Im just kind of tired of the "hahaha i did this ridiculous thing to frustrate my dm and throw their whole plans off kilter" humor that is so pervasive in dnd and espicially 5e. That shows up so much in peoples storytelling or build goals. And i dont know how to feel about the designers themselves leaning into that as well like, feels a bit like kicking down. Dms already have to do a lot for this game, without them there is no game, why perpetuate a humor and playstyle thats very on the dms expense.
Yeah, it's not fun. I tend to find many of these players online and it's exhausting. It almost made me quit DnD because I just decided that most D&D players want different things than me.
As someone who got into PF2e last year, it really is opposite-town over there. I haven't had to fix a thing; every encounter was just as difficult as the guidelines predicted; I've never had a spell with a bullshit absolute effect circumvent my scenario design; my blood pressure's way down, and my hair is thicker (OK, I jest). On the other hand, I've seen plenty of players coming from 5e complain that everything in PF2e is too rigorous, measured, balanced, defined, how every spell has limitations or countermeasures, how they feel like they can't get away with anything, how they can't stack the deck during character creation... It breaks my heart; GM-friendly design should not be perceived as hostile. When I'm a player, I don't play to breeze through challenges, feel untouchable, and solve every problem with a flick of the wrist.
Players who do that shouldn’t be at your table, they are jerks through and through. I don’t do all the prep work and effort I put into the game to have them try to purposely ruin my game!
If I’m playing with people I haven’t played with before, I definitely let people know my expectations before starting a game with them. The “gotcha” mentality is not exclusive to players. DM’s do it, too. In those cases, it’s not a problem with the game system, it’s because the players and the DM don’t trust in each other. No rules system is going to fix that.
They've already committed to that by releasing the PHB first. I mean, what's the game going to look like between this release, and the new DMG/MM? We don't have monsters that have been designed to challenge these new PCs, and we have no (presumably better, fingers crossed) encounter design guidelines to account for them either. They've power-crept the martials - reasonably so, I don't think it's a bad idea to bring them more in line with caster performance - but even if the PC balance is now better, the power-level of the average party has gone up. Now, most experienced GMs have been ignoring the DMG guidelines for ages - we either make our own, or use Forge of Foes, A5E or Flee, Mortals! But even those might now be off, given the new options in the 2024 PHB. They're re-releasing a game without the crucial tools needed to run it.
@@strandedstarfish Interestingly of all the full editions 4e is the only one to release as a complete set of books at the same time (3.5 also did but was an updated version of 3e).
Speaking as someone who didn’t get the 1e “Big 3” all at once, I can tell you what we did. We pulled what we needed from our OD&D, Holmes, or Moldvay boxed sets and used the new rules as supplemental material. That’s been the history of the hobby since the start. And it’s also why both the 3e and 5e PHBs included all the rules for running the game, plus a small monster section. I expect 2024 will hold to that.
Wow the discussion about doom points hits hard! Loved the analogy with the force cage. My group already uses homebrew “hero coins” (like luck) for PCs, but it could be very cool to use a version of that for monsters. Fear in Daggerheart is on the right track as well, but I’d need to simplify it.
I was just about to post about Fear in DH and read your comment. I also agree, DH was what I was hoping for mechanics and story blended well, but not as well as I imagined.
Duality dice system is a trip. The major difference from PBTA is that the default to hit isn't 10+ (or whatever the high end of 2d12 would be), the GM gets to arbitrate the DC based on the circumstance like in 4e/5e. On the other hand, while you start w same base chance to roll fear vs hope, it's way more in hope's favor since you have a 1/12 chance to crit succeed (and gain hope) which really pushes the game in the player's favor. I think to balance that, the power level on fear moves feels high Given that, the feedback I got from two very veteran 5e players was that seeing how much Fear I was stocking up gave them a ton of anxiety cause they didn't feel like they could do anything to mitigate it, other than not roll dice. 😅
I was immediately thinking of Daggerheart. I think I like the way Daggerheart works a bit better, because it's more proactive, and it does involve the players. The doom points are a bit passive and bland like legendary resistances, where fear gives the GM things their monsters can do. In other words most of the things doom points do is just make PC's worse. Making PC's worse is just going to feel bad. I'd rather make the monsters better, and I really like the idea of having a boss interject a reaction in response to player actions. I might have a think of some sort of system like that for boss fights where directly attacking the boss provokes additional actions from them.
David's Question at the end @1:12:00 I do like PDF's on my big Tablet. The only thing I want is for some of the publishers to use some of the features that are built into the PDF. For instance the the books from LootTavern (Heliana's and Ryoko's) not only have the Table of Contents linked to the pages so you can jump to a subject, but also, ALL THE PAGE NUMBERS on Every Page are connected back to the Table of Contents so you can move faster, you don't have to scroll back to the beginning.
Certainly. How else are you going to get those subscriptions? Players have to be able to tell intuitively that their 2014 PC will be left in the dust to tap into that sweet, sweet, "under monetized" FOMO revenue.
Theres nothing* wrong with giving players new toys as long as DMs are provided with equivalent ways of challenging them but yeah thats always been the most broken part of 5e and theyre not showing any signs of wanting to solve that. This sucks
@taejaskudva2543 The people saying this were promised DM materials being playtested. So we can guess based on the reality of that why they feel like the game won't have tolls for DMs
@@taejaskudva2543 Doubt it. Wotc seems to think cool stuff means monsters can cast spells. We haven't seen anything innovating in the last couple books.
“Optimizing your way out of fun” is a good way of putting it. I really like Treantmonk’s perspective: Builds should be A or B tier, not S tier. I also strongly agree that certain tricks can and do become incredibly boring if they get used all the time, and making things more annoying for the DM is not a good thing. Doom is very much a component of the Modiphius house system 2d20 (which is not a d20 type game but a die pool game). It works great for cinematic action type games like Star Trek. They also use it as a way to have players generate it by pushing their luck.
For asking clarifying questions I try to keep my party on their toes by asking clarifying questions at random times. For example, once a session I'll ask a question like "how do you open the door", "do you walk near the wall", or "are you sneaking" irregardless to any actual danger, that way when I do have something they don't know if I'm bluffing. Also, it adds tension when there is no danger, which is kind of fun, it is surprising how much relief they get when they realize there is no danger or they think they avoided danger.
To me, the worst part about the "frustrating for DMs" comment is how it assumes we aren't on the same team as the players. When players get a victory, like Dazing an enemy that they really didn't want to kill and that works out, the DM should be celebrating that alongside the players. Insinuating that we get frustrated when we "lose" is just more adversarial DM talk, which shouldn't be encouraged, especially in an official context.
Exactly, I'm not a fan of it from either side.. The whole " best ways to punish the players" or "here's ways to trick your dm" paradigm. We're all on the same team, so why push that angle?
From my perspective it's not about opposing the players, but about just managing combat in general. As a DM I absolutely cheer for my players and want to see them win, but I also want to make it challenging. I want the game to be exciting, and mindless chains of complicated combos to kill monsters who would easily have been toppled anyway is not exciting. On top of making combat take even longer in a game that already has a notable problem with long-running combats, it also makes any attempt to build balanced encounters that much more of a headache during prep time. It is frustrating, but not because I'm concerned about "losing."
I cheer for my osr players when they over come a tough situation but I couldn't do it w 5e. They aren't accomplishing anything other than assembling a list of hero abilities. There was largely no thinking after the initial sweat over their character.
Mike, as mostly a GM, currently running A5E, there are really frustrating maneuvers. There is a stunning maneuver that one of my players uses as a two weapon fighter. Five potential stuns each round for very low cost in points. I hate it. There are also other maneuvers where you can use a skill roll against the monsters AC to do debilitating attacks. I find it does not scale correctly and I hate them. Granted my players are 16th level but this has been an ongoing issue for me as a GM.
These maneuvers is why, despite having backed and own A5E, I still haven't played it. It is daunting as a GM to go over all that stuffs and also requires a lot of brainpower from my players which are also busy with their lives.
@@philippemarcil2004 Truth be told, I gave up trying to learn it myself. I just let my veteran players tell me all the shenanigans they can do. I roll my eyes, curse the poor design decisions, and just go with it.
The player facing content in A5E is all over the place: sometimes overcomplicated, sometimes worded in ways that don't make sense, sometimes way over or underpowered.
Maybe add some lightening rods to the encounters. Could also be time to think about wrapping up the campaign soon and maybe talking to your players about not running A5E in the next one.
@@MannonMartin We're actually trying to get to 20 before we wrap. But yeah, I have switched things up. I've been using more groups of monsters for combat encounters. And adding more non-combat challenges for story arc purposes.
Yeah, my big issue with the maul thing is adding an extra dice roll to every attack; it's an alternating dice roll too so each roll switches player priority, and attacks can't be batched together at all. All this said, I think this sort of slower, crunchier power fantasy experience is something that appeals to a lot of 5e players, at least in principle. Even if people have less fun ultimately, they won't blame D&D for it. People would be incensed if 5e tried to slim down to the level where combat became genuinely fast and easy to run. Also, I feel like the people who consciously want an OSR experience move very easily away from 5e, while those who want a more complex experience tend to stick with it and add thing on.
The 2d20 Conan (other 2d20 games have the same basic mechanic but call it different) has a Doom Pool. The fun thing is the players can buy extra dice for a roll by giving the gm more Doom. Then the gm can do stuff buy spending it adding dice to his rolls, adding npc's, just making things a bit more difficult for the players. It was a fun mechanic and players agonized over giving me more Doom to make sure they had a good roll on something. I generally never used even half of it, but they'd get nervous seeing how big the pile was lol.
Make no mistake and mark my words. WOTC is looking to maximize returns. The smallest group of players are DMs. So this is the rub... WOTC is going to keep changing the game until it's no longer dependent on a DM at all. Every player will have to purchase their own gear to play and DMs will not be required to play (much like a board game or MTG). Get the DMs out of the way and market directly to the player base. I don't think it'll be successful, but that's going to be what WOTC shoots for until they realize how bad of an idea it is. I may be wrong, but I don't think so and most DMs I talk to are already feeling the crunch.
I got the DM screen in addition to the books for ToV because I've found screens give the best quick overview of major rules. I was delighted when I saw doom points on there. I can't wait to try them out in my 5e campaign. I HATE when the boss dies in one round, often not getting to do a single action. I already give all bosses legendary actions, including modding or homebrewing some to be more like Matt Colville's "villain actions". I also buff them with more HP and higher AC. I also give them special features based on countering--but not eliminating--some of the more devastating or over-optimized actions of the PCs. And then there's making the minions have stronger attacks (while still being low HP) just to force the PCs to deal with them up front. All this to make boss fights more challenging and epic. That's a lot of work, but I'm glad to have another tool in the toolbox to help this endeavor. Go doom points!!
I like the idea, but not sold on the implementation. One thing I like the idea of is to actually add a special reaction to the minions rather than the boss themselves, that lets the minion jump in and take the hit or spell in place of the boss. It needs a limitation, though. In other words if they can intercept any attack against the boss don't make the minions infinite and just summon more when they run out. That just makes the fight an unwinnable slog if your players can only hit the boss when you allow them to. Even if they win such a fight they'll know that it's just because you stopped blocking and it won't feel earned. But you could use infinite minions if it was more limited like they could only intercept certain types of attacks or something like that. The players might also be able to use crowd control and forced movement to make some opportunities, even if they can't wipe out all the minions.
