The WORST Optional Rules in Dungeons & Dragons

[@bryanc6235]

Ironically, Gandalf says "Fly, you fools!"

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

What a missed opportunity on my part. Should have made a joke about that.

[@taragnor]

If they weren't foolish, they'd have all made bird men instead of elves, dwarves and hobbits. Imagine how much easier LotR would have been if they all abused flight.

[@c.d.dailey8013]

I think he means "Run away, fools." None of the Fellowship members can fly like a bird. So it is easy to understand that fly means run away or flee. That is the other meaning of fly. It is flight as in fight or flight. This makes sense in context. Gandalf was fighting a really powerful and dangerous monster, the Balrog. So a good why for the other party members to protect themselves was just to run away.

[@dwightweiers830]

I think you have so much ”old man yells at cloud” energy. I love it! It is great for everyone to be reminded these things aren’t necessary. However, sidekicks are working great for my friends campaign. I am the only one playing it. Having a sidekick makes it possible for me to play the Dragonlance module that is intended for a party. And before you say, “back in my day”, understand I am 47 and cut my teeth on AD&D. I have made multi class characters for flavour. I took a level of nature cleric in my monk because 1st edition monks could speak with animals and plants… that was pure nostalgia. Sometimes I multi class because having bird is awesome! Sometimes I do it because I want MORE POWER! But, I respect and would still play a game with no multi-classing. But multiclassing can be built on backstory or have a good backstory woven in.

[@richmin37]

Bro said multiclassing is a problem

[@MrOmega-cz9yo]

This channel must be getting tougher. I remember when Prof. DM used a +1 vest of protection. 😆

[@knghtbrd]

Good he found the +2 vest since the BBEG learned Summon Pinkertons.

[@clone_69]

The power creep is real

[@oz_jones]

​@@knghtbrdand Powerword: Channelstrike

[@thenemeanbeard4576]

A Tweed Jacket as well

[@Dennis-vh8tz]

Or professor DM has leveled up?

[@Merlinstergandaldore]

I don't quite share your view on grids. I quite like having a grid, for tactical and practical reasons. I don't like to fudge the details in favour of the 'high fantasy epic experience.' We are still playing a game, and the 'game' elements must have their place as part of the experience. That said, not every situation requires the grid and it helps to know when you need it and when you don't.

[@valeriodestefano3784]

this! I mostly use grids but for trivial combats i don't even bother.

[@waltascher]

Same. My group plays on Zoom, so we handle different battles in different ways. Some battles work better in theatre of the mind, some work better on a virtual tabletop. And on the virtual tabletop, sometimes we ignore the grid and sometimes we use it. The battle dictates what we do.

[@aaronbono4688]

For me grids are really easy you just say okay one two three four five six and that's how far you get to move this round. I really don't understand why they're cumbersome for people. It's like people also saying math is hard, give me a break a little practice and it's easy.

[@benjaminmckay6983]

@@aaronbono4688so just a disclaimer, I’m not super anti-grid myself, but I do understand why some are. It’s not that counting 5-6 squares is extraordinarily time consuming in isolation. It’s that it adds an extra few seconds to every single instance of movement that doesn’t exist if using range bands or something more abstract. Over time these extra seconds add up. The same concept applies with doing more math, it’s not that an individual calculation is immensely tedious, it’s that the summation of all these extra moments can become tedious. If you don’t believe me I highly recommend you try out, or watch gameplay of something like Into the Odd, Mörk Borg or Shadowdark. There’s a tangible difference in action resolution times. Ultimately, It’s just a matter of taste though. Does the granularity and board gamey-ness of counting squares contribute enough to your game that the extra time is adding value? Excellent! Is it getting in the way of something you thought would feel more cinematic? Make it more abstract (or play something that isn’t 5e).

[@GreyHunter88]

@@benjaminmckay6983 In practice I've always found that having to repeat yourself over and over again for players who are having trouble visualizing the space in their head takes up way more time than using a grid. "Wait... how far away is that guy? Oh, okay... I guess I'll go hit him. What do you mean he's behind a table? There's a table?"

[@LeonGarnet]

The DM: No flanking. Also the DM: Oh by the way this monster, and these monsters and the boss they all have pack tactics.

[@Newnodrogbob]

Sidekicks are really intended to fill out groups that are too small to function without them. You’re not supposed to have five players with sidekicks…

[@stephenklien]

Right. Sidekicks were originally designed for games with a DM and only 1-2 players, particularly at low-level play. They were introduced in the Dragon of Icespire Peak set for new players.

[@ArchonCognoscente]

Right. And Tasha's suggests having only 1 in the party.

[@anomaloushumanoid]

Also, maybe not having the magic using sidekicks in general. I recently was in a campaign where we all had sidekicks, and while we got some good role-playing out of some of them, for the wizard player it basically just meant extra spells every turn.

[@nanderv]

@@ArchonCognoscente so one player gets twice the actions of the others? Still sounds kinda meh..

[@ghandiwon]

@@nanderv IME, the player group tends to work it out. Either control bounces around to whoever wants to control it that round/combat/session, or it's managed by the player whose character has the least in-combat action set, or whatever. Never had combat companions in a "full" party though (combat is already long enough).

[@loganstecher2581]

"Insert Ad". The best ad experience of my life.

[@Marinkorpse]

Professor DM knows it's all about given the players agency. This also applies to ads, you can insert the one it fits your character best.

[@chazlong61]

"Insert Ad." Is it an in-joke? Editing issue? But "put the 'master' in Dungeon Master" is priceless advice. This is not improv. It is a game.

[@FlameQwert]

i thought it was lol because his ad was already in the first minute

[@scottthomas9022]

I'm guessing editing mistake. Someone on staff is gettin' in troooouble. :D

[@solojo13]

No mistake, fully intended. Aside from his stuff & that of friends, Prof DM has no sponsors. It's an in-joke cause you should watch his other vids to better understand it.

[@opscontaylor8195]

@@solojo13 Sadly, if you're not using an ad block there was an ad there (from KZbin, not Prof DM), and it was political. Ugh.

[@elishmuel1976]

@@FlameQwert Which was an amazing ad btw. This is how stuff should be advertised!

[@RyanWBL]

My favorite optional rule is you can play DCC, Mörk Borg, or Shadow Dark instead.

[@knghtbrd]

At my table that rule is no longer optional. 😉 OSE or Basic Fantasy are allowed you you want to play a TSRish game.

[@vox5505]

For real... I'm so tired of hearing about this game on this channel. I'd REALLY like to believe that the audience of this channel already knows 5e isn't a good game, and is actually excited about other games, not just weirdly getting off on actively hating 5e.

[@VhaidraSaga]

LotFP, Swords & Wizardry, FAST RPG, & DCC at my table.

[@jaysw9585]

​@@vox5505I am tired of people talking like Mork and shadowdark are the 2nd coming of Christ.

[@Ptaku93]

or Into the Odd

[@sheoofisles1573]

Fun thing. If a flying character get knocked prone he instantly falls unless he has a (hover) next to flying speed.

[@anomaloushumanoid]

Also, in a somewhat slapstick fashion, if a creature with Flying does still step on a pit trap, they still fall in and take the falling damage, though they at least have an easy way out if whatever is in there didn't kill them.

[@robertcarignan2983]

If you have one of those cat creatures, a Tabaxi? Caitian?, and you tie a piece of buttered toast to its back and it falls, does it spin above the ground?

[@jordanwhite8718]

Also, if it falls 10 feet after hitting zero HP it fails two death saves.

[@WillHerrmann]

I think part of the reason many players prefer grid-based combat is that it makes it easier to figure out what's going on when you're zoned out because everyone else's turn is taking too long. I used to run Savage Worlds a lot and tended to do theater of the mind (although it supports grid-based gameplay), and because turns were fast, players rarely forgot what was going on. If D&D made turns faster, it would solve a whole host of problems with the game.

[@Wraithing]

No flying monkeys as sidekicks for you Max! 😂

[@matthewmcguigan4293]

​@@Wraithingdeleted because my intention was to lean into absurd back story, not to hurt anyone's feelings.

[@Wraithing]

​@@matthewmcguigan4293 👍 makes sense - deleted my reply too. LOL - extremely civilised behaviour, this can't be an online comment section!! Better class of folks watching DungeonCraft 😁

[@iskandarthegreat0487]

The sidekicks can be very useful for small parties. I was running a game with just two players in what was supposed to be an exceptionally deadly setting, but the fact that there were only two of them made it hard to challenge them without murdering them outright at every turn. Giving them both a sidekick to control allowed me to bring forth the threat in the setting without immediately mopping the floor with them every session

[@tomhassomethoughts]

I don't know if "Insert Ad" was an editing mistake or a joke but I'm stealing it

[@solojo13]

No mistake, fully intended. Aside from his stuff & that of friends, Prof DM has no sponsors. It's an in-joke cause you should watch his other vids to better understand it. But steal away... 😉

[@tomhassomethoughts]

@@solojo13 didn't he open the video with an ad?

