Professor Dungeon Master is weird, not in general, he's a gamer, so of course he's weird in general, but because I don't think I'd enjoy playing in one of his games long term, but I love a lot of his ideas. I'm making a little GM study guide of all the techniques and ideas I appreciate, and his advice features prominently in it (cited and everything), I just think I'd be thrown off by how brutal his games are were I a player.
@@LeFlamel If you're looking for Professor Dungeon Master, here's the link. Highly recommend checking out the Reviled Society playlist. www.youtube.com/@DUNGEONCRAFT1
@@twistedturns65 thanks but wasn't looking for it, just noticed it was messed up in the description. And usually it's good form for youtubers to link to each other when doing content like this.
A big now on Crit Fumbles. ESPECIALLY when it's done in a way the disproportionately targets the Fighter and multi-attack martials. If you want to do Fumbles do it in a way that either ignores the number of attacks or adjust it so the martials aren't the only ones targetted by it. Either the fumble is separate from attack checks (like a separate fumble/crit die you roll every turn) or Martials are the only ones who have to confirm fumbles and Casters get screwed on the first nat 1. Otherwise you're not playing a Fighter, you're playing a buffoon who can't keep hold of the stick he's swinging around.
THANK YOU... if you tie it in anyway to an atk roll the people who roll those dice more often are the 1s suffering. Casters dont even have to roll for atks if they dont want, they can cast only spells that require saves
This, so this! I was going to say something similar, but you said it better than me. My feelings are strong enough on this rule that if it were in use, I would not play in the game. (Of course Prof. DM and I have very different subjective tastes, and I don't think we would enjoy playing in each others games anyways :P )
I use critical hit and fumble decks originally made for PF2e and adapt on the fly into 5e rules. This means sometimes a fumble or crit doesn't do anything more than usual, or it's especially minor, though often it's more dramatic. The downsides of a fighter getting more fumbles is offset by getting more of the generous crits. At the very least the fighter and monk at the table seem to love the cards the most.
Agreed. Also the insult about people not liking Critical Fumbles just want to win was enraging. I have played many other games that had Critical fumbles bake into the system. Most of them never bothered me and that was because they felt fair and the odds of them happpening didn't go up if you were better at your job.
You are making more attacks, an attack is an exchange, every exchange has the chance of the chaos and scrambling of battle to affect you. It makes sense. @@arthurmarshall6825
“Flat” damage variety: for 1d8 weapons, if you hit with an even roll, you do 5 hp; with an odd roll, you do 3 hp. The players won’t even realize what you’re doing.
I use an excel sheet to keep track of initiative. It's pretty easy to roll monster initiatives beforehand, then get my players initiatives and just filter/sort by initiative descending.
Per my comment above, I have a cheat sheet on the side with the monster's raw initiative rolls and a damage sheet for different weapons types (d4, d6, d8, etc) on the side. That is what session prep is all about. Easy for you as the GM and much faster. I let the players roll, because it is fun to roll dice, and that was kind of the whole point back in the old days.
A couple of years at summer camp I ran a super hero campaign 6 nights a week for the counselors. Eventually I seated everyone in initiative bonus order and went around the table because otherwise the top bonus players had too many turns, with 8 to 12 players often all enemies would be dead after 6 turns. To allow enemy actions I used simultaneous attacks as a reaction. Enemies didn't dodge, they stabbed you while you attacked.
Initiative its a problem outside of VTT`s keep that in mind, we take 5 seconds in the VTT to organize Initiavite. The everage damage is a good ideia for tabletops, helps a lot with speed and big fights. Depends on the DM, sometimes the DM likes rolling dices too. Third rule focus on fighters, if you are giving enough magic weapons to the fighter keep up with damage and the fighter only having one big damage sword its fine. Sounds like artificial difficult tbh, nat 1`s are already punishing, nobody likes rolling them and you can not act upon it.Nat 20 from a monster (like the "wounds" rules), you can play around and is more acceptable because you can do better.
I would never have picked this collaboration, I had you both picked as polar opposites. This was great, I enjoy both your styles and learn a lot. Cheers!
Average damage until someone calls out that they're bloody (half HP). Then the dice come out. This adds to the nailbiting and suspense but also lets combat go quicker when the stakes are lower.