@@MannonMartin I wouldn't make minions take all the hits, just force the PCs to deal with them along with/at the same time as the boss, if possible. But I really hadn't thought of using doom points with the minions in a boss battle. That's something I WILL have to incorporate. As for numbers of minions: I don't like too many minions for the reason you stated before. I recently accidently had too many low-level bad guys in an area the PCs wanted to fight through and it took the entire session. While the players told me they were fine with that, I know it was a slog...at least for me. And if it's a slog for me, who has to do something every turn, I know it was a slog for them. (They're very polite with me. In several years I haven't been able to coax out any constructive criticism...and that's not a brag. It's a complaint. (But I love my players and my table as a whole.)) I definitely don't want to block all attacks against the BBEG. I want the PCs to make progress. I just don't want to have the BBEG killed before they have a chance to prove why they're the BBEG. I don't know a DM anywhere that hasn't experienced something like a surprise round or a poor initiative roll meant the BBEG was killed or nearly killed before they were able to do a single thing. I've got a big BBEG encounter coming up and I've easily spent the same amount of time on this as I would have for 3 regular sessions trying to deal with these five questions: 1) How to make the BBEG not die in the first one or two rounds? 2) How to make the BBEG scary? 3) How to not make the minions worth taking on rather than concentrating all firepower on the BBEG? 4) How to keep the fight from going on too long? 5) How not to accidentally cause a TPK due to all the enemy buffs/mods implemented to fulfill questions 1), 2), and 3)? Anything that can help me do that, and doom points look pretty good in this respect, is something I've got to try. Mike, if you're reading this, I hope you're okay with me turning this into a blog post. If not, let me know!
@@TheVTTDM I wasn't really thinking in terms of lots of minions so much as possibly having fresh waves of them on subsequent rounds which works much better than just throwing a massive number of enemies into the battle from the start. In practice I like the idea of having a handful of minions willing and able to sacrifice themselves in case someone throws something at the boss that breaks the encounter. The minion then takes the hit so it doesn't entirely negate the player's action, but the boss can continue the fight. Works best as a limited resource, say 3 cultists protecting the boss. For that matter you could even use them as the personification of the boss's legendary resistance instead of just the "nope" button.
@@MannonMartin I like that. Hmmm... I like that. I want to use it. How do you justify that rules-wise during combat? A held action on the part of the minion? That swap-places feature that goblin bosses, et al. have? Or would this be a use of a doom point?
To play devils advocate for WotC, some of the changes do make it easier for DMs to run the game. The new mechanics for surprise and exhaustion specifically come to mind
I really like where you're going with Doom points. I'm wondering if you envision them as a substitute for legendary resistance. So, rather than using legendary resistance the boss uses a Doom point. Mechanically, it's the same effect but the DM can use it for other purposes as well, making them more useful in that regard. I don't think I would use both Doom point and legendary resistance because my players would think that's a bit much, even for a major boss. I think they would get behind bosses having an expendable resource that gives them essentially legendary resistance plus some other powers, but they would feel (maybe correctly) that the scale has tipped too far over if the boss had both.
I think by "frustrate your DM" they were jokingly referring to when the DM goes "aww shucks" when the players beat the monsters and the DM is also happy to see everyone have fun.
Completely agree with you about reviews. I really got snookered into running a reviewer-hyped campaign that didn't play so well. The best reviews are the ones from DMs who played the adventure multiple times. I'm there for any time Seth Skorkowski or Professor Dungeonmaster want to talk about a 35 year old old school adventure that they have played half a dozen times.
Doom points adress the symptom instead of the cause. If characters weren't overpowered superheros in the first place, we wouldn't need to devise hand wavy tricks for monsters to use.
Hi Mike, ideas on doom points. 1. Make them public, put the coins on the table in front of the monster, so they know this is an extra special monster. It also makes it clear when they are being used up. 2. A doom point should never just simply 'nope' an effect, we all hate counter spell as its a 'doesnt happen' effect. But in your example, Lord Soth spending a doom point and breaking the force cage (possibly spending an action), but it adds so much narrative weight to the action. 3. Doom points could be used for escaping. This I got from Fabula Ultima RPG. The villains have a fixed number of doom points which never refresh, but they can always spend one to escape this time. But the PC's know that in the future the villain will not have this again. On the 2024 weapon mastery: if it slows the game down I'm not having it, the games can run too slow right now. Also I bet the PC's will not be so happy if they meet 20 Bugbears with Mauls, continually knocking them down.
I think doom points make sense if the players give them to you. They get something, but the cost is you get a doom point. Maybe a resurrection or a wish provides a doom point. Maybe the plot has a timer attached. If they beat the timer, fine, but if they don’t, they acquire a doom point to keep the plot moving forward without adverse consequences. It is a way to build tension.
I agree that topple is an issue. Most of the other masteries aren't too powerful and also are simple to implement and add tactical options. Topple is the one i have issues with because obv its powerful, which is why they had to add a saving throw. But saving throws on every attack slows down combat too much. The best idea ive seen to fix it is to remove the save and just have it happen if the attack hits hy more than 5. DC20 style. Depending on how powerful that turns out to be at your table, then raise or lower from 5 to the right number.
All this prone and knocking enemies back x feet stuff needs to have the added rule: "applies only to creatures up to one size larger than you" (and even then I'd have some large size creatures that are "immune to prone" when it makes sense for the creature--e.g., a gelatinous cube is immune to the prone condtition).
Just to add to the "Tipping your hand question", I always provide info in my descriptions and leave it at that. Using the 'Disintegrating item' example that Sly gave, when describing the room I would mention that 'you notice 3 neat piles of dust arrayed around the floating blade', then just let the players do what they will. If they clue on to that...great, its a game and it's meant to be fun. In the Pond example, you could add the line "you see deep grooves in the mud leading into the pond" and leave that with the players. Hope that helps :)
Thank you for introducing me to Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition. I've very using bits and pieces of it where I can, and I think I may try to find a group to run a full A5E campaign.
As a GM I've been disillusioned with 5e for some time now, and the 2024 update hasn't filled me with hope for making the game fun for me again. I'm exploring a rules light, narrative driven game like Dungeon World when my current 5e campaign wraps up soon.
I love Dungeon World, but my players didn't as much as me. As one to explore, keep Cypher System in mind! It's not nearly as lightweight as dungeon world, but it plays really cleanly.
If you're looking at Dungeon World, I'd like to shout out Chasing Adventure. It started as a DW hack, but evolved into its own thing and shaved off some of the vestigial DnD elements like ability scores. It also has expanded moves for social interaction. Also, it just had a successful kickstarter for a physical edition.
OSR TTRPG are pretty goods for rule light systems (or even the first version of D&D, like D&D B/X Moldvay). It's even mind-opening when that D&D became more complex or get more rules as it evolved.
Doom Points seem like a cool retroactive way for a BBEG to 'prepare' to face the party. I'm thinking of combining it with the Intrigue System in Kingdoms and Warfare and rewarding the NPC a Doom Point for a successful Lore/Espionage check instead of buffing their armies.
To be fair, I also believe that the main reason why Revised 5e is bogging everything down with time-consuming mechanics, is so that people will use WotC's VTT, where things will probably be automated and much quicker, than if you played at the table - just a hunch though.
While i'm worried about the power creep (did rogue realy need to get relieble talent earlier?) i dont think the whole weapon masterie will be that bad, like the 1st circle and level arcane spell "grease" can also make 3 to 6 monters roll a saving throw or fall prone and it lasts 1 minute and creates dificult terrain. We will have to see how well or badly the various parts will connect in the end, as i said i'm worried about the power creep and how the classes seen to be even more front loaded with a lot of abilities and choices on the first 9 levels, me thinks high level play is still ganna be a pain in the ass to plan and DM..
"did rogue realy need to get relieble talent earlier?" - rogue isn't strong class, and it wasn't buffed as much as it needed to. Rogue is more fun now, but i as a DM don't fear rogue, or any new martial for that matter. Spells are still main problem, and they would generally be the same with some small nerfs. Polymorph now give THP instead of second HP pool - one problematic spell gone. Conjure X spells are gone. And even if some broken spells would remain untouched - game would be better than original 5e.
Mike, you’re missing the point when you said something like: “Players optimize their way out of fun”. To illustrate my point, you could rephrase that “Why do players want to use their strongest abilities against the strongest enemies? Playing like that ruins the boss fights” This isn’t a player problem, it’s a game problem, a better designed game would not have spells and abilities that create this situation. And now you as DM are forced to find a way to fix yet another major flaw with 5e. It’s just a continuation of your concern over WoTC and their attitude to DM’s in both the old and new editions. And unfortunately, as you noted and much to my chagrin, many of the 5e flaws also exist in the 5e variants.
People routinely take the optimization quote out of context. The full quote is that players will optimize the fun out of the game and it is therefore on the designers to protect the players from themselves. Optimizing breaking the game fun indicates a design failure. The problem is not optimization-objectively playing the game better-but an apparent misalignment in what the designer _thought_ the game incentivizes and what it _actually_ incentivizes. In most circumstances, the best design principle is to ensure the most fun way to play is the most optimal and that the most optimal way to play is fun.
@@TomDarlingtonYou're describing what a well designed game should do, not what D&D does. Of course they should be aware that players want to build cool characters, and some will try to make them do as much damage as possible. Though, yes, I do have a problem with players that enjoy being OP, I actually changed characters in one campaign I'm playing because my single classed wizard was just too strong. Just picking good spells is enough to make a wizard stronger than most other characters can be.
@@nevisysbryd7450 Agreed. It's a design problem. Trying to make a capable character is not bad, it's part of the fun of the game. Therefore it's important to design a game that allows for fun creations without breaking the game. A game that doesn't allow the player to make cool characters, and do cool things AND doesn't makes it easy to manage for the DM is a game design miss.
@@understudied I don't disagree with this comment, but I think that Mike is aware of the expectations not meeting reality with D&D and that is why it was spoken about.
Honestly, this is profoundly demoralizing. I loathe "gotcha DM!" mechanics like Silvery Barbs, and it feels like the D&D design team is doubling down on even more of that BS with these updates. I'm with you Mike - imma roll it back to 2014 rules, or find a less frustrating system.
This is not an argument in favor of counterspell, but a counterargument to the argument that counterspell doesn't work against an enemy mage's arcane bolt because the enemy mage's arcane bolt is not a spell: It is a spell. Mechanically, it isn't handled as a spell. But, within the fictional reality we're imaginarily playing it, it is a spell.
Regarding doom points / boss abilities, it seems to me it might be easier to piggyback on the existing Legendary Actions, but expand them. I'm imagining a Forge of Foes-style menu of special legendary actions that allow the monster to break through that force cage, bypass a counterspell or a resistance, a short teleport, or otherwise be able to turn the tables. This way it's not that difficult to explain to players - this monster just has loads of powerful legendary action options - but theres still a finite amount of Actions per turn! Maybe 5 instead of the typical 3 just to make those options usable.
5e Combat is slow for casters. Playing a barbarian or fighter in 5e, my turn was done in 15 seconds. I roll to hit or grapple, and now I wait 10 minutes for the casters to fumble around with dozens of spells. Martials need more options to have fun in combat because attacking twice (and missing!) and then sitting there for a long time is miserable.
I was really excited by some of the really playtest drafts, but by the time the kickstarter launched, some of the elegant ideas like combat zones and had been ditched, and some things seemed unnecessarily crunchy, like how much wind it takes to blow a piece of paper of of a table.
Great show as always. I’m sure I’m not the first to point out that you might want to take a look at Fear tokens in Daggerheart for some mechanical implementation of Doom points. It’s about my favorite aspect of the system.
