Hypnotic Pattern is typically considered one of the most OP control spells in the game. Baldur's Gate 3's version is actually a nerfed version since it only lasts for 2 turns, as opposed to the full minute the TTRPG version does. So naturally when that one Drow mage in the Underdark in BG3 decided to join combat while I was fighting the bulette, I mashed that counterspell reaction soooo hard when he tried to drop hypnotic pattern on my party.

@falionna3587

Ай бұрын

Yea, I hope the spell get's nerfed in 1dnd, ending a combat with one spell isn't fun. fireball is far from as problematic as pattern is.

@M_M_ODonnell

Ай бұрын

Just pay attention to whether enemies are immune to being charmed (since the effect is described as a specific version of the charmed status) -- as I player I made an encounter trivial by using HP on a group of enemies who, I realized later, should not have been affected. (The character would have cast the spell anyway, not being an expert on status-effect rules, but then would probably have been able to figure out that their favorite spell doesn't work on mummies.) As a DM, I've had enemies prioritize waking up their allies, which I felt was reasonable, but yeah, still a very powerful spell.

@KuaEtus

23 күн бұрын

Yep, i was going to say the same

I had a player innocently think that you needed an action to prep a reaction because he misinterpreted the rules on holding an action. Because of this he did not take Shield with his low level wizard because he thought it sucked. When I explained to him how it actually worked, he switched out one of the other spells he took for Shield. For the 3.5 AOO thing, interrupt does NOT mean the interrupted creature's turn ends. It means that the AOO happens, then if possible (they aren't reduced to 0 HP, stunned or some other condition that would prevent this) the creature continues their turn as normal. It would be like playing a game of Magic The Gathering and expecting the current turn to end just because another player cast an Instant.

Early on, I kept thinking that cantrips were cast as a bonus action. Cantrips are supposed to be weaker, and they're a whole other category from regular spells, so it just seemed intuitive to think they acted as support when compared to your regular spells.

Re: Acquiring new spells. AD&D 2nd Edition has this 'fun' rule: "When your character attains a new level, he may or may not receive new spells. This is up to your DM." So you weren't even guaranteed to get a 3rd level spell when hitting level 5 as a Wizard. Also, regaining spells after a rest was not automatic, you had to spend 10 minutes per level of each spell being memorized (Wizard or Priest), so if you needed to recover 4 level 1, 2 level 2 and 1 level 3 spell, you had to spend 4x10 + 2x20 + 1x 30 minutes or nearly two hours either with your nose in a book or in thoughtful prayer after a full night's rest. But 2nd Edition at least tried to make it clear that you needed to prepare the specific spells you wanted to use, instead of being able to just pick something from your spellbook that seemed appropriate for the current situation.

Legend of the Five Rings actually does that rule where trying to stabilize a dying character lowers the time remaining until they die.

If we misinterpret a rule let you know? I don't think we can beat "You don't know how prepared spells work" , Crispy...

Hey regarding the sneak attack / advantage / flanking thing, that's how I was DMing it too (and since 5th edition first came out). It was only earlier this year that a regular player of mine pointed out the correct ruling! Conversely, that player didn't realize that flanking was an optional rule in the DMG, not the PHB!

My bard uses Minor Illusion to Solid Snake box. It's so fun to attack from through a box.

Your sneak attack rule was actually how 3.5 worked. You could only sneak attack an enemy that was "flat footed" which the easiest way to inflict this condition was by flanking them which meant melee rogue was better than ranged rogue because you only need 1 buddy to sneak attack instead of needing two Melees to flank an enemy before you could get that damage out

I once played in a campaign where the DM countered "death whack-a-mole" by ruling that each time you drop to 0 hit points in a combat after the first, you start with an additional failed death saving throw. I feel that's a little more fair than a level of exhaustion while still imposing some consequence.

My take on a failed Medicine check causing a failed death save: Like you pointed out, there are so many more convenient and reliable ways to stabilize a player character, including the Healer's Kit. The only reason why a player would ever use a Medicine check is for the rare chance to use the Medicine proficiency. Unless you want to teach your players the importance to think about the game mechanics first, don't penalize roleplay.

@nalcarya

Ай бұрын

I agree with your sentiment, but don't think Medicine is that rare. Only if the DM lets it be. In my current longest running campaign as a player my Medicine proficiency has yielded crucial info more times than I can count :)

@schwarzerritter5724

Ай бұрын

@@nalcarya Usually, you have to ask if you may roll Medicine instead of Investigation.

