Thank you! The rogue is a great class, they are fantastic and elegant in combat, and we don't even touch on their out of combat abilities. It's probably my favorite class in a "if you could only ever play one class for the rest of your life, what would it be?" sort of way.

Yeah, Couatl's are nuts. Defensively, their AC should be around 8. Offensively, it's only 2. They should probably be around 6.

I'm glad to hear you liked it. The players may have the opportunity to do research about the enemies they face ahead of the battle. This could be represented by arcana, religion, or history checks, roleplayed with knowledgeable NPCs, or from previous encounters with this or a similar bad guy. I agree that knowing your enemy gives you an advantage, and we try to showcase that, encouraging players who want to use that tactics to do so.

As you say, there are different interpretations to Charm, Suggestion, and Dominate. In my interpretation, Charm is where they treat you as a friend. If your friend got in a fight, you might try to stop the fight before you joined in and helped them. Suggestion is specific tasking, but the target can choose how to execute it, which is often funny. I agree with your DM that casting Suggestion can make people flip sides by saying, "I suggest that you fight on my team for the next 8 hours." Then the player gets to decide how they would fight, but they do fight. Dominate allows direct control over the target, so the player doesn't have any room for interpretation. What I like about this interpretation is that Suggestion is a nice middle ground between them, and has a lot of flexibility for how you can use it, but it doesn't encroach on Dominate. If you say, "Join my team," on the fighter, the fighter could decide that the way they will help is to Grapple the Rogue. It doesn't do damage, but it helps the monster team. If you say, "Kill the Rogue," the fighter might try to do that, but once the Rogue is dead, the task is complete, and the Fighter is Suggested any more. These trade offs make interesting tactical decisions for the casters, which I think people find fun.

@@d20tactics I respectfully disagree. Here's why: 1. That makes Suggestion/Charm way too powerful. I play casters. I looked at these spells and researched them to see if they would be good on my build. Depending on RAI (Sage Advice/JC "tweets" or some more common interpretations, they would be either very good or OP. What is to stop me from using Mass Suggestion throughout your dungeon and just collect all the monsters, henchmen to then swarm to BBEG? It doesn't have concentration like Suggestion does. Encounter 1 - Mass Suggestion 12 creatures, no material components. Can be done Subtly by Sorcerers. OP "Do what I say for 24 and you will be greatly rewarded." Next Room - Mass Suggestion "blah blah blah, join me....reward." Next room - Next Encounter - 24 hours..... Show up in the Throne room as the party just hangs back and watch a Mass Suggestion fueled power coup take place. If the Monsters can do it, so can the players. RAI, Jeremy was asked his interpretation, the guy who helped write the spell, and he said it was, "drop your sword, it's cursed." It's a very limited action. 2. Charm has two bullet points: Advantage on Social Skill checks (I think persuasion) You can not harm the caster That's it. Then some DMs stack stuff on top of that when it's not in the spell. Because they are hearing "Charmed" and "Suggestion" and that gets they to think beyond what they spell is actually saying. If the vampire charms half your party, they don't just start killing each other. That's what Dominate does. Certain other have "special charms" because in their stat block it specifically adds riders to the Charm condition. The Charmed Condition is a core status effect just like Invisibility or Petrify. It's very limited in power. RAI, a Sorcerer with Charm and Silvery Barbs using Subtle Sorcery is already broken. They can Charm the local Baron and no one even knows it and get a better deal or arrangement. It doesn't mean my Sorcerer can make the Charmed Duke hand over his Kingdom to me that night in a public decree. You are Charmed, you haven't lost your total mind. Dominate is usually 3-4 levels higher, single target, requires concentration, and each time the creature takes damage, it can make saving throw checks to save. The caster is the one who cast it. You, the Charmed creature can't attack them. It doesn't say you can't attack the Charmer and his allies if you are in a battle. Charmed is supposed to be a social spell and when used in combat, the caster can create a "zone of protection" around them where those specific creatures wouldn't attack the caster. That's it. The Monsters were still supposed to be able to bash in your allies skulls. Suggestion for a limited single task. And Dominate is where you totally Professor X mind jack someone to become your slave and puppet. 3. If we take the more liberal interpretation of Charm and Suggestion, it really does make Dominate essentially useless. Why Dominate one creature, or wow! 2 with Twin spell, if I can just cast Mass Suggestion at two levels lower than Dominate Monster and hit 12 target and make them my slave cannonfodder army for the next 24 hours? There a delicate balance that's supposed to be here and it is missing when we empower 1st and 2nd level spells like Suggestion, Charm, and they even more breakable Mass versions. Mass Charm - "All you monsters would never hurt innocent me, right?" Then I buff my allies. I created a zone of safety....for me! F the Fighter and Rogue, they can handle their own! Mass Suggestion - " Everyone drop your weapons, they are cursed." Dominate Beast/Person/Monster - "Go kill the Wizard, rip off his arms, and beat the rest of the party to death with the wizards arms. Report back to me when finished." Only one target. Two! Wow! Super special! If you are a Sorcerer with Twin meta.

