What is your Homebrew Philosophy? 💜 Become a Patron: www.patreon.com/thedungeoncoach

@jtjames79

2 жыл бұрын

I don't want a Homebrew rule book. I want a wiki. That way I don't have to worry about how many I use or don't use. Well I also want the book, but that's for more sitting on the shelf after smelling all the pages. I also want to be able to share my particular build. Sort of like Wabajack for modding Skyrim. I'm so sick of Waterfall, I want some distributed rapid development model. /Rant

@SamuelDancingGallew

2 жыл бұрын

I'm going to homebrew if I want to encourage a certain action. Another thing I homebrew is to take pointless rules (e.g. True Strike), and make a simple tweak to make it useful, without breaking the game (Auto-Hit, no crit, can buff ally). At my table, you don't need to Min-Max, because I set things up to make your build the best build YOU can have for the game. I build around strengths, though I also emphasize weakness. With the light, there is ALWAYS dark. I make most thing double edged. If you want to block more damage, you certainly can... But will you risk your armor for it?

@monodescarado

2 жыл бұрын

As a new parent, I'm digging the T-shirt.

@MrGreensweightHist

2 жыл бұрын

Most hombrew is just broken and merely attempts to overpower things. That said, occasionally home-brew is still good. The trick with homebrew is... 1) To keep it balanced. Very few people can do this. 2) Decide if the homebrew is really needed. In most cases, it isn't. 3) Understand the far reaching implication of the homebrew. Some homebrew rules unintentionally break other parts of the game. Professor DM's zoned combat, for example, is horrible for its lack of foresight in the things it breaks. It's basically theater of the mind with a diorama

@jasonp9508

2 жыл бұрын

Dude this is one of my favorite videos of yours ever, and I have watched them all. I love how you approached this topic, how you treated it, and how your passion and respectfulness mix.

Good Homebrew doesn't bog down the game, but helps unbog it. If we are against homebrew, it comes close to admitting WOTC is perfect and flawless game creators. We are all trying to make a better game, and that's ok :) Great video!

@MrGreensweightHist

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, but at the same time, asserting your particular home-brew "Fixes" the game, rather than the reality that it just customizes it for your personal table is extremely arrogant. Sadly, on a separate note, good homebrew is rare. The majority of "homebrew" is just munchkins looking to up their power

@TheClericCorner

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrGreensweightHist I really don't think that that semantics is worth arguing. Your particular homebrew may fix the game at your table, but homebrew as a concept can 'fix' games at any table. No one is arrogant for believing one option is better than another

@MrGreensweightHist

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheClericCorner Not semantic. "Fix D&D with..." I was addressing what was quite blatantly said in a direct manner. Semantics is playing word games. I played no word games.

@elmsigreen

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Homebrewing isn't saying that WOTC is bad at making a game, otherwise we would just move on to another RPG. I choose to homebrew in 5e because I love the game and I think it is close to perfect, I just want to tweak little parts to make my personal experience more fun. It's like modding a video game. Modders don't mod games that they don't like playing.

@TheClericCorner

2 жыл бұрын

@@elmsigreen that's actually a fantastic example!

i definitely want to see a video on the homebrew rules you actually use at most of your tables maybe include something on the rules you used to use, then decided to stop using after it seemed like less of a good idea, or rules that you were unsure about but wanted to try and which turned out extremely well

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

Ooooo BOTH of those are great ideas! I love the "dont use anymore" rules, thats a great one!

@TedSroka

2 жыл бұрын

I agree - tell us your top 3 home brews, Coach!

The "fog cloud thing" refers to the stacking of advantage and disadvantage; or rather the lack thereof. If you cast fog cloud, two things happen: you cant see the enemy, so you have disadvantage on your attacks; and the enemy cant see you, so you have advantage on your attacks. Those cancel out, meaning you roll neutral. Any additional sources of disadvantage have no influence on this, so its a common trick to cast fog cloud when you have disadvantage, thus negating the disadvantage; even though you should logically have even more difficulty hitting anything. I think an example for "this will be fun" kind of homerules are critical fumbles and expanded wild magic tables. The former punishes martials more, the more attacks they gain; and the latter is often just a load of horrible side effects, unlike the official table, which is mostly positive or neutral/low impact effects.

@peterwhitcomb8315

2 жыл бұрын

Conversely, the more dice you roll the better chance you have at having a critical. It actually is a neutral outcome but the discussion is always one sided. Thanks for the Fog Cloud explainer. Although if RAW is true, tiny/small races can abuse the spell against their medium/taller opponents 😂

@t111ran3

2 жыл бұрын

Correct me if I writing, but if you can't see an enemy, I think you can't target it? Sounds right to me.

@peterwhitcomb8315

2 жыл бұрын

@@t111ran3 RAW, you can always attempt an attack roll, even if you can't see the target. At least for melee and missile weapons. There is an exception for spells that require you to be able to see the target before it can be cast though. I'm not sure if that is what you are thinking about. We actually had this come up recently in our play session and our GM ruled it with your interpretation (We were up against Water Weird's which are invisible while in water). Wasn't worth the rules lawyering so I kept my mouth shut.

@t111ran3

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterwhitcomb8315 thanks for clearing things out.

Yeah, he was solving very specific problems that his table has. Trying to grab his players who enjoy optimizing characters and shake it up. Solve the common problems of tables in that community. Not everyone has those problems so those solutions don't make sense for everyone.

In mu opinion for players who want to optimise a large part of player agency is the character design and character building. I think Chris's homebrews come from this point of view. While some people might consider removing options in those ways as a DM intervention it is analogous to introducing a new meta after an update with buffs/nerfs in deck building games - which is generally a very exciting time for players. Whereas to a hardcore optimiser a DM working with a player to homebrew a concept could be seen as reducing their agency in character design. Its just a style thing. I'm definitely a heavy homebrew DM but as a less roleplay heavy person my changes tend to focus on travel/monsters/items. Ah I see this was pretty much discussed in the last section of the video. That's what I get for not finishing before commenting.

Take a shot every time coach says “I can do a whole video about...”

I think the difference in philosophy is player/table driven based off of your respective experiences. Chris' content often discusses RAW and RAI which suggests to me that he has had to deal with a lot of rules lawyers and munchkins over the years, and his build guides are designed to be as broadly applicable to his audience. Whereas, it seems to me, that you've had the privilege of playing with players who are considerably less antagonistic and open to changing the rules to better fit the story and experience. I've always taken the view that the rules are the tools in your toolkit and understanding when and why to use a tool to have the desired effect is part of developing your style as a DM. There are a lot of rules systems out there for playing a ttrpg, find one that lets you tell the stories you and your friends want to tell and build your confidence. But don't be afraid to have a look at what else is out there, what they do differently and why.

