The whole marisha is only disliked because of misogyny is such a dumb thing I don't get why people say it. Laura is probably the most beloved of the cast and Zara and Pike were the most hyped guest characters. Same goes for people just not understanding keyleth isn't marisha or they didn't see what she's going for. Sometimes it's not that people don't understand what you are doing or only don't like you because you are a girl. Sometimes they just don't like you or think you are annoying. Like for instance I think Percy is annoying and that tal tries too hard to come off more smart, punk and weird than he actually is. It's not because he's a guy or because I don't get what Percy is going for, I just think it's annoying. Harassing is dumb and wrong but so is insisting that you have to like something
I made this video a few months ago, so I don't remember what was said in exact terms. But, I will say now, that misogyny, at least in the communication of the internet, rarely directly manifests as a "reason" to dislike someone. It enhances existing dislike, and makes one seek out excuses for dislike when they otherwise wouldn't. It is feelings that already exist that are simply activated by other things. The primary thing that I have observed, watching and experiencing everything CR for the first time, is that Marisha is held to a higher standard than the guys (possibly with the exception of Matt) when it comes to the actual game portion. It's totally fair to dislike certain characters. However, there are many who's dislike is more consistent, takes on a higher magnitude, and is backed up with far less thought, when it is directed towards women. Not every person that dislikes Marisha falls in this category, but many do. You say that Laura is the most beloved of the cast, but frankly, I haven't seen that love yet. The only milestone moment regarding Laura and the audience that I'm aware of is "Broomgate". Even to use Percy/Tal as an example, in a Q&A in 2016 that I'm currently making a piece on, the cast members and audience all acknowledge that Marisha gets far more hate than any other member. Tal isn't even brought up, by the cast or audience member asking the question, in reference to it. They may both play characters that some could validly dislike for one reason or another, but for many that doesn't matter. Potentially valid aspects to some are just excuses to express already held beliefs to others. Of course every single person that dislikes her doesn't do so with backing misogyny. If I remember correctly, I, Mike, and no one in chat ever claimed that. Nor did any of us say that you need to like her. I don't like several parts of Keyleth, but dismissing the real misogynist segments in our communities only gives them room to thrive.
Since Beastmaster, Ranger, and Elemental Monk are now functional in the new PHB, my submission for "worst subclass" alongside Arcane Archer is the Undying Warlock. It's almost entirely flavor-text
I like such solution on a homegrown level but agree that if it comes to te standardized rules they should be reworked in such cases not only to prevent bloat but also to ensure an understanding of these mechanics that can be easily identified in almost all games. Dnd is already a game with many rules and many have criticized the new releases for not adding gms in the plethora of rule interactions that can be tricky, but I am also of the opinion that if it comes to tablewide homebrew it often falls on the dm (as the arbiter of their respective worlds) so leaving such debates to be "fixed" by more homeruleing only expands on the issue this already presents
Ironically, your stopping to grouse about how much the loot goblining slows the pace of the show every time it happens, extends the length of your vod by a good margin too. 😂 (not a complaint. It's hilarious. Nothing will get between Vex (Laura) and her petty handfuls of gold in these early eps. Not even your ire. It's something to grow fond of.) To answer your hypothetical, I probably would stop to grab the 8 dollars every time. Maybe a trauma response, lol.
I also dislike the window shopping style of magic item purchasing, however… if you ARE planning on having magic item shops in your games, I think window shopping is very useful for newer players who don’t even know what they’re looking for. I remember my first DnD game and appreciating how my DM presented only a few magic items in each store that he thought was relevant to each of our characters.
hey there, nice Video and nice explanations, to your "to much investment" part, we call this "Characterbleed" here, or if it was his first Character it could be "FIrst Character Syndrom" in the community, at least here in Germany (yes we use still the englisch words for it ^^) both are common terms and thereare many sources for a longer ecplanation what it means, if your interested. But it seems way too much Info for the comment section xD Greetz L.