@@d20tactics That's just one of my DMs. When I even suggested a medium interpretation of Mass Charm to my other DM, he was like, "oh hells no!" LOL My Mass Suggestion moderate interpretation was, "You all are in danger and will not survive, run away to the next town for safety." Basically an encounter ender. That was too much for my DM. And it's the reason I'm hesitant to take Mass Suggestion even though RAI it's still really, really good. I try to pull that "stunt" at some tables and it will not fly. And I think they are right. When I told the same DM JCs tweeted example, he thought it was super reasonable. The wording on Suggestion, specially, is terrible and bad game writting. I'm so glad DnD One has had all the spells rewritten and reworked to make them more clear as to what the developers intended them to do. I just want to know the RAI, so I know when any of my games deviate from that. It helps clarify things so everyone is one the same page. 5E has some terribly disorganized rule writting. I do understand you and a lot of other DMs perspectives given the text we were left with.

You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I don't generally find arguments for "This is how it should be," to be compelling. Calling it overpowered, while perhaps accurate, doesn't convince me that is something that it isn't, or it isn't something that it is. You asked what's to stop you from collecting all the monsters and bringing them to the boss fight. Well, the Wisdom Saves, for one. The fact that they don't all speak Common for two. The logistics of transporting them, for three. The same reasons why you wouldn't just hire a hundred mercenaries and storm the dungeon with them for four. The fact that you have to have 12 targets in the same place at the same time for it to work on them, for five. And if none of those prevent you, then do it! It's your story, tell it the way you want to! It would be a wild adventure to show up to the boss fight with a menagerie of monsters that the boss put there. Just pray that they don't have anti magic field or some way of cracking the spell, because you just loaded every encounter into the same room. Regarding why you would use dominate, because it allows you direct control over the monster. You can Suggest a monster do a task, but it's not going to do it in a way that it wouldn't think of doing it. If you tell Suggest a Hill Giant open the door for you, it's going to bash the door down. If you Dominate the creature, you could get it to get the key and come back and let you out quietly. If you don't need direct control, don't use the hire level spell. As far as something being overpowered, it's not like there is a dearth of encounter ending spells and abilities. If you want to end the encounter in the press of a button, you can. This game is very much about that. This is the way to do it with mind control.

@d20tactics It's not an argument of "how it should be" as much as I'm making a RAW/RAI argument. I've combed over how the developers intended these spells to work. That's how they say they work. DMs are allowed to ignore RAI/RAW. That's fine. And I agree with the developers because like their rulings on the Invisibility Condition, they are looking out for balance over narritive. I find this time and time again with their rulings. JC was asked about suggestion and he gave that limited task response. Charm Condition literally has two bullet points and that's it, just like Invisbility and yet we see many DMs insert their own values, goals, and thus interpretations onto such conditions. Not attacking the caster and advantage on persuasions checks gets turned into, "the Yunati is your best friend and now you must turn on all your allies and start fighting them." That kind of interpretation is akin to bleeding a rock. Nothing in those two points leads to all that. Suggestion, as I said early, is a sloppily written spell that got corrected in the new version and is now more clear. The whole, "gjve your horse to the next beggar" really confuses people and leads them to make some pretty liberal interpretations of how the spell functions. When I say something "should work this way or is balanced that way, I mean RAI/RAW." And it's very rare that I disagree with RAI because despite 5E obvious flaws, it is still the best version I've seen come out and I'm a 1st edition vet. But yeah, beyond that minor point I was trying to make about my "should" being what I learned in Sage Advice/JC, you do you. Your interpretation is pretty common and I can't fault any DM for doing it the way they do. I'm just saying RAI, that's not what 5E developers intended even if in the book they say DMs have every right to make changes. As a caster I should be biased toward the liberal interpretation but if I were to use Charm/Suggestion in such an OP fashion myself, I would kind of feel like I was "getting over" somehow.

Regarding demon vs devil, my approach is demons are supernatural evil spirits from any culture, with a name from that culture. When translated into English, the language that I know the best and use here, we say "demon." "Devil" refers to a specific demon from Christian mythology. Thus, in trying to make this a generic evil tiger spirit, I choose demon. As part of a classification specific to DnD, they are not devils or demons, they are lawful evil fiends, which is most like devils, but still not. Why make them generic? Because at the time I made this, I thought they were Wizard's intellectual property. I found out later that Rakshasas are from Hindu culture.

@@d20tactics Fair enough. I was referencing Faerun lore, different DnD worlds have different setups. I only know this because I'm playing my first Dragonlance campaign and their gods are totally different. I'm a whore for Forgotten Realms and to get me to play another world takes great effort. And yep, you're right. DnD borrows a lot from all cultures. Even Zombies arent from European lore but are Carribean. Europe had ghouls instead for instance.

I'm not sure which "extra chains" you are referring to. The Chain Devils have a Animate Chain action that allows them to make attacks with chains that "aren't being worn or carried," which applied to zero chains in this encounter. A better prepared encounter would have environmental chains that the Chain Devils could use. I picked out the monsters, then picked out the map, then read the fine print on the ability and realized that they couldn't use the ability.

@@d20tactics Yes. Animate chains.

Yeah, at highers levels they get more complicated, and there is a larger variety of monsters you can combine together.