Without getting into all the details, in a TTRPG I've been designing and playtesting (have about 30 playtesters across 6 playtests so far) for about 1.5yrs now, players have a 5-20% chance of rolling a result that creates a GM resource called Threat, which works quite similarly to Doom. In every playtest I've done, players have consistently said that Threat as currency is really compelling, because: - it's narratively tied to previous player failures - it builds up in an ominous way - it acts as a kind of player buy-in to the GM doing something dramatic that harms the players
Embrace the unpredictability. As a GM of an old school type game myself, I love the randomness of not knowing what's going to happen next. It's like the GM is playing the game with the players as well. Not just GM'ing.
When you talked about how we play video games vs ttrpgs, I took FOREVER to finish Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate I because I would move an invisible character close enough to see 1 monster, the rest of the party would form up just out of the monster's sight, aggro that one guy, kill him, pull back, rest and then repeat. I can just imagine how much a DM would love running my game.
I question if this whole "DM vs player imbalance" tells us something about the way the playtests are handled. My main group cycles the position of DM and player pretty frequently, and I'd say because of this we are all very "pro-players" at our table. We have all built up adventures from scratch and watched the players either completely alter the story or dump on encounters by complete accident. But we've also had moments where the party has failed or nearly failed as well. Point being, I wonder if the playtesters rotate DMs in a similar manner- and this is why they don't have this focus or sentiment of "Well this isn't fun for the DM", because they aren't stuck in that position long enough for it to affect them? I get why there are so many "forever DMs" in DnD. But I honestly think that being one is kinda unhealthy and why there is all this weird sentiment of what "the DMs fun is" at the table. The role of the DM should just be to run the game, yeah write the story n stuff if they are building it from scratch but still. As the DM you shouldn't set expectations for yourself, you shouldn't anticipate encounters going a specific way basically ever etc. The game is for your players, and they are going to inevitably take the world an adventure you set up and do things their way. The whole point of a TTRPG is that it isn't a video game, the players are going to carve their own path through the adventure. If that is a problem or frustrating for you as a DM you should take a break or just stop DM'ing. But that's also why most groups should he prepared to swap the roll of DM when that happens.
Any chance you could share the comparison between edition lists? I know that as an always GM I'm been trying to figure out what I might be moving to and have been considering putting something like this together. I'd love to just look at what you have.
I think that the reason the WotC design team felt that they could add a lot more opportunities to impose conditions is that their overarching strategy is for games to be run online, with D&D Beyond. The bookkeeping for all of these things will likely be applied using the DDB Game Log, and will be applied by the choices of the player on their turn. The major VTTs will likely program the same. So unless you are purely paper and pencil, it should be manageable.
A lot of these comments are about the pc/dm adverserial relationship. It's not that the dm is opposite the player, it's that the players usually go for spells and abilities that remove a monster's and conversely the dm's ability to act. It's no fun to play a game when you are constantly have your hands tied or are prevented from playing. It's the prone condition every tirn, it's the 10 turn sleep spell, it's the force cage and polymorph and banishment, etc ..... They're no better than the dm casting mind control spells constantly on pc's. The designers don't realize this l.
Crunchy games like 5e work great on computers... which of course is exactly the direction WoTC wants to go. For reviews, ya gotta find someone who speaks plainly, is willing to be critical, and has similar taste than you. For me, Ten Foot Pole is pretty reliable. He has a very narrow idea of what is good, but he is transparent about that and it lines up well w my opinion.
My group is currently level 13 in the final battle of Curse of Strahd. Combat takes much longer at this level than it did at level 6, and I try hard to keep combat moving to prevent player boredom. We don't need to make combat even harder. And I hate keeping track of a bunch of status effects. I'm already keeping track of multiple monsters with legendary actions, lair actions, special features, multi-attacks and some status effects. The last thing I want to do is have even more status effects and player/monster features to track. Also, why would WOTC want to make something "frustrating for DMs"? DMs are the ones who buy more books and materials on average. That seems like a very odd way to market the 2024 books.
Without the other half of the books its difficult to judge with certainty. If you're worried about encounter balancing, even if you don't have the MM at this point, just remember you can always add condition immunities just like in 2014 5e to monsters to spice things up and challenge players. Hopefully the encounter designing part of the DMG gives better practical advice for challenging players. And if we're all allowed to make inferences based on single sentences within the playtest itself, let's not forget that all the, "You're attacks are considered magical weapons for the purposes of damage resistance/immunities" so maybe resistance will matter a lot more in the new MM and simply always be on rather than be conditionally turned off. If that's the case it'll be easier to both challenge players and use those resistances in play.
Let me just say I loved the brief, subtle detour into the lyrics for that song at about 12:55. I do this kind of silliness all the time for my own amusement... but I'm far less subtle about it.
You always mention the Big Four: A5E, DnDs 2014 and 2024 and Tales of the Valiant. However, I’m equally looking forward all of the other RPGs coming out: Shadow of the Wyrd Wizard, 13 Age 2E, Blood and Doom, Dolmenwood, the MCDM RPG, Wind Wraith and so on. I figure I’ll try DnD 2024 (I’ve got no hard feelings) and then the pace of TRRPGs coming out is such I never need to play the same one twice, unless I find one I really love. I think this is a journey we can all go on, no?
It's bad when a scenario starts in the middle of the right column of a page. It's bad when a stat block is half in one column, half in another column - or even worse in the next page.
I feel like all of these discussions about “do these rule changes make life easier or harder for DMs” just hammer home over and over, the advantages in having a bit of software deal with the mechanical trivial for conditions, saves, other knock on effects, conditions that go away in 5 rounds, etc. Maybe the problem isn’t new features, it is the fact that DM tools are stuck in the 70s. Let’s just start with the elephant in the room. What changes can we make (with software assistance) to let the players all take their turns concurrently, so nobody is waiting?
I love the idea of DOOM Points as a replacement for legendary resistances. Instead of an automatic success though, I would like to make it a contest, so the player still has a *small* (25%?) chance to have the Indiana Jones moment.
In our Khor setting, A Knight of Helukeun weilds a combination great maul-polearm. That Knight can only knock prone 1 enemy/turn. We saw this prone issue coming. Hence we werent knocked prone. 😂
I abandoned 5e because of the extra work I had to do as a DM compared to other systems. Sadly 5.5 hasn’t addressed any of my concerns and has even made them worse. So it won’t be bringing me ‘back’ unfortunately. ‘Frustrating for DMs’ would be a good label for my experience of the design and priorities of new version overall.
The golfbag fighter is exactly what I want from fighter. The problem is they haven't said what there is to help monsters and DMs. The fighter should be the guy who has a weapon for every situation. But it shouldnt be that the weapon instantly invalidates an enemy. Its force cage. There's counter tactics and then there's "Nope" buttons.
Not wanting to give things away but asking for more clarification: I basically just start slowly narrating in the way I interpret ie walking through the lake. Then if they really didn’t want to they would correct me at the start and if it is a bad thing I try to give them outs during my narration for them to interact to get out of it. For example you feel compelled to pick up the item make a wisdom saving throw
Kind of related to the doom points in the boss fight arena, I’ve been toying with making legendary resistances work normally until bloodied, at which point they become legendary recoveries (which you’ve talked about before) - by letting the players know they get more (i.e., aren’t wasting spells) by holding back their save-or-suck abilities, I’m hoping to delay the deluge of win-the-game spells until they’ve had some back and forth - so, if they force cage right out the gate, the beholder can block (using up an LR but getting rather little), but if they wait until they’ve bloodied it, then the beholder has to start burning eye stalks to stay in the fight
Just got my hardcover of Return today! I already own a softcover copy, but bought the hardcover/PDF combo to give to a friend and bought another electronic copy for a second DM friend. I hope they find it as useful as I have!
I ran a sesh using most of the new 5e 2024 rules and class options last night, my players Paladin critted 3 times in a combat and the fact that they all hovered around 45 points of damage at level 10 instead of the usual 60-70 points was such a relief, soo much less swing for this 6 person party
"DM are the customers" "DM don't get fancy new options" Combine that with the need of DM and it's insane not the design your TTRPG about how to make the game easier/funnier for DMs.
I try to speed up combat. In that quest, one thing I tried was static monster damage. I never rolled damage and I used average damage for every hit. After about a year a player told me he misses the random damage because he can metagame his PC's actions because he knows exactly how much damage an attack will do. I've played with this player for about 18 years. He's an excellent DM and player. It made me reconsider if I was making the right changes in my quest for speed.
@@DMHightower I haven’t had that issue, but if you have, consider rolling only part of the time, like on breath weapons, fall damage, improvised damage and attacks that might drop a PC - that may be why my players haven’t brought it up to me - either that or they’ve noticed and want to use it to their advantage
TL;DR: it pains me to say it, but I’m realizing D&D is a system designed to make people wait while someone else plays the game. I think there’s already too much to do in one turn, and adding more will only make it worse. As far as average damage is concerned, I’ve been using it for a while now without any problem, or at least no one at my table has mentioned it - I do roll some damage: big attacks from bosses like dragon breath weapons, fall damage, bonus damage from a weapon that gets lit on fire, an attack that might drop a PC - sprinkling those in may be why no one has questioned it at my table - I will point to DM Timothy’s video on the subject in which he notes that in over a year and hundreds of games, no one mentioned it to him - if only that guy mentioned how many games he played a year 😄 There’s a video by How to Be a Great GM that talks about the ruthless quest for speed at the cost of fun - I identify with the feeling, but when I look at players who sit bored awaiting their turn, I remember why I try to push the pace I, the DM, am rarely bored, because I have a part to play even during PC turns: adjudicating their actions, applying their damage to enemies, quickly narrating the results and the little add ins to keep players engaged - Chris, you watch your friend unleash a rapid succession of punches and kicks, fracturing the bone golem into its constituent pieces, but its collapse reveals two skeletons with bows trained on you! What are you doing? - keep it snappy; draw them in; maybe remind the next player they’re on deck - you know: help handoff the ball from one player to the next - but then Chris sits there pondering what he wants to do - “should I cast one of my spells or maybe perform a skill action or maybe just attack. Tho I could use a shove or grapple instead of a regular attack” - while Chris sits and thinks, justifiably wanting to take the most effective or impactful action, everyone waits Ok, end bloated preface: now I’m imagining asking, on top of that, which weapon mastery do you want to use and could you roll that up for me? - players seem to already have too many options to parse during their turn - I absolutely believe they should be “thinking about their turn ahead of time”, but meaningful changes to the battle happen with nearly every action, so it’s totally understandable why players would want to consider their options in light of those changes - and I don’t want to start dressing down my friends about how slow they are So do we start talking about timers - say a generous 2 minute timer - now we move along but the clock is kind of not very fun and people are ending turns early and it’s still 15 minutes a round with 5 players, enemy actions and math, which I simplify by rounding and adding up instead of subtracting down - maybe I’ll use electronic dice to roll and calculate all the various enemy attacks all together or even prerolling before the game to speed up initiative or breath weapon recharges or sleep spell HP or or or OR! OR!! OR!!! At some point I had to accept that the group is not the problem - it’s not my DMing - it’s not Chris taking his sweet time picking what to do - it’s the system - this game is designed to make people sit idle while someone else plays the game only to eventually have their turn - really, it’s worse than that, because the person debating their actions isn’t even playing the game - they’re thinking about how they want to play the game - we are all waiting for someone to finish waiting to figure out how they spend 6 in game seconds before they start waiting on the next guy - there’s too much waiting built into this game, and I believe a major factor is too much to do in a turn - too many actions to choose from - adding more to do on the player’s turn is only going to make that worse And don’t get me started on bonus actions
"New options" are the marketing hook for "under monetized" 6e players. The vision is for players to log on, 24/7, where their PCs are kept safely behind the paywall, and have AI generated encounters ready to go at a moment's notice. DMs are a sideshow in this vision, so added cognitive load is irrelevant.