Re: Healer feat Apart from the uses of Healer's Kit, there is another reason not to just use it ad infintum out of combat; When characters restore their hitpoints in a short rest, they restore Hit Dice+Con, whereas with this feat they don't benefit from their Con, only your prof. The value of the heal not only depends on the type of Hit Die, but also what value your Prof is, as well as their Con Mod. In combat where they have no access to short rest healing, it's obviously a big improvement from none, but out of combat you're gaining comparitively little compared to a short rest.
I know this is an old video but, on the Quantum Ogre vs "floating beat" thing. Personally I think the main issue of the Quantum Ogre is the way it robs the players of agency in a way that feels like trickery. If you show them two doors they reasonably would think there is meaning in choosing one over the other, so if it is the exact the same encounter no matter what then it feels cheap. Why even ask the question then, why isn't there a single door? Practically speaking it is only an issue if the players found out, I suppose, but if that happens trust is lost and that is devastating for an RPG group. Furthermore, as a GM you are robbing yourself by structuring adventurers that way. One of the joys of GMing is interacting with your players, if you don't let them have agency what is even the point? The point is, if you pose options for the player, their choices should matter. The thing is, "the encounter is wholly different" is not the only way player choice can change things. Going with the NPCs in a town example. For starter, in this kind of social exploration scenarios tend to be inherently more free form than a dungeon, so there isn't really such clear set of options the GM is presenting the players. Players know (or should know) that GMs can't possibly prepare *everything* they could reasonably do, so there isn't that expectation that every corner of a town will be unique in any way. Regardless, if the GM does say something like "do you want to search the streets, go to the tavern or ask the docks" and then the end result is exactly the same NPC with the same interaction then that does kinda suck still, it is the same thing as the Quantum Ogre. Or is it? Like, yeah, if the NPC behaves and interact with the PCs in the same way, sure. But because the situation is different it is natural for the gm and the players to approach the convention differently. People behave differently when they are at work, at the tavern or walking down the street, after all. As such, I would argue the players choice did have a meaningful effect. As long as you play the encounter differently, the PCs had agency, I think. Going back to the Ogre and the door. Even if both doors have an ogre, if the arena is different, then so is the encounter, and so the player's agency is preserved. Of course, there are many variables, and ideally the players should be able to have an idea what is behind each door (else the choice is meaningless regardless of how unique hey are), but as lonng as the outcome don't ultimately feel the same then it doesn't matter that the door opened always had an ogre.
Re Rage Stealth: Rage as a name and resource is iconic and definitely won't be changed any time soon, but there is a definite aspect of barbarian combat theming centered around Primal Instincts. I think actually this should probably supercede Rage and encompass it, so you might tap into your Rage, but you might also tap into a Primal or Bestial ability to Stealth, or Percieve or Intimidate etc. I think coming at it from that headspace, all of these traits make perfect sense.
Great video! Actually appreciate the length. Was informative and interesting. I love that I could listen to it during my work hours and not have to search for a new video every few minutes.
I would say Keen Mind and Observant are NOT dependent on your DM leniency. The rules now clearly say that studying or influencing are Actions. Sure, your DM might homebrew anything (as always), but the new rules are clear.
@@IlChatNoir17 when I referred to DM leniency, I meant more within that study action. The actual result of study in a combat context isn't fully specified. It gives information, but what kind of information is still up to the DM from what I've seen. This is typical for out of combat features, but given that the "quick study" part of the feat is based on affecting the action economy, it seems that feature (making the action a bonus action) is meant to function as a combat feature primarily. I do think that's better than before, the thing that it's providing is very clear and broadly usable, but the actual value of said thing seems a bit murky.
Mariaha was a bit of a lightning rod for hate. I think that if her character had been perceived as less grandstanding than she was a lot of the toxicity would probably have been focused more evenly on all the women at the table.
Re: The whole conjure minor elementals talk If you don't optimise or only lightly optimise, it's not super broken, and that will probably be most tables. The whole convo started off talking about how it's percieved in optimising circles, where it definitely is very broken. If you're interested, Colby on D4 Deep Dive made a YT video for a valor bard build built around the spell.
