And this is why you do a session 0, so the table knows what they're getting into and I know what they want and if these expectations dont match you just don't play together. Bonus points to motherships breach of contract where the players literally sign their characters life away to a corporation, 10/10.
Only War from Fantasy Flight is an example of a system where character life is considered "cheap". In that system, it is easy for every player to go through multiple characters because of death or insanity within a single campaign. Its controversial, but its also very accurate to the lore of the universe of Warhammer 40k. Persinally, i and my players like the system and the brutality of it, but we also know that its not a "normal" RPG
Is character death part of the game? Then there's literally no problem with killing off the player characters, unless you're being a vindictive asshole about it.
you're not a bad DM for killing the PCs, however you are a bad DM if you're TRYING to kill the PCs. also, in my experience, players can have about 2 or 3 characters die before they become emotionally disengaged from the narrative. also also, Mork Borg and Call of Cthulu are 2 systems I personally know of where life is cheap. Mork Borg is still combat focused like D&D but the character creation rules include your backstory to help reduce emotional investment in the characters and then the characters can die really easily without leaving the scope of "balanced" encounters while CoC is a non-combat focused TTRPG that brings a lot of danger to the table since it's a horror based game. Any TTRPG that's not focused on combat but includes danger, especially if player fear is a part of the game's goal, is likely a system built with the ideology that lives are cheap
You are a bad DM if you Don't have a TPK on your first session with new players, you are a legend if your players are traumatically balling at an epic, satisfying and tremendously sad lose of long term characters. If you are a great DM, the players should never trust you to not do it after their frist campaign even if that was the only time you have ever taken a character from them.
Good talk, first time I've seen the podcast. The topic of character death is one that I cover in my session zeroes because I love the journey of the character, I like to see their stories realized. Some stories do end in death but I never want that death to be without meaning if I can help it. I don't go out of my way to kill characters but I do put a lot of work into foreshadowing and warnings and clues to give players knowledge about a situation so that they can choose to avoid it or approach it differently because I really put a lot of work into the setting. There are some areas in the world where they may not want to go or some entities that they shouldn't strive to annoy at level 3, but at the same time it is so rewarding to give players the chance to gear up or make plans and find ways to solve a situation. More information is better. On the same note, I will curb difficulty in subsequent rooms of a dungeon if I see it is going too poorly for example but I still keep that believable interaction of the world that they are in. I want moments where people shine and I try to not manufacture anything where there isn't a clear way out, or an item that can help to recover from a situation. I want the story to be an epic. We play in a noble dim setting (the world is recovering from catastrophe, there is great evil in the world but heroes are strong and can make the difference).
This sounds like a mature way to run the game, and mirrors how both of us run our campaigns. Fully agree on session zero. You don't want the players to think their characters have plot armour but you also don't want them to die simply because the players don't know what they are up against. Likewise unless you are running something like Tomb of Annihilation which is advertised as a meat grinder, you do not want a "save or suck" roll to result in meaningless death.
I run in a more league style setting, so we get like 40-50 players and 5-7 Dm's depending on the day. I have no qualms in offing characters, but I do keep in mind whether they have the resources to resurrect, or how soon into a session it is, and always try and keep to a rule that a player should see the chain of events that led to there death. Last week a lvl 11 ran right up to a lich with 98 health... quicly whispered the cleric and was like "hey you got revifiy right?" he did so power word kill. The paladin player was like a 11 year old kid but now he has learnt lol
The unearthed arcana Mystic class kinda fits that intelligence niche that was described. Unfortunately though some of its subclasses were pretty unbalanced. I dm for one right now (immortal subclass) and I definitely have to power up encounters to make sure there’s even a challenge.
