@@JorisVDC you want to unleash a squad of physically awkward gamers to heft chairs around each others noggins? Bring the bandages and liquid complacency(alcohol).
You should have opened with the "I run a very big game with mostly older players who don't have a lot of free time, this informs my decisions" as suddenly everything you just said makes sense.
@@michaelstronghold3550 This is nonsense. Everyone is different. Some people sit after work watching 6 hours of the news. If they care about a hobby they could spend that 6 hours once a month playing a game..or whatever it is they care about. Busy people are busy. Not "Adults".
@@Amrylin1337 its about having 5 or 6 adults trying to coordinate around different schedules. I play as much as I possibly can which is about once a month. I personally can make time probably once a week but thats how it goes. Takes more than one person to do this hobby. I usually spend time working on my setting or terrain a couple times a week because thats whats possible. Don't give me no guff about "if you care about the hobby blah blah blah" I've been running groups for 25 years man. You don't do anything that long without caring about it.
That really depends on how you define DnD though. The professor has stated previously that he defines it as playing a game in which you can do anything, as long as you roll high enough with a D20.
@@DaBezzzz I've made another comment under the movie, where I've went more into details. The vast number of changes make it hard to follow and compare to the original DnD (5e at least). I'm fine with some of the ideas presented, but I believe it's totally a different game that we all are trying to "pump up" with professor's ideas.
I think one of the main idea of this channel is : "what can be done to adapt your game in a way it fits your style of GMing". The professor thinks in his games, combats are too long, scaling spoils the fun, and focusing in the system makes it less realistics... so he does changes that works for his games. If you are a GM that loves long and complex combat, maxing the potential of your characters, and making every skills important part of dungeon crawling, you might think 5E to be too simple. So maybe you want to take a few aspect of 3.5 and 4 that you liked and add you own feats... and that's totally fine! DnD rules are a proposition not a religion.
I disagree with a lot of his rule choices.... but I love hearing different viewpoints because it helps give me ideas for how to better adapt the rules to my players! (New DM here)
Exactly! you should adapt your rules to fit your players--while still making it easy for YOU. My players don't give a poop about initiative, multi-classing, or spell slots. So none of them feel as if I'm particularly authoritarian. Cheers!
I can see the point about multiclassing in that it often seems more like tactical career planning instead of roleplaying. In AD&D, I once had a dual-classed NPC magic user/thief that I would send with the players to balance out the party and provide skills it might need, but that NPC was who he was from the outset and remained so. Fortunately, I never had players who worried too much about rule lawyering and trying to become tanks, although some rule options from Dragon magazine we used didn't always work so well, even though those options were often good food for thought. The thing most valuable I learned here - and I wished I'd considered it far earlier - is that keeping the game moving and the players engaged is a primary objective in itself, even compared to combat, roleplaying and storytelling - if only because it's movement and engagement which primarily ultimately serves combat, roleplaying and storytelling within the limited resource of playing time. It now seems/sounds stupid, but I can't count the number of times that we sat around trying to make various rules give us the game we wanted to play instead of just abandoning/changing the ones that didn't. I like a lot of other ideas too - multiple uses on prepared spells, with backfire possibilities, limiting the HP of even very tough opponents to make combat quicker/more exciting. I had an idea for critical hits that seemed to work - whenever max damage is rolled on the die, you get to roll another die and add it to the total until max damage isn't rolled (on a d6 weapon or spell, say, 6+6+3=15), so everyone gets a chance at critical hits, although warriors will still be best in combat because they will attack/hit more often.
I disagreed with the Prof's rules too until I realized how many days of my life have been wasted to determining initiative order and adding and substracting 10 million modifiers, just to end up back at 16 to hit. And how many players quit because it all was too damn boring.
Wow. What a boss. His closing monologue sealed it for me, even though his cavalier takes on the rules feels a little disconcerting at times, fun and time economy are the most important thing for me as I get older.
Like them or not, he's got a point. He may not be offering the rules that are the most fun for your players but damn if he isnt giving you the most practical rules, thatll likely only increase in how practical they are
Basic D&D and ODD had a very "let the DM decide" type feel. And hopefully they decided to keep the adventure moving. It's only foreign now because we have been corrupted by the Lawful Evil Corps from Seattle to believe that we MUST buy one more book full of charts to determine how far one can jump, etc. Then spend 115 minutes trying to find the rules when it comes up in the game.
In Starfinder, there are two Envoy abilities: "Sick 'Em" and "Not in the Face." Everyone will choose Sick 'em. Its more powerful. But my wife made me proud when she said "No, I can totally see my character saying "Not in the Face!". Lol
Professor Dungeon Master, you should consider either making a PDF we can use, or consider making your own role-playing game! I'd love a guide on how you determine damage, potential spell catastrophe, and HP, it sounds like you've got the details right!
Regarding Skill checks, I'm pretty sure the rules of D&D 5e already state that you don't need to ask for a check for every single action the players are taking, only those that have consequences for a one time failure.
Another reason to have "small" checks is if the character is in a hurry such as being chased. Rolling to climb a regular wall when the guards are 10 seconds behind you adds drama.
The issue with the fighters not getting more attacks is that rogues and wizards are still dealing progressively more damage with each couple levels, right?
He has essentially reformatted the entire game, so your points are valid for normal 5e, but it not valid for his homebrew version. Listen to the last thing he says, he has made these changes to cater for a large group with time constraints, that is why he has made the changes that he has.