@nalcarya

Ай бұрын

@@schwarzerritter5724 Even raw Investigation shouldn't cover things that you are trying to find out about a dead body. Or when you are trying to find out how fit or healthy someone looks.

12:50 I've let myself get CC'd by friendly fire hypnotic pattern without a fuss because it's that good. When you start using mob rules or grouping things in initiative (I frequently run initiatives that have 20+ mobs but they're grouped in groups of 4. I call them "slappies"... Hypnotic pattern very much makes things click in place.) Hypnotic Pattern is a top 5 spell, imo.

I didn't understand the prepared spells mechanics until recently when I actually wrote down my spells on my character sheet. Seeing it on paper finally made it make sense.

Honestly, Sneak attack is just a flowchart of check these boxes. I am unfortunately one of the scary rules lawyers and often have to correct players and especially DMs misinterpretation of how bonus action spells work. Just follow this guideline: 1. If you use your bonus action to cast any spell, you can only use your action to cast a cantrip. 2. If you cast a cantrip with your action, you can still cast any spell with a bonus action. 3. If you cast a levelled spell with your action, you cannot use your bonus action to cast any spell.

I've personally begun experimenting with completely removing opportunity attacks from my games and my current replacement for effects like disengage or mobile feat dasing is rendering you immune to being hit with advantage until the start of your next turn. I draw all my maps myself, and I've really begun to hate what OAs do to by devolving fights into stationary slugfests since it makes 80% of a map completely useless. I actually talked with a friend who's been playing ttrpgs for a WHILE and has played damn near every major one under the sun for his input since he's also knowledgeable on the inner workings of a lot of systems, and he mentioned OAs are meant to prevent squishy spell casters from being able to just run around and become unhittable by martials who don't have any mobility enhancing abilities

@ullamolina2007

Ай бұрын

That’s interesting! My DM is also experimenting with OA - so far the most popular were “if your AC is higher than X you automatically dodge the OA” and “martial weapon-trained characters are trained enough to inflict a disadvantage on OA that targets them”

2:45 Precisely why I despise most systems with one major action. As soon as PF2 dropped I pretty much boxed my D&D books and didn't bother re-installing my PDF's for 5E and 3.5 ever again. The Three Action Economy system blew my mind and I never looked back. I truly had a deep gripe with Wizards as it was. Then Paizo settled it for me. I'll always maintain 5E sucks. 2:58 "hope there is more going on in combat, even outside your turn." Some classes get dedicated additional reactions for specific actions. Like the Champion getting special attacks of opportunity, whilst also leaving them with their normal reaction if they want to block an attack with their shield or whatever. Combat is pretty much -always- engaging with a balanced encounter for everyone at all times due to how much each class can interact with one another to cause synergy. *This isn't me trying to convince anyone, just a rant. I carry a WOTC grudge.*

Eh, one of my idiocies (for a lot longer than I'm willing to admit) was a lack of understanding about how spell slots vs prepared spells worked. My thought was basically that you were preparing a spell slot for every spell that you could prepare, but you initially wouldn't have enough spell slots for everything and so leveling up would become essential to get more spell slots. Ironically, this actually did lead me to the best means of making sorc and warlock useful, which was the sorlock build so that you could basically have a revolving door of spell slots so long as the dm allowed frequent short rests between battles. There was probably more to my confusion that I don't remember but yeah, I didn't understand how spells and spell slots actually worked for a long time. (For those who don't play magic classes: basically, imagine prepared spells for a wizard like the character selection in Super Mario Bros. 2; now imagine spell slots like the number of lives you have. Each time you use one of your lives, you pick one of the available characters to play; and in dnd, each time you use one of your spell slots, you're choosing one of the available spells to cast. But I literally thought using a spell slot meant you didn't have access to whatever spell you had just cast until you had a long rest.) Magic systems can be confusing in a rules-heavy game like dnd, especially when you're new (or even just newish) to the game.