I'm definitely curious, because I can't think of any highly-optomized build I've seen that heavily features a near-melee spell with concentration, especially one that also requires additional attacks to hit to go off. But, Bard did get pretty heavily buffed, so it doesn't surprise me that they're the ones that make use of it. Bard is honestly the only one that feels like it maybe had a bit too much power creep for my taste. They were already strong, and in an update that largely seemed to try and mitigate multiclass cheese, they told bard to go nuts 😂
Re: Wildmagic The fact that your memory of the 2014 is so much more negatiive than it actually was is I think why they skewed it so much more positive in the new version. If everyone's perception of 2014 Wildmagic was Balanced or Negative when it actually skewed positive, then for it to actually feel positive it had to ramp up hard
I'm 100% with you, Megaphone Man: Enchantment magic is existentially horrifying and I love the idea of it being made illegal. I think it's a much more evil thing to force a living person to do what you want to (regardless of their own will) than it is to fuckin' raise a skeleton up out of the ground to do your bidding.
Damn, scathing review of base Ranger by both you and chat. I have too much to say for a YT comment, but I think it's a massive improvement from 2014. Concept is perhaps the most contentious of any class, where different groups want different things and none can agree on a direction- but I think I would enjoy playing this version greatly more than 2014.
HARD disagree, I almost can't believe that the same people who reworked the Monk made that abomination, unless they rework it, everyone will be using Tasha's Ranger.
@@sputnik90 Paladin, Wizard and a few nitpicks here and there, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but overall I love it, because most of the bad I can just use a older version of it, unlike 014 where I needed to homebrew.
This combat is so funny to me. I understand they're somewhat new to dnd, but it feels like such an over commitment of resources. If I was controlling this whole party BG3 style, you probably wouldnt get more than something that recharges on a short rest out of me. They're literally in the middle of a ruined city where Thordak could turn up at any moment, especially if he somehow perceives all the magical effects going on. Small fry bandits are not where I want to point my spell slots when we have no idea what Thordak is capable of, or if anyone more powerful heard about Emon falling and made their way there overnight to try their luck.
Surprised at your enthusiasm for the ability scores from backgrounds! I feel they already 'solved' this in Tasha's where you could choose a +2 and +1 regardless of the Race you choose. Now they've gone back to limiting which you can choose, except based on Background except Species. I believe there is still the ability to use 2014 backgrounds, in which case you can then choose as you like- however I feel the default offered up in the book should've given you the chance to just put the points where you want.
Percy being afraid of the feywild never felt weird to me, it just played more into his "control freak" flaw and even if he dont know much info about the feywild i think percy assume that he heard rumor of read book when he was little about weird shit going on in the feywild plus everyone they ask about the feywild told them how weird, dangerous and unpredictable it is.
Overall, I think this was a broad success? Like it accomplished the goal of being a 'quicker' Critical Eyes (not 8 hours long lmao) very well. For me, at least, even though the video just cut to whenever you had something to say, I didn't feel like there was a lack of context? Even without seeing the quiet in between bits of you not vocally reacting, once you started to voice your thoughts, I could pretty quickly pick up on the context. If you wanted to try to add more context, perhaps adding in 30 seconds to a minute of footage before you start reacting would do the trick. You could also try, probably as you edit the video, adding in voice over of you giving some context to what you're about to react to. I don't know how much that would add to the work load of making these videos though, considering each video is AT LEAST 3 hours of footage before editing. Also mentioned this in the discord, but happy anniversary!
