11 Rules DM's Get WRONG...

Подписаться 26 тыс.

Просмотров 11 тыс.

50% 1

Dungeon Masters, think you know it all? Here are 11 rules DM's get wrong time and time again...
Get your Storytelling and Dungeons and Dragons tips for Dungeon Masters and players alike, at The Fantasy Forge!
Thank you so much for watching! Please consider liking and subscribing,
Crafting stories, one realm at a time...and bring your next story to life with Dscryb (use code FANTASYFORGEUNIVERSE at checkout):
dscryb.com/fantasyforgeuniverse
Subscribe and never miss an update for content just like this:
www.youtube.com/@thefantasyfo...
Join our community and even have your name written in our Tome of Legends:
/ thefantasyforge873
Visit us at: www.FantasyForgeUniverse.com
Shop our wares at: www.etsy.com/shop/ShopFantasy...
Bring out the worldbuilder in you with our World Weaver's Workbook: a.co/d/iTG1DjK
Want to be a better Dungeon Master? Start with our guide, the Master of Realms:
a.co/d/0SfaLV0
#dungeonsanddragons #dnd #5e #onednd
_______________________________________________________________________________
AFFILIATE LINKS - Get your products and also help support the channel at the same time!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Get a gift for the DM in your life, the core rulebooks AND MORE here: amzn.to/43lmHUD
Joseph Campbells book that inspired Star Wars and I use to plot my campaigns: amzn.to/439VhBb
Crafting stories, one realm at a time...and bring your next story to life with Dscryb (use code FANTASYFORGEUNIVERSE at checkout):
dscryb.com/fantasyforgeuniverse
_______________________________________________________________________________
CHANNEL
_______________________________________________________________________________
MORE OF OUR VIDEOS HERE:
/ @thefantasyforge
Don't forget to like and subscribe for new tabletop roleplaying content and tips for game masters, all the time! Stay up to date and never miss a new video.
On this channel we are devoted to providing dungeons and dragons and ttrpg tips and tricks from real life experience. If you have a question you want solved, let us know! We'd love to tackle it.
DON'T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE! Never miss a new update!:
www.youtube.com/@TheFantasyFo...
Visit us at: www.FantasyForgeUniverse.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
SOURCES
_______________________________________________________________________________
All videos clips in this video follow fair-use law, are from copyright free websites, or were purchased by the channel owner.
Art for our channel was created by the amazing artists:
isadora.pol...
galewanwan...
_______________________________________________________________________________
CONTACT US
_______________________________________________________________________________
Visit us at: www.FantasyForgeUniverse.com
If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, reach out to us at:
info@fantasyforgeuniverse.com

Хобби

Опубликовано:

4 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 149

@JosiahAkaBrick 7 месяцев назад

A note on opportunity attacks: a creature can only take an opportunity attack if they can see the enemy leaving their threatened area. So if the creature is blinded, or the enemy is invisible, there is no trigger for the attack.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Oooo another great addition. It's crazy how wording is everything

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

This is more important when you are a Warlock and have an Imp familiar because the Imp can grant you the help action, then fly above the creature out of harms way (unless they have a ranged attack).

@TheMightyBattleSquid 23 дня назад

I've brought this up before but DMs quickly forget or ignore it to get their swipes in on PCs anyway 😮‍💨

@TrickyTrickyFox 7 месяцев назад

Nat 20s on skill checks work only if you rule it as "best possible outcome for that character". In your example with barbarian picking a lock - I would've ruled nat 20 somewhere on the lines of: "you've seen many times rogue picking locks and decided to give it a try. With your muscly fingers it's very difficult to perform accurate actions required to pick a lock open, but you've been extremely gentle and concentrated during the attempt. You did not break the lock, nor got it stuck or made any loud noises, which is impressive on it's own. Furthermore, parties rogue / bard / whomever observed your attempt and they believe they know where it went wrong for you. Rogue / bard / etc gets to attempt picking the lock with advantage / + whatever bonus"

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

This is a great way to look at it! I love this. Thanks for the love!

@gameraven13 3 месяца назад

But that's just RAW. It's not the same as "auto success" like the auto success on an attack roll. "Best possible outcome for that character" is just how the rules work by default.

@pbruh 7 месяцев назад

I think one thing that makes D&D so great is how malleable it is. All of these rules can be completely optional or changed if the group thinks that’s the most fun for everyone

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Yep! And let’s be honest, many of the rules SHOULD be reworked

@angeldoesfunny 4 месяца назад

I have recently started my first campaign as a DM, and a new player asked me after a session "I had fun, but like how do we win?"And I had to explain to her that if you're having fun, then you're winning 😅

@TheFantasyForge 4 месяца назад

@@angeldoesfunny LOL "how do we win" xD by surviving

@angeldoesfunny 4 месяца назад

@@TheFantasyForge literally lmao

@JeremyStreich 7 месяцев назад

Nat 20 should be a instant success if you follow the rules in DMG that say only call for a roll when success and failure are both options. If 20 isn't a success, you shouldn't have called for the roll. If a player says they want to jump over a castle, that isn't a roll, it's "You jump a few feet up and come back down, and look like a fool." No roll required.

@owensthebomb9273 4 месяца назад

Yes I agree with that, one of the creators of the game originally said something along the lines of, if something just wound happen or wouldn’t happen, don’t role. They example I’ve seen is a rogue rolling to sneak up on a sleeping guard them killing them while asleep, they don’t need to roll an attack, they can just kill them.

@gorgit 4 месяца назад

Yes, but nat 20's can lead to a failure, when the DC is close to 20 and the dm doesnt know the exact modifier. But when the DC would be 25, and the 7 int barbarian wants to roll an int check, you can speed up the process and just say "you fail".