I have used a system like doom forever. I give special monsters 0-5 (usually one or two) malice and tie one of their key abilities to each malice. Whatever I feel i need to do for RP reasons i can do at the cost of that malice and that ability.
Clarifying questions is actually a great place to bring in the dice - the character is smart and skilled, but are they exercising those capabilities in this moment?
When I write my documents, I generally write in Markdown, then convert to HTML using Pandoc. Then when I use Scribus, I can Get Text and adjust my Text Frames so that they display the text as needed, leaving room for images. Then I can easily make my documents different sizes. Pandoc also then makes epubs or other pages.
Re: the GM difficulty issue, I think their approach makes more sense in the context of a move to a purely digital experience with highly, if not fully automated GMing.
Just listened about the doom points. I want that so bad! Running Tyranny of Dragons and in final final battle. Luckily Tiamat can't be force caged. But the warlock used a save or suck spell/ability to suck my wizard minion. He's currently levitating mindlessly in the air unable to do anything for 1 min. Not for this battle since I didn't warn them, but I'm gonna work in these doom points. I'm wondering if they can be combined with the Legendary Resistances. LR's seem like they help the BBEG avoid save or suck for spells/abilities that use saving throws. Expanding to avoiding other abilities that don't use saving throws seems like a natural extension. Definitely something I'm gonna work in for my next campaign. Thanks Mike!
What does the barbarian do at the ball? He hangs in the stables and guard barracks teaching a guard how to grapple and breaking broncos in the rodeo for the stablemaster, while making himself occasionally available for the fair maiden watching him, who later lures him into the labyrinth garden. After some tomfoolery, they eventually make their way to the fountain and he splashes her because it's funny. She laughs and he does it again, and again, because he has all STR ad no Rizz. Now her night is ruined as her dress is soaked. So her dad and guards show up to the commotion, think that she was missing. The miscommunication gets him throw him in the drunk tank for the rest of the night where he learns an ancient secret of his kin from an old ghost. The ghost knows a secret about the noble house. The young lady comes back and brings him a meal and an apology. The guard is passed out. She steals the key. They make love on the haypile. The ghost watches. No shame in separating your party when it isn't a dungeon.
I'd love to see your implementation of altered Doom Points that enhances bosses in ways you discuss in this video. The story behind a boss is usually better than players realize, this might be a great way to give that them without breaking anything. Please, Mike, may we have some more??
I definitely hope that whatever comes out of the DMG and the Monster Manual show good DM tools. I haven’t seen anything that will change my 5e burnout, but we’ll see. I’ll keep a hopeful eye out with low expectations and continue to play PF2e and OSE and Shadowdark and others and hope 5e makes good choices.
You bring up that you were wrong about Advantage, and you could be wrong about the changes/additions to dnd24, but i have to think that Advantage has gone over as well as it has because it's a simple and straightforward mechanic, and it works the same for everyone. The granular rules and mechanics being added may not all be **bad** but overall they're not going to do anything that benefits everyone at the table.
Your "Doom points" really need story behind them to not seem arbitrary. It absolutely makes sense that a wizard is aware of Force Cage and will be motivated to overcome it. But, that's gonna feel real crummy for the guy who took Force Cage.
Between character abilities, special class features, feats, spells, magic items, there are too many things for players to have to keep track of. My group has complained about this. They forget about things they have or abilities they could have used constantly. You can try to memorize your character, but the majority of players just aren't going to look at their character sheet until their turn or right before. It's too much.
Awesome video. Thank you! For the player who asked about neurodivergent players, the Dungeon Dudes have a great video on running games for neurodivergent players!
100% need a DM advocate at WOTC, and it's going to compound the lack of DMs problem. Starting with the Players Handbook revamp, instead of the deeply flawed Dungeon Master's Guide, tells me where WOTC's head is at going into these new books.
“Gonzo” is the word I studiously avoided in my complaint on the ENWorld forums last week about feeling “left behind” by 5.24e. Separately, I worry about the action economy in play. I remember back in my Palladium days when it took 3 die rolls to resolve one attack, and every character got 4+ attacks per round. Slog doesn’t begin to cover it. It was horrible.
I think the new status effects that are being implemented for martials are a good thing. Martials need the love and rolling a few more saves is whatever. The gap between martials and casters barely closed at all. I’ve seen very little effective balancing. Backgrounds still suck. Crafting and tool proficiencies are still unsupported. They’ve likely broken as much as they fixed. This product isn’t what I want out of a revision.
For Nathan: I did 4th ed D&D encounters for children and played in games where the DM's kids were playing. One good thing to dow is to put it in terms they can understand. For instance, in the D&D encounters I ran at Gen Con a young child's character was charmed by a Dryad (he failed his save) and I told him that he liked/loved the Dryad than his mother, so he realized that's not a good thing. Secondly, one daughter's father, playing a dwarf died, she became slightly distraught, so I asked, who played DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) and both children raised their hands, so I told them a sould token floated above the dwarf and if you retrieved it you could save him. She was very happy about it and worked toward getting the soul token. Also, when running adventures for young folks, try and gauge their maturity level and you can make it real fun. When I played with the children in the party, we visited an ecenttric wizard that experimented with food, and we had to fight off a stromboli golem/ Crazy, right? But we all still had fun. Everything doesn't have to be super serious, but it does need to engage the children and grab their attention. I hope that helps. I hope your campaign goes good.
Re: asking questions to players, something like Pathfinder's exploration actions is really useful. Just have the players tell you the general attitude of their characters while they're exploring. Are they trying to go fast? Undetected? Inspecting their surroundings? This can help inform how much detail you should give them without them asking
And you're surprised they care more about players than the DMs? WotC run a business, and the data says there is more players than DMs. Ergo (they think) they must pamper the players, because since there is about four times as much players than GMs, that is the focus group of a corpo dealing in those fancy Tee-Tee-aR-PeeGees that diss the previous authors on a 50-year anniversary of their product no less. And besides, the DMs can use those options too, right? (Not really, since there aren't any tools for GMs to guide them how should they do it to preserve game balance, and it was already stated that PC classes and abilities are balanced only from the PC side, this isn't 3e where everyone had access to the same advancement rules). GMs are already on the lower ground, because there is (usually) just one GM, and a group of players who generally have more ideas - of course, more does not necessarily means better, but they still do have advantage of thinking through four times as much ideas as the GM in a given time period. Not to mention all those "break the game with this build" videos, articles and guides... It would be nice to see something dedicated to help the Gamemasters from the publisher, but alas, it doesn't seem to be in scope of WotC interests. At least we get the adventures, right? Those that do not need to be remixed right out of the store because of all the plot holes? Oh, wait.
As much as I love 4E, I agree that combats took time in that game. Each fight is a action movie set piece. You did only two combats a session, if that, and if the fight isn't important, you handle it like a Skill Challenge instead.
I use a variant mashup of Genisys’ dark side/light side points and Shadowdark’s luck tokens. At the beginning of a session a player rolls a d4 and the result is the number of luck tokens at the beginning of the session. Any PC can use them at anytime to re-roll a result. When the luck tokens run out, the GM gets a doom point to “break” the system but not immediately undo the PCs last luck result in their favor. The PCs reroll the d4 when the GM uses the doom to reset the luck tokens. The length to which the system can be broken should be understood in the group
What you drscribe for your doom points sounds very close to how the gang at High Rollers use a homebrewed mechanic they call The Crucible of Fate. The whole crew including GM generate Fate points with D6 and then both sides of table have a pool of items they can spend fate on, very similar to the doom idea discussed.
tin foil hat: those abilities and masteries that would make it frustrating for DMs are overly-taxing by design to drive reliance on digital tools, but esp DDB. ooo look how it handles all the floating status conditions and ability triggers. it's a funnel. the assumption being the path of least resistance is opening your wallet.
I've personally found that my best D&D is ... a different system. I'm currently running Lost Mines of Phlandelver in Genesys. Embers of the Imperium, to be exact and I don't miss 5e. What I love about 5e was the roleplaying. But, as a DM, I grew to hate the combat so much. I don't hate combat but in 5e... It's so slow and feels like a chore. And then you get players complaining that they didn't understand how charm works and I don't treat it like dominate person or that hitting first doesn't give them a free turn before combat begins. I'd rather just have a combat system that doesn't hog so much of the spotlight.
I think that is similar for how to run superintelligent bosses. Give them some number of "They anticipated that" (were prepared for that, etc.) equal to their Int or Wis. That they have a complicating factor for XXXX. An example would be to dissuade druids from scouting shapechanged, they have a bunch of stray cats roaming around.
To those frustrated by 5e but want a well supported dnd alternative try Old School Essentials. Tons of adventures and modules and so much easier and its the dnd we had before 2nd edition.
Jaquaysing the dungeons = you give them multiple paths, each with its own challenges, but the paths usually lead to the same place. For the pond or lake it might have things that look like stepping stones or a slimy questionable of stability log or trees with vines that overhang it, etc. there could be a little piece of land stuck up in the middle somewhere with a lure to the players’ curiosity. The other options should present their own challenges. Going around one way the bramble and trees are thick and close together and parts of the forest are shrouded with darkness. Going the other way has rocky outcroppings and you can just barely distinguish a cave entrance. If you want to nudge the players across the lake, besides the lure, you can mention they don’t know if going around will lead them to the building across the lake. (Of course each will have its own terrain and monster challenges themed to its setting.)
I wonder how bad guys in the game would ever attack alone in a 5e world? I think doom point are good, but what the need is a spell to summon a party of murder hobos! LOL
Im just kind of tired of the "hahaha i did this ridiculous thing to frustrate my dm and throw their whole plans off kilter" humor that is so pervasive in dnd and espicially 5e. That shows up so much in peoples storytelling or build goals. And i dont know how to feel about the designers themselves leaning into that as well like, feels a bit like kicking down. Dms already have to do a lot for this game, without them there is no game, why perpetuate a humor and playstyle thats very on the dms expense.
Yeah, it's not fun. I tend to find many of these players online and it's exhausting. It almost made me quit DnD because I just decided that most D&D players want different things than me.
As someone who got into PF2e last year, it really is opposite-town over there. I haven't had to fix a thing; every encounter was just as difficult as the guidelines predicted; I've never had a spell with a bullshit absolute effect circumvent my scenario design; my blood pressure's way down, and my hair is thicker (OK, I jest). On the other hand, I've seen plenty of players coming from 5e complain that everything in PF2e is too rigorous, measured, balanced, defined, how every spell has limitations or countermeasures, how they feel like they can't get away with anything, how they can't stack the deck during character creation... It breaks my heart; GM-friendly design should not be perceived as hostile. When I'm a player, I don't play to breeze through challenges, feel untouchable, and solve every problem with a flick of the wrist.
Players who do that shouldn’t be at your table, they are jerks through and through. I don’t do all the prep work and effort I put into the game to have them try to purposely ruin my game!
If I’m playing with people I haven’t played with before, I definitely let people know my expectations before starting a game with them.
The “gotcha” mentality is not exclusive to players. DM’s do it, too. In those cases, it’s not a problem with the game system, it’s because the players and the DM don’t trust in each other. No rules system is going to fix that.
I relate and feel this so much. Took the words right out of my mouth!
Saying "frustrating for Dungeon Masters" is the tabletop equivalent of saying "The game lags constantly & crashed often"
Indeed.