Good morning, Coach. As per this video here I would be interested in the two videos you would consider making: (1) About the homebrew rules that YOU use at your table and (2) Your top three favorite homebrews. I hope you do those when time allows. Thank you and entertaining video here by the way, was funny! And congrats on your first penalty flag for the channel. ROFL

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

I 100% am putting BOTH of those videos on the docket! Youll see them come up in a Patron Voting poll too!

The weird thing is Treantmonk has written some of my favourite Homebrews, his feat system is great.

I wonder if Treantmonk allows the pixie polymorph combo that almost everyone else bans.

Now I absolutely want a video on your top 3 homebrew rules (maybe even 10)

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

Once AAA is out, Ill have to!

Never heard Matt Colville say, “we’re not game designers.” I have Heard him say that as a DM you basically are a game designer though…wondering where you heard that / it came from 🧐 Overall another great response video to some practical criticism / pushback to home brews. Your counter arguments to keep the conversation going! Thanks for your work Dungeon Coach!

@garyvincent7397

2 жыл бұрын

Matt Coalville number one point is basically that the dm is the author/gamedesigner for there world lol that point confused me too

@PohatuEudyptulaMinor

2 жыл бұрын

What videos are you watching from Matt? He frequently says that most dms aren't professional game designers, and don't have a tonne of player telemetry/metrics when designing their own campaign/homebrews

@drew_and_dragons

2 жыл бұрын

@@PohatuEudyptulaMinor The one where he makes a gun weapon design comes to mind as an example of him saying we shouldn’t be afraid to design, but I would also agree with what your saying that he has never said we are professional designers. I have watched a good number of his videos and I guess the spirit of my comment is more against the idea he has told us not to try to design. I feel Colville has encouraged and empowered me to be a designer in my world and at my table, and so does Dungeon Coach. Using the HB options and picking and choosing of which are the better for me and my table, turning the dials we are given, etc. are all choices we are making as we design the experience we want to have / provide for our players. So I was just confused at what he saw that made DC take away something so different than me is all.

Lotta things to say here: I'm pretty sure the armor rule also had a thematic element. Also, such rules make sense if you run for players to whom optimizing their character mechanically is their fun. And I prefer hard rules over "if it makes sense" rulings which more often than not lead to favoritism or inexperienced players getting frowned on for stumbling on a highly effective combo the player happened to like. I would also like to point out that the last house rule is explicitly meant for attack actions only, in order to enable martial characters to get to spend their bonus actions on more interesting things than just another attack or two. As for homebrew myself, I'm mainly interested in character options that are highly undersupported. Recently, one such concept is a spellcaster focused on size alteration, which unreasonably constrained in the current rules. Enlarge/Reduce is low on duration and magnitude, very hard to land on enemies you want to shrink and is still low impact if you do (compared to, say, Blindness/Deafness). And that's all there is for the concept.

@agilemind6241

2 жыл бұрын

Both the Shield complete ban and the armor rule were for thematic and strategic diversity reasons. Basically, if every character in your party has similar defensive capability then everyone can just stand in front of the enemies and blast away. There is no need for strategic choices for either martials or casters w.r.t. defense, so the game becomes entirely about dealing as much damage as possible. Whereas if casters are squishy and martials are tanky then there is a necessity for the party to work together to protect the casters.

I remember playing the Palladium system years ago and so many of our session devolved into figuring out the rules to our homebrew rules.

Adv stacking can easily be broken. Ex:. Kobold, rogue, help action, familiar, flanking not including spells. You can easily be rolling 4-5 d20 per attack without teammates.

@MrBirrynorikey

2 жыл бұрын

Didn't count lucky, statuses, feats, ect.

I believe that the "Fog Cloud thing" issue is that, RAW, while you and an enemy are inside the cloud, ALL advantage and disadvantage is negated. You get disadvantage because you can't see the target but ALSO get advantage because the target can't see you, so both cancel each other out and, since there is no advantage stacking in RAW, also cancel out every other source of advantage or disadvantage, making all the rolls inside straight rolls. That feels all sorts of wierd IMO, so I'm not surprised to hear fog cloud mentioned in a discussion about homebrew fixes, although I haven't seen or used one myself.

I think the main difference in your opinions are the group of players you are each playing with, pretty sure Chris is playing with optimizers who are going for power and you have to have a tight reign so it doesn't get out of control. I think the main thing that everyone should remember is that each game should be tailored to the people playing it, I do the same thing you do where I basically let people do whatever they want class/race/feat wise, but I make them have a reason for it.(and make sure it fits in the world) I also do a similar thing because I play with a group that has new folks and power gamers so I usually give the new folks a "talent" that makes them not be outshone by the power gamers and the power gamers get flavor talents to try and make them focus more on story.

22:12: "So these house rules come from blocking minmaxers and optimizers." You do get into this more a bit later in the video, but I think it's really important to clarify here that the goal is to make the game \*more fun for minmaxers and optimizers\*. I think describing that in terms like "blocking optimizers" can kind of confuse that point. Personally, I really enjoy optimization, and if I'm playing character that made some suboptimal choices (maybe because I didn't understand the game as well when I made those choices) it just feels bad. I think a lot of folks feel that way. So when there's a spell or a feat that's so good that it's almost mandatory, that can be really limiting for me. It's like being stuck between a rock (constrained, repetitive build choices) and a hard place (underoptimized character that feels bad). In other words, I don't want there to be excessively overpowered build options in the game, precisely because I enjoy playing high-powered builds.

Love the idea of different Element Type Shields having different effects. Perhaps more complex, but more options for differently scenarios is FUN!! 5e needs more Elemental Type damage // spells having different effects: First Thoughts Like... Fire Shield: AC +2 - melee attackers catch fire if they hit you. periodic damage to the attacker for 2 turns or until they put themselves out Water Shield: AC +3 - half damage if hit. Attacks are slowed by going through water Earth / Stone Shield: AC +5 - your movement is halved (or is 0ft) while active. Wind Shield: immune to range attacks? (Maybe too strong). Maybe immune to non-magic range attacks, like arrows and thrown weapons. Then perhaps Half damage ton ranged magic attacks? Lightning Shield: AC +2 & attacks against you have disadvantage - you have "lightning reflects" and are harder to hit Stuff like that could be interesting and you feel more Elemental // Magical as a spell caster. Instead of generic magic shield...boring

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

WOW YES!!! See this is exactly what I love about his community! We all inspire eachother to make cool stuff, look what you just made! thats awesome!