Here is my secret for damage. My players like that I roll damage. I used avg damage for a few sessions, and after the boss fight for that arc, they did ask me why I wasn't rolling damage. I told them I was using avg to speed up combat. They ALL told me, they would rather wait while I roll for dmg, saying the combat felt more video-gaming when I used avg. But yes, avg takes a long time. So what I do, I have the avg dmg. I roll the dice. I gage how much high, med and low. I compare the high to low, and if one side has more, i use avg+/- 1 or 2 (for more dice, I might do +- 5), otherwise use avg. That way I'm not adding 6d6 Its faster, and my players feel like stay in the momen. Some his feel like a crushing blow, and others are more like nicks and scratches.
Initiative: each side rolls 1d20; add the total number of _characters_ on each side. Winning side chooses a character on their side. Then the other side chooses a character on their own side. DM can group some monsters (like three goblin archers).
sorry, but there's nothing worse for pacing than giving the players a choice. Things will screech to a halt as they start going back and forth why one of them should go first and why not. Just start with the highest dex PC and move down the list.
@@thatguy846I'm very sad for your players. A huge point of DnD is about player choice. I started using initiative at my table in this way: half the PCs go, monsters go, the other half go. Players choose who goes next. If they can't decide we go clockwise. We have tokens to keep track of who's gone and who's left. We haven't had to go clockwise yet. And combat goes faster because they are more engaged because they are champing at the bit to go next.
@@Schlateman a huge part of D&D is making decisions about who gets to act first in combat? Yeah, I feel bad about your players as well sir. Having the players discuss and choose right when the action is supppsed to start doesn't really help with the pacing.
For my players Initiative they roll at the start of the session. When combat begins i roll for monsters and we follow the list as normal. However if a player/monster decides to act first or initiate the combat scenario no matter how high or low, they will go first for initiative. This way if a player with a low initiative score wants to try something early, then everyone can hang back and allow them to put their plan to action without the turn order being against them. The alert feat in my group is changed so that they gain proficiency with their Initiative and they can reroll it during a short or long rest.
The initiative conversation is one of the reasons I like playing on a VTT. Everyone presses a button on their character sheets, and it populates the order, I press one button to sort it. Easy peasy. I thought about about taking average dice for monster damage... but *I* like picking up that giant handful of d6s and counting it out... so I don't care if it's slower, it's fun 😜 The Fumble/Fumble save mechanic is something I've come up with on my own as well. I also enforce it on skill checks, like when the Barbarian got a Nat 1 on an investigation check, and got sick from eating a bad mushroom 😉
Critical/Fumble: I made a spin board in which the fumble and the critical are the same. So, for example, if a character rolls a critical doing damage to the opponent's weapon would be the same effect if the character rolls a fumble and the opponent does damage to the character's weapon. I spin the wheel and ask the player to tell me when to stop. The brake is released and I read the crit/fumble. There is no true reason to have fumbles and criticals be different. It's fast and more interactive, giving the players greater participation. Note, a critical does damage as well as an additional effect so even if a critical causes a disarmament, the weapon causes damage, and in a split second after causes the disarmament. followed by
I completely agree that players could carry backup weapons. Plus, players break a weapon during a fight, it would be a chance to use mending later. Most people forget about that spell
Initiative : players roll at the very start of each game session and sit clockwise at the table, from best to worse. When combat starts, DM rolls for the monsters and place tokens between players. Being placed in order at the table reminds players that their turn is coming very easily, and having different people next to you each session changes the table dynamics and encourages roleplay. Works best with my group since we get 1 or maybe 2 combats per sessions at most.
I used to DM games in the 80's. I love Professer Dungeon Master videos. This channel looks great too. To me, many of these house rules sound familiar to me. We had our own house rules, of course, but some of these are not far off from our game play. I'm looking to return to my DnD roots, I can't wait! ❤
Big math problems with clockwise....this research is proven. Emulation in MDM solved this. It addresses ability scores and game speed. I hope to earn your subscription in return coach. Thanks and Cheers!
I have been using this initiative system applied in all my games, and it is not only fun to employ but creates that sense of chaos, uncertainty, and back and fourth battle that makes combat tense and exciting. 1. Each player rolls a [static dice] for initiative, but one player has the INITIATIVE button. That players dice is measure against the game masters single dice roll to determine who ACTIVATES first: players or monsters/antagonists. The order then alternates between the two sides with players going from highest to lowest. 2. For game master, i just make a stack of index cards with the monsters/antagonists (useful for notes and stuff as well) and then shuffle them up to make a stack and just draw one index card, and thats who antagonist/monster activates next. If the players have a friend of support, then whatever player has the initiative button gets to choose what the allies do and when the activate to take their turn (large number of allies can be spread loaded to the players in a similar way.) 3. Once everyone has acted, move the button clockwise around the table and repeat the process. Gamester shuffles up his cards and the action keeps moving. This fixes several problems with most TTRPGs. By also capping turns to about 1 min before dice rolls, it allows "some" combative banter and planning to occur but doenst allow for perfect theory crafting every contingency and argument that can occur between players heads. By focusing on keeping the action moving, you actually bring combat to a more balanced affair because not every player can act perfectly optimal every time, all the time, due to the chaotic nature of turn order. Combine this with a non combat side objective, and you can have some very intense and cenematic session with minimal book keeping and lack of emersion. I highly recomend trying this out
Don't use a d4 for variable damage as they are too difficult to pick up from a table. Instead, use 3 damage plus d6 and divide the d6 result by 3 for a range of 4-6 as an example.
