hideout deep in the city's underground, and the last place we found the baddie's trail seemed to lead towards that secret door. We got TPKed, because we had no clue what to do next, and we were going to kick ass or die trying. On the strength for bow damage, I have a system called Runequest that hndles that really well. Different bows have strength requirements, but all take the same skill. I'd like to transfer that to D&D. The difference between longbow and shortbow (or if you are being IRL accurate hunting bow bs warbow) isn't simple vs martial weapons, it's that that the hunting bow only needs a strength of 9 to draw fully, and the war bow needs something like 13 or 15, i'd have to check what runequest says. It also has base stats that range from 3 to 18, so stats generally transfer, except for wis and cha, whose attributes are reshuffled into appearance and power. Anyways, strength requirements for larger bows is a very realistic way to handle it, because once you can draw a bow, additional strength won't increase damage or range by that much, but if you can't fully draw it, you won't get the full damage. Maybe have your damage die limited by both the bow you use and your strength, whichever is lower.

[@antonioruizfernandez8281]

A party full of min maxers and murderhobos can be very funny and cool to DM, just put them in a decadent setting where people are more preocupated in staying alive and mantaining a low profile or being bigger ashsoles than them, a bunch of powerfull lunatics aren't so much visible now, also make thougest enemies for the maxers.

[@greenblood1211]

For the bow strength comment: I would say that having higher strength wouldn't give an advantage, but rather its just a pre-requisite to use it effectively, if you don't have the min strength, debuffs would come in the form of negatives to hit dice, or decreased range, as you don't have enough strength to pull the bow string back far enough to allow the arrow to fly as far and as accurate.

[@Arkios64]

My hot take is, that not every PC has to have personal stakes in the main quest / some fateful need to be there / be defined by some part of it forever. Some characters can just BE an adventurer or live their life like one for a time, because it suits their current goals. The two characters I'm always workshopping in my head, in case I ever actually play myself, BOTH have absolutely no stakes or reliance on any doom/world domination type plots, but would still help out anyways, because their own personal journey fits with being an adventurer and saving the world means they and the people they care about get to live. The first character has the goal of establishing the goddess they follow in the world, as that goddess is absolutely NOT part of the worlds pantheon even remotely; but the main goal is to travel the lands and do reconnaissance for if her presence is even needed. If it turns out there are other gods that do the same thing well enough, that's that, the character will just live their life, maybe establish communications with those gods, then eventually die. The second character is even less involved. They start as a "cursed" orc trying to find a suitable partner, with that partner having to be not an orc because of the "curse"; curse being in quotation marks, because their clan actually likes the "curse". It forces them to find a partner of a different race, sure, but it also means that ANY race is suitable. So if that character happens to find something like a Warforged they like along the journey, no problem. Basically, as long as the other party is a different race, they can have children. Maybe they find out that they don't even want biological children. Possibly they don't find a partner they like and have to journey on. Maybe they just find people who are interested in living in the most racially diverse clan unit in existence and guide them there. And, most important of all, nothing of this has to impact anybody else; it can literally just be "For my free time in this town I ask around if there's anybody being racially or otherwise being shunned, then invite them over. Maybe I like them enough to shoot my shot." and no impact on the story otherwise. Seriously, not everbody in a party has to be directly linked to the main plot, some of them CAN just be good people / tag along and stay.

[@Parbruek]

My favourite gripes mentioned: 1. Racial stats should be a thing: Pixies and goliaths are NOT going to be physically equal. Maybe give races a bonus to spell resistance as their HP and Str decreases? Or maybe a bonus to all dex saving throws due to increased ability to dodge? 2. Attunement: legendary and artifact items should be considered to have low level self-awareness. Therefore, if anyone attempts to use the weapon in perfect alignment with one of the weapon's goals, that weapon should work at minimum once per long rest, while a lvl 13 thief should get full usage of the weapon. Further, a character who is diametrically opposed to the will of such a weapon should not be able to attune to it. This is sort of like how wands work in Harry Potter, or how in the Lay of the Children of Hurin Turin's sword talks to him, and in the Hobbit Glamdring lights up like a torch when it is used to kill the head goblin. Powerful magic items should be aware.

[@lordbalthosadinferni4384]

It's funny to me that so many of the mechanical issues presented here have solutions in 3.5/d20 system as a whole, but I also understand not wanting to learn a new system (or just not wanting to learn a very number-crunchy system; though there are certainly systems that are much more crunchy). Here's my hot take: 5th edition is not the best edition, because no edition is the best edition. Each has strengths and weaknesses. If you want to basically play Lord of the Rings, with lots of restrictions, challenging combat, and unforgiving environments, play AD&D (1st or 2nd). If you're into anime or a little bit of a power gamer, looking for a truly epic gaming experience, play the d20 system (which I will note here is not "just using a standard gaming set". It is the codified mechanical systems that are available for anyone to publish games with under the Open Gaming License. To be clear) and be rewarded for your creativity in combat and character building. Everything gives bonuses or penalties, there are ways to avoid even having to roll dice, and all AOEs are truly three-dimensional (which means when I cast fireball, EVERYTHING within 20 feet in all directions takes damage, including the ground or fortress walls). Plus it is highly customizable. Just keep in mind that you will need to do math that is slightly more complex than "d20 plus or minus 13"; lookin at you, 5e. I have no advice for 4th other than it's a good edition for people who want a more video-game type of feel. And 5th edition is a good choice for people who are new to tabletop rpgs or who want something more casual, that you can pick up in an evening and still remember how to play if there's three months between sessions.

[@pixlbelle8081]

Hot take I’m implementing into my own campaign: the three first-level subclassed castors- Cleric, Warlock, and Sorcerer- should be softlocked from being multiclassed into without narrative reasoning. While a player can express playing that class at the start of a campaign, I feel it should be that you either start as that class level one (or whatever level you start at) or if you choose another and want to take it up later, it can’t just be on the next level-up, but rather an option that opens up after in-game events. Those three in particular have the perk of having a subclass choice first-level, which usually indicates certain events that occurred in the life of that PC, such as an awakening to a bloodline, a purpose to fulfill to a higher power is discovered, or a deal is struck with a lesser higher power. When an event occurs in-game that would grant the chance of one of those kinds of events taking place for a PC, that’s when the option of multiclassing into one or more of those casters becomes available, and even then the pick of the specific subclass is limited (ex: you can’t suddenly become a Fiend Warlock after an encounter with a celestial god or being, it’d be more like Divine Sorcerer, Celestial Warlock, or a handful of Cleric choices).

[@nucleargoofball8043]

I love narrative-accurate multiclassing. I actually have an idea for a character that relates to that-- a divorced detective whose son (not in his custody) is an active member of a sort of the Boy Scouts. In a personal mission to find a lost child, the detective has to try and learn from his son in order to try and track this girl down. So, the detective multiclasses into Ranger to pick up Expertise in Survival for the sake of the story. I'd even named the son Hunter so there's the fun, now-dramatic use of the spell Hunter's Mark.

[@jinxadnix8886]

I have 2 for you. 1) Rogues can not dodge as a bonus action. I do not know why, but I have seen 2 DMs think they can. And one is that "Weird things you can do in D&D" guy on YT. 2) Deathknights do not get or give ADV on attack rolls (Outside taking the help action.) They do get ADV on saves vs turn effects and unlike other undead with this power, can share it with others.