@gameraven13 3 месяца назад

Except that's not always possible. Say you have a lock that's DC 30 to unlock. Only the rogue in the party has a chance with modifiers to unlock it, but someone else tries to attempt. You can't just magically "well no that's impossible" it away. Anyone else rolling a nat 20 will still not meet the DC 30 threshold and thus not succeed, but the roll still needs to be an option for immersion purposes otherwise it feels railroaded. The players won't know it's DC 30 so telling them no but the rogue yes just feels like you're picking favorites at that point unless you just outright tell them, only the rogue has bonuses high enough to succeed on this DC which is just too much info being given. There's no reason they'd need that level of behind the screen info. But yes, in general I think checks that for everyone in the party are impossible to fail or impossible to succeed it makes sense to just not have them roll. I find myself using the "impossible to fail" one more often since I use passive scores a lot more often for checks that are medium or easy. DC 15 lock but you've got a +7 to your roll? Unless it adds drama to potentially fail, why roll? Passive of 17 = success in my book. Athletic checks are another big one that I just hand waive a lot if the passive is high enough for the same reason. Not quite the same, but follows that guideline of making sure the roll in and of itself is actually important and that if you roll there should always be a degree of success idea.

@JeremyStreich 3 месяца назад

@@gameraven13 "Only the rogue in the party has a chance with modifiers to unlock it, but someone else tries to attempt. You can't just magically 'well no that's impossible' it away. " Yes, actually you can do exactly that. The barbarian says he wants to pick the lock, you can simply say, "With your modifiers, you take a look at the lock, and are completely baffled by this mechanical device."

@Gofex1337 3 месяца назад

@@gameraven13Unfortunately with the average players current mindset of "Nat20s being godly" most players would prefer to be told something is impossible, than to roll that nat20, add your +8 modifier and then be told that you failed. Railroading is more about being given the illusion of agency and opportunity and being proven that it's impossible. Being told right away that something can't be done usually leaves a less railroady feeling.

@adonistechshow2308 7 месяцев назад

Being good at something first try or just randomly happens irl, I don't see why it could not be a thing in DnD

@gameraven13 3 месяца назад

I think Intelligence checks are the best example of why sometimes you just would not know something. Even if I irl had the equivalent luck of rolling a nat 20, there are still some pieces of knowledge that I will just never be able to recollect or infer, but people who are proficient in that field and/or are just naturally more intelligent than me could definitely achieve. Athletics is another one. The DC for picking up the same weight as a power lifter would be pretty high. My irl modifier for that is nowhere near high enough to guarantee a 5% chance of success. It's a 0% I can tell you right now. Granted Strength score is what determines a lot of those lift, pull, drag, etc. numbers, not an athletics check, but I'm sure other athletic feats could also fall into this category. It's ok to not be able to do something, I think the key is just don't ask for the roll in the first place.

@williamgordon5443 7 месяцев назад

Darkvision also says that in darkness you only see in shades of gray. So your all darkvision party going through a section of darkness, throw in a color-based code or riddle to see if they can figure out that they need to light a torch first before they can solve the riddle.

@TrickyTrickyFox 7 месяцев назад

Did that, was fantastic. After almost 2 hours of arguing how to solve the puzzle, barbarian took out a torch claiming they will burn the letter code on paper, discovering different colors were part of the puzzle. Party hated me, i had a good laugh. Worth it

@kaif-tube1692 7 месяцев назад

From what I see online from people, many forget that to cast most spells you have to speak some incantation and wave your arms around (verbal and somatic components). So, no, if the target can see and hear you, you can't just suddenly cast a spell on them without them knowing (without subtle casting and whatnot anyway).

@stopshowingmyname8274 7 месяцев назад

Sleeping in Armor are OPTIONAL rules from xanathars guide. They also only lower the amount of hit die you get back and prevent it from removing exhaustion, you would still full heal and get your slots back. It also does not apply to light armor at all.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Oh hey! the more you know

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

Does the players handbook even address sleeping in armor? I honestly can't recall it saying that you can't.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@bradleyhurley6755 You know I looked it up after that last comment and I swear I thought it did. Oh well haha

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

@TheFantasyForge looks like the penalty for sleeping in armor was removed starting with 4th edition. Seems the video about DMs getting rules wrong failed to the typical reason DMs get rulings wrong lol. In all seriousness, while making new editions is good for business, the radical changes aren't so great for playing.

@JasonVDM 7 месяцев назад

I like the idea of dropping the AC by two. Unless its light armour. You slept in armour but had to "loosen the straps" to get comfortable. They need to spend an action to resore this to normal AC Also note a Sheild takes an action to don. So the paladin AC drops by 4 while resting. A useful penalty without the punishment of no armour. It also means they could have their full armour while on watch.

@firemaker282 6 месяцев назад

About the rolling ant 20s and rolling high on stuff. If it is impossible for a character to do something even with a nat 20, then you as the DM simply don't ask for a roll and instead describe how they try and fail at whatever task they were doing. If you are asking for a roll it should be because it is possible (however unlikely) for the player to succeed. And if you think a 5% chance of succeeding some stuff is too high of a chance then you can always implement a confirmed critical system from older editions where if they get the nat 20 they have to roll again to confirm the success. Besides that I feel like a lot of people forget that nonspellcasters can't use spell scrolls, and even casters can only use scrolls of spells that would normally be available to their class. So no your ranger can't use a scroll of fireball.

@TheFantasyForge 6 месяцев назад

Yes! And the scroll rule I forgot about! Thank you for the comments.