But some players protest about the mods that patch the system.
They've already committed to that by releasing the PHB first. I mean, what's the game going to look like between this release, and the new DMG/MM? We don't have monsters that have been designed to challenge these new PCs, and we have no (presumably better, fingers crossed) encounter design guidelines to account for them either. They've power-crept the martials - reasonably so, I don't think it's a bad idea to bring them more in line with caster performance - but even if the PC balance is now better, the power-level of the average party has gone up.
Now, most experienced GMs have been ignoring the DMG guidelines for ages - we either make our own, or use Forge of Foes, A5E or Flee, Mortals! But even those might now be off, given the new options in the 2024 PHB. They're re-releasing a game without the crucial tools needed to run it.
@@strandedstarfish Interestingly of all the full editions 4e is the only one to release as a complete set of books at the same time (3.5 also did but was an updated version of 3e).
Speaking as someone who didn’t get the 1e “Big 3” all at once, I can tell you what we did.
We pulled what we needed from our OD&D, Holmes, or Moldvay boxed sets and used the new rules as supplemental material.
That’s been the history of the hobby since the start. And it’s also why both the 3e and 5e PHBs included all the rules for running the game, plus a small monster section.
I expect 2024 will hold to that.
It's the equivalent of saying this game runs on Windows 18. Windows 18 where do I get that? You don't. Good luck playing that game son
Wow the discussion about doom points hits hard! Loved the analogy with the force cage. My group already uses homebrew “hero coins” (like luck) for PCs, but it could be very cool to use a version of that for monsters. Fear in Daggerheart is on the right track as well, but I’d need to simplify it.
Right? Lots of potential there.
Hi Bob! I'll have to look at Fear.
I was just about to post about Fear in DH and read your comment. I also agree, DH was what I was hoping for mechanics and story blended well, but not as well as I imagined.
Duality dice system is a trip. The major difference from PBTA is that the default to hit isn't 10+ (or whatever the high end of 2d12 would be), the GM gets to arbitrate the DC based on the circumstance like in 4e/5e. On the other hand, while you start w same base chance to roll fear vs hope, it's way more in hope's favor since you have a 1/12 chance to crit succeed (and gain hope) which really pushes the game in the player's favor.
I think to balance that, the power level on fear moves feels high
Given that, the feedback I got from two very veteran 5e players was that seeing how much Fear I was stocking up gave them a ton of anxiety cause they didn't feel like they could do anything to mitigate it, other than not roll dice. 😅
I was immediately thinking of Daggerheart. I think I like the way Daggerheart works a bit better, because it's more proactive, and it does involve the players. The doom points are a bit passive and bland like legendary resistances, where fear gives the GM things their monsters can do. In other words most of the things doom points do is just make PC's worse. Making PC's worse is just going to feel bad. I'd rather make the monsters better, and I really like the idea of having a boss interject a reaction in response to player actions. I might have a think of some sort of system like that for boss fights where directly attacking the boss provokes additional actions from them.
David's Question at the end @1:12:00 I do like PDF's on my big Tablet. The only thing I want is for some of the publishers to use some of the features that are built into the PDF. For instance the the books from LootTavern (Heliana's and Ryoko's) not only have the Table of Contents linked to the pages so you can jump to a subject, but also, ALL THE PAGE NUMBERS on Every Page are connected back to the Table of Contents so you can move faster, you don't have to scroll back to the beginning.
New edition feels like power creep. Everyone complained 5E parties are too powerful, so they made them more powerful.
Certainly. How else are you going to get those subscriptions? Players have to be able to tell intuitively that their 2014 PC will be left in the dust to tap into that sweet, sweet, "under monetized" FOMO revenue.
@@jarrettperdue3328 I really hope this backfires, because DMs are just tired of optimizing monsters and just continue playing 5e.
Theres nothing* wrong with giving players new toys as long as DMs are provided with equivalent ways of challenging them but yeah thats always been the most broken part of 5e and theyre not showing any signs of wanting to solve that. This sucks
People keep saying we haven't seen the monster manual. Maybe monsters will get some cool stuff. I mean, I'm not holding my breath...
@taejaskudva2543 The people saying this were promised DM materials being playtested. So we can guess based on the reality of that why they feel like the game won't have tolls for DMs
@@taejaskudva2543 Doubt it. Wotc seems to think cool stuff means monsters can cast spells. We haven't seen anything innovating in the last couple books.
“Optimizing your way out of fun” is a good way of putting it. I really like Treantmonk’s perspective: Builds should be A or B tier, not S tier. I also strongly agree that certain tricks can and do become incredibly boring if they get used all the time, and making things more annoying for the DM is not a good thing.
Doom is very much a component of the Modiphius house system 2d20 (which is not a d20 type game but a die pool game). It works great for cinematic action type games like Star Trek. They also use it as a way to have players generate it by pushing their luck.
For asking clarifying questions I try to keep my party on their toes by asking clarifying questions at random times. For example, once a session I'll ask a question like "how do you open the door", "do you walk near the wall", or "are you sneaking" irregardless to any actual danger, that way when I do have something they don't know if I'm bluffing. Also, it adds tension when there is no danger, which is kind of fun, it is surprising how much relief they get when they realize there is no danger or they think they avoided danger.
I think this all makes sense if the aim is force everyone to have the VTT figure it out for them, and eventually an AI DM.
BINGO
They are definitely not designing for GMs. This has been clearly apparent in every thing they have published since Waterdeep Dragon Heist.
To me, the worst part about the "frustrating for DMs" comment is how it assumes we aren't on the same team as the players. When players get a victory, like Dazing an enemy that they really didn't want to kill and that works out, the DM should be celebrating that alongside the players. Insinuating that we get frustrated when we "lose" is just more adversarial DM talk, which shouldn't be encouraged, especially in an official context.
Exactly, I'm not a fan of it from either side.. The whole " best ways to punish the players" or "here's ways to trick your dm" paradigm.
We're all on the same team, so why push that angle?
From my perspective it's not about opposing the players, but about just managing combat in general. As a DM I absolutely cheer for my players and want to see them win, but I also want to make it challenging. I want the game to be exciting, and mindless chains of complicated combos to kill monsters who would easily have been toppled anyway is not exciting. On top of making combat take even longer in a game that already has a notable problem with long-running combats, it also makes any attempt to build balanced encounters that much more of a headache during prep time.
It is frustrating, but not because I'm concerned about "losing."
I cheer for my osr players when they over come a tough situation but I couldn't do it w 5e. They aren't accomplishing anything other than assembling a list of hero abilities. There was largely no thinking after the initial sweat over their character.
Mike, as mostly a GM, currently running A5E, there are really frustrating maneuvers. There is a stunning maneuver that one of my players uses as a two weapon fighter. Five potential stuns each round for very low cost in points. I hate it. There are also other maneuvers where you can use a skill roll against the monsters AC to do debilitating attacks. I find it does not scale correctly and I hate them. Granted my players are 16th level but this has been an ongoing issue for me as a GM.
These maneuvers is why, despite having backed and own A5E, I still haven't played it. It is daunting as a GM to go over all that stuffs and also requires a lot of brainpower from my players which are also busy with their lives.
@@philippemarcil2004 Truth be told, I gave up trying to learn it myself. I just let my veteran players tell me all the shenanigans they can do. I roll my eyes, curse the poor design decisions, and just go with it.
The player facing content in A5E is all over the place: sometimes overcomplicated, sometimes worded in ways that don't make sense, sometimes way over or underpowered.
Maybe add some lightening rods to the encounters. Could also be time to think about wrapping up the campaign soon and maybe talking to your players about not running A5E in the next one.
@@MannonMartin We're actually trying to get to 20 before we wrap. But yeah, I have switched things up. I've been using more groups of monsters for combat encounters. And adding more non-combat challenges for story arc purposes.
Yeah, my big issue with the maul thing is adding an extra dice roll to every attack; it's an alternating dice roll too so each roll switches player priority, and attacks can't be batched together at all.
All this said, I think this sort of slower, crunchier power fantasy experience is something that appeals to a lot of 5e players, at least in principle. Even if people have less fun ultimately, they won't blame D&D for it. People would be incensed if 5e tried to slim down to the level where combat became genuinely fast and easy to run. Also, I feel like the people who consciously want an OSR experience move very easily away from 5e, while those who want a more complex experience tend to stick with it and add thing on.
The 2d20 Conan (other 2d20 games have the same basic mechanic but call it different) has a Doom Pool. The fun thing is the players can buy extra dice for a roll by giving the gm more Doom. Then the gm can do stuff buy spending it adding dice to his rolls, adding npc's, just making things a bit more difficult for the players. It was a fun mechanic and players agonized over giving me more Doom to make sure they had a good roll on something. I generally never used even half of it, but they'd get nervous seeing how big the pile was lol.
Make no mistake and mark my words. WOTC is looking to maximize returns. The smallest group of players are DMs. So this is the rub... WOTC is going to keep changing the game until it's no longer dependent on a DM at all. Every player will have to purchase their own gear to play and DMs will not be required to play (much like a board game or MTG). Get the DMs out of the way and market directly to the player base. I don't think it'll be successful, but that's going to be what WOTC shoots for until they realize how bad of an idea it is. I may be wrong, but I don't think so and most DMs I talk to are already feeling the crunch.
I got the DM screen in addition to the books for ToV because I've found screens give the best quick overview of major rules. I was delighted when I saw doom points on there. I can't wait to try them out in my 5e campaign.
I HATE when the boss dies in one round, often not getting to do a single action. I already give all bosses legendary actions, including modding or homebrewing some to be more like Matt Colville's "villain actions". I also buff them with more HP and higher AC. I also give them special features based on countering--but not eliminating--some of the more devastating or over-optimized actions of the PCs.
And then there's making the minions have stronger attacks (while still being low HP) just to force the PCs to deal with them up front.
All this to make boss fights more challenging and epic.
That's a lot of work, but I'm glad to have another tool in the toolbox to help this endeavor.
Go doom points!!
God, that was a lot of words to say I like the idea of doom points.
I like the idea, but not sold on the implementation. One thing I like the idea of is to actually add a special reaction to the minions rather than the boss themselves, that lets the minion jump in and take the hit or spell in place of the boss. It needs a limitation, though. In other words if they can intercept any attack against the boss don't make the minions infinite and just summon more when they run out. That just makes the fight an unwinnable slog if your players can only hit the boss when you allow them to. Even if they win such a fight they'll know that it's just because you stopped blocking and it won't feel earned. But you could use infinite minions if it was more limited like they could only intercept certain types of attacks or something like that. The players might also be able to use crowd control and forced movement to make some opportunities, even if they can't wipe out all the minions.
@@MannonMartin I wouldn't make minions take all the hits, just force the PCs to deal with them along with/at the same time as the boss, if possible. But I really hadn't thought of using doom points with the minions in a boss battle. That's something I WILL have to incorporate.
As for numbers of minions: I don't like too many minions for the reason you stated before. I recently accidently had too many low-level bad guys in an area the PCs wanted to fight through and it took the entire session. While the players told me they were fine with that, I know it was a slog...at least for me. And if it's a slog for me, who has to do something every turn, I know it was a slog for them. (They're very polite with me. In several years I haven't been able to coax out any constructive criticism...and that's not a brag. It's a complaint. (But I love my players and my table as a whole.))
I definitely don't want to block all attacks against the BBEG. I want the PCs to make progress. I just don't want to have the BBEG killed before they have a chance to prove why they're the BBEG. I don't know a DM anywhere that hasn't experienced something like a surprise round or a poor initiative roll meant the BBEG was killed or nearly killed before they were able to do a single thing.