Great collaboration...fan of both of these guys! My take: 1. I've never understood the difficulty with initiative. PCs rolled as normal, monsters in groups (different monsters in an encounter roll separately). When its time, I do a quick countdown. Players need to call out (and be READY!) or they lose their spot, and its the next up. 2. Average damge is good. I use a half-maximum, plus half potential. E.g., 6d6 damage would be 3d6+18. Results in higher than average damage, buy hey, a dungeon is a dangerous place. 😈 3. Love this suggestion. I use a similar mechanic, but the penalty is typically that the PC loses their next turn. No (necessarily) permanent damage, but super painful.
For Initiative online (Roll20), I get every one to roll once at the start of the session and keep that order. A discord group I play in, players take turns to roll 1d6 for group initiative. Player order is that same as listed in the discord Server. For my Shadowrun 3e group, every one rolls to see how many attacks they get, the go Clockwise.
Honestly, i overall diagree with the sum total of what the professor does. But i love listening to him because he always has 1 or 2 gems hidden in his videos somewhere. Thanks for this collab.
I just got an idea in tweaking your initiative of 2 players vs 1 monster idea. Hope this makes sense and works. Initiative: Initiative Unit Slots. Count how many combatants are on the table. Each side has equal number of Unit Slots. 4 players = 4 player slots. 4 monsters = 4 monster slots. if there is more monsters as in 4 players vs 5-6 monsters. pair the monsters up to make 4 units. so still 4 vs 4. (preferably pair the weaker monsters together as in your Wolves/ Vampire example) If 4 players vs 1-3 monsters. DM discretion to use all 4 slots or less. weak monsters against players use all 4. Tougher monsters use less slots. Then Competition Straight Rolls. Players pick among themselves who goes against DM. Wining side goes first. Players pick any two of themselves to go. DM picks two units. Once all 4 slots on each side are done that's one round. Next round. Competition Roll again and starts all over. I hope this would make combat faster & more interesting because you wont know who all goes next. Variant rule. A player can forgo their turn "Initiative Slot" to let someone else go instead.
Hey DC! I'm an aspiring TTRPG designer who has been slowly building my own system since the OGL debacle, and I wanted to quickly get some input on a change I'm making to my project system, since it is similar to your DC20 RPG in a small way - And that is the idea of using flat damage instead of rolled damage. You see, I aspire to create a true d20 system, which requires you to only own one or more d20s, using flat outcomes that are based on the equipment/ability used with the roll (Such as weapon damage, or healing spells), and/or on the result of the d20 roll (Such as: Hitting the target's AC is 1/2 damage, beating their AC is full damage, and 5 above is double damage, etc). Anyway, I know you typically make things for the community to take and run with as they see fit, but as we both intent to make some amount of money off of our respective systems, I wanted to see if I could get your blessing on this. Definitely going a different direction from DC20, but I didn't want to upset you with the similarity. Thank you for being an inspiration to us all, ~Z
Thanks for the sentiment and kind intentions! The only thing that I would even ask is, if you feel any sort of inspiration from some thing, just give a shout out or cite the credit, but other than that, do you thing man!
@@TheDungeonCoach Thank you so much! Your name will definitely be in the beginning of the book as my inspiration, along with many others. Good luck on your own endeavors, and thank you again!