I actually defend silvery barbs and allow it. For similar reasons to shield. Shield causes a flat +5 increase to AC as a reaction, defending the (usually squishy) caster from _all_ attacks for one whole round. It affects multiple attacks or incentivises attackers to go for another target; preferably a tankier party member. Its weakness is in the fact that it only targets you, but its strength is consistency. You decide to use it only when you know it will spare you from an attack. It always helps. Silvery barbs causes a reroll of a dice that is not guaranteed to fail, on the other hand. It is able to prevent crits, most importantly, though much like shield, when enemies have higher hit rates, its usefulness under other circumstances diminishes. And, importantly, it will only affect one roll in a round. The upside is that while it isn't as consistent as shield, it does always have the upside of giving advantage on a roll to someone and can be cast on other targets, even if the caster is not under threat. Silvery barbs is more effective when there are less attacks and they hit harder, like against a boss. Shield is more effective when there are many attacks from smaller foes, like a horde ambush. I allow both at my tables and haven't had an issue with either. But I wouldn't use SB against players because it feels bad to negate a crit for them. Counterspell is a roll against a succesful effect; disappointing but understandable. Crits are rare and random and exciting - they're fun! They stay.

I mean if you don't want to take the player out of the encounter at 0 hit points, you could put them under a stun/daze/staggered effects forcing them to be more wary of their actions but still able to act even if partial. I think at -1 and so one you're succumbing to your wounds and are bleeding out so that could be staggered and just suffering, allow them to stay mobile and half move but they essentially become a non threat and can withdraw to get heals. I see it as look at martial artists and weapons masters... if they get hit too much, they become dazed and such, staggering and losing focus, they can still tap out but you can see when the fight has been taken out of them. Hit points is your physical limit to punishment before you can no longer press on, when you're staggering and delirious you're limit is reached or breached... you can try to fight but... likely not a good idea. Basically "downed" shouldn't necessarily mean on the ground and prone, but more downed of contest, you've been reduced to a non issue and can back off unless you really want to be crushed past your limit but I say DM should flavor text 0 to allow players to still act but many drawbacks not just "oh, 0? you're down, roll saves" nah... roll saves to stay conscious how's that, death saves at -10. -1 to -9 save to stay conscious but if you don't get healing you take 1 point of bleeding damage because lets face it... at that point you are in fact bleeding out, your body's tolerance is breached. If you get to -10 you pass out no save THEN roll death saves

Honestly, Pathfinder 2e removing attack of opportunity from most enemies and classes and Shadow of the Weird Wizard giving everyone more useful reactions to compete with AoO are both fantastic options to make combats more dynamic and mobility oriented. In both systems it's actually often the smart move to spend your movement to walk away from the enemy, forcing them to spend their movement.

My Sneak Attack rule is that, flanking or no, you can't Sneak Attack an enemy that's targeting and sees you. Like yeah you can sneak attack the enemy that's fighting the Paladin but you don't get a bonus against the enemy fighting you just because the Paladin is next to you fighting someone else

I thought the scout rogue reaction ability to move away as a reaction was something they can do when an enemy moves in range, not just when an enemy ends their turn.

Ah, Attack of Opportunity. I remember a few Starfinder sessions where I'd say 'hell with it, I'll take the AoO just to get something else done'. Granted, I was the secondary (and, later, primary) tank of the party. Does give me some insight as to why there aren't as many available in Pathfinder 2e tho.

You talked about more reactions there's one monster in dnd that already gets one reaction per turn per round of combat. If it's attacked at all by creatures, say five attack the one Marilith, it can use parry as a reaction to each of those five characters, boosting it's AC by five for each of those attacks.

One of my DMS kept forgetting how Thunderwave works and trying to center it on the caster instead of as a 3x3 square with a corner or side originating from them, until I linked them to the full explanation of the rule from the creators' mouth

A rule i misinterpreted was how magic missile worked. I originally thought that you rolled each dart of damage individually instead you rolling 1 die and each dart does that damage.

7:43 - Stars/Worlds/Cities WIthout Number has a system similar to this called System Strain, which I honestly love. It limited how much you could be healed until you rested it off, IF you could rest it off. Some things increased your minimum system strain, like cybernetics. If you had too much cybernetics, healing would just be more strenuous to your body. But healing was also more prevalent, with Stars and Worlds WIthout Number having entire classes devoted to being able to healing. And the first Stars Without Number edition, you could literally take a week to master the basic healing ability so that it didn't take effort to use, or reduced it so much it was negligible so that you had an at-will healing ability. But it could still only be used so much, because everyone had a limited amount of System Strain, again some of whom had cybernetics or something else that increased your minimum system strain.