@Tanthalasa83

2 жыл бұрын

well with the wind shield... perhaps it is resistance to ranged attack or piercing damage could be the option. In a similar way you could have the opposite elements, like a fire shield gives you resistance toward cold, and vice versa. But perhaps it is making them too strong again.

I have a very complicated Skill Tree system that I use instead of Feats. And while it might be complex, it's improved my campaigns 1000 times over.

@garyvincent7397

2 жыл бұрын

Do you have a document on this? I'd be interested in trying this system.

@monodescarado

2 жыл бұрын

@@garyvincent7397 I did post the link but I don’t see it here anymore. Maybe they took it down. Did you see it? Edit: I just posted it again and it vanished immediately. I guess Google Drive links aren’t allowed??

@garyvincent7397

2 жыл бұрын

@@monodescarado wierd lol, of your a fan of skills trees and such you could try your hand at titles, matt Colville made a video where it was mentioned and he doesn't get specific but basically says 'minor ability tied to title and some unwritten condition for it', his exams is from an earlier game he ran with one of his friends a monk becoming the master of locusts, the hidden condition of these titles appears to be some highlander thing, point being titles sound cool and if you made a skill tree it might jot be a bad idea to create titles for players perhaps

@monodescarado

2 жыл бұрын

@@garyvincent7397 I’m always adding to the Skill Trees. I recently added Lycanthropy and Spirit Walking to it. I’m working on adding Vampirism soon too. If there’s another way to link it, I’d be happy to share.

@garyvincent7397

2 жыл бұрын

@@monodescarado you could email the link to me, as my email should be available via KZread, no?

I'm putting "Homebrew Rulez!" on a t-shirt now! (It'll look funny in crayon but whatevs.) I would add reasons to homebrew: sometimes the rules don't cover a sitch so you have to make one, and sometimes you make a ruling to keep from looking up the raw, and you like it so you keep it. And, yes, know the rules before you tinker. Play them as written and understand them before you even think about homebrewing. A tip if you have a DM notebook or file, put all your in-use house rules UP FRONT, page one, top of the file, whatever. The official rules are in books, indexed, readily searched, etc. Make your rules just as easy to find. Even better if they're easy to remember, easy to use, easy to read, easy to understand. And kill your darlings.

I hear ya Coach! I will forever need to look up the Poisoned Condition RAW

As sorcerer, removing shield makes the simple cantrip bladeward much more viable. Quicken you leveled spell, and if you are in melee range, pop bladeward, and decide whether moving and the AoO is worth taking at half damage. Absorb elements as well. If you can't just avoid the damage, at least cut it in half. All of this of course is if you can't simply play back field and avoid damage entirely.

Based on the thumbnail I thought this would be about death saves. I'm not really critiquing it or anything, I just thought I'd mention it =P

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm I see that, duly noted!

Number 3 is a big one for me. I find a few rules ether very obscure, confused or seldom used. I always try to simplify rules where I can. In the end its up to you AND your group, if they like them use them, if not drop them.

22:26 No you fundamentally don't understand this issue. Players should not be discouraged from wanting to do good, to be better, to be the best, and that includes min maxing. If min maxing breaks the game, guess what, that's not a player issue, that's a game issue. Why make your min maxers feel bad with a lecture or intervention as if they did something wrong when they didn't? It's not their fault that the game is broken. It's good to give the alternatives, but don't winge at them for what they've done. You know what's really helpful for players though, a heads up as to what's broken ahead of time so that they know what they're reading may be subject to alteration upon review or application at the table. Something like an asterisk, or an errata, or a homebrew so that they don't get jump scared by a false set of expectations provided by you.

Would love a video on the rules you use, DC!

The argument about homebrew isn't for dungeon masters, it's for players. The dungeon master is going to remember the rules that they wrote, but as a player, especially a new player to the table(or a long-time player at your table who goes to a non-house rule table). Obviously your regulars will know your house rules, but how much are you going to have to explain to a new player? Should you have a list for a new player so that they can know the custom rules? What about players with less game knowledge, who don't have as much understanding of the base rules and may be reading through the PHB to see what they can actually do. You end up with tables that can't really play together well because they both use different home rules

@Capt.Fail.

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I definitely agree. I really didn’t understand when he was saying that the player wouldn’t have to remember their options… like, I as a player want to know what I’m capable of, so yeah I would need to know these new rules as well. How am I supposed to know how well something will work, if not for how the mechanics describe them? My character would know how good he is at something, and the way I as a player can get to that place is through understanding the game effect. Plus, if the DM has to remember all these rules and pick at every little calculation the players should be doing… that’s just too much for the DM, not to mention slowing gameplay down.

That is an awesome shirt. Where might one acquire such a lovely shirt? Hmm? HMMM?!?

High AC wizards will feel it though when they get hit since most attack that can hit them are going to be critical hits. This was a common thing for my Forge Cleric but I had the HP to take it. I always felt that armor hinders wizards connection to the arcane, but most times they probably dont have the STR to properly use and move in it. One thing to keep in mind with Home Brews is dont be afraid to admit the rule(s) you home brewed are not balancing out like you imaged and work with the players at your table to adjust these rules or drop them and if it affected the PC's allow for them to retro-fit or re-roll a new PC as necessary. *COMMUNICATE* with the PC's and make sure they are aware that these rules could be changed before you start the campaign.

I have never played a TSR/WotC fantasy game that didn't have homebrew rules in my 39 years of gaming, including an official tournament at GenCon! In our Pathfinder campaign, a house rule we use is you are allowed 10 words per combat round, +10 words if you give up your move or action! We also use a luck stat with Crit hits and fumbles!

@tomtom7955

2 жыл бұрын

pretty much the same here, 1&2e had a bad rule book layout which led to a lot of making things up and rolling with it, no 2 tables were exactly a like back then because of it. 3e had rules for just about everything which I loved because it offered a solid base line for tuning them to your liking instead of making something up on the fly and hoping it works out. 5e imo is very rules lite , the DMG evens tell the dm they can make stuff up but it seems like many people that are new to the hobby cant or wont engage in the game in that way which for the life of me I dont understand.

Re glancing blows, if the wizard with a spell save DC 15 casts a spell and the monster rolls 15, does that mean the spell does 3/4 damage? I will suggest that glancing blows is already in D&D and has been since day 1. Why? Because weapons typically have a 1-n damage range.

My group and I had a discussion about shield removal. My group is split down the middle about removal or not. Pitched scaling shield with proficiency like the gwm / ss option.

@tomtom7955

2 жыл бұрын

I like the prof. idea if I ever have an issue come up I might use that. Have yall tried having the dm roll attacks behind the screen and not tell the players anymore than if it hits or misses so the players have to decide whether or not they want to sacrifice a spell slot for the chance it buffs Ac up high enough to avoid the attack? at higher levels those 1st level slots are not a big deal to dump but at lower tiers those slots might be more valuable doing something else besides shield.