[@solojo13]

@@tomhassomethoughts Sure, but it's something he chose to promote.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

@@tomhassomethoughts lol. it’s the kind of mistake when you edit a video in June, fly to Ireland in July, fly home for three days, fly to GenCon, fly home for three days, fly to Korea, tour Seoul, tour the DMZ, & take a bullet train to Daegu-while trying to run a YT channel. 😂

[@tomhassomethoughts]

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 lmk if you want to get fitted for a suit while you're in Seoul - - I'll set you up with my guy

[@torenatkinson5708]

2:34 #5 Sidekicks (Tasha's Cauldron) 3:33 #4 Flying Player Character Species 4:58 #3 Multiclassing 6:12 #2 Feats 7:45 #1 Grids

[@Asin24]

Pathfinder 2e does a good job with limiting multiclassing. Having it limited to dedications that don't give full access to all the class features. Instead you take a feat that gives access not to an entire class but to limited aspects of it. You can take feats later down the line that can give you access to certain parts of the class. It's a good way to give those who want the flavor access without the typical 1 level dip that gives full access to all of a classes features.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Mark Seifter is a brilliant writer.

[@DoctorWu23]

PF2E embraces the kind of game it is while 5e tries to be too many things at once. It’s both its strength (it encompasses a lot of play styles) and its weakness (it’s not the best at anything).

[@forestramsey8972]

I have come to accept that 5e is not meant to make it fun for the DM. It is a super player-focused game. This is a huge contrast to AD&D and even 3.5. Once I accepted that there is virtually no way for me to really test players in the old ways, I just started designing encounters to be big, fun brawls where the players will house my monsters. It makes it fun, but it feels very different from the D&D I grew up on. Our group is starting to lean into Savage Worlds a bit to see if it gives some of that old feeling.

[@hawkthetraveler6344]

I found SW to have a bad death spiral really fast, how do you find the wound penalties to be in a fantasy game?

[@forestramsey8972]

@@hawkthetraveler6344 With magic healing, it is better than in a "realistic" setting. It is more dangerous than D&D, but part of that is that the GM can be generous with bennies -- which are really the resource you rely on more than hit points or spell slots -- and it will help the deadliness of the game somewhat. There is always a chance of just awful luck. ("I can't believe the kobold just aced his dagger attack 12 times in a row!") Some of that can be helped by damage caps and stuff, but that gets really house-rule-ish. Right now, I'm running a game in an alternate earth under 5e, and the idea is that the PCs are the characters in a Norse saga. I am running it wide open, they get Advantage on HP rolls (because then I can throw more at them and not worry). 5e is perfect for running characters that are existing at the upper tier and being this big, almost silly level of heroic fantasy. Another GM in our group is going to run a Savage Pathfinder game for us to really test the system up to it's highest levels by playing events about 100 years earlier set during the First Crusade, where the head of the Roman Magistocracy called upon the valiant to go destroy the portal to Hell that appeared outside Jerusalem in the year 0 Anno Diaboli. We expect to do heroic stuff, but also to lose someone along the way. (And the campaign is planned that everyone will die at the end as they try to close the portal...helping to explain why the world exists as it does.) The two game systems should have very different feels with Savage Worlds being more dangerous. Generally speaking, you can get away with heroic stuff, but it encourages you to not just murder hobo your way through everything. Healing and resting matters more...which is comforting to someone who grew up on AD&D. Combat always comes with risk. It makes it easier to play stories that line up with book characters rather than what 5e encourages which is absolute free-form fantasy.

[@jefftroupe641]

It's a sad day in the D&D world when ToH is not scary anymore. 😢

[@jamesanderson6769]

I agree, this is why I've stuck with 3.5.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

I concur.

[@riggler2]

Tried a few grid-less games over the last nine months. I could literally see the anxiety on player's faces of near and far ranges. The tactical movement around a grid it turns out was at the very core of why they loved RPGs. So it takes all types. And some players LOVE their grids in RPGs to the point it causes them emotional pain and suffering to play without them. So your grid millage, er hum, may vary.

[@LevantineR1]

It's also not a great feeling when movement speed boons and an interest in positioning are washed away by an apathetic "eh, you're close enough".

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

I agree. As D&D evolves it gets griddier and griddier.

[@oskar6661]

If they "love" tactical movement around a grid...they should honestly go play actual wargames. That's not intrinsic to the concept of role-playing games at all (which is also why D&D is a "tabletop role-playing game"...and is basically just a hopped up wargame, with role-playing taking a distant second spot).

[@SteveMichael]

I am also a GM of many decades. I probably suck and I admit that but I do my best. I disagree a ton on using grids and this leads into my main point, that I will get to in a bit. Why did my groups over time start using miniatures and paper grids? Because people would say "I never said I entered the room" right after something bad happened. This would then cause the game to grind way down as the GM would have to clarify every single action from every player all the time. When we went to miniatures and paper all those arguments went away. Our games got faster and when a dude would be a coward, he would get called out, or be a turn behind. Fast forward and my groups tend to love tactical combat and don't have time to play tons of other games. Yes we do roll-play but it is at a minimum. This is something they just don't like a ton of and my job as a GM is to make sure everyone is having fun. They LOVE the 3 action system of Pathfinder 2e and figuring out what to do on their turn. Yes, I have to remind casters and others that their turn is coming up and to be prepared, but the combat goes well and people are invested in it. This is my main point. Each group is different, and thus saying grids are "bad" is just not accurate. My strongest advice has nothing to do with the rules of the game, but the people you game with. As someone who has played about every system there is, I can say all of this is just a game of math. Nothing more, so finding people that you enjoy being with and they are good people is far far far more important than any system. If you are lucky enough to find good people, then playing whatever type of game you enjoy is fine.

[@robertcarignan2983]

Prof, I multi-classed for a backstory! I had a Sorcerer who was adopted by Gypsies. I multi- classed as a thief ( 1 lvl) / magic user just to make the backstory jive. 😊

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

That's cool.

[@flintsound828]

I've been wanting to create a character who multi classes at every level. Something like this... An orphan lives his life on the streets, (Rogue) Need to learn to fight to survive, (Barbarian.) Finds a musical instrument, learns to play it for money. (Bard) Discovers some innate magical power, (Sorcerer) Finds a God (Cleric) Is run out of town and goes to live in the woods, (Ranger) Gets really good at living in the woods (Druid) Finds a temple in the woods and signs up. (Monk) Discovers that combining his Monk martial arts with the street fighting skills makes him a good (Fighter) Realises this fighter can also fight for his god, (Paladin) Goes on an epic quest in the name of his god finding lots of esoteric items along the way and they speak to him, (Warlock) Realises that magic can be studied and learned from, (Wizard) The more he studies these esoteric items the more he learns about blood! (Blood Hunter) With all this knowledge finds he has developed a very keen eye for how things work, (Artificer) Retires with a headache from information overload.

[@sunjiudjiji]

I'm gonna go buy some ##insert ad##, thanks for the tip Professor!

[@chaosblade5906]

honestly I had a Lowe's ad play right before that card, so, mission accomplished?

[@kamehamehapierwszy920]

it's an ad for place for ad genius

[@chaosblade5906]

@@kamehamehapierwszy920 how meta

[@quickanddirtyroleplaying]

In theory, I'd prefer to have multi-classing rather than not in D&D, because it allows for greater character customization. Also, I hate character classes and would prefer something more generic like Knave or Savage Worlds. In practice, I detest multiclassing design in D&D 5e, because it incentivizes min-maxing, i.e. it makes sub-optimal builds possible, thus punishing players who have not mastered the game. Though I don't have adequate Pathfinder 2e experience, I prefer the concept of multiclassing feats to 5e's jury-rigged multiclassing mechanics. You've still got a core identity, but you can diversify your capabilities at the cost of specialization, which is what multi-classing is all about.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Knave 2 is brilliant.

[@jacobhope6164]

Put the 'Master' back in Dungeon Master. Indeed professor. Indeed.

[@y2a1979]

I once played a character who had a multiclass for backstory reasons, who also took the arguably worst feat in the game, also for story reasons. She was the only non-paladin in a family of them from Elturgard. A wizard friend of her grandmother trained her in magic so she would still have some means of trying to take on the evils of the world. In an attempt to prepare for the day she might finally feel the call to become a paladin, she trained more with weapons than a typical wizard, reflected in my using her variant human bonus feat to take the Weapon Master feat(at least she got a +1 to her Dex, lol). This also meant starting with higher Cha than I might normally, making her other stats suffer a little. And I was fortunate enough to remember at level eight that I needed at least 13 Str as well to multiclass into paladin, so at eight and twelve I had to put both ASIs into Str to just barely make the cut. But after finding Zariels sword, and being the only one willing to have much of her life/personality rewritten in order to claim it, my DM and myself felt like she had finally earned a call to paladinhood and at level 13, she gained her first level of paladin(in actuality, she had finally overcome her feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness to be a paladin, and simply gained access to power she could've had much earlier had she simply believed in herself).

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing@

[@rickershomesteadahobbyfarm3291]

A character I play has an iron golem locked in his treasure vault. He also has adopted children. His gollum has helped the party once. His adopted children runs his business and sometimes runs simple errands for the party.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing!

[@kirden]

I use the sidekick rule regularly in my campaigns. Everytime my main group plays, they adopt a lot of NPCs as pets, retainers, buttlers, ... We have an understanding, that if they want to use a sidekick in combat (controlled by the group/the caller of the group) they have the ability to do that with that rule. In about a handful of fights they actually use them in combat. Or if their base is attacked, they have to use them. I like that they are simple, not over or underpowered and predictable in my session planing. As an optional rule I like it. And in the solo adventure I dmed for my partner, they also had a sidekick. It made encounter planning more managable.