I've got a big BBEG encounter coming up and I've easily spent the same amount of time on this as I would have for 3 regular sessions trying to deal with these five questions:
1) How to make the BBEG not die in the first one or two rounds?
2) How to make the BBEG scary?
3) How to not make the minions worth taking on rather than concentrating all firepower on the BBEG?
4) How to keep the fight from going on too long?
5) How not to accidentally cause a TPK due to all the enemy buffs/mods implemented to fulfill questions 1), 2), and 3)?
Anything that can help me do that, and doom points look pretty good in this respect, is something I've got to try.
Mike, if you're reading this, I hope you're okay with me turning this into a blog post. If not, let me know!
@@TheVTTDM I wasn't really thinking in terms of lots of minions so much as possibly having fresh waves of them on subsequent rounds which works much better than just throwing a massive number of enemies into the battle from the start.
In practice I like the idea of having a handful of minions willing and able to sacrifice themselves in case someone throws something at the boss that breaks the encounter. The minion then takes the hit so it doesn't entirely negate the player's action, but the boss can continue the fight. Works best as a limited resource, say 3 cultists protecting the boss. For that matter you could even use them as the personification of the boss's legendary resistance instead of just the "nope" button.
@@MannonMartin I like that. Hmmm... I like that. I want to use it.
How do you justify that rules-wise during combat? A held action on the part of the minion? That swap-places feature that goblin bosses, et al. have?
Or would this be a use of a doom point?
To play devils advocate for WotC, some of the changes do make it easier for DMs to run the game. The new mechanics for surprise and exhaustion specifically come to mind
Absolutely.
I’ve been running exhaustion (-1 d20 tests) since RotFM came out. It really adds a level of grittiness that’s been missing. And it’s easier to run
@@toddgrx We are using the new exhaustion mechanic in two parties since the UA came out. It is much more simpler.
Mike did say he saw good things! He also said that this really got his goat.
I really like where you're going with Doom points. I'm wondering if you envision them as a substitute for legendary resistance. So, rather than using legendary resistance the boss uses a Doom point. Mechanically, it's the same effect but the DM can use it for other purposes as well, making them more useful in that regard.
I don't think I would use both Doom point and legendary resistance because my players would think that's a bit much, even for a major boss. I think they would get behind bosses having an expendable resource that gives them essentially legendary resistance plus some other powers, but they would feel (maybe correctly) that the scale has tipped too far over if the boss had both.
I think by "frustrate your DM" they were jokingly referring to when the DM goes "aww shucks" when the players beat the monsters and the DM is also happy to see everyone have fun.
That sure does happen a lot in 5e.
@nickcalifano2170 I go oh shucks but only because it was fun to "play" combat even though I'm impartial.
I'd believe that if it weren't for the fact that WotC has been toying with the idea of replacing DMs with AI.
Completely agree with you about reviews. I really got snookered into running a reviewer-hyped campaign that didn't play so well. The best reviews are the ones from DMs who played the adventure multiple times. I'm there for any time Seth Skorkowski or Professor Dungeonmaster want to talk about a 35 year old old school adventure that they have played half a dozen times.
Doom points adress the symptom instead of the cause. If characters weren't overpowered superheros in the first place, we wouldn't need to devise hand wavy tricks for monsters to use.
Hi Mike, ideas on doom points.
1. Make them public, put the coins on the table in front of the monster, so they know this is an extra special monster. It also makes it clear when they are being used up.
2. A doom point should never just simply 'nope' an effect, we all hate counter spell as its a 'doesnt happen' effect. But in your example, Lord Soth spending a doom point and breaking the force cage (possibly spending an action), but it adds so much narrative weight to the action.
3. Doom points could be used for escaping. This I got from Fabula Ultima RPG. The villains have a fixed number of doom points which never refresh, but they can always spend one to escape this time. But the PC's know that in the future the villain will not have this again.
On the 2024 weapon mastery: if it slows the game down I'm not having it, the games can run too slow right now.
Also I bet the PC's will not be so happy if they meet 20 Bugbears with Mauls, continually knocking them down.
I think doom points make sense if the players give them to you. They get something, but the cost is you get a doom point. Maybe a resurrection or a wish provides a doom point. Maybe the plot has a timer attached. If they beat the timer, fine, but if they don’t, they acquire a doom point to keep the plot moving forward without adverse consequences. It is a way to build tension.
I agree that topple is an issue. Most of the other masteries aren't too powerful and also are simple to implement and add tactical options.
Topple is the one i have issues with because obv its powerful, which is why they had to add a saving throw. But saving throws on every attack slows down combat too much.
The best idea ive seen to fix it is to remove the save and just have it happen if the attack hits hy more than 5. DC20 style. Depending on how powerful that turns out to be at your table, then raise or lower from 5 to the right number.
All this prone and knocking enemies back x feet stuff needs to have the added rule: "applies only to creatures up to one size larger than you" (and even then I'd have some large size creatures that are "immune to prone" when it makes sense for the creature--e.g., a gelatinous cube is immune to the prone condtition).
Just to add to the "Tipping your hand question", I always provide info in my descriptions and leave it at that. Using the 'Disintegrating item' example that Sly gave, when describing the room I would mention that 'you notice 3 neat piles of dust arrayed around the floating blade', then just let the players do what they will. If they clue on to that...great, its a game and it's meant to be fun. In the Pond example, you could add the line "you see deep grooves in the mud leading into the pond" and leave that with the players. Hope that helps :)
Thank you for introducing me to Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition. I've very using bits and pieces of it where I can, and I think I may try to find a group to run a full A5E campaign.
As a GM I've been disillusioned with 5e for some time now, and the 2024 update hasn't filled me with hope for making the game fun for me again. I'm exploring a rules light, narrative driven game like Dungeon World when my current 5e campaign wraps up soon.
I love Dungeon World, but my players didn't as much as me. As one to explore, keep Cypher System in mind! It's not nearly as lightweight as dungeon world, but it plays really cleanly.
If you're looking at Dungeon World, I'd like to shout out Chasing Adventure. It started as a DW hack, but evolved into its own thing and shaved off some of the vestigial DnD elements like ability scores. It also has expanded moves for social interaction.
Also, it just had a successful kickstarter for a physical edition.
OSR TTRPG are pretty goods for rule light systems (or even the first version of D&D, like D&D B/X Moldvay).
It's even mind-opening when that D&D became more complex or get more rules as it evolved.
I personally like City of Mist for that.
Doom Points seem like a cool retroactive way for a BBEG to 'prepare' to face the party.
I'm thinking of combining it with the Intrigue System in Kingdoms and Warfare and rewarding the NPC a Doom Point for a successful Lore/Espionage check instead of buffing their armies.
To be fair, I also believe that the main reason why Revised 5e is bogging everything down with time-consuming mechanics, is so that people will use WotC's VTT, where things will probably be automated and much quicker, than if you played at the table - just a hunch though.
While i'm worried about the power creep (did rogue realy need to get relieble talent earlier?) i dont think the whole weapon masterie will be that bad, like the 1st circle and level arcane spell "grease" can also make 3 to 6 monters roll a saving throw or fall prone and it lasts 1 minute and creates dificult terrain.
We will have to see how well or badly the various parts will connect in the end, as i said i'm worried about the power creep and how the classes seen to be even more front loaded with a lot of abilities and choices on the first 9 levels, me thinks high level play is still ganna be a pain in the ass to plan and DM..
"did rogue realy need to get relieble talent earlier?" - rogue isn't strong class, and it wasn't buffed as much as it needed to. Rogue is more fun now, but i as a DM don't fear rogue, or any new martial for that matter. Spells are still main problem, and they would generally be the same with some small nerfs. Polymorph now give THP instead of second HP pool - one problematic spell gone. Conjure X spells are gone. And even if some broken spells would remain untouched - game would be better than original 5e.
Mike, you’re missing the point when you said something like: “Players optimize their way out of fun”. To illustrate my point, you could rephrase that “Why do players want to use their strongest abilities against the strongest enemies? Playing like that ruins the boss fights” This isn’t a player problem, it’s a game problem, a better designed game would not have spells and abilities that create this situation. And now you as DM are forced to find a way to fix yet another major flaw with 5e. It’s just a continuation of your concern over WoTC and their attitude to DM’s in both the old and new editions. And unfortunately, as you noted and much to my chagrin, many of the 5e flaws also exist in the 5e variants.
No he's not, his whole point is that WoTC should be aware that players want to be OP
People routinely take the optimization quote out of context. The full quote is that players will optimize the fun out of the game and it is therefore on the designers to protect the players from themselves. Optimizing breaking the game fun indicates a design failure. The problem is not optimization-objectively playing the game better-but an apparent misalignment in what the designer _thought_ the game incentivizes and what it _actually_ incentivizes.
In most circumstances, the best design principle is to ensure the most fun way to play is the most optimal and that the most optimal way to play is fun.
@@TomDarlingtonYou're describing what a well designed game should do, not what D&D does. Of course they should be aware that players want to build cool characters, and some will try to make them do as much damage as possible. Though, yes, I do have a problem with players that enjoy being OP, I actually changed characters in one campaign I'm playing because my single classed wizard was just too strong. Just picking good spells is enough to make a wizard stronger than most other characters can be.
@@nevisysbryd7450 Agreed. It's a design problem. Trying to make a capable character is not bad, it's part of the fun of the game. Therefore it's important to design a game that allows for fun creations without breaking the game. A game that doesn't allow the player to make cool characters, and do cool things AND doesn't makes it easy to manage for the DM is a game design miss.
@@understudied I don't disagree with this comment, but I think that Mike is aware of the expectations not meeting reality with D&D and that is why it was spoken about.
Honestly, this is profoundly demoralizing. I loathe "gotcha DM!" mechanics like Silvery Barbs, and it feels like the D&D design team is doubling down on even more of that BS with these updates.
I'm with you Mike - imma roll it back to 2014 rules, or find a less frustrating system.
I think the intent is to make D&D “family friendly” now.
2014 have a lot of bad rules, bad classes and etc. as a dm I can say that was pretty hard a lot of times.
This is not an argument in favor of counterspell, but a counterargument to the argument that counterspell doesn't work against an enemy mage's arcane bolt because the enemy mage's arcane bolt is not a spell:
It is a spell. Mechanically, it isn't handled as a spell. But, within the fictional reality we're imaginarily playing it, it is a spell.
5e has always worked best when you slap bandages on the bullet holes lol
Regarding doom points / boss abilities, it seems to me it might be easier to piggyback on the existing Legendary Actions, but expand them. I'm imagining a Forge of Foes-style menu of special legendary actions that allow the monster to break through that force cage, bypass a counterspell or a resistance, a short teleport, or otherwise be able to turn the tables. This way it's not that difficult to explain to players - this monster just has loads of powerful legendary action options - but theres still a finite amount of Actions per turn! Maybe 5 instead of the typical 3 just to make those options usable.
5e Combat is slow for casters. Playing a barbarian or fighter in 5e, my turn was done in 15 seconds. I roll to hit or grapple, and now I wait 10 minutes for the casters to fumble around with dozens of spells. Martials need more options to have fun in combat because attacking twice (and missing!) and then sitting there for a long time is miserable.
Yeah, Shadowdark fixes that problem
i'm just gonna run weird wizard for my next campaign
Having run two campaigns with Shadow of the Demon Lord, you're making an excellent choice.
I was really excited by some of the really playtest drafts, but by the time the kickstarter launched, some of the elegant ideas like combat zones and had been ditched, and some things seemed unnecessarily crunchy, like how much wind it takes to blow a piece of paper of of a table.