According to the d20 SRD for 3.5, the rules text for AoOs explicitly states "(Or complete the current player's turn)" in a parenthetical right after the quoted statement. (I have to use the SRD; I don't know where my 3.x player's handbook disappeared to. 5e's fix of "Whenever a creature moves outside of your reach" works well, too, as it allows you to charge into a polearm-wielder willy-nilly (This is a nerf to AoOs, but polearms are overall buffed, because Reach no longer prevents you from attacking an adjacent square). I think I still much prefer LANCER's rule, in which you provoke Overwatch (LANCER's version of opportunity attacks) if you *start movement* within Threat, which is a very fun change-up that creates lots of fun tactical chicanery.

During my first ever game of DnD, we didn't understand the rules AT ALL, but our worst one must have been that my wizard could only cast a spell every other turn because the DM wanted to limit my spells. No, we didn't know what a spell slot was. Thankfully it was a one-shot so it didn't screw me over for an entire campaign, once we decided to start a whole campaign we actually bothered trying to learn the rules

I recently returned to D&D 3.0 after two years of 5e. I had trouble adjusting because there are a bunch of rules that are similar, but not the same. For example, 5e has threatened areas to determine AoOs, while 3.0/3.5 has threatened squares. However, the worst thing I did was overcorrecting on death saves. I thought, nope death saves are from 5e, but you do actually need to roll in 3rd to check if you stabilize or lose more hp.

A friend of mine was initially playing that damage while downed was 2 failed death saves a d a crit was instant death. I'm glad we cleared that up after losing only one PC.

Not as a DM but a player, we thought moonbeam could be swept through multiple enemies like a giant laser, not realizing it only counts if they start a turn there.

I like your homebrew for 0hp in 5e. People complain about death spirals, and rightly so. But the alternative is being knocked out of the game all at once. You can make arguments for either side as to which is more "gritty realistic," but the death spiral is definitely more cinematic and also allows characters to act while dying. I have a version of it for 3.5 that is one of my most substantially more detailed, but it still follows a similar principle. It uses D&D's preexisting fatigue/exhaustion rules and makes them feel like death. The trick to enjoying a death spiral subsystem is to avoid it as if it were death, and understand that if you didn't have limitations that you wouldn't consider it any part of dying. And speaking of 3.5 ... how about them AoO rules, yeh? Things you might want to know about AoO in 3.5e: -You provoke an AoO whenever you leave a space the defender can hit. So unless the defender has a reach weapon, the attacker doesn't provoke when charging. (Some maneuvers involve the attacker moving into the defender's space -- like grappling. So you do probvoke for that, and the DM was just wrong about applying it to charge, unless the player was going something else and didn't say. It is confusing.) -AoO can interrupt and cancel SOME actions, if it hits. -The charge is not one of those actions. Attacker and defender can both gets hit during a charge, if the defender has a reach weapon. -A lost or cancelled action does not prevent you from taking another action if you have one. -Charge is, however, a full-round action, so you would have no move action, and could only take a free action. So basically you're done after a charge. (It's a move+attack+extra attack bonus, so you've done pretty well.) -3.5e combat in general is intended to encourage mid-combat movement and strategic placement of PCs on the battlefield. (I think you said something like that in your follow-up to that segment.)

If you want to make people unafraid to take damage, show them a game with higher death rate for difference in kind. Cyberpunk 2020 and Call of Cthulhu both have low health with insanely powerful damage, but both emphasize something other than just standing there and taking the damage (cyberpunk emphasizes John Woo style combat scenes, and CoC emphasizes not being in combat in the first place), or Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition, where your damage goes straight to your ability scores. If they think that 5e is a game where getting damaged even matters, these games will probably show them differently.

I remember my partner playing dnd with his friends in a one shot. He was so proud to use Turn Undead because he thought it meant he raised dead enemies to serve him. 😅 I read the text with him and explained what it did. To be fair the name does make you think you turn someone into an undead. 😂 It was funny. Stay safe everyone! ❤

Oh! Mine is trying to apply real-world physics to spells. Easy example, using shape water to break every lock in existence and invalidate knock.

My crew and I play pathfinder. When I GM, I usually give the party two options to perform a task... with one exception. Climbing and jumping have a specific feat that lets you use acrobatics to perform them. When climbing or jumping, if you don't have that feat, you have to use athletics. Which sucks, because I play a high-charisma, high-dex rogue with strength as a dump stat... and I don't have this feat yet. I've spent five turns trying to climb a 10-foot post. I used so many gifs from Mulan...