​@d20tactics A lot of people in DnD talk badly about high level play but they don't know what they are missing. I love playing the higher levels. That's where the real fun for me begins as theory turns into practice. It's one thing think an awkward build like a.Mystical Monk can do very well, its another delight when you test the build out thoroughly and reality confirms theory. I'm working on yet another Sorcerer build called "Chose of Ilmater. That's 1 Life Domain Cleric/19 Divine Soul Sorcerer. He's a pacifist and can only shove and grapple personally. Ilmaters wrath comes in the form of Spiritual Weapon, Blessing my Teammates and Summoned Celestials that can also be Planar Bound nonconcentration summons. Oh and it's the ultimate healer. An Extended Aura of Vitality in between combats can do an AVERAGE of 240 hps (2d6 +5 × 20 rounds). And that doesn't include the Divine Soul feature Empowered Healing which allows me to reroll any low dice. This will be the ultimate support character. 😊

@@007ohboy How much healing do you use at the point where you can use that ability? One thing we have noticed is that a lot of the healing potential goes unused.

@d20tactics I haven't played this build yet. I just crafted it last week and still need to create artwork, background and personality. So I haven't really used any of these abilities yet. Our first game is next Monday after this one. My thoughts are I use this spell in between fights to top off members when we can't get in a short rest. From what I've seen in my other campaigns, if a party has a hard fight they can easily be missing at least 50-100 HPs worth of life. So I imagine many times this spell will be overkill by a factor of 3 but for just a 3rd level slot and Extended metamagics, that's not bad. A 6th level Heal spell will only heal 83 hps with the Life Domain feature active. That's good for combat but wastful outside of it. I would always encourage the party to take a short rest and use HDs when possible but sometimes we can't chance it so a 2 minute healing session to top off HP pools seems reasonable. I'll let you know how it goes when this build takes on the Vecna campaign. I'm still at the theory stage and need to test all this out.

The visual display is created on GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), a free and open source image creation tool. Video is recorded on Open Broadcaster Software (OBS), a free and open source recording tool. Audio is recorded on Audacity, a free and open source audio recording and editing tool. Videos are edited on ShotCut, a free and open source video editing tool. We use a popular but proprietary communication tool for VoIP and screen share. I don't have a simple way to show health bars. I'd like to, but I can't figure out a way to do it that wouldn't add hours of extra work, or use some proprietary tool that compromises something else.

Yeah, I messed up Spirit Guardian radius for a couple of levels, and then accidentally fixed it, and then messed it up again, and then eventually fixed it. And then I eventually figured out how the speed thing worked. It's a tough spell to adjudicate.

Somatic Components: "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures. " Material Components: "A spellcaster must have a hand free [...] to hold a spellcasting focus--but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." War Caster: "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." Inflict Wounds: "Components: [Verbal], [Somatic]" Holy Symbols: "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." This is the case that makes the most sense intuitively, but the least sense when you look at the relevant rules. Consider a Cleric (or paladin) that has a weapon in one hand and shield (with a holy symbol on it) in the other. The Cleric can cast a Verbal spell no problem, the spell requires no hands to worry about. It can cast a Verbal and Material spell because of the Holy Symbol rule, the shield with the symbol meets the requirement. It can cast a Verbal, Somatic and Material spell because the Holy Symbol rule fulfills the Material requirement, and then the Material Component rule allows that hand to satisfy the Somatic requirement; this is the least intuitive, but reasonably understood from the text of the rules. However, it cannot cast a Verbal and Somatic spell, as they don't have a hand free for the Somatic requirement, and they are not using the Material Component rule to allow the hand occupied by the shield to be used; this makes sense intuitively, but strains understanding when presented after the previous conclusion. This is reinforced by the existence of War Caster, which allows the character to do this exact thing, implying that a character without this ability could not do it. All of this is to say that players should be aware of the rules they will be expected to follow in the game they play. If a group decides, "Hands holding Holy Symbol Shields can also do Somatic components even though that doesn't seem physically possible," is how they want to play, that's great for them. If a group decides, "You do, in fact, need a hand free to make gestures, even if the rules have this strange back door that says you don't," that's fine for them. If they decide, "Everyone gets this benefit of War Caster even if they didn't take the feat," that's their decision. The players should recognize what the decision is and how that will dictate the tactics they use.

We play like this specifically for this channel, most of my other games are not like this.

We plan to, I'm glad you are enjoying it.

I agree. Following CRs in these levels is not a good idea (Not that CR system was reliable ever). After level 10 PCs get so damn powerful you just need to crank your monsters up.