@dandmadeeasy 7 месяцев назад

Thanks for the video. A couple of things I'd add to the list: - Interaction dynamics, changing what a character is holding, and spell components. I'm always careful about this, and for many characters, you may need to take War Caster to be able to do what you want to based on RAW (say you want to cast spells while you have a weapon and Shield equipped). - Understanding enough about how class abilities work to clock when something is obviously wrong, for example a level 5 Druid Wild Shaping into a CR 4 creature.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Ooooh the hands thing is a good one. I'm guilty of forgetting that one lol

@Merlinstergandaldore 7 месяцев назад

Rule #1: The DM is never wrong. Rule #2: In the event that the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1. 😁

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

LOL actually I 100% agree. I had a player fight me all the time and it was so frustrating

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

@@TheFantasyForge I still think its annoying though when a DM says your ability doesn't do what the description of the ability says it does.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@bradleyhurley6755 Yeah it's definitely a two sided thing. Sometimes the DM has reasons for not allowing things, and fighting only makes it into a "me vs you" thing instead of a game. There have been things I don't allow because lore-wise it just doesn't exist in my world, and a player has fought me on it. But I think that understanding where the player comes from is also important, and I welcome my players to talk to me about it and speak their side, but once that's done and the decision is made, to just move on to keep the game moving.

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

@@TheFantasyForge For context my personal problem was the DM using the wording of an ability from a previous edition rather than the edition we were playing. Another example is not doing surprise correctly (defaulting to the third edition way) but I never could get a good explanation for how the Barbarian's 7th level feature would be implemented because of that ruling. His view of invisibility made the game unplayable once someone had invisibility or if he gave a bad guy invisibility. (Essentially someone with greater invisibility could never be targeted). Then there was the time he banned heat metal as the spell was being cast.

@nrais76 7 месяцев назад

Beat me to it. Okay, now with they said, let's watch the rest of the video. You know, everything past the title. Cuz I notice he's saying something about darkvision, my host hated thing ever, and to be able to tell my players no AND rub their faces in it would be nice. Also I have a thing about rules because I gamed for years in a group with a DM who was very seat of his pants did his own house rules, combined with a player who was at the time very manipulative, amd it got really ridiculous and broken, but really only for hsmis character and I was getting screwed a lot. So when possible, I try to stick to rules as written, and when I deviate, I always announce to my players "hey, this is the rule, but I think that's stupid because of ___, so here's how we're going to it," and then stick to it until becomes obvious it's broken, then I make the announcement again and generally take suggestions at that point

@jewabeus 5 месяцев назад

Just found you today. I love your videos & subscribed. Just so you know, the thing that caught my attention was the fact that while you went over the 11 Rules DMs Get Wrong, you also said if that's not how I want to run my table, that's fine. I greatly appreciate learning the rules, especially when I'm not aware of or fully understanding them, but you did this video in a VERY respectful & helpful manner. Greatly appreciated.

@TheFantasyForge 5 месяцев назад

It's your table! I've had DM's run games completely different than me, and I still had fun. Thanks for the follow! :D

@fightingcorsair7297 7 месяцев назад

Great list. The DM and other players in my group always, always, get darkvision wrong. 3E handled vision better by having darkvision and low light vision be separate abilities. Another interesting thing about using Ready on a spell is it takes concentration to hold the spell.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Thanks for the love! Also, I've heard 3.5 is just so much better and I'm starting to see why lol

@denzildk 3 месяца назад

if a barbarian rolls high on an int check i always make him remember something someone did while he was beating them up, that is kinda helpfull in the situation, but does not actually explain what's going on. Eg. bad guy ran into a room with 1 door and dissapeared, barbarian rolls nat 20 on investigation: "I remember a time where a puny mage i was about to beat up ran through a wall, so i ran after him and smashed the wall, except i think it was a very light wall because i did not really feel it, but i caught up and beat him up. Anyways i'm gonna smash my head into all the walls to see if there are any light walls here" *finds illusory door*

@TheFantasyForge 3 месяца назад

yeah this is a great way to make a success fit the narrative!

@TheKrucifix12 4 месяца назад

Great List! honestly i realized I wasn't representing passive perception correctly after going back and re-reading the rule, the extra attack on the hold action was something i was unaware of worked that way as well I had incorrectly thought that they'd get both attacks based on their attack action, also never thought of a spellcaster literally holding the spell while using the hold action awesome video thank you :)

@MrSDegnan 3 месяца назад

Perception vs Investigation checks: Perception would be used to notice whether there is something hidden (secret passage in a bookcase, as an example used in this video), whereas Investigation would be used to determine how the mechanism works to actually open the passage.

@evanwhite5704 4 месяца назад

Another thing about opportunity attacks is that it can include things like movement from dissonant whispers, command, or other spells like that. The movement still triggers an opportunity attack as long as it uses their movement, action, or reaction.

@TheFantasyForge 4 месяца назад

Ooo good distinction to make!

@Viehzerrer 5 месяцев назад

1. While it's not all, I think one reason the exactly working of Darkvision often gets ignored is that, despite the glut of "Darkvision races" many parties are still mixed with several characters having none, so they still need light sources, rendering Darkvision irrelevant (unless they can spot something beyond the light's range). Easy to forget about it in such cases (certainly happens to me when I'm GM-ing). 2. I said it before, I say it again, I say it as often as it needs to be said (that is, as long as D&D DMs are bad at adjudicating dice rolls). There's nothing wrong with natural 20 auto-suceeding. Nearly every RPG that isn't D&D has autosuccesses (and autofailures) like this. The idea behind dice checks is to settle the outcome of a task that can either fail OR succeed. Does either of those don't apply, you don't roll dice in the first place, since it would be pointless and just needlessly slows the game down. Is a task so trivial that there's no way the character should fail? No dice roll, they simply succeed. Is the task too difficult for them (and you also don't think that they should be able to do it with sheer luck), it wouldn't make sense for them to be able to do it or is straight-up impossible? No dice roll, they simply can't do it. Again, that's how every other RPG does it, many systems advise against making excessive, unnecessary dice rolls... But for some reason, 5E (or D&D in general?) has bred a bad GM culture where dice are rolled for basically everything, no matter how nonsensical. Allowing, even encouraging such pointless dice rolls is bad GM-ing and I worry to think what happens if those GMs actually try other, non-D&D systems. 3. That's something I did wrong quite a bit myself, despite knowing that it's not correct because I didn't know the rules well-enough (so I did surprise rounds, but want to do it "properly" in the future). However, there is something odd about the surprise rules that I noticed recently (and others noticed it too, so It's certainly not me overlooking something). A lot of people interpret the rules that surprised characters stop being surprised after their first turn (which is important for the assassin). It's understandable, makes sense and likely intended that way. But it's never explicitly stated in the rules. In fact, the rules don't specify at all when a surprised creature stops being surprised. RAW you could argue they should be surprised the entire battle, giving an assassin endless critical hits (although no GM would actually rule that. I hope.) Personally, for the sake of making a bad subclass suck a bit less, I'd rule that surprised creatures count as surprised until the end of the round for the sake of the Assassinate ability (but still can make reactions after their turn).