Depends on your players, if your players are baby faced babies who cry like babies then probably don't kill em unless you want to make them cry. I DMd for a woman I work with and her family years ago. Her youngest was 8. The child played a Tabaxi Wizard who only ever engaged in melee combat scratching things with their claws because "I'm a cat, cats scratch things." and since it was hard to argue with that logic I just let it roll. And of course her character died. She cried for like an hour. :/
It's great! It no longer auto ends level 3 & lower Spells. Question: If a Sorcerer gets Counterspelled using an Action: Fireball, can the Sorcerer then Quicken: Fireball? There wasn't a Spell Slot used, but they did "attempt" casting.
I've always ruled it as you burn the spell slot to start casting, it's what fuels the vocal and somatic compnents, so when you get counterspelled, you have already burned the slot or expended the neccesary mana. It's the same for holding a spell, if you lose concentration during the round, before the trigger, you still lose the spell slot, as you've already cast the spell. Though I am generally more generous about this at lower levels, as each slot counts more then. At later levels, spellcasters have slots to burn. so it isn't really a setback outside the loss of action economy, still sucks though less so than during early levels.
@@jeishua I would've ruled the same way in 2014. 2024 doesn't use a Spell Slot when you are counterspelled. I would however, expend material components even if the Spell Slot wasn't used. It is part of casting the Spell & cannot be cast without it.
I understand that certain players did not enjoy the feeling of having their one high level slot be wasted when an enemy counterspelled them, but the point of a bad guy being able to do that is to show their relative power and potentially scare the players into making difficult decisions later on. And the players would likely be able to use that spell in a different session/encounter, so being blocked from it a couple times would be the outlier. It feels like the designers decided that the spell was too complicated because it worked on mechanics that no other spell did, but the way you fix it is by putting the power in the player’s hands. Have it be a spell attack roll against the opposing caster’s DC. Evoking the idea of spell duels, and creating better imagery. Now counterspell is just another spell with a saving throw where a bad roll essentially delays your next turn (like stunning or similar effects).
Just as an FYI: in the new rules, Potions have been changed to being a bonus action. (At least healing potions have been, as those are the only potions we have seen so far.) (Also Paladin Lay on Hands has been changed to a bonus action, making their healing much easier as well.)
Oddly, I find this (counterspell change) a weird smack in the face for Warlocks. Because a Warlock's 6-9th level spells don't use spell slots, they will lose their Mystic Arcana when counterspelled while other spellcasting classes will still keep their higher level spell slots.
Coming from the optimization community, my preferred stat distribution for casters is usually: 1. Spellcasting stat 2. Dexterity (only up to 14, because I try to find a way to get medium armor proficiency) 3. Constitution Furthermore, if there’s a way I can avoid investing in dexterity I would. Still agree that making the save use your spellcasting mod is more thematic, but that would make enemy casters nigh uncounterable At the same time I much prefer the new counterspell over the old one
I think that's probably a swing too far in the other direction, but I DO think that con will become a much more important stat for sorcerers (and as a sorc lover, that will be tough for me LOL) - Vic
Constitution "should" be your second highest stat as a spellcaster, BECAUSE you're squishy. Nothing feels worse than losing concentration on your high level combat changing spell, especially when you basically only have 1 spell slot for each level above 6th.
Big agree that BG3 is the best game of all time. And Ocarina if Time IS dated, yet still better than Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild by virtue of my swords in OoT not breaking on the skull of the fourth enemy I fought. I hate weapon durability that unforgiving.
Definitely surprised by Vic's opinion about the constitution saving throw until the reveal that you don't prioritize constitution as a caster, haha! I think it's a deliberate choice by the designer to not call it a concentration check, to prevent people from being confused and thinking they are "concentrating" and not able to maintain concentration on a spell at the same time. Something you didn't mention is the one spell using a spell slot per turn rule now. You can't use counterspell to protect a spell you cast on your turn from being counterspelled (i.e. counterspell chain). It's definitely true that counterspell isn't as good now, which I think is probably good. Before counterspell was totally encounter warping. If you were the DM or a player with spellcasters you absolutely had to play around that 60ft range or nothing was going to happen(although it wasn't an uncommon choice for players in my game to take the metamagic adept feat specifically for long range or subtle counters). The game is more fun when stuff is happening. There were other problems like how NPC casters usually always have all their slots before combat, and the players don't, and how NPC casters are typically higher level casters than the party and thus have more fodder slots to throw away on counterspell.