You forgot the main reason to homebrew It's MY GAME and i can play it the exact way i want to.

I feel homebrew rules are best when you already know standard rules. Unless you never plan to play outside of your group.

I don't get why wanting to play a full caster battle mage in heavy armor is such a problem when the vanilla rules allow a full caster cleric to wear heavy armor.

I recently created the Vinespeaker Druid (A martial druid that creates armour and weapons from plant-matter, sort of a mix of the Armorer Artificer and Hexblade Warlock but nature themed) and the first thing I did after I felt it was finished and balanced was to throw it to my friends and asked who wants to test it out or let me test it in their game. That's definitely gonna be the best way to find out where the subclass is lacking or what parts might be broken

@wilfredofigueroa7970

2 жыл бұрын

Lol I made a moon druid who implanted vines into his body and plans to implant himself with a shambling mound root. Also awakened the vines so they can thorn whip stuff for me without me actually having to cast the cantrips. Was a nice little buff.

@elmsigreen

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilfredofigueroa7970 I love reflavoring Moon Druid. Haven't yet but I want to play an Ant-Man style character. Reflavor the spider and brown bear into just being my character shrinking and growing. I'd still use the statblocks that are allowed but just change the way I look. Then at level 6 I'd start using the Giant Elk and at level 9, the Ankylosaurus. Just change any of their natural weapons into me punching or kicking the enemies

Question for all the people with a lot of HB rules do you just hand your players a stack of papers at session zero and expect them to have them ready for play. Or do you go through each home brew rule one by one to vote on as a keeper or not a keeper. Also do you have any rules that are not up for debate?

@Cpruett

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly, I give them a quick rundown of the major changes like resting and resurrection but everything else is an explan as it occurs thing. But I tend to DM via letting my players know what will happen to them if they do a thing or fail a roll so yeah your milage may vary.

Will you be making a video of your "DM Feats" in the future?

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

O I could totally do that, I can think back through what I gave PCs and ill keep logging it for a video

I use D&D Beyond to check a rules that I don't remember. It's much faster for me that finding it in a physical book. I think Treantmonk and many other DM's do the same. If you have a lot of homebrew it gets hard to use an electronic book as reverence.

17:15 That's the point of my flanking rules. In hiq they're written they're a lot lower complicated than the DMG version. In how they play they're very simple and are meant to make combat movement a lot lore meaningful.

I've played dozens of systems and read dozens more, and D&D5E is one of the most crunchy, complicated, and slow of them, but the homebrew provided by different people to tweak things to be more favorable have been such a godsend. Mechanics are all about how to take gameplay and story, and additions and changes help you tell stories that people are looking for.

Watched part 1 of the collaboration game that Colby (d4), Chris (Treantmonk), Kelly and Monty (Dungeon Dudes) have posted. One of my thoughts was that it would be great to see a collaboration “one shot” with Dungeon Coach DM’ing with some of his favorite home-brew rules being used. 💜👍

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

O for sure! I want to start streaming games as soon as I can

I love your enthusiasm for homebrew! Where can I find your homebrew to try in my own game?

@sagatario58

2 жыл бұрын

He discusses a lot of stuff here on his channel, but you can find other things on his Website where he has a bunch of PDF's available for a pretty affordable rate and also posts things on Patreon. And his homebrew book Alkanders Almanac of Everything is available for late pledges, I'm sure one of his video has a link you can find for it.

@LeMayJoseph

2 жыл бұрын

@@sagatario58 Thanks, I was able to pre-order a hardcover! Much appreciated!

I agree with how some spells feel bad with how they work. I personally think I’ll be making a homebrew rule that a creature banished by the Banishment spell can make a saving throw at the end of their turn to escape the banishment (unless it is a permanent banishment per the rules of the spell) because I had a game where I was banished for 7 rounds of combat in a climactic battle, and it really sucked, because I had nothing I could do where I was banished (being incapacitated per the rules of the spell), and it was a concentration spell. No one in the party knew how the spell worked, so no one except one person attacked the guy who cast it, and his rolls missed like every time. So I don’t want anyone to ever experience that in a game I DM.

@GlacialScion

2 жыл бұрын

If you're in that situation as a DM, just tell the players how the spell works and how to break concentration. Make it something one of their characters recognizes and communicates to the rest of the party. No sense drastically nerfing a spell when it's not really the problem.

@yanderenejoyer

2 жыл бұрын

I played a game where the DM did the following things, 3 tables in a row: 1 - I got banished for the whole fight. 2 - I got hit by confusion and rolled "lose your turn" every turn. 3 - I got focused and downed in 1 turn. Talk about being bored.

@PresidentMystry

2 жыл бұрын

@@yanderenejoyer Wow. Just wow.

@PresidentMystry

2 жыл бұрын

@@GlacialScion That is a fair point, and I appreciate the advice

@vincejester7558

2 жыл бұрын

@@yanderenejoyer Ouch! You shoulda planned yer combat strategy better!

30 seconds in and I just want to say I like this kind of opening of a rebuttal.... now I'll watch the video. 😆

I don’t allow multiclassing, so that armored spellcasting rule is no problem for me 🤷‍♂️

My take to treant monk’s rules 1: he makes a good point about shield being op, since an unoptimized wizard can have 18 ac with mage Armor and 14 dex or 25 if they optimize and dip for heavy armor and a shield. This problem applies to clerics, sorcerers, and bards as well, Druids legally can’t get heavy armor and warlocks and half casters don’t have the slots to waste. But essentially it makes the casters the tankiest players. I fix this by making shield a 1 attack spell like the parry reaction granted by alot of martials. It’s more hefty but they are have less hp so when they need to not get hit they need it. 2: I could use that rule since I color code stuff but I would never ask my players to follow that rule. It makes sense but man is it complicated. And it has fringe cases, such as armor proficiencies gained from feats, traits, races, or background and spells from a classes list that you gained somewhere else. Presumably he has an answer for all that but I don’t what to do that much arbitration. 3: that rule is cool, but I personally give cleave to all my martials instead of a huge damage boost. Great weapon master is fine but I don’t want to deal with all my players having it. I like your rule about forgoing their proficiency on the attack for twice it on damage that’s neat but I learned very early on to be wary of giving static number increases to the party, dice sure but not raw numbers. In my experience I try to leave the classes and subclasses alone, one of my worst experiments involved a homebrew fighter subclass, but I’ll generally tweak monk and ranger so they are on par with the other members of the party. I add in a few healing rules like negative health and buffed healing so the healer isn’t outshone by the bard with healing word, I let advantage and disadvantage stack, and I allow spell scrolls to be used by anyone of the appropriate level instead of just people from that class. I also run unique leveling so there’s always some degree of power imbalance in the party, and thus I plan for different degrees of competence. Therefore it isn’t a struggle for me to calculate the power gamer and the flavor role player at the same level (or different levels) in the same encounter.