Hi! Coach and Profesor! 1. My idea for initiative after this video: DM say "initiative", one player say "I hit first" then all the rest clockwise. If you want, you can sit your players in dexterity. 2. For damage: I use average damage and no player say nothing. But I could adjust it and give +/-1 once for a wile to add a little flavore when I see that players takes to much, or to less hit. 3. With nat20 I give my player full weapon dice to his roll for damage. My evil side DM would give player to roll for damage and take that damage blow 😈 But I agree with what you said in video 👼
Initiative : I personally use group initiative with the players making an initiative check against a static DC (decided by their choice of approach and how successful they pull it off) to see who gets the first round. I do agree on some of the issues mentioned, however one stood out as strange. Namely that it doesn't matter as much because the D20 is the largest decider of the outcome. Why I find this strange as a reason is because for 5e, this is the case for all rolls at least until around level 10. And even then, only the most skilled characters may have one or two things that their +bonus is higher than the D20 average. Static damage : I use this throughout my whole game. Every attack has a static damage. The way I make attacking interesting is, first : every attack is contested. There's some resources and other choices involved in these checks, so it actually feels more like fighting an opponent rather than trying to hit a static target. Another thing I do is instead of just damage, most attacks can be used to inflict most debuffs (depending on the potential damage it could do). This keeps things from being too predictable. On the nat 1: My system doesn't have those. Nor nat 20's. One of the main issues I have with them in systems that do use those, is that they seem to disproportionally affect the players. An enemy losing their weapon isn't going to matter a lot since the enemy is likely dead after the encounter. While a player has to deal with the loss of his +5 weapon for the rest of the game.
As someone who is vehemently against crit fumbles for reasons that have already been mentioned, I actually like the direction Professor Dungeon Craft is taking the idea. The fumbles are specifically related to the state of the weapon - dropping or breaking it on low rolls. I don't like the idea of a Fighter skilled enough to make multiple attacks more likely to drop their sword BUT I do think there is some interesting design space to be explored with weapon fatigue. Say, for example, rolling a 1 followed by a second low roll (possibly a range here, like 1-6) causes your weapon to break. Maybe you could circumvent this by maintaining your weapon during long rests (sharpening and oiling, reducing the range it would break on). Maybe having a blacksmith reinforce or customize your weapon could change this range as well. Different materials could also factor in, the obvious one being the indestructible adamantine. There could also be some weapons materials or types that increased your damage, maybe even drastically, but at the cost of *increasing* the break range (some kind of fantasy crystal material that is impossibly sharp but fragile). These rules and additional properties would encourage PC's to carry backup arms and use different weapons that they may have otherwise ignored. Not saying this is for every table, but it could add some fun depth for some - especially when implemented alongside more positive weapon properties.
Here is how I handle initiative rolls while playing in person: Everyone rolls initiative. I draw a table on my scrap paper. We go around the table with each person telling me what their imitative roll is, and I write the results down at the corresponding place on the table drawing. Then I put my monsters in place, in groups. Takes half the time that Matt Mercer spends. On average damage: It does speed things along. But it also makes the combats feel more rote and unexciting. I don't use it. On complication rolls: This is another take on critical fumbles, with an additional roll for confirmation. This makes if feel less awful, and most of the complications listed are only minor inconveniences. At least they don't provoke opportunity attacks or result in you hurting a friend or hitting yourself in confusion. I like having critical fumbles in the early game, but once our characters hit level 5, we've gained some additional competence, and don't mess up that often anymore.
For the first two, automation works. Even when playing face-to-face I use Fantasy Grounds and everything is automated. I don't need to sort initiative, everyone rolls and they're sorted automatically, I click one button and the damage is done with all the mods and resistances etc. I know a lot of VTTs can do that too. Just because they're for remote play doesn't mean you can't have a tablet or laptop behind your GM Screen and use some tools for efficiency.
Excellent video! I really liked your breakdowns, everyone will have a slightly different use(or not) for these tips. Also your editing is on point, definitely gunna have to step up mine 😂
Maybe it's just my group but I find that saying "Roll for Initiative!" gets my players super hyped. I also run Init similar to Divinity Original Sin 2 though.
Initiative: If someone just throws a punch, or shoots the BBEG in the middle of his monologue, I just call that a "surprise" round in which no-one else could act i.e. the attacker sort of had a free attack out of actual combat. We then roll for initiative for the combat that inevitably occurs following that initial surprise strike. In 3e, in that situation, characters/creatures that had yet to act were "flat-footed" and lost any Dex bonuses to AC and couldn't take offensive reactions i.e. attacks of opportunity, as they were unprepared. If you're just going round the table, try getting people to sit in average Initiative / Dex order. Makes it simpler whilst not nerfing those characters whose players have opted to put points into Dex or take Feats that give Initiative bonuses.
I have the players roll initiative 3-5 times at the beginning of the session and note it behind my screen. Then, when the combat is ready to start, I just pick one if the sequences that seems right and say, "OK, Player A. What do you do?"