Played for years growing up on 2nd Ed and returning to the game in my 40's. Have to say, it's been a crazy learning curve, and I really appreciate the perspective you bring. Thanks for helping an old dm fresh out of long retirement / rpg torpor make things run smoother for his players.
@@HujraadJohaansen whenever I play a character with multiple attacks I roll them all together and then see what hits. The fighter can be just as boring or exciting as any other class. If a wizard takes 5 minutes to chose a spell that's boring too. It all bout being deceived and rolling right away
@@HujraadJohaansen I'd just modify the cost of defending in d00lite from 20 to 10. Attacking should be riskier and more exert more than defending, which is reflexive. One thing I really like about the system is that it accounts for multi-attacks in a cinematic way. When confronting a highly skilled opponent you'll attack less, not to leave yourself open. It seems fairly gritty to me, but the higher starting BP would be a good argument against that.
Wizard: can cast wish Fighter: naa bro only 1 attack. Oh yeah and no feats. And definitely no multiclass so you suck. You have pointy sticks that won't scale cuz you're stuck at 20 strength/dex forever. While your magic user counterparts are having fun casting cool as shit spells
I take feats for roleplay reasons! I took Linguist because I wanted to play a linguistics nerd who spoke every language we’d reasonably come across in the world as well as a few fun ones we wouldn’t because he’s a nerd. Also, I actually took Actor too! It allows him to mimic the voices of others, which not only lets him be an amazing face/disguise character, but is also is amazing for him managing to get down all these obscure foreign accents! Never say never my friend!
This is the greatest. from a creative perspective, this channel illuminates so many of the gems that RPG's provide to the story telling arts. world building, structure, pacing and most importantly tips and tricks for streamlining your efforts so that we can all get on with the story. Thanks for sharing your ample experience and your passion in such a thoughtfully concise manor, prof!
After watching this video I can legitimately say, " have you tried not playing d&d? " I highly reccomend Numenera to you. It is my favorite system to play, but I love/play d&d for what it is. You have great points and they all line up with how Numenera is fundamentally designed.
The final stage beyond "have you tried not playing D&D?" is to realise all games are just published copies of someone else's house-ruled D&D, taking all the bits you like from all the games you've tried and codifying your own house-ruled D&D. Their group is at that stage.
@@MrBionicArm Really not true. There are plenty of rules systems out there (including Numenera, which is amusing considering Monte Cook's origins at TSR) that can't reasonably be called D&D variants in any way. Games like The Dying Earth RPG, FFG's Genesys, WW's Storyteller engine, to name just a few. It might be fair to say they're all responses to failings of D&D, but they're more like grouchy neighbors than the cousins that dominate the OSR sub-genre.
Rich McGee I would argue they all came about as a result of DnD. Whether that be lightly influenced, complete rip offs, or purposely counter to DnD to make it its own unique thing. Even if not purposely with DnD design in mind, people were inspired by what they played in DnD, at least I would wager the vast majority of it is.
I really want to see your run a game that shows how a dungeon works, I want to get a better idea on how you handle monsters and players in an actual session
You mean he should do a little like Guy Scanders from "How to be a great GM" where he comments a little before and after the games his experience as a GM and his preaping ? But rather than focus in the RP, focus on the mechanics ?
Great thoughts! I hope some day you find the inspiration to bring together your ideas in a Professor Dungeon Master's +1 Book of Insight - An RPG system for players and DM's who love the story in the game. I continually appreciate your commitment to not wasting time at the table. I am not sure that people are catching what a signficant achievement it is to run a game for 6 or more players that has them coming back for more. Keeping things moving along and keeping everyone involved is a huge achievement. I am glad to see your channel growing!
... Halfway through the video I'm starting to wonder why you're using 5e when you leave out or change so many significant rules. It sounds more like a homebrew system that's just using elements from D&D.
@@Daedalus_Dragon riding the populair wave in order to get players is my gues, no hate and it's pretty smart since he just basicly "homebrews" some stuff and players probably either leave or deal with it. Kinda impressive in a way
Well, he's not using 5e, he's playing actual d&d, created by Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, and TSR. He's simply replaced THACO with the D20 roll high mechanic.
Agreed! As a DM for 2 years (5e only) I have realized how much I dislike the standard rules to D&D are. I am not a hard DM and have had multiple players tell me they love playing my games, however I feel the PCs run the game more often than I do, not because I lack directive, but the rules grant so much power to the players it's ridiculous sometimes. I absolutely love the idea of magic being terrifying, lower hp, no ac, and less page turning for maximum effects. I once had my players ask me continuously a monsters AC I finally said, "Are you asking the monster? While you ponder the weakest points for maximum damage on this beast he prepares to strike you again." I think the 'Room' DC level application is perfect for this situation. I am currently establishing my own set of rules which hopefully will not deter my players but I want to enjoy the game better for myself. Thank you Professor for making me realize magic spell descriptions should be for the DM and not the players. You've changed my outlook of the game for better!
While I understand why he wants to speed things up by reducing the number of attacks, I don't agree with his conclusion that his solution doesn't nerf fighters. It does. A fighter dealing 50 dmg/turn, is not the same thing as a fighter dealing 10 dmg/turn vs an enemy that only has a fifth of their original HP. The reason why that's not the same thing is because the fighter's damage output was reduced, while all the other classes stayed the same. So while a fighter might have been able to deal 5 times as much damage as a cleric before the change, they now deal about the same amount of damage. Nerfing the fighter. You could also see it as buffing all the other classes, since their attacks now takes away a larger percentage of a monster's HP, compared to before the change.