@Krwzprtt 7 месяцев назад

I already knew about how readying an action worked for casting, but I purposely ignore it because I think it's dumb. If every other thing that takes an action (like attacking, grappling, or using an object) can be done as a readied action, then why not the full casting of a spell. As for rule #11, I think the actual issue is different but also a common problem: establishing what actions require/allow a check. For your example, if the barbarian asks to roll to solve quantum physics, the DM should just say no. Some actions are impossible just like some actions are obvious and wouldn't require a check. Now, granted, it's hard to manage because it can feel like removing player agency and involuntary railroading.

@krysbingham2501 7 месяцев назад

People also forget that passive investigation and passive Insight is a thing too. Rather than lean on passive perception, highly insightful and high investigation builds should also get that spotlight. But in general, people just do perception way too much and lean on it entirely when the other sight based skills.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Yeah its fascinating too cuz I didn't know that for the longest time when I was a player.

@williamgordon5443 7 месяцев назад

I don't think that there is anything stopping you from having a passive score for any skill, it's just passive strength and dexterity might be a little hard to work out. Passive con could be used for poison.

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

I have a dislike of insight. I know a lot of people automatically don't allow it for use against other PCs, and as a player I like to determine for myself whether or not I think someone is being truthful. There are exceptions, when my PC really should know vs me the player not realizing it. This really comes from the fact that there are almost no universal signals that someone is lying. The lie detector being so notoriously false that it isn't allowed as evidence in court. It is nearly impossible to judge whether or not someone you have never met before is lying. (For example, I've faked lying to people before my smiling/laughing as I was saying something). I think all of that translates to why I tend to ignore passive insight as a DM. As a player I almost never ask for insight checks. There has to be a specific reason for me to ask.

@owensthebomb9273 4 месяца назад

@@bradleyhurley6755interesting point, I wonder if a player asks to role insight and gets high you could say something like “well you notice their hands are shaking and their voice is trembling a little” while they are stereotypical signs on lying there’s still a chance they are just nervous or shaking. Instead of turning your players into accurate lie detectors.

@bradleyhurley6755 4 месяца назад

@owensthebomb9273 A lot of people will laugh when nervous, even in situations most people would deem inappropriate. There are also a lot of cultural differences

@RaethFennec 7 месяцев назад

As a DM, here's a few more things DMs often get wrong. 1: Invisible enemies do not become undetectable or unattackable. Spells may require that you see them to target them, but most attacks don't, and invisible enemies still give away their position visually and audibly. You attack them with disadvantage, but most importantly, you ~know where they are and go~ unless they take the Hide action and no one on your team has a passive perception equal to or greater than their Stealth roll. If no one does, the player snow need to make ACTIVE PERCEPTION CHECKS (using their Action) to try to spot the target. 2: You can not ready actions outside of combat. This is a really strange one that upsets a lot of people, but "combat actions" don't belong to you except when in combat. They're not a class feature, so you don't have them until Initiative is rolled. Class features are always available, and usually include mechanics for use in combat, if applicable. 3: While it's fun at level 1 or 2 for new players especially, figuring out things like watch order for resting becomes tedious as play exits tier 0. Unless the campaign precludes this and you've discussed these matters with your players in advance with a session 0 or something similar, please assume your characters are skilled adventurers and keep watch. If you want to be really gritty with it, have your players design a strategy playbook, so you know what their default marching orders, long rest watch rotations and precautions, etc. are. 4: ALL SKILLS have a passive value, and if you have advantage on a skill, you gain a +5 to that passive value. Please don't make your +10 Athletics Barbarian roll a check to jump a few extra feet. Their passive score often will cover it. Always remember passive Perception, Insight, and Investigation though. Those come up a lot! Wisdom-based Pallid Elves and anyone with the Observant feat especially can become keenly perceptive and spot traps and secret doors, or other key details, without even trying! 5: There is no surprise round. Generally, you must either Hide and the enemy gets a Perception check to spot you and prevent gaining the Surprised condition, or they must not be wary of anyone they can perceive. In some situations, creatures might be wary before you try to engage with them, such as guards or animals. If your party strolls up, it won't matter that one of you hides in the bushes. You might get a free shot in for narrative purposes and your effort, but if the enemy is ready to fight at a moment's notice or can clearly see you draw or aim a weapon, you roll Initiative and play things out in turn order, with the dice having say over the order of events. There are many more, but these are some of the big ones!

@sleepinggiant4062 4 месяца назад

I really dislike it when a DM stabs me then has everyone roll for initiative. Where's my perception check? Biggest Stealth fail I see is allowing a character to hide when being observed. "But I can hide as a bonus action". /sigh 5e has no references to sleeping in armor in the core rules, so by default, you can. They did add it in Xanthar's, and you can sleep in armor, it just costs you some of your HD recovered and you don't lose a point of exhaustion. Active vs. Passive has nothing to do with the player asking to roll. It is entirely up to the DM when they want you to roll or not. A DM can use the passive check even when you ask to roll. Wait for the DM to ask you to roll a skill check. I allow casters to continue to concentrate on their spell if they readied, but not past the end of combat. Great video!