The problem with comparing a d&d game with a movie, is that in a movie the character is almost always at a super level of combat. They can shrug off almost any attack to the extent that there are youtube videos about how much damage a character in a movie should have taken. If they lose their weapon there will almost always be a weapon right there waiting for them, they don't have to waste time figuring out what to do. They will always find someone willing to help them at just the right time and various other very lucky coincidences that the player will not have. Forcing this onto the player seams a little unfair, and saying that it's ok to unfairly target the fighter when the spellcasters are messing with the fabric of reality and don't have to face any consequences also seems a little unfair when you consider that the spellcaster should have a chance of facing higher consequences then the fighter. If the spellcasters can mess with the fabric of reality without consequences, then the fighter shouldn't face consequences for swinging a sword.
Just the fact that critical role still rolls for initiative, as much as I hate them, they give everyone the idea that rolling for initiative is fun and exciting.
I like the average damage of monsters, especially if I'm using multiple monsters, which I often do because I love having my players feel like movie protagonists that mow down enemies
I use standard damage except on crits - I'll roll the damage and add the standard damage (as opposed to rolling double damage). I use Passive Initiative for monsters, and it doesn't take long for the players to roll. I jot them down on a notecard; it doesn't bog things down - but I also have a very veteran group.
The problem with the initiative rule is it makes a lot of features less useful, specifically ones that add to intitative, like the alert feat, gloom stalker and chronurgy wizard who all add an extra stat to initiative
Ya. Don't forget the harengon. A harengon gloom stalker could have a + 7 by lv 3 esaly. All they way up to a massive +11 ( if rolled for stats) . Before game you could just have every one roll like 5 initiative rolls and mark them down and use those.
For initiative - I use a 1D10 adjust down for dex bonus. Then I count from 1 to 10 and you go on your adjusted number. Each segment is 6 seconds. Your dex bonus counts for 10% adjustment per plus. Going around the table is not fair because it is a matter of seating arrangement and negates any bonuses. As an old grognard, I am a bit dismayed at the "aww, maths is hard, lets make it easier" trend.
Love all of these ideas; I play Warriors of Zurn and a lot of these are present in that game. On #3 I don't mind complications, though I caveat that by saying as long as it evenly applies to martials and spellcasters I'm fine with it. A lot of how people handle complications overwhelmingly hurts martial characters with minimal to no penalties for spellcasters, so as long as that's accounted for, I'm good with it, :)
Many years ago one of our players had a near unbreakable weapon . We had a house rule for weapon destruction . 8 rolls of 1 later his Ax exploded killing all the enemies and half the players .
Confirming nat 1s would be nice. I've had my share of "what a shame, with a nat 1 you now shot your ally in an entirely different cardinal direction through their 21AC" ... like.. why? It also felt a bit lopsided cuz when it came to nat 1 for spellcasters it simply always was "oh, your spell fizzles, sorry"
I prefer to use side initiative myself. Quick, simple and handy and only used as needed (not all my sessions have combat). And the crits are important but not too bad. More likely for something to harm or injure themselves or own side, as I find this can be used for spells just as easily. Think of the fireball being misjudged or the wizard being distracted. As for the average damage. I find it's not much use tbh, as the hit points of when the players get up can far outweigh the average of the attack. And fun to see the players either panic or sigh in relief depending on the outcome when already injured.
The board game style , clockwise around the table isn’t that big of a deal/doesn’t get stale if your party is always in battle. If there is no break throughout the one shot or dungeon. this is more common in an ICRPG style of game play where you are perpetually adding monsters using a d4 timer and each time “John “ goes, the timer ticks down to the next wave of monsters
One thing I've seen done is having a tablet with a google sheets loaded. The tablet just sits where the players can easily see it and you have your laptop. And all you do as the DM is ask everyone their roll and then you plug in your DM rolls, sort, make sure the tablet got the update and everyone can see initiative. Also, I've become partial to using a D12 for initiative. Gives a bit more weight to dex and initiative modifiers while still giving some randomness to turn order. Also because I think the d12 needs more love but you could go down to a d10 or d8. I think going below a d8 puts a too much weight on initiative and dex modifiers. I have one big issue with the fumble mechanic in that it punishes classes that make a lot of rolls while classes that mostly do saving throws don't care. Ignoring advantage and disadvantage and such its 1/400 odds for a double 1. A level 11 fighter making 3 main hand attacks and 1 offhand is losing a weapon every 100 rounds. A monk is in a similarly weird if they're flurrying a decent amount. If combat is on average 5 rounds your 4 attack fighter is making 20 attacks per combat(more with action surge) and dropping or losing a weapon in half their encounters. You'd think by level 11 this guy would be really competent. Meanwhile classes that attack far less like rogues or mages aren't really affected by the fumble rules.