I agree with her. It is stranger for someone to make a Con save for a spell to not be countered. Con save makes sense for Concentration because your constitution is factored into your focus and grit, but for keeping the spell casted, I agree that it should be a save using their spellcasting ability. It just makes way more sense.
@@IdCritThat You're definitely not losing it. There is so much to dislike about that new counterspell. I especially dislike the lack of being able to cast it higher. When I implement this, I will not only change the saving throw, but also allow the user to upcast it, making the DC higher depending on the spell slot, probably 1 (maybe 2 idk yet) higher for each spell slot level above 3rd
I write long involved backstories, but honestly dont care if the DM incorporates it or not. Its a sketch of the characters motivations, desires, drives, etc. Its also where any ethics and morals the character has come from.
@@IdCritThat -- I've thought about the video through the day and I think most of the topics can be captured in a broad category of Verisimilitude. A game would use a seven day long rest to capture verisimilitude around regaining HP and healing. A player would want the backstory utilized to give their character's place in the lore verisimilitude. I work to present verisimilitude in my fantasy game about magic swords and Fey folk and I am rewarded in that through enthusiastic players.
Artificer has weird legality around it. I think it's tied to not wanting to put it in the SRD for some reason, but it not being in the PHB/SRD is part of why 3rd party creators can't make subclasses for it. But then since it's not in the PHB WOTC can't/doesn't make stuff for it in supplements because all supplements are made to only reference themselves and the core rules
Referencing the Hot Take, I am currently a DM to a group of 5 who none had an established backstory. At most, 2 of them had the Eric version where it was a “Hey, this is why I’m adventuring” backstory. My group is only vaguely interested story and more focused on exploration and killing stuff, and that’s what I provide! I think a DM and the Party should have a solid consensus of what is expected from each side both game and story wise, and as long as everyone is satisfied with the experience and enjoying themselves, you are doing a good job! The only “Bad DM” I see is one that doesn’t take how the players want to play into consideration and only do what they think should happen. P.S. Love your podcast! My husband and I do a similar setup as you guys (each DM our own story and group) and I like listening to you guys chat about it :) *edited for spelling errors
That’s fair tbh!! If they also don’t care about their backstories then yeah it’s not a bad DM to not include those backstories. It’s alllllll about managing expectations (also thank you 💞)
@@IdCritThat also, please tell me about this mermaid deck! I played a little bit of MTG in college, but got intimidated by the number of cards and decks out there. I would love to get some advice on how to get into MTG as a new player, plus I love mermaids and fairies, so any decks like that sound totally bomb to me!
Good encapsulation of my takes on it. I'm not running a game atm but the first group I ran for was very much more interested in letting me storytell while they solved puzzles and strategized combat. Don't get me wrong, they engaged with NPCs but in a video gamey "give me the job" kind of way. While I wish they'd engaged more with the story, we all still had fun.
The optional "Gritty Realism" rules are a call back to older editions of D&D where resting did not represent a reset like it does with more modern editions. Resting had very specific limitations and HP recovered over the course of days or weeks rather than fully recovering all character resources with a good night's sleep. This variant is intended for use by DMs and players seeking to replicate that vibe.