@davidharper238 7 месяцев назад

I got some of this, but not all of it. Cool video.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

hey its YOUR table at the end of the day lol

@rikidog2682 3 месяца назад

At my table, a Nat 20 on a skill check is not an auto-success, but it lets you add a bonus equal to your proficiency modifier. If the DC is a 30, it won't save you, but it still feels a little extra cool to roll a Nat 20. I hate seeing the joy of a player rolling a Nat 20 on something they're not usually good at, followed by the immediate disappointment of having to *subtract*. I don't make a habit of letting EVERYONE roll every check, so players overshadowing each other has yet to become a problem. The low charisma barbarian still isn't going to run around nailing every persuasion check, but I prefer to give her a fighting chance when it counts. That Nat 20 can make for a very cool narrative moment.

@ChapterGrim 7 месяцев назад

This won my sub in the first two... 😊

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

aw welcome and thank you for the love

@dencsyy 3 месяца назад

That long rest rule is cool but the campaign I run with my friends... we have a sorcerer... a wizard, and a barbarian without any armor... and the single pc that has plate armor is a warforged so... it's built in 😅

@TheFantasyForge 3 месяца назад

make them sleep nude

@FattyMcFox 7 месяцев назад

I believe you are mistaken. There is no GETTING WRONG for DMs, there is running rules not as the designers intended. Whether it is by mistake, or by intent, the DM is the final arbiter of the table. (Unless it is adventure league)

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Definitely! But the rules are written because they have been play tested to help keep the game "optimal" so I'm talking about RAW. If you wanna change them at your table that's totally fine :)

@petersmythe6462 6 месяцев назад

If someone rolls a Nat 20 on something that should be ridiculously unlikely, what I often have them do is partially succeed and give them the option to roll again to succeed more of fail.

@valasafantastic1055 7 месяцев назад

Many are chosen homebrew. People prefer to change some of these rules intentionally. However you should know the ‘correct’ RAW and then choose to run it RAW or homebrew. I think it should be intentional not accidental.

@georgelaiacona111 7 месяцев назад

The only problem with resting in armor is you cannot remove fatigue, and gain only 1/4 HD recovered. (XGE p 77) Resting is otherwise just fine in armor. And you must be interrupted for longer than 1 hour of strenuous activity to lose the benefits of rest. (P. 186. PHB). Resting mechanics in D&D make less sense than Nat 20 homebrew rules, and create almost as many arguments at the table.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Yeah just noticed someone else point that out too. D&D is all about learning new rules haha

@CaptCook999 7 месяцев назад

See, this is why I don't like 5e and "rules lawyers". I can take you way back to the beginning. To D&D basic and the days of fanzines. There's an old gaming company called Judges Guild. And within those products is a simple rule. Sleeping in armor has a chance to cause "Crud". Which basically means that you are going to get a rash or some other external skin ailment because you are wearing armor all of the time. I mean just think about it. Have you ever slept in the same clothes for a couple days? Did you not start to feel a bit itchy in a few spots? A little redness here and there by the armpits, neck and crotch? And when you think about it, just sitting in heavy armor would be difficult. Sleeping in it would be very uncomfortable and not easy to get a good nights sleep. And please, for gods sake, you don't need a rule to make players do what should be common sense. Do they really believe that their character doesn't want to get out of that tin can they are wearing and let their bodies breathe for a while?

@georgelaiacona111 7 месяцев назад

@@CaptCook999 I'm with you 100%, the rest mechanics in 5e are dumb, designed that way on purpose. Nothing in the rules says you can't make up your own rules. Very familiar with Judges Guild. I own a bunch of their stuff. The video was about rules DMs are getting wrong, not what is made up. And Yes, I have slept in the same clothes for days, to include body armor.

@johngleeman8347 7 месяцев назад

The thing is, though a natural 20 isn't an automatic success, most skill DCs are not so astromically high that there's isn't a reasonable chance that the character did succeed. You're right that impossible tasks cannot be accomplished by a good roll. It's important for a referee to let his/her players know that if the referee doesn't call for a check, the task is either trivialy easy or impossible. Only when the outcome is uncertain do the math rocks enter the picture. This can even apply to combats where the outcome is certain, such as a case where a group of weak monsters were all hit by hypnotic pattern spell and all failed their saving throws. None of them can break the effect on the others, and none of them can hope to withstand a full round of the party attacking them. For the sake of flow you can rule that the PCs are certain to win, and leave combat early. In 3rd edition they had the taking 10 or taking 20 option. Taking 10 is similar to 5th edition's passive checks, though in 3rd they were only available in non-threatening situations. Taking 20 was for tasks that while difficult, were possible and achievable given enough time and effort.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Definitely! I like the taking 10 and taking 20. Also math rocks made me LOL.

@someonewithsomename Месяц назад

The best way to use Nat20s is not just as auto-success at the task they are doing, but as a best possible outcome in the situation. Barbarian rolling a nat20 on lock picking can still mean that they fail to pick a lock and break the lockpick. But then they get angry, kick a door and it opens, because it was unlocked the whole time (or something else, depending on your campaign tone and characters involved). No common sense broken, pretty in character for most of the barbarians out there. Fail your players forward.

@jacktalos7 3 месяца назад

1. What would be the difference between people who are using dark vision and people who want to use sounds and their other senses to perceive something?

@TheFantasyForge 3 месяца назад

At my table I would need a lore/backstory/background reason for why they're so good at using their other senses. Such as being a lycan, or having trained in a cave or something. The average person is not Daredevil with sonic hearing or have mega-smell. I would say it's still disadvantage

@SpookyTimes556 7 месяцев назад

The one with armor I'm not finding too much dirt on, I'd kinda like to know where this is stated in because it could make for some interesting dynamics. Though my players would be pissed if I told them this was a rule without official documentation. At least in my campaign, I started my players off only in or around their guild base (which was the only place they could long rest) Makes sense to have your armor off in those places. Now I have my players traveling to a very far away location carrying essentially a giant payload (moneymaker for thieves) on their back. Since my party would need supply packs and other materials to actually benefit from long rests, having no armor to also add to this set of stuff would make for some very intense encounters. If anything I'll just homebrew a rule, and if I get flak for it I'll just ask them if they sleep in full plate armor!