Can confirm that AoO in 3.5 didn't work that way. They actually created a feat that did make it work that way though.

Med check sets a downed player to 1 hp? Huh. I always saw it treated as stabilisation; (and ruled so myself) as in, you passed your death saves, you're not dying, you'll wake either with 1 hp in 1d4 hours or when someone heals you. Unless you spend a use of a healer's kit, med checks just prevent someone from dying to failed death saves. An emergency attempt either post-fight if out of heals or wasting a turn of another character just to prevent a big loss. Pretty expensive on action economy. At least, this is what I always thought was the case? And thus, never saw it as an issue.

Getting back up from 0 should not be penalized, martials didn't need any more nerfs. Especially not an exhaustion level, even less an exhaustion level without save.

My worst rule interpretation that I can remember: I misread how artificer infusions worked and thought that I could A ) Hot-swap between different infusions as an action and B ) didn't have to declare my infusions until they came up. Luckily only made this mistake for a couple games. Not sure how I missed the very important text at the start of the description for artificer infusions that says you pick them, "after a long rest" just like how you prepare spells.

I'm currently in a game that doesn't allow attacks of opportunity. As well as something called dodge damage, where if you roll at least 10 on an attack you get to do half damage. Both of which are absolutely insane! But they're a fine bunch to play with though, just prefer a game with more tactical opportunities :)

For strength vs dex for climbing, I feel like it's a matter of real-world physics versus established tropes. People who are good at climbing often are very physically strong, because you're using a lot of muscles to pull yourself upz even though they might not be bulky in build. Perhaps because of this, the trope in fiction is usually good climber = lithe and dexterous. It makes sense that a ranger with a high dex could scale a tree, but it doesn't make as much sense for that ranger to put more points into Strength when a lot of the other stuff they're good at gets boosts from Dexterity. Because of this, I've kind of just let the ranger at my table use things other than a straight strength check, at least in cases where scaling a surface is more than just climbing straight up. For example, if they were climbing a rope, I'd say atheltics, but if they're climbing a cliff face or a tree I'd allow acrobatics or something else.

I dunno if there's a ruling in this but I let my players use their action to prepare as a reaction. Basically a "I'll ready an attack if it gets closer" or something similar. Could also be used to reactively cast a healing spell after an ally gets hit for example. It costs both an action and a reaction to do it and can make an action count for more if there wasn't a preferable option during the turn

@Captaincory1

Ай бұрын

That is what is in the PHB as the Ready action.

@M_Alexander

Ай бұрын

@@Captaincory1 ok cool I had looked it up online but didn't know if I was doing it right

This is probably a controversial take, and at least one player has given me crap for it, but I really don't like using flanking rules. Getting straight-up advantage on an attack just from positioning might be "realistic", but it's way too powerful for such an easy proc, doesn't solve the issue of 5e's static combat, and also makes the Help action completely irrelevant. Also it just gets silly when every combatant ends up daisy-chained cross the battlemap, smacking each other like a drunken conga line. Maybe I could start using a set of situational bonuses to encourage positioning. Like say, +2 to attack rolls on melee attacks against flanked enemies, +2 to ranged attack rolls made from at least 10 feet above the target, etc.

@dragonfan8647

Ай бұрын

(Trying not to come off as those annoying "my edition is better than yours" people 😬) You should look into 3.5. You can find the rules by searching d20srd (I'd link, but KZread...). It works precisely with bonuses and penalties. Also positioning is a lot more tacitcal, because you provoke Attacks of Opportunity by not just exiting, but also moving through someone's threatened area (i.e. by exiting any 5 ft. square within their reach, not just the whole area), unless you're only moving 5 ft. per round. Edit: also casting a spell within an opponents reach also provokes an AoO.