I guess that's the best criticism of your solution though. If the best solution to your issue is to radically rewrite the system then maybe a)your expectations are incongruous with the system or b) the vision you have would be unrecognizably different and better as its own thing. I think thats a good thing. Tbh, we have a bunch of games designed to be like other things but few designed to be exactly themselves. 🎉
that's ultimately fair. I will say that I think 5.24 (at least from what I've seen), actually made a lot of steps in the direction I'd like to see! Most classes got new bonus action things, and a lot of classes/subclasses got reaction features! The monk changes actually emodied quite a bit if the design direction that I want for 5e. Stunning strike was reduced from many times a turn to once per turn, reducing the overall per-turn effect it can have, and monk got several free bonus actions and new ways to use focus (formerly ki). If everyone has more stuff to do other than their action, it may not feel as bad if the action winds up being wasted. Or, it might still feel bad, and the idea may be incongruous :P that is very possible
Hey, new viewer here, also a new viewer of Critical Role, starting from episode one. I had known a bit about the Orion drama, and learned from YT comments that episode 27 was his exit point. I have never played DnD myself before so some of the earlier moments where he was a bad teammate in the game kind of flew over my head but from the arrow incident in Vasselheim onward it started being noticeable even to me. Anyway none of that really matters, guess just giving context to what kind of viewer I am, I just finished episode 27 the other day, and because I am also a drama goblin like how you described yourself I immediately tried finding videos on other people's thoughts on this, and any background that I might not know of. That's how I found this video and I quite enjoyed it! Anyway, I won't repeat anything about Orion/Tiberius that everyone has been repeating ad nauseum for like 8 years, but one thing I haven't seen people mention that stood out to me, especially in the last few episodes, is that even though Orion seemed to not be able to separate himself from Tiberius, which you think would make it easier for him to be consistent with Tibs' character, he really wasn't consistent at all. Obviously the half chub thing when Tibs has never been a sleazy character is the biggest example, but another example I noticed is how inconsistent he was with the whole "I am a Stormwind, you will show me respect" attitude he sometimes expressed. I'll just go through the two recent examples for the sake of brevity, but when Uriel was talking with Vox Machina after the Briarwood incident, and basically telling them they need proof the Briarwoods are evil or they will be outlaws, Tibs tries to play the "how dare you threaten a Stormwind" thing which Matt shuts down really quickly. And, despite the later context that Uriel was charmed, I still think that even if he wasn't that is a very reasonable attitude for him to have, and this is the ruler of the city Vox Machina lives in, if you should not ruffle feathers with someone, it should be him. I can kind of excuse it from Tibs because of the low wisdom but still maybe he should know better than to try to pull that in this situation. However, the next episode when they have the flying cows adventure, when some random-ass gnome druid tries threatening them, Tibs doesn't do any of that, he is, oddly very understanding for the druid's argument, and argument which, in my opinion, is way less reasonable than what Uriel said. This gnome is allowing his roc to steal a ridiculous amount of livestock from people. Half of their cows in 2 weeks is absurd, and stuff like that could easily lead to famines that could kill many, MANY people, if they really want to stretch the consequences to a realistic degree. So Tibs showing that random gnome with barely any logical legs to stand on waaaaay more patience and grace than Uriel really stood out as weird to me. There are other examples but like I said wanted to just use two to keep this comment (relatively) brief, and I haven't noticed anyone bring stuff like that up yet. Maybe I just wanted to vent because honestly that section with the gnome druid really annoyed me lol. Anyway I'll leave it at that. Enjoyed this video, definitely gonna check out more of your stuff!
I have to say, Marisha is a good player. I just don't like Kelith as a character. Didn't have a problem with the moral hemming and hawing. Just had an issue with when she chose to do something about it and how she went about it. It tended to be detrimental to the group and didn't allow for as much redemption and forgiveness than I personally would have liked. I think some people didn't like the character and assumed it was because they didn't like the player. I also think you had a wide range of experience in rpgs on the streams. This could allow for the misunderstanding of Marisha maybe even moreso than the once a week timeframe.
Your underwater scientist story reminds me of the few times I've tried to watch the live feed of local representatives during discussions. Really brings it down to earth for you. Back to the show. Thanks for the great info.