The goal of the channel is to demonstrate and analyze tactics that players use to complete encounters quickly and safely so they can get back to role playing. The nature of the encounter determines the tactics that should be used: if the encounters are very easy, the players should rush through them to defeat things faster and don't need to worry about safety as much; if the encounters are very hard, they should take more time, valuing safety over speed. Accordingly, a question arises: what is the nature of the encounters that should be used? My answer to this is "We should use encounters that fit the encounter building advice from the Dungeon Master's Guide." In the DMG, there are guidelines for building encounters based on Challenge Rating (CR) and experience budget based on player levels. I simplify this down further and just use the CR budget from level appropriate monsters (which makes encounters a little harder than the advice in the book), and I don't apply the multiplier for duplicate monsters (which would have made encounters a lot easier if you have a lot of duplicates). I chose this because I believe it's the most accessible and likely-to-be-used advice that a new DM is going to follow. I expect that this will make the videos applicable to the widest audience. There are practically infinite ways to create encounters, obviously we can't demonstrate anything more than a small fraction of them. I chose the method that I think will be used by the most people, weighting new and inexperienced people more heavily in that calculation. Obviously people are going to use something that works for them, but hopefully by using the most ubiquitous method, people will be more likely to recognize elements from it in what they use and make use of the tactics we analyze. ...with all of that context out of the way, I'll answer your questions: "Do you feel as though you can, or perhaps are adequately challenging your players?" The direct answer is a nonchalant, disinterested "yes." The more insightful, relevant answer is a full-throated, deafening, "I don't care." I don't see anything in 5th ed that promises a challenging combat simulation game. What I see in 5th ed is a game that allows the players to play the roles of fantasy heroes and the DM to paint a backdrop for those heroes with monsters and dungeons. Whether the players are challenged or not by the combat system is immaterial to me. Whether the players can play the roles they want to play, with the support of, or in spite of, the combat system is the determining factor. If a player in a game wants more challenge, they have every tool they could possibly need to get it. They make almost every aspect of their character and they decide how to wield it. They can make the game as challenging as they want. "especially at these higher levels?" The players are even more empowered at higher levels to set the difficulty they desire. The DM is less responsible for player empowerment as the players level up. "To the point where when it came to the Cosmic toad episodes..." In defense of the Cosmic Toads, I used the wrong stat sheets for most of those fights. The frogs should have been much more powerful, but I didn't double check the source I used to make sure it was providing accurate information. I would like to explore that fight again with the correct stats for those monsters. As for the length of the encounters, if the encounters were so easy, why weren't they even shorter than the 10-12 minute run time? Why does it even take 10 minutes for the players to get through these? Surely they could challenge themselves to finish it even faster if they wanted a more difficult challenge. The secondary goal of this channel was to document games that I played. I've talked to a number of DMs that say things like, "Well, in my experience..." and then say something that is totally divorced from the experience that I've had. By playing out, recording, and publishing my games, a public record emerges and show what my experience is like. I can now point to a record of a specific monster and say "Look, this is how this monster worked. It's good for this and bad for that." In that light, if the conclusion to be drawn is that monsters are not challenging after level 10 in the way the players and DM expect, then I have 20 levels of videos to back up my assertion. No critique taken, I appreciate the questions. I don't think I'm cut out for the video essay format, but I like the opportunity to share my thoughts on topic.

In addition to what Sarison says here, there are some clear constraints to our format which add qualifications to how "easy" or "hard" any given fight or dungeon may be. The first huge one is that there IS no "out of combat" for us to burn any of our considerable resources on. We spend zero spells overcoming traps or obstacles, we spend no gold or items on non-combat objectives. In addition to this, our leveling process is ludicrously efficient - six encounters per level, single dungeon, no fluff. Hero's Feast is a tremendous amount of value in this exact context (if we haven't had that post-game discussion on the channel yet, it'll come up soon). With the very rare exception of this exact encounter, we come into each fight with a lot of foreknowledge about our enemies. We specifically discuss (or "discuss" in some cases) tactics before the fight. We have four (mostly) consistent players who have now played with each other, in these roles and characters, for fourteen levels and we do an after-action on every single fight. In sum, we're bringing a lot of soft power, and some hard power, to the table that isn't necessarily accounted for in a vacuum. And, as Sarison also mentions, a normal table without our constraints COULD make things harder if they wanted; in my experience, they don't tend to want to. Since playing in this series I find myself planning my spells and resources very carefully, anticipating longer dungeon slogs with fewer rests, but the players I'm with tend to ask for long rests after three or four fights. (Admittedly, it's not a group focused on tactical combat). As a DM, when players ask for more challenge, my answer is sort of like Sarison's: "make your own." If a group is burning through all their spells and long-rest resources in three fights, my first solution to add difficulty is to expect more fights out of them. Players can do that (but unlike adding bigger monsters it requires them to communicate, collaborate, and agree. Good luck and godspeed with THAT.) But "we beat seven CR 9 encounters without a long rest as a level 9 party" doesn't have the same feel as "we beat a CR14 encounter as a level 9 party, we're so strong" even though, objectively, one of those options required enormously more damage and resources. Honestly, adding more encounters per dungeon and letting us choose our short rests would be cool and challenging (and completely nonviable due to our format; we generally record all six fights and the after-action in one sitting) but it's not what we're doing here.

I see what you're both saying! Sorry if by any means it came as entitled or something like that, wasn't my intention! I see that it makes sense to take into consideration more inexperienced people too. I did not think of that when writing my comment! Also thanks for taking the time to write such chunky replies lol. Anyway, keep'em coming!

@fratystuff6737 No worries, no unintended meaning assumed. It gave me the opportunity to express thoughts that don't really come up organically in the videos, so I'm glad to get them out there.

second this

Good jump on your initiative, it's flattering to hear that you think that was an accomplishment ;). I'm not sure how excited we are, but we just talked about it last night, we will probably switch to DnD2024 after level 20. With our current release schedule, we might expect that some time in fall of 2025. Who's to say what things look like at that point, but it should give us enough time to get up to speed with the edition and figure out if it's something we want to do or not.

I do it simply because it's easier to keep track of in our format. After level 2, I don't worry about killing anyone, it's really hard to do with the challenge rating system.

Yeah, they get really fun when you combo them with something else that amplifies crits, like half-orcs or smites, sneak attacks, barbarians, etc.