I understand the controversy of saying a weapon breaks, if the weapon is special to the character. But the odds of a double nat 1 are so rare that you can say the weapon breaks (or just cracks to loose any magic abilities), then have them go on a side quest to repair it. The result could be their +1 sword becomes +2, or if it just lost magic and didn't break, it's restored with a minor buff (even if just flavor).
Rolling for initiative adds some randomness that can change a battle or how it’s caught so I use it as is but I have something that shows who goes when so we are all on the same page. Average damage seems less interesting. I like the randomness and the oh no I’m down to 6 hp and he hits me, is it enough to drop me or will it be a glancing blow and I can stay in the fight. You won’t know if it’s random but you will if it is set. I always try to use a nat 1 or nat 20 to do something. I just had a character hit by a rat that rolled a nat 20 and did minimum damage but his armors dr stopped the hit. I wanted the hit to be something so it damaged his armor a little and he needed to get it fixed, the hit didn’t hurt but it did something.
Damage range is damage range, live with it. Sure roll a hundred times and it all averages out, but if roll #10 is a 1 but roll #11 is an 8 it makes a huge difference if you have 2 hit points left. If want to speed things up as a GM, pre-roll to hits and damage and have a stat sheet on the side, mark it off as you go - there, no delay.
1. "Sit your players in initiative order" isn't ideal in practice, players are people and will want to sit in specific locations or next to specific fellow players. Additionally, certain classes get bonuses to initiative as part of their kit (barbarian for instance). At minimum a DM needs to account for this in some way if removing traditional initiative. 2. Average monster damage is absolutely a good call, use it all the time. The one thing I do roll for is if the monster gets a critical. 3. I just make fumbles happen when I think they make sense/would be interesting, depends on how combat is moving and the individual tables.
He's great. I love his advice and house rules. I don't agree with him all the time, but I will always listen to what he has to say. And Deathbringer kicks azz! Also, can't wait to see how that game goes. Are you gonna stream it or post it or what?
My solution to initiative is to have everyone roll initiative at the start of the session and combat starts with whoever makes the first action and go down the list.
i still do half the work with ini - i roll for all monsters at once, and they go as a group. And no, i don't just focus one player to take them out of action but just do what's logical and fun. But I only master three players. It did work with five, although wors, and wouldn't work with more. But i don't like mastering or playing in big groups anyway)
1) Initiative... Basic Fantasy RPG (which is what I've been running) uses 1d6 + DEX mod. With DEX mods of -3 to +3, DEX makes a much greater difference. But I don't follow BFRPG's rule to roll initiative every turn. Also, I only roll once for each monster type so I don't have to keep track of a lot of critters acting in different orders. 2) I don't like average damage. Easy? Yeah, but when the PC getting hit has 3 HP left and the monster's average damage is 4, the PC has 0 chance of staying conscious. There's no "by the skin of their teeth" excitement, like when the monster rolls a 1 on its damage roll and the nearly unconscious hero gets to have at least one more attack. Average damage is boring. 3) Yeah. That one's OK, but I tend to let my players decide how to treat Nat 1s and Nat 20. I like more interesting consequences, but not all tables respond to that mentality. It's something I would suggest clearing it in Session Zero.
Initiative: Overall though Dice are WAY TOO RANDOM. I have a level 9 fighter who has been near last in initiative due to terrible rolls. its almost a joke in our game as the fighter is often behind the wizard. due to this for In person (non VTT games) I pick initiative based on 1. the players Dexterity bonus 2. how I feel (as the DM) they were doing situationally such as "Where they close to the enemy" and "Would they have been prepared for this Combat in the moment"? i then assign numbers 1-6 depending on the number of players, then insert the enemies according to their stats. Often i will set this up ahead of the game.
initiative one a bit hard. As some class and races get abilities that add to there initiative. Be it there proficiency or a other stat. How I done initiative in the pass is have each player roll 4 initiative rolls and wright them down. I do the same and when combat starts I already have all the initiative rolls. If we do more combat then roll just start over from the 1st roll.
Yeah no on crit fail tables, if I'm at a table and they tell me there's a crit fail table that's going to have pull out my wizard character who is focused solely on not rolling an attack roll because that's the privilege get to have as a spellcaster. Closest thing to an attack I'll ever make is magic missile.