I think your point about the investment of the players and hanging on every word (~36:00) actually leads to a parallel to the Mercer effect. It's the DMs who expect their players to hang on their every word, expect their players to be as invested as Laura and Travis during Liams description. I'm aware of several different DMs who get upset when their players are more passively listening or not giving some kind of reaction, and this either makes the DM less confident in themselves or mad at their players. It's not as often talked about, but I think it's as relevant as discussing the Mercer effect.
I think the pre-recording is fine, I have no problem with editing out breaks or splitting it up for multiple recordings, but I do agree that you should leave the CR content in, so people have context for what you are talking about. I have seen this before but it's been a while, so I had to stop watching your stream to go and watch Liam's quest to have a fresh memory of it.
that being said I do agree that one of the things that makes CR special is the relationship between DM and players. and I think that's one part of why Matt is such a good DM, because he's the one who taught most of the players (Laura, Travis, Ashley, Sam and Marisha) what his version of dnd is, how to behave at the table, what's the role of the DM is, how to accept and roll with failure, investment in the world, etc and it's clear that they have full faith in him that is transferred to whoever sits in the DM's chair. of course as we've seen it needs the cooperation of the players as well, so it takes both sides, but I think it's a big influence how and from whom does someone learned to play the game and these players mostly learned from Matt.
Overall i enjoyed the video and format, especially if it will help you be able to watch the one shots, but i think i would prefer not edited even if there were spots of dead air or whatever,, i usually listen while doing other things so puts me out a little when there are jumps, but ill watch either way
I agree with the other comments. Although the “just” below 3 hour length is a welcome respite from yesterday’s 10(!) lol, yeah we need more context for your insight to stick, I’m guessing. I think it’s gotta be unedited like Critical Eyes, or you have to go back, edit and pull the entire scene for us to get the context (like SG Mike does, but that’s a lot more work) That said, I barely missed the chat back and forth, though. So a prerecorded, unedited reaction to episodes once in a while should work ok, I think.
The criticisms made aside, the most enjoyable aspect of this - to me- was seeing how Mega's thought trains go without any external input. Mega going on such a big tangent that he had to split it out into a seperate video is hilarious.
The editing made this difficult to follow, especially as content on second-screen while working. I thought you had insightful things to say about Liam's style and one-shots in general but I was frequently lost and trying to figure out what you were referencing. I also missed the slower moments of reaction. I think that the critical eyes format works for me because it is usually a mix of reaction and your insights, where as this was distilled down to the insight without reaction or context.
I just finished watching. I Think the prefilmed format works. My only issue is with the editing after. When you cut out the quiet parts we loose alot of context of what was happening in the CR so points can be not as clear without the full example of what you're commenting on.
The last half is me talking about nerfing the spells that currently make LR required. Longer casting times and trade offs to enact continued effects. But I'm guessing you didn't get there :P In short, magic should be harder and/or riskier, then we wouldn't need LR to keep it in check.
I was really looking forward to this format, but editing out all the parts where you're not talking loses all context. I get that you want to be transformative and not just play someone else's content, but there is nothing to grab on to here. I've watched every episode of critical eyes, but I'm giving up on this a few minutes in.
Yeah I was debating about whether I should re-watch the oneshot because it had been a good couple of years since I last watched it... And yeah unfortunately I will HAVE to because with the dead air cut out... the context about what mega is reacting to is also cut out.
Agreed. I think this format would be great if it was basically unedited apart from breaks and repeated tangents, more similar to the usual critical eyes. If he wants to cut down more he could cut out details that aren’t necessary for understanding his insight, as long as he doesn’t have much of a reaction to them. Seeing his first reactions is a big part of the appeal of critical eyes, and this editing removes that almost completely.
@@valkyrie2832 yeah, he was asking if like the editing needs to be even tighter.... I think an even LOOSER editing style with more context of what he is reacting to added in would actually be better.