[@HereComeMrCee-Jay]

So it sounds like you're using the sidekicks mostly for story purposes (with a few exceptions), correct? I think PDM's concern is where they are truly additional characters engaging in every fight, performing critical tasks, etc.

[@kirden]

@@HereComeMrCee-Jay To be precise: my party recruits NPCs, and if it is an NPC who can and would fight for the party, they will get an appropriate sidekick statblock. Then my group decides on a case by case basis whether the sidekick will fight, support, guard the camp, etc. The sidekick does not over shine my PCs, it is their story. The sidekicks are there to help and fill in gaps.

[@Specter_1125]

While they can be used for regular sized parties, sidekicks are intended for small parties of one or two players. They’re also fine for mounts. As for multi classing, the majority of multi classing causes weaker characters with a bit more breadth in exchange for depth, not stronger ones.

[@PhantomPhoton]

Agree on most of these, but I've always had a question about ultimate dungeon terrain. The layout and zones appears to assume a party of players facing off against a single monster of the week or NPC villain. How does this terrain work for group combat (say against half a dozen bandits, or a squad of orcs)? If you could do a video on that, it would be awesome!

[@bitkower]

But if your problem with grids is people might use it for Flanking, why isn't the optional Flanking rule on your list of optional rules you don't like?

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Good question. Because I rounded it to five.

[@Cointelpronoun]

Flanking essentially requires a grid so it can just be lumped in with grids being bad

[@0Fyrebrand0]

@@Cointelpronoun A lot of things essentially require a grid, or at least an easily measurable sense of distance and where characters exist on the field in relation to each other. Tons of spells have precise ranges, and areas of effect like a sphere, cone, or a line. Those mechanics are not compatible with a casual "theatre of the mind" play style in my opinion. Every time I've had a DM attempt to run a battle that way, it's been a mess and no one knows what the hell is going on.

[@AllanSavolainen]

⁠you do know that you could just visually see if characters are flanking or not. No squares needed

[@IndyMotoRider]

@@0Fyrebrand0 that's because every other kid and young adult of this generation has adhd for some damn reason and zero ability to use their imagination.

[@Al-ny8dr]

In all my years of Game Mastering, I have always used theater of the mind instead of any miniatures or grids of any sort. Let the players imagine what they see. Maps and similar things are for the Game Master. Keep descriptions brief. This keeps the players on their toes. I agree with you completely on grids. We are not playing chess here. When it comes to players that like to fly, you need to keep that in check with ranged opponents. Flying around makes you stand out as a good target. Once they fail a save on a hold person spell while flying, they'll get the idea. Flying PCs at 1st level can cause issues like you said. However, a large flapping bird thing isn't exactly stealthy. Flying should be next to impossible inside in a lot of enclosed spaces. A human sized bird would have serious issues trying to fly around in a house. They are likely to smash head first into the Television. Good video overall. One thing I take out of my D&D games is any sort of "see in the dark" vision. That's only for certain monsters that naturally live in the dark, and rely on other senses. Let's be real. If a character can see easily in the dark, and someone lights a torch all of a sudden, it should blind you for a bit. Sure you can argue that actual infravision is different, but that should also have downsides. Just watch the Predator movie for examples of that.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing.

[@1000jjwalker]

Completely correct except for the grids thing. Grids combat is great

[@-o-dq7nd]

I disagree.

[@IndyMotoRider]

Something a player would say.

[@jimmysmith2249]

​@IndyMotoRider Nope, gm here who prefers a grid. It helps me visualize precisely what is going on, and provides a tactical understanding of combat without relying on the inaccurate and self-serving memories of players. If you prefer theater of the mind style games like Palladium books, where balance is meaningless and combat gives almost no xp, great! I enjoy Palladium games and those like them, too. But sometimes I want a grid to make things easier to track; both as a player AND as a gm.

[@chadmanster1883]

​@jimmysmith2249 to each their own. GM myself. Grid combat for my party of adventurers slowed down encounters. Swapping to gridless sped things up, and people moved and maneuvered more frequently.

[@ericjohnson8847]

"Never wanted to multi-class for a story or background related reason." Let me introduce you to the PC I'm running right now. :-) We started the campaign at level 3. My PCs backstory is that he was an orphan and fell in with the wrong crowd, a street gang (cliché, I know). He picked up some street skills (i.e. Rogue) and quickly learned that he preferred swindling and\or humiliating people of power that oppressed those of lesser means. A cleric of Trithereon (God of Individuality, Liberty, Retribution, and Self-Defense) had infiltrated the gang to take in down. The cleric saw that my character wasn't happy with gang life and had ideals that aligned with those of the church. My PC ended up helping the cleric take down the gang (future BBG plot options for the DM?) and became a cleric of Trithereon (Trickery Domain). The multi-classing fit nicely together with the backstory. I started with 1 level of Rogue and 2 Levels of Cleric. Now my PC is still 1 level Rogue and 6 levels Cleric. Our party is regularly only 3 players, with a couple occasional drop-ins. A Barbarian, a Sorcerer and the drop-ins are Bards, then my multiclass Cleric-Rogue. So, in that sense, it is helpful to have some Rogue skills in the party. I was originally going to go with just a Trickery Domain Cleric, but as I came up with the backstory, I thought it made more sense to start with a level of Rogue.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

That's cool if your GM allows. Peace!

[@IncaSteppa420]

I think your example on feats is more of an indictment of Expertise as a mechanic and, to a lesser extent, Bounded Accuracy. It's perfectly doable to achieve very high passive perception with no feats.

[@psyberwolfe]

It looks like you are wearing your +5 gloves of old man outrage at the clouds. The "grid" has always been in the game. EGG played on a sand table using minis and rulers. The grid became a faster expression of the sand table. Spells need the grid or templates at a minimum. When fireball affects everyone in the melee band of a pizza dungeon or just a few the feeling is just bad. Wanna make your players faster with the grid? Use a 1 minute sand timer. They will be ready with their move and action on their turn. You use the perception combo as your argument against feats. You realize Passive Perception isn't Radar and only specifically called for with countering the Stealth skill. You are not required to allow PP for anything else. Feats aren't the issue. A DM afraid of letting their players feel cool and powerful. Sidekicks are great for solo or pair of player games. Past that they are NPCs the DM controls. Multiclassing isn't an issue. A DM who is afraid of players feeling cool and powerful is. Who cares if it is a power gaming move? My players must deal with me overwhelming them and the same applies to me. My players come up with cool ideas why they multi-classed beyond the game benefit. Yes, of all the issues you point out, fly is an issue. The name of that game is deal with it. Your players must deal with fliers, so must you. To quote a line from the 13th Warrior "Grow Stronger." He applied his brain to the problem but he decided to deal with the circumstances.

[@tinyhowie]

"Never say no" is a rule in 5e Dungeon Master Guide. WotC is not known to be friendly to DMs.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Correct.

[@johnturner7790]

" Never say no" is actually wildly empowering if you replace it with "roll a new character" or "have a good night" when you don't want to say "yes" or "roll for it".

[@nanderv]

5e is a highly inconsistent game that doesn't know what it wants... At it's heart it's an acceptable power-fantasy / murder-hobo simulator. To that end, there's a lot of rules, with a lot of admin. For instance, every spell has a range, whereas most encounters have it be entirely irrelevant. For a semi-competitive power-fantasy simulator you need strict rules, strict rulings, and the GM has to do what the rulebook says. If someone spends hours upon hours weeding through all his bought books to look for a new power move to bring to the table (which the rules as they are very much support or worse), and you then say no..... I also think 5e's choice for the player is a trap. There's a lot of choice, but if you choose poorly then your character doesn't work well. It's less bad than pathfinder, sure, but it still sucks. Like, you want to use lightning spells instead of fireball, now you just do worse damage. How is this a choice? On the other hand, they are like: here's your high fantasy game with low-stakes and a focus on roleplay (with, in my opinion, terrible rules for social interaction that are best-ignored). But then the death mechanics are totally inadequate for that. The odds of death are low, but if it randomly happens then a character with a lot of preparation and connection to the story just randomly goes. None of the later-game death scenes in 5e I've personally seen had meaningful impact to the game. Compare this to Wildsea, a game which focusses on narrative, where death is an explicit player action that's always available. Or on the other end of the spectrum, Mausritter, a game about gritty survival. There, damage first hits hitpoints, but once HP reaches 0, is taken on the relevant stat (temporary till next rest). If strength hits zero, you are dead; roll a new character. It makes every encounter dangerous, puts your on your toes, and makes you not want to enter any fight in a fair way if you can help it. Which fits extremely well narratively, because a mouse is not gonna fight a cat fairly and win. You can run a nice game with 5e, with a lot of effort from the game master (and the players being accepting to the fact that it's a difficult as fuck game to run). But compared to almost any other game, it's a nightmare for the gamemaster.