Homebrews should be focused on making the smallest necessary change to the core rules that improve the level of engagement with the aspect of the system that was changed. For example, I never track or call for exhaustion, however with the idea that each level provides a -1, instead of whatever the RAW effects are, I might actually engage with that aspect of the game. I might bring up implementing that homebrew, but I won't do so until after I make an effort to use the core rules version appropriately. The players will obviously not like the homebrew rule because it means I'll use the exhaustion mechanic now, however, if I start using it RAW they might welcome the change.

Why is it hard for players to remember homebrews? Because your homebrew isn't published/printed in every PHB.

Same, for me rules is a means to an end, and the end is having fun, if a RAW goes against this idea for me I will probably shake up something. One day I ended up with something that is so far away from the original D&D that it couldn't just be called homebrew, I came up with a whole new system based off from it and you know what happened? people loved playing it and that was what it mattered the most. A hint from me for you guys: Don't exclude people from fun, if a players is stunned, or downed they are probably not having fun. For stunning if someone is stunned make them stunned for only 1 turn then have they gain advantage, positive modifiers or be immune for the only next turn. Or you can make the character have condition stages until it gets officially stunned. For downed players I let them have mini actions such as weakened clerics do weakened healing, use their mini turn to have more advantage in reviving or crawl a little. I hated the most in the official rule book the Fear spell, as a player and as a GM watching my friends not enjoying the game when it happened. And that's why nowadays I roll on a table like wild magic to see how the character responds. As one man said " In Magic The Gathering in the commander format people don't hate getting killed by Poison early, they hate being killed early and watching everyone else have fun"

I always feel these sorta limitations are fairly easy to resolve by discussing how much power gaming should be in the game and also having the players ask why? is there a reason why a wizard dips into fighter and now can wear heavy armor cool... is it 'because it makes me harder to hit' maybe consider other options..

Great response 👍

I love the proficiency bonus homebrew idea

In general, homebrew is to lower complexity, like your exhaustion rule. Exclusion homebrew rules also generally lower complexity (edit: I understand that exclusions would make decisions more complicated, but those decisions are not generally made at the table, so don't "complicate" actual play.) Complexity usually comes in when you're trying to "fix" something. I would say, in general, if it makes it more complicated, it's bad homebrew and you should probably try finding a way to lower the complexity. With the exception of if you're trying to make it more "realistic," that will always be more complicated.

What are your top 3 homebrew?

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

THAT would be a great video! (puts it on his video spreadsheet list)

Do you have any homebrew for active defensives?

@guilhermehaenisch904

2 жыл бұрын

That would be great.

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

100% YES, Its part of Alkander's Almanac AND my Martial Combat Overhaul PDF on my website, and I could totally do a video on this! writing that down!

@TheOliverz121

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheDungeonCoach oh wow thanks

I dont want a DM to "push" me or anyone else at the table. People want to push themseves out of their boxes, that is fine...but dont go thinking its your job to do so for them. Some people like a certain play style/race/class, etc. Leave em be.

As I read more and more comment sections, it appears a lot of folks might be happier playing PF2.....

My comment on his video was that I think a lot of his problems would be solved by disallowing multiclass. His players seem to only take dips to get access to specific abilities and spells that end up running his experience.

@Iceblade269

2 жыл бұрын

Or at least making it harder to achieve. There are a lot of fun multiclass dips that aren’t gamebreaking. Barb/Druid, Sorcadin, Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorc, etc. All are fun concepts that won’t break the game

While broadly I think the advice to deeply interrogate your motives and any likely consequences of changes to the rules you make is a very good idea, there does also seem to be this weird view that D&D as a game system is some kind of swiss watch that is so neatly constructed that any change made to it might cause it entirely to collapse. It is not. The system is robust. Anything that isn't fun you can stop doing. The coach is right; push the limits, experiment, and don't be afraid to try things.

I homebrewed the crap out of the campaign I'm running. Even the leveling mechanics were changed.

Don't know if this is the best of your videos to consider this question on, but I'm here, having watched this excellent video, so why not? I've been a DM since 1980 or so, mostly playing basic and 2ed, Now I'm playing a couple 5e games as a PC and still getting used to 5e. I'm presently in two campaigns, one in Icewind Dale as a rogue. Now as a player, I like long and shortbows. Crossbows have never been my thing, and I resent that there don't seem to be feats that cover normal bows. Pretty sure the last time we gamed, (back in 2e) my shortbow was able to get off 2 shots/round. NOW the only way to get more than one shot/round seems to be by taking 5 (unneeded and unwated) levels in fighter or ranger. EVEN if I take crossbow mastery, my DM still interprets this as I can only have an extra shot every OTHER round. Suggestions on how to appeal to the DM? I view this character as a Robin Hood sort, with bow her favored weapon. How would you handle this? Personally I find that the majority of RAW feats are designed for fighters, and to heck with us rogues, druids, etc.

IMHO Treantmonk’s homebrew rules are extremely well thought out and argued. In contrast I was only able to persevere through two thirds of this word vomit of a response.

Typically online games might not allow homebrew, but I'm personally am a fan of homebrew and feel like certain spells need to be reworked, and classes. I should also play other rpgs ^^'

I was so waiting for your response to his video. I know it was NOT against you and your fine work but just in general. I personally think I largely agree with him except I would have kept the shield and have it end at the end of the current turn (same effect as his rule without banning the spell) but I wanted to hear what you had to say about his reasoning. Thanks a ton. And I am still waiting for you to finish but hey I am a Man it’s better to get it right after a “long time” then to get it wrong quickly. Take care and be well.

Exhaustion rules need to be the first thing on your DM screen. And home brew undead to give out levels of exhaustion.

My 2 favorite D&D guys are buttin heads! lol - I can see where both of you are coming from. I like the intent of TM's first 2 rules - they eliminate 2 very common dips people do to get the most bang for their buck. to discourage Martial classes from a caster dip I'd add to the shield spell - this spell will not work if you exceed the armor requirements of the class you learned the spell from. The 2nd rule is worded a little clunky I admit but I like discouraging dedicated casters taking a dip into fighter just so they can don plate. To me the language 'any spell gained through a class will only work as long as you stay within the armor and weapon proficiencies of the class you learned the spell from'... is slightly better lol. I think the 3rd rule is great to encourage people to try different weapons and not feel bound to use the weapon that mathematically does the most damage. I think your thoughts on scaling to proficiency bonus really makes rule #3 shine.