I'm glad you have been enjoying them. I think you are right for the Dao, I thought the extra muscle would be more helpful, but taking three people would probably be better. Maybe if I made better use of the summon, it would have been a closer thing. Of course, they are mutually exclusive with Concentration. With 120 foot range on the Djinni, staying away would have been safer. At that range, it's much harder to keep line of sight on things. The Efreeti doesn't have any amazing knockback or grapple ability, so it would only really be effective against the Cleric, maybe the Wizard. I don't know that it would have made a difference, he would have to get into melee to do that, and then he's at the mercy of the Fighter. I don't think you are missing anything, I'm looking forward to revisiting these monsters in the future with more back up and see how they do.

I'm glad that you like it. I tend to get bored watching actual play that is done at "normal" speed, so I try to edit them to keep things moving.

If I was going for a nova build, I'd want to be able to just chop down giants in one round. I've heard of some melee builds that can kill two adult Gold Dragons in one round... I'm going to research the sh%t out of the options that still fit a coherent character narritive. I like my optimization and Roleplay - I like to get cake and eat it too. 😊

@@007ohboy 3 Rogue - Assassin, 4 Fighter - BattleMaster, 2 Paladin, 6 Ranger - Gloomstalker. You grew up a rogue who had to fight to escape if you got caught, you got strong enough that you no longer had to steal and you could just win in a stand up fight. You tried to turn your life around and fight for justice but when it came time to take your oath you realized that didn't have it in your heart to remain true to it, and so you left civilization for the wilderness where the "kill or be killed" rules are acceptable. First round of combat you Action Surge and Dread Ambusher for 6 attacks, burn 3x L2 smites, 3x L1 smites, 4x Maneuver dice, weapon damage, everything crits.

Yeah, Simulacrums can be annoying, but it gives the DM a chance to kill off someone and demonstrate the power of an enemy without removing a player from the game, so I think they have mechanical benefit to story telling, which is nice.

I'm glad to hear that you are enjoying it, we enjoy playing and producing it, and listening to feedback from others.

Yeah, that probably would have been better, but I didn't want to split damage up, and the Behir wasn't in range of casters. Still should have done it though.

I agree, those would probably be effective tactics for encounters beyond level 1, but at level 1, there isn't enough xp budget to get any other monsters. DMs are left with the options of 1. overloading the encounter, 2. avoiding this monster until higher levels, or 3. using it on its own. This video was about option 3.

Hell yeah indeed.

You know it, only the most serious and straight faced combat analysis here

Yeah, most Control Spells just allow you to trade some of your actions for some of theirs. As the Wizard is one of the primary damage dealers, I don't think it's a good idea for them to be controlling people, but it really depends on who has what available.

@d20tactics True. It's also up to personal flavor. Some casters rather fireball than cast Hypnotic Pattern, which can be a bit of a bore, especially if you use it a lot. And if a caster is built for evocation, who's going to argue against that?

Actually, my Shadow Sorcerer is a perfect example. Did you know Shadow Sorcerers can also burrow into the ground...and walls....and ceilings at very high level? Umberal Form - 18th level Sorc feature allows you to move through solid objects. So my Shadow Sorcerer can literally be in melee range of a Storm giant and just sink into the ground. And if she did that, she would get an opportunity attack from the Giant who swings at me right as I try to get away and sink down - at least according to RAW/RAI. I wouldn't get to claim I'm out of sight because I'm already in the ground. The attack happens before that. I'd have to disengage and then sink down. Or I could Bonus Action Quicken a spell and then use my Action to disengage and then sink down. And thats why Sorcerers rock - better Action economy with Quicken metamagics.😊 I Disgress.

@@007ohboy I disagree that Burrowing always provides an Opportunity Attack. I think it depends on the geometry of the scenario. If you burrow into the ground and are still within reach of the enemy, you wouldn't provoke. If burrowing in such a manner removes you from the enemy's sight, then you wouldn't provoke when you later leave their reach. I think it would be difficult to explain via text, but I'll try to include an example at some point in the future.

I actually get where you are going with this. You're saying they hadn't left your reach because they are underground and still 5ft away. However, I just found this extension to the argument from J Christ himself, the big JC, Jeremy Crawford. A fan asked two questions, he had to corner JC. So the first question was already answered with OA being triggered BEFORE they leave your reach. This fan asks on X: &JeremyECrawford thanks. yes, the debate here was does it ever leave your reach if it goes into the ground adjacent to you. JC reply: Your melee reach does not extend into the wall or floor. &DnD Therefore since your melee reach doesn't extend into the wall and floor, that is effectively "out of your melee reach". Therefor, a creature that moves into the stone wall next to you, or into the floor, but is still within 5ft or 10 ft (whatever your normal unobstructed melee range is) has effectly "left your reach" (melee). Your reach ends at total cover. The OA comes BEFORE a creature has left your range, your melee range which as JC established earlier, ends at total cover, the wall/floor/ceiling. I now totally get what you're saying. And the fan is echoing your same argument. But JC, after two leading questions, states the rules for OA and then goes on to say your reach can never be into a wall or the floor, and thus,.a creature that exist beyond your reach is eligible for OA. I don't have much else to bring up. I rest my case and accept your ruling for your table. 😀

@@aaronwallace8694 "Your melee reach does not extend into the wall or floor." That's certainly a thing that appears on Twitter. I don't see anything in the rules that support that, and they didn't include it in the 2020 Sage Advice Compendium. The lack of clarity around what constitutes a wall or floor is also leaves much to be desired: If I can water walk, does that count as a floor? Does a wall of force count as a wall? Does an illusionary wall count as a wall? I don't see a lot of value in this statement. ...but that doesn't matter much for our purposes here. The goal is to discuss up the tactics that exist in the game, not to debate the nature of the rules. In that spirit, I think that burrowing into wall/floors is still a valid tactic as it reduces the numbers of attacks the players will get, even if they get opportunity attacks. If the players use Ready Actions, they will consume their Reactions, so no Oppies anyway.