Great show as always. I’m sure I’m not the first to point out that you might want to take a look at Fear tokens in Daggerheart for some mechanical implementation of Doom points. It’s about my favorite aspect of the system.
Without getting into all the details, in a TTRPG I've been designing and playtesting (have about 30 playtesters across 6 playtests so far) for about 1.5yrs now, players have a 5-20% chance of rolling a result that creates a GM resource called Threat, which works quite similarly to Doom. In every playtest I've done, players have consistently said that Threat as currency is really compelling, because:
- it's narratively tied to previous player failures
- it builds up in an ominous way
- it acts as a kind of player buy-in to the GM doing something dramatic that harms the players
Embrace the unpredictability. As a GM of an old school type game myself, I love the randomness of not knowing what's going to happen next. It's like the GM is playing the game with the players as well. Not just GM'ing.
When you talked about how we play video games vs ttrpgs, I took FOREVER to finish Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate I because I would move an invisible character close enough to see 1 monster, the rest of the party would form up just out of the monster's sight, aggro that one guy, kill him, pull back, rest and then repeat. I can just imagine how much a DM would love running my game.
That... that's way to slow. Take out a group at a time! *Shakes Head*
I question if this whole "DM vs player imbalance" tells us something about the way the playtests are handled.
My main group cycles the position of DM and player pretty frequently, and I'd say because of this we are all very "pro-players" at our table. We have all built up adventures from scratch and watched the players either completely alter the story or dump on encounters by complete accident. But we've also had moments where the party has failed or nearly failed as well.
Point being, I wonder if the playtesters rotate DMs in a similar manner- and this is why they don't have this focus or sentiment of "Well this isn't fun for the DM", because they aren't stuck in that position long enough for it to affect them?
I get why there are so many "forever DMs" in DnD. But I honestly think that being one is kinda unhealthy and why there is all this weird sentiment of what "the DMs fun is" at the table. The role of the DM should just be to run the game, yeah write the story n stuff if they are building it from scratch but still. As the DM you shouldn't set expectations for yourself, you shouldn't anticipate encounters going a specific way basically ever etc. The game is for your players, and they are going to inevitably take the world an adventure you set up and do things their way.
The whole point of a TTRPG is that it isn't a video game, the players are going to carve their own path through the adventure. If that is a problem or frustrating for you as a DM you should take a break or just stop DM'ing. But that's also why most groups should he prepared to swap the roll of DM when that happens.
Any chance you could share the comparison between edition lists?
I know that as an always GM I'm been trying to figure out what I might be moving to and have been considering putting something like this together. I'd love to just look at what you have.
In a business model where they are selling classes to players to use on their VTT with AI DM, who cares what the DM thinks, right? Boo urns.
I think that the reason the WotC design team felt that they could add a lot more opportunities to impose conditions is that their overarching strategy is for games to be run online, with D&D Beyond. The bookkeeping for all of these things will likely be applied using the DDB Game Log, and will be applied by the choices of the player on their turn. The major VTTs will likely program the same. So unless you are purely paper and pencil, it should be manageable.
A lot of these comments are about the pc/dm adverserial relationship.
It's not that the dm is opposite the player, it's that the players usually go for spells and abilities that remove a monster's and conversely the dm's ability to act.
It's no fun to play a game when you are constantly have your hands tied or are prevented from playing.
It's the prone condition every tirn, it's the 10 turn sleep spell, it's the force cage and polymorph and banishment, etc .....
They're no better than the dm casting mind control spells constantly on pc's.
The designers don't realize this l.
Crunchy games like 5e work great on computers... which of course is exactly the direction WoTC wants to go.
For reviews, ya gotta find someone who speaks plainly, is willing to be critical, and has similar taste than you. For me, Ten Foot Pole is pretty reliable. He has a very narrow idea of what is good, but he is transparent about that and it lines up well w my opinion.
My group is currently level 13 in the final battle of Curse of Strahd. Combat takes much longer at this level than it did at level 6, and I try hard to keep combat moving to prevent player boredom. We don't need to make combat even harder. And I hate keeping track of a bunch of status effects. I'm already keeping track of multiple monsters with legendary actions, lair actions, special features, multi-attacks and some status effects. The last thing I want to do is have even more status effects and player/monster features to track. Also, why would WOTC want to make something "frustrating for DMs"? DMs are the ones who buy more books and materials on average. That seems like a very odd way to market the 2024 books.
Without the other half of the books its difficult to judge with certainty. If you're worried about encounter balancing, even if you don't have the MM at this point, just remember you can always add condition immunities just like in 2014 5e to monsters to spice things up and challenge players. Hopefully the encounter designing part of the DMG gives better practical advice for challenging players. And if we're all allowed to make inferences based on single sentences within the playtest itself, let's not forget that all the, "You're attacks are considered magical weapons for the purposes of damage resistance/immunities" so maybe resistance will matter a lot more in the new MM and simply always be on rather than be conditionally turned off. If that's the case it'll be easier to both challenge players and use those resistances in play.
Let me just say I loved the brief, subtle detour into the lyrics for that song at about 12:55. I do this kind of silliness all the time for my own amusement... but I'm far less subtle about it.
You always mention the Big Four: A5E, DnDs 2014 and 2024 and Tales of the Valiant. However, I’m equally looking forward all of the other RPGs coming out: Shadow of the Wyrd Wizard, 13 Age 2E, Blood and Doom, Dolmenwood, the MCDM RPG, Wind Wraith and so on. I figure I’ll try DnD 2024 (I’ve got no hard feelings) and then the pace of TRRPGs coming out is such I never need to play the same one twice, unless I find one I really love. I think this is a journey we can all go on, no?
Doom just feels like another crutch to make the game bareable just like legendary resistance.
It's bad when a scenario starts in the middle of the right column of a page.
It's bad when a stat block is half in one column, half in another column - or even worse in the next page.
I feel like all of these discussions about “do these rule changes make life easier or harder for DMs” just hammer home over and over, the advantages in having a bit of software deal with the mechanical trivial for conditions, saves, other knock on effects, conditions that go away in 5 rounds, etc. Maybe the problem isn’t new features, it is the fact that DM tools are stuck in the 70s.
Let’s just start with the elephant in the room. What changes can we make (with software assistance) to let the players all take their turns concurrently, so nobody is waiting?
I love the idea of DOOM Points as a replacement for legendary resistances. Instead of an automatic success though, I would like to make it a contest, so the player still has a *small* (25%?) chance to have the Indiana Jones moment.
In our Khor setting, A Knight of Helukeun weilds a combination great maul-polearm. That Knight can only knock prone 1 enemy/turn. We saw this prone issue coming. Hence we werent knocked prone. 😂
I abandoned 5e because of the extra work I had to do as a DM compared to other systems. Sadly 5.5 hasn’t addressed any of my concerns and has even made them worse. So it won’t be bringing me ‘back’ unfortunately. ‘Frustrating for DMs’ would be a good label for my experience of the design and priorities of new version overall.
Ptolus is beautiful and amazing, the art work though in the book and the map less so imo. I love it though, endless adventure
The golfbag fighter is exactly what I want from fighter. The problem is they haven't said what there is to help monsters and DMs. The fighter should be the guy who has a weapon for every situation. But it shouldnt be that the weapon instantly invalidates an enemy.
Its force cage. There's counter tactics and then there's "Nope" buttons.
Not wanting to give things away but asking for more clarification:
I basically just start slowly narrating in the way I interpret ie walking through the lake. Then if they really didn’t want to they would correct me at the start and if it is a bad thing I try to give them outs during my narration for them to interact to get out of it. For example you feel compelled to pick up the item make a wisdom saving throw
Kind of related to the doom points in the boss fight arena, I’ve been toying with making legendary resistances work normally until bloodied, at which point they become legendary recoveries (which you’ve talked about before) - by letting the players know they get more (i.e., aren’t wasting spells) by holding back their save-or-suck abilities, I’m hoping to delay the deluge of win-the-game spells until they’ve had some back and forth - so, if they force cage right out the gate, the beholder can block (using up an LR but getting rather little), but if they wait until they’ve bloodied it, then the beholder has to start burning eye stalks to stay in the fight
Just got my hardcover of Return today! I already own a softcover copy, but bought the hardcover/PDF combo to give to a friend and bought another electronic copy for a second DM friend. I hope they find it as useful as I have!
Awesome! Thank you!
56:58 I don't want to fight bad guys that can do cool things that I'll never be able to do, but we're both supposedly mages.
I ran a sesh using most of the new 5e 2024 rules and class options last night, my players Paladin critted 3 times in a combat and the fact that they all hovered around 45 points of damage at level 10 instead of the usual 60-70 points was such a relief, soo much less swing for this 6 person party
"DM are the customers" "DM don't get fancy new options"
Combine that with the need of DM and it's insane not the design your TTRPG about how to make the game easier/funnier for DMs.
I’m always pondering how to speed up combat, and I’m very concerned this is going to slow it down even further 🤦🏿♀️
I try to speed up combat. In that quest, one thing I tried was static monster damage. I never rolled damage and I used average damage for every hit. After about a year a player told me he misses the random damage because he can metagame his PC's actions because he knows exactly how much damage an attack will do.
I've played with this player for about 18 years. He's an excellent DM and player. It made me reconsider if I was making the right changes in my quest for speed.
@@DMHightower I haven’t had that issue, but if you have, consider rolling only part of the time, like on breath weapons, fall damage, improvised damage and attacks that might drop a PC - that may be why my players haven’t brought it up to me - either that or they’ve noticed and want to use it to their advantage
TL;DR: it pains me to say it, but I’m realizing D&D is a system designed to make people wait while someone else plays the game. I think there’s already too much to do in one turn, and adding more will only make it worse.
As far as average damage is concerned, I’ve been using it for a while now without any problem, or at least no one at my table has mentioned it - I do roll some damage: big attacks from bosses like dragon breath weapons, fall damage, bonus damage from a weapon that gets lit on fire, an attack that might drop a PC - sprinkling those in may be why no one has questioned it at my table - I will point to DM Timothy’s video on the subject in which he notes that in over a year and hundreds of games, no one mentioned it to him - if only that guy mentioned how many games he played a year 😄
There’s a video by How to Be a Great GM that talks about the ruthless quest for speed at the cost of fun - I identify with the feeling, but when I look at players who sit bored awaiting their turn, I remember why I try to push the pace
I, the DM, am rarely bored, because I have a part to play even during PC turns: adjudicating their actions, applying their damage to enemies, quickly narrating the results and the little add ins to keep players engaged - Chris, you watch your friend unleash a rapid succession of punches and kicks, fracturing the bone golem into its constituent pieces, but its collapse reveals two skeletons with bows trained on you! What are you doing? - keep it snappy; draw them in; maybe remind the next player they’re on deck - you know: help handoff the ball from one player to the next - but then Chris sits there pondering what he wants to do - “should I cast one of my spells or maybe perform a skill action or maybe just attack. Tho I could use a shove or grapple instead of a regular attack” - while Chris sits and thinks, justifiably wanting to take the most effective or impactful action, everyone waits
Ok, end bloated preface: now I’m imagining asking, on top of that, which weapon mastery do you want to use and could you roll that up for me? - players seem to already have too many options to parse during their turn - I absolutely believe they should be “thinking about their turn ahead of time”, but meaningful changes to the battle happen with nearly every action, so it’s totally understandable why players would want to consider their options in light of those changes - and I don’t want to start dressing down my friends about how slow they are
So do we start talking about timers - say a generous 2 minute timer - now we move along but the clock is kind of not very fun and people are ending turns early and it’s still 15 minutes a round with 5 players, enemy actions and math, which I simplify by rounding and adding up instead of subtracting down - maybe I’ll use electronic dice to roll and calculate all the various enemy attacks all together or even prerolling before the game to speed up initiative or breath weapon recharges or sleep spell HP or or or OR! OR!! OR!!!