[@yuisure6755]

@@nanderv I'm designing a game myself with spells, classes, races, trades, abilities, and traits. Trades are something a character has before their class. An example says a player's background was working as a child for his blacksmith father and then the character enlisted as a scout for the army, a king, a town's guard, or bandits. Trades give some positive effects like bodyguard trade can defend another player with a shield for a +4 AC but can't attack or with swords they gain a plus +1 to hit and damage when fighting in towns, open fields, roads, or castles. Also they gain a +3 disposition with town guards, middle class, and poor towns folk and barons owning land or farmers. Blacksmiths can repair armours, create nails, or some building materials. Wearing armour fatigues you slower and you gain a +1 AC since designing armours at suck you know it's weak areas, and react to defending better. Traits ever player rolls for two positive and two negative traits. For example you acquire the strategist trait meaning you're better at tactics and battle strategies or keeping conversation calm, but you also get the blind in one eye trait meaning your vision is reduced and you suffer a -4 penalty to hit with ranged weapons beyond 10 yards and a -1 to hit with melee weapons. Traits help balance min/maxing, but also allow back story and planning fights better or role playing.

[@bradcraig6676]

I agree with most of these. Multi-classing can be a power move, or sometimes a significant nerf, depending on the combo. Some feats cause major problems, I disallow those when I DM. Sidekicks as a game mechanic are forever barred. But on the question of grids, their utility depends entirely on the style of combat you run. In our 5e group we go all-in on terrain and tactical combat; sometimes a single battle rages over multiple sessions (and sometimes several sessions go by with zero combat at all). It strikes me that it's not grids you're objecting to, but the style of combat in which grids prove helpful. Saying you like tactical combat but do not grids is like saying you like Indian food but don't eat it because it's too hot. The grid is not really the issue. Only about half of our terrain (and we have a ton of it, all home-made) is gridded, so sans grid we use little tape measures. I bet you'd hate that even more, LOL.

[@DungeonsforDecades]

Professor, have been following you for years, but have not left many comments, because so much of my viewing is on a TV with remote (so not often near a keyboard). But I wanted to thank you for everything you've done to make RPGs more fun for all, as well as for the care, discernment, fairness and frankness with which you do so. I'm also a NJ Grognard in his 50s who was whelped in the Old Days, when there were some (fun, but, to most of today's players, very odd) checks and balances in AD&D. I would urge any history-minded viewers who've not done so to read the original AD&D books available as free PDF's. Gygax's genius in balance is evident. The game was hard - as it should be, that it might be better appreciated when one does well. My own game's DNA is about a third homebrew (OSR Rulings over Rules), a third or so of the old Basic and AD&D, and a third of good things taken from any number of other games and D&D editions (mostly 3rd and 5th). I've been running it in my own world for decades, and for many groups. But the "modern" game continues to move further and further away from what I think of as the FRPG I and my players - all for the most part older professionals - want to play. The game at its best is Role Play over abilities and dice. No "building" characters for power, since classes and races in my game are few, and modestly powered in the manner of 1st Edition and BECMI. No feats, no super-powers, races are balanced and must be role-played, etc. In fact, when players put in real effort to role play race, class, chosen religion and chosen background, I award each player at the table a 10% bonus on their regular XP share; which, using the old tables of geometric XP progression, really helps. My main group played about once per month for 8 years to get most characters from 1st to 13th, in a massive campaign. And about half died on the journey, so the ones that got there were half replacements. I agree with your philosophy: everyone should play what they want, because... you know... fun, and stuff. The "answer" to all FRPG problems is one of which you keep reminding us all: DM sets the rules, and does 99.99% of the work. Players play the game the DM wants to run'; not the other way around. Make it make sense, make it easy, make it fast, make it about player agency and creativity, and make it consistent and fair. Then everyone wins. Thanks again, sir.

[@viciousrodent]

I have had players multiclass for story/plot/character development reasons a few times; often into workable-but-not-optimal combinations, like the Cleric/Sorcerer multiclass in my last campaign. She was a cleric to a deity of luck, associated with gambling and wild magic and such, so, her multiclassing to a wild magic sorcerer made sense, and didn't end up making her particularly powerful or break the party balance, since she only had a handful of arcane spells anyway. That said, my current game I have put some in-game barriers to multiclassing; largely because I've made training a requirment for levelling. Basically in order to multiclass, the group needs to find an NPC of the class, and convince them to actually teach them how to do the class (in downtime), so, they can unlock multiclass options and prestige classes (3.5 campaign) as quest and story rewards, and have the multiclass be tied into what is happening in-universe and what their character has actually done. The main problem I have with multiclassing as it's normally done isn't the multiclass itself -- it's that it makes no sense that your level 4 wizard who has never once used so much as a sword would suddenly become perfectly competent with not only a sword, but almost any sword, and spears, and polearms, and bows, and maces, and warhammers, overnight, b/c they hit level 5 and took a one-level dip into fighter.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing!

[@nintendolegoboy]

I think Sidekicks should be used when you don't have enough players and still want to make encounters designed for many. I used sidekicks a lot in my 2-player game and my players love it. They provided the same power level as an average character with less options all around. Fun experience.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

That's cool.

[@lindybeige]

I recall a game of 'Champions' superhero RPG in which everyone could fly except me. There was trouble! Quick! Everyone flew to deal with the trouble. i set off across land, and it was all over by the time I arrived... again, and again, and again. Yawn. I had a Paladin/thief multiclass once, for the backstory. I was a reformed crook, who still had lots of friends on the underworld. I sometimes use grids.

[@andylaugel4241]

I have run and played in superhero RPGs. It really helps to get the party on the same page in terms of response time/party travel. Teleportation & super speed are viable alternatives, as are fellow PCs willing and able to carry the party in a pinch. If you can't keep up, its time to talk and maybe start a new PC.

[@ultrium2000]

Elric is a fighter/magic-user. Conan is a fighter/thief :)

[@valorin5762]

No. Both of them are definitely not D&D characters. They are both made from much better stuff. Also definitely a classless system :D

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

Grey Mouser is also a multiclass, but I'm not sure what exactly. Magic-user/thief, maybe?

[@GloomyMime]

@@GodzillasaurusJr thief with some levels or abilities in fighter and magic-user.

[@victorgreenwalt4900]

1st edition deity and demigods has stats for Elric: Cleric10, 5druid, 19magic-user, 10illusionist, 10assassin. Grey Mouser is there too with 11fighter, 3magic-user, 15thief

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Stormbringer is a great system.

[@saltheart2023]

Currently playing in a Pathfinder 2e campaign... I really can see the beauty in Simplified, Fast Combat --- after awhile, combat on a Grid (and with longer player turns - options... options... options) can really feel like a Slog... May have to try my hand with running a One Shot or so with this group using Deathbringer or even Shadowdark rules... see how they like it. 🙂 Hope you are feeling well these days! Keep up the Fantastic Content! God Bless!

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Lots of people tell me once they play Deathbringer they never want to go back. Try it with B1 Keep on the Borderlands.

[@thedabblingwarlock]

Re: Multiclassing- I've actually done it for in character/story reasons. Most recently with a paladin who's already not sure about being their god's champion has a crisis of faith for a little while, so winds up leveling in fighter for a bit. I've also done it in 5e, a sorcerer1/cleric rest of the way to help sell the character changing from human to fey. Although, to be honest about the paladin, getting armor training 1 in PF1e's fighter class does make a world of difference when you're running around in medium/heavy mithril armor. One thing I'd love to do one day is play a character that starts off as a fighter then goes paladin after proving themselves worthy. That, I think, would be a fun character to play.

[@-o-dq7nd]

They did the paladin thing already. It was in AD&D. The Paladin, and the Ranger were basically prestige classes for the fighter after a few levels, roleplaying events, and having the stats you could prestige too being a Paladin.

[@thedabblingwarlock]

@@-o-dq7nd Yeah, I know. I've never played like that, though, so I thought it'd be fun to try.

[@trooks40]

Thanks for skipping the ad, classy move!!

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Lol. That's the kind of mistake you make when you make a video in June, spend July in Ireland, fly to GenCon for a week, fly home for three days, and then fly to Korea. Greetings from Daegu!

[@Offbeaten]

Grids make things easier and faster. Especially in the virtualk tabletop space, which. I KNOW, some oldtimers don't know how to handle and it loses the fancy clicketyclack. But giving people an easy tool for measurement is just smooth, simple. And most VTT's do track those movements. Feats can be used for good or bad, but in a limited game like 5e, where you have so little control over your characters builds... you need something to spice it up. Feats are that. Same with multiclassing. Sure there's people who use it for powergaming, but I see just as many use it for character purposes. Don't judge it just because you attract powergamers.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Clearer, maybe. Faster? I disagree. I didn't make this decision, my views evolved over 30+ years by playing with Chessex maps and then battle maps. Grids work GREAT in Kingdom Death and other tactical games--if fact, they are essential. They slow RPGS, unless you have only 2-3 players.

[@Offbeaten]

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 That likely depends on your players and what they're used to. Some people need that clarity. As someone on the spectrum, the clarity of movement that a grid gives is a godsend. And while I 'only' have about 10 years of experience. I've seen more like me breathe a sigh of relief as it makes it easier to process information that way.

[@taragnor]

No grid is fine if you're just dudes with swords, once you get into placing area spells with geometric shapes, you kind of need to see where everyone is to know how many you hit. Unless you want to constantly bother your GM every turn by asking how many you can hit. Really I tend to prefer systems like 13th age which are built from the ground up to support theater of the mind and don't describe their spells areas in terms of geometric areas, but rather just say "you hit 1d4 nearby targets." or "1d3 targets engaged with you"

[@IndyMotoRider]

LMAO. You lost me in the first sentence. But I've only been DMing since the 80s so maybe I'm out of touch with today's youth. Everyone has ADHD and no imagination...does that sum it up?