@d20tactics The rules cover Wall of Force mechanics pretty clearly, I think. What I would refer to is Cover rules. Water doesn't give you Cover but you would possibly get a disadvantage unless your enemy is using a weapon that can be used underwater without disadvantage. And yes, even with OAs, burrowing is still really good. It's total cover without any rolls to remain undetected. It's still smarter to take one OA or even a few than to get hit with 6 attacks. Then you can pop out and go at it again. Burrowing is OP but the developers balanced that out with OAs. Readied Actions will also still be useful. I image the Rezs would keep diving and attacking until they catch someone with a restraining bite and then next round swallow them to then dive back down. Pretty narly monsters. 😆

Yeah, the Heated Body ability really punishes characters who do their damage in multiple hits, it's much more advantageous for Rogues and casters

I disagree that the "tank" needs more AC, they should have less AC than the people they are trying to protect. If they have more, the enemies would consider them too hard to hit and go after the people that they are trying to protect. There are very few "tank" mechanics in 5e, but one of the easiest to get is Low AC: most DMs will see that as more likely to hit and go after them. Unless you have one of the others, higher AC will make you less effective at protecting your allies. The Fighter has Defensive Fighting Style, and stuck to the original build from the starter set with the greataxe (I recall that Drak played the Fighter at Level 3 and experimented with a shield). I think the strategy of the Champion Fighter is run in and taunt the enemies into swarming them, getting them into Fireball formation (or Spirit Guardians formation) and providing Sneak for the Rogue. They also have some mobility control with high Athletics. The Cleric should be the most survivable, as they have the power to bring the others back. Barbarians are great at tanking because they can taunt enemies in with the high chance of hitting and then survive a lot of those hits.

@d20tactics Tank to me means tank - heavily defensive. I know MMORPGs changed that definition to have to also include aggroing, but that's new. We've been talking about tanks since the box set and they were typically considered defensive fighters with very average damage. They were a tank because they were highly defensive and wouldn't die in two rounds. Still today, one of the best tactics is to find a bottleneck/chokepoint and put your full plate fighter with a shield in the doorway and take the dodge action. Our party in Ravenloft wiped out a cave full of werewolves by having my Armored Sorcerer with Blur on holding up the cave entrance and the party just gunning everything down. They tried to retreat and we followed in but they were already devistated.and easy for the pickings. If you really get out ahead of the party while the "gunners" retreat to the back, I find very few DMs that will just ignore your character sitting out there all alone. They will swarm you and then attack with flanking and try to score crits. If you get enough rolls in one turn, you're almost guaranteed a hit. If you get jumped in a cubicle, I get it, the DM will chomp on the softies. But if your party is even 10% tactical, a natural frontline will emerge as casters, rogues, and archers fall back. They may only buy them a round or two without being harrassed, and enemies will of course skirt the frontline and go for the squishing, but that still doesn't mean I'm not tying up a lot of attacks meant tofr the squishing because it's kind of hard to just ignore the Monk that can move 130ft with just her normal movement while hasted and bring the fight to the enemy before they can even get halfway across the map. I can't imagine a world where higher AC, saves, and damage reduction isn't a bonus to a frontline melee character. I get your point about monsters being hesitant to swing on you, but I find in most battles I leave enemies with very little choice but to try and "come at me, bro".

@d20tactics My Armored Clockwork Sorcerer at 6th level "tanked" a flipping Deva for 3 rounds using 19 AC, Protection from E/G and the Shield Spell. He finally hit me and did a crap load of damage that took me down to 12 hps. But even the DM said my Clocklock saved the party from a major beat down. How did I aggro this Deva, you ask? I pissed it off by telling it I was a Devil Worshipper of Fierna, which is true, and I relished in slaughtering a Celestial. That totally got his attention and he locked onto me like flies on sh!t. 😆 🤣 Because, Creatures do not always have to take the most optimized attacks, especially if something thats very opposable provides a distraction. Even my goody two shoes Monk will regularly "talk.mad sh$t" to the enemies to get them to fight her. It's in her character and it works often enough at different tables. I made my case. I digress. I understand your point and it's not unreasonable even if nonagreeable.

@@007ohboy Tanks in the sense of Main Battle Tanks, aka Armored Units, emphasize firepower, maneuverability, and survivability. In that sense, the Fighter qualifies. Tanks from MMOs and from 4th edition DnD include the ability to draw attention of the enemy away from friendlies. If the only requirement for a tank is survivability, then a lot of things start to qualify that don't make any sense: 5th level wizard with Fly can survive forever if it doesn't get hit. Unarmored Cleric constantly healing himself is a tank because he survives. Rogue that can hide better than the enemy can find him is a tank. If everything is a tank, nothing is tank. But if that's what you mean, then yes, strictly having a high AC counts. Yes, bottle necking the enemy is a good tanking tactic because it forces the foe to target someone they would rather not - which I argue is the point of the tank. It's easy to ignore targets that don't have any way of compelling you to attack them: just don't attack. If the most they can do is Oppy you when you walk away, maybe take it. If they Dodged on their turn, all the better, you're taking their Action and Reaction for one attack and no penalty. You are correct saying that having high AC, Saves, and Resistances are a bonus, but they are a bonus to everyone. A character isn't a frontliner because they have high AC, they are a frontliner because they have reliable grapple, sentinel movement locking, stun locking monk attacks, compelled duel, or really harsh opportunity attacks. If you do this at range, you are still a tank, we just call them controllers. It does the same thing.