At some point I had to accept that the group is not the problem - it’s not my DMing - it’s not Chris taking his sweet time picking what to do - it’s the system - this game is designed to make people sit idle while someone else plays the game only to eventually have their turn - really, it’s worse than that, because the person debating their actions isn’t even playing the game - they’re thinking about how they want to play the game - we are all waiting for someone to finish waiting to figure out how they spend 6 in game seconds before they start waiting on the next guy - there’s too much waiting built into this game, and I believe a major factor is too much to do in a turn - too many actions to choose from - adding more to do on the player’s turn is only going to make that worse
And don’t get me started on bonus actions
"New options" are the marketing hook for "under monetized" 6e players. The vision is for players to log on, 24/7, where their PCs are kept safely behind the paywall, and have AI generated encounters ready to go at a moment's notice. DMs are a sideshow in this vision, so added cognitive load is irrelevant.
You aren't wrong about the Dungeon Master becoming frustrated. D&D 2024 is secret code for D&D 4E. I will just have to fix everything.
I have used a system like doom forever. I give special monsters 0-5 (usually one or two) malice and tie one of their key abilities to each malice. Whatever I feel i need to do for RP reasons i can do at the cost of that malice and that ability.
Clarifying questions is actually a great place to bring in the dice - the character is smart and skilled, but are they exercising those capabilities in this moment?
1:10:20 I’m amused that Mike talks about how reviewers didn’t talk about the problem with V:EoR and then himself also didn’t talk about it :P
When I write my documents, I generally write in Markdown, then convert to HTML using Pandoc. Then when I use Scribus, I can Get Text and adjust my Text Frames so that they display the text as needed, leaving room for images. Then I can easily make my documents different sizes. Pandoc also then makes epubs or other pages.
Tripping in every hit would be silly and broken even in Videogames
Re: the GM difficulty issue, I think their approach makes more sense in the context of a move to a purely digital experience with highly, if not fully automated GMing.
Just listened about the doom points. I want that so bad! Running Tyranny of Dragons and in final final battle. Luckily Tiamat can't be force caged. But the warlock used a save or suck spell/ability to suck my wizard minion. He's currently levitating mindlessly in the air unable to do anything for 1 min. Not for this battle since I didn't warn them, but I'm gonna work in these doom points. I'm wondering if they can be combined with the Legendary Resistances. LR's seem like they help the BBEG avoid save or suck for spells/abilities that use saving throws. Expanding to avoiding other abilities that don't use saving throws seems like a natural extension. Definitely something I'm gonna work in for my next campaign. Thanks Mike!
What does the barbarian do at the ball?
He hangs in the stables and guard barracks teaching a guard how to grapple and breaking broncos in the rodeo for the stablemaster, while making himself occasionally available for the fair maiden watching him, who later lures him into the labyrinth garden. After some tomfoolery, they eventually make their way to the fountain and he splashes her because it's funny. She laughs and he does it again, and again, because he has all STR ad no Rizz. Now her night is ruined as her dress is soaked. So her dad and guards show up to the commotion, think that she was missing. The miscommunication gets him throw him in the drunk tank for the rest of the night where he learns an ancient secret of his kin from an old ghost. The ghost knows a secret about the noble house. The young lady comes back and brings him a meal and an apology. The guard is passed out. She steals the key. They make love on the haypile. The ghost watches.
No shame in separating your party when it isn't a dungeon.
I'd love to see your implementation of altered Doom Points that enhances bosses in ways you discuss in this video. The story behind a boss is usually better than players realize, this might be a great way to give that them without breaking anything. Please, Mike, may we have some more??
I definitely hope that whatever comes out of the DMG and the Monster Manual show good DM tools. I haven’t seen anything that will change my 5e burnout, but we’ll see. I’ll keep a hopeful eye out with low expectations and continue to play PF2e and OSE and Shadowdark and others and hope 5e makes good choices.
You bring up that you were wrong about Advantage, and you could be wrong about the changes/additions to dnd24, but i have to think that Advantage has gone over as well as it has because it's a simple and straightforward mechanic, and it works the same for everyone.
The granular rules and mechanics being added may not all be **bad** but overall they're not going to do anything that benefits everyone at the table.
Your "Doom points" really need story behind them to not seem arbitrary. It absolutely makes sense that a wizard is aware of Force Cage and will be motivated to overcome it. But, that's gonna feel real crummy for the guy who took Force Cage.
Between character abilities, special class features, feats, spells, magic items, there are too many things for players to have to keep track of. My group has complained about this. They forget about things they have or abilities they could have used constantly. You can try to memorize your character, but the majority of players just aren't going to look at their character sheet until their turn or right before. It's too much.
Awesome video. Thank you! For the player who asked about neurodivergent players, the Dungeon Dudes have a great video on running games for neurodivergent players!
100% need a DM advocate at WOTC, and it's going to compound the lack of DMs problem. Starting with the Players Handbook revamp, instead of the deeply flawed Dungeon Master's Guide, tells me where WOTC's head is at going into these new books.
“Gonzo” style of play is exactly how 2024 is looking. Granted I haven’t DM’d any playtest stuff but reading it over it sure feels like it
“Gonzo” is the word I studiously avoided in my complaint on the ENWorld forums last week about feeling “left behind” by 5.24e.
Separately, I worry about the action economy in play. I remember back in my Palladium days when it took 3 die rolls to resolve one attack, and every character got 4+ attacks per round.
Slog doesn’t begin to cover it. It was horrible.
I think the new status effects that are being implemented for martials are a good thing. Martials need the love and rolling a few more saves is whatever. The gap between martials and casters barely closed at all. I’ve seen very little effective balancing. Backgrounds still suck. Crafting and tool proficiencies are still unsupported. They’ve likely broken as much as they fixed. This product isn’t what I want out of a revision.
For Nathan: I did 4th ed D&D encounters for children and played in games where the DM's kids were playing. One good thing to dow is to put it in terms they can understand. For instance, in the D&D encounters I ran at Gen Con a young child's character was charmed by a Dryad (he failed his save) and I told him that he liked/loved the Dryad than his mother, so he realized that's not a good thing. Secondly, one daughter's father, playing a dwarf died, she became slightly distraught, so I asked, who played DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) and both children raised their hands, so I told them a sould token floated above the dwarf and if you retrieved it you could save him. She was very happy about it and worked toward getting the soul token. Also, when running adventures for young folks, try and gauge their maturity level and you can make it real fun. When I played with the children in the party, we visited an ecenttric wizard that experimented with food, and we had to fight off a stromboli golem/ Crazy, right? But we all still had fun. Everything doesn't have to be super serious, but it does need to engage the children and grab their attention. I hope that helps. I hope your campaign goes good.
Re: asking questions to players, something like Pathfinder's exploration actions is really useful. Just have the players tell you the general attitude of their characters while they're exploring. Are they trying to go fast? Undetected? Inspecting their surroundings? This can help inform how much detail you should give them without them asking
And you're surprised they care more about players than the DMs? WotC run a business, and the data says there is more players than DMs. Ergo (they think) they must pamper the players, because since there is about four times as much players than GMs, that is the focus group of a corpo dealing in those fancy Tee-Tee-aR-PeeGees that diss the previous authors on a 50-year anniversary of their product no less. And besides, the DMs can use those options too, right? (Not really, since there aren't any tools for GMs to guide them how should they do it to preserve game balance, and it was already stated that PC classes and abilities are balanced only from the PC side, this isn't 3e where everyone had access to the same advancement rules).
GMs are already on the lower ground, because there is (usually) just one GM, and a group of players who generally have more ideas - of course, more does not necessarily means better, but they still do have advantage of thinking through four times as much ideas as the GM in a given time period. Not to mention all those "break the game with this build" videos, articles and guides... It would be nice to see something dedicated to help the Gamemasters from the publisher, but alas, it doesn't seem to be in scope of WotC interests. At least we get the adventures, right? Those that do not need to be remixed right out of the store because of all the plot holes? Oh, wait.
As much as I love 4E, I agree that combats took time in that game. Each fight is a action movie set piece. You did only two combats a session, if that, and if the fight isn't important, you handle it like a Skill Challenge instead.
I use a variant mashup of Genisys’ dark side/light side points and Shadowdark’s luck tokens. At the beginning of a session a player rolls a d4 and the result is the number of luck tokens at the beginning of the session. Any PC can use them at anytime to re-roll a result. When the luck tokens run out, the GM gets a doom point to “break” the system but not immediately undo the PCs last luck result in their favor. The PCs reroll the d4 when the GM uses the doom to reset the luck tokens. The length to which the system can be broken should be understood in the group
What you drscribe for your doom points sounds very close to how the gang at High Rollers use a homebrewed mechanic they call The Crucible of Fate. The whole crew including GM generate Fate points with D6 and then both sides of table have a pool of items they can spend fate on, very similar to the doom idea discussed.
Ran Tov once so far, and it ran well and the players seemed to enjoy it.
tin foil hat:
those abilities and masteries that would make it frustrating for DMs are overly-taxing by design to drive reliance on digital tools, but esp DDB. ooo look how it handles all the floating status conditions and ability triggers. it's a funnel. the assumption being the path of least resistance is opening your wallet.
That's extremely plausible, and we shouldn't act like it's a conspiracy theory to suggest that companies do manipulative things to take our money.
So glad I left 5e for Black Hack
I've personally found that my best D&D is ... a different system. I'm currently running Lost Mines of Phlandelver in Genesys. Embers of the Imperium, to be exact and I don't miss 5e. What I love about 5e was the roleplaying. But, as a DM, I grew to hate the combat so much. I don't hate combat but in 5e... It's so slow and feels like a chore. And then you get players complaining that they didn't understand how charm works and I don't treat it like dominate person or that hitting first doesn't give them a free turn before combat begins.
I'd rather just have a combat system that doesn't hog so much of the spotlight.
I think that is similar for how to run superintelligent bosses. Give them some number of "They anticipated that" (were prepared for that, etc.) equal to their Int or Wis. That they have a complicating factor for XXXX. An example would be to dissuade druids from scouting shapechanged, they have a bunch of stray cats roaming around.
To those frustrated by 5e but want a well supported dnd alternative try Old School Essentials. Tons of adventures and modules and so much easier and its the dnd we had before 2nd edition.
Jaquaysing the dungeons = you give them multiple paths, each with its own challenges, but the paths usually lead to the same place. For the pond or lake it might have things that look like stepping stones or a slimy questionable of stability log or trees with vines that overhang it, etc. there could be a little piece of land stuck up in the middle somewhere with a lure to the players’ curiosity. The other options should present their own challenges. Going around one way the bramble and trees are thick and close together and parts of the forest are shrouded with darkness. Going the other way has rocky outcroppings and you can just barely distinguish a cave entrance. If you want to nudge the players across the lake, besides the lure, you can mention they don’t know if going around will lead them to the building across the lake. (Of course each will have its own terrain and monster challenges themed to its setting.)
Ugh, so much stuff I need to get now. And at such great prices. Darn you, Mike Shae, darn you for making me aware of all these great deals! 😅
I wonder how bad guys in the game would ever attack alone in a 5e world? I think doom point are good, but what the need is a spell to summon a party of murder hobos! LOL