The spell thing isn't that complicated to me. I think it's a big deal about the kind of table you have. If you've got a bunch of puzzly munchkins at your table that are more adversarial, you will need different homebrew rules than otherwise.

Hey if you wanted to do something neat and have a bit of a puzzle to solve you could take a look at treantmonk’s videos on rules from other systems and attempt to figure out how to implement them into 5e. He made those videos relatively recently if I remember correctly. In them he went through other TTRPGs and grabbed the rules he thought could be reshuffled and implemented into 5e. The catch is that he didn’t actually do the changes.

IMO, homebrewing in a group that plays together consistently is fine and pretty much customizes the game to the players. Homebrewing for "public games" such as a random group of players on Roll20 is a pita unless it's not much and not hard to adapt to. Homebrew for DM only tasks (how you handle random encounters overland or such) are all on the DM. Players don't get a vote for how the DM manages the adventure (except voting with their feet...) Be clear to the players what is homebrewed or at least what sorts of things are. Generally speaking my experience is that players that don't like home brew except for homebrews they didn't think up either understand or at least fear the homebrew is going to mess with their own min/maxing. I don't min/max myself, I play toons I want to play and won't shove rules or abilities on my character just to "make my rolls better." I also play with players who play what they want even if the internet says it's a hot mess...

I was DMing 3 new players and the moment I told them they got to roll 3d20 because they had double advantage... THEY WERE SO SUPRISED.

Multi-classing is the devil. If you want a class that has some parts of two classes, create a class that has that. If it's fighter-wizard, it MUST be a significantly worse fighter than a dedicated fighter & a significantly worse wizard than a dedicated wizard at every level.

I 100% agree with everything here... except for the very last part. The idea of removing the most optimal option is never-ending in a game as complex as DnD. To continue the GPS analogy: if you block the most optimal path, then yes, you do create more options for paths... but inevitably a new optimal path emerges because all of the paths are not equidistant. So suddenly now, you have another 'must-pick' option. So then what do you do - play for a few months and then decide to remove the next optimal option because that is now the most optimal option? My point is: rebalancing is better than removal. If Shield spell is too strong, don't remove it - nerf it to a +3 AC. My overall problem with TM's video is that his solutions don't really offer anything to the game, but instead (whether knowingly or unknowingly) hit casters. I think he even suggested that casters were too strong anyway, which is true, but I would argue that a lot of what makes them strong is their ability to solve problems outside combat. Taking away combat survivability and buffing the combat strength of martials doesn't fix this. All it does is make you pay the price for being useful.

I saw that video, and his top three were really weird to me. They all solved problems that have never existed at my table, or any table I've played at. It feels like he plays with a ton of min-maxers and gets frustrated with that. Meanwhile one of my players chose a scimitar instead of a longsword because the character art he chose had a scimitar in it.

@koorssgamer

Жыл бұрын

A little late to the party, but I have to say that I also never had that problem in my tables. But there are somethings that when you see, you can't unseen. Once you realize you can make +13 damage, plus bonus attack, instead of +4, no bonus attack, it is aways on the back of your mind. Once you realize a bladesinger can have 27 effective AC, plus damage resistance, plus extra mobility, and still pack more damage than the fighter, you can't forget it. The problems these house rules are trying to correct are not table problems, it's highly imbalanced mistakes the game designers made. Like TM said, he doesn't homebrew to try to make a better game. He plays RAW. He only use house rules to fix what is obviously broken

💜💜💜

To me HomeBrew rules are fluid fun-injectors (yeah idk what lol) that can change / morph over sessions. If my players and I agree on something being fun, it's more important than the game now being slightly unbalanced. Ultimate balance is not our table's goal, ultimate fun is.

I homebrew for two of the reasons listed (in this order): I think it'll add more fun. I don't like the official RAW. THE rule I use for every game: A luck stat. Its most frequent use is for bad guys who can't or don't yet have a reason to choose a target, characters in range will roll opposed checks and the lowest check is the target. I also use a party Luck check (all PC's roll) to determine if there's a random encounter and how bad it is (it's really bad to botch this roll!). This is instead of using percentile, which, to me, feels bad since the players have little-to-no influence on that roll. Luck is another stat so they can set it high to avoid encounters (but, potentially make their teammates take hits for them) or low if they want a way to aggro attacks away from their less durable teammates. I also use it to determine random treasure instead of percentile. I'm STRONGLY opposed to homebrew that remove rules/options that aren't completely OP. Let players play how they want. I feel like there are way better ways to handle that such as talking to the player if they're overshadowing the rest of the party (just to ask them to tone it down--it's great you found a way to cast fireball at will but, maybe, don't end every encounter before it begins so other players can play, too?). (If no one feels too weak to have fun, who cares?) Maybe it's not an issue at my tables because I've grown very picky at this point about who I let play at my table?

@urdaanglospey6666

2 жыл бұрын

And, yes, I've attempted to run a game with too many house rules. Now, I try to keep things leaner.