@@007ohboy Yeah, it's a great feeling when a character is able to manipulate the enemies using role-playing reasons. If it's through funny/thoughtful/dramatic dialogue, based on information gained by investigation and deduction, risky bluffs, or some other methods, it's usually entertaining for the whole party. The DM also tells the story through their choices, and I think you would agree that the Celestial acted against tactical conventions, but that's the story that the DM wants to tell: this NPC places value in the destruction of a specific enemy over the best tactical choice. I'm glad you brought this up because that's the goal of this channel from the DM's side: how to use the monsters tactically to tell the story you want to tell. I don't want people to think they have to run monsters this way, I want them to know how they can accomplish what they want to accomplish.

Can't Shove the Roc, it's too big. This also doesn't work if the Grappler has more than 10ft of reach with the attack that grapples.

I cover this in the intro to the first encounter in the dungeon, but I don't repeat it each time. You can find it at 2:50 in L13E1. My goal is to get as many adventurers down as possible, and the Fighter went down. If the goal were something else, that could change the tactics used, and in turn change the efficacy of the Fighter's choices. In this case, the party was able to succeed regardless of whether the monsters progressed in their goals. If the monster's goal was to specifically kill the wizard, the Fighter's tactic might not have been successful at preventing that.

@d20tactics You know you are a frontliner when the party constantly shoves you up to the front to take most the pain while they sit back and fire away. "Tank Rank" achieved! 😀 It's said in your intros. I remember. It's more DM optimized moves than relying on lore depicting creature bahaviors. So if your using low int/wis monsters, they will still take the most optimal moves/targets. Most tables dont run like that. So creature behavior, like "dumb" oozes will attack the first thing they sense and aren't normally known for their optimized strategic planning. Or another example was my Armored Clocklock holding off a Devas attacks by aggroing it with the fact that the Clocklock is a Devil Worshipper. Even then, with smart enemies and/or DMs who purely tactically optimize, defensive fighting still works. I've played in 4 campaigns with the Mystical Monk and she works exactly as intended/theorized. I'm running two versions of her, one at 8th level in Tyranny of Dragons and another at level 20 in the Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Not getting hurt and sucking up healing resources is always a plus. Also, If I don't die, the party will live. Why? Aid, baby. Yes, the Mystical Monk can in fact bring up three dying allies with a bonus action if need be (quicken) and still continue batting away at the enemies. I regularly get out ahead of the party so I'm likely to be the only feasible target in immediate range a lot of times. I can't lock down the whole map with my sword and I don't know any melee build that can do that. That doesn't mean that some characters running toward the monsters as opposed to retreating and firing won't create a frontline of sorts. Frontline can be broken through, that's basically any military tactic ever and is also replicated on a football field. That doesn't mean you don't put the biggest baddest defensively build guys on the frontline. There are usually chokepoints that can be exploited which favors defensive fighting tactics. Even when enemies just run past you, that only means you don't have to waste any actions being defensive and can just go even more offensive. Booming Blade also seems to make enemies think twice about moving. Do you really want to move for two rounds taking AN EXTRA 2d8 thunder each time? Please do. That also feeds into her tactic. 9th level nova attack from the Mystical Monk would be a total of 3d8 slashing + 4d8 thunder + 4 magical for the +2 longsword. Not bad. Just because I describe the Mystical Monk as a specialized defensive melee build, it doesn't mean she can't put some major damage on the board that competes with normie fighters. With green flame blade I easily did 116 damage on one round by criting once and hitting the second target with two flame strikes after doing damage to the original enemy. That's not horrible. That works in a fight. The equation shouldn't be - the less damage you take = the less effective of a frontliner you are. That only leads to: You're not a good melee character if you can't go down in two rounds. ??? I would say having good defense is a plus as a frontliner. It's not everything. Barbs can eat damage and deal it out in turn. Fighters who don't specialize in defensive fighting should think about skirmishing when they can and flanking. They can still do alright as frontliners but if they just go all alone and do it themselves, they will probably get trampled on. I don't think being more easy to go down is the most optimal thing. Higher AC characters will have to factor in their high defenses when enemies get frustrating trying to wail on them and go for another target. Which is good because now I get to just sit back and wail away and not waste any actions defending. And if I dont die, I can just keep bringing up the Cleric and two others with a measly 2nd level slot. And then I also have control spells myself on top of all that. Thunderwave for instance. Blindness/Deafness and Tashas Hideous laughter for instance. This Monk is very versatile. Even then, any frontliner with better AC who isn't a Barb is going to enjoy life a lot more. AC isn't everything but it's certainly good to have.