@wolfeye2717 7 месяцев назад

(Fun fact I have slept in amour (military) and plates...you can sleep just fine, us it uncomfortable? Yes ..can you sleep yeah and with not much difficulty)

@Stormeye_Kinobi 7 месяцев назад

The reason you are not finding any dirt is because there is none. The closest thing to this is in Xanathar's in chapter 2. "Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest. When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn’t reduce your exhaustion level."

@CaptCook999 7 месяцев назад

@Stormeye_Kinobi 7 месяцев назад

@@CaptCook999 You have never played with power/ min maxers have you? I can tell you from experience that you do in fact need rules to make players do what should be common sense. And this is not a 5e problem but a modern issue from a generational mind set of "how can I use the game logic to my advantage" that has been perpetuated by modern gaming. 5e is actually nicely streamlined, cause let's be honest, THAC0 is a nightmare. While providing ease of use to add rules like sleeping in armor penalties. Just don't tell everyone at your table that it is RAW cause you seen it on a random video on RU-vid or you will crash your creditability.

@CaptCook999 7 месяцев назад

@@Stormeye_Kinobiit's real easy and it goes like this. "As you bed down for the night, you start taking off your armor realizing how itchy you are and that you really need a bath. The sentry holds his nose as you lift up your arm to disrobe and says that you stink to high heaven....." Done! You are the DM so the "Rules" are yours to command. Take charge and lay things out the way you want to. If you get arguments like "I'm not taking off my armor", then just tell that player to roll a saving throw. Then proceed to make some notes and watch their face. They won't know what you are doing but next time they won't be so keen to argue with you.

@edwardg8912 6 месяцев назад

That last rule, I would just not allow for the role if there is no possible way the character could succeed.

@TheFantasyForge 6 месяцев назад

Yep, agreed! Thanks for the love today :D

@amehayami934 День назад

And Don't forget stealth doesn't only mean sight. There is other sense as well.

@TheFantasyForge День назад

100% agree!

@RIVERSRPGChannel 7 месяцев назад

Good video I’m not a fan of passive perception

@lorken22 3 месяца назад

I think nat 20s should be a success for one simple reason; if there is NO chance of succeeding AT ALL then the DM should not allow a roll for it. In the same way you say making a 20 make ANYTHING possible ruins the game a little I think that for me at least, if the DM says I can roll for something and I can't even celebrate rolling well? That sucks out the fun for me. Part of DMing should be being able to tell your players "no, you can't roll for that."

@themiIes 3 месяца назад

At my table 1 or 20s dont always mean instant fail or success. If something is impossible to do, lets say "Roll Intimidation if you, the halfling, actual manage to make the dragon give up his treasure just by shouting at him" and they roll a 20: I'm not making the dragon move away in fear. But maybe the dragon likes the attitude that the lil guy tried so in return, the best possible outcome for this, he won't eat him. Best possible outcome is way more fun and realistic than instant success

@anonymouse2675 7 месяцев назад

It should be a rule that spellcasters should know what spells they took, and what they do... Sadly it`s not.

@chiepah2 3 месяца назад

About Natural 20s being an automatic success, if you play them like it's an automatic success then, yeah, it's annoying, but if you play it like it's the best plausible result then you have some interesting things happen, barbarian goes to pick a lock, turns out there's a latch in the back that is a security bypass that he managed to flip (real things you can find in existing locks today). Nat 20 on a stealth check in the middle of the room? only the DM can call for checks, if the player rolls it and the DM didn't call for it then the DM says, sorry you don't get a check, it's too obvious, if the DM calls for a check then there needs to be a possibility of a success, otherwise what's the point? I rolled 20 and get 17 from modifiers, sorry, not high enough, it's the highest mathematically possible in the game and it's not high enough? The DM should not be calling for checks for impossible to beat DC's, the thing just happens.

@TheFantasyForge 3 месяца назад

yep! Totally right and I realized it after I'd written the script. Wording matters haha

@jriggan 5 месяцев назад

🍻

@TheFantasyForge 5 месяцев назад

🍻

@MalloonTarka 7 месяцев назад

Considering something "taking something away from other players", that should not mean "make the game worse for everybody just because one person built their character to make it slightly less worse for them". That doesn't apply to any of these examples, I think, but care needs to be had when using that argument.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

I agree, but the point of a party is to compliment each others weaknesses. There's nothing wrong with knowing your role in the party and building for that

@tooblue127 7 месяцев назад

For the natural 20 being a success or not out of combat while it is important to acknowledge that technically it isn't always a critical success.....well I am not going to have a player roll for it if even if they roll the BEST they can roll they still can't do it. Why let them roll if the roll doesn't matter?

@TheFantasyForge 6 месяцев назад

True! That's why I don't ask for those rolls. I'm pointing out that lots of DM's DO ask for those rolls.