Treatmonk ain't an idiot or a bad person by any neans, I use a ton of his homebrews as inspo for mine as much as Dungeon Coach But god none of Chris' homebrews address the main pain points of 5e. There are SO many fucking flaws in base 5e and I really think Treatmonk and many other Dnd players really do not understand them. If you don't mind the flaws of 5e it's completely fine!! Play however the heck you want, this life is too short to listen to some random dude dictate how you have fun. but outright denying their existence or how flawed they are is stupid. And I really think this denial is really limiting the fun of how other people who do have frustration with DND 5e's flawed rules and just TTRPGS in geberal. How many flaws you ask? HOOO BOY Here's a comprehensive list of some of the major flaws of 5e that , as a newbie DM of 4+ years that has been an avid fan and observer of disvussions in the DND community and other DND peeps like Dungeon coach, that I and many others agree that 5e has. This is not me being a hater just for "being hip with the kids" for social brownie points, this is to clear the air to accurately show 5e's flaws. 1.Literally NO SUPPORT FOR PLAYERS, the DM controls player rewards and has to deal with EVERYTHING. It's a collective storytelling medium yet one person has to do 75% of the work???? The DM is expected to balance encounters, make a good story, maje sure the party doesn't kill themselves, keel track of the stats abd health of players and NPCS..... 2. No real reward for roleplaying besides doing it for fun. Unless you have a really good DM, no custom story missions for characters and their bonds..NOPE. Play is it's own reward? And if you're a socially awkward autistic potato like me with only the rules to go by? SUCKS FOR YOU. Even if you do get a good dm the most you'll get is some nice homebrew. No cool player incentives to play more, RP itself is it's own reward? In that case why can't I just fibd a rabdom person and write my own book or RP woth them? Why do I have to play DND if doing that gives the sane outcome? I get old dnd is drowning in rules but we play ttrpgs for the opportunities and mechanics we get from dnds rules and how we break or interpret them, whether wrong or right . If you try to please everyone you please nobody. Yes the success of 5e is something I'm incredibly grateful for, I truly am, but it doesn't make 5es flaws suck any less. 3. Horrible support for martial characters. God forbid martials can't get anything more than the same boring (press x to attack) rolling weapon attacks with the same 1d10 crossbows and 1d12 great axes while spellcasters are drowning in spells that outreach, overpower, and beat them in absolutely everything. Apparently every soldier and martial in 5e without magic fights the EXACT SAME WAY??? Despite there being over hundreds of IRL fighting styles still practiced to this day?? And you're telling me they only know how to throw d12s at ppl???? Armor is boring and irrelevant besides AC, and ppl only care about weapobs for rp and how big the die is, and not for the tiny slight range improvements 4. So many outdated and bland rules that makes it SUPER EASY TO BREAK THE GAME(summoning spells anyone?). Spell components mostly being ignored, dual wielding being basically useless, weapons and armor being basically nonexistent clones of the same die type, not to mention upgrading said weapons and armor are boring as sin, a long rest system that trivilizes downtime and 5es own hit die mechanic....I can go on. It is so easy to break and so barren of features you can barely introduce anything cool or fun and new to the gane without DMs constantly worrying about its op. I can barely introduce something AD simple as a new weapon type without people crying about it being unbalanced just because it's not the same exact thing of RAW 5E or in the spirit of RAW 5E. For hecks sake, just look at any game that goes from lv 15-20, it's a surprise people somehow survive to those levels due to the literal world breaking stuff people can put off on those levels.... So much of 5e's rules solely focus on not breaking the game instead of making the gane ACTUALLY fun. Why do ya think rules lawyers are so prevalent in 5e and DND in general? 5. A boring weapons and armor system that is trying way too hard to be simple and easy to learn nobody gives a crap about it. Asides from AC and DMG die and maybe a 5 foot extra of range, all of the weapobs are the same????. I'm not asking fir super realism by any means, but this doesn't fit high fantasy OR low fantasy or even medieval. You don't need to be a military genius to know that a sword is used differently from an ace, an axe to a spear, and a spear to a halberd, etc etc etc. Hell, the ranged weapons aren't evem realistic of real life archery, real archers are able to shoot DOZENS of arrows in matter of a few seconds but a fighter has to wait till LV 20 to be able to shoot 5 times in a row at max? 5es sword doesn't feel like a sword, it feels the same as any other weapon. and the fact that you have to waste FEATS and ASIs on stuff that should already be in it in the first place....yeah no. Meanwhile at the same exact level or less, a cleric bard wizard warlock or sorcerer can either LITERALLY WISH FOR ANYTHING, FREEZE TIME, HEAL EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE WITB HEALING SPIRIT, SUMMON HORDES OF MINONS TO DEVESTATE ACTION ECONOMY AND ENTURE CITIES????? And you expect a DM to balance the gane so they're on equal footing??? 5. Fall DMG literally just inflicting Damage(I dunno bout you but if I fall off a 20 story cliff I'm gonna have to deal with WAY MORE than just screaming in pain a lot) 6. The MERE EXISTENCE OF THE RANGER as a class, even after Tasha's Cauldron tried to fix it. A sheer testament of point number 4. 5es designers are so so so scared of breaking the game or even know what 5e even is that they give ranger underpowered super situational abilities for a exploration/travel gameplay mechanic that isn't even used , liked, or supported by even the most RAW 5e players. Favored terrain gives squat, favored enemy barely gives the ranger even a +1 to anything if at all, theur lv 20 feature foe slayer only giving a periodic +1-+5 max dmg boost to weapon attacks????? As if martial 5e characters aren't underpowered enough , ranger barely even gets new spells while the other classes are drowning in dozens of be abilities like silvery barbs and Fireballs >->

The collab I never knew I needed until now

ThreeantMonk

22:00 Cheesing will come with consequences.

I found treantmonk's video very strange. It was all about stopping players taking advantage of multiclassing and feats taken specifically to min-max. Those are optional rules. As DM you can say before you multiclass or take a feat run it by me,. Why do you want it what is the rationale etc. Does it make sense for your level three battlemaster to suddenly devote himself to book learning and become a wizard? Having just watched Chris totally dominate a game session with the dungeon dudes by casting conjure animals multiple times to summon hoardes of velociraptors just so he could roll 24 attack rolls a round I really don't think banning the shield spell is going to help much. I'm sure he had a blast but I'm not so sure the other players did and as a viewer the first time was fun the second was annoying and when he spoke of using a 7th level slot to upcast it to get 32 dinosaurs I nearly screamed. Chris is a clever guy, he makes some good videos but I don't want to play DnD like that, it's not my idea of fun. It's not my idea of a cooperative game.

@brianbucklein315

2 жыл бұрын

The whole point of that video was to used super-optimized characters and see: a) how those characters play at high (13th) level, and b) if Monty could kill them. But those characters absolutely illustrated one of his points: every player had shield and silvery barbs.

That’s why I created my own rpg from scratch

I think you are the dm of my dreams

The easiest DM to trick.

All I'm going to say is that Treatmonk, tho he has valid points....rarely if ever mentions roleplay aspects at all of DMD. From the TONS of videos on his channel he just doesn't vibe with RP or the social aspect whatsoever. That's not a bad thing , I actually think it's an important viewpoint in this discussion....but keep in mind i think he sees it as more of a puzzle game than an actual storytelling medium. Not to mention that rules bloat , while understandable, is...kinda irrelevant? If a sinking ship has a ton of broken parts, you shouldn't be scared of which part of the ship to fix first. Yes you dont wanna blow the ship up but are you SURE that you want to keep dealing with the ship sinking????

@leodouskyron5671

2 жыл бұрын

He does but his channel and his fame is as an optimizer. He does run games and if you want to see how he does play he has a game up right now with D4 and the Dungeon Dudes. Optimized yes but they like characters too.

@Kitusser

2 жыл бұрын

Kinda weird to make an opinion on this, when you've never seen him play the game...

@leodouskyron5671

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kitusser I actually have. (Seen both the D4 guys and TM play D&D). Sorta the point.

@Kitusser

2 жыл бұрын

@@leodouskyron5671 I wasn't replying to you.

@leodouskyron5671

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kitusser My apologies then.

A lot of the opposition to homebrew is just a base fear of change, and an obstinance to something new, coupled with them not wanting to admit that it is the reason. Lol.