[@John-Dennehy]

@@IndyMotoRider I first played as a kid in the 80s. I also have both ADHD and aphantasia (literally no mind's eye). It is not just "today's youth" that find grids essential. I went for years being unable to fully enjoy so many of my now favourite hobbies until I found great GMs willing to make the experience more inclusive using "modern" tools like grids and handouts. It was only in recent years that I even knew most people could conjure up images in their head. But I assure you, it is not some youthful fad, and not as uncommon people might think. In fact try and find people you know, maybe someone that doesn't seem to enjoy reading fiction, and ask them if they can create an image of an apple in their mind, and then quiz them on the details they can see. Be sure to explain what you see in comparison. I bet you will find at least one like me that see nothing but blackness, and then consider that blackness when reading a book or playing D&D with theatre of the mind.

[@bigH101]

I don't have a problem with grids. I rarely have to count that much unless it is over normal distance for movement. If someone can't quickly look and see six squares, they may have some other issues going on. Your visual representation is a good idea and works too. The whole measuring thing with a ruler takes longer than just looking if there are 6 squares of movement. The banana one would last a hot minute because you will always have that one idiot who wants to argue about how long a banana is. The biggest word of advice that DMs need to learn to say is no. Good video.

[@theotherone112]

I've used sidekicks in my campaigns, even spellcasting ones, and they've worked fine for me. The spellcasters have artificer progression on spell slots and a pretty limited number of spells they can cast. They don't slow down combat nearly as much as a PC spellcaster. (My party literally uses their sidekick healer mostly to cast either bless, toll the dead, or sometimes healing word.) I think they work best when the DM is in charge of leveling them up, which kind of makes sense as they came from an NPC, which means they aren't any player's character. However, the party gets to control the sidekick in combat. It also works best when you are using them with small parties (1-3 people). If you have 6 players at the table, don't throw sidekicks into the mix. They can also be an alternative for a regular PC for someone who's looking to dip their toe into D&D as they are a lot easier to play than a regular PC (although a lot less powerful). Still, it can be helpful for someone totally new, so they aren't overwhelmed with mechanics, especially if they're playing at a higher level table for whatever reason. But as a DM, you'd want to communicate the power difference to such a player before they start and let them know that you'll work with them to re-work their character into a regular PC when the player is ready. They can also be an option for smaller children who want to play with their parents but would struggle if their character were too complicated. I also think that it would be an interesting experiment to run a campaign where all the players had to play sidekicks because sidekicks aren't as powerful as PCs. It would add quite a bit of challenge for the players, I think, but you'd have to have the right group to try this. I'm sure a lot of players would hate this idea.

[@sterlinggecko3269]

@theotherone112 I had a sidekick inserted into my current game so the healer got to do more than just do healing and provide flanking. the guy got poisoned to death, turned insane, and his body got transported to a random plane, when he touched a Prismatic Wall trap on a window.

[@OpenWorldAddict0]

Truthfully, the most fun i have had a Dungeon Master is creating battlemaps with some verticality and then putting them in front of my players and having them figure out how their characters would overcome the situation that the battlemap details, and it was a lot of fun watching them plan things out using the verticality it mind. Having some characters that can fly isn't so bad when they have options to allow the other players also take advantage of that verticality. Truthfully, 3d thinking is a lot more fun than just 2d thinking. Second, the gaming group should be building their characters together in a session zero, and the same thing with leveling them up, at the last half of a session. Having all players work on their characters at the same time not only allows for them to come up with synergies between their characters, but allows you as the GM to overlook that work, so you should be able to crack down on any game-breaking glitches or loop holes that the players might come up with.

[@karlranseier6885]

The rules lawyer just made a video about the 5.1 edition were they literally wrote about rules annoy the gm…

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Lol. Ronald is great.

[@yevaud6]

As for Grids. I've know some DM's who simply can't nararte theater of the mind. You ask them to make a judgement call if a spell can reach or who will be affected by an AoE spell if your aiming for X...it just make it so much smoother to have the grid for reference. Second to support it. D&D did come from Gygax playing war games. It was a key feature from the beginning, even if it's technically optional at this point.

[@taragnor]

Yeah, D&D is built for the grid, so long as your spell areas are defined as geometric shapes that are supposed to go on a battlemap, it's going to be hard to do that without knowing where everyone is exactly. If you want to see an example of a game designed for theater of the mind, look at 13th Age. In that game, area spells just hit "1d3 enemies nearby", so you don't need to know specifically where everyone is because the game doesn't involve 30 ft cubes and other geometric constructs.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

I agree with you on the flying races. I disagree with feats, multiclassing and I always use grids

[@valeriodestefano3784]

some tables love powerplaying/tactical combat but many players/DM consider it always wrong. You don't want to spend your life counting squares? Some tables do.

[@AtomikaBlerd]

@@valeriodestefano3784I think power gaming is a subjective phrase. Some call it optimizing. Personally, as both a DM and a player, I like it when players bring characters that are a bit OP because it makes me bring my A-Game when it comes to planning encounters. As for the passive perception example, it’s not a great one. Passive just means the average of a skill that’s done over a minute. It’s a short hand for DMs to know what the average for that skill check will be for a player doing things multiple times. They can still be surprised or hit a trap. It’s just a bit more difficult. But, again, that’s fiat upto the DM.

[@davidgipe997]

While I find fliers a twist. I don't* find it too much. My creatures provided they can intelligenctly communicate or make independent decisions may do things like damage wings or for more RuleLaw things Hold action for flying target including run and grapple. *There are times where I do miss gravity, but there are usually ways to make it challenging or require a task of the flyer in combat (say someone in a tower)

[@theodorehunter4765]

@@AtomikaBlerd Power Gaming is, IMO, finding the most broken character builds possible and bringing that to a game to "win" DnD. Optimizing is having a character concept, and then selecting the class(es), Feats, etc. that best fulfill that character concept.

[@AtomikaBlerd]

@@theodorehunter4765 100% agree. But I’ve seen the two conflated in various TTRPG circles.

[@JoshuaHenson-h5g]

You convinced me when I first started watching a few years ago to start implementing the close-far mechanics for combat, and I haven’t regretted it! Not only has it sped up encounters, but it’s been the only option for the game I run with a visually impaired player. I’ve now been trying to figure out how to incorporate it for virtual games. And I definitely plan on using it for the headache that flight can be, if it ever comes up

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

I have heard the same things from more than one visually impaired player. It's one of the things I am most proud of--making the game more accessible to everyone. That was not my intention in making UDT, but I'm really touched it has had that effect. Cheers.

[@alexbarrett3832]

I agree on flight. I tend not to allow that at low levels. As a 3.5 player the rest of this is kind if hilarious though. In my experience the trick to making sure your players don't abuse the system isn't to ban feats and take away their options. It's to talk to your players like adults and play with people you like and respect, and who are all on the same page about what they want out of the game. I'm sorry for you if in 40 years you've never met one player ho multiclassed for story reasons. We do it all the time in my living world game, and look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Just because something provides mechanical benefit it doesn't stop you role-playing.

[@arena_sniper7869]

Banning mechanical options is best done pre game in a document that players can read so they will know what options aren’t allowed.

[@alexbarrett3832]

@@arena_sniper7869 Agreed, though its best to have a full discussion with the whole group to make sure everyone is on the same page before setting any decisions in stone, not just on mechanics but on the whole game really.

[@kevoreilly6557]

Grids for new DMs this is a must halve, sorry - even if just placement on a table (no actual squares) it a a powerful visual aid - and the close, near l, far is almost as old as D&D (it’s a traveler thing - and I yes I love it) The others I agree with, but simply because they increase the power and complexity at the table - gross don’t. If in doubt Choice = Complexity

[@wushubear1]

While I agree that for high level play, multiclassing comes across as power-gamey, the only 5e games I've been involved with that allowed multiclassing were level 1-4 affairs. If restricted to low levels, the power gain is not terribly appreciable and suboptimal choices are not too harmful, and I've seen fun multiclass concepts from players free from fear of ruining a level 1-20 build.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

I agree.

[@EmeraldVideosNL]

I remember 3.5 book Races of the Wild. It has a race called Raptoran (or something) which was basically a feathered-winged version of elves. I remember reading they could glide at some point and fly at a later level. In my opinion it's the quick leveling in D&D causing the problem that those high levels are reached so fast. I've always liked the idea of a kind of flying Elves, and toyed with the idea and possible campaign/LotR setting, so I see the appeal. Yet to prevent OP they'd work best in a group in which members can't fly. So the ability would come in handy in the sense of crossing a chasm so they could glide people over (but only if the starting point is higher than target, because lifting a person upwards would be too heavy for the wingsspan). Also, birds bones are brittle, so break easily, the character could have a minus to strength or a wound table to roll for broken bones. Broken bones means no flying. And on the other hand, large wings in confined spaces like a dungeon would be quite impractical. So in my opinion there are enough cons to the pro. As for NPC sidekicks, I avoid them if I can. I work alone (I'm the hero after all), or with living and breathing party members. Same with Skyrim for example, never have a party unless obligatory for a quest. I

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing.