I did run the "counter whack-a-mole" house rule with accumulating exhaustion levels during combat as well. But i also included houserules on how to get rid of exhaustion easier and balanced the encounters differently. Hypnotic Pattern can be difficult to work out in 5E as well. What it does, rules as written usually turns the combat into a very boring slug fest. If that is what the players want, i let them. But i also let them figure out how boring it does make combat. About flanking. I love flanking and that is also where one of my personal blunders in 5E sits. I like tactical combat and positioning but the flanking rules giving advantage and thus an average +5 to any attack seemed a little too much. So i "gimped" it down to +2 - like in 3.X. That worked until my players broke it with an all Kobold party who would get advantage on top of that bonus, giving them a +7 to hit on average, almost never missing their attacks. Another blunder happened when i started out with 5E. I wanted a more human centric game and created several human sub ethnicies that gave different bonuses on top of being... well human. That was all well and good. But i made one sub ethnicity that had adavantage on constitution saving throws and was canonically a barbarian clan. But most spellcasters apparently had to hail from there. It did not make a lot of sense to me. Until i realized that having advantage on con saves as a spellcaster is really OP.

Always thought moonbeam could be moved as a bonus action. No idea why, but I did. That's when I was a player. When I was a DM, I just told our druid that was an option she had, she was over the moon. I prefer it that way.

Me and my friends thought if you cast Thunderwave that the caster was at the center of the cube and instead of the cube being in front of the caster. Personally I thought our interpretation was cooler but we use it the correct way now.

I once played in a 5e game where it was believed that you had to succeed on a concentration check to be ve able to cast ANY spell while in melee range with an enemy. Against anyone. It was not fun. I still don't know where that ruling came from.

At some point I decided to try being more accepting of what some might consider metagaming in terms of attacks of opportunity, e.g. deliberately baiting an enemy into using their reaction so they can't use an AoO (with the flavor that it makes in-universe sense to feint, distract, etc. to keep an opponent off-guard and unable to take advantage of the flow of combat). Attacks of opportunity being a tactical concern can make things interesting, but not if it just leads to nobody moving.

oh my god I remember coming into a game that had been running for like a LONG time like the players were maybe level 10 and started at 1 One of the guys was playing a ranger with a crossbow and apparently the dm had been telling him the entire time that he could only fire the crossbow once and then had to spend an entire action reloading it The dm got like defensive when I told him it doesn’t work like that in this edition saying something like “if I’m doing this wrong then I’ve been doing this wrong for 20 years!!” Like talking down to me cause he had more experience and it’s like… dude… new editions come out… ur playing 5e…

Our new DM didn’t like that I would cast shield as a sorcerer and tried making a rule that I needed to announce I was using shield before he rolled the attack dice… that sucked.

2:45 Well... D&D4 did exactly that. It made combat quite dynamic. Apparently no one wanted that.

I think the reason people are typically afraid of AoO is because it typically doubles the amount of damage you take, often without anything gained. For example, if you are a wizard and an enemy closes with you, you run, eat the attack and then in the enemies turn they simply move into range again. Now there are ways to stop this, but typically require the use of a dedicated feat or ability, which you may not have or don't want to waste a resource on, making the optimal choice in general to be not to move. If you are lucky you can risk moving out of combat if a more capable party member is also engaged in the hopes that the enemy stays in combat with the party member, but that's a contextual solution that isn't really a reliable answer.

@Qaianna

Ай бұрын

Could be. I know I'd giggle with glee whenever I could get one off tho -- even took a feat for my Pathfinder 1e barbarian and Starfinder soldier to help (Combat Reflexes for more AoOs and Improved Unarmed Combat to kick while holding a big gun, respectively). And with how often I'd miss on them I'd eventually take them myself if some travelling needed to be done.

I don't know why that one guy needed an essay to figure out how Hypnotic Pattern works. The spell says "Each creature *in the area* who sees the pattern must make a Wisdom saving throw."

Omg the multiple actions per round make things drag so hard..... Less, not more.

Think the worst one I've seen might've been just a cheat but nevertheless, the player thought one could control both a homunculi and steel protector with the same bonus action. My own where a bit more minor, that anyone could ritually cast or the one spell per turn thing. As an aside my DM also has the downed get exhausted, however short resting can reduce a level of exhaustion once per long rest. In part because my fighter couldn't do any out of combat skill stuff and commonly had one level of exhaustion.

Dexterity is often confused with agility or speed when it's really more about technique; a dextrous person is specifically "skilled"

AL at my FLGS and for some reason or another everybody all at once started thinking any spell with a duration of "instantaneous" meant that it could not be counterspelled. Fireball? can't counter it. Why? idk someone said it once and now it's effectively RAW for the entire store???