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

wow that is SO TRUE, great insights there!

@BigCowProductions

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheDungeonCoach 💜 Thanks 🙂 The only way to find out if you'll really like or dislike something, is to give it a shot. Playing dnd for the first time with 5e? One has to take a leap to try. Playing old editions, now loving 5e? Also had take a leap of faith of sorts to see if it is right for you. Also, if you are committing your time and energy into a campaign from this DM, you're entrusting your creative intimacy to them. Why not extend that to how they may make their campaign better through the refinement of systems and things that could lend to the verisimilitude of the 'fantasy' of that story and setting?

@DaDunge

2 жыл бұрын

This is very true. I think change for changes sake is not a bad thing. Shakes things up changes what's powerful and what's not and opens up new options. Maybe I am partial because we have a player at one of my tables who always plays the same optimized character.

@vincejester7558

2 жыл бұрын

No one is AFRAID of home brew. Some people just want to play a game that actually has rules. Home brew is great for 5e. It just doesn't work for OSE or OSRIC, or even what D&D was before WotC took it. Most opposition is from people who played the game called D&D. A game most of you have never played. It ceased to exist a while back. Just call what you play by a name more evocative of what it is, rather than use an old game's name to sell merch. I have a game that uses chess pieces on a chess board. But I let the players decide how the pieces will move. Is it right to call this game "chess"? I don't think so. The collaborative storytelling game that 5e actually is, is kinda fun. But calling it D&D causes unnecessary confusion and friction.

@BigCowProductions

2 жыл бұрын

@@vincejester7558 Great story. Needs more cow bell.

The shield spell is fairly easy to fix. Lower the ac it adds to +2 (easy to remember it makes it the same as the item shield) and you can update it for an additional +2 per spell level.

so really Treantmonk just hates high AC casters. lol

i like treantmonk but his house rules suck

About half to three-quarters of my homebrew ideas never make it to the table. After I chew on them, I come to the conclusion they will bog down gameplay more than its worth to affect what I'm trying to achieve (usually a balance issue or increasing crunchiness). About half of the ones that make it to the table last for a couple of sessions because they prove to much of a hassle in practice, or the players vehemently hate it (note - players are going to dislike most things they perceive as nerfs, so there's a scale. They may not be a fan of not recovering all their hit points after a long rest - a change my players never complained about - but they may hate something like they roll to defend against attacks rather than monsters rolling to hit). I keep a living document of rules changes posted, and I don't do a bunch of changes at once. It's usually, hey, these two feats have been tweaked, or here's a new initiative system. I also don't change every session. I've learned try simpler fixes first before getting complex. I use the spell point system - which the paladin-sorcerer loved it. The flexibility gave him a lot more smites as well as the ability to alpha strike once he reached multiple attacks. He'd throw the highest level smites he could up front, then switch to a bunch of first levels until he landed a crit. At first I tried a rule of he had to declare the smite level before he rolled to hit - the idea being that the paladin "charged up" before the swing. I also experimented on paper with some other complicated limiters. I finally came to a simple solution - paladins (and other characters with smite) can smite once per turn. He could still go big on crits, but couldn't alpha strike, and it was easy to remember. And the Lucky feat can burn in a fiery pit. I changed it so a player has to declare use of a luck point before the roll.

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

I love that, yea I come up with a bunch... then scrap em before they make it out the door lol

I agree with basically all of your points. Not to say treantmonks 3 rules aren't interesting, but they aren't the sort of direction I like to take when dming. I understand Chris tends to view d&d as a puzzle game to find strong ways to play the game, but I do think sometimes he makes arguments that make out that people are stupid. Homebrew can make the game more complex, or it can make it less complex. A lot of the homebrew I use is simply to cut out fiddling that the RAW create, like being unable to draw two weapons at once or pact weapons taking an action to summon. These are things, to use your words, that make the game feel bad for no real reason. Maybe those rules are fun if you want to do everything to correct way, but in play it tends to limit fantasies. In terms of the rules themselves, I think they're interesting talking points but not what I would go with. For the shield spell I'd simply nerf the spell to be more in line with other things rather than just removing it. Currently I'm trying out having it function as normal, but with a 1 minute duration that blocks a number of attacks or magic missile casts equal to the level its cast at. For the armour nerf for spellcasters I can see the issue, but as you said his ruling is cumbersome. I'm going to be trying out instead having negative proficiencies for multiclass characters, so instead of gaining proficiencies from level dipping you get the armour proficiencies all your classes have. This not only accomplishes the built in spellcasting restrictions but also keeps other classes that have less armour like rogues where they should be. My version doesn't stop characters gaining armour through feats though, since I think that is a fairly high price to pay for it and I still want armoured casters to be a fantasy option. For everyone gets -5 +10, I dislike his solution and I don't think it fixes the problem. As he states in his video all it did was made melee characters pick weapon and shield, so he didn't make everything equivalent really he just changed what was meta. While I don't have specific ideas for how to rebalance other weapon choices currently, I'd prefer for weapons to have different feels to them. I want dual wielding to feel like a tonne if small attacks, or even being able to dual wield that which seems too heavy to fight with. I want weapon and shield to feel like it counterattacks enemies, and that using a single one handed weapon leads to devastating critical attacks. Overall I think it's interesting to think about what the potential biggest issues in the game are balance wise, not that we all have to come to come to the same solutions. As Chris says d&d is for everyone, and we can all play the way that's best for us.

Hahlarious opener

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

I had to HAM IT UP!!! :)

Treantmonk is the best DM & player.

Team homebrew!

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

Im with ya TEAMMATE!

Let's go!!! Homebrew crew!!!

@TheDungeonCoach

2 жыл бұрын

THE AIR DRAGON FLIES!!!

This new way of viewing things - taking agency from the GM and handing over it to the player. I cannot possibly express how much I hate that stuff. Not only that ruins the magic aspect of roleplaying, because players state mechanics instead of actions nowdays, but that takes agency from the GM. Like, really - there is got to be someone in charge in the game that we call D&D. As PDM said - that's a part of social contract. And now that leads to this. People really think that GM must obey the book, AHAHAHA. We are the ultimate creators and arbiters of our world, so what the heck? Why can't I use the system as the toolkit - the way it meant to be? Why can't I do what I want in MY game? And hell I am not willing to get away my agency as a GM and get no gains - only losses to my game. I can't homebrew? Who said this? You are banning it to me? JK, though there are really some major problems with the GM agency nowdays. Great video, agree with you.

@tomtom7955

2 жыл бұрын

I would like to know what kind of problems, if you dont mind sharing.

18:15 Very much this. They only need to know them enough to consent to them in session 0.