[@macoppy6571]

Deathbringer be pulling Aasimar feathers like a chicken packing plant 👼🐔🍗

[@Godtierlee]

Interesting point of view. While I do think the mentality of, "I am the GM. I don't have to explain why I'm not using these rules." is a distasteful vibe to set for a game, it is interesting to see why some people aren't fans of specific tools or rules.

[@nickz3252]

New Dungeon Craft video posted, sweet! I wonder how long ago it wa- >38 seconds Well damn guess I really am a fan 😄

[@Skoozi]

I think most people saw this video >38 seconds after it was published.

[@familykletch5156]

Where did you find that colorized Willingham dragon from the Basic set (at 8:25)? I NEED that. Prints available?

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Online. I do not remember. Sorry.

[@MrTheQuestioner]

I’m shocked you’ve never had a player multiclass for a story reason, because that’s the only reason my players have ever done it. Guess I’ve been lucky with my player selection thus far

[@StabYourBrain]

I find Multiclassing hard to justify storywise honestly, mainly because it always happens suddenly after a level up and because there is usually very little logical grounds for it. Most classes in DnD require life-long training and dedication starting from a very young age or even supernatural influences that make them possible in the first place. Like what do you mean, we have leveled up last session and you're suddenly a Cleric of Selune? when the fuck did THAT happen? Have you secretly been going studying in a cloister in the past 8 months that we've been traveling together? You've been a Fighter for 9 levels!

[@jaysw9585]

Most people multiclass for powergaming. They saw some video online, likely from something they saw on DnDShorts, which shows them how to cheat the game.

[@MrJoeyWheeler]

@@StabYourBrain If you're that anal-retentive about it, subclasses in 5e make no sense because they're chosen at a level-up too (mostly). "Oh, you just levelled up. Suddenly you've specialised in Abjuration magic."

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

Same. Well, almost: There's one player who only multiclasses for mechanical reasons, but he'd also pick a single class for the same reason, so there's really no difference.

[@JRDATX]

In 41 years of playing TTRPGs, I’ve only multiclassed once for story reasons, and I’ve never had players do it for any reason other than creating optimized builds. I see both as valid depending on what makes the game enjoyable for you. I prefer a game in which my character strives to overcome fantastic odds through bravery tempered with wisdom. However, friends of mine love the power-gamer, optimized manner of play because it’s the escapist fantasy they enjoy. Personally, I’m okay with players multiclassing as long as their character is a person and not a collection of mathematical variables. Working with friends through imagined conflicts makes for a fun game for me. After all, that’s the point of it all, having a fun time with friends. Happy gaming to you.

[@monkibro]

No grids is the only rule I disagree with, and not even passionately. The rest are 100% spot-on to me. I think zoning is too vague, too theater of the mind, which i fine, but redundant unless your game is light on visuals by design. But I can see where grids are too up-tight and board game-y. I guess it's just a matter of which side of compromise you'd rather land on.

[@mmftg]

The only multi-class character I have was for story reasons. He started as a rogue but the whole party was working for the church so he eventually took some levels in cleric.

[@yzfool6639]

That's the way to do it.

[@michaelnurse9089]

Many a real life church man started out as a rogue, and many end up there again.

[@gonarsan]

Jajaja my half-elf acolyte of Tymora is a rogue-cleric too. She survived in the streets by mere fortune, raised in one of the Lady Luck's orphanate.

[@gonarsan]

​@@michaelnurse9089very argentinian thing

[@rosmelylawliet]

I have a BIG caveat about almost all of the topics discussed here: DnD Duet. When you are only playing w/ a single PC, they need at least one sidekick. Having a whole 'nother character sheet is just way too much. They also kinda need to be jack of all trades, which taps into the quite powerful fantasy, and/or multi-classing or some kind of power gaming (as long as it is not some crazy infinite damage combo or stuff like that). And feats :P Alternatively, all would be scaled down pretty substantially, but at that point, it is boring getting mauled by just 2 goblins :( So i provide some power in the form of feats and items, and adjust enemies so they are still challenging.

[@rosmelylawliet]

We do gridless most of the time, sometimes some quick gridless paper drawing for positioning and avoiding situations like "but i thought i was far away/closer enough". That being said, while playing Duet, time is not a problem, as the game moves super fast, you don't have a single second to spare.

[@dyonstadd7852]

Really good points about "flying". A big problem in the DND5e community at the moment is that people will make you feel like a bad DM for banning things like flying, typically with the classic "There are plenty of ways to punish flying" or "Use ranged attacks, silly".

[@h0zb0g]

Let them crawl in a sewer…

[@mikeb.1705]

That is absolutely true. I can't count the number of times I've been called a "bad DM" in various online communities because I don't allow free use of the optional books (Tasha's, Xanathar's, etc). No, you can't start as a half-tabaxi half-dragonborn Artificer. That's not a thing in my game world.

[@ecothunderbolt257]

I really prefer how PF2e handles Flying Ancestries. They cannot immediately fly at Level 1 instead they get to take on ancestry feats as they level and eventually do get access to permanent flight through those features (first having to compromise for things like reactions that negate fall damage, or gliding, jumping far etc) but it has been accounted for in their ancestry feat budget (therefore they're giving up other things for it) and by the level they can permanently fly, the campaign is at such a level that you would be expecting to deal with characters that have flight. And if you're playing one of their higher level starting adventure paths then you can start with a character that can just inherently fly as flight at say, level 10 is not a big deal.

[@taragnor]

Overall I tend to agree constantly flying PCs aren't good for the game but at the same time, I feel like the DM shouldn't be abusing the hell out of tactical flight either, because the players do have a point that it's really not easy to punish flying. Tactical flight is god tier in D&D, it's the reason DMs don't want PCs to have it. There's not really any drawbacks or good counters to it. "Use a bow" just isn't really always viable. If you're a strength fighter/barbarian in full plate, you're just not going to be any good with a bow. So yeah, I guess you can pop off some 1d8+0 damage arrow shots with no magic weapon and a terrible attack bonus, but it can be similar to having the wizard put in an anti-magic field. D&D is a game with ability scores, if you want to play the ranged game you need to have dexterity bonuses. And even if you've got a good archer, he won't force the flying thing to land, because the bow is just as deadly to a land based creature as it is to a flying one. You can't counter flight, at best you just use an attack that flight doesn't hard counter. That's what makes flight so powerful. Worst still a lot of the flying creatures will be able to just retreat at will, and it gets to be super frustrating to fight them, so a lot of players just get fed up with it and join team Aaracokra.

[@Ayrack12]

i once had a d&d 5e level 9 multi class fighter/cleric character with AC 23 that could go up to AC 30 spending two spell slots for different spells (casted in different turns). We were playing a variation of Expedition to Barrier Peaks, started at level 1 and developed the character with my DMs approval after I explained my intent. Oddly enough I had a companion player who felt he needed to protect me with his regular AC, low hit points characters (Monk, Bard, Sorcerer) that ended up being killed periodically during the year long campaign.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for sharing.

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

I felt as you do about flying PCs when I was 14 (a few decades ago now) and a player played a flying creature (a Khemir, I believe) and just bypassed some puzzle or other. But once you get used to it, it's perfectly fine. You can always fall - wings get injured, there's enemies that have nets, you can't catch a draft, etc. Also, squares don't slow down the game - counting to 6 is something we've all done playing monopoly as kids. Even when we play Savage Worlds, which doesn't have grids, we'll just use grids as a convenient shorthand. I also houserule them into Shadowdark. Close/Far is just too fuzzy and we don't really get it. I'd much rather say "it's about 10 yards away" than "it's over there, close/far away", or "the cars are about a banana away from each other". I agree about the feats being unbalanced, though not because I don't like bonuses going high. In fact, that's one of my favourite things about Pathfinder! Speaking of Pathfinder (and 3rd edition D&D), that's when I fell in love with the bard. It's the absolute antithesis of "narrow focus" and it's just the most fun class there is. It's one of those classes that can stack buffs to ridiculous levels, which is also fun. So disagree on that too. We also multiclass for story reasons, and I think it should be more common than it probably is. It's a timeless story, after all: You sell you life or soul or firstborn or whatever because you want to be the best fiddle player there ever was, because you want to make magic with that thing. You start as a bard, first adventure doesn't go as planned... Fey Warlock/Bard multiclass! There's many other examples from my groups over the years. All that said, while I will almost always multiclass if it's an option, my favourite flavour of D&D is Basic/OSE, where it's not a thing in that way. I've never played with sidekicks in 5E, but it works great in Savage Worlds, and pretty ok in 2nd edition D&D, where the group I was DMing had a Preserver and a Fighter tagging along for story reasons. I discovered that the more turns the players have, the fewer the DM has. It's a win-win!

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for the thoughtful engagement!

[@taragnor]

Counting squares definitely does slow the game down. Its not just counting to 6 for your movement. It's "I want to be 120 feet away to use my firebolt" or "put me exactly 65 feet away so I'm out of counterspell range". Also "How many of those orcs can I get in a 20 ft radius." All that definitely slows the game down. The moment you start counting, it's time you could be not counting. Or add difficult terrain to the mix where you have to count 1 square as two. The problem with D&D theater of the mind is that if you write ranges in absolute units like feet, then you have to talk in absolute distance to make sense. Fuzzier terms like nearby/far away work fine if the game was designed for them. That's how 13th Age works and lots of games with more arbitrary range bands. Your ranges are all in terms like Engaged, nearby (which means one move action away), and far away (2 move actions away). Weapons and spells all have ranged described in those terms. In those systems you stop caring if something is 30 feet away, because that's not meaningful, and you just need to know if it's nearby or far away, because that influences your decision-making.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

@@taragnor terrific response.