Regarding "arms = strength" and "legs = dexterity" - fun fact: the leg muscles are the most highly trained muscles in the entire body for most people, because they carry the entire weight of the body during every single walk. So it's not only ridiculous in terms of the rules (as far as I know, D&D has never presented it in such a way that the attributes can be assigned to any limbs - and if they are: which half of the brain is responsible for intelligence and which for wisdom?), but it's also unrealistic not to associate the strongest muscles in the body with strength.

I’m gonna call Attack of Opportunity, when I DM, en passant

healing rules in 5e are so bad in general. Not worth it to keep characters up because heals recover less than a single average hit at level and the action economy doesn't punish you for going down (oh no, I have to use half my movement to stand back up and smack the guy directly in front of me. Whatever shall I do? I only have my action, reaction, bonus action, and half my movement remaining). A lack of nonmagic healing is also just one of those things that doesn't make sense considering the genre. The Medicine skill in D&D is closer to a forensics skill, since there's almost no point in rolling it to actively do medicine.

If you want players to be less scared of opportunity attacks, do what pf2 does and just make it so some enemies... don't have opportunity attacks. Simple as

On death save fails they carry over until long rest that stops death wack a mole right there

To be fair, most of your rule mistakes, was rules in 2ed, 3.5 and/or Pathfinder, they have just changed them to make 5e more user-friendly 😊

1:53 This is assuming they’re just a base wizard though. A one level dip into cleric/artificer, the moderately armored feat, a bladesinger, or a mountain dwarf, githyanki, warforged, tortle, thri-kreen etc player can easily get an 18 or higher base AC on a wizard. That said, that fix for the shield spell does suck, and in games where players aren’t really trying to optimize, it won’t be an issue

I don't see why doing a minor illusion of snow in a pile of snow is considered bending the rules in your opinion. You have cantrips like thaumaturgy, control water, mold earth, etc. that could literally control elements to create a similar effect. Why is an illusion of the same level *pretending* to create said effect pushing the envelope?

@falionna3587

Ай бұрын

Dimensions, minor illusion is only 5ft.

@UrsulaMajor

Ай бұрын

​@@falionna3587 Yeah, but so is a medium creature. Making a really oddly high pile of snow big enough for you to hide in is fine

@falionna3587

Ай бұрын

@@UrsulaMajor It's a whole party, not just the one creature, and also plenty of people are taller than 5ft. (of course could crouch and the like.)

Of course dex is only for feet. It's why there is the skill Sleight of Foot.

The dumbest rule I have heard is great swords being FINESSE becaue "tHeY'Re OrIeNtAl"

14:04 AoO in 3.5 does not interrupt in the way the DM thinks it does. "An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round." right from 3.5 handbook. reach weapons mean a creature can make or trigger AoO from a distance they normally couldn't, which is good to know if the goblin has a polearm and you decide your large character doesn't have to get up close to them. they should have been able to roll damage as needed and the npc/enemy should roll to hit and then resolve the the attack of opportunity.

Hmm... so you want players going down to be a scarier and more lethal situation, you think players should be incentivized to use the Medicine skill more often, and you find it more dynamic and interesting when rogues have to find ways to make their enemies flat-footed so they can sneak attack...? This is where I'd normally say something about the world's second biggest fantasy ttrpg in the direct lineage of the d20 system but you never know when wotc is listening and I don't want them to send the pinkertons after me

I let my players use acrobatics when climbing, or when dex characters need to use athletics for something that isn’t reasonably acro, I’ll usually say roll Athletics with Dex instead of strength. No reason your agile monk or rogue can’t win foot races or clamber around surfaces just because stress decided to control those checks.

i stole this form Warhammer (Heavy) if an enemy doesnt move then they gain a bonus to hit and damage so you have the option of taking a oppertunity attack or take more damage because the enemy didnt have to chase you down

Flanking is a bad optional rule in 5E in general, and making rogues rely on it to get their sneak attack is twice as bad. Rogues are probably the worst combat class in the game and they need every single option they have to be adequate. Plenty of DMs also forget rogues can have two sneak attacks per round (on their turn and as a reaction), as well as being very defensive about not giving them that, so here is a bad ruling right there for you.

Shield is not ok. Bladesinger is not ok. Put them together and i honestly don't see much point in attacking them. I use the shield variant from "Spells that don't suck" instead. It caps the AC at 20+level of the spell slot used to cast Shield. It's much more manageable.

3.5 attack of opportunnity made meele suck soo bad, I hated it