Legendary resistance encourages a very strange and unfortunate playstyle where you try to apply the worst status effects with the lowest level spell slots possible, so that when the LR's run out you can actually use your high level spell slots. Definitely not the intended fantasy of high level spellcasting. Also has the weird adage that it gives monks much more use than other martials at high levels, but only in that they can burn through legendary resistance faster than any other class, and therefore are more useful for casters. I refer to this oddity as the Wizard's intern problem.
around 4:27:35 with the "backstory sword vs +2 warhammer" thing, I actually played a character like this - in this case, the GM and I talked about it, and those types of weapon upgrades were instead presented as weapon "enchantments" affixed to, for instance, a +2 gem that could be embedded into any weapon's hilt
1. can we see any of the "several comments" they put context to the entire thing. 2. Title seems like a player who has never DMed 3. Removing LR doesn't make casters weaker, it makes everything stronger 4. Level 11 players will steamroll any boss that doesn't have LR 5. Concentration literally balances magic abilities 6. It doesn't turn casting away from strategy, it adds to it. Knowing they exist makes you play the game differently. that is changing strategy. 7. Not having LR trivializes magic's ability to do things. 8. Explanation of LR and Conc sounds like a player who has never DMed 9. Concentration is relative to the abilities of casters, of which martial classes lack. Removing conc makes casters unbalanceable to martial classes without breaking martial classes 10. Haste specifically is balanced around concentration. you're running a risk. 11. Concentration's outcomes do no equate to wild magic sorcery. The effects and results are completely different. 12.Comboing with yourself and not your fellow players creates power vacuums where one dude can steamroll a boss by himself. 13. Saying DMs can balance mid game is generalized. Not every group wants to balance mid game. 14. Concentration does actively stop you from comboing with yourself. Thats the point. 15. Saying you have a design philosophy when you haven't designed or tested anything is pretentious. There is so much that goes into that, and it sounds like you just want to say the sentence "my design philosophy" because you have none of the credibility (at least established in this video) to back up that claim. Jesus Christ I can't even continue this, this was the most convoluted contradiction filled argument I've heard in a while. Not sure how this even popped up in my feed.
I'm not sure if you watched to the portion where I described the direction I would want things to go in, you didn't comment on it specifically, but I agree with all of what you said regarding LR's necessity in the current balance of the game. I fully agree that just outright removing LR and Concentration would fuck the game royally, and my solution was not just to have the DM balance things mid-game as I think 13 was implying? As a side note, I do have substantially more experience DMing than playing, but I don't really think it's relevant to the points in the video. But, I suppose if you don't agree with the initial premise, no reason to engage with any sort of proposed solution. Legitimately fair enough, don't waste anymore of your time. I'm sorry the video procced this much emotion, it really wasn't meant to be that serious.
@MegaphoneMan0 7:10 "on the spot balance" is what I would consider mid game balancing. Your fix is actually detrimental to Action economy. Are wizards supposed to just pass their turn until the spell goes off, and if it does the enemy is just stuck in it until the caster decides their not? That would steam roll encounters so quickly. "Hey man, can you physically hold person while I magically hold person? Thanks." Not only would they not even get a chance to cast their spell, they would give up their turns in the game to even attempt to cast it. Cast times in current d&d are exclusively placed in non-combat spells. Not in combat. Action economy and time between turns is bad as it is, you want to make it worse on just the casters?