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

It seems like a lot of these DMs get wrong because they are using the 3rd edition rules instead of 5th edition. It can be hard to unlearn rules from previous editions especially when they are so similar.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

Trueeee. I only know 5e so I'm luck there haha. Even then, remembering all the rules i hard haha

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

@@TheFantasyForge Just to point out a couple of examples, in 3rd edition, you had a surprise round. So if you surprised an opponent you got an action before initiative was rolled. And in third edition a nat 20 on skill checks was an automatic success. I'm sure there are more examples, but those are at least two of the big ones that you touched on. 5e is so similar that after playing 3rd/pathfinder1 for 15 years, I still find the surprise round of 3rd edition more intuitive and makes more sense than 5e. 5e sounds like it was made just to streamline the game because it is a game. I've tried really hard to do it correctly according to the rules, but I still mess up. Thankfully it usually doesn't matter. Though Barbarians and spellcasters are two examples of when it becomes important to follow the rules.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@bradleyhurley6755 Yeah I've heard 3.5 is better, I'll have to check out the PHB and see the differences for myself 👀 I'm curious now

@johngleeman8347 7 месяцев назад

Are you sure? I thought it was just attacks and saves.@@bradleyhurley6755

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

@TheFantasyForge better is relative to what you want out of the game. I wouldn't say 3.5 is better than 5e. It's better if you want a more realistic game rules. It's worse if you want more streamlined rules you can just pull a new player into and go. 5e is more new DM friendly.

@raynmakr40 7 месяцев назад

A nat 20 is not always a success in combat. A natural 20 is an automatic success for attack rolls. It doesn't matter whether you are in combat or not.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

I mean yes and no. RAW the moment you initiate any sort of attack or anything, you roll initiative which is what Im talking about. If you want to give players the free action to make the attack roll that's cool, but the rule still stands that a nat20 is only important when it comes to attack rolls and not when it comes to things like ability checks

@CaptCook999 7 месяцев назад

So does that mean that a natural 1 doesn't always fail? Let's go back to the beginning. Back to Basic D&D. To prevent the players from never having a chance to succeed, a natural roll of 20 always succeeds. And on the counterpoint, to guarantee that there can always be failure, a natural roll of 1 always fails. Because without a chance of success or failure the game really can't work. Because there should always be a chance to win and a chance to lose.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@CaptCook999 I think it's different because a DC can be higher than 20, but it cant be lower than 1. So at my table 1 is fail because that's as low as you can go. But a nat 20 doesn't automatically mean success because what might be a DC 15 for a rogue, is a DC 25 for a barbarian

@raynmakr40 7 месяцев назад

I've not heard the rule about initiating combat for any attack roll. It was my understanding that it was up to the DM. If you're throwing darts at a bar, the DM may have you make an attack roll, but not roll initiative; if you're chasing someone, the DM may have you roll initiative regardless of whether attacks are made.@@TheFantasyForge

@raynmakr40 7 месяцев назад

RAW says that nat 1s and 20s only exist for attack rolls. I run my games this way, and it works just fine. It also makes sense, because no matter how hard you they try, a character with average strength cannot lift a boulder. I've also played the way you describe using nat 1s and 20s, and while it was fun, always having a 5% chance of randomly failing tasks you should be good at or succeeding at tasks that are impossible got old quickly and cheapened the experience for some players. @@CaptCook999

@bayoublue9588 6 месяцев назад

Perception -> discovers hidden door Investigation -> reveals how to use door

@GazpachoTabletop 7 месяцев назад

I'd rule that the Barbarian with no experience at lockpicking doesn't get to roll in this scenario. Sorry player, you took the wrong class/background/proficiency to have a hope in doing this task. But you can attack it useful video. I've been doing darkvision wrong It's really about what kind of game you want to run, because I'm seeing a lot of rulings that don't seem fun in this video.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

I would argue the same, it just doesn't make sense lol. And thank you for the love! Glad it helped

@bradleyhurley6755 7 месяцев назад

I think if you roll high and hit the DC then you should succeed no matter what. If the DM believes that you need to be skilled to do an action then they should only say that you can roll if you have proficiency. But if you roll a 20 and then would have a 25, even if you haven't picked a lock before, it's a bit of a jerk think for the DM to say that you don't succeed when the DC was only 20. Basically if you have no chance of success, you shouldn't roll. If the DM allows you to roll, then they should honor the result.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@bradleyhurley6755 fair point! yeah I agree, the DM should only ask for rolls that are possible.

@saraphys5555 7 месяцев назад

...this sounded more like a lot of Rules Lawyering... Good thing I play a narrative TTRPG, and not the action-orientated D&D5E thats pretending its a TTRPG... But in fairness, Most of that comes off as Rules Lawyering; the table the GM runs, is the world they created, and the adventure's that they've created for the players... Just because that's how it works in WotC's Forgettable Realms (the default setting of 5E), doesn't mean thats how it works for homegames...or even official settings! Eberron is a great example...not only is it ment to have "Action Points", but the division between Dragonkind doesn't exist (Chromatic and Metallic Dragons are mutual kin, the Blood of Siberys spilt on the back of Eberron). Sure, if you run Forgettable Realms, this is helpful stuff... But, to paraphrase a former designer (and lead designer) of D&D of 4 different editions... "If you're spending more time on the Rules then on playing and having fun, you're doing it wrong".

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

You're free to run the table your way and ignore all the rules if you want lol :) Please don't assume you know anything about my DM style off one video tho lol. Nowhere in this video did I say "these are all at my table". I'm simply talking about RAW. If you played at my table you'd know I couldn't care less about most rules, and you'd know the story comes first

@MannonMartin 7 месяцев назад

Rules lawyering is what happens at the table. The video is just a discussion of rules, a favorite passtime of D&D fans... which you clearly are not one. *shrug* I'm not judging. D&D has many flaws, sure. Not that there's such a thing as a perfect game, nor is a "narrative TTRPG" inherently better. Luckily there's tons of games of all different sorts to play. Obviously the rules at the table are meant to be customized and modified. The books themselves have variant rules printed in them. But there certainly is a difference between intentionally changing a rule vs accidentally changing it by simply running it incorrectly... Though that can be a loaded phrase, so let me explain. There is no "correct" way to run the game. You are only running something incorrectly if the way you are running it is not what you (the DM) intended. If you intended to run something RAW, but didn't, then technically it's a mistake. It would also be the same if you have a homebrew rule you intended to use, and somehow screwed that up. But it's only a mistake in that you intended to do one thing, and actually did something else. In the same way I might intend to make a right turn and accidentally go strait. Odds are I can correct for it whenever, or I might even accidentally find a quicker path. It was technically incorrect or a mistake on my part, but it doesn't mean I'm a bad driver for missing a turn. Odds are nobody else will even notice most of the time. There is value in knowing the rules, however. So that one can choose where their game will diverge from the written rules with intentionality, rather than just happenstance. It also helps if your players are aware of any major deviations from the rules that you are using. While the DM can and should make rulings on the fly there should be broad agreement over what the majority of the rules are.