Exactly. I’d like to see his reasoning in doing this, and why his players would ever pick a fighter now that it’s been reduced to a single attack, low damage melee class compared to the (presumably) unchanged spellcasters
@@nickromanthefencer Yeah. I suppose you could compensate by giving some sort of sneak attack type bonus where the fighter deals a lot of damage with the one attack, but then you just make it feel less like a fighter and more like a rogue that can wear heavy armor and swing bigger weapons.
It’s the same logic behind DMs nerfing the Rogue’s Sneak Attack damage. They don’t seem to understand that’s their primary damage source. It also encourages a style of gameplay intended for a Rogue: engaging from a hidden location or from safety while an ally engages them.
All you guys just do not get it. Round everything to simpliest terms, no use having all these high numbers when they can be small. FIghter is nerfed to what? Is he going to die? You looking at RPG's games the wrong way. You play the character, what every character that may be, why does the character have to be superman. D&D 5e and pathfinder has unnecessary complexities. When I play as a player, I actually hate leveling, I hat getting artifacts, cause I have to be bothered adjusting my character sheet. I have fun with just my basic character trying to survive. In my campaigns the characters start off with absolutely nothing.
Group initiative is where it's at. How would a DM go about using spell malfunction and critical success and degenerative effects like Dungeon Crawl Classics does in ones D&D game?
Just make a table. I've read 5e and DCC, and also watched the Prof's videos, and made one of my own. Most backfires are fairly minor, but high-level attack spells can ruin your day when they go wrong. DCC is a little *too* harsh imho, and too many tables, but it isn't hard to consolidate, simplify and moderate the idea.
What i do for spell failure is create on the fly random effects and try to weave them into the narrative. Crits are easy to implement when a spell is damage based, less so when they aren't. I also use the schools of magic (printed on spell cards) so Necrotic or Blood spells fail and succeed very differently from say, Holy or Fire spells.
This is a pretty interesting idea. In my homebrew setting, there's no variant human, no taking feats when you get the attribute bonus from leveling up. Feats are available in the setting though... since it's meant to be a more RP-heavy setting, PCs train feats the same way that you learn a tool or language. I believe it was 250 days of downtime training (not necessarily consecutive as long as you get the total) at a cost of 1gp per day. That makes it have a monetary and time cost to get a feat. One of the things I've been trying to do is give players a chance to see a living world grow around them.
Tbh i love how multiclass and feats can enable a whole world of Character building, the thief who is a devote cleric of mask (thief rogue/ trickery cleric) or the proud herald of a old and forgotten entity (infernal or hex bladelock / conquest pally) maybe the cunning, bold and daring duelist (Swashbuckler rogue or valor bard / battlemaster fighter) or maybe a brute and unstoppable gladiator (champion fighter/ berserker barbarian)
I get what you mean, I am currently building a Ancestral Guardian Barbarian Champion Fighter but I really was thinking about a berserker first. I just decided to go with Ancestral Guardian because I could reskin it into metal bending because my Character has dragonmarks like that.
I'm with you 100%. If I multiclass, it's entirely because that character concept is very interesting to me. I still reminisce about my Ranger / Cleric, who has almost no interclass synergies (and one glaring awkward overlap), but as a swashbuckler and devotee of the sea, he was gloriously fun to roleplay.
Completely agreed. I used to play a sniper (Rogue/Ranger/Assassin). Didn't multiclass with any other character, with the exception of taking Fighter/Defender when playing a dwarf. Multiclassing is perfect when you have an idea for a character that you just can't make under normal class restrictions.
You can be a thief who is devote cleric of mask, you just don't need to take skills of another class for doing that, just roleplay what he is. D&D is a group roleplay game, you just dont need to be good in everything, because rpg is this, some are good em somethings and other are good in another things.
I almost never multiclass, but the people I know who do multiclass don’t tend to do it for any kind of optimization or power gaming reason, in fact sometimes quite the opposite. Most commonly I see someone with a clear idea of a character they want to play, and to fulfill that concept they want to have features from multiple classes together.
It can happen. I don't have a YT channel, but students generally figure out that I like FRP games. So an office visit can certainly transition to D&D "shop talk."
I *love* the idea of taking a risk with spells instead of treating them like ammunition. It's a lot more story based and keeps wizards from being too nerfed at first and too powerful later.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 So you'd have a wizard first roll a d20 to see if he can cast that fireball, and if he can, then the enemy can make a save to see if he avoids (some) damage ? That is like non-magic fighting would always roll with double disadvantage (i.e roll to see if you can swing the sword at all, then roll again to see if you hit with the swing) Or do you mean that instead of the enemy save vs fireball, wizard has to roll a d20 to see if he can cast the spell, if he can, the spell just hits, there is no save ?
@@_Lunaria I think he means that if you swing your sword and there is a chance of it going wrong, why wouldn't it have a chance to go wrong when you try to manipulate the fabrics of reality? xD When casting fireball it just hits exactly like you want, no chance of exploding in your hands, for example He probably also only do two rolls for spells that deal damage in area, one for the casting process and one for damage, so if you pass a specific DC (as he said at the beginning of the video) it's total damage, normal fail deals half damage and fail by 5 or more/nat 1 it just fails or explode. This way I think it's balanced with martials only having one attack that don't explode themselves and hit only one target at a time :)
@@peakay2396 Spells are strong, yes, but unlike martials who can swing their sword as many times as they want, casters can only use those hard hitting spells few time a day, which balances it out pretty well already. And if the GM only chooses to put 10 goblins vs the group in a day, that the wizard can delete with 1 spell. That is not the spells fault, that is the GMs fault for not putting multiple smaller groups against the players. Cause yea sure the 6 goblins could be burned with 1 fireball, but after the 3rd goblin pack, the wizard is out of spell slots while the fighter keeps on swinging his sword.