The disregarding initiative as an opener was just such a tone setter xD As someone who plays a swashbuckler as a bread and butter class, and when not, have often had features or spells to support high initiative… uhh. Can’t cosign on that one.
My new initiative method is to use the clips on the DM screen but I have the players put their own clips on. I don't know why I wasted so much time asking everyone what they rolled. Why have one person be the bottleneck?
So how would the initiative Homebrew work with the Alert feat? What changes would you make for the feat or the game? The Nat 1s for a Monk. Would their Unarmed Strikes break their bones?
If you go around the table in clockwise order, or just say whoever declared it first, just don't use the alert feat. But you can instead do other things: - All monsters have a set initiative count, that you tell the players. eg. "everyone with 15 or higher goes before the monsters" the feat works as normal. - Everybody rolls against a set DC, if more than half your players beat the DC, the entire player team goes first. - Players have an avearge initiative, the monsters have an average initiative. Each side rolls 1d20 and add their average, winning side goes first in whatever order they would like. In this case the alert feat could just be played straight to add to that 1 characters inititiative and thus increase the average, or if that feels a little underwhelming, you could add, that even when the party loses initiative, that 1 player can go before the monsters. So yeah, depends a little on what initiative rule you want to use, and on the player too. If I wanted to switch up initaitive in an ongoing campaign, where a player had the feat, I would certainly talk to them, ask them why took it, what they like about it, to be sure not to steal their thunder. Also give them the option to pick a new feat instead if they prefer.
Professor Dungeonmaster is great, but it needs context. He often plays with 8-10 players and does not have tactical combat encounters. With that many players, you need to take shortcuts to keep the game moving, and without tactical combat, initiative order matters much less.
I appreciate Professor Dungeon Master's content for what is worth but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy playing at his table. Nothing wrong with his methods just a difference of perspective, I think. An issue in D&D that the Prof doesn't mention is this: Yes, fighters have multiple weapon proficiencies and in a realistic warfare setting would have a squire and other retinue to support his role as a knight in battle, but in many D&D games, players focus on crafting a desired hero worthy of myth and legend, like Hercules or Thor. These aren't stories of a knight with access to a myriad of weapons, this is Thor weilding Mjolner. D&D perpetuates this narrative by setting attunement requirements for nearly all desirable magic items. So, a knight isn't going into battle with his attuned pike, then switching to his attuned sword and shield, then pulling out an attuned dagger when things get bad, all the while wearing an attuned necklace, ring, and probably an armor piece or two. Unless your campaign is just a free for all with magic items, it's pretty unrealistic to not only carry around all that stuff but to be so well equipped. At midtier and higher damaging things with magic becomes more and more of a requirement. So, the Prof taking this stance is a little more in line with old edition wargame rules than it is with 5e. If that's the game you're playing then it works out, but generally I'd argue that 5e isn't designed for that. I'dbe very careful with implementing fumble rules that punish players who roll more attacks per turn and I'd avoid perma-loss of treasured magic items, especially if you build your adventures and treasure tables with an eye for plot planning. What happens if the demon lord BBEG is looming in the background and a legendary set of magic items the party can get that will help defeat it is suddenly dropped off a bridge during a random fight? Yeah, plan for contingencies DM, that's your job. 😝
I liked the initiative one, but I HATE the average damage, static damage is NOT fun for anyone, it always takes away the thrill of randomness, and the meta gaming as you said is impossible to avoid. As for the 3rd one, I like similar rules, but the options should be balanced. Also, I highly disagree with his take about the Fighters, they are already weaker than casters like all the other martial classes, and this just makes it worse because of the higher chance of having a bad moment. Plus, having the ability to use multiple weapon types is just a dumb excuse if you end up losing a good weapon. I usually play it by ear, depending on what is happening at the moment, I will pick something relevant from a large list I have (or even something original), and this is way better for the players, plus easier for me. Overall, very mediocre (or bad implementation of) house rules.
My players roll initiative, if I win the monsters start, if any player wins the initiative , he starts then all players around the table play in clockwise order then the monsters act. Its simple and easy.