@@d20tactics I literally saved my whole party when we battled a half dragon named Rezmir and her goons by simply not dying and picking them up with potions we had in the bag. That's why I carry the bag, because I'm the least likely to go down. She has gone down a few times, but waaaaay far less than the rest of both her parties. There's different advantages/disadvantages for sure, but overall, a defensive minded melee character with average damage....not no damage as with a flying mage that does nothing else, but an active defensive fighter that can also deal out damage that no creature really wants. My Monk isn't a flying mage that doesn't even bother to fire off Firebolt, my Monk is a high AC well/balanced saves character that definitely stings her opponents in combat. Remember that I can take the dodge action as either a Bonus Action (Monk step of the wind) or an Action. Even if I do use my Action to Dodge, I still have a Hasted Action along with my UA Strike. Or I can even Dodge with my Action and then use my Hasted action to attack and then follow up with a bonus action Booming/Greenflame Blade with Quicken. I'm not even covering her ability to stun her opponents which she regularly does at higher levels or adding in Flurry of Blows. I wasn't kidding when I said this character is SUPER VERSATILE and can switch up her actions/Bonus actions for a lot of different things. And yes, I have plenty of Reasources to pull it off if I'm not getting hurt or better yet, being ignored. I don't have to recharge my Bastion of Law, I can instead charge up my Quicken attacks. I always start off defensive and conservative until I need to ramp it up. A lot of times I can just coast by doing two attacks and dodging while keeping my reaction ready for a counterspell, Shield or Absorb elements.

Yeah, that "Speed of 0" part is rough. The Roc's going to make it because it's like 90 damage at most, but the griffons probably aren't looking so good.

I'm working on editing Level 14 right now, Level 15 has been recorded, and we're trying to schedule Level 16 soon. It takes much longer to edit these than it does to play them, so playing all day every day isn't possible, sadly. Also, we all have day jobs that don't include playing DnD, and at 93 views on this video at the time of this comment, I don't see that changing any time soon. But! You commented and you enjoyed it, so that certainly helps.

Giants are Size: Huge and Huge creatures can move through Medium sized creatures, counting them as difficult terrain. In this case, there is no ceiling, so they would rather just running jump over you: anything with a strength of 16 or higher can high jump over a 6 foot tall adventurer, assuming there is no ceiling. I don't see an effective bottle neck here. You monk is an effective speed bump, and might earn 2 Opportunity Attacks, but I think it would be more effective to make attacks.

@d20tactics Good point but they wouldnt even try to hit a 5'8" woman with no armor on? If the monsters move around her or ignore her, then I can just go nova. Action Booming Blade 1d8 +5 slashing 2d8 Thunder 3d8 Thunder if it moves. Hasted Longsword Strike 1d8 +5 Bonus Action Quicken Booming Blade 1d8 + 5 + 2d8 + 3d8 all over again. Only one moving Boom charge would go off of course if the monsters move. So when she needs to damage, she can do alright. I also can use green flame blade when I see them bunched up.

@@007ohboy Yeah, the DM can insert an RP reason to ease up on the players if they think that's appropriate.

What if the DM remembers that the Dragon has legendary resistances and uses them to save against the lance? The Wizard is doing more with the unstoppable 4th level magic missile at 6d4+36 force damage than you are with a 7d6, saves for half the first three times.

@d20tactics @d20tactics True. I forgot about LR. Alright, I'll just shoot 9 Eldritch Blasts with Hex attached. That's a possible 9d10 + 45 + 9d6 necrotic and only costs me two sorcery points, a 1st level spell, and an Action Surge. 1st round Hex Eldritch Blast 2nd round Action Surge EB Action AB Quicken EB.

@@007ohboy that's 127 average potential with a .65 hit chance, for 82, little bit more with crits. Ten Magic Missiles does the same thing, divided up over a couple turns.

I bought the largest battle map pack they had at the time, which looks like the 1040 map pack on their site now. I'm not certain what's in it, but that looks closest to what I got.

I love role playing solutions to problems in games, but that's not the premise of this channel. Maybe the giant already took a bribe from someone else. Maybe you botched persuasion roll? Maybe this was the giant that killed your father. There are infinitely many valid reasons that bribing would work to solve this encounter, and equally many reasons it wouldn't. The point of this channel is to showcase combat tactics so people who want to wrap up combat quickly and safely can do so, so the players know that every encounter is going to be a fight. In that context, spending actions trying to bribe him could do more harm than good.

These videos are edited down so that only the relevant portions are shown. The pauses, counting squares, looking up rules, adding modifiers, and thinking deep tactical thoughts (or other things) are removed. The actual recorded time was 52 minutes, not including intro and outro credits. All of these players had played these characters for 5 encounters directly before this, so stats and abilities were fresh in everyone's mind, and everyone but TrainRex had played these characters dozens of times before. We also develop a culture of playing quickly, and we don't do any roleplay during the fights. There are a lot of differences, but a 2.5 hour nail biter of a fight sounds like it could be a fun time.

Thank you! That's kind of you to say

We have a bunch of ideas bouncing around, but he haven't settled on any yet

It can be a strong defensive buff, but recognize that might not be advantageous in every scenario. You will loose some offensive output, so if that's more important, maybe don't burrow.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, we hope to keep going for as long as people are interested in watching. The Invisible conditions says, "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage." There are no caveats or conditions, it just imposes disadvantage on incoming hits. If the shark were trying to cast Magic Missile, which requires that it see the target, Blindsight would help with that, but I don't see anything in Blindsight that says it removes the penalty to hit imposed by invisibility. Contrast this with the Blur spell which specifically calls out Blindsight as nullifying the effect. The Invisible condition doesn't do that.

Good catch, that's certainly true.

Yeah, I really like the maps that have dynamic elements that present other options and hazards.