@@_Lunaria Well, what I said is just how I think he rules based on what is in the video, but I really think having this risk of using magic is cool. I recommend seeing the corruption rule from DCC if you haven't yet.
Instead of extra attacks I just let my fighters roll damage for as many adjacent enemies that they would have hit with their first roll for as many extra attacks they would have gotten. Only roll once to hit, but can potentially damage several opponents.
Again, your video reiterates the fact that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”. I’ve been playing since 1981 (and still use the B/X rules) and you have inspired my tweaking of the game more than any other since those first days. Thank you for sharing your inventive imagination and talent with all of us, that look forward to each Thursday’s DungeonCraft video.
I like this initiative. Roll your dexterity or lower on d20. If you succeed, you go before the monster. If you fail, you go after. If you roll a 1, you go before boss monsters, otherwise bosses go first.
I started GMing an ICRPG game for my son and his friend, first time GMing anything in 20 years. Binging your channel. I'll be one of those commenters who agrees with pretty much everything you are advocating.
I only allowed pre- generated characters I CREATED , and skipped the whole character creation mode. A lot of people don't realize how much time is spent doing just this so I created an entire beginner game for 3.5 but I used the fifth edition starter set. I simply converted everything over to 3.5 that has all this online content for. I made every turn go with a CHESS timer . Every game session was over in 30 minutes. Players would want to play at least 3 sessions .I threw rational reasons why your fighting out the window blah, blah , blah , now fight five baby dragons. I customized my games based upon what players liked based upon what they liked most the CHESS COMBAT and no role play
He seems to be using the classes and class abilities of 5e, but then again, he doesn't really seem to differentiate between Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks in his magic video. Banning halflings (see his hobgoblin video) is a totally legit DM move, however. A setting's flavor is defined by what you don't allow. Sure, maybe a halfling could hop on his spelljammer and fly into PDM's world, but he'd have precious little reason to stay here unless his presence awoke the setting's grimdark gods and they stranded him by destroying his spaceship with Moonstone meteors.
@@Titan360 maybe in name only, after watching his video on what he does use compared to this one it's clear he just does what he wants under the guise that since rules can be changed he can do whatever. He is so far from any edition I don't know why he calls it D&D, this is just general role playing. He's a "good time over all" DM, which means he isn't really playing a game that's balanced but the game he wants.
@@drevil0076 No, but nice try. I mean if you think you're so good at DM'ing that you toss everything out, why not make it all up and don't even relate it to D&D? What's the point? His game honestly sounds like harmon quest, just people making shit up and the DM making it work, sort of.
@@iantusa9207 - First of all, D&D is the Kleenex of Fantasy RPGs. So unless there is a specific reason to point out the particular system you're running, then just saying "D&D", which everyone has heard of, just makes sense. Second, this is just a highly streamlined version of D&D. So, again, calling it D&D is perfectly legitimate. If you went through every edition of the game you would find just as much variation between them as between any of them and what he's doing. They add and delete entire gameplay concepts all of the time. This is no different, other than the fact that it's homebrew rather than official.
Gygax & Arneson ran a whole adventure in every session so the PCs got back to base at the end, because they never knew who would show up next time. You can bet their combats went _fast_
Amazing video, Professor. I've been a critic of some of the rules you mentioned in your previous videos but now I realize I've been a critic of the WAY YOU EXPLAINED said rules. This video clarified so much of your though processes and now I'm an even bigger fan. Thanks for the amazing ideas. Hope your channel grows bigger and bigger (and yeah, we're doing our part to help ;-) )
I really dislike the fact that feats are optional, because they’re so ubiquitously used. But also because feats and ability score improvements are an either/or when they should be both. I also started out with Pathfinder though, so I was used to feats being extremely important and necessary.
Was listening to this and was like "Ok no multiclassing or feats that's fine not everyone does character concepts that require those. OP and Nerf aren't that but ok?" The thing that you lost me was the argument of taking away a Fighters Multi-attack. Yeah a fighter hits once really hurting that dragon with 39 HP. Well if the Magic users don't just disintegrate the dragon first. It really makes the fighter seem inconsequential and yeah the Rogue also does hit once, but they do triple the damage easily. Also no Skill checks? Then why are we using dice? Assume competence yeah and not everything needs a roll but it shouldn't just be an easy solve. Honestly it just seems like you want to play a different system, which is fine, but I just don't know if all of this is as much of a problem as you are making it out to be. Oh should say that yeah me and my friends are also a group of adults with things to do and run a 5e game close to as written and it works just fine. Don't appreciate the attack on those that won't agree with your way of doing things by saying that you are "busy" people. It may not have been your intention but it seemed to insinuate that others that don't play like you are just wasting their time.
@@malakarvonstroheim5372 I noticed the same thing. Seems like all the pro- fighters upset about losing multi attacks haven't watched his episode on magic.
@@kevingooley9628 Basically he's playing a different game from everyone else. Yet labeling it the same way. It's like saying "We're speaking in English" yet you place in random sentences of full on German. Or making English flow like Japanese. You're not playing the same game as your audience.
Sounds like he runs magic from Dungeon Crawl Classics. In DCC the Magic User might end up disintegrating themselves or half their party if they get too gung-ho with slinging spells.