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

@@taragnor "How many orcs" as a question does not disappear when casting area effect spells just because you remove squares or distances. The difference is with absolute units you can figure it out yourself and you don't need to ask the DM first, then hem and haw, then ask "Well, what if...". So squares and distances, and information in the player's hands speeds the game up in that situation. edit: Or, as often happens in games like that, the area effect just hits a certain number of creatures, because all the distances are kept vague. That's very unsatisfying to many (of my) players, because placing the blast marker is one of the fun strategic things you can do. In other words, it's the game. Like rolling dice, which actually technically does "slow the game down", but it also *is* the game, and fun.

[@taragnor]

@@GodzillasaurusJr Well, no actually the question of "how many orcs" does disappear. In 13th Age as I mentioned, an area spell might be something like "1d4 nearby enemies", so right there the spell tells me. You don't have to count anything, you don't have to ask the DM. How many orcs does it hit? 1d4 orcs, that's how many. When you have a game that's designed for theater of the mind, it fixes a lot of those issues that D&D has with TotM. That's the advantage of never working in geometric areas and squares. As far as what's fun for your group, that's a relative thing. My point was that it slows the game down. It's fine if your group finds the extra slow down worth it because they find the slower tactical chess game style more fun. Nothing wrong with that if your group is enjoying it.

[@jarrek2163]

Loved that quick flash of the colorized Moldvay Basic artwork with the dragon breathing on the adventurers! That old artwork really evokes the kind of game I want to play.

[@HouseDM]

Counting squares was the first thing I ditched from my 5e campaign...and then I ditched 5e for ICRPG/OSE/Shadowdark 😆

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

House DM in the house!

[@sgt-slag]

It is a game, with mechanical rules for combat resolution. The grid is my preferred method of playing out combat as it eliminates sooo many arguments about who was where, when the Fireball spell went off, or the Lightning Bolt spell blew through a room! I play with miniatures, on a grid, and I, and my players, all enjoy it. Tremendously! Yes, it slows combat resolution down a bit, but we enjoy the combat resolution as we play it out. It just works for us. Do what works best for you, and for your players. There is no one, true way to play... Cheers!

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

I agree. I LOVE grids in Kingdom Death and they can be fund if you have only 2-3 players.

[@oskar6661]

You shouldn't have arguments to start with. Play with other adults.

[@Guy_With_A_Laser]

I think the thing about feats/multiclass in 5e specifically is that the game really lacks any sort of character customization outside of creation beyond these options, unless the DM homebrews it for you. You make your choices at the start of the game and then are stuck with them until your character dies, with very little opportunity to change course. I feel like this works better for either shorter campaigns, one shots, Adventurer's league, type things, or very very deadly ones, where players have the opportunity to play many characters and take advantage of the breadth in design space. The problem is that many people like to run very long campaigns, and all of the customization options beyond level 3 are extraordinarily shallow. Feats and multiclassing, while certainly often used in powergaming, I think are so popular because they fill a niche that 5e desperately lacks. Other systems (including older versions of D&D) certainly handled this problem better. It is a shame that the new version of 5e does not appear to be addressing this.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Great post.

[@dilsoncamacho4100]

Eh, I'm a fan of grids and I'm a fan of feats with a list of bans. I accept multiclassing but you are totally correct, I have never seen a pure multiclass for story reasons, it's always for mechanical power game reasons... except maybe those "abserd" troll characters. Sidekicks are fun for their own thing, like if everyone got one and it's a thing because there are only 3 players or something, but I agree too, slows the game a lot. And I'm 100% against flying... that just sucks for the GM to work around.

[@jimboxx7]

But first, a word from our sponsor: - Insert Ad -. :D loved it.

[@erickent3557]

I hope you rewound and watched the ad again!?!

[@TheDanielDFox]

I love the fact that you call out the grid is the worst optional rule in D&D. It has taken me 28 long years to come to this realization only recently. After we moved to using a Close / Near / Far distance (short side of an index card is Close, long-sided index card is Near anything beyond that is Far), It vastly sped up fight scenes. When we're using the whole table for miniatures, we switch this to Close as the short side of the rulebook, Near is the long side of the rulebook, and Far is anything beyond that.

[@RonPower]

Sidekicks are good when you only have 1 or 2 PCs. It basically gives the players a 1a and a 1b character and makes standard adventures playable by smaller parties. Agree with you 100% about multiclassing, but if you are going to deny PCs multiclassing I think you need to be more agreeable to all the subclass options you tend to be against. The subclasses are the roleplaying flavor that people crave, much more so than multiclassing.

[@knghtbrd]

A lot of people seem to be looking for their RPG to be a lot like Final Fantasy where you have easy access to Phoenix Downs and Ethers and everything you can do is defined by a menu. The thing about that is that JRPG battles are all about selecting the right menu options (usually the same ones over and over) for your battles. We're in battle so I rage! I set my hunter's mark on this one. I use great weapons master! For my 4th attack this turn, I will fire at this one using the blazing bowstring … *yawwwwn* Three hours later the fight is over. If I wanted to play Final Fantasy, I'd play Final Fantasy! (I've been playing with the Memoria Mod for FFIX, it's neat.) But when I sit down with humans, I shouldn't be limited by a menu of battle commands. Someone pointed out that Conan was a fighter and a thief. Who says a fighter cannot steal? Who says a fighter cannot go into A fighter with a barbarian background would be all about the flavor. No real special mechanics required. Most fights should be pretty quick, not because I don't enjoy them, but because my thief is not really suited to long, drawn-out fights. Either I do something that's going to end the fight quickly or I need to be getting the hell out of there.

[@TheArcturusProject]

Ironically, Final fantasy is based off DnD. Even the name is a play off of the very first DnD game run by Dave Arneson simply called: The First Fantasy Campaign

[@DragonKingZero]

TBF, multiclassing isn't _always_ done for powergaming reasons. Sometimes it's done because players have a _very_ specific theme or concept in mind for their character, which none of the existing classes or subclasses are a perfect fit for (aka most of r/3d6).

[@thebeatles9]

video starts at 1:48

[@scottlegros2616]

Enjoyed the video very much! Interestingly enough, your 'Worst Optional Rules' could be extrapolated to any game, per se, and I am in agreement as a GM. Flying overcomes many obstacles. Sidekicks add extra time and firepower. Feats and Multiclassing are (generally, like 90% or more of the time in my experience) used for power boosting or adding abilities/eliminating weaknesses. Grids are my least problem but you are correct in the investment in time, and the inevitable arguments about distance for movement/spell effects/combat. Being an old timer, I have had the 'discussions' with many younger players that they don't need a particular class or sub-class to play a character. Want a pirate character? Roll up a Fighter or Thief. Samurai be a Fighter with a code. Warlock be a Wizard or Sorcerer. But many want the 213 sub-classes each with their own abilities and power. Then they add the feats, traits, etc., until they get that 28 Perception - because they can. Look, I'm all for having fun, but the power curve that can happen now is incredible. Challenge Ratings for monsters are laughable with a power party. As a GM, it is frustrating to try and build a dungeon or encounter. If you put the pc's in a situation where they can't use or is extremely limiting their powers to be challenging, you are accused of meta-gaming. If you design a typical encounter, they blow through it like tissue paper. If you increase the number or power of the antagonists to keep the pc's challenged, again you are accused of meta-gaming or outright cheating (especially when they blow a saving throw). That is why many people do not want to GM anymore - not because they don't enjoy it, but because of the increasing difficulty to do it without all these issues. This is also the reason many simpler or 'Old School' games are becoming more and more popular. To get back to playing the game and having fun. Isn't that what it's all about?

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

It is to me. Thanks for the detailed response!

[@johnnygreenface]

I think if you handle physical flying as it would actually have to be its better. They cant fly in a small space because they cant get the speed or wing span to fly. And you couldnt fly out of a small hole. Also cant hover and have to keep moving as you fly

[@andylaugel4241]

As long as you set the expections right at the start, you're golden. Personally, after running Dungeon of the Mad Mage, it is amazing how few NPCs have ranged attacks to threaten a flying foe.

[@jimblow3031]

You tell 'em, Professor! I once ran a campaign where the only PC choices for race were Human, Dwarf, and Half-Elf, leaving an air of mystery surrounding any encounter with Elves and other humanoids. It was great. The PC's hated the lack of choice at first, but soon came to appreciate that I put the Master back in Dungeon Master! Keep up the good work!

[@waffleswafflson3076]

The best way to handle feats is to disallow them, then hand them out selectively as rewards or magical effects

[@-o-dq7nd]

It's why I've gone more to the OSR route of gaming. No feats to worry about.

[@RyanWBL]

I love this idea. I allow feats but have also been doing this with magic items. Taking it a step further sounds like a good way of stream lining the game, making items more fun to create and hand out.