I think that's a very fair critique to what I proposed, it absolutely would weaken the action economy of casters for high-impact spells to balance out the removal of LR. My argument is that LR has to exist because the Effect/Risk, or Effect/Cost ratio, of many spells is VERY high. We could remove LR by looking at ways to increase the Risk or Cost side of that ratio without having to touch the Effect (something a lot of folks are veeeeery touchy about). I totally agree that the feel of Action Economy is bad between turns, and given that it's absolutely fundamental to the game I think it should be given a thorough looking through. I'm not saying any sort of change like Pathfinder's 3-action system or anything like that, but maybe more in the direction that Baldur's Gate 3 seemed to go. Giving more common options for bonus actions (like shove), or potentially options that used up movement rather than an action like the Crossbows' "brace" feature. A good example might be making "dodge" cost 20 ft of movement rather than an action. If the feel of the action economy was better for all classes overall, I think the idea of a spell that took multiple turns to cast for a powerful effect wouldn't be nearly as disruptive but would have a very similar (and I think positive) effect. It seems like 5.24 is at least partially moving in this general direction, with most classes getting new stuff they can do with bonus actions. Honestly more notably to me, some got things they can do on reactions, which I think is a great direction to go in! Another good example of 5.24 going generally in this direction is the monk changes. They can now do several things as just a bonus action, or spend focus to do more, and their stunning strike was nerfed! This makes the action economy of them feel better while reducing the presence of effects that LR is needed to contest. Even though stunning strike is not a save or suck anymore, it applies a detriment on a successful save, it can only be done once per turn! In that case, they increased the effect a bit, but raised the risk much more. Sure, it still requires one point to use, but it can only be done once per turn, making it substantially less likely that monk will be able to stun any given opponent over the course of a turn, and impossible for them to stun more than one! This is exactly the sort of thing that I am going after when talking about longer casting times. In this case, stunning strike was able to be attempted multiple times per turn and was reduced to once per turn. With spells, I would be interested in taking it from once per turn, to once over several turns. As a side note, I also want to clarify that I'm not against wholly against LR's existence, the title is just a bit of clickbait. I think it could be an interesting "defining feature" for some enemy types, maybe fiends or something. My main issue is that it's essentially required for most monsters in Tier 4 due to spell design.
I could even see an possibility for a "charging" spell sort of system. To take hold person as an example, maybe you can charge it for as many turns as you would like, and if the monster fails the save they are paralyzed for that many turns? Then, if the caster is interrupted, the spell still resolves but only applies the paralysis for half that many turns rounded down to mitigate the "wasted" aspect? Gives the adversary side more of a chance to interact with and potentially interrupt it, each turn is an bit more of an active "push your luck" sort of decision for the caster, and if you get to two turns you know that you haven't wasted it? Even adds an even/odd turns decision point where if you keep charging on an even turn you are hoping that you can get to the next even turn. Would probably make it overall stronger though, so we could play with in being half, 1/3, or even just raising the level of the spell at that point. Haven't thought through that specific route too hard, and it does go in to the "variable value" side of things which isn't common in 5e design outside of concentration. But, as it relates to LR, I'm just generally looking at trying to contain each spell within itself, not relying on enemy design to balance them.
Potentially hot take: Mythcarver is a really, really underwhelming magic item, especially considering the context of all those Vestiges being handcrafted by Matt for this party specifically. Obviously Scanlan, being a Bard already in posession of very useful and powerful magic items and being played by a generally smart/clever Sam Riegel is already one of the more powerful members of the party and thus not really in need for a powerful Vestige, and also Sam Riegel is probably the player who cares the least about magic items so it's not a big deal. But Scanlan never gets into melee, so he won't benefit from Mythcarver at all in 99% of the situations. And because he doesn't have multiattack, a high AC or many HP it's probably not a good idea for Scanlan to change that. Sure it's a super powerful magic item because of bounded accuracy and it would greatly increase the power level of someone who already uses his action to make melee attacks often or at least regularly, but using Mythcarver instead of casting spells would probably actively nerf Scanlan a decent amount.