@@WhyYouMadBoi I've played d&d since 1986. He may be playing a different game than you, but the game he plays is the way d&d was for 30 years or so. There are other games than 5e.
My Drow rogue who multiclassed into celestial pact warlock with Eilistraee as a patron and took the actor feat because they have a background as an entertainer, traveling the world as a carnie after leaving the under-dark, always on the lookout for other Drow who left Lolth and followed Eilistraee. She ran into a group of adventurers in a town and helped solve a mystery involving people disappearing and cultists. I always put character and RP first ahead of combat and I see many others who can make feats and multi class interesting when they don’t treat it as a numbers game to min/max.
It’s interesting that so many comments ask why the prof uses 5e and not just a homebrew, when it’s obvious that he’s trying to free the DMs mind from becoming a slave to a system. It’s all D&D the rules are just a suggestion.
Even though I don't play your style of game. I am glad you and your players like it. There is room for all kinds in the world. I wish you and your games all the best. It is good to hear your reasoning, regardless. Thank you for sharing your views.
You are clearly a clever GM and I like some of your ideas a lot (especially your leveling system based upon quests/character achievement). That all being said, are you sure 5th edition is really right for you? At a certain point you’ve changed enough fundamentals you’re not playing the same game. You claim these were rules in old editions, but 2e is not the same game as 5e. I get wanting simpler mechanics as a GM, but at a certain point if you strip them away it’s just group story telling. Still fun, but forgetting the “G” in RPG. You should honestly compile your rules into a supplement/conversion ruleset. It’s different enough it could be it’s own system. I suspect you don’t actually really care for 5e but make content for it because it’s what will get views. At any rate, keep making videos! It’s good that you don’t let yourself get quashed by dissenting opinions. That’s what online discourse is all about, and it’s clear you know what works best for your table.
IMO DND is very popular the next biggest game system is only doing a fraction of the business and is basically just a clone of DND. It is also one of the worst systems when it comes to the RP in RPG. But I play it and run it because that is what everybody knows and occasionally I can drag them away from DND for better games. I feel like you are right and he really does not like 5th much but having little choice both for his channel and for his table he makes it work.
Hey, Prof, would you ever been interested in livestreaming a game? I feel like most of us would be interested in actually witnessing this in action but can't for obvious reasons. I don't mean it as a "SHOW ME WHAT YOU'VE GOT" kinda thing, I'm just really interested in learning how to keep a game flowing for such an enourmos number of players.
I always thought combat feats and social feats should be in different buckets so the combat black hole doesn't suck up character development opportunities. I have different feat lists for that reason in games.
@@cloak5857 It would work better if it actually had a separate tally of combat vs social feats. There is no system that divides the two. Fighters gaining new combat feats as a class feature is the closest you get to that, like wizards picking up item creation or metamagic feats. But it seems to be only those two. There should be a non-combat and combat feat advancement.
Love the video, you had a lot of really good points, and it sounds like the games you run work like a well oiled machine! And, personally, I loved your rules for initiative. I use them for every game that I DM, and my players love them too!
I'm enjoying the stripped-down, deconstructed rules - at first I was skeptical, but the longer I look at it, the more I end up agreeing that you gain more than you lose by cutting out all the crap. For example, my first reaction to cutting feats? "TERRIBLE - you're removing SO MANY of the player choices to build characters with!" Then I think a bout it, and the page upon page upon page of feats in the books I own, plus the countless others in books I don't own, and how few of them I've seen actually getting used, and how few of those even add anything role-playing-wise to the game other than spending more time trying to choose them and then unnecessarily adding and subtracting to the already overblown mathematics that take the scenic route to get to a simple target number anyway, and when I throw out all the chaff, I realize how little "wheat" is left at the end of the day, and then at last I get it: the feats are actually adding nothing to the game that more time spent role-playing rather than number-crunching wouldn't easily make up for, and then some. After I saw "Dungeon Crawl Classics", I began to appreciate it for its relative simplicity myself, and started thinking of the changes I'd make to a D20 game that took the best parts of D&D 3.0/3.5, Pathfinder, DCC, and the Dungeon! board game while cutting all the fat, with my perspective changing with more and more radical cuts making sense to me, and then I realized you were already a few steps ahead of me and that I was likely going to go in a similar direction anyway, so I really ought to pay attention here! I think that I've been considering only two extreme cuts that you've never mentioned: first, Alignment for sure, which has never added anything constructive to any game I've ever played that couldn't be infinitely better handled with old-fashioned Creative Writing 101-style characterization! Second is that I've been seriously considering cutting Character Level (the ultimate blasphemy to the Cult of D&D!) which, the more I think of it, has added little to the game beyond another illusion of choice that gets us ultimately to the same place as picking a target number and rolling a die, with a whole lot of unnecessary math added to the top that, when reduced, eventually just get us to that same target number anyway. I think these sorts of drastic changes are far more comfortable and make far more sense to role-players who've played games other than D&D, of course - there would probably be exceptions (especially among players who tried one or two other games and something didn't go well), but I'd be willing to bet most of the strongest objections come from gamers who've never tried another game. I know that you're making a lot of "hardcore D&D" folks mad with what has been working for you and your group - the staggering number of "You Can't Do That!" responses is, to me, a good sign you're on the right track (in my experience, GMs and Rules Lawyers only bring out the "You Can't Do That" responses when things are in danger of actually getting too fun! GM: "You meet an Orc in a 5'x5' room with a chest of gold - what do you do?" Me: "I want to talk to him, let me roll Diploma - " GM: "You Can't Do That! You attack the Orc, roll for initiative!") Keep up the good work! :)
Herr Professor mentions "alignment" in at least one of his vids...the one with his character sheets. Might be others tho. He harkens back to 0DnD when the assumption that all characters were good and fighting various forms of evil. Alignment wasn't a 3x3 grid, it was a single linear scale: chaos....neutral....law. Re character level. Epic 6 (E6). Look up the article about Gandalf being a 5th level wizard. You might not agree, but I'd bet you'll enjoy the different perspective. This plays well with the whole scaled down stats Herr Professor talks about. For those that really love their crunch however, may I suggest looking into Hârn? I'm not sure how many crunchier or more realistic a system is out there (not that I've looked). I do not like the HârnMaster system at all. It *totally* throttles role play. I totally love the Hârn world build though. But I digress...