Hmm, I appreciate the thought process that went into these house rules, but I'm not sold on them. They solve some issues, but they also cause other issues. For example, just Initiative always being static and based on Dexterity score: as you said, it feels bad to have the same person always going first, the same person always going last. It also conflicts with subclass features that do things like give some kind of bonus to Initiative, or you get a bonus against characters who haven't acted yet in combat, etc. I still really don't like punishing characters who roll a natural 1 on an attack roll. Really surprised to hear Professor pushing for this one, even if he tries to soften it somewhat to be more palatable. Whatever spin you put on it, it still punishes martials for making extra attacks. I don't care for the narrative or "realistic" excuse that over 200 strikes you statistically would drop it or get it lodged in something. Statistics don't matter when there aren't that many rounds in the typical combat and every single attack you do has a pure-luck chance of a critical fail. Dropping a weapon may not be a huge problem, but if you drop it into some ravine or bottomless chasm that can be disastrous -- especially if it's a magical weapon your character really depends on to be effective. Hope it's not the Sunsword, good luck with your forever-screwed Curse of Strahd campaign! One that I do like is taking average damage for DM-controlled monsters. It saves time and makes things easier for the DM. However, I thought this was a standard option for DMs, not a house rule, because why else would "average damage" even be listed in the book at all?
As someone with a +10 in initiative… Point One would annoy the hell out of me. I don’t see initiative as a ‘momentum killer’, it’s a new ‘phase’ where the hype and fear builds ahead of the fight proper.
Just personal opinion, but I think the solution to the overpunishment of players for rolling Nat 1s is solved by one simple thing: Don't ask for too many rolls. Let rolls be reserved for things that actually matter and have substantial risk. There is no 'losing a sword' when you roll a Nat 1 on a Perception check. Another solution (if you wanna keep the many many rolls) is to just apply the Critical Consequences to combat.
Initiative isnt bad, the game is turn based we need a turn order and thats the simplest way to figure it out. Initiative is a core part of it and i think removing it is a bad idea. Granted i use roll20 exclusively so it has an automatic turn tracker. The way professor said with whoever initiates is gonna cause players to just scramble and scream the minute they see a potential combat encounter killing villain roleplay
While I agree it is a turn-based game, the current initiative is far from the simplest and fastest. Many turn-based board games use rules like"The youngest player starts first," followed by the next player in clockwise order. This is a much simpler and faster approach, and the suggested homebrew is also. And technically speaking, his method is still initiative, just not as we run it. The only real downside is for those trying to min/max their initiative to go first, but you could still achieve the same result by making sure you throw the first punch.
If you want to have Dexterity modifiers have an impact you can get people to sit in the order of their dexterity around the table. Highest dexterity goes first so you're just going around the table but now dexterity matters. For the most part initiative is not a good rule and a completely unnecessary immersion killer. "Roll for initiative" may be one of the most ridiculous ways to start combat if you want people to feel like they're in a fantasy world.
Maybe its the way the 2 players and a mob hits, that it reminds me of final fantasy. And in a game it kinda sounds gross to play with a sort of tactical map style play.
The natural 1 on attack rolls is terrible in 5e. It disproportionately targets some players over others. At level 11, a fighter might make 3 attacks with his action, 1 attack with his bonus action per round. Add in action surge and opportunity attacks and he might average 5 attacks per round. That is a 23 % chance, per round of a nat 1. Meanwhile, the wizard is likely doing 0 dice rolls on his turn. Is it realistic, sure. But it screws over the martials, who already has problems keeping up with spellcasters and feeling relevant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting those kind of rules in your game, but don't try to put it in 5e. That is like putting lemon juice on your chocolate cake, nothing wrong with liking some lemon juice, but it does not belong on a chocolate cake. If you want critical failures like that, you can play GURPS instead, or homebrew it into Warhammer Fantasy.
Initiative - Letting the person that speaks up first go first is really penalizing to quiet players and promotes uncivil behavior (shouting/interrupting). Around the table makes taking a high dex or Alert feat pointless. If your initiative order takes a long time to organize, that is the fault of the DM not being prepared. Make index cards. Average damage makes sense for the DM to use, but it is not a house rule. Critical misses are terrible. The better you get, the more chance you have of fumbling. It's completely backwards.
Disagreed with everything in this video especially as an online GM ESPECIALLY critical fumbles, the player already is suffering a consequence: effectively missing their turn at lower levels and having to wait 10 minutes to try something else, it also makes halflings innately the best fighter of any setting Tldr crit fumbles are antiplayer in combat, see pathfinder 2 spells for a better use of nat 1s in combat to specific spells only
As much as I like PDM's videos the way he describes his combat play it seems extremely mechanical and sterile with an emphasis on speed and speed alone. Unless one of your players has a terminal illness or needs to make the last bus of the night why are you so worried about speed? Vary it up with some dice, and engage with your players and their characters, and they'll do the same for you. I'm also not a fan of his "zero hit points means dead" rule. Apparently no one in his game word ever gets knocked out or has been in a coma. You're either completely healthy or just dead.