@josephagnew5328 7 месяцев назад

The point that natural 20s shouldn't mean a success is rooted in the idea of having players roll things they cannot possibly succeed at. Which isn't something that a DM should, in general, be doing.

@MannonMartin 7 месяцев назад

I do broadly agree with only calling for rolls when there's actually some meaning to the roll. Having said that an argument can be made that the DM doesn't necessarily know every player's modifiers for every skill on their sheets and may find it more expedient to simply allow the roll than to double check it first. That and players often get in the bad habit of rolling before the DM calls for it as well. So there simply are going to be times when a roll is made that probably shouldn't have. Not having automatic success on 20's just helps shut down arguments in those cases. There's also the question of natural 1's. If you have critical success it only follows you should have critical fails as well, right? But if you do and you don't remember to let players auto succeed when they do things they are highly skilled at, then even the most skilled player will only succeed 95% of the time without advantage stacked on top. Basically what it comes down to is I don't like what critical successes and failures do to the odds of using skills. I was previously very tempted to try it, but playing BG3 has taught me I don't care for the interactions and edge cases. The rules weren't really written for it. Yes, granted... if the DM always remembers to carefully adjudicate when a roll is or isn't made then it shouldn't matter. But then it puts even more pressure on the DM to make that call, and to always know if something should or shouldn't be possible. If you don't use crit's on checks you can just set the DC and let the chips fall where they may. So it's actually easier to run it since worst case scenario is you call for a roll that couldn't succeed, or couldn't fail. And really I don't call those failures because let's be honest... By the rules the test is win or fail, with no nuance at all. But that's not how we run things. We all reward higher rolls or punish lower rolls at times. The variance in the number helps add to the narrative. So even if the roll couldn't technically succeed it can help you decide the outcome.

@bogdantanasoiu5067 7 месяцев назад

How, exactly, does a natural 20 guaranteed success house rule, take away from the game? I'd say that on the contrary, it's offering an opportunity for amusement, excitement, etc. The barbarian could start thinking that they're becoming an expert in it when it was of pure chance that the lock had been opened. Or maybe they'll want to fall on their knees and pray to Tymora as their life depended on opening that lock, maybe it was a turning point that would lead them to embrace a new calling (multiclass cleric lol). There are so many more options there you could work with instead of "that just really doesn't make sense to me".

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

I think it just depends on how much realism you want in your game. I don't think just anyone could pick up a thieves tool set and suddenly learn to lockpick no matter how much you try. That's what the rogue is for.

@MannonMartin 7 месяцев назад

It's really just a matter of how much you want to balance the representation of skill and ability vs randomness. It can be played either way. Some people thrive on pure randomness and can't get enough of it, while others don't like having the importance of skills reduced. Technically the DM decides what failure and success even mean, anyway. So even a guaranteed success might just mean you don't break your pick or you don't alert the guards. The system is heavily dependent on interpretation.

@bogdantanasoiu5067 7 месяцев назад

@@TheFantasyForge Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making the erroneous assumption that blind luck can't be a factor of realism. Unexpectedly succeeding on a complicated lock won't make the barbarian suddenly more knowledgeable about locks, it's just sheer 5% chance. On the other hand, this shouldn't stop the DM from constructing tailored examples of locks that are maybe a key component of the story, but I hope it's clear that I was referring to your typical run-of-the-mill cases.

@TheFantasyForge 7 месяцев назад

@@bogdantanasoiu5067 blind luck is something I'll take into consideration, but there's no way a barbarian is going to pick up a tool set and blind luck themselves into unlocking a door. That's a SKILL and takes time and dexterity to accomplish. But for other things, I definitely consider it. That specific example, at least at my table, would be a no-go

@RaethFennec 7 месяцев назад

I can say from experience, the reason the 5% chance of guaranteed success is a horrible, terrible idea is that it encourages the players to constantly attempt things they have absolutely no means to expect success with. It can lead to "attempt trains" bogging down exploration, set poor expectations, and force the DM to say no a lot which is never fun. Instead of players assessing their character's motivation and senses, they start knocking on the walls of the simulation like it's a video game because they get rewarded for doing that. Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy lighthearted, slapstick gameplay or if pure junkyard is absolutely your jam, you do you and I'll cheer you on for it. But it's definitely not for me, and I think most players want at least a bit of immersion and realism.

@petersmythe6462 6 месяцев назад

I mean to be fair if a person with no lockpick skill or even knowledge tries to open a masterlock, I would say if they roll a good 13 or greater they should succeed. If they have purely verbal instruction from someone, that should be more like a 6 or greater.

@TheFantasyForge 6 месяцев назад

It sounds like you've never tried to pick a lock lol. It's just not that easy, but you run it how you want. If I were your player I would love you LOL. I'm just mean as a DM

@SamueleVitaglione 3 месяца назад

the only point i somewhat disagree on is that a 5% chance of automatically succeeding on an a task (within the realm of possibility, of course) is pretty high. i mean, it is fun to be surprised by (reasonably) unexpected outcomes. if a DM feels a task should just be impossible to a character unless they have a specific requirement (ie. a skill proficiency) then he/she/they should simply not call for a roll and declare the task impossible to said character. aside from that, all these points do need to be clarified over and over and over again, especially to new DMs and players so thanks for the video, it's good service :)