What bothers me most about feats is that now there's a specific skill that allow you to shield bash, to pin someone or attack recklessly (when really anyone should be able to try doing that), so when a player wants to improvise doing something like that, I as the DM need to consider how to do that in a way that doesn't make the feat useless. Bah! Most feats really are useless.
I've been a GM for 20 years now, and most of that time was spent running D&D 3.5. I have tried 4th and 5th, and both have their pros and cons, but I maintained that 3.5 was the best version, up until my players started discussing "builds." I have seen players build a character for an upcoming game, decide there was a better way to do it, and scrap and rebuild a character 3-5 times. That was around the time I discovered Dungeoncraft. I have since fallen in love with the OSR. I'm working on my own simple set of rules, and my players seem to enjoy the simpler style of game. Recently, I started a 3.5 campaign with two veteran players, one rookie, and two completely new players, because the newbies wanted to try D&D and, thankfully, they're pretty excited to play. In our first session, I called for initiative rolls, and 9/10, the initiative went, from highest to lowest: player to my right, player to his right, player to my left, player directly across from me, etc. So, in our second session, I announced that since the initiative order never changed last game, I'd just speed things up by alternating between clockwise and counter-clockwise, that way, nobody was last for every fight. That was working for a while, but the players then offered an alternative solution: They established a marching order, and asked if they could use that order for initiative. I was quick to agree, because I have always HATED the number of times in my gaming career when a party opens a door, initiative is rolled, and somehow the player at the back of the party, still out in the hall, has the highest initiative and having never seen the enemy, now has to pass by everyone else, even the person who opened the door, and take the first turn. It makes so much more sense for the first person to enter the room to... go first! I mean, how the hell are the other four people supposed to react faster than the guy who actually sees the enemy? So, we went off of marching order, and I divide up the enemies into 2-3 groups, depending on how many there are, and fit them in between the players, usually letting 2 players go, then an enemy group, then player 3, the second enemy group, then players 4 and 5. I'll only let an enemy act before the players if the players weren't aware of the enemy, or if the enemy is significantly higher level.
then the Wizard or sorcerer should just choice a Focus at level 1. A focus is a item they can channel their magic through thus not needing components. It was always an option but it allows DM to mess with them by removing the focus.
First of all, love the vest. Moving on, I'm digging the "enough of the shenanigans" perspective, but it begs the question: if you feel compelled to modify so much of what was published for 5e, why bother using it? Related to that: what do you like about 5e, and why?
Great question. The 5E STARTER Set is one of the best set of RPG rules ever written. It's scalability that's the issue for me. If D&D just capped HP at 3rd level, it would be a better game.
Absolutely love all the mechanic suggestions to speed up the game and give the players more creativity and success. Will be rewatching this and thinking your suggestions over. Thanks
@@nickromanthefencer they do, they developed a own game from DnD and other inspirations. What is your problem? You can do whatever you want with the rules. His group plays like a total conversion mod. what are you mad about?
@@maxmccullough8548 Why its a derivate from 5e, let him call it however he want. When I play a conversion mod of Skyrim, I still play Skyrim. And why do you care if they call it Skyrim or something else? Get something serious you can be mad about.
@@TheOriginalDogLP because. 5e implies that he's playing the fifth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons rules, which he most certainly is not. He's playing a homebrew Dungeons and Dragons ruleset with with his favorite bits and pieces with every release. To use your analogy if you were playing a copy of oblivion or morrowind, that had been modded to use elements from skyrims combat system, you would'nt say you were playing skyrim, however you'd be completely correct to say you were playing an elder scrolls game. It's simply about managing player expectations.
In regards to the feats and multiclassing: I feel like in my experience players are actually more inclined to take those things BECAUSE of their character in particular. The reason why they want to take feats and multiclass is because they want to be able to show what and who their character is through the game and give an in game justification for the things they can do. When people build characters it's usually not just because they want to min max, but I find that a lot of people look for builds because they have a character in their head who does something cool and they think "How do I do that in D&D?". As a DM I frequently get asked questions like that and for me Feats and Multiclassing have always been a good way to inspire and encourage making a unique character that they like to play as. It also gives them something that their own character does, and it makes their character feel more special both in story and in mechanics. If someone wants to play an awkward summoning necromancer teen who was a medical student who accidentally learned how to bring the dead back and wants to know how to create undead armies, finding character builds are a great way to be able to make their character come to life in the game. Although I understand where the concern comes from cause I've definitely seen my fair share of people just doing it for the stats. But needless to say at the end of the day you as a DM can still make those people care about their character before the stats, and honestly as long as you give them proper challenge and a story they can get hooked in, an OP character can still feel just as vulnerable and just as emotionally captivating as others. One thing that I like to do to prevent people from building their character just for the stats is that I ask them why and how that certain thing they want is essential to their character, and I reward them when they do something particularly just for their character. It also helps to give them reccomendations on how they might be able to create their character and give your reasons as to why you think it would be cool for them to have an actor feat because maybe they used to be in an acting club and had a troup that they might be able to interact with in the game. It makes a result of the DM and the player working together to make a character work in D&D, and not just for the stats but what those stats would mean in the story itsef. I always make it apparent that story comes first before the stats. In fact I actually like to encourage my players to build their character in the way they want cause generally speaking, they don't want to break the game and make everything boring with too many numbers. All in all players just want to know that their character will be portrayed well and will actually do cool things in game, and I like to see that in the game as well. If a player wants to be a raging Trex, I'll let them try; as long as they can integrate that into the story we're trying to create and make a character that's trully their own. I also think you can use it as incentive: make what they want to do as a personal goal in the game. That way, they need to play their character well and roleplay well to get into the next arc of their character and be able to be and do what they wanted.