In the campaign I run, I use “Gritty Realism” (which is a terrible name). But I also homebrew it so that it takes 3 days rather than 7 days. I have 2 reasons for this. First, since I now tend to run shorter sessions, it would take multiple sessions to run a single dungeon with the 6-8 encounters. I find I can only fit 1-2 encounters in a session and find it much easier to remember what happened previously if things do not go over too many sessions. If I have a dungeon/castle/location that is only 2 encounters before a long rest, the players get to go nova in each encounter which is not what I always want. By using “gritty realism”, I can run 2 encounters each day over multiple days and drain the player's resources before they decide to take a long rest. I don’t feel like I need to add encounters just to be a resource drain. Each encounter can be more plot/story significant as well. For instance, last session my players were able to take control of a castle and eliminate a major boss of the campaign. It was only 2 combat encounters but allowed the session to fit everything castle related in. They will now be able to take a short rest and travel to take on the next boss but with some resources used up. The players played well, and did not use all their big spells and have conserved them. The second advantage is it allows more in game time to pass. In other campaigns I have seen the players get to level 20 over 30 in-game days.
Most games don't get to level 20. I've had a number in the last few years that have. A DM has to be really good at holding groups together to get there, and often patching groups up to keep them together.
Artificer is my favorite class. First time playing it fit what I wanted to do. Discount wizard with lots of utility that can also do Dex stuff since no one plays rogues or anything that can pick locks. So My Artificer supports the team in combat and picks all the locks and disarms all the traps. Also does a lot of investigation. Also created items to help out the team. Lots of fun.
Nice podcast! You get a sub. From what I can tell, the wizards in their benevolence wanted to port over spells like Tongues to 2024 for all users going forward. When they announced this, there was backlash from fans who said (quite correctly) "I bought this content and you don't get to take it away". DDB was forced to include the legacy spells because that's all they could do with the short turnaround. They're likely already working on a more streamlined experience.
I'm a DM and an illustrator, and I remember drawing chunky fantasy characters and being criticized by both professors and other students for it. One individual described a full figured character I illustrated as having "a mom-bod, not a rogue-bod". Ugh.
In case you weren't aware, there's nothing stopping you from using old subclasses, classes, feats, etc. with the new book. There isn't less content at all. Some people are drawing a line in the sand any only using things from the new book, but there's no real reason to as everything is fully compatible.
I mean if we’re thinking about it from the lowest common denominator like we mentioned, people new to D&D are going to come to the new PHB and there will just be less. Ofc I can use a peace cleric with the new rules, but also it’ll inherently have the old rules still because it wasn’t ported over, ya know? So yes, but also not really
Forgotten Realms needed an Artificer class since the 80s when Gond the Wonderbringer brought guns to Faerun and his avatar was a Gnome who went to Lantan, the nation of Artificers in Faerun.
I like the idea of CPR in game but I also think that revivify is more fantastical than the benefits of CPR. It could be fixing a literally caved in skull or a collapsed heart. In those cases the single minute window of use is pretty generous. If course, I tend to amp up any character death in my game so YMMV.
@@IdCritThat trying to give basic concussion care to someone with their helmet indented into the wound would certainly give some flair to the experience.
As far as I've read, I think the biggest issue with the new PHB is that they didn't put in the guidelines for using older content with the new class structures in the book, even though Crawford talks about them in a number of videos about the new content. There was also a video (I think from Direct?) where they mentioned that while Artificer isn't in the new PHB it will be updated in a supplement "shortly".
Regarding the Tongues spell. It was buffed in 2024 version to include sign language. The legacy version of the spell never specified this and the language of the spell was updated to reflect this change.
@@IdCritThat i have a feeling it might be a coding issue so if/when they finally phase out 2014 they can move it all at once but still have the spells in 2024
Regarding the lack of INT-based classes: apparently warlock was INT-based in the playtest. As far as I can tell, it breaks nothing to homebrew that as an option. (The possible exception is if your player decides to multiclass hexblade warlock and bladesinger wizard; I'm still looking into that one).
When the Sorcerer first became a class, in the most evil setting book ever written for D&D, Carcossa. It was very similar to a Warlock as it had to perform sacrificial rituals to summon cthullian elder evils from the Far Realm.