@@IlChatNoir17 I think my problem with LR is that it boils down an otherwise complex and multi-faceted decision (especially to casters), to a substantially simpler one. For casters, it's not necessarily "the most damage". It could be applying a condition to an adversary, a boon to allies, a terrain modification like wall of stone. There are additional factors as well, like the timing and placement of the adversary that need to be considered. LR takes all of that and (imo) reduces it down to a much simpler equation. Before I can play that fun game that I've been playing for 10+ levels, I first have to get past LR. And because LR isn't dependant on spell level or effect or anything like that, my game is now "force them to make as many saves as possible until LR is used up." But, honestly, if it was the special feature of one or two enemies, or even a whole enemy type (like fiends or something), I'd probably be fine with that. Boring overshields can definitely be a sort of "defining feature". My problem is more that you can't really make a high-CR adversary without it, several spells are just too powerful. It's the same wirh concentration. I'd be fine with concentration or LR existing. They both add a challenge / twist that I think could be enjoyable if used in very small doses, I just don't think they should be nearly as ubiquitous as they are. It'd sort of be like if all high CR monsters HAD to have magic weapons (like the Balor) or just do magic because at some point most of the classes got resistance to non-magical damage. I would say that's a problem and we need to re-examine the things that the classes are getting.
@@MegaphoneMan0 Oh I totally agree with everything about LR. The whole system could use an overhaul for sure. But I think the Epic Resistances sound like a decent compromise of making it less dull without reworking the whole conbat system
@@IlChatNoir17 yeah, I think it might be because I "scheduled" it for today. Very weird that it still shows that it exists before it's public on the original thread
For me, legendary monsters don't come up enough for this to be a problem. I always ask the question, what were you trying to do that you were upset the ancient dragon LRd? And it's usually stuff that would have just stopped it dead in tracks being fun for nobody like hold monster or banish. The simple solution here on the players' end is to pack some spells that can buff the party like fly, or just spells that do damage when you are in a fight with a monster with legendary resistance. You can literally use your cheese on everything else.
That's sort of my point. LR has to exist because of spells like you mentioned. My whole thesis is to change spells like Hold Person and Banish so that the band-aid of LR doesn't have to exist for high-CR adversaries. I am saying that the "cheese" needs to be re-worked. If it got those reworks, we could remove a mechanic AND make balancing high-level encounters that little bit easier and more flexible!
A I see concentration as an elegant solution to a complex problem. The two issues you described are really just the one issue of spells being powerful. But concentration does let spells be powerful and interactive. From the players perspective, that feels like a huge deal when the badguy drops a spell thats effecting the battlefield the rogue or the monk is like, "i have to stop him!" Etc. B I feel like saying casting time solves the problem that legendary resistance is meant to implies that players wouldnt be sad if they wanted to do their cool thing and got Targeted down. Either their concentration was broken or it was too good and they needed to take enough damage to die to prevent the casting. If either happened, im sure everyone would be complaining about "these useless spells where you know youre going to die before you get to use them." C I dont understand the stigma against legendary resistance. When in fiction does the hero use their "i win" trick and it just works? On mooks, on unimportant bad guys. Maybe the villains lieutenants who really deserve an asskicking. In never works on a real dramatic threat. Maybe thats not the point, maybe its a "dont feel bad," thing. As a player i want to be challenged and if i just win for using one spell then the fight was boring. As a dm, i want the fights to be dramatic, and theirs nothing so anticlimactic as that. D The issue as I see it is the expectation of the magic user in the dnd space is one where they should have all these buttons that do cool things and they just work. I think thats fair, i dont think thats how the game is designed but i thinknits fair for a player to say, " i used my cool ability, i pressed the cool stuff button, how come i dont get cool stuff?" But the game is designed so that every ability is something of a slot machine. You can action surge and get exactly one action and roll poorly and gain no damage. You can cast your big spell and they can just save and you did nothing because you used a spell that is single target and they passed. I can understand that being frustrating but the other players st the table sre dealing eith it too. You always have a chance to whiff. E I think you might enjoy pathfinder 2 . I dont play it but i know they have a magic system closer to what you're describing. You can choose to spend more time casting a spell and improve its power. F I kind of agree on the idea defensive options are too strong. I also think spells can get too strong and versatile. Up to level 12 or so i feel like everything sticks together well. You have to have good players who are not trying to make the game miserable after that point.
you should try fabula ultima. it has a really cool ritual kinda thing with cool big spells that all it requires you filling up slots on a clock. so you get big effects, but also through extra effort you can fill up more slots, or do things simultaneously, etc etc