I'm curious about the characters in your game. Do you find that with the rules you use (and don't use), is there a tendency for players to play more "vanilla" characters? I get the impression that you favour traditional character roles in your campaign. Or do they still break with stereotypes and create weird and wonderful personas? Cheers and thanks for all your videos.
@@jacobstaten2366 maybe if your players play "vanilla characters" there is a higher chance of repeating concepts since you can go only as far as X/vanilla with said character, therefore in order to make that char feel "new" they wil do weird things/breack something here or there.
@@draakgast not every traditional character is vanilla. Some archetypes are scenery chewers and mustache twirlers. What I'm saying is that going out of their way to make unique characters won't make them unique by default. They have to actually know what that means in context or be out in scenarios that challenge them.
Another great video PDM! I love your take on running 5e which integrates a lot of that BECMI and B/X feel to illicit the sense of thrill, vulnerability, and potential perilousness with the players. I always am excited for your content!
"Huh, interesting that he says iniative is too unwieldy..." "I run for 10 players." "There it is." I mean if you gotta make changes for the group size, then yeah. I get it. I've found iniative can still go pretty fast if you use digital tools. So for my games I use roll20. With the iniative tracker. Go down the list. Ask that player their iniative, hit sort. And done. I can understand those who just take feats for power, but sometimes feats really give a new spin. Example, I have a character concept for a rogue doctor. He took the healer feat so he could use a healers kit to actually heal people. Id even flavor some downtime to stich people back up, put joints back into place, etc. Yes there is synergy for the thief fast hand to heal as a bonus, but you can have synergy with flavor. The blanket room DC I can kinda get, but different aspects of different rooms could be stated differently.
Yea but you can do that without feats. I tend to agree with this guy but also started in AD&D and 2E. I went through phases of the modern stuff from 3.5 up but nowadays i find myself running a homebrew of AD&D with some modern sensibilities added in. I find combat boring in the modern editions its too much like a computer game. personally id rather just play the computer game eod. Also he touched on needing to roll for obvious things that your character should just know. I made a cleric that was bad at religion checks because its int based for instance...That kind of stuff is just unnecessary imo. you cant say modern editions of DnD dont get super cumbersome, my party got to level 14 and it would take the entire night to run a couple of encounters. digital help is pretty much required. i dunno just 1 DMs opinion from playing many table top games.
@@themonkeys96 why? You still have a cleric or druid without multiclassing. Personally I dont mind multiclassing within reason, but I will say no if the concept is too convoluted or overpowered. I also don't allow anything outside the core races for PCs. This is just the way I do it and there is 20 years of trial and error that led me to the way we currently play.
Thank you for this article. Many people forget that the round is supposed to be multiple back-and-forth swinging a sword. The damage is the net result of the action. Meaning you may have hit the person multiple times in that round. That doesn’t mean multiple attacks. Not in game mechanics. What you end up with is what’s called the average damage. Leader game designers for Dungeons & Dragons forgot this. I also do not allow feats. but I do allow feets… A.k.a. a centaur player … I also have a unique method of game initiative. I do round robin and ask him what each player is going to do. I then work out the initiative in the localized combat meaning of a player and a monster are the only ones engaged with each other the initiative is only between the two. If two are attacking one, again it’s only those three. Otherwise I go round robin with the results of each action. Taking notes as they go along quickly then I go round robin again explaining the outcome. Keeping it fast and furious. I do like some of your ideas on that as well
If you reduce the monster's hit points and balance it by removing multiple attacks from martial characters, doesn't it make casters even more powerful, since their damage output remains unchanged? As a possible alternative to Extra Attack giving an attack roll, how about it adding dice of damage? So a Fighter with Extra attack would do 2d8 with a longsword. Add in buffed crits (on a crit you roll the damage dice and add it to the max as opposed to doubling the dice) and you could keep martial characters on a par with casters without rolling multiple swings.
@@anthonynorman7545 And I think I remember him mentioning at one point that damage from spells in his game doesn't scale the same way it does in 5E. If you roll high, he'll let you do extra damage with a fireball. If you roll low, it's kind of a mediocre result.
I have actually done this and it works VERY WELL in 5e. I see no reason why a 12th Level master swordsman shouldn't be able to disembowel a monster in a SINGLE ATTACK. Especially since that "attack" is described as "a flurry or series of blows and feints" by the rules. If you use it, it WILL speed up your combats.
@@swaghauler8334 was that the only thing you changed or were there other changes with it? There's some balancing and meta-balancing issues with changing the way fighter damage works.