[@keylimepython641]

1. I think sidekicks are intended to make the quirky little goblin the players adopted more useful, or fill out small parties, not be used at character creation to make one player more powerful. Still, I can see where you're coming from. 2. Flying races have never been an optional rule in 5e . They've always something you actively have to ban. 3. That is a pretty spicy take that I don't quite agree with. Multiclassing adds so much more customization, and some cool narrative concepts. Besides, if you try multiclassing to be a jack of all trades, it will weaken your ability to be any one thing. 4. So, customization beyond your species, class and subclass is just bad, then? If you ban all feats instead of specific feats, you're just throwing the baby out with the bath water. IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: I dislike comparing character species and feats to giving them a different name. By that logic, being a fire-breathing dragon man who mastered the crossbow should have just as much impact on your character as being named Kevin. 5. I personally like grids in combat, but to each his own.

[@erato1]

Wow! So much here. If I play a winged race I should be able to fly. If you as a DM don't like that then don't allow winged races. Simple as that. As for multi-classes. I only multi-class based on character story. Sometimes to my own detriment. My bard is now going barbarian. Why? The DMs story has broken him. His father betrayed him. His party has backstabbed him. His once cushy life is now hard and ugly. He has gone Goth. His insanity has turned to pure rage.

[@drfiveminusminus]

I will say that I kinda disagree on the multiclassing and feats point because outside of spell selection 5e really lacks any other ways of customizing your character mechanically. Sure, you can flavor your character however you want, but your Fighter is gonna play like everyone else's Fighters. It's the core problem with removing "bad" mechanics from 5e, sure you remove one thing that sucks, but in doing so you expose the 50 problems the thing was covering up.

[@Zirbip]

One of the first AD&D 2E games I ever ran, one PC wanted to play an Averal (a winged elf). What a nightmare! Another player tried to seduce everyone they encountered. Everyone! But that's a whole other story.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Yeah....that's a thing, I've discovered. Creepy.

[@natos4unlife]

Gotta say, I've never felt slowed down by grids. If anything, that part is the fastest part of my players turns

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Cool!

[@ericgregory2422]

Here is something married men never hear.... you're right.

[@Draakhart_961]

Thanks for another video, and for reminding GMs to assert themselves. My two cents on a couple of issues: A) Grids have certainly popped off, especially after the rise of VTTs. There is some credit to specific distances - it makes classes such as monk or rogue feel more potent due to increased mobility, and some things are easier to adjudicate with a grid as a help. I've personally come to use a half-grid so if measuring is needed, it's there - and it's practically the same allowance as having no grid whatsoever. This is admittedly for VTT play (no local game groups so it's the only option I have). B) Feats can indeed be ridiculous. I've experimented with giving players a curated list and this has worked relatively well - stuff like skilled, tough. C) Multiclassing is indeed a bane. I don't disallow it but its presence has made me adopt rules like 'no hexblade, but sword pact warlocks can use their Cha for weapons'. I do remind players, especially casters, you will sorely feel the slower progression - how does it feel to be level 13 but have no 7th level spells as you multiclassed? As a result, my Avernus group has not multiclassed yet. D) As for sidekicks, I'm going to go out on a limb: either make it a standard character class character, or a simplified statblock. Half measures are harder to recall. No comments on at-will flying races: those are just bad game design.

[@ЕвгенийЛебедев-н7ц8э]

Grid is essential if you don't want to argue about different interpretations of the same situation

[@AJarOfYams]

Exactly. How far is "adjacent"

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

I don't know that it's essential exactly, but it sure makes resolving it faster.

[@jasons6973]

The DM automatically wins every such argument.

[@dynosophical]

@@jasons6973 The moment there's a disagreement at all, everything slows down. Even if the players immediately accept their DM's judgment, they still need a moment to recalculate. That's why it's ideal to have a system where it's obvious how far your character can move

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

UDT does the same thing, but faster. Check out my many videos on the subject.

[@TheRedDuncan64]

For a moment I was worried it would be BA Potions. Great video Professor!

[@Parker8752]

There's a reason I prefer how 4e handled multi-classing with feats. You're either just one class, or primarily one class with a little bit of a second added for flavour. There's no playing a wizard who starts out as a fighter for the heavy armour proficiency...

[@theodorehunter4765]

3rd edition solved this with Arcane Spell Failure Chance with armor. You could totally grab a level dip into fighter for access to full plate, but you had to roll whenever you cast a spell to not lose the spell. There were feats, prestige classes, and special materials to lessen the ASFC, but at that point, you are sacrificing a good chunk of your build to pull that off. I honestly don't know why they just don't prohibit spellcasting in armor in 5e. If a barbarian can't rage in full plate, then a wizard sure as heck shouldn't be able to cast spells in plate either. I personally dislike how PF2e handles multiclassing with Feats, because there is legitimate space for hybrid characters that aren't just 10% fighter and 90% wizard or the reverse.

[@davewire87]

I have a player who loves to play as Arakokra and I realized very quickly in a previous game (I wasn’t the GM) that it’s because she likes to instantly fly away at the first hint of danger and fight from afar without any risk of getting hit. When I started our current campaign I instantly vetoed her choice to play a flying character. She still only plays ranged fighters and spends most fights first looking for a way to get as far and as high up as possible but now she has to roll athletics to climb trees instead of instantly flying her way up. She seems terrified of character death and refuses to play any time I suggest trying a new game for one shots where mortality is far higher than 5e. I’m cool with Sidekicks, but really as a means to help as they were originally intended in one-on-one games to give single PCs aid. They don’t really have a place in the game if you do have a questing party.

[@DoctorLazers]

I don't even think Leia flies. She's in space, zero gravity. She's more just pulling herself toward the ship.

[@LordReginaldMeowmont]

Exactly. If you Force Pull a massive object in space, you actually just pull yourself to it.

[@davedujour1]

That's how I saw it. I was so confused by the bruhaha over that scene. She Force pulled herself back to the ship. Darth Vader was Force throwing stuff in the second movie. Leia moved the smaller mass, herself, to the big mass, the ship and didn't die. Way to think outside the box General!

[@johnstuartkeller5244]

That's how I read that scene. Things like "flying Leia" and "baby Yoda" are a product of cultural transients talking about a thing without regard for the lore. In their defense, there's no reason they should know about how it actually works because you can't force them to be fans (and shouldn't, ) but transient understanding shouldn't dictate the lore. Otherwise, all Bards would be down with draconian STDs all the time 🤒

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

Stop being rational. I dont even like the last two movies and I wasn't bothered by this.

[@DoctorLazers]

@@LordReginaldMeowmont I just never understood why people thought that scene was so dumb. The force can move objects around, give Jedi super speed, leap 30ft in the air. But push yourself, in zero gravity? Oh, don't be ridiculous. "Well we've never seen it do that before!" Yeah, and? Every single fucking movie shows the force do something it never did before. So the first six movies (and a million comic books, novels, cartoons, and video games) can invent new applications for the force willy-nilly but when the Sequel Trilogy does it's some kind of heresy?

[@Ian_Butterworth]

Thank you, Professor, I enjoyed the video. I expected you to say the 2024 rule that a player can chug a potion of healing, as a bonus action, each round.

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Lol. This video was filmed before I knew that was a thing.

[@lexterseda8202]

*Insert Ad*

[@captcorajus]

Great list. I just put a cap on passive perception at 15 regardless of feats and modifiers. Characters aren't prescient. Passive perception should have a nominal effect on the game IMHO. I do like grids tho.. lol. Been using miniatures since the old 1E days, and I have a vast miniatures collection. I love the players reaction when I give this vivid description and then cap it off with a cool mini.

[@cromcraft3494]

"I don't want tactics in my game about killing monsters." ....ok..... ?

[@oskar6661]

Tell me you don't understand the core concept of role-playing...without telling me...

[@EveryDooDarnDiddlyDay]

Sidekicks and multi-classing work for very small parties. Feats I already knew would eventually become a broken mechanic since 3rd edition.(and they were arguably broken then) Feats should be akin to Cantrips...very minor. Not equivalent to 8th-9th level game-breaking spells. Grids aren't necessary for every combat, but for players who only learned how to play that way, I can see it being a crutch.

[@areallybigdwarf4560]

5:58 There's still checks and balances, nobody is playing a level 35 campaign where you could max level almost two different classes, there are xp penalties for spreading yourself too thin but the fact that a character with more levels in one class will always be more powerful than a character that multiclassed. A 5th Fighter/3rd Cleric will always be weaker than a 8th level fighter or a 8th level Cleric, he only has them beat on versatility, being able to fight almost as good as a pure fighter and being able to give suport coff coff heal the party so they don't need to lay on a inn for 11 days But this only apply up to 3.5 if you are playing the new editions all classes are frontloaded so w/e

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[@Wraithing]

Ahh… Sweet memories of 36 levels of BECMI (and beyond into Immortality). Almost 4½ million experience points required to become a 36th level Magic-User, who wasn't even called a Wizard until reaching 9th! There was no multi-classing in BECMI.

[@mikehanson3249]

I would never want to DM combat of a certain complexity level without a grid. Personally, that sounds like a nightmare. Also, I let my players use feats and multiclass however they want, and it’s never caused an issue for me. Despite whatever boost in power level they get from these increased options, they rarely get out of combat unscathed. Obviously, you do you, but this DM is perfectly happy saying yes to these optional rules.