I hearing appreciate Prof DM emphasizing the importance of keeping the game moving. With a group of people who have careers, family and limited time set aside, the flow game is important during a limited time to enjoy a game. I find myself with family, & work schedules about as limited opportunities, to have a game session for D&D, about as often as a lunar eclipse occurs.
I am a new dungeon master and I run a game for two players. Combat was taking up an entire game night. 4 hours for 2 players. Much of that was because I did not know how to build a combat encounter but it also had a lot to do with the initiative system. The first time I used the 'all at once' rule instead of initiative system we were able to crank out two ten round combat encounters, and explore several rooms in two and a half hours. So I was able to more than double the amount of stuff done in one game. And we are only able to play twice a month.
Unless I misheard he doesn't use Proficiency bonus, which means Expertise doesn't matter. So you're rolling a d20+ability score only. So that Rogue isn't laughing very loudly, since it's main source of rolling 20+ is gone without Proficiency and Expertise.
@@afriggs1982 considering that expertise is a core utility feature of rogues, I'd imagine there's an adaptation for expertise. Maybe it's just a flat modifier or something
@@afriggs1982, the interesting thing is it’s just a different way of making the same determination. Except now the DM has to do the work instead of relying on the PC’s stats. The whole point of the system behind abilities, modifiers and proficiencies is that as a DM you can set all the DCs in advance and let the character’s stats decide the outcome. You don’t need to sit there and think “hm, well the Rogue is pretty good at Stealth and they’ve been doing it a while... okay the DC is 8.” You also don’t have to consider all your PC’s skills and talents to determine the roll required, which when making checks regularly cuts down the effort you need to invest.
"Maybe at a certain level..."Maybe we just don't need dice, or rules, or how about we just sit around and tell stories. The only reason that D&D is a "game" is that there are rules, these rules determine balance, that balance is consistently adjusted by teams of people who work the math in order to maintain that balance. Want to "keep the game moving," great its called an egg timer, or use a sand timer, either way you will keep the game moving. Players will have their actions predetermined by the time it is their turn and this also mitigates table talk and over strategizing amongst the group. I generally enjoy the Professor's videos, but this time I have to be among the naysayers. I just don't think that this level of throwing out rules is conducive of running a fair and consistent game. The rules are in place to create a sense of danger for the players, and allows for a less subjective gaming experience. This is also the reason that I roll combat dice for encounters in front of my players. It allows them to see that I didn't arbitrarily decide to kill a PC, that was just how the dice fell. I also let them know that encounters involving NPC's or creatures of higher intelligence are more likely to make sure that a PC is dead in most circumstances, but I still employ the rules as written and/or intended.
I have been DMing for a group of 7 forabt a year now. my first ever campaign, most of the players were new to the game too, and ofc we use 5e, bc all of us at least have some idea of how it works. and as a new DM i was all like sure, i wil try and allow as much as possible, and just make up a story to fit those characters. honestly, I do understand your way of DMing as a result of experience and things working out great that way, and just hope that I will grow more comfortable in just running the game as it fits for the group. This is a refreshing pointof view to me, that shows me options i knew existed, but never concretely looked at. i appreciate this a lot^^
Regarding automatic spells in D&D, a counter-argument is that at 3rd level a wizard may only be allowed to cast a total of 4 spells for an entire day, whereas that fighter/warrior gets to attack each and every round no matter how many battles they are in during the day. Give wizards and clerics more flexibility in spell casting and yes introducing "random magic" (for both critical failure and critical success) makes total sense and adds a level of danger and fun.
I'm very intrigued by your rules and definitely need to speed up my game - have you ever put all your rules down on paper? If you have I'd love to see that.
I roll a d20 at the start of the weekly session and I sit the players clockwise from me. I then roll the monsters initiative and work them into the established order. I also give a +1 Initiative Bonus to whoever roles the highest at the start of the campaign.
I see many things that I can agree with, however, I must disagree with the following: Fighters and multi-attack: It would be wonderful if all classes were granted multi-attack with spells, but if I did that, wizards would only be able to affect only one target with a fireball spell just to keep things balanced. There is a reason why wizards are known as "Glass Canons". That, and there are very few of my players who take a dedicated "Tank". I am more of a game Balance enthusiast. Wizards can injure multiple creatures in one go using an area effect spell. A fighter is more one-on-one. How do you balance this serious drawback for the fighter if you remove his extra attacks? The tank is there to make sure his Glass Canon doesn't wind up getting shattered; he can't do that with the loss of those extra attacks he gets at higher levels. Some of the critters he goes up against (even without their multi-attacks) can waltz on by a fighter with only one attack. Dramatic combat, and defence of your "best hope to triumph over evil" can be just as much part of roleplay as any other aspect of the game. It all depends on the DM and how he describes the combat in accordance to what the dice rolls tell him.
@@uthewallstreetbetsgod4714 I've watched them all. I am still an advocate for balance. I'm not passing judgement, I'm just saying you play the game your way, and allow me the same. I posted an opinion, nothing more.
it is. i usually go in two directions simultaneously and feel out the ap players from the tactical alphas from the d&d and chill players and throw to them as the pacing dictates.
Personally I like when people adapt the game to their needs. Some people are into ultra realism, some people like role playing and view combat as tedious, some people want the story given to them so they can get back to combat. I personally don’t even use the same rules campaign to campaign. I ran a Greek themed campaign where I made combat extremely broken because that was our groups goal. They made a fun story, and I let them be gods. The base game is good, and it’s where new players should start, but people mod video games, so why not change tabletop games to suit our desires?
